EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Willie Nelson’s Bedrock, the Family Farmer, Could Save the American Economy
As an advocate for local, and for family farmers, I know that there is immense power in the experiential. When you have a direct relationship with a farmer, you just know that relationship is mutually beneficial. When you see four leggers on pasture instead of concrete, it only makes sense. But, do we have our talking points lined up on a deeper level? Are we ready for that serendipitous moment when online dating sets you up with an agribusiness ladder climber who wants to debate free trade two beers in? Or when it comes time to make policy recommendations or offer a zinger quote to a reporter? Despite being a career local foods non-profit staffer, I don't always feel prepared when I leave the realm of the story for that of the concrete. Now that consumer awareness of the story of local has reached a critical mass, it is time to take our movement to the next level. Research. Organize. Speak out.
In celebration of its 25th year, Farm Aid, the longest running concert-for-a-cause, has published a report to help us make this push. Rebuilding America's Economy with Family-Farm Centered Food Systems takes one of the more sensitive topics in the American psyche today, the economy, and convincingly demonstrates the bounty of opportunity that family farmers can bring to local and regional communities.
Starting with a rally cry from Farm Aid's celebrity board, originally drafted in a letter to Congress in September of 2008 in a call to recognize the potential of family farmers to revive the collapsing U.S. economy, Rebuilding America's Economy paints a vision of what our nation could look like:
A $1 billion [a micro mini portion of the $700 billion bailout] investment in family farm agriculture would enrich us all, because we are all shareholders of the family farm. The return on investment in the family farm includes thriving local economies, nutritious food for better health, a safer and more secure food supply, a cleaner environment and more renewable energy. Investing in local, sustainable and organic food would shorten the distance between eaters and farmers, conserve energy, create economic opportunities, and new jobs through innovative processing and distribution systems, resulting in a better, greener, more efficient food and farm economy.
Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp, Neil Young, and Dave Matthews Farm Aid Board of Directors
Showing the sophistication of knowing millions of farmers over the years, Farm Aid authors launch the report by eschewing black and white definitions of "family farmer" and other key terms. Instead, the report offers that family farmers are those who own the majority of the land or tools, make most of the decisions, and do most of the work. Perhaps more importantly, however, that each farmer who meets the above description inherently possesses the capacity to earn and demand fair wages, further community well-being, be an environmental steward, and promote public health. These are the values that make up the foundation for the family-farm centered food systems envisioned in the report.
It's hard talking points fall right into line as you read "Rebuilding America." For example, research by David Swenson of Iowa State University, in conjunction with the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, shows "increased fruit and vegetable production could boost regional farm sales by over $882 million, and spur retail-level sales as high as $3.31 billion. The effort would also generate 9,032 farm-level jobs and 9,652 retail level jobs, and a corresponding $395.1 million in farm level labor income..."
To my mind, jobs and increased income/sales are exactly what's needed at this very moment in economic history. Just in case data doesn't make people's heart sing the way mine does, I will simply submit that the report gives a multitude of similarly compelling facts that demonstrate the potential impact of small and medium sized farms to create thriving local economies by growing local, direct markets and regional value chains to feed wholesale demand.
Giving color to the well-researched data, are six case studies that show what can be done when a commitment to values is held equally to that of the bottom line: Shepherd's Grain, Indian Springs Farmers Association, Woodbury County, IA, Red Tomato, Hardwick, VT, and Community Farm Alliance. These case studies show that each region, group of farmers, or specific product requires its own innovation. In Kentucky, for example, where tobacco used to be the cash crop, Community Farm Alliance has helped farmers put their Tobacco Settlement offers to good use shifting their farms to more diversified operations. With more food crops in the ground across the state, CFA can now estimate that "if Kentucky were to match the national average for per-farm direct marketing sales, it would generate an additional $7.9 million in farm income and $15.8 million for the state as a whole."
In 1985, Willie Nelson named the family farmer the backbone of the country and the bottom rung on the economic ladder on which all else depends. Twenty-five years later, it is the job of the enthusiast and the advocate to understand what family farmers truly have to offer and what resources they need to seize the moment. Farm Aid, this report, the resources (down to the footnotes), and case studies in it, are an excellent place to start.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
34 Comments so far
Show AllDear laura,
Great article, but apart from Research. Organize. Speak out, I would have liked a little more flesh on the bones of what we as consumers can do.
Here in KY, the home of CFA, there are many food advocates who support CSA, local farmers markets and grow our own.
Yet the big question is how to engage a population who (think) they can only afford 'walmart' food, who say the Farmers Markets are expensive, or in this economy cannot afford the slightly higher cost.
Last year I calculated that if I bought the food I grew at the farmers market it would have cost over $1000. I floated the idea with some friends that if I invested even half of that savings in paying a premium for local meat, eggs etc I would still be ahead and eat better.
Of course you have to have land, inclination and time to grow food.
Maybe someone can take this idea of investing half the savings of growing food back into local food economies.
