[Andy Carson]

Thanks Erika,
I think western PA might be a bit ahead of NY, but I think you are right about waiting a bit to plant. I googled up this informative chart pertaining to germination of different crops (mostly vegetables) http://tomclothier.hort.net/page11.html. I say interesting because although peas will germinate (at almost 90%) with soil temps of 41 degrees, they take over a month to do it… I hadn’t appreciated the speed of germination aspect. I think I’ll shoot for a soil temps over 55 degrees (with a good likihood that temps will stay that high) because I kinda like numbers I can measure (as opposed to set calendar dates). This can tell me when to plant, but when to start my field work? I kinda want to get on this because I have tools and techniques to test out… I think as long as I am not swimming in mud there is no harm done? Or is there???

[Andy Carson]

OK, here’s a (possibly) dumb question getting back to Mark’s origional beef about chaps… Would chaps protect just as well if worn inside out? If so, one could recycle two pairs of chaps with damaged left legs into one good pair, with the left leg worn inside out. Just a niave thought from a non-logger…

[Andy Carson]

I wonder if sheaves weigh about the same as straw… I looked up the density of straw, and came up with 800 cubic feet per ton loose. At this density, a 12x6x6 foot load would weight about half a ton. This could be a sled load. A sled isn’t as pretty (for sure) but it would probably be easier to load, especially by yourself. Just an alternate thought… I love my sled.

[Andy Carson]

I checked out pivoting for the seeder again tonight. I am going to have to make some modification. I can go about 30 degrees one way or the other, but unless I sit the seeder down after a 30 degree turn to get another “bite” with the front coulter, i can’t make 90 degrees. The simplest solution is to put a board underneath the coulter so it can pivot without digging in. This solution does lack a certain “elegance” so I think I will probably end up playing a little with a front wheel or other type of pivot point…

[Andy Carson]

@Tim Harrigan 25414 wrote:

You might as well have subplots with different planting strategies the first year

How smart! Yes, this is definately the answer to the question… Now why is it that I don’t think of these things? 😀

This is a little bit of an asside, but using animal power and a single planter gives you so many options to “tweek” the “normal” planting systems that options seem almost unlimited… Perhaps even “daunting” might be the right word sometimes. Making twin rows while still maintaining proper spacing between rows, for example, is probably not as casual of an option with larger systems (where larger capitol investiments would be required for new techniques). Perhaps I simply didn’t have a full understanding of the systems and descisions made when I worked on a larger farm in Idaho, but it sure seemed like we were pretty much doing the same things as the neighbors. I am curious how much the mass produced equipment itself ties large farmers into specific plans. I would also think that there would be a large resistance to “gambling” with various “experimental” techniques when your livelihood (not to mention paying off the debt from your equipment) depends almost entirely on production of one or two crops. Either way, it’s sure fun to be free of these hinderances!

[Andy Carson]

When I saw how deep the coulter went when I lifted up the back I had that same concern… It’s not that difficult to pivot on the front counter though, mostly because you end up with an 8 foot (or so) lever arm with which to turn. Any movements other than pivoting are near impossible though. I envision a 90 degree turn at the end of the row, 3.5 foot horse powered advancement, another 90 degree turn, then planting the next row. I can turn it 90 degrees in the yard (with sod) so I think it’s worth a try. Tim is probably right, but I kinda like that coulter as I could see by dragging it around the yard that it lets it the machine plant through anything. I am glad I can start with a crop that is not as important to me this year (peas) so I have time to tweek before I need to plant corn and sunflowers. Speaking of the peas, I have been thinking about what sort of spacing would be good for peas planted in rows (as opposed to solid). Garden peas are usually spaced around 1-2 inches apart, which would come out to about 35-70 lbs per acre with 3.5 foot rows. This is less than half the seeding rate for a solid stand. Perhaps this should concern me, perhaps not… To achieve this planting density with 3.5 foot rows, I would need to plant seeds every half inch, which seems extreme. I am tempted to compromise between these two techniques, planting twin rows of peas (~6 inches apart), with a 3.5 foot space between rows. That way, I can achieve densities more similar to the solid planting rate, while still being able to cultivate most of the crop. I do loose some ability to cultivate between the twin rows, and I would somewhat depend on the ability of the peas to crowd out weeds there. Perhaps I ought not be too concerned about the varying seeding rates? Any thoughts?

