farming

Bill Niman created the Niman Ranch meat empire with his progressive farming techniques. Today, he won't even eat the company's products. The sustainable agriculture pioneer, who spearheaded the food movement to raise livestock sustainably, humanely, and naturally, is speaking out against the new owners of Niman Ranch, the brand he founded more than 30 years ago. Last month, the company was bought out by Natural Food Holdings, its chief investor since 2006 — and, according to The San Francisco Chronicle, its founder believes that its meat program has already changed in fundamental ways.When he first founded Niman Ranch in 1977, Niman set the bar for ethical ranching standards by raising cattle on grass in a free-range setting, forbidding growth hormones, and using antibiotics only if animals grew sick. He now opposes many of the company's modifications, including use of antimicrobials, the closing of company-owned cattle feedlots, and the treatment of cattle in their journey to slaughter. In response, Niman Ranch's current CEO Jeff Swain defended his company's integrity:

I think idealism . . . has to be couched with practicality . . . The company-owned feedlot was sold in 2008 because it was not financially viable . . . We believe that our protocols are stronger, the auditing of the protocols more rigorous, and the current business model is more financially viable.

He also claims the company has turned its profitability around: the company is now making $7,000 a week, rather than losing $10,000. The article raises an even bigger question: whether sustainable agriculture — and brands founded on idealism in general — can sustain a profit themselves.

What do you think? Do you stand with Bill Niman, or Niman Ranch?

Source

When it comes to culinary controversy, there are few things more divisive than the fatty duck liver known as foie gras. The reason? The allegedly inhumane "gavage," or force-feeding process, which involves placing a metal tube down a duck's throat to deliver large amounts of food. In fact, the 5,000-year-old French delicacy has had such a bad reputation that it was once banned in Chicago, and will be banned in California by 2012.But in a recent investigative piece, Village Voice contributor Sarah DiGregorio visits the nation's biggest foie gras farm, Hudson Valley Foie Gras, and finds the process to be relatively inoffensive. She writes:

The sights could not have been more different from the horrifying images I'd seen on the Internet . . . the actual process with the tube didn't seem to bother them . . . Each waddled calmly away, looking unfazed: no breathing problems, no vomiting, and no trouble walking. Their feathers were fairly clean, and I didn't see any lesions on their feet or bodies . . . If I had seen with my own eyes that Hudson Valley produced foie gras by abusing ducks, this article would have turned out very differently. But that just wasn't the case.

I found myself relieved to read at least one perspective demonstrating that the production of foie gras was far less harmful than PETA and its opponents have portrayed it. Were you surprised by DiGregorio's investigation? What impact do you think this will have on the foie gras industry?

Source

If you're a fan of reality cooking shows, you may have heard about NBC's upcoming show, Chopping Block, which airs March 11. The show stars Marco Pierre White, the UK's original bad-boy chef, who has been known to make even Gordon Ramsay cry.

When I spoke to White today, the Chopping Block host was, in stark contrast to his deviant reputation, incredibly gracious, even-keeled, and — dare I say it — sentimental. He denounced bad behavior in the kitchen and on his show ("I will not tolerate bad language or anybody raising their voice") and insisted on being called by his first name ("Marco's my name; chef's my trade"). The one negative thing he had to say, however, was about Hell's Kitchen, Gordon Ramsay's reality cooking show. Get to know the chef when you read more

As it turns out, modern-day fruits and vegetables may not be so good for you after all. In this month's issue of HortScience, Donald R. Davis, a former research associate at the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, argues that the average vegetable found in today's US and UK supermarket could be anywhere from 5 to 40 percent lower in minerals, such as magnesium, iron, calcium, and zinc, than produce that was harvested 50 years ago.
Although vegetables may be larger, this doesn't mean they contain more (or even as many) nutrients. This is caused by what's called the genetic dilution effect, in which farmers' efforts to increase crop yields have actually led to lower levels of protein, amino acids, and minerals. Although the "dry matter," or the bulk of the commercial vegetable's size, is increasing, there is "no assurance that dozens of other nutrients and thousands of phytochemicals will all increase in proportion to yield."

Davis argues that efforts to increase the production of food has actually led to food that is less nourishing. Crops are now being harvested quicker than ever before, and therefore produce has less time to absorb nutrients. These farming practices have also led to soil mineral depletion, which adversely affects the nutrition level of crops.

What do you think of this news? Is there some validity to Davis's argument? Does it make you more inclined to buy organic vegetables?

