Showing posts with label stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stuff. Show all posts

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Fixing My Own Food Systems

It's only May, but it's feeling like a tough year on the allotment already. We made a great start, and took advantage of the mild winter by getting everything cleared and the soil prepared in good time, so that it was all ready for planting and sowing come March. But March and April were so cold and windy and forbidding – and so busy for us in other ways – that we somehow still got behind with things. Now, we're just about back on track – at least we would be, but the slugs are eating everything in sight, and the warm spell we had in early May means the weeds are the healthiest thing on the plot once again. And I seem to be having trouble germinating any squashes, which is unheard of and really frustrating.

In the garden, however, I can really keep an eye on things, and the fact I'm going to be hosting one of Transition St Albans' Open Food Gardens later in the summer has provided extra motivation to make it great this year. In the garden I can do a quick two minutes' weeding here and there as soon as I see the need, and I can go out at night and pick the slugs off things. The garden brings me pleasure every day; every time I look out the window.


Yet there's one thing that's really bothering me in the garden. My March-sown spinach plants are bolting and I haven't picked a single leaf yet. My gorgeous stand of rare perennial kales has been virtually untouched all spring. My radishes are going woody. I'm somehow far more efficient in the garden than I am in the kitchen, and gorgeous organic homegrown produce actually goes to waste. Can you believe it? I'm ashamed to admit it. And it's strange because I used to have a great, great passion for cooking, and love to spend hours in the kitchen cooking up complex dishes with virtually any ingredients.

Since I quit my nice safe (frustrating, oppressive) full-time job five years ago, I feel like everything about me has changed. I see the world differently now I've learned different things about it. Some old hobbies and passions have been replaced with new ones – others are just... gone. I've struggled to fill my time, and then I've overfilled it. I don't think I have time, anymore, for a passion for cooking.

I had a bit of a revelation watching Rick Stein's Long Weekend in Bologna on TV last night. It painted a picture of a culture which still makes real, handmade food the absolute centre of their lives; where everyone spoke of the wonderful local produce, and all those involved in making food were real craftspeople. TV is always selective in what it depicts, of course, and I do wonder how true a picture it was of the place, but clearly it was different from the food culture that I know. Towards the end of the program, Rick asked food blogger Enrica Lazzarini what she thought was so 'particular' about the cuisine of Bologna. "The love of cooking and the love of food is in our DNA," she said. "We grow up looking at our granny and mother cook from the very beginning of the day, all day long". And I thought yes, that's what it takes. Growing and harvesting and preserving and cooking and feeding and clearing up and storing and composting... It's an endless cycle. It's not the first time I've thought this, but it was certainly a timely reminder. You've got to be dedicated. You've got to give time. "It's your identity," she finished. "Without food, who are you? No-one."

You probably already know that I believe fixing our food systems could fix or improve a great many of the world's problems, and that food is and must be a central focus of our lives. Yes, our identity. 

So is it a worthwhile compromise that for man to occupy himself with more advanced things he must sacrifice his health and the world's by forgetting where his food comes from? Do any of the 'more advanced things' really matter anyway? Advancement is eating the world. Industrialism consumes itself. Automation removes the need for people. Innovation consumes the innovation of the generation earlier. 'Advanced' modern factory farms are poisoning us and 'advanced' modern crops need more chemical application than ever. What is the great goal? Wealth, of course, but for what? Convenience? Luxury? The freedom to sit back and get fat and sick? The freedom to enjoy leisure activities in diminishing open spaces and polluted air? The freedom to produce art about how dreadful everything is?

I'm not about to quit everything and become a full-time home-farmer and housewife – I couldn't possibly – but in the quest to fix my own food systems I need to make time for cooking again and try to get that passion back.

There are people that think I should be doing something 'better' with my time and energy; something more 'intelligent' or 'noble' or 'advanced' or even 'useful'. To me there's nothing more noble, useful or intelligent than feeding those around me real food that is produced in harmony with the natural world; I'm already growing food for us and for the community but I just need to get that spark back in the kitchen. And 'advanced' can go screw itself.

Monday, 9 February 2015

The Food Shortage is a Lie

It's easy to be confused by the current opposing issues of world hunger and food waste. We seem to hear them everywhere now: Hundreds of millions of people are going hungry! We need to grow more food for our fast-growing population! 30-50% of food produced is not eaten! Huh?!

But this article - How the Great Food War Will Be Won - clears things up thoroughly, and I'd like to urge everyone to read it.

The fact is, we produce an overabundance of food; the stats show it and the World Bank Institute admits we produce enough, globally, for 14 billion people. This isn't exactly new news; I've argued before that we could already produce more than enough food for the global population. But yet industrial agriculture and its supporters - from the UK's National Farmers Union to CropLife International to, of course, Syngenta, Bayer and Monsanto - want us to believe we do not - perhaps cannot - produce enough. The article points out;
The strategic centrepiece of Monsanto’s PR, and also that of just about every major commercial participant in the industrialised food system, is to focus on the promotion of one single overarching idea. The big idea that industrial producers in the food system want you to believe is that only they can produce enough for the future population.
It's a lie. An industry lie, to promote industrial agriculture over small-scale agroecological growing. An industry lie to make money, at great cost to the earth.
...in every single case where industrial agriculture is implemented it leaves landscapes progressively emptier of life. Eventually, the soil turns either into mud that washes into the rivers or into dust that blows away on the wind. Industrial agriculture has no long term future; it is ecological suicide. 
The article goes on to describe how the ecological food movement needs a new strategy; one that involves dismantling this lie and changing perception. Do give it a read:
How the Great Food War Will Be Won

Friday, 6 February 2015

An Exception

I've always tried to avoid growing F1 hybrids - well, mostly. If I'm sent free seeds with an order or magazine it seems rather churlish to reject them, and a few others have slipped through the net over the years for one reason or another. It's not that there's anything 'wrong' with hybrids, but you have to support the things that you want to thrive. It's a bit like buying British or local. I want to see biodiversity and food security thriving, and hybrids undermine these by drastically reducing demand for traditional open-pollinated varieties, and because they're not genetically stable and can't reproduce to create another generation the same. I also like to think I can save the seeds of all my crops, although my seed-saving operation has a long way to go yet... And F1 seeds can be pretty expensive too!

But this year I'm making one deliberate exception, and it's this:


Aubergines are a luxury vegetable for us - something that we could easily do without, but something I'd love to eat more. I rarely buy them, simply because I'm buying less and less veg anyway - my priority is to eat what I grow and I'm far too busy eating all the courgettes and French beans and tomatoes and peppers and leafy greens coming out of the garden when they're in season. So the only way I'm gonna get to eat them is if I grow them myself!

