I have it on right now. Very exciting, especially that they're showing you wild apples in Kazakhstan.

Bass

Tivo-ing it right now!
-Glenn

I've been waiting for this since i saw the previews.. Looks nice in HD... I'm a slave to my fruit trees!

Enjoyed the sections on apples, tulips and potatoes. Never thought much of the other cultivated species mentioned though I appreciate the scientific research that has been done on it.

Michael

I thought the show was EXCELLENT. Very interesting stuff in there.

Great show.

Another great book / audio book by him. Get it from your library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omnivore%27s_Dilemma

Omnivores Dilemma was how I first learned about grass fed beef. But alas, nothing local with grass fed for me...nor could I afford to eat it anyway if it was available.

Another in his series. I like OD better myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Food

Well I hate to throw cold water, but I found the show irritating. Don't misunderstand, I was glued to the show, but not because there was anything revelatory, but because I love fruit growing, and there is so little about it on TV.

The idea that our agricultural problems could largely be prevented if we'd just ditch monoculture is misleading.

Pollan uses the Irish potato famine as an example. However, the truth is there are no varieties fully resistant to late blight, and only a few with some resistance. So if the Irish people would have planted different potato varieties, they still would have been wiped out, and a million people would still have starved to death.

Similarly, he showcases a potato farmer who has supposedly overcome his dependence on pesticides, how? By planting different potato varieties, and turning loose lady bugs. Wow, I wish I had thought of that!

Give me a break, the Colorado potato beetle will attack any non-GMO potato variety, and lady bugs won't do a thing to stop it.

This idea of "working with nature, instead of against it", as outlined by some of these purists, is a pipe dream. Yes, cultivation requires nature (sunshine, rain, bees, etc) but this idea we can trick nature into fighting itself and make us beneficiaries of it's gifts, is way over-blown. Nature has always been tooth and claw and mankind has had to fight for survival like every other creature. It's only since the advent of industrial farming that our bellies have been so full, we've forgotten that struggle.

Here is a rejoinder of Pollan's book, "The Omnivore's Delima"

The article was written by someone with actual farming experience, it's titled "The Omnivore's Delusion"

Here is a link that might be useful: The Ominvore's Delusion

Olpea, I think you're giving Poulen a pretty tough rap. He is not an advocate of purist organic orthodoxy- just sustainability. The merging of modern chemistry and agriculture is one thing, but when you mix in cooperate models of short term profitability there are some very big problems. Groundwater and estuary contamination are just the start of a long list that also includes soil degradation.

Small farms are actually in themselves more productive and efficient per acre than huge farms, but problems of distribution as well as less political clout renders their products costlier. Government subsidies tend to go to those who subsidize the politicians. The Amish are a pretty good example of a kind of stewardship that leads to sustainability.

Methinks this may end up as a very long thread, too bad my lunch break is over.

Gotta go,

Michael

While overall I thought the show was great and I am mostly in agreement with Pollans positions, I do think olpea is right about the diversity relative to the potato famine issue. In particular, growing diverse crops together can in fact be a handicap because if one is highly susceptible to a disease it can be where the disease gets a toe-hold, and then with a huge infestation it will be able to spread to the more resistant varieties that would otherwise not have gotten it. I have seen this happen many times in my orchard. There are some very important reasons to have a diverse gene pool (and the example of potatoes for different microclimates in the Andes that they talked about was a great example), but growing many varieties side by side on a uniform Idaho plain is not in my mind going to have any big production advantage over one good variety and could be worse.

On the more general topic, there is a general delusion I have run into many times that somehow if you just "do it the natural way" and throw out a few ladybugs and some compost, all the pests are going to just say "uncle" and go somewhere else, and I thought this show helped propagate this myth a bit by oversimplifying (my #1 complaint about Pollan is that he often oversimplifies). I am a big fan of natural farming, but NOT because it is easy; it is a much bigger challenge than conventional farming. The most recent lesson I learned this last year is the importance of composting a LOT. My blueberries were pretty wimpy the previous summer and I started dumping leftover apple pressings on some of them the previous fall, not because I was trying to help the plants but because the blueberry bushes were closer than the woods where I normally dump 'em. Well, the berries that got this apple compost did extremely well and produced by far my best blueberry crop ever this last summer. Lesson learned! I am going to be putting a lot more compost on all my fruit trees from now on. They have always been getting compost, but at least for my blueberries it was not enough.

Scott

I found the show both irritating and interesting. It got off to an irritating start, as I thought they overdid the anthropomorphizing of the plants, to the point of being hokey.

