Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Food For Thought: Weekly Online Book Discussion

Are you unable to attend one of the scheduled book discussions but want to get involved in the conversation?


Want to connect with people from all over the UW campus and the greater Madison community?

Join us in a virtual book discussion on the Food For Thought Posts in the Go Big Read Blog!

Each week, we will be posting a new topic for discussion on the blog, and followers are encouraged to participate by responding in the comment section below each post. Feel free to use and expand on these questions in your own book discussions. Have a great idea for discussion topic? Let us know! Contact the Go Big Read Program at gobigread@library.wisc.edu.



Food For Thought: Topic for Discussion Week of November 16, 2009:
 
Pollan says that after 30 years of nutritional advice from health experts, we're actually sicker than before. Do you agree?
 
What kind of evidence does he use to support that claim?

Monday, November 16, 2009

UW-Madison Local Food Event

Panel-Discussion Partnered by the 2009 ?Go Big Read? Initiative

What are the benefits of buying local? Where can one find local foods? What businesses support local growers?

Inspired by the ?Go Big Read? initiative, learn how to become a more conscious consumer in this discussion of local food. Ask questions to local growers, restaurant owners, the Dane County Farmer?s Market manager, and other groups committed to supporting local agriculture such as Buy Fresh, Buy Local; Willy Street Co-op; and F.H. King Students of Sustainable Agriculture.

The discussion will be held in the Open Book Café of College Library, Thursday, December 3rd at 5:00pm.

A Wisconsin Farmer's Response to Michael Pollan, Part V

Jambo, Bwana! (Hello, Mr.)

As a Peace Corps Volunteer in Kenya, East Africa, I was able to live in a food culture similar to that which Mr. Pollan would have us aspire. Vegetables and variations of ground corn were the staples of the diet, when enough was available. While most people had adequate quantities of food, quality was sometimes an issue. There were from time to time, inadequate amounts of locally produced food to feed people, usually due to drought. It is not pleasant to watch fellow humans go hungry.

Among the things that impressed me was how much parents were willing to sacrifice so their children could have milk to drink. Another was how much everyone craved to have meat added to their daily intake of food. In fact, one of the ultimate expressions of friendship in our part of Africa was to treat your friends to a 'quick kilo' (one kilogram) of meat grilled to taste, if the local butcher had a side of beef hanging from a tree limb. Does this tell us something?

Pay More, Eat Less?

Among the suggestions Mr. Pollan gives in his book is that of farmers producing less food in an approved manner (organically) and consistency (leaves). He also suggests that we should be willing to pay more for this food and then eat less of it. Whatever dietary merits these 'improvements' bring to us as people in America, his suggestions will probably remain in the domain of the economically elite and intellectually effete?. With all due respect the rest of us live in a world where this menu is less than palatable.
The discussion generated by Mr. Pollan's book has certainly been an opportunity to explore some issues pertaining to food and food production. The opinions I have ventured here are my own, but are probably shared by others in production agriculture. Here is my own variation on the Pollan Theme:

Eat responsibly. Eat together. Be grateful for abundance. Thank a farmer.

On, Wisconsin!
George H. Roemer
UW-CALS Class of '70

Moderator's Note: This is page 5 of 5. Read the rest: A Wisconsin Farmer 2010-25-09.pdf

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Seeking Book Nominations for Sophomore Year of Go Big Read

Planning is under way for Go Big Read's sophomore year, and nominations are now being accepted for next year's book selection. Nominated books should do one or more of the following: promote enjoyment of reading by being readable, relevant and engaging; incorporate sufficient depth and scope to promote sustained discussion of different points of view; appeal to individuals from a variety of backgrounds; and have cross-disciplinary appeal and lend itself to tie-ins in a variety of activities and programming on campus. Read the full press release

Nominations will be accepted for two weeks via the online suggestions form.

Sarah McDaniel
Go Big Read

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

A Wisconsin Farmer's Response to Michael Pollan, Part IV

Laced or Unlaced?

