However, urban farming doesn’t come without its challenges. Small spaces, contaminated soils, high water costs, and tight regulations can make growing difficult.

Turning to creative urban farming ideas can help boost your production and profits. Whether you’re looking to pump out more food for your community or let others see the production that’s possible in a small urban space, these ideas can help you reach your goals. 

Grow Vertically

When you’re working with limited square footage, consider growing up. Vertical growing can take various forms depending on your context and goals. Here are a few examples.

• Grow vining crops on trellises. Peas, melons, pole beans, and cucumbers will all grow up fences, arbors, and other trellises. Plant low-growing crops like beets, lettuce, and carrots on either side of the trellised crop to further maximize your space.
• Construct vertical planters: South-facing fences and walls are a great place to add vertical planters to maximize growing space. You can use prefabricated pots or construct your own system out of materials like PVC or recycled plastic containers. Since plants can uptake harmful phthalates leached by some types of plastics, take note of daily exposure limits and weigh the pros and cons of using materials that leach these compounds.
• Construct an indoor vertical garden: If you’re working with an empty indoor space, you can utilize vertical planters and grow lights to produce lots of food. You can set your vertical growing space up to run on a hydroponic, aeroponic, or aquaponic system.

Plant Intensively

If you’re working in an urban space, you probably don’t have acres and acres to play with. While rural farms can stand to plant one crop per field per season, this isn’t always practical on the small scale of an urban farm. Fortunately, intensive planting allows you to grow a lot of food in limited space—just ask farmers like Jean-Martin Fortier.

Consider growing quick-growing crops like salad mix, arugula, radishes, and bok choy. You can also grow cucumbers, tomatoes, zucchini, and other plants that allow for multiple harvests. Stay away from plants that take months to mature, require lots of space, and only produce a single harvest—brussels sprouts, watermelon, and winter squash are a few examples.

Lean Into Education

If you want to make a living off your small, urban farm, you may need to do more than produce vegetables, flowers, or eggs to sell. Although it’s unfortunate that many people are disconnected from agriculture, many are yearning to learn more about where their food comes from.

Opening up your farm for educational tours and events is one way you can connect with your community and add another source of income. Try hosting classes on topics like the basics of soil health, planning your spring garden, or growing herbs in a small space.

Utilize Relay Cropping

If you’re looking to maximize a small growing space, relay cropping is another practice to try out. Relay cropping involves planting a new crop into an area where an existing crop is already growing. By the time the second crop begins to compete with the first crop, the first one is ready to harvest.

Here are some examples of relay cropping to try on an urban vegetable farm.

• Plant tomatoes or trellised cucumbers in the middle of a bed of lettuce.
• Sow carrot seeds in between rows of nearly mature scallions or onions.
• Transplant kale, cabbage, or broccoli seedlings in between rows of dill or cilantro.

Capture Water

If you’re growing in an urban space, you’re probably turning to a municipal water supply when it’s time to irrigate. Without access to a well or irrigation pond, you may think you have to pay for every drop of water you use. Fortunately, there’s another way.

Capturing rainwater into rain barrels connected to gutters on sheds or larger buildings provides you with a free source of water after you pay to set up the system. Before you set up a rainwater collection system in your area, check your local regulations. Some states and counties prohibit or limit rainwater collection.

Think Beyond Vegetables

Many people associate the term urban farm with community gardens and small farms growing vegetables. However, veggies are just one possibility for urban farmers. If you’re working with contaminated soil or your community isn’t interested in greens and tomatoes, consider producing another product.

Mushrooms, honey bees, and cut flowers are all alternatives that work in small spaces. If you’re just starting, spend time visiting other farms and thinking about which product and system would work well with your available space, time, and skillset.

Consider Aquaponics

Aquaponics could make sense for you if you want to grow a lot of food in a small space and don’t have access to healthy soil. This system combines freshwater fish and plants so the fish waste provides the plants with the nutrients they need to grow.

Aquaponics systems often utilize tilapia because they can tolerate crowded conditions and stress. However, some systems raise channel catfish, trout, and striped bass. As the fish excrete waste, bacteria convert it into a plant-available fertilizer that you can apply to crops like lettuce and herbs.

Aquaponic systems often have higher start-up costs than other urban farming methods, and reliable electricity is required to run pumps and aeration systems. However, if you get your system up and running smoothly, it can pump out both greens and protein.

The post Repurposing Urban Spaces for Farming: 7 Creative Ideas appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“Wild rice is culturally significant to Aniishinabe people here in Minnesota. It’s our connection to the land, water and our ancestors…I had a friend say that Aniishinabeg people, if we were to lose this plant, we would lose a huge chunk of ourselves,” Goose says.

“My sister and I this past fall were finishing our rice, and I had so much respect for my ancestors and how hard that work is —to dry the rice, parch it, and winnow it—is a whole process from start to finish.”

Goose is also passing the sacred traditions on to future generations – as much as she can. Wild rice is under threat from climate impacts, unchecked pollution and overdevelopment, causing contamination, sea level rise, disruptions of freshwater wetlands and more.

But Native people have been the stewards of the waters in their territories for tens of thousands of years, just as we have been stewards of the land. In this second part of our two-part series, we dive deeper into some challenges of water stewardship and how Indigenous voices in regions across the continental U.S. rise to the call of Mother Àwęˀkęhaˀnęˀ (Water, Skarure) to protect her and all life dependent on water. 

Saying no to pipelines

In the Great Lakes Region and Midwest, Enbridge, a Canadian-based pipeline operator in the Great Lakes, has faced controversy for decades.  

Their 1960s Line 3 pipeline through the Great Lakes region caused one of the biggest inland oil  spills in US history in 1991. Occurring in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, it spilled 1.7 million gallons into Prairie River – a tributary of the Mississippi.

The line weakened over time. The Minnesota Dept of Commerce reports 15 failures since 1990, resulting in more than 50 barrels of oil per incident. Corrosion and cracking prompted over 950 excavations since 2000 alone, and 10 times as many “anomalies” per mile than any other pipeline in the Mainline corridor. All told, Enbridge has since paid more than $11 million to address environmental damage from Line 3. 

In 2010, they had the second largest inland oil spill, estimated at 843,000 gallons at Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River, a tributary to Lake Michigan.

Ogimaa Giniw Ikwe is a citizen of Miskwaagamiiwi-Zaagaiganing (Red Lake Nation),  where she’s been “deeply involved with the work of water protection and conservation and those types of things throughout Minnesota for probably the last dozen years.” 

She’s not convinced that Enbridge is doing all they can to preserve wetlands, like those in Minnesota where their Line 3 pipeline runs. “In places with shifty ground, they took steel panels and drove them in so the pipeline was stabilized, and fractured a number of underground aquifers, including artesian aquifers that are not easily replaceable,” Giniw Ikwe says.

An estimated 280 million gallons of groundwater spilled from the ruptures, largely tracked and reported by environmental and Indigenous groups. Thermal imaging showing 45 spots along the pipeline where warmer groundwater appeared to surface. There were four major sites in or near tribal lands, treaty territories or wild rice lakes, from 2021 to 2023. 

The water losses occurred while climate change is rapidly shifting weather patterns. Minnesota endured multi-year drought, even severe drought conditions, increasing risk of wildfires.

But the officials did not lay blame on these massive industrial leaks. There was controversy raised as officials primarily blamed farmers, claiming over-pumping of aquifer water to crops. Giniw Ikwe disagrees.

