Logo


Spring 2008

MLT Newsletter









This being a lengthy issue, I won't waste space, and will start with an article by Ken Asmus founder and operator of Oikos Tree Crops.  I have to admit I feel somewhat embarrassed now, a couple of years after "successfully" eradicating a garlic mustard patch that appeared behind the barn.

The New Edible Wild


    About 30 years ago Euell Gibbons came to WMU to speak on foraging edible wild plants. I missed that talk on purpose. For some reason I thought Mr. Gibbons had commercialized something that was better left undisturbed. The commercials he made and the late night appearances seemed too much for me. Plus I was a big fan of Bradford Angier and had all of his writings. I didn’t want the commercial guy. Looking back I wish I had attended and got a hickory nut signed. (That was his trademark.) He really was just writing about his personal experiences with these plants. Today this is something I can never seem to get enough of.  Today the edible wild takes on many forms and even has become the living library for many new agricultural products.  Like it or not commercialization is taking the edible wild to the store shelves. It’s not yet a massive front like the organic movement and I don’t mean to complain. I think it’s a good start. At least we are beginning to touch base with a form of food that has long been thought of as “survival”.  Even television shows extol the virtues of  the edible wild with the Discovery Channel leading the way with “Survivorman” and “Man vs. Wild”.   I think if Euell was alive he would be chuckling at all the over dramatizations. Don’t be too surprised. It is called acting.
    We are still missing some fantastic foods and the rate of which these are introduced in any real quantity is very very slow. There are thousands of things to choose from. It’s true some may not be widely appreciated but given the right processing, recipe and ultimate end use we may find more of these wild weeds on the average American dinner plate. Here are a few:

Autumn Olive-Dried fruits may be a possibility if you could find a way to separate the stems from the berry. Harvesting is tedious by hand but yields can be very high. As an addition to a fruit drink their tart flavor blends well with apple juice. They have as much as 20 times the lycopene as tomatoes. Some varieties may have up to 50 times the lycopene as tomatoes. The seeds are high in phenol compounds said to be anti-cancer. Food For Thought carries a nice fruit spread with this species. I see Go-Ji (Lycium) in with the dried fruits but no autumn olive. The flavor is similar in my opinion. 

Rose Hips and Petals- Why don’t we have farms just for rose hips?  Like Autumn olive, rose hips are a high-energy food with real potential as an additive to drinks and sauces. I’ve grown and tried over 20 species and some taste very poor and others are rather pasty in texture with lots of seeds in the middle. Some native species are light in the yield department. It is better to make a paste out of the hips and process it to preserve the vitamin C and keep the subtle flavor. Possibly a fruit leather could be made or the hips can be dried without the seeds so you could use them in tea or candies.  I like the crosses I have with multiflora rose and Canine Rose. The fruits are larger and more favorable to eat directly from the bush. The petals are a laxative if taken in quantity. I love adding the petals to green tea. Rosa canina is the commercial species where the petals are harvested. Michigan’s swamp rose and wild prickly rose have nice tasting petals.

Leeks-Ramps-I am surprised that the native wild leeks are not found in any seed catalogs and plants are not readily available. Almost everyone loves these. There is even a ramp festival.  They are strong but have a rich onion flavor that is much more pronounced than the cultivated leek. I guess if you have a patch in the woods there is no need to plant it but I am surprised no one has commercialized this species. It’s easy to grow from seeds and they spread to form dense colonies. Rita Bober made a soup from these at her edible wild class that was to die for. The college students loved it.  According to some references, over eating these can cause major bloating on some people. Hmm, maybe that’s why you don’t see it. Liability issues. 

Garlic Mustard-This is the plant that has turned ecologists into exterminators. I would love to find a selection with a low garlic flavor. It’s a little over powering and I think a mild form would be more universally appreciated. Under cultivation with compost I was able to double the leaf size compared to the wild forms along the road. I keep taste testing them wherever I go but so far the mild form remains elusive. I have one strain that has larger leaves but I doubt it would win any culinary awards. I am sure it won’t win any environmental awards. High in iron. Never very popular until recently when its weed status has made it a legend. Can you believe it someone wrote a cookbook with just this one plant? (Kind of in the same league as the dandelion for many people.)