Mr. Pollan repeats the misleading anti-animal litany about dairy and meat products being ?laced? with hormones and antibiotics. This is an insulting and inaccurate portrayal of today?s farmers who use modern technology responsibly for the benefit of their animal?s health and productive capacities.

Hormones occur naturally in all animal species. The hormone used to increase milk production in dairy cattle (recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) is a virtual copy of the naturally occurring dairy cow hormone (pituitary bovine somatotropin, pBST). Both are composed of the same amino acids (building blocks of homones) found in cattle. There is a difference of two pBST amino acids substituted by two different but naturally occurring amino acids in rBST. Furthermore, rBST has been researched and declared safe by government regulatory agencies; it also breaks down into its component parts during the process of pasteurization. (Note: it is illegal to sell unpasturized milk in Wisconsin).

The hormone used to stimulate beef cattle growth is typically implanted in an animal?s ear at a designated time, dissolves, and has no discernable presence when that animal is marketed. These relatively recent technologies enable those of us in production agriculture to enhance the efficiency of our operations while supplying an abundant and therefore low cost food supply to consumers.

It should be noted, not all farmers use these technologies; they are usually evaluated on a cost effective basis for each individual operation.

Anti-What (Or Whom?)

Antibiotics have saved countless human lives plus reduced suffering and misery worldwide. Why then, is there such a gap in logic, Mr. Pollan, that antibiotics cannot do the same for animals in production agriculture? Is it because we farmers are often dirty and sweaty while working? Are we all demonstrably incompetent? It is frustrating to be considered the least common denominator in the food equation.

Used responsibly, antibiotics reduce suffering and maintain productive health in farm animals. Strict state, federal and industry rules dictate their use. Veterinarians are routinely consulted and give careful guidance to farmers when dispensing certain drugs.

Milk marketed in the U.S. is regulated by Pasturized Milk Ordinance 40 (PMO 40). Under this rule, the tolerance for antibiotic residue in milk sold to the public is zero. Most dairies in the U.S. test every load of milk daily for antibiotics. Producers or processors who knowingly market milk, tainted with antibiotics, are subject to fines and even jail time. This system catches mistakes that may occur from human error while virtually ensuring an antibiotic free milk supply for the American public.

Meat marketed in the U.S. has a similar set of laws and regulations; 21 CFR 1589.2000-Drug Residue In Animal Tissue. As with PMO 40, the tolerance for antibiotic residue in meat sold to the public is zero.The safety net for American?s food supply is sadly misunderstood and unappreciated by those it protects. It is easy to make inciteful rhetoric about those of us who toil in production agriculture and take pride in producing a quality product.

Moderator's Note: This is page 4 of 5. Read the rest: A Wisconsin Farmer 2010-25-09.pdf


The discussion generated by Mr. Pollan's book has certainly been an opportunity to explore some issues pertaining to food and food production. The opinions I have ventured here are my own, but are probably shared by others in production agriculture. Here is my own variation on the Pollan Theme:

Eat responsibly. Eat together. Be grateful for abundance. Thank a farmer.

On, Wisconsin!
George H. Roemer
UW-CALS Class of '70

Monday, November 2, 2009

Food For Thought: Weekly Online Book Discussion

Are you unable to attend one of the scheduled book discussions but want to get involved in the conversation?

Want to connect with people from all over the UW campus and the greater Madison community?

Join us in a virtual book discussion on the Food For Thought Posts in the Go Big Read Blog!

Each week, we will be posting a new topic for discussion on the blog, and followers are encouraged to participate by responding in the comment section below each post. Feel free to use and expand on these questions in your own book discussions. Have a great idea for discussion topic? Let us know! Contact the Go Big Read Program at gobigread@library.wisc.edu.

Food For Thought: Topic for Discussion Week of November 2, 2009:

Why did our food choices change?

What social, economic and political forces triggered this change?

