Okay these standards are rough, call them pre beta, hell call them pre alpha! But this should help define the overall vision of the AgriTrue program. You can find a PDF of the standards (written in clay, not stone) at this link.
http://www.survivalpodcast.net/stuff/AgriTrue.pdf (pdf so right click save as for best results)
Your input, ideas, questions, etc are welcome in the comments below.
I also dedicated the first 30 minutes of today’s episode of The Survival Podcast to the AgriTrue Vision, you can find that episode at
Heck yeah Agritrue. Sign me up. After my first year of gardening I plan to quadruple production next year and would love to be a part of this new trend! This is a great vision and has true potential. Are you going to get with Paul Weaton and Marjory Wildcraft as sponsors or the like?
At least 10 percent of the land under cultivation must be planted with non food crops that provide predator habitat and/or allow for the production of orgGanic matter for soil building.
I would drop the non food verbiage. A lot of my predator habitat is either edible or non-plant. Perhaps the following:
At least 10 percent of the land under cultivation must be planted or otherwise designed to provide predator habitat and/or allow for the production of organic matter for soil building.
@Inbox485, I like the dropping of the non food part. Makes sense to me.
Inbox485 I agree on dropping the word “Food” 100% We have wild blackberry plants all over, all kinds of critter live in there.
“Such animals may not be used for production of any food for 21 days after completion of an antibiotic regime.” Maybe instead of exact time fame something like ‘not be used for production or sale of food product until any medications have been processed and eliminated from animals (tissues)’ Different animals have different metabolic rates, fat content and such so one time line may not cover every thing. Could be to long or short. A list of all the different animal species and breeds seems way to complicated and time consuming.
Maybe add a statement something like that no antibiotic or other drug medication synthetic chemical will be used to foster or enhance growth. That medications antibiotics what ever are only used when in the best interest/welfare of the animal/ herds and or human health and when withholding said medication would cause harm. I am in no way a good word smith person so hope this is at least somewhat understandable?
“At least 20% of the animals feed must be produced on site, this can be via pasture feeding, harvesting feed for the animal” I am not sure about the % but maybe could include something like ‘or obtained from another Agritrue participant’
At least 20% of the animals feed must be produced on site, this can be via pasture feeding, harvesting feed for the animals, etc.
This might squeeze out too many urban growers that can buy hay bails but would lack the space to grow something similar on site. I’m not sure how I would reword it. For example I’m getting into rabbits, and while I can replace about 2/3 of the pellet feed with timothy grass, I can’t grow it on site.
One idea is to possibly scale the on site sustainability requirements based on cultivated land area.
@Inbox485, that is a good point, I am not sure how to handle it. Perhaps and exemption for producers with less than an acre under cultivation with a requirement to use a suitable substitute, however we define that.
It is though exactly the type of thing I was talking about. That said you could provide a LOT of feed from your land. Is 20% too high, may be, but I have to believe 10% isn’t. What if you added clover to your lawn? How much of that could be fed to your rabbits? Just one example.
Oh and rabbits also eat just about any grass, like they even love Bermuda grass for instance. They will eat dandelions with relish, they love most “weeds” in fact. When you lettuce bolts they will be happy to have that, same with your spinach, etc.
One 4×8 bed would probably provide 30% of the feed requirements of 4-6 bunnies if grown just for them with fast cut and come again crops. That could all be perennials or self reseeding annuals.
I was concerned about the high quantity for onsite raised food, but in the summer I plan on rotational grazing rabbits on my front lawn in a rabbit tractor. I just don’t know if that will balance out for the rest of the year here in canada where there is snow on it for the rest of the year.
@Ben, again man the standards are currently written in clay not stone. We will be taking a lot of input on that, I do think we need SOME standard on this. I would also state that we would do something where this standard is measured out across the whole year. May be the number is 10 percent, I don’t know. I know for instance the way one chicken farmer does things here is he feeds chicken feed at a rate of 70% of what the recommended amount is and tractors the birds. He told me they damn well are going to get the other 30% because they have to and will probably get a little more.
Again I am really well versed on the vegetative side, I am NOT on the livestock side so the final standard is going to reflect the industry not my initial thoughts.
I absolutely understand that it is a work in product, the comment was meant to be used for discussion purpose on what the final number should be. I will fire you an email for the forums
What about the idea of basing it on per animal. For example if you have let’s say 20 rabbits you must have the space for them so producing a min of 20 percent food could be done. Or if you had 3 rabbits and not much space for them growing 50 percent of their food would not be difficult. This way we can set up a table for anyone producing animals on any scale. Be it 1 or 100 rabbits , fowl, cows, swine basically any class can be catorgized. This way that bail of hay can be more managed on the homesite. Just an idea throwing it out there.
Where do we sign up????
