We met this morning at the dorms ready to dive into the world of soil production like a red wriggler in six and half months aged compost. I bravely led the
FoodWorks caravan across the city to
Breaking New Grounds, a non-profit composting company who has composted over 150 tons of organic waste in the past 5 years while creating a natural fertilizer and soil amendment. Amanda and Peter greeted us and gave us a tour of the facilities. While exploring the gardens, compost heaps (hot, fungal inoculated and growing) and the vermicompost (worm poop) facilities, we delved into the biology, chemistry, economics and logistics of creating and running a non-profit industrial level composting operation.
After our tour and questions, we got to work. Some of us went with Peter to the composting area to cover a new batch of
Heine Brother's Coffee grounds with wood chips to balance out the nitrogen/carbon ratio. Others went with Amanda in the pick-up to deliver a garden bed built of locally harvested eastern red cedar and a load of compost to the growing community garden at 17th and Osage sponsored by
New Directions. The rest were left with me to master the art of handling power tools, constructing garden beds and getting ripped. The results are shown below but for you that like numbers: (7) 4' by 8' cedar beds constructed, (3) beds delivered, set and filled, 100s of shovels of mulch thrown, 15 lunches consumed, 23 minute average for bed construction by veteran Food Works masters of the power tool, 1 exhausted teacher from Louisville and 14 interns who have already impacted the Louisville food community.
Check out the pics below.
FoodWorks Interns and Others:
Questions for discussion (all are invited):
1) What is good food?
2) If we are what we eat and we are what we eats eat and we ask that question again we get to plants unless you are an
Inuit, then I can say we are made of soil. Could I make the argument that Breaking New Grounds is in the process of building America nutritionally, economically, socially and agriculturally?
3) Open ended comment: What was your epiphany? What was the life changing learning experience?
 |
| Peter welcomes us to Breaking New Grounds as Amanda giggles at a joke I made and stretches |
 |
| We try a variety of hand poses as Amanda describes the finer points of turning organic matter into new soil. |
 |
| Worms at work. Better than a cubicle? |
 |
| Multitasking defined: mastering the art of power tools while jumping on one leg. |
 |
| All foremen wear pink shirts in Food Works. |
 |
| Covering the grounds. |
 |
| Mastery shown. |
 |
| Two thumbs up! |
Is Breaking New Grounds in the process of building America nutritionally, economically, socially, and agriculturally?
ReplyDeleteDo you mind cynicism? If not, then ask yourself: Did the rogue band of ancient Egyptian slaves that broke away from camp succeed in stopping the Pharaoh from his odd pyramid-building fetish? Have you even heard of a rogue band of ancient Egyptian slaves? No, the truth is, power (Queens, Pharaohs, Congress) has always been key to building any sort of nation, as well as shaping the earth that the nation is built on. Wes Jackson's chapter "The most serious loss of all" reinforced this concept for me; regardless of how much the common man may know and care about soil, it's up to the government to really implement change (or to totally F up the frontier). Yeah, of course we can all write letters to our local congressmen, but the people who choose to be in positions of political power (for the most part) have a natural tendency to care more about reinforcement and revenue over rehabilitation. What do our American leaders actually KNOW about soil? I bet you they have no idea that roughly 70% of compost should be carbon, and 30% nitrogen. (Granted, neither did I until two days ago, but that's why I'm here, to learn. I have zero interest in politics, and I bet most politicians have no interest in dirt and the outdoors. There's a reason it's called running for Office). Jefferson may have been an exception for our country. I'd love to live in his ideal world, where farmers are prized among citizens for their knowledge on cultivation. I wonder if the American Dream -- that whole "go west young man" goal of social mobility and rising to the top of the ladder -- has somehow contributed to our country's agricultural failure. Compared to other countries who've somehow maintained a steady agricultural culture for hundreds of years, have we set our sights to high (literally), by fantasizing a non-working, luxury lifestyle as if we could all become Pharoahs, when we should be focused on our soil, like common laborers?
