Mussels, Beans and Two Veg, anyone?

Borlotti beans grown by yours truly

Alarming information from the BBC (article by Roger Harrabin) and others about greenhouse gas emissions arising from eating meat.

This has of course been known for some time. We're (we = humans) still eating meat, of course, and craving for more, it would seem. Meanwhile, the ice is melting, the sea is rising and getting warmer and all those nasty things are brewing which will make life much more difficult for us all ( = humans and most other creatures).

Are there any solutions, apart form turning the whole Earth into some sort of intensive meat production farm, producing bionic bovines emitting less methane, or searching for a laboratory produced artificial meat solution to satisfy our craving?

There are indeed, and one of them is to eat much less of the stuff. That is, if you are not completely disgusted by the thought that meat is, after all, the flesh of an animal which we have wilfully killed or had killed in order to eat it, and decide to not eat any at all.

I like my meat as much as the next human but it is not difficult at all to eat much less of it. Think of it as a treat and not a necessity; eat other things which are just as good for you (beans and pulses come to mind).

Eating something meaty and nice once a week, using the leftovers and gorging on vegetables, beans, peas, potatoes etc etc the rest of the time is also good for your personal health.

Add a few mussels (which require practically no input to produce a delicious meaty/fishy treat and store carbon in their shells) or other low impact shellfish and you have the sort of diet which will make you look ten years younger and about which you can be smug to your meat-eating friends who are destroying the Earth.

Give it a go.

Turnips and early flowering

The first Turnips of the season

You don't see many turnips in the shops these days. As with many once common foods they are more likely to feature on the menus of Michelin starred restaurants as purées, than on the plates of the ordinary citizen. It is said that before the introduction of potatoes turnips were once a very important food, providing good carbohydrates fairly early in the season. I shall try them in a gratin this weekend with a shoulder of lamb (our weekly meat-fix) - and will report on the result. These particular turnips found themselves cooked in a couscous, and very good they were too. The wine was a rosé from the Côte Roannaise - L'Enjoleur 2009 from Domaine Robert Sérol.

The turnip may not be inspiring or fashionable but it is a versatile root (a friend suggested roasting them with a honey glaze) and worthy of our attention, just like many other neglected vegetables and wild foods. It is wise to be familiar with them.

A quick aside to comment on the early flowering of vines this year - before Wimbledon, no less ! A long growing and ripening season in prospect for English and Welsh growers. As usual there has been a lot of comment in the press about exceptionally good harvests and brilliant English wines this year. But as the saying goes, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip.

Edo Ergo Sum

Lamb's lettuce, Spinach and Nasturtium flower  salad

I eat therefore I am. I am what I eat. And what I drink. Commentators often refer to the culture of the grape versus the culture of the barley; or  potato v pasta or rice v the rest of the world. Rice wine against whisk(e)y. We seem to like to define ourselves by what we eat; we set ourselves apart and commune with each other in partaking of the food of our country or culture. Terms of abuse often make reference to food allegedly consumed by those we dislike - the Frogs, Cabbage eaters, spud lovers etc. How would one define me, an eater of rabbit food as shown above ? Some sort of food snob or sandal wearing hippy (all above grown by your servant in his garden) ? And what was drunk with this: a Pouilly-sur-Loire 2009 made of grapes from century-old Chasselas vines (Serge Dagueneau et Filles) ? Now that really is foody.

I think I am trying to say that few relationships are more intimate than those we maintain with food. It shapes us both physically and culturally, and to obtain it we have shaped the Earth to to get her to produce what we want, be it in a small garden or in a vast monoculture of wheat, or endless grassland for our domestic animals. Our so called civilisations have always depended on a ready supply of food and have withered and died when it ran out, usually because of some natural 'pest', or exhaustion of the soil.

It has been said that excessive talk of food is the sign of a decadent society destined to be consumed by some impending disaster, that lunch is for wimps. Those who have no choice, eat to sustain themselves, and are not fussy about what is eaten.  My ancestors lived on potatoes but never eulogised about them. But many of them starved when the crop failed. They could have turned to the sea or the hedgerows for nourishment but failed to do this. I could be accused here of making the let them eat cake comment attributed to Marie-Antoinette. I simply make the point that diversity of supply is important. I am not certain that a willingness to talk of food is decadent or frivolous.

Is it not showing respect for food and how it is come by to talk of it ? It is not showing respect for Nature to celebrate her diversity and the multifarious way in which she nourishes us, and also to be realistic about where our food should come from in the future ? It can no longer be considered in terms of vast quantities of 'staples' which nourish humanity. In the future we will be grateful for extremely diverse foods from all available sources, in our fields, gardens, hedgerows and forests. We may not be able to get our fix of fat and sugar as readily as in the past but we will be healthier and put less pressure on the land and on the creatures we must share it with. We will I suspect much happier for it.