Archive for the 'food' Category

Sixteen Tons and What Did You Get?

Sharon March 27th, 2008

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man’s made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that’s a-weak and a back that’s strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin’ when the sun didn’t shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said “Well, a-bless my soul”

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

- Original Lyrics by Tennessee Ernie Ford, but my favorite version is by the Nighthawks

Ok, we’re at the end of a boom, headed solidly into what is known as a “bust.”  As Richard Heinberg so aptly put it, the party is over.  Most projections suggest that even if we’re not at an oil peak, oil will never be cheap again.  Neither will food.  A lot of people’s houses will never be worth what they paid for them, much less appreciate enough to allow them to keep borrowing money for more home improvements or upgrades. 

I was thinking on this subject as I’ve been known to do (I can just here you saying, “no kidding,  - does she ever shut about it?” ;-)), and it occurred to me to ask you all.  Was it worth it?  That is, do you feel like that last 10 years were good years for you?  Or for the country?  Was it all good enough that it was worth the price - both the one we’re going to pay now, but also the trade-offs we had to make in the process?

That last question might seem unfair - after all, who in their right mind would say anything good about the direction the US has gone in for the last 7 years?  Surely she can’t attribute everything about the Bush administration to peak oil and the boom times?  And as to the first, well, sure, there were good times, right?

But think how much of what we’ve lost you can attribute - that is, it isn’t just a coincidence that we got involved in a vast, endless oil war, that we lost much of our personal freedom, that we consolidated wealth into a narrower strip of the population than ever before, that corporate power grew exponentially.  I think this is one thing that a lot of people still don’t grasp - these things did not just happen - they were the logical cost of what we got in exchange.

That is, it isn’t possible to build an economy dependent on an ever-increasing supply of cheap oil without eventually making evil choices simply to keep the supply flowing.  It isn’t possible to stop taking care of ourselves and paying corporations large sums of our money to meet our most basic needs without those sums translating into political power.  It isn’t possible to increasingly invest in the money economy at the expense of the home and family economy without many people being increasingly priced out of the economy all together - and so on. 

We went shopping for a set of things - more stuff, bigger houses, more energy, endless growth, corporations who will take over any inconvenient jobs for us,  and we didn’t look very carefully at the price tag.  Essentially, we put it all on our credit card, and now we’ve hit our limit, and the payment is coming due.  And most of us had no idea what we were buying.  We did it in ignorance - but partly willful ignorance.  Because the evidence was out there if we had wanted to see it. 

Now I know that most of my readers are not blue collar workers, but I was struck about how apt the lyrics of “Sixteen Tons” are increasingly to all of us.  Yeah, it is presumptuous for middle class white folks to bemoan their fate when there are plenty of other more screwed people around us - except that most of us are going to be just another species of debt slaves - ones who are luckier than some, and less lucky than others.  And I know not all of my readers are all that middle class - and I suspect fewer and fewer will be.

Here’s the thing - we really did sell our souls to the company store.  The company store isn’t a literal spot - it is all the places that the growth economy says “put your money here” - and lookie, the company you just bought your shoes from is probably a subsidary of the same folks you pay your credit card bills to.  The whole growth economy is a company store - you keep the system going by paying in (buying stuff), some of the same money (a little less each time)  rotates around and pays you to buy more stuff, but some of it gets filtered off to go deprive you of access to power and put wealth in the hands of people who already had it. Catherine Austin Fitts calls the growth economy and the political system that goes with it “the tapeworm” and that’s not a bad name.  The thing is, we can never, ever catch up - we’re never going to fix the problem by chasing those dollars around in the circle again, and letting a few more people skim off the top.

So was it worth it?  If you think about what we lost in our democracy, in self-sufficiency, in good health as we ate crappy commercial food and sat in front of the computer all day, in our kids as they came to belong to popular culture and the tv advertisers more than they belong to us, was it really worth it?  For those of us who got them, were the nice clothes and the cool toys and the iPods worth it?  For those who didn’t, was it worth it that some of us got it?  Why the hell aren’t we angrier at ourselves, and those who facilitated these choices?  The reality is that life shouldn’t be “another day older and deeper in debt.”  The company store never has anything so good that it is worth getting to the point we’ve got to. 

Every so often, I run up against someone who is just plain horrified at the idea that in the future they might have to grow gardens, preserve their own, get out use their muscles to grow food, repair their underwear, to get out and do the work of making our own and meeting many of our own needs.  That work sounds too hard, the price sounds too high.  Over on the Oil Drum when I suggested we might need 100 million farmers, someone called me “Pol Pot” and suggested I was going to be driving aging baby boomers out to midwestern cornfields at gunpoint (ok, I admit to thinking that that image was kind of funny, actually ;-)).  That’s an extreme version of this conviction that it would be beyond horrible for us to have to meet more of our needs, but I do think that’s a common reaction - the idea that the work is too hard, that we’re better off now.

But I want to question that.  Are we better off?  Are we really?  Is the level of vulnerability we have to economic crisis better?  Does our food taste better?  Do we have what most parents and grandparents have - a secure future for our kids?  Do we know that they will have “better than we did?”  Do we look forward to a stable, optimistic world where things get better?

