Spring at the Farm–Planting Walnuts

March 31st, 2010

It’s raining again, which is good for agriculture in general, but problematic for our current farming operations. The men are in the process of planting 3000 new walnut trees at the Dunbar Orchard. We’d like to get the seedling walnuts in the ground as soon as possible, because baby trees need to be grafted before the weather turns too hot. However, if you plant when soil is too wet and muddy, young walnut’s roots have a harder time extending through damp heavy soil. But waiting for drier soil carries risks, too. Grafting too late in the season can lead to poor grafting results. As always in farming, weather is both friend and foe.

Planting Walnuts Between the Rains

We’ll be grafting two varieties: Chandlers, one of the most common English Walnut varieties you purchase at grocery stores, and a newer variety from the University of California called Forde.  Chandlers are a beautiful nut, pale and delicate in appearance. The problem with Chandlers is that they take forever to come into production. If you’re lucky, you can harvest after four years. The trees don’t reach full yield for 8-9 years. That’s a long time to sit on non-income producing property (you still have to irrigate, prune, and weed!). Fordes come to maturity quicker, but they’re new and relatively untested. We’ll let you know how it goes.

The Spring rains have also slowed down harvest of one of our other crops: organic asparagus. I love Spring asparagus and always marvel how fast the spears grow. When it’s cold and rainy, though, asparagus grows slowly. We harvest once every three days. Once the rains fade and the weather warms up, the asparagus takes off, growing seven inches a day. We have to harvest daily just to keep up. As in the past, most of our organic asparagus goes to Full Belly Farm, which distributes it in their community supported agriculture boxes. If you’re a lucky subscriber, you’ll taste this year’s fantastic crop. I roasted a huge bunch last night with some of our Gold Oak Ranch olive oil, and let me tell you, we devoured the whole delicious plate!

Organic Asparagus Peeking From Damp Soil

 

Hidden in the Health Care Bill–Calories on the Menu Nationwide!

March 24th, 2010

About a month ago, I wrote how calorie information can help guide diners’ food choices and how California has adopted a program similar to New York City’s,  in which caloric information must be listed on menus and indoor menu boards. Well, California and New York aren’t alone in this venture anymore.  Thanks to a bit of fine print in the Democrat’s Health Care Bill, menus nationwide will now carry caloric information!

Under the new legislation, restaurant chains with more than 20 outlets will be required to furnish caloric information as well as guidelines for how many calories a healthy person should consume daily. That means, whenever you go to McDonald’s, whether in Oregon or Oklahoma, you will know just how many calories your Big Mac really contains. Will this change people’s eating habits? No one knows, but as I chronicled in Calories On The Menu–Coming Soon!, research suggests that caloric information, in the context of recommended daily caloric intake, does influence food choices.

So when will these changes take effect? That’s up in the air. The Health Care Bill requires that the FDA propose specific regulations no later than a year from now, but legal challenges could tie up the legislation after that. So, for the time being, you’ll just have to get your caloric info online or in the brochures some chains have available.

On another note, every once in a while the public health doc in me chuckles at a news story that crosses the wire. And yesterday, I had to laugh at Last Supper Paintings Supersize the Foods. As you know from reading my blog, portions and plates have gotten bigger over the last seventy years (see January’s Avoiding Portion Distortion). But I never thought distortion of the portion would insinuate itself into the Last Supper! As reported yesterday in the Associated Press, a new study which examined paintings of the Last Supper over the last one thousand years shows that food and serving ware have indeed gotten bigger. By as much as 69%! Scientifically meaningful? I’m not sure. Kinda funny? You bet. Check below and decide for yourself.

Leonardo Da Vinci's Famous Fresco, 1495-98

Supersized by Bassano Jacopo in 1542?

Understanding Organic Labeling

March 17th, 2010

Ah, Spring is in the air! Our Northern California hills are green. Wildflowers carpet the ground. And it’s time for me to do my own type of Spring-cleaning– responding to post requests!

Several months ago, I received a request to explain the whole organic labeling process. How do you know the food you buy is truly organic? And what does ‘organic’ on the label really mean? 

Most people, when asked, can list a few characteristics of organic food: no synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, or growth hormones. Only natural fertilizers (no petrochemical-based fertilizers). Avoidance of genetically-modified organisms. 

Yes, all true, but organic agriculture production is more than that. Organic agriculture is as much a philosophy as a production technique. Organic growers view their role as being part of a greater ecosystem rather than just producers of a specific crop. As a consequence, there is an emphasis on promoting ecological balance by using renewable resources rather than artificial, one-time use inputs like petrochemical-based fertilizers. Organic farmers use techniques such as crop rotation or naturally-occuring fertilizers to keep soil fertile. They promote natural pest management strategies like the placement of owl houses in fields to control gopher populations or the release of beneficial insects to counteract harmful insects. Basically, true organic farmers view crop production as one part of a natural, environmental whole rather than with the narrow focus of isolated crop production.

