We introduced CoffeeCSA to our eNewsletter readers last issue in a brief article with the promise to do a follow-up once we had received our order and tasted it. After conducting extensive research- several enjoyable cups of incredible mochas, lattes and espressos- the time has come to do the actual writing!

Why CoffeeCSA Makes so Much Sense, on so Many Levels

Peruvian Latte

CoffeeCSA is a new venture, launched in early April this year and has seen significant exposure in the press, with The New York Times, Huffington Post and RSF Social Finance all writing about them. Early response has been very positive as well.  CSAs, or Community Supported Agriculture, has gained attention in the past few years with it’s fresh, locally produced food model that directly connects the consumer with the farmer that grew their food. There are many benefits to this model, as the eater gets to meet and usually get to know the producer; supply chains are non-existant with the consumer picking up their food directly from the grower; the grower can respond to consumer requests for different varieties rapidly; and the grower/farmer/producer gets paid up front and in full, not after everyone else has taken their profit.

This is all well and good, you say, but what exactly does this have to do with coffee? Lots.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any coffee growers in the United States, as coffee is strictly a tropical crop. That means that there aren’t any local growers to most of the world’s population, and coffee is a food that will always be shipped in. This is where CoffeeCSA shines as it is 100% grower owned, 100% of the profits go to the farmers, the coffee has all of the great labels- fair-trade, shade grown, organic, hand roasted, single origin, etc. etc. Pachamama is the parent organization with about 140,000 farmers making up it’s ownership worldwide, so it is in good hands.

The grower-owned model is beneficial for all involved, as it provides a higher quality, sustainable, traceable cup of coffee for the drinker and much

Peruvian Coffee Beans

more profits for the grower who is more able to remain in business providing that incredibly delicious cup of coffee we crave. Commercial commodity coffee growers make about $1.64 per pound of coffee and fair trade growers make around $2.18 per pound. CoffeeCSA growers get about $4.60 per pound from the sale of their own coffee, plus up to $3.60 per pound that comes from the cooperative profits. That’s double what fair trade certified growers get right from the start, with a significant amount more in profit sharing possible. All of this happens at a price that is usually quite a bit less than what you’d pay for similar quality coffee- around $9.99 per pound plus shipping.

The mechanics are similar to any other CSA. You go to CoffeeCSA.org, create your free membership, select how you want your coffee, buy it and wait for it to arrive at your door. The coffee is fresh roasted in Davis, CA and shipped soon after roasting so it is much fresher than that you are used to seeing in stores, even high-end ones that depend on traditional distribution channels after roasting. Some coffee is anywhere from a week to 10 days old before it even hits the shelves!

We ordered on a Thursday and received the coffee the next Monday by UPS where we live in Arizona. Upon opening the bag, I was surprised at how fresh and intense the aroma of the whole beans was. The primal scent of coffee was immediately there, closely followed by a rich earthy smell, then ending with chocolate. Now this was a great start!

Fresh Ground Coffee Beans

The next morning was the first tasting. This is a medium roast, so there isn’t much oil on the outside of the bean. After grinding for the espresso machine, I caught a strong floral scent in addition to the others from the day before. The charge tamped a bit easier than other coffees, and the flow of crema was very full from the portafilter. Poking my nose into the cup after the double shot was done was educational, as it was much more intense, fresh, clean and lively than what I’m used to smelling. I’m thinking that these qualities are due to the single, hand grown origin, hand roasting and overall freshness of the beans. It really seemed that there was a huge amount of care, attention and love that I was inhaling the aroma of!

After steaming the milk, the first sip was delightful. I had selected this variety grown by Belhermina Aguilar in Santa Teresa, Peru for its’ description- “This single-origin coffee is sweet & smooth with strong chocolate notes.” The description was dead accurate, with the addition of being delicious! The flavors of the bean melded well with the sweetness of the raw cane sugar and richness of the fresh milk.

We enjoy drinking coffee for its’ flavor, not as a necessity of the caffeine, so this is a real treat to find such a top quality coffee at this price that

Rich Crema

does so much good for everyone. The downside is that we now have much higher expectations when we go out for coffee, as we have rapidly become used to the superior flavors and aromas that hand-grown, harvested, selected and roasted coffee gives.

We will definitely be continuing with CoffeeCSA!

Why being a foodie isn’t ‘elitist’

Corporate Agriculture

There have been a lot of  ‘elitist’ accusations thrown around about just about anyone who is interested in learning more about the source of their food. We hear almost daily how ‘local food’, ‘organic growing’ and ‘sustainable methods’ won’t feed the world and we who are interested in any type of agriculture other than the status quo corporate chemical agriculture are choosing to starve the rest of the world.

To that end I present an article from Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation. My comments will be at the end.

By Eric Schlosser in Washington Post Opinions, April 29, 2011

At the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group’s president, lashed out at “self-appointed food elitists” who are “hell-bent on misleading consumers.” His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.

The “elitist” epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book “Fast Food Nation” was published, I’ve been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary “Food, Inc.,” directed by Robby Kenner, was described as “elitist foodie propaganda” by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a “food fascist,” while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” who was accused of being an “anti-agricultural” elitist by a wealthy donor.

This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America’s current system of food production — overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels — is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it’s inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.

During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets — none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn’t exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America’s cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle” and criticized the unchecked power of the “Beef Trust.” The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.

America’s ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.

While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers — and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking “big government” and calling the sustainability movement elitist.

Food industry workers are also bearing the brunt of the system’s recent changes. During the 1970s, meatpackers were among America’s highest-paid industrial workers; today they are among the lowest paid. Thanks to the growth of fast-food chains, the wages of restaurant workers have fallen, too. The restaurant industry has long been the largest employer of minimum-wage workers. Since 1968, thanks in part to the industry’s lobbying efforts, the real value of the minimum wage has dropped by 29 percent.

Migrant farmworkers have been hit especially hard. They pick the fresh fruits and vegetables considered the foundation of a healthy diet, but they are hardly well-rewarded for their back-breaking labor. The wages of some migrants, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by more than 50 percent since the late 1970s. Many grape-pickers in California now earn less than their counterparts did a generation ago, when misery in the fields inspired Cesar Chavez to start the United Farm Workers Union.

While workers are earning less, consumers are paying for this industrial food system with their health. Young children, the poor and people of color are being harmed the most. During the past 40 years, the obesity rate among American preschoolers has doubled. Among children ages 6 to 11, it has tripled. Obesity has been linked to asthma, cancer, heart disease and diabetes, among other ailments. Two-thirds of American adults are obese or overweight, and economists from Cornell and Lehigh universities have estimated that obesity is now responsible for 17 percent of the nation’s annual medical costs, or roughly $168 billion.

African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites, and more likely to be poor. As upper-middle-class consumers increasingly seek out healthier foods, fast-food chains are targeting low-income minority communities — much like tobacco companies did when wealthy and well-educated people began to quit smoking.