I'm too busy gleaning these days for the poor.
pax
I kinda agree, I don't know what I can do, where I fit in. Eating healthier is a goal we surely have, but the cost is too high especially in cities where they have very few supermarkets, and fresh vegetables are expensive for people on foodstamps. They are going to eat mac and cheese. I eat fairly healthy but if I had 5 kids to feed I don't think I could afford it as much. However any step towards a better future is a good one. I hope they have a good plan.
I express my appreciation for this article; it is timely and crucial. Of all the resources on the planet for survival, none tops food and water. The bogus hype relating to oil is insignificant in comparison.
I like the other commenter, would appreciate an opportunity to participate in some type of progressive approach to the farmers and their potential for improving health and wealth conditions in our country, in need, in deed.
I have ideas on distribution and generating revenue for assisting farmers and I feel certain others have knowledge to contribute. If the talents of computer knowledge could be displayed in developing a web-site for people to interact with ideas an plans for organizing methods and viable resolve, would be a big step towards achieving an important and necessary endeavor.
Again, thanks, I appreciate your article more than anything I have read for a long time.
The food crisis has weighed heavy on my mind for decades, that is why I have ideas, I have placed a lot of thought on dealing with it and want to share them with others of concern and digest their imput.
Good comments. We have a situation in this country now that is unique in history. Never have people been so divorced from their food supply and so ignorant about it. What is needed is restoring the public agriculture infrastructure and rebuilding public transportation. Boutique farms that cater to the upscale with gourmet products - and that is what most of the "alternative" ag ideas are - will never replace public infrastructure, and in fact work against it.
The problem with modern American society, from energy use to pollution to the destruction of community are all found in the suburbanization of the country. Farming must respond to this, and many of the things that farming is attacked for are the result of catering to suburbia. Speculation in residential real estate has inflated prices for land and pushed farmers farther away from the population centers. Suburbs have moved us away from public transportation and made food distribution less efficient. Suburbia supports the chains and malls and the concentration of control over the food supply into fewer and fewer hands.
Rather than seeing that it is the American suburban dream that is unsustainable and destroying the country, people want to look at farming and blame farming practices for problems that are much worse in suburbia or are the result of farming responding to the suburbanization of the country. Of course, those critics are often upscale suburbanites themselves and cannot see how their own point of view is strongly biased against farming and in favor of the ongoing growth of suburbia.
Lumping farmers in with the chemical giants, the corporate agri-business operations, the food brokers, distributors and speculators, and ADM, Monsanto and Cargil et al betrays a profound ignorance about farming, yet this is exactly what the liberal activists routinely do. They want us to see their ideal of small scale gentrified hobby farming, which represents a tiny fraction of 1% of food production and could never feed the public, as the only alternative to Monsanto and all of the evils that implies. This ignores the public agricultural infrastructure and the thousands of family farms who are actually feeding the public - everyone, not just the enlightened few with refined aristocratic and self-righteous) tastes and sensibilities. Notice how these treatises on organic and local and sustainable scrupulously avoid talking about the class divide and the infrastructure. That is because the movement is upper class and promotes the libertarian "free market" and "free choice" consumerist models for food production and distribution.
Two- We need to understand a couple of things here. Hobby farms are serving the grower and probably a group of less than 100 consumers? Maybe more if they're raising goats or cattle, for example. Truck farms are serving restaurants, hotels, resorts, and Farmers Markets in every town and most cities, correct? So, where do you get the 1% figure. Middle class people buy from hobby and truck farms in the spring, summer and fall and local produce from nat'l chains as well. They eat at restaurants that serve local farm products almost exclusively. More than 1%, I'm sure. What is lacking is education on buying good food, locally produced, with easily followed preparation. I don't think you're going to change anything until you convince people that this is not snobby but smart action. We have an overworked and underpaid population constantly bombarded by food advertiser's who are profitting from this unhealthy disaster. Pounding on the inequality of income distribution as the main reason for the poor nutritional habits of the U.S. is somewhat misleading, I think. There are very wealthy people who eat crappy, industrialized food all the time. Your infrastructure and public transportations arguments are much more on point. Just saying.
Not sure I am following you, linkwray.
What is it that you hope to see happening that is not now happening? What is it that is happening that you want to see stop happening?
I have a small organic farm and have sold at local markets and the nearby coop for many years. Last year I had a bumper crop of tomatoes. The coop sold organic tomatoes for $4.00 lb. Other local farmers also had surplus thus I was unable to sell much of my crop there. Enter the market place. Though my time labor and expense were the same, I found that in selling them from my home buyers were unwilling to pay fair market price.
Rather than sell for $1.25 lb, I gave many to the food bank and filled my shelves with sauce and salsa. It is difficult to remain civil when a Lexus pulls up, and man/woman steps out, examines my produce, then tries to bargain about the price, telling me that it is much cheaper elsewhere, etc. I am not wealthy nor do I expect to get rich farming. I enjoy farming and the rewards are great. If more folk understood the hard work required to fill their plates with wholesome, healthy fare, they might give the family farmer what he/she wants most.