That being said, the ‘organic’ label has enormous marketing cachet because people are willing to pay more for synthetic pesticide-free, environmentally-friendly food. To counteract fraud in the market place, the US Department of Agriculture now requires food that is labelled organic to meet certain criteria. Those products labelled ‘100% Organic’ must be made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods. ‘Organic’ on the label means that the product contains at least 95% organic ingredients. Both of these types of products can carry the USDA Organic Seal.

This Seal Guarantees Minimum 95% Organic Ingredients

There is one other category of organic labeling. Those products containing at least 70% organic ingredients can carry the claim, ‘Made With Organic Ingredients.’ Certification is by government-approved certifiers such as the CCOF or other state, non-profit, or private agencies.

The best way to ensure you get what you pay for, whether in the supermarket or the farmers market, is to look for the words certified organic or the USDA Organic seal. That way you’ll know the products for which you’re paying extra have gone through the rigorous requirements of organic certification, which you know now, is as much about production philosophy as being pesticide-free.

Pedrick Produce–Fresh Fruit in a Quonset Hut

March 15th, 2010

My family are hardcore skiers. Not in the sense that we swoop down the slopes like experts, but rather in that we ski nearly every weekend. If you’ve ever travelled on Interstate 80 during ski season, you know that requires extreme dedication. The traffic is horrendous!

To break up the monotony of what can be an endless drive we look for new places to stop along the way, and I wanted to share one with you: Pedrick Produce. It’s not a fancy place, but if you’re like me and like farm fresh produce, this is the place for you.

Pedrick Produce's Original Metal Quonset Hut (courtesy of daviswiki.org)

Located in a metal barn set alongside I-80 in Dixon, what immediately strikes you is that Pedrick’s parking lot is full. And so is the store inside. Four cashiers ring up produce purchases for patient customers. The store’s interior is crammed with bags of fruits and vegetables, as well as flavored and plain nuts of all varieties (a nut fan’s heaven!).  The prices aren’t bad either. Asparagus for a dollar a pound. Apples for 49 cents a pound. Off-season tomatoes for $1.19 a pound. A whole lot cheaper than Safeway and without the spit-shine production that makes Safeway’s produce seem a little too slick.

As I walked around this flourishing produce stand, I was struck by the similarities to another produce stand institution along I-80–Ikeda’s in Auburn. If you’ve ever stopped at Ikeda’s for a burger, you know the produce stand there has expanded beyond fruits, vegetables, and nuts to included baked goods, wine, and seafood. Give Pedrick’s a few years, and I’m sure they’ll head the same way, opening a restaurant and bakery. Which is fine by me. I’m always on the look out for a new place to eat…

Note to Locavores: Not all of Pedrick’s produce is local. Some comes from other parts of California, Washington state, and even Mexico. If local production is important to you, stick to farmers markets. However, Pedrick’s is still worth a visit, if only to check out the vast selection of nut snacks!

The Power of Volunteering

March 10th, 2010

As many of you know, I returned a few days ago from a week in Guatemala performing anesthetics for those too poor to pay. It was my first medical mission abroad, and although I scoffed when the organization with which I travelled called it a “Life Changing Medical Mission,” in the end, I had to admit that they were right. My life is changed, and I am grateful.

Trying to Figure Out How These Old Anesthesia Machines Work

It’s easy as an American to become reactive. You are constantly bombarded by information and images: the internet, TV, radio, billboards. It can be dizzying trying to process all that stimuli, to rank it in terms of its importance, to try to form cohesive thought and not just spend your time intellectually sorting and discarding. The internet always has one more thing to offer, one more image to flash– a  24/7 bounty of choices that seems impossible to resist.

But when in Guatemala, when my access to the internet was dramatically reduced, my thoughts slowed to take in the work before me, and I slowed. I felt as though my heart rate dropped, my breath came in deeper, more regular intakes. In the central square of Antigua, I felt the relaxed pace of the place wash over me. I wanted to take a siesta, to let the Land of Eternal Spring wrap its unhurried arms around me in sleep.

But we didn’t sleep; we worked. And while working, I saw the work of others: the padre who had overseen the growth of the Catholic charity hospital in which I performed anesthetics, the nuns who cared for the orphans day in, day out, the caucasian woman (was she Canadian? American? European? I don’t know) who went from toddler to toddler patiently brushing  teeth. The place was packed with volunteers: Guatemalan, American, European. It felt good to make the transition from reactive to active. It felt healing to shift my focus from myself to others. And it felt uplifting to share this sense of mission with other volunteers and patients. There are plenty of generous people in this world. The 737 in which I returned from Guatemala City was loaded with them.

