We’ve had chickens at our ranch going on three years now.  I think I’m only beginning to appreciate their value to us. We got them initially to help control the grasshoppers and flies around our ranch cabin.  We thought we’d get a few “yard eggs” and maybe have some extra to sell.  Now, we’re planning to expand our flock by 100 hens, and have chickens follow our herd as we rotate them through the fields.  The main economic benefit is still likely to be from the pest control, but egg demand is sky-rocketing, too.

At the moment, I only live at the ranch on weekends and school holidays, so I’m stuck in a suburban neighborhood during the week.  I miss my chickens when I’m in town. Every time I throw food into the garbage or even put it into the compost barrel, I think about them.  Our chickens eat virtually everything we don’t.  Between the dog and the chickens, not much goes to waste at the ranch.

The chickens have become my boys’ main chore out at the ranch.  They take pride in gathering the eggs each day, feeding them and helping keep the nest boxes freshly stocked with hay.  Our latest batch of hens are Ameraucaunas, which tend to like to lay their eggs in places other than their nest boxes. So every day is like an Easter Egg hunt,  especially since this breed lays green-blue eggs of varying hues.

And the taste of the eggs is out of this world!  The deep golden yolks have a better nutritional profile as well.

The hens have also become an integral part of our gardening.  Besides keeping insects down, we have learned that if we turn the soil a few weeks before we plant, the chickens will do a great job nipping all the little weeds that sprout and our garden is much more weed-free.  They love the grubs we turn over too.  I’ve got one black hen that comes running every time I head to the garden, in the hope she’ll get grubs or discarded greens.  The flip side is that we’ve established a running battle with the flock to keep then out of the garden once it’s planted, but I’ve gotten pretty handy with a roll of chicken wire and some pliers.

NPR’s Morning Edition this morning reported the economy has more people looking to raising a few backyard chickens and more cities passing ordinances allowing small urban flocks.

If you’re interested in getting started, you can find plenty of help on the internet: Backyard Chickens.com is a great place to start.  Mother Earth News printed a good series a few years ago, too.

Since last month’s post on the role of technology in feeding the world, I’ve been thinking a lot about the fundamental issue of GMO’s.

A primary GMO-related fear is the unknown consequences of the genetic manipulation.  I won’t discount this concern, but I would like to put it into perspective.

Every bit of variation in all the food crops (plant or animal) we consume arises by genetic mutation.  As humans domesticated plants and animals, we selected mutants (sounds a lot scarier than ‘variants’, doesn’t it?) that suited our needs better.  These mutations had some visible difference (color, faster growth, better taste), but beyond what we could see, we had NO idea what other changes were caused by the mutation.

Since early in this century, plant breeders have produced new varieties of all sorts of plants by something called “mutation breeding“.  Seeds are subjected to some form of mutagenizing agent, such as a chemical, UV light or x-rays.  Thousands are planted to screen for and select desirable mutations.  This is a primary way in which disease-resistant varieties of vegetables, fruits and other crops are developed.  The FAO maintains a database with thousands of catalogued varieties.

Even heirloom varieties are mutants.  Are you familiar with those cool zebra-striped heirloom tomatoes?  Those stripes are caused by a “jumping gene” that randomly inserts itself in the genome, sometimes disrupting a color gene.

At least the GMO varieties had to go through some sort of characterization of their biochemical properties.

Food for Thought: Excerpted from Feedstuffs

ANOTHER 40 million people have been pushed into hunger this year, primarily due to higher food prices, according to the U.N.’s Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO).  The group’s just-released estimate brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, which compares to 923 million in 2007.

In the next 40 years, it is estimated that the amount of food that will need to be produced to feed the world’s growing population will be greater than the amount already produced throughout the history of humankind. That is a huge challenge for farmers and ranchers around the world, and as Erpelding [of Elanco] explained, it is only achievable through continued access to technology, improvements in genetics, proper animal care and efficiency in production.

Sustainability, availability and affordability are equally important in feeding the world.  

I often get involved in discussions where technology is painted with a broad black brush.  Technologies, such as hybrid crops, effective veterinary treatments and even GMOs are primarily responsible for the the availability of affordable food.  Technology can support sustainability, like some crops that can grow in salt-poisoned soils or with less nitrogen.