Wild Strawberry- I hired a teenager at my farm a few years ago whose breakfast consisted of Pepsi and Skittles. Lunch was not much better.  I had him taste a variety of wild strawberry I am cultivating. His response was, “My god that is good. What is it?” This is the point. Even someone way on the fringes of knowing any “real” fruit flavor will immediately recognize something good. Can the wild strawberry be improved? What if it was bigger? Bigger fruit may equal less richness in the world of strawberries. The flavor becomes less intense. That may be good for commercialization but wild strawberries are the standard other strawberries are judged against. In Europe wild forms of the alpine strawberry are grown. They are small too but have good flavor and are grown commercially for specialty markets. Why can’t we do that? I asked a commercial producer in the U.S. why and he said, “They are too small.”  Hmmm.

    The edible wild today is as much alive today as it was when Euell Gibbons was signing hickory nuts. It may be luck or destiny but if something crosses the path of human awareness someone may find a use for it. The question is: Is it really going to be the next food that is consumed in mass quantities by society as a whole, a novelty food item or something you need to have to survive?  Maybe commercialization will tell us that.  Personally, I don’t know but that weed over there in the corner of my awareness looks pretty good. It’s edible and wild.

By Ken Asmus     December 5, 2007

 oak24@aol.com             www.oikostreecrops.com



Michigan’s Right to Farm Act-Protections and Issues


“I’m calling it in-we need to shut those *&%$*!! down!”  Fighting words as the aroma of freshly spread manure danced in the breeze.  “But,” the neighbor said “that land has been farmed since the Civil War, and in my thirty years living here I know the odor only lasts for a few hours, and besides….”    “I don’t care.  I did not spend half-a-mil for this house and land to not be able to enjoy it. And besides you’ll be next if your stupid rooster keeps screaming at 5 am Sunday morning.”  With that, he strapped on his Thor Force Carbon Helmet®, and mounted his Honda TRX700XX, the biggest and baddest 686cc SOHC-liquid cooled fuel  injected, 4-valve, 4-stroke ATV on the market.  He worked his corpulent hams into the foam mesh contour seat, revved the engine and, with a flurry of repressed manhood, spun his wheels, sprayed gravel and flew off in a cloud of dust to join his family racing around the dirt track carved into his back five acres for a Saturday evening of family fun and bonding. Ahhh, the country life.

This is the first article in a three part series about Michigan’s Right-to-Farm Act (P.A. 93 of 1981). It could prove a boring ride-unless your farm or your property is under siege, please bear with me. In this first article I will discuss the legislative history of Right-to-Farm Acts (RTFA),  the intent and purpose of RTFAs, explain several of the critical provisions of  Michigan’s RTFA (MRTFA), enforcement and compliance through evolving Generally Accepted Agricultural Manufacturing Practices  (GAAMPs), and the consequences of a failure to comply with GAAMPs. I will share our experiences of satisfying GAAMPs as part of our farm’s verification under the Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP).   In the second article I will focus on Federal and state case law, Constitutional challenges and illustrate how RTF and the enforcement regulations provide a mechanism for preserving farm land and promoting sustainable agricultural practices.  The final article will address issues involving the critical impact of RTF on the locavore movement, (local food production, distribution and consumption), energy issues, Animal Feeding Operations (AFO’s), zoning and preemption issues, and finally illustrate how other modifications of the enforcement guidelines in other states have accomplished  environmental and animal welfare goals-providing a model for civic action to achieve quality standards and promote future diversified farm usage while protecting agricultural lands from predatory urban development.

RTF laws are the children of conflict.  
All agricultural practices involve a spectrum of unavoidable conditions, which are repugnant too many. This is becoming a vexing problem in a society that is becoming increasingly fixated on “sanitation” and hygiene.  Our “flush and forget” attitude is further complicated by our lost contact with the soil upon which our existence depends.  Farm conditions include manure, flies, odors, dust, noise, and drifting pesticide applications, as well as other things associated with agricultural practices.  Concern with agricultural operations prior to 1950 was minimal. For those who lived in rural areas there were no issues, since most people were associated in some manner with agriculture.  However, commercial and residential (nonagricultural) land use started growing dramatically in the mid1950s with significant consequences.  Many of the new residents objected to agricultural practices and initiated large numbers of nuisance lawsuits.  Township boards, influenced and in many cases dominated by development interests, enacted numerous local ordinances that were adverse to standard agricultural practices.  This process began before the significant transformation of America’s diverse agrarian culture to what is now  a highly industrialized (and deleterious) system, promoted and extended by the USDA under Secretary Earl Butz during the Nixon administration.

