Subject: CSA conference a big success

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 94 09:24:13 PST

Our CSA (Community-Supported Agriculture) conference on December 6, 1993 was 
a big success!  Thank you to all of you who wrote with words of encouragement
and interest.  A special thanks to Mary Gold at the National Ag. 
Library for sending us a stack of bibliographies on CSA.  Following is a 
brief summary of our presentations. We are in the process of writing up the 
proceedings from the conference.  These will be available for $10 within a 
couple of months.  I will post a notice on e-mail when they are ready for 
distribution.

                    CSA Conference a Success

One hundred twenty-five enthusiastic people, most of them small
family farmers, packed the UC Davis meeting room where community-
supported agriculture was topic of a one-day workshop, December 6,
1993.  The conference was co-sponsored by the UC Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program, the UC Small Farm
Center, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, UC Cooperative
Extension and Fiddlers' Green Farm.  

The program got off to a great start with Andrew Lorand, a long-
time Community Supported Agriculture consultant who is currently a
farmer and agricultural teacher at the Sacramento Waldorf School. 
He gave an excellent overview of CSAs in the United States, their
history and some fundamental principles.  

The program continued with descriptive, practical talks from three
farmers who operate CSAs--Sue Temple of Fiddlers' Green Farm in the
Capay Valley; Judith Redmond of Full Belly Farm (Capay Valley) and
executive director of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers;
and Steve and Gloria Decater of Live Power Farm in Covelo.  These
three farmers discussed the different kinds of CSAs they operate,
how they got started and why, their marketing strategies to
different clienteles, how they organize their production with the
CSA, sample boxes, various educational and communication strategies
they have developed with their shareholders, and the different
challenges they face.  

After a panel discussion in which all speakers answered questions
from the audience, 50-60 participants drove to Fiddlers Green Farm
in the Capay Valley for a farm tour and more personal discussions
with Sue, Jim Eldon, co-owner and Liz Milazzo, harvest manager.

Workshop participants were overwhelmingly pleased with the day's
proceedings and wanted more opportunities to share information.  In
March, UC Cooperative Extension and the Small Farm Center will co-
sponsor a second CSA workshop in Southern California.  Interested
parties should contact David Visher (UC Small Farm Center) at
916/757-8912 or Faustino Munoz, UC Cooperative Extension at
619/694-2846.  Proceedings from the UC Davis CSA workshop will be
available for $10 within the next few months.  Watch Sustainable
Agriculture News and Technical Reviews or the Small Farm News for
details or contact David Visher or Gail Feenstra (SAREP) at 752-
8408.

Gail Feenstra
UC SAREP
(916) 752-8408
[email-masked]

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03p3p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03p3p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03p3p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03p3p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03p3p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03p3p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0!
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03p3p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
From [email-masked] Apr 10 15:16:43 1995
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:55:40 -0700
From: Don Bowen <[email-masked]>
Reply to: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: More from Wendell Berry

        This is something else I pulled from Practicval Farmers of Iowa.
Every time I try to express how I see things, I find that Mr. Berry has been
there before and has done a much better job than I ever could.

CONSERVING COMMUNITIES

                                                       Wendell Berry
(Editors  note: The following is from a talk entitled
    Conserving Communities, given by Wendell Berry at the 1994
    campout at Seed Savers Exchange, in Decorah.  We reprint it
    here with their kind permission.  The entire address appears
    in the Seed Savers 1994 Harvest Edition.)

. . .  the old opposition of country and city, which was
never useful, is now more useless than ever.  It is, in
fact, damaging to everybody involved, as is the opposition
of producers and consumers.  These are not differences but
divisions   divisions that ought not to exist because they
are to a considerable extent artificial, trumped up for the
sake of illegitimate advantages.  The so-called urban
economy has been just as hard on urban communities as it has
been on rural ones.

These conventional affiliations are now meaningless, useful
only to those in a position to profit from public
bewilderment.  A new political scheme of opposed parties,
however, is beginning to take form.  This is essentially a
two-party system, and it divides over the fundamental issue
of community.  One of these parties holds that community has
no value, the other holds that it does.  One is the party of
the global economy; the other I would call simply the party
of local community.  The global party is large, though not
populous, immensely powerful and wealthy, self-aware,
purposeful and tightly organized.  The community party is
only now becoming aware of itself, it is widely scattered,
highly diverse, small though potentially numerous, weak
though latently powerful, and poor though by no means
without resources.

We know pretty well the makeup of the party of the global
economy, but who are the members of the party of local
community?  They are people who take a generous and
neighborly view of self-preservation; they do not believe
that they can survive and flourish by the rule of
dog-eat-dog; they do not believe that they can succeed by
defeating or destroying or using up everything but
themselves.  They want to preserve the precious things of
nature and of human culture, and pass them on to their
children.  They want the world s fields and forests to be
productive; they do not want them to be destroyed for the
sake of production.  They know you cannot be a democrat
(small d) or a conservationist and at the same time a
proponent of the supranational corporate economy.  They
believe   they know from their experience   that the
neighborhood, the local community, is the proper place and
reference of responsible life and work.  They see that no
commonwealth or community of interest can be defined by
greed.  They know that things connect   that farming, for
example, is connected to nature, and food to farming, and
heath to food   and they want to preserve the connections.
They know that a healthy local community cannot be replaced
by a market or an entertainment industry or an information
highway.  They know that, contrary to all the unmeaning and
unmeant political talk about  job creation,  work ought not
to be merely a bone thrown to the otherwise unemployed.
They know that work ought to be necessary   it ought to be
good, it ought to be satisfying and dignifying to the people
who do it, and genuinely useful and pleasing to the people
for whom it is done.

The party of local community, then, is a real party with a
real platform and an agenda of real and doable work.  And it
has, we might add, a respectable history in the hundreds of
efforts, over several decades, to preserve local nature or
local health or to sell local products to local consumers.
Now such efforts appear to be coming into their own,
attracting interest and energy in a way they have not done
before.  People are seeing more clearly all the time the
connections between conservation and economics.  They are
seeing that a community s health is largely determined by
the way it makes its living.  The natural membership of the
community party consists of small farmers, ranchers and
market gardeners, worried consumers, owners and employees of
small shops, stores and other small businesses, community
banks, self-employed people, religious people and
conservationists.  The aims of this party really are only
two: the preservation of ecological diversity and integrity,
and the renewal, on sound cultural and ecological
principles, of local economies and local communities.

And now we must ask how a sustainable local community (which
is to say a sustainable local economy) might function.  I am
going to suggest a set of rules that I think such a
community would have to follow.  And I hasten to say that I
do not understand these rules as predictions; I am not
interested in foretelling the future.  If these rules have
any validity, that is because they apply now.

Supposing that the members of a local community wanted their
community to cohere, to flourish, and to last, they would:

(1) Always ask of any proposed change or innovation: What,
    will this do to our community?  How will this affect
    our common wealth?
(2) Always include local nature   the land, the water, the
    air, the native creatures   within the membership of
    the community.
(3) Always ask how local needs might be supplied from local
    sources, including the mutual help of neighbors.
(4) Always supply local needs FIRST, and only then think of
    exporting products.
(5) The community must understand the ultimate unsoundness
    of the industrial doctrine of  labor saving  if that
    implies poor work, unemployment, or any kind of
    pollution or contamination.
(6) If it is not to be merely a colony of the national or
    the global economy, the community must develop properly
    scaled value-adding industries for local products.
(7) It must also develop small-scale industries and
    businesses to support the local farm and/or forest
    economy.
(8) It must strive to produce as much of its own energy as
    possible.
(9) It must strive to increase earnings (in whatever form)
    within the community, and decrease expenditures outside
    the community.
(10) Money paid into the local economy should circulate
    within the community for as long as possible before it
    is paid out.
(11) If it is to last, a community must be able to afford
    to invest in itself   it must maintain its properties,
    keep itself clean (without dirtying some other place),
    care for its old people, teach its children.
(12) The old and the young must take care of one another.
    The young must learn from the old, not necessarily and
    not always in school.  There must be no
    institutionalized  child care  and  homes for the aged.
    The community knows and remembers itself by the
    assciation of old and young.
(13) Costs now conventionally hidden or  externalized  must
    be accounted for.  Whenever possible they must be
    debited against monetary income.
(14) Community members must look into the possible uses of
    local currency, community-funded loan programs, systems
    of barter, and the like.
(15) They should always be aware of the economic value of
    neighborliness   as help, insurance, and so on.  They
    must realize that in our time the costs of living are
    greatly increased by the loss of neighborhood, leaving
    people to face their calamities alone.
(16) A rural community should always be acquainted with,
    and complexly connected with, community-minded people
    in nearby towns and cities.
(17) A sustainable rural economy will be dependent on urban
    consumers loyal to local products.  Therefore, we are
    talking about an economy that will always be more coop-

    erative than competitive.

These rules are derived from western political and religious
traditions, from the promptings of ecologists and certain
agriculturists, and from common sense.  They may seem
radical, but only because the modern, national and global
economies have been formed in almost perfect disregard of
community and ecological interests.  A community economy is
not an economy in which well-placed persons can make a
 killing.   It is not a killer economy.  It is an economy
whose aim is generosity and a well distributed and
safeguarded abundance.  If it seems unusual for modern
people to hope and work for such an economy, then we must
remind ourselves that a willingness to put the good of the
community ahead of profit is hardly unprecedented among
community business people and local banks.    |

  Donald E. Bowen           [email-masked]
  Valley Center CA.         [email-masked]

  Software Engineer, woodworker, historian, beekeeper, farmboy
  model railroader, 1936 Farmall 12, 1966 Corvair CORSA 140 convertible
  1 wife, 3 kids, 2 acres, 2 cats, 2 dogs, ? projects,  no TV, 24 hours
From [email-masked] Apr  5 11:40:25 1995
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 16:23:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Ed DeWan <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked],
    [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Foodsheds and Food Circles

>From: "Nancy Lee Bentley" <[email-masked]> via Ed DeWan's
computer: 

    Local Food Security:
    Foodsheds and Food Circles  

    Submitted in four parts:
    The Foodshed and The Food Circle
    The Foodshed and The Food Circle, cont
    More local food security and food systems info and issues
    References and Resources

The foodshed and the food circle are two concepts gaining recognition as models or conceptual frameworks for describing local food systems.

 The foodshed concept, most often attributed to Arthur Getz's in his 1991 Urban Foodsheds article in Permaculture Activist , uses the analogy of a watershed to describe 'the area that is defined by a structure of supply'.  Getz used the image of a foodshe

Today the Madison, Wisconsin area Foodshed Working Group along with an
active coalition of food coops, csa associations, farmer's markets, producer
coops, bakeries and other food processors, a natural food warehouse/
distributor, UWMadison and other active participants is the best example 
of a local food system identifying with the foodshed concept.      

The Food Circle is a dynamic, community-based and regionally-integrated  food systems concept/model/vision. In effect, it is  a systems ecology.  In contrast to the current linear producton-consumption system, The Food Circle is a production-consumption-r

The graphic model is a wheel of concentric circles, illustrating how an integrated  food system flows from  ag inputs and production through consumption and waste recycling. Starting with the individual at the center and moving outward through the family 

end 1 of 4

Nancy Lee Bentley
The Food Circle
PO Box 3083
Champaign, IL 61826-3083      
(217) 586-3846
[email-masked]

For an info packet on The Food Circle, including
linear and food circle models and a reprint of 
EcoCity Journal's "An Introduction to The Food 
Circle, please send $7.95 to the address above.  

