FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

at Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:21:49 GMT in
>,
(Lena B Katz) wrote :

>
>
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
>> (Lena B Katz) wrote :
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
>>>> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, (Neil) wrote :
>>>>
>>>>>> Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>>>>> farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to
>>>>>> developers.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... Farmers
>>>>> are successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public
>>>>> desires. Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.
>>>>
>>>> It must be said that in fact organic production contributes a great
>>>> deal to that end....
>>>
>>> there are other alternatives. like farming _intelligently_. ...
>>
>> What do you mean by "farming intelligently"? That's a pretty broad
>> term and you haven't taken any time to describe what you mean.
>
>Using all the tools at your disposal....
>
>in other words, the kind of farming that journal authors do. (at least
>the ones that don't make homemade pesticides...)

The methodologies you propose are certainly commendable, but while they can
help the environment, they generally don't provide a viable alternative for
the small farmer because without the ability to label the product as
"organic", the farmer can't get much, if any, of a price premium. So he
ends up being stuck in the low-margin, cutthroat world of conventional
farming, and loses out to the big boys against whom he can't compete in
terms of price.

Basically, a small farmer must be able to get enough margin on his output
either to make it more profitable in the long run to continue farming than
to sell out, or to deliver at least an acceptable yearly income if he's
sufficiently committed to farming that he doesn't even consider selling to
developers an option. In many areas, the price premium that the label
"organic" commands is the only way he can reach the necessary income level.

>> The
>> "basmati" you mentioned elsewhere, I have to say, I don't see much
>> value in because authentic Indian Basmati costs no more and is far,
>> far better in quality (for starters, it's aged and polished).
>
>what does aging do to dried rice? Haven't found any around here,
>anyway.

It improves the flavour and further drives out moisture. The net result is
extremely flavourful rice without even a trace of stickiness. If you cook
up a batch of Lundberg Basmati side-by-side with proper Indian Basmati, the
difference is like night and day. Check any Indian grocery. All of them
will have large 10-lb sacks of it.

>> IMHO it's somewhat
>> questionable about whether Lundberg's product should really be called
>> basmati.
>>why?

Because when you buy basmati you are getting it specifically for the
flavour and fluffy texture that only the real article delivers.
Genetically, Lundberg's product may be identical but in terms of results it
doesn't deliver what you expect.

>>> Meanwhile they also have an organic version of the same product
>> available for only a trivial amount more, so no matter what your
>> concern is - whether quality or environmental sensitivity, there is a
>> better choice.
>
>quality is better when you use all the tools at your disposal. You
>wouldn't say that someone has a quality kitchen without having any
>silverware, would you?

I believe there is a balance in terms of tool use. Quality only improves
with increased use of more and more specialised tools up to a point. Thus,
a kitchen with no silverware I would think a little unusual (although I
could imagine possible in certain Asian countries, where chopsticks are the
norm), but a kitchen without a microwave I think is a mark of *increased*
quality over one with a microwave. There are also gadgets of questionable
value and which call into doubt the intelligence of the cook. I'd wonder
about a kitchen equipped with a special-purpose herb chopper, especially if
it had a wide assortment of quality knives as well.

Same thing applies to agriculture. Some modern practices are undoubtedly
beneficial. Others are of dubious use and/or designed for a very narrow
use. These may actually diminish quality rather than improving it.

>regardless, "environmental sensitivity" says that going organic is a
>stupid idea, because you end up using more of the earth's soil for
>making the same amount of product.

Not necessarily. Very high-intensity agriculture depletes local soil
quickly, so in the long run it ends up being more environmentally damaging.
Furthermore, toxins introduced into the water table and into soils can
linger for years. And high-intensity agriculture can also lead to
diminished yields in the long run.

However, organic agriculture suffers considerably more crop loss, and may
involve having a higher area under cultivation for the same immediate
yield. Organic farming may also end up inadvertently promoting certain
noxious weeds or pests.

When it comes to land conservation, however, if organic agriculture can
forestall suburbanisation, I believe that represents a more intelligent use
of the land. Suburban sprawl is surely the *least* environmentally
sensitive, most wasteful use of valuable land - inasmuch as it ends up
paving or building over large tracts of fertile land, that might be more
wisely used for farming. Futhermore, suburban sprawl tends to sap the
vitality of urban cores, diminishing as much the urban experience as the
rural one. Meanwhile by contrast a dense-packed urban center well-confined
by acres of profitable, productive agricultural hinterland supplies the
best of all worlds - the city is alive and vibrant because there are enough
people packed tightly enough to *force* people to interact, fresh, local
food is readily available because the farms can cluster close to the
population centres (which further increases profitability to the farmers
because an urban populace typically will pay more for the same products
than a rural one, not to mention because of decreased shipping costs), and
wilderness can be preserved as well because farms aren't pushed out ever-
further into what had been wild country.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)