MLK Day
Yesterday was Dr. Martin Luther King Day, and today I’d like to write about civil rights within a context that we don’t hear about very often: agriculture. One hundred years ago there were nearly 1 million Black farmers in the US, comprising over 10 percent of total farmers at the time. Today there are less than 50,000, comprising around 1.4 percent. There are many causes for this, and one of them has to do with the USDA’s long history of racial discrimination against Black farmers. This culminated in the largest class-action civil rights suit in US history: the Pigford Case, where the federal government in 1999 admitted to racial discrimination and settled over one billion dollars to Black farmers who were denied farm loans and assistance (unlike White farmers) due to the color of their skin.
While the history of Black farming is tragic and unjust, from slavery, to neo-slavery in the form of restrictive sharecropping during reconstruction, to the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 inadvertently driving Black farmers from the land, to the more modern-day, conscious discriminatory farm lending practices of the USDA, it is also rich and hugely influential: George Washington Carver developed and popularized crop rotation practices to prevent soil depletion; Booker T Whatley not only was one of the earliest developers in the United States of the CSA and pick-your-own models, but he also authored a book in 1987 entitled How To Make $100,000 Farming 25 Acres. This book directly inspired contemporary “Rockstar farmers” (as we call them) J. M. Fortier and Ben Hartman to write similar books, which in turn inspired an entire new generation of young farmers, including myself. Finally, the 1965 Voting Rights March from Selma to Montgomery would never have been possible were it not for Black farmers who owned farms along Highway 80 and who allowed marchers to sleep on their land, something that would never have been permitted by White farmers along the route. These same farmers also led fund raising efforts for racial justice for years leading up to Dr. King’s movement.
While my interest for this newsletter lies specifically with agriculture, I’d like to conclude by saying that racial discrimination pervades countless other segments of our lives, many of which remain hidden or not well known, similar to agriculture. Dr. Martin Luther King Day reminds us to unearth these injustices, to remember how members of marginalized groups have contributed immensely to the strength of our nation, and to use such knowledge to become better citizens.
Creating a community of entrepreneurs
This week’s post will be the final part of a three part series where I discuss the philosophy that makes up the core of my business. If you missed part 1, you can find it here.
Part 1: Protecting and enhancing the environment and human health
Part 2: Building a local economy
Part 3: Creating a community of entrepreneurs
While parts 1 and 2 were heavy, this final segment is a bit more light. It’s light and fun because it’s the thing that I enjoy most about my job. It’s also central to everything, because parts 1 and 2 – protecting and enhancing the environment/human health and building a local economy – would not be possible, or at least much more difficult, without a community of entrepreneurs working together in some fashion. There is a lot going on behind the scenes in our local food movement, and I’d love to tell you about it.
There are a couple ways that this community can manifest. First, many of the producers who I supply from use ingredients from other producers who I supply from. For example, Fran and Mark from Castle Valley Mill supply Claire from Ursa Bakery with flour to bake bread. Tom from Kimberton Hills (where I also get herbal products) Dairy supplies raw milk to 7 Stars Creamery (they have their own herd but it’s big not enough so they get extra milk from down the street at Kimberton) for yogurt and Stefanie from Valley Milkhouse to make cheese and butter (butter from her coming soon). Jennifer and Chris from Piggyback Treats use organs/feet for their pet treats from Earl from Kaiser’s Peasantry, and we a working on getting them fish skins and belly from Amanda at Otolith Seafood and from Steve’s trout. While all of the items that you see on my stand are displayed as individual products, there is a hidden web that connects them.
Second, many of us sell each other’s products. Many even produce in the same location. For instance, Brian from Mycopolitan mushroom farm, located off Erie Ave in Philadelphia, subleases space for Ken to make and can his kombucha. Matt from Nilaa Coffee cans his coffee there as well. Brian also sells goat cheese from Catherine at Yellow Springs, which he picks up from me to save Catherine an extra trip. When I pick up eggs from Birchwood Farm, I also drop off my microgreens for them to sell.