Respect.
USDA said that in 2007 the average price for tomatoes was 34.5 cents per pound. I could imagine a tomato bringing $4/lb during periods of shortage and if the tomato was truly exceptional. But, if there is a surplus, then hoping for anything near $4 is simply a pipe dream. The food bank and salsa were excellent alternatives. We are harvesting grape tomatoes that are simply marvelous in a pasta salad with Italian dressing, black olives, our edible pea pods, and our very own purslane.
I now live in California's Central Valley, a "breadbasket to the world" where agriculture is king. That is about the sum total of my expertise on the subject. I see, in my adopted city, a growing "Farmer's Market" culture in opposition to the agribusiness that is wiping out the family farm and giving us generally tasteless produce that is often unhealthy as well due to the use of chemicals in production and pollution of the water table as well.
I shop in those markets for my produce and believe that more and more educated shoppers are making the choice to pay a bit more for better choices on the table. I hope that the experience you noted will be a rare and infrequent occurrence as farmers like you continue to educate the public in making the choice to support the ailing family farm and organic growers. But, when entering the world of retail sales one must encounter some folks as that which you related.
I have some experience in acquiring surplus foodstuffs for food banks and find the family farmer a much more willing participant in that endeavor than are the mega agricultural corporations to whom civic responsibility is nonexistent. I hope that your coop will continue to thrive and find ways to sell your much needed produce to a hungry and hopefully better educated populace.
To readers here you must explain the prices of heirloom tomatoes vs. hothouse tomatoes, etc. $4 heirlooms sound right and $2 hot house is average. Here in the Willamette Valley local is everywhere at certain times, like right now. At the small retailers here, yes, the Lexus crowd has a big impact. They didn't get rich and rude by paying " fullborski ". But they are essential to support small farmers like yourself. While not being a full-time farm kid I spent as much time as I could on my uncle's 280 acre farm and loved it. The empowerment of growing your own food and doing chores has never left me. However, industrialization of agribusiness has been a disaster for rural communities, the general health of the U.S. population, the environment, etc. I applaud your work, and, incidentally I have the first Farm Aid kerchief framed and signed hanging in front me as I type this. We lost our soul to a great degree when we lost our small farmers; I hope we can get some of it back through encouraging healthy eating.
A couple of questions, linkray.
Why would, or should, heirloom varieties cost more?
What makes heirlooms better?
How would you define or describe the "industrialization of agribusiness?"
(I am an expert on, and a big fan of heirloom deciduous fruit varieties, by the way, live and work on a small family farm and have worked with hundreds of small family farmers - I don't think we have quite yet "lost our small family farmers" - just so you know I am not a "Monsanto shill" LOL.)
On edit - I will throw out a few more random thoughts for your input...
I spent most of the last two days walking the orchards with a few hundred visitors from the city, answering their questions, and have been pondering the disconnection between city folks and farming tonight.
Here are a few things that I notice they don't understand (and are surprised by and intensely interested in...)
- There is always some fruit on the "floor" and some that goes unharvested, and people remark about the "wasted food." I tell them that the food is basically free (provided by God, or nature, or Mother Earth) and that it is the tending, monitoring, cleaning, sorting, shipping, storage that consumers are paying for. I also point out that there are tens of thousands of wild fruit trees growing in the region that go unharvested, and in no way does that man that "food is wasted." I think the concept of "waste" and throwing things "away" is an urban concept that doesn't have much application on the farm.
- I don't think people have much concept of how aggressive the weeds, insects, and other critters are. Deer, mice and other rodents, porcupines, opossums, raccoons, birds are continually wreaking havoc. We have seem wooded land left undeveloped that supports coyote dens and we put up hawk boxes, which help, try to control insects as safely as possible, and mow more than weed spray, but without a lot of attention and effort nature would reclaim the farm and it would not be possible to feed the population otherwise, unless everyone became farmers or returned to hunting and gathering.
- I don't think people have much concept for how dedicated almost all farmers are to producing safe quakity food.
- I don't think people realize how much food needs to be produced to feed the population. They can't grasp the scale required. The "buy local" think is silly, because this small farm I am on produces more apples, for example, then what is needed for the three or four counties in the area, and there are things that do not do well here - tomatoes for example. Why not trade our fruit for tomatoes with the folks 200 miles away who are in a good tomato growing region but not a good fruit growing region - which we do on a daily basis? This "evil" action disqualifies us with the "eat local" activists who then place us into the same category as ADM - the "enemy." What kind of sense does that make?
- Farmers, although they are the most critical and important link in the food system, have very little control over the food distribution system and make the least money - anywhere from a penny to a dime at best on each food dollar the consumer spends. They are not in league with the packers and retailers, the chemical companies and the marketers, the speculators and traders, they are victims of those forces.
