Terroir Seeds | Underwood Gardens
  • Website Home
  • Shop Seeds
  • Garden Q & A
  • Growing Guides
    • Vegetables
    • Herbs
    • Flowers
    • Monthly Garden Almanac
    • Garden Journal
    • Seed Germination
  • Garden Health
    • Soil Health
    • Pest, Weed, and Disease Management
  • Garden Wisdom
  • Recipes
  • About Us
  • Contact Us & FAQ
  • Newsletter
  • Menu Menu

Tag Archive for: News

Garden Advice

Bountiful Baskets- A Hidden Treasure


Fresh Veggies (and Fruit) For Less Than $1/Lb In 2011?

Is that even possible? Is it legal? How can I get in on that deal?

These are some of the questions that were going through our minds when we read about Bountiful Baskets Co-op in an article by Molly Beverly, the chef at Prescott College. The approach is very unique, being “This is a grass roots, all volunteer, no contracts, no catch co-operative.”

The offering is open from noon on Mondays MST to Tuesday 10PM MST. You select the basket of the week, which is about 50% mixed veggies and fruit, then choose if you want one of the special weekly packs. Then you pay the $3.00 First Time Basket fee, with a $1.50 transaction fee to cover the costs of the website and credit card fees. From there Sally and Tanya- the ladies responsible for making this incredible operation work- spring into action, buying the produce and getting the transportation arranged in time for everything to show up at your local pick up location by 7AM that Saturday. You have a 20 minute window to pick up your basket, so make sure to be on time. They are extremely efficient, with our local pick up having about 100 baskets that fly out in less than 20 minutes. There was  a short wait time the first week, as we arrived about 10 minutes early, but they were open early the second week, with us being in and out in less than 10 minutes. That included picking up a total of 3 baskets (for family and a friend) and 10 Lbs of Organic Heirloom Tomatoes! Try for that time at your local grocery store!

 

Weekly Bountiful Baskets offering

Weekly Bountiful Baskets offering

The weekly basket is $15.00 and is aimed at providing you with about $50.00 worth of grocery store quality produce. There is often the option to upgrade to all organic for $10.00 extra.  Any special weekly packs are priced separately, but carry the same great deal as the baskets. Our first week we had a hard time trying to keep up with the extra fruit and vegetables, and finished most, but not all of it before the next Saturday. You don’t have to get a basket every week, and some couples are on an every other week schedule as they don’t eat all of it in one week.

Our first week we got the weekly basket, an Italian pack and a box of Asparagus. The basket had a great selection of crisp, fresh greens and fruit. All of it was a much better quality and flavor than we have been seeing in the grocery store at better prices. The Italian pack had several fresh herbs- generous quantities of Rosemary, Thyme, Basil, Oregano, Flat Leaf Parsley as well as garlic, a couple of onions, baby portabello and regular mushrooms- all for $7.50. 15 pounds of fresh, crisp, young and tasty Asparagus for $22.00 is a screaming deal! We shared the bunches of  Asparagus with friends and family, enjoyed it in frittatas, pickled it, sauteed it in butter, and still had some left over at the end of the week.

For our second go round, we chose the basket and split a 10 Lb case of Organic Heirloom Tomatoes from Mexico. Living in Arizona, that isn’t too bad, considering the time of year. The quality and amount of absolutely fresh veggies and fruit was amazing, from the crisp leaf lettuce, spinach, bananas, another bundle of young Asparagus, carrots, apples, fresh ripe Mangoes, vine tomatoes, celery, sweet potatoes, zucchini and a ripe cantaloupe. The heirloom tomatoes were ripe and ready for use, which is impressive. The second week’s basket weighed in at 21Lbs, for a cost of 71.4 cents a pound for fresh, crisp, ripe and tasty produce. I believe our first week’s basket was 20 Lbs. Please show me a better deal on fresh food!

Box from Bountiful Baskets

Box from Bountiful Baskets

Bountiful Baskets is in 10 states helping over 70,000 families get higher quality food at great prices each week through a unique business model. Just in Arizona there are about 80 locations. There is a volunteer coordinator at each location who is the driving force. Everyone is a volunteer, no one gets paid. This is a co-operative effort to source better food at better prices for all who participate.

In order to get started, go to Bountiful Baskets, and register for a free account. Do this before you want to get your order in, to save time and find out where your local pick up is at. Then from noon MST each Monday to 10 PM MST each Tuesday, log in and see what is on offer for the week. Make your choice, pay your money and show up at the pickup location at the proper time to get you basket of goodies. It is best to bring a basket to carry all of it in- trust me, you’ll need it! Take your treasure home and amaze your friends and family at the fresh taste and flavors you found with Bountiful Baskets.

This is just one of several similar programs around the country that give you other options to the usual grocery store stroll. Your local Farmer’s Market is one, but is usually seasonal, and isn’t a supermarket. Azure Standard is another well established program that not only delivers fresh, organic produce at less than conventional grocery store prices, but also acts as a supermarket, selling dishwasher detergent, parchment baking sheets and apple sauce along with organic avocados and apples.

There are probably several others that we are just not aware of, but the point is that there are plenty of options to eating fresh, tasty food at better prices than what you are used to seeing in the grocery store. It does take a little planning, but if you are saving 50-75% on your weekly food bill, isn’t it worth a bit of your time? With fuel prices and food prices headed only upwards, finding ways to save on your food without eating junk is becoming increasingly important. Planting a garden will pay you about 10 times the cost of the seeds you plant. If you spend $100 on seeds, the average garden will save (or pay) you about $1000 in the cost of the same quality fresh produce from your grocery store and taste better. Using one of these afore-mentioned co-operatives for the weekly veggies is yet another way to save money and increase the quality of your food, especially on things that don’t grow well in your garden.

Eating much better for much less is something that most people will be very interested in!

 

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Bountiful-Baskets1.jpg 500 750 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2011-03-30 18:51:122024-04-30 17:34:03Bountiful Baskets- A Hidden Treasure
Garden Advice

Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food? Part II

Organic Certification?


Yesterday was the first part of the examination of the answer to the question that many have asked throughout the years. Today we finish with the article and look at some points that it raised.

Acres USA originally published this article, and is used here from their Reprint Archives. This is the second of two segments. Our comments and notes will be inserted throughout.

Mary-Howell Martens is admired and recognized as one of the nation’s pioneering leaders in sustainable agriculture.

Together with her husband Klaas, Ms. Martens owns and operates Lakeview Organic Grain in Penn Yan, New York, one of the Northeast’s largest and most successful organic grain businesses.  Started in 1991, the Martens’ 1400-acre farm and feed mill, which they work with their children Peter, Elizabeth, and Daniel, and 10 employees, currently supplies organic feed and seed to over 300 organic livestock farmers in New York and Pennsylvania.

Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food? Part II

by Mary-Howell R. Martens

Animal nutritionists have noted a drop in nutritional quality of animal feed, especially corn and forages, over the past 25 years. Dave Mattocks of the Fertrell Company in Bainbridge, Pennsylvania, has been formulating animal rations for many years. He reports that he has had to continually increase quantity of protein sources in animal rations in order to maintain a constant level of protein. He feels that this reflects that the average protein level in grain has been dropping. When plants are induced to produce more quantity (higher yield), it is usually at the expense of something else, in this case, certain key molecules that affect quality and nutrition. Confirmation of this observation would probably be available if one took the time to sort through and analyze the reams of data that forage analysis labs have collected over the past 25 years.

Indirectly related to observations about declining feed quality, an article in the March 25, 2000 issue of Science News described research that showed that plants growing with increased air CO2 levels (as is possible in the future with the greenhouse gas effect) do indeed grow faster and produce more carbohydrates, but the protein levels are lower. Insects feeding on these plants eat excessively but grow poorly. Sheep eating such plants eat less, grow poorly, and digest their food more slowly, probably because the essential bacteria in the ruminant gut are themselves protein deficient and malnourished. This is important research that needs to be considered for several critical reasons. First, of course, because the Earth’s atmosphere is changing and we need to anticipate how this may effect vegetation and the organisms that feed on the vegetation. Secondly, this research can offer valuable insight into the critical factor of genotype-x environment interaction, a factor which is largely being overlooked in the biotech and Green Revolution discussions.

Regardless of all the other issues involved with genetically engineered crops, it seems logical that unless we pay attention to the soil and other environmental factors first, efforts to improve yield, nutrient content, or pest resistance of crops through genetics alone will be far less successful than they might be. Results obtained on well-managed research farms may not be repeatable on poorer soils that are not being as intensively managed. Most crops have far more genetic potential than they are able to express already. Producing high yields on poor soils without maintaining fertility levels will only postpone famine until the soil becomes exhausted. We should not see genetics alone as the solution to management problems, as a way that allows farmers to continue poor production practices on their farms. Many American farmers face a corn borer problem because they don’t rotate properly and use other practices, such as no-till, that allow large pest populations to build. Bt corn makes it easier to continue poor management practices, at least until pest populations develop resistance. Obviously, new traits could then be engineered into corn to control the resistant pests, but the underlying problem is still not being addressed by this approach.

Often, when discussions of the relative nutritional merits of organic versus conventional food come up, someone will invariably quote a 1948 study by Dr. Firman Bear at Rutgers University. Unfortunately, using this research to support any such claims is quite incorrect, because this study did not compare organic and conventional food. Instead, it compared crops grown in mineral versus organic (muck) soils, it had nothing to do with use of chemicals. However, perhaps Dr. Bear did get it right on one point. The research showed that the composition of the soil has a major and readily detectable influence on the mineral content and the nutritional quality of food. By better understanding the role that a healthy, microbially active soil can make on nutritional quality of plants, perhaps then we then can design agricultural systems that will maximize this. On an organic farm, careful attention is placed on improving soil quality, increasing soil organic matter, and enhancing soil microbial life, crops are carefully rotated and soil is specifically amended to balance all aspects of soil fertility. It makes logical sense to conclude that plants produced under such a system could indeed be more flavorful and nutritious.

