Christmas Morning with the flock

I awoke this morning to the pawing and prancing of little hooves. Unfortunately, it was not Santa and his reindeer… the goats were out. With no family visiting and two teenage boys still dead asleep, I knew Christmas morning was not going to be getting off to an early start. We now get to sleep in on Christmas mornings.

But not this morning. So pulling on some jeans and a jacket, I grabbed a book and my folding camp chair and headed out. I took the goats to a quiet but weedy corner of the orchard and settled in. Watching over a flock of ruminants is a Christmas morning tradition that goes back to the very beginning. Very pleasant.

So while we lacked snow and and a roaring fire (Southern California weather today: low 70’s and sunny), we have had a wonderful morning with everybody home and healthy.

Merry Christmas to all.

The FTC and Local Food

December 1^st may have been a big day for the local food movement, but it passed without much notice. What happened that day, you ask? That is the day that a new set of guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission [Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (16 CFR 255)] went into effect. Specifically, these expand “Truth in Advertising” laws and create a much higher standard for endorsements. These stricter standards apply both to the “generally expected performance” of the product and any “material connections” between the parties involved. Also the new rules make clear that they apply to all forms of social media, not just traditional advertising. 

How it impacts the local and sustainable food movement:

This is a highly interconnected movement. In this context, how can “material connections” be defined? Applicability is clear in cases where money is involved. But what about endorsements on a personal blog, or a plug on Facebook? On both the for-profit and non-profit sides of the local food movement, people recognize the value of social media to spread the word and cross-promote friends and business partners. Since the users of social media recognize it as having advertising or marketing value, in due course it is probable that the FTC or a plaintiff’s lawyer will as well.

Who gets to speak? In the traditional top-down world that the FTC is used to regulating, the authority to speak on behalf of the organization is typically pretty clear. The new rules expressly hold employers liable for the endorsements of their employees, even if the employee makes the statements on her own blog or Facebook page. Do interns or volunteers within your organization provide “endorsements” to other businesses or advocacy groups?

The other potential vulnerability is in the poorly defined language that is common within discussions of sustainable foods. Take the word “sustainable” itself. While the word is clearly defined in many venues, it is not always clear that it can be applied to a particular product or practice without a large dose of opinion. Likewise, the words “healthy” or “local” are open to interpretation. “Organic” is clearly defined and has clear applicability. But even here there is danger, since benefits beyond organic status are often implied if not explicitly stated. Can these statements live up to a higher burden of proof?

Finally, the new guidelines mandate that the “advertiser” create policies and training for employees, and have a structure in place to monitor compliance. As a practical matter, this is likely to be another case where a small producer may find compliance more difficult than their larger, more traditionally structured competitors. 

Now don’t get me wrong… I believe in accountability and transparency as much as the next guy. But I am concerned that the eventual implementation and enforcement of these rules may have a particularly severe impact in a movement defined by a network of non-traditional business relationships, multiple communication paths via social media, and product claims that may be difficult to quantify. My hope is that we can create and adopt practices which the FTC will accept and others can model, before an unreasonable interpretation is imposed upon us.

Closing Comments : UC Hansen Trust Research Symposium

Prepared remarks for the University of California Hansen Trust Research Symposium, December 1, 2009.

So when we first began to plan this event, I thought to myself that we should call it : “University of California Hansen Trust: Beyond the Pumpkin Patch.” Instead we called it a research symposium, which is more accurate and probably more appropriate. But I want to return to that theme for a few minutes as we conclude this morning’s event.

The UC Hansen Trust is based at Faulkner Farm in Santa Paula, which is well known for the historic Victorian home, large red barn and annual pumpkin patch. These are things to treasure, no doubt. The pumpkin patch event brings thousands of people out for a little taste of agriculture every year. For the past two years it has been operated by the Rotary Club of Santa Paula, and they have done a fantastic job. Money raised from the event has helped to fund many worthy projects in Santa Paula and Ventura County, including ag-oriented programs like 4H and FFA. This year, visitors to the farm saw new signage, detailing the University of California’s role in our agricultural state. But perhaps because of the iconic status of the event, the picturesque setting, or the sheer volume of activity, the pumpkin patch tends to overshadow the UC Hansen Trust’s activities for the other 11 months out of the year.

Today’s event is intended to shine a light on the research mission of the UC Hansen Trust. Many of you in attendance today have played a role in that mission and I thank you for that. Our goals for research are simple: More research, more tailored to Ventura County agriculture, more effectively communicated to the target audience. I said the goals were simple… I didn’t say they were easy.

In the next several years were will look to continually raise the bar. In addition to financial support for research, we aim to make the land at the farm more readily available for research as well. Other symposia such as this one will follow. Again, I thank you for your participation and I invite you to continue to grow with us.

This first annual symposium would not have come together without UCHT Director Jose DeSoto, UCCE Director Rose Hayden Smith, and VCFB CEO John Krist. Those titles sure add a lot of syllables, and each of the three has truly earned their respective position. But it isn’t their offices that made this happen, it is the efforts of these three individuals.