2- Heirloom tomatoes cost more than hot house tomatoes for the samereason BMWs cost more than Chevies: supply and demand. On the quality of heirlooms vs. hot house tomatoes and their subsequent price differential: I just ate one of each before responding and I'll let you guess which one I preferred. Being from the Midwest I'll direct you to 2 films: King Corn and Fast Food Nation. This is industrialization of agriculture write large across the American skyline. Your Roger Ebert moment has appeared so don't blow it. If you read my earlier post you would see I'm just a dumb kid from the sticks: Iowa = Idiots Out Walking Around. I'll leave it to people such as yourself to lead the masses to the promised land of milk and honey. I'll be following your progress with that but first; about those 2 movie reviews?
Thanks. Yes, heirloom varieties are a specialty crop commanding premium prices. I would agree. Flavor is not really a function of whether the produce is an heirloom variety or not, but rather time of picking, handling and storage and other variables. In apples, for example, heirloom varieties such as Newtown Pippin, Arkansas Black, and Blue Pearmain are exceptional, but so are some newer varieties such as Honeycrisp, Mutsu and Swiss Gourmet. Some crops, like tomatoes and peaches are difficult to ship when fully ripe. That has little or nothing to do with farming.
Yes I am very familiar with King Corn and Fast Food Nation. Not sure what you might want to discuss about those films. They do not address any agricultural issues very seriously. Corn subsidies go back to a time when the population was deprived of fat and protein. Something like half the corn crop goes to animal feed. Dwindling prices to farmers and the concentration of food distribution in fewer and fewer farms has forced farmers to focus on fewer varieties and to mechanize and grow large. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with corn.
Lower income people are forced into eating more corn and fast food. The suggestions I made in the other post would handle that problem, and I doubt that anything less would or could. Personal choice models, and boutique farms and entrepreneurial ventures cannot solve that problem. The organic community is now calling for further de-regulation and exemption for "artisan foods" - upscale specialty gourmet items - from inspection and regulation. That is going the wrong direction, obviously.
Still not sure how we should define "industrial agriculture." Most of the industrial aspects of farming happen off the farm. CAFO's are horrendous - that is a political issue, not a farming issue.
OK, I am waaay out of my depth here, and bow to your apparent expertise. I would appreciate your response to some of my assumptions, especially regarding cattle feed.
Cattle by nature are grazers, grass being their most acceptable feed. The incidents of E-Coli poisoning from improperly fed cattle would be reduced by feeding them grass one month prior to slaughter.
Approximately 70% of all corn grown today goes to cattle feed, while people go hungry.
The use of antibiotics as a weight gaining inducement is really,truly bad for our own health.
Cattle feed is an amalgam of stuff like sawdust, used as filler, and makes for unhealthy cattle and unhealthy consumers. I am not a farmer or dairyman, but I pass feed lots in the course of my employment ( June, July and August are really, really smelly months regarding said lots) and see down cattle at least several times a week. What does this say about the overall health of our prime food source? How is the water table affected by leaching of waste products into it from said lots? I see grapes, corn and other crops growing adjacent to those filthy places.
Thanks in advance for the response....
Good questions. Cattle and row crops is a little out of my area, but I will try to answer your questions.
"Cattle by nature are grazers, grass being their most acceptable feed. The incidents of E-Coli poisoning from improperly fed cattle would be reduced by feeding them grass one month prior to slaughter."
E. Coli is common and occurs in the feces of all animals. The reason why it is now making the news is because there is one new mutant strain that is deadly, and that can live in environments where it previously could not. It is a concern and has caused all sorts of changes in food handling on all farms. Not sure if there is a connection between livestock diet and incidences of that particular strain of E. Coli. I would guess not.
"Approximately 70% of all corn grown today goes to cattle feed, while people go hungry."
I think it is more like 50%, but yes a lot of corn goes to feed. I don't think there is any connection between the amount of corn that goes to livestock feed and people going hungry. Ethanol has had an impact, however, as has free trade, as has Wall Street speculation in the commodities market, as has monopolistic hoarding by the handful of corporations that control the industry.
"The use of antibiotics as a weight gaining inducement is really,truly bad for our own health."
I don't think anti-biotics are connected to weight gain. There are issues of the overuse of anti-biotics, and possible health risks to the public, yes.
"Cattle feed is an amalgam of stuff like sawdust, used as filler, and makes for unhealthy cattle and unhealthy consumers. I am not a farmer or dairyman, but I pass feed lots in the course of my employment ( June, July and August are really, really smelly months regarding said lots) and see down cattle at least several times a week. What does this say about the overall health of our prime food source? How is the water table affected by leaching of waste products into it from said lots? I see grapes, corn and other crops growing adjacent to those filthy places."
CAFOs and vertical integration in the meat industry need to be eliminated. Your concerns are well-founded.