Copyright © 2000 Acres U.S.A.

All rights reserved.

Some comments and thoughts. First off, I agree with what is being said here, mainly that we shouldn’t be caught up in the “organic by default” trap that is so easy to fall into. What is meant by that is the simple absence of anything considered harmful does not equal healthy food. Simply because no pesticides, herbicides, fungicides,  chemical fertilizers, etc. etc. haven’t been applied, does not mean it is tasty and healthy. If nothing at all has been done to or with the soil, does that automatically mean all is well? Not really- there is much to be done in improving the fecundity of the soil including biological as well as structural improvements, organic matter, re-mineralization and nutrient balancing. Who would you want to eat produce from, one who has done nothing and calls it “organic” or one who has increased the biological health of their soil through careful and well researched amendments and inputs that are non-chemical in nature?

“There have been few studies that directly contrast the chemistry of conventional food to organic food.” Gosh, I wonder why… who normally funds such research? The Corporate Abgribusiness are not in the slightest interested if organic food is better, because that is not what they are in the business of.

“…over a two-year period, average levels of essential minerals were much higher in the organically grown apples, pears, potatoes and corn as compared to conventionally produced products. The organically grown food averaged higher in calcium, chromium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium and zinc, and lower in mercury and aluminum. A more recent study out of Australia showed a similar difference between calcium and magnesium levels in organic and non-organic food.” Yet when research is done, it conclusively shows that there are many more minerals that are essential for our health in organic, sustainably raised food.

“Weibel found interesting correlations between the microbial activity in the soil, a condition closely associated with organic management, and the nutritional status of the apples, especially the phosphorus level.” This is a perfect point of healthy soils equal much healthier produce. The correlation can be furthered to include healthier people from eating healthier produce… “This corroborates work done by Elaine Ingham at Oregon State University, who has shown that corn and grape plants grown in association with mycorrhizal fungi produce fruit with higher protein levels.” Mycorrhizal fungi are symbiotic fungi that greatly increase the nutrient uptake in plants and are essential to having biologically living, healthy soil.

“Regardless of all the other issues involved with genetically engineered crops, it seems logical that unless we pay attention to the soil and other environmental factors first, efforts to improve yield, nutrient content, or pest resistance of crops through genetics alone will be far less successful than they might be.” Really? Do ya really think? Common sense would dictate that to ignore the very foundation of agriculture- the soil- would be to invite disaster on the scale of many of the world’s other civilizations that ignored their soil. Almost without fail, they do not exist anymore. Those that do are on such a diminished scale in comparison to where they used to be in production as to be almost unbelievable. Who would call Iran, Iraq and Syria “The fertile crescent” or “Breadbasket of the world” today? These are just 3 examples of those that have managed to survived the loss of their soils.

This is a great article that not only introduces some reasoned, rational thought to the perennial question of nutrition, it also introduces many to the thought of what does the term “organic” really mean, and what is it made up of? I really hope this raises more questions than answers and sets you on a direction of learning more about what you eat, where it comes from and how is it raised. Only by answering these and many other questions can you be a true part of the solution of helping to create more demand for healthy, nourishing, sustainably raised food.

Yes, this is work, it takes time, thought and energy, but unless you want to just sit back and consume whatever is sent your way by the advertising and corporate agribusiness giants, this is the only way.

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/certified-organic.jpg 250 250 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2010-12-19 08:00:562024-04-30 17:34:03Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food? Part II
Garden Advice

Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food?

Organic Certification?


Organic or Conventional?

This question is often asked, not only by those who are starting their reading and research into healthier foods, but by almost everyone at some point who actually stops and thinks about their food. This exact question has been the center of debate between the chemical and biological or sustainable agriculture communities for some years now. Those with large advertising budgets have spent dump truck loads of cash selling the public on the idea that there is no difference between spraying a custom mixed chemical slurry onto the soil and using compost, re-mineralization, green manures, proper crop rotation and building the soil health biologically. In fact, the advertising has sold the public and many farmers that the biological method is simply a waste of time and money. We are beginning to know better now.

The large Agribusiness companies are surprised and a little bit worried at the steady double digit growth of local and organic farming, and the reasoned, educated and dedicated support of that agricultural model through Farmer’s Markets, CSA’s, community gardening and farm shares. It can’t be ignored or brushed aside any more.  Many think that the Food Safety Modernization Act- S.510- is a large scale effort to seriously hamper the growth of  local biological agriculture. While a very small percentage of the total market share, the growth of local agriculture has the industry giants concerned, because if only 5-7 percent of the current market departed, that would mean losses in the tens of millions of dollars for them. That is completely unacceptable for the corporations, and their shareholders that control modern Agribusiness.

We wanted to present an article from one who is recognized as being quite knowledgeable in the field. From a basis of formal education leading to real world advisory positions in policy making governmental departments, she has the foundational knowledge to be able to speak authoritatively on the subject. Her own experiences as an award winning organic grain farmer who also educates others how to produce abundance without the chemicals now thought to be essential to successful large scale agriculture uniquely qualifies her to be able to speak on both sides of this question.

Acres USA originally published this article, and is used here from their Reprint Archives. This is a long article, and will be broken up into two successive segments. Our comments and notes will be included at the end of the article.

Mary-Howell Martens is admired and recognized as one of the nation’s pioneering leaders in sustainable agriculture.

Together with her husband Klaas, Ms. Martens owns and operates Lakeview Organic Grain in Penn Yan, New York, one of the Northeast’s largest and most successful organic grain businesses.  Started in 1991, the Martens’ 1400-acre farm and feed mill, which they work with their children Peter, Elizabeth, and Daniel, and 10 employees, currently supplies organic feed and seed to over 300 organic livestock farmers in New York and Pennsylvania.

Noted for her wide-ranging efforts to promote sustainable agriculture, Ms. Martens is equally revered throughout the industry for her innovation, leadership, and stewardship.  She  received the prestigious Patrick Madden Award for Sustainable Agriculture in 2008, and has testified before the United States House of Representatives.  She and her husband speak throughout the  United States and Canada on sustainable agriculture and have written many articles on the subject.

In addition to her agribusiness endeavors, Ms. Martens, a graduate of the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, served on the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology from 2000-2002, and on the Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Science’s Dean’s Advisory Committee from 2003-2009.  She is also a member of the New York State Department of Ag and Markets’ Organic Advisory Committee and the Yates County Farm Bureau Board of Directors, in addition to numerous community volunteer efforts.

Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food?

by Mary-Howell R. Martens

Is organic food more nutritious or better tasting than conventionally produced food? This is a question that many people are asking, but unfortunately, there is no simple answer. So much more is involved in the nutritional quality of food than simply comparing organic versus chemical agronomic practices. There is certainly quite a bit of incorrect information, confusion, and wishful thinking on both sides concerning this subject, and probably there is as much variation in food quality produced on different organic farms as there is in the quality of food produced on different conventional farms.

Many people do believe that they can taste a difference between organic and nonorganic food. I usually think I can, but that might be because organic food is often fresher and more likely to be locally produced. Margaret Wittenberg, of Whole Foods Inc., says that in their stores, when customers ask whether organic foods are more nutritious, the company policy is to say that there is no evidence to say that this is true. However, she says that many customers remain unphased with this answer due to their own experiences and perceptions.

Some animals apparently can detect a difference in organic crops by taste. Floyd Hoover, in Penn Yan, New York, grows organic corn. One night he left several ears of conventional and organic corn side by side in his barn. The next morning, the organic corn had been nibbled by mice while the conventional corn had been ignored. Floyd then rearranged the order of the cobs, but still the mice avoided the conventional corn. Finally, he hid the organic corn, but the mice refused to touch the conventional corn. Within a few nights, the mice found the hidden organic corn and had a feast. Anecdotal evidence such as this indicate that for many people and apparently animals too, detectable quality differences do exist. Scientifically, however, it is difficult to draw definitive comparisons about the nutritional quality of conventional and organic food. Many environmental factors influence the nutritional quality and flavor of any type of farm product, including soil type, soil moisture, soil microbial activity, weather and other climatic conditions. Cultural practices, such as crop variety, seed source, length of growing season, irrigation, fertilization, cultivation, and post-harvest handling, will also affect food quality.

There have been few studies that directly contrast the chemistry of conventional food to organic food. Research reported in the Journal of Applied Nutrition showed that on a per-weight basis over a two-year period, average levels of essential minerals were much higher in the organically grown apples, pears, potatoes and corn as compared to conventionally produced products. The organically grown food averaged higher in calcium, chromium, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, phosphorus, potassium and zinc, and lower in mercury and aluminum. A more recent study out of Australia showed a similar difference between calcium and magnesium levels in organic and non-organic food.

Simply knowing the absolute quantity of chemical elements in a food sample may not be particularly revealing if we don’t know what molecules those elements are incorporated into in the food product. The same simple chemical elements may be organized into nutritious and flavorful molecules or may be organized into toxic, unpleasant-tasting molecules, or even into molecules that render plants more susceptible to insects and diseases. Certain amino acids such as proline have been linked to increased insect feeding and egg laying behavior. A plant slightly deficient in potassium may lack enzymes necessary to convert free amino acids into complex proteins. Another plant with adequate potassium might not show detectable differences in overall nitrogen level, but would contain more protein, might be much different in food flavor and quality, and might be much more resistant to insect attack.

