Dear Friends Of The Simple Living Network,

First of all, A HUGE "THANK YOU" to each and every CyberAngel who has pitched in during the past couple of months to help us with our 2007 funding drive. We are making steady progress toward our goal of $14,000 to cover the costs of user supported Community Services — this Newsletter, the Discussion Forums, SimpleRadio and the rest.

Needless to say, we still have some work to do. As of this writing, February 28, 2007, we are just shy of the half way mark. Current funding will keep things going through about mid-May. We hope we can call on those of you who have the ability to pitch in and help us raise the remaining $7,000+ within the next 30 days.

It won't take much. In fact, if everyone reading this sent just $1, we would quickly and easily exceed the amount needed to keep this user supported web site fully funded through 2007. (We know that probably won't happen. So, for those who have the ability and use our Community Services, we suggest an annual contribution of $12, $24, $36 or more — an amount equal to $1, $2, $3 or more per month. Whatever you feel this site is worth to you.)

Remember, we don't charge for our Community Services. We don't have subscription fees. We don't accept advertising. Much of our work is done on a volunteer basis. We are funded solely through modest sales and your generous contributions. Please do your part, any amount, large or small, and...

• Make An On-Line Contribution - Become A CyberAngel Today!
  Or send a check or money order to:

• Find Out More About Why We Need Your Help
• The Hall Of Fame - A Comprehensive List Of Contributors - Thank You Contributors!

Again, "THANK YOU!" This web site would not exist without your continued financial support.

We hope you enjoy this edition of our on-line Newsletter. The Table Of Contents below provides links to all of the articles and new resources we have added to our web site.

Enjoy,

Dave Wampler, Founder
Fred Ecks, Editor

---

Click article titles to jump to the specific story.

• Introduction: A Letter From The Editors
• New Resources & Best Sellers: Resource Directory Highlights
• Cattle & The Environment: One Farmer's Perspective
• The Truth About Cloth Diapers
• This Beautiful Planet Earth: Living Simply For A Sustainable World
• TroutLake.org & Managing My Life Programs: Welcoming New Partners
• Our Value System & Stress: Managing My Life
• Money/Life Balance In The New Millennium: Being in the Present — Tracking Your Life Energy
• Traveling Light
• Financial Resolutions: The Dollar Stretcher

---

Click here to visit the "New Resources" page, or scroll down and click individual titles for specific details....

• Simple Living Season 3 DVD, the popular PBS TV Series with Wanda Urbanska

• Unleashing The Soul Of Money: Find Sufficiency, Freedom & Purpose Through Your Relationship With Money, by Lynne Twist

• Not Buying It: My Year Withouth Shopping, by Judith Levine — Now In Paperback!

• Simple Living For The Worn Out Woman, by Alice Gray, Dr. Steven Stephens & John Van Diest

• Celebrate Simply: NEW 2nd Edition, by Nancy Twigg

1. Your Money Or Your Life: Transforming Your Relationship With Money & Achieving Financial Independence, by Joe Dominguez & Vicki Robin

2. Getting A Life: Strategies For Simple Living Based On Your Money Or Your Life, by Jacqueline Blix & David Heitmiller

3. Transforming Your Relationship With Money, audio CD/workbook course, by Joe Dominguez

4. Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork & Time Poverty In America, John de Graaf, Editor

5. Affluenza, the popular PBS program, John de Graaf & Vivia Boe, Producers

6. Un-Jobbing: The Adult Liberation Handbook, PDF edition, by Michael Fogler

7. 30 Days To A Simpler Life, by Connie Cox & Chris Evatt

8. Simplicity & Success: Creating The Life You Long For, PDF edition, by Bruce Elkin

9. Simple Living Season 1 DVD, the popular PBS TV Series with Wanda Urbanska

10. The Circle Of Simplicity: Return To The Good Life, by Cecile Andrews

• The America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook, the one and only basic cookbook you will ever need, covering every course, from appetizers to desserts, plus chapters on breakfast, sandwiches, sauces and condiments, and beverages. Highly Recommended!