Some aspects of today’s food movement do smack of elitism, and if left unchecked they could sideline the movement or make it irrelevant. Consider the expensive meals and obscure ingredients favored by a number of celebrity chefs, the snobbery that often oozes from restaurant connoisseurs, and the obsessive interest in exotic cooking techniques among a certain type of gourmand.

Those things may be irritating. But they generally don’t sicken or kill people. And our current industrial food system does.

Just last month, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly half of the beef, chicken, pork and turkey at supermarkets nationwide may be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. About 80 percent of the antibiotics in the United States are currently given to livestock, simply to make the animals grow faster or to prevent them from becoming sick amid the terribly overcrowded conditions at factory farms. In addition to antibiotic-resistant germs, a wide variety of other pathogens are being spread by this centralized and industrialized system for producing meat.

Children under age 4 are the most vulnerable to food-borne pathogens and to pesticide residues in food. According to a report by Georgetown University and the Pew Charitable Trusts, the annual cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion. That figure does not include the cost of the roughly 20,000 annual deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

One of the goals of the Farm Bureau Federation is to influence public opinion. In addition to denying the threat of global warming and attacking the legitimacy of federal environmental laws, the Farm Bureau recently created an entity called the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance to “enhance public trust in our food supply.” Backed by a long list of powerful trade groups, the alliance also plans to “serve as a resource to food companies” seeking to defend current agricultural practices.

But despite their talk of openness and trust, the giants of the food industry rarely engage in public debate with their critics. Instead they rely on well-paid surrogates — or they file lawsuits. In 1990, McDonald’s sued a small group called London Greenpeace for criticizing the chain’s food, starting a legal battle that lasted 15 years. In 1996, Texas cattlemen sued Oprah Winfrey for her assertion that mad cow disease might have come to the United States, and kept her in court for six years. Thirteen states passed “veggie libel laws” during the 1990s to facilitate similar lawsuits. Although the laws are unconstitutional, they remain on the books and serve their real purpose: to intimidate critics of industrial food.

In the same spirit of limiting public awareness, companies such as Monsanto and Dow Chemical have blocked the labeling of genetically modified foods, while the meatpacking industry has prevented the labeling of milk and meat from cloned animals. If genetic modification and cloning are such wonderful things, why aren’t companies eager to advertise the use of these revolutionary techniques?

The answer is that they don’t want people to think about what they’re eating. The survival of the current food system depends upon widespread ignorance of how it really operates. A Florida state senator recently introduced a bill making it a first-degree felony to take a photograph of any farm or processing plant — even from a public road — without the owner’s permission. Similar bills have been introduced in Minnesota and Iowa, with support from Monsanto.

The cheapness of today’s industrial food is an illusion, and the real cost is too high to pay. While the Farm Bureau Federation clings to an outdated mind-set, companies such as Wal-Mart, Danone, Kellogg’s, General Mills and Compass have invested in organic, sustainable production. Insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente are opening farmers markets in low-income communities. Whole Foods is demanding fair labor practices, while Chipotle promotes the humane treatment of farm animals. Urban farms are being planted by visionaries such as Milwaukee’s Will Allen; the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is defending the rights of poor migrants; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is fighting to improve the lives of food-service workers; and Alice Waters, Jamie Oliver and first lady Michelle Obama are pushing for healthier food in schools.

Calling these efforts elitist renders the word meaningless. The wealthy will always eat well. It is the poor and working people who need a new, sustainable food system more than anyone else. They live in the most polluted neighborhoods. They are exposed to the worst toxic chemicals on the job. They are sold the unhealthiest foods and can least afford the medical problems that result.

A food system based on poverty and exploitation will never be sustainable.

Eric Schlosser is the author of “Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal” and a co-producer of the Oscar-nominated documentary “Food, Inc.”

I find it really funny that the article opened with American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman’s accusation of local food advocates “hell-bent on misleading consumers”, when that is exactly what industrial, corporate agriculture is engaged in daily. The proof is in their advertising, with family farms, cozy, happy cows, strutting chickens and lush fields of green pastures. Where are the real photos of CAFO’s with animals standing in liquid excrement up to their hocks, in pens too small to turn around or even lay down in? It seems that the corporate agriculture world is increasingly under fire- rightfully so- for their methods of growing food and their lack of concern for the animals and their customers, with profit and shareholder returns as their main concerns.

Corporate misleading, misdirecting consumers and misstating facts seem to be a common response today to the growth of more localized, de-centralized food production. With food prices at all time highs, fuel prices rising, disruptive weather patterns damaging crops and food shortages becoming increasingly common, people are concerned about where their food comes from. Add to that the spate of food recalls, dangerously unhealthy food being openly sold to consumers and the increasingly apparent back-door partnerships between corporations and the regulatory or inspection agencies that are supposed to prevent exactly this type of behavior, and it is completely understandable why the common person is suspicious and questioning of their food supply. It also explains the tremendous growth of the more localized and de-centralized food production model, like Farmer’s Markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), farm shares and simply trading food with neighbors.

It is darkly interesting to see how far we have come in a generation or so- the past 40 to 50 years. Real income for many agriculture workers has dropped drastically, yet the cost of the food has risen just as significantly. Our food is less healthy and less nutritious than decades before, as is reported almost daily on food contamination and soil depletion. Corporate agriculture is very careful and effective to dampen any critics of the chemical food system while at the same time marginalizing the proponents of de-centralized food production.Perhaps this is why they are so surprised and threatened at the success of the local markets.

Something that is exciting to see is just how many people that are working on positive, beneficial changes to their own food supply that have a spillover effect to their neighbor, city and county. People are starting their own gardens, expanding their gardens and selling or trading the surplus, starting or joining Farmer’s Markets, CSAs and farm share programs. People getting to know each other, how they produce food, the safety, health, nutrition and flavors of that food creates a surprisingly strong and resilient community that forges its own unique and positive direction without wanting or needing government input, regulations or assistance.

At its’ heart, this is what corporate agriculture is afraid of- becoming unnecessary, unneeded and unwanted.

Fresh Veggies (and Fruit) For Less Than $1/Lb In 2011?

Is that even possible? Is it legal? How can I get in on that deal?

Heirloom Tomatoes from Bountiful Baskets

These are some of the questions that were going through our minds when we read about Bountiful Baskets Co-op in an article by Molly Beverly, the chef at Prescott College. The approach is very unique, being “This is a grass roots, all volunteer, no contracts, no catch co-operative.”

The offering is open from noon on Mondays MST to Tuesday 10PM MST. You select the basket of the week, which is about 50% mixed veggies and fruit, then choose if you want one of the special weekly packs. Then you pay the $3.00 First Time Basket fee, with a $1.50 transaction fee to cover the costs of the website and credit card fees. From there Sally and Tanya- the ladies responsible for making this incredible operation work- spring into action, buying the produce and getting the transportation arranged in time for everything to show up at your local pick up location by 7AM that Saturday. You have a 20 minute window to pick up your basket, so make sure to be on time. They are extremely efficient, with our local pick up having about 100 baskets that fly out in less than 20 minutes. There was  a short wait time the first week, as we arrived about 10 minutes early, but they were open early the second week, with us being in and out in less than 10 minutes. That included picking up a total of 3 baskets (for family and a friend) and 10 Lbs of Organic Heirloom Tomatoes! Try for that time at your local grocery store!

