Week 3 on the Farm 2016: More About Microbes, Soil, and Seeds!

Weather Forecast: Tuesday, 47 degrees F, partly cloudy; Wednesday, 55 degrees F, afternoon sun.

It looks like we're going to get Spring back this week--hooray! The big question is when the soil will dry and warm enough so that we can begin working the garden beds. My guess is that won't happen before Tuesday. That's okay, though, since it will give me a chance to let you Tuesday folks play around with seed starting and vermicompost.

If you didn't yet watch the vermicompost video I posted last week, here it is again: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/vermicompost.htm.

And here's a nice overview of factors to consider when starting seeds indoors (you can develop your own version of their "garden planner"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWCIaydwM_w&nohtml5=False.

Wednesday people, we'll have to see what the weather does to us. If it's dry enough, we may be able to start working up garden beds. If not, we may spend some of our afternoon in the orchard. We'll talk a bit about how managing perennial crops like fruit takes a slightly different approach than managing annual vegetables.

We're currently transitioning the orchard from a non-organic to an organic management system. As we're working this transition, can you guess one part of the orchard we're paying special attention to?

You're right, it's the soil!! And can you guess what part of the soil we're especially concerned about?

If you guessed "microbes," then you've been paying attention the past couple of weeks. Here are a couple of 5 minute videos by organic orchardist and educator Micheal Phillips that describe the sort of soil biology we are trying to foster on the orchard floor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-zi-6YrIE&nohtml5=False

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJugfnZWhVY&nohtml5=False

We'll have you help us with a project we're working on to help nurture those good fungi that Phillips talks about.

Finally, here's a link to an abbreviated interview with Robin Wall Kimmerer that I think many of you will enjoy given our conversation on campus last week. In it, she talks a bit about the intersections of science and traditional ecological knowledge:  http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/484/two_ways_of_knowing. I hope we can talk some more about this over the next two months.

We'll see you soon!

Marie's Post: Who Says What You Grow?

Last week in class, I brought up something that I realized I didn't know that much about: farm subsidies.  I've spent the past few days in a mad dash to educate myself on them in order to introduce my topic for this week's discussion: farm subsidies and the distribution of land in the United States!  This may seem a little dry, but I hope we're in for some passionate discussion.  (If you knew as little about farm subsidies as I did, here's a quick and semi-illustrated account of the history of farm subsidies in the US.)

My mother's family hails from rural Ohio; they own land that was once a family farm in Jefferson County, right on the border with West Virginia.  Even during its most active days, the farm was by no means industrial.  However, they had plenty of tractors, seeds, and various fertilizers.  The current emptiness of the land always seemed confusing to me when it was combined with the discussion I heard of the poverty of the surrounding area.  If people are hungry, why not grow food?  That's what the land is for, right?  While this post won't focus on rural poverty (which is still an important issue!), it does have to do with the accessibility of food.  Despite the food desert, I'm fairly certain that my family periodically receives a small check in exchange for the dormant land.  But why this land, in this community?  Admittedly, I'm a little fuzzy on the details of the selection process.  But I have downloaded the Farm Service Agency's 2015 report of crop acreage data in the US.  Our federal government keeps a detailed record of how many farms the country has, how big they are, and what they're growing.

And just what are they growing?  Here's where the calorie and nutrient math of our country gets a little more skewed.  One half of the farmland in the US is dedicated to growing corn and soy (the latter is grown mainly to restore nutrients into the soil for growing more corn).  The Washington Post has an interesting article discussing the crops that are and are not subsidized.  On one hand, the subsidies are designed to help farmers, but do they help society?  In what ways, and by whose measure?  My background in economics isn't super strong, but I find the discussion of so-called "specialty crops" to be fascinating.  Because our food system has been designed to favor "commodity crops", there simply isn't market demand to support an increase in the production of these crops.  A change in the funding must be paired with changes in the food processing and distribution methods, and even more changes down the line.

Finally, I want to turn our attention to non-food crops, often leftover subsidized corn and soy.  This can include crops which eventually eat, but are unable to do so in their freshly-picked state.  For example, number two corn is one of the most planted crops in the country, despite being unfit for direct human consumption.  Though corn is one of the most calorie-dense foods we've domesticated, we've found a way to further concentrate its energy content into high fructose corn syrup, feedstocks for animals, and the wide array of processed treats that they make up.  However, some crops are grown with no intention of human consumption.  Another possible for the corn we grow is to be ethanol, processed to allow it to be burned in combustion engines.  Not only is there no nutritional benefit, but its use also serves to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.  Maybe this was implied, but I'm not a huge supporter of ethanol production.

