I first met farmer, author, entrepreneur,
thinker, and self-described
“Christian-conservative-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic” Joel
Salatin at his rural Virginia farm, Polyface, in 2009. We sat in
rocking chairs in his home office and talked about everything from
food and agriculture to law, regulations, and the Bill of
Rights.

I’ve seen Salatin several times since—in Washington, DC, and
Little Rock, Arkansas and, most recently, back at his farm—and have
even
invoked his unsubsidized farming practices to argue that he and
farmers like him should serve as the model for supporters of
sustainable agriculture—meaning farming that eschews government
subsidies while both minimizing environmental impacts and also
turning a profit.

Salatin’s books include
Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, probably the best
book on the crushing regulatory burden faced by small- and
medium-sized farmers in America. In his most recent work,

Folks, This Ain’t Normal, Salatin takes a broader look at
what once was normal and how a modern society like ours can still
embrace elements of traditional normalcy without resigning
ourselves to a Luddite future.

What follows below, the result of an interview I conducted with
Salatin by email in late April and early May, are Salatin’s
thoughts on everything from farm subsidies to intern labor, and
from the War on Drugs to which fast food joints he’s eaten at over
the years. Oh, and Salatin reveals which home-cooked meal makes him
say “yum.”

Full Disclosure: Salatin is a member and supporter of
my nonprofit, Keep Food
Legal.

Reason: You recently posted your
response to a
column by James McWilliams, a professor and vegan and the
author of the anti-locavorism book
Just Food. McWilliams claimed only a vegan diet can
save the planet. You responded in part that the farming practices
you employ are often better for the environment than those touted
by McWilliams. The thing about the conversation that interests me
most is not whether either of you is objectively correct. Rather,
it’s your competing visions of how to build a better food system.
Should the government take sides in this debate by implementing
particular policies that favor your views? Or should the government
just allow this debate to flourish in the marketplace of ideas?

Joel Salatin: I think the government should
allow this debate to flourish in the marketplace of ideas. The
government entered this debate in the early 1970s by publishing the
first food pyramid, a guide for what Americans should eat. The
obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country are a direct result
of that intrusion, sponsored and massaged along by the grain cartel
and big ag, from chemical companies to equipment dealers. Grain
requires more machinery, more energy, and more risk (hence
justification for manipulation) than pasture based livestock, and
especially forage-based herbivores.

In the last 50 years, Americans have doubled their consumption
of wheat. Gluten intolerance and celiac disease are direct results
of American agriculture policy and specifically the government’s
wading into the food arena. Eliminating government involvement
stimulates people to inform themselves and actively participate in
the discussion. As soon as the credentialed officials enter the
fray, the average person withdraws to let the experts figure it
out, which always leads to ubiquitous ignorance.

Reason: How do you make money without federal
government subsidies?

Salatin: In general, we run the farm like a
business instead of a welfare recipient and we adhere to
historically-validated patterns. For example, instead of buying
petroleum fertilizer, we self-generate fertilizer with our own
carbon and manures through large scale composting, which we turn
with pigs (pigaerators)
rather than machinery. Letting the animals do the work takes the
capital-intensive depreciable infrastructure out of the equation
and creates profitability that is size-neutral.

Nature does not transport carbon very far, so neither do we. We
practice an integrated system rather than segregated. Animals are
near their feedstuffs so that the manures can fertilize the plants
that grew the food. The numbers are kept low enough for the farm’s
ecology to metabolize the manure and compost rather than it
becoming a toxic problem due to over-abundance. The farm runs on
real time solar energy via photosynthetic activity that creates
decomposable biomass. Perennials rather than annuals form the basis
of our program. Perennials build soil;  annual deplete soil.
American ag policy only subsidizes annuals.

We control health and pathogenicity by complex multi-speciated
relationships through symbiosis and synergy. Portable shelters for
livestock, along with electric fencing, insure hygienic and
sanitary housing and lounging areas, not to mention clean air,
sunshine, and exercise. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations are
always mono-speciated, filled with fecal particulate, and deny
sunshine and exercise. You could not design a more toxic
system.

Finally, Polyface direct markets its products, becoming the
notorious middle man that makes all the profits. We are the brand
name, marketer, graphics artist, distributor, processor, warehouse,
and all the businesses that skim off portions of the consumer
dollar. As a result, we enjoy a higher gross margin on what we sell
because rather than being commodified, it is differentiated with
excellence. We are price makers rather than price
takers.

Reason: What do you think about what looks to
be a
move in the next Farm Bill away from crop subsidies and toward
crop insurance? Is this real change?

Salatin: No, because it masks the true cost of
tillage, annuals, and cropping. Insurance is not offered to apple
growers or cattle producers; only a narrow range of grains. As a
result, it artificially stimulates the profits for those crops to
the prejudice of competitors and other products. It continues to
push American agriculture toward a simplistic, non-diversified
handful of genetics and products, rather than the cornucopia nature
enjoys.