Tag: Health

What is the Difference?

Leave a comment
Jehovah-Jireh Farm Chicken Grocery Store Free-range Organic Chicken
True free-range, pasture raised Large confinement factory farm chicken house with limited or no access to the out of doors.
Fed fresh ground organic feed with added vitamins Fed organic feed
Practically no ammonia smell in shelter Lots of ammonia vapor in the chicken house
Normal day lighting Artificial lighting 23 hours a day
Small groups (350 or less) Huge groups (10,000 or more
Low stress in small groups High stress in large groups
Clean air Air hazy with manure particles and ammonia
Fresh air and sunshine Limited or no access to sunshine
Plenty of exercise Limited exercise
Fresh daily salad bar (pasture) Basically no greens
Promotes family farming Promotes large corporations
Rural revitalization Promotes urban expansion
Consumer/producer relationship Consumer/producer alienation
Environmentally friendly Same environmental impact as conventional confinement chicken houses

The difference between the two is much more than the “free-range” grocery store label implies. The “free-range” organic grocery store chicken is not much different from conventional chicken, except it receives organic feed and does not receive antibiotics, or arsenic (fed as a growth stimulator!). A door may be open to let a few chickens out to scratch in the dirt.

Meat is much more than a combination of nutrients that we eat. All meat is not the same. We have been conditioned to believe that all meat is the same and that the main difference is the price. That is not true. Even though the nutrients in a downed cow and the nutrients in a healthy beef may analyze in the lab basically the same, the true nutrition is NOT the same! The same is true in the way chickens are raised. Just as we need sunshine, sunshine is important for chickens too. Just as fresh green vegetables are important in our diet, so fresh green vegetables (grass, clover, etc.) are important in a chicken’s diet. It is important that we get exercise to be healthy. So it is important that the meat we eat had the proper amount of exercise to be healthy as well. It is important that we get plenty of fresh air. In the same way it is important that the chicken meat we eat was not raised in an environment where the air was hazy with with manure dust and ammonia. We are what we eat. The way that the meat we eat was raised is important. It has an effect on our bodies. That is why we, at Jehovah-Jireh Farm, go to the extra work to produce a product that is raised in the best way possible.

The Frederick News Post had an article this week about reduction of antibiotic use in food animals. Our farm was one of the featured farms. You might find it interesting. http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/economy_and_business/agriculture/concern-for-proper-antibiotics-usage-in-food-animals-prompts-groups/article_3d4a1279-938c-5488-a6a6-562e1b55e992.html

Poultry Processing Inspection and Certificate

Leave a comment

Our chicken and turkey processing facility has been inspected by the Maryland Department of Agriculture and we have received certification. We are now certified to sell our poultry at other locations other than our farm, including stores. While this inspection is not required for on farm sales of poultry, it gives you a level of confidence that the chicken and turkey that you purchase has been processed in a facility that has been inspected and has been processed in a sanitary and approved manner.

We did some investigation into having drop off points for the chickens or to sell our chicken in some of the Maryland MOM’s stores. We did not get much interest in the drop off points and so at this point we will not be pursuing that. After talking things over as a family, we decided not to pursue selling chickens in the stores at this point. It would mean significantly increasing production and processing chickens every week. None of us enjoy processing chickens enough to do it every week and the wholesale price would also reduce our profit margin. We are open to any suggestions you may have.

The Importance of Recycling Energy, Part 2: How to sequester carbon in the soil

Leave a comment

This is a continuation of Part 1 in the September Jehovah-Jireh Farm Newsletter on the importance of recycling energy.

Note: Using organic farming methods to sequester carbon in the soil is an important subject that was presented to our government officials several weeks ago. Since I wrote part one, I found out that Mark Smallwood, the director of Rodale Institute, walked from Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania to Washington D.C. to hand deliver a White Paper detailing research proving that regenerative organic agriculture can absorb carbon from the atmosphere and reverse climate change. The White Paper is titled: Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change, A down-to-earth solution to global warming. The full text of the White Paper can be found at: http://rodaleinstitute.org/regenerative-organic-agriculture-and-climate-change/
Incidentally, Mark Smallwood used to work for MOM’S Organic Market in their main office in Rockville, MD. and also helped us one time to process chickens at our old farm.