I'd like to introduce a second category of food-grown-but-not-for-food: biomaterials.  These materials go into a variety of consumer products, often replacing plastics synthesized using fossil fuels.  Crops can also be grown to replace other crops.  For example, companies are searching for alternate sources of natural rubber, as the rubber we currently used is grown in plantations where rainforests once stood.  Obviously, full recycling is the ideal solution, but recycled polymers are often of a lower quality than the initial product.  Here's a quick NPR story on corporate sustainability more generally.  (Full disclosure: I worked down the hall from Debbie, the soy bean innovator, this summer; she's really cool.)  This leads us to another question: is corporate sustainability attainable, or is it simply an oxymoron?  If we're already dedicating farm land to growing soy, it's important to grow a market for it in tandem.  However, if the market for soy is destroyed, it would free farmers to grow food for people to eat.

Though I've asked a lot of questions throughout, I'll close with the ones listed earlier and a few more! Feel free to respond to these, or with any other thoughts you have.

1. Should the United States government continue to subsidize domestic crops?  If so, who should be writing the program, and how should its success be measured?  Ultimately, who should decide what crops grown in the United States?
2. As college students, is it possible for us to enact policy changes?  How can we use this privilege effectively, and how should we?  Will policy changes yield positive results?
3. Share your thoughts on corporate sustainability.  Is this productive?  Is this possible?  If we are to continue to exist within a capitalistic framework, is there a way we can reduce waste and pollution in industry? 

Emma's Post: American Food Culture

Hey guys!  So I touched on this during Edwin and Maddie’s discussion but I would like to take the time to unpack the question of how American culture impacts the problems of how we eat and produce food a bit more.  I also think it is important that we keep the themes brought up in Edwin and Maddie’s discussion in the back of our minds; choosing to eat a certain way is an issue of availability and much much more.  So when we discuss the issues of American culture we should be keeping these ideas in mind.  Before I rant too much, please read this interview with the wonderful Michael Pollan to give us a base of understanding:

http://www.alternet.org/story/65379/michael_pollan%3A_americans'_unhealthy_relationship_with_food

So we have no cuisine.  I think this boils down to many different things: the fact that America is a land of immigrants, bringing a variety of food traditions from abroad.  As the article discussed, I think it is because of this misconception that the “best” food is the worst for you.  And there is of course the American mentality-created by our capitalist system-that we need to constantly be doing as much in as little time as possible (hence the reminder in the title of our class “Slow Farming” that that is a system we need to push back against).

As I mentioned in class, this realization of our food culture tying directly to our work culture dawned on me while studying abroad in France.  Every day my host mom would walk to the boulangerie (the bakery) to buy fresh baguettes.  She may stop at a fromagerie to find a cheese to pair with it.  As I walked to school early in the morning I could see the bakers in the apartments over their stores already busy at work making the fresh foods for the day.  You didn’t go to the Kroger’s; you went to specialty stores with local fresh foods.

This is a luxury of their culture.  We don’t have bakeries on every corner in America, and even if we did most of us wouldn’t feel we had the time to go to five different stores for our food consumption.  We would rather go to one giant chain grocery store where we can find all we need, even if that means buying processed foods made thousands of miles away.  In France, it is illegal to make employees work more than 35 hours a week.  It is illegal to make workers work on Sundays.  Their lunch breaks are long enough, both in the office and for the children at school, that the family can walk home and enjoy a nice long family meal before returning to work.  If we contrast this to the American system, there are people looking for any chance they can to work more than 40 hours so they can make overtime.  In American cafeterias children have about 30 minutes to scarf down their meals as quickly as possible before returning to class.  The importance of taking the time to create and eat wonderful and healthy meals conflicts directly with the American system in which you must work as hard as you can as quickly as you can just to get by.  Tackling the many many ways this is so is far much more than can be covered in the blog post BUT it is addressed very well in the documentary Food Inc (which I am sure many of you are familiar with).  If you haven’t seen it I thoroughly suggest it.  It is on Netflix.  If you don’t have time or if you are like me and have seen it but need a refresher, watch this trailer (and look out for Michael Pollan’s brief appearance): http://michaelpollan.com/videos/food-inc/