“I think that aquifer damage had a much stronger play in what’s happening,” says Giniw Ikwe.

“Then this stuff (contaminants) sinks to the bottom, damaging delicate wetlands areas, which filters out clean water and ensures water in Minnesota can trickle down into aquifer systems, and that’s where they laid this pipeline. So it’s been really contentious.”

She refers to the resulting pooling mix of breached aquifer water, drilling fluid and grout used to patch the breaches as a potential hazard to the wetlands and groundwater, even after so-called repairs.

Looking to the future

Many people across the region were deeply opposed to the installation of a new/reparative pipeline, questioning its need. And states like Michigan are still fighting in court over a cease and desist issued years prior to stop the flow entirely.

But groups are pumping out solutions as well.

Leanna Goose works as a co-facilitator and organizer for Rise and Repair, an alliance of organizations advancing legislative climate justice in Minnesota. She does research in the Protecting Manoomin for the Next Seven Generations project, which studies wildlife and addresses challenges proactively. 

There are more than 17 species of wild rice indigenous to her research area listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. They are essential to biodiversity and support a thriving ecosystem, clean water, and human life. It’s particularly sensitive during the “floating leaf” stage, and water fluctuations can disrupt an entire rice bed. 

“This past ricing season was a tough one for manoomin. A lot of the rice beds were washed out in the spring. There was a lot of precipitation, and then a drought the last part of summer,” Goose says. With Rise and Repair, Goose is advancing legislation to hopefully make future ricing seasons easier.

“We’re trying to recognize the inherent right of wild rice to exist and thrive – that all living beings have a right to be here just like we do. This legislation brings that culture of respect to all of Minnesota and creates systemic change, where we don’t just view the world around us as natural resources, but as living beings we share this earth with – as relatives.”

Beth Roach is a Nottoway tribal leader, seedkeeper, entrepreneur, and Water Protector. She’s also national campaign manager for the Sierra Club, one of the most historic grassroots environmental organizations in the country. 

“For the last two years, I’ve been building a new national water conservation campaign for the Sierra Club that advances water protection under the Clean Water Act,” Roach says.

The work she does is a personal imperative as much as a professional one. She talked about the Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protest  slogan “Water is Life”, and how that moment of championing clean water rights lifted many tribal voices protecting our waters throughout Turtle Island (The Americas).

“We often see our ancestors, ourselves, and future generations of the earth itself, therefore we are instructed to nurture and steward these gifts as if all life depends on them,” says Roach.

“When I’m cleaning trash off shorelines and pulling tires out of the river, I have an embodied feeling that those items will not be doing harm to my waters anymore. When I’m advocating for stronger policies, I know that I’m demanding a future that we need to see. When I’m planting seeds and tending to the soil, I know that I’m doing my part to pass on this knowledge to the next generation. When I’m learning about climate adaptation strategies, I know that I’m giving the next generation a fighting chance.” 

The post How Native Water Protectors Champion Water Quality appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The pod’s dense and waxy exterior gives way to seeds coated in white pulp – sweet, bitter and nutty to the taste. They are destined for greatness in the form of chocolate bars, dried beans and tea at Lavaloha Chocolate Farm in Hilo.

“Bringing the Hawaiian cacao to light for the rest of the world – I really want to be at the forefront of that,” Lavaloha’s president Bencomo says. 

Although most of the world’s chocolate is grown in West Africa, those sweet treats aren’t guilt-free: Industry problems include slavery, child labor, poverty among farmers and more. But in recent years, small-scale producers have raised the ethical bar, and a nascent sector has formed on Hawaiian soil under American labor standards. Here, growers are making fresh kokoleka, or chocolate in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian language), through mindful agricultural practices: creating their own soil and compost, contracting with locals, and using organic fertilizer.

“For all of us in Hawai‘i, it’s integrity,” says Puna Chocolate Company owner Adam Potter. “It’s gonna be Hawaiian grown, and it’s gonna be quality beans.”

Also operating on the island, Puna Chocolate Company works with independent farmers to grow cacao, which accounts for 40 percent of its cocoa bean production. One, who is based in Hakalau, identifies as Kanaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian). The other 60 percent is produced across seven farms – four owned and three managed by Puna Chocolate Co.

To Potter, his top-selling caramel macadamia turtles are worlds away from mass-produced chocolate by major global players, such as Hershey. Imported commodities take time to reach American consumers, Potter said, which can mean slightly-rancid cocoa butter and absent flavor profiles.

“Why Hawaiian (chocolate) tastes so different is that you’re in the U.S.,” says Potter. “You’re getting fresh, from-origin chocolate.”

He and his co-owner Benjamin Vanegtern opt against aging their beans, in order to transform them into chocolate more quickly. 

“We’re probably the freshest chocolate bars you can get in the country,” Potter adds.

Still, he wants to keep prices low for the local market. In Kona, where most of the island’s resorts are located, tourists make up 80 percent of Puna Chocolate Co.’s market. But in Hilo, that percentage is flip-flopped, with residents accounting for 80 percent of business.

“We don’t need to charge that much because we do grow our own beans,” Potter says. “And we grow a lot.”

Since joining Lavaloha in 2019, Bencomo has spent most of his days farming on the property made up of almost 1,000 acres – 25 of which are dedicated to cacao. With around 10,000 trees, it’s Lavaloha’s main commodity. 

From seed to orchard, the cacao growing process can take up to two years. Once the pods turn vibrant colors – orange, red, maroon and yellow – they’re ready to be harvested with clippers and sickles. Harvesting is done by hand because appropriate equipment isn’t available on the market. Each bean is hand sorted and graded, with the lowest turned to compost. Bencomo chooses to sort the old-fashioned way because optical sorting machines are expensive and primarily used for coffee beans.

Tourists are the largest market for Lavaloha’s products, but Bencomo would eventually like to serve as a bulk bean seller. He wants to start a collective system where he buys cacao from farmers for a fair price, then resells the beans to chocolate makers and confectioners.

He manages almost a dozen employees – around 25 percent of whom are Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian). The Indigenous people of Hawai‘i are increasingly being priced out of the islands due to the tourism industry, the affordable housing crisis and the skyrocketing cost of living, but a viable job market can help them continue to live in the lands of their ancestors. 

Bencomo took the reins of the business in 2022, and it’s grown steadily since then.

In Hawai‘i, “I definitely think it’s gonna be bigger,” he said. “Look out for Hawaiian cacao in the grocery stores in the next couple years, I hope.”

Across the island chain, on the east side of Kaua‘i, Will Lydgate is determined to elevate Hawai‘i’s reputation as a global leader in the chocolate industry. He estimates the state produces about 1/10,000th of the world’s cocoa supply.

“We’ll never compete on quantity, but we don’t want to,” says Lydgate, owner of Lydgate Farms. “We want to be the place where the best chocolate in the world is.”

And he believes that operating in the U.S. offers advantages beyond its agricultural resources.

Compared to other cacao-growing nations, “we also have better roads. We have FedEx,” says Lydgate. “We have scientists, universities, an electricity grid that doesn’t go on and off, stable currency – things that a lot of other tropical nations don’t have.”

But Hawaiian cacao farms do deal with their own local challenges, like high expenses and a dearth of affordable worker housing.