Any evaluation of how “bad” it will be to go back to an agrarian society has to have at its root an honest evaluation of what we have now - about what will be better and what will be worse.  And it has to contain an honest evaluation of the price we pay for what we get.  Most people on either side of any debate will pretend that there is no price tied to their “side” and a high one attached to the other.  We’ve gotten so used to the growth economy, and so confused by the sheer scope of what we live in that most of us can’t even see that the price tag was hanging off our company store purchases all along - we just didn’t read it.

 You went to work every day, and you contributed to the party.  You moved your metaphorical sixteen tons, whether you did it with sweat or with the long aching muscles of someone who sits on their ass all day.  And now, the FED will bail out companies, and let them come for your foreclosed house, and the credit card companies turn you into debt slaves.  That party is over - but it is extra over for us, who will not be bailed out.  Unless, of course, we bail one another as best we can, with what we’ve got. 

Time to recognize that we didn’t want half this shit anyway - and that none of us were prepared to pay this kind of a price.  So we need to find a new way - close the fucking store, start rethinking the system, and ask ourselves - what do we really want, and what is the price we’re really willing to pay for it?

And the answer to that is this - stop giving them your money.  Stop buying from the company store when you can.  And start building another economy - one that can hold us up when things fall down.  It isn’t easy.  It will suck.  A lot of us have unused muscles.  A lot of us will suffer.  But no small refinement on the present system will fix the problem - we paid too much for something we didn’t care enough about.  We lost what mattered.  Now, we have to get it back, and we’re going to have pay even more.  The difference is some things are worth high prices.

Democracy. Hope for the future.  A better world for our kids.  Once upon a time they were worth “Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”  They are sure as hell worth digging some dirt for.

 Sharon

Food Storage With Pregnant Women, Infants and Young Children

Sharon March 25th, 2008

This week I’m going to spend a lot of time on specific needs, and how to adapt your food storage to meet those needs.  Among the most common special circumstances is a childbearing woman, infant or young children.  Even if you personally are male or past childbearing, you may end up being the place of respite for family who have these issues in a crisis, and it is, IMHO, important to think about them.  I have encountered many people over the years who never expected to see their children suddenly arrive back home, to end up raising their nephews or grandchildren, or never expected to get pregnant (or pregnant again) and did.  Do not think that this information could never be relevant to most of us.  Remember, plans are good - but plans go awry regularly.

The first, and probably most essential component here is water.  I know a lot of people respond to my discussions of storing water as “ok, we’ve moved into total whack-job territory.”  And yet, I’m going to say that this is particularly important if your household includes or might include pregnant women, infants or very young children who are especially vulnerable to disease, parasites and chemical contaminations.  They also all have very little toleration for dehydration or water stress.

 So if you have or might have young children, pregnant women or infants, store water, and have a way of filtering water in the long term.  If you have a limited supply of filtered or known safe water, and are worried about contamination, the last people to touch potentially contaminated water should be children or pregnant women - lifelong consequences are possible. 

Pregnant women need more water and more of some nutrients.  Storing a pregnancy multivitamin if you could potentially become pregnant is not a bad idea.  Regular multivitamins will mostly suffice, though, if a varied diet is possible.  Folate (found in eggs and greens) and protein are particularly important - make sure pregnant women get more of these foods.

One issue for pregnant women may be nausea - on a food storage diet it is particularly difficult to deal with food issues.  To the extent you can, women in early pregnancy suffering from nausea should be accomodated in any way possible - the reality is that hunger makes the nausea worse and can result in a “death spiral” of being unable to eat or keep anything down long enough to deal with hunger induced increases in nausea.  This can cause dehydration, occasionally even death.  So if you are relying on food storage and have a sick pregnant woman, do the best you can to find something she can eat, if you know you plan to be pregnant and have specific triggers you might consider storing them, also if you plan to be pregnant, sea bands or ginger might work (nothing worked for me ;-) but I mention it). 

Otherwise, pregnancy doesn’t require special foods.  But infants do.  Infants under 4 months (6 months is considered ideal) should be exclusively breast-fed whenever possible.  Breastfeeding is essential - and in a crisis, it can actually save lives.  Formula often becomes unavailable in a crisis, and a nursing mother can not only keep her own infant hydrated (even if she is suffering from dehydration she will continue to make some milk) but potentially other infants as well who can drink expressed milk in a bottle or cup or be taught to nurse (sometimes).  While not every woman can nurse, far more can than do, and for longer than most American women do. There’s more on the value of this here:

http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/12/52-weeks-down-week-30-nurse-and.html

But what about women who can’t nurse, or those who adopt? And, for that matter, I’m going to say something that most mothers don’t like to hear.  We aren’t immortal or invulnerable - trust me, I know how it feels to believe that you have to be ok, because your children depend so much on you.  But things happen sometimes to mothers.  And the survival of our babies and children shouldn’t depend on the ability of any one adult to be present and to feed them.  So having some kind of backup situation makes sense. 

That backup situation could be another lactating woman in close proximity, it could be a goat (not a cow), or it could be a store of infant formula.  I know that we should whenever possible, store what we use and vote with our dollars.  But every time I had a baby, before I gave birth, my husband and I bought a six month supply of generic, cheap infant formula.  It lasts about 2 years in storage (and unopened can be safely used for another year or two, but will lose nutritional value and may not adequate, so do this only in a dire emergency to keep a baby alive - a wet nurse or goat would be better) and before it expired, we would give it to our local food pantry that always desperately needed formula. 