But aubergines, lets face it, are just not really suited to the British climate - they need lots and lots of warmth and sunshine - yet I know many gardeners have moderate success with them, especially under cover. Not me; I've managed to grow just two small aubergines in five or six years of trying, and one of them went bad on the plant. There are only really two open-pollinated varieties of aubergines widely available (not counting fancy-coloured ones or mini ones, which I'm less interested in for now) and I've tried them both, without success. So when I read a recommendation for this variety, Bonica F1, on Nicky Kyle's great blog I thought well, why not have one last bash? Better to grow an F1 hybrid than not to grow them at all! Hybridisation brings the best traits together from other varieties to create new varieties that are (generally) more productive or earlier, more consistent and more reliable - the easier (though pricier) choice for any gardener, and in theory they will crop more readily where traditional varieties have failed. The plastic greenhouse we're putting on the allotment this year means we'll be able to provide them with a bit more protection than at home, too, so I'm crossing my fingers and looking forward to a bountiful aubergine harvest for once!

Thursday, 1 January 2015

Starting Afresh

I'm not usually one to make new year resolutions, but here's one for 2015: to get back to posting regularly on this blog - even if it's just a quick update, a picture or two, or what-I-did-on-the-plot-today for the record. And as everything out there freezes over and readies itself to start afresh, I plan to start afresh too, assuming you know nothing about my plot, and not worrying about repeating myself. Last year's posts were mostly theory and rants anyway - it's been a long time since I actually wrote about the day-to-day stuff of growing my own.

So this is me. I'm Naomi, and my wonderful husband is Eddie. We've had our allotment in St Albans since 2007, and it's had its ups and downs and we've learned an awful lot along the way. We very nearly gave it up once - what a lot has changed since then! We also grow veg in our garden, which is really my parents' garden. I passionately believe that we must all grow more food at home and in our communities, for the good of our health and the planet. (To this end I also help run a Community Supported Agriculture initiative where I live.) We grow sustainably, which for us means organically, often guided by permaculture principles, and supporting wildlife, soil health and biodiversity. We don't dig unless it's absolutely necessary. We don't grow F1 hybrids, which harm diversity and self-reliance. I love the great outdoors, I love food and I love to cook. I plan big and I dream big. I tweet a lot. I long for a smallholding of our own someday, with chickens and pigs and beehives and perhaps a little market garden business. I don't have a regular job at the moment; I have three casual ones and a few that don't pay - and I like to think of growing food a lot like growing money anyway, though it's a real shame you can't buy a house with it...

So happy new year and here's to a great growing - and blogging - season in 2015! Thanks for reading, and I hope you'll drop by again along the way.


Wednesday, 28 May 2014

FoodSmiles

Well, I haven't really been blogging as much as I intended this spring, but there's a very good reason. I've been unexpectedly busy with an exciting new community food project...

I joined the steering group for FoodSmiles back in September when it formed - the outcome of a public meeting run by Transition members as part of the St Albans Food and Drink Festival. The idea was to start a CSA - Community Supported Agriculture - project in St Albans. CSAs across the world take many forms, from meat-shares and food co-ops or 'hubs' to community-run farms, but our aim was to rent a smallish piece of spare land from a local farmer or grower, grow our own produce there, and share it among our members, with the aims of reducing food miles and making food-growing and locally-grown food more accessible to the community.

In April we secured a piece of land at the organic-certified Hammonds End Farm, just outside St Albans. It's small, but it's a lovely spot, with polytunnels already onsite, and we couldn't ask for a more supportive landlord!


Starting late in the spring has meant it's a bit of a race-against-time to get all our seeds in the ground, which is hard clay and very stony (the farmer generously ploughed and harrowed it for us before we arrived, but it still needs lengthy prep before sowing!) and a bad flea beetle problem has meant resowing the first of our brassicas. The polytunnels had some big holes and needed repairs before use (one still does), and the organic certification of the farm, while a really positive thing, means we have to be very careful to use only organic seeds and plants, soil amendments and treatments, and keep strict records of everything we do onsite. So as 'site co-ordinator', I have been quite busy...

 

But we've got some dedicated and enthusiastic members, we've had some great support from local garden centre Aylett Nurseries, who donated organic compost and equipment to get us started, and it's all go on the site! Our potatoes, carrots, lettuces, parsnips, swedes and broad beans are all growing well, we're raising courgettes and squashes ready to plant out soon, and we're about to fill the polytunnels with cucumbers (from seed), peppers, chillies and tomatoes (from Rocket Gardens).


As you'll know if you read this blog often, bringing food production back home and back to communities is something I'm really passionate about, so I'm enormously honoured and proud to be so heavily involved in a project like this, and very grateful to those with the vision to kickstart it! We can only support 25 to 30 members this year, but we hope to grow and grow, possibly producing eggs, meat, and who-knows-what-else in the future, and truly bringing a new source of local food to St Albans. Its hard work at the moment but the plot's already a wonderful place and I know in a few months it will be bursting with lovely fresh veg for us all - and it's great to see lots of new friendships between like-minded people blossoming too!


FoodSmiles is on facebook and twitter if you want to know more or follow our latest updates. We still have a few membership places available so if you're local and you'd like to join us, get in touch!

Friday, 4 April 2014

Grow Your Own Nutrition!

Okay, this post is going to be long, and I'm sorry about that, but I promise it will be absolutely worth it! During the winter I had the pleasure of reading two fascinating and wonderful books about soil nutrition and its impact on our health, and I've got to tell you why my approach to growing food will never be the same again.


The first book, which I just happened upon while idly browsing for free Kindle books one day, was Beyond Organic: Growing for Maximum Nutrition by Dr Jana Bogs. It kicks off with an analysis showing how vastly different the levels of vitamins and minerals could be in vegetables grown in different soils across the US: "not by just 10 or 20 percent, or even a two-fold difference..." but "...as great as 1,938ppm (parts per million) iron in some tomatoes as opposed to only 1ppm in other tomatoes of the same variety. This is nearly a 2000-fold difference!" Not rocket science, is it, to work out that more nutritious soils would grow more nutritious veggies? But I'd always assumed that a carrot was a carrot was a carrot, and any variations would be so small as to be irrelevant.

It's funny the way we often just go on doing things the way we were taught, without really thinking about them. For years I've believed it when I was told that all my soil needed was as much compost as I could make, plus a bit of horse manure or fish, blood and bone for a boost, and some lime every few years to keep the pH level where it should be. 

Nutrition levels in our food have dropped off by around 75% in the last hundred years or so. Concerns about depleted soils and nutrition deficiency leading to poor health in Americans were first brought to the US Senate way back in 1936. Between 1948 and 1991, Australia's 'Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization' recorded an 80% drop in vitamin C in apples, an 82% drop in magnesium in broccoli, a 75% drop in iron in potatoes and an 89% drop in calcium in potatoes, and a similar American study showed that roughly half the vitamins in vegetables had significantly decreased between 1950 and 1999. An analysis on canned peaches over a hundred years old found that they contained more vitamins, even after a hundred years in a can, than today's canned peaches do! We'd need to eat a huge amount of today's fruit and veg to get the same nutrients we would have got from our 'five-a-day' a hundred or a thousand years ago. Is it any wonder we're all fat and sick??

