 |
|||
|
.
Regional Farm & Food Project October 2006 News If you are dreaming of a new world, these news stories should interest you! 11 news stories...
+ C A L E N D A R & C L A S S I F I E D S * * * 1. Wanted: 50 Million American Farmers "Re-ruralization will be the dominant trend of the 21st Century." -- Richard Heinberg, October 28, 2006 Richard Heinberg, author of two books on peak oil, spoke about the impact of declining petroleum supplies on agriculture at the 26th Annual E. F. Schumacher Lectures, held October 28, 2006, in Stockbridge, MA. Heinberg walked the audience through a powerful math moment as he aligned modern agriculture's dependence on big oil with the impending reduction in access to oil, and the resulting changes in ways of farming, getting food and eating. According to Heinberg, oil supplies will begin to decline in 2010. He described modern agriculture as "using soil to turn petroleum and gas into food." He said agriculture uses 17% of the U.S. energy budget while the military uses 8%, consuming ten calories of fossil fuel inputs for every one calorie of food, and making industrial agriculture the greatest source of pollution on the planet. Heinberg divided the history of American agriculture into three periods: 1600-1920 when land was put into production, 1920-1970 when fossil fuels were added to production and policy changes favored increasingly larger farms, and 1970 to the present when petroleum inputs have saturated the system, causing diminishing returns due to soil erosion and increasing resistance to pesticides and herbicides. He commented that GM crops, which were thought to be a promising solution, have failed to deliver because GM systems rely upon the fuel intensive agriculture system they were designed to remedy. As a future model, Heinberg pointed to Cuba's sudden dependence on itself for food after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and predicted that future agriculture will be powered by less fossil fuel and more muscle. He said the Cuban plan created a "decentralized, low energy food system" that:
Recognizing the enormous difference in scale between Cuban and American agriculture, Heinberg said, "we must de-industrialize agriculture" to avoid famine, and stated that as industrial agriculture fails "Re-ruralization will be the dominant trend of the 21st Century." The big Ah-Ha Moment for the audience was in learning how many people it will take to grow food and feed the nation in a de-industrialized system. Heinberg is predicting that millions of people will move to the country to grow food on 30-50 acre farms. He said, "15-25% of the U.S. population, or 40-50 million farmers will be needed in the next 20-30 years" to grow food for the American people. He urged the audience to start now in demanding these government policy reforms:
Heinberg predicted that a small farms renaissance would improve health, culture and community in America, and that "the re-ruralization of American would mean the re-vitalization of democracy." For more information: * * * 2. Intervale Operates Institutional CSA with Local Hospital Will Raap, founder of the Intervale Center and Gardener's Supply Company of Vermont, said at his E. F. Schumacher Society Lecture, on October 28th, that the Intervale farm had developed an institutional CSA with a local hospital. In this model project the farm agrees to take all cafeteria waste from the hospital and use it for compost in exchange for the hospital purchasing 2 acres of vegetables each year from the farm. The model has evolved to the extent that the cafeteria chef now works with the farmer to plan the vegetables that will be grown and then produces seasonal menus accordingly. * * * 3. The AntiTrust Modernization Commission We bring this commission's work to your attention in light of the consolidation of the livestock and meat processing industries, and the dairy industry which has resulted in a loss of diversity in agriculture and threatens the economic viability of farmers. Please participate in the work of this commission. The Antitrust Modernization Commission was created pursuant to the Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, §§ 11051-60, 116 Stat. 1856. The Commission consists of 12 members, 4 of which were appointed by the President, 4 of which were appointed by the leadership of the Senate, and 4 of which were appointed by the leadership of the House of Representatives. The Commission is charged by statute:
The report is to “contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with recommendation for legislative or administrative action the Commission considers to be appropriate.” The Antitrust Modernization Commission held its most recent public hearings on October 18, 2006. During these hearings the Commission received testimony and evidence regarding the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the Shipping Act. The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold its next public meetings on November 14, 2006, and on December 5, 2006. The meetings will be both be held at the Main Conference Center at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, which is located at 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. The AntiTrust Modernization Commission * * * 4. THE ETHANOL HOAX: Corn Ethanol Receives $.51/gal Government Subsidy Adding To The Great Ethanol Debate Corn farmers love the ethanol boom and cattle feeders located in areas where ethanol production has grown, are learning lessons about competitive advantage. Those outside the immediate marketing area of the ethanol plants tend to be pretty down on ethanol plants as they raise the price of