“In the Hawaiian islands, we’re completely separated from the global commodity cacao,” he says. “We do not touch it. It does not really influence us or change anything, other than the price of cocoa butter.”

Lydgate, his sister and his father started their foray into cacao after planting a small grove in 2002, although the family ties to Hawai‘i extend back to 1865 when Lydate’s great-great grandfather first immigrated to the then-monarchy.

Now, Lydgate Farms is made up of 46 acres, and its team of 30 includes about five people of Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian) ancestry. The land gets between 50 to 70 inches of rain annually, which keeps its 3,200 thirsty cacao trees watered, and organic fertilizer is used to boost soil health. The farm relies on regenerative farming practices.

“If you’re buying from us, we’re the people that grew it,” Lydgate says. “There’s no step in between you and the farm.”

Author Megan Ulu-Lani Boyanton identifies as Kanaka ʻŌiwi (Native Hawaiian).

The post In Hawai‘i, American Farmers Believe They Do Cacao Better appeared first on Modern Farmer.

The latter statement is inspired by the words of the farmer and writer, Wendell Berry – specifically, his essay “The Pleasures of Eating,” published in 1989, in which he famously wrote that “eating is an agricultural act.” In the following decades, the farm-to-table movement has championed and codified this understanding of our food systems through numerous certifications that aim to help us make more sustainable choices. While many of us have gotten into the habit of seeking out certain symbols and words on food products, we have been slower to adopt this approach to beverages – especially alcoholic ones. 

“There are few reasons that it’s taken longer for sustainability practice and culture to reach the spirits industry,” explains Shanna Farrell, author of A Good Drink: In Pursuit of Sustainable Spirits. “The first is that you (often) can’t visit farms that grow the crops that become spirits.” 

While this is not the case for wine – an industry bolstered by enotourism [travel for the purpose of exploring wine regions], with visitors being encouraged to see the grapes up-close – many kinds of alcohol are subject to a strange separation from consumers. These products are, in fact, deeply rooted in a sense of place that is so much more complex than tidy rows of vineyards, hops, or grains convey at first glance. For this reason, the little labels on bottles of booze can go a long way in facilitating choices that are healthier for us and the planet – if we take the time to read and understand them. 

Some broad-reaching sustainability certifications are by now familiar – most notably the United States Department of Agriculture Organic seal, which was developed following the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (on the heels of Berry’s famous essay). Other, newer terms are somewhat intuitive, such as “Fish-Friendly” or the more specific “Salmon-Safe,” while still others, like “Carbon Neutral” or “B Corp,” require further study. In deciding which terminology to trust, it’s important to consider how and by whom these certifications are regulated. Ecolabels can be verified by governing bodies at the international, federal, or state level, as well as by independent organizations. 

The first step to sipping more sustainably is simply to acknowledge our drinks as agricultural products. From there, we can begin to consider how the cultivation, transformation, and transportation of their ingredients impacts our land, water, and air, as well as all of the life forms inhabiting these ecosystems.  

The wine industry is leading the way when it comes to creating a new correlation between alcohol and aquatic creatures with a more positive connotation than the phrase “to drink like a fish.” Ram’s Gate Winery in Sonoma, California is one of more than 2,000 farms that have joined the Fish-Friendly Farming Environmental Certification Program, which is regulated by a non-profit organization, the California Land Stewardship Institute. Caine Thompson, the winery’s head of sustainability, explains that in order to become certified, “The farmer must show that they are implementing practices that both restore fish and wildlife habitats and improve water quality.” 

Outside the Golden State, the Salmon-Safe Certification is another great way to verify that farmers are working in harmony with their local waterways. At Soter Vineyards in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, Salmon-Safe Certified is just one of the many ecolabels that the farm has earned over the years, along with Organic, Biodynamic, B Corporation, and LIVE (Low Input Viticulture and Enology). Soter Vineyards is also Bee-Friendly – according to accreditation by the non-profit Pollinator Partnership – highlighting their holistic approach to caring for creatures that live underwater and up in the air. 

Soter Vineyards’ viticulturist, Emily Rozga, explains that one of the shared key practices across these various certifications is “habitat maintenance.” This includes leaving some vegetation along the wetlands undisturbed to help regulate water temperatures and planting wildflower meadows for native pollinators, especially milkweed for migrating Monarch butterflies.  

Some certifications are narrowly focused on certain species, while others aim to be all-encompassing. In 2023, Anytime Spritz launched Farmhouse Gin and Farmhouse Vodka as the world’s first and only Regenerative Organic Certified spirits. Taylor Lanzet, co-founder of the “farm-to-can” cocktail company, explains that they don’t prioritize any one species over another. One of their partners in Hudson, New York, Breathe Deep Farm, started enacting regenerative organic practices in their fields of wheat and other grains, and is now “home to 122 rare and uncommon plant species, 83 bird species, and 40 butterfly and dragonfly species.” 

Winged creatures of all sizes play an important role in a balanced, biodiverse ecosystem and, for some crops, can be crucial for cultivation. Perhaps the most striking example of this is seen in the production of tequila. The popular Mexican spirit is made from the agave plant, which depends on bats for pollination. You may notice the term “Bat-Friendly” on some sustainable tequila brands, but you should also keep an eye out for the letters “ARA,” which stand for Agave Responsable Ambiental (Environmentally Responsible Agave). 

Mijenta is one of the few brands to gain this certification from the Tequila Regulatory Council and the Government of the State of Jalisco, Mexico. Elise Som, co-founder and director of sustainability at Mijenta, explains that they chose to pursue ARA certification to demonstrate that their agave is “grown on land that did not suffer deforestation.” Mijenta’s other certifications, including B Corporation by B Lab and Carbon Neutral by ClimatePartner attest to their “focus on community support and forest protection, as well as development of clean energy solutions.” 

Some sustainability labels in the beverage industry concentrate their attention on the maintenance of crop fields as healthy habitats, while others highlight the preservation of wild landscapes. Marla Hoban, co-founder of the Portland, Oregon-based non-alcoholic beer company Roaming Nobles explains that their brand name pays “homage to the noble animals that roam our state and all its beautiful natural spaces.” This connection is celebrated on their beer cans by the appearance of a tree symbol announcing their partnership with the Forest Park Conservancy, which cares for one of the United State’s largest urban parks – a vital habitat for hundreds of species, ranging from black bears to banana slugs, hoary bats, bobcats, and mountain beavers.

Your personal bar cart may seem far removed from forests and farmlands, but they are inextricably linked. It’s time we take an ecosystems approach to how we drink. Before you pour, carve out an extra few minutes to assess the labels at your local wine shop, call up your preferred brewer, or get friendly with your bartender. By mindfully choosing our beverages based on sustainability certifications, we can have a positive impact that extends well beyond happy hour. 

The post What Do Fish, Butterflies, and Bats Have to Do With Booze? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Alone, the task would have taken Aiello the better part of a day; together, the group covers the whole field in barely more than two hours. This is the beauty of a farmer support network, like Rooted Northwest. 

Rooted Northwest is a 240-acre piece of land which hosts a growing number of farmers, including Aiello, with collaboration and farmer support at the center of their operation, similar to an agri-hood. 

“Farmers rely on communities, and communities rely on farmers,” says Aiello. “We work closely together, we share infrastructure, we share equipment, we help each other out.” 

As a family farmer running a commercial business, Aiello says going it alone just isn’t a realistic possibility. And soon, he’ll have even more neighbors with whom he can collaborate.

