Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
In the News / Widely accepted vision for agriculture may be inaccurate
« Last post by Little Feather on February 22, 2017, 10:54:24 AM »
Widely accepted vision for agriculture may be inaccurate, misleading

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- “Food production must double by 2050 to feed the world’s growing population.”  This truism has been repeated so often in recent years that it has become widely accepted among academics, policymakers and farmers, but now researchers are challenging this assertion and suggesting a new vision for the future of agriculture.

Research published today (Feb. 22) in Bioscience suggests that production likely will need to increase between 25 percent and 70 percent to meet 2050 food demand. The assertion that we need to double global crop and animal production by 2050 is not supported by the data, argues Mitch Hunter, doctoral student in agronomy, in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences. He says the analysis shows that production needs to keep increasing, but not as fast as many have claimed.

However, clarifying future food demand is only part of the story.

“In the coming decades, agriculture will be called upon to both feed people and ensure a healthy environment," said Hunter. "Right now, the narrative in agriculture is really out of balance, with compelling goals for food production but no clear sense of the progress we need to make on the environment. To get the agriculture we want in 2050, we need quantitative targets for both food production and environmental impacts.”

A review of recent trends in agriculture's environmental impacts shows that they are increasing and must drop dramatically to maintain clean water and stabilize the climate, according to the researchers.

Specifying quantitative targets, the researchers contend, will clarify the scope of the challenges that agriculture must face in the coming decades, focusing research and policy on achieving specific outcomes. A review of recent trends in agriculture’s environmental impacts shows that they are increasing and must drop dramatically to maintain clean water and stabilize the climate, according to the researchers. 
           
Specifying quantitative targets, the researchers contend, will clarify the scope of the challenges that agriculture must face in the coming decades, focusing research and policy on achieving specific outcomes.
         
“Food production and environmental protection must be treated as equal parts of agriculture’s grand challenge,” says study co-author David Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology, Penn State.
       
These new findings have important implications for farmers. Lower demand projections may suggest that prices will not rise as much as expected in coming decades. However, the authors note that economic forecasting models already are based on up-to-date quantitative projections, so price forecasts may not be affected greatly by this new analysis. 
       
At the same time, farmers will need to ramp up efforts to hold nutrients on their fields, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve soil health.
       
 This analysis builds on the two most commonly cited food-demand projections, one from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and one led by David Tilman, a prominent ecologist at the University of Minnesota. Hunter and his colleagues did not dispute these underlying projections; they simply updated them to help reframe the narrative.
       
“Both of these projections are credible and important, but the baseline years they used are over a decade past now, and global production has ramped up considerably in that time,” Hunter explained.

So, while Tilman’s study showed that the world will demand 100 percent more calories in 2050 than in 2005, that is the equivalent of only a 68 percent increase over production levels in 2014, the most recent year with available data. To meet the FAO projection, which used different assumptions and projected lower demand, production would have to increase only 26 percent from 2014 levels.
 
“Given how much production has increased recently, it is pretty misleading to continue to argue that we need to double our crop output by 2050,” Hunter said.

Aiming to double food production makes it much harder to move the needle on our environmental challenges.

“To double food production, we would have to increase global agricultural output faster than we ever have before, and we are at a point in the developed world where we already are pushing our farming systems to the max. We don’t know how to double yields in these systems, especially without multiplying our environmental impacts,” Hunter said.

Despite increased discussion of sustainability in agriculture, the common narrative that we need to drastically increase food production is seldom challenged in agricultural circles, according to the researchers. This is partly because definitions of sustainability vary widely, ranging from not “increasing agriculture’s environmental footprint” to achieving “major reductions in environmental impact.”

The researchers present hard data and quantitative goals to help clear up this confusion. For global greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River Basin, the data show that agriculture’s environmental performance is going in the wrong direction, with aggregate impacts steadily increasing. Science-based goals indicate that these impacts must fall sharply over the coming decades to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and reduce the size of the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

The authors argue for research and policy efforts to help identify production methods that can meet growing global food demand while also hitting sustainability targets.

“Even with lower demand projections, growing enough food while protecting the environment will be a daunting challenge,” Hunter said. “We call on researchers, policymakers and farmers to embrace this recalibrated vision of the future of agriculture and start working toward these goals.”

Also contributing to the research were Richard Smith, associate professor, and Lesley Atwood, doctoral degree candidate, both in the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham; and Meagan Schipanski, assistant professor, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

The National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture supported this work.

###Widely accepted vision for agriculture may be inaccurate, misleading

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- “Food production must double by 2050 to feed the world’s growing population.”  This truism has been repeated so often in recent years that it has become widely accepted among academics, policymakers and farmers, but now researchers are challenging this assertion and suggesting a new vision for the future of agriculture.

Research published today (Feb. 22) in Bioscience suggests that production likely will need to increase between 25 percent and 70 percent to meet 2050 food demand. The assertion that we need to double global crop and animal production by 2050 is not supported by the data, argues Mitch Hunter, doctoral student in agronomy, in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences. He says the analysis shows that production needs to keep increasing, but not as fast as many have claimed.

However, clarifying future food demand is only part of the story.

“In the coming decades, agriculture will be called upon to both feed people and ensure a healthy environment," said Hunter. "Right now, the narrative in agriculture is really out of balance, with compelling goals for food production but no clear sense of the progress we need to make on the environment. To get the agriculture we want in 2050, we need quantitative targets for both food production and environmental impacts.”

A review of recent trends in agriculture's environmental impacts shows that they are increasing and must drop dramatically to maintain clean water and stabilize the climate, according to the researchers.

Specifying quantitative targets, the researchers contend, will clarify the scope of the challenges that agriculture must face in the coming decades, focusing research and policy on achieving specific outcomes. A review of recent trends in agriculture’s environmental impacts shows that they are increasing and must drop dramatically to maintain clean water and stabilize the climate, according to the researchers. 
           
Specifying quantitative targets, the researchers contend, will clarify the scope of the challenges that agriculture must face in the coming decades, focusing research and policy on achieving specific outcomes.
         
“Food production and environmental protection must be treated as equal parts of agriculture’s grand challenge,” says study co-author David Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology, Penn State.
       
These new findings have important implications for farmers. Lower demand projections may suggest that prices will not rise as much as expected in coming decades. However, the authors note that economic forecasting models already are based on up-to-date quantitative projections, so price forecasts may not be affected greatly by this new analysis. 
       
At the same time, farmers will need to ramp up efforts to hold nutrients on their fields, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve soil health.
       
 This analysis builds on the two most commonly cited food-demand projections, one from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and one led by David Tilman, a prominent ecologist at the University of Minnesota. Hunter and his colleagues did not dispute these underlying projections; they simply updated them to help reframe the narrative.
       
“Both of these projections are credible and important, but the baseline years they used are over a decade past now, and global production has ramped up considerably in that time,” Hunter explained.

So, while Tilman’s study showed that the world will demand 100 percent more calories in 2050 than in 2005, that is the equivalent of only a 68 percent increase over production levels in 2014, the most recent year with available data. To meet the FAO projection, which used different assumptions and projected lower demand, production would have to increase only 26 percent from 2014 levels.
 
“Given how much production has increased recently, it is pretty misleading to continue to argue that we need to double our crop output by 2050,” Hunter said.

Aiming to double food production makes it much harder to move the needle on our environmental challenges.

“To double food production, we would have to increase global agricultural output faster than we ever have before, and we are at a point in the developed world where we already are pushing our farming systems to the max. We don’t know how to double yields in these systems, especially without multiplying our environmental impacts,” Hunter said.

Despite increased discussion of sustainability in agriculture, the common narrative that we need to drastically increase food production is seldom challenged in agricultural circles, according to the researchers. This is partly because definitions of sustainability vary widely, ranging from not “increasing agriculture’s environmental footprint” to achieving “major reductions in environmental impact.”

The researchers present hard data and quantitative goals to help clear up this confusion. For global greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River Basin, the data show that agriculture’s environmental performance is going in the wrong direction, with aggregate impacts steadily increasing. Science-based goals indicate that these impacts must fall sharply over the coming decades to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and reduce the size of the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

The authors argue for research and policy efforts to help identify production methods that can meet growing global food demand while also hitting sustainability targets.

“Even with lower demand projections, growing enough food while protecting the environment will be a daunting challenge,” Hunter said. “We call on researchers, policymakers and farmers to embrace this recalibrated vision of the future of agriculture and start working toward these goals.”

Also contributing to the research were Richard Smith, associate professor, and Lesley Atwood, doctoral degree candidate, both in the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham; and Meagan Schipanski, assistant professor, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

The National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture supported this work.

###
2
Real Life / Up Late? Looks Like Our Paleo Ancestors Didn't Sleep Much Either
« Last post by Little Feather on February 02, 2017, 08:49:10 AM »


In America, it seems only unicorns get seven or eight hours of sleep a night, and the rest of us suffer. But people may be meant to sleep as little as 6 1/2 hours nightly and were doing so long before the advent of electricity and smartphones, researchers say.

To find that out, they consulted with some of the few people on the planet who live roughly the same lifestyle humans did in the Paleolithic.

Psychiatrist and sleep researcher Jerome Siegel at UCLA's Semel Institute of Neuroscience and Human Behavior started studying three different hunter-gatherer groups in Africa and South America. "All three don't have any electricity, don't have any of the sort of modern electronic developments that many think have reduced our sleep," he says.

Those hunter-gatherers spent about seven or eight hours a night in bed, but they slept for just five to seven of those hours, according to the study, published Thursday in Current Biology. "It's clear that the amount of sleep that all of these groups get is at the low end of what we'd see in the United States today," Siegel says. Sleeping that little has been linked to everything from shorter life span to stomach problems and weight gain in industrial societies.

But unlike many people in the United States or Europe who sleep less than seven hours a night, members of the Hadza in Tanzania, San in Namibia, and Tsimane in Bolivia tend to be very healthy. There's virtually no obesity, many have very long lives, and nearly everyone in these societies does not have trouble sleeping. "Approximately 20 percent of our population complains of chronic insomnia at some point," Siegel says. "The two groups we quizzed on this don't have a word for insomnia."

That raises a lot of questions about why we think we need eight hours of shuteye. "That classic teaching that adults need seven or eight hours of sleep has to do with population-based evidence," says Dr. Indira Gurubhagavatula, a sleep expert at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine who was not involved with the study. "This paper questions, is that data flawed? And if so, how or why? Or it could be that the sleep we're getting is lower quality, and we need more of it to feel restored?"

Siegel thinks that might be because we evolved in the environment's natural 24-hour pattern of light and temperature, but we're cut off from that rhythm now. By contrast, these hunter-gatherers go to sleep a few hours after sunset, when the night gets chilly. They wake up when the day begins warming from the sunrise.

Following Earth's natural tempo in this way could improve the quality of their sleep, says Kristen Knutson, a sleep researcher and biomedical anthropologist at the University of Chicago. Our bodies' core temperature also cycles this way, regardless of air conditioning or heating. "If their sleep is following the environment's temperature rhythm more closely and naturally, then their sleep quality may indeed be better than what is happening in the United States," she says.

Researchers already know that light and temperature play an important role in sleep. Light can reverse jet lag and help set internal clocks, and people fall asleep more easily when their core body temperature falls. This all could contribute to why hunter-gatherers' sleep less than we do on average, Gurubhagavatula says.

And it could also mean that many non-hunter-gatherers may not need to sleep eight or more hours a night. "I think the beauty of this current study is that maybe we shouldn't be ramming this requirement down [every person's] throat so to speak," she says.

That's not to say that there aren't lots of people who are incredibly sleep-deprived, Gurubhagavatula says. Light and temperature aren't the only things dictating how much we sleep. "It's our activity and diet and stress level. I see patients who are single parents and have three jobs, and they'll be lucky to have five hours of sleep and are tired all the time." Those people need more sleep.

There are other habitual short sleepers in our society — truck drivers, graduate students, and idiot reporters who should know better — with lifestyles vastly different from a hunter-gatherer. "[They're] not the same as someone in our society who only sleeps 6 1/2 hours," says Dr. Elizabeth Klerman, a sleep researcher at the Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. So it could be unhealthy for people in industrial societies to sleep that little.

What's natural for a hunter-gatherer might not be natural for everyone, Siegel agrees. "I don't think we could just fling someone back into an equatorial lifestyle, and that'll be entirely beneficial," he says. But he's excited about other possibilities. If hunter-gatherers are sleeping better because they're more in tune with the daily temperature cycle, maybe we can do the same by programming thermostats to echo conditions outside. "That's a specific aim of my next grant," he says.

Angus Rohan Chen is a reporter and radio producer living in New York City. He has a dry wit and no hobbies.

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
    early humans
    anthropology
    sleep
    sleep deprivation

   
3
Real Life / Not Getting Enough Sleep? Camping In February Might Help
« Last post by Little Feather on February 02, 2017, 08:42:50 AM »


It's tempting to keep the computer running late and promise yourself an extra 30 minutes of bed rest in the morning. It's tempting to do it again the next night, too. But sleep inevitably loses out to getting up early for school or work.

There's a simple way to combat this: End all artificial lights at night for at least a weekend and drench your eyes in natural morning light, says Kenneth Wright, a professor of integrative physiology at the University of Colorado, Boulder and senior author on a study on resetting sleep cycles. The most straightforward way of doing this is to forbid any electronics on a camping trip.

In the study, published Thursday in Current Biology, Wright reports on the latest of a series of experiments where he sent people out camping in Colorado parks to reset their biological clocks. Small groups of people set out for a week during the summer, an experiment published in Current Biology in 2013.

This most recent study shows the results of camping a week in winter and once over a winter weekend. Others stayed at home to live their life. Along with sleep, Wright kept track of people's circadian rhythms by measuring their levels of the hormone melatonin, which regulates wakefulness and sleep.

Before each camping trip, Wright says that he noticed something odd about the study participants' melatonin levels.

In general, melatonin makes us feel tired. Levels of the hormone rise a couple of hours before we sleep, and they fall right when we wake up. "In the modern environment, those melatonin levels fall back down a couple of hours after we wake up," Wright says. "Our brains say we should be sleeping several hours after we wake up." The participants' sleep and wake times were slightly out of step with their internal clocks, like constantly being a little jet lagged.

But after people got back from a week-long camping trip, the jet lag was gone.

"[Melatonin] would go down at sunrise and right when people woke up," Wright says. And people's entire sleep schedules had shifted earlier so that they were going to bed and rising two or more hours earlier than they had been before camping. Those who had gone camping for just a weekend had their sleep schedules shifted by a little less than an hour and a half.

Why this happens probably has to do with how drastically different an environment lit by light bulbs and laptops is from one of sun and starlight.

Outside, "you are pretty constrained by natural light-dark cycles and the intensity and light spectrum that you see in nature," says Dr. Phyllis Zee, director for the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University who was not involved with the study. Natural light, particularly morning sunshine, which is enriched with blue light, has a very powerful influence on setting internal clocks.

That bright light can affect our circadian rhythm is nothing new, Zee says. But this collection of studies make very clear how an artificially lit environment at night can push our sleep timing further back, while bright, blue-rich light can train our circadian rhythms to sync earlier in a way that is actionable. Sleep doctors will often suggest that people use a light box indoors in the morning to simulate dawn, but's not always as effective as real dawn.

"I actually have used that [summer camping] study to treat some of my patients," Zee says. "We see people who can't fall asleep until 4 am. It can be very difficult to use this light box in the morning and avoid light at night. So you say, okay, there's this camping thing."

Sleep's Link To Learning And Memory Traced To Brain Chemistry

If camping is not your thing, Zee suggests trying to copy a natural light-dark cycle, at least on the weekend. "Over 60 percent of the shift can happen over a weekend. It's pretty amazing," she says. "We can on weekends or days off go out or sit by the window and just expose ourselves to a natural light-dark cycle."

And in a perfect world, homes, schools and offices would have artificial light that could mimic the spectrum and the intensity of natural light. "As a new design philosophy, think about light as important as having clean air," Zee says. "It's possible. It's totally possible."

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
4
Farm to table: A bit tricky in winter, but in high demand

By LISA RATHKE
Associated Press
AP Photo
AP Photo/Lisa Rathke

    Environmental Groups React to EPA Clampdown

    AP

    Iconic television star Mary Tyler Moore has died

    AP

    Trump Signs Executive Order On Mexico Wall

    AP

    Environmental Groups React to EPA Clampdown

    AP

    Iconic television star Mary Tyler Moore has died

    AP

More videos:

    Iconic television star Mary Tyler Moore has died
    Trump Signs Executive Order On Mexico Wall
    Environmental Groups React to EPA Clampdown
    Iconic television star Mary Tyler Moore has died
    Trump Signs Executive Order On Mexico Wall
    Environmental Groups React to EPA Clampdown
    Iconic television star Mary Tyler Moore has died
    Trump Signs Executive Order On Mexico Wall
    Environmental Groups React to EPA Clampdown

Multimedia
   Memphis in May Barbecue Competition
Multimedia
   Gourmet Eggs
   Drought Forces Calif. Cattle Ranchers to Downsize
   Farmers Struggle with Vet Shortage
   Farming's New Face
   Couple Takes On Farming
Multimedia
   Summer grilling recipes
   Cream-filled chocolate eggs
   Buffalo Wings
   Potato Chip and Pretzel Baked Chicken
   Crispy Baked Cod
   Bacon Barley Risotto
   Kid-Friendly Focaccia
   Indian Pudding
   Dinner Biscuits
   Popovers
   Jerky Chili
   Brown Butter Pasta
   Freezer Jams
   Summer snacks
   Crafting the perfect deviled egg
   How to make quick puff pastry
   Fresh flatbread is quick, easy

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Demand driven by the farm-to-table movement knows no seasons, so farmers in colder areas of the country increasingly use greenhouses and similar structures to meet wintertime demand for local produce.

While crusty snow and ice covers the ground in January in Vermont, spinach leaves sprout in rows of unfrozen soil inside a high tunnel - a large enclosure covered by plastic film that is warmed by the sun and protected from the wind.

"I can never keep up with the spinach demand," said Joe Buley, owner of Screamin' Ridge Farm in Montpelier, who planted the spinach in November and will sell it in about two weeks.

This time of year, when vegetables are trucked in from California and Mexico, some consumers clamor for fresh local produce.

"I'm definitely interested in supporting local agriculture, and I definitely like eating greens in the winter," said Serena Matt of Marshfield, Vermont, who paid Bear Roots Farm in South Barre, Vermont, ahead to get biweekly bundles of produce that in the winter typically include greens like spinach or baby kale.

The federal government helped spur the growth in winter farming by providing financial and technical assistance to farmers to install high tunnels to extend the growing season, protect crops from harsh conditions, reduce energy use and improve air quality by reducing the transportation of food. Between 2010 and 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service helped producers construct more than 15,000 high tunnels around the country, with Alaska having the most.

Rohwer's Farm in Pleasant View, Colorado, got its first 30-by-72-foot high tunnel that way.

"And it did so well we were able to get a second one, and we added a third one last year," said Heidi Rohwer, estimating they cost about $7,000 each.

The small farm makes regular trips to Durango, Colorado, in the winter to sell kale, lettuce, carrots, arugula, and bok choy.

"If we don't take enough greens, they get really mad," Rohwer said.

Buley expects his spinach to start taking off soon, when the sun gets higher in February.

"They get really big, and we'll come down through and just start harvesting like crazy," he said. It's also a lot sweeter, with thicker leaves, than summer spinach, because of the colder weather, he said.

"Root vegetables are nice, but usually right around Jan. 1, people are like, if you come at them with a butternut squash, they're going to smack you," he said laughing.

5
Eat Well / From the beginning of time humans have been eating bone broth
« Last post by Little Feather on January 17, 2017, 08:01:25 AM »


Bone broths have become quite the hot item in recent years.  Strong claims as to their curative and preventative properties have been made, having advocates in both the GAPS diet camp and the traditional foods movement. Broths are even being touted by such high-profile personalities as Kobe Bryant and the LA Lakers. Restaurants and mail order supply companies have opened just to meet this “new” demand. 

Are bone broths the new cure-all?  To begin, let’s define some terms for the purposes of our discussion:

• A broth is made by simmering meat with a small amount of bones, such as a whole chicken.  It is not as concentrated in flavor as a stock, lacking the gelatin content of either stock or bone broth. Excellent when used as a base for lighter soups.

• Stock is made by simmering bones with meat. (I will buy bone-in cuts of beef, pork, and poultry, cook them, and then freeze the bones, making stock when I have accumulated enough.) Vegetable scraps are often added to stock.  Stocks are simmered for several hours in order to reduce the liquid, concentrate the flavors and extract gelatin.  Stocks are a fantastic deglazing liquid, base for sauces, or as the liquid for hearty stews and soups.

• Bone Broth is mostly bone, sometimes with small bits of meat, and often with the addition of knuckles or other joints (this is a way to increase collagen extraction. Bone broths recipes, like stock, usually roast the bones first to deepen the flavor. The simmering of a bone broth is usually in excess of 24 hours, with some recipes recommending 72 hours. This is to ensure maximum extraction of mineral content and gelatin.

Broths are long established in wellness circles.  Chicken soup is certainly regarded as a nourishing meal and has been prescribed for millennia in treatment of colds and respiratory ailments.  As a cook, I can personally attest that making my own stocks has more vastly changed the quality of my home cooking than any other recipe I have. 

This bone broth, though – this was new to me.  Cooking down chicken or turkey frames (a less grisly term for carcasses) for days is a strict no-no in traditional stock craft.  Some practitioners have slow cookers dedicated to the purpose. At the beginning of the week, they add a whole chicken and cover with cold water. Then 24 hours later they ladle out what is needed for the day, adding more water to the pot.  I have even read accounts of people blending the entire contents of the pot – bones and all – to get all of the nutrition therein.  (As an editorial note:  This seems uniquely American in a sense of going overboard.)

Bones and joints contain collagen and gelatin. These properties liquefy in the long cooking process and become infused in the water. Following the Chinese/Greek/homeopathic medicinal principle “like cures like”, the theory is that, by imbibing this collagen, the body will use it to repair damage to joints, rebuild bone, patch up leaky gut, remineralize teeth, repair skin and have many other positive reactions in the body.

The documented and researched science behind all of these claims does seem to be somewhat inconclusive. The problem seems to be that, once the collagen reaches your stomach, it is broken down to amino acids and your body simply uses these building blocks however it sees fit.  Another thought is that, by adding apple cider vinegar, you are extracting more of the minerals from the bones than normal simmering would allow. One of the few medical studies done on the nutritive properties of bone broth (McCance and Widdowson 1934) did not find this to be the case; the acid is too mild and/or the bones too strong to allow much calcium or other mineral seepage.  Practically, the largest hurdle in making specific claims about the benefits of bone broth is that this product is made from such a wide variety of ingredients and amounts; there simply is no recipe on which to base statistics.

Lest we venture too far into the skeptics camp – bone broths, or broths in general, are not without significant merit to the home cook.  Firstly, this is still a nutrient rich food. So what if drinking a quart of bone broth doesn’t cure your arthritis?  It is still extremely good for you. It is a protein and mineral rich food. (My personal suspicion is that most of the perceived benefits from eating bone broth is that it balances a deficiency which previously existed in the subject’s diet). Broths are also a very cost-effective means of providing nutrition to your family. By buying whole and bone-in cuts of meat, you are stretching your food dollar. You are not only saving the processing fee of the butchering (I am looking at you, boneless/skinless chicken breast), but by turning around and using the bones after you have roasted your bird, you lower both the cost of the roast and the eventual soup.

Another benefit you reap is in quality; store-bought broths and stocks are not in the same ballpark as what you are capable of making (for less money) at home. That gelatin you have extracted creates umami in your dishes. The fact that you made it yourself means that you control the salt and other additives in your finished product. Lastly, I am a firm believer that every choice you make to prepare food for yourself and your family impacts the physical and psychological health of those members in a wholly and measurably positive manner.

By all means, boil that broth.  It irks me that we tend to be so all or nothing with our idea of wellness.  Bone broth, like every healthy food that has had recent time in the spotlight (tart cherries, leafy greens, quinoa, etc.), does not have to be a magic bullet to have worth, to have a place in your diet.  Maybe it won’t fix every problem that you have.  That doesn’t mean that it has lost its centuries-old position as a cornerstone of balanced nutrition, along with other whole foods of a wide variety, in moderation. 

If you are interested in further information on bone broth, please consider visiting the following links!

http://thenourishingcook.com/beef-stock-anyone/

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/broth-is-beautiful/

Below is my base recipe for chicken stock.  I would like to mention it is rarely if ever this precise.  A pound more or less of chicken scrap, or a handful more of vegetable is not going to make a noticeable difference. This recipe is intended more as an illustration of method than a hard and fast rule; please do not hold off on stock production due to being short a stalk of celery.

Chicken Stock

12 pounds Chicken carcasses/meat

2 medium Onions

2 medium Carrots

1 stalk Celery

9 quarts Cold Water

1 large Bouquet Garni (thyme, bay, parsley)

Preheat oven to 400 degrees.  Rinse carcasses with cold water, make sure they are fresh (sniff), trim off any excess fat. If using whole chicken cut into 10 pieces (4 breast, 2 leg, 2 thigh, 2 wing).  Spread carcasses/meat in a single layer in a roasting pan and place in oven.  Chop your onion, carrot, and celery. Check your chicken after 20 minutes, it should be golden brown.  Give it a stir and add your veggies and continue roasting.  Check in 25 minutes (45 minutes of total roasting time), though it may require 1 hour of total roasting time – make sure that chicken is dark brown and juices have caramelized on the bottom of the pan.

Remove pan from oven and place on stove.  Remove any excess fat that has accumulated in the bottom of the pan with a ladle.  Add 1 quart of water to roasting pan and heat over high heat on the stove, using a wooden spoon to dissolve caramelized juices from the bottom of the pan.  Transfer the chicken parts to a large stock pot w/ the deglazing liquid. Add the remaining cold water (it should only reach about ¾ of the way up the chicken). Bring stock to a simmer – DO NOT allow to boil.  Skim surface regularly to remove fat and scum, after 45 minutes most of this will be removed and you can add your Bouquet Garni (push down into the pot with the back of a ladle to keep from floating to the surface).  Cook for 3 hours, uncovered.  Strain the stock first through a coarse strainer and again through a fine mesh strainer or cheesecloth.  Do not press on the pieces or stock will cloud.  Allow stock to cool to room temperature and place in an ice bath in the fridge.

 


6
FARMER'S FORUM / Landowner GIS mapping course and map packages
« Last post by alaliber on December 17, 2016, 08:47:17 AM »
Learn how to map your land using open source software and freely available data. This self-paced, video-based course on DVD is an excellent introduction to digital mapping tools (GIS) for landowners or permaculture designers. It will allow you to visualize the terrain of the land, perform site planning based on slope, aspect, and other features, and use GIS maps with open source software and Google Earth. You will learn where to obtain freely available aerial photos, topographic data, soil maps, and other spatial layers, and how to view and manipulate the data. Details at: http://www.earthmetrics.com/courses/
For those that prefer a final product, I offer different levels of map packages that include the finest detail mapping layers available for your property. The products can be customized to your land and needs, include free visualization software, and require no specialized mapping knowledge. Details at http://www.earthmetrics.com/landowner-mapping-services/

Andrea Laliberte
Brownsville, OR

7
Recipes / From the beginning of time humans have been eating bone broth
« Last post by Little Feather on December 13, 2016, 03:17:24 AM »
From the beginning of time (well, at least since there's been fire), man has been eating bone broth. Have you ever wondered why?

I’m sure you remember your mother or grandmother telling you to make sure to eat your chicken soup when you were sick. And likely when you did, you actually felt better. Have you ever wondered why?

I recommend everyone make bone broth and incorporate it into your dietary routine. Here’s why.

The gelatin in bone broth protects and heals the mucosal lining of the digestive tract and helps aid in the digestion of nutrients.

Fights infections such as colds and flu. 

A study published in the journal Chest shows eating chicken soup during a respiratory infection reduces the number of white blood cells, which are the cells that cause flu and cold symptoms.

The glucosamine in bone broth can actually stimulate the growth of new collagen, repair damaged joints and reduce pain and inflammation.

Produces gorgeous skin, hair and nails. 

The collagen and gelatin in bone broth supports hair growth and helps to keep your nails strong.

Helps with bone formation, growth and repair. 

The calcium, magnesium and phosphorus in bone broth helps our bones to grow and repair.

Homemade bone broth is cheaper and healthier than store bought.

All you need is a crockpot. Throw all of the ingredients into the crockpot and it cooks while you sleep.

Healthier than buying supplements. 

Homemade bone broth contains all nutrients and minerals found in bones and tendons rather than just one or two found in pills. Slow cooking preserves the nutrients better than the high heat extraction used to make supplements.

Bone broth is very high in the anti-inflammatory amino acids glycine and proline. 

Promotes sleep and calms the mind. 

The amino acid glycine found in bone broth can be very calming.

Gut-Healing Chicken bone broth:

Ingredients:

    1 organic whole chicken
    8 c of water
    4 -6 stalks of celery, finely chopped
    ½ white or yellow onion, finely chopped
    3 cloves garlic, finely chopped
    1 Tablespoon chopped fresh parsley
    1 inch ginger root, finely chopped
    ½ teaspoon sea salt
    ½ teaspoon of apple cider vinegar

Directions:

Place all of the above ingredients in a crockpot and cook on low heat for 8 -10 hours.

I like to cook mine until the meat is falling away from the bones.

I make this just before bed and it’s ready and hot for breakfast.

You can store any excess broth in the freezer and defrost for a later time.
8
Eat Well / All about Jerusalem artichokes
« Last post by Little Feather on December 09, 2016, 07:04:12 AM »
All about Jerusalem artichokes


Pronounce it: jer-oo-sa-lem ar-ti-choke


The Jerusalem artichoke, also called sunroot, sunchoke, earth apple or topinambour, is a species of sunflower native to eastern North America, and found from eastern Canada and Maine west to North Dakota, and south to northern Florida and Texas. It is also cultivated widely across the temperate zone for its tuber, which is used as a root vegetable.   Scientific name: Helianthus tuberosus. 
This vegetable is not truly an artichoke but a variety of sunflower with a lumpy, brown-skinned tuber that often resembles a ginger root. Contrary to what the name implies, this vegetable has nothing to do with Jerusalem but is derived instead from the Italian word for sunflower, girasole.
                                       
The white flesh of this vegetable is nutty, sweet and crunchy and is a good source of iron.


Availability:  At their best from November to April.

Choose the best:  Jerusalem artichokes are knobby by nature and they do not need peeling before use.  In fact, when roasted or fried the thin skin adds texture by becoming semi-crisp when cooked.  Skins should be pale brown without any dark or soft patches and the artichokes should look firm and fresh not soft or wrinkled.

Prepare it

Like carrots, Jerusalem artichokes are excellent raw or cooked.  When consumed raw they are crunchy and tasty eaten out of hand or as part of a salad or cole slaw.  If they are stored in a cool and dark place they will keep well for up to 10 days.

