BLOGS

Disfrute de los camotes todo el tiempo

Quizás los camotes son más conocidos en los Estados Unidos cubiertos de malvaviscos o masmelo derretidos durante la cena de Acción de Gracias. Pero si se les hornea, hierve o sirve  crudos, pueden ser una parte saludable de la cocina californiana durante cualquier época del año.

California es un importante productor de camotes. Alrededor de un 90 por ciento del cultivo de California – 18,000 acres – se produce en el condado de Merced en granjas que ocupan desde cinco acres a varios miles de acres. En 2011, el valor de la cosecha de camote a nivel estatal se situó en los 125 millones.

Sin embargo, usted probablemente no encuentre granjeros de camotes en los mercados de granjeros locales.

“Aún los cultivadores más pequeños tienden a trabajar con una planta empacadora y combinan sus cultivos con los de otros para venderlos”, dijo Scott Stoddard, consejero de Extensión Cooperativa de la Universidad de California en el condado de Merced.

Hace algunos años, cuando los camotes fritos, estilo papas fritas a la francesa, empezaron a aparecer en restaurantes exclusivos y en las cadenas de comida rápida Hace algunde todo el país, la industria de los camotes de Estados Unidos y California, sobreestimaron el futuro crecimiento del consumo de este producto, indicó Stoddard.  Además, una mejora en las prácticas de cultivo incrementó la producción por acre, dejando al país un tanto saturado de camotes. En la actualidad, la superficie de cultivo se está reduciendo de nuevo, ya que los cultivadores equilibran el abastecimiento con la demanda.

La mayoría de los programas de producción de camotes se llevan a cabo en el Sur, como en Luisiana y Carolina del Norte, pero las características que se buscan en esa parte del país son diferentes a las de California. Stoddard está realizando pruebas especializadas de variedades en California para seleccionar variedades con cáscaras de color rojo, púrpura o granate.

“En California, optamos por el camote de cáscara roja”, manifestó Stoddard. “Especialmente, la variedad de cáscara roja que se almacena bien”.

Algunas personas creen incorrectamente que los camotes de pulpa húmeda y naranja son ñames. Los verdaderos ñames pueden ser encontrados en cualquier parte del mundo, pero en Estados Unidos, un camote es un camote ya sea de pulpa naranja, amarilla o blanca, o que la cáscara sea color bronce, rosa polvoso o rojo granate.

Los camotes son un cultivo de California que aparece en Dirt Fresh News, un boletín mensual producido por Extensión Cooperativa de la UC en el condado de Stanislaus, el cual introduce a los niños en edad escolar a alimentos frescos y localmente cultivados. El boletín indica que los camotes son una buena fuente de potasio, fibra, beta carotina y vitaminas B-6, E y C.

Para comerlos crudos, simplemente pélelos, córtelos en palitos y sírvalos con aderezo ranch bajo en grasa o con puré de manzana. Raye camotes crudos y frescos y agréguelos a burritos o tacos o sobre ensaladas para darle un toque dulce, saludable y crocante.

Los camotes horneados pueden comerse en el desayuno, almuerzo o cena, con todo y la cáscara, al natural o con una pizca de mantequilla.

“Hornearlos en el microondas es una buena idea para ahorrar energía si sólo va a cocinar uno o dos camotes”, señala el boletín. “Lave los camotes y séquelos a palmaditas. Píquelos con un cuchillo en dos o tres lugares. Cocínelos a alta potencia durante cinco minutos. Deles vuelta. Cocine durante otros cinco minutos, más o menos”.

A continuación le ofrecemos recetas del Sweet Potato Council of California (Consejo del Camote de California):

Ensalada tibia de camotes y ejotes

• 3 camotes medianos, cocidos, pelados y cortados en rebanadas de ¼ de pulgada (alrededor de dos libras)
• ½ libra de ejotes frescos
• 1 cebolla roja pequeña, en rebanadas
• 1 diente de ajo
• 2 cucharadas de aceite vegetal
• Brotes de un berro (opcional)
• 1 cucharada de vinagre de vino tinto
• ½ cucharadita de sal
• ¼ de cucharada de pimienta recién molida

En un sartén grande dore los camotes a fuego medio y cueza los ejotes con la cebolla y el ajo en el aceite hasta que estén blandos pero crujientes. Retire del fuego. Agregue el resto de los ingredientes. Sirva tibios. Si desea, agregue virutas de queso parmesano.

Sopa de camote y puerros

• 1 manojo de puerros, incluyendo las partes blancas y verdes claras
• 2 cucharadas de mantequilla o margarina
• 2 camotes frescos
• 4 tazas de agua
• 1 cucharada de sal
• 1/2 cucharadita de tomillo
• 1/2 taza de crema para batir
• 1 cucharada de jugo de limón
• 1/4 de cucharadita de pimienta blanca
• 1 pizca de chile cayenne o pimiento rojo molido

Corte los puerros en rebanadas y sofría en mantequilla hasta que se ablanden. Corte los camotes en rebanadas delgadas; agregue a los puerros y sofría durante tres minutos. Agregue el agua, la sal y el tomillo. Déjelo hervir; reduzca el fuego y cocine a fuego lento, parcialmente cubierto, durante 20 a 25 minutos, moviendo ocasionalmente, hasta que las verduras se ablanden bastante.  Muela y cuele la mezcla. Agregue la crema, el jugo del limón y la pimienta blanca y el pimiento rojo. Ajuste el sazón al gusto. Para adornar, corte un puerro y un camote estilo juliana en tiras de ¾ de pulgada; sofríalos en dos cucharadas de mantequilla hasta que estén tiernas/crujientes. Mezcle con la sopa justo antes de servirla. Rinde de 4 to 6 porciones.

Quienes estudian la obesidad no dejan una molécula sin revisar

La conferencia bi anual sobre Obesidad Infantil (Childhood Obesity Conference) se estará llevando a cabo en Long Beach del 18 al 20 de Junio.

Enmarcado por dos prominentes oradores de clase mundial — Michael Moss, el reportero del New York Times ganador del Premio Pulitzer y autor del libro Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us (Sal azúcar grasa: cómo fue que los gigantes de la industria de los alimentos nos engancharon) y Marion Nestle, profesora de estudios alimentarios y salud pública de la Universidad de Nueva York y autora de Food Politics and What to Eat (Políticas alimentarios y qué debemos comer) — el evento promete una evaluación sistemática y sin restricciones de los problemas de la obesidad dentro de toda su complejidad.

El alcance público por parte de escritores y activistas dinámicos como Moss y Nestle es importante y da a conocer la tan necesitada información, mensajes y preguntas en toso el mundo. Pero las ciencias exactas, en las que muchos de los avances tomarán lugar y promoverán el entendimiento y tratamientos, se encuentran ocultas en los laboratorios a lo largo de la Universidad de California, donde el profesorado y sus estudiantes de postgrado e investigadores de post doctorado trabajan duro en el anonimato.

Uno de estos descubrimientos logrado en el laboratorio y publicado en las noticias justo a tiempo para las pasadas fiestas decembrinas, fue cuando el profesor de toxicología molecular de la UC Berkeley, Hei Sook Sol, publicó un reporte revelando los mecanismos moleculares sobre cómo es que nuestros cuerpos convierten los carbohidratos dietéticos en grasa. Este descubrimiento tiene el potencial de convertirse en el primer paso en el desarrollo de un tratamiento para el hígado graso y otras enfermedades relacionadas a la obesidad.

Para un vistazo previo a lo que podría producir el próximo descubrimiento, explore la investigación (browse the research)  que se está llevando a cabo en el Departamento de Ciencias sobre Nutrición y Toxicología de la UC Berkeley.

$6 brochures help steer Latinos to premium universities

Most kids who are high academic achievers but come from low-income families aren’t applying to schools like Harvard or Columbia University, or even the University of Florida.

Not because they wouldn’t do well there or because the financial support doesn’t exist for them. It’s because the schools aren’t recruiting them, according to two recently published studies.

The papers, co-authored by Caroline Hoxby, a Stanford economist, showed that as elite universities try to attract more low-income students by offering financial support to make them competitive or even cheaper than local colleges, they routinely target the same schools in densely populated areas.

But according to this research, a mere $6 investment in an informational packet geared toward low-income students increased the probability that they apply to a college equal to their educational abilities by 19 percent for public universities, 17 percent for private universities and 15 percent for liberal arts schools.

The studies were published in March and contained data supplied by the College Board for the graduating class of 2008.

Although the information that the investigator assembled is available through a variety of sources, it isn't being packaged in a way that is helpful for students, some say.

“When they think about Latinos, they say 'well we’ll just translate what we have and that will be good enough'," said Deborah Santiago, co-founder of Excelencia in Education, a group that promotes higher education among Latinos. "But they still have to find a way to get to them.”

That information is often dispensed to the same schools year after year, schools that tend to be located in areas where they get a large pool of students, such as ones in close proximity to a university or an urban magnet school with high densities of low-income students. But in taking that approach, there are large untapped populations in suburban and rural areas that are not made aware of the opportunities they have, the studies said.

In 2008 only 34 percent of these students, who made up the top 4 percent of high school students, went to a selective college, according to the research.  

That year, Hispanics made up 7.6 percent of what the academics termed low-income high achievers, as determined by ACT and SAT test scores and GPA. They have historically not applied in high numbers to some of the nation’s best universities, opting instead for colleges closer to their homes.

To see if they could reverse the trend, the authors sent out brochures that cost $6 a student. The outreach included making up for counselors who may not be well versed in applying to selective colleges by pointing out deadlines, graduation rates and explaining how to figure out what curriculum is offered. It also tried to address cost issues by providing a net cost analysis of the financial aid available at selective colleges.

In the end, the number of low-income, high performing students who do not live in urban areas and are not routinely exposed to college recruiters wound up applying to more selective schools than they would have without the intervention.

But just because a solution seems so simple, it doesn’t mean that colleges will change their recruitment procedures.

“At end of the day,” Santiago said. “An institution still has to find ways to help that student afford an education.”

Source: Originally published on Fox News Latino as $6 Brochures Help Steer Latinos to Premium Universities, bySoni Sangha, May 13, 2013. Based on story on The Standford Report, “New tools help smart low-income kids realize great college opportunities, Stanford researcher says,” March 29, 2013.

What is American?

In my last blog I wrote about ethnic umbrella labels. These labels include, but are not limited to, European-American, Asian-American, African-American and Native-American, and all share the characteristics of having a geographical reference point, but beyond that, distinctions appear. These terms raise another labeling issue, one which I’ve been questioned about. It concerns the use of the word American — including my use of American — to refer to the United States and its people. The argument goes like this.

“The entire Western Hemisphere is the Americas, North and South. Therefore, it’s inappropriate to use American when referring only to the United States.” There is some truth to that argument. Randy Newman called attention to this verbal conundrum in his classic parody, “Political Science,” when he satirically sang, “South America stole our name.”

As I’ve discussed in my blogs, national and ethnic labels are arbitrary and sometimes confusing. In Latin America, norteamericano is often used to refer to the people and things of the United States (and sometimes Canada). This occurs even though, geographically speaking, Mexico and Central America are part of the North American continent. I’ve heard critics (usually non-Latinos) argue that using the term American in reference to only the United States is arrogant or even offensive, especially to Latinos. Well, not to me. I’m not offended. Rather, I find its use to be a proud tradition, a historically-grounded expression of national identity.

Admittedly, not all traditions are sacrosanct, but our use of the label American has deep, hallowed roots. We sing “America” at public events and that’s not about to change. When Latino veterans formed an organization shortly after World War II, they proudly called it the American G.I. Forum. My forthcoming four-volume encyclopedia of ethnicity in the United States will be entitled Multicultural America.

Our country certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on the term American — after all, our schools teach Latin American history. I taught Latin American history. Nevertheless, I’m going to continue using American to depict the people and things of the United States. One reason for this is that I’ve never encountered a good alternative.

Occasionally I’ve heard suggestions of other terms, such as U.S. American and even United Statesian. However, I find these labels to be clunky, distracting and overly self-conscious, and I’d rather not use them.

On the other hand, one day some expression might replace American as the standard. After all, language does change. African-American was not widely used half a century ago. Maybe in the distant future American will become a linguistic relic, like Thee and Thou. But don’t hold your breath.

Source: Published originally on Univision’s Hispanic Insights Weekly Digest as What Is American? by Dr. Carlos E. Cortés, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of California, Riverside. He can be reached at carlos.cortes@ucr.edu.

Mexican-origin Hispanics in the United States

A record 33.7 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2012, according to a brief prepared by Pew Hispanic Research Center. This estimate includes 11.4 million immigrants born in Mexico and 22.3 million born in the U.S. who self-identified as Hispanics of Mexican origin.

Mexicans are by far the largest Hispanic-origin population in the U.S., accounting for nearly two-thirds (64%) of the U.S. Hispanic population in 2012.¹ Hispanics of Mexican origin are also a significant portion of the U.S. population, accounting for 11 percent overall.

The size of the Mexican-origin population in the U.S. has risen dramatically over the past four decades as a result of one of the largest mass migrations in modern history. In 1970, fewer than 1 million Mexican immigrants lived in the U.S. By 2000, that number had grown to 9.8 million, and by 2007 it reached a peak of 12.5 million Since then, the Mexican-born population has declined as the arrival of new Mexican immigrants has slowed significantly Today, 35 percent of Hispanics of Mexican origin were born in Mexico. And while the remaining two-thirds (65%) were born in the U.S., half (52%) of them have at least one immigrant parent.

Mexican immigration has also played a large role in shaping the nation’s immigrant population. Today, 11.4 million Mexican immigrants live in the U.S., making them the single largest country of origin group by far among the nation’s 40 million immigrants. The next largest foreign-born population, from greater China at 2 million,² is less than one-fifth the size of the Mexican-born population in the U.S.

In addition, Mexican migration has shaped the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population. More than half (55%) of the 11.1 million immigrants who are in the country illegally are from Mexico.

