The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in California said it has received a strong response to the new Conservation Stewardship Program. Applications were received from 412 California landowners, representing 534,101 acres of farm and ranchland and 85,527 acres of forestland for the program that compensates producers for high levels of stewardship and encourages them to undertake additional conservation practices and management.

The 2008 Farm Bill program was made available for the first time beginning in September, 2009.

“California’s agricultural producers respond consistently and positively to the voluntary incentives approach to environmental protection,” Acting State Conservationist Gayle Norman said in a statement. “This just provides additional evidence that our conservation-minded producers and landowners want to attain higher levels of conservation stewardship.”

Congress capped enrollment nationally at 12,769,000 acres per year. Applicants will compete within state and within pools for the same land use and will be told in November whether their application has been accepted. If not, they will have the option to participate in the second sign-up period, which runs through January 2010.

Once the participant has been approved for funding, he or she must develop a conservation stewardship plan and commit to implementing it. The program’s payment rates will be based on a combination of points determined by the producer’s current and planned conservation enhancements. USDA said the payments are based on the cost of the stewardship activities undertaken, income forgone, and environmental benefits achieved.

Eligible lands include cropland, grassland, improved pastureland, rangeland, non-industrial private forestland, and agricultural land under jurisdiction of an Indian tribe. Eligible applicants include individual landowners, Indian tribes, and legal entities.

For information about CSP, producers can visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/new_csp/csp.html or contact their local NRCS field office.

This month, Starbucks locations in the United Kingdom and Ireland began serving “100% Starbucks Shared Planet and Fairtrade Certified Espresso” to the local clientele –an average of two million people per week. So figure that’s a lot of cappuccino contributing to better wages and working conditions for small-scale farmers.

Starbucks, already the largest producer of fair trade coffee in the world, is making an even bigger promise: In partnership with Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO), the company intends for every espresso-based drink to be Starbucks Fairtrade-certified within the next six month at all Starbucks locations in Europe.

Starbucks Fairtrade Certified Espresso is grown mostly in Latin America, specifically Guatemala, Costa Rica and Peru. Their farming communities will immediately benefit financially from the transition, according to Starbucks, which estimates the switch will contribute over $4 million annually to these smaller farmers.

When it comes to the environment, Starbucks, which ranked 10th on Newsweek’s recent list of America’s top green companies, also is concerned about the cup your coffee arrives in.

While most people assume that Starbucks paper coffee cups are recyclable, this is not entirely true. Only some communities have the ability to recycle them. Most commercial and residential recycling services cannot currently process this form of packaging.

One of Starbucks’ cups it reads, “Your business lets Starbucks do business in a way that’s better for the planet. Like leading the way in cup technology with the first U.S. hot cups made with 10% post-consumer recycled fiber, and cup sleeves that use 60%. Starbucks is working on a cup that’s 100% recyclable too.”

Starbucks has committed to developing a recyclable cup by 2012. In an effort to meet their goal, Global Green USA’s Coalition for Resource Recovery, has partnered with Starbucks on a pilot recycling program for their cups at seven Starbucks stores in Manhattan.

The objective of this program is to develop a cost-effective mechanism to close the loop on paper packaging, which would in turn, reduce greenhouse gases and help cities divert trash from landfills.

The coffee cups will be collected by the company, Action Carting, at the pilot stores. Pratt Industries will recycle the cups in combination with old corrugated cardboard (OCC), the most extensively recycled material in the United States.

“In addition to the cup design, it’s critical that we address the full product life cycle including the recycling collection infrastructure,” said Jim Hanna, Starbucks director of Environmental Impact in a statement.

In other words, Starbucks can’t operate in a vacuum, but will need recyclers at the ready.

Nor is the issue small potatoes (unless of course it the cups are eventually made by Earth Shell, which uses potato manufacturing waste to make paper cups and bowls.).

According to Global Green USA: “Every year, 58 billion paper cups are used in the US at restaurants, events, and homes. If all paper cups in the U.S. were recycled, 645,000 tons of waste would be diverted from landfills each year.”
That would reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2.5 million tons of CO2, the equivalent of removing 450,000 passenger cars from the road.

The results of the pilot program will be announced in November.