Weekly Bountiful Baskets offering

The weekly basket is $15.00 and is aimed at providing you with about $50.00 worth of grocery store quality produce. There is often the option to upgrade to all organic for $10.00 extra.  Any special weekly packs are priced separately, but carry the same great deal as the baskets. Our first week we had a hard time trying to keep up with the extra fruit and vegetables, and finished most, but not all of it before the next Saturday. You don’t have to get a basket every week, and some couples are on an every other week schedule as they don’t eat all of it in one week.

Our first week we got the weekly basket, an Italian pack and a box of Asparagus. The basket had a great selection of crisp, fresh greens and fruit. All of it was a much better quality and flavor than we have been seeing in the grocery store at better prices. The Italian pack had several fresh herbs- generous quantities of Rosemary, Thyme, Basil, Oregano, Flat Leaf Parsley as well as garlic, a couple of onions, baby portabello and regular mushrooms- all for $7.50. 15 pounds of fresh, crisp, young and tasty Asparagus for $22.00 is a screaming deal! We shared the bunches of  Asparagus with friends and family, enjoyed it in frittatas, pickled it, sauteed it in butter, and still had some left over at the end of the week.

For our second go round, we chose the basket and split a 10 Lb case of Organic Heirloom Tomatoes from Mexico. Living in Arizona, that isn’t too bad, considering the time of year. The quality and amount of absolutely fresh veggies and fruit was amazing, from the crisp leaf lettuce, spinach, bananas, another bundle of young Asparagus, carrots, apples, fresh ripe Mangoes, vine tomatoes, celery, sweet potatoes, zucchini and a ripe cantaloupe. The heirloom tomatoes were ripe and ready for use, which is impressive. The second week’s basket weighed in at 21Lbs, for a cost of 71.4 cents a pound for fresh, crisp, ripe and tasty produce. I believe our first week’s basket was 20 Lbs. Please show me a better deal on fresh food!

Box from Bountiful Baskets

Bountiful Baskets is in 10 states helping over 70,000 families get higher quality food at great prices each week through a unique business model. Just in Arizona there are about 80 locations. There is a volunteer coordinator at each location who is the driving force. Everyone is a volunteer, no one gets paid. This is a co-operative effort to source better food at better prices for all who participate.

In order to get started, go to Bountiful Baskets, and register for a free account. Do this before you want to get your order in, to save time and find out where your local pick up is at. Then from noon MST each Monday to 10 PM MST each Tuesday, log in and see what is on offer for the week. Make your choice, pay your money and show up at the pickup location at the proper time to get you basket of goodies. It is best to bring a basket to carry all of it in- trust me, you’ll need it! Take your treasure home and amaze your friends and family at the fresh taste and flavors you found with Bountiful Baskets.

This is just one of several similar programs around the country that give you other options to the usual grocery store stroll. Your local Farmer’s Market is one, but is usually seasonal, and isn’t a supermarket. Azure Standard is another well established program that not only delivers fresh, organic produce at less than conventional grocery store prices, but also acts as a supermarket, selling dishwasher detergent, parchment baking sheets and apple sauce along with organic avocados and apples.

There are probably several others that we are just not aware of, but the point is that there are plenty of options to eating fresh, tasty food at better prices than what you are used to seeing in the grocery store. It does take a little planning, but if you are saving 50-75% on your weekly food bill, isn’t it worth a bit of your time? With fuel prices and food prices headed only upwards, finding ways to save on your food without eating junk is becoming increasingly important. Planting a garden will pay you about 10 times the cost of the seeds you plant. If you spend $100 on seeds, the average garden will save (or pay) you about $1000 in the cost of the same quality fresh produce from your grocery store and taste better. Using one of these afore-mentioned co-operatives for the weekly veggies is yet another way to save money and increase the quality of your food, especially on things that don’t grow well in your garden.

Eating much better for much less is something that most people will be very interested in!

Acres USA originally published this article, and is used here from their Reprint Archives. This is the second of two segments. Our comments and notes will be inserted throughout.

Mary-Howell Martens is admired and recognized as one of the nation’s pioneering leaders in sustainable agriculture.

Together with her husband Klaas, Ms. Martens owns and operates Lakeview Organic Grain in Penn Yan, New York, one of the Northeast’s largest and most successful organic grain businesses.  Started in 1991, the Martens’ 1400-acre farm and feed mill, which they work with their children Peter, Elizabeth, and Daniel, and 10 employees, currently supplies organic feed and seed to over 300 organic livestock farmers in New York and Pennsylvania.

Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food? Part II

by Mary-Howell R. Martens

Animal nutritionists have noted a drop in nutritional quality of animal feed, especially corn and forages, over the past 25 years. Dave Mattocks of the Fertrell Company in Bainbridge, Pennsylvania, has been formulating animal rations for many years. He reports that he has had to continually increase quantity of protein sources in animal rations in order to maintain a constant level of protein. He feels that this reflects that the average protein level in grain has been dropping. When plants are induced to produce more quantity (higher yield), it is usually at the expense of something else, in this case, certain key molecules that affect quality and nutrition. Confirmation of this observation would probably be available if one took the time to sort through and analyze the reams of data that forage analysis labs have collected over the past 25 years.

Indirectly related to observations about declining feed quality, an article in the March 25, 2000 issue of Science News described research that showed that plants growing with increased air CO2 levels (as is possible in the future with the greenhouse gas effect) do indeed grow faster and produce more carbohydrates, but the protein levels are lower. Insects feeding on these plants eat excessively but grow poorly. Sheep eating such plants eat less, grow poorly, and digest their food more slowly, probably because the essential bacteria in the ruminant gut are themselves protein deficient and malnourished. This is important research that needs to be considered for several critical reasons. First, of course, because the Earth’s atmosphere is changing and we need to anticipate how this may effect vegetation and the organisms that feed on the vegetation. Secondly, this research can offer valuable insight into the critical factor of genotype-x environment interaction, a factor which is largely being overlooked in the biotech and Green Revolution discussions.

Regardless of all the other issues involved with genetically engineered crops, it seems logical that unless we pay attention to the soil and other environmental factors first, efforts to improve yield, nutrient content, or pest resistance of crops through genetics alone will be far less successful than they might be. Results obtained on well-managed research farms may not be repeatable on poorer soils that are not being as intensively managed. Most crops have far more genetic potential than they are able to express already. Producing high yields on poor soils without maintaining fertility levels will only postpone famine until the soil becomes exhausted. We should not see genetics alone as the solution to management problems, as a way that allows farmers to continue poor production practices on their farms. Many American farmers face a corn borer problem because they don’t rotate properly and use other practices, such as no-till, that allow large pest populations to build. Bt corn makes it easier to continue poor management practices, at least until pest populations develop resistance. Obviously, new traits could then be engineered into corn to control the resistant pests, but the underlying problem is still not being addressed by this approach.

