The Smallholder notes, with grim bemusement, the Maximum Leader’s feeble attempt to distract our readers from the real fairest of the fair. He discusses Jennifer Love Hewitt and Kate Moss, but excludes the ethereal beauty of Jamie Pressly from consideration?

We once had a poll for official babe of Naked Villainy. The Maximum Leader, following the hoary tradition of single party dictatorships everywhere, stuffed, as it were, the ballot box.

But the truth cannot be so easily surpressed.

The proof, as they say (or at least the Primer Minister of Singapore) is in the pudding.

JLH and JP both have new series debuting this fall - “The Ghost (snicker snicker) Whisperer” and “My Name is Earl” The American people, voting with their eyes and advertising dollars, will demonstrate once and for all that Jaime is waaaaay better looking than a glorified balloon smuggler.

Or a coke-addled anorexic.

Alexander looked over the lush greenery of Babylon. His body was wracked in pain. His thoughts were muddled. He had seen men, countless men, in the same condition. He knew his time was coming. Did he have a few more days? Hours? Could he muster up the strength to choose? He knew his son would never rule. But who would he choose? Ptolemy? Perdiccas? Arridaeus? Melanger?

No matter whom he chose he knew that after him there would follow days of kings, empires and revolutions. And he’d learned that blood looks just the same when you open a vein.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will commend two posts to you before the signs off for an evening of fun with the villainous progeny and hour upon hour of Rome:Total War.

The first is a great post on the Jawa Report. As you all surely know, Dr. Rusty Shackleford was a constant advocate for Roy Hallums while he was held hostage in Iraq. Now that he has been released, Susan Hallums has thanked Rusty for his help. Bravo, Rusty! Bravo! You’ve done yeoman’s work in this. Your Maximum Leader hopes one day Roy will be able to write you as well.

The second is this interesting take on agribusiness from Phoenix. Her own agribusiness that is. It is an interesting counter-point to our own Smallholder. (Or is that Pointer-count?)

With that dearminions your Maximum Leader will sign off for the day. Good luck and

Carry on.

For all of the Naked Villainy readers who visit our site every day, eagerly anticipating a cow insemination post, this one is for you!

Bonnie’s suitor’s semen has arrived all the way from Norway: Svarstad

I will breed her this year with a Norweigen Red Bull.

My goal is to get a heifer that has thrifty grazing genetics, hardiness, heterosis, longer teats, high fertility, and the potential to throw meaty calves.

Unlike the American dairy system that has used the factory model to turn cows from solar-driven grass eating machines into petroleum-driven (tractor-based forage harvesting) grain bins, many other nations have developed more profitable, sustainable small dairy systems based on intensive grazing. New Zealand’s system is the best known, but the Scandinavians are no slouches at grass-based dairying.

The Norweigen Red breed is a hardy one, devloped to graze the cold hilly upcountry. When I combine that with Bonnie’s Scottish ancestry, I ought to get a tough, healthy cow.