In December, the Rooted Northwest Agrivillage Preliminary Plat was approved by Snohomish County. Thanks to a new ordinance passed in 2023, Rooted Northwest will be able to tightly concentrate new homes on less acreage than is typically allowed by county building code. This will allow the project to preserve at least 200 acres of working farmland. If successful, this experiment could become a replicable model for farmland conservation.

The ordinance

The Rooted Northwest land, ringed by trees, has only a few reminders of the centennial dairy it once was, including a handful of lingering structures and a small manure lagoon. The land sits about an hour north of Seattle in Snohomish County, which struggles from two problems that often feel at odds — the loss of viable farmland to development, and the need for more housing for its residents.

Despite its long tenure as farmland, the former Tillman Dairy was actually zoned residential. This made the land attractive to developers and drove up the price above what most farmers could afford to pay. When the land went up for sale, it was a risk of being converted away from agriculture. 

“It certainly wasn’t going to be something that was affordable to another farmer,” says Dave Boehnlein, one of the founders of Rooted Northwest.

After securing a bank loan and purchasing the land for $3.5 million in 2020, Boehnlein worked with Snohomish County to pass the Rural Village Housing Demonstration Program ordinance in 2023. This will allow them to build 40 homes in one corner of the property, and 30 in another, while conserving at least 85 percent of the land for farming. The ordinance is scheduled to last for a few years, as a way for the county to try it out.

“We are really hoping that this becomes a model, that this can be essentially a case study that other people, other counties, other jurisdictions can look at and say, ‘here is a novel way that we can use development as a tool to preserve land,’” Boehnlein says.

Rooted Northwest hopes to break ground on construction of village one in 2025, with 14 of the 40 available homes already spoken for. Not all residents of the onsite homes will be farmers, says Boehnlein. 

The prices for the homes will not be determined until the project goes out to bid, but the smallest two-bedroom units will likely be around $850,000 and the larger four-bedroom ones are in the ballpark of $1.8 million. These prices account for the cost of the house, but also the acreage preserved for farming.

“Let’s prove that this works.”

Boehnlein hopes that after they have proof of concept in place with the first group of homes, they’ll be able to find programs that will support affordability for more farmers to buy into the second village.

“The whole picture here is, at the end of the day, can we use the development of these neighborhoods to generate the money that pays for this land and puts it into protection in perpetuity, while tightly concentrating those homes in what essentially is a traditional village context,” says Boehnlein.

Cohousing in the US

Rooted Northwest is already a functioning farm, but in its final form, it will also be a cohousing community. It will join the ranks of a larger movement of communal housing in the United States.

Cohousing consists of tightly concentrated homes with shared communal spaces, such as outdoor areas or communal kitchens. They are self-organized and self-governing. There are some 180 cohousing communities in the US, with 140 more at some stage of development, says Trish Becker, executive director of the Cohousing Association of the United States. As with Rooted Northwest, one of the biggest hurdles these communities face is zoning challenges, she says. 

Becker, who helped start the cohousing community she currently lives in in the Denver area, cites many benefits of cohousing, such as knowing after a long day of work that there will be food already made if you ask for it, or knowing who can care for your pets when you leave town. 

“But then beyond all of those day-to-day details, I just think that when we experience a sense of belonging, specifically within communities of proximity, that we are more likely to pursue fulfilling endeavors,” says Becker. “We are better when we feel connected and supported, and especially when our basic needs are met.”

The Cohousing Association of the United States exists to support the cohousing movement by sharing resources and education, and working on some of the things that Becker perceives as other key obstacles in the larger cohousing landscape, such as the lack of racial diversity and the high cost of entry. 

“To build cohousing is no more affordable than to build any type of housing,” says Becker. “Struggles that are faced by housing overall are faced by cohousing, and that’s a challenge.”

Conservation

One thing that sets Rooted Northwest apart from other cohousing communities is its focus on conserving farmland and supporting farmers. As community members worked together to sheet mulch Aiello’s farm, they used shared rakes, shovels, and wheelbarrows. Aiello drives a shared tractor. 

The farming model of Rooted Northwest is an extension of the cohousing sense of community — it’s not just the land that is shared, but resources and infrastructure that are costly to purchase on one’s own. Beyond tools, this also includes critical infrastructure such as onsite cold storage, a refrigerated van, a greenhouse for plant starts, and washing facilities.

Boehnlein says they’ve worked extensively with the Snohomish Conservation District. In one instance, the Snohomish Conservation District received a grant to explore agroforestry as a solution to farming wet ground. Rooted Northwest is home to one of their test sites — about a three-acre chunk of the farm is now an alley cropping system, wherein hay is being grown among lines of aronia berries, hazelnuts, elderberries, pawpaws, and more. Through another grant received by the Snohomish Conservation District, they’re experimenting with agroforestry by planting in the understory of the trees. About a half acre of land on the eastern side of the farm will feature tea plants grown by one of Rooted Northwest’s farmers just beneath some big leaf maples. Boehnlein’s hope is that not only can they conserve farmland, they can share what they learn with others. In the coming years, Rooted Northwest will be the pilot of a housing ordinance that could protect farmland, and experiment with ways of farming effectively. It doesn’t have to be housing versus farmland, Boehnlein says. It can be both.

“Let’s prove that this works.”

The post A Washington Cohousing Project Could Help Preserve Farmland appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“It’s a premium product,” says executive chef and partner Daniel Garwood. “The cow has gone through its whole life. There’s a lot of natural marbling. It has an interesting flavor and texture.”

Since opening the restaurant in October of 2024, Garwood, who hails from Australia and spent time cooking in Sweden, has served ribeye, strip loin, tenderloin, brisket, and even mince pie, all from dairy cow beef.

In the U.S., dairy cows are almost exclusively raised for dairy production. The exception is male calves, sold to the beef industry and raised for veal or beef. Once a dairy cow’s milk productivity declines, the cows are slaughtered with their meat, which is often considered of a lower quality and makes its way into dog and cat food and fast food burgers. In other parts of the world, though, such as in Sweden, where Garwood worked, meat from dairy herds is prized. 

Now, a growing number of U.S. restaurants, including ACRU, Blue Hill at Stone Barns, and Gwen Restaurant in Los Angeles, have been exploring whether dairy cow meat will appeal to consumers interested in sustainability.  

“Meat from grass fed dairy cows is considered to have a lower carbon footprint than meat from traditional beef herds in part because its footprint is spread across the years of protein rich, delicious milk the animals produce in their lifetime,”  says Dan Barber of Blue Hill at Stone Barns.

There’s an idea that beef from a dairy herd is a more sustainable option, because you are getting more food for the resources used. Instead of simply just getting milk or beef from the land, water, feed, put into the cow you’re getting both. 

Sustainability was a big draw for The Oberon Group, which owns restaurants and food markets in the Catskills and New York City. They introduced dairy beef in 2017, and while customers supported the sustainability efforts, there were concerns around texture.

“The customer pushback on the toughness was significant,” says Henry Rich, managing partner.

As dairy cows are older when they are slaughtered compared to beef cattle, which usually are culled at six to seven months for veal, or two years for beef, the meat is generally considered tougher.