That was more of a rambling rant than an answer...
Kaylen
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuring our conversation at lunch on our Fifth Day event people discussed the difference between organic, local and healthy. One topic thrown out momentarily was genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which was immediately dismissed as bad food. Granted, there are issues with growing GMO’s and cross pollination with wild plants; however, this immediate dismissal ignores the positive uses of GMOs that would qualify this type of food as good. Normally, when people think of GMOs they immediately think of Monsanto Co. and their corn patents, which maintains a monopoly over the industry. Additionally, the corn GMOs distributed by Monsanto contain high starch content, making them virtually inedible except in corn syrup form. However, this is only one example of a type of GMO and is more an issue of patents than the GMO. GMOs are created using recombinant DNA techniques in order to grow crops with a myriad of genetic sequences that encode for positive characteristics, including drought resistance and vitamin supplements (i.e. golden rice with keratin). For example, in Zambia maize is a major food source; however, it is highly susceptible to drought. Although natural foods resistant to drought exist in the region such as cassava, consumer demand remains high for maize despite the environmental factors. Therefore, drought resistant GMOs could ensure food availability; however, the government refused food aid from WFP during droughts in 2003 due to fears about unnatural food. This example highlights that education surrounding GMOs needs to be implemented on a global scale, ranging from Lusaka to Louisville.
ReplyDeletePS: If you disagree with me and have facts to support your ideas, I would love to see them. Or if you just want to talk, let me know. I love this topic and the debates surrounding this debate.
What is good food?
ReplyDeleteFor me, good food is first appreciated on the plate and as the meal that I am consuming. Taste is obviously a very important aspect, however, there are other factors that play into the enjoyment of the food. The sustainability of the product that I am consuming is a very important to me, as is the relationship with the people who helped to grow and prepare the food.
While good food is ultimately determined by how it tastes, ethical problems in the food’s production taint its flavor. For example, the rich taste of 'fois gras' is spoiled by the force-feeding technique of 'gavage' that is employed to get the fatty liver tissue. Similar arguments are used to support grass fed beef and free-range chickens. I admit that there are issues with the rhetoric and that industrially raised free-range chickens rarely benefit from the open green fields that we imagine, in that regard meat consumption should be directly related to the origin and the sustainability of the protein. An important sustainability issue arises with the consumption of seafood. I do not eat shrimp because all of the shrimp sold in grocery stores cultivated at the expense of natural mangrove ecosystems. The education around these topics in increasingly prevalent and people who think about the consequences of their food are becoming commonplace in restaurants. When the buyer power is thinking about these ecological consequences, there is a possibility of food being good tasting and also responsible.
I am not arguing for a completely local diet, nor an organic diet, but for responsible and thoughtful eating (though organic and local may play into this designation). To me, that makes all the difference.
Britty’s question about Dare to Care and provision of food to underserved and underprivileged communities brought me back to a question that I’ve been thinking a lot about this past year. I know what I consider good food for myself – whole foods, preferably local, preferably chemical free – but I also know that that’s a very privileged perspective. When it comes to the food that’s available in food deserts or at food shelves, where a box of powdered mashed potatoes might mean the difference between dinner and no dinner, though, how picky can we be? As much as I want to have high standards across the board for our entire food system, I struggle to know both how feasible this is at the moment (luckily the system is constantly improving and evolving) and how well enforcing higher standards will actually serve the communities that are more vulnerable to price shocks. Having the option to have my own garden, go to the farmer’s market, and spend a little more money and a little more time on food is a luxury that I have had for much of my life, and one that I still take for granted once in a while even though I have come to recognize it.
