These two quotes are telling, what are we doing to our food system, what are we doing to ourselves?

"We're growing crap - the poorest quality crap the world has ever seen," Iowa farmer Don Clikeman says in the film.
It's "fat disguised as meat," Loren Covdain, a Colorado State University researcher, says in the film.

I've been telling people this for years and nobody listens. About once a year you see a little article on it and it goes away. Maybe a full film documentary will work, well see.

First they make you sick with the food you buy. Then they sell you the cure for it. All though the cure doesn't cure anything it just makes money for drug companies. The last thing they want is something that cures you.

"Americans will spend less of their incomes on food than will people of any other nation, the film says."

This is totally unsustainable, and will not survive the coming energy collapse.

Wherever you are, start growing food! In an apartment? Try to find a community garden, or see if you can get access to the building roof. Suburbia? Tear up your lawn and grow food!

Thanks Jan. I needed that! I'd add LEARN HOW TO COOK AND PRESERVE THE HARVEST!

"Corn pays, partly because taxpayers have provided more than $50 billion in subsidies to corn farmers over the past decade, according to USDA figures."

$50 BILLION! And that's just the corn subsidies! For what? What did the people of America and around the world get for $50 billion of our hard earned tax dollars?

Just askin'.....

Ever wonder why they group food and drugs into one gov't agency?

An Iowa farmer says, "We're growing crap." Well I guess that's the final word then. But, then again, I'm a Minnesota farmer and I've always thought we Minnesotans are above the Iowans, so, I say, "We're growing an amazing experiment." "We're growing a crop that has so many uses that it's mind-blowing." "We're growing a crop that we have a better chance to actually harvest than we did only a few years ago." "We're growing, we're not stagnating, we're not afraid of every change."

One detail from the article. People do not eat field corn as "corn on the cob". This is reserved for sweetcorn not field corn. Most of the bad stuff from field corn is high fructose corn syrup. Too much sugar in any form is bad. The biggest problem with our food is that people eat too much of it and excersise too little. That said, farmers would love for subsidies to go away and let the market control prices. The booms and busts of this type of system result in better longterm profits for farmers. Nothing drives up prices like shortages. Get rid of the subsidies and artificial lowering of prices by releasing government reserves (another subsidy) and the old system of boom and bust will return along with higher profits for farmers. Only the consumers loose, so bring it on. This might wake some folks up. One of the geniuses that commented above might want to look at the size of the world reserves of grain in terms of the time it will take to use it up. Its pretty scary. Maybe this is why those dimwits in Washington make sure that farmers keep producing record yields.

I agree with Iowa farmer, it is crap. Miles of mono-culture artifically industrialized crap. That is why we pass laws and ordinances against growing it here.

The entire nation and a good part of the world depends on ONE crop? One bug - one virus - one drought and we are all done for? How is this keeping anyone 'safer?'

I don't get this one crop stuff. America grows huge amounts of beans and wheat, lotsa hay, oats, milo and more. Mr. obvious, actually there are almost no government reserves of grain anymore. That program was changed a couple of decades ago. The posibility of the world running out of grain is scary. That's one major reason why grain prices are record high. Many of the people buying grain now want someone else to worry about no food.

Greg - Are you implying that the federal government no longer buys corn and has no reserves? Where did you get this info?

Anyone else want to research this? I get between 50 and 60 days of reserve, but maybe I have it wrong. I think this is something over a billion bushels. Where do they get this corn if they don't buy it?

Mr. Obvious, that's right. I used to store corn for the government many years ago; alot of farmers did. We got 26 cents/year/bushel which was real decent money back then. Everything's privatized now. A few years ago when prices were low the government would give us deficiency payments when the price was below the farm bill's "target" price. The farmer would sell his corn for whatever it would bring and the government would make up the difference up to the target price. Under current law, if prices would drop a great deal, we could theoretically receive those deficiency payments again, but that's highly unlikely with demand strong and supply not so fabulous.