• Greens Glorious Greens: more than 140 ways to prepare all those great-tasging, super-healthy, beautiful leafy greens, by Johnna Albi & Catherine Walthers

• The Juicing Bible, by Pat Crocker & Susan Eagles

• Simply In Season: Recipes That Celebrate The Rhythm Of The Land In The Spirit Of The More-With-Less Cookbook, by Mary Beth Lind & Cathleen Hockman-Wert

• Simply In Season Children's Cookbook, by Mark Beach & Julie Kauffman

• Little House On A Small Planet: Simple Homes, Cozy Retreats & Energy Efficient Possibilities, by Shay Salomon

• The Detox Box: A Program For Greater Health & Vitality, by Mark Hyman M.D.

• Dr. Andrew Weil's Mind-Body Tool Kit, by Dr. Andrew Weil

• The Ashtanga Yoga Collection, by Richard Freeman

• Guided Mindfulness Meditation (& Yoga), by Jon Kabat-Zinn

• Insight Meditation Kit: A Step-By-Step Course On How To Meditate, by Sharon Salzberg & Joseph Goldstein

• Mindfulness For Beginners, by Jon Kabat-Zinn

• Guided Mindfulness Meditation (& Yoga), by Jon Kabat-Zinn

• Dr. Andrew Weil's Mind-Body Tool Kit, by Dr. Andrew Weil

• Pema Chödrön Audio Collection, by Pema Chödrön

• The Biology Of Belief: How Your Beliefs Shape Your Health & Your Destiny, by Bruce H. Lipton, Ph. D.

• The Diamond In Your Pocket: Discovering Your True Radiance, by Gangaji

• The Way Of The Superior Man: A Spiritual Guide To Mastering The Challenges Of Women, Work & Sexual Desire, by David Deida

---

By Andrew Nielsen
Copyright © 2007

I've read recently a lot about the scourge of cattle as a greenhouse gas emitter. Perhaps in the context of deforestation of the Amazon and industrial feedlot production, this is so. However, I live on a 15-acre property in Eastern Ontario and I keep a few Belted Galloways on the property to clean up the weeds and ditches and find that they live in harmony with the property around them. I would even go so far as to say that they improve it in a lot of ways.

For starters, we should look at the environmental issues caused by raising cattle for food. First, it takes a lot of energy to convert plant material into beef protein, something like a 10:1 rate or even more, so clearly it makes sense in an ever shrinking world to dedicate more land to plant production and less to beef production, purely from an efficiency point of view.

Also, there is the matter of plants fixing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, while many agricultural animals release it into the air. In the case of cattle (and all ruminants) this is due primarily to the action of the bacteria in their rumen (first stomach) which enable them to process complex carbohydrates, such as cellulose into a useable simple sugar. For the record, this is something that humans cannot do, and is one of the great evolutionary advantages that the ancestors of modern cattle, sheep and so on developed for themselves. Good for the animals it may be, but in industrial production scales, there are major environmental consequences, possibly even contributing to climate change.

Finally, there is the matter of manure disposal, which has become a hot issue in this part of the world as governments seek to manage nutrient overloads in our waterways which are caused, at least partly, by manure from large farms leaching into our creeks, rivers and lakes. This causes severe algal blooms at times, and can render the water unfit for human consumption. It can also cause massive bacterial loads. If these bacteria enter drinking water sources and are not monitored effectively, they can lead to human diseases (as in the much publicized events of Walkerton, Ontario, where 7 people were killed and thousands made ill by a bacterial contamination from a cattle feedlot which the local municipal works employees ignored. They were convicted in criminal court and sent to jail, as fate would have it). In any case, the original problem was caused by a cattle feedlot where a large amount of manure was not contained and made its way into one of the nearby municipal wells.

There are also a lot of negative effects on non-human life, such as animals who rely on the same bodies of water for their own consumption or fish, amphibians and reptiles who actually live in the water and can be subject to dire consequences from many different forms of pollution.

