Having written about broader food and agriculture issues for the past several weeks, I’d like to explain a bit more about the UCSC farm and garden and the apprenticeship in agroecology. Hopefully, this post will provide you all with some context and highlight the ways in which some members of the program will be applying the information and skills they acquire.
The original garden was founded in 1967, at the behest of faculty and students, by an accomplished and eccentric Englishman named Alan Chadwick (virtually every account I’ve either read or heard of him features the word “mercurial”). Chadwick imported a style of gardening, known as “French bio-intensive”, which emphasizes soil care, organic inputs, and dense plant spacings to obtain high yields in minimal space. As the apprenticeship grew, the university provided more land to the program. Today the farm occupies about 25 acres and features three sites of distinct scale and topography. The managers of each site utilize the cultivation techniques and farm equipment which best suit their particular location. For example, tractors are used to cultivate the 10 acres of the main field, whereas only hand tools are utilized in the two large garden sites. Apprentices rotate between sites and thus gain a familiarity with diverse growing practices.
The purpose of the program is to build a solid skill base in growing sustainable food amongst a diverse group of farmers, educators, health workers, community organizers, etc. Approximately 1 ½ days per week are dedicated to classroom learning on topics ranging from botany to direct marketing to social justice issues. The remainder of the week, we learn by watching, doing, and asking questions in the fields. I find the emphasis on experiential learning increases retention of information and helps apprentices grasp the relevance and applicability of the classroom components. I personally believe our education system is too skewed towards a relatively abstract classroom learning which often fails to engage and challenge students. Much of my interest in the apprenticeship stems from a desire to familiarize myself with a more hands on and potentially transformative approach to education.
It is inspiring to talk with my fellow apprentices about their plans once they complete the program. Mwale from Zambia will return to his home country and continue to work as a government extension agent encouraging small farmers to adopt more sustainable techniques. Herb, the former UCLA Medical Center surgeon, will delve into his “retirement” helping establish school gardens in Los Angeles. Josh, a fifth generation farmer from Arkansas, will continue to spearhead changes on his family farm and spread awareness of sustainability issues in his home state. In diverse ways, apprentices are poised to spark positive change in their communities.
Thanks to all who have taken the time to read these posts. I’m enjoying the process of wrestling the thoughts onto the page (or the screen, I suppose), and I hope you’re finding something interesting or informative from week to week. Feel free to let me know if you have thoughts about the content and format of the page, or whether there are particular topics you’d like to read about with regards to sustainable food systems. One of these days, I will learn how to post pictures. Until that day, I salute you for plowing through this decidedly bland motif!
Eat well and be well.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
beets, potatoes, and the joys of seasonal eating
I've eaten a lot of beets during this first month on the farm. Roasted beets with rosemary. Shredded beet salad. Sushi rolls with beets and avacado. I had never dared imagine so many culinary permutations.
We rotate cooking in pairs for the 50-odd people involved in the program. Staples like rice, butter, and cooking oil are bought in bulk, but the majority of our produce comes directly from the farm. In April and May, that means lots of beets. A smattering of parsnips and kiwis which have also been stored through the winter. A handful of early season greens. And many, many beets.
Only in this context does the following description of group euphoria make sense. While preparing a bed for planting a few weeks ago, several apprentices chanced upon a large number of "volunteer" purple potatoes--holdovers from the previous season that had gone about proliferating. The discovery was promptly harvested, washed, and delivered to Ben and Dan, our cooks on duty. The garlic potato dish they conjured up was received with rapturous applause, and it was generally agreed that potatoes had never tasted quite so good.
As the growing season progresses, there is a wonderful and growing air of anticipation. I watch as apple blossoms fade and the fruits begin to swell, reminding me that cider and apple pie is not far off. Fava beans and spinach and arugala have made themselves available--now delighting us with their novelty and soon to challenge our creativity in preparing them in new and pleasing ways. The strawberries we graze on during our work breaks are all the more delicious because we know that in a few months they will have passed us by.