Most dairy cows, particularly Holsteins, are massively inbred. The advent of artificial insemination has allowed for rapid genetic progress in the creation of giant, short-lived cows that can turn grain into milk at astounding rates. However, since good bulls can sire thousands of offspring and new bulls are selected from the progeny of the previous good bulls, the genetic base has become narrow indeed - to the point that the inbreeding has seriously affected traits like fertility. One reason I chose the Ayrshire was because, of the dairy breeds, it had suffered comparatively less pressure genetic pressure - the suped-up Holsteins quickly pushed the minor breeds to the fringes on factory farms where size and ability to process grain were all. But even the Ayrshire’s genetic base is narrower then it ought to be. Heterosis is the biological principle in which crossbred offspring typically see major trait gains as the result of the efficacy or reducing inbreeding. Unfortunately, the heterosis is only valuable if you keep switching in outcrosses so it is not generally used with Holsteins because the offspring would be smaller and smaller as the more minor breeds played into a continuing rotation. Holstein milk production is so far above that of other breeds that even with heterosis, the next generation would have less milk production than the parent. For example, imagine a Holstein averaging 30,000 lbs/milk/lactation. Breed her to a good Holstein bull and you might get a heifer throwing 32,000 lbs. If you bred her to a Jersey bull with a PTA for milk in the 20,000 lb range, the resulting crossbed would throw around 25,000 based on averages. (It wouldn’t be right in the middle because there are other factors involved, but it works for our example). The heterosis affect might add a 10% gain - so the crossbred cow, while healthier, would only be expected to throw 27,500 lbs. The 4,500 pound difference would mean an extra $900 of milk per year. Even if the crossbred heifer has fewer health problems, greater longevity, less mastitis, and is thriftier (uses less food per unit of milk profuced), the gap might only close to $200/year. That inbred purebred differential gain of $200/year in the annual bottom line is a crucial improvement when you average that over hundreds of cows and have to pay a multi-million dollar bank not that you took out to build your free stall barn and manure lagoon.

Squeezing the last dollar out of production isn’t the goal of Sweet Seasons Farm. I don’t owe $100,000 on a combine, $40,000 for a tractor, $2,000,000 for a manure disposal system, or $500,000 for a milking parlor. The major capital expense at Sweet Seasons Farm has been the building of the barn, which was accomplished for around $6,000 dollars since it was built by the truty firm of Vater Smallholder & Son.

In the case of this small organic farm, the trade-off of slightly less production is minimized because I’m not starting from a Holstein base, what little drop will hardly be noticed, and animal health is a major goal as its own end.

The longer teat issue is also a function of being a small farm. The advent of mechanical milking machines has made teat size irrelevent to production - the vacuum pressure, unlike a farmer’s aching fingers, cares not how long a cow’s teats are. In fact, in a confinement situation where animals are crowded, long teats are a disadvantage because resting cows get stepped on by their herdmates. Animals that spend a great deal of time resting on manure packs also expose their teats to bacterial infection - and the longer the teats are, the greater the area exposed. So farmers have been breeding for smaller teats.

I milk by hand. I can barely get two fingers around Bonnie’s back teats. I wanted a cow with longer teats and found a bull that throws that trait in the Norwegian Red herdbook.

Norweigen Reds are also noted for their high fertiltiy and the heterosis will help on this level as well. Since I breed AI, this trait is important. It takes an average of three or four breedings for a Holstein to “catch” nowadays. Ayrshires average 2 or 3. It took 2 to get Bonnie in calf last year. Bonnie is a good cow that does not suffer from the environmental stress depressing fertility in confinement operations, rotationally grazes (which increases relative fertility), and doesn’t suffer from grain-induced acidosis, so she should be pretty fertile. But I want to keep breeding to make that trait better and better. Each breeding will run me around $40, so as a percentage of costs, can be a big slice of my tiny pie. Heterosis will also help.

Most dairy calves end up as veal. I raise mine to be petit beef. Dairy animals tend to be very thin and angular, so a larger proportion of the nutrition of the animals destined for the table goes into bone. If I could get calves that are blockier, they’ll gain weight faster and improve my paycheck at the end of the year. Norweigen Reds have many dual-breed charecteristics - the males are raised for beef, so my crossbreed, if male, should have a blockier frame than a straight Ayrshire calf.

As an additional bonus, Svarstad is homozygoously polled, which means that I will not have to dehorn the calf.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, as has become his habit of late, was over on I Don’t Like You In That Way reading the latest celebrity gossip.

BTW, your Maximum Leader agrees with Johnathan V at Galley Slaves that I Don’t Like You is the best gossip site out there. The Superficial isn’t the same without Brendon.

Anyho… Jenny at I Don’t Like You In That Way has a post in which two great love interests of this site are mentioned.