@Lynn Rose, you can’t actually do that yet. I have to have a site coded, that part will take time. If you want to be part of the invitation only forum though send me an email with agritrue in the subject at jack @ agritrue.com
I’m all for the free market! …but wouldn’t a (required) peer reviewed certification add some more credibility? I assume you’re well aware of “Certified Naturally Grown”? CNG is similar to what you’re doing here although the guidelines for CNG mirror (but without a lot of the paper work) the requirements of USDA Organic and the certification comes from a simple annual visit from another local CNG farmer.
http://www.naturallygrown.org/
I’m all for this kind of initiative but disappointed that is has to be so fragmented since it’s impossible for our government to do much of anything efficiently!! The fragmentation discredits all of these attempts.
Good luck to you!!!
@Farmer Joe, Did you read the beta standards? What could be more of a “peer review” than a public profile with full disclosure?
I also do not wish to mirror the organic standards other than perhaps the approved substances for insect control.
In a nut shell the system is simple, the grower self certifies at the minimum level. They then set up profile disclosing their methods. To gain creditability they get “endorsements” from people who visit them, fellow producers and buyers.
If a AgriTrue grower is selling at a market and displays his certification, anyone with a smart phone can scan his code (on the cert) and pull up his profile. On that is where his farm is, everything he grows, his soil improvement plan, what crops he grows, where his seeds come from, and on and on.
Could he lie? Yea, how many endorsements will he get though?
If he does lie and is reported and the report is found legitimate he looses his certification.
If you are CNG, someone says you are compliant, if you are AgriTrue you show the buyer how you comply. I find that to be far more important and by the way no reason you can’t be Organic (the guberment version), CNG and AgriTrue.
How would accusations of violations be handled? Who investigates? How does a producer fight a false accusation? Just curious about this.
I would add: The producer must guarantee that they do not use genetically modified animals. (it is only a matter of time before this is common practice… unfortunately)
I would add: The producer must guarantee that they do not use hormonal treatments/therapies on their animals.
How should dewormers and vaccinations be handled?
I would add: The producer must guarantee that they do not use man-made growth stimulator, inhibitors, or any other chemicals or substances applied to the plant or animal to maximize growth, shelf-life, or appearance (or some variation of this).
Jack – I am very excited about this. Thanks for taking the actions to make this a reality.
Doc K
@John Kitsteiner, we are going to have to work that out over time. I think honestly it will be a much smaller issue than most anticipate. Again our standards will be fair, tailored to small producers etc. We certainly can’t just ban a person over one report in and of itself. I do think we can allow the producer to respond in writing, limiting reports to fellow AgriTrue members will help. That is part of my plan to be able to endorse or report you must be AgriTrue yourself, have a profile, etc. Now you may only have a back yard garden but you got to be part of the community if you are going to be part of policing it.
I endorse the use of vacinations. My father backgrounds approximately 40 calves over the winter, and in the fall we give them vaccinations and apply a topical bug spray (IVOMEC) which is standard industry practice in small operations.
We do this for the benefit of the animals, so I hope that this would exempt him from the designation.
We eat these animals ourselves, and have for many years.
The 21 day requirement after treatment is standard practice to my knowledge in the industry as well, at least for penicillin type treatments.
@Ben, note the standards don’t mention them. We may include it in the survey so consumers that want to know, can know but we will not make it part of the standards. Also make sure to send me an email with AgriTrue in the label so I can invite you to the forum. We need a lot of help with the animal general care standard and the species specific standards. My email is jack @ agritrue.com
I agree with Ben. We use ivomec for the control of mites on our rabbits. We treat both our show and meat rabbiits. However, this is only done as needed and not done for preventive maintaince purposes. In addition to we also put a hold on our meat rabbits of 30 days before slaughter. This might be longer than needed but it’s something we feel comfortable with.
Admin, thanks for the quick reply! I really hope you didn’t take offense to my comparison to CNG (or any other type of “natural” or “organic” certification). I think the point I was trying to make but not clear enough looking back at my post is that with all of the different marketing that is out there the American public is totally confused (for the farmer/retailer the USDA Organic, CNG, AgriTrue, etc. certifications, are all marketing tools). No offense to the people of this (once?) great country but most don’t take the time to look into the specifics of anything, whether it’s political candidates/issues or the definition of “organic”, naturally grown, hydroponic, you get the point.
I guess as a producer the best thing would be (credit your last sentence in your response) to just get all the certifications possible however now you’ve recreated the burden that some of these various programs, like CNG, have tried to eliminate.
I’m an absolute supporter of the free market however having personal experience with the certification requirements of the aerospace and automotive industries (and seeing what is missing in other areas, like Wall Street and the FED!!!) I think lacking independant 3rd party certification the opportunity to abuse is just too great. It’s just too easy to fake the general public!
Just a thought, and i am sure some of this is incorporated into the ideology behind this. How about using a sliding scale of 0-10 on the sustainability of the crop. (Paul Wheaten’s idea) This would give those who are at zero a place to start. From what i have heard you say about AgriTrue it seems like a grower would have to be in the vicinity of 2 before being eligible. (total guessing on the number. There could be a few totally unacceptable practices such as the use of GMO, ect.
