[goodcompanion]

@blue80 23329 wrote:

George, I think too that fuel prices will go up and stay up. From what I have been told:

1/U.S. dollar has been the global tier for commodity trades, and that has given the U.S. an edge on cheap fuel through OPEC. As the U.S. dollar is devalued and used less in global exchange, the U.S. advantage and subsidized fuel goes away

2/Emerging markets in asia/china are showing an insatiable lust for oil/energy. I was told no matter if all of us quit using our vehicles, fuel prices wouldn’t go down, as the growing demand is with the billion or so people planning to buy a car and heat their structures with fossil fuels in the next decade.

3/Environmental regs are becoming more and more restrictive, and costly. The gulf oil blowout accelerated this. Unfortunately, the market is no longer supply and demand, rather the speculation of supply and demand. You see it all over the news. Based on “reports” the stacked market changes…

4/Trucking regs are becoming more and more restrictive, and about 1/2 of the bridges in the states need repaired apparently. These costs pass down to the consumer….

Wouldn’t be a bit surprised. Frankly the two-year reprieve in fuel costs has resulted in breathing room I had not expected. Now that I understand the dynamics a little better, I imagine that we will probably go though a few cycles of stagnation leading to reduced demand leading to cheaper fuel then a partial recovery cut off by rising energy costs and then back to stagnation. But each time the partial recovery is likely to be less pronounced, and the rise in energy costs greater.

[goodcompanion]

@jac 23319 wrote:

Personally I think the fuel prices will just keep creeping up and folks will cut corners by shopping for the cheapest.. which I fear will be produced under even more intense systems than we have now..
John

Yes, for the majority perhaps. Corporate food is very skilled at pitching itself as the best and only option. Did you know Walmart sells “local” produce? What a joke! But still most people are so uneducated about their food that they buy into it with a sense of relief–it’s not only economical to carry on as if nothing was the matter, it’s actually meritorious! And isn’t it great that Monsanto is getting serious about “sustainability?” After all, feeding the earth’s multitudes is way too important to entrust to crusty loopy reactionaries…..

I prefer to block all that out. I feel hope for the small practitioner lies in the growing body of people who see the writing on the wall and will use their resources to support farmers in their backyard who are doing the right thing for the right reasons.

[goodcompanion]

@Simple Living 23239 wrote:

If fuel prices stay elevated and/or rise to the $5.00/gal range, would that not force the general public to buy things local? And in that end, would it still be feasible for foreign industry to import all the things that are imported now? Would this bring local business more opportunity to gain market share? Less shipping of produce and meats over 3000miles, even to complete other countries? It would seem that local CO-OPs, farmers markets, and local crafts people would all benefit. And with people using less fuel, there would be less dependence on foreign energy products. I guess what I am trying to say is a huge price increase in fuel might not be as bad as CNN (communist news network) FOX, and the rest of the fear mongers would lead you to believe. In the long run, maybe even a good thing.

Gordon

This topic is never far from my thoughts. I think that on the whole, producers and businesses who use little petroleum in their production will suffer less than those who are very dependent. Also, regions where settlement is dense enough for business to be conducted without lots of travel will probably suffer less than regions that are very spread out; regions where the economy is based entirely on commuting will fare the worst.

But I doubt there’s much to celebrate in rising fuel costs, even for the purist animal-power farmer who uses 100% animal power, weaves their own wool, and smiths their own spare parts. Rising fuel costs would still increase the financial burden of all your customers and vendors. Unless food and other goods produced by animal power or by hand reach the marketplace at a lower cost than the petroleum-produced alternative, producers are still in a hell of a bind. Fewer and fewer people will be able to pay a premium for food produced in a certain way.

In 2008 local producers did witness a little bump relative to the rest of the economy, at least in my area, but I don’t really count that. It seems that for every individual who made a move to buy more locally in 2008 there was another who moved to buy less locally, cheaper and in greater bulk from a box store to trim their costs. Of all conventional retailers, box stores did best in 2008.