In one part of the post Jenny exhorts us to go and sign a petition asking the the lovely and talented Jennifer Love Hewitt (the unrequited platonic love of your Maximum Leader) just show her boobs. If you click through and read the petition you’ll find it quite amusing. (Your Maximum Leader might actually pay good money to see a “scene” with Jennifer Love Hewitt and Lacey Chabert.)

Of course, your Maximum Leader exhorts Jennifer Love Hewitt to just continue to be herself and maintain her good girl image. Once those (fabulous) breasts are exposed a little bit of mystique is lost. And her career could suffer.

Then Jenny goes on to say that Kate Moss is a coke junkie. She has some photos too. Sad. Your Maximum Leader hopes she is not. But if she is and wants an intervention, he’s sure the Minister of Propaganda would be happy to set something up.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is very gratified right now. Two reasons for this.

First, he just finished a very large and tasty calzone for lunch. He is, consequently, very full and sort of sleepy. But he feels really good.

Secondly, he just finished reading the two Smallholder posts immediately preceeding this one.

It is good to see the common sense evolution of the Smallholder (and Mrs Smallholder) on the issue of guns.

As th Smallholder stated, we discussed the use of deadly force to protect property. In the senario we created, Bonnie (Smallholder’s house cow) was being “rustled” by cattle thieves. Would Smallholder be allowed to use deadly force in the protection of his property?

Both the Smallholder and your Maximum Leader concluded, without full knowledge of the law, that one would probably NOT be able to use deadly force to protect property (in this case Bonnie the house cow). Your Maximum Leader grew curious on this point and decided to do a little researching.

He found what appears to be a reasonably authoritative web site on the subject. It is here. If any minion readers out there are lawyers in Virginia with knowledge of these things your Maximum Leader (and the Smallholder) would gladly partake of your insights.

NB to Lawyers who might respond: This is a purely intellectual and speculative exercise. Your Maximum Leader and the Smallholder would not, under any circumstances, consider your comments to be authoritative legal advice or a privledged conversation. Should either your Maximum Leader or the Smallholder need legal counsel we would retain the services of a licensed attorney in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Anyho…

The cited website states:

Even if [the] actions [of the person threatening the defendant’s property] were unwarranted or illegal, the defendant, as an owner of personal property, did not have the right to assert or defend his possessory rights thereto by the use of deadly force. In Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 98 Va. 840, 842-43, 36 S.E. 371, 372 (1900), we said:

The law is clearly stated by a learned judge in State v. Morgan, 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, as follows: “When it is said that a man may rightfully use as much force as is necessary for the protection of his person and property, it should be recollected that this rule is subject to this most important modification, that he shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm. It is not every right of person, and still less of property, that can lawfully be asserted, or every wrong that may rightfully be redressed by extreme remedies. There is a recklessness and a wanton disregard of humanity and social duty in taking or endeavoring to take, the life of a fellow-being, in order to save one’s self from a comparatively slight wrong, which is essentially wicked, and the law abhors. You may not kill, because you cannot otherwise effect your object, although the object sought to be effected is right. You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty.” See, also, 1 Bishop on New C. L., secs. 839, 841, 850.

However, the defendant contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that these principles do not apply when there is a mere threat to use deadly force in protection of personal property. We do not agree. Moreover, the owner of land has no right to assault a mere trespasser with a deadly weapon. Montgomery, 98 Va. at 844, 36 S.E. at 373. For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that a deadly weapon may not be brandished solely in defense of personal property. Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 242, 531 S.E.2d 567, ___ (2000).

Your Maximum Leader looked up some of the cases and laws referred to on the page and they all check out. (Examine the Code of Virginia here if you like.) Thus your Maximum Leader is accepting the page as reasonably authoritative.

In the case cited above, Commonwealth v. Alexander, the facts of the case revolve the repossession of a car. The repossessor got beligerent with the (former) owner of the car; who in turn brandished a rifle at him (the repossessor).

So indeed it would appear as though one is not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.