Once they got into the history of apple cultivation, it got very interesting. Seeing some footage of apple forests was way cool, as was the apple collection at....Cornell?

The Tulip mania story was engaging, and the story of finding the THC receptors and the subsequent research was understandably superficial, but interesting nonetheless.

The marijuana segment was also interesting for the discussion of different intoxicants, and how almost every society has one or two accepted intoxicants and considers the others taboo, but different societies accept different intoxicants. However, I thought that the use of children making themselves dizzy and people riding roller coasters as examples of "mind altering experiences" was a stretch. It blurs the line between "mind altering experience" and "experience".

Reading the previews, I didn't get how potato represented man's desire for control. It turns out he is talking about control over starving. I don't think that idea works as well as the tulip/beauty and marijuana/intoxication paradigms, and made the whole thing seem forced. Even the apple/sweetness was not very convincing, since he spent so much time talking about how most of the apples grown in the early history of this country were not at all sweet, and used to make hard cider.

Perhaps it was just the editing, but the representative from the union of concerned scientists bothered me, especially when she said that GMO potatoes offered no benefit to the consumer (reduced pesticides anyone?). A large portion of the potato segment really didn't fit with the rest of the show as it seemed to be an excuse to criticize GMO technology and cheer on organic practices in an oversimplified way, as Olpea pointed out.

In short, each segment was interesting, but I thought the execution of the overall premise fell flat (looking at things from the plants' point of view/plants are controlling us)

Alex

I would like to qualify my remark about the Amish. I'm not suggesting that their rejection of modernity is necessary for a sustainable model. I just used them because there farms tend to be very productive and the quality of the land and soil is maintained from one generation to the next.

I have heard Michael Poulen speak and have read many of his articles and he is not an advocate of an exclusively organic agriculture. His big push is about buying local and supporting local agriculture, be it organic or conventional.

The man who wrote the article that Olpea recommended seemed to be spouting out against the same organibabble that I often complain about, but it has nothing to do with Poulens overall perspective as I hear him. Didn't watch the show though.

Nature has always been tooth and claw and mankind has had to fight for survival like every other creature. It's only since the advent of industrial farming that our bellies have been so full, we've forgotten that struggle....

Well, you are right there.

No easy answers. We have gone against nature with our population explosion so must work against it with artificial means to feed the masses.

But our food quality has declined over the years as a byproduct of going against nature.

As far as diversity. If I didn't diversify some of my foods would not come through. So I use the shotgun approach. Maybe not that good for a pro farmer, but it saves the day at my house.

Some good comments by everyone.

Hman, while I agree with some of what you're saying in principle, I may differ on some of the specifics.

Namely, I'm not certain Amish ground is all that more productive than those that farm conventionally. I know you live where there are a lot of Amish folk, and they have a reputation of being outstanding farmers, but I wonder if their reputation exceeds its worth.

The reason I say that is that although I've no experience with the Amish, I do have experience with the Mennonites. They too, have a reputation as very good farmers. Indeed most have a strong work ethic. However, I used to examine their production records (pig farmers) and while, on average their production was above the mean, it was only slightly so. That improvement seemed to be dependent upon cheap labor (their large bunches of children). In the whole scope of things I'm not sure that agricultural model is the best for the planet (meaning the huge volume of people already on the planet).

But like I say, I've little knowledge of the Amish, and even less of their specific farming practices. I will say that there are commercial corn growers getting over 300 bushel/acre, which is very productive indeed. One may think that kind of production is burning out the ground, but it doesn't appear to be so. I've seen some of that good corn ground in IL. It's been farmed for decades and decades, and still the richest looking black stuff you ever saw. I think part of the key is that the land was flat, so in the years where tillage farming was the rule, none of that good stuff was ever washed away. Probably the biggest threat to it is urban encroachment gobbling up that prime land.

Keepitlow,

Well said. However, I might take issue with the the part that our food quality has declined. This is pretty hard to discuss objectively though, because the word "quality" is so subjective. Additionally, it also depends on what years are being discussed. I'm just about through reading a different kind of American history book. It's the first book of it's kind that I've read. Most history books examine the "important" events of history (i.e. Revolutionary war, Civil war, etc.) and spend little time discussing the day to day lives of ordinary citizens. This book is the opposite. It's spends almost all of it's time discussing daily life, and ignores the "major" events. What I'm coming away with reading this book, is the profound struggle to survive before, and during the early part of the industrial age. This idea of southern plantations with abundance, defining the way of life was not the reality for the most folk. Before the modern industrial age the average American life span was amazingly low, largely due to inadequate and poor food quality.