As we saw in 2008, commodity costs will mirror rising fuel costs. Maybe ultimately commodity costs will soar beyond the production costs of small-scale animal power/artisan producers (such costs will probably rise as well but at a slower rate than conventional production, being less-directly affected by gas prices). Not until we reach this critical point will the economic dynamics of farming really change.

And given the billions alive in the world and the millions in this country who are so impoverished that they simply cannot do without low-cost food or fuel, reaching this theoretical point where the little guy/gal and their horse has an economic advantage entails worldwide calamity of unimaginable proportions. As much as I for one would like an economic advantage over conventional producers, I don’t wish for that. I feel it’s inevitable, but I hope it comes slowly enough for constructive civic responses to at least have a chance to mitigate the consequences, at least for some.

But for the 3 or 4 billion people alive today who would not be alive in the first place were it not for the haber-bosch process, there is no imaginable constructive civic response. Not even a drastic worldwide re-adoption of animal power, permaculture, urban rooftop gardens, whatever. The numbers don’t add up.

[goodcompanion]

Well, you can count on me to take the message forward.

Sorry to drag the conversation back to the philosophical when everyone else seems ready to move on. Wouldn’t have done so if I didn’t think it necessary.

[goodcompanion]

And grants. Okay, I feel like a lot has been clarified. I feel comfortable with the idea of DAP.com as an “asset” of DAPNet. And I doubt that if the event more or less covered its costs, non-northeastern members would begrudge the staff time spent organizing it.

Limiting though it is, I think it’s essential for all of us to be able to say what we’re about in a sentence or two of plain words. I hope you all agree at least partially that this is important, and that my misunderstandings are not due entirely to my thickness. There is a lot going on in this group, even as it gets smaller and smaller, in terms of perspectives and ideas and goals. I’ve tried to arrange it all in my mind and come up short repeatedly. My goal in this thread is to help flush out misunderstandings that will likely recur as we try to advance the project publicly.

[goodcompanion]

@Carl Russell 22948 wrote:

We are trying to manifest into reality a network of resources associated with using draft animals for farming and forestry in the NE, that has grown around the annual regional event NEAPFD.

Currently this network is being facilitated and administered by Carl and Lisa in an as-of-yet invisible way, where it is nearly impossible to direct funding so that those activities can be paid for appropriately.

Carl

Now we are getting somewhere.

How about:

Northeast-based, member-supported network for the promotion of draft-animal powered farming and logging

Which will:

-Have professional administrative staff
-Hold public event(s) in the northeast
-Host a global online network of practitioners
-Raise revenue from a variety of sources, including dues, ads, sponsorship.

[goodcompanion]

@Carl Russell 22943 wrote:

This is not the case. The membership dues are to demonstrate a cohesive group working toward supporting a network that facilitates the advancement of a community of interest. This effort, to be done effectively needs to have a year-round funding stream, of which member dues will only be a portion. This is what is taking the time for Lisa and I right now, and we are not getting paid for it, because NEAPFD, although not a losing proposition in its own right, cannot support the yearly work that we are doing as a result of that event.

It is the exact opposite of your premise. The event has always supported itself. It cannot support the other work that has sprouted from it. To support that, we need to form an organization that can provide those desired resources through some other broader community based income streams. There will only be a very limited benefit to members associated with NEAPFD, other than the fact that the year-round network can help to facilitate promotion, outreach, and participation.

Carl

Well, maybe it’s kind of a question of semantics. I didn’t mean to suggest that the event lost money, I know it always broke even. But it did not pay for the year-round work you mentioned, without which maybe it couldn’t exist? I guess after all this listening I am still struggling to understand the “why” of what we are doing here, to the point where I can explain it in a few words to a stranger.

[goodcompanion]

@Carl Russell 22941 wrote:

I think DAPNet should define our region of influence within the NE US and CA, also defining how our network will benefit members in our region, and out, through the tools and resources we intend to facilitate. NEAPFD should continue to be a focal point gathering for that membership, with “Discounted” attendance also being a perk of membership, but it shouldn’t be seen as the primary function of DAPNet.

This is a good topic that should probably be ironed out soon.

