Service Learning Refelction #3

For my service learning, I have worked in the ROOTS garden more. My jobs were to weed and replant some plants. My service learning has helped me to better understand the sheer amount of work it takes to grown your own food but the fulfillment one feels from eating food that they played a part in growing. The act of gardening and the sense of accomplishment you feel with it cannot be proven in research, it takes actual work to understand it. Personally, I have grown in that my green thumb has defiantly become better, but also I have a deep respect for people who garden and work with their hands everyday. Even after one shift at the garden I am exhausted, and it was only for like 3 hours. I hope that my civic duty has been fulfilled in that I now know and respect the people who do this. In the future, I hope to help in the garden more, though with my schedule next semester that looks like it will be difficult to do.

Reading and TED talk response

I'm going to start out by saying that Ron Finley's TED talk about growing food in his South Los Angeles is the most entertaining thing we have watched in class all semester. I really liked the way he approached his topic and the dialect he chose seemed perfect. His talk was about the need for more people to grown their own food and how more people should take advantage of the things that are available to them. His thoughts and ideas were inspiring and I actually believed that he cared about the community and the impact he had. I did not feel that way about the other 2 articles we read for class, "Will Organic Food Fail to Feed the World?" by David Biello and "Biotechnology Isn't The Key to Feeding the World" by Frances Moore Lapeé. Both of these articles did not strike me as people who actually went out and actively tried to change their communities. Both were more factual based and information oriented instead of experience based. What I liked about the articles,though, was how they both made it abundantly clear that food production is not the issue, instead it's more of a distribution issue. The issue involves the amount of food for everyone in the world, but there isn't enough food distributed to people who actually need it. They are calling on people to become more aware of the food they eat and how much energy it takes to feed a cow, for example, instead of growing food directly for human consumption. They made it clear to the audience that food distribution is a VITAL part of the food chain. I also really liked and agreed with the statement that when people grow their own food, they will eat it. Having easily accessible food grown from your own personal energy is a much more satisfying experience than going to the store and buying the same thing. It's also a cheaper option and it encourages healthier eating.

3 Way Reading Response

Pollan and Hurst are two men with very different views on the agricultural world. Michael Pollan is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book that discusses the different paths people take to obtain their food. In his writing, he criticizes the industrial farming community and challenges them to take a different approach to it. On the other side is Blake Hurst, a farmer for over 30 years that grows corn (the crop that Pollan says is taking over the world). Hurst wrote an article defending the type of farming that he does from Pollan's remarks, and called Pollan out on not welcoming advances in technology. Both men have very different views are both are justifiably correct. So how is it that these two men, both of whom are experts in their respective fields of work/study, cannot agree on a type of farming that is sustainable AND yields profits? Another person in the mix is Eliot Coleman who wrote "Real Food, Real Farming". He argues that organic farming is the way to go, similarly to Pollan. Coleman is ALSO a farmer, like Hurst, and the fact that he has a different view on GMO's (genetically modified organisms) and the way cattle should be raised from a fellow farmer is interesting. His thoughts on what "real" food means is controversial, but claims that they are set from a scientific fact point. Coleman claims to get to know "Nature better" because of the biologically backed techniques he has adapted. What he doesn't seem to consider, however, is that some years a large crop yield just is not likely and that biologically there is nothing that can be done about it. Personally, I agree least with Hurst. While I agree that having GMO's are not hurting anyone and if they mean a bigger crop yield, I do not see why we cannot take advantage of that. I disagree with Hurst that cattle and other livestock could be raised in a way that fattens them but doesn't allow them to live the grazing lives they were supposed to, however. Hurst also claims to have his livestock grain-fed for their own protection, thought that doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. I personally know that weasels kill turkeys (as I have seen it in action), but there are ways to allow the turkeys to be free-range(ish) AND keep them safe. There are fences and devices to put in the ground to drive the weasels away and sprays and so many defensive tools. My first action would not be to simply put all the animals inside a giant tent, but I have not been farming for 30 years.