Okay, so this blog is clearly biased.  I am not trying to necessarily make a plea for a socialist government like France but I do think we need to deeply consider the ways our capitalist system encourages unhealthy food culture.  Our money channeling into the hands of a small few makes the working class have to struggle to get by and makes small farmers fall victim to these corporations.  There is a reason America is the most obese country in the world.  Our culture in terms of work ethic and mentality around food has encouraged this.  Feel free to disagree and if you do I would love to hear your arguments in class on Thursday! In the mean time I would love to hear your response to one or more of the following questions.  If you choose not to address any of these questions still keep it in the back of your mind as we will discuss these more on Thursday.

1)   Do you agree with the statement that American culture has no cuisine?  If you had to describe American as a type of cuisine how would you describe it?

2)   For those who have studied abroad or have experiences interacting with different cultures, did you have a similar experience of questioning our food system in contrast to these cultures?  What did your experience with different food cultures reveal to you about our own?

3)   Do you agree with this argument that the problem with eating in America stems from issues of our government/capitalist structure?  Or even if you do agree do you think it is much more complicated than that?  What is the opposing view to this argument (I think our deepest understanding of an issue often comes from debate rather than everyone in agreement so even if you don’t disagree, feel free to still play devil’s advocate)?

4)   What are some arguments that can be made to the claim that our societal structure is having an impact on the way we eat?  Can you think of examples in your own lives?  How have you experienced American culture impacting the way you eat in a negative way?

Maddie's Post: Reading Our Class, Our School, and Ourselves in Context

Happy April, everyone! Here is a uh kinda ridiculously lengthy post for you all… Note that I’m only asking you to read an additional two-page-long article, though, so it all evens out. :)

The main purpose of the Thursday discussion will be to get us grounded (ha), or rooted (haha), in who we are and where we’re coming from, in a few really specific ways, and in relation to larger systems of power. This post should provide an interesting framework for that. First, we’ll have a discussion about discussions, and about knowledge. Second, we have all probably heard about some of the many systemic injustices that pervade conventional agriculture and food production/consumption. Rather than focus on that, then, there is a brief article to read that offers a very broad overview of racism and capitalism in the contemporary food movement (towards the bottom of the post).

Why discuss discussion? Granted, our conversation last class was the first one of the quarter, but it’s interesting how disjointed it felt to me, jumping, for instance, from indigenous creation stories about corn to explanations of GMOs, without much of a bridge between the two–that is, without a common language accessable to all of us at once–without even a common starting point, for example a collectively-understood definition of GMO. While I hope we will have some common starting points in future discussions, the challenge of the conversation speaks to larger phenomena at play that I’d like to unpack.

Looking through the seed catalogs, I couldn’t find a reliable definition of GMO there either–it’s not just us, it’s that meanings of words are slippery, change over time, and change depending on context. Ask yourself: what field of study is the expert in who you trust to give you the correct definition? Ask someone else, and you may get a different answer. Different experts in different fields prioritize different questions, have different goals, and as a result, will get dramatically different answers. While there are definitely places and times to act on one’s intellectual and emotional knowledge, and to act with passion and conviction, there is no single “truth” we can ever really settle into. This is important. At the same time, I think there is a cultural romanticization of science, data, knowledge that purports to be exceptionally and undeniably factual. The scientific method should work such that research resulting in evidence-based theories doesn’t get treated like invulnerable Truth; culturally though, it frequently seems to. Then when scientific research is funded by corporate conglomerates, that makes the results all the more determined by the goals of the company (usually profit) rather than in pursuit of knowledge for humanitarian or other reasons. Anyway, all that is to say it’s not just a matter of two equally-valued different sorts of knowledge, but rather that some sorts are much more highly valued than others, on a societal level. Last class, I remember John stressing the need for exactly the sorts of open conversations that can be so difficult to engage in, given that we come to this interdisciplinary class from such different entrypoints. If we are willing to actively listen to ideas/knowledge that we may not understand and that may even make us uncomfortable, if we ask questions rather than just thinking of how to respond, I think our diversity of experience and knowledge can be a real strength.