 

We today have an important opportunity to make a significant step forward to sequester carbon, build topsoil, control erosion, and feed the world through organic farming. There are many that are greatly concerned that we have irreparably harmed the environment, are destroying life, and leaving future generations with an environmental mess because our excessive use of fossil fuels. Many feel hopeless and that too many people do not care what they are doing to the environment.

There is hope!

Plants to a large extent were the original source of our present day fossil fuels. Plants are also a key element in recycling energy and putting the CO2 gasses back into the soil where they belong.

There are a number of ways to sequester carbon in the soil. What I want to share with you is a simple, easy method that we have used here at Jehovah-Jireh Farm.

In the first seven years here on this farm we have sequestered approximately 325,570 lbs of Soil Organic Carbon on 35 acres. That represents recycling as much CO2 as the yearly output from approximately 146 cars. That was accomplished by increasing the soil organic matter on most of the farmland by almost one percentage point. That is without spreading organic matter or fertilizers other than lime. The only manure was the droppings from chickens when they are on the pasture and from the sheep and cows while they are grazing. The amount of  carbon sequestered is according to soil tests that were taken at the end of 2013. It represents the carbon sequestered in the top six inches of soil, although there has been much more carbon than that sequestered at greater depths in the soil. 

The method that we used to sequester the carbon was letting the grass grow a foot or more tall and then grazing or mowing the grass and letting it decompose into the soil. This is a method that we discovered as we mowed the grass in the American chestnut orchard located here on the farm and observed the significant increased growth of the grass and the increased growth, vigor, health, and blight resistance of the American chestnut trees. Mowing pasture grasses is one of the best, the easiest, and cheapest of fertilizers.

Grasses often have more root mass and depth than the mass and height of grass above the ground. When the grass is mowed from a height of 24″ down to 4″, the roots slough off to correspond to the amount of grass left above the surface. As these roots that sloughed off decompose, they build organic matter in the soil to the depth the roots had been. It is not just the organic matter on the surface of the ground from the mowed grass that contributes to the organic matter of the soil.

Pasture based farming, using rotational grazing and managed mowing, is an important method of sequestering carbon in the soil in a very stable manner. Rodale Institute has proved that the proper organic crop growing methods are also an important carbon sequestering method. It is my opinion from my observations and research that pastures can sequester carbon faster, easier, to a greater depth, and have it more stable in the soil than can be accomplished with organic crop farming methods. That does not mean that sequestering carbon by organic crop farming methods is unimportant; it is important. But what it means is that globally we can sequester much more carbon by raising animals on pasture in pasture based systems rather than growing grain and feeding the animals grain in confinement operations. Plus, the grass-fed meats with higher omega-3 fatty acids are much more healthy for the consumer.  

Typical response of grasses to grazing. Above ground growth is more lateral and roots “die back” to match needs of above ground biomass. Diagram C. Luke 2011 http://www.sonoma.edu/preserves/prairie/management/restoration.shtml

 


http://kansasgraziers.blogspot.com/2013_10_01_archive.html
Up to 90% of a plant’s mass is in its root system. What is below the soil is much more important for sequestering carbon than what is above the soil. The plant on the far right has much more root mass than the mass that is in the grass above the soil level. The grass clump on the far left sloughed off most of its roots when it was cut short. The roots can then decompose and build carbon deep in the soil where it will be stable and stay in the soil for a very long time.

The above illustrations show the importance of managing plant roots by grazing and mowing to build carbon in the soil. The roots below the soil are more important for sequestering carbon than the grasses above the soil. This is significant, because it allows us to utilize the grass for feeding livestock and producing an income from the land while at the same time using the roots to sequester carbon deep in the soil, making the soil more drought resistant, reducing rain run off and erosion, and making the soil more fertile.

