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.

Buying Property in Idaho - Hoping for a Farm

Before we even purchased our first house, I was looking for any reasonable opportunity to buy property for my long-sought-after farm.  A few years after we bought our first house, my sister, Penny, called me with an intriguing opportunity.  She and her husband, Kelly, were building a new house in Blackfoot, Idaho, and there was an adjacent five acre parcel that was available as well.  She set the wheels in motion for us to consider and to evenutally purchase that five acre parcel.

Blackfoot was a quaint, semi-rural town in my estimation.  The town was inviting.  It had farming as its economic foundation, but had supporting economic input from the neighboring cities of Pocatello and Idaho Falls.  I imagined I could find meaningful, gainful employment between the two cities.

In southeast Idaho, Blackfoot may very well be known for being the home of the Idaho Potato Muesum.  Potato farming is big business in Idaho, with the foundation of that business being the volcanic soils and low humidity, coupled with adequate irrigation water.  If you live in the western United States and have eaten potatoes, you have probably eaten Idaho potatoes.

To me, five acres, with irrigation was just about perfect.  With five acres, one could have a nice sized yard, grow a garden, have an orchard and berry patch, have pasture for two or three cows, raise pigs, chickens, and turkeys, maybe even a little fast growing firewood.  The thought of growing a small amount of feed corn also crossed my mind.  Five acres would also be big enough for a wood shop and a place to chop, stack, and store firewood.

Irrigation water rights was essential in Blackfoot.  Property without irrigation water was basically desert.  If you stretched your imagination, you may be able to use it as range for cattle, but the typical acreage of range required to support one cow in the region was between 20 and 40 acres.  While five acres may not be trivial in the scheme of feeding one cow, the fact remained that you could not even feed one cow of five unirrigated acres in Blackfoot.

This five acres had water rights on a ditch that ran on one side of the property.  There would be enough water to provide the property with water.  The total amount alotted for the year was roughly 2 1/2 acre feet per acre.  If all put on at one time, it would amount to 2 1/2 feet deep water on the whole property.  Of course, you would only put on the amount that would equal approximately two inches per week.  From the ditch, flood irrigation was possible with the gently sloped land.  It would also have been possible to use a pump and pressurize irrigation lines.  I imagined eventually installing a fixed underground irrigation structure so irrigation could have been done largely on a semi-automated basis.

The volcanic soils were generally quite well mineralized.  Blackfoot, essentially being in the ancestral river bottom of Blackfoot River had also accumulated a fair amount of silt.  Additionally, for being in the desert it had accumulated a modest amount of organic matter as well.  In my mind, the soils had great potential, particularly if the organic matter were to be built up over time and minor adjustments made to the soil mineral structure.  I was quite optimistic.

I recall talking to Kelly about doing green manure crops to help build the soil organic matter.  One of the problems was that I was not there.  I couldn't participate in the processes and observe and interact with the environment.  While I appreciated having the property, I longed to be there and actually be involved with the property and with the work on the property.

We had purchased the property and were making payments.  Those payments were quite significant to us.  We purchased the property knowing that while we hoped to move their and build our house and future, there was a very real possibility that we might not.  We figured real estate was generally a good investment.  If we could make it work, it would be nice to be located next to my sister in a town that we had generally positive feelings about.  Time would tell....

Canning and Preserving Food - A Family Affair

As a child, one of the memories etched in my mind was the late summer and early fall canning of ripe peaches and pears, and the later fall canning of chunky applesauce.  Sometimes there was late summer canning of tomato juice or stewed tomatoes.  Occassionally there was the making and canning of fragrant, deep purple grape juice, made from Concord grapes.  My Mom was in charge, and did this annual food preservation well and with skill.  The results were outstanding.  Come the end of fall, the fruit room in the basement was lined with jars of preserved food, to be eaten through the fall, winter and often into the next summer.

There is a serious question to be asked of why someone would actually go through the process of canning, or otherwise preserving food, when satisfactory food can be easily purchased at a grocery store.  The answer to that question is intensely personal, and not the same for each individual.  Some would say that it is simply not worth the time and effort, or other priorities trump the ideal of home food preservation.

