I was jazzed to see profiles and a photo spread of women farmers in last Sunday’s NY Times Sunday Magazine. According to the piece, even though the number of farms has decreased, there are 80 percent more women farmers today than there were 20 years ago in the United States. In the Northeast alone, women run some 20,000 farms.

And the point of the article (which, BTW, appears in “The Way We Eat” section)? That women “are forging new bonds between field and table, strengthening the connection between things we love to eat and the stewardship that makes them possible.”

How true. Down to Earth blog is part of this.

I must admit, though, that I experienced a moment of indignation when I saw that the piece focused exclusively on farms, and only those in the Northeast. What about the rest of the country? WHAT ABOUT RANCHERS? Sara soooo should have been included! Perhaps she can help fill in some of the holes in the article. Sara, has there been a surge in women ranchers “forging new bonds between [our great plains] and table”?

I love it when I find something that makes my job easier!

There is a new site that addresses many of the issues, myths and misconceptions about animal agriculture. Here’s a sample:

MYTH	Farming in the U.S. is controlled by large corporations, which care about profits and not about animal welfare.
FACT	There are 2.1 million farms in the U.S., and according to a May 2006 report on the structure and finances of U.S. Farms, exactly the same numbers counted by the 1997 Census of Agriculture. The 2006 report found that the vast majority of America?s farms (98%) are family-farms. The study also discovered that 61% of all farms did not participate in any farm program in 2003. This finding clearly indicates that only a minority of farmers receive agricultural subsidies. For more information on the report, click here.

I’ve added the Animal Agriculture Alliance to our blog roll for future reference

10 Tips for Homemade Ice Cream Success: From Serious Eats. What would the 4th of July be without icecream? And I staunchly maintain that if you make it yourself, you can consider it a “local food”!

The Small Screen With a Big Impact: from Blogher. Some scary statistics. The average child in the US sees 15,000 commercials annually that promote candy, highly sweetened and processed food and fast food. One more reason to get the kids off their duff and out into the garden!

Best and Safest Sunscreens: Just in time for the long weekend, Environmental Working Group has released a comprehensive review of sunscreens based on UVA and UVB protection, as well as presence or absence of harmful chemicals.

Cow Fat Motor Oil: from EcoGeek. Another cool green-geek find from one of my favorite sites. This motor oil is made from animal fat, biodegrades sufficiently that it can be safely poured on the ground and is non-toxic!

Common livestock production practices coming under fire. from Advocates for Agriculture. Procedures such as castration are coming under fire as being “mutilations”. Being a big proponent of preventing unwanted pregnancies (in any species), this seems like a slippery slope to me.

WIC-ensuring buying power through prohibiting organic: From US Food Policy. There’s no arguing that organic foods are generally higher priced. The Michigan WIC program has placed limits on foods in an effort to increase the nutritive buying power of food stamps. Along with many convenience items, organics are specifically prohibited on many foods.

Nourishing Frugal Food: found via the Nourished Kitchen . The Nourishing Gourmet is having a frugal food festival. July 11th is main dishes and July 18th is sides and salads. Hmm, I’ll have to post a recipe from here to contribute. With two growing boys, I sure know about stretching the grocery dollar!

A recent research study of conventional and outdoor antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics) production systems showed pigs raised outdoors without the use of routine antibiotics carried more bacteria and parasites, according to Feedstuffs newspaper. The research sampled pigs from three states (WI, NC, OH) and compared “niche-market, outdoor and antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics)” to “intensive indoor (conventional)” rearing systems.

Blood tests showed the outdoor pigs had significantly more exposure to Salmonella and Toxoplasma. Two pigs from different outdoor farms had antibodies to Trichinella. Trichinella is the parasite that infests muscles, and is the primary reason we have all been conditioned to cook pork thoroughly. The parasite has been virtually eliminated from conventional rearing systems.

I admit to being a little surprised by the research. In keeping with my science-geek image, I tracked down the authors, who very kindly sent me a copy of the original research paper. The research seems solid, and the stats are supported by other research in this country and in Europe.