I am a passionate advocate of breastfeeding - but I care much more that babies live even if their Moms aren’t around, or can’t nurse them, and someone be able to take care of the babies around them. Only you know if your circumstance merits doing this, but it is something to think seriously about - I think of it as a charitable donation, one I hope never to need myself.

Once an infant is 4 months old (again, six is considered optimal, but by 5 months my kids were always grabbing food out of my mouth at the table, so thought they were ready), you can gradually begin transitioning them to mashed up solids.  (Actually, when I was an infant, solids were begun as early as 6 weeks - this is not recommended now, but if formula or breastmilk were in short supply, it could be considered - again, do it only if you have to.)  Waiting longer is considered better, particularly if you have a family history of food allergies.

Babies don’t need “baby food” per se, although it is good to start them on mashed up very simple, low allergen foods like white rice, greens, potatoes or orange vegetables.   But again, they should be primarily getting their food from mother’s milk, goat’s milk or formula until nearly a year - babies need a high fat, high protein, high quality diet.  If you think they may come into your orbit, store for them.

Young children, under 2, need more fat than most people, so storing some extra high fat food is a good idea.  Fish oil is a particularly useful thing if you can keep it cool, because it enhances brain development. Otherwise, they simply need a balanced, healthy diet.  But this can be tough with young children, since toddlers often are extremely picky eaters.  This means that storing familiar foods and getting kids familiar with whole foods used in storage is especially important. 

Toddler pickiness has some evolutionary advantages - as they get more mobile, they get more choosy about what they eat, which is protective.  It is helpful to recognize that this is a passing stage, and just concentrate on finding foods they like.  Remember also that toddlers often have to encounter an unfamiliar food over and over again before they will try it - keep trying.   Generally speaking, if they aren’t making a radical dietary transition - that is a complete break from familiar foods - which they shouldn’t be, since we’re all trying to eat what we store - kids won’t generally do themselves any harm.

For healthy older children, I think a low-tolerance policy towards picky eating is important - I’ve written more about getting over picky eating here.  And again, kids make it extra-urgent that you begin eating out of your food storage regularly.

I’ll post some kid friendly food storage recipes in one of my next posts - more coming soon!

Sharon

The Seeds of Hunger: Seed Availability as a Limiting Factor

Sharon March 2nd, 2008

Welcome to the Month of March, which will be officially known as “Hard Times Now” month over here at CB. During the course of this month, I’m going to work under the assumption that we may reach a crisis point fairly soon due to economic constraints - and the underlying pressures of energy and food.

Do I know this to be true? Absolutely not - nor is my intent to scaremonger. But I do think that living the thought experiment of “what would happen if we entered into a Depression right now” is an important exercise. There are simply too many signs of deep, pervasive trouble (I’m not even going to bother linking here - if you don’t know what I mean check out the Debt Rattle at www.theautomaticearth.blogspot.com).

So whether we’re talking obliquely about a food crisis by talking about food storage and preservation, or we’re explicitly exploring what we might have reason to be concerned about, I’m going to focus this month (and ask my readers to do the same) on the possibility that we may not have years to prepare or accustom ourselves to the idea of hard times, but weeks or months.

Which makes this a good time for me to write a series that I’ve been mulling over and working on for some time, about the problem of seed supplies. That is, I wanted to ask the question of whether our seed supply would be able to meet demand if we suddenly needed to move to large scale gardening and home food production? Would we even be able to do so, in a fast-growing food crisis (not unlike the one that seems to be beginning now)?

I found the answers disturbing. The first part will go over the problems of seed production. The second part will focus on what we can do about that, and the third and fourth on the ways that growing a seed saving garden that you rely upon for food and future food is different than the kind of gardening many of us do.

I’ve said before that I don’t find it especially likely that the US will undergo a Cuban-style sudden loss of all fossil fuel inputs anytime soon. I suspect our transition will go more slowly. But believing that we won’t have a sudden energy crisis doesn’t mean that I think that we may not be forced to make a fairly rapid transition to a regenerative, home scale agriculture.

It is not at all difficult to imagine present trends of rising food prices and and absolute shortages, combined with a faltering economy to bring about widespread hunger not only in the Global South, but in the North as well.

Right now most Americans and other rich world denizens are still fairly oblivious about the world’s depleted food supplies, falling reserves and the implications of peak oil and climate change for the food supply. While people are beginning to wake up to energy issues and climate change, the reality that it will affect their diets, and their access to dinner simply hasn’t penetrated. The news has just begun to discuss food issues, but we are already well into the early stages of a food crisis that is likely to continue to worsen.

When people do finally become aware, they are likely discover their vulnerability in some fairly difficult, unpleasant ways. They are likely to find stores short of preferred food – or prices too high for them to pay and food pantries unable to meet demand. They will need to eat different foods, and learn to grow them. Which means they will need seeds – millions or tens of millions of people will need seeds for their gardens.

And they will not merely need a couple of packets of tomatoes, basil and peppers, but enough seed to plant fairly large gardens filled with staple crops that can feed them through their dry or cold seasons, along with the tomatoes peppers and other flavoring crops that make such a diet palatable. That is, they will need ounces of parsnip and carrot seed, larger quantities still of seeds of greens for succession plantings, pounds of seed potatoes and plant starts. If they need winter or dry season greens, they will need additional seeds for sprouting.