It is important not to reject technology just because it is technology.  It is also important to look at the entire impact and cost of technologies, not just the bottom cash line.  Policies and production decisions should be made based on facts (all of them) and not emotions.

One of the meta-issues that impacts my life in a surprisingly large number of ways is the growing disconnect between food consumers and food producers. 

As a producer, my business is affected by the views and beliefs of politicians, activist groups and consumers; the vast majority of whom don’t have a realistic idea of what life is like for a typical American farmer or rancher.  Legislation such as California’s Proposition 2 and the EPA’s proposed ‘cow tax’ can have huge impact on food production and producer’s lives. 

As a farmer’s market vendor, I come fact to face with the reality of the  gulf between consumers and producers every week.  Although I am sometimes discouraged by the misconceptions I hear, I am also  heartened by the sincere interest many of my customers have in knowing about their food and in hearing the “real story” of how their food is produced.  

Dan Rather, who came from a ranching background, once told me that he would love to see a series of “farm Disney Lands”; not with rides and cutesified animals, but where people could actually come see how food is produced and that there are real people, real families, producing it. 

Information is out there; encouraging outreach, taking a hard look at activist groups, and presenting the producer’s viewpiont on issues.  I suspect that much of the what is written ends up preaching to the choir, as pro-ag articles tend to be in agricultural-focused, not consumer-oriented venues. 

If you are a producer, be an ag ambassador, know the issues and be willing to discuss them.   If you are a consumer, reach out and ask questions, visit a farmer, keep an open mind.   The best way to bridge the gap is person-to-person.

I don’t have the answer, but it’s an interesting debate.  I’m going to paraphrase heavily from Dot.Earth, because frankly, this is way out of my area of expertise. 

George Washington Carver was of the opinion (back when there were only 2 billion people on earth) that as we depleted the energy stores from ores and oil, we could fully replace them with energy produced on our farms.  But, now that we are pushing 7 billion people, it is unlikely that we can grow enough biofuel AND food to provide our needs without developing every inch of land possible. 

Ultimately, it is sunlight that provides our energy.  It seems logical that the more directly we harvest that sunlight, the more efficient we will be.  Looked at in that way, solar (and wind) power, followed by the stored solar energy in oil and other fossil fuels are arguably more efficient than using plants to convert sunlight to carbon. 

The debate continues:  Some argue that intensified agriculture can cut land use; concentrated agriculture leads to increases in production efficiencies.  Others argue that as more of our crops go to ethanol, more land is pushed into row-crop production that is best left to other uses. 

As a biologist (and therefor completely unqualified to offer an opinion), I believe that any system that has built-in redundancies in its abilities to meet its needs is inherently healthier and better able to adapt to changing circumstances than a system that has only one source.  In other words, as long as we don’t go overboard and become completely dependent on biofuels, having additional options for our energy is probably a good thing.

Happy Cow-loween:  Visit Cattle4Kids.com for some fun pictures, games and information about cattle, 4-H and related topics.  (picture courtesy of Beef Daily’s “Halloween Cowboy Style“)

Halloween Junk Food at Whole Foods: My friend, Dr. Rita-Marie, is fired up (read that po’d) that Whole Foods is pimping white flour, white sugar, food coloring-frosted cookies as Halloween Treats.  So much for “nutrients intact, as nature created” (the supposed Whole Foods motto).

Food Safety Gone Astray: A November ‘teach-in’ about how recent changes in agri-business practices implemented in the name of “food safety” have had harmful environmental effects.  In particular, changes in production after the e-coli-in-spinach outbreak may have negative effect on wildlife with dubious value to food safety.

Field Guide to Organic Labels:  An op-ed piece from Kansas puts organic labels and the decision to buy in perspective.

One of the issues that people often bring up to me as a beef producer is the “footrprint” of eating meat versus a strictly vegetarian diet.  I know that my cattle are raised on land that could not be (or should not be) used for any sort of cultivation, but I’ve been looking for some good research reports on the subject.   I got some leads from friends at the American Farmland Trust.