Now I would like to offer some context for our differences in academic knowledge. My own learning experience has been firmly situated in the humanities–specifically in English–with AnSo, Poli Sci, and other courses here and there. I took one physics class, first year, and quickly realized it was not for me. At K, as in the world at large, it can be easy to get anchored in one discipline or body of knowledge, and to trust that as the most accurate, nuanced, or well-articulated worldview. It can feel good to be anchored. How I see the world is very much shaped by specific literary and cultural theories that deeply resonated with me when I learned about them in class. But there are limitations to any knowledge base.

What I find really fascinating here is that the very separation of the disciplines is a product– of history, politics, culture… Science and philosophy, math and religion, literature and visual art– none of these are intrinsically or naturally separate from each other. The categories we use to differentiate types of knowledge are themselves culturally constructed. This rings true at K: we can see its breakdown in certain cross-disciplinary SIPs, in the combination of Anthropology and Sociology into one (AnSo) department, in the interdisciplinary course requirements for many of the Concentrations offered, in the cross-listing of certain classes in the course catalog.

A number of scholars have pointed out that the apparent separateness of the academic disciplines is part of the phenomenon of Eurocentrism: the valuing of (Western) European ideas, cultural norms, etc. and its corrollary, the devaluing of ideas, cultural norms, etc. emerging from other peoples in other parts of the world (and too, I would guess, from marginalized communities in Europe). There is also the trend of taking the ideas, etc. that are valued in the Eurocentric model, from non-European peoples, and repackaging them to be presented as European. This is all, of course, set against the background of European imperialism and colonialism.

One manifestation of Eurocentrism in our own education is that–even given the examples of interdisciplinarity at K that I just mentioned–we generally take for granted this particular division of disciplines. We have come to see as “natural” or “universal” divisions of knowledge that actually have specific geographical, political, cultural roots in Europe. For late philosopher Georg Lukacs, “modern intellectual life is based on the analysis of the world into separate categories, and the discourse that develop around them cannot be reintegrated into a conception of a whole” (Hostettler, Nick, Eurocentrism: A Marxian Critical Realist Critique, 10). Some argue that even “the basic categories of modern discourse are contradictory;” so when we try to have a discussion from two standpoints, say, one based in theories of science and one in theories of art, that each side is coming to the table with such vastly different questions, language, and purposes, that their differences may be irreconcilable (Hostettler 10). Then there’s the concept of modernity. Closely tied to Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution Era emphasis on reason, science, quick economic and technological progress, the idea of the modern immediately (dis)places some communities back in time, relegating them in the (Eurocentric/mainstream) imaginary to a space of pre-history that does not offer useful knowledge in the present day, or to “humankind” at large.

Communities whose traditional knowledge/culture doesn’t fit neatly in (and hasn’t been totally subsumed into) the Eurocentric system of categorization, particularly communities of color, grapple with the effects of this and many other manifestations of white supremacy daily. One commonality among various groups of color though, seems to be the consistant devaluing (by those in positions of political, social, cultural power, and by the dominant culture as a whole,) of the knowledge within these communities, and a rejection of that knowledge (along with the people) as viable, valuable, useful, beautiful, good, or worth listening to.

I see what I’ve just laid out as a pretty key component of the backdrop for this class. The history of Eurocentrism does not go away but reverberates and haunts, even where it is not obvious, such as in the organization of disciplines and the ways we are implicitly taught to value knowledge. This is just one example of the ways in which systemic issues touch each of our lives at K College, to shape the way we think and feel and categorize the world. As much as I believe my time at K has taught me how to think critically, I can’t divorce that from the larger context. We are always implicated–in different, yet overlapping iterations–in the workings of complex systems of power as they move through time, space, bodies, institutions, discourse. I think we must be aware of this context in order to begin to think about the specific issues we’ll be getting into in this class: food justice, food sovereignty, local food, sustainable or regenerative growing practices, etc. etc.

In the following article, Eric Holt-Giménez glosses the global (and U.S.-focused) connections between capitalism, racism, food, and agriculture, placing emphasis on alternative food movements. He argues that “understanding why, where, and how racism manifests itself in the food system, recognizing it within our movement and our organizations and within ourselves, is not extra work for transforming our food system; it is the work” (Holt-Giménez 24). So please read the article, and keep in mind, just for yourself, where you might place yourself and the communities you are part of in the context of some of the systems/structures that Holt-Giménez brings up:

http://www.agdevjournal.com/attachments/article/522/JAFSCD-Holt-Gimenez-Summit-Commentary-March-2015.pdf

What might be called the mainstream alternative food/agriculture movement in the United States has been critiqued from many angles, though largely for being elitist: mostly white, upper middle class, and college educated. This critique is valid, though it is limited in its own ways. To give us some inter“generational” dialogue... Kacey, who took this class a year ago, pointed out in her comments on “Week 3 Discussion Hannah's Post” (posted to the class blog on April 8, 2015) something that resonates with Holt-Giménez. She wrote: “it is interesting that we focus on one conception of the food movement, the white one, because there have been historically, and are still today, so many powerful movements around issues of food access and food sovereignty within communities of color. I think the question is not why is the food movement white, but why are we only focusing on the white food movement?”