Despite all of these negatives, I would argue that it is possible to farm cattle in a way that is at least environmentally neutral and, in some cases, environmentally beneficial.

Cattle or other grazers can be farmed in areas not suited to crop production. This would include hilly, rocky or treed land. In this way, they can utilize resources which are inaccessible to crop farmers and contribute to the net food supply, rather than diminishing it. This is the case with our cattle. They graze land not accessible to machinery and, in fact, reduce our use of fossil fuels significantly as we do not have to burn diesel to clean up the areas in question.

As a side issue, the success of this is due in no small part to the fact that the cattle we keep are Belted Galloways, a small hardy breed originally from Scotland. These cattle eat everything, weeds, grass, trees and all. In our area, there is a major problem with weeds such as poison parsnip, thistle, stinging nettles, burdock and sumac. Unlike a lot of commercial breeds who require top grade pasture land, these cattle not only eat what would otherwise be noxious weeds, but grow fat and prosperous on this diet which would cause a lot of other breeds to be stunted.

In our case, we have to maintain control of the grass and weeds as we have planted a large number of small trees in the marginal areas of the property, intending to reforest it in the long term. The cattle do this for us and in the long run, save us tremendous time and energy. As an additional benefit, they also prune the larger trees back so that the lower branches begin only in the 5-6 foot range, rather than at the ground, which lowers significantly the number of pest insects in the vicinity of the house (such as mosquitoes, horseflies and blackflies) without unduly harming the trees.

This can, in fact, be a profitable part of the overall farm operation as the cattle can be hired out to graze marginal land on outside farms, thus keeping their weeds and brush under control. I first hit on this idea when a new neighbour asked me to mechanically clean some of his marginal farm land which was covered in weeds. I gave him a price, which was steep enough as there was a significant amount of land involved and none of it had been cleaned out in some years. I then offered him a deal at half the cost if I could allow the cattle to perform the same function. He agreed and after making one pass around the perimeter of the property, I was able to install a temporary electric fence and let the cows have at it. True, the job took about six weeks instead of 2 days, but by any standard, there was a large savings in fossil fuels and human time. Not to mention, the cattle do a better job than any tractor as they can get into rocky, treed or boggy areas that no tractor could hope to penetrate.

The other, similar area, where cattle can contribute to reducing fossil fuel use and human hassles is in conjunction with tree fruit farming. The cattle graze the grass and weeds in our apple orchard, not only reducing the necessity of our having to cut the grass, but also pruning the trees as they go and cleaning up the vast majority of the fallen apples, converting them into protein as well. This, in turn, reduces the number of insects multiplying in the fallen apples and helps prevent infestation of the crop grade apples still on the trees. As a side issue, it also makes it easy to get new apple tree saplings as the cows wander all over and leave the seeds in their piles of manure, where the new trees find a most favourable environment to grow.

I would argue that in terms of the issues of pollution of air and water, the major problem with cattle farming is not really cattle, it is the scale of human endeavour. A grazed pasture poses no threat to human water supply or air quality. The cattle move around at random, depositing their manure in the same manner. Only when there are feedlots generating tons and tons of manure with no place to go do you start to get pollution issues. I would argue that gigantic monoculture farms of cash crops or fruits are no environmental benefit either, owing to their use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, consumption of fossil fuels and disruption of soils. So, the problem is not necessarily cattle or corn or apples as much as it is simply scale. If we reduce the pressure on the land by reducing intensity of agriculture, we solve a lot of our issues.

This is a photograph of our bull, Hughie lounging under one of our apple trees. As you can probably tell, the environment around him is not stressed by his presence. The tree is laden with apples, the grass is green and there are no signs of manure anywhere (although it is present). They can graze this area for a week to two weeks, depending on animal density, after which it is rested for three to five weeks, depending on the season. Clearly, Hughie is also not standing knee deep in manure as he would be in a feedlot, so there is no need to use prophylactic antibiotics or other chemicals to keep him (and the rest) healthy. The animals are also well treated, having a pleasant, low stress life, which reduces the objections to beef farming on the basis of conscience at the treatment of agricultural animals. Although some must make the trip to the freezer, they have a very pleasant life in the meantime. Anyone who has ever seen a feedlot will understand this concept.