    The Foodshed and  The Food Circle, cont.
    part 2 of 4 

The goal of The Food Circle is to consciously develop networks of sustainable, community- based and regionally-integrated food systems, capable of providing the basic food needs of their members, providing markets for local food and agricultural producers

The beauty of The Food Circle lies in its addressing a host of associated issues, making it adaptable to a broad range of multidisciplinary interests as an organizing vehicle, a teaching model, a community economic development and planning model, even an 

This Food Circle is a blueprint which I have been refining and nurturing for a number of  years,  first publicly used by myself and other organizers of New York's first organic conference, Closing the Food Circle, held at Ithaca in 1984.  Since then the c
    
Several communities, including Kansas City/Columbia, Missouri and Champaign-Urbana, Illinois are developing local food circles.    The Kansas City model incorporates a food policy council and membership in a statewide foodsystems task force, including a d

The Champaign-Urbana Food Circle, sprouting shoots in this Silicon Prairie testbed community, is still an informal consortium of  csa's, food coop, vegetarian restaurant, farmer's market, farmer's market nutrition coupon project,  UIUC,  organic/sustainab
  
One key component of the local food circle operating model is communication. As Food Systems Development Coordinator with U of  I , this past year I have been working with the Sustainable Agriculture Network and other groups to develop specialty/organic/ 

The work takes time,  growing organically, for  the people must develop    
 conviction  in the ecological basis for the model and then reorient their working or consuming relationships.   Barriers  abound, from the centralized, technocratic structure of agriculture to consumer obsession with speed and convenience.  Likewise,  as

end 2 of 4
see message 1 for reprints

Nancy Lee Bentley
The Food Circle
PO Box 3083
Champaign, IL 61826-3083
(217) 586-3846
[email-masked]

    More Local Food Security and Food Systems Development Info and Issues 
    part 3 of 4

    Other approaches to local food security and food systems development have been focused on formation of local/municipal  food policy councils.  Ken Dahlberg, at the Dept. of  Political Science, Western Michigan University, has done extensive research, 

In their paper "Community Food Security: A Food Systems Approach 
to the 1995 Farm Bill", Andy Fisher and Bob Gottlieb of UCLA's  School of Architecture and Urban Planning,  brought out key issues to those activists attending the first Community Food Security Coalition's organizational meeting,  August 25th, 1994:
 
"... the concept of food security is often associated with the phenomenon of hunger.  However, food security differs from hunger in certain crucial ways.  First, food security represents a community need rather than an individual's plight, as with hunger.
non-emergency (conventional) sources at all times.'   Second, whereas hunger measures an existing condition of depravation, food security is decidedly prevention-oriented, evaluating the existence of resources -- both community and personal -- to provide 

A food security analysis extends .. into an examination of the food system.  Questions of equity and sustainability are vital to the development of food security.... A food system offering security should have sustainability such that the ecological syste

Within the organizing framework of these models, local food systems/ community food security can provide a vehicle for coalition-building among those interested in anti-hunger advocacy, sustainable agriculture, nutrition, urban agriculture, local food pol

We are approaching a time of integration, where growing numbers of food, agriculture and other professionals are recognizing the need for an integrated  local/regional  f ood systems approach  to really  address, analyze and solve the current challenges i

    part 4 of 4

    A partial listing of References and Resources on foodsheds, food circles,
community food security and local food systems issues and information.

References:

An Introduction to The Food Circle:  A Stewardship 'Technology' 
for the New Paradigm, by Nancy Lee Bentley,  EcoCity Journal,
Winter 1994.  available from The Food Circle.
 
Community Food Security: A Food Systems  Approach to the 1995 Farm
Bill, by Andy Fisher and Robert Gottlieb, UCLA , for The Community 
Food Security Coalition.
 
Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability,
edited by Patricia Allen, 1993.  New York, John Wiley.

Defining Sustainable Communities, Report from the Conference, June 2-4,
 1994, $5.00 from  Neighborhood Funders Group, 1001 South Marshall Street, 
 Suite 55,  Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27101; 910-724-9070.

Food Policy Councils:  The Experience of  Five Cities and One County,
by Kenneth Dahlberg, Paper presented to the Joint Meeting of the Agri-
culture, Food and Human Values Society and the Society for the Study of
 Food and Society, Tucson, AZ, June 1994
 
Hendrix College Project. by Melissa Beck Yazman,  available from 
Gary Valen, Hendrix College, Conway,  AR 72032.

Local Food Systems: Policies and Values Influencing their Potential, 
 by Kenneth Dahlberg, 1993. National Science Foundation supported
project, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.

Planting the Future:  Developing an Agriculture that Sustains Land 
and Community, edited by Ann R. Bird, Gordan L. Bultena, and 
John C. Gardner.  1995.  available from Iowa State University Press, 
2121 S. State Avenue, Ames, IA 50014-8300. 
 
Regional Food Guidance:  A Tool for a Sustainable Food System, by 
Jennifer Wilkens,  Presented at the joint meeting of the Association
for the Study of Food and Nutrition and the Agriculture, Food and
Human Values Society, Tucson, AZ, May 1994.
  
Sustainable Community Values Project Preliminary Report, Workshop
presentation by Verna Kragnes and others,  Eating Closer to Home CSA 
Conference, Dec. 1994. University of Wisconsin, River Falls.   

The Community Food Security Empowerment Act, January 1995, available 
from The Community Food Security Coalition c/o Hartford Food System. 

Urban Foodsheds,  by Arthur Getz.  1991,  Permaculture Activist: 
Vol VII, No.3.

Resources:

The Community Food Security Coalition;  Mark Winne, c/o the Hartford
Food System, 509 Wethersfield Ave. Hartford, CT 06114.  203-296-9325; 
203-296-8326  fax

Andy Fisher, Robert  Gottlieb, UCLA Department of Urban Planning,
405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90095 310-825-1067; 310-206-5566 fax

Kate Fitzgerald, Nessa Richman,  Sustainable Food Center, 1715 East
Sixth St., Suite 200, Austin, TX  78702; (512) 472-2073; (512) 472-2075 fax;  [email-masked]   

 Kenneth Dahlberg, Local Food Systems Project;, Department of Political 
Science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI  49008, 
(616) 387- 5686;  (616) 387-3999 fax

Anne deMeurisse, Minnesota Food Project, 2395 University Avenue, 
Saint Paul, MN 55114.  (612) 644-2038.
 
Kate Clancy,  Department of Nutrition and Food Managerment, 034 Slocum
 Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York;  13244-1250; (315) 443- 4554.

Robert L. Wilson,  consultant to City of Knoxville Food Policy Council, 
(615)-588-7168.  or Gail Harris, City of Knoxville, Food Policy Council,
 PO Box 51650, Knoxville, TN 37950-1650. (615)-546-3500. 

Sally  Leong,  Foodshed Working Group, 793A Russell Laboratories, 
UW-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin  53706 (608) 262-5309  

Nancy Lee Bentley, The Food Circle, The Food Circle Network, PO Box 3083,
Champaign, IL, 61826-3083, (217)-586-3846,  [email-masked]
for a packet of informational material including graphic linear and Food Circle models and a reprint of  the Eco-City Journal "An Introduction to The Food Circle" article,  send $7.95 to The Food Circle. 

Ben Kjelsus, The Food Circle Project, 7121 Park Road, Kansas City, MO 64129.  (816) 924-3003.

Verna Kragnes, Philadelphia Community Farm,  Box 668, Osceola, WI 54020;  (715) 294-3136.

Rod MacRae, Toronto Food Policy Council, 277 Victoria Street, Toronto,
Ontario  Canada  M5B 1W1 416-392-1107: 416-392-1357 fax

This document (GUIDE) is the April 21, 1995 update of:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/GUIDE
For more information contact Lawrence London, [email-masked].

____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessing FAQs and Selected Information Resources at sunSITE.unc.edu
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------

World Wide Web (lynx available via telnet for vt100 users)
 WWW URL info:
  http://sunsite.unc.edu/london/Gateway_to_Archives.html
  http://sunsite.unc.edu/london/Rec.Gardens-FAQs.html
  http://sunsite.unc.edu/london/Herb_Archives.html
 GOPHER URL info:
  URL for sustainable agriculture is:
  gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture
/
         [add gardening/gardening-faqs/ to the path for the rec.gardens FAQs]
  URL for rural skills is:
  gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/agriculture/rural-skills/
  URL for energy resources is:
  gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/environment/alternative-energy/ener
gy-resources/
  URL for alternative healthcare is:
  gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/medicine/alternative-healthcare/
  URL for pesticide education is:
  gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/.pub/academic/environment/pesticide-education/
 FTP URL info:
  file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/
       [add gardening/gardening-faqs/ to the path for the rec.gardens FAQs]
  file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/agriculture/rural-skills/
  file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/medicine/alternative-healthcare/
       [the herb archives are here]
  file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/environment/alternative-energy/energy-res
ources/
  file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/environment/pesticide-education/

Anonymous FTP:
  ftp sunSITE.unc.edu
  Login: anonymous
  Password: (enter your Internet e-mail ID)
  cd pub/academic
    cd agriculture/sustainable_agriculture
      cd gardening/gardening-faqs
  cd pub/academic/agriculture/rural-skills
  cd pub/academic/medicine/alternative-healthcare
    cd herbs
  cd pub/academic/environment/alternative-energy/energy-resources
  cd pub/academic/environment/pesticide-education

WAIS (available via telnet, follow login instructions)

Ftpmail (Send e-mail to [email-masked] for help file on ftpmail usage)

Gopher: (gopher sunSITE.unc.edu)
The Worlds of sunSITE
  Sustainable Agriculture Information
    gardening
      gardening-faqs
  links to:
    Rural Skills: etc.
    Alternative Energy
    Alternative Healthcare
    Pesticide Education
    - other Gopher sites with ag/gardening information

The Worlds of SunSITE
  browse sunSITE archives
    academic
      agriculture
        sustainable_agriculture
          gardening
            gardening-faqs
        rural-skills

The Worlds of sunSITE
  browse sunSITE archives
    academic
      environment
        alternative energy
          energy-resources
        pesticide-education

The Worlds of sunSITE
  browse sunSITE archives
    academic
      medicine
        alternative healthcare
          herbs

__________________
------------------
About the Archives
__________________
------------------

Newsgroup, mailing-list, newsletter archives/documents/FAQs on
sustainable agriculture, permaculture, IPM, landscaping, gardening,
farming, rural skills, horticulture, metalworking, woodworking, weather,
housebuilding, food, cooking, nutrition, ecology, environment, pesticide
education, health-safety-welfare, beekeeping, food preservation,
alternative: healthcare, energy, architecture, housing, communities
and many other related topics.

Partial list of topics
----------------------
historic food
food preserving
health-safety-welfare
sourdough bread-yoghurt-kraut-fermented foods
vegetarian cooking
alternative architecture
alternative/co-housing, sustainable/intentional communities - co-operatives
alternative healthcare
health and safety faqs
sustainable agriculture
gardening-farming-rural life
gardening faqs
landscaping-landscape architecture
permaculture
integrated pest management
hydrology
meteorology
beekeeping
hydroponics
biological pest control
mycology
botany
vermiculture
wildlife
hydroponics
aquaponics
bioremediation
aquaculture
guides to Internet agriculture/healthcare/environment/biology resources
homeopathy
ayurveda
nutrition
meditation

FAQ archives [partial list - see all directories labeled /faqs for others]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
rec.gardens (/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/gardening/gardening-faqs)
misc.rural (/agriculture/rural-skills/faqs)
rec.food.sourdough (/agriculture/rural-skills/food/sourdough/faqs)
rec.food.veg (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs)
rec.crafts.metalworking (/agriculture/rural-skills/metalworking/faqs)
rec.woodworking (/agriculture/rural-skills/woodworking/faqs)
alternative energy (/environment/alternative-energy/miscellaneous)
sci.energy.hydrogen (/environment/alternative-energy/miscellaneous)
alt.meditation (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs)
alt.co-ops (/environment/energy-resources/faqs
alt.housing.nontrad (/environment/energy-resources/faqs
alt.folklore.herbs (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/herbs/faqs)
sci.life-extension (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs)
vegetarian (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs)
sci.agriculture.beekeeping (/agriculture/sustainable_agriculture/beekeeping/faq
s
rec.food.preserving (/agriculture/rural-skills/food/food-preserving/faqs)
alt.backrubs (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs)
alt.med.allergy (/medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs)
alt.support.asthma (medicine/alternative-healthcare/faqs)

Mail Archives:
--------------

Mailing lists of interest:

List name: sustag-public (sustainable agriculture)
  Server: [email-masked]
  Post articles to: [email-masked]
List name: sanet-mg (Sustainable Agriculture Network mail group)
  Server: [email-masked]
  Post articles to: [email-masked]
List name: forage-mg (forage crops)
  Server: [email-masked]
  Post articles to: [email-masked]
List name: forage-quality-mg (forage crop quality)
  Server: [email-masked]
  Post articles to: [email-masked]
List name: ipm-mg (integrated pest management)
  Server: [email-masked]
  Post articles to: [email-masked]
List name: permaculture-mg (permaculture)
  Server: [email-masked]
  Post articles to: [email-masked]
List name: agmetnet (meteorology)
  Server: [email-masked]
  Post articles to: [email-masked]