Of course, one could try and claim self-defence undr certain circumstances. For instance… If the Smallholder heard Bonnie the house cow making calls in distress he might grab his trusty .307 before going out to investigate. Indeed, Bonnie the house cow, could be endangered by some sort of feral predator. If he approached and saw armed men attmepting to steal Bonnie the house cow he might reasonably assume that the men meant other foul play. One suspects that if the Smallholder approached in a non-threatening way and called for the cattle thieves to peacably depart (or at least release Bonnie) before he called the police; one might reasonably believe that one had discharged his requirement to peacably protect his property. If the armed thieves in response brandished their firearms one could suppose that his life was endangered and thus be allowed to use deadly force to protect his own life. Bonnie the house cow would, under that senario, be an incidental rescue in the whole affair.

Or perhaps not.

Overall the great Commonwealth of Virginia (generally) seems to give a fair degree of latitude to protection of self and property. One would hope that this rabidly hypothetical senario would never take place.

Carry on.

Artists: Support your local farmer!

At the end of October I will be meeting with my customers as they pick up their delicious custom-reared, grass-fed, humanely-treated organic petit beef and pastured pork. I would like to wear a shirt with a simple farm logo on the pocket.

However, I am remakable unartistic.

Is there an artist out there who would do a simple line drawing of the missus and I in an American Gothic pose with Bonnie between us?

Has anyone noticed that Sadie’s advertisment seems to be specifically designed to exclude the Minister of Propaganda:

“Political leanings falling between moderate and conservative”

Sadie, I think the MOP would make a great co-blogger at Fistful of Fortnights. He could be the Bruce to your Cybill.

Mrs. Smallholder has always been a big fan of firearm control.

The Foreign Minister will recall our heated college debates over the Second Amendment. I was always firmly convinced that the “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment gave the (state) government the power to, well, regulate, firearm ownership and use. But I admitted that rifles and shotguns ought to be available to the citizenry (not as a right but as a reasonable tool). Mrs. Smallholder wanted to get rid of all the guns.

It is remarkable what farm life will do for you.

When the Maximum Leader and I were decrying the New Orleans gun seizures on the phone, we digressed, as we are wont to do, toward self-protection laws.

Evidently, Louisiana law says you may not use force to stop property crime.

In Virginia, you can shoot a burglar who is in your home. The assumption is that you have a reasonable concern about the safety of your family in the midst of a property crime.

In Virginia, you are also allowed - nay, required - to shoot dogs harassing your livestock.

So I posited the question to Mike: If I looked out my window and saw cattle rustlers trying to load Bonnie into the back of their truck, would I legally be allowed to shoot them?

The Maximum Leader and I regretfully concluded that I would probably get in serious legal trouble because the thieves were not physically inside my domicile.

My dear pacifist wife, th one who didn’t want me to get the .307, piped up from the peanut gallery:

“Who cares if it’s legal? If someone tries to steal our cow, shoot them. We’ve got pigs. Who’s going to know?”

The Volokh Conspiracy did a series of articles about the confiscation of firearms in the aftermath of Katrina. The local (state?) government’s actions in this case enrage me.

First of all, going door to door to collect guns will not accomplish the object of the seizure: to keep jackasses from shooting at rescue/relief workers. The proper response to people who shoot at Red Cross convoys is to kill them.

If the Smallholder clan was less German and more Cajun, and happened to live in the Big Easy, you can be assured that we would have evacuated (or at least the wife and kids - depending on how low my putative Lousiana farm land was, I might stay to save the livestock). The lives of my family come first. Always.

The people who stayed were stupid*.

But let’s assume that the Smallholder clan had ridden out the storm. As the incompetence and “Lord of the Flies”ishness of the evacuee shelters became apparent, I would not take my family there. If we had (and we would) drinking water and food, we would stay put rather than expose the kids to the disease and brutish nature of our fellow survivors.

And then one day the police show up at my door and demand that I turn over my 307? When there are looter and pillagers and rapists and lion and tigers and bears (oh my!) running amuck and amock?