corn, and increase competition for feed grains. Some would argue that the historical relationship between corn prices and feeder calf prices will never be the same, if that is the case access to ethanol byproducts will be critical to survival. There can't be much argument that we are in the middle of a harvest that promises to be one of the biggest in history and yet corn has shown significant strength in its face. While this rally may not be sustainable, the difference between $3 and $2 corn in the marketplace can't be denied. At current cattle prices, the incentive to make cattle big will not subside greatly with $3 corn, and the impact on the calf market is significant. Some have argued that this could be the one factor that shifts fed cattle production back toward the Midwest, though that would also entail a shift in packing capacity and is difficult to foresee. It will be intriguing to see how the cow-calf segment adjusts its nutritional programs to attempt to take advantage of these byproducts. Higher corn prices are possibly here to stay with ethanol demand projected to double with the U.S. government providing a subsidy of $.51/gallon. While the subsidy is distorting true market signals and falsely building demand, the risk for building an ethanol plant has largely been removed with numerous estimates suggesting that a new ethanol plant can pay for itself in 18 months. This false demand has the potential to be as market distorting as the farm bill, and will likely lead to a clash between those who would like to see more ground to go into corn production with the new demand dynamics (we can't continue to bank on record crop year after year, just to meet today's demand levels). This is likely to clash with those who continue to push for more conservation and even more land being taken out of production. There are many in this country that do not see food production as a national security priority and would like to see food production shifted out of this country, especially animal production. The energy concerns magnified with the unrest in the Middle East, and environmental concerns in the form of increased demand for conservation lands, will be working together to lower U.S. beef production. Do you have comments or suggestions about BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly or its content? BIOFUEL SUBSIDIES COST U.S. BILLIONS America needs to rethink the cost of its appetite for biofuels, according to a European research group. The Global Subsidies Initiative, based in Geneva, Switzerland, totaled up the cost of all the tax breaks, direct subsidies and other benefits for corn-derived ethanol, and it estimates that the assistance will cost U.S. taxpayers at least $5.1 billion this year. The cost for subsidizing biodiesel production adds another $400 million to $500 million, according to a study the group released Wednesday. The numbers will go up as production increases. "Subsidies to biofuels are large and growing rapidly," said Doug Koplow, the report's author. The ethanol industry has long been criticized for its reliance on government subsidies, but there have been few attempts to calculate the costs to taxpayers. And the incentives keep growing, on the local, state and national level. But ethanol supporters said the study overestimates the costs to taxpayers by failing to account for the biofuels' economic benefits. The operation and construction of ethanol plants contributed nearly $2 billion in taxes to the federal treasury last year, said Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association. "The industry is paying dividends," he said. The study said the actual cost of subsidizing ethanol could be as high as $6.8 billion this year, depending on an unanswered question of whether refiners have to pay taxes on the value of a tax credit they receive for using ethanol. The subsidies make ethanol far more expensive than other sources of energy, according to the study. The cost of subsidizing ethanol this year is about $15.90 to $17 per million BTUs, a unit of measuring energy content. Based on a 1989 study, the cost of subsidizing oil and natural gas is under 40 cents per million BTUs when adjusted for inflation. Even accounting for the military expenses from defending oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, oil still costs taxpayers much less than ethanol, according to the latest report. The biggest subsidy for ethanol is the 51-cent-per-gallon excise tax credit that refiners receive for adding grain alcohol to gasoline. But the Global Subsidies Initiative study also included in its calculations a portion of the subsidies for growing corn as well as about 200 state and federal incentives that encourage the production and use of ethanol. Also included in the study: the value of ethanol import tariffs and a 2005 law that bolsters the price of ethanol by requiring refiners to use a certain amount of biofuels each year. Biodiesel, which can be made from vegetable oils as well as restaurant grease and slaughterhouse waste, is eligible for a tax credit of up to $1 a gallon. The group argues that there are better, less expensive ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels than subsidizing and requiring the use of biofuels. The Global Subsidies Initiative is paid for by the governments of the Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand, which have long-standing concerns about the cost of agricultural subsidies. Disputes over agricultural tariffs and subsidies recently forced suspension of negotiations aimed at liberalizing trade worldwide. Hartwig said the study doesn't account for the savings to the government when the