As a third generation Wisconsin dairy farmer and a UW College of Agricultural and Life Sciences graduate, I enjoyed the opportunity to participate in Chancellor Martin's GO BIG READ initiative.
Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food is an interesting and provocative book. Several of his ideas have merit for consideration, particularly that of family meals at appointed times with limited snacks in between. He has been clever enough to site numerous studies and individuals supporting his points of view. He also, unfortunately, uses labels (reductionist science, nutritionalism, mono cultural agriculture) to trivialize and demean that portion of the food industry upon which the very existence and security of this country depends. His commentary seems to generally follow the anti-animal, anti-modern agriculture rhetoric accepted by a public increasingly removed from the source of its food supply.
Here are some observations and opinions on several of Mr. Pollan's views. They are given from the perspective of one who has had some 'hands-on' agricultural experience on three continents and half a dozen different countries over the course of a 50+ year relationship with production agriculture and agribusiness.
Privileged America
Americans spend less of their take home pay (under 10%) on food, than just about any other nation on earth. This allows us to have available comparatively generous amounts of disposable income for non-food items. What would life be like in your sphere of existence if it required 30% of take home pay to purchase food for yourself and a family? What about 50%? Americans are privileged to have the most abundant, diverse, safe and economical food supply in the world. Modem day production agriculture makes this possible.
Stewards of the Land
This unique status has not always existed, and is in fact, only a fairly recent phenomenon. Mr. Pollan does have it right in asserting that it all begins with the soil. Here is a brief example of an evolution in American production agriculture typified by soil management practices on our own Wisconsin farm, located in the rolling and rock strewn hills of the 'Kettle Moraine'. Grandpa plowed the land with horses, working up and down the hills, when he and grandma first began fanning here around 1900. The farm was 40 acres, a typical size at the time due to land survey procedures and the fact that this size was about the limit a man and a team of horses could work in one growing season.
Dad, upon the purchase of neighboring farmland and mechanical horsepower, established contour strips across the hills and planted grass waterways to slow down and divert excess water during rainstorms. To this day, they still hold soil in place and allow for crop rotation. He also drummed into us a simple philosophy: "Soil is like a bank, if you want to get something out, you must put something in!"
I introduced and promoted 'conservation tillage' and 'no-till' cropping practices to the family fanning operation. These methods disturb very little topsoil during planting season. This further reduces erosion, preserves organic matter, conserves soil moisture, and saves considerable time and fuel when planting crops.
My son (a UW-CALS graduate) is an agronomist. He has modified and developed a spreadsheet enabling farmers to credit their soils with nutrients from crops (legumes like alfalfa and soybeans) and manure (it is not a waste product), thereby reducing input costs from commercial fertilizer.
Respect for the land is the foundation of responsible and productive agriculture anywhere in the world. American farmers work hard to be stewards of the soil.
There Is Nothing Simple About It
Mr. Pollan's "it stands to reason" argument about 'chemically simplified soils' producing 'chemically simplified plants' is name calling combined with junk science at best. Those of us who work the land as the basis of our livelihood have learned that there is nothing 'simple' about the soil or whatever plants grow in it. We have learned to use management practices that take into account the complexities of soils and plants. If we didn't, we would not have farms that have been sustained over generations of use.
Farmlands are routinely tested field by field for macro and micro nutrients, pH, and organic matter. Farmers apply fertilizers (commercial or 'homemade' like manure) only as needed. How many lawns get fertilized with the benefit of chemical analysis based on correct soil sampling methodology? Even Mr. Pollan's 10'X20' vegetable garden will eventually diminish in productivity if he does not treat it "like a bank".
He also characterizes commercial fertilizers as "harsh", specifically citing nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (N, P, and K). More name calling combined with junk science. Commercial formulations of fertilizers as used by farmers are usually applied following soil testing. No more than is absolutely needed for successful crop production is typically used. They are configured in chemical compounds readily useful to plants, not in pure elemental form. Upon application, these compounds enter the root zone for plant use.
Soil Is Organic
Mr. Pollan throws around the word 'organic' the way he insinuates we farmers throw around manure. We can argue about a definition for the word 'organic' until the cows come home. Regardless of any definition, all farming is, arguably, organic if that farming begins with the soil. One textbook definition of soil is, "a medium for plant growth". Healthy and productive soil is often characterized as a living breathing entity. Such a soil typically includes various sized particles, water, air, organic matter, microbes, animals like earthworms, and chemical compounds containing elements like N, P, and K.
Most plants cannot function in an 'inorganic' (concrete, steel, plastic) environment. Some soils, as those in deserts, can't sustain food production for large human populations. If some farmers choose to limit the use of agricultural inputs as fertilizers and pesticides, then call it 'organic', and go on to convince some of the people most of the time that their production is worth a premium price, good for them!
Monocultural Monopoly
Mr. Pollan decries the "rise of industrial agriculture, which yields a vast mono culture of a tiny group of plants." The realities of modem American agriculture are thus: In the 1950s, about 25% of America 's population lived and earned their income on farms engaged in production agriculture. Since then, three trends have emerged and continue to evolve: fewer farms, larger farms, and greater production per farm. This has resulted in efficiencies and economies of scale that currently enable less than 2% of this country's population to feed the rest of us and then some. Would Mr. Pollan have 1 in 4 Americans now living quit their day jobs and return to production agriculture to earn an income capable of supporting themselves and a family? Would he?
'Monoculture' need not be misconstrued as a negative concept. Mr. Pollan's vegetable garden is, after all, a mono culture of vegetables. Drive through any municipality in America and you will observe a vast mono culture of clipped, fertilized, weeded and watered lawns, medians and parks. Are all these urban monocultures soil tested, scouted for pests, and subject to environmental regulation similar to production agriculture?
Specialization in non-agricultural businesses is accepted. Why not in production agriculture also? Would Mr. Pollan be as successful a writer in his chosen genre' if he were simultaneously working to produce biographies, cook books, or fiction?
It was interesting to read of Mr. Pollan's enthusiasm for lambsquarters as a food ingredient representing a desirable form of nutrition. I would challenge him to develop a lucrative commercial market for this plant. I guarantee that American farmers would rise to the occasion and produce lambsquarters in abundance! (Probably in a monoculture.)
How Now Contented Cow
Another of Mr. Pollan's assertions is that only cattle that graze get "leaves" instead of "seeds" in their diets. Some clarification is needed here. Rations fed to ruminant animals, such as cattle, need to be primarily composed of forages. Forages are leafy plants such as alfalfa or grass hay, and com silage, which is the entire com plant chopped into pieces. These animals have a marvelous and complex digestive system (four compartments; reticulum, rumen, omasum, abomasum) that allow them to eat and digest feedstuffs humans cannot.
Most of us enjoy the idyllic scene of cattle grazing outdoors in a green field. The reality is that this practice is limited to certain times of the year, especially in Wisconsin and similar climates. Good grazing areas (pastures) require intensive management not unlike fields producing alfalfa. Feeding cattle during times of limited or non-existent pastures (like winter) means farmers need to store feed. While pasturing works for some farmers, the majority continue to harvest feed mechanically, store it in a variety of structures, and then bring it to the cattle.
Dairy and livestock farmers routinely test forages to determine if their animals are getting all the nutrition they need for optimal growth, reproduction, and production. It is not unusual to supplement forages with concentrates (these are the "seeds" like com or oat kernels, soybeans and
linseed sometimes mixed with minerals). This supplementation is fed only as necessary to 'balance' the animal's rations, enabling a level of production to give farmers a return on their investment while keeping animals healthy. Even grazing animals may require supplementation due to geographic location or soil conditions.
When 'finishing' for market, meat producing animals such as beef cattle, the ration is adjusted to include more concentrate as this produces a product in demand by consumers. These rations are seldom, if ever, totally devoid of some forage. Grandpa frequently lectured how the cows needed a 'scratch' (fiber) factor in their ration to stay healthy.
Another reality of modem agriculture is that the animals we keep are production units, not pets. I would also argue that the majority of animals kept for production agriculture probably eat more correctly for their species than the majority of people in America.
Laced or Unlaced?
