[goodcompanion]

@Robert MoonShadow 24657 wrote:

Erik ~
Peace, Brother.
I’m actually agreeing w/ you = we need to speak up now, while we still can, or find ourselves in their situation.

As a side-point:
In 1983, I was in a bar in Apache Junction, AZ. I ended up in a confrontation w/ the bar owner and his 2 “pet” sherriff’s deputies – they had a scam going wherein they rolled the “strays” that wandered in, looking like they had money…the cops had guns; I had knives.
I won.
However, it’s inadvisible to get into it w/ the barowner, when 34 local patrons are in the bar – long and short of it, I was charged w/ 2 counts of aggravated battery against ‘peace’ officers…I took it to trial, and won (self-defense). The 2 cops went to federal prison. {Evidently a lot came to light, including a murder or two}. I don’t tend to go to Arizona any more, yet every time I’m in a situation involving the police – whether I’m a driver or passenger for a simple traffic stop or whatever, I find myself facedown on pavement, dirt, snow, whatever. This is more than 25 years AFTER the jury declared me innocent of any wrong-doing.
So what? Such is life. And yet I get along just fine w/ the local sherriff and his wife, who has a booth next to me at the farmer’s market. 🙂
So, yeah, I can identify just a little bit w/ some aspects of what the people in Egypt have dealt with; a deep leeriness of those in “authority”. Of course, I can avoid them to some great degree. {As I said, I avoid Arizona – if I want to see cactus and sand, I go to New Mexico 😉 }
And (for now) I can speak openly on this, as I just did, here. I don’t think they can.

You would feel at home with your story in Morocco or Egypt.

Forgive me for being a little touchy. In many ways I have a stronger bond with those people over there than with my own, and I over-react to things I perceive as blaming the victim.

[goodcompanion]

@mstacy 24581 wrote:

Carl,

From my perspective the food safety regulations are rife with inconsistencies, contradicitions, and vaguaries. In my opinion the “itinerant custom slaughterer” provision (Vermont statute Title 6, Chapter 204, 6 VSA 3306, F) is open to intepretation. If an license-exempt individual can slaughter my customer’s animal can I not legally slaughter the animal myself?

Matt

Good point. I just had a steer custom slaughtered at my farm yesterday, and the felllow said to me that it was exempt for him to slaughter out in the snow like we did it, but not to take the carcass to his own shop and cut and wrap it on behalf of the buyers. Even though his shop is a state-approved processing facility. Doesn’t make sense. But nothing in this debate seems to make much sense.

But at any rate it seems that there is a legal disconnect between this explicit approval for exempt “itinerant slaughterers” and the VAA saying that on-farm slaughter can take place only in inspected custom facilities (as in the Jan 2011 agriview) with all the requirements that are entailed. Pretty long list there actually, you have to have state approved water and sewer connections–that alone rules out most farms being able to have approved facilities, since most ag buildings have neither septic nor sewer.

[goodcompanion]

@Robert MoonShadow 24541 wrote:

Actually, I disagree – it seems that we DO have a lot to complain about, and the point being that if we allow the opportunity to change to slip by (as the Morrocans and Egyptians did many years ago), then this is a preview of what we can very well expect to see our grandchildren deal with. I don’t know what the solutions are – here or over there – but we need to at least work on them.
JMO

Okay, how many members of your family have had bones broken by government thugs or simply “disappeared” by secret police? When you are pulled over for a (supposedly) bad taillight, how big does your bribe have to be to have the police not impound your vehicle, sell it, and keep the proceeds? Then have you dragged out of your house in the night and beaten when you complain of the matter publicly? Practically every one I knew had a story like this. Even kids have their milk money extorted by teachers who are not paid a living wage. Don’t believe me? Go there and find out for yourself.

If English is your first language then 99.9% chance is you do have it pretty good compared to these people. To say that they let some opportunity pass to change their lot isn’t a lot different than saying the slaves in the old south should have done something along the way to not be slaves. Well, fact is they tried, but the system won out anyway–up to a point.