My answer to that question is multi-faceted.  First, I put food away in order to know how to do it and to know how to care for myself and my family.  I put food away because I can control the ingredients and the recipes toward the ends of a better, more healthy, more tasty outcome.  I also put food away to be prepared.  The preparedness is along a number of dimensions, including easily preparing a meal from food on hand, having food on hand for weather or other natural "emergencies," and having food on hand to be prepared in the event of economic issues.  Those economic issues can relate to my direct family, or the families of my children as they spread their wings and make their way in this journey of life.  I don't do it because someone told me to.  I do it because it makes sense to me to do it.  And if you didn't catch it already, it simply tastes better.

I learned to can at my Mom's side.  I mostly watched, but sometimes I got my hands in on the action and clumsily tried to peel peaches and pears, while halving and pitting or coring them.  I always worried that I was destroying these fragile, delicious fruits, but Mom was always, always patient.  The water bath canner would hold seven quart jars.  I would get one jar done and Mom would get six jars done.  She was better at this than I was or am.

I was lucky enough to have my Mom hand write her recipe for peaches, pears, and applesauce.  She has the most beautiful handwriting.  This scanned recipe was written probably 25 years ago.  The paper is yellowed and there are food spots and other things on the recipe.  It is precious to me.  I hope you will treasure it as well.  For peaches and pears, this is a very light syrup, which lets the natural flavor of the fruit shine.  For those of you concerned about glycemic index and the potential impact of syrup packed fruit, my experience is that eating one or two halves of a peach or pear, without the syrup, canned this way has no perceptible impact on blood sugar.

SCAN OF MOM'S RECIPE

Michelle and I have both taken the lead at times in canning and other food preservation.  Sometimes we do it together.  Sometimes we do it with the kids.  Sometimes we do it with friends.  Sometimes we do it alone.  The key is that we do it.  Simply doing it hits on my first point of why I can and preserve foods.  I know how to do it and I keep my skills honed.  There is virtue in knowing how to do stuff.  We are losing our ability to do stuff.  Learn how to do stuff and teach your kids, teach your friends, and teach the friends of your kids and your friends.

When canning peaches and pears, we always use my Mom's recipe.  It works well, the kids like it, and we like it.  Enough said.

Canning in the kitchen in August and September is a hot affair.  The idea that the pioneers had of a summer kitchen makes a lot of sense.  Keep the heat out of the kitchen where you live.  An ideal is to have an outdoor kitchen that can be used in part for summer and fall canning.

Michelle has canned spaghetti sauce and salsa with her friends using a pressure canner, which is required for low acid foods.  Whoever thought of spaghetti sauce and salsa as low acid?  Well, it's on the margin because of all of the non-tomato content in these foods.  For safety's sake use a pressure canner.  In those events, Michelle and her friends would gather together and prepare and can these foods.  Canning as friends is a great way to learn, teach, build skills, have fun, and make some good food.

For grape juice, we have used a steam juicer as part of the processing.  It makes much of the process easier, and yields tasty, wonderful grape juice that may or may not require other processing, depending on which recipe you are following and the care taken.

A favorite at our house is freezer jam.  Oregon strawberries are the best.  None of those California grown flint stone strawberries for our jam.  Raspberry jam is a favorite.  We have dabbled in Marionberry jam as well.  Marionberries are a locally developed trailing blackberry variety.  They are incredibly delicious.  Sometimes I call them "crack berries" because they are so addictive.  All of the deliciousness may be called into question when you read the recipe for freezer jam, but only momentarily.  The sugar content is outrageous.  Our freezers are generally very well stocked with freezer jam, which are delicious above and beyond anything, I repeat, anything you can find at the store.

Another serious question is whether or not canning is an optimal, or even good form of food preservation.  As a teen, I started to wonder whether or not the sugar often used in canning was good for you, not that I cared much, but I wondered.  Learning about the adverse health impacts of what Dr. Weston Price called, the "foods of commerce," which included canned goods, sugar, white flour, I wondered about the place of canned goods in a healthy diet.  I determined that fresh foods were better and that lacto-fermented foods (e.g. real pickles, sauerkraut, kimchi) were oustanding as well.  I have learned that properly dehyrated foods had an important place in food storage as well.  I have determined that there is a real and important place in a healthy diet for canned foods, particularly if you can control the recipes.  It is reassuring to look at the canned goods on the shelf and realize they will be there if you have unexpected guests, if the power goes out, or if you just want to reach back and taste that delicious peach or pear of summer.