ReplyDeleteI talked to my boss about this last week on our way to the Fresh Stop, which is a great event run by New Roots that works to help alleviate the health effects of food deserts in neighborhoods like California, where Breaking New Grounds is. (p.s. it’s a biweekly mini farmer’s market/csa distribution point with health and food education and cooking demonstrations) He mentioned to me a recent debate about just this issue that brought a new facet of the problem to light for me. Apparently YUM! Brands (Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut) recently lobbied the state senate to allow food stamps to be used at certain fast food restaurants. HORRIBLE! Right? It is essentially subsidizing fast food more than cheap corn and grain subsidies already do. However, one really interesting and valid point that the opposition brought up is that the current system of food stamps/WIC does not serve the urban homeless who have no access to a kitchen, let alone a farmer’s market. For someone without a kitchen, it doesn’t really matter whether or not your food stamps get double value at a farmer’s market. What I gleaned from this conversation is that #1 it’s really hard to serve such a diverse community with different needs depending on geography, socioeconomic status, etc and #2 when I think about food, I really need to start broadening my point of view. I’ve focused a lot of food education in the past year, and I’ve learned a lot from different students and volunteers that everyone is in it for a different reason, and I think I need to keep in mind that that correlates not only to different interests, but also identification of the many different needs in any given community, small or large.
We are what we eat and what we eat is what it eats. Humans consume animals that consume plants that consume soil. Thus we can trace ourselves back to being made of soil. This is a reductionist stance to human consumption and origin, and one with which I do not agree. The reductionist framework has a long-standing history in the philosophy of science, stating that highly complex scientific processes can be explained using the laws of physics. It explains ecosystem functioning with biology, which is explained by chemical properties, which is in turn explained by physics. For example, a frog jumping from a predator is simply a result of many electrons and particles spinning and moving. While physics explains this action from a concrete and measurable stance, the complex action of jumping cannot truly be reduced to a simple form, because it relies on the multifaceted interactions of cells, and even partially on the immeasurable innate behavioral and mental capacities of the frog. Like the frog, we cannot reduce ourselves simply to soil, because it removes the complex interactions of soil to water or plants to animals—interactions that change the form of the simplified item (energy from the sun) to something more intricate (complex molecules), which can be used in a new and dynamic way (food with cultural, economic, and political associations).
ReplyDeleteLikewise, we cannot claim that Breaking New Grounds, by revolutionizing composting and soil use in Louisville, is in the process of building America nutritionally, economically, socially, and agriculturally. This building, or re-building process, cannot be reduced to its simplest parts of soil creation or amendment, but rather must be viewed as an ecosystem of community change. This is not to say that Breaking New Grounds is not doing fantastic work. Because they are! To take waste from existing entities and turn it into a new commercial product using sustainable methods creates a new glimpse of how American businesses could create social and environmental value in an economically feasible manner. Breaking New Grounds is an example an organization that is truly working towards the triple bottom line. And that is something that will help rebuild America nutritionally, socially, economically, and agriculturally. However Breaking New Grounds and the compost they create exists within a complex ecosystem. Rebuilding of America nutritionally, economically, socially, and agriculturally will rely on the work of Breaking New Grounds, but also will result only from a vertical integration of this work into society, politics, and business, and a horizontal integration of this work into other local spheres. Breaking New Grounds in concert with other organizations across the country focused on food justice, political reforms, health education, and building a paradigm shift in American society, is rebuilding America in those four categories. But it must be viewed through the lens of the ecosystem of these organizations. There is no one quick fix, no reducible simple that we can look towards to change society. Change will come from the interaction of many different complex systems and the facilitators of those interactions.
The idea of “good food” has become increasingly difficult for me to define in the past year or so. As I mentioned at our first meeting in Joe’s yard, I wasn’t all that aware of the multitude of food issues out there until coming to Middlebury. Sure, I’d read Omnivore’s Dilemma, Mad Cowboy, seen Food Inc., etc., but somehow that was all just media to me… shopping at Whole Foods seemed like a good-enough “solution” for the time.