demand for ethanol raises corn prices and lowers crop subsidies. The U.S. Agriculture Department has estimated that ethanol production adds about 30 cents to the value of a bushel of corn. The ethanol subsidy may overstate the value of corn subsidies, the authors acknowledged. The study estimated corn subsidies based on payments made to farmers in recent years. Leading agricultural economists, however, expect corn subsidies to fall sharply in coming years because of the ethanol-fueled rise in the price of corn. Corn growers would continue to get fixed annual payments each year unless the payments were discontinued by Congress. * * * 5. Law Introduced to Prohibit National Animal Identification System The National Animal Identification System being proposed by the USDA would create a national database of all premises where animals are kept, permanently identify all livestock in the United States, and require farmers to track movements of their animals to other premises. Individuals violating these regulations would be committing a felony, subject to fines and incarceration. The system would dwarf the IRS and require all people with animals to become technology experts. Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) have introduced legislation that would prohibit USDA from implementing a national animal ID system. It would allow for a voluntary animal identification system and would require USDA to protect any information obtained through a voluntary system. "NAIS is like driving thumb tacks with a 100 lb sledge hammer." -- Wall Street Journal
* * * 6. New England Leads the Market's Move to Clean Milk MILK SHOPPERS GET A NEW CHOICE --- KINDA ORGANIC STARKSBORO, Vermont --- It "does a body good" and can leave a funny white mustache. But few shoppers invest much thought into milk beyond whole, low-fat, or skim. That's changing. A new choice is hitting shelves: milk from cows not injected with artificial growth hormones. This option --- long a selling point for organic labels --- is increasingly offered by mainstream brands. Organic milk requires different cow feeds, among other things, that sharply raise the price. Cutting out growth hormones is a cheap step toward organic, but it's not organic. The trend is strongest in New England, where the new option sells for about a half-dollar more than conventional milk but still about two dollars below organic. This fall, two regional giants, HP Hood and Garelick, announced that more of their plants won't take milk from cows injected with the hormone. Major labels on the West Coast and in Arizona, New Jersey, and Texas have made the same move. And Vermont's agricultural commissioner this month urged dairy farmers to drop the practice that has been widely used since 1994 to boost milk yields. The shift demonstrates the growing impact of the organic movement - not necessarily in market share but in mind share. The sight of organic food on supermarket shelves has prompted consumer concern about quality and safety, both in products themselves and during production. Processors say this new product addresses those concerns, but many farmers and scientists argue that the companies are simply bottling fear for profit. "Everyone recognizes that there's a lot of demand for organic now and in all foods, not just dairy," says Chris Galen, spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation in Arlington, Virginia. "Retailers [want] a product that can compete." Nothing could be more frustrating for eighth-generation dairy man Eric Clifford and his wife, Jane. They rely on growth hormone to make ends meet with their 350-cow business in Starksboro, Vermont. "They're trying to tell the consumer that there's a difference when there is no difference," says Mr. Clifford, on his dairy farm. Alongside him, a computer tracks the amount of white liquid --- the farm's literal revenue stream --- squeezed from each cow in a brown barn next door. The Cliffords can extend the number of days their cows give milk with rBST, a synthetic version of a growth hormone present in all cows to varying degrees. The net gain for the Cliffords is an extra $45,000 to $50,000 a year. That's critical for a New England dairy business squeezed by profits that have remained flat since the late '70s, says Mr. Clifford. High fuel prices will cause the farm to lose money this year. "My issue comes to having a tool in a tool box that has been approved, and that is managed, and fits my business model, being taken away because of someone's misperception of it," says Mrs. Clifford. Most dairy scientists concur that the FDA-approved injections are safe, according to William Condon, a bovine endocrinologist. In fact, he says, there is no test to tell the difference between milk from cows injected with rBST and milk from those that aren't. Farmers are asked to sign a pledge in lieu of a cost-effective testing regime. Milk from a cow with naturally higher levels of hormones would be identical to milk from a cow boosted to the same level with additional hormone shots, he says. "The public is afraid of the word 'hormone,' so when they think the milk contains no hormones they'll pay extra money. All milk contains hormones," says Mr. Condon, a professor at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. However, rBST has critics. "There are a whole host of differences" between the milk of cows receiving growth hormones and that of cows that aren't, says Samuel Epstein, professor emeritus of environmental medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health. For one, injected cows are more likely to experience mastitis, an udder infection, he says. The disease and the antibiotics