Farming is driven by the big money interests, as is everything in our economy. Farmers have to adjust to what the big corporations want or die. Everyone is looking for a way out of the trap. WalMart and others now control the packing houses for fruit and therefore the farmers. One farmer said to me last week "we have to kill them or they will kill us." Selling exclusively locally, or at a farmer's market or as a CSA would mean a hobby farm or else a specialty farm growing a gourmet product for the relatively wealthy. It is a way to stay on the land and be growing things but is probably not a model that can be duplicated or applied on a broad basis. It certainly can never feed the population, unless millions of people left the cities and returned to subsistence farming. Otherwise, the model presented in the article would make farms sort of amusement parks for the few, for the relatively well-off. There would be far fewer farms, and most of the population would then be eating imported food and entirely at the mercy of the agri-business giants.
I now think that farming probably will die here, and soon, and have accepted that and arrived at some peace about it, so I don't argue these issues as passionately as I did a couple of years ago. I now feel that way about everything good, beautiful or worthwhile in the country, from the Gulf, to all wild places to food to education: it is over, kiss it all goodbye. The destruction of everything - culture, communities, health care, education, the environment, farmland - is accelerating and is moving ahead at a much faster pace than any efforts at saving anything are. A lot of the "solutions" being proposed - charter schools, "charter farms" - CSA and organic and farm markets - "green" entrepreneurship, privatized enlightened this and privatized enlightened that, I see as attempts by the upper 10% to save little niches from the ongoing destruction for themselves, and this is coming at the expense of the general public. We have a new minor aristocracy forming, and they are jockeying for position in the brave new world to come and are willing to trade away the public infrastructure and public welfare to get that. A few wild places, a few farms, a few healthy food choices, a few places with clan water, a few businesses and a few good jobs, a few bike trails, all catering to those who can afford those choices is what most of modern liberal activism is now aiming for. This will leave 90% of the population out of the picture and out of luck.
I thank you for your response to my queries. I refuse to share your pessimism regarding our future, if only because my bedrock belief is that the future is unwritten. While your conjectures regarding that bleak future are based, and accurately so, on trends today there is still hope for a public engagement on this and other important and harmful trendings. Our enslavement to the largest corporations continues unabated true enough, but there are an increasing number of folks, like you and I, who seek ways to change the future to good purpose.
I don't mean to say that it is hopeless, but rather that it is hopeless if we continue on the same course. I am actually optimistic that we will change course. In the meantime, I am grieving what we have lost and are losing and I am not clinging to any illusions about that.
Commentary on King Corn, continued...
I also want to comment on the lumping together of corn consumption in all its forms as being equally bad. No doubt HFCS is not good nutrition, but to conflate that form of corn consumption, with consumption as meat products or other corn products is unconscionable. There is not a shred of evidence that livestock fed corn as a feed carry the negative effects of HFCS. Just ask the residents of Mexico, where corn is actually a staple, whether corn is a part of a healthy diet. We in the US of course use wheat mainly as our staple source, either as bread or pasta.
Finally, let me just briefly comment on the statements that the farm program has some conspiratorial part in encouraging corn overproduction. First, the farm program has always tried to balance its provisions to be commodity neutral, that is, it endeavors to try to have farmers make planting decisions based on marketplace signals and good agronomic practices, rather than program provisions. It is not always perfect in this regard, but that is its aim.
The idea that farmers will plant corn, or any other crop simply because of a relatively small government payment is woefully out of date. The farm price of corn used in the movie was well under $2.00 This has not been the case for quite some time. The last I checked, the price of corn was over $6.00. I can assure you that farmers today do not make their main planting decisions at this point based upon a declining program payment.
In summary, to think that farmers here or in other countries will stop planting corn is quite unrealistic. We have the lowest grain supplies worldwide today since the last days of World War II. We will be planting more corn going forward, or at least we will try.
Finally, I want to say I am neither involved in corn production nor cattle feeding. I am a concerned person in traditional agriculture that tries to correct unfounded ideas whenever I can. I salute these young college people for their idealism, and their concern for the HFCS issue. I can only say that their credibility on this issue would not have been damaged quite so badly if they had stuck to the facts.
Commentary on King Corn, continued...
The idea that grain feeding is somehow unnatural is intimated at extensively in the movie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cattle and other livestock have been given high-concentrate feed over historical times. Even so called "Grass Fed" beef is almost always given a brief finishing feeding period with a higher concentrate finishing feed. If all US livestock were to be exclusively pasture raised, as they obviously can not and will not be, due to the many many millions of additional acres required, meat would be many multiples of times more expensive, and meat would obviously be a specialty, seasonal food, as there obviously would not be any pastures available during the winter months.
There are actually some benefits to a more highly grass fed animal. It has a lower fat content, and there is some evidence that it contains more omega-3 fatty acids. These are actually only slight advantages, as the fat content of beef can be minimized by eating actual cuts of meat with close trimming. Eating most of one's beef in the form of hamburger is not a good practice, as quite a high content of the fat is not trimmed off and gets into the hamburger. Meat is actually best viewed as not a good primary source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are more efficiently obtained in the diet through oils and supplementation. Grass fed beef will continue to be a boutique item demanded by a specialty clientele. It is a good product, and some even prefer its unique flavor.