It is possible to identify the specific chemical molecules that cause the typical characteristics we call “flavor” or “quality.” These generally are large, complex molecules, such as sugars, proteins, enzymes, esters, and organic acids. In a preliminary study, Dr. Franco Weibel at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Ackerstrasse, Switzerland, compared a variety of parameters in apples grown under organic and conventional conditions, such as mineral elements, sugars, phenols, malic acid, selenium, dietary fiber, and vitamins C and E. Organic fruit also had significantly firmer flesh and better sensory taste evaluations. Weibel found interesting correlations between the microbial activity in the soil, a condition closely associated with organic management, and the nutritional status of the apples, especially the phosphorus level. The actual chemical soil phosphorus level had little impact on fruit nutritional status. This research also found that organic fruit was considerably higher in phenols. Plants naturally synthesize phenols for defense against pests and diseases. Possibly, the unsprayed organic plants were stimulated to make higher levels of these critical molecules in response to pest attack. These phenolic compounds that protect the plant also have been shown to be disease protectants in humans. This corroborates work done by Elaine Ingham at Oregon State University, who has shown that corn and grape plants grown in association with mycorrhizal fungi produce fruit with higher protein levels.

Research conducted at Ohio State University by Dr. Larry Phelan has shown that European corn borer insects given a choice between organic and conventional corn plants avoid the organic plants. His research is continuing to test two hypotheses for these observations. He feels that the organic soils, with a rich microbial population, may release  plant nutrients more evenly over the season, resulting in slower, sturdier plant growth that is more resistant to insect attack. He also believes that the mineral balance of the soil and the plant plays a key role in insect resistance. In either case, the levels of complex molecules and water content in the plant tissue probably determines how tasty the plant is to an insect.

Copyright © 2000 Acres U.S.A.

All rights reserved.

We will continue this article tomorrow.

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/certified-organic.jpg 250 250 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2010-12-18 08:00:222024-04-30 17:34:03Is Organic Food More Nutritious Than Conventional Food?
Garden Advice

Thought Provoking Article About Our Food System

Heirloom Seed Corn


I just had to re-post this article for those of you who haven’t seen or heard about it. It’s from Grist, it’s gritty, in your face and honest. Some may not care for this type of writing, others will see the inherent truth in it. With all of the current controversy over the salmonella outbreak, the factory farmed food concerns, the FDA and USDA wanting to pasteurize/homogenize/irradiate/sterilize any fresh, whole food  we eat, this is a great article for right now.

Read it, think about it, then read it once again and let me know what you think!

Do you have the balls to really change the food system?

BY Rebecca Thistlewaite

9 SEP 2010 12:49 PM

You watched Food, Inc. with your mouth aghast. You own a few cookbooks.

You go out to that hot new restaurant with the tattooed chef who’s putting on a whole-animal, nose-to-tail pricy special dinner. You bliss out on highfalutin’ pork rinds, braised pigs feet, rustic paté, and porchetta.

Later that weekend, you nibble on small bites as you stroll down the city street, blocked off for a weekend “foodie” festival.

Then you go back to your Monday-Friday workaday routine, ordering pizza and buying some frozen chicken breasts at Costco (“Hey, at least they’re ‘organic’!”) to get you through your hectic week. (You make time for at least two hours a day of reality TV.) You manage to get to a farmers market about once a month, but the rest of the time your eggs and meat come from Costco, Trader Joe’s, and maybe Whole Paycheck now and again.

Guess what? You are NOT changing the food system. Not even close.

You’re no better or different than the average American. You pat yourself on the back, you brag about your lunch on Twitter, you pity your Midwestern relatives eating their chicken-fried steak and ambrosia salad, but you secretly loathe your grocery store bill — which consumes only 8 percent of your income while your car devours 30 percent. Your bananas and coffee may be Fair Trade, but everything else is Far From It. The dozen eggs you splurge on once a month may be from local, outdoor-roaming birds, but all the other eggs you eat come from a giant egg conglomerate in either Petaluma, Calif., or Pennsylvania.

And even that pig in that nose-to-tail fancy dinner came from a poor farmer in Kansas or Iowa because the restaurant is too cheap or lazy to find local, pastured pork. And the ingredients for that foodie festival touting itself as local and sustainable? They mostly came from other states except a few ingredients they highlight as being “local.” But those restaurants, caterers, and food trucks just go back to using the low-cost distributor once the event is over.

So. Want to make a difference?

Here’s what a sustainable food system actually needs you to do, in no particular order:

Educate yourself:

  • Don’t take anything at face value — read, listen, observe, research. Look at both sides of an issue and all points in between.
  • Read not just the Omnivore’s Dilemma, but also Silent Spring, Sand County Almanac, and anything you can find by Wendell Berry.
  • Learn why farmers and ranchers who don’t earn enough to cover their costs are not sustainable and that something has to suffer as a result, whether it be quality, animal welfare, land stewardship, wages, health care, mental & physical health, or family life.
  • Understand why sustainable food should actually cost 50 to 100 percent more than industrial, conventional food. Figure out how to buy food more directly from farmers and ranchers, if you want to avoid some of the transportation/distribution/retail markup costs.
  • Know the names of more farmers and ranchers than celebrity chefs, including at least one you can call by first name — and ask how their kids are doing.
  • Understand that if you want to see working conditions and wages come up for farming and food processing workers, that you will have to pay more for food. Be OK with that.
  • Learn about the Farm Bill and plan to write a letter/make a phone call when it comes up for re-authorization.

Chill out:

  • Don’t expect a farmer to have year-round availability and selection. Alter your diet to match the seasonal harvests in your area. Get used to not eating tomatoes until at least July, apples in late August to December, citrus in winter, greens in spring. Don’t complain.
  • Realize that even animal products are seasonal because animals have biological cycles. Know that chickens produce much less eggs in winter when days are shorter and even come to a complete stop when they are replacing their feathers (molting). Consequently you may have to eat less eggs and pay more for them during that time. Don’t complain.
  • Don’t expect the farmer/rancher to sacrifice the health and welfare of the animal for your particular fad diet du jour (no corn, no soy, no wheat, no grains, no antibiotics ever, even if the animal will die, no irrigation, no hybrid breeds, no castrating, no vaccines … what is it this week?)
  • Understand that the tenderloin/filet is the most expensive muscle on the animal and that there is very little of it. Don’t expect there to be filet every time you go to market. There are finite parts to an animal. Be OK with that. Embrace it. Learn to cook other parts.
  • Understand that there are not enough USDA-inspected slaughter and butcher facilities, which makes special orders difficult and limits how the meat can be processed. If you want a particular cut, organ meat, or process, then buy a half- or whole animal so you can ask the butcher to make that happen yourself.
  • Don’t call a farmer a week before you’re having a pig roast to ask for a dressed-out pig, delivered fresh to you, for under $300. We are not magicians, just farmers.

Get your hands dirty:

  • Sweat on a farm sometime.
  • Participate in the death of an animal that you consume.
  • Successfully cook a roast. You don’t need steaks and chops to make an amazing meal.
  • Get a chest freezer and put some food away in it
  • Cook and enjoy at least one of the following: chicken feet, gizzards, liver, heart, kidney, sweet breads, head cheese, or tripe.
  • Save your bones for soup, beans, stock, or your doggies!
  • If you own land that’s not being farmed, tell some farmers about it. If you rent land to farmers, offer a fair rental price or fair lease (long-term is better), and then stay out of the way and don’t meddle or hinder the farmers. They are not your pet farmers nor your landscapers.
  • Throw your consumer dollar behind a couple beginning farmers or lower-income farmers. Be concerned about how landless, lower-income producers are going to compete with the increasing numbers of wealthy landowners getting into farming as a hobby.

Help your local farmers do their job:

  • Bring your kids/grandkids/nieces & nephews to the farmers market and to real farms as often as possible
  • If you ask to visit the farm, also offer to help out or spend some decent money while you are there. Otherwise, wait patiently until the next group farm tour. Don’t expect a farmer to drop everything just to give you a special tour.
  • Consider making a low-interest loan, grant, or pre-payment to a farmer to help her cover her operating expenses. Stick with that farmer for the long haul, as long as he continues to supply quality product and can stay in business.
  • Give more than just money to a farmer or rancher — maybe a Christmas card, invitation to a party, offer to spiff up their website, or watch their kid for an hour at the farmers’ market.

Really put your money where your mouth is:

  • Don’t complain about prices. If price is an issue for you on something, ask the farmer nicely if he has any less expensive cuts (or cosmetically challenged “seconds”), bulk discounts, or volunteer opportunities. But don’t ask the farmer to earn less money for his hard work.
  • Don’t compare prices between farmers who are trying to do this for a living and those that do it only as a hobby (and don’t have to make a living from what they produce and sell).
  • Share in a farmer’s risk by putting up some money and faith up front via a Community Supported Agriculture share. And then suck it up when you don’t get to eat something that you paid for because there was a crop failure or an animal illness.
  • Buy local when available, but also make a point of supporting certified Fair Trade, Organic products when buying something grown in tropical countries
  • Buy organic not just for your health, but for the health of the land, waterways, wildlife, and the workers in those fields
  • Figure out the handful of restaurants that buy and serve truly sustainable food and become loyal to them. Occasionally give them feedback and thank them.
  • If your budget doesn’t allow you to eat out often, eat out infrequently but at the places with the best integrity that may be more costly.
  • Ask the waiter where the restaurant’s meat or fish comes from, and how it was raised before you order it.  If the waiter gives an insufficient answer, order vegetarian and tell them what you want to see next time if they want your business again.
  • Don’t buy meat from chain grocery stores, not even Whole Paycheck. Understand that for them to get meat in volume with year-round selection and availability, they have to work with large distribution networks and often international suppliers, and don’t pay enough to the producers for them to even cover their costs.
  • Get the majority of your produce, meat, eggs, dairy, bread, dried fruit, nuts, and olive oil from farmers markets, CSAs, U-pick farms, and on-farm stands. Try to buy from the actual farmer, not a middleman. Get the rest of your food from the bulk section, dairy case, or bakery of your local independent grocer.
  • Pay for your values. If it hurts, don’t have fewer values, just eat less food (sorry, but most Americans could stand to do a bit of this)

I admit, this is a lot to digest.

