Читать книгу Gardening with Grains - Brie Arthur - Страница 13

Four

Ancient Grains to Modern-Day Cultivation

Ancient grains are a whole subject unto themselves and have recently garnered a fair amount of attention. The term conjures up a kind of exotic appeal, a return to a purer state, in tune with grains’ essential nature. And yet, it’s not a term that has a fixed meaning. With interest in ancient grains on the rise, it is important to examine what it does mean.

Since all cereals are technically ancient (having historical and archeological relevance dating back thousands of years), how can some be called ancient and others not? The current distinction relates to the purity of the strain. Generally, the term “ancient grains” refers to crops that are largely unchanged over the last several hundred years of cultivation. They have not been manipulated through commercial hybridization or genetic modifications. They therefore replicate the germplasm – the genetic material of germ cells – that would have been grown in ancient times.

When people inquire about “ancient grains,” they are most often referring to wheat – specifically, the varieties of einkorn, emmer (or farro), khorosan (or Kamut) and spelt.

Beyond wheat, heirloom varieties of other proper cereal grains such as black barley, red and black rice, blue corn, sorghum and millet are also classified as ancient grains. To make this even more intriguing, pseudo-cereal crops such as amaranth, buckwheat, chia and quinoa are also considered to be ancient grains. Obviously, this is a broad category full of complications, contradictions and the potential for misinformation.

WHAt ABOUT HEIRLOOMS? The term heirloom is always a cause of confusion. In my mind, it is an open-pollinated plant that pre-dates 1930. It isn’t necessarily “ancient,” in that these varieties marketed as heirloom are not thousands of years old. As I have researched the term “heirloom” – not only for grain but also in reference of the ever-so-popular category of tomatoes – the defining characteristics revolve around the idea that these are old varieties that are no longer in mainstream production. As a result, they are perceived to be more valuable, boasting better flavor and higher nutritional density. Those assumptions are not always accurate, which is part of the problem with terms like “heirloom” or “ancient” being used to market food crops. It is fair to say that both terms refer to old varieties that stir romantic notions of the past.

That is not to say there isn’t great nutritional value in these olden-times selections. Ancient wheat berries are lower in gluten and higher in protein and micronutrients. Einkorn, for example, has a higher concentration of beta carotene compared to modern varieties. In the end, like all things, it is your job as the consumer to do your research and gain a better understanding about the food you eat every day.

ANCIENT WHEAT VARIETIES AND THEIR BOTANICAL NAMES:

Einkorn – Triticum monococcum

Emmer or Farro – Triticum dicoccum

Khorosan or Kamut – Triticum turanicum

Spelt – Triticum spelta

I experiment with ancient grains

The first cereal crop I grew was not an ancient variety. The grain that Chip Hope challenged me to cultivate was a hard red spring wheat called ‘Glenn’, which was introduced by North Dakota State University. To say the least, it was a resounding success that left me full of confidence in my grain growing ability. After that, and because I’m a born experimenter, I was determined to try my hand at varieties that felt more authentic – some ancient grains. Just thinking about it made me happy. I enjoy cultivating Old World plants as a means of connecting to times long past. That is one of those privileges we modern gardeners can indulge in, because we are not depending on these crops as our sole source of nutrition.

Seed of ancient grains, specifically wheat, was readily available from my beloved heirloom sources, so access was just a few clicks away. Naturally, I ordered ten packs of every variety listed and took to the garden in a fit of glory and excitement.

Since I cherished these seeds, I was careful to sow them exactly according to the instructions. These ancient grains would occupy the most prized real estate in the garden. Every week I logged their progress, taking thousands of photos to document their growth. I was loving it!

AND THEN… Winter can be a difficult season no matter where you live. Temperature fluctuations and snow all wreaked havoc on my freshly germinated sprouts. After a sudden low in the single digits and sustained temperatures below freezing, entire crops melted to the ground, composting in place, never to be seen again. The crushing reality of why modern hybrids were created started to seep into my awareness.

As temperatures began to warm up, the remaining ancient grains sprang to life and reignited my dream of self-sufficiency the old-fashioned way. Then, much to my dismay, I watched as a strong wind and thunderstorm blew my ancient crops to the ground.

Initially, I thought it was no big deal. Surely, upon drying they would perk back up. But alas, they did not. That was my first experience with crop lodging, meaning the stem broke at the base and flopped over. I lost more than 80% of my ancient grains that spring and I learned a valuable lesson: Do not dismiss the importance of science, genetic improvements and the evolution of plants.

Online retailers have a wide variety of ancient grain seed.

A ripening field of wheat in Denmark.

It is experiences like this that result in the best lessons learned. First, I developed an appreciation for the challenges people faced in earlier times. It became clear to me how famines could occur – one storm could wipe out an entire region’s crops. Ancient varieties simply lack the necessary structural integrity to hold up, even in my small residential plot. This experiment also provided me a new perspective and appreciation for modern crops. Genetic improvements in our global food supply should not be entirely perceived as negative. Scientists work tirelessly to breed for practical improvements, including disease and insect resistance and higher yields. To dismiss the progress of modern breeding is a true injustice to science, and is simply not realistic when looking at the big picture of global agriculture.