“They generally don’t have a lot of intramuscular fat or marbling that gives beef the flavoring that is associated with it. And all of those things usually reduce consumer acceptance. I would guess restaurants are using some pretty unique cooking methods in order to overcome that,” says Tara Felix, an associate professor in the Department of Animal Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Oberon Group is focused on sustainable, environmental restaurants with a goal of carbon-neutrality and zero-waste. As he explains it, they started serving dairy beef in a meat-centric restaurant, Metta, because, at the time, they believed that because the carbon emissions of the cow were already caused by dairy, using the cows for meat would have a lower carbon footprint that cows that were just used for meat. The calculation soon felt a bit off to Rich.

“The claim that they had lower overall carbon footprints is because you’re ignoring the first however many years of life because they’d be here anywhere. That accounting started to feel a little fuzzy for me,” Rich says.

There is research that seems to agree that dairy beef has a lower carbon footprint than conventional beef. An analysis from Our World in Data, found that per 100 grams of protein beef from a beef herd had 49.89 grams of greenhouse gasses, whereas beef from a dairy herd was 16.87 grams.

“The challenge is that sustainability means something different to everyone. Is it reduced methane emissions? Is it reduced feed inputs? Is it reduced time on feed?” says Felix who added that it’s a question a number of people are currently researching in regards to the offspring from dairy farms which do already often make their way into beef herd programs.

Between the customer response and the lack of clarity over sustainability, The Oberon Group ended up phasing out the dairy beef program after about two years.

However, the company started and stopped its dairy beef program before the coronavirus pandemic upended life as we knew it. Chefs life Garwood and Barber that have started their dairy beef programs within the last year or so have done so at a time when there is perhaps more awareness of the interconnectedness of food systems, and climate-related disasters such as the wildfires in Maui or more recently in L.A., have pushed more people to think about the impacts of global warming. Garwood and Barber have so far received vastly different responses to their program. 

“The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Grass-fed beef and meat from dairy cows has the reputation of being tough, but some of our guests have told us it’s the best steak they’ve ever had,” says Chef Dan Barber of Blue Hill at Stone Barns.

Blue Hill started using dairy beef in 2023, but Barber credits the cows on his family’s dairy in the Berkshires for making him want to experiment with dairy beef.

“Blue Hill Farm, my family’s dairy farm in the Berkshires, had an older dairy cow ready for culling at least once or twice a year. I bet it was my proximity to these exceptional ladies—spending years, in some cases seven or eight or more years, getting to know them well—that made their inevitable fate of becoming dog food feel disrespectful,” says Barber.

Barber and Garwood haven’t yet faced any significant negative customer response. At Blue Hill at Stone Barns, dairy cows forage on grass and hay before being slaughtered.

“The meat from grass-fed dairy cows has this incredible, idiosyncratic flavor,” says Barber. “But more than that, the idea is to showcase how delicious this often-overlooked meat can be and create a market for it.”

U.S. dairy farmers typically get only about 60 cents per pound for meat from retired dairy cows as dog food and fast food hamburgers. If they could get closer to $6 a pound or more for their animals, Barber says it could help boost revenue for dairy farmers.

Felix agrees that it could be economically appealing for dairy farmers but believes that its success would depend on the size of the dairy farm and whether or not the restaurant could take all of the animals the dairy produces.

“There are 86 million head of cattle in the United States, and each year we kill 26 to 28 million. If we’re talking about even eight or 10 restaurants using two to three cows a week, this is a very, very small market,” Felix says. “Not to discount it, because it would be great if a farmer could develop a relationship like that, but it’s probably never going to be our primary marketplace.”

That isn’t a deterrent for Garwood. Initially, he had trouble sourcing the dairy beef. “We had to buy the entire cow,” says Garwood, who is sourcing from Ends Meat in Brooklyn, which gets dairy cows from farms in upstate New York, adding that he’s had other restaurants express interest in getting primal cuts but not being able to handle the entire cow.

“We really want to pursue it,” Garwood says. “We’ll focus on whole dairy cow dinners in the coming months.”

The post Why Are Restaurants Selling Beef From Dairy Cows? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

But over the past 25 years, peer-reviewed scientific studies show that biodynamic farming enhances soil quality and biodiversity. It also produces more nutritious produce and wine that tastes better. 

With that in mind, the era of downplaying the merits of biodynamic farming is officially over. Today, biodynamic farmers on the cutting edge are taking the philosophy and science that has served them so well on their farms and applying it to their business practices.

Biodynamic farming 101

Still not sure what we mean when we say biodynamic farming? You’re not alone. Biodynamics is based on the work of philosopher and scientist Dr. Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). It is, at its simplest level, a method of chemical-free organic farming that entails the observation of lunar phases, planetary cycles and requires the use of locally sourced materials for fertilization and soil conditioning.

Practitioners see the farm as a closed, biodiverse ecosystem that requires internal inputs—which can come from the manure of ruminants raised on the farm, or from teas made from plants grown and animal products present on the farm—to nourish and feed itself. 

There are two primary forms of biodynamic certification, through Demeter-USA and Demeter International. It is estimated that there are around 6,000 certified biodynamic farms in operation across the world, and many more who farm biodynamically without certification. (The cost of getting certified varies depending on the farm’s size, but is generally at least a few thousand dollars, and requires adherence to a complex set of rules and standards). 

Now, a new crop of producers are taking these same concepts and applying them to their businesses as a whole. Is the certified biodynamic coffee you’re drinking truly biodynamic if the coffee pods were dried on a conventionally produced table? These are the kind of questions the truly hardcore are asking.

Deeply considering every element that touches products

Gérard Bertrand, who owns and operates 16 certified biodynamic wine estates in Languedoc and Roussillon, France, has been infusing business decisions with biodynamic ideas for decades. 

At the Minervois winery Clos d’Ora, the layout was designed so that sunlight hits a precise place in the barrel cellar during each solstice. And at Languedoc’s Clos du Temple, architect Francois Fontes designed the space to link sky and earth. Glass panels bring sunshine into the winery through the ceiling, while a mashrabiya (a latticework window that is characteristic of Islamic architecture) cools the heat the sun brings and casts patterns of light and shadow. 

“The sun, the star that anchors our system and shines bright for much of the year in this region, shapes our construction projects,” Bertrand explains. 

At his wine resort Chateau L’Hospitalet, Bertrand created a The Moon Room devoted to biodynamically rooted tastings. 

“Its light fixtures mimic celestial bodies, their glow, colors, and rhythms attuned to the dishes and wines served,” Bertrand explains. “Short narratives weave through the meal, inviting guests to sense the rhythms that guide our biodynamic work. This is more than a meal—it is a multisensory journey, an education, and a fresh way of looking at the heavens.”

Robert Eden, co-owner and winemaker at Chateau Maris, also built his winery in Languedoc based on the biodynamic approach. 

“Our cellar and winery is constructed from hemp bricks and wood to create a plant-based space that can receive external energies,” Eden explains. “Built this way, our winery’s operation is not impaired, and the energy is not repelled by artificial metals and other materials.”

The placement and construction of the building was also considered with the movement of groundwater and alignment to prevailing winds. 

Other vintners, like Count Michael Goess-Enzenberg, owner of Weingut Manincor in Alto Adige, Italy, embraces a holistic approach to biodynamic farming and business-building.

“We get everything possible from organic or biodynamic sources,” Goess-Enzenberg says. “Oak for our barriques, which we use to age our wines, comes from our own forest. Straw and manure for our compost comes from local farms in our neighborhood, which we mix with remains from grapes after they’ve been pressed.”

