Oats in the Morning

This was a photograph from a week ago at our property in the early morning, showing the oats that are currently planted and ripening.  I find it peaceful and idyllic.

Peaceful.  Engenders thoughts.  Direction.  Hope.

Acres USA - Finding the Outstanding Periodical at Barnes & Noble

Through the years, with my dabbling in trying to understand the path to sustainable food production techniques, I often found myself in various libraries, in obscure agricultural sections.  I read Mother Earth News and Countryside & Small Stock Journal.  I read writings from agricultural professors from the late 19th and early 20th century.  I read Rodale publications that ranged from Organic Gardening and Farming to books commissioned by Rodale.  Over and over again, I found approaches to agriculture and food production that I would call intuitive and experiential, if not empirical, but they also carried a taint of dogmatic certainty, if not a religious fervor.  When asking the question of "Why?", the answer would be something like, "Because! That is how it happens in nature."  More often than not the description of something that happens in nature failed to comprehend what actually happened in nature, but was simply a reiteration of something that some supposed guru of natural farming had said.  That said, the intuitive descriptions held truth and that truth drew me in.  The questions I had were about why something was true or maybe why did it look true, when in reality, it was a correlation, not a truth.  What's a wannabe natural farmer to do?

Another of my vices was taking an occassional break to wander through Barnes & Noble, usually to look at books on gardening, farming, livestock, maybe woodworking, or something else.  These visits were usually just a break from a busy day, with my leaving having relaxed and not spent a dime.

On one of my visits to Barnes and Noble in the mid-90's, I was walking through the periodical section, hoping to find something different than Mother Earth News.  Perhaps a revival of the defunked Rodale Organic Gardening?  Something else?  My eye was drawn to a farming periodical, Acres USA.  "How odd," I thought.  There are no other farming periodicals at Barnes & Noble, not even the popular Hoard's Dairyman.  I picked up the Acres USA and started thumbing through it.  My reaction was one of astonishment.  I saw things like: optimal nitrogen levels through legumes and carbon decomposion; balanced soils lead to higher protein and mineral content of vegetables and forage; milk from grass-fed cows has higher CLA content; laying hens following cows on pasture reduce fly populations by 83%.  You get the idea.

I snatched up a copy of the periodical, kind of like a mini-newspaper.  I took it home and read it and found that the content had not only the intuitive flavor of other publications that I liked, but also, sound science and research that my really answered the "Why?" questions that I had.  I subscribed to the publication immediately.  I have been more or less a constant subscriber for the past 20 years.  Not only does the periodical provide timely, new developments, it preserves lines of research that have been set aside as the vast majority of research funding in university agricultural programs currently comes from large agribusiness firms like Monsanto, Carghill, Tyson, Land O' Lakes, Purina, etc.  These older lines of research receive scant attention now because of funding and publication opportunities, but they remain just as valid today as they were 50 years ago.  While I do occassionally find things with which I disagree, the publication is not fanatical in its fervor about specific techniques or practices.  Not only does it outline sound science, but it explores topics and approaches that may be considered early research stage, unfunded research, speculative, even metaphysical.  But these things are made clear and are not communicated as a given truth, just because.

 As I became immersed in the periodical, I found that they had all kinds of books available, published by themselves as well as others.  The books generally spanned the range of topics available in the magazine, but in much more depth.  Over the years, I have purchased probably over 100 books from Acres, directly or indirectly.  Today I am reading a book by author Jerry Brunetti, called The Farm as Ecosystem.  As with the articles, the range of books, DVD's, and seminars available from Acres spans timely scientific, pragmatic, historical (yet current), and speculative.

Acres has become a primary source of information for me in my quest to understand and develop mental systems and models related to sustainable, renewable, regenerative agriculture that provides optimally nutrient dense foods in an efficient, reliable manner.

Just in case you can't tell, I like Acres USA.  If you have interest in this topic, you are sure to find things of interest at Acres, whether you subscribe to the periodical, or pick up a book to read.  I'll delve deeper into key specific issues learned from Acres in upcoming blog posts.

