RE: Re: small farmers surviving with beyond organic

[Guest guest]

Dear Chi--

Thats a great theory, but.. and its a big one.

Farmers don't change easy even if the evidence of that change is to their

benefit is directly in front of them all wrapped up in a pretty co/op bow or

not.

Most farmers have been co/oped out of business by big firm co/ops that set

out to control the farmer and gave the co/op a bad name.

And all farmers have been told for forty years and reinforced by the handouts

of the government to the efficient to grow more per acre than quality per

acre.

Which lead to hybrids, hard soil equipment, ect ect.

It is my hope that the young generation will begin to rethink the current

farm model and begin to listen to the land, and the animals they care for it

is the only hope in which we on the earth will survive.

On a side note I listened the other day to the " Alternative Radio " program on

our public station and the speaker was talking about the race to create the

first controlled nuclear reaction.

It was actually done in downtown Chicago and after it was accomplished the

reactor was buried on the Ferme site out in Batavia.

The life the radioactivity of this contaminated reactor was 10,000 years and

the people in charge of this were to warn people in some way in the future

that this existed in the ground. They decided a plaque was in order made of

Titanium to last the time frame needed.

But what to say, It was decided by the " quantum physicists " to read " DO NOT

DIG HERE UNTIL 12,000 AD.

An undergraduate to the quantum physicists pointed out to the group that no

civilization ever recorded has lasted more than 10,000 years. Given that know

one would know how to read it for several thousands of years before it was

safe to dig.

This has been stuck in my mind ever since, are we on the downward slope of

this civilization, I'm not afraid of the nukes, my fear seems to lye in the

condition of our food and the trend that has progressed to undernourishment

without resistance to the clear and present degradation of our society..

Food for thought, no pun intended...

Tim from Clearview.

Ps Given the attack on the WAP site and its mis-statments thought by some, as

an old landlord told me one time.. " NOTHIN'S 100 % "

soilfertility wrote:

>

> > Good points, Chi! Its simpler to compete than think beyond

> > the box. So this is beyond organic, grassfed, value added

> > and back to superfood. I like the part of educating not

> > to what's wrong with all the rest but whats right with

> > your product. Gets iffy when health claim and processing

> > regulating enters.To make the best quality butter oil

> > you would need many small farmers willing to enrich the soil

> > and willing to produce a seasonal product. I'm in the northeast

> > and there are no large pastures anymore. Other quality products

> > could be made. Co-ops would be the way to go and networking

> > like our dozen county milk producers that co oped to control

> > their profit and the pressures that compromised the health of

> > their herds for production. Its a lot of work, research and would

> > suit vegetables better here.

>

> Hi Wanita:

> Speaking of " ... not to what's wrong with all the rest but whats

> right with your product " , I talked to the notmilk guy at a recent

> health show. I told him he should worry less about what other people

> shouldn't be eating and worry more about what he is eating. I

> explained how, like all plants, soybean varies in nutritional content

> according to the soil fertility that grows it, and that soybean, like

> corn is probably mainly hybid. Hybrid crops, I explained, have been

> designed to produce higher yields in lower soil fertility resulting

> in lowered nutritional value. I told him why hybrids have been

> designed this way, because yield matters in agriculture and nutrition

> doesn't. He asked me to e-mail him some references but I haven't got

> around to it yet.

> Back to small farmers. As you point out, several farmers in one area

> growing different crops, all of high nutritional value because they

> were grown on high soil fertility, could form their own co-op for

> marketing their products. This would cut down their cost and time

> required to market their products to the consumers. Because farmers

> may be better at producing a high nutrition food than they are at

> marketing it, if there were enough farmers in the co-op with enough

> product to justify the expense, the co-op might hire a marketing

> agent to do the actual selling while the farmers tend to their farms.

> The agent would be hired by the farmers and could be fired by them.

> The agent would need to be well informed on how foods vary in

> nutritional value and some simple animal feeding experiments could

> even be set up to demonstrate differences in the same crop grown on

> different soils.

