Economics students can compare the tulip market to our current real estate debacle while budding agriculturalists discuss the perils of monocrops ala the lumper and the Irish potato famine. BoD would certainly be a solid, non-contraversial choice.

This is a post-hoc explanation.  Emails exist that show that there was indeed 'political' pressure brought to bear.  The budgetary savings cited pertain to programming for the common reading, not the use of the common reading itself.  Yet the university cancelled the distribution of the book to freshmen through the campus orientation (ALIVE) program, which costs nothing... the reading program committee had already decided NOT to invite Michael Pollan to campus for budgetary savings, and instead to program through FREE faculty lectures (last year, over 1,300 freshman - almost 50%) attended these free lectures).  In other words, no budget savings were accomplished, the book already having been bought.  President Floyd says that he never 'spoke to a regent' about the book - but thus avoids the sticky question of being contacted by email (which he was).

Let me add something.  I do not believe that President Floyd or Provost Bayly are 'bad' people who are in the pocket of agribusiness.  They are both intelligent, rational, and generally honorable people who are trying to administer a land-grant university in difficult times.  I do believe that they made the wrong call - and the reasons why they made the wroong call (they see it as a 'compromise') tells us a lot about the way in which public universities and agribusiness uneasily coexist in lean budget times.  Sometimes decent people make the wrong call, for the wrong reasons.  I am, however, very disappointed at the attempt to cover it up.

WSU does have many fine faculty, many in the College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences.  The CAHNRS, by the way, endorsed the common reading choice.  But the bottom linbe is clear - no money is being saved, and a book that was already purchased with the intention of being distributed to all freshmen is not going to get into the hands of many of them.

As an alumnus of WSU, I am AMAZED that a bunch of whiney hand-wringing butt-kissing mealy-mouthed desk-sucking bureaucrats have managed to wave their hands around enough to get ANYTHING done, let alone protect their phoney-baloney behinds from some disapprovale from on high.  This is how academic integrity is compromised - NOT through actual flame-throwing, but through this impotent hand-flapping by those who should be protecting the institution.

We often talk about how people don't realize how difficult it is to succcessfully raise a crop due to rodents, weeds, mildew and many other pests.  I think a "Common Book" at WSU is a very good idea.  However, Michael Pollan does not have a scientific background and is not an accurate source of information.  He makes some very important points about our food system.  Food is very important to our national security.  But he suggests that us farmers are putting chemicals on your food made in former WWII nerve gas factories.  He has no evidence to back this up. 

I think WSU should pick a book written by someone who is knowledgable about our food system and what it takes to feed over 6 billion people on Earth.  His solutions to our food system are unrealistic both economically, and scientifically.  I have written to Mr. Pollan several times to ask him where he has found this information, and I haven't heard from him.  I would like to know if any of you know very much about "Organic" farming and how healthy it is for you. 

Take a look at USDA's Organic website.  It lists all of the tasty ingredients which are allowed under the USDA Certified Organic program.  Just because you payed twice as much for your organic food doesn't mean it's very organic.  See for yourself.

On that note, if any of you could point me to some info on this, that would be great, I will check back on this site.

1.  The book was indeed censored (This is not the official university line at all, but we all know it...)

2.  The decision was taken in secret by a small group of individuals (since I am very closely connected with the program and the selection process, I can only assume this is what Couggrad means when he/she states that 'no-one knows what is going on' and 'I know the people involved'.  No-one I know seems to know him/her, or the Regent for that matter).

3.  Couggrad has clearly not read the book.  Since Pollan is very critical of 'Organic' farming, and points out the very same point that Couggrad makes, you would think that Couggrad would be very pleased to have people read it.

