Measuring your food: Not by quantity but quality.

I used to think that the nutritional value of each food item was fairly consistent  across the board.  For example, a potato grown in one state should have fairly similar nutrient content to a spud grown in any other state.  And as for potatoes grown during my grandpa's day, they should compare fairly close to today's.  A potato is a potato, right?  After about 10 yrs. of studying and learning about nutrient density in food, I found that nutrient density has diminished in most if not all of our foods.

Now I am faced with a dilemma.  Just because I am able to raise nutrient content in my potatoes, it doesn't mean I'll get paid any more for them and farming does rely on the bottom line.  Upon further study I found that there could be a win-win situation here.  By raising plant health, I would not only be increasing nutrient levels in the spuds but also building the plants resistance to fungal diseases and pests, which would increase productivity as well.  If my target is nutrient density, a good healthy plant is how to get there.

Two tools I already use in assessing plant health are a refractometer and a pH meter.  Between the two I can be assured if plant health is good enough to produce nutrient dense food.  So how can a consumer tell if they are buying nutrient dense food or just expensive organic food?  There are expensive tests that can reveal this or one can squeeze a few drops of the produce onto a refractometer and measure the Brix content.

Brix is a  scale of measurement of solids suspended in the sap of the fruit or veggie and is an indicator of the level of nutrients contained within. (this is the "denser food" referred to in the last post)  Although this is not a perfect method, it is much cheaper than a test costing anywhere from $200 to well over $1000 and is much quicker.  I use the digital one pictured above but the manual version is also easy to use and one is pictured on the Brix scale chart link above.  

I don't know if nutrient dense food will ever demand a premium price for the farmer but it sure sounds like something worth working toward.

So what does "organic' and "conventional" really mean?

I've read many times in the last several months of people citing "a study" that concluded that organic food is no more nutritious than the rest of the food on the grocery shelf.  I'm tempted to digress to talk about "studies" but maybe I'll save that for another day.  The labels "organic" and "conventional" are what I want to discuss right now.  Each state determines what standards and governing bodies are used to certify what is organic.  As long as all the right "hoops" are jumped through, those products are certified organic.  Now I'm going to say something that might shock some of you, but some of the best (most nutritious) food you can buy and the worst (least nutritious) food can be found on the organic shelf.

How can this be?  Even though both products are technically certified organic, they were raised quite differently. I've talked about this before and it will come up again.  Working with nature will generally produce higher quality food than forcing nature with nitrate fertilizers and this goes for organic or conventional.  You see there are  more options than just organic and conventional.  One can be certified organic but still be thinking conventionally and forcing nature while using all organic approved materials.  Then there are conventional producers who tend to work more with nature rather than forcing it with lots of nitrate fertilizers.  Both producers who worked with nature are capable of raising nutrient dense food.

So other than the obvious reason of better nutrition, what else is nutrient density good for?  It so happens that high nutrient dense food is the product of denser plants as well.  By denser, I mean literally the plant sap has more solids content than less dense plants.  These plants are more resistant to disease.  That is how true biological systems can work to survive without fungicides and pesticides. (easier said than done) End results of healthier plants is healthier food.  Systems that force nature will grow less dense plants, that is more watery sap, resulting in more susceptibility to disease, thus needing fungicides and pesticides.

So when I hear about a "study" lumping all organic food together, I want to know how that food was raised because it does makes a difference.  The labels "organic" and "conventional" have to be put  in proper context  before any inferences can be made. A truly scientific study would take this into account before making such a sweeping statement, but then there is a lot of that going on now days on both sides of this issue.

 In future posts, I will be looking at some simple tools that can be used to check  "density" of plants during the growing season.

What's the meaning of Christmas have to do with farming?

As I was sharing in the last article about weeds and their role in bringing healing to the soil by restoring balance with their various "abilities", a spiritual illustration came to mind.

Have you farmers out there ever wondered how things worked in the Garden of Eden?  No diseases, no hail storms, no frost,no drought, just perfect, nutrient dense food, and the Creator walking next to you giving tips on how to grow perfect crops every time.  You would think someone would thought to have written some of that stuff down but alas, the serpent thing happen, then the first organic biodegradable clothing, and just like that, man finds himself "out of the pool" so to speak.

All of the sudden mankind is having to work like crazy to get the soil to provide food.  All nature was altered as a result of man's sin in the Garden of Eden, and in need of healing.    Man also, could no longer enjoy those walks in the garden with his creator, and the relationship seemingly hopelessly severed.

Just as we strive to heal the soil to try and restore balance,  we also attempt to bridge the gap between us and our maker but to no avail.  In fact, when looking at weeds, they have more healing ability than we do, so what's up with that?