Please join me in thanking Jose, Rose, and John.

I’d also like to thank the UCHT staff, not only for their help today, but for the job they do for Ventura County agriculture all year long.

I’d also like to offer a quick, but heartfelt thanks to Ben Faber. In addition to the research he presented today, he also recently served as the UCHT interim Director pending Jose’s arrival. Ben, I can’t thank you enough for the extra hours of toil that you put forward on the Trust’s behalf.

I don’t know if we have taken full advantage of having a UC research center dedicated to Ventura County agriculture in the past. I do know that we must take full advantage now. It won’t be easy. The intersection of the University of California budget and Ventura County Agriculture will be an economically challenging place for the next several years. But thankfully, the generosity and vision of Thelma Hansen has given us an important tool.

This concludes this morning’s program, but it does not conclude our work. Thank you for coming.

50 Tons of Bullsh*t

OK…. not another rant about overly restrictive policy solutions you ask? Taking delivery today of 50 tons of manure and 25 tons of gypsum. This will be worked into my favorite claypan in Block A. To be followed with an overwinter covercrop and a spring cover of buckwheat. After that? Possibly pumpkins for next fall and another fallow winter, or some new meyer lemons.

How about them apples?

My friends over at the Food Declaration Facebook page posted this piece from the NY Times. It deals with the loss of diversity in apple varieties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/opinion/06fri4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

I agree mostly with her premise, but I think her timescale should be examined. Compared to the 1905 stats cited in the article, we certainly have seen a decline in varieties and local specialties. But more recently? When I was a kid in the ’70’s, apples were red or yellow. I remember my Mother and Grandmother being very happy when Granny Smiths were once again available. Today? Fujis, Galas, Braeburns… plus other varieties I can’t think of off the top of my head are avaiable even in my nearby chain supermarket. On a shorter timescale the trend is positive.

Of course, the broader context of the article is about our food culture, and not just apples. Have we forever lost a way of life, and was it sacrificed at the alter of corporate interests?

We once had the kind of local food and small farm culture mourned in this article. Sadly it is a shadow of its former self, but not because of giant supermarkets and corporate agribusiness. It’s because in that time and that place, people who KNEW the difference between apple varieties and lived or worked on small family farms CHOSE to give it up for a better paycheck in town and more convenience in the kitchen. Monsanto and Krogers and Walmart came later. They are responses to this shift, not the original cause. (That they later accelerated and perpetuated the shift, I don’t deny.) So when we had this culture, we chose to give it up. Now that it is nearly extinct, will we choose to bring it back?

Personally, I’d love to think so. My breakfast this morning included eggs from our own hens and honey from our local bee guy. (Maybe some of my pollen is in there somewhere.) My to do list includes planting five varieties of figs to be marketed locally, and having our Nigerian Dwarf doe bred so we can have cheese next summer (And more goats!) So when it comes to the value of fresh food and minor varietals, I’m a believer. But as to how many others share this enthusiasm? Not so much.

Bad?

According to my stats page one of the searches that led to my previous piece was “why sustainable farming’s bad”. Interesting. I’ve never said it was bad. Curious as to what might have motivated that search, though.

True Cost of Food and the True Value of Farm Labor?

It is often taken as gospel that the higher prices of food that has been “sustainably” farmed is a reflection of the “true cost” of food. As for myself, I haven’t questioned this particular piece of dogma either.

Until now. Not that I am rejecting the entire proposition. But I am thinking about the implied corollary to this statement, which is that if “sustainable” food  captures the “true cost” of food, then it must be paying “true value” for all of its inputs.

Which is why this article caught my eye. I applaud the initiative of the people described in the article; indeed I can see myself in their shoes. (I traded a career and a chunk of home equity to get into the farming business at age 35, the twilight of “young”.) But the article describes them earning $7 to $9 per hour, and in one instance working a month for free, since the farm could not pay them.

What is striking to me is that these wages are less then is commonly paid in my corner of California for farm labor, most of whom it is safe to say are not college educated. So is $7 to $9 per hour really the “true value” of farm labor? If that is the case, than Southern California farmers are apparently benevolent, rather than exploitative as is often charged.

The difference is that these neo-farmers are driven by passion, while for most farmworkers, the job is just a paycheck. So the question becomes, does this really mark a path toward sustainability? Like any industry, agriculture benefits from new minds and fresh energy, so this is a good thing. On the other hand, this newly found source of cheap labor, while “renewable”, is probably very finite. Will this resource last? Will the many small farms that rely on this type of labor continue to be able to attract volunteers as their model is adopted on wider scales?

In the long term, we will have to come face to face with two unpleasant truths.

Firstly, farming is not and generally has never been, aspirational. Sadly the history of mankind is the tale of people inventing ever more clever ways to get away from the farm. (A more detailed reflection on this point here.)

Secondly, much of the toil in agriculture is confined to entry level jobs that require few skills, no higher education, and in some cases, not even literacy in the prevailing language of the region. Such jobs are unlikely ever to pay very well, whether the worker holds a master’s degree or a green card.