In the meantime, there is a better alternative. In most locations, you can take your Starbucks reusable coffee mug in for a fill up. Not only will you be helping the planet, you will receive a 10 cent discount and your coffee will stay warm longer.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

They’re soft and cute with big round eyes, lamb-like faces, long necks and semi-fixed smiles. Bigger than a dog, smaller than a horse, an alpaca has all that, plus it may be the most environmentally correct animal on the planet.

How so?

1. They have padded feet, not hooves. That means they don’t damage a delicate landscape. (Lots of heavy hooves clomping around can lead to soil erosion and weeds.)

2. They don’t have upper teeth. Thus, they gently trim tender grass with their bottom teeth and upper palate, rather than pulling it up by its roots. (Can you say cow?) Their gentle nibbling keeps grass growing. But they’re not too picky: alpacas don’t mind eating some leaves and brush.

3. A group of alpacas prefer to leave their droppings in a single communal area. And if that’s not handy enough, their pellet-sized droppings make a great natural, slow-release fertilizer, according to the Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association.

4. They don’t need chemicals or insecticides or herbicides or fertilizer: Alpacas are all natural.

5. They don’t eat a lot and they like hanging out with each other, so you can fit 5 to 10 of them on an acre (a nice acre, mind you).

6. The best part: Shorn about once a year, usually in the spring, an alpaca will provide 5 to 10 pounds of some of the finest fiber in the world (in 22 natural colors).

Itching to see one? Check out the National Alpaca Farm Days website. This weekend (Sept. 26 and 27), alpaca farmers nationwide will open their gates for you to visit their flocks and perhaps show you the luxe end-product: alpaca wool, in the raw or woven.

A quick tour of the list of farms across the country shows that alpacas are in almost every state, not too far from New York City, Los Angeles and other urban areas.

The animals are native to the mountainous regions of Peru, Bolivia and Chile. They have been domesticated for more than 5,000 years, but they only arrived in the U.S. about 25 years ago. Their ranks have steadily grown to more than 150,000, said Cindy Berman, a representative of the Alpaca Owners & Breeders Association. Even though they came from cool mountainous climates, they can be comfortable in most any part of the country (with some climate-correct adjustments).

“Ohio has the largest number of alpacas,” Berman said. “The second state is Washington.”

After 9/11, many stressed urban residents decided to move their families to calmer, quieter digs, and the alpacas fit in nicely. “It’s a good way to get into farming,” she said.

Softer, smaller cousins of the llama, alpacas in the U.S. come in two varieties: The Huacaya is more common and has a short, wooly coat, and the Suri has silky fibers that look a bit like delicate dreadlocks.

Many alpaca farmers work with the nation’s Alpaca Fiber Cooperative to process and sell their fiber. Some, however, do their own spinning and weaving and sell alpaca items in their farm stores. According to AlpacaInfo.com, raw alpaca fiber can cost from $2 to $5 per ounce, but in a finished garment it can cost $10 per ounce. Knit it by hand and a garment can cost up to $1,000.

Other alpaca facts: They cost anywhere from several hundred to many thousands of dollars. Adults are about 3 feet tall at the withers (where the neck meets the back). They weigh between 150 to 200 pounds and are communal (so you can’t have just one). They give birth once a year, and their offspring are called “crias.” Alpacas live to be 15 to 20 years old.

Farmers say they are smart and curious. They are ruminants, eating grass and hay, chewing cud.

They’re not perfect pet material, although young ones learn to hang around people and put up with petting and walking with a harness. Perhaps their only flaw is that they will spit when upset – but mostly at each other.

Best of all, you’ll hear no mooing or whinnying or baying or grunting or squawking. The alpaca only emits a gentle hum. Many alpacas, many hums. How peaceful is that?

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Leading organizations from the world’s dairy industry say they will sign a Global Dairy Agenda for Action during the World Dairy Summit Sept. 24 in Berlin, Germany. The Global Dairy Agenda for Action is an industry pledge to reduce carbon emissions as part of its contribution to help address global warming. It will be signed by seven organizations on behalf of the world’s dairy associations and companies.

The declaration also will seek the support of policy makers to provide a supportive regulatory environment that recognizes the important economic, social and environmental contributions of the dairy industry.