Stockman Grass Farmer Continued - Health Benefits

Ask yourself, "What was the diet of our ancestors in years gone by?"  Ask yourself, "How closely does what we eat today resemble what our ancestors ate?"  Depending on how far back in history you go, there is quickly a convergence to a few basic things: game, vegetables, seasonal fruits, eggs, and in some cultures whole grains and raw dairy products from animals not kept in confinement (today's conventional farming methodology).  Our ancestors thrived on those basic things.  The foods we eat today diverge sharply from the foods of our ancestors.  The Stockman Grass Farmer highlights some important ways in which the foods we eat today diverge from the diets of our ancestors and the health impact of the different foods we eat today vs. those that our ancestors ate.  The way in which our bodies operate and the nutrient requirements of our bodies have not changed appreciably over the last millenia or so, yet the food we consume to fuel our bodies has in fact changed markedly.

The Stockman Grass Farmer has highlighted work done by a variety of researchers and researcher authors regarding the impact to our foods related to managing animals on pasture vs. what is now considered conventional methods of animal rearing.  Interestingly, these "conventional" methods have only been conventional for the last 50-70 years.  Before them, those methods would have been considered unconventional or fadish, or perhaps, "new-fangled," depending on with whom you spoke.

Let's consider a few representative animal products.  First, let's talk about chickens.  Historically, chickens were fundamental to a diversified farm.  The chickens free-ranged.  They ate bugs, grass, worms, weed seeds, occassional rodents or small snakes, rotten fruit, kitchen scraps, and the occassional handful of grain tossed out by the farming family.  Chickens largely fed themselves.  They worked on the farm by minimizing pest pressure and cleaning up things that would have otherwise gone to waste.  I chuckle everytime I see a carton of eggs at the store that says, "100% Vegetarian Feed."  Seriously?  Anyone who has had chickens knows that chickens are not vegetarians.  How in the world it could be considered a good thing to feed an omnivore a vegetarian diet is beyond me.  The chickens got out, exercised, had a broadly varied and nutritional diet.  What about the animal products that humans eat that resulted from that chicken diet?  Eggs and meat are the primary products.

Have you ever seen a fresh, free-range chicken egg compared to a store bought egg?

Store bought on the left, free-range on the right

Eggs from chickens with access to fresh grass are dramatically different from eggs from caged layers fed a mixture of soy, corn, and a few minerals on a feed conveyor belt in a totally enclosed, climate controlled factory egg farm.  A few years ago The Mother Earth News commissioned a study that compared eggs from free-range hens to conventionally raised and confined hens.  Let's just say that the eggs have some stark differences, including vastly higher beta carotene, vitamin D, omega 3 fats, retinol, etc.  Additionally, the taste is much richer.  Baked goods baked with free-range eggs are better formed - from many bakers in the kitchen at my house.

Currently, in the U. S. the per capital consumption of chicken is about 90 pounds.  That is a ratio that is unprecedented.  Historically, excess roosters were eaten as "fryers" or broilers and old hens, past productive laying years, were eaten as chicken stew or chicken soup.  Per capita consumption of chicken was 5-10 pounds 100 years ago.  That is no longer the case.  Historically, all of those good things that were in the free-range eggs were found in the meat of the free range chickens, which similarly, is a far cry from the factory raised meat chickens of today.  Today's conventional meat chickens eat a diet that is largely based on corn and soybeans.  But meat chickens can successfully be raised on grass and gain the same nutritional benefits of the free-range chickens of yore.  These pasture raised chickens have access to grass, bugs, worms, sunlight, fresh air, etc., that help to build a more healthy nutrient profile in their meat.

What about grass-fed beef?  Animals raised soley on mother's milk as young calves and grass for the remainder of life have a vastly different nutrient profile to their meat that animal raised on the range for 2/3 of their lives then corralled in a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) for the last 1/3 and feed an unnatural diet of corn, a little hay, corn silage, more corn, bakery waste, more corn, brewer's spent grain, sodium bicarbonate (to offset the extreme acid stomach conditions caused by the corn), hormone implants, rendered fat, and a few minerals.  To be clear, the diet that beef animals receive in a CAFO would be analogous to a human being fed a daily diet of four dozen doughnuts, a small ham sandwich, a serving of broccoli, and going on female hormone replacement therapy, whether male or female, intact or not.  Large game animals, such as deer and elk have an omega 6/3 ration of somewhere between 1/1 and 2/1.  Grass fed beef has a similar omega 6/3 ratio.  CAFO fed beef has an omega 6/3 ratio of about 20/1.  Is that bad?  An imbalanced ratio will lead to inflammation in the human body leading to heart disease, dementia, arthritis, some cancers, diabetes, and a host of other ailments.  Grass fed beef (and dairy products) also is high in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) which prevents cancer and can stall or even reverse it in some cases.  Grass-fed beef is high in beta carotene, retinol, vitamin D and other nutrients contained in low levels for conventionally raised beef.