Guatemalan Mother and Child Before Surgery

Of course, writing this and truly understanding this are two different things. But I do encourage you, should the pace of American life leave you overwhelmed and fatigued, to try to find the community and solace of volunteer work. It just might change your life, too.

Calories on the Menu–Coming Soon!

February 25th, 2010

If you’re a Californian, you may have noticed that restaurant chains are now offering nutritional and caloric information about menu items, usually in a brochure shoved off to the side. That’s great, if you’re like me and are curious about what you’re eating. But does nutritional information actually change food purchase decisions? Up to now, the answer has been unclear, but an intriguing new study from Yale suggests that, yes, in the right context, people definitely eat less when they know more.

The study, published in December 2009’s American Journal of Public Health, divided study participants into three groups. The first group was given a regular menu at a restaurant and told to order dinner. The second group was given a menu with caloric information and was similarly told to order. The third group was given the caloric information menu that also contained the statement, “the average daily caloric intake for an adult is 2000 calories.” Not surprisingly, the two groups with the caloric information menus wound up eating less calories at dinner than the regular menu group. But did they wind up eating less calories overall during the day? The answer, surprisingly, is no. The group with the caloric information menu but no daily caloric intake statement went home and had an after-dinner snack, overall ingesting the same amount of calories as the  regular menu group. However, the caloric information menu group that also had the daily caloric intake statement, did not snack after dinner as much, and on average ate 250 calories less than the other two groups. The take home message: context matters. Remind a diner of their daily caloric needs and not only will they eat less at dinner, but they will likely eat less when they go home.

Now, what do you do if you want to make smart choices, but the menu doesn’t show caloric counts? As of January 1, 2011, all chain restaurants in California will be required to list caloric information on menus and indoor menu boards. You won’t have to hunt around for brochures. That means when you order your reduced-fat banana chocolate chip coffee cake at Starbucks, the sad facts will be up front and center: reduced fat doesn’t mean reduced calories. That delicious thing has nearly 400 calories!

As for the daily caloric intake statement, there are no requirements that it be included on menus. Although maybe it’s not a bad idea given that 16 million Californians are considered overweight or obese…

Three Books For The Educated Eater

February 22nd, 2010

I’m still compiling the list of recommended books that you all so graciously submitted. There are a lot of them–which is reassuring given that books must now compete with so much electronic media for our precious free time.

But before I proceed with that all-inclusive list, I wanted to jump ahead to recommend three must-reads for those interested in food production (which should be everyone, since food is one of the most basic human needs). They are, in no particular order:

1) The Omnivore’s Dilemma–Michael Pollan’s 2006 bestseller is probably one of the trendiest books around. Pollan recently showed up on Oprah to discuss his latest book, Food Rules, which is a follow-up to this book. Basically, Omnivore’s Dilemma examines food production in America–the most shocking of which is the intrusion of corn into almost everything we eat, whether it’s corn-fed beef, high-fructose corn syrup, or even the chicken nuggets we love to feed our kids (which are bits of corn-fed poultry glued together with modified corn starch, covered in corn flour-containing batter, fried in corn oil…you get the picture). After reading this book, you will look at food labels a WHOLE lot closer.

2) Fast Food Nation–Eric Schlosser’s 2001 cult classic examines the social, economic, and environmental impact of fast food. The thing that will absolutely turn your stomach, however, is Schlosser’s portrayal of the meatpacking industry. You won’t eat at McDonalds for a year.

3) The Jungle– Upton Sinclair’s 1906 book about the Chicago meatpacking industry is a classic and still reads grippingly today. Exposing not just the hidden horrors of meatpacking (agh– rats in your sausage!), the book also portrays the ineluctable downward spiral of immigrants ensnared in an inhumane industry. Sinclair originally intended the book to illustrate the plight of powerless and exploited workers, but The Jungle’s lasting legacy has been better food safety laws.

The beauty of these books are that they are both eye-opening and good reads. If you’ve got any other must-read food books, please share. Transparency in food production should be a right to which we are all entitled– after all, don’t you want to know what you are really eating?

World Ag Expo 2010

February 12th, 2010

Sorry I haven’t posted recently. As with all of us, life sometimes just gets busy! But I did want to share a photo and some thoughts about the World Ag Expo 2010, which just ended yesterday. For the uninitiated, the World Ag Expo is an enormous three-day agriculture show that takes place in Tulare, California. If you’re curious about tractors, ploughs, high-tech irrigation systems, or dairy management software, this is the place for you. More than 100,000 visitors, many of them from overseas, converge on the expo to see the newest and slickest stuff in ag.