The quartz used for the biodynamic preparation 501 (a spray used to promote grape strength and health) is sourced from their local mountains. Goess-Enzenberg likens biodynamics to a broad lifestyle that requires wholesale commitment. 

“It brings our lives into balance,” he says. 

At Cullen Wines in Margaret River, Australia, winemaker and managing director Vanya Cullen has created a biodynamic bubble around her entire operation. In addition to farming her vineyards biodynamically, Cullen has a biodynamic produce garden that feeds the on-site restaurant.

Cullen also sources barrels sourced on fruit or flower days, according to the biodynamic calendar. (In the biodynamic farming calendar commonly followed by practitioners, fruit days occur when the moon is in a fire sign—Aries, Leo or Sagittarius; flower days occur when the moon is in an air sign—Gemini, Libra or Aquarius; root days occur when the moon is in the earth sign—Capricorn, Taurus or Virgo; leaf days occur when the moon is in a water sign—Caner, Scorpio or Pisces). 

“We were amazed at the difference between wine made in barrels harvested on fruit and flower days,” Cullen says. “Wine aged in barrels harvested on fruit days are bigger and more expressive. Flower day barrels impart minerality and structure. Overall, we find that wines made with biodynamic barrels as a whole taste more complete.”

Cullen has worked with her coopers to hone the barrel program even further, prioritizing wood harvested on a new moon descending. 

Applying holistic biodynamic ideas to staff management

Beth Hoinacki, owner and operator of Goodfoot Farm in Oregon’s Willamette Valley says that her work for the International Organic Inspectors Association made her realize that biodynamic operations often unconsciously extended their practices well beyond the farming itself. She became determined to conscientiously do so on her own vegetable and fruit farm. 

“I inspected organic and biodynamic farms, and I was always struck by the staff at biodynamic farms,” Hoinacki says. “From the people who are there working in the fields every day to the owners, there was clearly this beautiful dedication to what was happening, and the story they were telling about the universe and our interconnection through the food they were growing.”

There is something about the practice of growing food biodynamically by the rhythm of the planets, moon, sun and stars that seems to engage the minds and hearts of the people involved, Hoinacki notes. 

“I intuitively knew that traditional labor structures on farms were not healthy, so when I began hiring people, I began doing so through the lens of biodynamics with the goal of expressing the character of the farm as it exists,” she says. 

Instead of the traditional power and management structure of owner and employee, she gives her employees the power to collectively agree on hours, start times and breaks. Her decision rooted power on the farm, without allowing inputs from the outside world. 

“It is a system that feeds itself,” Hoinacki notes. “I work with them on the farm because I find working the land rewarding, so we get to make decisions together. Our team members love the system.”

On the other hand… 

Inevitably, there are many who are less than convinced of the merits of biodynamically minded business decisions. 

Wendy Parr, a wine scientist and oenologist at Lincoln University in New Zealand was among the researchers who wrote “Expectation or Sensorial Reality? An Empirical Investigation of the Biodynamic Calendar for Wine Drinkers,” published in the peer-reviewed Public Library of Science mega journal PLOS ONE. In the study, 19 wine pros were asked to taste 12 different Pinot Noirs on fruit and root days. Bottom line: they found the day made no difference.

“To date, there is no clear evidence that the calendar affects tasting,” Parr says. “We know from neuroscientists’ work that no two people ever experience a wine in precisely the same way because there are a myriad of neuro-physical and psychological variables that could be involved.”

Parr adds that there is “anecdotal evidence” that wines can show changes across fruit or root days. 

“I’ve met winemakers in Europe and New Zealand who wouldn’t rack off wine on a root or leaf day,” she says. “It is not for me to say what others should believe or practise. I will add that we did one study only. In the absence of further research, the issue remains unclear.”

The jury appears to be out on whether or not tasting on a fruit or root day will drastically alter your assessment of a wine. But even a few decades ago, the notion that biodynamic farming could improve soil health was unproven and widely ridiculed. 

Tasting special wines, planning farm and winery constructions and basing staff decisions on a biodynamic calendar and philosophy may seem slightly out there—but if it helps vintners and farmers create better products and teams, who are we to argue? 

The post Biodynamic Farms Are One Thing. What About Biodynamic Businesses? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

However, over the years, it’s become clear that malathion isn’t always safe for use, and, even if no humans are negatively impacted by it on a case-by-case basis, it’s much more likely to negatively impact unintended critters or plants, some of which might be endangered. Malathion remains on the market in the US (the United Kingdom withdrew malathion for sale in 2002 due to safety concerns), but some organizations are pushing back, citing the pesticide’s murky history and evidence that malathion isn’t as safe as you might want to believe.

On September 9, 2024, the Center for Biological Diversity, an organization dedicated to protecting endangered species from human impact, sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for “failing to adequately protect more than 1,500 species of wildlife and plants from the insecticide malathion—in violation of the Endangered Species Act.” This came after years of back-and-forth on malathion’s safety. 

In 2017, scientists within the USFWS found that a single exposure to malathion “could be catastrophic” and that repeated use of the insecticide could eliminate entire populations of endangered species in particular areas. However, their findings went nowhere after that scientific determination was reversed by then-Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, which delayed the finalization of the biological opinion by five years. 

Fast forward to 2022, and the USFWS changed its tone: This time, it finalized its biological opinion on malathion and concluded that the pesticide does not pose an extinction risk to a single protected species of wildlife or plant in the United States. There’s very little to explain why such a drastic difference in findings would occur over such a short timespan. 

Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), says that, despite the shift from the USFWS, the CBD remains steadfast that malathion is harmful. “Malathion belongs to an old class of pesticides called organophosphates. Organophosphates are potent neurotoxins associated with a suite of risks to human health, including death,” says Burd. “Farmworkers suffer disproportionate exposure to pesticides, including malathion. But others can also suffer substantial exposures, including people who spray malathion for landscaping, golf courses and mosquito control; people who live in areas where malathion is frequently used for mosquito control, and workers in factories where malathion is produced.” 

A glance back in time through malathion incident reports finds concerning stories from the 1980s and ’90s. In California, malathion was the third most common cause of pesticide-related illness from 1981 to 1985, especially among applicators exposed during indoor application, usually due to inhalation of fumes. Malathion is second on the list of active ingredients thought to be responsible for the largest number of acute occupational pesticide-related illnesses, using 1999 data. One incident report recounts the time a young girl ran across a lawn five hours after the application of malathion; she was left with blisters on her feet for months afterwards. Another incident from 1995 finds that a worker installing a door was exposed to malathion sprayed by the property owner; he was hospitalized for days with dysarthria, nausea, and vomiting. 

In fairness, malathion is generally safe enough for humans—usually. Malathion is of low toxicity to humans, but absorption or ingestion into the human body metabolizes malathion into malaoxon, which is substantially more dangerous. Symptoms of malaoxon toxicity can onset within minutes to hours after exposure, and can result in minor concerns such as allergic reactions or skin rashes to nervous system impacts, seizures, loss of consciousness, and even death. Even low levels of exposure can lead to these effects.  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that workers not be exposed to more than 10 mg/m³ of malathion for a 10-hour workday, 40 hours per workweek. NIOSH also recommends that a level of 250 mg/m³ of malathion in the air be considered as immediately dangerous to life and health.