Also available from [email-masked]:

renew-energy (Renewable Energy), [email-masked]
nc-solar (North Carolina Solar Energy Resources),
          [email-masked]

Additional mailing lists of interest:

[/net-resources will contain more information on many of these lists]
wetnet  soils-l  agmodels-l  agric-l  envst-l  grasses  bee-l  dairy-l
hydro-l  devel-l  indknow-l  aqua-l  maxlife  marine-l  gardens-l
cohousing-l  pot-mod-l  trickle-l  mgarden-l lakes-l sustag-l

Newsletters (partial list):

American Garden Newsletter  ipmnet-news  aanews  aosa.news  ben  panups
safefood-news  susag-news  vita-news  altag-news  apis  attranews-digest
cgiar-news  csas-news  food-safety-week  handsnet-news  leopold-center-news
wsaa-news ....and many others

Newsgroup archives:

sci.agriculture
sci.agriculture.beekeeping
alt.sustainable.agriculture
alt.agriculture.misc
alt.agriculture.fruit
rec.ponds
sci.bio.entomology.lepidoptera
alt.landscape.architecture
rec.gardens
misc.rural
rec.food.preservation
sci.bio
sci.bio.ecology
sci.geo.geology
sci.geo.meteorology
sci.geo.hydrology
sci.aquaria
rec.aquaria
bionet plants
bionet mycology
bionet.biology.grasses
bionet photosynthesis
bionet cellbiology
bionet general
bionet.agroforestry
bionet.n2-fixation
bionet.biology.tropical

alt.architecture.alternative
alt.housing.nontrad
sci.energy
sci.energy.hydrogen
alt.energy.renewable
alt.solar.thermal
sci.engr.lighting

misc.health.alternative
alt.aromatherapy
sci.life-extension
alt.health.ayurveda
alt.folklore.gemstones
alt.folklore.herbs
alt.co-evolution
alt.meditation
alt.consciousness.mysticism
rec.food.veg
rec.food.veg.cooking
sci.med.nutrition
alt.food.fat-free
alt.support.asthma
alt.med.allergy

From [email-masked] Oct 17 22:49:59 1995
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 08:33:55 -0500
From: Brian DeVore LSP <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: CSA Resources

The Land Stewardship Project (LSP) offers several resources for those interested
in Community Supported Agriculture:

¥ A joint publishing project of LSP and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
America, "To Till and Keep It: New Models for Congregational Involvement with 
the Land," contains more than 50 pages of tips and real-life anecdotes about how
congregations can become more involved in a locally-based, sustainable food 
production system. Written by Community Supported Agriculture pioneer Dan 
Guenthner of Osceola, Wis., this guide outlines how community supported farms 
are starting to hook up with congregations interested in establishing ties with 
the land and sustainable agriculture.

To order a copy, send $5 ($5.33 for Minnesota residents) to: "To Till and Keep 
It," Land Stewardship Project 2200 4th St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110; tele. Ð 
(612) 653-0618.

¥ "The Land Stewardship Congregational Directory & Resource Guide" is a 19-page 
booklet that describes Minnesota congregations  whose members support local 
growers and community gardens. The guide describes the LSP Congregational 
Network, summarizes various congregational land and food projects and offers 
several resources, including a list of area food shelves that accept produce. 
For a copy, send $3 ($3.20 for Minnesota residents) to LSP.

¥ The "Land Stewardship Congregational Tool Kit" contains videos, resource 
materials and activities for small and large group gatherings with a focus on 
building healthy communities by linking people with their food, the land and 
each other. To inquire about renting the kit, call Mary Schulte, LSP (612) 
653-0618.

¥ "Our Garden: A Project That Supports Our Community and Protects Our Land" is a
13-minute video that details how Redeemer Lutheran Church set up a garden that 
serves its neighbors in need. The congregation and staff of Redeemer, in 
conjunction with the Land Stewardship Project and other organizations, 
businesses and individuals, have since 1985 produced approximately 100,000 
pounds of organically grown produce that has been distributed to area food 
shelves and senior citizens centers in Winona, Minn.

The video offers advice on how such a garden can be set up and run in a 
community. For a copy, send $17 (Minnesota residents add 98 cents) to LSP.

From [email-masked] Jun  1 11:03:27 1995
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 09:02:38 -0400
From: JULIE ELFVING <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: "Rent-a-tree" - Farm Leases

Here's an intriguing idea.  Someone sent me a recent Washington Post
article (sorry, date unknown, but it was probably within the last 10-14
days) about a 200 acre farm that has sold "leases" at $175 per apple
tree to city people, who would then be able to visit the farm, which has
8000 apple trees, hiking trails, ponds, picnic areas, etc., anytime they
wanted.  They also receive all the apples "their" tree produces, about
800 pounds.  Some apples can be sold back to the farm or donated to
charity for tax purposes.  Reportedly, the tax deduction alone could pay
for the lease.  About 150 people signed leases during the first month,
many of them doctors, professors, or lawyers who live in Washington. 
The farm is 50 miles west of the District.

Customers receive a membership card and a gold-trimmed certificate
noting they've become "Friends of Pointe-of-View Farm."  A plaque with
each person's name is placed on the selected tree.

The owners settled on the idea after struggling to make ends meet
growing apples.  At one point, they turned their place into a weekend
pick-your-own farm to supplement income.  But money from that came in
only during the August and September harvest season, and visitors
often ended up damaging the orchard as they tromped around, according
to the article.

Obviously, this idea wouldn't be suitable for all small farm owners, but it
does have a certain appeal as a creative source of revenue. 
Apparently, the people who have bought leases have fallen in love with
the place.  The article quotes a dermatologist who bought 6 leases -- "It
wasn't just for the apples, because you can grow them anywhere. 
People need to get away from the rat race that's all around the city and
feel the tranquility of a farm.  It's a chance for them to see what this
country was like, to see another world beyond the freeways and the
malls."  An 85-year old woman who also signed a lease said,"If I wanted
to get out and scream, I can do it there.  It's the kind of freedom you don't
get locked up in an apartment."  She drives out nearly every weekend.
From [email-masked] Apr 10 15:14:32 1995
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <[email-masked]>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <[email-masked]>
Subject: Community Supported Agriculture (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:12:19 -0100
From: Jeff Lakey <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Community Supported Agriculture

I've recently become exposed to the idea of Community Supported
Agriculture.  I'm interested in its potential to help with the problem of
agriculture around metropolitan areas serving as a temporary land use
(awaiting retirement of the farmer and endless suburbanization).

I presume it is recent, and don't expect to find much in the library
literature about it, but will be checking there as well.  Anyone have a
reference starting point to find out more?

Jeff Lakey
Landscape Architecture
Colorado State University
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523
(970) 491-7283
[email-masked]

From [email-masked] Apr 10 15:18:23 1995
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:50:55 -0700
From: Don Bowen <[email-masked]>
Reply to: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Modern farming

    [The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set]
    [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
    [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]

        I pulled this off a web site for Practical Farmers of Iowa.  In this
he seems to be saying many of the things we have discussed in this forum
many times.  I got there through Sal's web page.

SHARED VISIONS COMMUNITY WORKSHOP PRESENTATION   GREENFIELD,
IOWA   AUGUST 4, 1994
                                                       Clark BreDahl
(Editors' note: This is text from a presntation by Clark
BreDahl during the visit to Greenfield.  Clark farms and is
on the Neely-Kinyon Farm Project Committee.)
To share a vision, each of us must first have a vision of
our own; a vision of where we would like our business to be
a few years hence; a vision of what we would like our
community to look like, and a perspective as to where our
community will fit into the grand scheme of things years
down the road.  Finally, after we have planted those visions
clearly in our minds, we need a plan as to how we will
achieve our goals....Without a plan, our visions will never
become realities.

>From an agricultural perspective, life has perhaps changed
more in the past twenty years than it did in the previous
two hundred of our nation s existence.  And though
technology has been frequently mentioned as the culprit, I
think it has to be viewed as a two-edged sword that can
either help or hinder us.  One thing is certain.  Technology
will not go away.  If we do not use it, others will.

The key is getting technology and research to solve problems
for us, rather than create new ones.  It follows then that
to come up with the right answers, we must first ask the
right questions.  That is where a Shared Visions approach
can help.

When I survey the changes that have occurred in farming
since I came back to the area in 1974, I don t notice the
technological or mechanical differences nearly as much as I
do the structural changes.  When we talk about ninety
percent of all fresh vegetables consumed in the United
States now being grown in the San Juaquin Valley of
California, rather than on scattered farms throughout each
state in the Union, that is a fundamental, structural change
of overwhelming proportions.

When we talk about chicken surpassing pork and beef to
become the most popular meat in the U.S., and six huge
conglomerates producing seventy-five percent of all
consumption   and controlling all facets of production and
processing from hatch to retail meat counter   that is
fundamental.

When we talk about California taking over as the leading
dairy producing state, and over 50 percent of all dairy
production in this country now coming from herds of five
hundred head or more   that s fundamental.

How many farmers in Adair County still raise chickens?  How
many farmers in Adair County still milk cows?  And how many
of you came from farm homes like mine where forty years ago
the egg check and cream check used to provide the lion s
share of our family s spending money? That s fundamental
change.

How many times in recent years have you heard someone say,
 Somebody s going to farm the land and raise the
livestock...What difference does it make who it is?   To me
it makes all the difference in the world regarding the
quality of life we in rural Iowa will have.  For us, people
and prosperity may be inseparable.  I think we will not have
one without the other.

If I am still a farmer 20 years from now   perhaps by some
stroke of luck even a wealthy farmer   but my wife has to
drive thirty miles for groceries, sixty miles to buy parts
for my tractor, twenty miles to the nearest church or
school, seventy-five miles to the nearest doctor, hospital
or movie theater, or five miles down the road to the nearest
neighbor s house, then our own personal financial success
will have been a mighty hollow victory.  If at that time the
local  retirement  home is the largest employer in town, as
it is already in some, we will know we have probably passed
the point of no return as a viable economic community.

Our federal government has struggled for fifty years to
implement policies to aid in the conservation of our soil
and water resources.  And regardless of how effective you
think those programs have been, it seems to me they hve
continually overlooked the most obvious solution   the pride
involved in maintaining families on the land.  I continually
marvel that where there is a plan to hand the land down from
generation to the next, there is also a plan, usually well
implemented, to hand the land down in as good or better
shape than it was received.

I heard it once said that,  the difference between family
farms and corporate agriculture is that corporations don t
have grandkids!   It s a simplistic definition, but it s a
profound impact statement.

No question about it, our most valuable crop or resource is
not our corn, beans, hogs or cattle, or even our rich
fertile soil.  It is our young people.  And unfortunately
they are also our biggest export.  We raise bright kids
around here.  We have good schools, dedicated teachers;
parents, friends and churches who teach real values, and
communities where a strong work ethic is ingrained early as
part of our heritage.

Talk about producing a product the market wants....The big
cities gobble up our best and brightest as fast as we can
ship them out   and usually pay a handsome premium for
quality!

I m convinced some of those young people would like to stay
or return to this area s farms and small business
communities.  Many, I think, would even take a substantial
pay cut to do it.  But when you tell a young couple that in
addition, they are going to have to each hold down two full
time jobs (as some economists have suggested as a route to
get into farming), the city usually wins the competition
hands down.

Environmental concerns and interest from outside as well as
within farming about sustainable agriculture could have a
tremendous impact on the survival of family farms and rural
communities.  I think we need to make our plans accordingly.

What started out as low input farming didn t stay that way
very long.  People came to quickly realize there is no such
thing as low input farming.  The best we can do is
substitute inputs: labor for capital, management for
capital, marketing skills for production volume.  The list
could be lengthy.  The exciting part is that there are
countless ways we can foster economic growth and efficiency
on family farms and in small communities without investing
millions of dollars at a time to do it.  Maybe it shows my
conservative streak, but I like that approach much better
than the more common corporate philosophy these days of
substituting capital for virtually every other tool in the
production chain.

I am very excited about the prospects for research,
education and demonstration at both the Neely and Armstrong
farms here in southwest Iowa.  We have strong individual and
community support, combined with Iowa State University s
technology and strong financial commitment.  These farms and
their accompanying facilities will be powerful tools to give
us all the right answers.  Hopefully a powerful vision for
the future of this area s farms and communities will first
help us ask all the right questions. |

  Donald E. Bowen           [email-masked]
  Valley Center CA.         [email-masked]

  Software Engineer, woodworker, historian, beekeeper, farmboy
  model railroader, 1936 Farmall 12, 1966 Corvair CORSA 140 convertible
  1 wife, 3 kids, 2 acres, 2 cats, 2 dogs, ? projects,  no TV, 24 hours
From [email-masked] Apr 10 21:23:53 1995
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 16:30:42 -0400
From: Judy Green <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: FOOD SHED/MARKETSCAPE?

