Thursday, August 29, 2013

Newspaper Article

                Last Friday, August 23, 2013, an article was published in the Carroll County Times under the title, “Cultivating Discussion: Conventional, organic farmers debate which method is healthier”. I was interviewed for the article the day before, and unfortunately, not much of my portion of the interview appeared in print… and this upset quite a few of my customers. I will relay here my thoughts on that “discussion”. The article can be found at this link:
                I would like to pause before starting this by stating that it seems quite clear to me that I was a bit of an “after thought” for the discussion announced. The reason that most of my interview was not included was because it was “last minute”. My intention is not to “bash” the article by any means, but rather to fill in the gaps, if you will, to relay the organic approach to things.
                The first part of the article covers Baugher’s approach to growing sweet corn. For those unfamiliar with Baughers, they are a large scale fruit and vegetable farm not too far from my own farm that is definitely on the conventional side of farming. As the article mentions, they spray their corn with a pyrethroid in order to prevent corn ear worms from eating the tips of the ripe corn. The statement in the article relayed that by not spraying each and every corn ear, there would be worms in the corn and who would buy that?
                The loyal customers that approached my stand at the Downtown Westminster Farmer’s Market last Saturday morning were particularly outraged at that part of the article. And it is at that point in the article that the great difference between organic and conventional farming first appears, that is, paragraphs one through three. (At least we did not need to wait long for that difference to be relayed!) The issue here is that from the organic point of view, chemicals are harmful! From the conventional point of view, spraying is required to prevent unsightly pests. There is a tremendous gap between these two thought processes, and, I assert that because of this disparity, there is no debate here at all… but allow me to elucidate…
                Chemicals are manmade substances that have only been in existence for the past one hundred years or so. For the most part, they are poisons, that is harmful. In the conventional approach, the fact that poisons are sprayed on the food we eat is not seen as harmful, and A LOT of energy, time and expense has gone into attempting to either prove that or cloud that harmful part from reality. I will come back to this a little later.
                Okay, now for the ear worms. Yes, corn ear worms love to eat the tips of sweet corn. They hide under the husk, so there is virtually no way of knowing if an ear of corn has ear worms or not. As a result, the conventional approach is to spray each and every ear of corn with poison so as to rid that eventual food from ear worm damage. Again, the conventional approach sees nothing wrong with this. The important thing is not to have a customer husk the corn and find a worm! Egads! But that would be horrible!        
                The organic approach is very far removed from that thought process. Chemicals are viewed as what they are… POISONS! If a plant is sprayed with poison, that poison just doesn’t disappear. It is still on the plant, and the residue can end up in the food, in the soil for future food, etc. And what does that poison do? Why it kills, and while it is true that it may take a long time to kill a human, the organic approach takes the stand that we would rather not find out how long it takes… because using chemicals is not necessary! If there is a worm on one’s ear of corn, just cut it off! How hard is that? And yet, the conventional side has determined that spraying poison is the best approach.
                In paragraph four, the article states that the conventional farm uses “Integrated Pest Management”. I am not even going to get into that here. I will need an entire entry to address that… nonsense. And yet, it is the latest craze in agriculture… Ugh. Suffice it to say that if you spray chemicals, you spray chemicals. Don’t try to sugar coat it!
                Then, the conventional farmer states that he does not know how an organic farmer could grow on a large scale in this region due to pest populations and humidity. Now I have personally learned a lot about this topic this year, mostly through Lori who helps me at the farm. She just moved here from Western New York, where they do not have the pests that we do. They can grow beans without the relentless assault of Mexican bean beetles! So, it is true that this region is difficult to grow organically by comparison to other regions. Yet, I have been able to do so for well over ten years now. The question, however, was whether it is possible to grow organically on a large-scale farm. This is actually addressed to me directly later in the article, so I will get back to this…