Third, there are a couple chefs who I work with as well. Those of you who have been on this list since at least April may remember Max (same guy I mentioned in part 1 re the garlic). He made things like fresh pasta/pierogis (using Castle Valley flour), pasta sauce, and soup in my commercial kitchen (located in my house). I sold his food when I had market out of my driveway. Max has since found a more permanent location to cook, and I’ll be offering his amazing food again soon. He also has a food truck that he parks around town. You can follow him on Instagram here. There’s also Jon from The Omelette Bar. We both had a stand at the Bryn Athyn Bounty farmers market last year. That market didn’t happen this year so Jon started making and delivering quiches. He picks up all of his ingredients from me. You can follow him here and here and place orders on his website here.
I’m always thinking about how I can help expand and strengthen this community. I believe that we are all more likely to succeed if we all work together as best we can in some capacity. And, if we all succeed, parts 1 and 2 will more likely be realized to their fullest potential.
Finally, the friendships that I’ve made in this whole process are invaluable to me. The best business relationships are often extensions of personal relationships, especially when there is a common environmental and economic vision.
So, as we approach Thanksgiving, I want to extend my immense thankfulness to all those I work with and to all those who support us. Have a lovely Thanksgiving.
Building a local economy
This week’s post will be the second part of a three part series where I discuss the philosophy that makes up the core of my business. If you missed part 1, you can find it below.
Part 1: Protecting and enhancing the environment and human health
Part 2: Building a local economy
Part 3: Creating a community of entrepreneurs
Let’s consider for a moment a random object that we come into contact with on a regular basis. How about a soda can, just the can itself. The production of something as simple as a soda can is immensely complex. The bauxite is mined in Africa or Guinea, shipped off to either Europe or the US to be smelted, refined, and produced into alumni, then to China to turn the raw alumina into aluminum sheets, where it is shipped again to the US to be manufactured into cans. It’s then combined with the thingy on top that opens the can, the labels, and the beverage, all of which have their own journey. The components of a single can of soda have circumnavigated the world several times before reaching our hands. Most things that we come into contact with everyday have a similar journey. It’s pretty mind blowing to think about.
World history, for better or (well, and) for worse, has always steered towards the strengthening of global economic connections. Wars have been fought, world leaders have been overthrown, and elections have been decided to establish, maintain, or to enhance these connections. National economies depend on them. Also mind blowing to think about.
Globalization has resulted in plenty of good. No doubt that it has lifted millions out of poverty. No doubt that it has led to the low cost of essential goods. Since there simply aren’t any local mines and refineries, without globalization, we wouldn’t have soda (ok, maybe not so bad), and, if we are to have automobiles at all, they would be as rare as private jets (though I have always wanted a horse and buggy). Point is, unless we are willing to go back three thousand years, globalization is here to stay.
But of course, it’s a double-edged sword.
First, the global economy is vulnerable to major world events. World War 1 for instance completely disrupted the global connections that were established in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and it wasn’t until the early 1990s that the same level of connectivity was reached, after the fall of the Soviet Union. And most relevant to today: pandemics. Nothing is worse for the global economy than a pandemic: the bubonic plague, yellow fever, and now Covid-19 all resulted in major disruptions that took/will take years to recover from.
There are a host of other problems associated with globalization: environmental degradation (see part 1), homogeneity of products, job exportation, wage stagnation, wealth inequality, tax havens, multinational corporations exerting influence over sovereign nations, etc. None of these are inherent to globalization and can be rectified by better policy and policing. But there is one thing that is indeed inherent, and that’s what I want to focus on: the impact on our local community. For every dollar that’s spent at a huge multinational corporation, 70 cents is immediately taken out of the locale where that store is located: much of it goes to China; much of it goes to executives who live far away; and much of it is paid out in dividends to shareholders who can live anywhere. Only very little remains for the local employees who work at that store. If less money is kept within the locale, that means that the money that these local employees would otherwise have spent at other local businesses is accumulating in far off parts of the world. It also means that the taxes that that municipality would otherwise have collected are not being collected by any government anywhere, since many large corporations are very good at avoiding a tax bill. In the end, it costs more for a local municipality to have a big box store (road work, policing, etc.) than it does to have a mainline of small, independently owned shops. Ouch.
