GROWING OUR FARMERS.

The Young Farmer Movement is interesting in that many of us young farmers are really only getting a year or two experience before striking out on our own. That's what Hannah and I did originally, before coming back to Bugtussle. And looking back, I realize how little experience I actually had because––six years in––I continue to learn many of the things I should have known then.People do this in other industries, obviously. People start restaurants that have never trained under chefs. People can start a dance or photography studio if they are self taught. But what's unique perhaps to farming is that farmers don't really have a choice in the matter. You could technically train under a chef for years. You could be an assistant to a photographer or a professional dancer (sorry, these are the best comparisons my 5 a.m. brain can come up with). Sure, there are a few small farms in the country who can hire full time employees for several years––long enough for them to get the proper experience––but most can't. And most young farmers can't work for free or for stipends for six or seven years until they're ready to take over their own place. It's just not reasonable.If we want more small farmers, we need a way to help small farmers get the training and experience they need to be successful. Of course, this was intended as more of an observational post than a proposal, but I do think there are things we could do. One: what about taking some of those subsidies out of the hands of Big Ag and putting them into the pockets of small farmers specifically for hiring help and training young farmers? Maybe we could start more debt forgiveness programs for young farmers. What about encouraging more established farmers to sell small amounts of land to their apprentices (like some farmers you know)? I don't know what the answer is, or if young farmers really want to train for that long. But speaking from experience I can honestly say, I don't know what I would do without these past few years still working with my mentors. We would have made a lot more silly and costly mistakes, that much I can be sure of.- Jesse. 

THE OTHER HALF OF FARMING.

The other day a local logger stopped by the cabin to see if we had any timber we wanted to sell. I pointed to our forest of tiny cedars and said, "Sure, have at it!"He laughed, but then his eyes lit up and said, "Well, you got a nice white oak down there at the road––wanna cut that?"It is a nice white oak. It's one of the nicest in the area, in fact. It's on the border of our property with Bugtussle Farm and could be worth $3,000 or more––$1,500 per family if we cut it. But when I told the logger we wanted to keep the tree, he laughed in that way someone does when you're being idealistic.Trees are an important part of maintaining the environment, though, and that's why we want to keep it. We want to keep it because it keeps our hollow nice and cool, because it creates oxygen, because someone has to keep trees. We want to keep it precisely because it is a nice white oak. Sure we could use the money, but we have to say no sometimes. Idealistic or not, we have to keep some good trees around.But it is this part of the job that we cannot charge anyone for––we cannot charge money for all the carbon we trap in our soil, all the soil we build, all the runoff we prevent, all the trees we keep. No one pays us for when we make a environmental decision that costs us $1,500 or more. We charge money for vegetables, sure, but we can't charge for the less tangible, and arguably more difficult, part of farming. We can't charge for all the good we do, even if it's the majority of the job.And perhaps this is why larger farmers don't care. Because no one––sparse government subsidies aside––is going to pay them for caring, for maintaining forests,  for rotating their animals frequently, growing a diversity of vegetables, for turning down fracking opportunities, or mulching their gardens. Farmers get paid for what we produce, so in turn conventional farmers produce as much as possible, and we unconventional famers just accept the pay cut.So is there a solution? Not sure. Perhaps there's an investment opportunity in it. Perhaps small farmers could offer carbon shares, and every year or so measure the organic matter increase of their soil––the carbon capture––and report that to their shareholders who could then write it off. Perhaps we could sell shares in keeping certain trees alive. Or just in the farm itself. Doubling the price of our vegetables to reflect their true cost is an option also, especially if we want to sell zero vegetables. Or maybe we small farmers could just stop being so idealistic and cut the trees. But I didn't get into this farming thing to be part of the problem. I got into it because of all the good a good farmer can do, even when, at least for now, we have to do most of it for free.- Jesse.

IN DEFENSE OF FARM-TO-TABLE.

I had a great conversation with some friends this week who'd recently heard a food critic say something to the effect of: "If I have to see one more barn wood, mason jar, farm-to-table restaurant, I'm going to scream..." And although I entirely get this person's fatigue, I hate that farm-to-table has been lumped into the trend.Ten years ago, it was somewhat rare to see the name of a farm on a menu, or to see the words "local food" painted on the side of a building. Now, of course, it's ubiquitous, or getting there—the so called "Farm-to-Table" restaurant—and it seems increasingly that for some they're tired of hearing it, chefs and critics alike.The term is admittedly over-used—even I can agree with that. It's overused and I truthfully don't care to defend the term itself, but the idea of buying locally and supporting small farms shouldn't be denigrated as a trend. It should be the norm. The trend was these past fifty or sixty years when few people cared where their food came from or how it was processed. Local and healthfully grown should be what you expect from a restaurant, or at least what you look for.The merits of eating locally grown food are innumerable. We eat locally to support small business and keep our money in the local economy. We eat locally to support farms who improve the earth, not damage it. We eat locally to lower our carbon footprint. Perhaps most relatable, we eat locally because fresh food simply tastes better. And etc. etc. etc..Sure there are restaurants making a mockery of the Farm-to-Table idea. Soon, if not already, fast food will get its greasy little hands all over the term. But it continues to be imperative for chefs and farmers to grow their relationships and work together, and for customers to encourage that relationship by supporting those chefs when they go out to eat, and those farmers when they stay in. Whether you like or are exhausted with the term, we need not forget what farm-to-table represents: a meal that comes from a farm—a farm like ours—straight to your table. No semi trucks or airplanes. No corporations. no chemicals. No preservatives. You don't have to call it farm-to-table, just please don't call it a trend.- Jesse.