Even in somewhat later times, the food quality has seemed to improve. I remember hearing former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz speak. He gave examples of how food quality had increased since he was a kid (no worms in cereal, no worms in apples). I once read Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle" about the meat packing industry in the early 1900s (actually I didn't finish it, it made me too sad. I may go back and finish it some day). Anyway, that book described conditions of meat packing as so bad, that reportedly Roosevelt was reading the book at his breakfast, and spit a mouthful of sausage across the table. From that book came the rigorous meat packing inspections we have today.

This is getting a little long. Better stop here.

Olpea, I simply chose the Amish as an example because of the multigenerational approach and success of their model in the context of sustainable ag.

I once had an online debate with a very knowledgeable organic market gardener, suggesting to her that organic orthodoxy could lead to diminshing production worldwide- particularly with the abandonment of synthetic fertilizers. She did a very good job of coming up with contradicting data. While trying to enforce my point with some other data I found a body of very convincing research that showed the overall greater productivity in terms of yealds per acre and input to output of smaller multi-product farms. In other words livestock mixed with various vegetable production including grains.

This kind of farming cycles land usage in ways that results in relatively low negative environmental impact. I believe the reason this production ends up with a costlier product is the advantage of monoculture in dealing with processing and distribution which will always be cheaper when done on a large scale. Huge government subsidies don't hurt either.

I'm glad that many small farmers in my state are getting around the distribution issue by selling directly to customers at farmers markets, keeping some of them in business and providing me with much tastier meats and dairy products (I grow most of my vegetables except in winter). Taste wise, industrial American poultry, dairy and many meats are really inferior to what much of the rest of the world eats IMO. Ours is cheap.

I also don't like the centralized food production model for how it can lead to the destruction of a lot of farm land in my own state. I think most people want to see their local agriculture continued.

If you believe that conventional agriculture is doing an adequate job of holding down topsoil I suggest you check out Wes Jackson's "New Roots for Agriculture".

Your point about large families making farms more productive is interesting. I have suggested in other discussions that organic farming encourages a large family model as well- not here but in Mexico and further south where much of industrial organic farm labor comes from. Not that conventional farming doesn't use a lot of unskilled labor as well, but organic methods require a much higher ratio in terms of yeald per manhour.

Hman,

I'm not sure what's set you off. You mentioned Amish in two of your posts, I simply responded to it.

Although I value your vast fruit experience, it appears I disagree with your view on modern ag.

I don't need to read a book by Wes Jackson, I've personally seen how no-till can build the soil, on my own farm.

I've no idea where your coming from with regard to farm subsides. They are not means tested. It's not the big producers that get them. Actually, there are very few subsidies left. Row croppers get a small subsidy. As a former pig farmer, I can say pig farmers don't receive any direct subsidies (yes, the above mentioned row-crop farmers receive a small subsidy, and that may have a marginal effect lowering grain prices, but there are no direct subsidies for pig farmers). Then there is CRP, where farmers are paid to not farm "high risk" land. I suppose we could just legislate that they not farm it, essentially taking the land use from them. It wouldn't be the first time land was confiscated. I hear about tax credit and tax deduction subsidies all the time. In my opinion, farmers are unfairly singled out. Personally, I wish the government would get out of the business of trying to control behavior (farming and otherwise) by offering subsidies/incentives.

I'm all for small farms, if folks can make them work. Heck, I'm trying to make it work right now. But the continual trend toward larger and larger farms is not driven by subsidies, nor primarily by distribution chains. The local elevator I sold some of my grain to, would buy one truckload or ten semi's, same price. The reason farms have gotten bigger and bigger is that economies of scale are much more powerful than people realize. And economies of scale are a good measure of efficiency. They measure the amount of inputs per a given amount of output. It's not a pretty reality, and it's taken me a while to really grasp it, but it's true. Like I say, I wish efficiency was solely based on the relative merits of the individual farmer, but the reality is economies of scale make a significant difference. It's not anybody's fault, it's just the way it is. The shrewd farmers who have stayed in business have been the ones who have gotten bigger.

"...Well said. However, I might take issue with the the part that our food quality has declined. This is pretty hard to discuss objectively though, because the word "quality" is so subjective...."

I just look at the store bought peaches and nectarines in my local. No smell, hard as rocks, no fuzz and they get moldy before they ever ripen. Apricots are like rubber and no smell. Apples mealy as hell. Plums tasteless or mealy.

The corn is all GMO and bothers my gut if I eat it. It is tough as hell. There is very little wild fish in the stores, it is all farm raised crap. The sweet potatoes are poor quality. When I had some organic one these tasted like night to day compared to commercial stuff.