So, where am I going with all of this? As I mentioned before, globalization is necessary to meet the demands of a modern lifestyle. Even with all of these problems, we can do the best we can to improve upon them incrementally, but the system is here to stay unless we want to go back millennia. But, there is one sector where it can all change, one sector that is ripe for renewal, one sector that need not be dependent on global forces, and it just so happens to be the largest economic sector in the world: agriculture. Whereas there are no local mines and refineries around us, there is soil everywhere; whereas there is no local automobile manufacturer around us, there are many local farmers.
Every time we support a local farm (or a local store that supports local farmers ????) we help to accomplish a number of things: we keep money within our locale; we help inspire others to farm once they see the demand (we need more farmers); and we are more likely to be safe and secure if a war or pandemic disrupts the vulnerable global food economy. Yes, it costs more (I will be accepting EBT soon) since small, local farms don’t have the economies of scale to offset distribution expenses. But, as I mentioned in part 1, in the long term, Chinese garlic, North Carolina pork, Chilean farmed salmon, and Californian lettuce are much more expensive.
Supporting local farms and millers/bakers/cheesemakers who use locally grown products is one of the most impactful things that I could do to help build a local economy, a guiding principle for my business.
And finally, everything I wrote is debatable. If you know me well, you know how much I love a good debate!
Local food and the environment
This week’s post will be the first part of a three part series where I discuss the philosophy that makes up the core of my business.
Week 1: Protecting and enhancing the environment and human health
Week 2: Building a local economy
Week 3: Creating a community of entrepreneurs
Although these three points are interrelated and there will inevitably be some overlap, I’d like to begin this series with a discussion about the environmental impact of a global vs. local food system.
Before I get into it, I’d like to mention that this discussion is working under the assumption that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. But, I need to say a little more about this topic before diving in: I don’t actually “know” that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. I haven’t done the research, and I honestly can say that I don’t understand the science. This stuff is complex, and I don’t have the scientific mind for it. However, what I can do is apply Pascal’s wager to the whole thing. Pascal was a 17th century polymath who came up with a philosophical argument concerning the existence of God. But let’s apply his logic to climate change. There are four scenarios.
Scenario 1: We make no effort to do something about climate change, and climate change ends up being false. End result: nothing different
Scenario 2: We make an effort to do something about climate change, and climate change ends up being false. End result: we create a new industry, create new jobs, save people from air pollution deaths. It would be expensive to implement, but nothing really bad happens, and there will be mostly good that results in my opinion.
Scenario 3: We make no effort to do something about climate change, and climate change ends up being real. End result: we are doomed.
Scenario 4: We make an effort to do something about climate change, and climate change ends up being true. End result: we saved the world.
In the scenarios that involve taking action, the results are either positive or extremely positive. In the scenarios the involve not taking action, the results are either extremely negative or just neutral. I think that this logic is much more convincing than having absolute “knowledge” or “certainty” on the matter, and I think that if this logic were to be employed by more media outlets, the air surrounding climate change would be less controversial. Anyway, this is convincing enough for me to dedicate much of my life to addressing climate change.
So, having written this long preamble, I’ll now get into how a non local food system impacts the environment and human health.
Best to use a specific example. Over 60% of the garlic sold in the United States is grown in China. China is by far the largest producer of garlic in the world, accounting for 80% of sales worldwide. Before harvest, Chinese garlic is irrigated using untreated sewage water that contains lead and sulphites, fertilized using synthetic fertilizer, sprayed with dangerous pesticides/herbicides/fungicides. After harvest, it is soaked in bleach to remove blemishes and fumigated with methyl bromide (a known carcinogen and ozone depleter) to kill any bugs and to prevent sprouting. The garlic is then shipped via air or sea freight all over the world, eventually making its way to the shelves in a conventional grocery store, changing hands dozens of times in the process. Since it takes a long time to import, allicin, the major component of garlic that is responsible for its health benefits, depletes and is almost absent. And, when it finally gets onto your plate, it tastes metallic anyway.