    During the pre-RTFA era, the threat urbanization posed to American agricultural productivity and the communities and states that were economically dependent on agriculture were significant.  Local ordinances adversely affected agricultural operations, with many operations being driven out of business.  Nuisance lawsuits took their toll.  A successful nuisance complaint resulted in monetary damages against farmers, or court rulings would enjoin (prevent) specific practices such as plowing and planting after 7pm in the evening ( too bad for a farmer with a town job).   These threats caused uncertainty resulting in farmers’ neither improving nor expanding operations and provided an incentive for farmers to sell farmlands for nonagricultural purposes.  The USDA promoted policies that favored larger integrated operations, plowing from fence row to fence row and an attitude of “get big or get out.”   The USDA and state agricultural departments noted the catastrophic consequences associated with urbanization-there was growing tension.    States enacted “Right to Farm” acts throughout the 1970s and 1980s.  It is important to note that RTFA laws were enacted before the extensive industrialization of American agriculture, the farm animal welfare movement, and many state and federal environmental laws (e.g. the Clean Air Act). 

All RTFAs have a common goal-to protect agricultural producers and operations from nuisance lawsuits.
 In general, an RTFA ensures that an agricultural operation or activity will not be deemed a nuisance IF the operation was established during a particular period of time before land use conditions changed (e.g. zoning from agriculture to residential), conforms to generally accepted farming practices, complies with federal, state and local laws and does not have a substantial adverse effect on public health and safety. Historically, RTFAs are a mere extension of common law.

Specific issues arise in regard to the application of RTFAs.  The federal and state constitutionality of RTFAs has been challenged under Fifth Amendment Liberty and Takings provisions as well as Constitutional Due Process Clauses. Numerous litigation has ensued as to whether an RTFA did or did not preempt state law or local laws.  Large numbers of courts have had to determine whether an RTFA applied or did not apply while keeping in mind legislative intent and purpose of RTFAs-to protect agricultural operations and processes from nuisance litigation and preserve agricultural lands.

Michigan’s RTFA
     Michigan’s RTFA   (MRTFA) was enacted in 1981 and amended in 1999.  Michigan Circuit Court (Kalamazoo County) Judge, Richard Lamb has described the MRTFA as having, “ . . .the most clear language I’ve seen in a legislative act.”  To be actionable, a law must be clear on its intent and purpose in order to provide guidelines for appropriate compliance and place all citizens on notice.  As with all RTFAs, Michigan’s RTFA was born of legal battles.  Michigan’s RTFA was enacted to provide farmers with protection from nuisance lawsuits, and authorized the Michigan Commission on Agriculture to develop and adopt Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) for compliance under the MRTFA.    Local governments are prohibited from passing laws more restrictive that MRTFA.  As long as farmers comply with GAAMPs they are protected.  The GAAMPs continue to evolve to include an increasing number of state and federal environmental, health, and water protection standards.

The MRTFA broadly defines “farm,” “farm operation,” “farm product” and GAAMPs.  If qualified, there is no size restriction on a farm, and, local ordinances attempting to limit the size of a farm have been consistently invalidated by Michigan courts.

Specific Provisions
The protection afforded Michigan farms is clearly stated:

A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices. MCL 286.473, sec 3 (1)

In response to nuisance lawsuits the MRTFA has included additional provisions such that any farm that conforms with MCL 286.473, sec 3 (1) cannot be held as a public nuisance as the result of any of the following:

(a) A change in ownership or size.
(b) Temporary cessation or interpretation of farming.
(c)  Enrollment in government programs.
(d) Adoption of new technology.
(e) A change in type of farm product produced.

MCL 286.473, sec 3 (3)
The MRTFA was amended in 1999 to address challenges as to the intent of Michigan’s legislature in enacting MRTFA:

“. . . it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revive in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices. . . MCL286.474 section (6).

The MRTFA goes on to describe a system under the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) to review proposed local ordinances to determine if they are in compliance with the MRTFA.

In response to serial complaints, the MRTFA provides that if there is a nuisance action brought against a farm and if the farm defendant in the lawsuit wins, the farm may recover costs from the plaintiff.  To avoid numerous nuisance lawsuits, the MRTA also provides that if a complaining party brings more than 3 unverified complaints against the same farm within three years that the complaining party will pay the full costs of the investigation of subsequent and unverified complaints against the same farm.  An unverified complaint is one where the Michigan Department of Agriculture determines that the farm is complying with all GAAMPs.