And, because the need to garden is likely to be accompanied by economic difficulties, they will need open pollinated seeds, that is, seeds that come true to type, rather than more expensive hybrids that have to be bought year after year. Then, they will need to learn to save them, and in many cases, learn to produce enough seed for next year’s crop as well as feeding themselves, to store it and keep it viable. Or, if they rely on hybrids they will need to find the money for more seeds – but with millions or tens of millions of people competing for available seed sources, and predictable rises in price.

We face the real possibility that it may well be easier to teach 100 million Americans (and a similar proportion of folks in other nations in the Global North) how to grow food than it will be to find enough seeds to feed them, and to grow more, if an agricultural transition happens rapidly, requiring a large percentage of the US to grow food to feed itself quickly.

Obviously, there is no such thing in any meaningful sense as “peak seed” that is, a seed crisis is a short term, rather than long term problem. But assuming the possibility of a Depression or skyrocketing food prices, it is not so very hard to imagine that many of us might depend on our food supplies – and soon. With a large percentage of the US population needing to transition to home production in the space of a year or two, seed supply represents an enormous potential bottleneck, and one we have not consider sufficiently.

That is, individuals have thought about storing and saving seed for themselves, but my own perception is that little has been written or discussed in regards to the real stakes of the seed issues on a large scale.

There are a number of issues here. The first is the absolute supply of seed, the second the (vastly smaller) supply of open pollinated, non-GMO seeds. There are concerns about time to ramp up commercial seed production, and time needed to become a successful seed saver. There are issues of seed quality that are likely to become more critical when we depend on our garden seed to eat – that is, when a crop failure means that we do not have any peas this year. There are critical issues of genetic diversity and disease vulnerability, and particularly the vulnerability of staple food crops like corn and potatoes.

I think most of us have underestimated the potential limits created by our current seed production model when applied in a crisis. There are also solutions to these problems, and I will get to these.

One of the most obvious is home seed saving – the more people who produce seed, the better. But seed saving is not always easy, and seed savers gardens work differently, in some respects, than the gardens of those who can rely on seed always being available. Parts 3 and 4 of this series will consider how to create a seed savers garden – how much land needs to be allotted to seed crops and how serious seed saving shapes our gardens.

But first, I want to emphasize the sheer magnitude of the problem. I suspect many of us who are aware of food security issues have thought, at least a little, about the problems of getting seed in a situation of energy disruption, but mostly on a personal level. This essay is an attempt to evaluate how serious the seed issue might be on a national level for the US. I would encourage readers in other countries to consider doing similar evaluations for their own nations. I’ve kept my focus narrowly on my own country here because seed policies and garden practices differ enormously – other nations might well be better prepared. They’d almost have to be.

It is helpful to begin by describing the seed trade as a whole. The vast majority of seed production in the US is focused on professional, industrial scale farmers, and on a fairly narrow range of crops. A majority are either hybrids, that is they (generally – some plants labeled hybrids have actually stabilized genetically and do come true, but this is comparatively uncommon – more on this later) do not “come true” if you save seeds from them and replant.

That is, if you take an open pollinated seed (once all seeds were open pollinated), plant it, grow the plant out and save seed, you’ll get something pretty much like what you planted, if you take reasonable care to prevent cross-pollination. If you plant a hybrid, you’ll get a mix of “off-types” that resemble the parents, not the plant you want. Some of these may be fine, some may be nigh-on inedible – you simply don’t know. You can replant seed from hybrids, but often what you get will not be what you want – the plants will be less vigorous, lower yielding, less good tasting or in other ways inferior, because the hybrid was about the combination of the two parents, not either parent singularly. If you have time and patience, you can grow these hybrids out, get rid of any ones you don’t want, and select until you get something you do want, but that takes some years, and does not offer short term solutions.

The home garden trade is a small subset of the seed trade, and the serious home gardening/small farming trade a vastly smaller subset even of that. The majority of home gardeners start comparatively few seeds – they purchase pre-started flats of vegetables instead of seeds. I’m consistently amazed to see things that are grown from seed incredibly easily – lettuce, for example, in flats, and being bought like wildfire. So the majority of home gardeners have little experience planting seeds at all – carrots, perhaps and peas, and that’s probably about it. Although slightly off my main topic, this is something worth noting - even most experienced gardeners may have almost no experience growing food from seeds.

Of gardeners who do start seeds, the vast majority – more than 90% of them – do not order from seed catalogs and companies that specialize in home garden seeds, they get their seeds from seed racks in garden centers, supermarkets, Walmarts and other places. And the majority of seed companies that sell through these seed racks are not deeply invested in producing high quality seed. According to Steve Solomon, founder of Territorial Seeds and author of _Gardening When It Counts_ the vast majority of seed sales involve simply the purchase of bulk seed, often from foreign distributors, and repackaging of that seed without variety trials, often without germination tests, and with little consideration of what is adapted to particular regions.

In many cases, the cheapest varieties of bulk seeds will have off-types, because hybridization often requires labor-intensive hand pollinating in the field, and high cost isn’t what such companies are after. Solomon also notes that many companies use extremely poor quality seed, even sweepings from the seed floor, in cheap packets to be sold in commercial garden centers. Those 10cent packages of seed you see in various places may not actually even have 10 cents worth of seed in them.