Dr Bogs explains some of the complex interplay between nutrients in plants: minerals taken up by their roots activate enzymes which create the proteins, fats and vitamins we need. Though plants need only around 20 nutrients to survive (some say up to 42), if given a fuller range of nutrients they are capable of generating all the 50+ (some say up to 90) nutrients that we humans need. In other words, a vegetable might have everything it needs to reach maturity looking and tasting good, but that doesn't mean it has reached its full potential by producing all the nutrition it can, and should, contain: plants pass on a certain amount of nutrition from the soil (iron, copper, magnesium, calcium) but they're also little factories producing fatty acids, proteins and vitamins, as long as they have the building blocks to do so. You might have plied your plot with N:P:K fertilisers, but have you ever wondered whether your veggies get enough zinc, cobalt, boron, molybdenum or selenium? I hadn't!


The second book, The Intelligent Gardener: Growing Nutrient Dense Food by Steve Solomon, was even more eye-opening and exciting, not to mention more practical, offering a full hands-on approach to finding out what your soil needs and making it the best it can be, and I have to thank Douglas of @SweetPeaSalads for recommending it to me! This book busts some myths about the usual organic approach to feeding the soil, and offers a really good and easy-to-understand lesson in soil science. Solomon speaks from a broad range of experience from gardening on a variety of soils in several different parts of the world, and tells of healthier, tastier plants, a complete halt to fungal disease, and dramatic improvements in his own health when the soil on which he grows his food is properly nutritionally balanced. He also keeps a free online library - The Soil and Health Library - full of books, papers and studies on holistic agriculture, the connections between soil and health, and more, and he draws heavily on the works in this library to explain his theory and method.

He particularly highlights a study published in 1939 by one Weston Price called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Price visited remote communities around the world; tribes and isolated villages that as yet had no access to the mass-produced "foods of civilization", but survived on what they hunted, foraged or grew on a small scale locally with old methods. Despite his subjects having a wide variety of colours and shapes, of diets and of lifestyles, across the board their health was far, far better and when analysed, their foods were found to contain a huge amount more nutrition; for example, the primitive people's diets contained at least ten times more vitamins A and D than the American diet even back in the 1930s! Steve Solomon believes that the ideal human diet "has more to do with the soil food comes from than which foods are chosen"; some of these people ate no animal products while others ate virtually no vegetables, and others subsisted on just fish and oats supplemented with a few leafy greens. You can read Solomon's in-depth review of Price's book here, and I highly recommend it.

It would be impossible to share everything of importance in The Intelligent Gardener here - it's a fabulous and fascinating book - but here are my main take-aways:

Leaching is the factor with the biggest impact on nutrient density. Leaching is what happens when soil becomes saturated with rain, which dissolves a lot of the soil minerals and eventually drains downward carrying those minerals with it so that they end up in the subsoil or offsite altogether. Leaching is worse in climates where evaporation is also low - warmer weather slows leaching - and in climates where there is a lot of heavy rain in a short period of time. It's also a great deal worse where soil is left bare. Some nutrients leach out of soil more easily than others: calcium goes fast, while potassium tends to get left behind. This leads to imbalances.

Loss of soil microlife and organic matter is another major factor that harms nutrient density, since micro-organisms help to release the nutrients from the soil for use by plants, and high-quality humus holds a lot of nutrition in the soil and helps prevent leaching! This isn't generally a big problem for us organic food-gardeners, but industrial farming methods have devastated agricultural soils.

Compost isn't enough! Composting waste from the plot to feed the plot cannot provide all the nutrition the plot needs - unless the plot is already perfectly balanced. In fact, feeding a plot exclusively with compost from the plot will only magnify existing imbalances! There's a sustainability discussion to be had here: feeding your plot with compost alone is a permaculture ideal; a natural recycling process where we make the most of our waste to fulfil another need without importing costly additional materials from elsewhere. But Solomon explains that a soil can virtually sustain itself nutritionally - once it's properly healthy and balanced and cared for.

Remineralisation is the answer, Solomon says. Soils that have not been cared for properly have lost their ability to stay balanced, and their mineral content has been devastated. Solomon's own experiences and research (and Jana Bogs' studies) show that remineralised soil allows crops to reach their full genetic potential, enjoy proper health with much less chance of pest attack and disease, and provide the maximum nutrition for us.

Total Cation Exchange Capacity (TCEC) is a measurement (calculated in a lab) of how much minerals a soil can hold. Clay and humus particles in the soil have a tiny electrical charge that makes positively charged mineral particles in the soil attach to them - a bit like static cling. These positively charged particles are called cations, and include calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and others. The clay and humus particles have a set number of 'exchange points' where cations can stick, so a soil with lots of clay and humus has a high TCEC and a lot of these exchange points, and a light sandy soil with very little organic matter has a low TCEC and few exchange points. Some cations cling harder than others: calcium will always take first priority, magnesium second and the others will follow suit if there's space left. Solomon likens the TCEC to the number of shelves in a pantry. Calcium will fill up the shelves first and the others fill up the gaps in order. If the shelves are empty, they just fill up with air - hydrogen actually, from the soil water. As well as from the TCEC, plants can also get nutrition from the soil solution: mineral particles in the soil (or in slow-release fertilisers) breaking down slowly in tiny amounts and dissolving in the soil water. But that soon runs out and needs recharging. The soil solution is like plates on the table. When the plates are empty they can be refilled from the pantry (the TCEC). The bigger the pantry, the longer the meal goes on. Thus while a plant relying on nutrients in the soil solution would require very regular feeding to keep up with its needs, the TCEC buffers plants against nutritional ups and downs: with big reserves, their plates are never empty!

Balance, balance, balance. It's not about having a certain weight or volume of each nutrient in your soil, nor about throwing all the nutrients you can at it; too much of a good thing can lead to overdosing and cause even more problems. Instead, it's all about balance and the interplay between the nutrients.

Not all compost is made equal. As we all know, organic matter is vital for healthy soil. It improves texture, structure, and moisture retention. Most crucially, it feeds soil life, and it holds anions (negatively-charged mineral particles such as phosphorus, sulphur, nitrogen and boron) in the soil. But Solomon warns against adding too much organic matter and recommends only a 1/4" to 1/2" inch layer per year! Too much compost, he says, can overload the soil and its nutrients can end up just going to waste. He also warns that you never know what you're getting when you buy in compost (or organic waste to compost yourself); it may contain contaminants, or you could be importing unbalanced material that adds to your soil's imbalances without you knowing it. Most crucially, he teaches that much of our home-made compost (and shop-bought compost) is only partially decomposed organic matter, but our goal should be truly mature humus...