A Wisconsin Farmer's Response to Michael Pollan, Part III

Monocultural Monopoly


Mr. Pollan decries the ?rise of industrial agriculture, which yields a vast monoculture of a tiny group of plants.? The realities of modern American agriculture are thus: In the 1950?s, about 25% of America?s population lived and earned their income on farms engaged in production agriculture. Since then, three trends have emerged and continue to evolve: fewer farms, larger farms, and greater production per farm. This has resulted in efficiencies and economies of scale that currently enable less than 2% of this country?s population to feed the rest of us and then some. Would Mr. Pollan have 1 in 4 Americans now living quit their day jobs and return to production agriculture to earn an income capable of supporting themselves and a family? Would he?

?Monoculture? need not be misconstrued as a negative concept. Mr. Pollan?s vegetable garden is, after all, a monoculture of vegetables. Drive through any municipality in America and you will observe a vast monoculture of clipped, fertilized, weeded and watered lawns, medians and parks. Are all these urban monocultures soil tested, scouted for pests, and subject to environmental regulation similar to production agriculture?

Specialization in non-agricultural businesses are accepted. Why not in production agriculture also? Would Mr. Pollan be as successful a writer in his chosen genre? if he were simultaneously working to produce biographies, cook books, or fiction?

It was interesting to read of Mr. Pollan?s enthusiasm for lambsquarters as a food ingredient representing a desireable form of nutrition. I would challenge him to develop a lucrative commercial market for this plant. I guarantee that American farmers would rise to the occasion and produce lambsquarters in abundance! (Probably in a monoculture).

How Now Contented Cow

Another of Mr. Pollan?s assertions is that only cattle who graze get ?leaves? instead of ?seeds? in their diets. Some clarification is needed here. Rations fed to ruminant animals, such as cattle, need to be primarily composed of forages. Forages are leafy plants such as alfalfa or grass hay, and corn silage, which is the entire corn plant chopped into pieces. These animals have a marvelous and complex digestive system (four compartments; reticulum, rumen, omasum, abomasum) that allow them to eat and digest feedstuffs humans cannot.

Most of us enjoy the idyllic scene of cattle grazing outdoors in a green field. The reality is that this practice is limited to certain times of the year, especially in Wisconsin and similar climates. Good grazing areas (pastures) require intensive management not unlike fields producing alfalfa. Feeding cattle during times of limited or non-existent pastures (like winter) means farmers need to store feed. While pasturing works for some farmers, the majority continue to harvest feed mechanically, store it in a variety of structures, and then bring it to the cattle.

Dairy and livestock farmers routinely test forages to determine if their animals are getting all the nutrition they need for optimal growth, reproduction, and production. It is not unusual to supplement forages with concentrates (these are the ?seeds? like corn or oat kernels, soybeans, linseed, etc., sometimes mixed with minerals). This supplementation is fed only as necessary to ?balance? the animal?s rations, enabling a level of production to give farmers a return on their investment while keeping animals healthy. Even grazing animals may require supplementation due to geographic location or soil conditions.

When ?finishing? for market, meat producing animals such as beef cattle, the ration is adjusted to include more concentrate as this produces a product in demand by consumers. These rations are seldom, if ever, totally devoid of some forage. Grandpa frequently lectured how the cows needed a ?scratch? (fiber) factor in their ration to stay healthy.

Another reality of modern agriculture is that the animals we keep are production units, not pets. I would also argue that the majority of animals kept for production agriculture probably eat more correctly for their species than the majority of people in America.


Moderator's Note: This is page 3 of 5. Read the rest: A Wisconsin Farmer 2010-25-09.pdf

The discussion generated by Mr. Pollan's book has certainly been an opportunity to explore some issues pertaining to food and food production. The opinions I have ventured here are my own, but are probably shared by others in production agriculture. Here is my own variation on the Pollan Theme:

Eat responsibly. Eat together. Be grateful for abundance. Thank a farmer.
On, Wisconsin!
George H. Roemer
UW-CALS Class of '70