                Then, an agricultural extension agent enters the article because he is an “expert”. He quickly states that organic farming is only slightly beneficial and uses the same naïve statement I have heard on countless occasions that the world cannot be fed through organic farming alone. It really does make one cringe to think that such a person is considered an “expert”! The world has been fed organically for all of human existence up until the past one hundred years! What nonsense to think that it cannot continue to do so!
                UGH! By that point in the article it was quite clear that conventional and organic farming speak two entirely different languages. One side does not view poisons as harmful, the other does. One side thinks in large scale models… perhaps I have gotten ahead of myself here…
                Next up for the article was the mention of the 2012 Stanford review on whether organic food was more beneficial than conventional. The review stated that it was not. The conventional side loves to mention this review… and this review alone. There are numerous other reviews that show just the opposite results, but apparently… Anyway, the 2012 Stanford review is not taken as a serious review by many experts in the field, due to a limited scope of focus that does not allow for a wider determination of health. The approach of the review was obviously stacked against finding organic food to be healthier, but, nonetheless, the conventional side has its prized scientific review!
                AND THEN, I am mentioned in the article! Going through the rest of the article will be eschewed at this point, because the points I attempted to make were missed, at least in part. (Click the link above to read the actual article.)
                One of my main points has always been that historically organic has always been the method of farming. It is only the last hundred years that farming has been diabolically altered. (Yes, that is my opinion.) The article kind of missed what I said, but it went like this. I remember walking the grounds of the Battle of Gettysburg, and on the second day of that fateful battle, part of the skirmish took place in the peach orchard. My statement was that if a peach ORCHARD existed 150 years ago… in OUR region, they obviously had to have harvested peaches from them. It is only our modern chemical bias that states that growing peaches is impossible organically in this region. History says otherwise!
                But here I would like to make the break in this entry. For too long, we organic farmers and consumers have had to live up to the conventional ideal, which is neither “ideal” nor “factual”. What is factual is that conventional and organic are two extremely different approaches to farming that have their own unique languages. I for one have decided to stop attempting to translate organic farming into conventional language. It does not fit. Allow me to provide some examples.
                Is organic food healthier than conventional? Absolutely. There is no chemical residue in organic food for one, and there is no need to go further. Chemicals are poisons. Poisons are harmful. A couple of times in the article it was stated that chemicals were only used to “safe” levels. Absurd. NO LEVEL OF CHEMICAL USE IS SAFE. To believe otherwise further reflects the difference between the sides and how one language cannot unite the two.
                Can organic farming feed the world? This is yet another absurdity. The conventional approach thinks of massive farms of corn and soybeans processed into all kinds of fake food, shipped around the world as what it takes to feed that world. It is a completely different language. The organic approach CAN be large scale, so long as that large scale goes directly to the immediate community. We don’t need to feed the world. We need to feed our community. Communities around the world need to feed their own communities. Again, we speak very different languages.
                Organic farming is expensive! What is the value of health (that is REAL HEALTH and not something contrived like the 2012 Stanford review)? How expensive are the negative environmental effects of conventional farming? Two different languages.
                I could go on, and perhaps I will one day, but for now this is enough. In summation, there is no “debate” over the health of organic food. Either one gets the benefits of organic food consumption, or one believes that chemicals are not harmful. And I am fine with leaving the conventional side to think as they may. I simply refuse from now on to attempt to justify my organic farming practice through their language.
Organic heirloom tomato anyone?

