Re: POLITICS Grassfarming, Global Warming, NAIS and Ron

[Guest guest]

Thanks so much for the sharing of your most useful insights. This

discussion has brought attention to mind that I have found very informative. I

now believe Ron has balance that is sorely needed in our government.

The website http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html has given much

light as to Ron 's positions, not all of which I agree with - but no one

candidate has my complete approval, LOL.

--bB

Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

I attended a lecture at the last WAPF conference in which the speaker

made a seemingly good argument that grassfarming could be a solution

to global warming, and that biological turnover of carbon emissions is

more important than industrial. I'd have to see a critical analysis

and dialogue, of course, but his arguments seemed solid and compelling

during the lecture. Here is the web site:

http://www.carbonfarmersofamerica.com/

If this is the case, the fight against NAIS is critical. NAIS is the

National Animal Identification System, and it could potentially

threaten to wipe out grass-farming if (or, if we don't stop it, when)

it becomes fully instituted and mandatory. For example, grassfarmers

will have to track each and every chicken and pay for the tracking

system, whereas battery farms will be able to register the entire

batch of chickens as one animal. When one person asked someone from

USDA how grassfarmers were to cope with this, the USDA agent responded

" Change the management system of your farm.

NAIS then is a potential major disaster. Anyone who would support the

continued existence of grassfarming in the US is doing something to

combat global warming.

The most promising way to battle corporatism, global warming, and

nutrition all on the same front is to provide an alternative

institutional framework to the corporate framework, and to divorce

life from it to the extent possible. WAPF and pasture-farming is

growing very, very rapidly, and has great potential over the next 10

or 20 years. But big government has the potential to wipe out this

movement in the same timeframe.

Ron is the only candidate who offers a serious promise of a

guarantee that grassfarming will still exist in 10 or 20 years. So, I

do think that Ron will do something about global warming.

Chris

[Guest guest]

was that andre leu? the current concept of monoculture agriculture may have

" management benefits " but only when viewed from the standpoint which ignores

the inefficiencies it creates. joel salatin's books describe his success

with polyculture and utilizing the animals to complement and increase the

overall health of the farm. allow the grasses and legumes to co-exist such

that you have 30-50 different plants with a square yard as opposed to one

(ie: corn, wheat, etc.). put the animals through in a manner that the

grasses are optimally grazed as the original plains were by the bison.

follow with the birds to chow down on the bugs and scatter the rich manure.

watch as the soil goes from threadbare from years of monocropping to deep

with big water retention capabilities. healthy animals eating what they

evolved to eat and with movement and time to prevent pathogenic / parasitic

buildup. fascinating stuff. the amount of carbon that should be put right

back into our soil but instead is unnaturally concentrated and turned into

toxic or landfill waste issues is nuts.

sepp holzer's rebel farmer details the amount of nonsense he had to go

through to be allowed to develop his permaculture farm in austria (der

krameterhof http://tinyurl.com/2g576p). there is a great video " farming with

nature " which can be found at the various torrent places but i've forgotten

where i got it and most of the googled hits seem to have rather risqué

pages. here is a clip on youtube: http://tinyurl.com/2redzj.

i agree that how we formulate our agricultural policies going forward can

have a tremendous impact on our civilization and planet through reversal of

our nutritional follies (and consequent health care burdens) and

environmental abuses. let's pull out the unnecessary and misplaced funding

and allow farms to compete on equal financial footing. this ought let some

sanity return from normal economic pressures and common sense.

oliver...

On Dec 27, 2007 1:05 PM, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I attended a lecture at the last WAPF conference in which the speaker

> made a seemingly good argument that grassfarming could be a solution

> to global warming, and that biological turnover of carbon emissions is

> more important than industrial. I'd have to see a critical analysis

> and dialogue, of course, but his arguments seemed solid and compelling

> during the lecture. Here is the web site:

>

> http://www.carbonfarmersofamerica.com/

>

> If this is the case, the fight against NAIS is critical. NAIS is the

> National Animal Identification System, and it could potentially

> threaten to wipe out grass-farming if (or, if we don't stop it, when)

> it becomes fully instituted and mandatory. For example, grassfarmers

> will have to track each and every chicken and pay for the tracking

> system, whereas battery farms will be able to register the entire

> batch of chickens as one animal. When one person asked someone from

> USDA how grassfarmers were to cope with this, the USDA agent responded

> " Change the management system of your farm.

>

> NAIS then is a potential major disaster. Anyone who would support the

> continued existence of grassfarming in the US is doing something to

> combat global warming.

>

> The most promising way to battle corporatism, global warming, and

> nutrition all on the same front is to provide an alternative

> institutional framework to the corporate framework, and to divorce

> life from it to the extent possible. WAPF and pasture-farming is

> growing very, very rapidly, and has great potential over the next 10

> or 20 years. But big government has the potential to wipe out this

> movement in the same timeframe.