used to treat it contaminate the milk of these cows, he adds. Farmers counter that cows must be removed from the milk supply during treatment for the infection. For another, rBST milk contains high levels of IGF-1, a natural growth factor. Dr. Epstein, author of a new book "What's in Your Milk?," points to research that shows an association between high IGF-1 levels in humans and certain cancers. Other scientists say no direct link between milk and cancer has been proved. Condon notes human breast milk also has high levels of IGF-1, but "we don't go around telling people not to drink [human] breast milk because it contains higher levels of IGF-1," Condon adds. Critics like Dr. Epstein, as well as doubtful consumers, also point to bans in Europe, Canada, and Japan for some validation of their concerns. Milk processors shy away from the debate, preferring to emphasize that it's consumers who have concerns. "We don't believe there is a difference in the milk, but ... more consumers are asking us to do that, so we knew we needed to do something," says Lynne Bohan, spokeswoman for HP Hood of Chelsea, Massachusetts. Ms. Bohan says consumer research reveals that the No. 1 reason for buying organic is concern over hormones. But it's still a minority worry. Only 30% of all consumers have even heard about the hormone issues, and of those, 70% say it doesn't concern them, according to the International Dairy Foods Association. Organic milk accounts for only four percent of sales, but demand outstrips supply by about 40%, according to the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. The group says that by the end of 2007, organic production capacity in New England will double. Oakhurst, a processor in Maine, decided early on to avoid rBST milk. "That allowed our company to provide some of the benefits of organic milk without the cost difference," says Stan Bennett, president of the Portland-based company. The choice, he says, also gave the company increased market share over other non-organic competitors. "Underlying all of this is the whole idea that ... milk has been a nameless, faceless market for years. Basically, [processors] are all selling essentially the same product, so how are they going to differentiate their brand?" says Mr. Galen. "Really, at the end of the day, this is just marketing. * * * 7. State Ag Officials Urge Action on Federal Bill to Open Markets for Small Meat Processors Southwest Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt with 13 original cosponsors has introduced the “New Markets for State-Inspected Meat and Poultry Act of 2006” (H.R. 6130), which would give local meat processors that pass state inspections equal footing with interstate and international meat suppliers. Under H.R. 6130, meats that include beef, pork, poultry and lamb approved by state inspection agencies in 28 states could be sold in every state. “The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has agreed that state inspection programs are ‘at least equal to’ federal inspections, but a 40 year-old law is keeping state-inspected meat from being marketed across state lines,” Congressman Blunt said. “I can’t find a good reason —scientific or political —for this law. That is why I want to change it. If we want to open markets for agriculture products, we ought to start at home.” Blunt added “There are 2,000 state-inspected meat processors—31 of them in Missouri—that are prevented from competing in the national marketplace. Yet, 30 foreign meat producing countries can sell their meats freely across the nation. Our locally produced, state-inspected meats are just as safe. In fairness, this measure will promote the local livestock sector of agriculture without compromising food safety that consumers demand.” The same federal law that restricts interstate shipment of state-inspected beef, lamb, pork, goat and poultry now allows interstate shipments of state-inspected bison, venison, pheasant, rabbit and quail to every state. The 28 state-run inspection programs receive half of their funding from the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) and must demonstrate that its system is equivalent to federal inspection. Even so, state inspected establishments do not receive the USDA stamp that allows them to market their beef, poultry, pork, goat and lamb products outside their home state. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) is urging Congress to take prompt action on this bipartisan legislation introduced September 21 that would allow interstate sales of state-inspected meat and poultry products. State agriculture officials said the legislation will resolve a basic inequity which has existed since 1967. Removing the current ban on interstate sales will level the economic playing field for small business, spur more competition in the marketplace, and create a more uniform inspection system. NASDA is also leading a national grassroots campaign to support passage of the bill. Rick Kirchhoff, NASDA Executive Vice President and CEO, said that “allowing interstate meat sales is just plain common sense—no other food commodities inspected by state authorities are prohibited from being shipped across state lines.” State and local agriculture officials have also pointed out that the legislation would ensure fairness in trade. Foreign-produced meat and poultry products can be freely shipped and sold anywhere in the U.S. as long as that foreign country’s inspection program is equvalent to U.S. federal standards—in practice the same standard which state meat inspection programs must meet. “This is unfair and wrong,” said Kirchhoff. “Do thirty-four foreign countries that are