Thursday, August 22, 2013


                I had the opportunity the other day to witness a post-party landscape that is always alarming to me. There were people of all ages present, but those of focus are of the youngest of ages that can walk, or run and… blow bubbles. Not having any children, I  am by no means an expert here, but I have witnessed many, many children’s birthday parties and have witnessed the same post-party landscape in quite a few. And here it is…

What is it? Here is a closer view…

It is an area of dead grass.
                Having witnessed this after a few such parties, it took a while to realize why a patch of grass, otherwise healthy before said party, would choose to die after the soirée. In fact, the culprit for such grass decease was not difficult to determine. Those patches of grass, like the one pictured above, were the result of bubble blowing!
                When I was a child, over three decades ago, I sort of remember attempting to “blow” bubbles, or rather, form bubbles using Palmolive dish detergent. It seems to be quite fascinating to a child to watch bubbles float into the air and then burst or dissipate, etc. What a fun activity! And after all, is it not important for a child to have fun?
                Yes, indeed, it is. But the question arises as to what extent…
                For my own distant memories of Palmolive, that is Palmolive circa the mid 1970s, I can make no claim as to how that product was derived, made up, etc. And that is very much the point of this entry. That product was dish washing liquid… soap… that cleans off the plates from which we eat… or did eat… many, many years ago. I do not wish to elongate this approach here, but the products that I assumed were safe as a child for use in “cleaning” situations, probably were not. I do know that those same substances have been altered over the years, and they are most definitely NOT safe… but I digress.
                OR, perhaps I have NOT digressed. What IS safe? From my own limited and naïve perspective, I have always thought that government agencies would be knowledgeable and protective shields when it comes to what is safe and what is not… for consumption, for cleaning, for… you name it…
                Egads, but I was woefully in error!!! AND, I have come to realize that MANY, MANY of us are in the same situation, that is, reliant upon a government overseer there to protect us, who is doing exactly the opposite. As I have learned over the years, corporations are able to veritably purchase at will the ability to proclaim something on their packaging label, whether it has anything to do with reality or not. I have witnessed this throughout the food marketing in grocery stores ad nauseam, but those situations are for another entry…
                This entry focuses on the dead grass pictured above that was the result of bubble blowing at a kid’s party. I was able to find the bottle of, I guess, bubble juice?, and read the label. The product was “Made in Mexico”. I will pause here to assert that I am by no means a racist on where the product originated, it was simply “Made in Mexico”. The label read: “Non-toxic. Do not consume.”
                WOW! What easy instructions! That product was not toxic, however, do not drink it… What?
                Okay, my opinion on the matter IS tainted. (See the pictures above…) How does a liquid, whatever that liquid is/was, (the label does not state what it is/was), earn the distinction of being “non-toxic”, when the aftermath of a bubble blowing session at a kid’s party renders grass… DEAD!!? If this is not a shocking question to you… ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO KILL GRASS?!!!
                And I will pause here again as well. As an organic farmer, that is, one who uses no form of synthetic anything, no chemicals whatsoever, grass is perhaps THE MOST vibrant plant form encountered! Grass grows through both seeds and root systems and are relentless in their pursuit for more growth. Just think about how many people mow their lawns ritually with no thought other than to keep the grass growth down!
                And yet, the bubble formula kills that grass dead one day after the activity! Non-toxic… to whom?!!... to what?!!... Obviously it kills grass, that otherwise very difficult to kill plant. The question lingers. After doing a search on what “non-toxic” on a label actually means, I discovered that it essentially means nothing. The company using the term can use it with almost no oversight. So long as, say, skin does not immediately burn from contact of such liquid… it MUST be safe. And yet grass decrees otherwise…
                Oh how frustrating such a situation is!!! A non-assuming parent buys a bottle of bubble concoction for their kids to enjoy as an activity at a party. The parent reads “non-toxic” and thinks, “Oh, this will be just great!” And in fact, the party goes on, the bubbles are blown… and chased, etc… and everything is great!
                But how many actually… first off, witness the dead grass the following day, and secondly… realize what was at stake?!!! It is so easy to ignore, laugh off, etc. an issue like this, but for me… it is completely aggravating. We assume that the products we use are not harmful… and yet bubble concoctions KILL grass. Images appear in my mind of the children who used that bubble concoction with the liquid dripping off of them at points. And yet their parents make those same children wash their hands almost constantly! I only hope the disinfected soap substance they use for washing their hands are not as lethal as the bubble concoction…

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Grandpa Henry

                Last year at the Downtown Westminster Farmer’s Market, Henry of Not From China Gourds, a fellow vendor, gave me a gift tomato that is a long time family heirloom. I was not expecting this gift and I asked him about the tomato. It looked like a very large paste-type tomato. It was much larger than any paste-type tomato than I had ever seen. “Save the seeds,” he said, in his normal mellow manner…
                Up until that gift, I had long sworn by what I have called, along with many others, THE BEST paste tomato in existence, the San Marzano tomato. Here is a picture of a quart of San Marzano tomatoes.