I've been following the food shed discussion with much interest. I'm part
of a group working on a book tentatively entitled "Sustainaing Rural
Landscapes: Applying Innovative Concepts to the Practical Work of Landscape
Protection and Land Use Planning". My chapter, and those of a couple of
other collaborators, will explore the relationship between
food/agricultural marketing systems and the sustainability of Northeast
U.S. communities and landscapes. In our discussions we have been using the
term MARKETSCAPE rather than food shed,food system, food circle or
whatever. Now I'm trying to figure out whether to continue using
"marketscape" or buy into one of the other terms which are quickly gaining
familiarity (at least with SANET users.) I'd welcome feedback. Does
"marketscape" offer any improvements over the other terms in that it does
not imply a particular directionality, scale or structure?

Anyway, in addition to your comments on terminology, I also welcome
comments on this early (READ: ROUGH-VERY ROUGH) outline of ideas for my
chapter below. The "social capital and environmental capital" stuff refers
to Cornelia Flora's outline of 4 types of capital - 1) physical (including
money), 2) human (individuals' skills, education, labor, etc) 3) natural
resource and 4) social (the way we are organized to interact, our
institutions, cultural norms, level of mutual trust, etc etc...) A high
degree of social capital makes more effective use of other forms of
capital. My thesis is that locally/regionally integrated marketscapes (eg
food sheds) foster the development of social capital and perhaps therefore,
natural resource capital. Global marketscapes, on the other hand tend to
degrade social capital in both importing and exporting communities.

I have not yet delved into the literature which many of you have suggested
so I'm sure I will find lots of good stuff in there too. In the meantime,
thanks in advance for any comments you have.

FIRST DRAFT -THINK PIECE - 10/7/94 J. Green

"THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETSCAPE": Implications for Development of Social and
Natural Resource Capital

I. Definitions:

Marketscape: A geographic conceptualization of agricultural marketing
systems, mapping the sources and destinations of inputs and outputs to and
from farms. (Should be superimposed on a mapping of natural resources and
of human population)

Locally integrated marketscape:  A system of marketing relationships in
which there is a high level of recirculation of resources - coupling of
farm inputs and outputs (sources and destinations) - within a locality. Eg:
generation of agricultural inputs (soil fertility, seed, breeding stock,
machinery and equipment, knowledge, training, new farmers, farm labor,
credit....) from local resources; and distribution of farm products (food
and fiber, "waste" nutrients, recreational access...) to local recipients.
"Local" and "integrated" both being relative terms - the tighter the
linkages geographically, the more locally integrated; the more numerous and
diverse the linkages, the more locally integrated.

Locally non-integrated (or non-locally integrated?) marketscape: A system
of marketing relationships in which the sources and destinations of farm
inputs and outputs are geographically distant, and therefore disconnected
from the people and landscape of a locality. Eg: the "global market"

II. Social attributes of marketscapes

Locally integrated. Marketing relationships are more likely to be personal
relationships, maintained over time. High degree of control in creating and
defining economic relationships remains with local people. Producers and
consumers of inputs and outputs view each other in more than economic
terms, have many shared interests including, importantly, an interest in
the local landscape. Economic and social relations more horizontal,
egalitarian, based more on reciprocity, trust. Negotiation of
interdependent but distinct economic interests. Long-term view, shared
commitment to locality. High degree of accountability to local community.
Farm business decisions made with an eye to many goals - economic,
environmental, community relations. Very strong networks involving farm and
nonfarm interests .... So, many positive contributions to developing social
capital.

Non-locally integrated. Disconnection between economic and personal
interests and relationships; economic relations primarily vertical (farmers
at the bottom?); low level of local control of economic relationships,
power remains outside local community and non-accountable. Farm business
decisions made against primarily economic criteria. Few opportunities for
trustbuilding between farmers and nonfarmers. Little understanding,
connection to, "ownership" of local agriculture by non-farmers. Very weak
networks - farmers alienated, isolated. Symbolic diversity - us against
them. No relationship between the local food supply and the local
landscape.

III. Implications of marketscape for developing social capital of
locality-based communities

Development of more locally integrated marketscapes can be seen as a
strategy for building social capital in rural communities, and for
strengthening horizontal linkages between rural and urban
communities.........

Following would be case examples of local marketscape development, eg
Ithaca, New York and Eastern Europe....

Judy Green                              Phone: 607-255-9832
Coordinator                             Fax: 255-9984
Farming Alternatives Program            Email: [email-masked]
Dept. of Rural Sociology
Cornell University              Never attribute to malice that which is
Ithaca, NY  14853-7801          adequately explained by stupidity

From [email-masked] Jun 28 14:39:52 1995
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Colehour Arden <[email-masked]>
Reply to: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked],
    [email-masked]
Subject: Community Supported Agriculture

The Placer-Nevada Counties office of the University of California 
Cooperative Extension and the PlacerGROWN organization are in the 
planning stages of developing a guidebook and other materials on the 
topic of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA).  The intended audience 
includes both local farmers and local consumers as potential members.

We would like to hear from other individuals or organizations who can:
	1) Share experiences in developing/delivering CSA materials.
	2) Offer materials on the topic of CSA's.
	3) Provide references to CSA related materials or contacts.

Please respond via E-mail to Colehour Arden ([email-masked]) or by 
Snail mail to PlacerGROWN at 11477 E Avenue, Auburn, CA  95603.

Thanks for your assistance!

Colehour Arden
UCCE Intern

From [email-masked] Apr  3 23:26:16 1995
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 17:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <[email-masked]>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <[email-masked]>
Subject: "Foodshed" resource: CSA Proceedings (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 17:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Hodges <[email-masked]>
To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: "Foodshed" resource: CSA Proceedings (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 13:45:47 -0700
From: Barbara Wetzel <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: "Foodshed" resource: CSA Proceedings

SANET-ers:

PROCEEDINGS.  COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE CONFERENCE.

Please note that the statewide University of California Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program (UC SAREP) has published
proceedings from a very popular conference on Subscription Farming or
Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs).  This concept is part of a
successful Foodshed.  The conference was co-sponsored by the UC Small Farm
Center. 

>From a standing-room-only conference at the University of California Davis
in December 1993 comes this collection of farmer presentations about the
Community Supported Agriculture or CSA concept.  In CSAs consumers buy
"subscriptions" to local or nearly local farms, and farmers are able to plan
ahead with prepaid customers.  Subscription farming began in Western Europe
and Japan in the mid-1960s, first appeared in the U.S. in the mid-1980s, and
has been gathering momentum ever since.  The consumer group CSA North
America is calling for 10,000 subscription farms by the year 2000.  The
proceedings includes the presentations of four farmers experienced in
operating CSAs, who discussed their farms and the history and philosophy
behind Community Supported Agriculture.  The 37-page proceedings includes
bibliography and resource guide. Editor:  Gerry Cohn.  Price $8.00.
Available from:  UC Small Farm Center, University of California, Davis, CA
95616.  Checks or money orders payable to UC Regents; include name, address
and telephone on order.  Price includes tax and shipping.

UC SAREP is working to develop a program area in community food systems.  If
you have questions or comments about foodsheds or local food systems, please
contact Gail Feenstra, food systems analyst, 916-752-8408,
[email-masked].  Snail mail: Gail Feenstra, UC SAREP, University of
California, Davis, CA 95616.
Barbara Wetzel
UC SAREP

From [email-masked] Sep 14 19:08:36 1995
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 11:58:28 -0400
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Request info on Subscription Farming (fwd)

Funny you should ask!

The 1995 Western Region Community Supported Agriculture Conference is being
held on Nov12-14 in San Francisco, CA at Fort Mason.  Underwritten by Western
region SARE, and directed out of the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems at UC Santa Cruz, this conference is aimed at skill-building for
CSA farmers and the community.

For more information email to [email-masked] or call CASFS at (408) 459-3964

Fro those of you in the northern California foothills, our Placer county
Extension office is sponsoring a 3 hour workshop on the topic on Thursday,
September 28, 1995.  (I'm on of the section presenters)  For more information
call (916)889-7385.

Also, a spiral bound book on growing for and forming a CSA will be published
by UC Cooperative Extension sometime this Fall.

CSA is one of THE most effective ways ot counteract the disconnect from the
land of the other 98% of the population.  It's also a critical weapon in the
battle to save farmland from the developer's concrete truck.

Food for thought,
Marcie
ELFÔ4(4 (
44  Ôûûüüllh/usr/lib/ld.so.1
ÔèP`üh	
hÿñüÿñÿñ%†ÿñ?hÿñFûÿñ_end_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE__DYNAMIC_PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE__edata_etextlibucb.so.1libresolv.so.1libsocket.so.1libnsl.so.1libelf.so.1/usr/ucblibMYhwƒ�è`
›PÿñÔèP`üh	
hÿñüÿñ"ÿñ+†ÿñEhÿñLûÿña.out_end_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE__DYNAMIC_PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE__edata_etext.interp.hash.dynsym.dynstr.got.dynamic.bss.symtab.strtab.shstrtabÔÔ	èèhPP``›üü$h-hh2h 	:ˆSBÛLFrom [email-masked] Apr 10 21:25:00 1995
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 16:30:42 -0400
From: Judy Green <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: FOOD SHED/MARKETSCAPE?

I've been following the food shed discussion with much interest. I'm part
of a group working on a book tentatively entitled "Sustainaing Rural
Landscapes: Applying Innovative Concepts to the Practical Work of Landscape
Protection and Land Use Planning". My chapter, and those of a couple of
other collaborators, will explore the relationship between
food/agricultural marketing systems and the sustainability of Northeast
U.S. communities and landscapes. In our discussions we have been using the
term MARKETSCAPE rather than food shed,food system, food circle or
whatever. Now I'm trying to figure out whether to continue using
"marketscape" or buy into one of the other terms which are quickly gaining
familiarity (at least with SANET users.) I'd welcome feedback. Does
"marketscape" offer any improvements over the other terms in that it does
not imply a particular directionality, scale or structure?

Anyway, in addition to your comments on terminology, I also welcome
comments on this early (READ: ROUGH-VERY ROUGH) outline of ideas for my
chapter below. The "social capital and environmental capital" stuff refers
to Cornelia Flora's outline of 4 types of capital - 1) physical (including
money), 2) human (individuals' skills, education, labor, etc) 3) natural
resource and 4) social (the way we are organized to interact, our
institutions, cultural norms, level of mutual trust, etc etc...) A high
degree of social capital makes more effective use of other forms of
capital. My thesis is that locally/regionally integrated marketscapes (eg
food sheds) foster the development of social capital and perhaps therefore,
natural resource capital. Global marketscapes, on the other hand tend to
degrade social capital in both importing and exporting communities.

I have not yet delved into the literature which many of you have suggested
so I'm sure I will find lots of good stuff in there too. In the meantime,
thanks in advance for any comments you have.

FIRST DRAFT -THINK PIECE - 10/7/94 J. Green

"THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETSCAPE": Implications for Development of Social and
Natural Resource Capital

I. Definitions:

Marketscape: A geographic conceptualization of agricultural marketing
systems, mapping the sources and destinations of inputs and outputs to and
from farms. (Should be superimposed on a mapping of natural resources and
of human population)

Locally integrated marketscape:  A system of marketing relationships in
which there is a high level of recirculation of resources - coupling of
farm inputs and outputs (sources and destinations) - within a locality. Eg:
generation of agricultural inputs (soil fertility, seed, breeding stock,
machinery and equipment, knowledge, training, new farmers, farm labor,
credit....) from local resources; and distribution of farm products (food
and fiber, "waste" nutrients, recreational access...) to local recipients.
"Local" and "integrated" both being relative terms - the tighter the
linkages geographically, the more locally integrated; the more numerous and
diverse the linkages, the more locally integrated.

