This One's For You...Part Two

The second part of this series covers the NY Times article, Push to Eat Local Food Is Hampered by Shortage. The article's significance lies in the issue facing small farmers raising animals in the US today: the limited number of slaughterhouses able and willing to process their meat.  It's a problem because the number of small farms is rising and small slaughterhouses are not following with the same tenacity, although this recent Washington Post article gives me hope that this is beginning to change.  Let me give a short background on why the US lacks the proper facilities for small scale slaughter...

Within the past 40 years, America became a factory farm mecca and many slaughterhouses were forced to shut their doors.  Several things attributed to this including but not limited to the new rules and regulations implemented to control industrial farming methods.  They were conceived to protect us from the food safety risks industrial farming poses, i.e. salmonella and e coli outbreaks (They're doing a great job, right?).  Who the rules and regulations* forgot (or simply ignored) were the smaller slaughterhouses that remained safe as always, but were forced to update their facilities to the safety code of industrial giants.  Their decline happened relatively quickly because many could not adhere to the updates.

Fast forward to the present - Some people are up in arms about their food.  No longer will they eat the industrial system's slaughter.  They want to know their farmer and meet their meat.  Small farmers want to fulfill the need and slaughterhouses can't keep up.  Too me, this article is nothing more than the title suggests a hampering, small glitch in the system, delay of game, minor set-back.  There is adversity in this movement at every turn, but this too shall pass.  It won't take long for someone in the US to discover there's profit in opening small scale slaughterhouses (as the Post article infers)...it'd be un-American not to.



*(If you're interested in learning more about the fantastical rules and regulations the industrial system brought on the small farmer, Joel Salatin wrote an amazing book, Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal.  I highly recommend it.)

This One's For You...Part One

A friend posted this on my facebook today:

Hi Layne, how have you been?! Just wondering if you could blog your thoughts as related to WI on the following articles? I´d love to hear an expert´s view :)

These are the NYT's articles she posted: A Balance Between the Factory and the Local Farm and Push to Eat Local Food Is Hampered by Shortage. I explained I was no expert, but always studying the topic and forwarded her a Civil Eats rebuttal to the first article. The second article was posted this past week.

The first article covers locavorism and while Damon Darlin makes small jabs at those attempting to buy locally, he begs the question - Is eating locally an attainable goal? Let me start by saying: We are lucky to live in Wisconsin! Our state is on the forefront of the good food movement and because of this, purchasing local products that are in season and available should be a priority. We many not have zucchini in March but we can still purchase locally produced cheese, milk, eggs, meat, and root vegetables. Come summer and into fall, we not only have the largest farmer's market in the country (Dane County in Madison), but we have the second or third most farmer's markets as well; offering more affordable, fresher, and tastier options than the grocery store every week. Not all states are so lucky. My friend in the mountains of Colorado would have a hard time sourcing from nearby because the land can't produce the same types of food.

Mr. Darlin's quickness to dismiss people eating this way is quite offensive. It is true that most people in WI cannot eat locally all the time. Few doubt the continuing consumption of bananas, coffee, and tea or that people will still buy tomatoes in december. His story is missing the positive impact these locavores are making by supporting their local farmers, if we lose the farmers, we lose the food.

Many people fighting for good food understand that major improvements will have to be made to get it into the hands of all people. Smaller, regionalized food systems will need to be developed; a complete overhaul of the current infrastructure will have to be built (Mr. Darlin never mentions that some food can and is produced in greenhouses.) The fight is for awareness and continually working to get these types of infrastructures created. While we're making this happen, I'll being noshing on a tomato from Tony, rather than an ethanol ripened one from Cali. Maybe you should too.

Whose "Food Revolution" is this again?

I want to like Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, truly I do, but after watching the first episode on Sunday, it may be tough.  I could start with the title, but won't; instead, I'll begin with the premise.  Jamie Oliver is going to change the way Huntington, WV eats through schools, in homes, and workplaces.  Where better than the CDC (Center for Disease Control) named "Unhealthiest City in America"to begin a study on our country's poorest eating habits?  How better to attempt a community intervention than cameras blazing, british hosting, town criticizing, limited information providing, reality television?  Our country's relationship with food needs therapy, that much is true, but I'm not sure this is the best way to face our problems.