The depth that carbon is sequestered in the soil is important. Carbon that is greater than 12″ deep (30cm) is very stable in the soil. The Rodale Institute’s White Paper points out the importance of depth in the sequestering of carbon:
“It is likely that current data sets underestimate soil organic carbon stocks in organically managed systems because soil carbon is often measured at plow depth when recent findings suggest that more than half of the soil organic carbon stocks are likely in the 20-80cm depth. Beyond 30cm in the soil profile, the age of carbon increases continuously, much of it persisting for thousands of years.  How carbon acts in this subsoil range is poorly understood, but increasing rooting depth, application of irrigated compost (compost tea), choosing deep rooted grass-legume cover crops and encouraging earthworm abundance are all promising pathways for introducing carbon to depths where it is likely to remain stable over long periods.” (p. 10)

To get the greatest depth of roots in the soil, it is important that grasses be allowed to grow at least a foot or two in height before grazing or mowing. Grasses in home lawns will not be able to contribute much to carbon sequestering because they are never allowed to grow very tall.

One more plus to mowing pastures in addition to sequestering carbon is that it creates a beautiful manicured farm landscape. Beautiful pastoral farm landscapes do a soul good like a medicine. We need to create more beauty around us.
Our charcoal/biochar kiln experiment at Jehovah-Jireh Farm.

In 2009 we experimented with making charcoal to sequester carbon and to build up our soils. Inside this charcoal kiln were five metal 55 gallon barrels filled with split firewood. We made six batches of charcoal to use in the garden and in the chicken bedding. Making charcoal/biochar is labor intensive. In half of our garden, we applied about an inch and a half of charcoal and incorporated it in the top six inches of soil in a three foot wide by 70 feet strip perpendicular across the various rows of vegetables . Unfortunately, we did not see any improvement in growth, drought resistance, or brix improvement to the plants grown in the charcoal enriched soil in any of the years since then. Five years later, there is no noticeable difference in the color of the soil where the charcoal was applied.

Our experiment with biochar was not successful. It does not mean that charcoal/biochar is an ineffective method of sequestering carbon in the soil. The Terra Preta soils in South America show otherwise. Charcoal/biochar is a method that needs more research. 

There is much more to learn about how to sequester carbon and to build topsoil using atmospheric carbon. We want to experiment with increasing the brix (sugar content) of our pasture grasses. By increasing the photosynthesis of the plant leaves, the sugar (and carbon) content of the plant can be increased. The plant sends these sugars to the roots to feed the roots and microbes in the soil. By increasing the sugars in the plant, we should be able to significantly increase the carbon sequestration in the soil.

There is much more that we would like to experiment with to improve the soil. We thank you for your support of our farm in buying our farm products. Your support is what enables us to do these experiments in our living laboratory (the farm).

What Gives Our Chicken and Turkey Meats Superior Flavor

Leave a comment

We hear many compliments about our chicken and turkey meats. But the one that we hear the most is how good they taste. We all know that chickens and turkeys raised on pasture taste better than conventionally raised poultry raised in large chicken houses. The grass and other plants in the pasture are an important part of the flavor, but it was not until this past month that I found out something else that we are doing that significantly contributes to the flavor and health benefits of our chicken that is different than most other pasture-raised chickens.

Last month, Cathy and I and some of our children had the privilege of attending the Mother Earth News Fair at the Seven Springs Resort in Pennsylvania. One of the seminars that I attended was given by a professional butcher who understood the importance of grassfed meats and the science behind it. One of the things that he said was that muscles that have more activity are the meats that have the most flavor. Muscles that have had very little activity, such as beef tenderloin, are the most tender but also have the least amount of flavor.

He said that fat is what gives meat flavor. Muscles that are exercised more have small amounts of fat dispersed throughout the meat because the muscles need the fat stores for energy as they work. It is those small deposits of fat that gives those meats more flavor. Here in America, people have prized tender meats over flavorful meat. Tender meats are achieved by confinement rearing that limits the exercise of the animal or poultry. The result is that conventionally produced chicken, beef and other meats are usually lacking in flavor.