Locally non-integrated (or non-locally integrated?) marketscape: A system
of marketing relationships in which the sources and destinations of farm
inputs and outputs are geographically distant, and therefore disconnected
from the people and landscape of a locality. Eg: the "global market"

II. Social attributes of marketscapes

Locally integrated. Marketing relationships are more likely to be personal
relationships, maintained over time. High degree of control in creating and
defining economic relationships remains with local people. Producers and
consumers of inputs and outputs view each other in more than economic
terms, have many shared interests including, importantly, an interest in
the local landscape. Economic and social relations more horizontal,
egalitarian, based more on reciprocity, trust. Negotiation of
interdependent but distinct economic interests. Long-term view, shared
commitment to locality. High degree of accountability to local community.
Farm business decisions made with an eye to many goals - economic,
environmental, community relations. Very strong networks involving farm and
nonfarm interests .... So, many positive contributions to developing social
capital.

Non-locally integrated. Disconnection between economic and personal
interests and relationships; economic relations primarily vertical (farmers
at the bottom?); low level of local control of economic relationships,
power remains outside local community and non-accountable. Farm business
decisions made against primarily economic criteria. Few opportunities for
trustbuilding between farmers and nonfarmers. Little understanding,
connection to, "ownership" of local agriculture by non-farmers. Very weak
networks - farmers alienated, isolated. Symbolic diversity - us against
them. No relationship between the local food supply and the local
landscape.

III. Implications of marketscape for developing social capital of
locality-based communities

Development of more locally integrated marketscapes can be seen as a
strategy for building social capital in rural communities, and for
strengthening horizontal linkages between rural and urban
communities.........

Following would be case examples of local marketscape development, eg
Ithaca, New York and Eastern Europe....

Judy Green                              Phone: 607-255-9832
Coordinator                             Fax: 255-9984
Farming Alternatives Program            Email: [email-masked]
Dept. of Rural Sociology
Cornell University              Never attribute to malice that which is
Ithaca, NY  14853-7801          adequately explained by stupidity

From [email-masked] Apr 11 21:03:03 1995
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 11:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <[email-masked]>
To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Community Supported Agriculture (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 10:06:21 -0400
From: Bob Engelman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Community Supported Agriculture (fwd)

Jeff Lakey writes:

>I've recently become exposed to the idea of Community Supported
>Agriculture.  I'm interested in its potential to help with the problem of
>agriculture around metropolitan areas serving as a temporary land use
>(awaiting retirement of the farmer and endless suburbanization).
>
>I presume it is recent, and don't expect to find much in the library
>literature about it, but will be checking there as well.  Anyone have a
>reference starting point to find out more?

        May I recommend a book called Farms of Tomorrow: Community
Supported Farms, Farm Supported Communities, by Trauger Groh and Steven
S.H. McFadden, published in 1990 by the Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening
Association, P.O. Box 550, Kimberton, PA 19442, 610-935-7797,
1-800-516-7797. The cost is $12.00 plus $2.75 for shipping.

        There is also an association called something like the North
American Association of Community Supported Agriculture. They have a few
minimalist publications which might be of service. I may be getting the
name a bit wrong and will try to return with more detailed information.

        The idea of community supported agriculture has its roots largely
in the German-speaking countries of Europe, with considerable influence as
well from Japan. Its philosophical roots lie in the agricultural ideas of
Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philospher and scientist who lived from 1861 to
1925. Two key convictions guide the CSA movement, which is growing rapidly
in the United States and elsewhere: 1) that urban dwellers and other people
who do not personally grow food can buy shares in the annual output of a
local farmer, thus reducing her/his risk and providing her/him the capital
to 2) restore the soil and other agricultural resources so that the entire
community is enhanced by what the farm becomes and the activity that goes
on there. Good CSAs also involve shareholders in work, fun and community
activities on the farm, helping to teach children, for example, that food
does not come from the grocery store but from soil, water, sweat and love.

        I'm too busy at the moment to do so right now, but I hope to post
soon a document concerning the CSA of which I am a member, the Chesapeake
(Maryland) CSA near Washington, D.C.. The entire concept is one of the most
exciting I have encountered in the field of "sustainably-oriented"
agriculture, and I believe its future could be exceedingly bright.

Best,
Bob Engelman
Takoma Park, MD

From [email-masked] Apr 10 12:17:41 1995
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 8:01:12 EDT
From: Mike Linker <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Southern Sustainable Farming - Mar., 95

                      SOUTHERN SUSTAINABLE FARMING
                                    
                               MARCH, 1995

WHAT'S IN THE CAMPAIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE FOR SOUTHERN
FAMILY FARMERS? based on an article by Elizabeth Henderson

     The policy proposals of the Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture will help many Southern family farmers who are trying
to farm more sustainably.  Below are some examples of how. 1. 
Many Southern farmers are striving to increase the amount of
agriculturally related dollars kept in their communities by
producing value-added products or creating farmer-controlled
marketing strategies.  The Campaign's Sustainable Rural
Development and  Marketing proposal redirects current USDA rural
development programs to support alternative marketing, producer
controlled coops, and locally-based small scale processing; and
directs USDA to remove regulatory barriers to such programs.   2.
The proposal for a Stewardship Payment Program, or "green
payments" would reward family farmers for implementing whole farm
resource protection plans, including practices such as crop
rotations, soil conservation, water quality improvement, and
wildlife habitat enhancement; and would provide technical
assistance for their development.  Green payments would also, in
effect, support organic certification since every organic farm
will have to develop and implement a whole farm plan under the
Organic Foods Production Act. 3. The Campaign's proposal to
modestly raise the commodity loan rate would increase family farm
income for growers of cotton, sugarcane, small grains, rice, and
peanuts; and enhance price stability for most of these crops. 4. 
The Campaign supports Minority Farmers' Rights by directing the
USDA to give minority and limited resource farmers equal access to
all USDA programs and committees.  It also creates the first step
to restoring the minority land base by developing a national
minority farm land registry as a basic assessment tool to evaluate
minority participation. 5.  The proposal for enacting an
Agricultural Bargaining Act for Farmers and Farmworkers would
allow farmers who produce on contract, like many poultry and hog
producers, the right to form cooperative associations and bargain
collectively with integrators. 6.  The Campaign proposes a new
supply management dairy program--the Dairy Nutrition and
Conservation Act--which would control production, encourage
sustainable agricultural practices, and create a reasonable return
on investment to dairy farmers. 7.  The Pest Management and
Education proposal would give farmers support for reducing
pesticide usage by requiring USDA to provide research, education,
and training in alternatives to conventional pesticides, and
revising USDA programs to remove incentives for pesticide use. 8. 
The Campaign proposes to help farmers assess water quality
problems and take remedial action on their farms by expanding
technical assistance and agency coordination for designing water
quality plans, and providing increased financial incentives to
implement these plans.  9.  By requiring the USDA to take the lead
in creating a framework for a Strategic Farmland Reserve, the
Campaign proposes to help protect farmland that is of unique value
for food production or provides critical environmental benefits. 
The Campaign also proposes directing FmHA to utilize its loan
programs to assist new, young and minority farmers to acquire
farmland in urban-edge areas. 10.  Proposed reform of the
Integrated Farm Management Program would remove penalties on crop
rotations in commodity programs. 11.  The Campaign supports the
labeling of all dairy products made from milk produced by cows
receiving the synthetic hormone rBGH, allowing small family
dairies to fill a niche market for consumers who desire a non-rBGH
choice.   

4TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE GETS RAVE REVIEWS

     "Positive" summarily describes the 4th Annual Conference and
Trade Show of the Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
(SAWG) held January 13-15, 1995 in Gulf Shores, AL.  Approximately
300 people from 16 states and Puerto Rico attended.  Comments from
the participants reflect the significance and enthusiasm that
colored the weekend.
     "I found the workshop on minority farmers' and farmworkers'
rights to be enlightening in that it allowed farmers to explain
the problems they have been experiencing and how they are dealing
with them," Ali ShamsidDeen of the Mississippi Association of
Cooperatives remarked.  "The exhibits at the Trade Show also were
very impressive, and I was quite intrigued by the woman spinning
wool."
     Jeana Myers of Partners in Agriculture, in NC, said, "I
particularly valued the workshops led by farmers; farmers shared
their practical expertise on ways to build soil fertility
organically, and how to manage pests and diseases with biological
controls.  On Sunday morning, I went on the farm tour and saw
people making a viable living using alternative systems."
     Renee Price, who hosted the 1st Annual Food Tasting as part
of the conference, noticed that "people were having fun while
becoming familiar with the variety of interesting and exotic foods
that can be produced and marketed using sustainable methods."  She
felt, as in previous years, the Southern SAWG Annual Conference
was a complete success.
     The 1996 Southern SAWG Annual Conference will be held at the
Radisson Plaza Hotel in Lexington, KY on January 19-21, 1996.  For
information, contact Keith Richards, PO Box 324, Elkins, AR 72727,
501-292-3714 or e-mail to: [email-masked].