                Paste tomatoes are called “paste” tomatoes because there are very few seeds and the walls of the tomatoes are very “fleshy”. This means that when they are cooked down into a sauce they are much less juicy than what are called “slicing” tomatoes. Now, I will admit that “slicing” heirlooms explode with flavor and are often MUCH more appealing to the palate than paste tomatoes when eaten straight from the vine. However, when making a “sauce” with pasta, paste tomatoes are definitely the tomato.
                There is a bit of history to explain here in order to relay this story about Grandpa Henry tomatoes. To begin, personally, I was unaware of all that was involved in “paste” tomato production until many years of experience and investigation were earned. And the learning curve, well, it was not much of a curve…
                When I first entered into the farming scene, I grew Roma tomatoes. That style of tomato was what I was used to when it came to “paste” tomatoes. From the beginning of my own experience, I realized the different types of tomatoes, and I always intended to grow “paste” tomatoes that are perfect for tomato sauce. For a few years, I grew the Roma type, until I learned about San Marzano tomatoes. Roma tomatoes were developed more for production than flavor, and a side by side tasting will leave no doubt that San Marzano tomatoes are far superior.
                In the interest of brevity, I will attempt to speed ahead here, because this entire situation is much more complicated than it probably appears. The first and MOST important trait for a tomato is FLAVOR. The reason San Marzano tomatoes are considered to be the BEST “paste” tomatoes by a LOT of “experts” is because of the flavor. When a sauce, or even a salsa, is made with San Marzano tomatoes instead of the Roma style, the flavor is undeniable…
                Okay, here is the first part of historical detail… But wait! Let me convolute this a little… San Marzano tomatoes are considered “heirloom” tomatoes, which means that the seeds can be tracked back over 75 years. This trait relays that “flavor” had been the important aspect of the tomato, but…
                Allow me to sort this out… with the history of “paste” tomatoes. (I do hope this does not get too long winded!)
                Tomatoes, as far as historical research has revealed, originated in Mexico. It was not until the European conquistadors brought tomatoes to Europe that that delectable crop became a staple in the cuisine of… Western Europeans. (Okay, I will pause again, for this entry has a decidedly “European” slant when it comes to history. The worst part of this disparaging tale is that I cannot even imagine where and when my northern heritage, in what would eventually be called Germany, met with tomatoes… I have digressed, yet again…) Nonetheless, tomatoes met the plates of Europeans sometime in the 15th century.
                Now the means of keeping a tomato crop continuing throughout the years/centuries is to save the seeds from the previous year’s crop. There is a LOT involved with this, but, as usual, I will get back to that…
                So, tomatoes were introduced into Europe in the 15th century, and the plant was adored, in particular, in Italy. It is quite common knowledge that pasta and tomatoes are an Italian creation, however, the history of “paste” tomatoes still lurks on the horizon…
                During the reign of Napoleon, a reward was to be given to a person who could come up with a way to preserve food that would last, well, long enough for Napoleon’s army to reach Russia for example. Nicolas Appert won the reward, and he is the founder of the “canning” process. This part of history is mentioned, because ALL of food production changes at that particular point in history. Of course, our focus is “paste” tomatoes. Instead of food production being focused on an immediate meal, for example, it had then become focused on how to produce as much as possible all at once.
                After a little research, I discovered that the “San Marzano” strain of tomato originated in 1926, although legend has it going back a couple more hundreds of years. I will not dawdle here. AND my nearly decade long assurance that San Marzano tomatoes are the BEST paste tomatoes ever… may very well be in error…
                Here is a picture of San Marzano tomatoes growing on the vine…

Much like Roma tomatoes, they produce a lot of clusters of tomatoes that ripen about the same time.
                Most “heirloom” tomatoes produce clusters at various times so the harvest is spread out over a much longer period. After realizing the date of 1926 as the origination of San Marzano tomatoes, AND after watching Henry’s heirloom paste tomato grow, I began to realize that San Marzano tomatoes are the BEST paste tomato… FOR CANNING!
                When I first asked questions about Henry’s heirloom tomato, I asked him what the name was. He said, “Call it Grandpa Henry after my father.” From here on this wonderful tomato will be referred to as “Grandpa Henry”. 
                So, I took the gift tomato back to the farm, to the back porch when I ferment my own tomato seed stock to save for the following year. I cut open the Grandpa Henry and, indeed, there were very few tomato seeds. In all honesty, I was not really expecting much from the flavor, but I took a bite of the remaining tomato flesh… AND WAS AMAZED! That paste tomato was incredible!
                This year, I was able to take some pictures of how the Grandpa Henry plant grows. The first thing of difference that struck me was that the tops of the plants seemed to droop. Henry calls this a tropical look, and I agree.

As the plant grew, cluster after cluster of tomatoes developed.

The thing that really struck me here was that with heirloom tomatoes, some of the later flowers will abort as the energy of the plant goes into the tomatoes already developing on the vine. This was not the case for the Grandpa Henry tomatoes. Almost all of the flowers developed into a tomato.

These tomatoes were grown in Greenhouse 2. Any tomatoes that I have grown in the greenhouse have been rather ruthlessly attacked by tomato hornworms. Their damage looks like this…

Only once thus far this year has a hornworm been found on a Grandpa Henry, and that pest originated on a neighboring plant whose vine fell into the Grandpa Henry row. (I am absolutely stunned by that, and perhaps that is just a fluke. I will keep close tabs on that.)
And then…

…Grandpa Henry tomatoes! Not only is the flavor much superior to the previous BEST paste tomato ever… the San Marzano tomato, but it is also MUCH larger.