> Chi

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>From: Clearview Acres <clearvu@...>

>Thats a great theory, but.. and its a big one.

>Farmers don't change easy even if the evidence of that change is to their

>benefit is directly in front of them all wrapped up in a pretty co/op bow

>or

>not.

>Most farmers have been co/oped out of business by big firm co/ops that set

>out to control the farmer and gave the co/op a bad name.

>And all farmers have been told for forty years and reinforced by the

>handouts

>of the government to the efficient to grow more per acre than quality per

>acre.

>Which lead to hybrids, hard soil equipment, ect ect.

>It is my hope that the young generation will begin to rethink the current

>farm model and begin to listen to the land, and the animals they care for

>it

>is the only hope in which we on the earth will survive.

If you'll pardon the blasphemy, I'd like to point out that you're barking up

the wrong tree. It's not farmers--small or industrial--who have brought us

to where we are now--it's consumers (and, with its incessant meddling in

agricultural matters, the government). Consumers demanded cheap food and the

farmers delivered.

A small farmer who tries to compete with an industrial farm will be run out

of business because he can't possibly sell his goods at a competitive price.

If you want farmers to produce high-quality food, you'll first have to

educate consumers and convince them that they should pay higher prices for

it.

_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

>>>Ps Given the attack on the WAP site and its mis-statments thought by

some, as

an old landlord told me one time.. " NOTHIN'S 100 % "

***Tim, that's not at all what we're doing - attacking. I feel that the

basic NT/WAPF approach to nutrition is the healthiest one, for us, and for

our planet, so I want unsubstantiated (and clearly refuted) statements, to

be removed from its literature. Or, I'd at least like the authors to look at

the contradicting evidence, and reconsider their statements. It seems to me

that this approach to nutrition is attracting quite a few critical and

independent thinkers - not blind followers. People who can think for

themselves are going to have red flags going up when they read somewhat

sensationalist statements that are easily refuted by simply talking to a

handful of farmers.

We should always have truth as our goal if we want the NT/WAP paradigm to

make an impact in the world. AND we should be prepared to make a paradigm

shift, if there is evidence that some part of the existing paradigm is not

true. After all, it's not a religion, but a sensible approach to nutrition,

based on the traditions of our ancestors and healthy primitives worldwide.

From the evidence gathered here on this list, it appears that the " calves

fed pasteurized milk will die before maturity " statement is not true. So,

why shouldn't we expect Sally to re-look at the evidence, and if she can't

provide more than one nebulous source for this extremely broad statement,

simply remove it from the realmilk website?

We *need* to be our own worse critics to keep it real.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/23/2002 10:56:39 AM Central Daylight Time,

clearvu@... writes:

> Carmen

> I said a month or so ago the calves fed pastuerized milk die before

> maturity

> because they were ONLY fed pastureized milk, no grass no grain.

> yes most farms feed pastuerized milk to calves but most only for the period

> of

> 12 days and then they are fed grain and hay.

> So their in lies the " spin " yes they will die if fed only pastuerized milk

> for

> a long time! I think the time frame should be explained and maybe some day

> it

> will be with " Quick Serve Nation " .

> Tim

> Clearview

>

We've not had luck with animals if they haven't rec'd colostrum at birth,

even with unpastuerized milk. No colostrum and pastuerized seems a death

sentence to me.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

Dear

Very True, I stand corrected.

Berg wrote:

> >From: Clearview Acres <clearvu@...>

>

> >Thats a great theory, but.. and its a big one.

> >Farmers don't change easy even if the evidence of that change is to their

> >benefit is directly in front of them all wrapped up in a pretty co/op bow

> >or

> >not.

> >Most farmers have been co/oped out of business by big firm co/ops that set

> >out to control the farmer and gave the co/op a bad name.

> >And all farmers have been told for forty years and reinforced by the

> >handouts

> >of the government to the efficient to grow more per acre than quality per

> >acre.

> >Which lead to hybrids, hard soil equipment, ect ect.