4.  Only the Regents know what is accurate and what is not.  Thank goodness we have them, so that they can correct the inane biases of the hundreds of scientists and social scientists working round the clock in their labs and offices at the university.

as a small farmer I don't think much of Pollans ideas. its pie in the sky stuff. when he came to our metro area it was either $80 a ticket or when it was a free book signing it was in the most expensive suburb in the metro. 

he is an elitist and less relevant than he might appear. 

http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/05/articles/lawyer-oped/washington-state-university-say-it-isnt-so-hey-michael-pollan-ill-pay-your-way-to-pullman/

Bart / EB

based on the comments here, yours is the only one that I would define as a troll since you offered no real insight to the discussion. 

@ Everyone else:  By the way, on the topic of farmers using pesticides produced in old nerve gas factories, I am still waiting to find out the names and/or locations of these facilities.  I have googled "pesticide nerve gas factory" and "herbicide nerve gas" and I have come up with scientific names of chemicals but not the company that makes them or where they are located?  Any ideas?

Now, it appears that Muscle Shoals (AL) was converted after World War I (1923, to be exact).  Whether it reverted to explosive production in 1941 (and thus back in 1947), I do not know - perhaps someone else does.  Pollan may have indeed got the dates wrong, if the essential story is right.  But it is important to ask questions based upon what has actually been written, not what we think has been written.  Which is perhaps, Couggrad, why reading the book before engagnig in polemic about it might be useful.

.

The point about censorship is that industry groups intervened to prevent discussion of an important book in a publicly funded university. In this case, their move will backfire.

As far as whether the book is based on science, puh-lease Mr. Couggrad!  Mr. Pollard has ample credentials, and the work is well known among university researchers.  I am in touch with Ag Extension programs, and the smart ones there know all about his arguments.  Truth to tell, they aren't especially controversial.

The farming of the future will look a lot more like Mr. Pollard's vision than the present model of industrial agriculture, which is dependent on petrochemicals and subsidies. 

Bart / EB

Thanks,

Miss Couggrad

Yes, no doubt about it, anhydrous ammonia is a fast way to put a lot of N on a crop. Also, it's true that different areas require different approaches.  I don't think Pollard would say any different.

What he and the alternative ag people are criticizing is an automatic set of answers (chemicals and machinery). They are saying - changes are coming (for example, new demands by consumers and higher prices for oil and fertilizers).  Some of these changes will require some very new answers.  For example, last year in Australia, some farmers started turning to animal power and compost because the prices of fuel and fertilizers made it economic to do so.

Pollard is not anti-farmer. He (and I) would like farmers to get more respect and be more rewarded.

All best,
Bart / EB

Studying how other crops are grown can, hopefully, synthesize into developing novel - and, one hopes, profitable - ways of managing your farm.  That's what I have found, anyhow.  I would say that reading and researching is, in fact, a vital farm work function.

In a reply to your earlier post, I wonder what kind of soils and what kind of rainfall regime could cause crops to grow less well with cow manure than with anhydrous? In all my experiences, cow manure increases the organic matter of the soil, causing skyrocketing populations of soil biota.  This increase allows for greater water infiltration, aeriation, soil particle retention (resistance to erosion), and more sturdy stalks of plants grown.  I will not quibble with your statement that anhydrous ammonia is more efficient than cow manure, but I do want to know what metrics you use to measure.

Happy tilling.

We are unable to irrigate our crops because of the lack of water and even if we had water, our fields are two steep and irregularly shaped to use sprinklers.  After we harvest our wheat, there is not enough plant life to feed that many cattle. If we planted the native grasses, they would leave less moisture behind for the next wheat crop.  Even if we till it in, still less moisture.  We tried, it's so frustrating and depressing.

The number of cattle it would take to produce as much nitrogen as a single application of anhydrous ammonia would cause our fields to be crowded and we would have to truck in water and extra alfalfa or corn feed to support them, burning more fuel.  I wish it wasn't like that, if we had more water we could pasture raise beef at the same time saving money, and stabilizing soil!  Water is such a limiting factor in crop production all over the world.  We are really hoping that a professor at WSU can isolate the nitrogen fixing gene in legumes and transfer it to wheat and corn.  That way the wheat gets all of its nitrogen from the air around it, with no effort on our part!  (Come on Farm Bill Ag Research $$!!)