Often, when discussions of the relative nutritional merits of organic versus conventional food come up, someone will invariably quote a 1948 study by Dr. Firman Bear at Rutgers University. Unfortunately, using this research to support any such claims is quite incorrect, because this study did not compare organic and conventional food. Instead, it compared crops grown in mineral versus organic (muck) soils, it had nothing to do with use of chemicals. However, perhaps Dr. Bear did get it right on one point. The research showed that the composition of the soil has a major and readily detectable influence on the mineral content and the nutritional quality of food. By better understanding the role that a healthy, microbially active soil can make on nutritional quality of plants, perhaps then we then can design agricultural systems that will maximize this. On an organic farm, careful attention is placed on improving soil quality, increasing soil organic matter, and enhancing soil microbial life, crops are carefully rotated and soil is specifically amended to balance all aspects of soil fertility. It makes logical sense to conclude that plants produced under such a system could indeed be more flavorful and nutritious.

Copyright © 2000 Acres U.S.A.

All rights reserved.

Some comments and thoughts. First off, I agree with what is being said here, mainly that we shouldn’t be caught up in the “organic by default” trap that is so easy to fall into. What is meant by that is the simple absence of anything considered harmful does not equal healthy food. Simply because no pesticides, herbicides, fungicides,  chemical fertilizers, etc. etc. haven’t been applied, does not mean it is tasty and healthy. If nothing at all has been done to or with the soil, does that automatically mean all is well? Not really- there is much to be done in improving the fecundity of the soil including biological as well as structural improvements, organic matter, re-mineralization and nutrient balancing. Who would you want to eat produce from, one who has done nothing and calls it “organic” or one who has increased the biological health of their soil through careful and well researched amendments and inputs that are non-chemical in nature?

“There have been few studies that directly contrast the chemistry of conventional food to organic food.” Gosh, I wonder why… who normally funds such research? The Corporate Abgribusiness are not in the slightest interested if organic food is better, because that is not what they are in the business of.

“…over a two-year period, average levels of essential minerals were much higher in the organically grown apples, pears, potatoes and corn as compared to conventionally produced products. The organically grown food averaged higher in calcium, chromium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium and zinc, and lower in mercury and aluminum. A more recent study out of Australia showed a similar difference between calcium and magnesium levels in organic and non-organic food.” Yet when research is done, it conclusively shows that there are many more minerals that are essential for our health in organic, sustainably raised food.

“Weibel found interesting correlations between the microbial activity in the soil, a condition closely associated with organic management, and the nutritional status of the apples, especially the phosphorus level.” This is a perfect point of healthy soils equal much healthier produce. The correlation can be furthered to include healthier people from eating healthier produce… “This corroborates work done by Elaine Ingham at Oregon State University, who has shown that corn and grape plants grown in association with mycorrhizal fungi produce fruit with higher protein levels.” Mycorrhizal fungi are symbiotic fungi that greatly increase the nutrient uptake in plants and are essential to having biologically living, healthy soil.

“Regardless of all the other issues involved with genetically engineered crops, it seems logical that unless we pay attention to the soil and other environmental factors first, efforts to improve yield, nutrient content, or pest resistance of crops through genetics alone will be far less successful than they might be.” Really? Do ya really think? Common sense would dictate that to ignore the very foundation of agriculture- the soil- would be to invite disaster on the scale of many of the world’s other civilizations that ignored their soil. Almost without fail, they do not exist anymore. Those that do are on such a diminished scale in comparison to where they used to be in production as to be almost unbelievable. Who would call Iran, Iraq and Syria “The fertile crescent” or “Breadbasket of the world” today? These are just 3 examples of those that have managed to survived the loss of their soils.

This is a great article that not only introduces some reasoned, rational thought to the perennial question of nutrition, it also introduces many to the thought of what does the term “organic” really mean, and what is it made up of? I really hope this raises more questions than answers and sets you on a direction of learning more about what you eat, where it comes from and how is it raised. Only by answering these and many other questions can you be a true part of the solution of helping to create more demand for healthy, nourishing, sustainably raised food.

Yes, this is work, it takes time, thought and energy, but unless you want to just sit back and consume whatever is sent your way by the advertising and corporate agribusiness giants, this is the only way.

Organic or Conventional?

This question is often asked, not only by those who are starting their reading and research into healthier foods, but by almost everyone at some point who actually stops and thinks about their food. This exact question has been the center of debate between the chemical and biological or sustainable agriculture communities for some years now. Those with large advertising budgets have spent dump truck loads of cash selling the public on the idea that there is no difference between spraying a custom mixed chemical slurry onto the soil and using compost, re-mineralization, green manures, proper crop rotation and building the soil health biologically. In fact, the advertising has sold the public and many farmers that the biological method is simply a waste of time and money. We are beginning to know better now.

The large Agribusiness companies are surprised and a little bit worried at the steady double digit growth of local and organic farming, and the reasoned, educated and dedicated support of that agricultural model through Farmer’s Markets, CSA’s, community gardening and farm shares. It can’t be ignored or brushed aside any more.  Many think that the Food Safety Modernization Act- S.510- is a large scale effort to seriously hamper the growth of  local biological agriculture. While a very small percentage of the total market share, the growth of local agriculture has the industry giants concerned, because if only 5-7 percent of the current market departed, that would mean losses in the tens of millions of dollars for them. That is completely unacceptable for the corporations, and their shareholders that control modern Agribusiness.

We wanted to present an article from one who is recognized as being quite knowledgeable in the field. From a basis of formal education leading to real world advisory positions in policy making governmental departments, she has the foundational knowledge to be able to speak authoritatively on the subject. Her own experiences as an award winning organic grain farmer who also educates others how to produce abundance without the chemicals now thought to be essential to successful large scale agriculture uniquely qualifies her to be able to speak on both sides of this question.

Acres USA originally published this article, and is used here from their Reprint Archives. This is a long article, and will be broken up into two successive segments. Our comments and notes will be included at the end of the article.

Mary-Howell Martens is admired and recognized as one of the nation’s pioneering leaders in sustainable agriculture.

Together with her husband Klaas, Ms. Martens owns and operates Lakeview Organic Grain in Penn Yan, New York, one of the Northeast’s largest and most successful organic grain businesses.  Started in 1991, the Martens’ 1400-acre farm and feed mill, which they work with their children Peter, Elizabeth, and Daniel, and 10 employees, currently supplies organic feed and seed to over 300 organic livestock farmers in New York and Pennsylvania.

Noted for her wide-ranging efforts to promote sustainable agriculture, Ms. Martens is equally revered throughout the industry for her innovation, leadership, and stewardship.  She  received the prestigious Patrick Madden Award for Sustainable Agriculture in 2008, and has testified before the United States House of Representatives.  She and her husband speak throughout the  United States and Canada on sustainable agriculture and have written many articles on the subject.