Humus and clay, clay and humus. These are the two most important components of soil, and they must both be present in abundance to hold a lot of nutrition. Humus is organic matter that has broken down to a point of stability and will change no further. It stays in the soil, instead of breaking down and disappearing. And while clay holds cations in the soil, humus holds both cations and anions. But great humus needs clay to form properly, so it will only form in your compost heap if you add enough clay to the heap as well. Solomon recommends adding around 5% by volume soil, of which 40% should be clay, to your compost heap. If your soil doesn't contain much clay, he recommends finding some, creating a clay slurry with water in a bucket, and sprinkling it generously between layers! Humus might also form in the ground when you add your partially-decomposed compost to a clayey soil - but when added to a light, low-clay soil, little humus will form, if any, and the organic matter will rot away to nothing, and so light sandy soils have great difficulty building up a useful level of organic matter.


Calcium is arguably the most important mineral in a garden soil, not because plants need a lot of it, but because it is critical for good soil structure: not enough calcium but too much of the other cations (especially magnesium) leads to a closed and airless soil structure in which microlife cannot thrive and other nutrients remain unavailable. Calcium is also the mineral most often lacking, as it's so easily leached away. A soil's TCEC should be around 68% full of calcium.

Magnesium takes second priority after calcium, when it comes to sticking to these exchange points in the soil, so it's the magnesium/calcium balance which will most often cause a problem. Magnesium is present in dolomite lime, often used by organic gardeners, so care must be taken to avoid an excessive build-up. Magnesium should fill around 12% of the soil's TCEC.

Potassium always rolls to the front of the pantry shelves, so if there's an abundance of it, plants use it first instead of reaching to the back for the other cations. When plants have lots of potassium they make lots of sugars and starches, but fewer proteins and vitamins and other more important nutrients. An excess of potassium, therefore, can boost yields, but those yields will be lower in nutrition than they should be, and higher in calories. Potassium can accumulate in soils because it doesn't leach away as much as other cations, and because imported composts made with hay, straw and woody wastes are often very high in it (potassium accumulates in the structural parts of plants; the trunks, barks and stems). I guess endlessly throwing N:P:K fertiliser at a plot might well add to this imbalance too, and presumably potassium is a particularly beneficial yield-booster for commercial growers whose primary concern is the size of the crop. Solomon recommends a soil balance that leaves potassium "just a little bit scarce" - just a few percent of the TCEC - for crops with the highest nutrition.

Sodium. We all know salt isn't good for most plants, but a small amount of sodium in soil is crucial and some crops need it. However, Solomon warns that growers using tapwater to irrigate their crops should be aware of the sodium level in their irrigation water. Annually, twelve inches of water containing 50ppm sodium would bring 200lbs per acre of sodium! There's something I'd never considered before! My local mains water contains an average 17ppm sodium, according to an analysis on my water company's website, but I have no idea how many inches of it I put on my soil... There should be around 1-2% sodium in the TCEC.

Phosphorus is a controversial soil amendment, since it is mined from the ground and we are steadily running out - but even a slight deficiency slows plant growth. Many agricultural soils are severely depleted of phosphorus and heavily dependent on phosphate fertilisers, but a healthy balanced soil can hold on to phosphorus for decades, because phosphorus is held in the soil by humus. If it fails to connect with humus, it soon connects with other minerals and becomes insoluble iron phosphate or calcium phosphate instead, and remains unavailable to plants long-term. Solomon suggests there should be around the same amount of phosphorus as potassium in soil, but that it should be added gradually over a number of years to ensure as little as possible goes to waste. Bonemeal provides a sustainable source, but comes with additional sodium and calcium too.

Nitrogen is crucial for healthy green growth: it's vital for production of the plant protein chlorophyll, which plants absolutely depend on for photosynthesis and energy. Dark leafy greens grown on fully mineralised soil can contain up to 20% protein - as much as beef steak! Nitrogen is released when soil organisms feed on organic matter - annually, every 1% of organic matter existing in a soil will provide 15-25lbs of nitrogen per acre, and to produce a good crop, 100lbs/acre is needed. So a healthy soil with 4-7% organic matter should have plenty of nitrogen available (although if it is hitherto dependent on nitrogen fertilisers, it might need weaning off them first). Solomon also advocates digging in leguminous green manures to provide nitrogen naturally, and points out that a healthy stand of field beans can provide the full 100lbs/acre needed.

Sulphur is a really interesting nutrient which helps plants to form amino acids (proteins) and enzymes, and boosts flavour. While we see sulphur as a fungicide and dust it on our plants as a defence, Solomon suggests that fungal disease is actually a symptom of sulphur deficiency, and describes how the onion root-rot on his plot completely disappeared when he rebalanced his soil. This is great news for me, as I've had to give up growing onions on my allotment thanks to my white rot problem! Sulphur is another anion, held in the soil by humus, and when it dissolves into the soil solution it bonds with cations to become a water soluble sulphate (iron sulphate, calcium sulphate, zinc sulphate etc.) Thus too much sulphur can leach cations from the soil - or it can be used, with care, to deliberately deal with a cation excess.


Micro-nutrients and trace nutrients are vital for maximum plant health and maximum nutrition too, and Solomon reveals the amounts needed for good balance and recommends amendments such as seaweed or Azomite for adding trace elements. Surprisingly, he's not such a fan of rock dust, and his analysis of it makes interesting reading.

pH. Wow, now this is important! pH is NOT the be-all-and-end-all of soil health, but a side-effect of the chemical and microbiological activity in the soil. It's not really as meaningful as we tend to think, and it fluctuates in a much more complex way than most of us know! pH stands for 'potential hydrogen' and is defined as the density of hydrogen atoms in water (or in a solution of a substance, such as soil). All the exchange points in the soil must always be filled up, so if there is no calcium, magnesium or other useful minerals around, hydrogen atoms from the water in the soil will stick instead, and the soil will contain a lot of hydrogen and have a low pH (an acidic soil). A soil rich in cations such as calcium and magnesium, on the other hand, has very little hydrogen and a high pH (an alkaline soil). So the pH of your soil can indicate how nutrient-rich it is - certainly an acid soil is lacking in cations. BUT a soil high in cations (alkaline) may have completely the wrong balance of cations and still benefit from liming, and in fact, the liming might not raise the pH further (since the new calcium ions knock off and replace the excess magnesium, potassium or sodium ions) but allow it to fall because correcting the balance allows the microlife to thrive again and kicks off the normal cycles of nitrate release and so on!