NC FAMILY GIVES BIRTH TO A NEIGHBORHOOD OF ORGANIC FARMERS by Lynn
Byczynski

     In the seven years since Kenny Haines started farming on just
10 acres, he has grown to be one of the biggest organic vegetable
producers in North Carolina.  With 130 acres, a greenhouse
covering two-thirds of an acre, and the fields of three neighbors
who have joined him in organic farming, his company, Misty Morning
Farms, Inc., is now marketing more than 200 acres of certified
organic vegetables and soybeans.   
     Such a rapid expansion might seem staggering to many small
growers, but it came naturally to Kenny.  Before striking out on
his own, he worked for 15 years as a farm manager for three of the
largest vegetable growers on the East Coast.      
     By the mid-1980's, though, Kenny was having serious qualms
about conventional farming, and had been moving his operations as
much as possible toward Integrated Pest Management.  His wife
Wanda, who is a registered nurse, was increasingly worried about
the family's exposure to agricultural chemicals.  Kenny recalls
how he would spend the day applying a yellow pre-emergent
herbicide, come home and shower, then find the yellow stuff
seeping from his pores onto the bed sheets at night.   
     So in 1987, when he was laid off, Kenny and Wanda decided to
start their own farm and to do it organically.  "It's a lot like
religion," Kenny says. "You can go to church on Sunday and just
sit in the pew, or you can live your beliefs all week long."
     They set to work on a rented 10-acre site next to the land
where they had built a comfortable log home with their own labor. 
They erected a small hoophouse, and bought a 14-horsepower
tractor.  At first, Kenny sold to the farm stands on the road
leading to the beach towns of the Outer Banks.  But he was quickly
disenchanted with that outlet because of fierce price undercutting
among local growers. An Accident Brings Community Support
     In 1990, he decided he needed to go to Raleigh, 125 miles to
the west.  In June he started making the trip twice a week to sell
to grocery stores.  On August 1, at 8 a.m., he and his 14-year-old
son were taking a load of produce to the city when a car came
across the center line as they were crossing a bridge.  They were
hit head-on.  "I could see it coming, I knew what was going to
happen, and there was nothing I could do about it," Kenny says.
     Kenny's back was broken.  His son suffered serious internal
injuries.  After seven hours of surgery, the doctor emerged to
tell Wanda that if the boy survived the next 48 hours, he would
still have only a 50-50 chance of living.  Wanda didn't get home
for 20 days as she traveled between the two hospitals where her
husband and son struggled for their lives.   Back at the farm,
there was an outpouring of support from their community.  "I had a
field full of peppers, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, and eggplant,"
Kenny says.  "The accident happened on a Wednesday and by Sunday
there were 100 folks out there helping.  People would come out at
night after they had worked all day, for two or three months. 
There were a lot of folks I didn't even know--they stopped here,
helped us and didn't ask for anything, and then were gone."      The
community's reaction was a testimonial to the respect the Haines
family had earned in their short time in Belvidere.  They attend
church, are 4-H leaders and have been active in their three
children's lives.  Kenny says modestly, "I think there's just a
lot of good people here.  We wouldn't have made it without them."
     Kenny and his son both recovered, although their injuries
will probably restrict their physical activity somewhat for the
rest of their lives.     
     Kenny was not at fault in the accident, but the suddenness
and severity of the accident made him realize how vulnerable a
farm family is if an accident while working opens them up to a
lawsuit.  So to protect his family's assets, he decided to form a
partnership with a neighbor, Garlan Scott, and incorporate the
farming business as Misty Morning Farms.     
     One of the neighbors who helped after the accident was
Richard Parker, a conventional grain farmer.  He expressed
interest in growing vegetables and Kenny told him that if he would
grow organically, Misty Morning Farms would market his produce.
     "I always loved growing vegetables because I grew vegetables
with my father," Richard says.  "My son wants to farm, and I
decided that instead of spending more money on farm equipment and
land, we would go into intensive management.  That will give him a
chance to get started in farming."      
     Richard's son, Joe, has already gotten his start at age 15. 
Last year he grew 15 acres of squash for Misty Morning Farms.
     Two other farmers are also growing on smaller acreages for
Misty Morning Farms.  Although the company is not a
cooperative--it's owned by the Haines and Scott families--the four
farmers involved do plan their crops and some purchases together. 
Misty Morning Farms does all the cleaning, grading, packing and
marketing, and keeps one-third of whatever it sells. A Strong
Organic Market
     Misty Morning Farms is doing a good job of selling produce
these days.  Kenny, who estimates that he spends at least two days
a week on the phone marketing, sold three times as much in 1994 as
the year before.  Everything is sold to organic wholesalers who
pick up at Misty Morning Farm's packing shed and distribute up and
down the East Coast.     
     "We could double our acreage and still not meet the demand,"
Kenny says. That's not to say that wholesaling has been easy
money.  Kenny says that his family had to rely on Wanda's salary
as a nurse the first five years while all profits were plowed back
into the business.  Richard expected to make his first profit last
year, his fourth in the organic business.    
     Part of the problem, both farmers say, is that they have
found little information about organic growing in their area, so
they have learned by trial-and-error.  Consequently, they have had
several crop failures and lower-than-expected yields as they have
experimented with varieties and scheduling.  
     In addition, input costs are considerably higher for organic
production, Kenny says.  For example, he uses feather meal as a
nitrogen fertilizer source, which costs $270 a ton.  An equivalent
amount of chemical nitrogen fertilizer would cost $120.     
     Equipment costs for this scale are high, too.  Kenny has an
assortment of planting and harvesting equipment, including three
Lannen transplanters from Finland, a tiller bed shaper that makes
three 72-inch beds in one pass, a sweet corn picker, and a bean
picker.  He also has several pieces of equipment for grading and
packing tomatoes, potatoes, and green beans.  The packing shed,
which is located on the highway about five miles from his farm, is
rented from his partner, Garlan Scott.  Behind the packing shed is
a cooler, and the business also owns a refrigerated truck.  
     Labor is another big expenses.  Kenny employs 15 to 20 people
throughout the season, including about four year-round.  Most of
his workers are high school and college students.  Kenny says he
has had excellent luck with his young employees and adds, "I hate
to say it, but the girls are about two times the workers the boys
are."     
     With production costs so high, Kenny says he has to aim for
an organic premium price on his produce.  And when he can't get
it, he will often just plow the crop down rather than harvesting
and selling it for a lower price. Since August is peak time for
vegetables in North Carolina, Kenny aims for two marketing
seasons, April through July, then September through the end of the
year. Greenhouse Production
     One of his first crops each year is greenhouse tomatoes,
which are planted in January for harvest beginning in April and
running through July, when field-grown tomatoes ripen in his area
and prices plummet.      
     Kenny and Garlan erected the first three 22-by-216-foot
gutter-connected greenhouses in 1991, then added three others the
next year.  He has been growing tomatoes and cucumbers, but plans
to try a sugar snap pea or other crop to follow the tomatoes as a
hedge against disease.  "I think if we grow tomatoes, tomatoes,
tomatoes, we're going to get a problem," he says.      
     As another preventative measure against disease, he sprays in
the greenhouse twice a week with food-grade (35 percent) hydrogen
peroxide, diluted to one percent.  So far, he's had no problems.
     The greenhouse is 12 feet tall, which helps dissipate some of
the heat that builds up, but he still has to run the 6-foot-tall
swamp coolers and fans much of the year.  For the winter months,
the greenhouse is equipped with regular propane heaters, but it
also has three of the first waste-oil burners sold for
greenhouses.  The waste oil, which burns extremely hot, costs
about one-third as much per BTU as propane.  
     Kenny says the biggest problem in the greenhouse has been
whiteflies, which have ruined two crops.  He tried neem-based
pesticides with little luck, then began working with Encarsia
formosa, a parasitic wasp.  He has one of his employees monitor
whitefly populations with yellow sticky cards; each Wednesday she
counts the number of insects on the traps.  As soon as she finds
any whiteflies on a trap, Kenny starts to release 7,500 Encarsia
per week.  When the total on the cards reaches 100, he doubles the
number.  This year, he spent about $1,000 on Encarsia, but was
pleased with the level of control he obtained.    
     Kenny starts nearly all his own transplants, using a vacuum
seeder and Speedling trays, in the greenhouse for spring crops and
outside for fall crops.  He has bought in transplants in the past,
but is trying to avoid it now because he sees it as an opening for
troubles. Finding the Right Size
     Throughout his expansion, Kenny has given considerable
thought to the question of scale.  Profits increase to a certain
size, then drop off when the farm expands because it requires more
farm equipment, more labor, etc...  He acknowledges that growing
organic vegetables on his scale is expensive, and that his net
income may be no better than a market gardener with 10 acres.  But
because he doesn't have a nearby market, he says he really has no
choice but to sell wholesale and to continue his expansion.      "If
we were in Raleigh, we would make a living with 10 acres," Kenny
says.  "The ideal situation would be a subscription service, but
you have to be in the right place for that to happen.  You have to
have the right kind of people--educated people who want to know
where their food is coming from."  Without that option, Kenny
plans to continue his expansion.  He hopes to buy more land
himself and he's willing to sell for other farmers who convert to
organic practices.  "We think we're doing the right thing and if
somebody else thinks we're doing the right thing and wants to try
it, we'll be more than happy to help," he says. 
     An earlier version of this article first appeared in Growing
For Market, PO Box 3747, Lawrence KS 66046, phone 913-841-2559. 
Subscriptions: $26/year for 12 issues. 

ACTION ON APPROPRIATIONS NEEDED TO SAVE SUSTAINABLE AG PROGRAMS by
Margaret Krome

     Most federal sustainable agriculture programs are in jeopardy
during this next congressional appropriations cycle.  Collective
grassroots action is essential to protect the gains of the past
few years.     
     Just because a bill is passed by Congress, doesn't mean the
programs involved are automatically enacted.  Authorizations, like
the 1995 Farm Bill, set policy for programs and maximum levels of
funding.  Appropriations, which happen every year, are where
Congress actually allocates the money for programs in a given
fiscal year.        
     Sustainable agriculture programs have faired moderately well
in getting money appropriated.  With a new Congress committed to
cutting the budget, though, the challenge will be greater than
ever in 1995 to sustain or increase funding for many valuable
programs.      
     Fortunately, we have a powerful asset--the many supporters of
sustainable agriculture around the country who can make a case for
these programs with their subcommittee members in key states and
districts.  This first year of the new Congress is crucial.  We
must do everything possible to demonstrate broad bi-partisan
support for sustainable agriculture in its many facets.  Also, the
track record we establish of strong coalition-based work at the
grassroots level on appropriations gives credibility to the
negotiations in the months ahead on the Farm Bill. What Actions
Are Needed?
     First, write a letter or make a phone call to the key
subcommittee members if you live or work in their district or
state.  This doesn't have to be an extensive letter, but it should
reflect your particular "citizen identity" of farmer, researcher,
consumer, farmworker, etc...  Second, get some opinion editorials
or "op eds"--guest columns that are longer than a letter to the
editor--in papers around the country on the importance of
sustainable agriculture and, hence, of higher funding for these
programs.  Third, help get others in key districts and states to
write or call also. Key Sustainable Agriculture Appropriations for
Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) *  Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE):  The Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture seeks
$20 million for this competitive grants program which funds
high-quality, farmer-involved research and education on economic,
agronomic, and environmental aspects of sustainable agriculture
farming systems.  Authorized in the 1990 Farm Bill at $40 million,
this excellent program has been grossly under funded, with a high
of $8.1 million appropriated for FY95, which is less than one half
of one percent of USDA's research and extension budget.  The
administration proposes $9.5 million for FY96. *  Sustainable
Agriculture Technology Development and Transfer Program (SATDTP): 
The Campaign requests $8 million for this program, also referred
to as "Chapter 3," which funds projects to train extension agents,
relevant SCS and ASCS staff, and other agricultural professionals
in sustainable agriculture concepts, research and practices.  This
program, though authorized in the 1990 Farm Bill at $20 million,
was first funded in FY94, and then only at $3 million after a
political battle with holdovers from the Bush Administration.  The
administration proposes $5 million for FY96. *  Minority Farmer
Outreach:  The Campaign seeks $5 million for the minority farmer
outreach program, which seeks to address the needs of minority
farmers across USDA's credit, commodity, conservation, and other
programs.  It targets information toward minority farmers, with at
least 50 percent of the program money and effort being used by
community-based organizations that have actual experience in
working with minority farmers and understand their specific needs
for assistance.  It was funded at $3 million in FY95; the Clinton
budget proposes another $3 million for FY96. *  Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP)/Water Quality Incentive Program (WQIP): 
The WQIP is a voluntary cost-share program designed to help
farmers comply with state and federal environmental laws.  It
offers technical and financial assistance in preventing surface
and groundwater pollution through reduced and better use of
fertilizers, pesticides and animal wastes; and other alternative
farming practices.  It is currently administered and funded
through the ACP.  ACP funding for FY95 is $100 million; the
Administration's budget request cuts ACP to $50 million, with $15
million of ACP monies to be designated for the WQIP.  The Campaign
supports current higher ACP funding levels and requests $30
million be designated for the WQIP.   *  WIC Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program (FMNP):  The Campaign seeks $8 million for WIC's
FMNP, which offers vouchers or coupons for participants in the
low-income Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program to purchase
fresh fruits and vegetables at local farmers' markets.  This
program was authorized at $8 million for FY95 but only funded at
$6.8 million.  The administration requests funding at the same
level for FY96.  The Campaign endorses full funding in FY96 for
this innovative program with a proven track record of providing
high quality, locally grown vegetables to low-income citizens
while supporting small family farmers.  The total WIC budget has
been increasing substantially for several years, with more
increases likely.  Money for the FMNP can almost certainly be
found within the WIC budget. *  National Organic Food Production
Act:  The President's budget requests $1.06 million for FY96 to
implement and administer the organic certification program; and to
help defray the costs of accreditation to certification
organizations.  It was funded at $500,000 in both FY94 and FY95. 
The Campaign supports the administration's request. * 
Agricultural Technology and Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA):  The
Campaign supports $1.8 million for this national information
service, which answers practical questions from farmers and others
who call its toll-free telephone number about matters ranging from
sustainable agriculture methods to economic implications of
alternative practices.  Its caseload averages 1,000 calls monthly. 
ATTRA received $1.3 million in FY95, and that amount is requested
by Clinton for FY96.  Its appropriation has been  determined by
the appropriations subcommittee of the Interior, but will be
transferred back to USDA within the Rural Technology and
Cooperative Development Grants in FY96.      
     Julie Burns and Margaret Krome, both working with the
Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, will coordinate contacts on
appropriations and let people know what actions are most helpful
at any given time.  Margaret has also offered to help anyone draft
letters or op ed pieces.  Julie Burns, 4 Lindsey Rd, Asheville, NC
28805, phone 704-299-1922 or fax 704-299-1575.  Margaret Krome,
2524 Chamberlain, Madison, WI 53705, phone 608-238-1440 or fax
608-238-1569. 

LOBBYING: CONVINCING POLITICIANS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITIONS 
     There are 33 members of Congress from Southern states who
will be making major decisions about the fate of sustainable
agriculture in the 1995 Farm Bill.  They need to be educated and
persuaded by their constituents (YOU) about the need for a change. 
     Paid lobbyists are not the only people who can lobby. 
Concerned citizens can also practice the fine art of influencing
how their members of Congress vote.  Following are some
suggestions for effective citizen lobbying. 
Before You Meet With a Member of Congress

1.   Do your homework.  What do you know about the Congressperson?
How long has he/she been in office; what party affiliation? Is the
legislator on a committee that will be voting on your issue? Has
the legislator been supportive of sustainable agriculture in the
past? What is his/her record on environmental, farm or fiscal
issues? 
2.  Decide who will attend. People who live in the
congressperson's district - very important! People representing
different constituencies; for example, someone who belongs to an
environmental group, a farm group, a consumer group and a church
group.  People who are directly affected by the issue(s) you are
discussing, who can explain them clearly, and provide real life
examples. Two to four people is a good number for most lobby
visits.  
3.  Plan it! Have a meeting beforehand to plan the lobby visit.
Decide your goals for the meeting.  Are you asking the legislator
to sponsor a bill, commit to voting a certain way, or just
providing him/her with information? Agree on an agenda to follow
that can be accomplished in the amount of time you have for the
meeting. Agree on "roles" for each participant.  You will need:
someone to chair the meeting and keep it on track, someone to take
notes, and more than one person prepared to explain the issue and
its importance.  Prepare the arguments you would use in response
to an opposing position.  Have a practice meeting, with one person
pretending to be the legislator and everyone else playing their
roles.  This will help you think through possible questions the
legislator might ask, and identify any problems with the agenda or
time constraints.   Decide what written materials you want to
leave with the legislator and who will prepare or bring them. 
Prepare a one-page version of the information you want to convey
most. Make sure everyone knows how to get to the meeting location
and decide what time to arrive. 
 