[Andy Carson]

@dominiquer60 25354 wrote:

it is about as meaningful as an elected representative

Now there’s a statement I can get behind! 😀

[Andy Carson]

@dominiquer60 25350 wrote:

“farmer’s responsibility to protect themselves from the environment” How does the government and Monsanto expect us to protect ourselves from something that we have no control over.

I think the expectation is that one protects their crop’s seed by spacing it away from the neighbors seed with isolation zones of different sizes dependent upon the grade of seed one wants to produce. 165 feet for certified seed, 900 feet for foundation seed. Either of these grades has defined levels of non-type seeds that are deemed acceptable. If there was a consensus on what levels of cross pollination are “acceptable” than I think it would be relatively simply to determine the spacing requirements. Unfortunately, although there seems to be a consensus with respect to the non-GM varieties, whether these ought to apply to GM crops is a matter of debate. It seems the law treats it like any other crop.

[Andy Carson]

Even though I can envision some good coming out of GE, I have always though the whole RR concept was a silly application of the technology… It’s really only a matter of time before round up resistant weeds come around and make the technology obsolete. Maybe this will happen through horizontal gene transfer or though natural selection, but it’s only a matter of time until is does happen… I was doing a little reading about the Supreme Courts decision regarding RR crops (link below).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf

Initially, I was struck by the statement that it is the farmer’s responsibility to protect themselves from the environment (including his neighbors seeds and pollen). This seemed strange on the surface, but I thought about it a little more and I think it’s makes some sense. My thought went like this… What if it was NOT the farmer’s responsibility to protect his crops? Whose responsibility is it then? His neighbors? It would be a strange world if you neighbor could knock on your door, said he wanted to grow a different type of alfalfa than you, and that he intended to save to seed, so please kill all your alfalfa. Oh yeah, and if you don’t, and he finds some hybrid seed, you can expect a lawsuit. Strange indeed… So it does make some sense to me, but together with the patent law, it leads down a road I don’t really like. I can take some comfort in knowing the roundup resistant weeds will eventually make the whole round-up ready concept obsolete… Maybe then things will return to normal, or maybe big ag will move on to the next herbicide. Kinda reminds me of when antibiotics were new, and how doctors used to prescribe penicillin for everything before bacteria started to develop resistance. Penicillin is not nearly as useful now… You know, one reason why they make antibiotics require a prescription is that if the general public had access to them, there would overuse and this may lead to resistance. You know, anyone can go buy Round-Up… I wonder how long it would take to develop Roundup resistant weeds if one sprayed small amounts of Round-Up on the same piece of ground over and over again (possibly titrated such that it killed about 90% of the weeds)? I might guess at some sort of rotational spraying program would be most efficient so if the Round-Up levels ever got so high they killed everything, the ground could be reseeded by the neighboring partially resistant weeds and the whole process wouldn’t have to be started again from scratch. I did an experiment with antibiotic resistance in bacteria (years ago) and saw that antibiotic resistance in bacteria more than quadrupled in only one week when the bacteria were exposed to a slowly increasing concentration of antibiotic. Plants, will, for sure, be much slower. Doing this on purpose is probably criminal and I am certainly advocating it, but I wonder if these types of “self-defense” reactions will become commonplace in the future. Farmers that I have known do not often “just give up” and property lines can be crossed by seed and pollen both ways…

Another (much less drastic) method to ensure your crops is not contaminated is to simply test them. If one tested them like Monsanto does, it would be prohibitively expensive, but I bet if if one is clever, they can pick a variety of seed that “looks different” from the round-up ready variety. If one grow red corn, for example, then you could “see” the yellow results of RR crop contamination. Not in the first generation (yellow is dominant) but if any yellow kernels showed up in later generations, the seed got contaminated sometime and it would be a good time to take steps to make sure your seed is pure. This is probably more difficult with other crops, but I bet one could still pick some types with visible differences from the RR variety. Worst case scenario, one could spout 500 seeds, expose them to round-up and see how many live… It’s nice to have a test that is in your hands instead of Monsanto’s.

[Andy Carson]

Welcome Chickade,
My wife and I are going to try our hand at beekeeping this year. I am glad to have you on board!