“This Agenda for Action represents an unprecedented level of cooperation across national borders and along the dairy supply chain. The global dairy community and its partners have pooled resources, knowledge and projects to achieve a more sustainable future,” Povl Krogsgaard, deputy managing director of Arla Foods, said in a statement.

The declaration is being signed by Eastern and Southern African Dairy Association (ESADA); European Dairy Association (EDA); Pan-American Dairy Federation (FEPALE); Global Dairy Platform (GDP); International Dairy Federation (IDF); International Federation of Agriculture Producers (IFAP); Sustainable Agricultural Initiative Platform (SAI Platform).

Dairy Industry participants have already begun action in areas like emissions reduction, energy efficiency, transportation efficiency, reduction in loss of milk and milk products, resource efficiency and life cycle analysis and management. These individual activities are not specifically defined in the declaration, but they continue to be major initiatives for the dairy industry throughout the world.

The Global Dairy Agenda for Action will include a five point commit that includes the development of a standard method for assessing the carbon footprint of milk and dairy products. It also looks to promote adoption of best practices among dairy farms and establish tools to facilitate the measurement and monitoring of emissions on farms and in dairy manufacturing.

The effort also is intended to educate farmers about agricultural emissions and their opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as how to share information and develop cost effective mitigation technologies.

Palm Oil, an ingredient found in most processed food, has been the subject of much environmental debate in recent years over its role in deforestation. It is commonly found in cooking oil and as an ingredient in cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and some plastics. Palm oil also has been considered for use in the production of biodiesel.

There have been many attempts to make palm oil sustainable. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was even established in 2003 to do just that. Unfortunately, six years later, there is still no system that can effectively trace palm oil beyond the processor to the plantation level. Companies that manufacture products using palm oil have little way of knowing where the controversial substance originated — which leaves the question of whether and to what degree palm oil is sustainably farmed up in the air.

This week, a press campaign run by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) and aimed at putting the best spin on the industry ran aground when Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a magazine ad by the Malaysian boosters.

The headline of the MPOC’s magazine advertisement read: “Palm Oil: The Green Answer.”

As if that were not misleading enough, the ad made many more claims, such as:

• “Palm oil is the only product able to sustainably and efficiently meet a large portion of the world’s increasing demand for oil crop-based consumer goods, foodstuffs and biofuel … Malaysia’s forest cover is certain to be maintained.”
• “With the increased attention paid to oil crops, and oil palm in particular, a number of criticisms have been leveled at Malaysia’s palm oil industry, from accusations of rampant deforestation and unsound environmental practices to unfair treatment of farmers and indigenous people. These allegations – protectionist agendas hidden under a thin veneer of environmental concern – are based neither on scientific evidence, nor, for that matter, on fact.”
• “In addition to its green credentials, Malaysia’s palm oil industry also plays an important role in the industrialization of the country and the alleviation of poverty, especially amongst rural populations.”

The advertisement violated substantiation, truthfulness, and the environmental claims sections of the Advertising Standards Authority’s Code, according to the group’s assessment.

“Although we acknowledged that some Malaysian palm oil companies had sought certification from the RSPO [the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil], we understood that the scheme and the certification of biofuels in general was still the subject of debate,” stated the Advertising Standards Authority’s Assessment.

They report explained that “palm oil had played a role in the development of the Malaysian economy in its shift from reliance on rubber and tin mining” and it acknowledged MPOCs assertion that this created one million jobs.

But it also noted that environmental and human rights groups had legitimate complaints about palm oil producers. Friends of the Earth, for instance, contends that palm oil production creates adverse social impacts by displacing indigenous communities affected by deforestation.

Issues over housing and land rights and low wages and poor treatment of workers “compromised MPOCs claim that palm oil had a societal benefit,” the advertisers assessment stated.

The advertising regulators concluded that the magazine ad must no longer appear in its current form.

There is no such thing as sustainable palm oil, at least not yet, according to the ASA.

Malaysian leader presses palm oil’s virtues

The MPOC fired back on Wednesday, complaining that the ASA was relying on FOE’s biased environmental conclusions and arguing that palm oil, being the cheapest vegetable oil, should be available to consumers, especially the poor.