Enforcement and investigation.
The Director of the MDA is mandated to investigate all complaints involving a farm or farm operation.  Complaints dealing with, but not limited to odor, fumes, noise, pollution and care of farm animals are forwarded to the MDA. A legal notice is immediately sent to the farmer.  By law, the MDA must conduct an on site investigation within 7 days of receiving a complaint with notice sent to the city, village, or township and county in which the farm is located.   The MDA inspector determines whether the complaint is verified or not, i.e. the farm is in or not in compliance with GAAMPs.  The inspection must include any potential violations of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act and all rules that have been promulgated under the Act in addition to any other farm-related complaints.

If the complaint is verified the farmer is given 30 days to conform to GAAMPs.  If the farmer cannot conform within 30 days the farmer must submit a detailed implementation plan included a schedule for completion.   The MDA then conducts numerous follow-up inspections.

If changes have not been implemented or there is no acceptable management plan, the matter is turned over to the Department of Environment Quality to take enforcement action and the farm may be deemed non compliant with GAAMPs.

Conforming to GAAMPs is critical.  If a farm operation does not conform, protection under MRTFA is denied.

Our adventure with GAAMPs.
    The MTRFA defines GAAMPs as practices that are defined by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and posted on the MDA website, thus serving legal notice to all Michigan citizens.  GAAMPs regulations are continually reviewed.  Specific consideration is given to the MDA, recommendations from MSU’s College of Agriculture, MSU Extension Service, agricultural experimental stations, the USDA, the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, EPA, DNR, DEQ and other professional, citizen and industrial organizations.  GAAMPs are currently divided into six broad categories that include:

1) manure management,
2) pesticide utilization and pest control,
3) nutrient utilization,
4) care of farm animals,
5) cranberry production,
6) irrigated water use, and
7) site selection of new and expanding livestock facilities.

When we decided to establish a microdairy we applied to the Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) for farmstead verification. MAEAP is a proactive, voluntary program to assure that farmers are complying with all state and federal environmental laws, controlling pollution, effectively managing crops and soils to assure sustainable agricultural practices, and comply with all current GAAMPs standards.  If verified, the farm is reviewed every three years for continuing compliance with evolving GAAMPs standards.

    The verification process has three phases divided into education, on-farm risk assessment, and finally, a third party inspection for verification of compliance.  Education consists of attendance at classes that deal with all phases of soil fertility management, manure management and emergency planning.  The on farm risk assessment involves inspectors from a number of agencies who carefully inspect all aspects of farming operations. 

    Our ten acre farm was inspected by the Michigan Farm Ground Water Stewardship Program, the Michigan Home Ground Water Stewardship Program, four visits from the MSU Extension Service reviewing grazing plans, security, safety and manure management; an interview with the USDA, farm registration with the Farm Services Agency, and a site visit from the USDA’s regional grazing –land use specialist..    Queries and issues were identified regarding recycling rain water, channeling run off,  establishing better composting facilities, keeping water use records, manure records, livestock records tracking, carbon brought onto the farm, the care and feeding of septic systems, well isolation distances and protection, containment of odors and disposal on trash, and energy conservation and alternative energy options.  We walked every foot of the property identifying old rolls of fence wiring, had an archeological dig through fence rows removing not the one tire I noticed, but 20.   A  43 page, detailed  risk assessment check list had to be filled out in the presence of the investigators regarding: soil evaluations, water well conditions (3 ˝ pages),  pesticide storage and handling (5 ˝ pages), fertilizer storage and handling (4 pages), petroleum product storage and management (7 pages), waste management (3 pages), septic system management (3 pages), livestock management (3 pages), manure storage (4 pages), livestock yard management (2 pages), silage management (2 pages), milk waste management (3 pages); pages regarding federal, state and local environmental requirements and finally a discussion of legal citations and consequences  for environmental risks. In addition, we needed a grazing plan with an emphasis on rotational grazing and encouragement to produce milk from grass fed-pastured animals.   We were educated as to the health and environmental hazards associated with large scale confinement operations.  We then drafted an improvement action plan.

    `We went to work the summer of 2007 to assure GAAMPs compliance.  The day of our third party inspection was eagerly anticipated as I lead an entourage on a tour of our farm.  After 27 years or organic gardening, wildlife preservation, careful land stewardship and a deep love of nature-we failed the inspection.  Potential erosion was noted near our barn requiring my building an 88 x 3-4 foot retaining wall (the goats love it),  the barn had to be guttered, the areas around the barn regraded and special erosion control grass planted to contain run off.  Compost had to be covered to eliminate potential odors.  We passed the second inspection and are proud of the MAEAP sign at our entrance.  We are now GAAMPs compliant.