> >It is my hope that the young generation will begin to rethink the current

> >farm model and begin to listen to the land, and the animals they care for

> >it

> >is the only hope in which we on the earth will survive.

>

> If you'll pardon the blasphemy, I'd like to point out that you're barking up

> the wrong tree. It's not farmers--small or industrial--who have brought us

> to where we are now--it's consumers (and, with its incessant meddling in

> agricultural matters, the government). Consumers demanded cheap food and the

> farmers delivered.

>

> A small farmer who tries to compete with an industrial farm will be run out

> of business because he can't possibly sell his goods at a competitive price.

> If you want farmers to produce high-quality food, you'll first have to

> educate consumers and convince them that they should pay higher prices for

> it.

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Folks

As a farmer I tried to explain the " spin " that was attached to the phrase but

know one seemed to want to consider it. That to me seems to me to be a direct

attack from a camp of perfectionists, and again it is only my opinion.

I do support your diligence but I have a sore spot for a type of tunnel vision

when it comes to food and organic in general.

I believe that an extreme view has been the ruin of the organic industry due to

the lack of evolution of a train of thought, and a consideration of expanding

soil comprehension, which seems to have been applied here to calves and

pasteurized milk.

We have a very good organization that can reach a multitude of people and begin

to change the world for many, isn't that enough.

Fractional fighting will only allow that which you despise to enter the fray and

gain control. ie " the big boys in organics " .

We are a small group admittedly, but do you really think we go unnoticed?

Big brother is watching!!!! I have the State documents to prove it...

Suze Fisher wrote:

> >>>Ps Given the attack on the WAP site and its mis-statments thought by

> some, as

> an old landlord told me one time.. " NOTHIN'S 100 % "

>

> ***Tim, that's not at all what we're doing - attacking. I feel that the

> basic NT/WAPF approach to nutrition is the healthiest one, for us, and for

> our planet, so I want unsubstantiated (and clearly refuted) statements, to

> be removed from its literature. Or, I'd at least like the authors to look at

> the contradicting evidence, and reconsider their statements. It seems to me

> that this approach to nutrition is attracting quite a few critical and

> independent thinkers - not blind followers. People who can think for

> themselves are going to have red flags going up when they read somewhat

> sensationalist statements that are easily refuted by simply talking to a

> handful of farmers.

>

> We should always have truth as our goal if we want the NT/WAP paradigm to

> make an impact in the world. AND we should be prepared to make a paradigm

> shift, if there is evidence that some part of the existing paradigm is not

> true. After all, it's not a religion, but a sensible approach to nutrition,

> based on the traditions of our ancestors and healthy primitives worldwide.

>

> >From the evidence gathered here on this list, it appears that the " calves

> fed pasteurized milk will die before maturity " statement is not true. So,

> why shouldn't we expect Sally to re-look at the evidence, and if she can't

> provide more than one nebulous source for this extremely broad statement,

> simply remove it from the realmilk website?

>

> We *need* to be our own worse critics to keep it real.

>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>>Dear Folks

As a farmer I tried to explain the " spin " that was attached to the phrase

but

know one seemed to want to consider it.

***Dear Tim,

I admit I missed the " spin " aspect of what you were saying.

>>>>That to me seems to me to be a direct

attack from a camp of perfectionists, and again it is only my opinion.

***I think " camp of perfectionists " is an extremely unfair characterization

of some NT/WAP enthusiasts who would like to see a little more concern for

accuracy by the WAP foundation and NT authors. I realize that may sound a

bit precocious, and I don't mean to be that way at all. I somewhat regret

using phrases like 'take the authors to task' about some of the erroneous

statements on the website or book. 'Take to task' sounds a little too

precocious, even for me BUT, I refuse to be quiet when it is all but

proven that a rather sensationalist statement is erroneous, and the author

doesn't take the time and effort to look at the conflicting information

presented to her, and consider either a) doing a little further research to

see if the statement is supported by more than one questionable source or 2)

removing it until its validity can be denied or confirmed.

