One of the things I believe I am just continually impressed with is the intricacy and understanding Joel Salatin has on farming including each combination with every part of his farm from the growth of his grass to the symbiotic relationships each seemingly separate animal possesses. The ideas he has to “mimic” nature when he says “that’s a symbiotic relationship we’re trying to imitate” really show his ideals of nature’s course for growth and feed concerning animals and plants (Pollin 211). I think that in some way the industrialized processing of livestock and food is put on humans’ terms, and we try to make a system out of nature to which we understand by having some kind of order or built process to exact each motion we have: “Industrial processes follow a clear, linear, hierarchical logic that is fairly easy to put into words” (Pollin 212). What many producers don’t understand is that nature does not operate by humans’ terms or by how we control aspects of our lives, and this ideal Joel has of letting run things based on “its” design proves an efficiency we can not produce ourselves. The system Salatin has is proved by the comparison between his “inputs” and the industrialized economy. He states that he saves “25 cents per dozen” on eggs he produces, and that he also saves feed costs by combining the efforts in his cattle and using the relationship between the two to cut costs of feed, pesticide (nearly none), seed, and many other ways we couldn’t begin to count (Pollin 211). He bounces back the ideas of efficiency and cost to the “large scale industrial farms” by showing that “technology and standardization” are not always so beneficial as you can see how they bring in input costs from around the globe like using imported fuel and feed when there is so much natural “fuel and feed” (ha) untapped in the ecosystems we don’t care to observe. word count: 325 1. Is there a realistic way to imitate nature in a mass production able to feed cities and countries using the same methods that Salatin uses? 2. If there is a way, how do we start those changes in an economy where 84% of our beef is owned by industrialized mass producers?
The key point in the Salatin’s entire plan is simplicity. This simplicity takes many forms, which involve letting the animals do what they were created and evolved to do. If chickens have evolved to pick through the manure of an herbivore’s feces, then that’s what he lets them do. I believe this simplistic natural approach is the cornerstone not only in pesticide disease free but disease free as well. Not only is this healthy for the animals, but it is indeed healthy for the consumer as well. By removing all of these unwanted chemicals from the food, we reduce the chance of food-borne illness and threat to the consumer. According to Joel, “One of the greatest assets of a farm is the ecstasy of life” (Pollen 225). Joel thrives and depends on the fact that the animals are acting they way they were meant to. They were just living life. This same type of natural healthy approach can be taken to our personal eating habits as well. Not only controlling what is in what we consume, but also controlling what we consume. A major problem plaguing our nation today is Type 2 diabetes. According to the Center for Disease Control, “Type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents already appears to be a sizable and growing problem among U.S. children and adolescents. Better physician awareness and monitoring of the disease’s magnitude will be necessary” (CDC). This believed to be “adult-onset” diabetes is affecting more individuals per year. According to Susan Brink, a writer for the Washington Post, “Diabetes can cause a litany of medical woes, including heart disease, kidney failure, limb amputations and blindness. It costs the U.S. health-care system $174 billion a year, according to the National Institutes of Health” (Brink). This is not only a health problem, but an economic problem as well. Many economists believe the current increase in diabetes will cripple our current health system. With this knowledge in mind, let us take an initiative and move toward giving ourselves a better, more natural and healthy diet. Word Count: 340
How do the methods employed by Salatin help him to maximize the efficiency of his ranch?
In this second chapter of “The Omnivores Dilemma”, Pollan describes the work of Joel Salatin on his chicken ranch, and the unique styles he uses to maximize the life of his cattle, as well as his chicken. Salatin uses a device called the “egg-mobile” in which he transports the chicken behind his cattle’s grazing areas, and allows the chicken to eat the protein out of the cow’s manure. As a result, this makes the chicken’s eggs taste much better, and it also rids the cow’s manure of many parasites and disease-causing agents. Pollan writes, “These birds do a more effective job of sanitizing the pasture than anything human, mechanical or chemical, and the chickens love doing it” (Pollan 212). Such a simple method would seem to be employed by other chicken farmers, but it does not seem to be used by very many farmers in the country. This method is a simulation of the symbiotic relationship between birds and cattle, and is an ingenuous method employed by Salatin. This method also prevents Salatin from having to hose his cattle down with parasiticide because most of the parasites are eaten by the chickens. Salatin also describes how the success of his farm is based on the simplification of the methods used on his ranch in order to maximize efficiency. Salatin believes that the simpler methods he uses, the more likely he is to be successful. Pollan writes, “Most of the efficiencies in an industrial system are achieved through simplification; doing lots of the same thing over and over. In agriculture, this usually means the monoculture of a single animal or crop” (Pollan 214). This is the reason Salatin uses chickens for many functions on his ranch, and he is able to maximize the efficiency of his farm and his cattle because of it. Although his methods seem to work, they are not widely used by other farmers around the country.