“Today, the ASA ruled that an advertorial in The Economist highlighting the economic importance and environmental sustainability of Malaysian Palm Oil should not appear in any other UK media outlets. The ruling followed a complaint by Friends of the Earth about the advertorial. By censoring our message, this relatively small group of people is blocking the entire British public’s access to a diverse range of views and information about Palm Oil,” wrote the Malaysian group’s CEO Tan Sri Datuk Dr. Yusof Basiron.

“Consumers have a right to have information about the various products and services available to them and a right to determine for themselves which they want. Consequently, we are deeply concerned that the ASA is acting as an interested party in the public debate on palm oil rather than as a neutral and objective arbiter.”

California has one of the most widely adopted green wine-growing and wine-making programs in the world, one that has earned the state’s top environmental award. The California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance, established by Wine Institute and the California Association of Winegrape Growers, maintains a web site to help members of the state’s wine-making industry stay informed on sustainability issues.

“Consumers are interested in knowing where and how their wines are grown and made, and the California wine community has responded by becoming a progressive advocate of environmentally conscious practices,” Robert P. (Bobby) Koch, president and CEO of Wine Institute, said in a statement. “As our sustainable program develops and expands, we’re seeing how responsible sustainable practices have a positive impact on the environment and in our communities.”

The organization says the term “sustainability” has a specific meaning for California’s vintners and winegrape growers. “Sustainable practices include the way we preserve and protect the land, water, and air, and how we responsibly interact with employees and local communities,” Karen Ross, president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, said in a statement. “We also want to ensure that wine-growing families have viable businesses to pass on, and provide consumers the value they’ve come to expect from California wines.”

California’s sustainability movement is built around the Code of Sustainable Winegrowing, a 16-chapter workbook that lays out best practices for soil, ecosystems, air quality, pest control, water conservation, recycling, energy efficiency and wine quality, among many other practices. The Code has formalized socially and environmentally responsible ways to farm and make wine from the ground to the glass.

The Alliance has released this video to show highlights of the program’s earth-friendly practices, which it says are embraced by the majority of the state’s vintners and wine-grape growers:

Very low doses of some types of the herbicide Roundup can disrupt human liver cell function; the formulations’ toxicity may be tied to their “inactive” ingredients rather than the active weed-killing ingredient glyphosate, according to a report this week from Environmental Health News.

French scientists report that a number of Roundup formulations tested at very dilute concentrations can alter hormone actions and cause human liver cells to die within 24 hours of treatment.

The toxicity of some of the formulations was independent of how much glyphosate – the active herbicide in Roundup – they contained, suggesting it is other “inert” ingredients that may alone – or in combination with each other and/or the weedkiller – assault the cells. This study’s results are similar to prior studies – as reported in a recent Environmental Health News article – that find human embryo cells are affected more by the Roundup formulations and an inert ingredient than by the active ingredient.

The levels of Roundup used in this study are similar to what is typically found in food crops or animal feed treated with Roundup. Because of this, it is possible that people, livestock and wildlife may be exposed to levels of the herbicide mix that can damage cells, the report says.

When we put our shoes on, we don’t really think about where they’ve been before they got to us.

Most likely, they were manufactured somewhere overseas, China or Vietnam perhaps, then shipped to the United States. But where did the material used to manufacture them come from? Are your shoes made of leather? If so, there’s a chance they’re contributing to climate change — and the illegal destruction of the Amazon rainforest.

Greenpeace International says rainforests are being needlessly lost not just to the meat trade but to the leather industry, as cattle ranches expand illegally in Brazilian Amazon region.

In June, Greenpeace released Slaughtering the Amazon, a three year investigation into the deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. The group found that illegal incursions by cattle ranchers were rapidly depleting the forests, which released large quantities of greenhouse gases otherwise stored in the tropical environment.

“Forest destruction accounts for almost 1/5 of global emissions-that is more climate pollution than all the world’s cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships combined,” said Lindsey Allen, Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace.

“Slaughtering the Amazon” estimates that illegal expansion of cattle ranches is responsible for 80% of all deforestation, and according to Greenpeace, “the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for an average of one acre lost every 8 seconds.”

Usually, this would be when we would expect for someone to tell us to pay attention to where our steak is coming from. It’s true that Brazil is now the world’s largest beef exporter, and the meat trade is a huge player in deforestation. But the actual beef is not the only big money maker.  The hides of the cattle play a larger role than you might imagine in its value.