I don't consider that to be " perfectionist. " As I mentioned yesterday, I

think the WAP foundation is a wonderful organization, and as far as I can

see, it provides what may be the most accurate information about basic

principles of human nutrition that's available. So what should we, who are

strong supporters of the organization's mission, do when we find information

that is questionable, erroneous, or not well-sourced? Why shouldn't we hold

NT and WAPF to a high standard? In some ways, I think this list, with its

collective knowledge, experience and intelligence can provide an invaluable

resource to WAPF with just such examinations of its literature. If we can

help improve the accuracy of the information it disseminates, then we are

doing a service to the organization and to all who are influenced by it. And

I don't mean to imply that it's fraught with inaccuracies and errors,

because I don't think it is. But for the things here and there that *may be*

inaccurate or misleading, why not point it out?

>>>I do support your diligence but I have a sore spot for a type of tunnel

vision

when it comes to food and organic in general.

***I don't see what tunnel vision about organic food has to do with

expecting the organization to re-look at some of the info it disseminates

that might be incorrect.

>>>>We have a very good organization that can reach a multitude of people

and begin

to change the world for many, isn't that enough.

***No. Not if the organization ignores clear and sourced information that

contradicts its literature. No one expects sally or the organization to be

perfect, least of all me, but when there IS room for improvement, why not

improve???

>>>>Fractional fighting will only allow that which you despise to enter the

fray and

gain control. ie " the big boys in organics " .

***I don't think we're *fighting* but rather voicing some concerns about

*some* of the foundation's statements. We can and should do this, IMHO. It's

in no way " attacking " it. If I didn't care about the organization, I

wouldn't waste my time trying to improve it. Although, I admit I haven't

really done much to improve it, other than voice my concerns here and hope

they'll be added to the collective comments that get passed on to sally.

perhaps we could present sally with some of our concerns in a more organized

fashion, and see if she'd at least consider giving them some thought.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Dear Suze

Thanks for the feed back, and I agree.

It is an unfortunate fact that the WAP has a very small staff, Sally and one

other person I believe, so to go through all the info and double check would be

a great task given the growth of the foundation I think they are just able to

keep up.

i do hope that in the future that some editing of the information offered is

done to improve the quality, but the jest of the foundation is still very well

represented.

it is the best we have at this point and will only get better with time.

It has come to me that your acute attention to detail maybe from the food you

eat , but remember 99% of this countries population is dense due to the food

they eat and are so conditioned to sensationalism that you almost have to hit

them over the head to get them to realize what was just said.

This of course doesn't excuse deception, which works well on these people as

well, but what to do when saving the world...

Tim

Suze Fisher wrote:

> >>>>Dear Folks

>

> As a farmer I tried to explain the " spin " that was attached to the phrase

> but

> know one seemed to want to consider it.

>

> ***Dear Tim,

> I admit I missed the " spin " aspect of what you were saying.

>

> >>>>That to me seems to me to be a direct

> attack from a camp of perfectionists, and again it is only my opinion.

>

> ***I think " camp of perfectionists " is an extremely unfair characterization

> of some NT/WAP enthusiasts who would like to see a little more concern for

> accuracy by the WAP foundation and NT authors. I realize that may sound a

> bit precocious, and I don't mean to be that way at all. I somewhat regret

> using phrases like 'take the authors to task' about some of the erroneous

> statements on the website or book. 'Take to task' sounds a little too

> precocious, even for me BUT, I refuse to be quiet when it is all but

> proven that a rather sensationalist statement is erroneous, and the author

> doesn't take the time and effort to look at the conflicting information

> presented to her, and consider either a) doing a little further research to

> see if the statement is supported by more than one questionable source or 2)

> removing it until its validity can be denied or confirmed.