In addition to her agribusiness endeavors, Ms. Martens, a graduate of the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, served on the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology from 2000-2002, and on the Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Science’s Dean’s Advisory Committee from 2003-2009.  She is also a member of the New York State Department of Ag and Markets’ Organic Advisory Committee and the Yates County Farm Bureau Board of Directors, in addition to numerous community volunteer efforts.

Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food?

by Mary-Howell R. Martens

Is organic food more nutritious or better tasting than conventionally produced food? This is a question that many people are asking, but unfortunately, there is no simple answer. So much more is involved in the nutritional quality of food than simply comparing organic versus chemical agronomic practices. There is certainly quite a bit of incorrect information, confusion, and wishful thinking on both sides concerning this subject, and probably there is as much variation in food quality produced on different organic farms as there is in the quality of food produced on different conventional farms.

Many people do believe that they can taste a difference between organic and nonorganic food. I usually think I can, but that might be because organic food is often fresher and more likely to be locally produced. Margaret Wittenberg, of Whole Foods Inc., says that in their stores, when customers ask whether organic foods are more nutritious, the company policy is to say that there is no evidence to say that this is true. However, she says that many customers remain unphased with this answer due to their own experiences and perceptions.

Some animals apparently can detect a difference in organic crops by taste. Floyd Hoover, in Penn Yan, New York, grows organic corn. One night he left several ears of conventional and organic corn side by side in his barn. The next morning, the organic corn had been nibbled by mice while the conventional corn had been ignored. Floyd then rearranged the order of the cobs, but still the mice avoided the conventional corn. Finally, he hid the organic corn, but the mice refused to touch the conventional corn. Within a few nights, the mice found the hidden organic corn and had a feast. Anecdotal evidence such as this indicate that for many people and apparently animals too, detectable quality differences do exist. Scientifically, however, it is difficult to draw definitive comparisons about the nutritional quality of conventional and organic food. Many environmental factors influence the nutritional quality and flavor of any type of farm product, including soil type, soil moisture, soil microbial activity, weather and other climatic conditions. Cultural practices, such as crop variety, seed source, length of growing season, irrigation, fertilization, cultivation, and post-harvest handling, will also affect food quality.

There have been few studies that directly contrast the chemistry of conventional food to organic food. Research reported in the Journal of Applied Nutrition showed that on a per-weight basis over a two-year period, average levels of essential minerals were much higher in the organically grown apples, pears, potatoes and corn as compared to conventionally produced products. The organically grown food averaged higher in calcium, chromium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium and zinc, and lower in mercury and aluminum. A more recent study out of Australia showed a similar difference between calcium and magnesium levels in organic and non-organic food.

Simply knowing the absolute quantity of chemical elements in a food sample may not be particularly revealing if we don’t know what molecules those elements are incorporated into in the food product. The same simple chemical elements may be organized into nutritious and flavorful molecules or may be organized into toxic, unpleasant-tasting molecules, or even into molecules that render plants more susceptible to insects and diseases. Certain amino acids such as proline have been linked to increased insect feeding and egg laying behavior. A plant slightly deficient in potassium may lack enzymes necessary to convert free amino acids into complex proteins. Another plant with adequate potassium might not show detectable differences in overall nitrogen level, but would contain more protein, might be much different in food flavor and quality, and might be much more resistant to insect attack.

It is possible to identify the specific chemical molecules that cause the typical characteristics we call “flavor” or “quality.” These generally are large, complex molecules, such as sugars, proteins, enzymes, esters, and organic acids. In a preliminary study, Dr. Franco Weibel at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Ackerstrasse, Switzerland, compared a variety of parameters in apples grown under organic and conventional conditions, such as mineral elements, sugars, phenols, malic acid, selenium, dietary fiber, and vitamins C and E. Organic fruit also had significantly firmer flesh and better sensory taste evaluations. Weibel found interesting correlations between the microbial activity in the soil, a condition closely associated with organic management, and the nutritional status of the apples, especially the phosphorus level. The actual chemical soil phosphorus level had little impact on fruit nutritional status. This research also found that organic fruit was considerably higher in phenols. Plants naturally synthesize phenols for defense against pests and diseases. Possibly, the unsprayed organic plants were stimulated to make higher levels of these critical molecules in response to pest attack. These phenolic compounds that protect the plant also have been shown to be disease protectants in humans. This corroborates work done by Elaine Ingham at Oregon State University, who has shown that corn and grape plants grown in association with mycorrhizal fungi produce fruit with higher protein levels.

Research conducted at Ohio State University by Dr. Larry Phelan has shown that European corn borer insects given a choice between organic and conventional corn plants avoid the organic plants. His research is continuing to test two hypotheses for these observations. He feels that the organic soils, with a rich microbial population, may release  plant nutrients more evenly over the season, resulting in slower, sturdier plant growth that is more resistant to insect attack. He also believes that the mineral balance of the soil and the plant plays a key role in insect resistance. In either case, the levels of complex molecules and water content in the plant tissue probably determines how tasty the plant is to an insect.

Copyright © 2000 Acres U.S.A.

All rights reserved.

We will continue this article tomorrow.

Read it, think about it, then read it once again and let me know what you think!

Do you have the balls to really change the food system?

BY Rebecca Thistlewaite

9 SEP 2010 12:49 PM

You watched Food, Inc. with your mouth aghast. You own a few cookbooks.

You go out to that hot new restaurant with the tattooed chef who’s putting on a whole-animal, nose-to-tail pricy special dinner. You bliss out on highfalutin’ pork rinds, braised pigs feet, rustic paté, and porchetta.

Later that weekend, you nibble on small bites as you stroll down the city street, blocked off for a weekend “foodie” festival.

Then you go back to your Monday-Friday workaday routine, ordering pizza and buying some frozen chicken breasts at Costco (“Hey, at least they’re ‘organic’!”) to get you through your hectic week. (You make time for at least two hours a day of reality TV.) You manage to get to a farmers market about once a month, but the rest of the time your eggs and meat come from Costco, Trader Joe’s, and maybe Whole Paycheck now and again.

Guess what? You are NOT changing the food system. Not even close.

You’re no better or different than the average American. You pat yourself on the back, you brag about your lunch on Twitter, you pity your Midwestern relatives eating their chicken-fried steak and ambrosia salad, but you secretly loathe your grocery store bill — which consumes only 8 percent of your income while your car devours 30 percent. Your bananas and coffee may be Fair Trade, but everything else is Far From It. The dozen eggs you splurge on once a month may be from local, outdoor-roaming birds, but all the other eggs you eat come from a giant egg conglomerate in either Petaluma, Calif., or Pennsylvania.