I’m not arguing for complacency as far as our many problems in the West go. And everyone’s situation is different and some of us have more serious bones to pick with the system than others. But when I look around me I see a society that’s generally made out pretty well in the global pecking order, rather than a depleted landscape overpopulated with people getting by on $2 a day. We in the West helped put those folks where they are in many, many ways.

[goodcompanion]

@jac 24265 wrote:

Over here we have a traditional breakfast called porage… oatmeal brought to the boil in milk and simmered for a while.. anyway.. it is usualy served with salt but this morning I poured some maple syrup on and WOW!!!!!.. may have found a new way to strengthen the Anglo/American relations:D…
John

Funny, when I lived in Australia as an exchange student I tried to talk my host family into trying maple syrup (sent from the US) with their “pikelets” (mini pancakes. They were…underwhelmed. Vegemite more to their liking…

This post reminded me of John Seymour, on porridge:

“Eat porridge with milk or cream, and salt: never with sugar, which is a beastly habit, and not what porridge is about at all.”

Much as I love the work of Seymour I have nevertheless succeeded at coming to terms with my beastly colonial nature. Sugar, particularly maple sugar, is a fine thing on ones’ porridge.

[goodcompanion]

@jac 24407 wrote:

I fear that as “peak oil” deepens, and oil gets harder to get, the world will forget the wilderness and sensitive areas in desperation to keep cars and our modern way going.. at any cost..
John

And God help anything or anyone that stands between the corporations and a resource even as meager as the tar sands.

[goodcompanion]

@Carl Russell 24259 wrote:

Actually in VT, for any meat to be purchased by a consumer the animal must be slaughtered in an inspected facility. That could be a mobile unit. I’ve looked into this, but in Vermont for an animal to be custom cut (facility inspected meat is not), it has to be owned by the person before it is killed, and it must be killed on the owner’s property. So I would have to sell the animal to my customer, transport it to their home, take the mobile unit over there, and then kill it for them.

Carl

As I understand it, the law reads that a live animal may be sold by hanging weight. It is the buyer’s responsibility to kill and butcher the carcass.

This leaves a lot of gray area in which you can project your own scenarios. What if the buyer contracts with another, for instance the farmer, to kill and butcher according to the buyer’s instructions? The VAA says that this is not permissible, but that is just one interpretation of a vague law.

The VAA does say that it is okay for the farmer to carry the live animal to a custom slaughter facility (such as may also process deer for hunters). The custom slaughterers kill and process according to the buyer’s instructions. The resulting product may not be sold retail, and can only be used for the buyer’s household consumption. This practice too is founded on an interpretation.

Technically if it is the buyer’s animal when it is still alive, what right does the state have to intercede and dictate who may and may not be hired and where the job may or may not be done? But the state does insert itself into this contract, like it or not. But the legal waters are very murky.

I remember a friend, Bruce Henessey, was conducting on-farm slaughter several years ago. When told by the VAA to stop, he said that he felt he was acting within the legal framework of the live animal sale law, processing the live animals according to the wishes of their (new) owners. VAA said they didn’t agree, and would take him to court if he didn’t stop. He stopped.

Carl, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Rural Vermont is pushing for the legislature to clarify the original statute, with language would make on-farm slaughter explicitly allowable as a form of live animal sale. The VAA would have to interpret and follow this law accordingly.

In the context of the vague law on the books, the VAA is trying to cover its posterior. If “exemptions” are officially allowed and problems develop, as things stand legally right now, it is on their head.

In the other direction, maybe it is possible that if we liberalize live animal sale to the point that the USDA takes deep offense, maybe there is some federal process to force VT to bring its standards in line. But maybe not? Since we are talking about sales that by definition must be internal state commerce maybe it is none of their concern?

[goodcompanion]

Awesome joke.