Last Thursday, the Food and Drug Administration issued its long-awaited regulations on genetically engineered animals. Its conclusion, after considering genetically altered animals? Consumer labeling will not be required for genetically engineered food.Currently, genetically engineered animals are being developed for the market, but so far none of the animals have been approved by the agency for marketing. Prior to entering the marketplace, the animals themselves will need to receive FDA approval, and be labeled as genetically altered. In contrast, food products derived from these animals will not need to be labeled.

Proponents of the practice argue that it will create livestock that grow faster, produce less toxic waste, are resistant to disease, and are generally healthier to eat. But opponents argue that messing with Mother Nature could have unintended consequences, such as altering the genetic structures of animals.

What do you think of this ruling? Do you think the Food and Drug Administration has made the right decision?

Source

It's only January, and the organic industry is already having a bad year. Not only have producers been losing consumers due to the hefty price tag of organic food, but the industry has struggled to maintain its integrity.

With organic feed prices at an all-time high, farmers in the UK are lobbying the government to temporarily relax organic feed standards to assist livestock producers who are currently paying twice as much for organic feed as they would conventional. In California, state investigators have discovered that California Liquid Fertilizer, an organic farming treatment, had been spiking its fertilizer with a synthetic product banned from organic farms. The tainted fertilizer infiltrated up to a third of the organic market, including produce giants such as Earthbound Farms, for up to seven years. Following the incident, investigations have begun into other organic fertilizer distributors in different states.

With these issues now in the spotlight, it's my feeling that consumers will be left confused about organic standards of quality, and distrustful of industry practices. Does this affect your preferences about shopping organic?

Source

With its affordable menu, fresh produce, and appetite-stimulating burritos, Mexican chain Chipotle can’t get any better. Or can it? Yesterday, the casual eatery announced that it has appointed Bill Niman, founder of sustainable farm Niman Ranch, as its sustainable agriculture advisor.

The fast food company, which has purchased naturally raised pork from Niman Ranch since 2001, hopes that the Niman appointment will allow Chipotle to “help carry our message of making food from sustainable sources available and affordable so everyone can eat better.” When he started Niman Ranch in 1971, Bill Niman blazed the trail for the sustainable farming movement in the United States. He took up farming with a focus on slow food principles of high-quality animal feed, natural, antibiotic- and hormone-free farming, and ethical animal care.

Are you surprised to learn of this news? Do you think that the pioneer, with his specialized focus on local agriculture, will be able to make an impact on the chain, which has more than 800 stores?

Source, Source

With President-Elect Barack Obama taking office in two months, changes to our country's economy, national security, and foreign policy are imminent. But will America's agricultural system change with Obama in the White House as well? In an interview last month with Time magazine's Joe Klein, Obama commented on a recent article in the New York Times written by Michael Pollan, the country's preeminent critic of modern factory agriculture, saying:

Our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the meantime, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs.

With Obama in the process of selecting new members for his administration, activists have begun circulating a petition for the new president to appoint Michael Pollan as the country's new Secretary of Agriculture. Do you agree with Obama's remarks that the country's food system is in need of reform? Do you believe this is the beginning of a new agricultural era for the United States?

Source

Yesterday, California passed the most far-reaching farm animal treatment measure to ever be placed on the ballot.

Proposition 2 passed with an estimated 62 percent of the vote in early returns and will affect 20 million farm animals in California, America's largest agricultural state. It requires farmers to give animals space to turn around, spread their wings, stand up, and lie down.

This ballot measure, which was sponsored by the Humane Society of America, goes into effect in 2015 and will entail, among other things, phasing out gestation crates for breeding pigs and veal cages for calves. Opponents, however, fear that the measure will actually bolster the market for cheaper, out-of-state agriculture where farmers aren't under the same regulations.

Did you vote on this measure? How do you feel about this animal rights victory? Do you think it sets an example for other states?

Source

Animal-rights activism group PETA has come out with yet another inflammatory campaign. This year, they kicked their off Halloween festivities a few weeks early: On Saturday, more than 100 people gathered outside a Herald Square KFC dressed as blood-drenched zombies, holding signs that said, "I'd rather be dead than eat at KFC!"

The protest was part of the Kentucky Fried Cruelty campaign, which addresses concerns about KFC suppliers' treatment of chickens on farms and slaughterhouses. "Even flesh-eating zombies have nothing on the Colonel's cruelty," says PETA's Dan Shannon. "We're urging consumers not to set foot inside a KFC restaurant until the company stops these abuses."

Did any of you see the protest? Do you consider it to be effective at sending an important message, or is it just another obnoxious PETA ploy?

Source