ReplyDeleteI’ve also mentioned the fact that my family is really into food… we could be called foodies, but now that word (a word that I commonly used to identify myself with) is somewhat uncomfortable for me. I’ve derived so much pleasure from food and food experiences over the course of my life, but I can’t help but to think about all the excess, waste, and unsustainability that have been behind these experiences. Granted, at some point a person has to stand up for what makes them happy… I can’t deny the fact that an unnecessary meal of seared fois gras, halibut, uni, a fatty rabbit terrine, sweet diver scallops, and poached white asparagus flown in from France at a particular restaurant in Boston (on special special occasions) makes me very happy… my allegiance to flavor, dining experience, and culinary artistry presently surpasses my allegiance to sustainability and locavorism. In an ideological sense, I’m firmly behind the idea of eating locally and sustainably, but I have a visceral connection to cuisine that simply overtakes me…
But at the same time, I do experience guilt after such meals—now more than ever. Being around so many informed, passionate environmentalists up in Vermont (and here in Louisville), I can’t help but to see and embrace the truth about food in America… I can still happily gorge myself on a 8oz tongue sandwich at my favorite deli… it’s nostalgic, tasty, connects me to my ancestors on Arthur Ave in the Bronx back in the early 1900s, but I can’t go without thinking about food desserts, malnutrition among the impoverished, America’s meat addiction, disease-ridden feed-lots…
So I guess I’m at a point where I have an idea of good-food in the context of my upbringing, but now with everything I know, that type of good food seems a little superficial… at the same time really good food (in the sensory sense) can move me in a way that is far from superficial.
Gahhh stuff to think about the next 8 weeks!
My grandpa was fond of saying "good food, and service to match!" whenever he and my grandma would eat out at a restaurant. He got to say it quite a bit as they ate out nearly every single night.
ReplyDeleteFor my family, "good food" was always a home-cooked meal that was healthy, enjoyed by the whole family. Food to me has always been inseparable with community. I hope Breaking New Grounds continues to find success reaching out to small scale composting efforts in the local community, because tasks as daunting as sustainable agriculture are always easier to accomplish if your neighbor is going through the same struggles. At work, I love creating relationships with customers and hearing about customers' friends and their ideas, and seeing a web of interconnectedness unfold among people in the area who care about local food and sustainability.
Making sure that we talk to our neighbors and get them excited about what's going on as well as reaching out to other communities is central to the success of the local food movement. After all, a "good meal" in and of itself is nothing compared to a good meal with great company. The best thing about local food just may be that it tastes so much better than anything shipped over from california, and some people may not need any more convincing than that. Although my definition of "good food" may be a little different than my grandpa's, I think he'd agree that community is integral to the enjoyment of good food, and on that note I'm looking forward to interacting with the local community here in KY as much as possible.
Good food is something that is physically and mentally satisfying. When you’re done with it, you don’t want any more because you have been filled by it. Like the ice cream that we had at Joe’s house that first Sunday night; it was so rich and complex that a couple of little bites were enough to satisfy. The layers of flavor and the depth of the ice cream were satisfying in a physical way, but in a mental way as well. The complexity made you want to think about what exactly went into that ice cream to make it the way it was, so while satisfying a desire for something sweet, it also sparked innate human curiosity, therein exercising and satisfying the mind. Good food is interesting. It makes you want to ask questions about it and think about where it came from and what components make it up. Good food is truly brain food; it gives your mind something to chew on. It brings new meaning to the phrase “food for though.”
ReplyDeleteIs local food really the best immediate answer to fixing the lack of access to satisfying food? After this week, I’m wondering if it is. Maybe we’re trying to make too big of a leap. A lot of us (and other people involved in the food movement) grew up just eating plain old fruits and vegetables from the grocery store, and more recently have become enamored of eating local. Not only is commercially grown produce cheaper, but can literally be taken anywhere and made accessible. Maybe our end goal should be providing local food to everyone, but we might need to make a few steps in between. Perhaps just getting people to be aware that things like kohlrabi and asparagus exist, regardless of where they came from, is more important that first emphasizing local, especially since local is, quite illogically, more expensive and less accessible to them. Also, if you’re scraping by, you don’t really care whether or not your food was sustainably produced. The state of the environment is so removed from surviving on a daily basis. The environmental reasons might not win people over, but all parents want to protect and do the best for their children that they can. If people become interested in eating more fruits and vegetables on a regular basis in order to do the best for their children, wanting to know what they can do to be even healthier is a logical next step. Change needs to be gradual and people need to acclimate to small changes instead of being forced to take a huge leap into the unknown. As people change their thoughts and desires, however, the demand for local food will rise as people discover that it is much healthier. We cannot force local and organic food on people simply because we know that it is better for health and the environment. People need to come to that realization by themselves; only then will they be truly committed to the cause.