At the Meeting

1. The person who set up the appointment should open the meeting
by thanking the legislator (or aide) for the meeting, introduce
everyone, and quickly review the agenda order.  Identify yourself
and the organization you represent.  If you live in his/her
district, make sure you say so.  Explain that you are
participating in the Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture.   

2. If possible, open with a compliment thanking the legislator for
past support, statements, or anything positive you've found out.

3. Stick to your agenda.  Each speaker should be concise and give
compelling examples to illustrate the importance of the bill.  Be
prepared to convey your message in five minutes if necessary.      

4. Don't assume the congressperson knows anything about your bill. 
Lobbyists are the main sources of information and education about
bills.  Congress reviews and votes on thousands of bills each
year. 

5. Know your facts and be scrupulously honest.  If a question
arises, you can always say "I'll check on that and let you know." 
If so, make sure you do. 

6. Ask for a specific commitment.  If you don't get a clear
answer, ask again. (You may want to assign one person just to this
role.) 

7. Listen carefully to the arguments that he/she has heard from
the other side and answer with concise facts if possible.  Avoid
heated arguing. 

8. Pay close attention to how your arguments are being received. 
Don't raise more than a couple of issues unless the legislator is
really interested and receptive. 

9. Try to get a clear commitment on where he/she stands on
specific bills or amendments. 

10. End the meeting on time, and thank the congressperson.  Give
written materials at this time. 

After the Meeting

1. Have a brief group evaluation of the meeting.  Did you stick to
the agenda, play the agreed-upon roles?  Did you get any
commitments from the politician?  What are they?  

2. Compare your impressions of the legislator's responses and
reactions, and fill out the District Farm Bill Report (available
from the Campaign for Sustainable Ag).  What went well?  What
would you do differently next time? 

3. Write down what the congress member said he or she would do,
and any arguments raised that others lobbying for sustainable
agriculture should be aware of for future lobbying meetings. 

4. Identify the specific tasks that need to be done as follow-up:
a thank-you note (mentioning any commitments made), sending
information promised during the meeting, or reporting on the
meeting to the regional campaign coordinator.  Decide who will do
each task. 

5. Congratulate yourselves for conducting a well-planned,
professional lobby visit.
 
     Adapted from materials from the Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture, 32 N. Church St., Goshen, NY 10924, phone
914-294-0633 or fax 914-294-0632.

GRASSROOTS EFFORTS REALLY DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
by Keith Richards

     In the mid-1980's a growing number of farmers felt they were
being treated unfairly by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). 
If their loans with the agency became delinquent for any reason,
FmHA had the power to call them in without discussing options and
without an independent appeals process.  Individuals and
grassroots organizations around the country decided they wanted to
make a change, so they organized around the 1985 Food Security Act
(commonly called the 1985 Farm Bill). "It was a massive effort,"
recalls Benny Bunting, a North Carolina farmer and advisor for
Farm Plan Advocates.  "Farmers came in from all over and
testified, and learned the rules [of shaping our laws].  That's
what it takes--testifying at subcommittee and committee hearings
at every stage of the process." "There were phone trees, too.  [A
phone tree is a simple system for generating phone calls to
legislators before key votes.]  Any time the bill went through
changes, they were activated," Bunting says.  "And the media
played an important part by publicizing the crisis.  A lot of hard
work went into this." Working from the 1985 Farm Bill through the
1987 Credit Act, their efforts finally paid off in the 1990 Farm
Bill.  A policy--commonly referred to by its place in the bill,
1951-S--was put into law requiring the FmHA to give borrowers a
list of servicing options if their loans become 30 days delinquent
.  This was coupled with an independent appeals process created in
the National Appeals System.  Farmers are now informed of their
rights through due process and can appeal any adverse decision
from FmHA through an independent system. When asked if grassroots
organizing made a difference on this policy change, Bunting
replied, "It was successful because of the grassroots effort!" 
     Volunteers are setting up phone trees and coordinating visits
to the home offices of Southern legislators for the Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture.  To become involved in an issue, contact
your local Southern SAWG member organization or Julie Burns,
Southern Campaign Coordinator, 4 Lindsey Rd., Asheville, NC 28805,
phone  704-299-1922. 

SOUTHERN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE:

(Room numbers with 3 digits are in Cannon HOB, 4 digits beginning
with 1 are in the Longworth HOB, 4 digits beginning with 2 are in
Rayburn HOB.  Phone prefix is 202-225-, the switchboard is
202-224-3121.) 
                                   Phone:        Room:  
Terry Everett (R-AL, 2nd)          2901           208 
Earl Hilliard (D-AL, 7th)          2665          1007    
Jay Dickey (R-AR, 4th)             3772           230
Karen Thurman (D-FL, 5th)          1002           130
Charles Canady (R-FL, 12th)        1252          1222
Mark Foley (R-FL, 16th)            5792           506
Sanford Bishop (D-GA, 2nd)         3631          1632
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA, 8th)        6531          1708
Cynthia McKinney (D-GA, 11th)      1605           124
Ron Lewis (R-KY, 2nd)              3501           412
Scotty Baesler (D-KY, 6th)         4706           113
Richard Baker (R-LA, 6th)          3901           434
Bennie Thompson (D-MS, 2nd)        5876          1408
Eva Clayton (D-NC, 1st)            3101           222
Charlie Rose (D-NC, 7th)           2731           242
Frank Lucas (R-OK, 6th)            5565           107
Ed Bryant (R-TN, 7th)              2811          1516
Kika De La Garza (D-TX, 15th)      2531          1401
Charles Stenholm (D-TX, 17th)      6605          1211
Larry Combest (R-TX, 19th)         4005          1511
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA, 6th)          5431           123

SOUTHERN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE: 
                                   Phone:        Room:
Ray Thornton (D-AR, 2nd)           2506          1214
Jay Dickey (R-AR, 4th)             3772           230           
Jack Kingston (R-GA, 1st)          5831          1507
Bob Livingston (R-LA, 1st)         3015          2406

SOUTHERN MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE:

(Room numbers beginning with SD are in the Dirksen Bldg., SH are
in the Hart Bldg., and SR are in the Russell Bldg.  Phone prefix
is 202-224-, the switchboard is 202-224-3121.) 
                                                               
                                   Phone:        Room:
Howell Heflin (D-AL)               4124          SH-728
David Pryor (D-AR)                 2353          SR-267
Paul Coverdell (R-GA)              3643          SR-200
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)             2541          SR-120
Jesse Helms (R-NC)                 6342          SD-403
John Warner (R-VA)                 2023          SR-225

SOUTHERN MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE: 
                                   Phone:        Room:
Dale Bumpers (D-AR)                4843          SD-229
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)             2541          SR-120 
Bennett Johnston (D-LA)            5824          SH-136
Thad Cochran (R-MS), Chair         5054          SR-326

EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE NAMED FOR EXTENSION TRAINING 

     The following individuals have been selected to serve as the
first Executive Leadership Committee for the SARE sustainable
agriculture training program (often called Chapter 3) in the
Southern region: Samuel Bass, SC; Barry Colley, AR; Cynthia
Connolley, FL; Robert Jenkins, TN; Joe Judice, LA; Charles Miller,
KY; Oscar Muniz-Torres, PR; James Pease, VA; Jerry Pennick, GA;
Peggy Sechrist, TX; James Smith, NC.             
     These committee members will gather input from the diverse
circle of Southern sustainable agriculture interests, and develop
recommendations for the regional SARE/ACE Administrative Council
concerning the training of Extension and other agricultural
professionals in the South.  The committee will also evaluate
results of SARE-sponsored training projects and the state
strategic plans for sustainable agriculture.     
     If you would like to be involved in the strategic planning
and training process for sustainable agriculture in your state,
contact your state extension coordinator: 
     
AL--Ronald L. Shumack, 205-844-3214, Chinella Henderson,
205-851-5710, or Lincoln M. Moore, 205-727-8806.        

AR--Tom L. Riley, Jr., 501-671-2001.
FL--Mickie Swisher, 904-392-1869 or Cass Gardner, 904-599-3546.
GA--William Segars, 706-542-9072 or Fred Harrison, Jr.,
912-825-6296.                      
KY--Curtis Absher, 606-257-1846.
LA--Jack L. Bagent, 504-388-5336 or Adell Brown, Jr.,
504-771-2242.                      
MS--Douglas W. Houston, 601-325-2311 or William B. Patton,
601-877-6126.                      
NC--J. Paul Mueller, 919-515-5825.
OK--Gerrit Cuperus, 405-744-5531.
PR--Luis R. Mejia-Maymi, 809-834-4590.
SC--Elwyn E. Deal, 803-656-3384, or Sam D. Bass, 803-479-6991.   
TN--D. Ray Humbert, 615-974-7112 or Alvin Wade, 615-320-3650.  
TX--John R. Beverly, 409-845-7980.
VA--Gerry M. Jones, 703-231-6704 or Mitchell Patterson, Jr.,
804-524-5960. or contact the Training Consortium: Roger
Crickenberger, North Carolina State Univ., 919-515-3252, Jim
Lukens, NCAT/ATTRA, 501-442-9824, John O'Sullivan, North Carolina
A&T Univ., 910-334-7956. 

CLASSIFIEDS

Classified Advertising Rates: 25 cents per word.  Call
501-292-3714 for display ad rate. 

Northeastern market looking for quality, organic Southern produce. 
Call Countrywide Produce 412-765-1964. 

WANTED: Working partner for organic production & marketing on
family farm (20 acres) in Northeast Oklahoma.  Pretty, rural
setting with excellent highway access and markets.  Open to
negotiation with serious and qualified individual or family.  Send
introductory letter to Bob Holman, Star Route, Box 150, Kansas, OK
74347. 

Southern Sustainable Farmint
March, 1995 - Issue Number 4
Published by the Community Farm Allicance, 200 Short St. #10,
Berea, KY 40403

Please send al editorial inquiries to:

P.O. Box 324
Elkins, AR 72727
501-292-3714
email: [email-masked]

Interim editor:  Keith Richards
Editorial Board:  Janet Bachmann,Jean Mills, Renee Price, Michael
Sligh

Southern Sustainable Farming ins the voice of the Southern
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, 50 member organizations
working for more sustainable agriculture in 13 southren states. 
The Southern SAWG assists family farms and farm communities to
prosper in a healthy environment by helping remove technical,
institutional and economic barriers to sustainability.

 

From [email-masked] Sep 13 11:14:38 1995
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 00:08:48 -0400
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Community Food Security Newsletter Fall 95

The Community Food Security News Fall 1995
Andy Fisher
CFSC
Po Box 209
Venice, CA 90294
310-822-5410
[email-masked]

For a hard copy, e-mail me your street address.
Act on the Act
The Coalition's legislative efforts are now focused on getting the House's
version of the Community Food Security Act enacted as legislation in the
Senate.  As of this writing, the bill is to be sponsored by Senator Leahy (D-
VT, and minority chair of the  Agriculture Committee, and hopefully Senator
Lugar (R-IN, chair of the Agriculture Committee) and others.  We are working
over the next couple of weeks to get as many co-sponsors as possible.
 Enactment of Senate legislation will help ensure passage of the Act when the
House and Senate go to conference.  The Senate version will ask for $4
million a year, and hopefully will propose the same funding mechanism as the
House.  