Other pasture raised animal products that provide humans benefits are wide and varied.  Omivores that pass along similar benefits as chickens include turkey, duck, guinea hen, and pigs.  Ruminants benefit the most from being pasture raised.  In addition to beef cattle, sheep, goats used for meat pass along the same benefits.  Additionally ruminants kept for dairy products pass along the same benefits in their dairy products.  Although there may have been other confounding factors in the study, Dr. Weston Price documented the clear seasonal decline in heart related deaths that corresponded to the spring time fresh supply of grass-fed butter in the U. S. back in the 1930's.

Grass-fed butter on left, conventional confinement butter on right

While books could be written on the health benefits of pasture and grass to both animals and humans consuming animal products (and they have), a clear, concise, well-written summary of benefits may be found in an article written by Jo Robinson, Health Benefits of Grass-Fed Products.

I would also say that as a side benefit, just seeing animals out on pasture provides health benefits.  Pastured animals provide and idyllic scenery that causes peace and contentment....  I may only be speaking for myself.  I will let you be the judge of that....

BREAKING NEWS! - I Interupt This Irregularly Scheduled Blog

It is with some excitement, trepidation, relief, joy, and a few other miscellaneous emotions that I interupt this irregularly scheduled blog to announce that "the farm" deal has been closed.  Michelle and I are now the official owners of 5.4 acres, just north of Cornelius, Oregon.

The property is on the left half of the photo, gently rolling off to the south.

The property is relatively long and narrow, about 900 feet by 270 feet.  The long axis is east to west.  The short axis is north to south.  The southern edge borders Council Creek, a small creek with wetland characteristics on the edge.  The creek area is treed, as is the southern border of the property.  The property is located in what is called a "Rural Reserve" from the Metro area planning committees.  It was designated rural reserve in 2015.  Once an area is designated Rural Reserve, it cannot be changed for 50 years.  That means that no one can build subdivisions or subdivide their properties and build new houses.  In other words we cannot be directly subjected to encroaching suburbia in that time frame.  A tiny portion of the southern edge falls within the 100 year flood zone, although the big floods of 1996 did not encroach on the property at all.

The property is currently being farmed by a long-time share-cropping tenant farmer.  He farms other adjoining properties in the immediate area.  He will continue this year as we work on house and farm designs.

We don't know exactly where the house will be located.  The exact location will be dependent on a few things, including a long visit down at the county planning office to determine exactly what our options are.  That said, the photos shown below represent an approximate location of a house and the directional views from that spot.

Looking directly south from possible house location

The house siting is a primary consideration, but we need to take into account driveway location, septic field location, shop location, and small barn location as part of the decision process.

Along the southern edge, which is treed, I had thought about placing a sitting bench or two and maybe a picnic table or two for eating lunch, chatting, and observing nature in what would effectively be a private park.

Looking southwest from possible house location

The house design process will give us some time to observe the property and to apply what is often considered a basic Permaculture principle of "observe and interact."  This will provide a chance to observe the property and what happens through the different seasons.  Such observations can and will impact how we determine we will use the whole of the property.  There are questions about where the barn will go and where the kitchen garden and the production gardens will go.  How about the small fruit orchard?  Where will that go?  Root cellar?  Permanent pasture?  Rotating production areas?  Greenhouse?  Water catchment?  Chicken coop?  Compost piles?  Woodshed?

Looking west from possible house location

Where does the fire pit go in the backyard?  How about play equipment for grandchildren and visitors?  How about play equipment for me?

Looking northwest from possible house location

If you look at the property descriptions, it says the views are "territorial."  I take that to mean that they are pleasant countryside views, but not views of grandeur as you may get from a mountain top property.  In walking the property with Hunter, several times he said, "Stop, listen!"  What did we hear?  Rustling trees, birds and the sweet sounds of nothingness: no cars, no horns honking, no sirens.

Looking directly north from possible house location

Some of the views may require some strategic landscaping, but that is all part of the fun.  