Leather accounts for more than one quarter of the total value of the cattle trade for Brazil. The report states that “the Brazilian leather industry’s total export revenue in 2008 was $1.9 billion from some 24,800,000 million hides.” The largest use of the leather is not furniture or garments, but shoe production.

Bertin, the world’s largest leather trader, receives their hides from the Brazilian Amazon and supplies brands such as Nike, Adidas/Reebok, Timberland, Prada, Geox, and Clarks.

These surprising details contained in the “Slaughtering of the Amazon” were eye-opening to these shoe manufactures. Nike took the first step.

“When Greenpeace brought this issue to our attention we knew that Amazon deforestation is a serious concern and one that required we immediately look into our supply chain and leather sourcing,” stated Kate Meyers, Corporate Communications Manager for Nike. The company has developed a new policy that’s asking suppliers to verify where they’re getting their leather.

Putting Leather on a More Sustainable Track

Nike is giving suppliers until July 1, 2010, to create a transparent system showing none of the leather came from ranches responsible for illegal deforestation. Nike also will require that suppliers join the Leather Working Group by December 2009.

“Our hope for the new policy is that through the Leather Working Group the industry will work together over the next 12 months to institute a traceability system that the entire industry can use,” said Meyers.

The Leather Working Group (LWG), founded in 2005, is engaged in reducing environmental impacts through the footwear leather supply chain. They audit leather manufacturers, ranking them on environmental stewardship. The LWG will help set the traceability and measurement requirements for the new system, which will be incorporated into current protocol.

Other shoe companies also are trying to make changes. Adidas/Reebok released their policy last week.

Greenpeace, however, is not certain the Adidas/Reebok plan goes far enough, because it may not hold all suppliers accountable. The Adidas/Reebok policy restricts all leather trading with the Amazon Biome suppliers, but Greenpeace worries that other leather traders could still receive leather from the rainforest  and sell to Adidas/Reebok.

“The policy in our opinion needs to be strengthened a bit…We believe it is better to set a timeline to suppliers of leather to commit to an end of new deforestation within the Amazon,” said Oliver Salge, Head Forest and Oceans Campaigner for Greenpeace. Adidas/Reebok and Greenpeace are currently working together to develop a stronger policy.

Meanwhile, Bertin also is under guidance from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation to tighten its supply chain and make sure its operations do not encourage illegal deforestation or the illegal use of lands belonging to indigenous people.

For consumers who want to be part of the solution, environmentally friendly shoes are popping up everywhere.

• Online mega-shoe store Zappos has eco-friendly and vegan categories.

• La Sportiva has a new line of recycled shoes. Their new sustainable shoes are made of recycled rubber for the outsole and recycled nylon for the mesh, laces, webbing, and lining.

• Another brand, Simple shoes, whose slogan is “shoes for a happy planet”, offers a 100% sustainable product. You will never guess what things they use to make their shoes. Simple Shoes (pictured, right) are made out of materials such as hemp, bamboo, corks, car tires, and coconut shells.

(Photo credits: Greenpeace International, Nike, Simple Shoes.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Greenpeace’s report “Slaughtering the Amazon” notes that Brazil’s thriving and expanding cattle trade, which has made it the world’s largest exporter of beef and the top producer (along with China) of leather, has out-sized environmental consequences.

“The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is responsible for 14% of the world’s annual deforestation. This makes it the world’s largest driver of deforestation, responsible for more forest loss than the total deforestation in any country outside Brazil except Indonesia,” according to the report, the result of a three-year investigation by Greenpeace International.

The report’s findings suggest dire consequences for the planet if illegal deforestation associated with the beef and leather industries is not stopped because the Amazon rainforests absorb and hold huge quantities of carbon pollution.

“The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted,” according to the report, which relied on government and research institute statistics.

“Slaughtering the Amazon” details how the cattle industry is growing in Brazil, fueled by favorable laws that encourage rapid growth and global companies such as Bertin, JBS and Marfrig that profess neutrality, but actually source from ranches that have moved into rainforest areas, according to the Greenpeace report, released in June.