Another major contributor to the environmental impact of cattle as a crop is the inefficiency of conversion of plant material into protein. To some extent, this can be reduced by breed selection. For example, most cattle when butchered yield 50% of the weight of the animal as useable meat. With Belted Galloways, this number is 60% due to their smaller bone size and lower body fat percentage (they produce thick pelts in the winter instead of subcutaneous fat to stay warm). The efficiency of growing these cattle therefore is as much as 20% greater than conventional breeds with no change in feed or conditions. Additionally, these cattle are very intelligent and hardy, needing little or no input from humans. They can be left to themselves up to months at a time as long as they have a reasonable water supply. Due to the nature of our property and the size of our individual pastures, we move them weekly pasture to pasture, but this is not necessary in a lot of places.

Further to this, a lot of cattle operations are based on fattening steers within a year so that they reach marketable weight very quickly. The only way to do this is to feed them very high calorie foods such as corn or other grains. Therefore, we are using energy to farm cash crops, transport cash crops, store cash crops, bring cash crops to the animals and cart their waste away. No wonder it seems environmentally unfriendly.

If instead we leave the cattle to graze over a longer period of time, there is no need for them to eat grain at all. They grow to the same weight eating only grass. There are therefore no transportation costs, no feed production costs and no need to transport feed to the animals or get rid of their waste. An additional benefit to this is that the meat produced is leaner, healthier and much lower in trans- and saturated fats. It is also high in Omega III fatty acids, which actually help reduce blood cholesterol. So, the reputation of beef as unhealthy is also due in part to the way we feed the animals. This can also be said of other crops, such as lamb, pork, chicken and eggs. The disadvantage of this is that it takes two years for the animal to reach market rather than one, which runs against the grain of agribusiness, but it is certainly environmentally preferable.

Having said this, a number of larger cash croppers in our area are finding that a once every five years or so rotation of pasture with grazing cattle or sheep increases their yields on their primary products by resting the soil, the soil building effects of turf crops (often called green manure) and adding the considerable additional nutrients from animal waste to the soil. This reduces or eliminates chemical fertilizers (a major expense) and their corresponding environmental impact.

I would argue that if you are interested in reducing environmental impact, but still wish to eat beef, that you should seek out a local farmer who produces beef in a similar way to what I have described. Because people like this are invariably from outside the system, it can be hard to locate them, but the quality of the beef and our environment are worth the effort. You can usually save money as well by buying direct from the farmer as it eliminates middlemen including transport companies, abattoirs, packers and retailers. Do not buy it at grocery stores, where it invariably comes from large, industrial operations and certainly do not buy it at fast food restaurants where it is usually very low quality, cheap beef (often old dairy cows), sometimes from rainforest sources such as Brazil.

Finally, if you own an acreage or farm, consider keeping livestock at the very least to assist in your clean up chores. Why cut the grass when your cattle can make it into very tasty protein? I say this because cattle are considerably easier to look after than sheep, goats or pigs and there are many breeds which occupy the same niche as our Belted Galloways, being very strong foragers and efficient converters of grass into meat owing to their evolution in harsher areas. Others include, but are not limited to Highlands, Black Galloways, White Galloways and small frame Aberdeen Angus.

If your objective is to simplify your life in the country and/or reduce environmental impact, cattle are not necessarily at odds with you and your lifestyle. As an additional benefit, they are a lot of fun, can help teach children responsibility, and have a calming influence on those who work with them. Best of all, you can be 100% comfortable with the meat on your plate being completely free of chemicals, antibiotics and hormones.