Even in this short period of time, I've found that eating more seasonally and locally heightens my interest in and understanding of both the food I'm eating and the environment that fosters it. It helps me appreciate resources that are here today and gone tomorrow. The tendency of our contemporary food system is to offer the consumer whatever he wants whenever he wants it. And while I enjoy freshly-made guacamole in December as much as anyone, I do think that we sacrifice something for this convenience. I've already written about fuel costs associated with transporting non-local and out of season crops, but I think we also lose a sense of connectedness and an appreciation of place and local cuisine. Eating seasonal, locally grown food teaches us something about where we live and may prompt us to think more deeply about climate, topography, soil, local ecosystems, and other factors. And rather than being an end in itself, this increased awareness of place can ultimately lead to more sustainable personal and public policy decisions. These are benefits for which I am willing to eat more beets than I'd normally be inclined to.
We rotate cooking in pairs for the 50-odd people involved in the program. Staples like rice, butter, and cooking oil are bought in bulk, but the majority of our produce comes directly from the farm. In April and May, that means lots of beets. A smattering of parsnips and kiwis which have also been stored through the winter. A handful of early season greens. And many, many beets.
Only in this context does the following description of group euphoria make sense. While preparing a bed for planting a few weeks ago, several apprentices chanced upon a large number of "volunteer" purple potatoes--holdovers from the previous season that had gone about proliferating. The discovery was promptly harvested, washed, and delivered to Ben and Dan, our cooks on duty. The garlic potato dish they conjured up was received with rapturous applause, and it was generally agreed that potatoes had never tasted quite so good.
As the growing season progresses, there is a wonderful and growing air of anticipation. I watch as apple blossoms fade and the fruits begin to swell, reminding me that cider and apple pie is not far off. Fava beans and spinach and arugala have made themselves available--now delighting us with their novelty and soon to challenge our creativity in preparing them in new and pleasing ways. The strawberries we graze on during our work breaks are all the more delicious because we know that in a few months they will have passed us by.
Even in this short period of time, I've found that eating more seasonally and locally heightens my interest in and understanding of both the food I'm eating and the environment that fosters it. It helps me appreciate resources that are here today and gone tomorrow. The tendency of our contemporary food system is to offer the consumer whatever he wants whenever he wants it. And while I enjoy freshly-made guacamole in December as much as anyone, I do think that we sacrifice something for this convenience. I've already written about fuel costs associated with transporting non-local and out of season crops, but I think we also lose a sense of connectedness and an appreciation of place and local cuisine. Eating seasonal, locally grown food teaches us something about where we live and may prompt us to think more deeply about climate, topography, soil, local ecosystems, and other factors. And rather than being an end in itself, this increased awareness of place can ultimately lead to more sustainable personal and public policy decisions. These are benefits for which I am willing to eat more beets than I'd normally be inclined to.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Sustainability and scale
I've really been looking forward to sharing some thoughts on Michael's question about bringing sustainable foods to a larger market because it's such an important and challenging issue. I definitely agree that making sustainably grown food available to as many people as possible is a very good thing. The proliferation of organic produce, packaged food, and consumer products at supermarkets (and even Walmart) means that millions of acres of farm land are no longer being doused with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fungicides. Also, as organic food becomes more mainstream, efficiencies of scale make it more affordable and less of the "food of the elite". And the simple fact that there is growing demand for and awareness of organic products is a very encouraging indicator that our society is taking issues related to food production seriously (whether individuals are motivated by social, environmental, or health issues).
And yet organic does not necessarily mean sustainable (and sustainable food is not always certified organic--a topic for another post), especially under the current federal regulations. Certified organic basically means that the food or product was made without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and that no GE (genetically engineered) crops were used. Organics produced on a mass scale can be almost as unsustainable as conventionally grown crops, requiring massive amounts of energy to cultivate, harvest, cool, and transport. Large scale organic farms are still typically monocrop systems and present most of the same environmental issues that conventional agriculture does. And as organic begins to increase its market share, vendors are looking to larger farms to fill the demand. Consequently, smaller farms (which are generally more sustainable) can't compete and are forced out of business.