I’m not saying that ancient grains should be written off for the home gardener or the dedicated local farmer with a strong belief in those “source” grains. I applaud and respect anyone who can bring a healthy crop to maturity. As a home grain grower, I am not giving up on cultivating ancient varieties. I am growing them alongside modern selections, as I believe there is a place for them all. What matters most to me is HOW they are grown – organically and never sprayed with pesticides or herbicides. In my opinion, growing practices are the important consideration.

A GOOD WORD FOR MODERN CULTIVARS: One of the many advantages of modern cultivars of wheat and other grains is the added structural integrity they possess. This means they can withstand normal to extreme weather events and not lodge (break at the base). They also yield at higher rates and have better resistance to disease, fungus and pests, making these modern hybrids all the more user friendly. It makes sense that for large-scale production ancient grains are not a viable consideration.

To be clear, I am a horticulturist and landscape designer by education and training. I am not a geneticist, plant breeder or botanist, and my purpose here is not to mount a scientific-data defense or denunciation of ancient grains against their new-age counterparts. But rather than focusing on the purity of variety, I believe that the cultural growing methodologies and the processing of the grains are the most important aspects leading to a nutritional differentiation.

Did you know … “cultural growing methodologies” refers specifically to how a crop was cultivated? Was it grown with organic practices or by conventional means? Specifically, were the plants treated with synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides?

As a horticulture professional, I put my trust in scientific data and rely on that to guide my decision making. It is imperative that I recognize that as a home gardener I have no expertise on the subject of food safety with regard to chemical applications. Researchers and scientists share the burden of analyzing health risks against the advancements and efficiencies that breeding modifications and synthetic chemistry provide. In an industry focused on feeding a global population of 10 billion by 2050, scientific advancements in crop production appear to be the only sustainable solution. This includes plants that are genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides. The application of synthetically derived fertilizers and pesticides is also a reality that should not be ignored.

BUT… Throughout my life, the environment has been under attack. It pains me that environmental considerations have become politicized, as if all humans don’t suffer the same when the Earth is contaminated. Growing up in Michigan, water quality was always a concern, and clearly remains so as we see ongoing struggles in communities like Flint. Some questions to ponder: What role do agricultural products play in contamination of our precious resources? Are “best practices” being fully utilized? How can we improve productivity and ecological systems?

To me, there is an aspect of our current agricultural model that seems short sighted, specifically with regard to modifications that allow the crop to be resistant to herbicide applications. I totally understand the need to control weed pressure and appreciate that this method actually reduces the number of herbicide applications – but I have to ask: Is spraying millions of acres of land with a synthetic herbicide that impacts the soil health and ultimately leaches into waterways the best solution for food production?

Let's be honest: Glyphosate would not be the first chemical that was initially considered safe until years later, when scientists proved it wasn’t. Think back to the invention of asbestos and DDT at the start of the chemical revolution. Now, many substances are banned. Will that be the case in 20 years with our current round of “agriculture-safe” chemistries?

I am cautiously optimistic that conventional agricultural methods are in fact safe, but we cannot deny the many instances where a product is eventually linked to health issues. I suppose only time will tell the long-term impact of our consuming systemic and persistent herbicides such as glyphosate, clopyralid and aminopyralid.

It is important to be a critical thinker and spend time reviewing studies and dissecting data to become part of the solution. I am motivated to help develop creative strategies for the challenges of the future through the act of growing food in a meaningful way. That requires having an open mind to scientific advances while looking to the past to seek wisdom.

IT’S COMPLICATED: If I have learned anything in researching for this part of the book it is that 1) this is a hot topic, and 2) there is no simple solution. Consumers have a serious deficit of practical knowledge on the subjects of food science, genetic modifications, soil health and chemistry. And global biotech companies have lost our trust due to their lack of transparency. Farmers are challenged to grow food in the most efficient way possible to feed the world, and consumers demand low prices. There is a lot about our current agricultural model that could be reevaluated. Health starts with consumption, and most of us have at least some control over what we eat.

As a person who has struggled for two decades with food intolerances, I am genuinely concerned that our reliance on synthetically derived compounds may be impacting our body’s ability to digest. It seems logical to assert that if synthetic chemistries destroy soil health, they may also have the same effect on our gut health. Not being a nutritionist, I will equate this to a subject I am better educated in: soil science.

Growing my own grains has increased my appreciation for farmers around the world.

FERTILIZER AND SOIL HEALTH: One of the main differences between organic and conventional growing is conventional growing’s use of synthetic, often sodium-based fertilizers. As they penetrate the earth, the microbial activity is disturbed, influencing the natural cycles of ammonification and nitrification of bacteria, which would naturally feed the plant roots. In contrast, with organic growing methods, which are easily adopted by home gardeners, you can focus on soil health – so put the blue stuff down! There is a mountain of research available to show the benefits of focusing your gardening efforts first and foremost on soil health, to increase fertility the natural way.