Still am narrowing down my seed wantings from the seed catalogs... I've gotten rid of some from my list I had wanted, but added others I hadn't previously know about. I have already pre-ordered some German Butterball seed potatoes from SSE, however, as last spring I was too late and they were sold out.
I may just plant my saved Stowell's corn seed. Nothing really excites me that is "dual purpose" (one of the purposes being "sweet"), although I still may try and find some Tuscarora/Iroquois White seed to plant. I thought about Gourdseed (again), but since I won't be making meal for awhile, I don't see the point. Decisions, decisions...
AND, it's about time to order chickens for this year.
My main garden is still doing ok, even though the weather has been fluctuating between 15 and 80 degrees lately! My broccoli is hanging in there, as well as a speckled lettuce and my carrots. My garlic is still going strong (but it has awhile to go), and my onions are doing well, but some deer infiltrated my [very low] fence and munched many of the tops. Who knew?! I thought deer wouldn't like onion greens, but obviously they do.
Although a bit late (or early, depending on how you look at it), I've been thinking about what kind of fruit and nut trees I want to plant (a few different kinds of apples, a pecan or two, a few black walnut, and a pear or two). I have an area in mind to plant them in, but need to do some land clearing first anyway (so, I guess it will happen next fall). A man named Creighton Lee Calhoun lives about an hour south of me, and he is considered by many to be the apple guru for the South. Too bad (for me) that he doesn't sell heritage apple trees anymore, but he still works his magic at Horne Creek Living Historical Farm and the trees can still be purchased locally through Century Farm Orchards.
Showing posts with label trees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trees. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2008
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Nuts II
Just thought I'd share my excitement at harvesting walnuts again this year. I was working on a project along a creek and came across a walnut tree, and soon found several more trees along the creek in a bend. A few days later I came back with a backpack and filled it with the nuts. I was there on a very windy day, however, and I felt as if the trees were trying to protect their nuts on the ground by bombarding me with them from the air. I ended up collecting just over seven gallons worth of nuts (and I sure didn't have the interesting nut-collecting stories this guy did).
I have yet to husk them, though. I hope they aren't all plagued by the walnut husk maggot, as a few I noticed were. And, I gotta get some gloves so my hands don't stain brown!
I've been keeping an eye on my main Hickory tree, but it doesn't seem to have shed its nuts yet this year. I missed collecting them last year, but may have given up before they dropped. And I'm too lazy to gather acorns.
Ok, that's all I got for now...
I have yet to husk them, though. I hope they aren't all plagued by the walnut husk maggot, as a few I noticed were. And, I gotta get some gloves so my hands don't stain brown!
I've been keeping an eye on my main Hickory tree, but it doesn't seem to have shed its nuts yet this year. I missed collecting them last year, but may have given up before they dropped. And I'm too lazy to gather acorns.
Ok, that's all I got for now...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Nuts
(This article '"Raw" almonds aren't, really' is excerpted from "What's really in your food?" from the Independent Weekly.)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently required that all almonds produced in the United States be pasteurized, including nuts labeled "raw." The rule went into effect September 1, despite protests from health-conscious consumers who prefer unprocessed nuts and small-scale growers who can't afford the equipment, which costs between $500,000 and $2.5 million.
The move follows two Salmonella outbreaks attributed to raw almonds in 2001 and 2004. Critics of the rule point out that both incidents were the result of faulty practices at large-scale commercial farms. Small-scale and sustainable practices—including mowing and mulching to control weeds, instead of using chemical herbicides—naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than post-harvest treatment, they say.
The Almond Board of California, a governing body representing all almond growers in the state, pushed for the change. Small growers complain that the board disproportionally represents the needs of the large producers.
A spokesman for the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service says that the agency simply responded to the almond board's request. "We basically move at the behest of industry," spokesman Jimmie Turner says. "If the industry calls and says they want a standard or a marketing order, we take that request, and normally we do what's called a notice in the Federal Register. We seek public comment, and based on that comment, there can be a marketing order established."
The same process is followed for all food stuffs, Turner says.
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group leading a campaign to convince the USDA to overturn the pasteurization rule, contends that labeling treated almonds as "raw" is deceptive. More than that, the group argues that it epitomizes the industrialization of our food supply.
"This is just the opening salvo of corporate agribusiness wanting to sanitize all of our food," says Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute. The impetus, Kastel says, is the economics of large-scale production. In many cases, such operations utilize growing and cultivation methods that provide much greater opportunity for contamination.
"After the fact, they want to use these technologies ... so they can sanitize our food supply, but it will do great damage to our food and, because of the infrastructure costs, will put out of business small and high-quality growers and independent processors," Kastel added.