    GAAMPs verification is not trivial.   The regulations are evolving in response to a growing awareness of our environment and the problems associated with various agricultural practices.  The changes required by MAEAP were consistent with our stewardship philosophy and dedication to sustainable agricultural practices.

I advise any land holder-regardless of the size of property, who has any interest in any aspect of agriculture and who is zoned AG to volunteer for MAEAP. If you are verified, you will serve notice to all that you are compliant under GAAMPs and thus protected under MTRFA.  Remember the intent and purpose of MRTFA is to protect agriculture.  The critical key to the nature of that protection and responsible land use is GAAMPs. 

Without MRTF there is no protection from predatory development and the trivializing impact of a culture that has too much concrete between its children’s feet and the soil to understand that its’ own existence depends on such a thin layer of Mother Earth’s skin.

In following  articles I will focus on Constitutional challenges to RTFAs, rural preservation, state responses to modifying GAAMPs to be consistent with federal legislation  passed after RTFAs were enacted such as the Clean Air Act and Animal Welfare Act, and  discuss how modification of GAAMPs provide a platform for civic action supporting the goals of the locavore movement.  This article is provided for education purposes only, and not as legal advice.   
                                    Ron Klein

Ron is a retired Senior Research Scientist and attorney, working with Suzanne Klein to establish  a microdairy on their farm, Dancing Turtle, to produce quality aged goat cheeses.    He is a member of the American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners,  Michigan Dairy Goat Society, American Dairy Goat Association, Michigan Bee Keepers Association,  Tillers International,  Michigan Bar Association, Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund and Board member of MLT. He was recently elected as a member  of the Board of Directors of the Kalamazoo Conservation District.

References:

Michigan Right to Farm Act, Act 93 of 1981. See www. Legislature.mi.gov
Susan Adams, Legal Rights of Farm Animals, Maryland Bar Journal,  September/October     2007.
Harrison M. Pittman, Validity, Construction, and Application of Right-to-Farm Acts.  8     A.L.R., 6th, 465 (2005)

Published Michigan Cases:

Northville Twp. v Coyne, 170 Mich App 446 (1988)
Jerome Township v Melchi, 185 Mich App 228 (1990)
Steffens v Keeler, 200 Mich App 179 (1992)
Richmond Twp v Erbes, 195 Mich App 210 (1992)
Travis v Preston, 249 Mich App 338 (2001)
Shekby Twp v Papesh, 267 Mich App 92 (2005)

Unpublished Michigan Cases:

Milan Twp v Jaworski, Michigan Court of Appeals 24044, December 4, 2003
Village of Rothbury v Double JJ Resort Ranch, Inc, Michigan Court of Appeals 246596,     August 17, 2004
King of the Wind Farms, Inc. v Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Michigan     Department of Agriculture, Michigan Court of Appeals 257097, December 29, 2005
Vasko v Department of Agriculture, Michigan Court of Claims, 03-000181.
Papadelis v City of Troy,  Michigan Court of Appeals, September 19, 2006
Township of Armada v Maha,  Michigan Court of Appeals September 26, 2006.

Websites:
There are many internet sources regarding RTFAs, those listed below are for general background information and sources.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/
http://www.maeap.org/
http://www.legislature.mi.gov
http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1567_1599_1605---,00.html   (All MDA GAAMPs)
http://www.michigan.gov/mda (Michigan Department of Agriculture)
http://www.law.msu.edu/library/substantive/local.html  (Michigan codes and ordinances)

Books and background materials:

Logsdon, Gene, All Flesh is Grass, Swallow Press, 2004
Voisin, Andre’, Grass Productivity, Island Press, 1959 
Pollan, Michael-
    -The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Penguin Press, 2006
    -In Defense of Food, Penguin Press, 2008
Soil-the 1957 Yearbook of Agriculture, USDA, Government Printing Office, 1957. (For     sustainable agricultural practices see  Soils and Men-1938 Yearbook of     Agriculture.
Hillel, Daniel, Out of the Earth-Civilization and the Life of the Soil, University of Californai     Press, 1991.




I am a passive member of this listserv but appreciate the wealth of practical info that magically materializes in front of me through email!