Only about 10% of the home garden seed trade is focused on high quality vegetable seed production, mostly by mail order. These are the seed catalogs whose seed will have the germination percentages they claim. These are the people who will replace your packet that does have poor germination, and who will ensure vigorous seed with varities tested for your region – but it is important to remember that they do serve a tiny percentage of the total seed sales in the US, and they are not necessarily prepared to serve a vast increase in need.

That is not to say that high quality mail order catalogs are the only place you can get decent or viable seed – but they probably are the best source for home gardeners.

In an agricultural transition period, when people start running short of food, what they will want are seeds that are viable (that is, they are not too old and have been stored well, and thus, will grow), vigorous (that is, they grow well and don’t produce weak plants vulnerable to disease and pests), high yielding (that is, they produce a lot of whatever crop we are seeking), are adapted to their climate and to small scale food production (that is, they weren’t selected for commercial production, or primarily for shipping ability and they grow well where we’re growing food), available in fairly large quantities (most home gardeners buy a packet or two of each thing, but if you are feeding yourself from your garden, or making succession crops, or selling at market, you’ll find you need much more seed), and reasonably priced (that is, you can afford to buy it, or you can save seed and only buy it once).

Most of the home garden seed trade may produce seed that has some of these qualities, maybe even all of them. But only a small percentage is focused on ensuring that all these requirements are met. Assuming that, for example, we were to see food shortages in 2009, and a widespread agricultural transition beginning in 2010, how long would it take to ramp up an adequate seed supply that would serve small scale market gardeners and home food producers, and meet the above requirements?

Well, first of all, we could expect to see serious shortages in 2010. That year, seed suppliers would be unable to meet demand – they have been expecting less than 5% of the American population to plant any kind of garden, most of them flower gardens, and they simply don’t have enough spare production capacity to meet present needs. This is particularly likely if the biofuels boom is continuing, and there is no leeway in the demand for seed among commercial farmers that might be sold to home gardeners.

Imagining that 10-20% of the population begins to garden in 2010 and existing home gardeners expand their production, we can expect seed prices to skyrocket, availability to fall, and many people to have to rely on seed packets that don’t meet the above requirements – that is, seed packets that have been kept in heated supermarkets and thus have reduced viability, or those routinely placed outside where they get wet and are exposed to repeated freezing and thawing, or were of low quality to begin with. So not only will the seed trade come up short, but some of what will be sold will be seed that was never of a quality likely to feed those who depend on them.

This is seed that was grown cheaply, with minimal investment of labor in things like isolation and drying. The idea was to allow a gardener who wanted a few lettuce plants to essentially dump the whole package on the ground and get a few dozen lettuce plants – and for that purpose, it works. The problem is that if the home gardener really needs to eat the food they are growing, they need higher germination rates and vigor than they are likely to get from many commercial seed rack seeds. Remember, when you eat what you grow, seed quality equals food quantity. Poor seed means hunger

Now seed production obviously requires at least one year to ramp up – and two years for the large number of primary vegetable crops that are biennials. Many of these are staple foods in difficult times (carrots, cabbage, etc…). So let us imagine that early in 2010, as it becomes obvious that there’s much more demand for seed than there is supply, seed producers all over start casting around like mad for people to grow seed out for them.

In some cases, this will be perfectly possible. Existing seed farms may be able to ramp up their production. Large companies may be able to outsource seed production to poorer countries, where the labor intensive process of hybridization can be done cheaply – assuming, of course, that the crisis allows such trade and expansion. But again, assuming that the biofuels boom is still in progress, we may see difficulty finding land to triple or quadruple seed production.

Seed companies will probably look to farmers who have not grown seed before – and this is potentially a good business for them. But it is worth noting that the need for seed production will become obvious in late winter and early spring of a year in which many farmers will have already planned for crops – that is, it may not be easy to convince farmers to begin growing a field of carrots for seed production – that farmer may have expected to grow watermelons for market instead. A high price may have to be paid for the seed – more than the watermelons would have generated, which is likely to raise the price of seed further.

Seed saving on a large scale is quite difficult for some crops, and for inexperienced farmers – again, it is not unlikely that offtypes and some crosspollination will occur, particularly for wind pollinated crops that are difficult to isolate, such as corn. Since seed production also requires adequate equipment (winnowing, drying etc…) and storage facilities, again, it is likely that there will be some losses in production, even if seed sellers can find enough farmers to produce the seed at all so quickly.

For biennials, there are several additional issues. Most biennial production in the US takes place in fairly warm areas where it is not too difficult to overwinter chard or carrots in the field. If it is necessary to localize seed production, this may require more capital investment in hoophouses and other heat retention aids. Some crops may not be able to be produced on a large scale in some regions – for example, production of cabbage seed in the cold northeast generally involves digging up the cabbages, planting them in buckets of sand and replanting them – not bad on the home scale, much harder over multiple acres. This is enormously labor-intensive and large scale local cabbage seed production may be impossible – or prohibitively expensive. Also, a biennial crop that stays in the ground must compensate the farmer for extended periods in which she can’t plant anything else – again, prices can be expected to rise.

Meanwhile, new seed savers are likely to have similar difficulties with keeping seed pure and overwintering some crops – the learning curve on seed saving is reasonably long. It requires very little practice to successfully save lettuce, bean and pea seeds, but quite a bit to master squash, corn and beets, especially in a neighborhood where lots of other gardeners are creating opportunities for cross-pollination. Again, this is not necessarily a disaster – cross-pollination doesn’t always result in something you’d choose, but often the results are edible. But sometimes they aren’t – or just barely – if you have ever eaten the results of a badly isolated squash cross.