“Greenpeace has identified hundreds of ranches within the Amazon rainforest supplying cattle to slaughterhouses in the Amazon region belonging to these companies. Where Greenpeace was able to obtain mapped boundaries for ranches, satellite analysis reveals that significant supplies of cattle come from ranches active in recent and illegal deforestation.”

Greenpeace investigators go on to explain that these goods travel into the food chain, unbeknown to consumers and often unchecked by Blue Chip companies worldwide. The products effectively vanish into the global market, becoming meat in packaged meals, leather upholstery in cars and fine Italian shoes.

Greenpeace supports many possible solutions including:

• More responsibility on the part of consumer companies in how they source and verify raw goods.
• Stronger world support for the Amazon Fund set up in Brazil  to help stop deforestation by providing alternative financial support to landowners and people living in the tropical regions — an idea that’s been roundly praised but thinly funded, mainly by Norway and Germany, according to Greenpeace.
• Leading industrialized countries must cut their carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels) to avoid a “tipping point” in which climate change careens forward unchecked. Greenpeace (among many other groups) wants world leaders to agree to this level of commitment at the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December.
• A world commitment to zero deforestation by 2015 in the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and the Paradise forests of Southeast Asia, because these forests help slow global warming and also because they are home to indigenous peoples.

Okay, here’s the poop on cow power: Dairy farmers from Wisconsin to Vermont are learning that they – and their bovine partners – can produce more than milk and manure. By converting the methane from cow patties into electricity, rural farms can provide their community with power – and in the process, eliminate the odors associated with dairy farming.

“The neighbors like it,” quips Steve Costello of the Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS)’s Cow Power program, which supplies 4,000 customers with the help of  6,000 cows. “You can have a barbecue on the Fourth of July without worrying the dairy farm next door is going spread some manure and wipe everyone out!”

Much more than that, of course, are the ecological benefits of using cow power:

• It’s a renewable energy source, not a dirty or fossil-fuel fed one (half of the energy used in the U.S. comes from coal).

• It reduces methane emissions, which are more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, trapping more heat in the atmosphere pound per pound.

• The final, solid product – after a process that includes a “digester” which breaks down the chemicals and bacteria, while the methane is trapped to generate electricity – can be used for bedding that is similar to straw, which typically has to be trucked in. (Once soiled, the bedding can be recycled yet again – returned to the digester and covnerted to topsoil or sold as fertilizer.

• Farmers use the slurry product that comes out the other end of the process, so to speak, to fertilize their fields, but with much less danger of spreading bacteria and toxins into the soil when they spread their manure.

• The digester itself kills most of the pathogens found in maure, includin E coli.

• Bonus fact: One cow can keep two 100-watt lightbulbs lit 24 hours a day, presumably in perpetuity.

“You’re taking a huge amount of waste out of the stream, if you will,” says Costello, explaining that CVPS started Cow Power in 2005 and is one of four such programs in Vermont.

“Nationally, cow power may not work so well – you’re talking about cows, so it’s typically got to be in rural areas – but it replaces dirty energy when it can. And a lot of our farms are using the heat left over from the generator to heat water for cleaning – supplanting either propane or number two, heating oil. That’s thousands of gallons that they’re not burning.”

Cows: An electric idea

Costello is an enthusiastic promoter of cow poo as energy, but out in Waterloo, Wisconsin, Crave Brothers Farms is helping their cattle reach their ultimate potential: To make dairy products, while converting their poop into energy for their home and cheese factory, as well as hundreds of Wisconsin homes. (Crave cows produce 650 KW per hour, which can power 550 households).

Mark Crave, who has come in from his 1,800-acre spread to talk on the phone, says the idea isn’t a new one to the family, which produces Farmstead Classics brand cheeses. He and his three brothers own and run the farm, along with their combined 12 offspring, and some of their offspring. He says there are a number of reasons why the family has jumped on the poop train, not the least of which is that, once through the digesters and generators and presses, their cow manure has almost totally eliminated the need to buy commercial fertilizers. The Craves like that, financially and ecologically.

The brothers started their poop power program about three years ago, although elder brother Charles Crave had been contemplating it since he founded the farm/cheese factory in 1981.