Soil testing is the only way to really know what's going on in a soil, and this is the method Solomon recommends to get the maximum potential out of any food-growing plot. The book explains how to take a soil sample and where to send it, and provides worksheets for readers to interpret the results and work out a perfect prescription of amendments for their soil. He also acknowledges that a soil test and a bunch of calculations won't be for everyone and might be severely over the top in a very small plot - so he offers a generic one-size-fits-all solution too, which he promises will greatly improve virtually all garden soils and increase its benefits year by year. He calls this his Complete Organic Fertiliser, or COF.

The Intelligent Gardener is a garden-changing book - maybe even a life-changing book - and I thoroughly recommend it to all home-growers. It's the kind of book that, once you've read and understood it, you just have to put into action. Steve Solomon believes that "many of our current social problems would also vanish by themselves, if only the mass average health of people were uplifted", and I'm inclined to agree, having seen the enormous variation possible in the nutrient content of our foods, and considering how far the impact of an unhealthy soil can reach into every part of our diets. If I'm going to grow my own food, then I want to do it properly and really get the best out of it. And if brilliant health is within my grasp (and my family's), just by changing what I feed my soil... well, no-one's getting in my way!

I intend to have my soil analysed and to remineralise it with The Intelligent Gardener's guidance, but not this year, with so much else going on. This year I'm trying Steve Solomon's Complete Organic Fertiliser (more on this in a future post), both on the allotment and on my beds at home, and I have high hopes for some excellent results.

I hope you're itching to go out and read this book for yourself right away! (I don't get anything for that, by the way.) But if money's tight or you're not convinced yet, there are three great interviews with Steve Solomon available free on the Ruminant Podcast website, here, here and here - do have a listen. And watch this space for more on Complete Organic Fertiliser...

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Allotment Week, Part One: A Good Tidy Up

Every year, in the middle of March, Eddie and I take a week off together with the primary intention of getting the allotment in order for the growing season ahead. To be honest, it rarely works out like that; weather or household tasks usually get in the way and we don't tend to get as much done as we'd like - if I recall correctly, the plot was under snow this time last year! - but the intention is there. Well, last week was our "allotment week 2014", and I'm pleased to report that it was rather jolly good!

First things first: After seven years in the elements, our trusty storage bench neither functioned as a bench, nor kept the contents dry any more, and definitely needed replacing. You gotta have somewhere to sit!


I'd have liked to get something non-plastic, but wooden options are much more expensive and require more care and maintenance, so I confess we went for plastic again. We did dutifully take the old one to the 'rigid plastics' recycling bin at the tip though!


Our new bench looks pretty good and seems a bit more insect-proof than the first! Without a shed, we really rely on this space to keep all our tools and bits and pieces.


Next, we badly needed a new compost bin. Our old one is seven years old, just like our bench, and literally falling apart, with one side threatening to burst and spill compost all over the path...

 

With a few pallets from my brother's workplace and a bulk pallet delivery from the local Wood Recycling Centre, we soon had a new one built at the opposite end of the plot.


We moved it here for a few reasons: first, it's the shadiest part of the plot, under an elder tree, and the soil seems to be very poor here and full of roots; nothing we've planted here has ever done well. Second, the grass and nettles here go crazy and it'll be a sure way to stamp them out (while cutting any remaining nettle growth to feed to the compost). And third, we can use the sunny and now super-fertile spot where the old bin used to be for something else! Once we've finished deconstructing the poor thing and moved all the half-finished compost, that is...


You might have noticed we built a little flower bed next to the compost bin too, alongside the path. I lined it with thick cardboard to try to keep the grass out, and in it I've planted cowslip, forget-me-nots (not shown), wild pansies which self-sowed elsewhere on the plot, and some primrose seeds. I'll pop a few bulbs in later in the year, too. I'm not exactly sure which of these plants will thrive in this little semi-shaded spot and which won't, but hopefully it'll soon be a mini haven for pollinating insects!


Speaking of attracting wildlife, the pond needed a bit of TLC too. It was so overgrown this winter that we pulled basically all the vegetation out and then replaced a few small bits to regrow. Then the site flooded, and the pondweed (and the tadpoles) all floated away. Hmph. So we replenished it with oxygenating weed and put some barley straw in it to tackle the algae that's covering everything. It's looking much better already, and the water's so clear we can see the big fat frogs at the bottom. (It's rather silted up: the 'bottom' isn't nearly as deep as is used to be - so I think we still have more work to do on it...) Now when will those big fat frogs give us some more tadpoles? That's what I want to know!

The flooding, the inability to put anything else in our compost bin lest it exploded, and some neglect over winter had really left the whole allotment in a bit of a mess. The once-lovely blue frames round our beds are rotten now and fallen to pieces (and we're gradually replacing them with brick borders), our table made of bits of pallet fell apart when we tried to move it, and there was flood debris lying around here and there. So before we got down to any, like, actual gardening, we spent some time giving the place a good tidy up too; moving heaps of weeds from last autumn to the new compost bin, bagging up rubbish, and piling up stray wood. Quite a lot of stray wood... Now do we drag it all to the dump, or is this the time to give hugelkultur a try, hmmm...?


Tuesday, 11 March 2014

You Vote Three Times Every Day

For some reason I've always been under the impression that organic food - and organic farming - was the environmentally friendly choice. Organic farmers avoid pesticides or herbicides or fungicides, and they only use environmentally friendly fertilisers, right? They use methods like polyculture, soil-building, companion planting and encouraging beneficial predators, and when they have a problem they deal with pests manually or use strictly-controlled organic pesticides if they really, really have to, right?

Wrong! I got quite a shock when I saw this video:


(For the purposes of this post, I'm talking only about the first 1m40s of the video - the rest is another issue, which I've commented on before, here, and about which I'll have plenty more to say in the next few weeks...)

It seems some organic farmers don't give two hoots about environmentally-friendly methods, and use organic-certified pesticides, fungicides and herbicides liberally - in fact, at much higher rates and much more often than conventional fertilisers. Apparently I should have known this back in 2010, when a study showed that use of organic pesticides could actually be more damaging to the environment and its wildlife than synthetic pesticides. In fact, some organic-certified (i.e. derived-from-nature) pesticides are much more toxic than their synthetic counterparts: organic-certified rotenone, derived from the roots of tropical bean plants and effective against caterpillars and beetles, is six times more toxic than carbaryl, a synthetic product used for the same pests. Nicotine sulfate, extracted from tobacco, is six times more toxic than its synthetic counterpart, diazinon. 

Now, some say this study is irrelevant:
"...the implications of the study are minimal because organic farming is not about replacing synthetic pesticides with organic pesticides, say organic farmers, retailers and regulators.
The culture and approach of organic farming is what distinguishes it from conventional farming, organic farmer David Cohlmeyer said. He runs Cookstown Greens, which supplies organic produce to restaurants and hotels in Ontario. Organic pesticides are "irrelevant" to his business, he said.