How can one stay protected from potential malathion toxicity? It’s important to use protective equipment when applying malathion, including gloves, rubber boots, a mask covering the nose and mouth, and eyewear. Even when wearing gloves, it’s important to thoroughly wash your hands afterwards. Windows should stay closed to prevent vapors from entering your house. Similarly, remember that anything you spray has the potential to cause harm; remove pet bowls, children’s toys, or anything else that might unknowingly harbor malathion. However, it’s important to consider others when choosing your pesticide; if you are unable to limit the exposure of others, such as neighborhood kids or dogwalkers, you may want to reconsider using a pesticide believed by many, and evidenced by many incident reports, to cause serious harm.

Malathion is, like most other insecticides, indiscriminate in who it kills; that means that endangered species that come in contact with it are likely to die. These species include the Karner blue butterfly, rusty-patched bumble bee, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, American burying beetle, lesser prairie-chicken, and many plant species. Bat species may actually be at an increased risk, as they may feed on mosquitoes sprayed with malathion before they succumb. Similarly, feral cats, or outdoor cats and dogs, might interact with objects sprayed by malathion, or eat insects or small animals that are contaminated. 

The government’s reply to the lawsuit is due by the end of January, and the incoming Trump administration could be a factor in how it proceeds. “The election could certainly lead to changes in how the government chooses to defend itself in the case, but we still feel confident in the strength of our claims,” says Burd. 

“The Fish and Wildlife Service submitted to the pesticide industry’s demands and hung more than 1,500 endangered species out to dry by failing to rein in malathion use in their habitats,” said Burd in a release regarding the CBD lawsuit. “Today, these animals and plants continue to be harmed by one of the worst neurotoxic pesticides on the market, which can be sprayed in the last few homes of some of our most imperiled species. That includes nearly every endangered butterfly, beetle and dragonfly we have. We just can’t let this go on.” 

The post Why One Group is Suing the Government Over Malathion, a Dangerous Pesticide appeared first on Modern Farmer.

Twice a growing season, a big yellow truck with the license plate “P4FARMS” pulls into Jesse Kayan’s farm in Brattleboro, Vermont, loaded with a thousand gallons of pasteurized human urine sloshing around in IBC totes.

For more than 10 years, Kayan has been applying human urine to his hayfields through a partnership with the Brattleboro-based Rich Earth Institute, a non-profit engaging in research, education and technological innovation to advance the use of human waste as a resource. In August, Rich Earth released a Farmer Guide to Fertilizing with Urine, available for free on their website. The guide compiles a wealth of information and best practices based on working with farm partners like Kayan and a growing body of scientific research from around the world.

“Our hay yields have gone way up as a result [of the urine],” said Kayan. “We have really hungry land and sandy soil. It’s brought it up to a new level and provided some resiliency in the soil health.”

Kayan, whose business relies on the organic vegetables he grows for his farmstand and CSA, said he’d be happy to use urine on other crops if the practice was more widely accepted by consumers.

“I personally, if it were my garden, I would not think twice about it,“ he said. ”I really don’t think there’s actually any food safety concerns. It’s a matter of perception.”

Kayan is one of nine Vermont farmers who’ve participated in Rich Earth’s field studies, funded by USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). In addition to hay, Rich Earth has conducted trials on sweet corn, hemp, figs, nursery trees, and cut flowers. The multi-year trials found that crops fertilized with human urine performed better than untreated control plots.

Kayan and other farm partners also observed higher yields and/or more robust growth and color in the urine-treated plots relative to those treated with conventional synthetic fertilizer; however, the trials found no statistically significant difference in total yields or relative feed value. That said, some international studies have shown improved yields and growth in certain urine-fertilized crops, such as cabbage, maize, and cucumber.

This is no surprise to Arthur Davis, who oversees farm partnerships for Rich Earth. He said human urine has a nutrient profile similar to many commercial fertilizers, with high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, as well as micronutrients like magnesium, sulfur, and calcium.

But the potential benefits of fertilizing with human urine reach far beyond the fields of Vermont. Most commercially available fertilizers rely on synthetic nitrogen produced through the Haber-Bosch process, which accounts for 1.4% of carbon dioxide emissions, and 1% of total global energy consumption, according to the journal Nature Catalyst.

Most of this energy comes from natural gas, which means that the price of fertilizer is closely tied to the price of natural gas, a cost that is passed down to farmers and consumers. But the carbon footprint of conventional fertilizer doesn’t stop there. Mining of phosphate and potash are depleting natural reserves. The Global Phosphorus Research Initiative predicts a shortage of rock phosphate within the next 40 years.

“Our hay yields have gone way up as a result [of the urine].”

Diverting urine from the wastewater stream for use as fertilizer would also address the two largest contributors of nutrient pollution in the U.S., agriculture and human waste, which are responsible for toxic algae blooms, aquatic dead zones, and a wide range of human health conditions. It could also reduce nitrous oxide emission by keeping urine out of uncovered waste lagoons, where it festers with methane-breeding solid waste. Not only that, but urine-diverting toilets — available through Rich Earth — require little or no water to flush, which by their estimates could save up to 900 billion gallons of water per year in the U.S. Some of this water can be recycled for use in irrigation.

Initially, there were concerns about trace levels of pharmaceuticals in urine, but a recently concluded study by Rich Earth in partnership University of Michigan, the University at Buffalo, and the Hampton Roads Sanitation District in Virginia, detected no significant buildup in crop tissues. Davis said they are now also testing for PFAS; so far their samples have tested negative or extremely low.

If human urine is a safe, cost-effective and environmentally sustainable alternative to conventional fertilizers, why hasn’t it already been adopted on a larger scale?

One fundamental challenge of fertilizing with human urine is ammonia volatilization, which can cause the nitrogen in urea to evaporate quickly during storage and application. To prevent this, urine is applied as close to the ground as possible, and incorporated into the soil immediately.

Davis has worked with farm partners to develop application methods that are both practical and effective. For Kayan’s hay fields, Rich Earth uses a custom-built, 500-gallon trailer tank attached to a 30-foot boom suspended about three feet above the ground. The urine drizzles out evenly through small holes spaced every six inches.

“It’s incredibly easy,” said Kayan. “It requires basically just one person on the farm and some sort of form of locomotion.” In his case, this means a team of Suffolk Punch draft horses, but the same apparatus can be hitched to a tractor. “It’s real fast and easy, you can fertilize a lot of land real real quick with it.”

“When you’re filling the bulk tanks to go out and spray it’s really really powerful, but when I’m applying it I don’t really smell it that much.”

John Janiszyn, who runs a multigenerational farm stand in Walpole, New Hampshire, has been using urine on sweet corn for several years, and this year is testing it on his pumpkins.

Davis helped him modify his tractor so that he could cultivate his fields and apply urine in one pass. The urine flows from a tank attached to the three point hitch down through a hose onto the ground, where it is immediately buried by his cultivator. For his pumpkins, they applied the urine under a layer of plastic mulch, trapping the nutrients in the ground.

For Janiszyn, one drawback of using urine is that it is highly diluted. “You need a lot of it to do an acre,” he said. “So you sidedress or whatever and then have to go back and refill and keep going.”

It takes about 1000 gallons of urine just to fertilize one acre of hay. Currently, Rich Earth is nowhere close to being able to meet that kind of demand.