So why the higher infection rate in outdoor pigs? The reasons given by the authors include exposure to wild and domestic animals (i.e. cats can carry trichinella), and access to soil and moisture which are viable environments for pathogens.

The skeptic in me can’t help wondering exactly what the outdoor systems studied were? Were they just raised in outdoor pens, or were they “pasture-raised” where they were foraging for a significant part of their diet? It is common in the chicken industry, where “free-range, vegetarian-fed” chicken and eggs abound, for such chickens to have access to the outdoors, but be no more pasture-raised than if they were confined indoors.

It is important to remember that many production practices that come under fire, such as indoor rearing and antibiotics, were put into place to increase food safety and/or animal welfare in response to increasingly intensive animal production. Merely removing these practices without addressing the reasons they were implemented in the first place does not necessarily bring about the benefits to humans or animals envisioned by consumers who purchase based on a “free-range” label.

Would you like some fish oil with your yogurt? Yoplait and other yogurts now contain added omega-3 oil. Just 29 servings gets your child his/her daily dose of this heart-healthy nutrient. Omega-3 yogurt will dent your wallet more than it will grow their brains. Maybe it’s best to just eat some fish.

Food Prices and Land Use: Via Food Law Prof Blog. Ross Clark maintains our food shortage could be cured by better use of the world’s land.

Living Green: A great article in the Austin-American Statesperson. Are you up to the challenge of buying less, buying used and environmentally friendly cleaners, cosmetics and other products?

The Price of Food: A comparison of retail and farm gate prices for fruit, vegetable, grain and livestock products between May 2007 and May 2008. Looks like peanut butter will be a bargain protein source!

Take a Green Roof Safari. From Ecogeeks. Going to Europe this fall? Take a tour of green roof projects in Germany or Switzerland. More information on green roofs can be found at greenroof.com

Since April, there have been 613 people identified as infected with Salmonella St. Paul in this country. For the most part, consumers have embraced the warnings and precautions put out by the FDA. (btw, Barfblog has an excellent collection of posts on this subject, including suggestions for ensuring safety of farmer’s market tomatoes).

From 1998-2005 there were 831 illnesses reported from unpasturized (raw) milk and cheese. Considering the number of people eating tomatoes vs. consuming raw milk, the per-consumer illness rate has got to be much higher for milk. Yet, government intervention in raw milk sales is not met with nearly the same attitude as seen in the case of tomatoes. Why?

For one thing, milk is probably the most emotion-charged food there is. It is so closely associated with children and wholesomeness that is it literally a “sacred cow” when it comes to safety, adulteration, regulation, hormones, antibiotics…. I’ve seen more conflicting statistics quoted about raw milk than almost any other food topic I’ve researched. (What’s that saying about lies, damned lies and statistics?). It’s hard to find a balanced piece of reporting on this topic, but there was one in the Seattle PI recently.

Raw milk advocates abound, and have some valid, or at least interesting points. For one thing, it DOES taste better (IMHO). There are claims of it being less of an allergen, easier to digest, and more healthful in a number of ways. There are a number of sites promoting raw milk. Sadly, most of them seem so fanatical, that I find it hard have faith in their statements and facts. If any of you know of good, sound, science-based raw milk sites or references, please let me know!

So, I’m not going to give you a pat yes or no answer on raw milk. If you choose to go raw, I will advise you to at least be sure of the following:

• purchase from a state-certified dairy (this is one reason I hate to see states outlaw raw milk-it turns it into an unregulated black-market item)
• be absolutely certain the milk is chilled immediately (this is not just stuck in the refrigerator, it is chilled in the equivalent of a circulating ice bath)
• drink your raw milk before it is a week old (the sooner the better). This means a week from when it was milked, NOT purchased!
• Be sure your dairy is testing routinely for coliform and other bacterial contaminants
• visit the dairy, if possible, before you trust their product. i.e. know your producer

I grew up on the raw milk produced by my family’s traditional dairy farm. We drank the milk from our bulk milk tank; it was not pasteurized until it got to the processing plant. BUT, I’m not even tempted to buy raw milk now. The primary reason is that without pasteurization, I am completely reliant on the producer to ensure that my milk is safe. In addition, the raw milk I grew up on was consumed within 24-48 hours of milking. I find it extremely difficult to trust raw milk from a dairy shelf in the health food store. I do know some local, certified raw milk dairies from which I would be comfortable purchasing. They all have waiting lists for customers.