I have met the neighbor to the north and to the east.  To the north is an independent entrepeneurial machinist, a very nice guy.  Across the street to the east is a retired "car buff" couple, who keep an immaculate yard.  There is a neighbor to the southeast, but I have yet to meet the family.  There are no neighbors directly to the west, although there is the possibility of one house being build on that property at some point in the future.

Looking northeast from possible house location

The neighbor to the north has a garden and a few fruit trees.  I will have to figure out how to establish fruit trees and berry bushes without the neighboring black tail deer population stopping by for a meal of fresh leaves, twigs, and stems.

Looking east, towards the road, from possible house location

The rolling nature of the property provides a lot of interesting options as well as some challenges.  It will be part of the fun of the property, but I expect there will be frustrations as well.

Looking southeast from possible house location

There is lots to learn and lots to do.  I look forward to it with the hopes and dreams built through life.  A couple of ideas expressed by Thoreau seem relevant at this time.  He said, "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams.  Live the life you have imagined."   I also take some caution from another quote from Thoreau, "The youth gets together his materials to build a bridge to the moon, or, perchance, a palace or temple on the earth, and at length the middle-aged man concludes to built a wood-shed with them."  I am hoping age, learning, and perspective may have moved me away from ideas of grandeur such as building a bridge to the moon.  However, I hope that same set of experiences has not made me so cynical that the only thing I could imagine is building a wood-shed.  But the idea of a well-designed and well-built wood-shed is really quite exciting..., my age is showing.

Next blog will return to the regularly scheduled program, including further analysis of the Stockman Grass Farmer.

Finding The Stockman Grass Farmer Periodical - Rawl Was Right, I Was Wrong

Somewhere in the mid-90's, I came across a farmsy sort of publication called, The Stockman Grass Farmer.  At that point in time, one of the basic lures used to reel people in was the notion that a farmer could graze animals during the Spring through Fall, then take the winter off to vacation, yet still make more money than a farmer who cared for his/her animals year around.  Since my dairy farmer boss, Rawl, used grazing as a method to feed his cows, and he had received an award for it, my interest was piqued.

I recall as a relatively well-read teenager that I questioned Rawls methods.  I thought his cows were underperforming to their potential.  At the time, his herd average annual production was about 14,500 pounds of milk.  Other Holstein herds had production rates in the 17,000 to 18,000 pounds per year at that time.  In my naivette, I was ignoring several critical factors.  The first was cost.  Rawl told me that he made almost all of his money during the grazing season and broke even during the non-grazing season.  He didn't have to pay anyone for the grass that the cows harvested themselves.  He didn't have to hire labor to have his cows graze his grass.  His machinery investment was nominal related to managing his pastures.  Grazing was just plain cost-effective.

Second, Rawl's cows did not get burned out from being pushed to produce fantastical amounts of milk.  His cows lived longer.  His cows lived better.  Because his cows lived longer, he could occassionally sell excess replacement heifers (young cows who have not yet had a calf) to other dairy farmers.  Other dairy farmers were always buying heifers because their cows were being burned out, getting sick, could not rebreed, or dying.  Grazing provided the perfect feed for cows and gave the cows exercise that they critically needed.  Confinement cows receive almost no exercise and are fed on stored feeds year around.  Grazing was just plain healthier for the cows.

Third, since grass is that natural food for cattle, the milk produced by cows on grass was nutritionally superior to cows fed heavily on silage and grain.  This milk, as well as other animal products, is nutritionally superior for both the calves and for the humans that consume dairy products produced by the cows grazing the grass.  More on this in the next blog post.

Stockman Grass Farmer lead me to sources and taught me about the art of Management Intensive Grazing.  (I still have much to learn)  Rawl already understood it, and I observed much of the art without actually understanding the whole of what I was seeing.  When thinking of the idea of management intensive grazing, let's think about the buffalo of the Great Plains.  The buffalo and the grasslands of the Great Plains had a symbiotic relationship.  The buffalo required the grass and the grass required the buffalo. They both helped each other.  Predators also helped to shape the behavior of the buffalo in ways also aided the symbiosis between the buffalo and the grass.

Buffalo would move across the plains in tightly bunched herds and eat two to three feet tall grass down to six inches, then move to the next spot to each the next bunch of grass.  Predators, like wolves and humans, helped to create the tight bunching behavior of the buffalo herd.  While the buffalo were grazing, they also did as all animals do and they pooped ant pee'd on the grass, then they moved on.  They would not return to the same place for several weeks, maybe even a couple of months.  What was happening here?