The thing that we are doing that is different than most pastured poultry producers that we allow our chickens to run. Most pastured poultry producers use the “Salatin pull pen” or “chicken tractor” method. It is a method in which 50 to 75 chickens are placed in a small 10 foot by 12 foot bottomless pen on pasture. The chickens probably get less exercise than what chickens do that are raised in large chicken houses because they are limited by the small confining space. I say that from my observations from working on a large confinement poultry operation when I was in college and from when we tried the “pull pen” method. In the large chicken houses, because they are not confined to a small 10′ by 12′ area, the meat birds can move about more.

Not only does the exercise give our chickens more flavor, but the fat that gives it flavor is a good fat. The fat is in a meat that has been able to get omega-3’s from the grass and store those omega-3’s in the fat. The exercise gives the chicken meat a more firm texture, but it is still tender and a good eating experience.

One of the keys to flavorful meats is animals that have been able to get plenty of exercise. In buying meat, ask the farmer how they raise the meat. Unfortunately, there is a growing trend among grassfed producers to move toward confinement on pasture such as mob grazing of beef. In mob grazing, a large number of animals are confined in a small paddock, such as 1/4 acre, on the pasture until all the grass is eaten or trampled into the ground. They are then moved to another small paddock. The cattle are moved three or more times a day, but they are confined in a small space 24/7. Mob grazing is supposed to do great things for the soil, but in my opinion, it is not humane to the animals.


Mob grazing 1000 head of cattle. There is approximately 1.2 million pounds of weight in cattle grazing this strip. http://mobgrazing.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
Not all mob grazing is this intensive but the animals do have to be bunched in a “mob” with the equivalent of  200,000 plus pounds of animals per acre so that they consume most of the grass in a short period of time.

The Importance of Recycling Energy, Part 1: The answer to feeding a growing world population

Leave a comment

What you are about to read is a different perspective than what you normally hear about our use of fossil fuels. We have within our reach the ability to solve many of the environmental problems that we face today with the use of “non-renewable” energy sources — crude oil, natural gas, and coal. We get the impression from many scientists that our use of fossil fuels that we are removing from the earth is polluting our environment with unnatural toxins that should not be there and that we are creating a big environmental problem with greenhouse gases. But their field of view is too narrow and pessimistic. We have the opportunity of recycling fossil fuel energy back to it original form. In the process, not only can we solve many of these environmental problems, but we can significantly increase food production to feed a growing world population using organic methods. Chemical farming and GMO’s are not the answer for increasing food production to feed the world.

To see the solution, it is necessary to see the bigger picture of what fossil fuel energy really is and how it can be recycled. Fossil fuels are formed from the remains of dead plants and animals that were buried many years ago. In Pennsylvania, layers of coal can range from a few inches to 10 or 12 feet thick. To make coal or oil, plant and animal matter is highly compressed. Now try to imagine how many plants it would take to make a layer of coal that was only one foot thick.  What those layers of coal and oil tell us is that many years ago the soil was highly productive and produced vast amounts of vegetation that in some locations was likely much greater than anything we have seen in modern times.

In physics, The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form. Energy is said to be conserved over time. In the case of fossil fuels, when they are burned the energy is not destroyed but rather changes form. A significant portion becomes carbon dioxide. But before we go further, we need to back up and look at where fossil fuels came from in the first place and look at the carbon cycle. First,  in very ancient times there was very fertile topsoil that was rich in carbon. That very fertile soil produced vast amounts of plant matter. The plant matter was buried and over many years was converted into fossil fuels. Today, fossil fuels are being removed from the earth and burned and vast amounts of carbon dioxide are being put into the air. What we need to do is to capture that ancient topsoil that is now floating in the air as carbon dioxide and put it back into our topsoil. If we can accomplish that we have the potential to significantly increase food production.