With that said i think this is a beautiful and powerful idea. Let me know when you are accepting growers so i can be the first for profit grower in MN to sign up.
As to people who break the rules for certification, let the consumers do an anti rating. promote the visit the farm attitude. Positive rankings for good produces, negative rankings for those who are not doing what they say they are doing. I think this is similar to Ebay’s ranking system.
All good points/ideas. “Can’t” wasn’t the right word. It is more a question of consistency and prioritization. Setting a small area waiver is difficult since it would be dependent on the animal being produced. Rounding up, I have 0.04 acres of cultivatable area (that’s including a patio cover once it is repaired), so something like rabbits can strain site resources, but if it were larger live stock, similar constraints would occur at larger land sizes.
I have a fair amount of weed crop in the spring, but I have to decide if that is going to be compost or feed, and I still have to feel out what my rabbits are happy with (they were initially given a lot of grasses and weeds, and were getting poop butt, which is about as fun to deal with as it sounds). I also have to weigh water costs of trying to grow feed outside the couple of rainy months we get vs buying feed.
I’m thinking the core of the approach should center on what you want out of the requirement. If the goal is to avoid feed lot nightmares, that could be covered under ethical treatment. If the goal is to avoid pure pelletized diet, then having something more to the effect of having x% of the diet be wild occurring or similar. If the goal is to have the site be more self contained, then perhaps combining the plant and animal requirements to have something to the effect of “x% of cultivated area must be dedicated to sustaining the land and animals”.
Personally, I don’t see having site A grow feed, site B grow organic matter and site C use feed and organic matter as a sustainability issue just because the owner of sites A, B and C are not the same. As long as sites A, B and C as a whole make sense from a sustainability standpoint, it seems reasonable to view them independent of ownership or immediate proximity.
I have been looking into American Livestock Breeds Conservancy planning on getting livestock off the Critical Threatened Watch or Recovering list. Trying for heritage breeds. Typically they are hardier less heath problems forage better and more efficiently. Which helps make it easier to reach and maintain the goals of healthier food. I like the saying “we are what we eat eats” If I have what they eat already on site that makes things so much easier. So picking the animals to match what I already have growing. Sorry got off there didn’t mean too.
http://albc-usa.org/heritagecattle/definition.html is the link where they have definitions for the breeds and definition of products. Not saying copy directly but thought it may be super fuel for ideas especially in the animal/ livestock realm. It seems like a real simple lay out to me like a duh thing maybe I am over simplifying things. What can I say I like KISS (Keep it simple sweetie). I felt like I had to contribute something.
Sorry did’t finish my pc had a hic up. Of course maybe that was my signal to give it up is you have a delet button.
“At least 20% of the animals feed must be produced on site, this can be via pasture feeding, harvesting feed for the animal” I am not sure about the % but maybe could include something like ‘or obtained from another Agritrue participant’
Also just to point out an issue I had with my alpacas. I had to take them off the pasture for a short time and give them other food. We had so much rain here the nutritional value just was not in the pasture. So maybe a way to cover that is something to the effect of a % of the animals total overall balance healthy diet? As to eliminate just giving 10% for one feeding a month also that would cover the situation I had. I think overall the idea is to avoid the “feedlot” mentality so bigger animals are obtained through careful responsible breeding and selection vs chemicals and stuffing of crap down their gullets so to speak?
I really think this is a good idea. People I have spoken with farmers ranchers and shoppers want me to keep them posted. Many said they would most likely purchase from and AgriTrue producer if available. A few said sure if it’s cheaper and fewer didn’t really care.
something about back to back breeding? If we could get this very public it could be so huge. I know right now we are all thinking gardens rabbits chickens because this is a food based thing? It could be so helpful if in the animal section we could also include dogs? These standards could help so many! Dogs are important they guard our flocks and herds. And yes cats keep the vermin down.
If dogs were included and I wanted to buy a guardian for my herd then I would look for a Agritrue animal. just a thought.
I may be late to the game but I am behind a few PodCast.
The only concern I see is the “no more then 30% of the land or space under cultivation can be dedicated to any single crop variety” Here on my homestead we specialize in corn (Sweet Corn, Dent Corn for corn meal, and Indian Corn). The issue I have is the farmer next door grows corn in a rotation (Monsanto crap). The years he does not grow it I plant 50%+ in corn because the risk of cross pollination is very low (I save seeds). The years he does plant corn, I plant less and plant sunflowers between him and I to block it pollen. I rotate my crops, use no fertilizer, herbicide, or insecticide, and only use heirloom varieties of seed. I have not had this system up long so it is an experiment in the workings. Right now I have 5 acres and less than 2 are under cultivation. My plan is in the next few years to have 3 or so under cultivation. My issue is if you look at my homestead in a 3 year period I have no more then the 30%, but if you look at it year to year I do.
I looked at the preliminary standards and have a comment. If I farm 10,000 acres and grow 30% in one crop, that would be 3000 acres. Is that really what you envisioned? In my opinion, I don’t think you should place limitations, only require full disclosure of the practices.