But it isn't all bad!  The upside to this is that few insects, mildews, or diseases can survive the dry climate and destroy our wheat! :D That's a good thing because herbicides are less harmful than insecticides and fungicides.  Round Up is the cheapest and least harmful and we use it to kill all plants before planting a new crop.  But once the wheat grows more more weeds come up.  To kill broadleaf like starthistle (a non-native weed) we spray stronger stuff like 2,4,D, and to kill cheat grass (A monocot very similar to wheat, also non-native) we use stuff life maverick.  Herbicide resistant wheat allows us to spray our wheat with only cheaper and less harmful RoundUp (or non-Monsanto glyphosate alternative).  Unfortunately that raises the risk of weed populations building up resistance.  Everything about our farm is so counter-intuitive, and every farm is so different.

And to make it even more confusing we are a corporate farm!  (for various tax, land and family purposes)  I am the fourth generation on that same land (well, not until next month, I am walking away from a biotech lab job in a large city to join the farm permanently).  We very rarely hire outside people and are 100% family owned an operated (My father and grandfather).  I don't want my parents and grandparents to be temped with money from a non-family owned Agbusiness to sell off our farm.  I am about to be one of the youngest American farmers (I am 25).  As rural schools and hospitals across our country degrade and close down, fewer of my peers are going to want to return to their farms and raise families. 

There are a ton of issues that affect every farm, big or small, across our country.  At the same time every farm, big or small, has it's own unique challenges based on family structure, climate, local pests, and most of all water!  No matter who opposed this book or whether or not they distribute it I hope the freshman can all take a really wide approach in changing our food system from both the farmer and consumer sides and have a safe mix of organic and high tech methods to keep American agriculture profitable and our communities and environment cleaner.

wait for it, it will happen. the monsantos of the world don't give up that easy.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/WSU-wants-to-have-a-serious-discussion-about-food-no-really/101079583956?ref=mf

Now, things have brightened and the program has been resurrected (although reasons for its temporary demise are still cloudy).  The Facebook site can now take on a more important role of engaging participants with the food issues raised by Michael Pollan in his very thoughtful book.  The site is not just for the WSU community:  feel free to join the discussion.

Jeff Sellen

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION, HOW IS BIG AG INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION???????????????????????????

And for a book selection, I think "Grapes of Wrath" would be excellent. 

@ The author, Mr. Laskawy:

Guess what, Walla Walla is mostly family farms.  Google it.  You know, fact checking gets overlooked these days....

Ok, Monsanto is a completely different issue.  That is another issue I wish Mr. Pollan knew about.  Monsanto plays a very small role in "Big-Ag".  I know, I know, you must think I am crazy.  Using the term Monsanto synonymously with "Corporate greed" and "Big-ag" isn't completely accurate.  Last weekend as we were cleaning out our barn, 90% of the herbicide containers we threw out were not Monsanto (Nope, the EPA won't let us recycle plastic containers with pesticide residue, they say they are safer if we throw them in the landfill, we already checked). 

And this big fuss about how Monsanto is going to force farmers of the world to use their roundup ready seed and force us to use their chemicals and that Monsanto will sue us when their seed drifts into another field and grows on its own is totally false.  We are already using pesticide resistant seed.  Guess what, BASF and Syngenta (10 times bigger than Monsanto!) have been selling this type of seed and corresponding products for years.  It is out in our field right now.  Monsanto products like these are not available in our area.  We had to sign a contract that we would not resell our crop as seed, and that we cannot save the seed to replant the following year.  Guess what, every seed we have ever bought has had the same type of contract. 

I know that people on organic and environmental blogs like to jump in and pair Monsanto with these "new" contracts that have been around for years.  We never save our own seed these days because it is too full of weed seeds.  In the past we did save our own seed but a machine had to be brought out to clean the weeds out of it.  One year all of our wheat froze out 2 months after we planted it.  The seed plant where we buy our seed (owned by our neighbors, also family farmers) was closed for the winter so we just pulled wheat out of our grainbins from the harvest before and planted that.  Nobody came to our farm to make us sign a contract or take samples for a lawsuit.  We have the freedom to plant seed from anywhere we want.   

Focusing this whole mess on Monsanto is taking away our time and effort from facing the real problems, like improving rural social services to bring children back to their farms when they graduate college.  To move subsidies from non-family owned corporations back to the family owned and operated farms.  That's a big change that would allow families to live on their farms and keep the biodiversity strong.  Everytime someone whines about corporate farms getting heavily subsidized, we get hit the hardest.  A $10,000 loss in subsidies to a publicly traded company like ADM or Kelloggs is a drop in the bucket, but a very big problem for us!

To anyone here under the age of 58, there are big opportunities in agriculture if you can stand it.  In the next 10 years so many of the farmers in Walla Walla county are retiring and have approached me asking if I could lease out their land some day (almost all of my peers have left the farm).  If I leased their land we could finally afford to buy a new tractor (yep, over $100,000).  But once I get to that point, I am no better than any of the big guys taking over several family farms.  Hey young'uns, I can't do it alone!  Please come join me!!!

I once saw a bumper sticker a few days ago that read "I am not against you Jesus, it's your fan club I am starting to worry about"  It got me wondering....

I agree with an earlier commenter - perhaps Grapes of Wrath might have been a better pick; safer, but just as if not more instructive. Or even Marion Nestle's wonderful What to Eat, which is even endorsed by Pollan and Eric Schlosser, though she's much less polemical and simplistic than they tend to be (or are at least, inadvertantly or not, perceived). She doesn't have much of an agenda except eat more fruits and vegetables.

As far as 'Big Ag' goes - I think the 'Big Ag' tent is a large structure that incorporates the Evil Empire, Syngenta, Du Pont, Cargill, ArcherDanielsMidland, CaseIH, and a whole host of vertically intergrated 'farms' and agricultural technology suppliers.  In fact, of all the billions and billions of dollars circulating in the 'Big Ag' tent, almost all of it is in the hands of the suppliers.  If people are referring to 'Big Ag' as 'farms with over $500,000 in gross revenue' then they need someone to explain things to them.

And hey! If you and your family practice no-till cultivation - I am a true believer, personally - then RoundUp is probably a key part of your farm strategy.  RoundUp is also one of the most benign pesticides out there; I wouldn't bathe in it, but one COULD without real danger of harm.  It also breaks down into benign residues after two weeks - what's not to love?  Monsanto also benefits - by patenting plant varieties engineered to resist RoundUp, it could continue to sell massive quantities of glyphosate and also these lovely new spendy seeds.  Monsanto, however, took a different approach to variety development than BASF - whereas BASF worked with mutagenesis, Monsanto actually went into the dark room of direct genetic splicing/patenting.  This may be why everyone hates the smiling Evil Empire. 

Unfortuneately for Monsanto, direct transmission of entire gene cassettes is known and does regularly occur between plants and soil bacteria - especially agrobacteria species - and then from soil bacteria into plants - also a speciality of agrobacteria.  Already, the development of roundup resistant superweeds is not a question of if, but when - weeds that did not develop this resistance over time but through the pollution of an artificial genome.  This scares people - despite the fact that whole tracts of western australia's wheat belt has been abandoned due to the presence of grasses with evolved resistance to multiple herbicides, it is the escape of these artificial genes that evokes a science-fiction nightmare future over which WE HAVE NO CONTROL.  That scares me, too.

I hope the rains are good for your family this year.

And in response to the post above me, you are right the water usage is definitely a big problem.  A lot of unusable farm land has been put into production with increasing irrigation technology.  This does become a problem eventually when too much water is moved hundreds of miles to a desert veggie field, disrupting the ecosystems of both sides.  Hopefully a plant tour will allow students to learn about different plant needs and help us make better use of each, unique field on our farms.

Wow that bank name hasnt been around for close to 10 years, havent thought of it in years

Anyway, Nice debate to read