What I am saying is that we can’t be casual about the food system we want to see. If more people don’t show some commitment, and take part in some of the hard work that farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers do on a daily basis, then we cannot build a sustainable food system.

You don’t have to be a passive consumer. You are part of this system, too. Don’t just eat, do something more!

Link to the article from Grist Magazine.

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Blue-Hopi-Garland-Flint1.jpg 364 980 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2010-09-15 11:58:182024-04-30 17:34:03Thought Provoking Article About Our Food System
Garden Advice

The Food Movement, Rising

Slow Food Southwest Regional Meeting


We here at Terroir Seeds have been reading  Michael Pollan for several years now. He is well written, deeply thoughtful, unafraid to examine and show his deepest feelings, emotions and mindset on food and where it comes from. He writes with a common sense approach that is refreshing to read in today’s over-hyped, shrill hyperbole.

We ran across the following article on the New York Review of Books and wanted to share it with you. It encapsulates many of the conversations we have been having with our customers in one form or another for the past several months about heirloom seeds, gardening and especially local food.

Enjoy, and please let us know what you think!

by Michael Pollan

1.

Food Made Visible

It might sound odd to say this about something people deal with at least three times a day, but food in America has been more or less invisible, politically speaking, until very recently. At least until the early 1970s, when a bout of food price inflation and the appearance of books critical of industrial agriculture (by Wendell Berry, Francis Moore Lappé, and Barry Commoner, among others) threatened to propel the subject to the top of the national agenda, Americans have not had to think very hard about where their food comes from, or what it is doing to the planet, their bodies, and their society.

Most people count this a blessing. Americans spend a smaller percentage of their income on food than any people in history–slightly less than 10 percent–and a smaller amount of their time preparing it: a mere thirty-one minutes a day on average, including clean-up. The supermarkets brim with produce summoned from every corner of the globe, a steady stream of novel food products (17,000 new ones each year) crowds the middle aisles, and in the freezer case you can find “home meal replacements” in every conceivable ethnic stripe, demanding nothing more of the eater than opening the package and waiting for the microwave to chirp. Considered in the long sweep of human history, in which getting food dominated not just daily life but economic and political life as well, having to worry about food as little as we do, or did, seems almost a kind of dream.

The dream that the age-old “food problem” had been largely solved for most Americans was sustained by the tremendous postwar increases in the productivity of American farmers, made possible by cheap fossil fuel (the key ingredient in both chemical fertilizers and pesticides) and changes in agricultural policies. Asked by President Nixon to try to drive down the cost of food after it had spiked in the early 1970s, Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz shifted the historical focus of federal farm policy from supporting prices for farmers to boosting yields of a small handful of commodity crops (corn and soy especially) at any cost.

The administration’s cheap food policy worked almost too well: crop prices fell, forcing farmers to produce still more simply to break even. This led to a deep depression in the farm belt in the 1980s followed by a brutal wave of consolidation. Most importantly, the price of food came down, or at least the price of the kinds of foods that could be made from corn and soy: processed foods and sweetened beverages and feedlot meat. (Prices for fresh produce have increased since the 1980s.) Washington had succeeded in eliminating food as a political issue–an objective dear to most governments at least since the time of the French Revolution.

ut although cheap food is good politics, it turns out there are significant costs–to the environment, to public health, to the public purse, even to the culture–and as these became impossible to ignore in recent years, food has come back into view. Beginning in the late 1980s, a series of food safety scandals opened people’s eyes to the way their food was being produced, each one drawing the curtain back a little further on a food system that had changed beyond recognition. When BSE, or mad cow disease, surfaced in England in 1986, Americans learned that cattle, which are herbivores, were routinely being fed the flesh of other cattle; the practice helped keep meat cheap but at the risk of a hideous brain-wasting disease.

The 1993 deaths of four children in Washington State who had eaten hamburgers from Jack in the Box were traced to meat contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7, a mutant strain of the common intestinal bacteria first identified in feedlot cattle in 1982. Since then, repeated outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to new antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria (campylobacter, salmonella, MRSA) have turned a bright light on the shortsighted practice of routinely administering antibiotics to food animals, not to treat disease but simply to speed their growth and allow them to withstand the filthy and stressful conditions in which they live.

In the wake of these food safety scandals, the conversation about food politics that briefly flourished in the 1970s was picked up again in a series of books, articles, and movies about the consequences of industrial food production.Beginning in 2001 with the publication of Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, a surprise best-seller, and, the following year, Marion Nestle’s Food Politics, the food journalism of the last decade has succeeded in making clear and telling connections between the methods of industrial food production, agricultural policy, food-borne illness, childhood obesity, the decline of the family meal as an institution, and, notably, the decline of family income beginning in the 1970s.

Besides drawing women into the work force, falling wages made fast food both cheap to produce and a welcome, if not indispensible, option for pinched and harried families. The picture of the food economy Schlosser painted resembles an upside-down version of the social compact sometimes referred to as “Fordism”: instead of paying workers well enough to allow them to buy things like cars, as Henry Ford proposed to do, companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s pay their workers so poorly that they can afford only the cheap, low-quality food these companies sell, creating a kind of nonvirtuous circle driving down both wages and the quality of food. The advent of fast food (and cheap food in general) has, in effect, subsidized the decline of family incomes in America.

2.

Food Politics

Cheap food has become an indispensable pillar of the modern economy. But it is no longer an invisible or uncontested one. One of the most interesting social movements to emerge in the last few years is the “food movement,” or perhaps I should say “movements,” since it is unified as yet by little more than the recognition that industrial food production is in need of reform because its social/environmental/public health/animal welfare/gastronomic costs are too high.

As that list suggests, the critics are coming at the issue from a great many different directions. Where many social movements tend to splinter as time goes on, breaking into various factions representing divergent concerns or tactics, the food movement starts out splintered. Among the many threads of advocacy that can be lumped together under that rubric we can include school lunch reform; the campaign for animal rights and welfare; the campaign against genetically modified crops; the rise of organic and locally produced food; efforts to combat obesity and type 2 diabetes; “food sovereignty” (the principle that nations should be allowed to decide their agricultural policies rather than submit to free trade regimes); farm bill reform; food safety regulation; farmland preservation; student organizing around food issues on campus; efforts to promote urban agriculture and ensure that communities have access to healthy food; initiatives to create gardens and cooking classes in schools; farm worker rights; nutrition labeling; feedlot pollution; and the various efforts to regulate food ingredients and marketing, especially to kids.

It’s a big, lumpy tent, and sometimes the various factions beneath it work at cross-purposes. For example, activists working to strengthen federal food safety regulations have recently run afoul of local food advocates, who fear that the burden of new regulation will cripple the current revival of small-farm agriculture. Joel Salatin, the Virginia meat producer and writer who has become a hero to the food movement, fulminates against food safety regulation on libertarian grounds in his Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal: War Stories From the Local Food Front. Hunger activists like Joel Berg, in All You Can Eat: How Hungry Is America?, criticize supporters of “sustainable” agriculture–i.e., producing food in ways that do not harm the environment–for advocating reforms that threaten to raise the cost of food to the poor. Animal rights advocates occasionally pick fights with sustainable meat producers (such as Joel Salatin), as Jonathan Safran Foer does in his recent vegetarian polemic, Eating Animals.

But there are indications that these various voices may be coming together in something that looks more and more like a coherent movement. Many in the animal welfare movement, from PETA to Peter Singer, have come to see that a smaller-scale, more humane animal agriculture is a goal worth fighting for, and surely more attainable than the abolition of meat eating. Stung by charges of elitism, activists for sustainable farming are starting to take seriously the problem of hunger and poverty. They’re promoting schemes and policies to make fresh local food more accessible to the poor, through programs that give vouchers redeemable at farmers’ markets to participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and food stamp recipients. Yet a few underlying tensions remain: the “hunger lobby” has traditionally supported farm subsidies in exchange for the farm lobby’s support of nutrition programs, a marriage of convenience dating to the 1960s that vastly complicates reform of the farm bill–a top priority for the food movement.

The sociologist Troy Duster reminds us of an all-important axiom about social movements: “No movement is as coherent and integrated as it seems from afar,” he says, “and no movement is as incoherent and fractured as it seems from up close.” Viewed from a middle distance, then, the food movement coalesces around the recognition that today’s food and farming economy is “unsustainable”–that it can’t go on in its current form much longer without courting a breakdown of some kind, whether environmental, economic, or both.

For some in the movement, the more urgent problem is environmental: the food system consumes more fossil fuel energy than we can count on in the future (about a fifth of the total American use of such energy) and emits more greenhouse gas than we can afford to emit, particularly since agriculture is the one human system that should be able to substantially rely on photosynthesis: solar energy. It will be difficult if not impossible to address the issue of climate change without reforming the food system. This is a conclusion that has only recently been embraced by the environmental movement, which historically has disdained all agriculture as a lapse from wilderness and a source of pollution.1 But in the last few years, several of the major environmental groups have come to appreciate that a diversified, sustainable agriculture–which can sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil–holds the potential not just to mitigate but actually to help solve environmental problems, including climate change. Today, environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group are taking up the cause of food system reform, lending their expertise and clout to the movement.