5 articles summary (I'm not sure where to post this, so I figured here was as good a place as any.)
Again and again in these articles, I see that schools are trying to change to healthier, more nutritious foods in the cafeteria and in vending machines, but they are met with some harsh noncompliance, opposition and criticism. However, it is more from the parents—complaining that sweets are a delight at birthday parties at schools (which I do not think they should be having at school anyway), and it is the parents’ responsibility to look after the children’s diet intake—than from the students themselves, who seem to be adapting to the new changes well. The parents think it is an infringement of their rights and freedoms. Yet, the schools are simply trying to make a positive (perhaps even life-saving) change in the kids’ lives. All the schools are feeling the push to be healthier because of the recent climb of childhood obesity. Although I do think the schools need to make certain changes to promote a healthy diet, one school’s attempt was a little too far, I think. One school in Chicago banned all packed lunches, forcing the kids to buy a school lunch or go hungry. This was in an effort to make the kids a healthy meal—for many seem to agree that when healthy and junk foods compete, junk always wins—without any outside, sugary competition, but for some, the lunch is not as healthy as the one they normally bring from home and for others, it is more expensive if they do not qualify for free or reduced lunches. However, the food in cafeterias are not always better—in one reporter found expired food being served in the Boston public schools. Nonetheless, problems like these must be brought to the public eye so that the social pressures that follow will force the companies or schools to fix the problems. I believe that the actions of replacing soda machines with bottled water, juice, or sports drinks and opting to bake foods instead of frying them are the necessary first steps in the right direction, even if they are wobbly and somewhat unsure. Realizing that schools have a large impact on a child’s diet in correlation with the rate of childhood obesity, there are many factors in play. The food industries must now supply the schools with healthy choices of snacks, such granola bars and baked chips; the school must infiltrate its old, frozen, greasy, fatty, fried kitchen foods with low-fat, nutritious, vitamin-packed options; and the parents must recognize their responsibility in controlling what their child eats. Many articles agreed that school districts should assume more responsibility for providing for their students’ nutrition, saying that simply complying with the meager, outdated USDA’s guidelines is not enough—those guidelines ban popsicles and lollipops but not candy bars and chips. Most encourage state legislatures to make better, higher nutrition standards for the schools, pushing for healthier, lower-fat foods in the absence of greasy competition.
Why didn’t we think of this before? Were we blinded by greed and maximizing profits?
Put simply, is this way of farming better and more efficient than the industrialized way?
I love how Pollan fundamentally conveys the same message as Schlosser but in the opposite way; he shows us how horrible the industrialization of the farming/food business of the fast food companies is by showing us how nearly perfect the “natural” farming is that operates in a fashion that is in stark contrast to that of the industries. He says that Polyface farm’s way of farming results in “little need for machinery, fertilizer, and…chemicals…no sanitation problem or any of the diseases that result from raising a single animal in a crowded monoculture and then feeding it things it wasn’t designed to eat” (221). This is an indirect attack on the meatpacking industry and their “sea” of livestock kept in unsanitary, inhumane, dirty/disease-prone conditions, caked in their own manure, eating food (or sometimes inedible things) they are not meant to eat. The fact that Joel’s way of farming does not require much machinery, chemicals, or antibiotics to fight disease is “an indication that his farm is functioning well” (221). It only seems logical to me that if we want to maximize the efficiency of a farm, we take advantage of nature’s tendencies. That’s why there is this cycle of cows, fly larvae, chickens, grass, in one circle of continuous life with no distinct beginning or end. It even appears to do more for the land than what an environmentalist could ever hope for, by intensively farming the land (209). It seems that a lot of the value of the Polyface farm is not measurable in “any spreadsheet in the world” (223). The majority of the benefits and value is not profit, but in “exploiting” nature to do what it does best and having the least amount of impact on the environment, which includes the land, the plants, the animals, the farmers, and the consumers.
