News
& Events Article
CSA farmer Jay Martin on Sustainable Food Systems
Presentation to the Assateague Coastal Trust by Jay Martin
9 March 2005 Food Security Globalization Local Food
In Brief: If people can be made to understand that nature is not something external to them, but that they are an integral part of the web of life, I believe that awareness would evolve into a respect and perhaps even a reverence for our home. Earl Butz, the former Secretary of Agriculture, said “Soon the American people will be relieved of the drudgery of growing their own food.” I am convinced he was thinking with that portion of his anatomy that his name describes, because I have found quite the contrary to be true.
I have been asked to speak to you this evening about sustainable
agriculture, but first I would like to tell you a story.
The seed I am holding is from a Fish pepper plant.
The origins of the Fish pepper are obscure, but it is believed
its ancestors were brought to this country from West Africa
during the slave trade by way of the Caribbean Islands. It is
known that the Fish pepper was an African-American heirloom that
began as a mutation of a common Serrano pepper. The plant is
very attractive, with green and white mottled foliage and
slightly curved fruit that turn from white with green stripes to
orange with brown stripes as it matures.
Fish peppers were raised almost exclusively in the black
community and used in oyster and crab dishes, and especially
when cooking terrapin. By the early 1900’s, fruits from this hot
pepper had found their way into the markets of Baltimore and
Philadelphia, where they were discovered by chefs and used as a
secret ingredient to spike seafood dishes. It has since become
popular with home and market gardeners.
The seed was first made available by Seed Savers Exchange, a
network of seed growers dedicated to preserving the heritage of
our seed supply. It is now available commercially through small
seed companies thanks to the efforts of seed savers, one of whom
lives in Delmar, Delaware.
We can scratch an opening in the soil, place a seed there and it
will sequester carbon, fix nitrogen, retain moisture, purify
air, prevent soil erosion, provide nourishment for thousands of
species of soil dwelling organisms, feed animals and people,
make compost and self replicate. That is a highly
intelligent life form, perhaps more intelligent than humans.
Michael Pollen, in his book “The Botany of Desire” contends that
humans are arrogant to think that we have cultivated plants for
our use, because, in fact, plants have actually cultivated
humans to do their bidding. As I watch plants unfold their
mysteries through a growing season, I find it difficult to
disagree with his contention.
I stand in awe of the power of a seed.
Seeds contain the wisdom of hundreds of generations of gardeners
and farmers, and that wisdom belongs to you. It should
not belong to a multi-national corporation whose myopic vision
aims to manipulate this wisdom, these capabilities, purely for
profit. That is a form of prostitution which can only
hurt society.
You may be asking yourselves, “What does this story have to do
with sustainable agriculture”?
It has everything to do with it.
This fish pepper seed is absolutely local, historically
connected to this area and preserved by someone just up the road
from here. It is not a generic vegetable seen on every
supermarket shelf and it did not travel hundreds of miles to my
field and from there to local dinner plates.
The path to a sustainable food system passes through the people
it feeds, and it must be built on the local level. For this
reason, a sustainable agricultural system cannot be considered
separately from a sustainable society.
It makes absolutely no sense to truck food for humans or any
other creature from thousands of miles away. The average meal in
the U.S. travels 1500 miles from farmgate to plate, through a
myriad of processors, packagers, handlers, truckers, warehouses
and chain stores. By the time it reaches the consumer up to 75%
of the nutritional value is gone.
In 1984 Americans were spending 8% of their disposable income on
healthcare and 15% on food, today those numbers are reversed
because we are eating food that has been stripped of most of its
sustenance. Furthermore, the farmer who grows the food that
should be sustaining you is not sustaining himself - typically
he or she receives 10% of the food dollar; while at the turn of
the century that farmer could count on 50%. For any farming
system to be sustainable, the first thing that must be sustained
is the farmer.