Rich Earth sources its urine from about 250 donors in the Brattleboro area, the first and largest ever community-scale urine nutrient reclamation project in the United States. At their central treatment and storage facility, the urine — about 12,000 gallon a year — is sanitized using a computer-controlled pasteurizer.

“I think it’s a little bit of a chicken and the egg,” said Davis. “It requires farmers to really feel like it’s worth investing in new equipment. They want to feel like they have steady access to the material in the first place, which then requires, on the backend, systems in place for collection and treatment.”

In Vermont, Rich Earth has been working with lawmakers for over a decade to clear regulatory pathways, and are now beginning the process in Massachusetts and New York.

“It’s purely the optics that I would worry about, and I really think that that’s just a matter of time [until it becomes normalized].”

“We’re probably the most kind of far along group in this country in terms of having a whole ecosystem of collection, treatment, transport, application, all under one regulated program,” said Davis.

Rich Earth offers assistance to organizations across the U.S. to obtain approval for farm-scale urine application, including the Land Institute of Kansas, which launched its own urine reclamation project in 2023.

But the greatest obstacle to making peecycling mainstream may not be logistic or regulatory at all. It goes back to what Kayan said about public perception.

“It’s purely the optics that I would worry about, and I really think that that’s just a matter of time [until it becomes normalized].”

“I don’t really want to be the first one,” he added.

Janiszyn and his wife Teresa found out about Rich Earth when they participated in one of their focus groups examining public attitudes toward urine reclamation.

“It was funny how having us in that focus group sort of changed people,” he said. “We said we use cow manure and stuff and this [urine] doesn’t sound like it would be an issue. And I remember one guy was like, yeah, well, hearing from these guys, you know, I guess it’s not that bad.”

Janiszyn said that after his experience in the focus group he wasn’t too concerned about customer response. “I realized that if I’m positive about it people will just come along with it. You have to have some control over the narrative.”

The post Can Human Urine Fertilize Our Crops? appeared first on Modern Farmer.

“I’ve always had a deep attachment to veterinary medicine. My family has a cattle ranch, and I am sixth generation. I was raised around animals,” says Thompson. 

She is one of a dwindling number of veterinarians choosing to enter rural animal practice. Between three and four percent of new veterinary graduates pursue careers focusing on livestock or food systems. In 2022, more than 500 counties in the US were facing severe shortages of food animal veterinarians, some with no vet service at all.

Thompson’s hometown of Tonopah, Nevada is part of a 23,000-square-mile area she says the USDA has identified as a veterinary desert. The only time vets came to the Thompson ranch was for preventative care. 

In regions like these where agriculture is the backbone of the economy, the absence of veterinarians can spell disaster. Thompson remembers having to trailer their horses to a vet. “If the veterinarian 1.5 hours away couldn’t treat the issue [typically colic],” she says, “we were not in a position to seek advanced care [colic surgery] due to it being another four- to fivehour drive. Typically, it would end in euthanasia,” she says. 

Fewer vets on the ground means fewer eyes to catch early signs of disease in livestock. Early detection is critical in preventing disease outbreaks, such as the 2015 bird flu that killed 50 million turkeys and chickens in Midwest states. It also heightens the danger of zoonotic diseases, which can pass from animals to humans. There is a danger that as these shortages continue, preventative care—which includes deworming and livestock vaccinations—will not happen. The ripple effect of inadequate veterinary care in rural communities, according to a report commissioned by the Farm Journal Foundation, has the potential to affect an estimated 3.7 million livestock-related positions.

“We are worried about our capacity to identify as well as respond to diseases, whether that is endemic disease and/or foreign animal diseases,” says Dr. Rosslyn Biggs, DVM, and director of continuing education and beef cattle extension specialist at Oklahoma State University (OSU) College of Veterinary Medicine.

One of the driving forces behind rural vet shortages is that starting salaries are not always compatible with vets who work in urban centers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, veterinarians in rural areas earn between $61,470 and $73,540 a year—roughly half of what they could make in a city.

“Salaries in the rural, large, mixed or food animal space,” says Biggs, “have been historically lower than those in urban or other segments of veterinary medicine.” This difference makes it difficult for newly graduating vets. In 2023, for example, 83 percent of veterinarians graduated with an average student debt of $185,000.

The Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) through the USDA Food and Agriculture Institute (NIFA) is designed to help more food animal and public health veterinarians relocate to those rural areas facing veterinary shortages. The program will pay off up to $75,000 of each veterinarian’s student loans if they practice in an area designated as being short of vets for a minimum of three years. Since the program’s inception in 2010, it has helped more than 795 veterinarians. 

Need, however, has outstripped VMLRP’s ability to respond. The bipartisan Rural Veterinary Workforce Act could change this. The legislation would end the federal taxation the USDA is currently required to pay on behalf of the award recipient. This could potentially free 39 percent of the allocated money for the VMLRP, creating significant funds for new recipients. This bill was introduced into Congress on June 23, 2023.

But will it be enough to stem the tide? More than just monetary considerations—the life of a rural vet isn’t easy. “It’s hard work. It is long hours,” says Biggs. 

When Thompson graduates, she will begin a contract with a veterinary clinic in Elko, Nevada.

“Part of my contract is that I get to do outreach to areas that don’t have veterinary care,” she says. Twice a month, she will travel long distances to remote communities and provide vet services. This can, for many vets, be isolating and another reason they are deterred from entering into rural practice. Thompson credits her upbringing with making her prepared for these challenges.

“I grew up learning how to navigate without resources, coming from that background has prepared me the most,” she says. 

According to the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA), 45 percent of vets practicing in rural areas are more likely to leave if they come from an urban background. Those that choose to return to urban practice say lack of time off and family concerns played a factor in their decisions.

A shortage of vets in rural areas also means a lack of mentorship for graduating vets. In essence, no one guides young vets through the practicalities of rural veterinary life.

This is something Thompson herself identifies as important. “Eventually, I would like to set up in a rural area,” she says, “but I definitely need that mentorship coming out of school.”

At OSU, things are slightly better than at other veterinary colleges. In 2023, 25 percent of OSU grads entered large or mixed animal practice, while the national average historically fluctuates between 10 and 15 percent. It is something upon which the college is hoping to build. Currently developing a Center for Rural Veterinary Medicine, the goal, among other things, is to provide that much-needed early guidance. The current vision for the program includes a service component in underserved/rural regions as well as outreach programs to mentor youth to help them prepare for and develop an interest in food medicine veterinary practice. The Integrated Beef Cattle Program for Veterinarians has already proven to be invaluable as part of the larger vision for the center. “Twenty vet students with interest in beef cattle practice are paired alongside 20 veterinarians who have some experience in beef animal medicine,” says Biggs.

Another solution, according to Thompson, is to create more opportunities for youth to be exposed to livestock, and have ranchers, farmers and vets come to speak to school-age children. “When I was in school,” she says, “we had an agriculture day in which we’d go out with the local 4H club and they had animals and would teach us handling and proper care. We got to interact with the animals, particularly livestock, and got a little more comfortable with that.” 

Eighty percent of those interested in rural veterinary care have had a significant history of livestock exposure, says Thompson. 

Still, Biggs acknowledges that being a rural vet is not easy. For one, you are going to get dirty. “But,” she says, “being in rural communities and serving farmers and ranchers—there is no better work.”

The post Where Have All the Vets Gone? appeared first on Modern Farmer.