To comply with the regulation, almond producers can either steam the nuts or fumigate them with propylene oxide (PPO), the almond board's preferred process. PPO is recognized as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico—and much of the rest of the world.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of foods treated with the fumigant, and while packages of almonds may contain the disclaimer "pasteurized," there isn't likely to be any indication by which process the nuts were treated.
The only way consumers will be able to distinguish how their "raw" almonds were pasteurized is by the organic label. Regulations mandate that foods bearing the "organic" seal cannot be treated with PPO.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently required that all almonds produced in the United States be pasteurized, including nuts labeled "raw." The rule went into effect September 1, despite protests from health-conscious consumers who prefer unprocessed nuts and small-scale growers who can't afford the equipment, which costs between $500,000 and $2.5 million.
The move follows two Salmonella outbreaks attributed to raw almonds in 2001 and 2004. Critics of the rule point out that both incidents were the result of faulty practices at large-scale commercial farms. Small-scale and sustainable practices—including mowing and mulching to control weeds, instead of using chemical herbicides—naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than post-harvest treatment, they say.
The Almond Board of California, a governing body representing all almond growers in the state, pushed for the change. Small growers complain that the board disproportionally represents the needs of the large producers.
A spokesman for the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service says that the agency simply responded to the almond board's request. "We basically move at the behest of industry," spokesman Jimmie Turner says. "If the industry calls and says they want a standard or a marketing order, we take that request, and normally we do what's called a notice in the Federal Register. We seek public comment, and based on that comment, there can be a marketing order established."
The same process is followed for all food stuffs, Turner says.
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group leading a campaign to convince the USDA to overturn the pasteurization rule, contends that labeling treated almonds as "raw" is deceptive. More than that, the group argues that it epitomizes the industrialization of our food supply.
"This is just the opening salvo of corporate agribusiness wanting to sanitize all of our food," says Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute. The impetus, Kastel says, is the economics of large-scale production. In many cases, such operations utilize growing and cultivation methods that provide much greater opportunity for contamination.
"After the fact, they want to use these technologies ... so they can sanitize our food supply, but it will do great damage to our food and, because of the infrastructure costs, will put out of business small and high-quality growers and independent processors," Kastel added.
To comply with the regulation, almond producers can either steam the nuts or fumigate them with propylene oxide (PPO), the almond board's preferred process. PPO is recognized as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico—and much of the rest of the world.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of foods treated with the fumigant, and while packages of almonds may contain the disclaimer "pasteurized," there isn't likely to be any indication by which process the nuts were treated.
The only way consumers will be able to distinguish how their "raw" almonds were pasteurized is by the organic label. Regulations mandate that foods bearing the "organic" seal cannot be treated with PPO.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Alternative fuels
Of course, for many reasons, we need to find an alternative to petroleum-based motor fuels, and as soon as possible (if not 30 years ago). And, it appears as if the United States is looking towards ethanol to be the official answer to the gasoline replacement question. My main concerns with using ethanol are that it will continue the BILLIONS of dollars in corn subsidies paid by the government (especially to the VERY large commercial farmers), and that protected and/or at-risk lands might be planted in corn in order to cash in even further on the production of corn (including more forests – and especially our national parks -- will be stripped to use the wood for ethanol production). Of course, both resources (corn and trees) are renewable resources, but you know that the large corporate farmers and the lumber companies (et al.) will eventually get greedy with our natural resources (much like the oil companies do now) and the American public will suffer for it. Plus, larger amounts of genetically-modified (GM) corn and etc. will be grown, and bioengineered yeast strains, which is bad for everyone and everything but the biotech companies. Right now, my only ‘pro’ regarding corn-based ethanol production is that the byproduct (the mash) can be used as a very efficient protein feed for livestock production or even human consumption (although ex- Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan feels that animals will go hungry once ethanol production increases!).
It is interesting to see President Bush visiting Brazil to talk about ethanol production; I’d like to see what comes of it. I understand Brazil is focusing on sugar cane-based ethanol (as is Cuba and a few other countries), but I also understand that virgin rainforests may suffer (much like our national parks may suffer) once land for sugar cane production becomes too valuable to let just “lie around” and be unproductive commercially. Anyway, President Bush seems to be focusing on corn stalks, wood chips from fast-growing trees, and switchgrass for the biomass needed for ethanol production; perhaps he feels that using the ears of corn or other edible biomass will result in people drinking the finished product?
Marty Bender, a scientist at the Land Institute in Kansas, conducted studies in the 1990s that documented that an alternative fuel source such as ethanol (as a large-scale and/or total replacement for gasoline) would be ecologically inefficient and agriculturally destructive in the long run because it may cause the cultivation of every possible acre of ground (including erosive lands that have the potential to stabilize our watersheds, for instance) in order to produce the biomass needed for the tremendous supply that would be required. Plus, it would most likely decrease the food supply (perhaps greatly) nationwide and worldwide if land is considered more valuable to use for the production of fuel biomass than for edible grains.