Practiced seed savers will be under some pressure to expand, either so that they can sell, give or share seed, or to enable family members to start their own gardens. So they can expect to have to either enlarge existing gardens, or devote an increasing percentage of their gardens to seed production. Some crops, such as squash, are have no “price” for seed production – that is, you can have your squash, eat it, and save the seeds. But for a majority of crops, a choice has to be made – eat it or save seed from it. Bolting lettuce and spinach are unpleasant to eat – a tomato, eggplant or pepper has to be on the verge of rotting to produce good seed. Peas and beans must be dried and saved. So must potatoes and sweet potatoes. Expanding seed production means making choices between more food and more seed – difficult in a time of crisis, when we’re hungry.

So we can expect that the ramp up will involve quite a lot of low quality seed in the first year or two, either from grower error, or outright hucksterism. For example, those who do not care about the eventual result might simply strip the seeds off some ears of corn, unconcerned about the fact that a field of cow corn grew right across the road from the popcorn, and that the plant will not come true.

Certainly we can expect prices to rise dramatically, and families to struggle to pay them. It would be 1 year before any rise in production of annual vegetable crops could be expected. 2 years before we would see the first biennials – remember, biennials include many nutritious, calorie dense and cold hardy crops. But again, those first and second year efforts are likely to be expensive and contain many quality issues. By year three or even four or five, depending on the severity of the crisis and the rate at which new gardeners are added, we could expect both an easing of constraints and a better seed supply – but in the meantime, depending on how much we depended on our gardens, the cost may come in malnutrition, even starvation.

Next, solutions and the creation of a seed savers garden.

Sharon

How Expensive is Food, Really?

Sharon February 24th, 2008

There is no doubt whatsoever that rising food costs are hurting people all over the world. More than half of the world’s population spends 50% of their income or more on food, and the massive rise in staple prices threatens to increase famine rates drastically.  We are already seeing the early signs of this in Haiti and in other poor nations.

 It is also undoubtably true that rising food prices are digging into the budgets of average people, including me.  And I’ve got it easy. The 35 million Americans who are food insecure (that is, they may or may not go hungry in any given month, but they aren’t sure there’s going to be food) are increasingly stretched.  Supportive resources like food pantries are increasingly tapped.  And regular folks are really finding that food and energy inflation are cutting into their budget substantially.  The rises in food and energy prices alone have eroded real wages by 1.2 percent.  The USDA chief economist has announced that overall food prices will probably rise by another 3-4% this year, and grain products will rise considerably more. 

But there’s another side to this coin.  Rising food prices are to some extent  good for farmers.   Certainly, large grain farmers in the US, Canada and many other rich world nations have been experiencing a well deserved boom.  And there are plenty of people, me included, who have been arguing for years that we don’t pay enough of the true costs of our food.  So who is right?  How do you balance the merits and demerits of food prices?

One way would be think historically, as Jim Webster does in an opinion piece in The Farmer’s Guardian.  He observes something that has long struck me, that historically, it is completely normal to spend a lot of your money on food:

“It probably took 150 years for our civilisation to swing from a man’s annual wage being the yield of one acre, to that same acre paying him for a week. I wonder how long it will take to swing back?

Obviously we can try and push for increased yields, but to match the scale of increase we have seen since they huddled in gloomy bars and decided the Egyptians were liars if they said they got over 400kg an acre, we would have to hit 20 tons an acre. GM is not going to deliver that.

So personally I don’t think that wheat is dear, I don’t think it is dear at all.”

High food prices are obviously a matter of perspective.  By long term historical analysis of agrarian socities, food prices are undoubtably low, despite their current rise.  But when we talk about low food prices we tend to be implying that we could and should spend more money on food.  That is undoubtably true of middle class and above rich world denizens (who constitute a tiny percentage of the world’s whole population).  Many of these people already voluntarily spend more on food than most people, for pleasure or as participants in food movements of various sorts - specific diets, high culture food preferences, or environmental reasons.   But can most of the world endure higher food prices? And are all high food prices created equal?  We already know that poor urbanites and small scale subsistence farmers who buy some of their food are likely to be badly hurt.  But what about everyone else?  And are rising food prices the best way to create agricultural justice? 

As Helena Norberg-Hodge, Todd Merrifield and Steven Gorelick argue in _Bringing the Food Economy Home_ that the supposed low price of food masks several other truths.  The first is that percentage of household income spent on food comparison is based, to a large degree, on concealed costs. 

 The first is the reality of the two worker household.  When we compare the decline in percentage of US income spent on food between 1949 and 1997, a decline from 22% to 11%, the difference seems stark indeed.  But in that same, the single earner household went from being a norm to an anomaly - that is, it now took two people to support the family.  So yes, the percentage has dropped, but that represents in most cases, the percentage of two people’s working wages. 

But more importantly, as Norberg-Hodge et al point out, as the percentage of income spent on food fell, the percentage spent on housing skyrocketed.  And these two things are entirely related.  As the authors write,

 This is a direct consequence of the same economic policy choices that supposedly lowered the cost of food.  Those policies have promoted urbanization by sucking jobs out of rural areas and centralizing them in a relative handful of cities and suburbs.  In those regions, the price of land skyrockets, taking the cost of homes and rentals with it.

