Seed-starting on the farm means doing some pretty intense backwards math. Like, if we need one bunch of carrots each week from June to October for eighty CSA families, and each carrot needs seven-and-a-half square inches of dirt, and we have three four by thirty foot rows to plant carrots, then how many seeds should we plant right now?

The answer is always 25% more than what we calculate. Some seedlings aren’t going to come up - even though we order from FedCo and Johnny’s, who have similarly cold climates, and who test their seeds fairly rigorously (and are cooperatively owned companies.)

So it seems we just can’t help talking about chicken poop – especially now that someone may have figured out what the heck to do with all of it.

We hear the slogan "Buy Local" a lot these days in discussions involving sustainable food and farming and energy. But "local" changes from person to person, from community to community. Here in Montana, the fourth largest state with a population of less than one million, products displaying a "made in Montana" sticker are usually considered local.

So, how do consumers percieve the word "local" in the context of their food choices? A new study from The Hartman Group has some answers.

In general, the study concluded that more Americans are "buying local" -- 73 percent, in fact, said they currently buy goods that they perceive to be locally produced.

Here's how they defined a "local product"...

45% of seafood worldwide comes from fish farms now. So it’s not surprising that Canada’s new federal budget included $70 million for aquaculture research - a big chunk of which is getting sunk off the shore of Newfoundland to research how to get salmon fry out into the ocean at a younger age.

"Grass-fed." "Naturally-raised." "Certified organic." No wonder consumers are confused.

Of course, labels that trace food to certified production standards are a good thing, but identifying credible claims takes some leg work. So, take note.

Last week the American Grassfed Association (AGA) announced an industry-backed standard for grass-fed cattle and sheep under a new label administered by the Food Alliance. The Food Alliance has certified farms, ranches, and food processors under its own sustainable agriculture standards for more than 10 years.

But USDA established a grass-fed standard last October. Why then is AGA adding another label to the mix?

According to AGA, USDA's grass-fed standard simply doesn't go far enough. The agency's standard requires animals be fed a forage diet only, but it doesn't ban animals raised in confined operations. (That is, AGA asserts that "access" to pasture can easily be manipulated.) And it doesn't reject animals given antibiotics and hormones.

In comparison, AGA's standard not only requires a 100 percent forage diet, it bans animals raised in confined conditions and those given antibiotics and hormones. AGA represents 300 grass-fed livestock producers and stands by its claim that meat derived from grass-fed animals is healthier for humans than grain-fed animals – and a healthier and more natural diet for livestock.

And then there's "naturally-raised," which Envirovore reported on last month. USDA recently proposed a naturally-raised label that, unlike its grass-fed label, rejects meat from animals administered antibiotics and hormones. It doesn't, however, address confinement.

You can provide comments through Monday by visiting www.regulations.gov and searching "naturally raised" (look for the yellow talking bubble).

To become more familiar with the plethora of eco-labels out there, visit Greener Choices.

Scientists have found a gene that allows plants to open and close their stomata which could help resist ozone pollution and drought. The discovery came on the heels of a study done last July, when British scientists concluded that the increase in ozone pollution actually reduces plants' ability to soak up carbon from the atmosphere by 15%. This was a terrible finding, of course, considering we've put so much C02 in the atmosphere, anyway, but also because it basically said that with so much atmospheric ozone plants couldn't be the carbon sinks we need them to be.

Knowing how the gene works may help scientists figure out a way to get the stomata to protect itself in the face of ozone and drought – which often forces the plant to lose 95% of its water by evaporation through the open stomata.The implications for drought-resistant plants in the face of climate change and for the future of drier areas seems exciting and, as with so many of these technologies, a half-baked answer to larger questions about agriculture. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see what happens with the discovery. How will this gene be used? Will the technology be affordable for small-scale farmers? How, if at all, will the application of the gene affect other biological properties of crops?

The gene was discovered by the University of Helsinki in Finland, when they noticed a mutant mustard plant that was so sensitive to ozone, it didn't close its stomata. These scientists (in collaboration with other European scientists and the University of California, San Diego) found that when the mutant plant was exposed to ozone and other stresses the stomata stayed open and didn't protect it.
The discovery is detailed in this week’s advance online publication of the journal Nature.

Source: Physorg.com

Everything is changing in the Arctic. Polar bears are losing prime feeding and breeding grounds. Fish that populated warmer waters are now being observed migrating north. Temperate forests are springing from thawing tundra. But it's not just the environment that's being affected, economy is starting to look a little stranger for places like Greenland.

First of all, melting ice makes it much easier to access timber and minerals there – especially lead, nickel, zinc and magnesium. Also, fossil fuels are much more exposed to exploitation (is the irony of utilizing global warming to extract more things that cause global warming lost on anyone?) In the realm of agriculture, Greenland is seeing once-barren soil sprout broccoli, hay and potatoes, among other things.

Climate change contrarians will say, “Oh, see! Global warming is good for us!” (uh, what happened to the argument that it's not happening?) The fact is, not all symptoms of global warming are going to be detrimental for us in the short run. Historically cooler places might see farming booms and benefit from them greatly. Greenland will probably benefit from growing more food and even the opening of the Northwest Passage for shipping last summer may change livelihoods in that area. But implying that a few benefits make overall climate change not so bad is absurd, at best.

I will enjoy a longer growing season, just as Greenland does. But the trade off of having unpredictable fires, droughts and sea rise just doesn't logically fit the cost-benefit calculation.

Source: Foreign Affairs

Good scandals have their lawsuits, including the Humane Society's disturbing undercover video that led to the biggest beef recall in U.S. history. On Wednesday the organization officially filed suit against USDA for permitting downer cows into the food supply.

At this point, thousands of people have viewed the Humane Society's video, which shows workers abusing cows unable to walk in an effort to get them to stand and pass inspections. Downer cows, which are at higher risk for carrying diseases, such as BSE or "mad cow disease," were "tentatively" banned from the food supply in 2004. In 2007, the ban became official, but not before the meat industry successfully lobbied for an amendment.

The change? The ban was "too broad," lobbyists argued, because it included cows that had injuries, like a broken leg. These injuries shouldn't deem animals unhealthy for slaughter, they said.

A day after the suit was filed, Secretary of Agriculture Edward Schafer resisted pleas by Democtratic Senators for a complete ban on downer cows entering the food supply. Basically, he said the rules are fine as is, including the amendment, and while more "random" inspections will be implemented -- feel better? -- not much will change. That is, downer cattle can still enter the food supply as long as the agency's rules were followed.

The Humane Society's lawyer said the amendment allows slaughter plants like Westland/Hallmark to take advantage of "lax inspection." He points to a 2006 audit by the agency's own inspector general that found downer cows were indeed entering the food supply. (Oh, and it mentioned there was no evidence of injury in the vast majority of the cases.)

A spokesperson for the American Meat Institute said the amendment his group lobbied for is "founded in common sense."

I think he meant: founded in common cents.

Source: The New York Times