Dad and I at World Ag Expo 2010

I went down with my mother and father to check out “Big Ag” and found myself a little overwhelmed. The scale of the expo, the scale of the tractors, the scale of the farms in the San Joaquin Valley just dwarfs Northern California. As my father said, “Compared to these guys, we’re just gardeners.” But nonetheless, all that scale is pretty impressive.

I signed up for a Citrus Tour, in which a citrus grower took a bus-full of us on a tour of a packing plant, juice facility, and orchard. And I have to say, it was pretty enlightening.  I’ve said before that we live in a food “black box” society. Most Americans have no idea how their food is produced; they just buy it at the store and eat it. So checking out the packing and juice plants to find out how that navel orange in the orchard is converted into the the slick shiny thing you buy or into the premium juice that takes up a huge refrigerated space at Safeway opened up the black box for me a little.

Yes, your navel oranges are washed, dipped in fungicide, and waxed before they head to the grocery store. They may be gassed with ethylene gas, although only if there is green still left in the peel. They are routinely subjected to pesticide while still in the orchard to protect against pests that attack the peel (but not the fruit underneath). All this is done to make the fruit look good, because as one farmer said, “People like pretty fruit.”

While in the orchard, I sampled one of the oranges off the tree, and it was delicious. But it was a dull sort of orange with a tiny bit of green in the peel.  No gas and no wax yet. Definitely not as pretty as those on display in the grocery store.  The farmer assured me it was safe to eat, because the last application of pesticide was a month earlier. I listened to him chat about ”nitrogen” he added to the irrigation water to fertilize the trees.

It wasn’t an organic tour; that’s for sure. But the manipulations were pretty small if you compare it with juice production. It takes millions and millions of dollars to buy all the technology to make orange juice. I’ll save that for a later post, though…

Food and Farming–The Debate Rolls On

January 20th, 2010

Many thanks to my brother, Chris, for forwarding me Joel Kotkin’s Forbes article, America’s Agricultural Angst. I have to admit I smiled when Kotkin referred to Michael Pollan as an “agri-intellectual.” A new breed has been born! But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Pollan and similarly-opinioned food and farming journalists question the status quo, which is useful in any freethinking, progressive society. What’s also important, however, is dialogue and equal coverage of divergent viewpoints. Kotkin’s defense of the real accomplishments of modern American agriculture is overdue and definitely worth a read.

What do you think?

On an unrelated note, here’s a follow-up photo of the Great Freeze of 2009. As you may recall, we abandoned the Rumsey mandarin crop after the oranges froze on the trees. This photo taken two days ago shows how the frozen mandarins rotted on the branch. A real shame.

Rotten Mandarins

The Facts About Food and Farming

January 11th, 2010

Back in October I attended a dinner to promote Michael Pollan’s documentary, The Botany of Desire. Not surprisingly, conversation drifted away from the film and toward Pollan’s more famous work, The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The author graciously answered questions from the group, discussing the hazards of monoculture, the agri-industrial complex, and the ubiquity of cheap processed food. I listened quietly and was struck by a strange thought. Nearly every one at the gathering (a major donors event for KQED) seemed to agree with Pollan and talked about agriculture as though they owned the issue, while not a single farmer, around whom the whole discussion revolved, was present. It was one-sided to say the least. And that to me is at the heart of the often acrimonious food and farming debate. There is no dialogue between the ag-reform-minded, often urban, ”food” crowd and actual farmers. Instead the two poles of the farming debate spend their time “debating” with like-minded people, preaching to the converted, talking right past each other.

So it was with great pleasure that I stumbled upon a recent article by Los Angeles Times food columnist, Russ Parsons. Finally a nuanced look at the food and farming debate! What immediately won me over was his first point: farming is a business. It’s not altruistic. Most farmers don’t make a whole lot of money anyway. To begrudge them technological advances that might increase their income is to expect a degree of self-sacrifice that is not only unrealistic  but also unfair.

This struck home on a personal level this winter when a freeze wiped out part of our mandarin crop. As I’ve said before, there are so many things beyond control in farming: freezes, drought, market conditions. One can understand why a farmer wants to even the odds by using whatever he or she can to boost production, to try to insulate income, as much as possible, from income-killers over which there is no control. In medicine, we call such technological advances progress. In agriculture,  they’re called short-sighted or morally wrong.

Now I’m not saying I advocate the status quo, but ag reform is a tough, complex issue. And if some ground rules for dialogue, like those suggested by Parsons, are established, maybe we’ll move beyond acrimony into something more like progress.