And even that pig in that nose-to-tail fancy dinner came from a poor farmer in Kansas or Iowa because the restaurant is too cheap or lazy to find local, pastured pork. And the ingredients for that foodie festival touting itself as local and sustainable? They mostly came from other states except a few ingredients they highlight as being “local.” But those restaurants, caterers, and food trucks just go back to using the low-cost distributor once the event is over.

So. Want to make a difference?

Here’s what a sustainable food system actually needs you to do, in no particular order:

Educate yourself:

• Don’t take anything at face value — read, listen, observe, research. Look at both sides of an issue and all points in between.
• Read not just the Omnivore’s Dilemma, but also Silent Spring, Sand County Almanac, and anything you can find by Wendell Berry.
• Learn why farmers and ranchers who don’t earn enough to cover their costs are not sustainable and that something has to suffer as a result, whether it be quality, animal welfare, land stewardship, wages, health care, mental & physical health, or family life.
• Understand why sustainable food should actually cost 50 to 100 percent more than industrial, conventional food. Figure out how to buy food more directly from farmers and ranchers, if you want to avoid some of the transportation/distribution/retail markup costs.
• Know the names of more farmers and ranchers than celebrity chefs, including at least one you can call by first name — and ask how their kids are doing.
• Understand that if you want to see working conditions and wages come up for farming and food processing workers, that you will have to pay more for food. Be OK with that.
• Learn about the Farm Bill and plan to write a letter/make a phone call when it comes up for re-authorization.

Chill out:

• Don’t expect a farmer to have year-round availability and selection. Alter your diet to match the seasonal harvests in your area. Get used to not eating tomatoes until at least July, apples in late August to December, citrus in winter, greens in spring. Don’t complain.
• Realize that even animal products are seasonal because animals have biological cycles. Know that chickens produce much less eggs in winter when days are shorter and even come to a complete stop when they are replacing their feathers (molting). Consequently you may have to eat less eggs and pay more for them during that time. Don’t complain.
• Don’t expect the farmer/rancher to sacrifice the health and welfare of the animal for your particular fad diet du jour (no corn, no soy, no wheat, no grains, no antibiotics ever, even if the animal will die, no irrigation, no hybrid breeds, no castrating, no vaccines … what is it this week?)
• Understand that the tenderloin/filet is the most expensive muscle on the animal and that there is very little of it. Don’t expect there to be filet every time you go to market. There are finite parts to an animal. Be OK with that. Embrace it. Learn to cook other parts.
• Understand that there are not enough USDA-inspected slaughter and butcher facilities, which makes special orders difficult and limits how the meat can be processed. If you want a particular cut, organ meat, or process, then buy a half- or whole animal so you can ask the butcher to make that happen yourself.
• Don’t call a farmer a week before you’re having a pig roast to ask for a dressed-out pig, delivered fresh to you, for under $300. We are not magicians, just farmers.

Get your hands dirty:

• Sweat on a farm sometime.
• Participate in the death of an animal that you consume.
• Successfully cook a roast. You don’t need steaks and chops to make an amazing meal.
• Get a chest freezer and put some food away in it
• Cook and enjoy at least one of the following: chicken feet, gizzards, liver, heart, kidney, sweet breads, head cheese, or tripe.
• Save your bones for soup, beans, stock, or your doggies!
• If you own land that’s not being farmed, tell some farmers about it. If you rent land to farmers, offer a fair rental price or fair lease (long-term is better), and then stay out of the way and don’t meddle or hinder the farmers. They are not your pet farmers nor your landscapers.
• Throw your consumer dollar behind a couple beginning farmers or lower-income farmers. Be concerned about how landless, lower-income producers are going to compete with the increasing numbers of wealthy landowners getting into farming as a hobby.

Help your local farmers do their job:

• Bring your kids/grandkids/nieces & nephews to the farmers market and to real farms as often as possible
• If you ask to visit the farm, also offer to help out or spend some decent money while you are there. Otherwise, wait patiently until the next group farm tour. Don’t expect a farmer to drop everything just to give you a special tour.
• Consider making a low-interest loan, grant, or pre-payment to a farmer to help her cover her operating expenses. Stick with that farmer for the long haul, as long as he continues to supply quality product and can stay in business.
• Give more than just money to a farmer or rancher — maybe a Christmas card, invitation to a party, offer to spiff up their website, or watch their kid for an hour at the farmers’ market.

Really put your money where your mouth is:

• Don’t complain about prices. If price is an issue for you on something, ask the farmer nicely if he has any less expensive cuts (or cosmetically challenged “seconds”), bulk discounts, or volunteer opportunities. But don’t ask the farmer to earn less money for his hard work.
• Don’t compare prices between farmers who are trying to do this for a living and those that do it only as a hobby (and don’t have to make a living from what they produce and sell).
• Share in a farmer’s risk by putting up some money and faith up front via a Community Supported Agriculture share. And then suck it up when you don’t get to eat something that you paid for because there was a crop failure or an animal illness.
• Buy local when available, but also make a point of supporting certified Fair Trade, Organic products when buying something grown in tropical countries
• Buy organic not just for your health, but for the health of the land, waterways, wildlife, and the workers in those fields
• Figure out the handful of restaurants that buy and serve truly sustainable food and become loyal to them. Occasionally give them feedback and thank them.
• If your budget doesn’t allow you to eat out often, eat out infrequently but at the places with the best integrity that may be more costly.
• Ask the waiter where the restaurant’s meat or fish comes from, and how it was raised before you order it.  If the waiter gives an insufficient answer, order vegetarian and tell them what you want to see next time if they want your business again.
• Don’t buy meat from chain grocery stores, not even Whole Paycheck. Understand that for them to get meat in volume with year-round selection and availability, they have to work with large distribution networks and often international suppliers, and don’t pay enough to the producers for them to even cover their costs.
• Get the majority of your produce, meat, eggs, dairy, bread, dried fruit, nuts, and olive oil from farmers markets, CSAs, U-pick farms, and on-farm stands. Try to buy from the actual farmer, not a middleman. Get the rest of your food from the bulk section, dairy case, or bakery of your local independent grocer.
• Pay for your values. If it hurts, don’t have fewer values, just eat less food (sorry, but most Americans could stand to do a bit of this)

I admit, this is a lot to digest.

What I am saying is that we can’t be casual about the food system we want to see. If more people don’t show some commitment, and take part in some of the hard work that farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers do on a daily basis, then we cannot build a sustainable food system.

You don’t have to be a passive consumer. You are part of this system, too. Don’t just eat, do something more!

Link to the article from Grist Magazine.

Consumer’s wallets have tightened significantly since 2008, when the global economic slowdown started, led by the food safety scares of tomatoes and peppers during that summer.

Squeezing the Dollar

2009 is the first year that fruit and vegetable sales have dropped, with fruit down 12% and vegetables down 6%. The trend is from more expensive fruit and veggies to less expensive ones, as everyone is trying to make their dollar go farther. What is even more interesting is that the volume is up of fruits and vegetables, but the sales or profit is down. One explanation is people are eating out less, which decreases the profits to the retailers. Another is that people are gardening a lot more, growing some of their own food, especially the more expensive vegetables, and buying the less expensive ones. As an example, weekly dollar sales of packaged salads fell by nearly 5%, while bulk lettuce sales rose by 6.9% in 2009.