>

> Ron is the only candidate who offers a serious promise of a

> guarantee that grassfarming will still exist in 10 or 20 years. So, I

> do think that Ron will do something about global warming.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

> If this is the case, the fight against NAIS is critical. NAIS is the

> National Animal Identification System, and it could potentially

> threaten to wipe out grass-farming if (or, if we don't stop it, when)

> it becomes fully instituted and mandatory

I spoke to a local grassfarmer about this. He has grassfed beef. He said he

thinks NAIS is a good thing and he voluntarily agreed to track his cattle

and he said it even makes some of his management easier. He also said the

tags (which get attached to the ears) are not expensive. He does however,

work another job. He's a fairly new farmer and hasn't transitioned to it

full time yet. I don't know if the tags would've been cost prohibitive if he

made 100% of his income from his farm.

My understanding is that it would really be problematic for poultry farmers

and maybe other types, but I'm wondering what impact NAIS would have on

grassfed and finished cattle in light of this farmer's experience?

I'm against it on principle, as well as based on any hardship it would

present to healthy farming systems. But I wonder if the hardship is

disproportionately put on poultry farmers?

Suze

[Guest guest]

With about 300 free range and pastured birds, NAIS scares the heck out

of me. I have visions of lining the birds up at night to take

" attendance " and report any birds gone AWOL. But then, I firmly

believe the USDA wants free range out.

The farmer hasn't done his homework. He needs to read up on what

happened to the Aussies and the mess it made for farmers there.

Belinda in TN

> > If this is the case, the fight against NAIS is critical. NAIS is the

> > National Animal Identification System, and it could potentially

> > threaten to wipe out grass-farming if (or, if we don't stop it, when)

> > it becomes fully instituted and mandatory

>

> I spoke to a local grassfarmer about this. He has grassfed beef. He

said he

> thinks NAIS is a good thing and he voluntarily agreed to track his

cattle

> and he said it even makes some of his management easier. He also

said the

> tags (which get attached to the ears) are not expensive. He does

however,

> work another job. He's a fairly new farmer and hasn't transitioned to it

> full time yet. I don't know if the tags would've been cost

prohibitive if he

> made 100% of his income from his farm.

>

> My understanding is that it would really be problematic for poultry

farmers

> and maybe other types, but I'm wondering what impact NAIS would have on

> grassfed and finished cattle in light of this farmer's experience?

>

> I'm against it on principle, as well as based on any hardship it would

> present to healthy farming systems. But I wonder if the hardship is

> disproportionately put on poultry farmers?

>

> Suze

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/27/07, labelleacres <bilherbs@...> wrote:

> With about 300 free range and pastured birds, NAIS scares the heck out

> of me. I have visions of lining the birds up at night to take

> " attendance " and report any birds gone AWOL. But then, I firmly

> believe the USDA wants free range out.

I think this isan important point. If NAIS doesn't do it for cattle,

they'll use something else. They are clearly at war with small farms,

but unlike Mexico, they don't come out and say it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 12/27/07, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> I spoke to a local grassfarmer about this. He has grassfed beef. He said he

> thinks NAIS is a good thing and he voluntarily agreed to track his cattle

> and he said it even makes some of his management easier. He also said the

> tags (which get attached to the ears) are not expensive.

I think there will also be an enormous amount of people who will

volunteer to have microchips implanted in their own bodies because it

will make shopping much more convenient, and maybe even enough that

they'll completely digitalize the currency and leave everyone who

doesn't have one to barter or invent their own currency too.

That said, my understanding is that the USDA has a preferred

technology for tracking that is a specific microchip technology that

can either be inserted in the tag or implanted in the animal. I had

read some time ago that these were quite expensive. We have to keep

in mind that this thing is still under development and is being

implemented haphazardly and not in its finished form. Whatever he's

opting in for might not be too expensive, but how expensive is the

final form of the program? We have no idea.

I think the conversation I reported earlier is quite revealing: I have

little doubt that the USDA is using this at least in part to try to

close down pasture-based farming altogether. It is highly evident

that the FDA doesn't give one hoot about providing raw milk safe, but

wishes to completely eliminate it, and while they are less explicit

about grass-farmigng, I think that is where they were going.

A few years ago I read in the NYT an editorial about Mexican farms,

and the head of the department of agriculture (or its spokesman, or

whatever -- I forget) in that country said that they considered small

farms inefficient and would do whatever they could to eliminate them,

and thus welcomed the food that was coming in from the US with heavy

government subsidies that was wiping indigenous Mexican farmers out of

the market. I think the American tradition of humans possessing

inalienable rights and liberties is too strong for our government to

say something so openly, but I have little doubt they think the same

way.

By the way, the following link has some talking points on NAIS but

also says the following about the proposed " grass-fed " standards that

I will quote, which further supports this point of view:

================

http://www.farmandranchfreedom.org/content/action-7-26-06

The USDA has published for comment grass fed standards to define what

the term Grass Fed means. This claim defines grass fed to mean animals

who receive 99% of their lifetime energy supply from grass and forage.

However, it falls short of defining where this forage diet can be fed.