Now let us turn to the corn plant itself, which in the film is strangely attacked and demonized. One of the most reprehensible parts of the film was the interview with the Harvard professor, who repeatedly made statements to the effect that corn is a non-food, is nutritionally empty, and has been deliberately bred to be so. This is quite misleading. This Harvard professor should know quite well (or maybe he doesn't ?!) that corn, along with all plants domesticated by humanity over many millennia have been extensively selected for different varieties used for different purposes.
In the case of corn, our North American native grain, it consists of a number of varieties hand selected both during prehistoric times and by many generations of traditional farmers. We currently have 4 major types; sweet corn, used for eating fresh and canning, flour corn, used for milling into corn meal for human consumption, the well known popcorn, and dent corn, also know as field or feed corn.
Field corn has been selected specifically to produce the energy source or carbohydrate portion of animal feeds. Field corn typically contains 9% protein, 5% oil, with the remainder being carbohydrates. The latest USDA figures for 05-06 total corn utilization indicates 54% being used for animal feed, 20% being exported, 14% being used for ethanol, 5% being used for High Fructose Corn syrup, and 7% being used in various other human food products.
Corn is one of the handful of staple grains producing the main food source for human beings. These grain staples, including corn, wheat, rice, barley and sorghum, produce collectively 90% of the calories required by human beings worldwide. World civilization as we know it could not exist without these staple grains.
To say that carbohydrates, by far the greatest requirement in the human and animal diet and which are used for energy production, are "empty" calories is certainly a misstatement. There are no "empty" calories or "bad" foods. There are only good and bad diets. To expect that one food would have all the components of a healthy diet is naive. This is the reason all responsible nutritionists continually speak of eating a variety of foods.
As for the cheap trick of trying to eat a mature cob of field corn, and saying it is a "non food" simply because it is not palatable and requires processing, the less said the better. Simply take note that not one of the other staple grain crops that support 90 % of human nutrition, wheat, rough rice, barley, sorghum etc, would be edible in their raw state either.
Now let us address the issue of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Here I quite agree with the main thrust of their argument. There is all kinds of good scientific evidence that a diet with a large percentage of HFCS has some deleterious effects, diabetes and obesity being among them. Fortunately, it is actually quite easy to keep the majority of HFCS out of one's diet. The majority is to be found in two products, soda type drinks, and fruit juices with additional sweetener added. The former really has no redeeming qualities, and should be eliminated from the diet, and the latter has many and increasing alternative choices on the shelf that either have no sugar added, or have natural sweeteners, this obviously in response to consumer demand. There are other snack type foods with HFCS in them, but also many without. There usually are many choices. Obviously for those who are purists about absolutely no HFCS of any amount, this may take care.
To those with corn allergies, I can only say I feel the greatest sympathy. I do hope you find good choices among all the many other food choices available.
1.
Excellent commentary here from a farmer about the film King Corn. It is a little long so I will post it in two segments. Well worth the read.
The film King Corn is a propaganda piece and full of misleading statements.
First, the hair test that Dr Macko uses to estimate the percentage of corn in the diet, while useful for what it was intended, gives somewhat misleading results in this application. First, a little background on this test.
This test depends on the fact that in nature, some elements, such as carbon, have different forms with different weights, due to having differing numbers of neutrons in their nucleus, and thus slightly variable weights. These differing weights of the same elements are called isotopes (from the Greek isos =equal+ topos=place). Thus in the case of carbon, we have the normal isotope C12 with 6 protons and six neutrons for an atomic weight of 12, and we have isotope C13 with 6 protons and 7 neutrons for an atomic weight of 13. In nature there is a mixture of these two isotopes, and plants take up and use both isotopes from the CO2 in the air to use in building plant tissue, and we have both isotopes in our body used interchangeably in our tissues and chemical reactions.
The test Dr. Macko is using to differentiate corn from other plant materials in the diets of humans and livestock utilizes the fact that a class of plants, called C4 plants, which includes corn, preferentially take up a different proportion of these two isotopes of carbon to make their tissues than do the class of C3 plants, which comprise the vast majority of other plants including forages. These ratios of isotopes of carbon continue on in the food chain, and their proportions can be measured in the hair to determine which proportions of plants have been consumed, either C3 or C4 (assumed in the film to be corn).
What this film does not disclose however, is that livestock consume a number of other C4 plants in their rations other than corn. Sorghum is also a C4 plant. It is grown extensively throughout the West in dryer states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and parts of Colorado. In areas where it is grown it is used almost exclusively for livestock feeding. Thus, the above test would be incapable of differentiating an atom of carbon as coming from livestock fed corn or sorghum.
This same rationale would also apply to millet, which is also a C4 plant used for livestock feeding, grown in the northern central states, chiefly the Dakotas and Nebraska.