“It’s something that’s always been on our radar. We grew up on a dairy farm about 60 miles from here. My dad loved farming and he loved innovating. He oftentimes, when we were growing up,  would take us to farming trade shows and on field trips. And in the car on the way home , he’d say, ‘Boy, wasn’t that something?’ Or ‘What if we tried this?’ … Having four of us around, we were constantly kicking that ball aorund, if you will: How to change things, how to improve things. … Charles was always interested in (cow power), but until recently, there weren’t that many options. The only system that was in place was  farmer-engineered, as I like to call it. Built by the operators.

“The system we have is actually owned by Clear Horizons – an offshoot of a large electricity contractor in Milwaukee,” Crave says. “They’re looking at green energy as a growth industry. … But our motivation for doing it was that it allows us to better manage the nutrients in our soil. It changes how those nutrients escape into the system, so we can actually apply them to our fields. … It hasn’t saved us any money – yet. The initial capital outlay is more than $1 million. But we expect to (recoup) in about ten years.” (Note: The Craves send their energy to a power utility and then buy it back to power their farm.)

In addition to having 1,100 cows and 900 head of young stock – with a total of 950 milking cows – the Crave family grow corn, soybeans and alfalfa. (They also make an allegedly killer cheddar). And when it comes to fertilizing their crops, they, like all farmers, have limits on the amount of phosphorus (which fertilizer contains) that can be put into the soil.

“Most of the phosphorus (translation: fertilizer) that’s in manure is in the solid portion of the manure,” Crave says, explaining why dairy farmers spread their cows’ poo over their fields (thus the potential July Fourth stink-out), to create a better yield.  ”Our cow manure,  as it goes into the system, is 12 percent solid. Once it goes through this digestion process – which takes anywhere from three to four weeks’ retention time in the digester – it changes byproducts like nitrogen from an organic to a mineral state, and that makes it (nitrogen) less volatile. So that means It’s more stable in the soil, so it doesn’t leach out with rain.

“But by doing this, we’re also able to better manage the nutrients in our soils,” Crave adds. “The number one limit for applying manure to our cropland is phosphorus. Historically, before we had the digester, when we would go apply manure to the soil, when we reached our limit, we’d have to test it. … Now, we can apply manure as fertilizer at whatever rate that crop will use, and we can meet our fertilizer needs without having to to buy commercial fertilizer. It (the whole process) allows us to separate our manure into different components, where we can use it.” And literally recycle it!

Here’s essentially how it works: The cow’s manure is routed to anaerobic “digester”, which is kept around 100 degrees Fahrenheit for 20-30 days. Bacteria break down the waste, producing, among other things, methane gas, which builds up pressure in the digester. Next, the biogas is delivered through a pipe into a modified natural gas engine, which in turn fuels the engine, making it spin the generator, creating electricity.

In addition, as Mark Crave explains it, “when the manure comes out of the digester we put it into a screw press and separate out about half of the solids. What we do with those solids is multiple-use: Number one, those solids (which, pressed, become thin, fibrous organic compound – voila cow “straw”) go back into the barn and are put into the stalls.  It’s a very inert product that has very little odor, it’s very much like green sawdust and in fact probably has less of a small than even sawdust. It’s a fluffy, very loose laying product, and the cows just love to lay in it.”

What remains after that bedding is used, is again recycled using the digester, and can be sold as potting soil.

“It’s basically a closed loop system,” says Crave.

Who knew poop had so many positive qualities?

(Photo credits: Blue Spruce Farm — Steve Dvorak, left, and Melissa Dvorak, right, talk with Eral Audte and David Dunn at Blue Spruce Farm while the separator behind them takes solids out of the liquid manure after it is digested, so the liquid can be used as fertilizer and the solids used as animal bedding; Earl Audet, left, co-owner of Blue Spruce farm, and David Dunn, program Manager for CVPS Cow Power^TM, examine dry solids left over from the digestion process.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

“Just the thought of tomato blight sends fear into the heart of every farmer.”

Those are the words of organic farmer Charlie Reid, who operates two small farms in southeastern New Hampshire. “We’ve been lucky this year … so far,” says Reid. “Lots of farmers have had to pull (dig up and destroy) their entire tomato crops. But with all this rain and so little sun my luck could change (for the worse) overnight.”