When we talk about the sustainability of food systems, we're looking at a number of factors. How much fossil fuel is required to grow the food, cool it, preserve it, and transport it? Are the cultivation practices contributing to soil erosion? Is crop biodiversity (and therefore food security) encouraged? Is the local community beneffiting from the presence of food production? Are food animals treated humanely? How is human health affected by heavily processed food? Is the local ecosystem negatively affected by agricultural runoff (either chemical or organic)? Does the food system result in foreign policy that is destabilizing? When all of these factors are taken into consideration, there is strong evidence to suggest that optimal sustainability in large part means moving towards food systems that are small and local.
The thorny issue remains price. Small scale and conscientious agricultural practices mean higher prices, and sustainable food systems don't currently enjoy an equal playing field in the market. While the federal government annually gives upwards of $20 billion in agricultural subsidies, organic growers are inelligible to receive such funds. Instead of trying to make sustainable food cheaper, I believe the more important task is to educate people about where their food comes from and what the ramifications of their food systems are. The more we understand and appreciate our food, the more we enjoy it, the less we waste, and the more likely we will be to spend a bit extra on food that is locally grown. Americans spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on their food than ever before, which suggests that food is currently lower on our collective priority list. A shift in priorities could have enormous positive impacts in so many facets of our society.
Of course, there will always be a percentage of the population that cannot afford to pay more for sustainable food. But if awareness continues to increase, and the connections between poor nutrition, processed foods, diabetes, childhood obesity, skyrocketing medical costs, etc. are more widely acknowledged, it is within the realm of possibility that government policy will begin to support local food.
I think that's enough for today. Thanks again, Michael, for your thoughts and questions. For those of you who are interested in this subject, I highly recommend Michael Pollan's excellent (and very enjoyable) book "The Omnivore's Dilemma". You'll definitely notice I've gleaned some of my info and ideas from him. Next week, I'm planning to write about the joys of seasonal eating. Until then, take care!
And yet organic does not necessarily mean sustainable (and sustainable food is not always certified organic--a topic for another post), especially under the current federal regulations. Certified organic basically means that the food or product was made without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and that no GE (genetically engineered) crops were used. Organics produced on a mass scale can be almost as unsustainable as conventionally grown crops, requiring massive amounts of energy to cultivate, harvest, cool, and transport. Large scale organic farms are still typically monocrop systems and present most of the same environmental issues that conventional agriculture does. And as organic begins to increase its market share, vendors are looking to larger farms to fill the demand. Consequently, smaller farms (which are generally more sustainable) can't compete and are forced out of business.
When we talk about the sustainability of food systems, we're looking at a number of factors. How much fossil fuel is required to grow the food, cool it, preserve it, and transport it? Are the cultivation practices contributing to soil erosion? Is crop biodiversity (and therefore food security) encouraged? Is the local community beneffiting from the presence of food production? Are food animals treated humanely? How is human health affected by heavily processed food? Is the local ecosystem negatively affected by agricultural runoff (either chemical or organic)? Does the food system result in foreign policy that is destabilizing? When all of these factors are taken into consideration, there is strong evidence to suggest that optimal sustainability in large part means moving towards food systems that are small and local.
The thorny issue remains price. Small scale and conscientious agricultural practices mean higher prices, and sustainable food systems don't currently enjoy an equal playing field in the market. While the federal government annually gives upwards of $20 billion in agricultural subsidies, organic growers are inelligible to receive such funds. Instead of trying to make sustainable food cheaper, I believe the more important task is to educate people about where their food comes from and what the ramifications of their food systems are. The more we understand and appreciate our food, the more we enjoy it, the less we waste, and the more likely we will be to spend a bit extra on food that is locally grown. Americans spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on their food than ever before, which suggests that food is currently lower on our collective priority list. A shift in priorities could have enormous positive impacts in so many facets of our society.
Of course, there will always be a percentage of the population that cannot afford to pay more for sustainable food. But if awareness continues to increase, and the connections between poor nutrition, processed foods, diabetes, childhood obesity, skyrocketing medical costs, etc. are more widely acknowledged, it is within the realm of possibility that government policy will begin to support local food.