Hello readers…yesterday amidst the parties, networking, and actually working for clients, I had a chance to attend an educational session. And I’m so glad I did for two reasons: I learned something, which one always hopes to, but rarely does at these conferences; but more importantly, had a reminder of how blessed I am to live the life I have. The panel, “Biotech Crops in Center of Origin: The Case of Corn and Mexico” was organized by Monsanto (please suspend your cynicism and keep reading) and the Mexican Confederation of Corn Peasants (CNPAMM).

A little background. Mexico is the center of origin for corn, which most of the world refers to as maize. Over thousands of years it has evolved from teosinte shown at the left in this photo (thank you John Doebley, Univ. of Wisconsin), to the familiar corn on the right. This was done by plant breeding, or crop “manipulation” by man. The point being that had farmers not “interfered with” mother nature, this food staple for Mexico, where one billion corn tortillas are consumed each day (that’s an average of 10 per person) we’d be noshing on something other than nachos during the Super Bowl. Because Mexico is the center of origin for this crop that has cultural and religious associations for the populace, there has been tension about the introduction of biotech corn to the region, particularly in the state of Oaxaca. Corn, in case you didn’t know, is a very promiscuous plant whose pollen is prone to mix with other corns, whether they’re interested or not. For those who want to preserve the many different land races (or varieties) of native corn, this is a problem.

OK, history lesson over and back to the present. The session opened with a presentation in Spanish, by Carlos Salazar, Secretary General of CNPAMM. CNPAMM is part of CNC, the National Confederation of Mexican Peasants, with more than 2 million members. Fortunately, a translator was at hand. He shared with the audience a video that interviewed the peasant farmers and showed them planting and growing their crops. It was a poignant illustration that despite the profound advancements that have been made in agriculture, many have been left behind. These smallholder farmers are using the same “technology” that their ancestors used to grow teosinte. They (or their children) plant the corn by hand, one seed at a time. They use yoked animals to pull a plow to work the fields. Everything is done by hand, including harvest where each corn is pulled from the stalk one at a time, and placed in a basket on the back of the worker as he or she walks the field. They then sell the corn for a peso, but it costs them two pesos to buy the corn if they need more. Their stories were moving, telling of the difficulty of raising a family, the disruption of the community as their children leave for the greener pastures of the north (the U.S.), and the desire to have a better life and more education for their children. These are the people that outside interests are trying to “protect” from the incursion of the fruits of today’s modern plant breeding: genetically modified corn varieties that have been improved to resist insects, survive drought, and yield more corn per acre. As I looked at the earnest expressions on sun ravaged faces, sharing smiles that reflected a lack of the dental care we take for granted, I was counting my blessings.

The video set the stage for the purpose of the panel which was to tell the international gathering about a project to both conserve native species, as well as find opportunities to support the farmers and find value opportunities for the native germplasms. I’ve been watching the evolution and acceptance of biotech crops since 2000, and to me, this program is a reflection of the growing maturity of an industry. When the biotech crops were first introduced, it was all speed ahead and touting of the tremendous benefits the crops offer to farmers. Developed by scientists, to whom it was incomprehensible that anyone could object to crops that could be grown with less labor, fewer pesticides, improved yield, less fuel use, and built-in insect resistance, industry was stunned when groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth launched massive campaigns to stop the introduction of these crops. Industry has slowly and painfully come to understand that societal concerns must be addressed to help the ultimate user of the crops, the consumer, better understand this radical transformation of crop production. The maize program, discussed at great detail and in earnest by the panel members, shows the evolution of corporate seed developers to recognize this learning and develop socially responsible programs to address the needs of two different kinds of farmers, the smallholder who wants to both preserve a culturally important crop, but still find a way to benefit from newer seeds, and what the group called professional farmers, who have access to modern machinery, the best seeds, and who grow on the large scale necessary to feed a country that is required to import substantial amounts of corn from other countries to feed its people.