God never intended for man to be separated from Him, it was man's decision.  But just as He provided for healing in nature, He also provided a solution for man.

Yes Virginia, there is a Healer and His name is Jesus, and it started with a baby in a feed trough in Bethlehem...

Part II- Why would a relatively sane farmer of 25+ yrs. go to organic?

The next major step in my "pilgrimage" came after reading the book titled "Weeds: Control Without Poisons" written by the late Charles Walters.  Though the book dealt with much more than just weeds, it painted a picture of all plants in general as all having various "talents or abilities" of amending soil that is not in balance.  For example, dandelion plants tend to grow in calcium-deficient, compacted soils , and  their massive tap root bring calcium back up to the surface.  Its seed won't even germinate unless, to some degree, these soil conditions exist.

 As I pondered these new concepts I began to think about all the weeds that grow on our farm to see if they were growing in the conditions that the book described. Sure enough each major weed found on our farm followed similar criteria as the book suggested. Then it occurred to me, of all the weeds found in our area, not all of them grow on our farm.  I had previously thought that weeds would grow wherever the seed landed but in spite of all kinds of seed that had to be all over the farm, not all of them manifested themselves.  Knowing that our high winds and irrigation canals guarantee complete dispersal of seeds and yet we had just a limited number of weeds established.

Another of the major contributing  factors mentioned in the book was excessive nitrogen.  Wow, if this was true then it would explain the increasing weed pressures I experienced as I was increasing the rate of fertilizer years earlier.  Then add to this frequent soil disruption which also encouraged even more weed seed germination and what I had was a perfect environ for healthy, thriving weed crops. I suppose I should have been able to figure out some of this on my own, but it was so easy to just put some chemicals on it and have a quick fix and reap the benefits.

As I reflected on those days, I noticed  an increasing dependence on the chemically quick fix rather than questioning why certain things were happening.  The more books I read and conferences I attended, the more a familiar theme would pop up.  Nature was designed to repair itself. When this theme started to soak in, the whole "organic thing" started to seem more plausible than I had previously thought.  The two roads of agriculture became very clear.  One being to force nature and face an escalating antagonism of nature fighting back, thus requiring even more rescue chemistry, and the other working with and enhancing nature to accelerate the process toward balance in the soil and eventually the plant as well.

Both roads have their pluses and minuses, so what pushed me over the line?  When I put nature in the context of my faith, nature being originally created exclusively for mankind, it suddenly became clear that treating nature in the way it was originally intended to work was the right way for me to go.  I obviously feel that this way is a better way, but I don't judge others who choose the other road approach.  I will not use my blogs to attack the other "road users" but I will advocate for what I think is a better way.

This brings me to the reasons that I write this blog:  (Sorry I've been so long winded)

          1 .To point back to the Creator of this miraculously complexed world we call nature

          2.  To encourage ALL ag. to start asking "why" before taking the easy way

          3.  To not just advocate for ag but for better ag

Why would a relatively sane farmer of 25+ yrs. go to organic?

This story is going to take more than one session but I think it's the best place to start for my first blog attempt.  I remember always being attracted to a more natural way of farming but never once considered trying straight up organic methods because  I didn't believe they would be sustainable for the soil or my family.
As I continued to farm using more fertilizer, I noticed my chemical usage started becoming more a significant line item in my budget, but because my yields were increasing and we were making  a profit, I didn't mind spending a little more.  Where once we were able to cultivate the weeds out of our potatoes sufficiently for the vines to keep the weeds down, now nothing short of herbicide could do the job.  Yields continued to increase but expenses also continued to rise.
  Just as the weed pressures increased, tuber diseases became more of a problem.  Sometimes there would be small spots in the storage pile that would rot, other times the whole pile would start going bad.  Add to this the huge fluctuation in potato prices due to over production, and subtly my expenses were reducing my margins. Unlike my starting out years of making slow but steady progress, I now found myself making a huge step forward one year and then three or four years of breaking even or losing and usually losing big one of those years.
I found myself in a catch-22.  I needed to cut expenses, but the increased disease pressures required more fungicides and herbicides.  Costs for new machinery, electricity (we rely totally on pumped water through center pivots), seed, labor, as well as chemicals all were increasing.  As much as the term "sustainability" is over-used, I must say my situation certainly appeared to be just that, unsustainable.  I found myself in a similar position as a gambling addict waiting for the next big crop year with high prices.
In 1998 I went to day-long workshop on the soil food web put on by Elaine Ingham and  sponsored by our Coop.  The information I learned that day started to changed my way of thinking about soil and farming drastically and I was very determined (my wife would say indeed obsessed) with learning more about what the organic approach was all about.  In part II I will  go into some of changes in my thinking and approaches to how I farm.