I think that's enough for today. Thanks again, Michael, for your thoughts and questions. For those of you who are interested in this subject, I highly recommend Michael Pollan's excellent (and very enjoyable) book "The Omnivore's Dilemma". You'll definitely notice I've gleaned some of my info and ideas from him. Next week, I'm planning to write about the joys of seasonal eating. Until then, take care!
Sunday, May 6, 2007
A further word about dead zones
My friend Lisa Walling brought up an important clarification regarding the dead zones that fertilizers contribute to creating. Aquatic life is generally not killed by fertilizer itself, but the chemicals fuel ballooning algae populations which decrease the oxygen available in the water. The enormous dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is largely a product of fertilizer runoff from farms in the midwest. Thanks Lisa!
two approaches to soil
The past week has been a busy one at the farm and garden. Thousands of seedlings are eagerly awaiting transfer from the propagation houses to the fields, most of which we are planting by hand. Tomatoes, leeks, lettuces, potatoes, and flowers of all shapes and sizes.
I've decided to write a bit about soil health in this post because of the central role it plays in sustainable farming and gardening practices. This centrality differs from the secondary role soil generally plays within convential farming systems.
Organic farmers and gardeners sometimes say that they are, first and foremost, "growing soil". By this they are referring to the time and effort that goes into fostering soil that is rich in microbially active organic matter and that posesses a healthy structure. In an organic system, the majority of nutrients plants need to thrive are provided by the trillions of bacteria, fungi, earthworms, etc. that break down large, complex, organic molecules into smaller molecules that can be easily absorbed through the plants' root systems. Fertile soil depends on a robust and diverse population of these micro and macro organisms. In order to keep these organisms happy and productive, farmers must "feed" them with organic matter in the form of compost, manure, crop residue, etc. and ensure that there is a sufficient amount of air flow for respiration.
Plants require many nutrients to thrive, but of primary importance are nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (the "NPK" listed on bags of fertilizer). Fertilizers are primarily used to provide these elements to plants in simple compounds they can readily absorb through their roots. This gives plants a quick boost which they utilize for rapid growth. In conventional systems, plants receive almost all of their nutrients through fertilizers (the soil having been rendered essentially sterile).
Organic matter that is broken down by soil organisms, on the other hand, releases nutrients slowly over time. There are advantages to this slower route, however. Plants need more than NPK to truly thrive, and decomposed organic matter provides the full range of micronutrients that NPK furtilizers do not. A major reason conventionally farmed crops require so many pesticides is that, even though the plants may look healthy because of their rapid NPK-induced growth, they are too weak to fight off infection because they lack a "balanced diet". NPK fertilizers can also present severe environmental and health problems. Soil can only absorb a certain amount of NPK--the rest is leached into nearby streams or ground water (leading to contamination and "dead zones" in rivers and river basins). Furthermore, the industrial process of fixing gaseous atmospheric nitrogen into a solid form plants like (such as nitrate) requires a tremendous amount of energy. A specialized bacteria that lives in the roots of legumes (beans, peas, etc.) is happy to fix atmospheric nitrogen free of charge, which is why farmers used to plant grops such as alfalfa periodically to replenish soil nitrogen levels.With the advent of chemical fertilizers, however, most conventional farmers have begun to leave their fields fallow during the winter months, which can contribute to the loss of fertile topsoil.
Another component to healthy soil develpment is regular crop rotation. Different plants have different diets, so planting a nitrogen-hungry crop (such as corn) year after year quickly depletes the soil of that nutrient and increases a farmers dependency on fertilizers. Planting the same crop repeatedly also leads to more widespread pest problems. A whole field of the same crop will attract tremendous numbers of pests and increases the chances of catastrophic crop failure. To guard against this, conventional farmers often have to rely on pesticides and fungicides or crops that are genetically engineered to resist disease. All of these recourses have dubious effects on human and environmental health, many of which are not yet fully understood.
A sustainable approach to soil development is undoubtedly more time and labor (and therefor cost) intensive. Unfortunately, many of the true costs of conventional farming are defrayed onto the broader society in the form of government subsidies to farmers, environmental degradation, and public health costs.