In his essay titled “The Pleasures of Eating”, Wendell Berry
says that eating is an agricultural act. If we extrapolate that
statement to its logical conclusion we arrive at the
understanding that we are all farmers, either by occupation or
by proxy. According to the 2000 census, farmers, those who
actually do work the land, account for less than 2% of the
population, … for policy makers that makes us statistically
irrelevant. Think about that fact for a moment, more than
a moment…the people that feed you are statistically irrelevant.
If you do not grow your own food, then you have given that
responsibility to someone or something else. But
you still have the right and more importantly, the
responsibility to decide how your food is grown and where it
comes from. Most of us have forgotten this right and
abdicated this responsibility, leaving these decisions to be
juggled with profit motives in corporate boardrooms under the
precarious supervision of the USDA, the FDA, the EPA and the
various political interests which manipulate them.
So the next question that arises is “Why have we given up
such important rights and responsibilities”? I will offer three
possible answers for your consideration.
One possible answer can be found in a study done by a group of
biologists for The American Institute of Biological Sciences.
They tried to understand the possible effects on humans of a
disturbing global trend: the tendency of populations to
concentrate in urban areas with distinctly low levels of species
diversity. Why do we all live with pigeons, sparrows and Norway
maples when our environment should, by nature, offer so much
more?
Their answer?
They suggested that being surrounded by pale imitations of what
nature could be diminished one's expectations of what
nature should be. We are forgetting, and losing, what we
have!
They offered 2 solutions: we could move nature to the people, or
move the people to nature. The researchers preferred bringing
nature to people because the alternative could cause serious
disruption of ecosystems. I believe both solutions have merit.
There are some wonderful success stories about reclaiming
blighted areas of our inner cities with urban gardening projects
that connect people to their food supply. We can bring some
experience of the natural world into our urban centers. We can
also, carefully, move people closer to the natural
world.
If people can be made to understand that nature is not something
external to them, but that they are an integral part of the web
of life, I believe that awareness would evolve into a respect
and perhaps even a reverence for our home. Earl Butz, the former
Secretary of Agriculture, said “Soon the American people will be
relieved of the drudgery of growing their own food.” I am
convinced he was thinking with that portion of his anatomy that
his name describes, because I have found quite the contrary to
be true. On our farm, we have volunteers who come on harvest
days to help pick and prepare the produce for delivery. I am
always amazed at how much they enjoy themselves. Many of them
have told me that they never realized the amount of work that
goes into growing food, but they truly enjoy being a part of the
process.
The second possible answer can be found in our flawed accounting
practices. The American Empire was built on three false
assumptions.
1. That we were blessed with an inexhaustible supply of
natural resources.
2. That we could always import a necessary workforce
cheaply.
3. That our transportation costs would remain low and
stable.
We are now coming to terms with the reality that these
assumptions are, in fact, false but we are unwilling to
sacrifice the level of comfort they provide. The present biased
structure of subsidies and incentives that reward bad behavior
has fostered a dangerous misconception. We suffer from an
illusion of unprecedented prosperity and economic growth while
we live in a land of degraded farms, forests, ecosystems and
watersheds; polluted air, failing families and perishing
communities. We must bring the security of our planet’s
ecological capital into the calculations of the marketplace.
Cheap food is not cheap;
when you pay $1.25 for chicken in the supermarket you do not pay
the cost of cleaning up the rivers polluted by the poultry
industry. In its 2004 Living Planet Report, the World Wildlife
Fund revealed the shocking news that our ecological footprint,
that is, the impact of humanity on the Earth, has increased two
and a half fold since 1961. The report showed that the average
footprint is 5.4 acres per person. There is a problem here -
that footprint is 20% greater than the 4.4 acres of land that
each person on the planet needs to provide the necessary natural
resources to sustain life. The average footprint of a North
American is not only double that of a European, but seven times
that of the average Asian or African.