A study at Cornell University looked at a range of diets in terms of how much of New York’s population could be fed by food produced within the state.  Although a strictly vegetarian diet uses the least total land mass, a diet that includes some meat and dairy is more efficient in terms of total land use and sustainability.  The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay.

The Delta Farm Press cites the same study, but also points out that biotechnology can further reduce the footprint through less chemicals (i.e. bt Cotton) or getting more production from fewer animals (i.e. rBST).

The New York Times recently published an open letter by Michael Pollan to the next “Farmer in Chief”.  It begins:

It may surprise you to learn that among the issues that will occupy much of your time in the coming years is one you barely mentioned during the campaign: food.

Although we don’t think about it too often, our food production system is inextricably linked with health, climate change, use/dependence on fossil fuels and economics.

Some of my favorite points in the letter:

• Cheap food  that is highly processed, high fat and/or highly sweetened has hidden costs in an increase in partially preventable  illnesses, such as obesity, heart disease, type II diabetes.
• New policies in food subsidies should promote healthy food choices, local economies, diversity and quality over quantity (as measured in calories).
• Conservation is not an either/or proposition relative to food production.  We can produce food in ways that have minimal, or even beneficial effects on the environment.
• Farmland preservation and support of more of our population making a living at agriculture are critical to a healthy food system.  This means training and incentivising young farmers.
• Decentralizing food production will get more people in touch with where their food comes from.  Consumers that really understand food production are less likely to make unreasonable legislative demands and more reasonable diet choices.
• The new first family should establish their own “Victory Garden” on the South lawn of the White House.
• Lunch needs to be an educational part of the school day.  We need to raise kids that can make good food choices and  know how to cook.

We touched on this same topic earlier in this blog.  Most of all, I agree with Pollan that the food crisis paired with our energy costs presents an exceptional opportunity for real reform.

Kids cereals still too sugary.  According to Consumer Reports, 11 top kids cereals have as much sugar as a glazed donut, and two are more than 50% sugar by weight.  Best bets for fiber and low sugar? Cheerios, Kix, Honey Nut Cheerios (all General Mills), and Life (Quaker Oats).

 The Organic Milk Debate: Is big the same as bad? Consumers and activist groups are saying yes.  Do industrial-scale organic farms violate the intentions of the organic laber, or is it the next step in bringing organic to the masses?

Eating Healthy on a Budget:  Lots of links and tips in this post from BlogHer.  I’m still a fan of more fresh, less processed, more home-grown and home-cooked.

Bill of Rights for Young Athletes.  From Arizona Mama.  Not food-safety related, but relevant to all of us who have school-age children involved in athletics or any other myriad of activities.  Hitting home for me in particular is every child’s right (athlete or not) to be treated with dignity.

Yo-Yo powered i-phone charger.  From Ecogeek.  Several times cooler, more convenient, and better for the environment than a solar powered charger.  Not sure you’ll be seeing this one the market any time soon, but it’s a fun idea!

Does Eating Local really do any good?  Economic Sense makes the case for increased efficiency of production as a viable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rather than eliminating whole types of food.  Revisit our earlier post on the same National Geographic article.

The case of the disappearing supermarket:  From Chow.  Critics argue that San Francisco’s trend away from big supermarkets and toward smaller groceries (like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods) is harmful to those with lower incomes.  Chow maintains “The fact that, in general, high-calorie food is cheaper than fruits and vegetables is entirely unrelated to supermarkets”.

PETA asks Ben and Jerry’s to use human breast milk instead of cow’s milk .  From Barfblog.  Ben and Jerry’s responded by saying, “We applaud PETA’s novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother’s milk is best used for her child.”

Lead warnings from SmartMama. One in 10 children in the United States has blood lead levels about 5 micrograms lead per deciliter of blood according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Here’s a good update on lead sources in children, including a cool device that tests for lead, cadmium and other heavy metals on toys and surfaces.

Make it a Green Halloween:  From Natural Family Online.  A grassroots movement to brand treats and other items that are child/environment/people friendly.  Think outside the candy-box.

Eco-choice:  Toilet Paper or Bidet?  I’m not going to spoil it by answering here.  You’ll have to go to Green Daily’s blog to find out.