The bottom line is: gasoline came from topsoil, we burned it in our car and put the “topsoil” in the air. It is interesting that many of the oil rich countries, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, are largely desert countries. Their topsoil is buried way below the surface in the form of oil. (It is interesting to note that the Garden of Eden, with its lush vegetation, would have been in their general area.) They are pumping their topsoil out of the ground as oil and selling their topsoil to us to burn in our cars. We are burning their topsoil and using the energy for transportation. In the process we have put their topsoil into the air where it is polluting the environment. Our responsibility and opportunity now is to recycle the topsoil out of the air and put it back in the topsoil where it belongs.

Why it is important to recycle energy back into our topsoil
Why is it important that we recycle carbon out of the atmosphere and put it in the soil? We have a great opportunity to restore soil productivity back to the way it was right before fossil fuels were formed. The carbon dioxide in the air is an important resource that we need to utilize.

The main difference between topsoil and subsoil is the carbon content in the topsoil. The carbon content is usually referred  to as organic matter. By increasing the carbon content of our soils we can increase the depth of the topsoil and make the soil much more productive. Dr. Carey Reams used to say that if he knew how deep the top soil was, he could tell you what the production would be. Research at Michigan State University indicates that a 1 percent increase in organic matter offers a 12 percent increase in crop production potential. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1083169.pdf)

Adding carbon to the soil helps make the soil more drought proof. Carbon is like a sponge and can hold about four times its weight in water. Therefore increasing the carbon content of the soil enables the soil to hold water for an extended time after it rains and makes more water available to the plants. High carbon soil can also absorb moisture from the air during times of high humidity, increasing the water available to the plants even though it doesn’t rain.

Carbon in the topsoil makes it more porous so that when it rains the water soaks into the soil and does not run off as quickly. That is important for keeping the water where the plants can use it, but it also is very important in reducing topsoil erosion and flooding. This summer here on the farm we had an inch of rain in less than a half hour. I went to a place where we have often had water running off the pasture in the past. This time there was no run off. The soil had absorbed the entire inch of rain. That was a satisfying result of the work we have done in increasing the soil carbon content of our soils.

Carbon also provides a “hotel” for the microbes and bacteria in the soil. Those microbes and bacteria in the soil are important for making nutrients and minerals available to the plants and converting decayed plant matter into soil carbon.

It is important that we complete the carbon cycle and put the “topsoil” that we burn in our cars back into the soil where it belongs. The real answer to feeding a growing world is in organic farming that sequesters carbon and builds topsoil.

To be continued.

Too Much Recycling

Leave a comment

With the heat of summer and trying to stay cool, be careful about too much recycling—recycling your most important food, the air you breathe. Air is our most important food, because without it, we will only live a few minutes. The utility companies, with a singular focus on energy conservation, have been encouraging us to seal up our houses tighter and tighter so that no air will pass through the windows, doors, or other places. They are focusing on energy consumption and not on people’s health needs. The end result is that many people are recycling their air and breathing their own exhaust this summer as they try to stay comfortable in their sealed insulted refrigerator houses and offices.

Carey Reams taught that 80% of the energy that we as human beings need for health and bodily function comes from the air. Only 20% comes from the food we eat. I have not been able to verify that 80% is an accurate figure, but in my research, I have found that it is true that we get significantly more energy from the air than from our food. For example, a person who burns 2000 calories a day in exercise will consume about 2000 calories of food. However, not all of those calories consumed are used by the body. Some of the calories are excreted in the urine and bowels. Therefore, there is more energy being used by the body than is coming from the food. In addition, the human body is putting off infrared light. One person estimated that it took about 2000 calories to produce that infrared light and heat. Those calories had to come from somewhere other than the food.

It is easy to forget about the importance of pure “organic” (chemical free) high quality air for our health because we can’t see air and air is free. In a sealed-up, air conditioned building, there is not only a depletion of oxygen, but there are also chemicals trapped inside. There are chemicals in the air from the carpet, the furniture, the glues in plywood and particle board, the paint, and many other sources. These chemicals are toxic to our bodies. 