EatLocalSWMich Listserv


    The internet has brought us some very powerful ways to connect with other people of like mind and people curious about new ideas! After the Harvest Festival finished so successfully last September, I really wanted a way to continue the dialog about local foods throughout the year. It seemed that progress would continue to be slow if there were only a few isolated events throughout the year to bring people together. So, knowing that I have been learning a great deal about other topics in which I’m interested through on-line email lists, I decided to start one of my own here in southwest Michigan. I wanted, also, to encompass a wide area geographically to have the best opportunity to find all the food products needed to have a healthy and complete local diet. After learning how another local foods list through Yahoo Groups worked and the kinds of conversations taking place there, I set up my list, EatLocalSWMich at the Yahoo groups site (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EatLocalSWMich/).

    We were approaching the holidays and I was thinking of holding off sending out invitations to join the list until after that busy period was over when I received a call from Donna McClurkan, best known at the moment as Kalamazoo’s representative on The Splendid Table’s Locavore Nation, a yearlong experiment of local eating. (http://www.publicradio.org/columns/splendidtable/locavore_nation_east/) I had been referred to her by Chris Dilley as someone she HAD to talk to if she were going to embark on a local foods lifestyle! I felt famous!

    After talking to Donna, it was looking like 2008 was going to be a fabulous year for learning about and promoting local foods in SW Michigan. In late December, I started inviting people to join the group. Things moved slowly until early January. As of March 13, there are 119 members from all over the area. Two members have opened their homes for open house events as meeting places for members and we have had our first potluck, the “100 Member Potluck”. We reached the 100-member mark 2 days before the event.

    We were only in the midst of winter, not a time when most people even think about local foods but we have been having some fabulous discussions. Some of the topics discussed so far include: keeping poultry and local zoning laws, finding local grains (successful! Archie Jennings in Nashville has organic grains.), questions about the kinds of local foods people are looking for, local food conferences, nitrates and smoked meats, raw milk, counter-arguments to local eating, the Fair Food Matters Community Kitchen, what to do with beets and other late winter veggies, CSA’s, and the Farm Bureau and many more. We aren’t even to spring yet!

    I am looking forward to the discussions we are going to see in the coming months as well as the issues we will be bringing up. It is my hope that by bringing people together from many perspectives, we can move the dialog about local foods along and find ways to improve, expand, and enrich our local food system in Michigan.

    Lori Evesque     3/13/08   
    Owner and Moderator of EatLocalSWMich
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EatLocalSWMich     



Our Honey Bees: Update on Colony Collapse Disorder


In the last issue of the MLT Newsletter I discussed current understanding of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).  The symptoms of CCD are worker bees “abandoning” their hive; flying off and never returning.  CCD hives have a healthy queen and many young bees, but not enough to care for eggs or brood.  The hive eventually dies off.  Large commercial hive operations have reported 50-90% looses.

As of our last Newsletter, research was focusing in on the Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) imported with Australian bees as a possible cause for CCD.  Recent studies have shown that IAPV has been in the US since 2002, at least two years before Australian imports.  Though IAPV is not the primary cause of CCD it is one of several pathogens that have been found in all CCD hives that have been tested.  The other pathogens include the Kashmir Bee Virus and two strains of pathogenic bacteria.  The presence of these pathogens may be  a symptom of broader husbandry issues that are compromising bees' resistance to microbial, viral and parasite sensitivity.

Research is now centering on general commercial management practices that are placing significant stress on honey bees.  Stressors include extensive transportation, feeding of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), chemical treatments and even the dimensions of commercially available wax foundation used to aid bees in comb building.

Initial studies indicate that bees fed HFCS have a lower life expectancy than bees fed with supplemental beet or cane sugar.  Additional efforts are being placed in breeding bees that are more resistant to parasitic mites.  The general trend seems to be moving in the direction of creating a more healthful environment for bees.  One major issue remains; there are insufficient numbers of local or resident bees to pollinate our agricultural crops.  Pollination of large commodity crops still requires long distance transport of tens of thousands of bee hives..

Since wild bees are now extinct in Michigan, there is increased emphasis on encouraging people with an interest in bees  to explore having one or more backyard hives.  A hive or two will allow people to connect with nature, benefit the environment, and enjoy the gift of honey.       