Greg - Is the current 59-day reserve of corn 20 years old? Or is there some kind of exchange process that keeps it usable?

Mr. Obvious, what's called the "reserve of corn" is the corn that remains in America (in private hands) on Sept. 30 (I think that date is correct). Actually the reserve of beans this year is smaller and the reserve of hard spring wheat is non-existant.

Greg - I have tried to understand this by Googling, but can't seem to find a good explaination. How does the governement sell it if they do not own it? Are they simply buying an option to purchase it at a later time? I appreciate your help in understanding this.

I understand that the current reserves as a proportion of current use are very small. I am wondering how long it would last in an emergency if it were all converted to corn meal and flour as direct food for people, rather than as animal food. Just hoping things are not as bad as they seem.

Here is a bit more information on this situation.

http://oakcreekforum.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_26.html

Jan,

I'll second Rebel Farmer's accolade! Tear up that damned lawn! Gosh, I hated mowing when I was a boy! My folks have a 3/4 acre lot in the Midwest, and in stark contrast to the squarish boring plot of my childhood, it's a jungle of perennials, compost heaps, raised beds, gently terraced slopes, and (ooh, my favorite!) "wild areas".

And I can tell you my niece and nephew are getting a lot more enjoyment crawling around my folks' yard than I probably did when I was their age.

And hey, Jan...you sound a lot like my brother. I'm going to send him your way (the Wiki, that is). I'd say better than 50% you two might already know eachother...

My wife and I took a different route. We worked like heck for ten years without spending much and moved to where we could buy a farm. We then began raising a few acres of high intensity vegetables and planted Christmas trees. We have now planted over 20,000 evergreens and over 5,000 decidous trees. The remainder of the first field of Christmas trees is now growing into a woods, as are the decidous trees. In addition we built a pond and three wetlands, plus planted a prarie. Our high intensity vegetables allow us to keep >90% of our property as habitat. While some believe that low-impact agriculture is better for the environment, many have realized that high-intensity agriculture actually allows more habitat to be maintained. Annual crops are inherently disruptive to the environment, whatever growing methods are used. By using less land for them, we can actually keep more land in perenial ecosystems. I applaud the background wild areas, but you may find that buying your vegetables at the local farmers market is better for the environment. Let the garden go wild. Also, buy your food from those that have the highest production per acre. They are tilling up the least land for the output. This is the basis for our conservation-reserve program. Our farm was over-grazed and in pitiful condition when we bought it due to over a century of low-output agriculture. We now have lots of wildlife including several bald eagle sightings and one bobcat sighting, lots of mink, several beaver and muskrats, none of which were here when we arrived. In fact not many birds at all were here at the beginning. Technology is not always the enemy. Our kids seem to enjoy their surroundings also. I suggest that we stop overproducing corn for silly things like ethanol, where it is cheaper to simply buy it from Brazil (if you eliminate the tariffs). We need to keep farm land available for food-security reasons, but it might be better to just pay more money to farmers to keep land in prarie, or other high value (but easily convertable) habitats. FYI - We do not use the govermnent programs.

Mr. obvious, if the government needs grain for some reason, they buy it from Cargill or whoever. Sounds like you've done good things with your land, bravo. I would caution you to keep an eye on what the beaver are doing. Many years ago I was thrilled with having beaver in our creek, but after they built a damn in the wrong place, the higher water level killed quite a few 100-year-old oak trees. I was not thrilled with that.

Greg,

We have a farm background. The beaver's are now hats. They are allowed to move through, but we are not idiots (I know you were not calling us this). They were trapped legally by a neighbor, although the game warden has offered permits to take them out of season. We do not have enough small trees to tolerate the damage. I have also seen two-foot diameter trees killed by beaver damage. I did not mention this as I expect the typical response from the mainstream posters on this site. Beavers are very hard workers and can really wreck havoc in a short period of time. We have lots of them in our area, so I am not endangering their survival in our area. Maybe in time, we will have enough habitat to support a few on our property.