Carl

I’m a lot more comfortable with having a regional focus with in-person physical representation. But at the same time I have seen DAP.com growing wings and flying without anybody trying too hard (though that’s just from the outside looking in) and NEAPFD struggling. When we got to talking about holding the event this year just as in previous years I started getting uneasy.

[goodcompanion]

@dominiquer60 22940 wrote:

I really feel like having the membership gives those that cannot attend, our event or other events, a chance to support the ability to connect with other people whether in person or online, and to me that is the biggest value of our organization. The in person educational event(s) is the icing on the top.

Erika

I agree. But if the “icing” comes at such a great cost in terms of money, time, headache, liability, and financial risk, then why not just stick with just plain cake?

I have heard the idea circulated that part of the function of membership dues is to support the event which cannot support itself. This seems to be unsustainable, and benefits one class of members at the expense of another. If members in Europe are in fact underwriting our regional event they need to understand that from the outset. Underwriting the event should be part of the mission statement and probably the bylaws too.

The most straightforward and fair thing seems to be to not have an event, or have a really cheap, low-profile event.

[goodcompanion]

Yes, the technology is not so revolutionary, it’s been around for a while. The Russians still use these vehicles, I think, called “kolhoz,” in Siberia where crappy wood abounds but it’s far from the oil supply lines. I have never seen one or even a picture of one but I think they are quite big and heavy, and possibly have tracks.

My friend, Bruce Teakle, built a wood gasification car in Australia and drove it from Brisbane to Canberra to make a political statement, around 1990. I don’t know what happened to it afterward. He mentioned having problems with tar deposits jamming the carburetor and making throttle changes problematic. Still, it was over 1000 miles on roadside wood, at a top speed of around 45 mph if I remember right. Wife and toddler went along with the trip, I think.

[goodcompanion]

Hello, happy to participate.

Erik

[goodcompanion]

I’m hoping for a post by Tim Harrigan on this subject. I have always found his explanations of tillage mechanics to be first-rate.

[goodcompanion]

@Countymouse 21282 wrote:

Really? Wow, I have to say I’m suprised… It is such a small chain, there is no swivel from a singletree, and I would think a strong forward pull would wallow out the holes in the wooden shafts in a short time. I guess having everything light makes this work OK, but I sure wouldn’t have expected that…

But isn’t the function of this chain, if it indeed attaches to the collar, just to stabilize the shafts? Wouldn’t even a british harness also have a singletree, that would do the main job of taking up the load?

[goodcompanion]

@bivol 21269 wrote:

bills! lots of em!:D
“sorry, sir, the bills are all there’s left… they were rowdy, we had to take care of em… but keep em coming!”

now seriously… i don’t think renting will work, because ducks are way to easy to get and even to adjust, and you still have to feed them till next year…
if you’d still do that, i think indian runners are probably the best, they lay a ton of eggs, so one gets extra benefits from eaten vermin. if you rent a movable coop, all the better!

but!
maybe selling conditioned ducklings to rice producers every year could work? ones that are already with rice so they won’t eat it?

i say, could work!
esp. if you lead by your example and show how practical it can be!

Here is a link to an article discussing the method. Sorry, the correct name is Takao Furuno:

http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/nwl/2002/2002-1-leoletter/furuno.htm

Ducks actually don’t eat rice plants because the leaves are high in silica and abrasive on their mouths. However geese will eat rice leaves. And ducks will eat mature rice grains but by that time the ducks will have gone to the butcher.

Ducklings for the following year are raised either on rice grains or on little wafers that are made out of rice flour and then baked. These are called, in the trade, “quackers.”

[goodcompanion]

@bivol 21250 wrote:

ducks puddling? will have to check in on that… i don’t know about that, i don’t see how a few pounds worth of duck could puddle a field (mix the soil by it’s weight) as a cow or ox…
IF puddling is what i think it is, mixing moist mud and soil in the paddy.

Maybe there could be a service for ducks to puddle paddies by contract. Here’s how it would work. They show up, work in your paddy for a few days, then they go away. Afterwards, the send you the bill.

The bill. Get it?

[Author]

Posts