The increase in gardening has been driven by a concern by consumers over prices and overall food safety. The National Gardening Association states that there is a multitude of reasons people are gardening in increasing numbers, including the state of the economy,  increased costs of food and that “food safety is a huge issue in the US. People mistrust producers of food so if you grow your own you can control the inputs like fertilizer.” CNN reports that there were 43 million vegetable gardens planted in 2009, with 19% of households growing some of their own fruit, vegetables and herbs are first timers. $100 spent on seed can save you up to $2500 at the grocery store, according to a couple of studies in 2008 where vegetables were planted, grown and weighed, then compared to local grocery store prices for an entire season. That figure is probably even more now, with food prices increasing.

On April 22, 2010 the National Inflation Association issued the following food inflation alert-

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today released their Producer Price Index (PPI) report for March 2010 and the latest numbers are shocking. Food prices for the month rose by 2.4%, its sixth consecutive monthly increase and the largest jump in over 26 years. NIA believes that a major breakout in food inflation could be imminent, similar to what is currently being experienced in India.

Some of the startling food price increases on a year-over-year basis include, fresh and dry vegetables up 56.1%, fresh fruits and melons up 28.8%, eggs for fresh use up 33.6%, pork up 19.1%, beef and veal up 10.7% and dairy products up 9.7%. On October 30th, 2009, NIA predicted that inflation would appear next in food and agriculture, but we never anticipated that it would spiral so far out of control this quickly.

Elizabeth Pivonka, President and CEO of the Produce for Better Health Foundation says in the Feb 2010 issue of Seed World, “There are still many fruit and vegetable growers and shippers that continue to struggle to stay in business. Food safety initiatives, including the cost of traceability are some of their biggest expenses right now, along with trying to cope with any other types of legislation that always cost money (for example, water issues on the west coast, immigration issues and cap and trade.) Finally, just overall profitability is an ongoing concern- it’s a shame that the fruit and vegetable industry doesn’t make the profit margins other products make so that they can better market themselves.”

This is very telling, as the costs of commercial food production, regardless of the sector, continue to rise due to more and more legislation aimed at making the food produced safer. This is in direct contrast to the costs in a local food system, as the transport costs are very small, and the quality and health of the food is significantly higher, eliminating the need for increased legislation to attempt to force the safety into the food production system. The safety and quality are inherent, as producer, shipper and retailer are often one and the same. If the quality and safety are missing, the consumer simply won’t buy, which has a much greater impact on the producer. Thus the closeness and openness of the local food system works to increase the quality, health and safety of the locally produced foods.

This is one of the main reasons that local food and local agriculture- that grown and consumed within a 100-200 mile radius- has been increasing in volume and sales for the past several years. People can see what they buying, talk to and get to know the person who grew or raised their food. They get to actively participate in making the decision for better food that is raised or grown in healthy ways and has better flavor and nutrition than industrial food producers.

What better time or reasons to eat locally?

This is an interesting report from the Nielsen company- the same company doing the familiar Nielsen Ratings.

The consumer interest in Non-GMO labeled foods is skyrocketing. In 2009, this micro market segment was worth $60.2 Million and grew at 67% over 2008, making it the #1 healthy eating trend in store brands for 2009. Store brands are like Topco Full Circle and Safeway “O” Organics. Store brands like these now make up almost 40% of products with no preservative claims, 25% of all organic product sales, and nearly one-fifth of all products with “natural” claims in food/drug/mass merchandise retailers. Whole Foods Market, one of the largest U.S. natural foods retailers, have started the process to certify that all of their store brands are GMO free.

What is even more interesting is the early adoption of the Non-GMO labeling by store brands, which are taking the lead in offering healthy products instead of trailing the major brands as they used to do. Consumer sentiment against genetically modified foods (GM or GMO) is growing- despite all of the marketing and press support by genetic engineering companies like Monsanto- and market brands are reflecting that. With GMOs being linked to organ damage, crop failures, increased water usage, soil contamination and worse, consumers are becoming aware of the dangers of these products. Another major winner is the “No high fructose corns syrup” label worth $13 Million and growing at 28% over 2008. That gives it a #10 rank.

These dollar amounts are big numbers to most of us consumers, but are small potatoes to the large national brands, such as Lays and Kraft. What makes them take notice is the growth percentage. They will be watching the growth in several of these segments to see if there is consistent, sustained growth that makes it financially feasible or even necessary for them to switch suppliers from conventional to non-GMO. If there is enough movement in the market towards GMO free products, they will switch, as they will not stand by and watch a large market share evaporate.

This happened in the recent past with RBGH or RBST, the bovine growth hormone developed, not suprisingly, by Monsanto to increase the milk output from cows. It created many other problems, such as increased infections in the milk and disease in the cows. The FDA stated RBGH did not alter the milk, and sued several dairies that labeled their milk RBGH free. Enough consumers found out the truth and started requesting RBGH free milk. Not long afterwards, the major players saw the movement in the market and made the switch to RBGH free suppliers. Surprisingly, this didn’t take a majority of consumers, only 5-7% of Americans, as they represent several hundred millions of dollars to the major national brands. This is money they will not lose when they can make a switch in suppliers and keep their customers happy.

Monsanto is worried, of course. When, not if, the major national brands make the switch, Monsanto will find itself with many highly expensive bio-engineered products that no one wants. They are already in trouble in Europe, as they have lost several recent lawsuits they filed to force their way into European markets and agriculture. The nations of the European Union and more importantly- it’s people- have rejected genetic engineering of food almost out of hand.

What this means for you and I is great news. Safe, wholesome and sustainable food is at the core of our needs, next to clean air and water. With people starting to actively request GMO free labeling on their foods, safer foods are closer and easier to get for everyone.

The progression goes from dependence, to independence to interdependence. At one point we were interdependent with communities mostly supporting themselves, with some goods and services coming from outside. We have since regressed to dependence in just about everything- water in most cities, food, clothing, supplies for housing and just about any other goods we use.

What, exactly, is produced in your town or city?

This brings us to the present self-sufficiency dilemma.

Here is an alternative- resiliency and resilience thinking. This takes into account the many variables that have been stumbling blocks for many- from industries down to family gardeners. For example, the home gardener that finds a few bugs and a disease have pretty much wiped out their tomatoes. They are surprised at this downturn, thinking it abnormal.

In fact, you will be hard pressed to read anywhere that the diseases, pests and other challenges in gardening are anything other than something to be managed and minimized, as if they aren’t entirely normal events! Resilience thinking plans for these events in several ways, so that there is no surprise at loss, only at gain. What a radical concept! This is something that has been taught in several range management and natural resource management courses for a number of  years now. This concept works extremely well in environments that have definite, finite limits and resources, similar to the home gardener and small grower.