"When you're doing it right, you don't have pest problems," Mr. Cohlmeyer said. "We don't use any pesticides because we don't need to."

Organic farmers are only supposed to use natural pesticides as a last resort. Instead, crop rotation, planting habitats for beneficial predators and good soil are an organic farmer's first priority, said Simon Jacques, Ontario representative for organic certification program Ecocert."
Good news! I wasn't completely delusional about the good of organic farming then. But the attitudes of the two farmers in the video demonstrate very clearly that an organic farmer is not necessarily a farmer who cares for the environment or supports wildlife on his land. For the two farmers in the video, organic farming IS about replacing synthetic pesticides with organic ones. I don't know why I hadn't seen it coming, to be honest: profit trumps the greater good every time, doesn't it? If you're going to grow big monocultures, you're going to need more pesticides, whether organic or synthetic. And - as well as rendering the 'organic' label fairly meaningless - this revelation highlights again what I think is really wrong with our food supply chain: industrialisation.

It's the sheer scale of industrial farms that causes the trouble. Monocultures push out nature. Small farms and big gardens are far better suited to chemical-free growing, good soil care, manual pest-control and rich biodiversity. On a huge industrial farm, a relatively small number of workers have to deal with a vast area of land in the way that makes the most profit. Doesn't our food supply deserve a little more attention-to-detail than that? They plant monocultures because they're simpler to care for and make the most money. They use chemicals because they're the easiest way to deal with a problem, not the best way. They don't feed or protect the soil any more than they must to get their crop. Wildlife? Wildlife doesn't make a profit.

Food is the foundation of our survival and wellbeing. It's the cornerstone of economy; the number one most important commodity in every country. It's the linchpin of society; civilisations have risen and fallen according to their ability to produce it. You can't build a shelter, use a computer, drive a car or win a war without it. It's our first and foremost concern when it comes to looking after our families and our health - food is personal. As human beings, it is and must be our primary industry, and because it's SO important - because we must throw so much time and energy and resources and land into it - HOW we do it is crucial too.

So why are we so dreadfully out of touch with our food supply? Why have we pushed food production out of our communities? Why have we given up responsibility for it, preferring to pay money for other people, often in other countries, to sort it out for us? How much time and energy and resources and land do we as individuals and families and communities give to it?

Our modern food and farming system has transformed some 700,000,000 hectares of woodlands, forests and meadows into vast, featureless swathes of cereal crops, replacing natural ecosystems, displacing wildlife and sometimes destroying whole species. It depletes soils worldwide up to ten times faster than nature can restore them. It's an enormous source of pollution - the biggest source in many countries - and could even be depleting the ozone layer, scientists say. It's the world's biggest source of animal cruelty. And the worst thing of all? It's not even working! 12% of the world still goes hungry, and a good deal more than that struggle to get the food they need.

And I'm sick to death of claims that GMOs are the answer - the only way to feed the world. Recent news of a GM potato that resists blight failed to mention the naturally-bred potatoes already developed by the Sarvari Research Trust. These 'Sarpo' potatoes are resistant to all strains of blight and have been around for six years - if you grow your own you may well already be familiar with them. The trust is currently busy trying to crowdfund £50,000 to expand their business and make their blight-free potatoes available to farmers and growers across the globe (you can help them reach their target here). Meanwhile, £3,200,000 of public money has been spent trying to genetically-engineer potatoes to do exactly the same thing that Sarpo spuds can already do - and it has taken three years to achieve resistance against just one strain of the disease! Whatever the GM industry is about, it is NOT about feeding the world. Imagine the benefits to the food supply by now if Sarpo had been given that £3.2 million, three years ago!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: divide the worlds 21,800,000 square miles of agricultural land by its 7 billion people and we get nearly two acres each! That's more than enough to feed the world by anyone's logic; we're just managing the land - and its produce - insanely badly. Once upon a time, everyone was involved in their own food production. Today, we get our food from shelves, in buildings, without a second thought, and for that reason we've forgotten that because it's SO important, food production is perhaps THE biggest influence on how our world is run.

Every time you eat, you vote for how you want the world to be. You vote for or against biodiversity. You vote for or against animal cruelty. You vote for or against wildlife, and deforestation, and pollution, and slavery, and CO2 emissions, and chemical food additives. You vote for or against the corporations that seek to own the food supply. You vote for or against your own local economy, and your personal food security in times of trouble. Change never happens overnight, but every pound you spend, every consumer choice you make, every meal you eat is an opportunity to influence the system.

We need to take back responsibility for our food supplies; we need to bring food production back to our communities. We need to get involved. Please, get involved. Support your local farmers and producers and, crucially, talk to them about how the food was produced. Join a CSA, a community garden project or a similar group in your area - or start one! If you don't already, grow some food for yourself! Take the One Pot Pledge. Start some herbs and salad greens in containers - they're easy and some of the most heavily-sprayed conventional crops. Put your name down for an allotment. Do anything to take the power back and have some say about how you want our food system to run. Do it now!


Wednesday, 1 May 2013

URGENT: Save Our Seeds

On May 6th, the EU will vote on new legislation governing plant varieties, proposed by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers in response to hard lobbying by the globalised agricultural seed industry - Monsanto and its buddies. This legislation will mean that no seed (or other plant reproductive material) can be sold, swapped or given for free to anyone anywhere in the EU unless it is registered on the EU Plant List as an 'approved' variety.


If the legislation passes, it will kill off innumerable heirloom, heritage and amateur varieties. It won't (I believe) impact the varieties already licensed for commercial use, but it will impact the huge number of 'amateur' varieties, all those that breed plants on a small scale at home, all those that forage seed and propagate wild plants, and all the rare seeds being preserved and brought back to cultivation by small businesses. It will mean high costs for seed merchants to put their varieties through rigorous tests to get them on the list - and since the tests are designed around high-output industrial varieties, many are unlikely to be approved anyway. Once a variety is approved, the seller will have to pay an annual fee to keep it that way. Heirloom varieties and other less-popular varieties will undoubtedly be lost. Small seed merchants preserving and supplying rare varieties will undoubtedly not be able to continue. Biodiversity will fall dramatically. Consumer choice will be reduced. Food security will be damaged. With every variety that dies out, the pool of genetic material for breeding future varieties will be diminished. That unique heirloom bean your grandfather gave you will be outlawed - it will be illegal to pass it on to anyone else. There'll be no seeking out local varieties when you move to a new area. There'll be none of the seed-saving and -swapping and -sharing that we growers enjoy so much - unless they're on the EU Plant List. And all this so that agricultural giants can make more money and take yet more control of our food supply.