2) Almost. I think that Breaking New Grounds is on the cusp of doing just this, and has great potential to enact a rebuilding as you’ve described. However, I do believe that there are still some gaps in their (ever-evolving) approach towards doing so. Take, for example, where BNG compost is sold. It is mostly sold in attractive bags in Heine Brothers, or donated to their low-income community garden projects. Generally, Heine Brothers is going to attract a higher income crowd. These customers will be individuals who have extra money to spend on espresso drinks. Then, divide that number by eight or ten, because that’s the proportion of individuals that are going to even notice the compost bags when they walk in. Then, divide that number by ten again, because that is going to be the likely proportion of individuals who take interest in gardening—and own a garden, are educated about the benefits of compost, and (hopefully) chose to buy that bag at that location. If the consumer was a venn-diagram, it would be where higher income coffee drinkers, compost-familiar gardeners, and incidence (actually seeing the bag) intersect.
ReplyDeleteNot such an average crowd.
Next we can look at the other beneficiaries of this compost: low-income individuals who are most likely less educated, work longer hours, and are not familiar with the benefits of composting or home-grown food—let alone with luxury of chosing what they eat.
So now, all of a sudden, these low-income individuals do have a choice. Calorie-dense food with little nutritional value is suddenly not the only option, because they have fresh, free produce growing right across the street. This is an incredible development
But what about the middle class?
Those who are probably not frequenting Heine Brothers, or consistently buying their merchandise, because they save money by making their coffee at home. Those who may or may not garden, and may or may not use compost, but most likely would chose to buy less-expensive compost or soil from a gardening chain store. Those who are not residents of the neighborhoods that Breaking New Grounds benefits?
If we’re talking about rebuilding America nutritionally, socially, agriculturally, and economically, then I don’t think Breaking New Grounds’ marketing strategy can miss the most represented and most “average” demographic. In fact, if the middle class isn’t part of this redevelopment, I don’t think this is a healthy system. It reminds me of what Coyne and Knutzen were saying in the reading about “corporate sustainability” versus “radical sustainability.” It’s high-tech solar panels being donated to a rural village. If the rich, environmentally-conscious gardeners are the ones funding this project, then the lower class’s food access is still determined by the upper class. You could say that this relationship—played out in the corporate world—is in part what has led us into this nutritional problem in the first place. I think we have to find a way to get the middle class in on this.
Do you guys feel differently? So this isn't exactly charity: it's selling compost bags. If (higher-income) people are interested and buying them and keep buying them, and this funds these low-income projects......do YOU think this is sustainable? Why or why not do you think that it's important that all class levels have a role?
DeleteA lady I'm working for said something along the same lines. She said "we do all these projects, especially with schools in low-income neighborhoods. And to fund them, we get rich people to buy our local food baskets."
You could call this sustainable. It's financially sustainable. So what's the problem? Do you think that there's a problem with this, or that it's imperative that we involve the middle class with this? And if so, why?
It's interesting to me--something I've been noticing--that these discussions about the intersection between food and class seem to keep bringing up the wealthy versus the poor, those who have the spending money and time to make these decisions/shop at local food stores, and those who are financially pressed just to get by.
Where is the middle man, what is he doing, and how does he factor into this debate?
An interesting article in light of our discussion of "What is good food?"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp