When the season is right I get about half of my food from the wild. A lot of the greens, roots, fruits and berries go into salads but the bulk of it gets fermented. I have learned a special technique for Kim-Chi fermentation of wild greens with fish sauce, garlic, ginger and chili. I am told that my Kim Chi tastes like south coast Korean Kim-Chi.
As I was on my way out to do some wild collection the other day I had an argument with a friend who, half jokingly, said 'you are going out to practice deforestation again'. She was dubious of my going out and collecting so much of my food from the woods. 'Yes' she said 'it is ok that you do it but what if everyone did it?' I responded that if everyone did it then maybe the farmer would not have to drive his tractor with the hedge cutter along the roads up on the Warteburg every few weeks. In one pass on the road that farmer cuts down more edible vegetation than all of Witzenhausen would use in a summer.
In her argument the forest should be left alone and allowed to grow unmolested by wild harvesting. My argument is that a focus on over-utilization in wild collection is wrong headed. Utilization of natural resources is exactly the opposite of waste and destruction of natural resources. If I see a use for that forest and the resources it holds within I am less likely to burn it down or allow it to be developed into a condominium. If my food comes from that forest I am not likely to cut it down and turn it into agricultural land.
The relationship between nature and culture is a delicate balance of give and take. I need to get something out of a relationship for it to mean something to me.
Kim-Chi Recipe (adapted from David Lebovitz).
2 1/2 pounds (roughly 1 kilo ) of wild greens (whichever is in season)
1/2 cup (100g) coarse salt
2 heads of garlic, peeled and finely minced
Finger sized piece of fresh ginger, peeled and minced
1/4 cup (60ml) fish sauce (fish paste is also ok)
1 large handful of spicy spicy chili powder
Directions:
1. Slice the greens into chunks. Cut away the tough stems etc.
2. Mix and mash greens and other ingredients in a large bowl. (Some recipes advise wearing rubber gloves since the chili paste can stain your hands or burn.)
3. Pack the Kim-Chi in a clean jar large enough to hold it all (leave some space) and cover it tightly.
4. Check the Kim-Chi after 1-2 days.up to a few weeks If it’s bubbling and smelly, it’s ready to be eaten
Storage: Many advise to eat the Kim-Chi within 3 weeks. After that, it can get too fermented. I have eaten Kim-Chi that was much much older than that and it was delicious (3 year old jjigae). This is largely dependent on the wild greens that you use. Springtime greens tend to turn to mush after three or four weeks of fermentation, autumn wild greens are heartier and can be fermented through the winter or longer.
Kim-Chi Recipe (adapted from David Lebovitz).
2 1/2 pounds (roughly 1 kilo ) of wild greens (whichever is in season)
1/2 cup (100g) coarse salt
2 heads of garlic, peeled and finely minced
Finger sized piece of fresh ginger, peeled and minced
1/4 cup (60ml) fish sauce (fish paste is also ok)
1 large handful of spicy spicy chili powder
Directions:
1. Slice the greens into chunks. Cut away the tough stems etc.
2. Mix and mash greens and other ingredients in a large bowl. (Some recipes advise wearing rubber gloves since the chili paste can stain your hands or burn.)
3. Pack the Kim-Chi in a clean jar large enough to hold it all (leave some space) and cover it tightly.
4. Check the Kim-Chi after 1-2 days.up to a few weeks If it’s bubbling and smelly, it’s ready to be eaten
Storage: Many advise to eat the Kim-Chi within 3 weeks. After that, it can get too fermented. I have eaten Kim-Chi that was much much older than that and it was delicious (3 year old jjigae). This is largely dependent on the wild greens that you use. Springtime greens tend to turn to mush after three or four weeks of fermentation, autumn wild greens are heartier and can be fermented through the winter or longer.
A conversation on this topic from May:
ReplyDeleteProfessor:
You wrote. “ the higher a species cultural significance (the more it is used by people, and the more diverse uses it has for people (UR;NU;FC:CI index)) the more likely it is to be conserved.”
I have this to add. Would it not follow that the more cultural significance (value) and the more uses a species provides for people, the more likely it will be exploited? Wouldn’t it be better to find alternatives with the same or better significance?
My Response:
I've just returned from Kenya where I have seen the displacement issue first hand.
You are absolutely right about the current paradigm of conservation. It is backwards to think of nature as being a place without people. I am saying that there is no culture without nature and no nature without culture. Humans belong on the Masai Mara.. Now it is all just vans full of tourists and the natives do not care about it anymore.. they live in little slums on the edges and try to get out.. they kill the 'bush meat' and sell it on the black market. Conservation as it is currently implemented is failing.
The function 'higher significance higher exploitation' would be the arch nemesis of my theory.
Of course making a market for the meat of a rare animal. or the fruit of a rare tree may cause problems. The case of the birds of Hawaii is another example of indigenous people over-utilizing resources - unchecked consumerism, be it feathery clothes or fine meats and fruits, is not the idea I am working on here. I am trying to say that the more important a species is to the community the more likely it will be preserved.. This CI index looks for a spread of uses as well as number of uses. If a fruit has only a use for sale to tourists then it would not have a high CI index score. A tree that provides shade, tea, fruit, salad, habitat for birds, timber, firewood, water storage, gourds, is seen as pretty, gives people pride, adds to soil quality etc. would score higher though it may be used less intensively in all those areas.
The idea behind cultural significance and conservation, then, would be that the higher scoring species could become the focus of efforts to conserve habitat ranges and to increase eroding biomes across human communities. Putting people back in nature and nature back among people. Moving it all into a grey area.
Response from the Professor:
Yes Cory! Go and Tell. Well argued. All the best with your defence and your work.