[Andy Carson]

OK, lots of little modifications here… I tried putting skids on the spring tines, but it got “complicated” and they had a tenancy to wobble under heavy load. In the end, I decided to use a couple extra C tines (on thier sides) as skids. The curve of them will, I think, keep them from dragging too much debris. There isn’t much in the way of suspension to them, but I mounted them so that I can adjust the height up and down. They are mounted towards the end of a 1×8 piece of oak, at 3 feet away from the center (half a foot in). The relatively thin piece of oak can twist very slightly under heavy load and provides a little bit of suspension. I limited the potential movement by connecting a chain to the from so I don’t worry about the wood breaking. The chain also assists in ensuring the planter tracks well. I ended up having to mess around with the chain drive for quite a while to get it to work. It was relatively easy to get the chain and gears to mesh when things weren’t moving, but the chain had a tendency to “walk off” some gears when the bike wheel turned. I ended up adding a couple “keeper” wheels to direct the chain in place laterally. Also, I have to rig up an efficient chain tightening system as the distance between the wheel and seeder gears changes when the bike wheel shifts up and down to follow the terrain. I drug the planter into the yard (with the depth adjusted to minimum) and the wheel/seeder mechanism seems to work well in general. I do need to add a little more downforce on the bike wheel as it slipped every now and then on the wet grass (and slipped alot on the snow). You’ll probably notice the somewhat strange handle on the back. It is designed to be lifted by placing one shoulder under the handle (in the curved part) and standing up. It’s not too hard to lift this way (although I wouldn’t call it easy) and you get a lot of vertical motion which allows all the wheels to clear for turning. The horizontal piece (a dowel rod) is meant to be grabbed while the back of the planter is in the air so you can steady it and push or pull it around. On cement (in the garage), the whole thing is very nimble, and quite maneuverable. In my yard (which is very soft and wet at the moment) picking up the back handle drives the front coulter deeply into the ground. I can pivot the planter around that front coulter without too much difficulty (other than my wife being “loadly disappointed” at the hole I was making). I couldn’t, however, move the planter forward or back. I hope this is not a limitation in the field… I suppose as long as I can turn, it shouldn’t be… I thought alot about the marker system. One of the problems is a lack of visibility due (in large part) to the size of the planter. If I walk behind the planter, I can’t see the ground in front of the planter. I didn’t consider walking in front of the planter for safety reasons, so that put me off the the side. Visibility is not great off to the side, but might be doable. I also got a little worried that my horse might muck up the mark walking through the center of it. In the end, I made the support for the skids exactly 7 feet long. This means that the end of this board will be exactly 42 inches from the center of the newly planter row. So if I can line up the edge of this board with the last row, I should end up with proper spacing. The edge of the board and my old row will be easy to see, and I will be walking off to that side already, so, I think it’s worth a try… Any comments, questions, or suggestions are, as always, very welcome!

[Andy Carson]

I berate every government policy?

Yes, you actually do! I usually agree with you though, I also think that government is inept.

Since those are my “personal goals” they’ll benefit me how? Come on Andy – you can do better than that.

I mean personal goals in the sense that they are your goals (not the goals of everyone). In other words, you want everyone to be able to eat and to be able to grown their own food. There is nothing wrong with this desire, I have it too. As much as I like these goals, I am not willing to support the dictatorial and imperialistic lawmaking that would be required to force this to happen. Nor do I think these laws are in the realm of possibility. Nor does this have anything to do with GMO’s!

Since govt IS the game being played, that’s the only way to address the issues you mentioned.

I think this is where our world views are simply different. I think the “game” that’s being played here is economics, not government. As you point out many times in this and other threads, when government and economics fight, the money wins. Even governments are specifically designed to oppose capitalism (IE communism) they eventually topple to capitalistic pressures. It would be very frustrating to really believe that government is (or even can be) in control. One would be constantly disappointed by the influence of business and money into the system… Does this sound familiar??? Government HAS NOT, CAN NOT, and most importantly WILL NOT be the hero. Real change has to start with individuals, including ourselves and what we do, what we buy, and how we chose to live our lives.

You sure like to sort through and only address certain points while skipping over those you have no answer for. You’ve succeeded – I’m bored with your responses so I’ll quit now.