>

> I don't consider that to be " perfectionist. " As I mentioned yesterday, I

> think the WAP foundation is a wonderful organization, and as far as I can

> see, it provides what may be the most accurate information about basic

> principles of human nutrition that's available. So what should we, who are

> strong supporters of the organization's mission, do when we find information

> that is questionable, erroneous, or not well-sourced? Why shouldn't we hold

> NT and WAPF to a high standard? In some ways, I think this list, with its

> collective knowledge, experience and intelligence can provide an invaluable

> resource to WAPF with just such examinations of its literature. If we can

> help improve the accuracy of the information it disseminates, then we are

> doing a service to the organization and to all who are influenced by it. And

> I don't mean to imply that it's fraught with inaccuracies and errors,

> because I don't think it is. But for the things here and there that *may be*

> inaccurate or misleading, why not point it out?

>

> >>>I do support your diligence but I have a sore spot for a type of tunnel

> vision

> when it comes to food and organic in general.

>

> ***I don't see what tunnel vision about organic food has to do with

> expecting the organization to re-look at some of the info it disseminates

> that might be incorrect.

>

> >>>>We have a very good organization that can reach a multitude of people

> and begin

> to change the world for many, isn't that enough.

>

> ***No. Not if the organization ignores clear and sourced information that

> contradicts its literature. No one expects sally or the organization to be

> perfect, least of all me, but when there IS room for improvement, why not

> improve???

>

> >>>>Fractional fighting will only allow that which you despise to enter the

> fray and

> gain control. ie " the big boys in organics " .

>

> ***I don't think we're *fighting* but rather voicing some concerns about

> *some* of the foundation's statements. We can and should do this, IMHO. It's

> in no way " attacking " it. If I didn't care about the organization, I

> wouldn't waste my time trying to improve it. Although, I admit I haven't

> really done much to improve it, other than voice my concerns here and hope

> they'll be added to the collective comments that get passed on to sally.

> perhaps we could present sally with some of our concerns in a more organized

> fashion, and see if she'd at least consider giving them some thought.

>

> Suze Fisher

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carmen

I said a month or so ago the calves fed pastuerized milk die before maturity

because they were ONLY fed pastureized milk, no grass no grain.

yes most farms feed pastuerized milk to calves but most only for the period of

12 days and then they are fed grain and hay.

So their in lies the " spin " yes they will die if fed only pastuerized milk for

a long time! I think the time frame should be explained and maybe some day it

will be with " Quick Serve Nation " .

Tim

Clearview

Carmen wrote:

> <<<< As a farmer I tried to explain the " spin " that was attached to the

> phrase but

> know one seemed to want to consider it >>>>>>

>

> Sorry, I'm a little dense. I guess I missed it. Please explain what you

> mean by " the " " spin " " that was attached to the phrase " .

>

> Carmen

>

>

[Guest guest]

<<<< As a farmer I tried to explain the " spin " that was attached to the

phrase but

know one seemed to want to consider it >>>>>>

Sorry, I'm a little dense. I guess I missed it. Please explain what you

mean by " the " " spin " " that was attached to the phrase " .

Carmen

[Guest guest]

>>>>>It has come to me that your acute attention to detail maybe from the

food you

eat ,

***Ya, the chocolate! Oh wait, no, I threw that away Actually, it was not

*my* acute attention to detail, I think it was , or perhaps someone

else who first questioned the calves fed pasteurized milk statement on

realmilk.com. I don't want to take credit for someone else's acuity

>>>but remember 99% of this countries population is dense due to the food

they eat and are so conditioned to sensationalism that you almost have to

hit

them over the head to get them to realize what was just said.

***I know what you are saying, but I really don't think NT/WAP should be the

Jerry Springer of nutrition paradigms just to get people's attention. <g>

>>>>This of course doesn't excuse deception, which works well on these

people as

well, but what to do when saving the world...

***My suggestion would be *not* to try to save the world, but to provide

accurate, well-sourced nutrition information. Which I believe NT/WAPF do for

the most part. And always, always, be open to change it, if it proves to be

inaccurate.

The rest will follow

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>When did consumers tell the farmers that they would be happy with

>cheap food of little or no nutritional value? Also, please tell me

>where your government told farmers to produce cheap food of little or

>no nutritional value.