This legislation flies in the face of nature, which propagates, adapts and evolves freely, constantly creating sub-species and sub-sub-species. It's an attempt by corporations to claim ownership of the plant world, and it's an assault on our right as earth-dwellers to enjoy and interact with the earth's natural world.

I personally grow many unusual and heritage varieties which are at risk; seeds I've saved myself and seeds I've bought from Real Seeds and others - many listed as 'amateur' varieties 'not for commercial exploitation', which Real Seeds must get round by charging 1p per year to join their 'club'. Many of these are my favourite varieties. I have a Caucasian vining spinach plant which I've only ever seen shared informally and sold by one-woman company Backyard Larder. I suspect most of these varieties would quickly become endangered if the legislation passes, and next year I'd have to grow a dramatically different selection.


I'd like to think there's no way this insane law would pass when put to the vote, but Monsanto seems to have ways to get anything it wants. I have had no replies so far to my letters to MEPs and it's simply too important an issue to just wait and see without expressing my opposition.

Whether or not you grow food yourself, this legislation has implications for your food security, the natural world all around you, and thus the future of the planet. PLEASE inform yourselves about this issue and TAKE ACTION.

Here are some links to help you:


Please share this post. We must not let this happen.

Friday, 7 September 2012

The Only Thing That Matters About Organic Food

Organic food doesn't use chemicals.

This is inarguable fact; organic certification standards are stringent. And it has several benefits; chemicals are not manufactured, not transported around the country/world, they don't pollute the soil and waterways, they don't harm the wildlife, they don't harm agricultural hired-hands in the fields, and they don't harm us. It's possible - perhaps likely - that organic produce may pick up other pollutants already in the environment or somewhere along the way to the supermarket shelf, but without the direct use of chemicals in its production, you are guaranteed to reduce your exposure by choosing organic food.

So I'd love to know why this week's headlines regarding a recent US study on organic foods proclaim that organic is "not healthier" than the alternatives.


If you've read these articles you'll have noted that despite the condemning headlines, they note that organic food doesn't use chemicals, so choosing it reduces your exposure to pesticides, antibiotics and the like. Which is exactly the point of it. They also note that organic produce is less likely to be contaminated with bacteria, such as e-coli. More good news. So why the negative press?

Oh, apparently an organic carrot contains just the same nutrition as a non-organic carrot. So THAT's why it's not good for us! But hang on - did anyone actually think an organic carrot was more nutritious in the first place? I've certainly never heard organics promoted that way, and the hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments on the news articles repeat the same sense of surprise again and again: we never thought it was more nutritious - we just don't want to eat chemicals! Are these media outlets missing the whole point deliberately, or is this lazy, thoughtless and misleading writing across the board just coincidence? With the vote on labelling of GMOs in California approaching, the timing of this astounding attempted smear on organics certainly couldn't be better for big industrial producers such as Monsanto.

Roger Cohen of the New York Times went as far as to label "the organic ideology... an elitist, pseudoscientific indulgence shot through with hype" and driven by the "narcissism of the affluent". Yup. Read it here. Bizarrely, he did actually note that organic food doesn't use chemicals, as well as some other benefits, while claiming it was a cultish fad of no use to the world. Again, is he missing the point deliberately, or is he just stupid? Does he have shares in big ag? Or a particularly nasty grudge against a hippy somewhere? Can anyone tell me how the desire to eat food not tainted with toxic chemicals is pseudoscientific? Thought not. He goes on to claim that only GMOs can end world hunger, ignoring the facts that GM crop yields are lower and GM crops are falling, one by one, to their self-created super-pests and super-bugs. And he obviously doesn't realise just how much food can be grown in a small space with traditional organic methods.

As for affluence, elitism and narcissism... Sure, organic may be more expensive (not always; some items are the same price or just a few pence more than their organic counterparts these days), but these accusations outright insult all those working hard to grow their own organic produce for a fraction of the prices in the shops. I don't always buy organic, but I won't be labelled a snob because I support it, I grow it, and I choose it when I can. The world has thrived without industrial chemicals for thousands of years and I reject the idea that pouring poisons on it now can possibly be a good thing.

Admittedly, some of the articles do raise one negative effect of organics; apparently organic meat and grain production produces slightly more greenhouse gasses. Not good news, but with a choice between further chemically polluting the earth or increasing greenhouse gasses, it seems to me we're avoiding the real issue; our overconsumption of meat and grain (consider how much grain is grown for animal feed, junk foods and alcohol production).

The Huffington Post got it right, eventually, sort of, in one little blog post which you can read here.

So kids, if you want more nutrition, eat less junk and fill the gap with more fruits and vegetables of all the colours in the rainbow, and add some undomesticated wild greens such as nettles to your diet too - they tend to be far richer in vitamins and minerals. But if you want to reduce your exposure to pesticides, fungicides, chemical fertilisers and systemic herbicides, eat organic. Because organic food doesn't use chemicals.


EDIT: There's an excellent article here examining the study a bit closer, which exposes some rather significant and misleading flaws. Do take a look.

Saturday, 14 July 2012

The Solution to World Hunger

Well, not exactly. But some interesting statistics came to my attention recently which really show how badly we're doing at looking after the world.

Let me start by introducing you to the Dervaes family, who live in Pasadena, Los Angeles. In their 8,700 sq.ft. (1/5 acre) property they grow 350 varieties of fruit, veg and herbs, and, though vegetarian, they raise chickens, ducks, goats and rabbits, for eggs, milk and manure, and they keep bees and run an aquaponics system which produces tilapia while providing extra nutrients for their plants. The four of them grow 75% of their own food (99% of their produce) and have plenty of surplus to sell on their porch stand. They achieve this using all-organic and natural growing methods, companion planting and polyculture, composting and caring for their soil, eating seasonally and saving their own seeds. Take a look around their website - I've been following them for several years and they really are an inspiration.

While their efforts and results are exceptional, the Dervaes family represent something which most of us veg growers already know - with a bit of practice and dedication, with careful intercropping and proper care for the soil, it's possible to grow huge, enormous amounts of food on a surprisingly small area of land.

The world's population is currently estimated to be around 7 billion, and we've been led to believe that this is too many - that we can't provide for everyone - that the planet can't support us all.

The numbers, however, suggest something different.

If we gave everyone in the world - not every family but every individual - a quarter of an acre (that would give the Dervaes family a whole acre - five times the land they have now) then 2560 people could grow more than enough for themselves in a square mile. It would take 2,734,375 square miles to provide for 7,000,000,000 people.

2,734,375 square miles...

Australia is 2,941,299 square miles. More than enough.

So, in theory, we could put all the people of the world just in Australia with 1/4 acre each, and the whole of the rest of the world would be empty of people...