Just s few to name few. A study that said the food nowadays is not as nutritional as the old timers food. Sorry I don't have a link. maybe it was in Mother Earth News?

This about sums it up....Green Giant store bought red vs home grown KB both 6 to 7 moths old. I tested various batches from 3 locals, about 40 pounds worth and all the same result.

{{gwi:67208}}

The Green Giant all rotted before they ever would sprout.

Olpea, I'm not talking about your farm and I probably shouldn't get involved in another debate here on a subject that I'm only marginally informed about. It would take too much time to do the research although I have read repeatedly about subsidies for corn farmers helping to create a glut of products consisting of high amounts of corn sweetners.

Essentially I am just expressing my support of Michael Poulen's effort to get people who can afford it to buy from local producers as much as possible and to get to know the people who produce their food.

Americans buy a lot of stuff they don't need and eat a lot of really poor food and if there is a trend to spend some more money on food that actually tastes good, whether it's local tree ripened fruit, local fresh vegetables, or local eggs from chickens that have more than grain in their diet, you know, true free range chickens that lay eggs with orange yokes instead of pale yellow, well that's a good thing in my book.

I don't understand why someone like you (who appreciates the pleasure of those kinds of products- at least the fruit part) wouldn't run more with that part of Micheal Poulen's message. That's really all I'm trying to say and the end of my comments on the subject.

This too will be my last word on this thread.

Keepitlow,

I agree the quality of today's grocer produce is inferior. But when has grocery produce ever been high quality? Before the advent of modern transportation and grocer produce, people just did without most of the year.

I can't comment on how GMO corn personally affects your digestion, as I don't have your constitution, but I suspect the ears were tough because they were picked too late or stored too long.

I know a guy who sells a lot of corn through a local farmer's market. I can't think he would be successful this long without lots of repeat customers. All his corn is GM.

My point is, today there are more options than ever (Organic, local, grocer fruit year round). I can get good quality strawberries from the grocer at least a month earlier than mine ripen. This morning I had some excellent cereal for breakfast. It had a mixture of pecans, grains, honey, sugar, and fortified with vitamins. This cereal wouldn't have been available even ten years ago. All I'm saying is that considering all the options, availability, and the extremely small financial burden, our food supply is the best in the history of the U.S.

Hman,

I think I know who your debate was with, if it's a certain Nafex lady. As you know, she's on the far extreme of the organic movement. I suspect information she recommends to you will not have any semblance of balance.

"I agree the quality of today's grocer produce is inferior. But when has grocery produce ever been high quality? Before the advent of modern transportation and grocer produce, people just did without most of the year."

Well, I can't comment on all that history as I am not that old. I'm 55 so only go back so far. But here is my experience.

I was a fruitarian for 1 year, a vegan for 15 years, a lacto ovo vegetarian for 5 years and for the last 20 years an omnivore, but still eat about 80% of my diet with fruits and veggies.

Even though I am pretty ignorant about growing fruit, I was a discriminating fruit eater. For instance, I would not just eat the store bought dates. But seeked out exotics such as Empress, Halawy, Khadry, Bread Dates, Medjol as well as the garden variety Degletnoor. Of course this was when I lived on the border of AZ. And if I was lucky enough to travel, it was sapotes, cherimoyas, mangosteins, etc.

And the peaches were spectacular back then. White Babcock peaches and fragrant apricots. And the honeydew and other melons used to perfume the whole room with a fragrance that you could not believe. At least this was how it was in the mid 1970's.

Now the store bought melons taste like soap! And for fragrance -NOTHING! The Medjols I order UPS are kind of fermenty and lower grade than a decade ago and this is direct from the orchard and I am ordering top quality for dates!

I think as the old time growers die off, so it goes with the old time fruit quality.

In case anyone missed the PBS special The Botany of Desire which premiered Wednesday, October 28, 2009, you can still watch the entire program online. It's incredible.

BOTANY OF DESIRE is a documentary which tells the utterly original story of everyday plants and the way they have domesticated humankind. An interpretation of the relationship between plants and people. This two-hour documentary explores plant evolution and takes viewers from the potato fields of Peru and Idaho, the apple forests of Kazakhstan, and the tulip markets of Amsterdam.

View online in it's entirety: here

This is another related program by the same presenter on LINK TV (a cable access channel) which is timely:

Deep Agriculture
Traditional methods of agriculture in most developed nations have long ignored environmental concerns. Factors such as soil erosion, water shortage and the impact of chemicals on bio-systems have been overlooked in favour of massive crop yields and cheaper food. But what impact does this have on our health and our environment?

View online in it's entirety: here