Of course, I don’t know the answer to what the most effective (in every way) “alternative” fuel is. Perhaps using methane or another form of composting gas (i.e. as a byproduct of composting) will work; maybe algae; perhaps hydrogen would be the most efficient; perhaps biodiesel is the key; maybe fuel cells; heck, possibly solar or thermal heat will work. I’m just not sure. It’d be nice to be able to use something that’s already serving or served its main purpose (in a byproduct or recycling-kinda way), such as landfill gas or sludge, or livestock manure, or urban sewage (perhaps biosolids, even with their heavy metals), or normally unrecyclable plastics or waxed cardboard. Again, I’m just not sure what the answer is. I do think that with so many vehicles on the road that utilize gasoline, something that those vehicles can use directly or be adapted to use would be most practical, at least in the short term (with the “short term” being perhaps 20 years or so). For instance, on my salary, I’m not going to buy a brand-new 2010 year-model truck that runs on hydrogen fuel cells, I’m going to find a way to adapt or convert my 1978 Ford F-150 to use something other than gasoline (I know, I know…perhaps I should have bought a diesel). Perhaps a combination of “alternative” fuels would be best overall, as then no singular resource will be wiped out, exploited by private business interests or governments, or overly affect the environment in a negative way, and people can tailor their fuel needs to their locality and to vehicular or home heating (again, or whatever) requirements. As Rachel Burton of Piedmont Biofuels (in Chatham County, N.C.), who seems to have coined the rather brilliant term ‘Slow Fuel’ (a modification of the term ‘Slow Food’), says, “we are believers in a micro-nodal model of energy production that insists that energy be harnessed where it is used … we have decided to include fuel in our 100 mile diet.”
It is interesting to see President Bush visiting Brazil to talk about ethanol production; I’d like to see what comes of it. I understand Brazil is focusing on sugar cane-based ethanol (as is Cuba and a few other countries), but I also understand that virgin rainforests may suffer (much like our national parks may suffer) once land for sugar cane production becomes too valuable to let just “lie around” and be unproductive commercially. Anyway, President Bush seems to be focusing on corn stalks, wood chips from fast-growing trees, and switchgrass for the biomass needed for ethanol production; perhaps he feels that using the ears of corn or other edible biomass will result in people drinking the finished product?
Marty Bender, a scientist at the Land Institute in Kansas, conducted studies in the 1990s that documented that an alternative fuel source such as ethanol (as a large-scale and/or total replacement for gasoline) would be ecologically inefficient and agriculturally destructive in the long run because it may cause the cultivation of every possible acre of ground (including erosive lands that have the potential to stabilize our watersheds, for instance) in order to produce the biomass needed for the tremendous supply that would be required. Plus, it would most likely decrease the food supply (perhaps greatly) nationwide and worldwide if land is considered more valuable to use for the production of fuel biomass than for edible grains.
Of course, I don’t know the answer to what the most effective (in every way) “alternative” fuel is. Perhaps using methane or another form of composting gas (i.e. as a byproduct of composting) will work; maybe algae; perhaps hydrogen would be the most efficient; perhaps biodiesel is the key; maybe fuel cells; heck, possibly solar or thermal heat will work. I’m just not sure. It’d be nice to be able to use something that’s already serving or served its main purpose (in a byproduct or recycling-kinda way), such as landfill gas or sludge, or livestock manure, or urban sewage (perhaps biosolids, even with their heavy metals), or normally unrecyclable plastics or waxed cardboard. Again, I’m just not sure what the answer is. I do think that with so many vehicles on the road that utilize gasoline, something that those vehicles can use directly or be adapted to use would be most practical, at least in the short term (with the “short term” being perhaps 20 years or so). For instance, on my salary, I’m not going to buy a brand-new 2010 year-model truck that runs on hydrogen fuel cells, I’m going to find a way to adapt or convert my 1978 Ford F-150 to use something other than gasoline (I know, I know…perhaps I should have bought a diesel). Perhaps a combination of “alternative” fuels would be best overall, as then no singular resource will be wiped out, exploited by private business interests or governments, or overly affect the environment in a negative way, and people can tailor their fuel needs to their locality and to vehicular or home heating (again, or whatever) requirements. As Rachel Burton of Piedmont Biofuels (in Chatham County, N.C.), who seems to have coined the rather brilliant term ‘Slow Fuel’ (a modification of the term ‘Slow Food’), says, “we are believers in a micro-nodal model of energy production that insists that energy be harnessed where it is used … we have decided to include fuel in our 100 mile diet.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)