I know what you're thinking. Most of Australia is desert, and across the world there are all kinds of habitats unsuitable for growing food. Deserts, wastelands, jungles, frozen tundras. How much agricultural-quality land is there in the world?

21,852,301 square miles, that's how much (an estimated 38% of the world's total 57,506,055 square miles of land). Eight times enough.

There are caveats, of course. Africa doesn't have enough agricultural land to support its huge population. Our cultural near-dependence on meat would have to change. But it's clear we could do better.

Vast, habitat-destroying, soil-draining, chemical-hungry grain monocultures don't work. What works is diverse, local, small-scale polyculture that works with nature instead of against it. (And don't get me started on GMOs, or how developed countries buy agricultural land for cash crops in Africa...) While chemical products and genetically-modified crops are touted as the answer to farming problems in arid countries (and everywhere else), the results consistently show otherwise.

We're not overpopulated. We're just rubbish. Whether you think it's by stupidity, by greed or by design, we're doing this aaaaaall wrong. 


Thursday, 14 June 2012

L'atelier des Chefs - a cookery class!

I spent an enjoyable evening yesterday at a cookery class at L'atelier des Chefs, a small cookery school near Oxford Circus (with a new second school just opened near St Paul's). I had bought a gift card for the experience for friend Dave, and went along with him to his chosen course, with another friend too.

Between the school's two bright and modern premises they run up to ten classes a day, ranging from thirty minutes to four hours in length and offering everything from quick one-course lunches, to five course feasts, to themed meals, to masterclasses in sushi, pasta-making, knife skills, confectionery and more (see a range of classes here). Our class, called 'Elegant Entertaining', cooked a three course meal of confit duck leg with lardons, walnuts, croutons and a fried quail's egg...


...crispy fillet of sea bass served with braised fennel and a brown shrimp vélouté (and roasted baby potatoes)...


...and a mille feuille filled with a light Nutella cream and raspberries, served with an orange and Grand Marnier glaze.


All this in ninety minutes, with time to relax and enjoy the meal and a glass of wine (not included in the price, which I thought was a shame) with the rest of the group afterwards.

There were fourteen people in our class, so for economy's sake the process inevitably involved some teamwork (working loosely in three groups, so that things were prepared in small batches rather than everyone having their own pan) and not everybody got to perform every task in the making of the dishes, but it was well-balanced, everyone got to play their part, and the atmosphere was really friendly and relaxed. (Click here for a picture of the kitchen set up and ready for our class.)



Being a keen cook, I wasn't really sure in advance whether I would learn much from the class, but I certainly picked up a few tips - such as how to properly pin-bone a fish fillet, and some useful sauces. However, I thought the real value of the class was the opportunity to do things I wouldn't normally - like the quail eggs, the duck confit, the shrimp veloute and the mille feuille (and that thing where you cut orange segments out of their membranes, which I've always avoided but isn't too tricky really!). The staff were really cheerful, helpful and knowledgeable, the food was delicious, and the recipes are emailed to participants after the class - a nice touch - so we all get to recreate the dishes at home if we so wish.

Though it's not likely to revolutionise your home cooking in one go, a class like this is great fun and a really good way to broaden your cooking experience and pick up tips. £54 for a three course meal (sans wine) plus the experience of cooking new things with a professional chef and fellow enthusiasts seems pretty good value to me, and I may well do it again sometime...

Thank you, L'atelier des Chefs!

Monday, 21 May 2012

It's National Vegetarian Week...

I'm not a vegetarian, and despite my fussiness about the meat I eat, I don't aspire to be one. I believe we humans are meant to eat meat and animal products - that it is an important part of healthy nutrition. (This account from a young vegan forced to realise that not everybody can survive on a vegan diet is fascinating and eye-opening.) I also believe the replenishment animals provide to the soil is vital to farming; that the healthiest way to produce food is in a polycultural system where animals and plants support and feed off each other, and that a wide variety of produce reduces the need for chemicals and treatments and encourages a healthier, more natural ecosystem where 'good' and 'bad' organisms are in balance.

But I also believe the amount of meat many are accustomed to eating these days is far too much. The amount we eat can be detrimental to our health, and too-often takes the place in our diets of other essentials such as vegetables. The amount we eat forces producers to farm animals intensively, which compromises animal welfare as well as the quality of the meat we eat. The amount we eat necessitates vast monocultures to feed the livestock, which deplete the soil, interfere with natural ecosystems and are detrimental to the planet. The amount we eat is ultimately unsustainable, and if we all ate less meat - perhaps just two or three times a week - the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

So this week, why not try a few meat-free recipes and cut down a little? I don't mean baked potatoes and beans, or macaroni cheese, or a mushroom pizza - vegetarian food can be far more exciting and nutritious than that; if you're stuck for ideas, try here or here for inspiration. Or check out Meat Free Monday - a campaign to get everyone eating meat-free at least once a week, with lots of recipes to tempt you to join in! (I was thinking of feeding my lot meat-free all week this week and seeing if they noticed, but planned badly and have half a pack of mince in my fridge to use up, and I promised I'd do steak one night... but five nights out of seven still ain't bad!)

And here's a simple offering to get your mouth watering; a beanburger recipe I've been working on recently (loosely based on a standard recipe that's all over the internet in various forms) which my family loves. (Not exciting enough for you? You haven't tasted it yet!) It's not quite seasonal right now, I confess, but summer round the corner means burgers on my mind. It's seriously tasty, family-friendly, and couldn't be much healthier either. Give it a try!


Mexican Beanburgers
(makes eight large burgers)
  • Finely chop a large onion, a green pepper and a red pepper, and fry gently in a teaspoon of olive or rapeseed oil.
  • Peel and chop a large carrot, and steam/boil in a little water until soft. 
  • When the onions are translucent and the peppers soft, add a small can sweetcorn (160g), a clove or two chopped garlic, 2 tsp ground cumin, 2 tsp ground ginger, 1 tsp chilli powder (or to taste), 1 tsp dried oregano, 1 tsp dried coriander leaf, a tbsp lemon or lime juice, a good grinding of black pepper and a pinch or two of salt. Stir in and cook for a couple more minutes, then turn off the heat.
  • Mash the carrot (or puree in the food processor) and add it to the pan.
  • Drain and rinse two cans beans (I use one can cannellini, one can kidney), pulse half in the food processor until finely chopped, then add the rest and pulse until coarsely chopped for texture. Add to the pan.
  • Add 100g plain flour. Mix everything together really well.
  • Separate the mixture into eight balls and flatten them into patties about 2cm thick. It's messy, but stick with it!
  • Place on an oiled and floured baking tray, and bake at 200C for around 20 minutes, turning halfway through, until the burgers are lightly browned and firm.
  • Serve in bread rolls, with guacamole (or avocado), salsa (or sliced tomato), salad and a little cheese.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...