I think that in order to work through hard discussions, to answer Kacey’s question, and to work towards building just food systems, we must look inward, to our own experiences related not just to food but to larger systems of power, and we must look outward, to historical trends and cultural norms that play a part in shaping how we engage in the world.

Guiding Questions for Reflection (feel free to address any of these):

• What has your academic experience at K been like? What sort of knowledge is comfortable to you and what do you struggle to understand or connect with?
• Is it possible to build common knowledge and communicate with each other across disciplines, across experiences, across cultural differences, across histories? How might we (in our lil class) do this?

• Besides the separation of academic disciplines, where else can you find traces (or way more than traces) of systemic racism (connected to all the other isms, of course) in your day-to-day life–at or outside of K College–and how might those impact the way that you interact with food systems, and with different types of knowledge?

Edwin’s Post: Where to Begin?

“Food access is not simply a health issue but also a community development and equity issue. For this reason, access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food is a key component not only in a healthy, sustainable local food system, but also in a healthy, sustainable community.” (https://www.planning.org/research/foodaccess/)

The city of Angeles is home to one of the biggest disparities visible in wealth and education. In certain parts of the city, all that divides an affluent community from an underprivileged neighborhood is one block. Side by side, the poor eat with the rich, yet food access and consequent groceries are drastically different. For many low income families who are short on time and energy, their only salvation is the brightest fast food sign. This alone raises many questions on food affordability, food deserts, food swamps (geographic areas marked by high densities of unhealthy food options), grocery store demographics, and general food access. Education is also another major factor contributing to food choice, but where do you begin? Google? How would you go by in explaining our current food system to people who have limited knowledge on the subject and little time? Would it be enough to know you should eat organic, if there isn’t anything organic for miles? Even then, could you afford it? Fellow Angelenos have tried answering these questions in very creative practical ways. Check out Ron Finley and his urban gardening solution. 

https://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la?language=en

For this week’s question, if you were assigned as a farm-to-fork educator for a new Los Angeles healthy eating program for the youth, what would you include in Farming 101, both in theory and in practice? Your lesson plan should be between 200-350 words, since the youth have short attention spans and include at least one hands-on activity.

Week 2 on the Farm 2016: Seed-saving, Soil Prep, Vermicompost

Weather Forecast: Tuesday, 45 degrees F, mostly sunny. Wednesday, 47 degrees F, 100% chance of rain.

This week we'll begin our on-farm class by taking a look at our CSA production plan and talking a bit about how we choose what to plant--and when and where. We'll take another look at the seed catalogs and share with you how being organic growers influences our choices about what types of seeds we plant. This will give us the opportunity to revisit current issues in seed production, including controversies around seed patenting and GMOs. And we'll share with you details of a tomato-breeding project that we took part in last year that we hope will clear up any remaining confusion about the differences between heirlooms, hybrids, and open-pollinated plant varieties.

For a demonstration of techniques we used to save tomato seeds during this project, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0HnuwfLGPw

This article from the Virginia Quarterly Review is a little long, but it gives a good recent history of the struggle to control agricultural genetics and describes an organization that's developed in the past couple of years dedicated to "freeing the seed": http://www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2014/05/linux-lettuce.

If the weather people are correct, Tuesday and Wednesday are going to be very different days, weather-wise!

Tuesday folks, it sounds like you are going to have a sunny afternoon. We'll spend time in the garden behind the house preparing beds for planting. You'll get to try out one of my favorite tools, the broadfork. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFGHH-5boBI.

Wednesday people, you're gonna get rain. So we'll most likely be indoors. You'll get to play with our soil-blockers as you help us plant kale seeds. And, I'll teach you a different method of composting using redworms. Learn about the benefits of using vermicompost in this video: http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/vermicompost.htm.

See you soon!