The buffalo eating the grass, stalled the grass going to seed and encouraged it to create new succelant growth.  When the buffalo ate the grass, part of the roots sloughed off, adding to the organic matter content of the underlying soil.  Worms and other macro and micro biotic life consumed the roots, manure, and urine, increasing the soil fertility.  The buffalo got the perfect food for them, and by constantly moving they did not destroy the grass.  They set the stage for the grass to regrow and for fertility to constantly increase in the soil.  This is why the Great Plains had topsoil that was four to eight feet deep when people started plowing it.  Now the topsoil that remains is just a few inches deep.  Management intensive rotational grazing mimics the action of the buffalo and builds soils.  Standard farming practices deplete soils.

In addition to ruminants like cows, sheep, and goats, I also learned about the benefits of pasture for poultry and hogs.  While grass is not the perfect food for poultry and hogs, it can provide up to about 15% of nutrient needs and also provides the environment to harvest other nutrients like bugs, worms, minerals, etc.

In management intensive grazing, the grazing stock represent the buffalo.  An electric fence represents the predators, keeping the animals tightly bunched.  The grass is the grass.  The farmer's job is to make sure that the cows are moved frequently enough so they do not damage the grass and that they are kept away from the grass until the grass recovers adequately to be grazed again.

The Stockman Grass Farmer taught me important lessons about raising livestock in a healthy and humane way that provided superior nutrition to people who ate the livestock products, and building healthier, more fertile and productive soils at the same time.  I'm still reading it.  I received my February issue yesterday, and started reading it at the end of the day.

How to Grow Good Food - Extensions from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

As I read and absorbed the implications of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, the question, "But how do I actually grow good food?" popped into my mind over and over.  I had become increasingly informed on the issues associated with foods raised using currently conventional methods.  These things along with Price's work clarified several things that were intuitive to me.  The best foods for people were foods that people traditionally ate that were raised the way people traditionally raised foods.  The next question is, "How were foods traditionally raised?"  Part of that is easy, part of that is not so easy.

Price's work showed that traditional diets included both wild harvested and agriculturally produced foods.  The wild harvested foods included plant based foods, fish, game, insects, and other animal based products.  Like wild harvested foods, agriculturally produced foods were based upon both plants and animals.

The wild harvested foods varied significantly by geography.  The closer to the equator, the greater the percentage of wild harvested foods that were plant based.  The farther from the equator, the greater the percentage of animal based foods.  Plant foods included leaves, tubers, fruits, roots, and to a lesser degree, seeds.  Animal based foods included fish, shellfish, roe, insects, and game of all sorts, from small to large.  Animal organ meats and fats were highly prized.  All of these foods were "naturally" raised.  The plants and animals were not influenced by man-made chemicals.  The soils where the wild harvested plants that humans consumed and the plants that animals consumed were largely virgin soils with natural sources of fertility, including original mineral materials and naturally occuring organic matter, either deposited directly or added upon through either wind or water based sedimentation.  Mother nature did not use petroleum based fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, nor laboratory based hormones, antibiotics, or other pharmaceuticals.

The agriculturally produced foods that were part of traditional diets were raised in either a cultivated, or semi-wild environment, depending on the type of food and the geography of the people.  Animals for the animal based products were raised in different ways and on different diets that were in alignment with the natural diet of the animals.  For example, ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats were grazed on grass and other browse, where they had a wide diversity of plant materials to eat.  The ruminants were not fed grain or other animal sources of food.  Omnivores like poultry and swine were largely scavengers, eating leftovers from human food consumption, fresh plant foods, seeds, nuts, insects, and animal sources of food as well.  None of these animals received hormones, antibiotics, or other pharmaceuticals.  The animals either deposited the manure as they grazed and wandered, or the people involved with caretaking used the animal manure as a source of fertility for the raising of food.  These animals were not raised in large confinement operations with extreme animal, animal waste, and animal disease concentration.

Agriculturally produced plant foods were either grown as perennials - trees and bushes, or annuals in cultivated ground.  In either case, fertility came from the natural fertility of the soil, augmented by decomposition of organic matter, periodic deposition of silt through flooding or wind, and by otherwise manuring from animal and even human sources or manure.  People knew that plants grew better in rich soil and located their agriculture in areas where fertility would be most easily maintained, or they rotated their plantings to new ground periodically to maintain production.  What these plants did not have were inputs in the forms of petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc.