Thus, the proportion of income spent on food today may be less, but since total income needed is so much higher, people pay much more for food now than the statistics would lead us to believe.” (Norberg-Hodge et al, 73)”

I think this point is especially important, because it means we cannot view food prices in isolation from the society as a whole. 

 The reality is that industrialization creates not just costs, but real dependencies.  It isn’t just the high price of concentrated housing (housing whose value is now utterly divorced from the productive value of the land itself), but also upon a host of other things - urbanization means increased dependencies on energy, because large populations in close proximity can’t meet their own heating and cooling needs with locally sourced solutions, and infrastructure must be created to handle outputs.  As areas become more tightly populated and work is centralized, transport to those regions (agrarians may need to transport to sell and shop, but they often don’t need to “go to work” in the sense of daily transport dependencies) starts creeping up in cost, whether public or private. 

The process of industrialization and urbanization then creates the need to compensate for the rise in price to meet needs that were not previously monetized.  One way is to take more labor from either a single breadwinner, or add more breadwinners.  Juliet Schor, in her book _The Overworked American_ has documented that 19th century industrialization represented the longest hours ever worked by any people, despite our overwhelming perception that farmwork is unnecessarily hard.  The next most overworked people in history are us - we come right after the 19th century factory workers and coal miners, and well before any agrarian society.  But the rising costs of meeting basic needs mean that we must work harder than many agrarian people have.

For example, in _1066: The Year of the Conquest_ historian David Howarth notes that the average 11th century British serf worked one day a week to pay for his house, the land that he fed himself off of, his access to his lord’s woodlot for heating fuel, and a host of other provisions, including a barrel of beer for him and his neighbor on each Saints day (and there were a lot of him).  How many of us can earn our mortgage payment, our heat, and our beer on a single day’s work? 

The long hours required by industrial society also have the further “benefit” of ensuring that it is extremely difficult for those embedded in it to meet their needs outside the money economy.  It is difficult (not impossible, just difficult) to feed yourself from a garden when economic policies supporting urbanization create incentives to build on every piece of land, and when one works long hours, or multiple jobs.  As we see now, it is difficult even to feed your family a home cooked meal, much less grow one. 

But demanding more labor to meet these needs is only one part of the coin of industrializing economic policies - it is also necessary to move people who would prefer to stay there off their land, and to reduce prices for food, so that those now paying much more of their income into housing and energy can afford to eat.  As George Kent exhaustively documents in _The Political Economy of Hunger_, the main beneficiaries of the Green Revolution were not the world’s poor, the supposed recipients of our help, but the food buying members of the urbanized rich world, who got increasing quantities of cheap meat and food products.  This study was backed up by a 1986 World Bank study that concluded that increased food production in itself does not reduce hunger. 

What it does do, however, is reduce food prices paid to farmers, thus meaning fewer people can make their living successfully in agriculture.  It does create surpluses to dump on markets, thus increasing market volatility, and it does create incentives to turn farmland into urban land, and to increase the size of cities and their suburbs.

 Moreover, the industrial economy that strips value from food shifts that value, and the health of the economy to other things - thus, the ability of consumers to stop buying plastic crap and entertainment and shift their dollars to food is extremely limited - their jobs often depend on the plastic crap, not the food economy.  So we create powerful incentives to keep food prices low. 

There’s a tendency to look at the world through progressive lenses, and the story that Jim Webster tells is part of that.  It is true that food was far more hard earned in the past than it is now.  It is also true that other things that were comparatively low cost in an agrarian society were buried in the cost of food - the cost of land was tied to what it could produce.  Thus the cost of land was constrained in ways it cannot be when those ties between land and what it produces are broken.

Thus, when we think about the distinction between what is good for farmers and what is good for the population as a whole, we need to shift our thinking from short term analysis to long term, societal thinking.  That is, a short term boom in ethanol is undoubtably good for some farmers, but booms are followed by busts in many cases - given that biofuels produce more greenhouse gasses than fossil fuels and risk creating famine, the bust is nigh-inevitable.  And what farmers do not need is a boom and bust cycle that leads them to invest in land and equipment, only to find the value of their dropping again.

It is true that farmers benefit from rising per bushel prices for grains - or at least some of them do.  Many struggle as land taxes rise, fertilizer costs rise and the price of livestock feed goes up faster than the prices for their products.  But some benefit.  But it is worth noting that this represents no real shift towards enriching farmers - we are still using the same agricultural policies that give farmers the tiniest percentage of the cost of a loaf of bread.  To put this in perspective, agricultural writer A.V. Krebs observes that the Philip Morris corporation alone receives 10% of every single dollar spent on food in the US.  ConAgra alone gets 6%.  All the farmers in the US put together get just over 4%. 

 It is true that we underpay farmers - but the biofuels boom does nothing in that regard.  In fact, it inserts farmers into another boom and  bust cycle.  What farmers need are stable food prices, probably slightly higher than they have been, and to receive a decent portion of the price of the food we grow. And that will only happen if we start cutting out the corporate middle man, and working with farmers - giving them incentives to sell directly to consumers (who have to start eating whole grains instead of processed crap) because they know that the consumers who buy from them will not stop eating when the ethanol plants have to close down. 

