Real Food Blog

Growing Oyster Mushrooms On Used Coffee Grounds

March 8th, 2010


Bury fresh oyster mushrooms in a bucket of damp grounds, wait a while, keep moist.
After several weeks, harvest your own homegrown gourmet fungus for free.

Most other species of edible mushrooms are so particular about their environment that growing them in captivity requires a lot of careful work beyond what most people are willing to attempt. Pleurotus Ostreatus, on the other hand, is such a thriving and eager producer that it can be “copied” in your own home with a simple non-sterile procedure.

You will need:

  1. A container — a 5 gallon plastic bucket is a good choice
  2. Coffee grounds — enough to fill the container halfway
  3. Fresh oyster mushrooms, about 2 ounces / 50g or more
  4. A spray bottle.
  5. Some recipes to make use of the results


Notes on source materials:

Your source mushrooms, at least in many American cities, can be bought at a grocery store or supermarket. They must be fresh, not dried, but they don’t have to be in perfect condition. In fact, when you can find some that have begun to round the bend just slightly, those are the ones you want. Some Oysters seem not to realize they’ve been cut and packaged for sale: if you look closely you will find the more exuberant specimens continuing to produce new primordia and even fully-formed stems and caps right off of their own dying bodies. These more virulent examples make excellent starting material for a home culture.

To obtain the necessary volume of coffee grounds, you can either save your own for a while or, better, half-fill your container with recently discarded grounds from a coffee house. If you explain and ask nicely, or just make an excuse about a compost project you’re working on, most coffee bars will allow you to take away some of their waste material.

It’s preferable to bring home a mass of very fresh grounds like this rather than use your own, because the mass will tend to be properly hydrated, undecomposed, and uncolonized by competitor organisms. Once you establish your Oyster colony you can continue to feed it with leftover grounds from your own kitchen any time.

Planting your own colony is easy

First, make certain the grounds are at a reasonable moisture level. If you can squeeze liquid out of a handful, they’re too wet. If a handful, when squeezed into a ball, won’t hold together for a second, that is probably too dry. Excess water will breed competitor organisms and restrict the respiration that your oysters need to grow (they expire carbon dioxide, as we do). Insufficient water will stunt or entirely prevent their growth.

Having checked the water content, simply make your container half-full with grounds, then scoop out a hole sufficient to bury your source mushroom in the grounds. Tear your source Oyster (gently) into several pieces and lay them in the hole, then cover lightly with grounds, not too deep. About an inch of grounds covering the mushroom is good.

Care and feeding

What we call a mushroom is only the surface part of the organism — its reproductive parts, in fact. Before producing actual mushrooms, the organism must grow its main body, known as mycelium, under the surface of its food source.

Maintenance of your Oyster colony is very simple. Keep a lid covering most or all of the container, but not closed tight. Keep the material inside moist by spraying with water now and then. Depending on where you live, water may be needed in the morning and evening, or less than once per day. You will need to experiment with how open or closed the lid is kept, to keep a humid, but not stale, environment in the container.  Experiment also with the temperature, by keeping the container in different locations — some strains of oysters prefer a range of around 55-70°F / 13-21°C; some will thrive in a somewhat cooler or warmer range.

Click to continue »

Bookmark and Share

Making Your Own Corned Beef

March 6th, 2010

With St. Patrick’s Day right around the corner I am getting in the mood for corned beef.  I love corned beef but loathe the idea of eating the mystery meat at the supermarket. It also kills me that they sell corned beef in a bag of water so that folks end up paying $5 for chemical water.

I found a corned beef recipe at Nourished Kitchen that I will be getting to work on as soon as I finish this post.

I will post my feed back here after St. Patrick’s Day.

Home-cured Corned Beef at Nourished Kitchen

Bookmark and Share

Raw Milk on The Food Network

March 4th, 2010

Bookmark and Share

Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

March 3rd, 2010

From: New York Times

I stopped eating pork about eight years ago, after a scientist happened to mention that the animal whose teeth most closely resemble our own is the pig. Unable to shake the image of a perky little pig flashing me a brilliant George Clooney smile, I decided it was easier to forgo the Christmas ham. A couple of years later, I gave up on all mammalian meat, period. I still eat fish and poultry, however and pour eggnog in my coffee. My dietary decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, and when friends ask why I’m willing to try the duck but not the lamb, I don’t have a good answer. Food choices are often like that: difficult to articulate yet strongly held. And lately, debates over food choices have flared with particular vehemence.

In his new book, “Eating Animals,” the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times that people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said, Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “eternal Treblinka.”

But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.

When plant biologists speak of their subjects, they use active verbs and vivid images. Plants “forage” for resources like light and soil nutrients and “anticipate” rough spots and opportunities. By analyzing the ratio of red light and far red light falling on their leaves, for example, they can sense the presence of other chlorophyllated competitors nearby and try to grow the other way. Their roots ride the underground “rhizosphere” and engage in cross-cultural and microbial trade.

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said.

Plants can’t run away from a threat but they can stand their ground. “They are very good at avoiding getting eaten,” said Linda Walling of the University of California, Riverside. “It’s an unusual situation where insects can overcome those defenses.” At the smallest nip to its leaves, specialized cells on the plant’s surface release chemicals to irritate the predator or sticky goo to entrap it. Genes in the plant’s DNA are activated to wage systemwide chemical warfare, the plant’s version of an immune response. We need terpenes, alkaloids, phenolics — let’s move.

“I’m amazed at how fast some of these things happen,” said Consuelo M. De Moraes ofPennsylvania State University. Dr. De Moraes and her colleagues did labeling experiments to clock a plant’s systemic response time and found that, in less than 20 minutes from the moment the caterpillar had begun feeding on its leaves, the plant had plucked carbon from the air and forged defensive compounds from scratch.

Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl. Some of the compounds that plants generate in response to insect mastication — their feedback, you might say — are volatile chemicals that serve as cries for help. Such airborne alarm calls have been shown to attract both large predatory insects like dragon flies, which delight in caterpillar meat, and tiny parasitic insects, which can infect a caterpillar and destroy it from within.

Bookmark and Share

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

March 3rd, 2010

Native American skulls, uncovered in the United States and Canada show perfect teeth. People dying without any dental deformity before the the advent of the modern diet!

More than sixty years ago, a Cleveland dentist named Weston A. Price decided to embark on a series of unique investigations that would engage his attention and energies for the next ten years. Possessed of an inquiring mind and a spiritual nature, Price was disturbed by what he found when he looked into the mouths of his patients. Rarely did an examination of an adult client reveal anything but rampant decay, often accompanied by serious problems elsewhere in the body such as arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, intestinal complaints and chronic fatigue. (They called it neurasthenia in Price’s day.) But it was the dentition of younger patients that gave him most cause for concern. He observed that crowded, crooked teeth were becoming more and more common, along with what Price called “facial deformities”–overbites, narrowed faces, underdevelopment of the nose, lack of well-defined cheekbones and pinched nostrils. Such children invariably suffered from one or more complaints that sound all too familiar to mothers of the 1990s: frequent infections, allergies, anemia, asthma, poor vision, lack of coordination, fatigue and behavioral problems. Price did not believe that such “physical degeneration” was God’s plan for mankind. He was rather inclined to believe that the creator intended physical perfection for all human beings, and that children should grow up free of ailments.

Price’s bewilderment gave way to a unique idea. He would travel to various isolated parts of the earth where the inhabitants had no contact with “civilization” to study their health and physical development. His investigations took him to isolated Swiss villages and a windswept island off the coast of Scotland. He studied traditional Eskimos, Indian tribes in Canada and the Florida Everglades, South Seas islanders, Aborigines in Australia, Maoris in New Zealand, Peruvian and Amazonian Indians and tribesmen in Africa. These investigations occurred at a time when there still existed remote pockets of humanity untouched by modern inventions; but when one modern invention, the camera, allowed Price to make a permanent record of the people he studied. The photographs Price took, the descriptions of what he found and his startling conclusions are preserved in a book considered a masterpiece by many nutrition researchers who followed in Price’s footsteps: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Yet this compendium of ancestral wisdom is all but unknown to today’s medical community and modern parents.

Read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price Online

Buy Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Bookmark and Share

Rotten Tomatoes? No Problem! Kraft Will Buy Them.

February 28th, 2010

Robert Watson, a top ingredient buyer for Kraft Foods, needed $20,000 to pay his taxes. So he called a broker for a California tomato processor that for years had been paying him bribes to get its products into Kraft’s plants.

The check would soon be in the mail, the broker promised. “We’ll have to deduct it out of your commissions as we move forward,” he said, using a euphemism for bribes.

Days later, federal agents descended on Kraft’s offices near Chicago and confronted Mr. Watson. He admitted his role in a bribery scheme that has laid bare a startling vein of corruption in the food industry. And because the scheme also involved millions of pounds of tomato products with high levels of mold or other defects, the case has raised serious questions about how well food manufacturers safeguard the quality of their ingredients.

Over the last 14 months, Mr. Watson and three other purchasing managers, at Frito-Lay, Safeway and B&G Foods, have pleaded guilty to taking bribes. Five people connected to one of the nation’s largest tomato processors, SK Foods, have also admitted taking part in the scheme.

Now, federal prosecutors in California have taken aim at the owner of SK Foods, who they say spearheaded the far-reaching plot. The man, Frederick Scott Salyer, was arrested at Kennedy Airport in New York City on Feb. 4 after getting off a flight from Switzerland. He was indicted last week on racketeering, fraud and obstruction of justice charges.

The scheme, as laid out by federal prosecutors, has two parts. Officials say that Mr. Salyer and others at SK Foods greased the palms of a handful of corporate buyers in exchange for lucrative contracts and confidential information on bids submitted by competitors. This most likely drove up ingredient prices for the big food companies.

In addition, prosecutors say that for years, SK Foods shipped its customers millions of pounds of bulk tomato paste and puree that fell short of basic quality standards — with falsified documentation to mask the problems. Often that meant mold counts so high the sale should have been prohibited under federal law; at other times it involved breaching specifications in the sales contracts, such as acidity levels or the age of the product.

The scope of the tainted shipments was much broader than the bribery scheme, touching more than 55 companies. In some cases, companies detected problems and sent the products back — but in many cases, according to prosecutors, they did not, and the tainted ingredients wound up in food sold to consumers.

Prosecutors said that no one was sickened by the mold-tainted products and that they were not a health risk.

Benjamin B. Wagner, the United States attorney in Sacramento, whose office has led the investigation, said he was also looking at allegations of collusion and price fixing involving SK Foods and other tomato processors.

“If you have a couple of people who are willing to bend the rules and they set that tone from the top, that can spread very quickly in that company and in that niche of the industry, and that’s what happened here,” Mr. Wagner said.

Malcolm Segal, a lawyer for Mr. Salyer, said his client had done nothing wrong. “The allegations against Mr. Salyer are unsupported except by individuals who have pled guilty and who are seeking a personal benefit in the sentencing process,” Mr. Segal said.

Randy W. Worobo, an associate professor of food microbiology at Cornell University, said companies should learn from the SK Foods case that they must do a better job of monitoring their ingredients.

“There’s been a lot of hype about inferior-quality products being made in China and then sold to the U.S. consumer,” Mr. Worobo said. “This is exactly the same thing, but it’s based in the U.S.”

Read the rest of the story at: Bribes Let Tomato Vendor Sell Tainted Food (NY Times)

Bookmark and Share

Black Market Egg Sales Ruffle Feathers

February 27th, 2010

To farmers’ markets across the country they flock, foodies in search of free-range eggs fresh from the farm.

But they must move quickly because demand far outstrips supply. The eggs – laid by hens that roam free, eat bugs and live an existence that is antithetical to the life of the caged battery fowl that produce for supermarkets – sell out quickly. That is, unless you know who to ask and where to find them. Or, in some cases, the secret password.

Dawn Woodward, owner of Evelyn’s Crackers, an artisan baked-goods company in Toronto, will show up at the market at seven in the morning for farm-fresh eggs or drive an hour out of town to find them. When she’s leaving the city, she phones ahead to place an order with one of the hundreds of small farms in the country that sell pastured eggs.

“The flavour is better,” she says. “They are fresher and richer. They’re sweeter, a fuller flavour.” She prefers eggs laid by hens allowed to scratch and wander – when she can get them.

This longing for farm eggs has pushed the price of a dozen to about $5, roughly the same price you pay for organic eggs at the supermarket. In California, where alternative eggs have reached cult status and where the farmers who raise them are stars – starmers – a carton can cost $8 (U.S.). The eggs offer smaller producers a good revenue source. But this growing market for a different kind of egg is creating tension between the small farms that raise them and the egg marketing board that has helped to develop the mainstream egg industry in Canada and its large chicken farms.

This tension now is putting the future supply of this sought-after product in question as what some call the “egg police” crack down on the grey market.

“It’s a huge issue,” says Tom Henry, a Vancouver Island farmer and editor of the magazine Small Farm Canada. “The right to sell eggs is the small-farm equivalent of the right to bear arms.”

Click to continue »

Bookmark and Share

Factory Farming Fish FAIL

February 26th, 2010

Chile’s loss is Norway’s gain. After a virus that causes salmon anemia devastated Chile’s salmon harvest, prices have spiked worldwide and Norway’s salmon exporters are taking advantage. Chile had been the second biggest producer of salmon in the world, but is predicted to sell only about 90,000 tons this year, compared to 403,000 tons in 2008.

BusinessWeek has a recent story and so does the Financial Times. The Financial Times includes a single line speculating as to the cause of the virus outbreak:

Environmental groups accuse Chile’s salmon industry of over-crowding its cages for salmon and using too many chemicals.

But what neither report tells us is that 20 years ago, Chile had no salmon industry at all. Salmon are not indigenous to South America. Chile’s entire production was farmed, and for years, a hefty proportion of the harvest went directly to Wal-Mart. As Wal-Mart expanded its grocery offerings, so did Chile’s salmon farms burgeon.

In 2006, Salon excerpted a chapter from Charles Fishman’s excellent “The Wal-Mart Effect” that told the story of Chilean salmon. After learning of the Chilean salmon disaster from the International Political Economy Zone blog, I went back to review that chapter, and the following paragraph jumped out at me.

Salmon farming is starting to transform the ecology and environment of southern Chile too, with tens of millions of salmon living in vast ocean corrals, their excess food and feces settling to the ocean floor beneath the pens, and dozens of salmon processing plants dumping untreated salmon entrails directly into the ocean.

Who could have predicted that the mass forced farming of an exotic fish to please the Wal-Mart low-price palate would result in a horrific virus-borne plague of anemia?

Back to Fishman:

“Have you ever seen a hog farm?” asks Gerry Leape, vice president of marine conservation for the National Environmental Trust, a Washington-based environmental nonprofit group. “These fish are the hogs of the sea. They live in the same sort of conditions, it’s just in water. They pack them really closely together, they use a lot of prophylactic antibiotics, not to treat disease, but to prevent it. There’s lots of concentrated fish waste, it creates dead zones in the ocean around the pens.”

(Wal-Mart, incidentally, stopped buying Chilean salmon in July.) The Chilean government is now working on new laws to govern salmon farming  designed to ensure healthier fish, but in the meantime the whole sorry saga offers a potent metaphor for the dangers inherent in any kind of industrial production of animals.

Source: Chile’s farmed salmon disaster (Salon)

See also: Chile’s Antibiotics Use on Salmon Farms Dwarfs That of a Top Rival’s (NY Times)

Bookmark and Share

The Cholesterol Heart Disease Lie

February 25th, 2010

It turns out that everything that we thought was a fact regarding the connection between saturated fat and cholesterol is wrong. Not only that, but everything that we think we know about cholesterol and heart disease is wrong too.

Here are a couple vids that get to the point rather well.

The Cholesterol Myth exposed – Dr Malcolm Kendrick speaks about World Health Organisation data gathered in their MONI-CA study. MONItoring Trends in CArdiovascular Disease

Clip from the documentary “Fat Head.” Guess what? Fat and cholesterol don’t cause heart disease. The theory was based on bogus science from the very beginning.

Bookmark and Share

Is Salt Killing Us?

February 23rd, 2010

Suppose, as some experts advise, that the new national dietary guidelines due this spring will lower the recommended level of salt. Suppose further that public health officials in New York and Washington succeed in forcing food companies to use less salt. What would be the effect?

A) More than 44,000 deaths would be prevented annually (as estimated recently in The New England Journal of Medicine).

B) About 150,000 deaths per year would be prevented annually (as estimated by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene).

C) Hundreds of millions of people would be subjected to an experiment with unpredictable and possibly adverse effects (as argued recently in The Journal of the American Medical Association).

D) Not much one way or the other.

E) Americans would get even fatter than they are today.

Don’t worry, there’s no wrong answer, at least not yet. That’s the beauty of the salt debate: there’s so little reliable evidence that you can imagine just about any outcome. For all the talk about the growing menace of sodium in packaged foods, experts aren’t even sure that Americans today are eating more salt than they used to.

When you don’t know past trends, predicting the future is a wide-open game.

My personal favorite prediction is E, the further fattening of America, but I’m just guided by a personal rule: Never bet against the expansion of Americans’ waistlines, especially not when public health experts get involved.

The harder the experts try to save Americans, the fatter we get. We followed their admirable advice to quit smoking, and by some estimates we gained 15 pounds apiece afterward. The extra weight was certainly a worthwhile trade-off for longer life and better health, but with success came a new challenge.

Officials responded by advising Americans to shun fat, which became the official villain of the national dietary guidelines during the 1980s and 1990s. The anti-fat campaign definitely made an impact on the marketing of food, but as we gobbled up all the new low-fat products, we kept getting fatter. Eventually, in 2000, the experts revised the dietary guidelines and conceded that their anti-fat advice may have contributed to diabetes andobesity by unintentionally encouraging Americans to eat more calories.

Read more at: When It Comes to Salt, No Rights or Wrongs. Yet. (NY Times)

Bookmark and Share