One of the things I believe I am just continually impressed with is the intricacy and understanding Joel Salatin has on farming including each combination with every part of his farm from the growth of his grass to the symbiotic relationships each seemingly separate animal possesses. The ideas he has to “mimic” nature when he says “that’s a symbiotic relationship we’re trying to imitate” really show his ideals of nature’s course for growth and feed concerning animals and plants (Pollin 211). I think that in some way the industrialized processing of livestock and food is put on humans’ terms, and we try to make a system out of nature to which we understand by having some kind of order or built process to exact each motion we have: “Industrial processes follow a clear, linear, hierarchical logic that is fairly easy to put into words” (Pollin 212). What many producers don’t understand is that nature does not operate by humans’ terms or by how we control aspects of our lives, and this ideal Joel has of letting run things based on “its” design proves an efficiency we can not produce ourselves. The system Salatin has is proved by the comparison between his “inputs” and the industrialized economy. He states that he saves “25 cents per dozen” on eggs he produces, and that he also saves feed costs by combining the efforts in his cattle and using the relationship between the two to cut costs of feed, pesticide (nearly none), seed, and many other ways we couldn’t begin to count (Pollin 211). He bounces back the ideas of efficiency and cost to the “large scale industrial farms” by showing that “technology and standardization” are not always so beneficial as you can see how they bring in input costs from around the globe like using imported fuel and feed when there is so much natural “fuel and feed” (ha) untapped in the ecosystems we don’t care to observe. word count: 325
ReplyDelete1. Is there a realistic way to imitate nature in a mass production able to feed cities and countries using the same methods that Salatin uses?
2. If there is a way, how do we start those changes in an economy where 84% of our beef is owned by industrialized mass producers?
The key point in the Salatin’s entire plan is simplicity. This simplicity takes many forms, which involve letting the animals do what they were created and evolved to do. If chickens have evolved to pick through the manure of an herbivore’s feces, then that’s what he lets them do. I believe this simplistic natural approach is the cornerstone not only in pesticide disease free but disease free as well. Not only is this healthy for the animals, but it is indeed healthy for the consumer as well. By removing all of these unwanted chemicals from the food, we reduce the chance of food-borne illness and threat to the consumer. According to Joel, “One of the greatest assets of a farm is the ecstasy of life” (Pollen 225). Joel thrives and depends on the fact that the animals are acting they way they were meant to. They were just living life. This same type of natural healthy approach can be taken to our personal eating habits as well. Not only controlling what is in what we consume, but also controlling what we consume. A major problem plaguing our nation today is Type 2 diabetes. According to the Center for Disease Control, “Type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents already appears to be a sizable and growing problem among U.S. children and adolescents. Better physician awareness and monitoring of the disease’s magnitude will be necessary” (CDC). This believed to be “adult-onset” diabetes is affecting more individuals per year. According to Susan Brink, a writer for the Washington Post, “Diabetes can cause a litany of medical woes, including heart disease, kidney failure, limb amputations and blindness. It costs the U.S. health-care system $174 billion a year, according to the National Institutes of Health” (Brink). This is not only a health problem, but an economic problem as well. Many economists believe the current increase in diabetes will cripple our current health system. With this knowledge in mind, let us take an initiative and move toward giving ourselves a better, more natural and healthy diet.
ReplyDeleteWord Count: 340
How do the methods employed by Salatin help him to maximize the efficiency of his ranch?
ReplyDeleteIn this second chapter of “The Omnivores Dilemma”, Pollan describes the work of Joel Salatin on his chicken ranch, and the unique styles he uses to maximize the life of his cattle, as well as his chicken. Salatin uses a device called the “egg-mobile” in which he transports the chicken behind his cattle’s grazing areas, and allows the chicken to eat the protein out of the cow’s manure. As a result, this makes the chicken’s eggs taste much better, and it also rids the cow’s manure of many parasites and disease-causing agents. Pollan writes, “These birds do a more effective job of sanitizing the pasture than anything human, mechanical or chemical, and the chickens love doing it” (Pollan 212). Such a simple method would seem to be employed by other chicken farmers, but it does not seem to be used by very many farmers in the country. This method is a simulation of the symbiotic relationship between birds and cattle, and is an ingenuous method employed by Salatin. This method also prevents Salatin from having to hose his cattle down with parasiticide because most of the parasites are eaten by the chickens. Salatin also describes how the success of his farm is based on the simplification of the methods used on his ranch in order to maximize efficiency. Salatin believes that the simpler methods he uses, the more likely he is to be successful. Pollan writes, “Most of the efficiencies in an industrial system are achieved through simplification; doing lots of the same thing over and over. In agriculture, this usually means the monoculture of a single animal or crop” (Pollan 214). This is the reason Salatin uses chickens for many functions on his ranch, and he is able to maximize the efficiency of his farm and his cattle because of it. Although his methods seem to work, they are not widely used by other farmers around the country.