 More importantly, we cannot create an agrarian economy without shifting back, on some level, to land and housing prices that are tied to the value of the soil underneath it - that is, having artificially inflated the cost of housing, we must, in the devaluation of housing, shift value back to agriculture.  As we lose other jobs, we must concentrate on creating agricultural jobs - and pushing the economy towards efficiencies of land use, not a reduction of human labor.   The price of food here is only a small part of the massive retrofitting of our economy required to pay the real price of our agriculture - and receive the real value.

 Sharon

It is Time for a New Victory Garden Movement!

Sharon February 10th, 2008

There is little question that it is time for us to create a new Victory Garden movement. That’s one of the central premises of Aaron’s and my book, and I don’t think there are very many people who understand what we’re facing who would deny that this is true.

In fact, there are quite a number of people in the Community Garden movement, and the blogging community who have supported the creation of a new Victory Garden movement. Some people doing this work include Bob Waldrop, whose call to action on local food systems has drawn considerable attention here (among other places):http://depletion-abundance.blogspot.com/2008/02/bob-waldrop.html , Foodshed Planet’s site has inspired others, http://www.victorygardendrive.blogspot.com/ and the group Revive the Victory Garden, who have called for 2 million new gardens to combat climate change in 2008: http://www.revivevictorygarden.org/, and there are literally too many others for me to list. But the movement is nascent, still beginning, and seems to need a little midwifing to get things moving along.

The reality is that interest in really, really local food is growing, and so is interest in food production, as food prices skyrocket and quality falls. And the best news is that this is a case where grassroots action not only can work, but it is the only thing that ever has worked - that is, in the US during both World Wars, in Cuba, in Russia - gardens for food security began and grew under the aegis of ordinary people acting to improve their world. While we can enable it from above, the creation of a victory garden movement is a person to person, blog to blog, neighbor to neighbor project. Why do it? A host of reasons, personal and political.

Victory Gardens Mean:

-Better Food - Fresher, better tasting, straight off the plant food money literally cannot buy!

- Better Health - More nutrition in just picked vegetables, grown without chemicals, while getting the kind of exercise many of us pay the gym for! Safety from industrial food contamination and toxic imports.

-Food Security - Food in your pots as prices get higher, supplies that can’t be disrupted by energy shortages, greater regional self-sufficiency. Millions of new gardeners can make sure that Americans don’t have to wait for distant food supplies to be trucked in - weeks after they are needed. Every gardener makes your region more secure.

-Higher Quality of Life - A more beautiful environment, stronger community, a better environment.

-More Money in your Pocket, More Time for What Matters - If you don’t need as much money for food, or to work as many hours to pay the grocery bills, you can use that money or take that time for what you really care about.

- The Chance to Serve Others and Create a More Just Society - Your Victory Garden can be a strike against hunger and poverty - you can have food to donate, and the ability to teach others to fish (ok, garden), and thus, eat for a lifetime.

- Reduce Corporate Power and Improve Democracy - We cannot simultaneously deplore the power corporations have in our society and depend on them to supply our most basic necessities. If we stop giving our hard earned money to the corporations who undermine our democracy, they will be less powerful!

-Protect Against Climate Change - Humus rich soils, full of organic matter can sequester tons of carbon, quite literally - and grow the best vegetables. We reduce our carbon emissions when we don’t have to drive to the store or buy fossil fuel grown food.

-Reduce our Energy Dependence - Fossil fuels are used in agriculture, both industrial and industrial organic at every step, from the fertilizer in the ground to the refrigerated truck to plastic bag they come in. We can eliminated fossil fuels from almost every step when we grow our own.

- Create Peace - We’re at war for oil right now. If we can cut back on our need for the stuff, we don’t have to kill or die for it.

-Hope for the Future - In a changing world, the ability to grow food, to share and enjoy it, and to live in a healthy world full of beautiful gardens may be the best legacy we can our children and grandchildren.

Ok, so we agree that we need Victory Gardens. How do we bring all the participants in this movement together, and create a real and national Victory Garden movement? How do we bring together professional farmers, with Victory Farms and city Gardeners, schools and community resources, and backyard advocates? How do we get Victory Gardening onto the national agenda? How do we teach millions of people how to grow, cook and eat their own, and why?

One part, of course, is the person to person work we’re doing now. The next step is to create a large-scale Victory Garden umbrella organization guided by people in every part of the Victory Garden movement - chefs and cooks helping people learn to eat, teachers helping children get involved, churches, corporations and community groups all putting gardens on public and private greenspaces, local “garden farmer markets” where very small scale producers can exchange or sell their extra in their neighborhoods, climate change and energy activists working on this simple way to cut our energy usage and reduce atmospheric carbon. That is, we need a movement - a real, serious movement. And we can do this.

And to get those new gardens and gardeners started. And for that, we need your help. We’ll be asking for more specific help as we go along, but getting started, we’d love all of you who blog to put out the Victory Garden idea, even if you usually write about other things. If you can, start a Victory Garden blog, and post a link in comments - I’ll put links up on this site and my other one.

And make the effort - reach out to one neighbor, at least, and help them get started gardening. Share seeds. Talk to your community, your synagogue, mosque, church, neighbors, school about gardening. Take a risk - for greater security later. Plant a front-yard garden, centered around a “V” for Victory (cabbages look great like this, particularly mixed with nasturtiums or calendula, but use your imagination). Be courageous - we need this Victory!

Shalom,

Sharon

« Prev