Traditional plants foods and animal foods were nutrient dense, due to both their genetics and the richly mineralized soils that were their foundation.  They were not contaminated by endocrine disrupting and cancer causing chemicals.  The soils were mineralized not only in the macro nutrient spectrum, but also broadly across a range of trace minerals.  In other words, the foods were good foods without all of the damaging tagalongs common to current conventionally raised foods.

So how do you raise good food?  It starts with the soil.  Both soil mineralization and the soil biology that supports soil mineralization are key.  That is for soils that grow human food directly and that grow feedstuff for animals that produce foods for humans (e.g. eggs, dairy) or animals that are consumed directly.  In addition to agriculturally raised foods, wild harvested foods like fish, game and other wild plant materials can provide the foundation for nutrient dense foods that are good for humans to eat and will optimize their health and extend life.

Inflection Point - Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Up to a certain point in my life, the idea of farming or homesteading was primarily about self-sufficiency and lifestyle.  After all, who wouldn't want to be self sufficient?  Who wouldn't prefer a country lifestyle over an urban or suburban lifestyle?  No need to answer that, I am well-aware of my own biases and preferences.

I don't remember exactly what turned me to it, but I suspect it may have been in about 2000, and it had something to do with ACRES, USA, an ecologically minded monthly farming publication, but I ran into a book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, by Weston Price.  This book, along with many other thoughts and ideas I had previously had, created an inflection point in how I viewed the world relative to food and food production techniques.  This post is primarily about learning what foods are good to eat.  There will be a post at a later time about gaining perspective and insights into food production techniques.

Price was a dentist at the turn of the century in Canada.  About the turn of the century he started noticing a change in his patients.  There was a marked increase in the number of cavities his patients, particularly his younger patients, were having.  Additionally, for the first time ever, his young patients had started to develop crooked teeth.  What?!  I thought crooked teeth were a genetic phenomenon.  Wouldn't the parents of children with crooked teeth most likely have crooked teeth?  Apparently not.

Price hypothesized that the source of both the increase in dental caries and the newly emerging crooked teeth were related to a change in the dietary patterns that were occurring in Canada at the time.  For a period of years, he laid out a plan to investigate this phenomenon.

After his retirement in the late '20's, he and his wife set out on several years' worth of investigative travel, armed with a new-fangled 35mm camera, notepads, and pencils.  He sought out populations that had been isolated from modern foods, that also had a correlary population that had easy access to modern foods.  A most common scenario was where a harbor existed where there was easy access to modern foods, but there was an isolated population with the same genetic base up over a treacherous mountain pass.  In this situation, Price could effectively test the same genetic base with the only real difference being those eating traditional diets for their region vs. those eating a modern diet.

What he found, with remarkable consistency, was stunning.  People eating a traditional diet for their region had well developed facial bones, straight and beautiful teeth, few if any cavities, and overall excellent health.  People of the same genetic base eating a more modern diet, with an emphasis on white flour, sugar, canned goods, etc. had a marked tendency towards narrowly developed facial bones, crooked teeth, many cavities, and relatively poorer health.  Price traveled the world to many places and peoples, including, but not limited to Switzerland, Seminole Native Americans, Africa, Inuit of Canada, Polynesia, Australia (Aboriginies), Peru, etc.  He found the same thing wherever he went.

So what foods are good?  Traditional foods.  Think back 150 years ago or more.  In the 1890's, the annual per capita sugar consumption was about 7 pounds.  Today it approaches 170 pounds.  170 pounds!  In other words, he found people who ate vegetables, game, whole grains, whole dairy, eggs, fish, fruits, insects, etc.  Related to grains and dairy in particular, he saw certain preparation techniques that were used related to lacto-fermentation.  What he didn't see was Coke, Twinkies, TV dinners, McDonalds, Cocoa Puffs, Wonder Bread, etc.  Traditional diets are the good ones. 

The good news is that traditional diets can be largely grown and produced on a homestead or farm, which fits very nicely into my overall idea of farming, and actually pushed forward the idea that it can be extermely beneficial to one's health to have access to well-grown, traditional foods.  The next post will explore some of the key things related to production techniques and processes to ensure that the foods that you may choose to eat are as nutrient dense and healthy as possible.

I would suggest that you take a look at the book, read it, study it, and develop your own opinion about the approach Price took and his reporting of his findings.