The feasability of sustainable agricultural practices on a broad scale is of great concern and importance, and I was delighted to receive an email from my old friend from high school Michael Dickman with the inquiry "why do “sustainable food systems” have to be on a small scale? Couldn’t we make more of a difference if we converted the mass-marketed food supply to sustainable production?" This is a great question to grapple with, and I'm looking forward to putting forth some thoughts in my next post. Until then, be well!
I've decided to write a bit about soil health in this post because of the central role it plays in sustainable farming and gardening practices. This centrality differs from the secondary role soil generally plays within convential farming systems.
Organic farmers and gardeners sometimes say that they are, first and foremost, "growing soil". By this they are referring to the time and effort that goes into fostering soil that is rich in microbially active organic matter and that posesses a healthy structure. In an organic system, the majority of nutrients plants need to thrive are provided by the trillions of bacteria, fungi, earthworms, etc. that break down large, complex, organic molecules into smaller molecules that can be easily absorbed through the plants' root systems. Fertile soil depends on a robust and diverse population of these micro and macro organisms. In order to keep these organisms happy and productive, farmers must "feed" them with organic matter in the form of compost, manure, crop residue, etc. and ensure that there is a sufficient amount of air flow for respiration.
Plants require many nutrients to thrive, but of primary importance are nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (the "NPK" listed on bags of fertilizer). Fertilizers are primarily used to provide these elements to plants in simple compounds they can readily absorb through their roots. This gives plants a quick boost which they utilize for rapid growth. In conventional systems, plants receive almost all of their nutrients through fertilizers (the soil having been rendered essentially sterile).
Organic matter that is broken down by soil organisms, on the other hand, releases nutrients slowly over time. There are advantages to this slower route, however. Plants need more than NPK to truly thrive, and decomposed organic matter provides the full range of micronutrients that NPK furtilizers do not. A major reason conventionally farmed crops require so many pesticides is that, even though the plants may look healthy because of their rapid NPK-induced growth, they are too weak to fight off infection because they lack a "balanced diet". NPK fertilizers can also present severe environmental and health problems. Soil can only absorb a certain amount of NPK--the rest is leached into nearby streams or ground water (leading to contamination and "dead zones" in rivers and river basins). Furthermore, the industrial process of fixing gaseous atmospheric nitrogen into a solid form plants like (such as nitrate) requires a tremendous amount of energy. A specialized bacteria that lives in the roots of legumes (beans, peas, etc.) is happy to fix atmospheric nitrogen free of charge, which is why farmers used to plant grops such as alfalfa periodically to replenish soil nitrogen levels.With the advent of chemical fertilizers, however, most conventional farmers have begun to leave their fields fallow during the winter months, which can contribute to the loss of fertile topsoil.
Another component to healthy soil develpment is regular crop rotation. Different plants have different diets, so planting a nitrogen-hungry crop (such as corn) year after year quickly depletes the soil of that nutrient and increases a farmers dependency on fertilizers. Planting the same crop repeatedly also leads to more widespread pest problems. A whole field of the same crop will attract tremendous numbers of pests and increases the chances of catastrophic crop failure. To guard against this, conventional farmers often have to rely on pesticides and fungicides or crops that are genetically engineered to resist disease. All of these recourses have dubious effects on human and environmental health, many of which are not yet fully understood.
A sustainable approach to soil development is undoubtedly more time and labor (and therefor cost) intensive. Unfortunately, many of the true costs of conventional farming are defrayed onto the broader society in the form of government subsidies to farmers, environmental degradation, and public health costs.
The feasability of sustainable agricultural practices on a broad scale is of great concern and importance, and I was delighted to receive an email from my old friend from high school Michael Dickman with the inquiry "why do “sustainable food systems” have to be on a small scale? Couldn’t we make more of a difference if we converted the mass-marketed food supply to sustainable production?" This is a great question to grapple with, and I'm looking forward to putting forth some thoughts in my next post. Until then, be well!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)