5 articles summary
ReplyDelete(I'm not sure where to post this, so I figured here was as good a place as any.)
Again and again in these articles, I see that schools are trying to change to healthier, more nutritious foods in the cafeteria and in vending machines, but they are met with some harsh noncompliance, opposition and criticism. However, it is more from the parents—complaining that sweets are a delight at birthday parties at schools (which I do not think they should be having at school anyway), and it is the parents’ responsibility to look after the children’s diet intake—than from the students themselves, who seem to be adapting to the new changes well. The parents think it is an infringement of their rights and freedoms. Yet, the schools are simply trying to make a positive (perhaps even life-saving) change in the kids’ lives. All the schools are feeling the push to be healthier because of the recent climb of childhood obesity.
Although I do think the schools need to make certain changes to promote a healthy diet, one school’s attempt was a little too far, I think. One school in Chicago banned all packed lunches, forcing the kids to buy a school lunch or go hungry. This was in an effort to make the kids a healthy meal—for many seem to agree that when healthy and junk foods compete, junk always wins—without any outside, sugary competition, but for some, the lunch is not as healthy as the one they normally bring from home and for others, it is more expensive if they do not qualify for free or reduced lunches. However, the food in cafeterias are not always better—in one reporter found expired food being served in the Boston public schools. Nonetheless, problems like these must be brought to the public eye so that the social pressures that follow will force the companies or schools to fix the problems. I believe that the actions of replacing soda machines with bottled water, juice, or sports drinks and opting to bake foods instead of frying them are the necessary first steps in the right direction, even if they are wobbly and somewhat unsure. Realizing that schools have a large impact on a child’s diet in correlation with the rate of childhood obesity, there are many factors in play. The food industries must now supply the schools with healthy choices of snacks, such granola bars and baked chips; the school must infiltrate its old, frozen, greasy, fatty, fried kitchen foods with low-fat, nutritious, vitamin-packed options; and the parents must recognize their responsibility in controlling what their child eats. Many articles agreed that school districts should assume more responsibility for providing for their students’ nutrition, saying that simply complying with the meager, outdated USDA’s guidelines is not enough—those guidelines ban popsicles and lollipops but not candy bars and chips. Most encourage state legislatures to make better, higher nutrition standards for the schools, pushing for healthier, lower-fat foods in the absence of greasy competition.
Word Count: 485
Why didn’t we think of this before? Were we blinded by greed and maximizing profits?
ReplyDeletePut simply, is this way of farming better and more efficient than the industrialized way?
I love how Pollan fundamentally conveys the same message as Schlosser but in the opposite way; he shows us how horrible the industrialization of the farming/food business of the fast food companies is by showing us how nearly perfect the “natural” farming is that operates in a fashion that is in stark contrast to that of the industries. He says that Polyface farm’s way of farming results in “little need for machinery, fertilizer, and…chemicals…no sanitation problem or any of the diseases that result from raising a single animal in a crowded monoculture and then feeding it things it wasn’t designed to eat” (221). This is an indirect attack on the meatpacking industry and their “sea” of livestock kept in unsanitary, inhumane, dirty/disease-prone conditions, caked in their own manure, eating food (or sometimes inedible things) they are not meant to eat. The fact that Joel’s way of farming does not require much machinery, chemicals, or antibiotics to fight disease is “an indication that his farm is functioning well” (221). It only seems logical to me that if we want to maximize the efficiency of a farm, we take advantage of nature’s tendencies. That’s why there is this cycle of cows, fly larvae, chickens, grass, in one circle of continuous life with no distinct beginning or end. It even appears to do more for the land than what an environmentalist could ever hope for, by intensively farming the land (209). It seems that a lot of the value of the Polyface farm is not measurable in “any spreadsheet in the world” (223). The majority of the benefits and value is not profit, but in “exploiting” nature to do what it does best and having the least amount of impact on the environment, which includes the land, the plants, the animals, the farmers, and the consumers.
Word Count: 303