But perhaps the food movement’s strongest claim on public attention today is the fact that the American diet of highly processed food laced with added fats and sugars is responsible for the epidemic of chronic diseases that threatens to bankrupt the health care system. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that fully three quarters of US health care spending goes to treat chronic diseases, most of which are preventable and linked to diet: heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and at least a third of all cancers. The health care crisis probably cannot be addressed without addressing the catastrophe of the American diet, and that diet is the direct (even if unintended) result of the way that our agriculture and food industries have been organized.

Michelle Obama’s recent foray into food politics, beginning with the organic garden she planted on the White House lawn last spring, suggests that the administration has made these connections. Her new “Let’s Move” campaign to combat childhood obesity might at first blush seem fairly anodyne, but in announcing the initiative in February, and in a surprisingly tough speech to the Grocery Manufacturers Association in March,2 the First Lady has effectively shifted the conversation about diet from the industry’s preferred ground of “personal responsibility” and exercise to a frank discussion of the way food is produced and marketed. “We need you not just to tweak around the edges,” she told the assembled food makers, “but to entirely rethink the products that you’re offering, the information that you provide about these products, and how you market those products to our children.”

Mrs. Obama explicitly rejected the conventional argument that the food industry is merely giving people the sugary, fatty, and salty foods they want, contending that the industry “doesn’t just respond to people’s natural inclinations–it also actually helps to shape them,” through the ways it creates products and markets them.

So far at least, Michelle Obama is the food movement’s most important ally in the administration, but there are signs of interest elsewhere. Under Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, the FDA has cracked down on deceptive food marketing and is said to be weighing a ban on the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in factory farming. Attorney General Eric Holder recently avowed the Justice Department’s intention to pursue antitrust enforcement in agribusiness, one of the most highly concentrated sectors in the economy.3 At his side was Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, who has planted his own organic vegetable garden at the department and launched a new “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative aimed at promoting local food systems as a way to both rebuild rural economies and improve access to healthy food.

Though Vilsack has so far left mostly undisturbed his department’s traditional deference to industrial agriculture, the new tone in Washington and the appointment of a handful of respected reformers (such as Tufts professor Kathleen Merrigan as deputy secretary of agriculture) has elicited a somewhat defensive, if not panicky, reaction from agribusiness. The Farm Bureau recently urged its members to go on the offensive against “food activists,” and a trade association representing pesticide makers called CropLife America wrote to Michelle Obama suggesting that her organic garden had unfairly maligned chemical agriculture and encouraging her to use “crop protection technologies”–i.e., pesticides.

The First Lady’s response is not known; however, the President subsequently rewarded CropLife by appointing one of its executives to a high-level trade post. This and other industry-friendly appointments suggest that while the administration may be sympathetic to elements of the food movement’s agenda, it isn’t about to take on agribusiness, at least not directly, at least until it senses at its back a much larger constituency for reform.

One way to interpret Michelle Obama’s deepening involvement in food issues is as an effort to build such a constituency, and in this she may well succeed. It’s a mistake to underestimate what a determined First Lady can accomplish. Lady Bird Johnson’s “highway beautification” campaign also seemed benign, but in the end it helped raise public consciousness about “the environment” (as it would soon come to be known) and put an end to the public’s tolerance for littering. And while Michelle Obama has explicitly limited her efforts to exhortation (“we can’t solve this problem by passing a bunch of laws in Washington,” she told the Grocery Manufacturers, no doubt much to their relief), her work is already creating a climate in which just such a “bunch of laws” might flourish: a handful of state legislatures, including California’s, are seriously considering levying new taxes on sugar in soft drinks, proposals considered hopelessly extreme less than a year ago.

The political ground is shifting, and the passage of health care reform may accelerate that movement. The bill itself contains a few provisions long promoted by the food movement (like calorie labeling on fast food menus), but more important could be the new political tendencies it sets in motion. If health insurers can no longer keep people with chronic diseases out of their patient pools, it stands to reason that the companies will develop a keener interest in preventing those diseases. They will then discover that they have a large stake in things like soda taxes and in precisely which kinds of calories the farm bill is subsidizing. As the insurance industry and the government take on more responsibility for the cost of treating expensive and largely preventable problems like obesity and type 2 diabetes, pressure for reform of the food system, and the American diet, can be expected to increase.

3.

Beyond the Barcode

It would be a mistake to conclude that the food movement’s agenda can be reduced to a set of laws, policies, and regulations, important as these may be. What is attracting so many people to the movement today (and young people in particular) is a much less conventional kind of politics, one that is about something more than food. The food movement is also about community, identity, pleasure, and, most notably, about carving out a new social and economic space removed from the influence of big corporations on the one side and government on the other. As the Diggers used to say during their San Francisco be-ins during the 1960s, food can serve as “an edible dynamic”–a means to a political end that is only nominally about food itself.

One can get a taste of this social space simply by hanging around a farmers’ market, an activity that a great many people enjoy today regardless of whether they’re in the market for a bunch of carrots or a head of lettuce. Farmers’ markets are thriving, more than five thousand strong, and there is a lot more going on in them than the exchange of money for food. Someone is collecting signatures on a petition. Someone else is playing music. Children are everywhere, sampling fresh produce, talking to farmers. Friends and acquaintances stop to chat. One sociologist calculated that people have ten times as many conversations at the farmers’ market than they do in the supermarket. Socially as well as sensually, the farmers’ market offers a remarkably rich and appealing environment. Someone buying food here may be acting not just as a consumer but also as a neighbor, a citizen, a parent, a cook. In many cities and towns, farmers’ markets have taken on (and not for the first time) the function of a lively new public square.

Though seldom articulated as such, the attempt to redefine, or escape, the traditional role of consumer has become an important aspiration of the food movement. In various ways it seeks to put the relationship between consumers and producers on a new, more neighborly footing, enriching the kinds of information exchanged in the transaction, and encouraging us to regard our food dollars as “votes” for a different kind of agriculture and, by implication, economy. The modern marketplace would have us decide what to buy strictly on the basis of price and self-interest; the food movement implicitly proposes that we enlarge our understanding of both those terms, suggesting that not just “good value” but ethical and political values should inform our buying decisions, and that we’ll get more satisfaction from our eating when they do.

That satisfaction helps to explain why many in the movement don’t greet the spectacle of large corporations adopting its goals, as some of them have begun to do, with unalloyed enthusiasm. Already Wal-Mart sells organic and local food, but this doesn’t greatly warm the hearts of food movement activists. One important impetus for the movement, or at least its locavore wing–those who are committed to eating as much locally produced food as possible–is the desire to get “beyond the barcode”–to create new economic and social structures outside of the mainstream consumer economy. Though not always articulated in these terms, the local food movement wants to decentralize the global economy, if not secede from it altogether, which is why in some communities, such as Great Barrington, Massachusetts, local currencies (the “BerkShare”) have popped up.

In fact it’s hard to say which comes first: the desire to promote local agriculture or the desire to promote local economies more generally by cutting ties, to whatever degree possible, to the national economic grid.4 This is at bottom a communitarian impulse, and it is one that is drawing support from the right as well as the left. Though the food movement has deep roots in the counterculture of the 1960s, its critique of corporate food and federal farm subsidies, as well as its emphasis on building community around food, has won it friends on the right. In his 2006 book Crunchy Cons, Rod Dreher identifies a strain of libertarian conservatism, often evangelical, that regards fast food as anathema to family values, and has seized on local food as a kind of culinary counterpart to home schooling.

t makes sense that food and farming should become a locus of attention for Americans disenchanted with consumer capitalism. Food is the place in daily life where corporatization can be most vividly felt: think about the homogenization of taste and experience represented by fast food. By the same token, food offers us one of the shortest, most appealing paths out of the corporate labyrinth, and into the sheer diversity of local flavors, varieties, and characters on offer at the farmers’ market.

Put another way, the food movement has set out to foster new forms of civil society. But instead of proposing that space as a counterweight to an overbearing state, as is usually the case, the food movement poses it against the dominance of corporations and their tendency to insinuate themselves into any aspect of our lives from which they can profit. As Wendell Berry writes, the corporations

will grow, deliver, and cook your food for you and (just like your mother) beg you to eat it. That they do not yet offer to insert it, prechewed, into your mouth is only because they have found no profitable way to do so.

The corporatization of something as basic and intimate as eating is, for many of us today, a good place to draw the line.

The Italian-born organization Slow Food, founded in 1986 as a protest against the arrival of McDonald’s in Rome, represents perhaps the purest expression of these politics. The organization, which now has 100,000 members in 132 countries, began by dedicating itself to “a firm defense of quiet material pleasure” but has lately waded into deeper political and economic waters. Slow Food’s founder and president, Carlo Petrini, a former leftist journalist, has much to say about how people’s daily food choices can rehabilitate the act of consumption, making it something more creative and progressive. In his new book Terra Madre: Forging a New Global Network of Sustainable Food Communities, Petrini urges eaters and food producers to join together in “food communities” outside of the usual distribution channels, which typically communicate little information beyond price and often exploit food producers. A farmers’ market is one manifestation of such a community, but Petrini is no mere locavore. Rather, he would have us practice on a global scale something like “local” economics, with its stress on neighborliness, as when, to cite one of his examples, eaters in the affluent West support nomad fisher folk in Mauritania by creating a market for their bottarga, or dried mullet roe. In helping to keep alive such a food tradition and way of life, the eater becomes something more than a consumer; she becomes what Petrini likes to call a “coproducer.”

Ever the Italian, Petrini puts pleasure at the center of his politics, which might explain why Slow Food is not always taken as seriously as it deserves to be. For why shouldn’t pleasure figure in the politics of the food movement? Good food is potentially one of the most democratic pleasures a society can offer, and is one of those subjects, like sports, that people can talk about across lines of class, ethnicity, and race.