Compare this to a local food system: last week I got garlic from my friend Max. He uses nothing but locally produced compost and some woodash from his wood-burning stove as fertilizer. These inputs aid the soil’s microbial life, which sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. We were going to hang out anyway that day, so he just brought along the garlic, which I now have on my stand. That’s all. It’s pretty simple. No chemicals, healthy, minimal fossil fuel burning (actually no fossil fuels, Max drives an EV which is powered by solar) and a net positive impact to the environment.
Chinese garlic is just one example. Similar things can be said of most non-local sources of food. Don’t even get me started on Atlantic salmon from Chile or some of the huge mono-cropped lettuce farms in California (ok I actually did start writing about them but realized I don’t have to write a book to get to the point…you can talk to me if interested).
From beginning to end, this is a continual process of compounding destruction: the agricultural practices kill the microbes in the soil that are responsible for carbon sequestration; the chemicals used on the farm and the fossil fuels used in transport get into the atmosphere where they contribute to air pollution and climate change. The resulting climate change makes it difficult to grow food in certain regions of the world, which then results in farmers clearing more land elsewhere and so on. It’s a chain reaction.
This is going a little bit into part two, but I’ll mention it briefly here: the only seeming advantage to nonlocal foods is lower prices. Chinese garlic costs around $1.49/lb, compared to $11.99/lb from me. Atlantic salmon costs around $10.99/lb in Acme, compared to $18.99/lb for wild Alaskan sockeye from me. Californian lettuce costs a dollar compared to $3 from me. While the costs for nonlocal food are not immediate, they are much more significant in the long run: healthcare costs, the costs of environmental degradation, etc. Instead of asking why local, organic food is so expensive, I try to ask myself, why is conventional, non-local food so cheap. The answer to this question in fact negates the question itself: it’s not so cheap after all.
Supporting businesses that are doing good things for the environment is central to my business philosophy: mushroom farmer Brian from Mycopolitan uses sawdust from a local saw mill, which, after it is broken down by the mushrooms, is returned to the soil where the tree was capturing carbon before it was cut for wood. Cheese maker Stefanie from Valley Milkhouse gives her whey, a byproduct of cheesemaking, to a local farmer who feeds it to his pigs, reducing the amount of higher footprint grain feed. When I harvest microgreens, I feed the roots and potting soil to earthworms and work in the resulting vermicompost into the garden. Small, local producers are much more likely to do environmentally positive things like this. And what’s best for the environment is also what’s also best for you and your family’s health. This is the type of food production that I will always support.
Thank you for reading!
Salt of the earth
This week I’d like to write a bit about soil health. All I’m about to write is related to a new product I’m offering this week, so hang tight.
Plants need at least 60 different elements in varying amounts to be healthy: calcium, boron, nitrogen, zinc, sulfur, potassium, phosphorus, manganese, etc. Each element has a unique role in plant health. If just one is short, or even in excess, the plant may be stressed. The science behind all of this is complex, and agronomists constantly debate, but it is very clear that plants need a lot more than the standard fertilizer that you’d find in most garden stores.
For millennia, farmers used manure (even humanure), a complete fertilizer, all over the world. But, like everything else, this all changed with the industrial revolution and 19-20th century European science, which were focused on efficiency, simplification, and finding independent variables. People moving to cities to find opportunity meant less farmers. Population booms meant more people to feed. Imperial ambitions and total warfare meant troops had to be fed. So, scientists stepped in to solve the problem. One of these scientists, probably the most influential, was chemist Justus von Liebig, often called the “father of the fertilizer industry.” He postulated that nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (N-P-K) were essential to plant health. He also postulated that other minerals were important as well. But, no one paid attention to this second part for some reason, and eventually, the NPK fertilizer industry was born. It was too expensive to be practical for a while until the German chemist, Fritz Haber, figured out a way to convert the nitrogen in the air into ammonia (mainly to get around the British blockade of Chilean nitrate to create explosives during WW1, but this was eventually applied to fertilizer). Anyway, if you go into a garden store you’ll still find many fertilizers that have nothing but NPK.