It was a wonderful, but sparsely attended session. The program could be a model for others to study as they work to introduce other crop varieties that have important cultural associations that merit preserving, balanced with a need to continue as man has done for centuries, to improve the crop making it more sustainable to meet changing needs.

A full description of the panel and participants can be found here.

Here I am (second from left) at last night’s international food and ag reception.  My new friends are from Argentina, Mexico and Brazil. Click for the full size!

In honor of our blogger-on-the-road, Lisa, we’re going geeky with this week’s Earthlinks.

Should Biotech companies Blog? Are blogs by biotech companies a good idea from a corporate standpoint? Maybe if more companies had open blogs, there might actually be some real communication.

Animal Research, Giving the Gift of Life: a guest post on noted Ethicist Terry Etherton’s blog, by Barb Glenn, (a wonderful woman and friend from the Bio Industry Organization) .

Guaranteed Tender Steak: from Feedstuffs Foodlink. Technology to the rescue–University of Nebraska scientists have developed a method of identifying tender beef while it is in the processing plant.

Plants have Social Lives: also from Feedstuffs Foodlink. Plant behavior is more complex than you think. If plants are sentient, does that affect how we should grow, harvest and eat them?

Kudzu-A Potential Biofuel: from Ecogeek. The “plant that ate the South” may be the answer to Suzanne’s biofuel headache.

And as always, one slightly less serious link to end:

Make your own icecream drumsticks:  Does this make icecream count as “local food”?

With floods causing untold amounts of damage to the well-being and property of native Iowans, farmers and wholesalers will also feel the blowback of this natural disaster. The Associated Press is reporting that corn and soybean prices have skyrocketed from the crisis:

CORN KEEPS CLIMBING: Corn prices pushed closer to $8 a bushel Tuesday after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said 12 percent of Midwest crops were in poor to very poor condition because of devastating floods.

SOYBEANS APPROACH RECORD: Midwest flooding has also inundated soybean fields, lifting prices near the all-time high of $15.96 a bushel.

And while Midwestern farmers must struggle to rebuild, their consumers are getting hit with more than just a steep price at the produce section. An editorial in the Dallas Morning News illustrates how vulnerable our fuel prices have become as a result of the country’s reliance on corn-based ethanol:

“Is it more important for people to eat or drive?”

The catastrophic Midwestern floods, and their likely effect on the U.S. corn harvest in a year of worldwide food shortages, makes the question relevant.

The reason? With the Corn Belt suffering big weather-related crop losses and global demand for U.S. grain rising, it becomes hard to justify putting corn into gas tanks via ethanol, rather than into people’s stomachs.

Add all of the taxpayer money we sink into ethanol and this flood has become a heavy burden for more than just Iowans. Has the way we approach food and fuel in this country left us vulnerable to the unpredictable acts of Mother Nature? That’s not counting the random shelf-pulls of the veggies that are near and dear to us. So far corn and tomatoes are off the menu. What’s next?

Get ready to challenge your preconceptions.

Milk-fed veal is arguably the most hard-to-defend meat production system in this country from an animal rights point of view. Most veal is produced from male dairy calves, which are a byproduct of sorts, of the necessity of having a cow calve yearly in order to produce milk. As all dairy calves are, they are removed from the cow shortly after birth and grown using specialized production practices, to produce the very tender, pale meat most US consumers associate with veal.

Serious Eats recently posted about Azulana, which produces pastured raised veal. Most beef calves in this country are raised on pasture with the cows until weaning. Pasture-raised veal basically consists of harvesting these these animals at weaning, rather than growing them out to mature beef. Veal raised in this way is classified as “red veal”, because of the stronger flavor of the meat that results from the rumination process necessary to digest grass.

It turns out, that until sometime in the 1950s, most veal sold in this country was produced this way. Pastured veal would have to be among the most “natural” of meats, because the animals are grown with minimal intervention, no supplemental feeding, no confinement, on a diet of milk and grass.