I completely agree. This " blame the consumer " movement has some truth to

it, but it's mainly a smoke screen. Industry uses its wealth to reframe

the debate, confuse the issue with bogus information, keep people ignorant,

and throw sand in everyone's eyes, all while pursuing every conceivable

regulatory and market method of squelching the competition. We have to

fight back as best we can. Certainly people bear some responsibility for

their own ignorance, but when there's virtually nobody anywhere discussing

nutrition and soil fertility -- particularly as it applies to animal foods

-- there's a limit to how much they can be blamed.

>With the continuing decline

>in soil fertility across America, it would certainly be more

>difficult to do so 60 to 70 years later.

To what degree have you been successful finding foods grown on fertile soils?

-

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " soilfertility " <ynos@...>

< >

Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:11 PM

Subject: Re: small farmers surviving with beyond organic

>

> > If you'll pardon the blasphemy, I'd like to point out that you're

> > barking up the wrong tree. It's not farmers--small or industrial

> > --who have brought us to where we are now--it's consumers (and,

> > with its incessant meddling in agricultural matters, the

> > government). Consumers demanded cheap food and the

> > farmers delivered.

>

> Hi :

> When did consumers tell the farmers that they would be happy with

> cheap food of little or no nutritional value?

When they bought it. You can't sell what people won't buy. Yes, it's true

that for the most part they bought it just because it was cheaper, with

little regard for or understanding of the nutritional issues, but there was

ignorance all around. The farmers didn't know that they were producing food

of inferior nutritional value--they just knew that they could produce more

food at a lower cost using new methods than they could using the old

methods. Since the customers didn't complain, they kept on doing it.

> Also, please tell me

> where your government told farmers to produce cheap food of little or

> no nutritional value.

First, it's not my government. That said, it's meddled so much in the

agricultural industry that I figure it must have had something to do with

where the industry is now.

> Myself, I would look at who controls agriculture as the possible

> source of the problem of high yields of food with low nutritional

> value. You can be sure it isn't the government, the farmer or the

> consumer who controls agriculture.

Ultimately agriculture, like all industries, is controlled by those who buy

its products.

> > A small farmer who tries to compete with an industrial

> > farm will be run out of business because he can't possibly

> > sell his goods at a competitive price. If you want farmers to

> > produce high-quality food, you'll first have to educate consumers

> > and convince them that they should pay higher prices for it.

>

> So are you saying there are no farmers producing high nutritional

> food, because, if they were, they would have been run out of business

> by competition with industrial farms?

....Yes, but that's not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is that

small farmers cannot compete with industrial farms when they're selling the

same products. A small farmer can make a profit by selling

highly-nutritional food at high prices, but only if he makes it clear to the

customers that his food is so superior as to be another product altogether.

If he fails to do this, and if the customers don't figure it out on their

own, then they'll choose the cheaper, factory-farmed food almost every time.

> Perhaps you don't need to educate comsumers about better mouse traps,

> just build one and they will beat a path to your door.

Only those who can recognize the superiority of your mousetrap. The rest

will continue buying the cheap ones that they've always bought.

[Guest guest]

-

>Ultimately agriculture, like all industries, is controlled by those who buy

>its products.

So you're saying agriculture and other industries don't wield power over

their customers? Or that if they do, it's 100% at the conscious sufferance

of those customers?

-

[Guest guest]

At 10:11 PM 4/23/02 +0000, Chi wrote:

>When I read " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " many years ago, I

>knew the biggest problem would be finding food comparanble in

>nutritional value to that which was consumed by the healthy, isolated

>people Price found in the 1930's. It would have been difficult to

>find such food in America in the 1930's. With the continuing decline

>in soil fertility across America, it would certainly be more

>difficult to do so 60 to 70 years later.