Thank you also for explaining the grain reserve program. If I understand this correctly, the program just pays to keep grain around for a while in the US in case of an emergency.

Mr. Obvious, no, the government does not pay anyone to "keep grain around." Theoretically all the grain could be used up, but in reality usually if that is a concern, the price is bid up on the open market to such a point, that only the desperate, with money, could afford it. Certainly, if we used more corn to make tortillas and corn muffins, we could feed a tremendously larger number of people. The traditional mexican diet of tortillas and beans is quite a good diet if a few veges are sometimes included. No one should have to go hungry in America.

Greg - Sorry that I am so thick. Does the 59-day national grain reserve refer to the grain on hand that is owned privately?

Mr. Obvious- yes. When "reserves" fall to about 30 days they are considered to be overly small since someone (usually livestock producer or ethanol plant) might run out.

Greg - Thanks again. I guess if we get a few years of bad weather and the crops don't produce, those beavers might start looking pretty good.

Organic/eco farmers grow open pollinated corn, it has 12 % protein, and contains trace minerals,hybrid corn is now as low as 6% protein, and does not contain many trace minerals.

ecoalex - Would you please point me to the publication of the scientific study that demonstrates your claims about organic corn? I am very very familiar with the composition of corn and its variation, but somehow missed this study.

I am referring to open pollinated dent corn.The stuff passing for corn now is much less nutritive, if you're selling ok, if you're feeding animals, bad.Hybrid corn is an industrial feedstock, whether for HFCS, or feedlots.My O P corn is 12% tested, usually hybrid corn protein is 9% even a low of 6%. The mineral content also is well documented.

ecolex - I am looking for the reference that supports your statements. Lots of folks make claims here. Since hybrids are simply the product of crossing two inbred (open pollenated) lines, I am questioning the accuracy of your statement. It may be true, but I would like to see the proof in the way of a scientific study. The assertion is that modern corn varieties are somehow inferior. Just saying it again does not make it so. I have not read every study on this subject, so I would appreciate you pointing me to the one that you are refering to. My sources show protein levels from 6 to 14% in modern hybrids, depending mostly on the location and weather where they are grown. This information can be found at the ILSI crop-composition database available on the web. If you cannot find it, I'll post a link.

Anything touched by
The Cor-'pirates'
Turns into poison.
The have the Assassins touch.
They turn food in to Poison.
Cures into illness
Peace into War.
S.O.S. from the Belly of the Beast
At the Zenith of its Power.
Everything is down hill from here.
Head for the exits.
The Hindenburg is
Going Down!

Despite Michael Pollan's compelling "Omnivore's Dilemma," the first assertion that I know of regarding the pervasive role of ubiquitous corn in the obesity epidemic, I have yet to find solid, reliable evidence that the carbon in corn (C4) is, indeed the root cause, or even a serious contributing cause. It seems plausible. It seems coincident. But where's the science to back it up?

Mr Obvious
You have a great setup for permaculture ethanol
alcoholcanbeagas.com
Check it out, make food and fuel sustainably.

While ethanol is a way around direct subsidies for farmers (similar to GMO bans in the EU), I do not find the evidence supporting ethanol as a fuel to be compelling. Seems like we disrupt enough habitat with food, feed and fiber production. While I have argued that we examine the global-warming theories critically, I think there is compelling evidence that we need to stop burning fuel for energy until we can recapture the products.

"While some believe that low-impact agriculture is better for the environment, many have realized that high-intensity agriculture actually allows more habitat to be maintained."

"High-intensity" is not synonymous with chemical usage. You are not going to beat the yields of home organic gardens and certainly not chinampas. What you really want to say is "I farm with chemicals and it's better." Better at destroying soil carbon, yes. Better at increasing costs, yes. Better at damaging the environment, yes. Better at relying on and perpetuating unsustainable infrastructure, yes.

"I am looking for the reference that supports your statements. Lots of folks make claims here."

Hmm. I see you demand sources all the time and by my count have supplied sources only once. The other two times were opinion pieces that disproved your position. Funny that.