[goodcompanion]

@Carl Russell 24245 wrote:

The meat is not the product, the story is, and I know that I have a market that I could easily supply, at good profit.

The current regulations forbid me from selling meat this way. We are working to establish on-farm exemptions for small scale operations. I know for a fact from talking with folks in Vermont Agency of Ag that they see the mobile units as a solution that would eliminate the need for such exemptions.

I have supplied myself with on-farm slaughtered meat for 25 years, meeting all of my needs. I am not looking to expand, I am responding to people seeking me, to buy the meat I raise for myself. Furthermore, these mobile units will not be traveling from farm to farm. They will be parking in central locations regionally, requiring that people will still have to transport animals.a

The problem as I say, is not that many folks won’t find it a great solution, it is that it won’t address the market I am talking about. My freedom to operate is not infringed. I am talking about keeping a human scale to some part of our food system for other people.

At our scale we would not be able to sell “unregulated” to unsuspecting consumers. Our position is that on-farm slaughtered meat be limited to contractual sales, and by 1/2 and whole animals only, with some maximum number such as there is now for poultry (up to 1000 birds annually, possibly 10 large animals annually).

It is about choices. We need to protect our right to make choices, as producers and consumers, no one else is going to do it for us.

Carl

Really this discussion isn’t about mobile units at all except in that agency people want to use their introduction to end a long detente with producers like Carl. I agree that if they believe that, they’re probably missing the point and that the issue will not go away in the way they are hoping.

Carl, you say you are marketing a story, and suggest that the regulators and industry are threatened by the power of the story. Perhaps they are. But perhaps they’re just showing typical inertia, and are reluctant to change a system that pays salaries and more or less does its job of moving product in a “safe” manner. Nobody working for the agency or for the industry can remember the environment that gave rise to this body of regulation in the first place (when one has to assume that farmers like Carl were losing the argument against consolidation). I’d say that mostly they are wary of change, especially change that would entail more work for regulators and (in their view) increased risk.

The whole argument extends to more than just one man, his animals, and his story. What is the proper role (if any) of the broader society in oversight of the food system? So Carl doesn’t intend to expand, just wants to keep it simple and cut costs, but what if other farmers do expand, get the same exemption, then get sloppy, someone gets sick, and on-farm slaughter (and by extension all local meat) gets a bad name? Is there no possible compromise as to an appropriate level of sanitary facility? It could provide a layer of protection for the participating producer.

It is a big leap between doing your own slaughtering and butchering and making a sale, whether the object of the sale is considered a story or a side of pork. A sale is a social transaction, and as such is to a certain extent the society’s job to look after.

I do agree that any move that limits our options is unwelcome. Slaughter in particular is becoming a terrible bottleneck locally, and an opening into approved on-farm slaughter could provide some relief to this problem, perhaps to a greater degree than mobile units could. Carl’s proposed volume limits seem reasonable, I would support such an exemption and advocate for it. I could also see myself wanting to file for such an exemption some day if it gets much harder to get dates for my critters. I would also support working with the agency to work towards a definition of facilities appropriate for such a scale of operations that farmers could afford.

I have found in my conversations with the Agency and Health dept that starting from a position of acknowledging the importance of public health and recognizing their role in protecting it gets us off on a better footing.

[goodcompanion]

I don’t understand why this must be an either-or choice with on-farm slaughter performed either by a farmer (who we assume to not have facilities) without facilities or by a mobile unit (who we assume to have them). Why not have both?

The true rub is not so much who slaughters but where it is done–the so-called sterile environment. I think Carl is arguing in part that the sterile environment, as described by the state, is not necessary and an imposition on producers. As I understand it the state is opening up to on-farm slaughter so long as farmers have basic facilities. The requirements seem reasonable enough to me. To me the imposition is slight compared to other yokes we must bear in this business.

I remember in France they allowed travelling processors to slaughter on-farm with no facilities whatsoever. And this in the hyper-regulated EU. Maybe that is what we should be fighting the good fight to (re)legalize here. I don’t object to Carl holding out for this, I just think it’s probably not an attainable goal in the current environment.