One disease in particular, cancer, thrives in an environment where there is little or no oxygen. One of the best defenses against cancer is oxygen.

Our family’s solution
Our family has chosen not to have air conditioning. The heat outside does not seem as hot when we don’t have air conditioning as when we live in air conditioning and then go outside into the heat and the heat hits us in the face. One of the advantages, too, of an older home like ours is that there are fewer chemicals in the materials it is constructed with.

We also sing together in the morning as a family about four times a week. Singing develops the lungs and makes the lungs more efficient in absorbing oxygen.


This picture was in the March 2013 newsletter in the article: “Crazy Farmers Eat Two Breakfasts”. A keyboard, because it is always in tune, is better to sing with than a piano unless the piano is diligently kept in tune. For Christmas I bought Cathy a new Yamaha keyboard that has a much clearer sound than this Casio keyboard. We have been amazed at the difference the clarity of sound from the Yamaha keyboard has made on our singing in the last six months. It has enabled us to tune our voices closer to each other and to make a more tight and beautiful blend of our voices.

We also use hydrogen peroxide in our swimming pool. Swimming in the pool is like an oxygen therapy bath. It cleans the skin and is refreshing. The hydrogen peroxide keeps the water in the pool sparkling clean without chlorine.

Recycling is good and is important unless it is recycling your breath exhaust. Then it is too much recycling! Have a healthful and oxygen filled summer.

For more on the importance of air, read the following two newsletter articles:

Crazy Farmers Eat Two Breakfasts
http://www.jehovahjirehfarm.com/articles/2013/03/07/crazy-farmers-eat-two-breakfasts/

Trying to Stay Healthy Wrapped in Plastic and Living in a Sealed Insulated Box, Starving Ourselves from a Food We Can’t See
http://www.jehovahjirehfarm.com/articles/2010/11/19/trying-to-stay-healthy-wrapped-in-plastic-and-living-in-a-sealed-insulated-box-starving-ourselves-from-a-food-we-cant-see/

When “Antibiotic-Free” Isn’t

Leave a comment

A month or two ago, someone gave us a used egg carton from another egg company. On the front of its full-color label, the company proudly advertised: “No Antibiotics!”

Technically, they were right. Technically, however, they were very wrong. In 2010, Monsanto patented glyphosate (commonly known as “Roundup”) as an antibiotic. Glyphosate is the #1 herbicide in the US, with 180-185,000,000 pounds of glyphosate used in 2007 (the latest year that the EPA gives statistics for). To put that in perspective, “regular” antibiotics used in agriculture totaled almost 29,000,000 pounds in 2009. In other words, over 6 times more glyphosate was used than regular antibiotics.

But glyphosate is no ordinary antibiotic. It might be called a “reverse antibiotic”. It kills good bacteria, such as those that inhabit our intestines—and stimulates harmful bacteria. And it was this antibiotic that was being fed to the chickens who laid the “no antibiotics” eggs!

For years, Monsanto advertised Roundup as “safe” and “biodegradable” and told us it was neutralized when it touched the soil; that is, until they got in legal trouble because the facts didn’t line up with their claims. Roundup is a chelating agent that binds with other substances and makes them unavailable. When glyphosate binds with clay particles in the soil, it is immobilized and remains attached to that clay particle until it either breaks down (a process that can take years) or is released in the soil. Therefore, repeated applications of Roundup have the potential to accumulate in the soil.

In 1996, genetically engineered crops hit the market, and by 2012, around 90% of the corn and soy grown in the US were GMO. Most of these crops are designed to be sprayed with Roundup while they are growing to kill weeds growing in the field, without killing the crop. Now, instead of only spraying their fields prior to planting, farmers could spray Roundup at any time they desired. What this means is that a systemic antibiotic (glyphosate/Roundup) is being sprayed directly on our food, absorbed by the plants and spread throughout their tissues. Roundup is also sprayed pre-harvest on crops such as wheat, barley, sugarcane and lentils to control weeds and to get uniform dry-down of the plants.