The fact that the most humane and most environmentally sustainable choices frequently turn out to be the most delicious choices (as chefs such as Alice Waters and Dan Barber have pointed out) is fortuitous to say the least; it is also a welcome challenge to the more dismal choices typically posed by environmentalism, which most of the time is asking us to give up things we like. As Alice Waters has often said, it was not politics or ecology that brought her to organic agriculture, but rather the desire to recover a certain taste–one she had experienced as an exchange student in France. Of course democratizing such tastes, which under current policies tend to be more expensive, is the hard part, and must eventually lead the movement back to more conventional politics lest it be tagged as elitist.

But the movement’s interest in such seemingly mundane matters as taste and the other textures of everyday life is also one of its great strengths. Part of the movement’s critique of industrial food is that, with the rise of fast food and the collapse of everyday cooking, it has damaged family life and community by undermining the institution of the shared meal. Sad as it may be to bowl alone, eating alone can be sadder still, not least because it is eroding the civility on which our political culture depends.

hat is the argument made by Janet Flammang, a political scientist, in a provocative new book called The Taste for Civilization: Food, Politics, and Civil Society. “Significant social and political costs have resulted from fast food and convenience foods,” she writes, “grazing and snacking instead of sitting down for leisurely meals, watching television during mealtimes instead of conversing”–40 percent of Americans watch television during meals–”viewing food as fuel rather than sustenance, discarding family recipes and foodways, and denying that eating has social and political dimensions.” The cultural contradictions of capitalism–its tendency to undermine the stabilizing social forms it depends on–are on vivid display at the modern American dinner table.

In a challenge to second-wave feminists who urged women to get out of the kitchen, Flammang suggests that by denigrating “foodwork”–everything involved in putting meals on the family table–we have unthinkingly wrecked one of the nurseries of democracy: the family meal. It is at “the temporary democracy of the table” that children learn the art of conversation and acquire the habits of civility–sharing, listening, taking turns, navigating differences, arguing without offending–and it is these habits that are lost when we eat alone and on the run. “Civility is not needed when one is by oneself.”5

These arguments resonated during the Senate debate over health care reform, when The New York Times reported that the private Senate dining room, where senators of both parties used to break bread together, stood empty. Flammang attributes some of the loss of civility in Washington to the aftermatch of the 1994 Republican Revolution, when Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House, urged his freshman legislators not to move their families to Washington. Members now returned to their districts every weekend, sacrificing opportunities for socializing across party lines and, in the process, the “reservoirs of good will replenished at dinner parties.” It is much harder to vilify someone with whom you have shared a meal.

Flammang makes a convincing case for the centrality of food work and shared meals, much along the lines laid down by Carlo Petrini and Alice Waters, but with more historical perspective and theoretical rigor. A scholar of the women’s movement, she suggests that “American women are having second thoughts” about having left the kitchen.6 However, the answer is not for them simply to return to it, at least not alone, but rather “for everyone–men, women, and children–to go back to the kitchen, as in preindustrial days, and for the workplace to lessen its time demands on people.” Flammang points out that the historical priority of the American labor movement has been to fight for money, while the European labor movement has fought for time, which she suggests may have been the wiser choice.

At the very least this is a debate worth having, and it begins by taking food issues much more seriously than we have taken them. Flammang suggests that the invisibility of these issues until recently owes to the identification of food work with women and the (related) fact that eating, by its very nature, falls on the wrong side of the mind–body dualism. “Food is apprehended through the senses of touch, smell and taste,” she points out,

which rank lower on the hierarchy of senses than sight and hearing, which are typically thought to give rise to knowledge. In most of philosophy, religion, and literature, food is associated with body, animal, female, and appetite–things civilized men have sought to overcome with reason and knowledge.

Much to our loss. But food is invisible no longer and, in light of the mounting costs we’ve incurred by ignoring it, it is likely to demand much more of our attention in the future, as eaters, parents, and citizens. It is only a matter of time before politicians seize on the power of the food issue, which besides being increasingly urgent is also almost primal, indeed is in some deep sense proto- political. For where do all politics begin if not in the high chair?–at that fateful moment when mother, or father, raises a spoonful of food to the lips of the baby who clamps shut her mouth, shakes her head no, and for the very first time in life awakens to and asserts her sovereign power.

  1. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth made scant mention of food or agriculture, but in his recent follow-up book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis (2009), he devotes a long chapter to the subject of our food choices and their bearing on climate. â†©

  2. Ms. Obama’s speech can be read at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-first-lady-a-grocery-manufacturers-association-conference. â†©

  3. Speaking in March at an Iowa “listening session” about agribusiness concentration, Holder said, “long periods of reckless deregulation have restricted competition” in agriculture. Indeed: four companies (JBS/Swift, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef Packers) slaughter 85 percent of US beef cattle; two companies (Monsanto and DuPont) sell more than 50 percent of US corn seed; one company (Dean Foods) controls 40 percent of the US milk supply. â†©

  4. For an interesting case study about a depressed Vermont mining town that turned to local food and agriculture to revitalize itself, see Ben Hewitt, The Town That Food Saved: How One Community Found Vitality in Local Food (Rodale, 2009). â†©

  5. See David M. Herszenhorn, “In Senate Health Care Vote, New Partisan Vitriol,” The New York Times, December 23, 2009: “Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, said the political–and often personal–divisions that now characterize the Senate were epitomized by the empty tables in the senators’ private dining room, a place where members of both parties used to break bread. ‘Nobody goes there anymore,’ Mr. Baucus said. ‘When I was here 10, 15, 30 years ago, that the place you would go to talk to senators, let your hair down, just kind of compare notes, no spouses allowed, no staff, nobody. It is now empty.'”↩

  6. The stirrings of a new “radical homemakers” movement lends some support to the assertion. See Shannon Hayes’s Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity from a Consumer Culture (Left to Write Press, 2010).↩

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SFSW-Regional-Meeting-Dinne.jpg 200 300 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2010-06-07 10:48:022024-04-30 17:34:03The Food Movement, Rising
Garden Advice

Supermarkets Slow Down Yet Gardens Are Growing


Consumer’s wallets have tightened significantly since 2008, when the global economic slowdown started, led by the food safety scares of tomatoes and peppers during that summer.

2009 is the first year that fruit and vegetable sales have dropped, with fruit down 12% and vegetables down 6%. The trend is from more expensive fruit and veggies to less expensive ones, as everyone is trying to make their dollar go farther. What is even more interesting is that the volume is up of fruits and vegetables, but the sales or profit is down. One explanation is people are eating out less, which decreases the profits to the retailers. Another is that people are gardening a lot more, growing some of their own food, especially the more expensive vegetables, and buying the less expensive ones. As an example, weekly dollar sales of packaged salads fell by nearly 5%, while bulk lettuce sales rose by 6.9% in 2009.

The increase in gardening has been driven by a concern by consumers over prices and overall food safety. The National Gardening Association states that there is a multitude of reasons people are gardening in increasing numbers, including the state of the economy,  increased costs of food and that “food safety is a huge issue in the US. People mistrust producers of food so if you grow your own you can control the inputs like fertilizer.” CNN reports that there were 43 million vegetable gardens planted in 2009, with 19% of households growing some of their own fruit, vegetables and herbs are first timers. $100 spent on seed can save you up to $2500 at the grocery store, according to a couple of studies in 2008 where vegetables were planted, grown and weighed, then compared to local grocery store prices for an entire season. That figure is probably even more now, with food prices increasing.

On April 22, 2010 the National Inflation Association issued the following food inflation alert-

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today released their Producer Price Index (PPI) report for March 2010 and the latest numbers are shocking. Food prices for the month rose by 2.4%, its sixth consecutive monthly increase and the largest jump in over 26 years. NIA believes that a major breakout in food inflation could be imminent, similar to what is currently being experienced in India.

Some of the startling food price increases on a year-over-year basis include, fresh and dry vegetables up 56.1%, fresh fruits and melons up 28.8%, eggs for fresh use up 33.6%, pork up 19.1%, beef and veal up 10.7% and dairy products up 9.7%. On October 30th, 2009, NIA predicted that inflation would appear next in food and agriculture, but we never anticipated that it would spiral so far out of control this quickly.

Elizabeth Pivonka, President and CEO of the Produce for Better Health Foundation says in the Feb 2010 issue of Seed World, “There are still many fruit and vegetable growers and shippers that continue to struggle to stay in business. Food safety initiatives, including the cost of traceability are some of their biggest expenses right now, along with trying to cope with any other types of legislation that always cost money (for example, water issues on the west coast, immigration issues and cap and trade.) Finally, just overall profitability is an ongoing concern- it’s a shame that the fruit and vegetable industry doesn’t make the profit margins other products make so that they can better market themselves.”

This is very telling, as the costs of commercial food production, regardless of the sector, continue to rise due to more and more legislation aimed at making the food produced safer. This is in direct contrast to the costs in a local food system, as the transport costs are very small, and the quality and health of the food is significantly higher, eliminating the need for increased legislation to attempt to force the safety into the food production system. The safety and quality are inherent, as producer, shipper and retailer are often one and the same. If the quality and safety are missing, the consumer simply won’t buy, which has a much greater impact on the producer. Thus the closeness and openness of the local food system works to increase the quality, health and safety of the locally produced foods.

This is one of the main reasons that local food and local agriculture- that grown and consumed within a 100-200 mile radius- has been increasing in volume and sales for the past several years. People can see what they buying, talk to and get to know the person who grew or raised their food. They get to actively participate in making the decision for better food that is raised or grown in healthy ways and has better flavor and nutrition than industrial food producers.

What better time or reasons to eat locally?