            Ron Klein



Spring Wild Salad Greens

                            By Rita Bober


Ah, March 21st has come and gone so spring is here, right!!!!  As I glance out the window and see the snow falling, I must think positive – yes spring is here and this snow has only temporarily covered my crocuses and snow drops.  I have started some vegetable and flower seeds in the house and greenhouse.  I know spring is around the corner.   So-oo-on I will be able to gather wild greens for my salad.  So, today I want to share with you three of my favorite spring wild salad greens:
     
Chickweedstellaria media.  It’s in the Carnation family; some other names are starweed, tongue grass, adder’s mouth, starwort, and stitchwort and is  found in your mineral rich greenhouse and garden soil.  It is best identified by many very small starry white flowers, with five petals so deeply divided they appear to be ten petals; growing in low, dense, vibrant-green mats; single line of hairs on smooth stalk.  Use chickweed, the whole fresh herb before and during flowering, as a nourishing, strengthening food.  It is high in many vitamins and minerals such as magnesium, calcium, potassium, and vitamin C.  It is a powerful nourisher to the glandular and lymphatic systems.  Cut the tops to add to your salad.

Purslaneportulaca oleracea.  It’s in the Purslane Family.  Purslane is a prostrate spreading annual with thick, fleshy, alternate leaves shaped like little paddles.  The stems are reddish and the seeds, which are almost always present on some part of the plant, are small and black little open vase-like pods.  The leaves are often grouped into flattened clusters.  The plant is a frequent garden or greenhouse “weed”.  Its season extends from early summer through the fall.  Cut the stems with a sharp knife.  If more shoots are desired, leave the root in the ground and more stems will grow within a week.  The shoots can be eaten raw in salads or mixed with cheese or sour cream dips.  Purslane is low in calories and contains some vitamin A and C.  It’s a great source of omega-3 fatty acids.   The stems and leaves have a wonderful sweet-sour flavor.

Common Blue Violetviola papilionacea.  It’s in the Violet family; some other names are pansy, heart’s ease, wild pansy, garden violet.  The common blue violet grows as a cultivated ornamental in gardens but is also found wild in meadows, damp woods, rich soil and along the edges of trails and paths.  A basal rosette of stalked, shallow-toothed, heart-shaped leaves, each up to 5 inches across, first appears in early spring.  The flowers have five petals, are bilaterally symmetrical and roughly butterfly-shaped.  It is one of the best-tasting, most abundant wild foods of spring.  The leaves are mild, sweet, and slightly peppery.  The flowers have less flavor than the leaves, take longer to collect, but they beautify any dish.  Both the flowers and leaves are considered blood purifiers or detoxifiers.  They contain rutin, which strengthens the capillaries as well as vitamin C.  Caution: the rhizome of the common blue violet is poisonous to humans, so don’t eat that part of the plant, it will make you throw up.  Collect the leaves themselves without stems and a handful of flowers to add to your salad.

Gather these three wild green plants to add to your early lettuce greens, include some salad dressing and enjoy!

References:
    Identifying and Harvesting Edible and Medicinal Plants in Wild (and Not So Wild) Places.   Brill, Steve with Evelyn Dean, William Morrow, N.Y. 1994.
    Edible Wild Plants: A Guide to Collecting and Cooking.  Weatherbee, Ellen Elliott and James Garnett Bruce.  Self-published, 1982.
    Healing Wise.  Weed, Susun S.  Ash Tree Publishing, Woodstock, N.Y., 1989.



Another Great Year of Gardening with Fair Food Matters'  Growing Matters Garden

by Heather Crull, Garden Manager

    Wow, what a year of growth for our urban educational gardening program! In 2007, the Growing Matters Garden program expanded in almost every imaginable way – more classes offered, students served, volunteers involved, space used for organic gardening, and fresh produce sold.  Thank you to everyone who made it such a success. We could not have done it without your help!

    During 2007, the Growing Matters Garden program continued to utilize sustainable, organic practices at its two garden sites – the main garden on North Westnedge and the school garden of Woodward Elementary School (WSTaR).  In the cold early months of 2007, we completed important program evaluation, investigated long-term fundraising strategies for our program, and worked to help compile a garden-based curriculum and cookbook for WSTaR teachers and staff.  Once it was a little warmer, we started seeds, helped with spring planning and planting at WSTaR, and gathered needed materials to ensure a successful growing season.

    In mid-June, we offered our 10-week summer educational program at both garden sites.  We served 81 students with seven morning classes and an evening class as well. Students from Family and Children Services, WSTaR, the ARK, and the Eastside Urban Garden project had a great time working, playing, and learning in the fresh air, sunshine, and rich soil of the garden!  Of those surveyed, 95% showed an increase in garden knowledge, 84% felt the garden helped them to understand how to eat healthier, and 84% said they would like to return again next year.