currently eligible to export meat to the U.S. have better inspection programs that we do? H.R. 6130 just makes sense and would provide small businesses in the U.S. with the same marketing opportunities given to companies in foreign countries.” Three USDA advisory committees have recommended that the outdated ban on interstate sales be removed because it would create jobs and stimulate rural economic development. * * * 8. Announcing the Massachusetts Farm-to-School Cookbook Amy Cotler, of Fresh & Company, a culinary education and consulting business, has received a grant to help boost statewide farm-to-school sales, through the online and print publication of a Farm-to-School Cookbook. The book, which will include recipes, preparation tips, farm-purveyor contact information and several farm-to-school classroom lessons, will be tested in targeted cafeterias — both with school food service directors for ease of use, and with school children for a “thumbs up or thumbs down” on general appeal and flavor. The $24,000 grant, with additional $9,000 in-kind donations, is from Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) and Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture. Further financial and administrative support came from Green Pastures Fund, Four Winds, Inc, and The New England Small Farms Institute. To increase the accessibility and usefulness of the Farm-to-School Cookbook, it will be developed collaboratively with an advisory board of representatives from key organizations and all of the state’s five Buy Local Campaigns are part of the project’s support team. Through statewide collaboration and practical kitchen work, the Farm-to-School Cookbook will provide a carefully tested and useful support for school service professionals to add fresh farm products to their menus — a win for farmers, our local economy and a new generation of children. Department of Agricultural Resources Commissioner, Douglas P. Gillespie said, “Having children eat more locally produced foods through their school food service has several benefits - locally grown food not only tastes GREAT - it boosts farm sales and the Massachusetts economy and it helps children learn to eat healthy at a young age when eating habits are formed. Amy’s project to create a food service tested cookbook will boost farm sales and bring healthier foods into the schools. I am proud the Department of Agricultural Resources is partnering with Amy Cotler and others such as the Department of Education, the School Nutrition Association and buy local campaigns throughout the state. These partnerships and Amy's project make the Department's Farm to School Project an innovative model for others to emulate." Ms. Cotler welcomes other regional food directors and farmers who are interested the project to contact her at amy@freshcotler.com or 413-232-7174. * * * 9. Scientists Find Link Between Breast Cancer and Farm Work By Martin Mittelstaedt, Toronto Globe and Mail, October 12, 2006 A team of researchers who studied the occupations of nearly all the Windsor, Ontario women who developed breast cancer in a period from 2000 to 2002 found they were about three times more likely to have worked on farms than women who didn't have the disease. What's more, those who farmed and then later worked in the automotive industry were four times more likely to have the disease, according to a paper about the research being published Thursday in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The new study is one of the most detailed investigations undertaken in Canada into the occupations of women who developed breast cancer, and it indicates that something about farming increases the risk of the disease, the most common cancer to afflict females in the country. Although the researchers didn't determine what these risks were, they speculated about pesticides, many of which are able to mimic or block the normal functioning of estrogen and other hormones. "If you were going to hypothesize about the No. 1 most likely cause of this elevated risk, I think you'd have to look at the whole chemical exposure that exists on farms," said Jim Brophy, head of the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers in Sarnia, and lead author of the paper. A staggering 99 per cent of all those treated for the disease at Windsor's cancer centre during the period of the research agreed to participate. Dr. Brophy said there was an enormous desire among women, who typically are not asked about the role their jobs may have played in their illness, to be part of a study that might help explain their cancer. That desire has a resonance with Tricia Pletsch, who worked on her parent's farm near Chatham as a teenager and developed breast cancer two years ago, at 39. Her family doesn't have a history of the cancer, but she worries about the heavy chemical use on the farm while growing up. "Pesticides were really popular in the seventies," she said. Like most women with breast cancer, her doctors never asked about her occupation when trying to explain her illness and were at a total loss to explain why she was afflicted. "No one asked me what I did, and when I asked them why I got it, no one had a clue," she said. Scientists around the world are struggling to explain the recent epidemic of breast cancer in industrialized countries because fewer than 10 per cent of those with the disease have a known genetic predisposition for it. Rates for the cancer in Canada are among the highest in the world, with the lifetime risk of about one in nine. During the past 30 years, there has been a largely unexplained 25-per-cent increase in the country's age-adjusted incidence