Among Mexican immigrants, half (51%) are in the U.S. illegally while about a third are legal permanent residents (32%) and 16% are naturalized U.S. citizens. Overall, naturalization rates among Mexican immigrants who are in the country legally are just half that of legal immigrants from all other countries combined.

Internationally, the U.S. is far and away the top destination for immigrants from Mexico.

Mexican Immigrants Today and Two Decades Ago

The characteristics of Mexican immigrants have changed over the decades. Compared with 1990, Mexican immigrants in 2011 were less likely to be male (53% vs. 55%), considerably older (median age of 38 vs. 29), better educated (41% with high school or more vs. 25%), and have been in the U.S. for longer (71% had been in the U.S. for more than 10 years, compared with 50%).

On economic measures, Mexican immigrants have mixed results. Although median personal earnings increased by about $2,000 during the last two decades, the median household income of Mexican immigrants suffered a drop of more than $4,500. This reflects the effects of the recent economic recession that drove up unemployment rates in the nation, particularly among Mexican immigrants.

This demographic portrait compares the demographic, income and economic characteristics of the foreign-born and native-born Mexican-origin populations with the characteristics of all Hispanics in the U.S. It is based on tabulations from the 2011 American Community Survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. Key findings include:

• Immigration status. Almost two-thirds of Mexicans in the U.S. are native born (65%). About two-thirds of immigrants from Mexico (65%) arrived in the U.S. in 1990 or later.
• Language. Two-thirds (66%) of Mexican-origin Hispanics ages 5 and older speak English proficiently.⁵ The remaining 34% report speaking English less than very well, equal to the share among all Hispanics. About nine-in-ten (89%) native-born Mexicans ages 5 and older speak English proficiently. This compares to about one-in-three (29%) among Mexican immigrants.
• Age. Mexican-origin Hispanics are younger than both the U.S. population and Hispanics overall. The median age of Mexicans is 25; the median ages of the U.S. population and all Hispanics are 37 and 27, respectively. U.S.-born Mexicans are considerably younger than their foreign-born counterparts. The median age of native-born Mexicans is 17, compared with 38 of the foreign born.
• Marital status. Among those ages 15 and older, Mexican immigrants are more likely than native-born Mexicans to be married—58% vs. 34% respectively. As a group, Mexican-origin Hispanics ages 15 and older are slightly more likely (45%) to be married than Hispanics overall (43%).
• Fertility. Almost one-in-ten (8%) Mexican women ages 15 to 44 gave birth in the 12 months prior to this survey. That was the same as the rate for all Hispanic women—8%—and slightly higher than the overall rate for U.S. women—6%. More than four-in-ten (45%) Mexican women ages 15 to 44 who gave birth in the 12 months prior to the survey were unmarried. That was similar to the rate for all Hispanic women—47%—and greater than the overall rate for U.S. women—38%.
• Regional dispersion. More than half (52%) of Mexican-origin Hispanics live in the West, mostly in California (36%), and another 35% live in the South, mostly in Texas (26%). There is no significant difference in the regional dispersion of Mexicans by nativity.
• Educational attainment. Mexicans have lower levels of education than the Hispanic population overall. Some 10% of Mexicans ages 25 and older—compared with 13% of all U.S. Hispanics—have obtained at least a bachelor’s degree. Mexicans born in the U.S. are almost three times more likely to have earned a bachelor’s degree than those born in Mexico—15% vs. 6% respectively. About six-in-ten Mexican immigrants have not earned a high school diploma (59%), compared with 21% of Mexicans born in the U.S.
• Income. The median annual personal earnings for Hispanics of Mexican origin ages 16 and older was $20,000 in the year prior to the survey, the same as for U.S. Hispanics overall. U.S.-born Mexicans had higher earnings than their immigrant counterparts—a median of $22,000 vs. $19,000 respectively.
• Poverty status. The share of Mexicans who live in poverty, 27%, is slightly higher than the rate for Hispanics overall (25%). U.S.-born Mexicans are slightly less likely to live in poverty than their foreign-born counterparts—26% vs. 29% respectively.
• Health insurance. One-third of Mexicans (33%) do not have health insurance, compared with 30% of all Hispanics. More than half (57%) of Mexican immigrants are uninsured, compared with 20% of those born in the U.S.
• Homeownership. The rate of homeownership (49%) among Mexican-origin Hispanics is higher than the rate for all Hispanics (46%). The rate of homeownership among U.S.-born Mexicans (53%) is higher than that of Mexican immigrants (45%).

Source: Originally published on Pew Research Hispanic Center as A Demographic Portrait of Mexican-Origin Hispanics in the United Statesby Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Mark Hugo Lopez, May 1, 2013.

Next 5 stories | Last story