The third possible answer to this question is one that has
intrigued me for years. We have, quite simply, lost our
reverence for Creation. I used to blame this on Eve for making
that uninformed pact with the serpent. As a result of that poor
decision, we were kicked out of the Garden and told we must toil
for our food. I believed that this drove a wedge between
humanity and the natural world, creating an antagonistic
relationship, and that we have suffered the consequences ever
since. But after taking a couple of courses at SU and doing
quite a bit of independent reading, I have come to the
conclusion that we were not kicked out of the Garden, we
are still in the Garden, but we are operating on the
wrong principles. I now hold the fathers of the scientific
revolution responsible. I should never have blamed a woman and I
should have known that men with their “get a bigger hammer
approach” to a problem were responsible.
The Scientific Revolution started a gradual transformation of
society that has caused us to devalue the natural world and to
destroy its resources for utilitarian ends. In his keynote
address at the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable
Agriculture’s conference in 1999, Wm. McDonough pointed out that
the question posed in Genesis regarding dominion versus
stewardship is actually moot: how can we have dominion over what
we have destroyed?
In the same address, McDonough, a designer, told the audience
that he sees design as the first signal of human intention. If
the systems we design prove to have faults as they are applied,
it is not by regulations that will only further encumber the
application that we will solve the problems of that poor design,
but by re-design. Certainly we did not intend to design a
system of agriculture that pollutes our water, air and soil,
enslaves farmers, compromises our health and ultimately
tyrannizes future generations. These are the unintended
consequences of our poor design. I see no purpose in bashing the
industrial agriculture model other than to inform us about the
perils we face if we continue on this course. I prefer to heed
the advice of Buckminster Fuller when he said, “You never change
anything by fighting the existing. To change something, build a
new model and make the existing obsolete”.
It is to that end that I, along with a dedicated group of hard
working folks, have been working for the past 5 years. We are
working toward a regionally based, safe, just and sustainable
food system in the Community Supported Agriculture farming
model, known as CSA farms.
The CSA model emphasizes mutual, shared responsibility: a
committed group of consumers accepts the financial
responsibility for the farm and the farmer returns his
commitment by growing the highest quality of food he is able to
produce for them. The essence of the relationship is mutual
commitment: the farmer is motivated by the needs of the
shareholders and the shareholders are motivated by the needs
of the farmer. The roots of the CSA movement can be traced to
what are called Teikei farms in Japan. Teikei translates to
“food with the farmer's face on it”.
After the second world war, when chemical inputs were introduced
to increase the yields on Japanese farms and the population
became increasingly urbanized, both farmers and their customers
were concerned about the degradation of the land and the poor
quality and availability of food. Cooperative arrangements were
established to deliver food to the urban population. The concept
spread through Europe where farmers sought market stabilization
and consumers sought fresh, nutritious food.
In 1983, Robyn van En, a Massachusetts farmer was approached by
a local food co-op seeking someone to grow winter storage crops.
This arrangement was successful and with a group of dedicated
people, Indian Line Farm became the first consumer-driven CSA
farm in this country. She began writing the book “Sharing the
Harvest” but died of asthma before its completion. Elizabeth
Henderson completed the book, which has become an important
source of guidance for start-up CSA’s. The term Community
Supported Agriculture was chosen by Robyn because it can be
transposed into Agriculture Supported Communities, which defined
her dream.
CSA’s spread throughout the northeast, mostly in university
communities, but also among group homes for the handicapped that
recognized the therapeutic value of gardening. Emergency food
banks have also discovered the benefits of growing their own
food.
At The Food Bank Farm in western Massachusetts, 50% of the food
is distributed to the local food bank and 50% is distributed to
the shareholders. The entire cost of operating the farm is borne
by the shareholders. Because food distribution costs are
minimized by eliminating middlemen, the shareholders receive
more for their food dollar than if the same produce were
purchased at the local supermarket.
Most CSA’s require a work commitment, either on or off the farm.
Tasks such as bookkeeping, budgeting, recruiting new members,
publishing a weekly newsletter and coordinating farm events such
as potluck dinners and activities for children are available to
the members not interested in getting their hands dirty. For
those who like to play in the dirt we have transplanting
parties, mulching extravaganzas, lessons on how to drive tomato
stakes and tie tomatoes and the twice weekly picking parties. I
am particularly blessed with a member who loves hand-weeding.