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg 0 0 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2010-04-29 10:30:502024-04-30 17:34:03Supermarkets Slow Down Yet Gardens Are Growing
Garden Advice

Non- GMO Labeling is a Hit with Consumers

GMO Labeling Fight


This is an interesting report from the Nielsen company- the same company doing the familiar Nielsen Ratings.

The consumer interest in Non-GMO labeled foods is skyrocketing. In 2009, this micro market segment was worth $60.2 Million and grew at 67% over 2008, making it the #1 healthy eating trend in store brands for 2009. Store brands are like Topco Full Circle and Safeway “O” Organics. Store brands like these now make up almost 40% of products with no preservative claims, 25% of all organic product sales, and nearly one-fifth of all products with “natural” claims in food/drug/mass merchandise retailers. Whole Foods Market, one of the largest U.S. natural foods retailers, have started the process to certify that all of their store brands are GMO free.

What is even more interesting is the early adoption of the Non-GMO labeling by store brands, which are taking the lead in offering healthy products instead of trailing the major brands as they used to do. Consumer sentiment against genetically modified foods (GM or GMO) is growing- despite all of the marketing and press support by genetic engineering companies like Monsanto- and market brands are reflecting that. With GMOs being linked to organ damage, crop failures, increased water usage, soil contamination and worse, consumers are becoming aware of the dangers of these products. Another major winner is the “No high fructose corns syrup” label worth $13 Million and growing at 28% over 2008. That gives it a #10 rank.

These dollar amounts are big numbers to most of us consumers, but are small potatoes to the large national brands, such as Lays and Kraft. What makes them take notice is the growth percentage. They will be watching the growth in several of these segments to see if there is consistent, sustained growth that makes it financially feasible or even necessary for them to switch suppliers from conventional to non-GMO. If there is enough movement in the market towards GMO free products, they will switch, as they will not stand by and watch a large market share evaporate.

This happened in the recent past with RBGH or RBST, the bovine growth hormone developed, not suprisingly, by Monsanto to increase the milk output from cows. It created many other problems, such as increased infections in the milk and disease in the cows. The FDA stated RBGH did not alter the milk, and sued several dairies that labeled their milk RBGH free. Enough consumers found out the truth and started requesting RBGH free milk. Not long afterwards, the major players saw the movement in the market and made the switch to RBGH free suppliers. Surprisingly, this didn’t take a majority of consumers, only 5-7% of Americans, as they represent several hundred millions of dollars to the major national brands. This is money they will not lose when they can make a switch in suppliers and keep their customers happy.

Monsanto is worried, of course. When, not if, the major national brands make the switch, Monsanto will find itself with many highly expensive bio-engineered products that no one wants. They are already in trouble in Europe, as they have lost several recent lawsuits they filed to force their way into European markets and agriculture. The nations of the European Union and more importantly- it’s people- have rejected genetic engineering of food almost out of hand.

What this means for you and I is great news. Safe, wholesome and sustainable food is at the core of our needs, next to clean air and water. With people starting to actively request GMO free labeling on their foods, safer foods are closer and easier to get for everyone.

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/non_gmo.jpg 163 186 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2010-03-30 17:26:492024-04-30 17:34:03Non- GMO Labeling is a Hit with Consumers
Vegetables

Homegrown Vegetables Are the Most Nutritious

Dacha Garden


I came across a great article about how fresh colorful vegetables offer the most nutrition for the money spent. While I definitely agree with this, I believe there are some lost opportunities here; namely growing your own vegetables will prove the truth of several recent findings. Below is the link for the article:

Fresh Vegetable Salads Provide Maximum Nutrition for Each Food Dollar Spent

The first finding is that fresh colorful vegetables have the most nutrition when compared to prepackaged and prepared foods. The second is that naturally grown chemical free vegetables have more minerals and nutrients as compared to conventional chemically grown ones. The third is that the dollar return on money spent for seeds to grow a vegetable garden- even a modest one- is staggering. Several articles I’ve read put the return from $100 in seeds at anywhere from $1000 to $1800 in fresh produce!

“Salads that offer the most nutrition for the money are made with fresh, unprocessed vegetables. Color is the key. Those veggies with the bright, vibrant colors are trying to tell you something. The more colors added to the bowl, the more the salad can keep you looking and feeling young, and put a bounce in your step for the rest of the day. That’s because vibrant colored veggies are loaded with antioxidants, plant compounds that slow the aging process and ward off disease.”

The more colors in the vegetables you eat, the more different types of nutrients, minerals and other vitamins that you get. This is a great start!

“All of these varieties are excellent sources of Vitamins A, E and K. Vitamin A supports eye and respiratory health, and makes sure the immune system is up to speed. It keeps the outer layers of tissues and organs healthy, and promotes strong bones, healthy skin and hair, and strong teeth. Vitamin E slows the aging process, maintains positive cholesterol ratios, provides endurance boosting oxygen, protects lungs from pollution, prevents various forms of cancer, and alleviates fatigue. Vitamin K keeps blood vessels strong and prevents blood clots.

Greens are also excellent sources of folate, manganese, chromium, and potassium. Folate prevents heart disease, defends against intestinal parasites and food poisoning, promotes healthy skin, and helps maintain hair color. Manganese keeps fatigue away, helps muscle reflexes and coordination, boosts memory, and helps prevent osteoporosis. Chromium helps normalize blood pressure and insulin levels. It prevents sugar cravings and sudden drops in energy. Potassium regulates the body’s water balance and normalizes heart rhythms. It aids in clear thinking by sending oxygen to the brain.”

Now if we take this a step further and grow these vegetables ourselves, or at least buy them locally- from the farmers market or “our” farmer/gardener/neighbor that grows way too much to eat themselves- we can stack the advantages of the nutrition in our favor.

Several recently released studies show what is at first glance somewhat common sense- naturally grown vegetables have more nutrients, vitamins and minerals than those grown in the conventional chemically grown manner. The common sense part comes from the fact that chemical agriculture on any scale depends on very few chemicals- NPK familiar to anyone? Nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium are important, but they aren’t the only elements that plants need to grow and produce healthy fruits and vegetables. One study I’ve read showed that a naturally grown vegetable had 84 minerals and elements that were identified as opposed to 8-10 in the same exact vegetable planted from seeds from the same seed packet but grown conventionally with the standard chemical fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides. Something to note- the test didn’t identify the negative elements in the vegetables- such as chemical residues.

Which do you think has better nutrition, which has better taste, and which would you want to eat or serve as dinner to your family?

Continuing the stacking of benefits idea- this is the introduction to the article:

“It looks like food prices will continue to creep steadily higher throughout 2009, even in the face of an economic crisis that has reduced the purchasing power of most Americans. This makes it more important that ever to get the best nutritional value for every food dollar spent.”

I agree completely with this, and seeing this at the end of 2009, the truth of the cost of food vs purchasing power is apparent. What if we can turn this truth around, and make it pay instead of save money? That’s an exciting idea, as saving money is good, but saving in this case is only a stop to spending money. Growing a garden can actually pay you! It is truly not very difficult to grow a garden that produces more than you and your family can eat. Sell the excess, make some money! Farmers and local markets are the fastest growing segment of agriculture for the past several years. Most have a booth just for the backyard gardener to sell/trade their abundance.

Or trade it to your neighbor in return for services or something you need. This won’t give you dollars, but will give you something of value that you didn’t have to spend dollars to obtain.

Or donate some to your local food bank/soup kitchen/Meals on Wheels/etc. Again, not dollars, but karma is good too. So is the increased community that you’ve just created that can help you in ways unforeseen right now.

Now please don’t misunderstand me. I really like the article! I think that there are some ways to capitalize on a good idea and great benefit to achieve much greater results for all of us. Please take the time to read the entire article.

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Dacha-Garden4Web.jpg 268 400 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2009-12-30 18:12:582024-04-30 17:34:03Homegrown Vegetables Are the Most Nutritious
Garden Advice

Food Films


Winter is a cold time of year in most parts of the country, with shorter days and more time spent indoors. One of my favorite hobbies (besides gardening) is watching movies. I have been a film buff since I was a kid and had actually contemplated going to film school. Instead, I majored in horticulture and environmental sciences. But while in college I did take a documentary film class. Documentaries about our food system are a very hot topic right now. There are many great films available for viewing that talk about food, growing, industrial agriculture, fast food, community gardens, etc. Some have a more positive view and some just present the cold hard truth of the matter.  I thought I would share with you some of the films I have seen over this past year, you may want to view one or all of them during these cold months of winter. Many are available from your local rental store, library, Netflix or online.

The Future of Food is a 2-disc set is a great introduction to our food system and GMO’s. There are also some great shorts about food in our school systems, seed saving and farmer’s markets.

One of my personal favorites,  Super Size Me is about the month long adventure of Morgan Spurlock eating only McDonald’s fast food. I never ate at McDonald’s before this film but if you do, you will not think about it afterwords. Morgan is a great film maker and has a unique way of bringing everyday issues to the forefront in an entertaining way. Also, check out his 30 Days films available on DVD.

Food, Inc. was a very popular documentary film in theaters this past summer and is now available on DVD. This film is a hardcore look at industrial agriculture and how it is now working. This film is not for the faint of heart, but it does show you what happens when you have to produce food in mass quantities. I love this film and the film Fresh, because they both highlight the great work of Joel Salatin. I had the privilege I hearing Joel and his family speak in the mid-90’s before he was a farming superstar. His way of farming is so unique and I think could be duplicated to varying degrees depending on what environment you are farming in. I am glad Joel has received some lime-light for the great work he has done for so many years. Fresh is also a great film and has a little more positive spin to it, than Food, Inc. If you want ideas to make some changes, Fresh is a great place to start.