No.

Not just no.

Heeeeeellllllll no!

I wouldn’t confront the officer (you always lose), but I would lie and say we didn’t have a firearm in the house and thank the Good Lord that there isn’t any national firearm registry.

Almost makes a guy want to join the NRA.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader does not wish ill to befall North Carolina, or Southeastern Virginia… But he did hope that Tropical Storm/Hurricane/Tropical Storm Ophelia might have made landfall and quickly progressed northward over land.

Mainly because we haven’t gotten a drop of rain at the Villainschloss for nigh on 3 weeks. It is nasty dry out there. Mrs Villain’s garden has given up the ghost and your Maximum Leader’s rose bushes are on the virge of being cut back and prepared for winter….

Need rain…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has written twice about useless think tank reports becoming new over the past week. Well it seems great minds are thinking alike. See Dan Dresner and Virginia Postrel.

The “decadent phase” of think tanks? Your Maximum Leader has to get in on some of that action.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees that Britney Spears-Federline has named her baby.

Congratulations Britney! You’ve just given birth to a Volunteer State Blogger! No not that one. This one. Your Maximum Leader likes Preston Taylor Holmes. He’s funny.

Carry on.

This is what is wrong with agricutlure today.

Government subsidies of the family farm don’t help small farms - they overwhelmingly go to big corporate businesses that are bad for farmers, the consumers, the animals, the low wage workers, and the environment.

My cousin owns a remarkably similar facility in Wisconsin - 1400 cows and a dozen imported workers.

“Teabow Farms, about five miles north of Frederick, has a herd of 1,820 animals, of which 950 must be milked daily. There are 18 hired hands.”

The article doesn’t explain what the land base is. But if this is typical of a milk factory, then the base is disproportionately small. An acre of grass can absorb the nutrients deposited by a cow over the course of a year without runoff and leaching into water systems. My cousin has 1400 milk cows and 1400 heifers on 200 acres. Mmmm. Manure lagoons! Smells like… victory… for the banks! And e coli in the drinking water.

Note the number of non-milking heifers. Half the herd. It takes two years for a heifer to grow large enough to calve and produce. So this means that a half the heifers are calving each year - so the cull rate of the milking cows is 50% - most cows last only two lactations, long enough, on average to produce her replacement (half the calves are relatively worthless bulls). Cows aren’t culled willy-nilly. Living conditions are so atrocious that the cows are breaking down at this rate - ruptured udders, blind teats, blown-out knees, disease, etc. In fact, at this rate of turnover, it doesn’t make sense to control diseases like Johnes that don’t affect milk production until a cow is four or five years old - but on these mega farms, they’ll be dead before Johnes stops the flow of liquid. The fact that Johnes is incredibly painful way before the milk dries up is irrelevent.

We need to get government out of agricultural subsidies (admittedly almost impossible given the way the Electoral College and Senate magnify the power of farm states). If we didn’t subsidies the giant industrial factories, economics would tilt towards sanely-sized FAMILY farms.

The government that governs least governs best.

Somebody (Sadie?) give Fabienne some smelling salts.

A major problem in urban areas is anonymity. Kids, teenagers and adults are more likely to try to get away with immoral behavior if they believe they can hide behind a mask (figuratively and not literally) and not be identified by witnesses.

In a small town, school, subdivision or canton, people know each other. If my kid steals your apples, you’ll let me know and I can correct his moral lapse. If your kids are annoying the neighborhood with loud music, we’ll talk. Knowing from the get go that their actions can affect other people - a knowledge enforced by both parents and the entire community - helps kids learn to empathize with others.

When I taught in Baltimore (and with the afternoon program in Harrisonburg), I saw a many, many kids who really did not perceive other people to be human beings - they saw other people as instruments to be callously used, manipulated, taken advantage of, or harmed. I haven’t seen many kids who live in attentive communities suffering under this delusion.