When we turn to plant foods directly consumed by humans, we also find a problem with the test used. Sugar cane is also a C4 plant, and thus the sugar derived from it would be indistinguishable from corn in whatever form consumed as far as the hair test described.
These factors thus makes this test somewhat unreliable as a measure of exactly how much corn is in our diet, either directly or in the diets of the livestock we consume.
Next, I want to turn to their description of cattle feeding, and their reporting of its effects. It is somewhat disappointing that the makers of this film did not avail themselves of the opportunity to educate themselves as to the facts regarding the cattle feeding industry when they had a good opportunity to do so. First, as to their claim that feeding corn causes death within 120 days. Curiously, their reference for this appears to be a random passer-by they met during filming. The reality is quite different.
Traditionally feeders take in either grass fed calves at 450 to 600 pounds, or grass fed yearlings (1 year old animals) at 550 to 800 pounds, and finish them out with a mixture of grains, protein supplements, roughage, and vitamin/mineral supplements to a slaughter weight of 1100 to 1400 pounds. Cattle are usually fed an average of 177 days if started on feed as yearlings, and 237 days if started as calves, according to John D. Lawrence, extension livestock economist, with the article available at http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/livestock/html/b1-3 ...
The grain or energy component of the ration is balanced with whatever grain happens to be available and most cost effective locally. In the Mid-west that would be corn. In other parts of the western US, sorghum, millet or barley would be the energy component of choice, and in the eastern US soft wheat would often be the feed of choice.
Dairy cows are also fed a high concentrate ration required for high milk production. They are feed high rates of grain over many milking cycles with obviously no early death, as a high value dairy cow obviously would not be fed such high grain diets if it would lead to early death.
The acidosis referred to in the movie certainly can become a problem. It is caused by an overgrowth of lactic acid producing microorganisms in the rumen when high-carbohydrate foods are introduced too rapidly and abruptly. It is easily controlled or prevented by introducing high-concentrate feeds gradually over a period of time, a common practice used in all feeding and dairy production situations.
2- Got the idea, here. Think the remarks are very good conerning King Korn. 50% of corn going to animal feed is too much wasted energy, and, I don't mean by the farmers from planting to harvest. As for High fructose it is pure poison to my way of thinking. You're a dedicated and very informed gentleman and my hat's off to you for taking on my dare. FYI- I've been on the labor end of finishing cattle. My uncle fed the cattle a combo diet of ground corn cobs, husks and corn for about 75-90 days after moving them from the pasture and picked fields to the feedlot. Then to the slaughterhouse. Oftentimes we'd get an early snowstorm and we'd bring the cattle in with horses. My favorite thing in the whole world when I was 12-15. Then I bought my first car and I've been broke ever since. Thanks, and I think you passed the audition.
philiphoko July 23rd, 2010 1:46 pm
I understand what you are saying and you are correct, there seems to be a lack of appreciation what farmers are up against and you do put in a lot of hardwork.
Any business of products requires a distributions system, there are consumers within a two hundred mile radius that would purchase your product where you could make a decent profit and they can make a decent purchase. The key is a non profit type distribution system, where everyone participating is paid for their service, but their is no corporate or company profits. it can be done if minds of concern were to collaborate and strategize effective plans.
A mathematical structured distribution system will provide a remedy for the distribution. The universe is a mathematical system of evolving energy. the map is laid out for us to see, if we would only look.
Willie Nelson is one lovely country singer I admired throughout my life and given his dedication towards supporting small family farms, I wished he could be the governor of Texas for a change. There are not as many small farmers today as there were even 2 years ago even though attempts are being made to revitalizing small/family farmers but at some point, oversubsidizing Big Agri will have to end for good so that Willie Nelson's support for Family Farmers will see the light of day.
"compelling facts that demonstrate the potential impact of small and medium sized farms to create thriving local economies by growing local, direct markets and regional value chains to feed wholesale demand."
I would off the "wholesale demand" part of that sentence. That term "wholesale" was concocted by elites to describe a key mechanism of economic oppression. The demand of oppression means nothing to rational people.
Instead, popular demand means everything. Grass-roots demand. If the people are free from mind-numbing propaganda, they will demand what is good for them. This includes demand for local production, which keeps local economies independent, and strong, and keeps the people in charge of their own lives and destinies. Sovereign demand is the only way for the people to stay free.
You know that you're doing the correct thing when the elites object. Try this litmus test. You can also check Kant's Categorical Imperative, and read Plato. He figured everything out 2500 years ago.
Notice that the elites won't recommend Plato or Kant or anything else useful to you. Instead, they recommend a brand new Lexus SUV!! Pardon me while I puke.
You can help cultivate sovereign demand by practicing it yourself. When everyone practices it, there's no more opportunity for elites to oppress the people.