Cook them:

Jerusalem artichokes can be cooked in much the same way as potatoes or parsnips and are excellent roasted, stir fried, sautéed or dipped in batter and fried, or puréed to make a delicious soup.

Produced Organically

To order tubers for planting click here:  https://www.etsy.com/listing/184605424/jerusalem-artichoke-tubers?ref=shop_home_active_24

To order food grade tubers click here: https://www.etsy.com/listing/497940739/edible-organic-jerusalem-artichoke?ref=shop_home_active_1

9

What would you think about planting a crop for your livestock and never having to plant again?
Jerusalem Artichokes are a perennial tuber crop with edible tubers, leaves, stalks and flowers that contain up to 28% protein and come back year after year. Stalks will grow up to 10 feet tall with enormous yellow flowers on top.

The Jerusalem Artichoke is not a widely known plant in our country, but it can and does grow here from Canada to Florida. Each plant produces up to 10 pounds of tubers that are delicious and consumed by people the world over. They are even considered a gourmet food in Europe. The rest of the plant, and even the tubers, can be fed to every kind of livestock from chickens to pigs to cattle with favorable results. They are an extremely vigorous growing plant and once planted will completely take over an area so they should not be planted unless you desire them as a perennial crop. They are very hard to get rid of once planted.

The variety we grow is called Stampede, and is one of the most sought after of all varieties, which is why we grow them! They are superior in flavor and size to all other Jerusalem Artichoke varieties, some of which are barely suitable for human consumption. This variety is delicious.  I am currently selling fresh tubers to 3 grocery chains and a restaurant.

Each tuber left in the ground over the winter will produce numerous new plants with each of those plants producing up to 10 pounds of tubers the following fall. This plant puts on tubers in November throughout the winter. The plants will grow in any type of soil regardless of whether it is sand, clay or mulch and can tolerate drought conditions without failing.

I sell the plants as both a livestock crop and for human consumption in home gardens. My family loves them. They are a bit like a potato with a nutty flavor. They sell about as fast as I can grow them, and that is saying a lot because these are extremely vigorous growing.

If ordered for food, I have 5 great recipes that will be sent for free.

To order tubers for planting click herehttps://www.etsy.com/listing/184605424/jerusalem-artichoke-tubers?ref=shop_home_active_24

To order food grade tubers click here: https://www.etsy.com/listing/497940739/edible-organic-jerusalem-artichoke?ref=shop_home_active_1


Herman Beck-Chenoweth
10
Systems Research Handbook: Innovative Solutions to Complex Challenges

NEW FREE SYSTEMS RESEARCH BOOK FROM SARE

As farmers and ranchers strive to maintain profitability, they face a multitude of pressures such as protecting water and air resources, conserving biodiversity and limiting soil erosion. Too often, however, single-faceted agricultural research fails to account for the complex links between critical environmental, social and economic factors. The result? Piecemeal solutions to complex and interrelated problems.
   
Systems Research for Agriculture Cover Image

Now, SARE's groundbreaking Systems Research for Agriculture provides the theories and tools that researchers and producers need to design and conduct interdisciplinary systems research projects that advance sustainable agroecosystems.


Order or download Systems Research for Agriculture now: www.sare.org/Systems


Systems Research for Agriculture features multiple case studies, including SARE-funded research trials, that mimic an entire production system rather than substituting and comparing individual practices. Modifying research trials to fit local best farming practices allows systems-level changes in economic, social and environmental conditions to emerge and be better studied. While the model requires close collaboration between researchers and producers, it provides producers with practical insight into the on-farm adoption of new techniques.


Systems Research for Agriculture addresses the theoretical basis for agricultural systems research and provides a roadmap for building effective interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder teams. This handbook is essential reading for researchers and producers working together to plan, implement and analyze complex, multifaceted systems research experiments.


Systems Research for Agriculture is available as a free download at www.sare.org/Systems. Print copies can be ordered for $20 plus shipping and handling. Discounts are available for orders of 10 items or more.


Author Laurie Drinkwater is a professor in the School of Integrated Plant Science at Cornell University. She was raised in Key West, Florida and became interested in agriculture while attending graduate school at at the University of California, Davis. Her research focuses on improving the ecological efficiency and sustainability of agricultural systems by studying the mechanisms governing carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous biogeochemistry in agroecosystems at scales ranging from the rhizosphere, where plant–microbial interactions dominate, to the field and landscape scale, where human interventions strongly influence ecosystem processes.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10