In the news….

Quoted and pictured today in the incredible shrinking Star! Just love talking ’bout that agricultural policy!

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/oct/01/farmers-happy-county-not-abandoning-williamson/

Figs and a Stinkin’ Acre

August and September have been busy months. Irrigation is always critical this time of year, and we are just concluding picking and pruning the lemons. It was particularly busy in the small end of the business: With lemons delivered to Ventura Limoncello, Meyer lemons and figs to the Sidecar, and additional Meyers into “mainstream/niche” markets, September was our biggest month yet for local and specialty fruit.

The experience has encouraged us to try to branch out a little further, so too new crops will be added to the mix. Garlic and Figs.

Now, I know, I mentioned figs already, but let me explain. For the past two seasons we have sold figs to chefs and caterers, but they have all come from the big “family tree” which is 50+ years old and is presumed to be a black mission varietal. What will be new is that we will have a dozen trees of mixed varietals, including Kadota, Brown Turkey, and Desert King. We hope with some new varieties we may find some which really click with our customers, thrive in our microclimate, and fruit through a longer window.

Garlic is something we are going to try on a very, very small scale. I’ll be very happy if we have a thousand pounds of marketable garlic, and despite the title of this piece, we will be committing far less than an acre to it. But I have learned that local garlic is very hard to come by, so I’m going to give it a shot. It will be quite a change from tree crops. One thing I think is underappreciated about agriculture is the vast differences in knowledge and infrastructure to grow different kinds of crops. I try to be polite when sustainably-minded suburban friends suggest that we just grow X instead of Y, but I have a line rattling around in my brain about the difference between painting a portrait and painting a house. Like painters, not all farmers do the same thing.

Continuing in the vein of new crops, next spring should see our first harvest of Star Ruby grapefruit, Sanguinelli blood oranges, and Cara Cara navel oranges. Probably not enough for any meaningful contribution to the bottom line, but it will be great to get the chance to introduce them to our customers (and eat more than one or two.)

Sustainability and viability are always on my mind, and  these factored into the garlic and fig decisions. Citrus fruit in California is potentially threatened by the Asian Citrus Psyllid insect, which is a vector for Citrus Greening disease, or Huanglongbing virus. This has devastated much of Florida’s citrus industry, and as excited as I am about new specialty citrus varietals, I need to hedge our bets. Garlic and figs? Not affected by it. Avocados have had a rough ride the past few years, because as a subtropical fruit, the “extremes” of Southern California weather can push them to their limits. Will our weather be more extreme over the next few years, as it has been for the last three? It seems prudent to think so. Garlic and figs are well known to be capable of thriving with much higher highs and much lower lows. The fact that they have lower summertime irrigation requirements has got to help too, don’t you think?

Dilemma or Delusion?

 I have followed with interest a debate which has been bouncing around between Facebook, Grist and the American regarding organic versus conventional agriculture.

Links to the relevant articles here and here.

At the risk of being attacked from both sides, I would posit that neither is quite right, and yet both are correct. Does that sound like a political BS non-answer? Let me dig my hole deeper…

 “Conventional” farmers and those on that side of the debate often claim that “organic farming can’t feed the world.” To date that is correct. But that does not mean that it may not be true at some point in the future. But first organic/sustainable food systems will have to overcome some very serious obstacles about scale, efficiency and distribution models.

Organic advocates often point out that agriculture as practiced today will be untenable for the next 100 years. This is also correct. But they miss the point that farming is no more likely to remain static in the coming century than it was in the last. The usage of no-till practices, covercrops, and highly efficient means of irrigation are on the rise, and these innovations are coming from the ag community.

It is my belief that we are in a period of convergence between the two. In Omnivore’s Dilemma, the book at the center of this particular exchange, Michael Pollan examines one transitional model: the so called “Industrial Organic.” I think that this a good example of the blurring of the line between the two camps. I also believe that there is another possibility… Let’s call it “Artisanal Conventional.” What of a farm that sells produce both into mainstream channels as well as to local consumers and food artisans, yet will still use a little conventional fertilizer when called for? (Disclosure to those who may not know me: this is my model.)

There are an awful lot of farms that fall into a gray area between the two poles, and at the further risk of seeming self-serving, I do believe that it is in the middle, and not at the extremes, that we will see the future. And I do believe it is one we will be happy with.

A final anecdote: Yesterday I was at a meeting of sustainable food systems types in Los Angeles. It was mentioned in passing that another member of the circle who was not present at the time was going to be attending a $1000 a plate fundraiser. This was accepted as proof that his organic business model must be working. Indeed it seems to be. But from my small semi-conventional farmer perspective it seemed to me that his ability to do this had more to do with an operation that is roughly 50 times my size, than the fact that his produce is organic. I don’t bring this up to complain: I cite it as evidence that the usual big/small, conventional/organic dichotomies that we so quickly embrace in these debates are not always that well reflected in reality.