The Grandpa Henry is on the left.
Henry told me that an OLD Italian lady from the town in which he grew up gave his father the seeds to what is now called “Grandpa Henry” tomatoes. She was the “straight off the boat” type of Italian woman. While Henry’s father never grew the tomatoes, Henry did… and has saved the seed now for some 35 years or so.
What I began to realize was that this heirloom most likely predates the “canning” process. This paste tomato was the kind grown for a meal and who knows how long that strain has been kept alive! This is an absolutely amazing tomato that I will continue to grow for as long as I can. Tomorrow, I plan to make my first salsa with it. I can’t wait!
Thank you, Henry, for the BEST paste tomato ever… the Grandpa Henry tomato!!!

Thursday, August 8, 2013

I'm Organic

                A few weeks ago, a large post card-like mailing was sent to me addressed to both my name and farm name. On the front of the mailing, in large letters, was written, “I’m Organic”. It had been sent by a group called “United for More Organic”. And that was as far as I read on the mailing, setting it aside to view later…
                Later that same day, I received an e-mail from “United for More Organic” with a heading of “Organic growth - it’s for the benefit of future generations”. Upon opening the e-mail, I was assaulted by a large black and white photo of an infant with “I’m Organic” typed over the image. As I read down the e-mail, it appeared to be an attempt to unify organic farmers, I guess, to empower us. There were questions posed and answered: “Why? To grow organic through a cooperative research and promotion program… What? After gathering input from hundreds of people at dozens of meetings, a framework of options for a potential program is ready for your detailed feedback... How? Sign up for the More Organic Newsletter… Why else? Win a free Ipad Mini – the first 1,000 to subscribe are entered in a raffle… Who? The Organic Trade Association, North America’s leading voice for the organic sector representing over 6,500 businesses, is facilitating the discussion but YOU own the conversation…”
                Wow! What the heck was all that? I’ll get back to it…
                Organic. I have been attempting to explain this situation for quite some time. And I will quite readily admit… it is by no means easy!
                When I first ventured into the “organic” farming situation, the term “organic” was not yet commandeered by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). At that time, there were many different agencies that would certify whether a farm was “organic” or not. It was a loose contingent of, for the most part, EXTREMELY well meaning agencies that simply had no control over the national/international situation that arose around the rapidly growing interest in “organic” produce. As a result, the USDA commandeered the term “organic” so as to make it a universal term with guidelines, etc., which in theory is a VERY good thing.
                What is “organic”? Those of us who are “certified organic” use no chemicals whatsoever in our farming practices. That is probably the easiest explanation on what is a rather complex situation. Within the rules of organic farming… and I will keep this somewhat easy by sticking with vegetables… stewardship is a main point of focus. Beyond merely not using non-natural approaches, additives, etc., the organic farmer MUST farm in such a fashion as to IMPROVE the health of the soil in which those vegetables are raised.
                Unfortunately, this is not the end of the discussion in regard to what is “organic”. Some other foreign substances that are used in vegetable farming can also be used in “organic” vegetable farming as well. What is allowed is determined by the National Organic Standards Board, which has fifteen members that decide on whether substances should be allowed or restricted in regard to organic farming. One such item is row cover, which is allowed in organic production for no synthetic residue results from usage of the product. One item that is not allowed is glyphosate, or Round UP, which is absolutely a synthetic chemical.
                These two examples are rather clear cut ones, but there are many others that are not so clear cut. Some allowed organic sprays are derived from plants but are not necessarily the safest product to use. Controversy has arisen over some of these items over the years. And while I know of the controversy, I do not know about the details. From my own organic farmer point of view, I do not use anything that is even remotely questionable. There are no pesticides, for example, used at all, whether allowed for organic farming or not. We hunt and squish the pests, or cover the rows with row covers.
                Now, back to the history of “organics”. Once the National Organic Program went into effect, the integrity of the program was immediately attacked in a multifarious array by large agricultural companies. Either they wanted to weaken the NOP, or they wanted a HUGE portion of the pie. And this point is where this entry has been heading. Whereas organic farming on its basic level is absolutely pure and honest, once the greed of BIG AGRICULTURE gets involved muddy tracks are left everywhere. Since its inception in 2002, there has been a constant assault on the integrity of the NOP to allow non-natural substances into organics. The reason behind this is to make things easier on BIG AGRICULTURE. Instead of adhering to the honesty of natural farming, it is more important to make it easier for large corporations to … swindle the consumer.