And? Does it matter?

In 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers shocked the world with graphic pictures of rats with huge tumors from exposure to Roundup Ready foods and Roundup.
Seralini's GMO Maize and Roundup Research
From left to right: a rat fed GMO corn grown without Roundup; a rat fed GMO corn grown with Roundup; a rat given non-GMO corn, with a trace amount of Roundup in its drinking water.

“Séralini designed his 2012 study as a direct followup of a previous study on the same NK603 maize conducted by Monsanto to support its application for regulatory authorization…

 

“Séralini’s findings were alarming: both GM maize NK603 and Roundup caused serious kidney and liver damage and an increased and earlier development of tumours, leading to an increased rate of mortality.

“These serious effects had not shown up in Monsanto’s 90-day test because it was too short. Serious diseases like organ damage and tumours take time to develop and become obvious…

 

“…in Séralini’s study the first large tumours were only seen four months into the trial in the case of males and seven months in the case of females. Most tumours were only detected after 18 months...

“Ninety days in a rat is equivalent to only 7–9 years in human terms – yet human beings could eat a GM food and residues of Roundup over a lifetime.” (emphasis mine)
http://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/

By the beginning of the 24th month of the study, 50-80% of all female rats had developed tumors in the GMO- and Roundup-exposed groups—with some rats having up to 3 tumors.

It is important to note that increased tumors and organ damage were found in rats who were given Roundup in their water with no GMO feed. In other words, Roundup by itself, without GMO grain, has the potential to do great damage to the body, even at very low doses. (The lowest dose was intended to mimic the minute trace amount found in some tap water.)

But the potential damages of Roundup go beyond tumors. As noted earlier, Roundup is very toxic to gut bacteria, which are important for proper digestion of food. Glyphosate also inhibits enzymes that the body uses to detoxify itself and produce bile acids for digestion of food. This means that, by destroying the body’s natural defenses, Roundup can enhance the effects of other toxins we absorb from our food and environment. It also means that Roundup can cause the digestive system to work less effectively than it should.

In other words, we see a one-two punch here: destruction of gut bacteria and reduction of digestive function. When the bowel is malfunctioning, we are unable to absorb all the minerals and vitamins that we need from our food. This can lead to all kinds of disease. Researchers Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff have shown the great possibility of a link between glyphosate and many different diseases, including gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. (See link at the end.)

But is this actually happening in our society? Is Roundup actually causing disease, or is this empty hypothesizing? Nancy Swanson, former staff scientist for the US Navy, has plotted the rise in the use of glyphosate against the rise in various diseases. The graphs are significant:

Graph of children with autism

Graph of deaths from Alzheimer's

Graph of diabetes cases
Compare this graph with the following one showing the total amount of sweeteners used over the same time period (top, purple line). The total amount of sweeteners used has actually dropped while diabetes has risen:

Graph of sweetener use

Graph of deaths from renal (kidney) disease

Graph of the incidence of liver cancer

The last two graphs are very interesting, because they go right along with the findings of Séralini’s rat study: liver and kidney damage. The renal (kidney) disease graph is particularly interesting, because it shows the disease rate dropping right before the introduction of GMO’s and increase in glyphosate usage –with a sharp spike afterwards. I encourage you to look at all the graphs:
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/gmos-glyphosate-and-neurological-disorders
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/glyphosate-gmos-and-disease
http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/incidence-rates-of-thyroid-cancer-new-cases-reported-per-year-per-100-000

How much glyphosate are we actually getting in our food? After all, the government has set limits on the level of glyphosate in our food. But how do we know if anyone is actually abiding by those standards? Samsel and Seneff state:

“It is difficult to get information on actual amounts of glyphosate present in foods, due to the perception that it is nontoxic to humans [1,6]. The USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) is a voluntary program which randomly monitors agricultural chemical residues in the food supply. A search of the most recent data for 2010, published in May 2012, found statistics for the most popular agricultural chemicals except for glyphosate and glufosinate, another organophosphate. Residue data for the most popular herbicide on the planet were not available, but, interestingly, information on atrazine and other herbicides were readily available. Communication with USDA revealed that no data were available due to lack of monitoring. However, in 2013, for the first time, the USDA will be releasing a small amount of data for glyphosate residues only in soy. Lack of program funding was cited as the reason for this lack of data.” (emphasis mine)

The National Pesticide Information Center confirms this:
“Glyphosate was not included in compounds tested for by the Food and Drug Adminstration’s (FDA) Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program (PRMP), nor in the United States Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP).”
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html

It’s strange that the government is not testing for the #1 agricultural chemical in America! Obviously, if you don’t look for it, you won’t find it. With glyphosate being sprayed all over our food, there’s no telling how much the average American ingests on a daily basis. Those 185 million pounds of glyphosate have to go somewhere.

One thing is certain: we are eating glyphosate. A recent German study found glyphosate residues in the urine of dairy cows, rabbits and humans. These people and animals were not just consuming glyphosate-contaminated food, but were actually absorbing the glyphosate into their bloodstream and circulating it throughout the whole body. Not surprisingly, glyphosate residues were significantly lower in people eating an organic diet than those eating a conventional diet. One very interesting finding was that chronically ill humans had significantly higher levels of glyphosate in their urine than healthy humans.

Furthermore, this study also found that glyphosate accumulates in animal tissue. Tests of kidney, liver, lung, spleen, muscle and intestinal tissue all revealed similar amounts of glyphosate residues. Glyphosate is accumulating in the meats that we eat—to be passed along for our second-hand consumption. The logical conclusion is that glyphosate residues are also accumulating in our own bodies. (See more at http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.php?aid=23853)

What are we to do? If the government won’t protect us, who will? You. We must each take our own health in our own hands and get serious about removing this toxic antibiotic from our diet if we don’t want to be included on those graphs of disease. This starts with the cereal you eat for breakfast, the sandwich you eat at lunch and the chicken you eat for dinner. If it’s not organically raised, assume it has glyphosate residues. This includes the tortilla chips that are made with organic corn and fried in conventional, glyphosate-treated vegetable oil. Since the glyphosate residues are part of the food itself, they cannot be washed off, and they are not broken down by cooking.

It is important to cut through the chatter and find truly organic food. Be discerning and ask questions. One farm about an hour from us claims to “go beyond organic”—yet they told us that they used GMO feed for their animals. Other farms, recognizing the dangers of GMO’s, use non-organic, GMO-free feed. However, GMO-free is not necessarily glyphosate-free. It is standard practice for many farmers to spray their fields with Roundup before planting to kill weeds. According to the National Pesticide Information Center, “Lettuce, carrots, and barley contained glyphosate residues up to one year after the soil was treated with 3.71 pounds of glyphosate per acre.” Given that the Séralini rat study showed increased disease in rats who consumed only 0.1 parts per billion of Roundup in their drinking water (i.e., one drop in over 130,000 gallons of water), even a small amount of glyphosate residue is problematic.

Some organic farms, due to the cost of organic feed, feed their chickens conventional feed. They cannot call the chicken or eggs organic, but they can say it was raised on an organic farm. Take nothing for granted!

Fourteen years ago, during our first year of farming, we switched to organic feed for our chickens. This currently means paying over three times more for our feed than if we used conventional feed, but we don’t regret our decision. It is part of our quest to give you healthy, nourishing food that helps you to live better and stay out of the doctor’s office.

I encourage you to make the hard choices. Stop feeding yourself antibiotics that kill the “good guys” and help the “bad guys”. Buy real. Buy healthy. Buy glyphosate-free!

References and recommended reading
Website about the Séralini rat study:
http://www.gmoseralini.org

Articles by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-15-01416.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

A Mercola review of Samsel and Seneff’s findings:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx

Analysis by Nancy Swanson:
http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/GMO-health.pdf

Glyphosate residues in urine:
http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.php?aid=23853