To most consumers the term grass fed means animals humanely raised in

grass pastures from birth to harvest, the way nature intended. The

USDA proposal would allow animals to be kept in confinement, fed

harvested forage, corn silage and other grains that have not been

separated from their stalks. If this proposed claim passes into

regulation you could see feedlot beef fed antibiotics, hormones and

legally be labeled grass fed.

We feel so strongly about this we are asking for your help in

responding to the USDA. We are quite sure you don't want grass fed

animals standing in confinement for 160 to 220 days, without shade,

eating corn silage and being fed antibiotics and growth hormones. We

ask you to please take the time to insure the term Grass Fed means

range or pasture raised not Factory Farmed, confinement raised.

As a producer we strongly feel that any grass fed standard must

address and restrict confinement feeding as an integral part of that

standard, otherwise the label will lose its integrity. As a consumer,

we believe you will agree with us and ask that you please E-Mail the

USDA at marketingclaim@... to allow your opinion to be known.

Refer to Docket No. LS-05-09.

The deadline for accepting comment is August 10. Simply comment that

you as a consumer believe that the standard for grass fed must include

reference to being raised on pasture and a restriction of confinement

feeding systems.

=============

Of course when they tried their best to make " organic " contain GMO and

sewage sludge fertilizer and non-organic feed and the whole shebang,

there was enough of a letter-writing revolt to have them revise the

standards.

But who would you trust more to make the certification, USDA, or a

private grass-farming association?

Who did a better job with certifying organic, USDA or NOFA? NOFA

standards were tougher and demaned free-ranging but they have been

essentially rendered irrelevant by the USDA certification.

Obviously the USDA considers free-ranging inefficient and dangerous,

or at least this is the cover of their policy, which is evidently to

wipe out free-ranging.

Free-range pasture farming is not important only for its own sake, but

it forms the entire basis of the alternative institutional framework

that we need to rival the corporate institutional framework. Whoever

controls the food controls the society, even more so than the money.

But Ron would support us on both -- because he wants to abolish

the Fed, which is a consortium of private international banking moguls

that have ownership over our public currency, and he is one candidate

stepping up to the government's means of eradicating pasture farming.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ron , Grass-Farming and Global Warming

An Open Letter to Those Concerned with Global Warming

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/masterjohn3.html

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I think there will also be an enormous amount of people who will

> volunteer to have microchips implanted in their own bodies because it

> will make shopping much more convenient, and maybe even enough that

> they'll completely digitalize the currency and leave everyone who

> doesn't have one to barter or invent their own currency too.

LOL!

>

> That said, my understanding is that the USDA has a preferred

> technology for tracking that is a specific microchip technology that

> can either be inserted in the tag or implanted in the animal. I had

> read some time ago that these were quite expensive. We have to keep

> in mind that this thing is still under development and is being

> implemented haphazardly and not in its finished form. Whatever he's

> opting in for might not be too expensive, but how expensive is the

> final form of the program? We have no idea.

I didn't realize the chips out now might not be the final product. Perhaps

it might also be more expensive to implant them INTO animals rather than

just using ear tags. I believe this farmer said that llamas and poultry get

them implanted into their bodies while cattle and some other livestock

(don't recall what species) get the ear tags.

I agree with your other points about the USDA and FDA wanting to shut down

grass farming altogether.

I haven't had time to dig into NAIS too deeply in order to inform my chapter

more about it. So far, this farmer is the only one who's spoken in favor of

NAIS, I think most everyone else is on board with the WAPF's stance

*against* NAIS.

I looked on the " Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance " site for a detailed

explanation of how NAIS will harm small family farms but I didn't find

anything that explains in detail what you have explained in this email. I'd

like to find an article on this to send this farmer. Maybe I'll send the

onibasu link to your post :-)

Suze

[Guest guest]

On 12/29/07, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> I didn't realize the chips out now might not be the final product.

Oh I have no idea, I'm just saying nothing is really a closed deal

yet, but I think if he found these affordable, I don't see why any

others might be very unaffordable. But like you said, the number of

animals would make a difference, the size of the farm, other income,

etc.

[snip]

> I looked on the " Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance " site for a detailed

> explanation of how NAIS will harm small family farms but I didn't find

> anything that explains in detail what you have explained in this email. I'd

> like to find an article on this to send this farmer. Maybe I'll send the

> onibasu link to your post :-)

Maybe the RFID tags themselves will not be cost-prohibitive. But

again, none of this is in final form -- what will be the final cost

with all the various data collection, fees for various things, etc?

Some states are insittuting penalties of $1,000-$5,000 per violation

per day -- what will be the final list of violations? What will

happen to the Bible Belt farmers who oppose this on religious grounds

(i.e., the mark of the beast, etc)?

What will happen if and when USDA decides that all meat has to get

mixed into some centralized slaughterhouse? What will happen if they

start micromanaging pasturage in cases of " emergency " ?

I think judging by the cost of the tag itself at the moment is rather naive.

Chris