It’s easy to snipe away at the efforts of others, and very tiring to come up with real plausible solutions to such complex problems… I try to keep this in mind when I get really critical of others potential solutions to various problems. I have to admit I have done my share of sniping too. 🙂

[Andy Carson]

Can someone PLEEEEEEEZE tell me how non GM crops dont have the vitamins any more and why farmers have to sign an agreement to plant seed in land they own and with seed they own.. BTW Geoff you got my vote but im afraid there is a red dot on your suit as we speak …

Non-GM crops have as much vitamins in them as they always did (at least to my knowledge). These vitamin deficiencies (especially vitamin A) are common in areas of the world where the poor subsist on a diet of primarily rice. Granted, a more complete diet would be more ideal, but where people are struggling to even feed themselves, this is lofty goal. I think it is quite practical to produce a food they already eat alot of (rice) that has vitamin A in it.

The patent issues make seed saving messy. Again, I do not support this, but I can understand that if the patent holders truly want to protect their patents it puts farmers in strange situations. One might argue, so example, that although the farmer does own the land, he does not truly own the seed, as it is patented. I can see the argument, but don’t agree with it.

[Andy Carson]

Stop price US supports for exported food.
Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA and any other …AFTA.
Tie financial, military and diplomatic assistance to in country support of its people via establishment of sustainable food systems.
Demand that countries that are exporting foodstuffs to the developed world provide adequate food/land to their own people or boycott said product(s) – This should include other importers of the product as well.

Companies that are importing food products from countries whose own population is unable to access food, will be taxed at an extreme rate to provide incentive for them to lobby the govt of country X to make sure its citizenry are able to raise, find and buy decent food.

Rewrite or destroy the Codex Alimentarius. (read it).

I love it when people who berate nearly every government policy in existence look to government to solve problems… I also am amused when people state that it is wrong to interfere with the another countries sovereignty UNLESS said interference fits into their personal goals.

[Andy Carson]

Oh Geoff, I can see you want to argue… OK, I guess… 😀 I like to argue to, I just don’t want to alienate anyone (including myself). I do think that there are good points to be made on either side. That said, here I go…

It is highly unlikely that the folks that did the work on golden rice will just ship it to India to replace the current rice strains – no strings attached.

This was exactly the plan with golden rice. It’s called a humanitarian license and excludes everyone producing less than $10,000 of crops from the patent issues.

Part 2 of the concern is the Pandora’s Box of putting GMOs in the environment at all. I personally can accept having GMO’s producing some end product (anti-malarial drugs, insulin or oil for fuel) IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT, like a lab or industrial plant (maybe). But manipulating the genome of an organism by inserting a gene into it that, in all likelihood, would never ever have occurred in nature, even with decades of selective breeding and then dumping it out in nature is going too far and is putting too much faith in our ability to control a powerful, and relatively new, technology.

Instead of simply being afraid of things that we don’t know, lets look at data. How many deaths have GMOs caused? By comparision, how many deaths have “natural” organisms caused??? this would include, of course, pathogenic viruses, bacteria, poisionous plants, poisonous animals, allergic reactions to bees and other agents, etc. These are natural everyday killers that have evolved (in many cases) specifically to case harm. Even when man has purposefully tried to make organisms that are dangerous, they are only slightly more dangerous that the natural versions. Remember post 911 bioterrorism scares? NATURAL antrax. NATURAL smallpox. The “scariest” was antibotic resistant antrax, which is a tiny tweek and could easily be selected from nature without GE. Where was the “super scary” “frankenstein” virus? Not there… So, the argument that “natural” means “safe” is definately erroneous. Alternatively, the argument that GMO is unsafe is largely without precedent. I have heard of allergies, but I am sure these are a tiny tiny fraction of the total allergies that come from “natural” sources.

Our history of thinking we know what all the consequences and ramifications of trying to manipulate our environment is fraught with stories of “unforeseen” disasters, some that we still can’t fix.

Ouir history is also fraught with examplesof things that SHOULD have been fixed and were not. There have been sucesses and failures in human history, but I do not think this means we should give up. Nor could we. Breathing manipulates the environment, as does farming, livestock raising, eating, having children, driving, using electricity, etc. Which manipulations are OK, and which aren’t? What are the criteria and who is the judge???

BTW – my understanding of the Monsanto case was that said farmer had always saved his own seed back to replant and that when his seed was “contaminated” with a GM genome, the court decided that he had infringed on the patent rights of Monsanto. Not the same as stealing their patent, as infringement would insinuate.