rate. ... In Windsor, the researchers compared the work histories of 564 woman treated for breast cancer over a 21/2-year period ending in 2002 against a similarly sized random control group of women who didn't have the cancer. Those with the disease were 2.8 times more likely to have worked on farms. This rate jumped to four times more likely if the women worked in agriculture and then the automotive industry and fell to 2.3 times if they worked on farms and then in health care. There was no extra risk of breast cancer for women who never worked on farms and then went into the auto industry or into health care, suggesting that agriculture somehow primes women to get the disease. The Windsor area has large numbers of women employed in agriculture because it is one of the most intensively farmed regions in Canada, with major fruit and vegetable crops. The area also has one of the largest car-making sectors in the country. About 300 women in the study worked in agriculture. The researchers found little difference between the women who got breast cancer and the control group with respect to hormone replacement therapy, breast-feeding history, smoking, oral contraceptive use, having a mother with the cancer and previous pregnancies. Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. For more information and the complete article go to http://www.rachel.org * * * 10. Farmer-to-Farmer Workshop: The Organic Dairy Decision "The Organic Dairy Decision" is a video linked workshop for farmers on the transition process from conventional to organic dairy production. We know organic is the fastest growing sector of the dairy industry. This is a chance to learn about the risks and opportunities from people who have made the transition. November 29th, 11:00 am – 2:00 pm The meeting will be held via video link simultaneously in 5 counties: Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida. Franklin, and Tompkins. At each of the 5 sites there will be current organic farmers present to talk about their operations and help with questions. An organic dairy processor field person will be available to answer questions about programs and markets in the area. The NOFA-NY Transition team will also be there to help with any questions. Fay Benson will go over the use of the workbook "The Organic Decision." Each participant who is in transition or thinking about it will receive this workbook produced by NY FarmLink. To attend this workshop, please register with the contact listed for the site nearest you:
Sponsored by the NY Farm Viability Institute, Cornell Small Farms, and the NOFA-NY Transition team. For more information about this Distance Learning opportunity, contact Fay Benson with the Cornell Small Farms Program at (607) 753-5213 or afb3@cornell.edu * * * 11. NYC Office of School Food Seeks to Purchase Fresh Local Vegetables for Fall/Winter Karp Resources is assisting New York City's Office School Food (OSF), on behalf of Food Change and the School Food Plus Initiative, with local procurement efforts. We have identified 5 fresh products that OSF purchases in significant volume, which we are targeting for the next 4 months.
A detailed list of these products, with projected volume requirements for 4 months, and actual prices paid (between Jan – April 2006) is available. We are looking for names of farmers, aggregators, packers, distributors and the like who grow or handle these products and are interested in new markets, or are already distributing to the NYC area. Please pass this information on to folks you know who grow, pack or ship any individual or a collection of these products, let us know who you’ve passed the information on to, and let them know they can contact either Karen Karp or Shayna Cohen directly. Assuming that price and volume requirements can be met, the OSF distributors are interested and willing to purchase from local suppliers. If the farmers or shippers are already shipping to wholesalers in NYC, it is likely that an easy connection can be made with the 4 distributors. We had tremendous success this year linking a local peach and nectarine packing facility with OSF distributors, which resulted in nearly 200,000 pounds of local fruit being served to kids in NYC schools! We hope to be able to replicate this model with your help in identifying local sources of these products. Contact Karen Karp or Shayna Cohen at Karp Resources at 631-765-9406 * * * + C A L E N D A R & C L A S S I F I E D S November 11, 10:00 am to Noon November 13, 10:00 am - 4:00 pm 2 PASA EVENTS November 16, 7:00-8:30 pm November 17 & 18 December 11-12-13 Presenters:
Registration: Participants MUST pre-register. Please register early – space is limited. Registration costs $175 per person, and includes an informative conference binder, morning refreshments, and lunches & dinners during the conference. Early registration (postmarked by November 15th) is $150. A second person from the same farm will receive a $25 discount. For anyone chosen to do an “Earn Your Meal” presentation, they will receive $25 back at the workshop. Overnight accommodations can be arranged for nearby hotels and homestays. To register: send check and the registration form to: Sustainable Farmers Network, c/o Sandy Arnold, 118 South Valley Road, Argyle, NY 12809. Please make checks payable to “Sustainable Farmers Network”. For more information or to receive a registration form, call Sandy at 518-638-6501, or (preferably) send an email to arnold3@capital.net. The full agenda will be available November 5, 2006. FARM WORKER WANTED Working to Preserve Farmland & Open Space in Ulster County |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