True enough that the real threats to public health are all large-scale food processors. But probably partly because they dominate the scene so completely, and there aren’t enough small processors to produce a statistically significant number of heath events through bad product. The original legislative path that led us to the current point was started down in an era when not all farmstead products were equally trustworthy.

I feel like the agency does have a role to play. It’s impossible to leave things just to the free market to regulate…most likely the courts would find the farmer would face consequences beyond having to give a refund for a contaminated batch of meat. Of course we can say we have great methods and nothing like that can ever happen. Until it does.

I’m fortunate enough to have an established slaughterhouse 3 miles away to do my processing. I’m happy to spread the wealth around, so to speak, so this argument is not life-or-death to me personally. But I have to say that I feel like farmers would be better off and more secure to have agency and/or health dept oversight for their work, if only to establish a track record of sound, vigilant procedure.

[goodcompanion]

Too bad shipping isn’t cheaper, three-wheel trailer plows are as common as dirt around here and many are good candidates for draft riding plow conversion.

[goodcompanion]

@Russel 24091 wrote:

I dont have any plows with third wheels, they and riding plows were very uncommon in South Africa, so I dont know how the setting works when you are plowing. Do you just attach the wheel when going to and from the land or does it have to have its own lever to set the height?

Basically the rear wheel serves as an extension of the heel of the plow, and is often set at an angle so that it rolls right in the joint where the wall of the land and the floor of the furrow meet. When your other two wheels are raised, the plow(s) travel clear of the ground (since you’ve lifted two points on the triangle). When your plows are engaged, then the wheel just travels along that joint, reducing friction somewhat but not enough to interfere with the action of the plow. This wheel, unlike the furrow and landside wheels, is not adjusted or adjustable.

I would go take a picture but it is freakin’ cold outside….

[goodcompanion]

I don’t see why this couldn’t be done, not knowing the particulars of your plow. I’ve seen tractor-drawn gang trailer plows converted and I’m imagining this would be pretty similar?

The adaptations I’ve seen involve an expanded mesh floor on a raised platform which is bolted or maybe welded to the plow frame. The seat and such attach to this platform. I’m assuming the left and right wheels already have levers to raise and lower the plow? You may need to reconfigure them so as to be workable from the seat.

You will probably want that third wheel too, though you might be able to skid around okay without it.

[goodcompanion]

@lancek 24000 wrote:

But if we want to expanded and encourage are craft we also need to be teachers ! And to do that you cant hide your head in the sand you must engage in these conversations and no you wont be able to convince everybody but if you just convert a few then you have a better chance of keeping the craft alive!
Not only that but the real problem is that corporate America has done such a good job of desinforming everyone that draft power is out of date that people feel that this is true because so many of them have no idea of what we do!
Do we not owe it too our craft too despell these misconceptions and hopefuly get more usefull knowalge out there

I feel like this is a “both-and” thing. I don’t think anyone here is against teaching the craft to those who are truly motivated to learn it. Nor do I think anyone here would be against a practitioner devoting time to promoting the craft in the wider world. But the caution is that you can deplete a huge amount of time and energy trying to convince people who often have deep-seated reasons to need to believe that you are wrong. Such an audience is very difficult to teach and to reach out to. The best argument would be a critical mass of people leading by example.

[goodcompanion]

That is really nifty.

[goodcompanion]

Re: the summer conference, I would be willing to hold a workshop, “Overview of Horsedrawn Implements and Vehicles, Past and Present.” Mostly directed towards the general NOFA community, with a lot of pictures from farms and logging operations around the region. This workshop would give a general idea of how hosrespower was used in the region historically and how current practitioners have adapted to suit contemporary needs.

I would also be willing to hold a classroom overview of horse-powered haying and/or horse powered tillage if nobody else with better credentials wanted to do these things.

[Author]

Posts