The Future of Food

[jaykush]

Actually to get out of this mess we will need to think big. Big enough to do rotations over 7 years while maintaininG production. They are starting to do it in chile where big land is easier to get.

everything that got big started out small at one point. i cant just walk into one of the giant agriculture farms and tell them its better to grow organic, so they should. i would get laughed at most likely or they would tell me its not possible, but i can walk into many of the local small farms and talk/help influence them towards sustainable practices. i know we need to think big, but they need to know i can be done, even on a small scale and gradually over time build it larger and larger, a snowball effect in essence.

There is a famous garden guy in the bay area that is trying to get people to slowly build up their soil over a period of 10 years, I went to one of his classes once for biointensive gardening. If you follow his guidance you can rebuild the soil, grow in a much smaller space.

its not John Jeavons is it? his book is pretty good.

 

[magiccannabus]

i know we need to think big, but they need to know i can be done, even on a small scale and gradually over time build it larger and larger, a snowball effect in essence

So they just start with a finger and work eventually to getting the whole forearm in? I see how you're spreading the word! That's hardcore

 

[Clackamas Coot]

There is a famous garden guy in the bay area that is trying to get people to slowly build up their soil over a period of 10 years, I went to one of his classes once for biointensive gardening. If you follow his guidance you can rebuild the soil, grow in a much smaller space.

I forget his name but he wrote the book how to grow better vegetables.

You're talking about John Jeavons at Ecology Action

Attending his workshops is a great experience and well worth the money.

CC

 

[maryjohn]

Jay, I think a great way to show it would ne to have multiple small farms like you say, but with a rotation plan that involves them all. Cows come on eat the grass for a few years, then corn is moved in for 2, etc.

The guy who wrote the omnivores dilemma was describing it on the radio. Problem is it can't be done on a small scale.

 

[jaykush]

Problem is it can't be done on a small scale.

the problem is there's too many problems!!

 

[habeeb]

^ isn't that the truth..

 

[Mr. Greengenes]

People are tool users, they have a fascination with fiddling around. Even dedicated organic gardeners have a hard time keeping their attention on building soil, as opposed to doing controlling things like feeding plants. We're in a transitional period in organic gardening, it will get better.

Hydroponic sciences, on the other hand are fatally flawed in many ways. First, the idea that nature can be improved upon (from a plants viewpoint), much less imitated even remotely accurately, is a strange and naive one. Then, to start in on the technical flaws, where are the beneficial bacteria and fungi supposed to hang out?

 

[ripman]

I actually have a slightly contrarian view on GMOs. I do agree that some or most GMOs are produced just to get better bucks, but not all GMOs are to be thrown away to me. Conscious experimentation can lead to interesting products, which might even improve the life of third world countries.
It may be just a hoax but I've been told that there is a GMO rice called "golden rice" which has been genetically modified to grow with a high percentage of C-vitamin. Apparently, sowing this rice in China could improve the life of many poor growers whose diet is almost completely based on rice.
Also, some food and seeds which are not marked GMOs nonetheless suffer profound mutations: I could treat seeds with colchine and have mutations and sell the subsequent generation without issues. Same has happened with Creso Wheat, which has been produced in laboratory with x and gamma ray irradiation, and is now still sold and sowed even though OGM are somewhere banned.

 

[spiral]

yeah I heard a golden rice, Modified to grow with a large amount of vitamin A also cause they have a big problem with people going blind. Still, its just not natural to go screwing with genes, especially when we dont know the consequences. Kinda reminds me of the pharmy companies testing there new pills on the poor in india.

 

[jaykush]

you want food with more minerals and nutrients? grow with rock powders. tried and proven.

 

[Cheeb]

mmmm.. rock powder. Sounds nice.

 

[ripman]

Well, I don't know. I do understand playing with genes seems to be risky and all, but it should work more or less like an engineered mutation. Mutations could happen anyway and I believe sometimes have produced strains which have become dominant. I have no proof of the latter statement, it's just reasonable to me it may happen.

The point I believe is mutations could be produced by chemicals and x-rays and we would not know it and grow and eat such produts anyway (Creso wheat is an example). But such stuff should be treated the same as OGMs, if not even even worse: DNA modifications are probably more controlled, chemical and x-ray ones seem to me much more random.

Anyway, I share with you the concern about OGMs produced by corporations. But in the hand of serious scientist, who know their stuff and know how to handle and diffuse OGMs, this field of research should continue. And maybe some conclusive research will show some of these OGMs are safe and we will have some nice products.

The point is corporations now work OGMs to get strains which are more pest and ill-resistant. And that is stupid, that can be handled much better by having strong soil instead of weak, chemically-treated one. Also considering agriculture produces much more than is consumed, and of low-quality. When it could focus instead on quality.

 

[Clackamas Coot]

ripman

The issue isn't necessarily about playing with genetics. Where the problem really rises is the work done at UC Berkeley and their 'corporation' known as "CalGene" which in the 1990's were experimenting specifically with tomatoes.

The deal was that they would pull out specific genes from plants like potatoes that insured 'shelf life' as you find in potatoes, known in the produce industry as 'hardware' meaning that they have a long storage paradigm.

The goal was to create a tomato which could hold a sellable viability like a potato or a carrot. "Franken-Tomatoes" which were quickly rejected by produce distributors because of the public's reluctance for genetically-engineered foods.