About The Author

Andrew Nielsen is a farmer and landscaper in North Lancaster, Ontario. He lives with his wife, Denise, and three children, Erik, Anna and Grace. The farm is dedicated to the promotion and propagation of two endangered species, Belted Galloway cattle and Jacob Sheep. They also keep Llamas as sheep guardians. Andrew can be reached at daenielsen@glen-net.ca

---

By Michelle Kennedy
Copyright © 2007

It was an ordinary afternoon at the basketball field. I was on the bleachers watching my oldest play and was simultaneously wrestling my almost two-year-old (he arches his back and slams his head into my chest and I snuggle him to keep him from falling down a flight of bleacher stairs). I checked his diaper and proceeded to change him in a secluded spot, nothing unusual so far - except that when I turned my head to retrieve his new diaper, I noticed several moms looking over my shoulder.

I looked up from my spot on the floor and said, "Hi," in an obviously confused manner.

"What are you doing?" one of the ladies said.

"Changing Jack's diaper," I replied, trying not to "crack wise" as my grandmother would have said.

"What is that?" another lady said, pointing to Jack's diaper.

"A diaper," I said, wondering if I had to start speaking slowly and loudly too. And then it dawned on me why they were looking at me so strangely.

"Oh," I said. "It's a cloth diaper."

"Really?" one of the moms asked. "You do that?"

"Yeah," I said. "I have for years."

"Gross," was one mother's reply. "I could never do that," another said. "I wish I could," said another, "but it's just too much."

Their reactions shouldn't have surprised me, but they did a little. I mean, I understand thinking that cloth diapers can be a hassle, but to not even recognize one when they saw it?

After the initial shock wore off, I proceeded to give the other mothers a small class - what I like to call Cloth Diapers 101.

The first question is always, "Why do I use cloth diapers?"

Why wouldn't I?

Let's first put aside the fact that cloth diapers are really soft and it's the only thing I can imagine putting next to my baby's even softer skin. Let's look at a disposable diaper. A disposable diaper contains traces of dioxin - a very toxic chemical bi-product of the paper-bleaching process. It is a carcinogenic chemical that is classified by the EPA as being the most toxic of all the cancer-linked chemicals. It is banned in most countries.

Disposables also contain Tributyl-tin (TBT) - a known toxic pollutant said to cause hormonal problems in humans and animals.

Disposables have that lovely gel inside them - sodium polyacrylate - a super absorbent polymer that has been linked to Toxic Shock Syndrome.

If I spend so much time making sure that my baby only tries one food at a time to prevent food allergies, how on Earth can I validate putting this stuff on an area of extreme sensitivity?

There is also the whole environmental issue that often comes up. According to Carl Lehrburger, author of "Diapers in the Waste Stream: A Review of Waste Management and Public Policy Issues":

"In 1988, over 18 billion diapers were sold and consumed in the United States that year."

"The instructions on a disposable diaper package advise that all fecal matter should be deposited in the toilet before discarding, yet less than one half of one percent of all waste from single-use diapers goes into the sewage system."

"Over 92% of all single-use diapers end up in a landfill."

"By 1988, nearly $300 million was spent annually just to discard disposable diapers, whereas cotton diapers are reused 50 to 200 times before being turned into rags."

Further, disposables generate 60 times more solid waste and use 20 times more raw materials like crude oil and wood pulp than cloth diapers.

In 1991, an attempt towards recycling disposable diapers was made in the city of Seattle, involving 800 families, 30 day care centers, a hospital and a Seattle-based recycler for a period of one year. The conclusion made by Procter & Gamble was that recycling disposable diapers was not an economically feasible task on any scale.

"But I can't be responsible for the whole world," one mom said.

"No," I replied, "but we can be responsible for our part in it. Besides, cloth diapers are way cheaper than disposables."

"No, they're not, they are so expensive to buy," she said.

"At first," I replied. "But I purchased five dozen diapers for Matt 14 years ago and I am still using diapers that I used on him on Jack. I've bought a dozen or two for each kid in between, but that's it."

Cloth diapers are only around $20 a dozen. Let's do the math for, say two children (I have five, and any math done for five children is daunting). Buy five dozen diapers at $20 a dozen off E