To support this effort, please call your US Senators  immediately and ask
them to express their support for Senator Leahy's CFS Bill. Also ask them to
co-sponsor the bill.   You may refer to HR 2003, or if you would like a faxed
copy of the Senate legislation, contact  us (See the "For More Information"
box for our addresses).  Time is of the essence! Thanks.
________________
FOOD BANKING: NEW IDEAS FOR THE 90S
The times are a-changing for many food banks across the country. For the past
decade or so, food banks have focused on meeting the emergency food needs of
an ever increasing amount of hungry people. With conservative business
leaders (with links to the food industry) as board members, food banks have
in many cases shunned an advocacy role for a business model. Or as one food
banker put it, "We're in the business  of charitable food distribution." 

Nevertheless in recent years, a series of factors have encouraged an
increasing number of food banks to take on projects that are a departure from
their usual scope of operations. Let's take a look at these factors. 

Nutrition: The nutritional value of food bank donations has long been
questioned. Highly processed and high fat foods, such as government surplus
commodities, routinely compose a significant portion of food bank donations.
Health concerns combined with the addition of nutritionists to many food bank
staffs have raised interest in distributing more fresh fruits and vegetables
to low-income communities.

Reduced Donations: The advent of new more efficient management techniques
such as total quality management and just in time delivery in the food
processing and supermarket industries has substantially reduced corporate
food donations. Similarly,  government commodity donations have diminished
and promise to do so even further with the cost-cutting mood of Congress.
These concerns have led food banks to seek out new innovative forms of
providing food as well as to redefine their role within the food system.
Burn-Out: After 15 years of "emergencies", the emergency food system is
becoming institutionalized. The level of hunger has not abated significantly
since the "crisis" of the early Reagan era, and food bankers are continuing
to see many of the same hungry faces year in and year out. This situation has
led some food banks to consider prevention-oriented programs that attempt to
put themselves "out of business." 

These factors have led food banks to increase their presence as community
institutions, and develop food security related projects. Many of these
projects revolve around gardening and farming while others focus on education
and training.

The Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank's Green Harvest program is a
comprehensive and ambitious foray into food production and distribution.
Green Harvest has evolved  since its inception in 1991 from a community
gardening and gleaning program to include a community supported agriculture
farm and three farm stands in public housing projects. 

Central to the philosophy of the food bank is a belief that the food bank is
part of the community and has a social responsibility to make best use of its
far reaching distribution network. The development of farmstands in isolated
housing projects is an excellent example of the way in which the Food Bank
utilizes its projects for multiple purposes and grounds them  in community
organizing. The farmstands not only achieve their objectives of increasing
access to fresh foods, but also accomplish nutrition and environmental
education goals through cooking demonstrations and farm tours.

Like the Pittsburgh Food Bank, the Capitol Area Food Bank in Washington, DC
also operates a community supported agriculture farm and farmstands. From the
Ground Up operates three gardens/farms on 12 acres, producing over 60,000
lbs. of food last year. About 35% of the produce goes to the 125 members of
the community supported agriculture arrangement, who subsidize much of the
operating costs for the rest of the program. Another 10% or so is sold to
restaurants and health food stores, and the other 50% is sold at well below
market price through the seven farm stands. 

As with the Pittsburgh model, these farm stands were designed to increase
community access to fresh foods in isolated areas. They also serve as
economic development vehicles, providing part time jobs and profits for
community organizations and churches.  Leigh Hauter, director of the program,
notes however that one of the primary reasons for the farmstands is to make
connections and organize low income communities,  while helping them to
better understand questions of food security and environmental
sustainability. 
In Los Angeles, the 1992 civil disturbances proved to be the impetus for the
L.A. Regional Foodbank to become a more active force in its low income
community through the development of a community garden. With federal urban
greening funding, the Foodbank developed the 7.5 acre patch adjacent to its
warehouse.  Increased self-reliance is only one benefit for the garden's 150
members. Located in a neighborhood devoid of parks, the garden has become an
important community place for meetings and celebration. Birthday parties and
barbecues are common on weekends. 

The garden has been so successful (with an 80 person waiting list),  that the
food bank will be developing the second adjacent 7.5 acre parcel. The
Foodbank now has two community gardening persons on staff, and is planning to
assist pantries in developing their own gardens. 

Four hundred miles to the north in Oakland, the Alameda County Community Food
Bank has been attempting to foster relationships between local growers and
residential treatment programs. Motivated by a desire to help support small
organic farmers while educating low-income consumers on seasonal eating and
the environmental impacts of food production, the Food Bank project is the
vision of staff nutritionist Leslie Mikkelsen. She notes that, "I feel that
we have a role in the local food system. Because we are concerned about food
security we should be concerned about preserving agricultural
sustainability." 

The project has run into a few snags since its inception six months ago.
Having run out of funding, the Project has yet to convince a treatment
program to purchase directly from a farmer. Leslie thinks that this is
because they have focused on high-priced organic produce and farmers who
don't produce sufficient variety to meet the needs of the treatment programs.
She notes that any future effort will most likely include larger scale
growers (100-200 acres) and focus on local rather than organic agriculture.

These are just a sampling of the many food security projects that food banks
across the country are undertaking. In Atlanta, the Food Bank has developed
an educational program with a Hunger 101  curriculum as well as hosts a
community forum on affordable housing every month. The Greater Boston Food
Bank operates the Kitchen Works Program which adds value to bulk and surplus
foods to make nutritious alternatives. In Hatfield MA, the Western
Massachusetts Food Bank operates a CSA farm much like the ones in Pittsburgh
and Washington.

For other food banks interested in taking on similar projects, a few common
themes run through each of these organizations' experiences. 
*  Financial sustainability: Find a way to keep the Project from draining the
food bank's resources. Funders often like these kind of projects. Revenue
generating arrangements like CSAs can provide an important subsidy.
* Vision and Plan: Having an eye for where you're going can keep your project
on-track and free from multiple side distractions.
* Step by Step: Most successful projects added one component at a time. Don't
try to solve all the problems at once. They'll wait for you.   
* Know Your Limitations: A couple food banks had to put a halt to their job
training components of their programs once they realized that they weren't
equipped to be providing the life skills training that the workers needed. 

For more information:
Joyce Rothermel; Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, 412-672-4949.  Doris
Bloch; LA Regional Foodbank, 213-234-3030. Bill Bolling; Atlanta Community
Food Bank, 404-892-9822. Leigh Hauter; Capitol Area Community Food Bank, 202
526 5344. Leslie Mikkelsen; Alameda County Community Food Bank, 510-568-3663.
Maria Markham; Greater Boston Food Bank, 617-427- 5200. David Sharken;
Western Mass. Food Bank, 413-247-9738

FROM THE FIELD
Upcoming conferences:
National Association of the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, October 18-21;
Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Mark Winne, 203-296-9325.

The American Community Gardening Association's Gardening: Pathways to
Community, October 5- 8; Portland, Oregon. Leslie Pohl-Kosbau, Portland Parks
and Recreation, 503-823-1612. 

The Marin Institute's Safe Communities: Toward a Comprehensive Urban Agenda,
October 5-8; St. Helena, South Carolina.  Sheila James, Marin Institute,
415-456- 0491.

The 1995 Western Region Community Supported Agriculture, November 12-14; San
Francisco. Jared Lawson, CSA West,  408-459-3964. 

Northeast SAWG, "Annual Harvest Fair Conference," October 10-11; Hebron, MA.
Kathy Ruhf, New England Small Farm Institute, 413-323-4531.

The California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group's Rural-Urban
Partnerships for a Sustainable Food System, December 2-3; Menlo Park. Kai
Siedenburg, CALSAWG, 408-458-5304.

The National Congress for Community Economic Development' A Vision for Change
through Community Economic Development, October 5-7;  Portland, Oregon.
NCCED, 202-234-5009.

The E. F. Schumacher Society's 15th Annual E. F. Schumacher Lectures
featuring Cathrine Sneed, Paul Hawken, and Kent Whealy, October 21; New
Haven, CT. E. F. Schumacher Society, 413-528-1737.

Projects and Studies
Nationwide: The University of CT's Food Marketing Policy Center recently
released a comprehensive study of the lack of supermarkets in 21 inner
cities. Entitled, "The Urban Grocery Store Gap," it is available from Ronald
Cotterill at 203-486-1927.  

San Francisco: The San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners Alemany Urban
Youth Farm  provides an integrated model for an urban farm. It includes
community gardening, youth job training, a vinegar product microenterprise
components, as well as a greenhouse, orchards, and appropriate technology.
For more information, contact Muhammad Nuru, 415-285-SLUG

Los Angeles: Venice High School has teamed up with the environmental
organization Earthsave, Common Ground Gardening Program, and some of the
best-known chefs in Los Angeles to implement the Healthy School Meals
Program. This program will educate students on the environmental impacts of
their food choices, assist the food service director in providing healthy
alternatives in the school cafeteria, and revamp the school's extensive
garden. For more information, contact Susan Campbell at Earthsave,
408-423-4069.

Electronic Resources:
SANET is a computer network dedicated to sustainable agriculture concerns. To
sign up, e-mail to [email-masked] In the body of your e-mail, write
<subscribe sanet-mg>

PANUPS is the newsletter of the Pesticide Action Network. It covers many
sustainable agriculture and pesticide related issues. To sign up, send e-mail
to [email-masked], and write in the body of the text <subscribe
panups>
 
Farm Bill Review  covers a broad range of agricultural and nutrition concerns
related to the Farm Bill. To subscribe,  e-mail to [email-masked], and in
the body of the e-mail write <subscribe farm bill>

SNE_DSFS is an e-mail group for, but not limited to, members of the Division
of Sustainable Food Systems of the Society for Nutrition Education.
Information is shared on topics such as sustainable ag, food processing, food
and ag biotechnology, CSA's, etc.  To sign up, send a message asking to
subscribe to [email-masked] . 
WELFARE REFORM ANALYSIS
Ed. note:  Given the potential impact of proposed welfare reform legislation
on the food security of low-income individuals, as well as its pressing
nature, we have chosen to focus this page on the welfare reform debate and
legislation currently making its way through Congress. This article presents
a synopsis of the Dole bill- the one most likely to be acted upon, followed
by a summary of the negative effects that this bill would have on low-income
persons. If passed, this bill would have to reconciled with the House version
(HR4) in conference committee, and then signed or vetoed by the President. 

Frank Tamborello, Southern Calif. Interfaith Hunger Coalition

Senator Dole's proposal is called S. 1120. It contains a total of $16 billion
in food stamp cuts over five years. The cuts include an across the board
reduction in benefit levels, a reduction in the allowable standard deduction,
a repeal in increases in the minimum benefit level, a repeal in the increase
in the value of a vehicle that the household may own, and a change requiring
energy assistance to be counted as income in determining food stamp
eligibility.

In addition, the Dole bill includes an option for a state to decide to block
grant the food stamp program. Once the state 
did this, it could not return to the federal food stamp program. Benefits
would have to be in the form of coupons, commodities, or through electronic
transfer (not cash). 80% of the block grant funds would have to be used for
food. Some Senators may offer amendments to increase state legislation
involvement in the decision to choose block grants over the federal program.
Dole's bill cuts the child nutrition programs by over $2 billion over 5
years. Most of the cuts are reductions in reimbursement rates for children
who pay full price for school to provide child care under any circumstances.
Among the expected amendments: reduction of federal funding if a state does
not maintain its current level of welfare spending, and additional funding
for child care.

Ed Bolen, CFPA
We urge you to contact the White House, 202-456-1414, to express your
opposition to any legislation that contains the following components.
Block Grants:  Block grant proposals, for AFDC as well as Food Stamps, would
remove the entitlement status of these programs which is a guarantee that
those that fulfill all eligibility requirements would receive aid.  In the
current proposed legislation, people who need help may not get it because the
state could simply run out of money.  Without entitlements, a state recess,
local plant closure or natural disaster would result in more need for
assistance without any guarantees.
Loss of funding: All proposals include deep cuts to nutrition and cash
assistance programs, and remove a state maintenance of effort requirement
that would allow states to cease funding AFDC and other programs.
Removal of Federal Standards:  Especially for nutrition programs, federal
rules ensure equal access and program quality.
Time Limits for Aid: The five year time limit is arbitrary, doesn't take into
account individual situations and needs, and ignores the deeper need for job
training and child care.
Denial of Aid to Legal Immigrants: Denying benefits to recent immigrants and
those that are unable to make it through the citizenship process is
discriminatory and based on the myth that immigrants are draining our
resources.
Child Exclusions: Denying aid to unmarried teenage mothers, children born to
women on assistance and cutting benefits until paternity of the children is
legally established unfairly punishes the children and struggling families.