Mr. Pollan repeats the misleading anti-animal litany about dairy and meat products being "laced" with hormones and antibiotics. This is an insulting and inaccurate portrayal of today's farmers who use modem technology responsibly for the benefit of their animal's health and productive capacities.
Hormones occur naturally in all animal species. The hormone used to increase milk production in dairy cattle (recombinant bovine somatropin, rBST) is a virtual copy of the naturally occurring dairy cow hormone (pituitary bovine somatropin, pBST). Both are composed of the same amino acids (building blocks of hormones) found in cattle. There is a difference of two pBST amino acids substituted by two different but naturally occurring amino acids in rBST. Furthermore, rBST has been researched and declared safe by government regulatory agencies; it also breaks down into its component parts during the process of pasteurization. (Note: it is illegal to sell unpasteurized milk in Wisconsin).
The hormone used to stimulate beef cattle growth is typically implanted in an animal's ear at a designated time, dissolves, and has no dissembled presence when that animal is marketed. These relatively recent technologies enable those of us in production agriculture to enhance the efficiency of our operations while supplying an abundant and therefore low cost food supply to consumers.
It should be noted, not all farmers use these technologies; they are usually evaluated on a cost effective basis for each individual operation.
Anti-What (Or Whom?)
Antibiotics have saved countless human lives plus reduced suffering and misery worldwide. Why then, is there such a gap in logic, Mr. Pollan, that antibiotics cannot do the same for animals in production agriculture? Is it because we farmers are often dirty and sweaty while working? Are we all demonstrably incompetent? It is frustrating to be considered the least common denominator in the food equation.
Used responsibly, antibiotics reduce suffering and maintain productive health in farm animals. Strict state, federal and industry rules dictate their use. Veterinarians are routinely consulted and give careful guidance to farmers when dispensing certain drugs.
Milk marketed in the U.S. is regulated by Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 40 (PMO 40). Under this rule, the tolerance for antibiotic residue in milk sold to the public is zero. Most dairies in the U.S. test every load of milk daily for antibiotics. Producers or processors who knowingly market milk, tainted with antibiotics, are subject to fines and even jail time. This system catches mistakes that may occur from human error while virtually ensuring an antibiotic free milk supply for the American public.
Meat marketed in the U.S. has a similar set of laws and regulations; 21 CFR 1589.2000-Drug Residue in Animal Tissue. The safety net for American's food supply is sadly misunderstood and unappreciated by those it protects. It is easy to spread rhetoric about those of us who toil in production agriculture and take pride in producing a quality product.
Jambo, Bwanal
As a Peace Corps Volunteer in Kenya, East Africa, I was able to live in a food culture similar to that which Mr. Pollan would have us aspire. Vegetables and variations of ground com were the staples of the diet, when enough was available. While most people had adequate quantities of food, quality was sometimes an issue. There were from time to time, inadequate amounts of locally produced food to feed people, usually due to drought. It is not pleasant to watch fellow humans go hungry.
Among the things that impressed me was how much parents were willing to sacrifice so their children could have milk to drink. Another was how much everyone craved to have meat added to their daily intake of food. In fact, one of the ultimate expressions of friendship "in our part of Africa was to treat your friends to a 'quick kilo' (one kilogram) of meat grilled to taste, if the local butcher had a side of beef hanging from a tree limb. Does this tell us something?
Pay More, Eat Less?
Among the suggestions Mr. Pollan gives in his book is that of farmers producing less food in an approved manner (organically) and consistency (leaves). He also suggests that we should be willing to pay more for this food and then eat less of it. Whatever dietary merits these 'improvements' bring to us as people in America , his suggestions will probably remain in the domain of the economically elite and intellectually effete’. With all due respect the rest of us live in a world where this menu is less than palatable.
The discussion generated by Mr. Pollan's book has certainly been an opportunity to explore some issues pertaining to food and food production. The opinions I have ventured here are my own, but are probably shared by others in production agriculture. Here is my own variation on the Pollan Theme: Eat responsibly. Eat together. Be grateful for abundance. Thank a farmer.
On, Wisconsin!
George H. Roemer
UW-CALS Class of '70
Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation - PO Box 5550 Madison,WI 53705-0550 1-800-261-FARM
or 608-836-5575