All of this relieves the farmer of these chores so he or she can
focus on growing the crops and practicing good stewardship of
the land. Member involvement enables the CSA to fit itself to
the community it serves. The success rate of CSA’s is directly
proportional to the level of member involvement.
I first learned about CSA farms at a conference in Virginia in
1985 where Trauger Groh, a German farmer who had started a CSA
in New Hampshire, spoke on the topic. After listening to Mr.
Groh, I believed the CSA model had the potential to save
struggling family farms from almost certain extinction. At that
time I was in the greenhouse business providing transplants to
local vegetable farmers and seeking to expand my market. I
attempted to identify CSA farms and offer my service. Within a
few years, I was custom-growing transplants for about 25 CSA’s.
I watched them grow and prosper and decided to sell my
greenhouse business and start a CSA here. In 2001 I sold Silver
Seed Greenhouses to a local couple and started Provident Organic
Farm based on the CSA model in 2002.
If you recall, 2002 was one of the worst drought years on record
and our harvest was just as poor as the rainfall. Typical
retention rate for a first year CSA is 35%, miraculously, we
retained 65% of the members for the second year and we went into
2003 with 100 members. You may recall that 2003 was one of the
wettest years on record and our harvest reflected that. Once
again, the members honored their commitment and we went into
2004 with high hopes.
Last year was the great year we were hoping for. By the 25th
week of our 30 week season the membership had received dollar
value for their share cost. The shares they received for the
balance of the season were essentially free.
In the three years we have been in existence, we have trained a
young man in organic vegetable farming who is now working in
Detroit on a community food project that enables poor families
to grow their own food.
We have established an alliance with Go-Getters in Salisbury to
help with distributing the shares.
We started the Lower Eastern Shore Sustainable Organic Network,
known as LESSON, a non-profit organization with the mission of
identifying local farmers interested in making the transition to
sustainable practices and helping them to do so by providing
technical and marketing assistance.
We created the Medora Harvest Fund to honor the memory of a
young woman who, prior to her tragic death at the age of 23, had
dedicated herself to organic farming. This fund accepts
tax-deductible donations to distribute food shares to families
in need of assistance.
This year we are cooperating with an international organization
that brings interns to this country to study sustainable
agriculture so they can return to their homes with an expanded
knowledge base to share with other farmers.
We also have a documentary film crew interested in helping us
create a video about the farm that, I hope, can be used in
classrooms.
This is just the beginning. I see food as a powerful unifying
force in society, it has been so throughout our history. I look
forward to the future when we can assist in establishing micro
enterprises that grow high value crops, perhaps this can be done
by a group of young women struggling to raise their fatherless
children and in need of skills to set them free. I would like to
establish handicapped accessible gardens around a children’s
garden to reconnect the elders with our young people. I would
like to restock the soda and junk food machines in our schools
with organic fruit juices and nutritious snacks.
Impossible?
Only if you think it is, if you can imagine it, you can do it.
Food is the vehicle, community is the destination.
I look forward to the day when farmers claim their rightful
place in society as the first line of defense in our health care
system and are properly compensated for their work.
In closing, I will tell you another story. A few years ago I
went to Salina, Kansas for the Prairie Festival at the Land
Institute. After two days of inspiring talks given by Wendell
Berry, David Korten, Winona LaDuke and others, the crowd
gathered on Sunday morning for the closing address from Wes
Jackson. His talk titled “Life on the Farm, 100 Years Hence”,
described his hopeful vision for agriculture in the 22nd
century:
When perennial polycultures have replaced annual monocultures and, as a result the soils are weatherproof.
When the farm grows its own fuel.
When farmers are no longer like gamblers betting against the house.
When we are no longer trying to subdue nature, but realize that nature provides the model for us to follow.