    In an effort to be more self-sustaining, we decided to divide our main garden into designated areas for our educational programs and for production.  This allowed us to provide our community with a larger amount of sustainably grown, chemical-free produce.   We continued to participate on a weekly basis at the Bank Street Farmer’s Market, but also expanded to include produce for sale at the People’s Food Co-op and at a (student staffed) portable market stand at two local senior centers.  This market expansion doubled our produce sales from the previous year, generating close to $1000 to help fund our program. 

    In 2007, we continued to have outstanding community support for our program!  We hosted fourteen well-attended community events with 79 volunteers donating over 650 hours of labor.  In addition, our community showed great support of our program by contributing more than $7000 in monetary and material donations! 

    Fall came quickly to the garden with an early, severe frost in mid-September.  Half of our crops were damaged in just one night when temperatures dipped to near 31 degrees.  Undeterred, we still hosted a community open house and reception for the guest speakers of the “Eat Local, Kalamazoo!” celebration a week later.  We continued to work through October and November to clean up the gardens, lay down a nice cover of mulch, and start up several large-scale composting bins that will continue to “cook” through the winter.

    The Growing Matters Garden program is proud to serve our community as an educational gardening resource, as a gathering place to work, learn, and play, and as a source of fresh, healthy food.  In 2008, we will continue to offer our summer educational programs and will offer a new series of garden related community workshops at our garden sites.  We will have produce available for sale at the farmers' market and at the People's Food Co-op. 

We welcome and encourage you to become involved with our gardens – as a student, volunteer, sponsor, or as someone who just wants to learn more.  If you would like more information about our program or upcoming events, feel free to visit  our website at  www.fairfoodmatters.org/garden.html, email the garden manager at heather@fairfoodmatters.org, or give us a call at 269.903.9765.    Thanks again (MLT) for your continued support of our program!



Herd Share Agreements are legal in Michigan


    We had the pleasure of attending the Michigan Dairy Goat Society meeting held at MSU March 8, 2008.  A highlight was a presentation by Steve Bemis from the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF).  Steve discussed the current status of herd share agreements (or cow or goat shares) in Michigan. 
    In general, herd share agreements are contracts between producers and consumers where the consumer, whether an individual or a cooperative, leases a portion of an animal or a herd, and has a legal right to an amount of milk from the animal or the herd.  These types of agreements are tolerated in Michigan because they fall outside of Michigan’s current dairy laws.  Michigan’s dairy laws focus on Grade A and Grade B dairy production, distribution and processing-not milk from an animal owned by an individual and used for that owner’s consumption. A person who leases property has an ownership interest in that property. In Michigan, under law, animals are considered property.  The person who is leasing the animal is entitled to the animal’s milk and pays the dairyman a fee for boarding and caring for the animal, as well as additional expenses such as milking.  Since the person who leases the animal owns the animal and the product of that animal, that person is not purchasing milk. In other words, one cannot sell milk to a consumer who already has an ownership interest in the animal-but fees may be paid for the materials and labor necessary for caring for the animal.  This is an important distinction since the sale of unpasteurized milk to a consumer is illegal-herd or cow share agreements are not based on selling milk to a consumer.
    Share agreements are governed by Michigan contract law, that is, the mutual agreement between two parties.
From a regulatory perspective the agreements are helpful since the person who is leasing the herd or animal clearly assumes any risk posed by consuming unpasteurized milk from the animal.  The assumption of risk must be clearly stated in the agreement.  In the agreements I have reviewed the person leasing the animal has insisted that the highest standards of sanitation and animal care are assured by the dairyman.  Thus, not only may Grade A dairy standards be met and even exceeded, the element of humane care and handling of farm animals may be insisted upon. The latter can include the standards required under Certified Humane: Raised and Handled ™, supported by the ASPCA.  In addition, because of the ownership interest, the person leasing the animal can have a legal right to “visit” her animal, inspect the farm and confirm that her animal is being properly cared for.  This contractual obligation serves both an educational purpose and, I believe, provides another level of regulation (self-regulation in this case) to assure compliance with appropriate dairy and farm practices.  Having a personal ownership and health interest provides significant motivation to assure (or enforce) higher agricultural standards and practices consistent with the intent and purpose of having formal standards.
    It is important to note that the efforts to help farmers and consumers deal with regulatory issues is spearheaded by the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF).  I urge those interested in having access to wholesome, nutritious food and supporting diversified and humane farming practices join FTCLDF.

    Ron  Klein - attorney, member and contributor to FTCLDF and on the MLT Board, and thanks Steve Bemis of FTCLDF for his critical review.


Back to MLT Newsletter Page