Blight is a highly contagious fungus that hits both tomatoes and potatoes. The Potato Famine in Ireland in the late 19^th century was caused by blight. And now blight is killing both tomato and potato crops in New England and in some mid-Atlantic states. It’s not yet an epidemic, but cause for concern for both farmers and consumers, as well as home garden growers who unwittingly used infected seedlings.

The Vermont Agency of Agriculture’s “Agriview” has this alert for farmers:

“It (blight) appears on potato or tomato leaves as pale green, water-soaked spots, often beginning at leaf tips or edges. The circular or irregular leaf lesions are often surrounded by a pale yellowish-green border that merges with healthy tissue. Lesions enlarge rapidly and turn dark brown to purplish-black. During periods of high humidity and leaf wetness, a cottony, white mold growth is usually visible on lower leaf surfaces at the edges of lesions.”

There are two culprits in this year’s late blight: too much rain and consumer nurseries selling starter plants, which unwittingly spread the ailment.

Tomatoes Need Sun To Shake Blight

Rainfall has varied across the country at seemingly excessive rates: for example, too little in Texas and too much in the Northeast. While early blight in lesser amounts  is normal each year, this season’s heavy rains have soaked many farms and there hasn’t been enough sun to dry the fields.

Add wind to the rain and the situation worsens: Late blight spores are carried by wind from one plant to another. And while one plant might be infected and the one next to it untouched, eventually the entire crop in a field or backyard garden will be affected and die.

Although nothing can save your tomatoes once they become blight-infected there are a wide variety of preemptive organic and natural ways to prepare your crop. Go to Garden Web to start your search.

Organic farmers and organic home gardeners can also find natural and organic compounds at most feed and hardware stores.  Conventional farmers try to prevent blight by spraying with herbicides, fungicides and pesticides but even they don’t guaranteed success.

A second blight culprit this summer was the mass marketing of tomato plants sold at big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Lowe’s and Home Depot. An unknown number of plants were distributed by these stores via Bonnie Plants, a wholesale gardening company in Alabama that buys many of its plants from growers in other parts of the country.

Bonnie Plants has recalled seedlings that remained on store shelves but it was too late for others that had been bought and planted earlier.

Bonnie’s General Manager Dennis Thomas told the New York Times that only five of the recalled plants had blight. “This pathogen did not come from our plants,” he said. “This is something that has been around forever.”

Bonnie explains on its website that this year’s blight was worse than in previous years because of cool, wet conditions and refers home growers to the Texas A & M horticulture website, Aggie Horticulture, and its section on tomato problems. The notes on late blight help gardeners identify diseased plants; other tomato diseases are covered in the tomato guide at well.

An article in Growing Produce by a Cornell professor of plant website about this issue reports its discovery in commercial fields in Long Island in June, followed by reports on plants in retail stores.
The article notes that the problem could spread, depending on the weather: “All tomato and potato crops are at high risk of developing late blight this season, especially if the rainy weather continues. All growers should assume their crops eventually will be affected and thus should be on a weekly schedule to both thoroughly inspect their potato and tomato plantings…,” writes Margaret Tuttle McGrath.

Home Growers Should Dispose of Affected Plants

“We are urging home gardeners, especially those who may have recently planted tomato seedlings from a big box store, to check for this disease,” said Jim Dwyer, University of Maine Potato Specialist. “Because the tomato fruits will be ruined by this fungus and the threat of late blight spreading to potatoes, home gardeners that find late blight on their plants should pull, bag and throw out these plants. They should not put them on the compost pile.”

According to Jon Turmel, Vermont State Plant Regulator, “The stores across the state have been more than helpful at removing plants from their shelves.”

This summer in New Hampshire field tomatoes are selling for around $2.45 a pound but continued rain there and in Maine and Vermont hold the key to late blight and New England’s tomato crop. In the Hudson Valley agricultural region of New York late blight has been described as “explosive” and “never seen … on such a widespread basis.”

Late blight has not been common in New England but when it does occur it is very destructive. In Colchester, Vt., Laurie Mazza is still selling her greenhouse tomatoes for $2.99 a pound. “We’re a week or so away from our field tomatoes and while they look good now, especially the cherry tomatoes, something could happen.”

(Photos of healthy tomatoes and plants by Green Right Now.com; late blight tomato, photo credit: Texas A&M University)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media