With good reason, IMHO

CC

 

[ripman]

Oh yeah I see. I wouldn't want franken-tomatoes. But that again is a genetic modification which could be good for the producer or distributor, with the consumer getting nothing more from such a modification. After all, if I want to make a tomato salad, the store sells tomatoes fresh every day, there's no point in stuffing your fridge full of tomatoes to consume them in 12 months...

Berkeley as far as I know is one of the top universities in US (from an overall perspective, then it depends on the field). And as far as I know it is also one of the most left-wing oriented... Point is corporation finance research in universities so part of the science must stand committed to such type of research.

What I mean is, when talking about OGMs, not to completely rule out its application can have potential benefits. I believe is more or less like the use of colchine to get polyploid plants: you can consider the effect on human health and of crop diffusion. If it safe for humans and has no bad effect on the environment, why do we have to rule out the possibility to make seedless watermelons? Just to point out an application which could make some sense for the consumer

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Seedless watermelons were developed through selective breeding. That's a far cry from injecting 'genes' from one plant into another to achieve specific storage/growing goals.

Regardless - the experiments at CalGene were fed out to the tomato growers in California (one of their largest cash crops) and the produce from these plants were completely and totally rejected by everyone from the packer, shipper, broker, wholesale distributor, retail and finally the end customer.

It was a financial failure which resulted in UC Berkeley in shutting down the entire project.

Your comments about US Berkeley being "And as far as I know it is also one of the most left-wing oriented..." is not worthy of comment. Politics has no play in scientific investigation - especially at an institution on the level of UCB.

Just a thought.

CC

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Oh yeah - I was one of the contract growers for several projects out of UCB as well as the experiments conducted at UO (University of Oregon) - another 'leftist university'

Maybe if the experiments had been conducted at Pigs Knuckle University at Dog Turd, Arkansas this discussion wouldn't be necessary, eh?

LMAO

CC

 

[ripman]

Well, didn't want to be a bad comment CC the one about Berkeley being left-wing, just something which I guess is more or less objectively correct... I'm not American, but I'm fairly sure we can say Ivy-League schools like Columbia, Harvard and Stanford are more "right-wing" and "conservative", while schools like NYU, MIT and Berkeley are more "left-wing" leaning and "social". What I wanted to say is apart from the top professors, Ivy and non-Ivy campuses have people with slightly different beliefs which impact the social climate of such institutions. Beliefs to me in part shape also the paths of research universities pursue and the connection with corporations and political think tanks.

In the place in which I live right-wing = corporations, left-wing has still of course liens with corporations but in a less marked way. What I wanted to say is that, being Berkeley to me more left-leaning, it was to me a bit peculiar they would waste money on such a research which seems to have a strong for-profit, commercial purpose.

But anyway, I guess I was better off to read the article, I just wanted to say though that to me the future of food COULD INCLUDE OGMs, man already fucks up gene pools by crossing similar species with breeding and this sometimes has produced nice results (is Mapo for instance such a product? There are some though that are more extreme). I guess that some genetically engineered food could actually be something healthy, environmentally safe and wanted by the consumer, so let's not rule out any OGM from being good, that's it

 

[Clackamas Coot]

ripman

My bad - CalGene and their experiments in creating strains was not at UC Berkeley but rather UC Davis - the agriculture university in the UC system.

Kinda like UC Washington at Puyallup which is the home of the UW School of Agriculture.

Then again it's probably 'leftist university' since it's in the Pacific Northwest - a stronghold of leftists, communists, socialists and other weird forms of humanity.

I can give you 30 university level studies conducted on the work at CalGene at UC Davis. Some are probably 'conservative universities' (whatever in the f*ck that might mean).

Regardless - the work at CalGene was replicated at 50 universities around the world - even in (*gasp*) Europe! Oh dear Gawd!

Whatever.

CC

 

[ripman]

I guess I don't take politics the same as most Americans do. I know for Americans, usually Left = communism = bad. I'm not of such an opinion, to me Left-wing institutions focus on some aspects of life which have value too. Left-wing, at least ideally, is to me "greener" and more socially responsible, so my comment was actually a praise
By the way, I've studied for a while in NYU and it was a great school to me. I've visited Columbia campus, which is really beautiful. But you see people are different. Same thing between Harvard and MIT, MIT to me had a much better atmosphere. But all 6 institutions mentioned above are really great, if I'll ever go back to University for a Master or a PhD, and one of them accepted me, I wouldn't refuse, they are really top-notch. As well as many other I didn't mention, any university has got its own specialty and at least one or two good professors. The ones above excel just in a higher number of fields, that's all

 

[Clackamas Coot]

But you see people are different.

I do?

LMAO

I look at research and scientific results. Take Dr. Elaine Ingham who's head of the Soil Food Web over in Corvallis, Oregon. Before striking out on her own she was a professor at Oregon State University at Corvallis. I have absolutely NO idea of her politics - she may well be a Repuba-Bubba - I don't know.

But I can look at her research and her published papers and determine if she knows what she's talking about. Same deal with CT GUy who own a company which manufactures compost tea brewers - his politics are of no interest to me.

He may well be a neo-Nazi, a Birkenstock-wearing wanna be hippie - I don't care. How does his science measure up against peer-review studies. That's what I find important.

Nothing else.

CC