Resilience thinking acknowledges that ecological systems are very dynamic, experiencing storms, pests, diseases, flooding and droughts. These are not surprise events, but normal and natural over time. These are also not always on a global scale, but often very local patterns. The optimal growing conditions one year are sometimes completely different the next.

This way of thinking is definitely not new, yet has been overlooked in the commercial production of food and goods where profit and continued growth are the main driving forces.

Using diversity in our gardening to overcome the losses of one or more varieties is only one example. Bio-intensive gardening, companion planting and square foot gardening are more ways that adapt to the changing conditions while working to produce viable amounts of food. Building the health and abundance of the soil is one of the most critically important, as everything literally follows the health of the soil. It stands to reason- if the soil is full of minerals and nutrients available to the plants, supported by the active living communities in the different layers of the soil, then the plants will take up the full spectrum of nutrients and minerals to produce the best fruits and vegetables possible. If, on the other hand, there are no living communities due to chemical applications of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and there are only 8 to 10 minerals available, that is what the plant will take up.

The results are easy to see- we all love the supermarket tomatoes, don’t we? Have you ever stopped and thought about why the common backyard, hybrid tomato tastes so good compared to the supermarket one? You have the answer now- the health of the soil they were grown in.

Variety or diversity of species is one of the key elements in resilience thinking, by the simple expedient that the more types or varieties of a species there are, the more likely that a significant portion of the population will make it through whatever challenge appears, from pests to disease to weather. This is why there are so many different types of heirlooms, as each one offers different benefits to changing conditions. This gives you the ability to choose, instead of being forced to rely on a small number of varieties to perform in multiple growing conditions, as hybrids do.

Having 6 or 7 types of tomatoes planted, interspersed with lettuce, carrots, garlic and nasturtiums will give you a much better chance of a good crop than a row of only 1 type of tomato with nothing else in the row. Not to mention all of the other produce that you will get, in addition to the tomatoes! This is a bonus on bonus situation. Even if there is a loss of a couple types of tomatoes from pests, disease or weather, there will be enough other production to provide a good harvest. No one goes hungry!

This is also greatly applicable to the soil. If the soil has healthy communities of multiple organisms in many layers of the soil, there will be plenty of nutrients for both the soil dwellers and the plants, so everyone benefits. Diversity of the soil communities works the same way, the ability to respond positively to a change or challenge without major losses.

Of course we benefit from the healthy plants and their production, so it is in our best interest to build and grow the soil, the garden and the plants to their most resilient stage that we can. We gain the benefits of longer, better harvests that are more tasty and nutritious, which increases our health and our resiliency to outside events. We are more easily able to support ourselves and our communities with fresh and healthy food.

Fresh Vegetable Salads Provide Maximum Nutrition for Each Food Dollar Spent

The first finding is that fresh colorful vegetables have the most nutrition when compared to prepackaged and prepared foods. The second is that naturally grown chemical free vegetables have more minerals and nutrients as compared to conventional chemically grown ones. The third is that the dollar return on money spent for seeds to grow a vegetable garden- even a modest one- is staggering. Several articles I’ve read put the return from $100 in seeds at anywhere from $1000 to $1800 in fresh produce!

“Salads that offer the most nutrition for the money are made with fresh, unprocessed vegetables. Color is the key. Those veggies with the bright, vibrant colors are trying to tell you something. The more colors added to the bowl, the more the salad can keep you looking and feeling young, and put a bounce in your step for the rest of the day. That’s because vibrant colored veggies are loaded with antioxidants, plant compounds that slow the aging process and ward off disease.”

The more colors in the vegetables you eat, the more different types of nutrients, minerals and other vitamins that you get. This is a great start!

“All of these varieties are excellent sources of Vitamins A, E and K. Vitamin A supports eye and respiratory health, and makes sure the immune system is up to speed. It keeps the outer layers of tissues and organs healthy, and promotes strong bones, healthy skin and hair, and strong teeth. Vitamin E slows the aging process, maintains positive cholesterol ratios, provides endurance boosting oxygen, protects lungs from pollution, prevents various forms of cancer, and alleviates fatigue. Vitamin K keeps blood vessels strong and prevents blood clots.

Greens are also excellent sources of folate, manganese, chromium, and potassium. Folate prevents heart disease, defends against intestinal parasites and food poisoning, promotes healthy skin, and helps maintain hair color. Manganese keeps fatigue away, helps muscle reflexes and coordination, boosts memory, and helps prevent osteoporosis. Chromium helps normalize blood pressure and insulin levels. It prevents sugar cravings and sudden drops in energy. Potassium regulates the body’s water balance and normalizes heart rhythms. It aids in clear thinking by sending oxygen to the brain.”

Now if we take this a step further and grow these vegetables ourselves, or at least buy them locally- from the farmers market or “our” farmer/gardener/neighbor that grows way too much to eat themselves- we can stack the advantages of the nutrition in our favor.

Several recently released studies show what is at first glance somewhat common sense- naturally grown vegetables have more nutrients, vitamins and minerals than those grown in the conventional chemically grown manner. The common sense part comes from the fact that chemical agriculture on any scale depends on very few chemicals- NPK familiar to anyone? Nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium are important, but they aren’t the only elements that plants need to grow and produce healthy fruits and vegetables. One study I’ve read showed that a naturally grown vegetable had 84 minerals and elements that were identified as opposed to 8-10 in the same exact vegetable planted from seeds from the same seed packet but grown conventionally with the standard chemical fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides. Something to note- the test didn’t identify the negative elements in the vegetables- such as chemical residues.

Which do you think has better nutrition, which has better taste, and which would you want to eat or serve as dinner to your family?

Continuing the stacking of benefits idea- this is the introduction to the article:

“It looks like food prices will continue to creep steadily higher throughout 2009, even in the face of an economic crisis that has reduced the purchasing power of most Americans. This makes it more important that ever to get the best nutritional value for every food dollar spent.”

I agree completely with this, and seeing this at the end of 2009, the truth of the cost of food vs purchasing power is apparent. What if we can turn this truth around, and make it pay instead of save money? That’s an exciting idea, as saving money is good, but saving in this case is only a stop to spending money. Growing a garden can actually pay you! It is truly not very difficult to grow a garden that produces more than you and your family can eat. Sell the excess, make some money! Farmers and local markets are the fastest growing segment of agriculture for the past several years. Most have a booth just for the backyard gardener to sell/trade their abundance.

Or trade it to your neighbor in return for services or something you need. This won’t give you dollars, but will give you something of value that you didn’t have to spend dollars to obtain.

Or donate some to your local food bank/soup kitchen/Meals on Wheels/etc. Again, not dollars, but karma is good too. So is the increased community that you’ve just created that can help you in ways unforeseen right now.

Now please don’t misunderstand me. I really like the article! I think that there are some ways to capitalize on a good idea and great benefit to achieve much greater results for all of us. Please take the time to read the entire article.