Inspiring article. Jane Jacobs' books on city-planning & economics would dove-tail in nicely with this article. In her book, "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" she maintains that cities,NOT nation-states, are the primary economic unit, and more; they are the primary organization in which people can live out their lives as complete human beings. She also wrote some other books comparing economics with ecological systems.
Also, Wendell Berry's books-of-essays, "Home Economics", and "What are People for?", dove-tail in nicely with this article.
Nothing threatens public health and the survival of farming more than the imposition of a gentrified upscale mythology onto the very serious issues we face in farming and with the food supply system. This article is warmed over libertarianism with a feel good liberal veneer.
If some method of farming is better, then all should - and would - be using it. If a certain type of food is superior, then it should be available to all. If certain foods are not healthy, then they should not be available to any. If certain farming practices are undesirable, then they should not be used. All of this is a matter of public policy and a strong public agricultural infrastructure, not a matter of foodie personal choices and tastes.
It is Capitalism, and its ultimate social expression, suburbia, that is unsustainable. Relatively upscale suburbanites calling for entrepreneurial solutions and attacking farming, no matter how pleasant their idyllic fantasies may sound, are inadvertently supporting the very forces that are destroying farming and placing public health at risk.
Organic, CSA, and "eat local" support a two-tier food system - one for the beautiful enlightened people, and another for the rest of us - and undermine public support for political solutions to what are political problems, and support for rebuilding the public agricultural infrastructure.
On every level this article is reactionary and dovetails with the corporate right wing agenda. It blames the people - they are making the "wrong choices" - and that is elitist and aristocratic and therefore anti-democratic. It proposes "free market" solutions to public policy problems and therefore advances privatization. It ignores the political and economic realities and therefore prevents people from accurately analyzing what is happening. It dumbs the public down further on farming issues.
Public health and well-being is at serious risk. It would be bad enough if this trendy nonsense were merely a distraction, but it operates in a destructive way and is therefore itself a danger to public health. If people want to plant gardens, or "eat organic" - whatever that is - or "eat local" - whatever that is - and fantasize about some idyllic picture of farming, they are free to do that. But when they present that as an alternative to a serious public agricultural programs, they do all of us a terrible disservice.
This summer I've been enjoying the great produce from the 'organic' (oops) farm stand down the road from here. I try to plan ahead, so that I reduce the trips I make in my '96 Jetta (not Lexus). The produce is great, and I was feeling pretty good about buying there until I read the response from "Two Americas" to the above informative article. Now, I'm feeling kind of elitist and bourgeois. Maybe I would enjoy this food more if it were grown on a collective farm or kibbutz, I don't know. Confusing.
Seriously, it would be illuminating, TA, if you would expand on what would be, in your opinion, the ideal American agricultural/ economic/ transportation system. Life's for learnin', after all.
da-veed
No worries. It is not about personal choice or lifestyle. That was my point. When personal choice is substituted for public agricultural policy and infrastructure, or presented as a solution to problems of food safety and distribution, that leads to thinking that supports the right wing libertarian free market, privatization, and individualism ideas.
"Seriously, it would be illuminating, TA, if you would expand on what would be, in your opinion, the ideal American agricultural/ economic/ transportation system. Life's for learnin', after all."
Public ownership of agricultural land, food as a right to all citizens, rebuild public transportation, restore funding to the state agricultural departments and the USDA, restore funding to the ag colleges at the Land Grant universities, get the corporations out of research, and government agencies, get Wall Street out of the commodity markets.
I like this very much. I see no problem with this organizational approach, and nationally sponsored "local problem-solving" programs. If not possible, I'd stick with your organizational approach. Both approaches require that the people take back the tool of gov't from wallstreet/boston vault/cityoflondon financier interests.
We actually had a pretty good system that combined local problem solving with a nationalized approach in the form of Farm Credit, the USDA, Land Grant colleges, cooperative and extension services and state agriculture departments. The collapse of funding and creeping privatization has been weakening that system at a time when it needs to be strengthened.
The problem with the food activists' approach is that it is based on consumer choice and entrepreneurial models - no one should be offered dangerous or substandard "choices" and entrepreneurship is unreliable for protection of the public welfare - and it creates a two=tier food system - one for the better off and another for the rest of us.
I agree. I'm actually a fan of progress made in post-Lincoln(populist & greenback party ideas anyway), and FDR-LBJ eras. I believe the pendulum of time is swinging back to these eras. Basically , just reviving FDR's slate of reforms would solve probably 80 per cent of our problems. Where he intended to go after WWII (he would have been prez until january '49', and probably would have won ANOTHER term too) would have solved the other 20% of the problems. Better late, than never. Tangentially, if Lincoln had survived, he would have pursued FDR-type policies, and we'd be having our 21st century in the 20th. Had he survived,we might have averted the world wars, the reds, and the cold war, and (with help from our ally russia & a newly formed, carey & lizt-influenced germany)brought the imperial/colonial powers to heel; and we wouldn't be having this conversation about privatisation & a global criminal financier empire.
oops. I meant to say "henry c carey", and "friedrich list"