For about 100 years, most conventional farmers have used, and still use, nothing but NPK fertilizer. It results in high yield, important for feeding a booming population. But, it also results in weaker plants that have compromised immune systems: they are more disease prone, which is why these farms spray chemical fungicides; weak plants are more likely to be attacked by pests, which is why these farms spray chemical pesticides; and if you’re going to standardize everything, might as well spray some chemical herbicide too. A typical tomato grown in a conventional tomato farm in Florida has about 100 dangerous chemicals in it that go directly into our bodies. Not to mention the terrible labor practices that make this all happen.
But NPK fertilizer doesn’t only lead to all of these chemicals, it also leads to much lower nutrient content. The more NPK fertilizer is used, the most depleted the soil gets of other vital minerals. Back when food was more local, you could measure someone’s bone density based on the amount of calcium present in that person’s local soil. These fertilizers also destroy important biological life in the soil (and to nail the coffin, these fertilizers easily run into our water supply, even making their way into the ocean where they create dead zones in which no marine life can live). Crops grown even a few decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than what is grown today. Von Liebig and Haber of course couldn’t have known all this. “Progress” unfortunately often has unforeseen consequences.
All the vitamins and minerals that are contained in vegetables originate from the soil (well I guess they originate from rocks which were turned into soil via bacteria breaking them down, and those rocks originated from asteroids and stuff, and those asteroids from….ok I’ll stop). These minerals are essential to plant health and hence human health.
Organic farmers are obsessed with building up the soil through compost, naturally occurring minerals, bacterial/fungal life, cover cropping, etc. And another special thing, which finally leads me to the new product that I’m offering: unrefined sea salt. This is a newer development in agronomy. There is a body of research coming out of universities that suggests that adding very small amounts of unrefined sea salt to the soil, specifically Redmonds Real Salt, is beneficial. I’ve been doing it for the past 3 years. Several of the farmers in Lancaster where I get produce from are doing it too.
Real Salt is also great to use in your cooking. It’s mined from an ancient ocean in Utah, has over 60 vital minerals, and doesn’t have any of the dangerous additives found in normal table salt (dextrose, anti-caking agents that contain aluminum). It tastes much better than any other salt, and it’s more local than Himalayan Salt (from Pakistan) or Celtic Sea Salt (from France). I guess I can’t really say “everything I sell is local” anymore. I’ll make an exception for salt 🙂
That was a really long-winded post to just say “I have salt now.” haha
Squash
.I’d like to tell you about an interesting story behind some of the squash varieties that I’m offering. But first I want write a bit about the difference between open pollinated heirloom varieties and hybrid varieties. I guess using the tomato as an example works best. Heirloom varieties, which we all know and love, are disease prone, low yielding, ripen unevenly, and are difficult to pack/distribute since they are all different shapes and sizes. It’s not fun to grow them, and this is why they are so expensive. But, they are so darn delicious! To help farmers solve some of the challenges involved with heirloom varieties, plant geneticists began to develop hybrids (this is not the same thing as genetic modification) so that they would yield more, be more resistant to disease, and be more uniform in shape and size. But, they don’t taste nearly as good! So, it’s a trade-off.
Generally when plant breeders make new varieties, they do so for the interests of industrial agriculture: uniformity and yield. Usually they don’t pay much attention to flavor (this is one of the reasons why tomatoes in the grocery store are flavorless). So this is where the squash comes in. You may have heard of Dan Barber, the chef/owner of Blue Hill at Stone Barns. He was one of the pioneers of the farm-to-table movement. If you have Netflix, you can watch an episode about his restaurant on the first season of Chef’s Table (I watched it and immediately emailed him asking for a job in-between farming seasons. I worked there for 6 months slicing bread for 10 hours a day, but that’s a whole different story haha). Anyway, Barber approached Michael Mazourek, a squash breeder from Cornell University (who I’ve met and have had several discussions with), and asked him to breed squash specifically for flavor. Mazourek, who had always bred varieties for industrial ag, was surprised: He never before had anyone ask him to breed for flavor. This was the start of a fruitful (pun intended) relationship between the two. Honeynut squash was the first variety they developed: a much sweeter, smaller version of butternut squash. Then came the koginut, intensely sweet and creamy. Last came the tetra squash, which is meant to be a “zero-waste” squash, since the entire plant, including the stems and even immature fruit, are edible and delicious. I’ll be offering all of these!