The farmer did save his seed for many years. The courts decision was that he knew of the Monsanto seed (because he sprayed it) and elected to specifically save it. The farmers denies this, but the fact that over 90% of his crop tested positive of GM seed, along with his intentional destruction of his own seed, does not help his case. If plants are going to be patented, than cases like this would be needed to enforce patent law. Again, I do not think GMOs ought to be patented, but I think this is a venue for the public and lawmakers, not courts.

That’s why guys like Craig Venter are out like modern day Noahs, collecting as many various organisms as they can to allow them to patent any novel gene they happen to identify. Venter wants us to think of him like Darwin but he’s more like Midas.

Exactly, the patenting of GMO’s paved the way for the patenting of non-GM plants. If not for GMO’s, we would talking about how Monsanto is throwing it’s weight around enforcing it’s patent on some popular non-GM crop. This is not a problem unique to GMOs.

The issue with Mexico and US corn was not “straight dollar for pound” at all

It is exactly dollars per pound to the Mexican farmer who is deciding whether to grow corn or not. I wonder if a small Mexican farmer could compete on a straight dollar per pound basis without US subsidies… I really don’t know… Either way, that same small Mexican farmer could definately grow crops that (if he could get them to the US) would be worth more than his corn. I can guarantee that.

Blame the people while good farm ground is kept in the hands of a few wealthy landowners for raisng cattle to provide burger for McDonald’s restaraunts?

Economics produce sad and unfortunate consequences… If the wealthy landowner decides to feed the people instead of growing cattle to sell, he’s not going to be a “weathly landowner” much longer… Still nothing to do with GMO’s here…

Look at the infrastructures available in those countries. US and other nations “convince” the leaderships to “invest” in providing certain crops to the developed world. Check out a film called Darwin’s Nighmare. Developing countries are still treated like the colonies they once were, just without the label.

Maybe the industrialized world ought to butt out of developing countries entirely. This would include, by the way, telling them they ought to grow more of thier own food, and that they shouldn’t grow export items.

How about we stop subsidizing cheap US grain production to start with?

OK, I like that too.

Nobody is saying a foreign govt should mandate subsistence farming but why should outside corporate ag interests influence the decisions of those govts as well.

Noted, I will add that to the list of solutions that are NOT being proposed. I’m curious what solutions will end up on the list…

The already do in the EU (essentially) and here they tell us what we can’t grow via regulation (ask Carl and all the small meat and cheese folks in VT). The regs are also what tilts the playing field toward large commercial farms.

Clearly, this type of regulation is not something you are insupport of. I will add this to the list of things that are NOT being proposed.

I don’t understand this question but are you saying should a country like Niger increase the tariff on imported wheat to encourage local wheat production? I say why not if wheat is something reasonable to produce in Niger. That said, one BIG issue is market stability within a country. Many of theses places have no way to moderate price swings based on yearly changes in production – I know that sounds like a price support system and perhaps it is but for product used within the country – not applied to exports.

Again, added to the list of things that are NOT being proposed.

The coffers are existant. They just aren’t used to help produce local food for the nation. They end up in the pockets of all the “leaders” of those nations and we turn a blind eye because we got the market outlet we were after for our overproduction of grain.

OK, I think you like this one. It doesn’t matter, of course, because we all know anyone evil enough to steal from thier own people is not going to invest in local food production…

No, but you can’t sell off your nation and its people for a few pieces of gold in your own personal bank account either.

One more for the list of things that are NOT being proposed.

Do you own land? And you’re going to say this? Wow, Andy, I think you and I both could easily be in the group that would be labelled “unworthy” of landownership. Plus, I would argue that an inexperienced landower growing food for local consumption and sale is still better than a super farmer growing soybeans that all get exported.

I think you are also not in favor of this, one more for the list.

We stand idle when govts commit genocide so careful about the “we’re so holy” stuff. I would say that there’s money and “feel goodness” in sending food aid and it does help the acute problem while exacerbating the chronic one.

I agree. I also do not think this is a long term solution. But what is?.

Many in US ag hate this idea. They say “Why should we “give away” technology that we spent millions on developing just so a country with a lower standard of living can benefit and we lose a market?”

Many may hate this idea (although I haven’t met them) but I think it would still be a good way to give a hand up (as opposed to a hand out). I personally like the idea alot, and thnk there is potential here. Either way, this really doesn’t have anything to do with GMO’s (other than in a few cases) and our best technology includes GMO’s. GMO’s that might, for example, produce food and essential vitamins at the same time.

[Author]

Posts