>Chi

Hi Chi,

Behind on my longer replies. I don't have an answer other than to get a soil

test from a Swiss Alp where there is still pasture. Think it was the goat

milk/butter in Heidi that cured her instead of the mountain air. Saw a show on

the Food Channel few months back Follow That Food. They did Normandy butter

which is the most desired by the top chefs in the world. Its cultured 48 hours

before churning. They did say that their dairy cows are in high demand but no

one outside of Normandy gets the same Normandy butter with them. Makes sense

with the soil quality, graze quality and diversity of plant life throughout

the

world. Would be quite a feat to duplicate.

Where I live was built in the woods probably 25-30 years ago. This hilltown

above what once was the richest agricultural valley on the east coast was in

1910-1920 all cleared for agriculture. State forest was planted then with

regrowth of most of the farmland.

I've talked with our local WAPF director who does soil evaluation here and in

surrounding states. Said the hilltown topsoil has eroded from what it was down

into the valley. The valley's is going into the river and streams. She said of

all the farms in 3 states she's evaluated there is one she feels has great

topsoil.

I'd like to learn how to build great topsoil to have beyond organic vegetables

and forage for any future livestock. Its a lot of research along with the

nutritional analysis. May play around with trays of sprouted sunflowers.

Dr. Marasco talked about the soil health of the place that produced the

supplements he recommended. It must be a long process over many years with

adjustment to produce that quality.

I did ask a friend once what was the deal with the price of organic. He said

less production and bugs had to be handpicked off. I thought why are there

bugs? If the food is healthier why aren't the plants healthy enough to keep

the

bugs away.

I agree open pollinated is the way to go. The only insect problem I've ever

had

is on fruit trees. Had blossom end rot on all my tomatoes because I forgot to

use epsom salts one year. Powdery mildew another because of extreme heat that

got away from me quick. Don't use that spot anymore for the cucurbits.

Had a strange phone call the other day. What I thought the telemarketer said

was " We market " high quality " groceries " Said I didn't understand her (had a

heavy southern accent, no offense anyone) and was cut off.

Anyway little would make me happier than to be home full time growing and

raising more food. I do a pretty good job now and work part time away. The

time

it takes to bring food from field to table is the same here as with anyone

else. Bringing it up too. Doing anything different quickly would mean

borrowing

against these beloved 17 acres. Not that we don't trust ourselves.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

At 02:40 AM 4/27/02 +0000, you wrote:

Hi Dennis,

>I must say I share your interest in building /rebuilding  soil

>fertility. 

I've always wanted to know how to make the fertilizers like in Gardens Alive

since first getting the catalog. Is more to it than that though. Don't have

good luck with root vegetables. Have to get soil tested here and go from

there.

Husband who took ag at a tech high said its a lot of work with this acid soil.

I'm stubborn though like most farmers and will do the best we can with what

there is to work with.

>What do you use the sunflowers for?  A soil test? 

I've sprouted sunflower seeds in potting soil in the plastic seedling boxes

before. Use them in salads and sandwiches as a vitamin E supplement. Cut them

as you need them and they'll keep coming as rest of seeds germinate. This is

the suggested method for sunflowers at www..com The seeds are

pretty much open pollinatated so I thought they'd be a good test subject to

soils done on a small scale. Sprouts have 300-600% of the nutrition that the

full grown plant has so I may be cheating to get super nutrition. There's a

wide range of vitamins and minerals in the different seeds that can be

sprouted.

>Do you have organic sprays for fruit trees?

We should have made dormant oil spray and put it on last fall. You know how it

is in the fall scramble to put everything to bed.

>I been wanting to attract bats for insect control. 

With bats I'd worry about rabies if they're sleeping in one of your buildings.

Their guano can be toxic for other diseases too. I've heard purple martins are

as effective for insects. The houses to attract are like condo birdhouses.

Do you use beneficials,parasitic wasps, etc.

Never had to. All we've used is Bag A Bug for the Japanese beetles on fruit

trees. Have ladybugs that winter over in window jambs and wall behind

woodpile.

>Do you control squash bugs? 

Never had them. The only problem I've had with squash is powdery mildew. Think

there are benefits in being up in altitude away from more other farms. Does

reduce the growing season length but the hoophouse compensates.

Wanita