King Corn is a film about how corn is so infused in our food system. This is a great documentary film; I was pleasantly surprised how well the story-lines were presented and how welcoming this small farming community was to the film makers.

The Garden is about a community garden in the heart of LA. This is an amazing documentary filmed over many years. Warning: the ending is a surprise and somewhat troubling. But the filmmakers did a great job telling an amazing story.

Ingredients really celebrates the ingredients that make up a great meal, with small, local agriculture. Some great interviews with chefs and farmers.

Urban Sustainable Living with Patti Moreno, The Gardening Girl is very inspiring. This is a great series of how to videos aimed at the urban/city gardener. After watching it, I was almost inspired to make my own yarn!

The Botany of Desire is a recent PBS special now available on DVD based on Michael Pollan’s best-selling book by the same title. Plants are amazing and mankind has been manipulating them for a long time. This film explores the world of four amazing plants and our interactions with them.

This will give you a few films to view during these cold winter months. If you want just pure entertainment, I would highly recommend the new DVD release Julie & Julia, a great film for foodies. If you want to take an outing to your local theater, the uplifting film The Blind Side, based on a true story is worth your time. Next time, some book and magazine suggestions!

Cindy

by
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Food-Film1.png 384 398 https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg 2009-12-27 19:18:102024-04-30 17:34:03Food Films
Garden Advice

New and unique heirloom seed collections available online now.


In response to our customers requests, we have just released our new and unique seed collections online at Underwood Gardens Heirloom Seed Collections. We have an initial 14 collections that are specially priced and carefully selected to make your growing experiences as easy and rewarding as possible. This makes it easy to explore a new area of gardening that you might be interested in, but aren’t ready to jump in fully. Almost all of our collections have a book with them to guide you through the process and help you make your decisions along the way.

These collections allow you to be extremely creative, not just in gardening but in creating gifts and useful everyday items as well. From crafting the perfect personalized homegrown herbal tea for your tea loving friend, making kitchen helpers out of  gourds from your garden to creating a personally designed, grown and arranged dried flower bouquet for that special occasion when nothing else will quite do. These collections help you go far beyond what is available in any store, and in the process learn how to create a new and deeply satisfying gardening extension.

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/VeggieCollections1.jpg 350 350 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2009-11-23 14:16:552024-04-30 17:34:03New and unique heirloom seed collections available online now.
Garden Advice

Raised Garden Beds at Underwood Gardens


We are finishing up our raised bed garden, and wanted to show you what we have been working on.  The raised beds will be both production garden for our family, and a test garden for the seed business.  Our garden is 35 x 70 feet;  smaller than some,  larger than others. There are several projects that we are working on that we will keep you up to date on with the blog, so check back often!

Today is an overview of the gardens, our climate and challenges that we face, as well as an introduction of some of the projects that we are working on.

We are at 5000 feet elevation, with 4 full seasons, and are located between Phoenix and Flagstaff, so we avoid the temperature extremes of both places. Our temperatures range from 110 to 20 degrees F. We are in a high desert environment with about 12 inches of rain annually. The soil here is good, but needs organic matter worked into it to be productive.  Arizona has a lot of microclimates, as does most areas of the US that have hills and elevation changes, so this presents unique challenges to growing depending on where you live.

Some of our challenges include the wind, heat and dry climate.  These combine to dry out a garden severely unless measures are taken.  Wind protection, drip irrigation and lots of mulch are some of the things we do to keep moisture where we need it.  Even with our challenges, we can grow a ton of food, and so can you!

Let’s take a look-

A plant growing in the dirt on a sunny day.

This South facing shot shows the raised beds, the blue wind break on the fence and the wood chips in the walkway. Over the fence in the background is the native grassland. There is weed cloth under the wood chips;  this gives a good walking surface that keeps the weeds out!  We are moving worms into each bed to help build soil and keep the beds aerated and healthy.

A plant growing in the dirt on a sunny day.

Here is a  photo of  the worm bed. We haven’t put the weed cloth and chips in the walkway yet, but the weed cloth under the bed is visible. This is where we will have lots of worms, in addition to charcoal, coffee grounds, and horse manure compost.  The worms love coffee grounds, which also retain a lot of moisture to help jump start the soil building process.  The white PVC piping is the drip manifold with the shut off valves and the garden hose that connects each bed to the next. The charcoal is visible under the drip tape.  It acts as condos for the micro-organisms that live in healthy soil. The humus-like soil will be used to amend or top-dress the other growing beds in the fall and spring. Once we have enough, we can use the excess humus as another product to sell locally. We will keep you updated on the progress.

This should give a good overview of what we are doing and where we are going. We will give more detailed info in the next few posts, so stay tuned!

Please don’t think that this level of gardening is required to be successful, it’s not! A lot smaller garden can be just as productive on a smaller scale- all the way down to 2×2 feet… The most important thing is to just get started! We will go over options on sizes in future blogs. As always, if you have questions or comments, please leave them on the comments section, or call us at 888-878-5247!

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/raised-bed-1.jpg 336 448 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2009-06-04 07:00:512024-04-30 17:34:03Raised Garden Beds at Underwood Gardens
Garden Advice

What is Terroir Seeds and how does it relate to Underwood Gardens?


Cindy and I decided to start our seed company in June/July of 2008. I had left my job at the dealership, and Cindy was looking to move to something else from her job as an outreach coordinator at the non-profit natural history center. We had been growing our own vegetables for about 14 years at that point and wanted to move into something bigger. One of the biggest factors in starting our own seed business was the loss of diversity that has occurred since 1900. If one were to compare what was commercially available in 1900 (vegetables, herbs and flowers) to what was available in 2000- there has been a 97% DECREASE in the varieties offered for sale! This was a huge wake-up call for us…

We looked at the total seed market, from the smallest one person businesses to the giants of Monsanto, etc. Then we looked at the open pollinated and heirloom seed companies, who were engaged in what we feel is the most important work- that of keeping genetic diversity alive and well. We saw the heirloom/open pollinated market as the best one, for a multitude of reasons. Heirlooms are becoming known more in the mainstream world, as people are tired of the poor performance of the hybridized varieties of seeds and plants that they buy at the local garden centers. Nutrition is a growing concern, as people are starting to realize that they CAN grow a significant amount of food in their backyards, reducing their food budget and providing better taste and health for their families. People are looking at the current economic situation and are trying to find ways to gain more control of their lives, and lessen their cash outlays; thus reducing their income needs and exposure to the current economic climate.

The term Terroir means soil in French. The French have always paid close attention to the flavor as well as the origins of food, unlike most Americans. It matters to the French where a food comes from, because they understand that place matters. It is interesting to note that the French government has subsidized food production, like America. The difference is that the French have subsidized the local farmer instead of supporting the corporate business of farming, as in America. The difference in approach is startling, as there are multitudes of benefits to the localized agriculture that is the norm in France, instead of the exception. Health – both of the soil and of the people- is one, as there are fewer chemicals in the food chain. Nutrition is another, as the localized food production encourages organic and wholesome approaches to food production. There is a longer history of food production in Europe than America, so people have had to learn how to grow food without destroying the soil. This is something that we as Americans are realizing is important. We felt that this term exemplified what we wanted to accomplish with our business. It closed the circle, as I showed in my last blog- Terroir Seeds means soil seeds or soil and seeds.

We have tried to “grow” our soil for the entire time we have been growing food, and have discovered many things- one of the biggest is that the fertilizers are for the plants, not the soil. One must pay attention to the soil in order to have successful, long term food production. We wanted to pay attention to the soil in our business as well.

When we found Underwood Gardens for sale, we realized that it would be a perfect fit for what we wanted to accomplish. The direction of Underwood Gardens was very close to what we wanted with the diversity of the seeds. We saw that we could add the soil aspect to the business and move forward, combining the qualities of the heirloom seeds with building the best soil possible to achieve the best of both worlds- great flavor and nutrition with healthy soil that will sustain people for a long time. Expanding the selection of offerings and  increasing the depth of knowledge presented, both for the soils and the seeds is our primary goal. We are finding “new” heirloom varieties in all areas- vegetables, herbs and flowers, as well as new information on their history and uses, both culinary and medicinal. Several influential people have given us resources to find these offerings, and we will bring them to you as we get them grown out and tested.

This is an incredibly exciting time for all of us in many respects. There are changes on the horizon, some that we will make, some that we will have to adapt to in order to move forward. Many feel that we are at the “tipping point” in many areas- economic, agricultural, energy supply, social and environmental. Some of these choices we make are becoming easier, as we gain knowledge of the results of our choices. Some are going to be difficult to get used to, as habits are hard to change, even on a personal scale and especially on a social scale. We feel that the time of the community garden or small farm is upon us- it is one of the fastest growing segments in agriculture today. It is what has sustained us for the total amount of recorded history. In the words of Small Farmers Journal founder Lynn Miller- it is time for the Farmer Pirate; one who refuses to be drawn into the wizadry of modern chemical agribusiness and recognizes that in some things, the old ways truly are the best. We want to be with you for the journey of growing, whether it is the first time you’ve planted something, or the first time you’re planting heirloom seeds, we want to share the growing with all of our community. There are some incredible people in this community, many of whom are willing to share their experiences with all of us that need it- Cindy and myself included. Please join us as we begin this part of the journey.

by Stephen Scott
https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Terroir-Logo11.jpg 350 242 Stephen Scott https://underwoodgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Header.jpg Stephen Scott2009-02-03 00:00:592024-04-30 17:34:03What is Terroir Seeds and how does it relate to Underwood Gardens?
Page 2 of 212
Search Search
© Copyright 1993 - 2025 - Terroir Seeds | Underwood Gardens
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top