                Once again, I have not paid all that much attention to the particular details of these constant fights because they simply do not affect my operation. Any outside source that is used at the farm is very minimal, and absolutely not questionable in the safety of its use. That said, I AM aware of the constant attempt at infiltration by BIG AGRICULTURE.
                This awareness led to an immediate “red flag” to appear in my thoughts when I first read through that initial “I’m Organic” e-mail. Why was it so important for me to sign up for the More Organic Newsletter that they were raffling an Ipad Mini? One thing to understand about us legitimate organic farmers is… we are by no means wealthy! To offer a prize as an incentive to merely sign up for a newsletter is absurd… And then, every subsequent week, I received another large post card-like mailing with “I’m Organic” in large type on the front, along with an e-mail for the same… Apparently, someone or something behind this “I’m Organic” campaign had money to burn, so to speak…
                As I have stated, I am not too informed on a lot of the entities involved in the constant fight over the “organic” situation. I am aware of some of the “watch dog” groups that have the integrity of the NOP at heart, such as The Cornucopia Institute. I was not aware of exactly who The Organic Trade Association was, or is rather.  So I investigated a little…
                Most things you might find while searching The Organic Trade Association on the internet read very admirably in respect to their approach to the integrity of organic food production. They are friendly to the environment. They are friendly to the health benefits of organic food production, etc. However, these self-aggrandized traits are only skin deep.
                The Organic Trade Association was largely responsible for swindling the allowance of synthetic and non-agricultural additives into foods labeled “organic” as approved by the NOP and ultimately the USDA. Such nasty ingredients as carageenan is a perfect example of a non-organic ingredient now allowed in organic processing, which should have ABSOLUTELY  no place in “organics” whatsoever.
                But that is how the system works. And once again, I am on the outside of that conflict. I am a local organic producer that has no use or means to use such synthetic additives. My farm grows absolutely naturally grown organic produce that is sold to my neighbors. It is as healthy as it gets. But, unfortunately, through the mailings of this “I’m Organic” organization, I have been accosted by an outside source that has forced me to address the issue of how tainted the system can become.
                I will pause here to state that I am dedicated to “organic” farming on a much larger scale than the fact that my own farming practices are absolutely organic. I truly desire for the NOP to be able to fight, and resist the incredible pressure of BIG AGRICULTURE, but… I have REAL farming to do! I do trust the integrity of, say, Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, who is constantly vigilant on the activities of the nefarious groups attempting to undermine the integrity of “organics”.
                That said, this “I’m Organic” assault has me wondering quite a lot about what is behind it. Why is it so important that I sign on to the newsletter, that in so doing, I am entered in a raffle for an Ipad Mini. With all of the years of hard labor working to produce organic vegetables, does a chance of winning an Ipad Mini really sound all that enticing? What after all is an Ipad Mini? (I must remind the reader I am a farmer, hands in dirt,etc…) If an open conversation was really what all of the “I’m Organic” is about, why has “a framework of options for a potential program is ready for your detailed feedback” the point from which I must start my “conversation”? For it was asserted that the conversation is “YOURS”?    
                I am skeptical. I have always been skeptical. As for this case of “I’m Organic”, as skeptical as I am on those entities controlled by BIG AGRICULTURE, I almost feel like I am entering an arena of hysteria akin to alien abduction, or something equally as ludicrous. But the nefarious group here is BIG AGRICULTURE… If I were to sign on to the More Organic Newsletter, would all my efforts as a LOCAL organic farmer then be lumped into a larger cauldron of money-grubbing, that is greed oriented, powers ultimately out to undermine the integrity… OF THOSE OF US WHO HAVE WORKED SO HARD FOR SO LONG DESPITE THOSE NEFARIOUS HUGE COMPANIES THAT DO NOT GIVE A DAMN FOR ANYTHING BUT MORE MONEY???
                Eesh! Humans and their greed are quite tiresome, INDEED!!! I will sum up this entry simply by stating… I will return to the organic dirt of the farm tomorrow, and as the rain falls… I guess the mud tomorrow, to continue the labor that produces the fresh, local, organic produce that my farm offers. I will not join this “I’m Organic” group. I KNOW I am organic, I am just not convinced that they are…