What I found unsettling about the show's approach was the lack of tact used when reaching out to the city.  Every community runs differently, whether large or small, rich or poor, fat or skinny.  They each carry their own attitudes, values, and beliefs.  Before expecting to gain the trust of the people, an outsider must analyze, interpret, and understand what the community holds near and dear; only after will trust be gained and the outsider's expertise or opinion be taken seriously.  The producer's and Jamie did an awful job assessing the environment before storming the city with their TV cameras and big ideas.  Deservingly, they were shown little respect by the people.  As a result their first obstacle became reeling in trust from the mistrusting rather than gaining appreciation for the gradual changes from the believers.


America's poor relationship with food is being highlighted for the nation to see, BUT it must be taken lightly; it's still TELEVISION.  The show does not cover all of the information necessary to make thoughtful and smart interpretations of the problems we're facing.  For example, very little was given on the actual difficulties facing the "lunch ladies" in terms of available food.  An email from a colleague pointed out some of the flaws in the school lunch program.  Yes, on the show Jamie brought in raw chicken and cooked it in the school cafeteria.  No, chicken (in that form) is not available for schools to order and serve.  Jamie made a very small mention of this by noting this type of change is going to be hard and will need come from the powers that be (USDA), but I'm unsure if someone less engaged with the issue would make that connection.  The US school lunch program needs a complete overhaul to begin feeding our children real food.  I can only hope Jamie's Food Revolution remains focused on its goal (establishing healthful eating habits) and doesn't get sidetracked by America's love affair with dramas that end happily (Jamie vs Huntington, WV).  


As an end note, due to my restraint from earlier comment on the title, our food revolution has been taking place all over this country for years, this just may be the first time prime-time television took part.  There are countless people and organizations working to ignite change in our food system and policies everyday, many of them I have linked beside this post.  Take a moment, look at their initiatives.  They may be right in line with the changes you wish to see.  
  
The show is on ABC, two hours, tonight 7pm CST.  Watch for yourself.  I would love to hear your impressions.

Worms Eat My Garbage Too...

I'd used the "no yard to compost" excuse long enough...now worms eat my garbage!  They love my waste and I love feeding them.  Whether you live in an apartment, rental home, or you hate walking outside to the compost pile, vermicompost is easy enough for you.  

It is an affordable system anyone can put together.  The total cost being ~$35.  All you need is a bin with moist bedding, the right worms, a little soil, and a tray to catch their tea (not for drinking).  The most expensive part of your operation will be the redworms but their appetites are worth every cent.  Other types of worms will not break down your waste as efficiently.  They will account for about 25 dollars of the total cost.  

My Red Wigglers came from Growing Power in Milwaukee, but they are widely available from vendors online.  DON'T buy nightcrawlers from your local bait store, their performance will just disappoint you.

Below I have listed the items you will need for a complete system:

1. 1 lb redworms (or more depending on your amount of food waste)
2. 8-10 gallon worm bin (homemade or purchased) and a drill to make holes in the bin
3. Tray to hold worm bin (sides tall enough to hold worm tea produced in bin)
4. Moist and shredded copy or newspaper for worm bedding
5. Handful of soil/dirt
6. Food scraps (added slowly at first)

I've been vermicomposting for about a month now; the redworms feed on my unused food waste (although they're picky, so research the do's and don'ts) and slowly they're breaking it down and making an amazing soil I'll use to garden this spring.  It may sound gross at first but it's not, and anyone willing can do it and the results are SO very worth it!  

Here are a couple links to help you on your way:

http://urbanext.illinois.edu/worms/neighborhood/01-intro.html

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Your-Own-Worm-Compost-System

http://www.nyccompost.org/how/wormbin.html

http://www.cityfarmer.org/wormcomp61.html

You could also rent the book Worms Eat My Garbage from your local library.  Happy Worming!

A grand follow-up

This article from Farm Aid is an excellent follow-up to my high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) post.  It covers the plethora of poor food products our grocery stores offer and breaks it down in the most practical way.  While high fructose corn syrup may not be any worse than sugar for our health, it's the prevalence of it in our grocery store options that draws the most skepticism.  The majority of us would not pour HFCS over our broccoli, but sadly, in the grocery store you find that ingredient in items as unassuming as pasta.  While HFCS itself can't cause diabetes and obesity, the overconsumption of processed foods can and will.  As for agriculture, it is the overproduction of a small sampling of crops that make up most of those of foods.  That monoculture style of production is warranting the consumer charge against companies patenting growth of those crops and then constructing the so called "foods" we are sold in the store.  The linked article explains it so well.  Read, read, read...
http://www.farmaid.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=qlI5IhNVJsE&b=2723877&content_id=%7B3E5D15C7-A937-4A0B-80EE-CB0B81EA6B76%7D&notoc=1&tr=y&auid=6011317

Photo by Billie Hara, courtesy of Creative Commons