Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Urtica dioica

1 organic transplant in 4" plastic pot

Category: Potted Plants

Longevity: HP (zones 4 to 9)

Lighting Conditions: PS-FS

Average Height: 3 feet

The plant is covered with stinging hairs which are neutralized by cooking or drying. The stinging is said to be helpful in treating arthritis. Leaves are a good source of vitamins, minerals, and protein - up to 25% dry weight. They are diuretic and used to treat anemia, gout, rheumatism and flu. Nettles are used in some dandruff shampoos; farmers will feed some to cattle to make their coats more glossy. Excellent compost activator - they contain quite a bit of nitrogen. A fiber plant - Nettles have been used to make clothing for over 2000 years, Nettle textiles are still commercially produced today. The roots are a source of a yellow dye, leaves yield a yellow/green. Formerly (and still) used to flavor beer and cordials. Leaves also an excellent potherb

Shipping applies to 1st plant only; order additional plants and save big!

Click here to order:


Nepeta cataria, 4 inch pot

If your cat was into herb gardening, Catnip would be on it's list of 'must have' herb plants.

Catnip is a vigorous, high yielding plant that your kitty will love! Tolerant of drought and less than ideal soil, it produces purplish-white flowers. Catnip loves full sun and the leaves and flowers of this perennial can also be used as a medicinal herb, as a gentle antispasmodic and very mild sedative.

Catnip contains an active ingredient called Nepetalactone which affects most cats' olfactory senses. Giving the cat a psycho-sexual high, Catnip is non toxic and typical behavior may include licking, rolling, drooling and chasing. Reactions to this herb may vary in cats as this is a hereditary behavior and may also have no influence on senior or very young cats.

Also a very potent mosquito and pest repelling herb, Catnip has a variety of wonderful uses from companion planting to even acting as an effective meat tenderizer! The Nepetalactone in Catnip has also been proven by The American Chemical Society to be ten times more effective than the commercial chemical, DEET, in repelling mosquitoes

Shipping charge is for 1st plant only; Order more than one and SAVE!



Melissa officinalis

[LEMON BALM] Organically Grown

Melissa officinalis
Category: Potted Plants

Longevity: HP (zones 3 to 7)

Lighting Conditions: Full Sun

Average Height: 3 feet

Glossy bright green toothed leaves are repellant to mosquitos; small white to cream flowers are a favorite of honey bees. It is used to attract them to new hives by rubbing the leaves on the inside of empty boxes. It makes an outstanding beverage tea which reduces stress, soothes upset stomach aches and headaches. A tasty relaxing addition to wine.  Also nice for potpourri. Reseeds itself.

MARKET FARMING & GARDENING / Motherwort Transplants for Sale
« Last post by Little Feather on April 10, 2014, 08:39:23 AM »
Leonurus cardiac

Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) is a herbaceous perennial plant in the mint family, Lamiaceae. Originally from Central Asia it is now found worldwide.

Motherwort is one of those plants that has somehow found its way into native medical lore in every corner of the Earth...from Russia to Romania...from America to Asia. Motherwort is an herb most beneficial to women's health.

Motherwort is an excellent herb to benefit heart function. It inhibits blood platelet aggregation, lowers blood lipid levels, lowers high blood pressure and calms arrhythmias.

As a cardiac tonic, Motherwort has been shown to be hypotensive, sedative, and antispasmodic. It calms palpitations and normalizes heart function in general. Motherwort extract has been shown to improve several aspects of coronary health.

These organically grown plants are approximately 6" tall and will flower this year. Motherwort is a perennial plant, cold hardy, zone 4-8, and love moderately moist, fertile soil. Ships by Priority Mail, $6.50 shipping total regardless of number purchased. Order several and save!
Available from The Chenoweth Collection Etsy Shop:

In the News / Researchers identify terrain likely to attract CWD-infected deer
« Last post by BottleFed on April 10, 2014, 08:00:44 AM »

Penn State Ag Sciences News 4/10/2014

Researchers identify terrain likely to attract CWD-infected deer

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- A study of the spread of chronic wasting disease among white-tailed deer in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania found that infected deer tend to cluster in low-lying open and developed areas. These results suggest that state wildlife management agencies should concentrate surveillance efforts in such topography and landscapes, according to researchers in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences.

The study yielded important insight into how the ailment, commonly called CWD, has progressed in the East, said David Walter, adjunct assistant professor of wildlife ecology. Subsequent modeling based on the research has revealed likely paths of future dispersal of the disease, which always is fatal to cervids, such as deer, elk and moose.
"We are looking at what environmental variables might be associated with the presence or absence of chronic wasting disease in the Northeast," explained Walter, who is an assistant leader of the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Penn State.

"We obtained the geographic coordinates of hunter-killed deer that tested positive for CWD and overlaid them on a map showing a variety of habitat and landscape features," he said. "The analysis showed a high prevalence of CWD in deer sampled from low-lying open and developed landscapes."

This knowledge -- generated by thesis work done by graduate student Tyler Evans, who is advised by Walter -- became more important this spring when the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the state Game Commission and Department of Agriculture in Pennsylvania announced that tests had revealed three more CWD-positive deer.

Pennsylvania has found six CWD-positive deer in the last two years. Maryland and Virginia have had a few each, but West Virginia has had more than 100 during the last decade.

Evans, a native of Salem, Ohio, who is scheduled to receive a master's degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Science this fall, investigated the geographic coordinates where deer testing positive for CWD were found.

Chronic wasting disease, which infects the brain and nervous system of cervids, belongs to a group of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or prion diseases. It eventually produces enough damage to the brains of affected animals to result in death. While CWD is similar to so-called mad cow disease in cattle and scrapie in sheep, there is no known relationship between them.
There is no evidence that humans can contract CWD, although the disease is similar to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a rare, fatal syndrome that afflicts people.

While it's not known exactly how CWD is transmitted, scientists believe that the prion responsible for the disease may be spread both directly through animal-to-animal contact and indirectly via soil or other surfaces -- most likely through the saliva and feces of infected animals or decomposing carcasses.

Perhaps surprisingly, CWD in the East first was documented in free-ranging deer in West Virginia concurrently with captive deer in New York in 2005. In the West, it first was recognized in 1967 in captive mule deer in a northern Colorado facility. Walter conducted research several years ago on the spread of the disease in Colorado in free-ranging mule deer.

"We weren't sure the disease would act the same way here as it did in the West, because that's a much more open landscape," he said. "We found out west that the lowlands, where mule deer yard up in the winter after coming down from the high elevations, had the highest prevalence of chronic wasting disease. We are seeing some of that in this region with whitetails -- in low-lying areas where they come out of the forests in winter and congregate."

Considering the disease's prevalence in low-lying areas, Evans has modeled how it is likely to spread in free-ranging deer, in valleys parallel to mountains and along river bottoms, most likely through developed and agricultural terrain. This information should help agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Game Commission, know where to sample for CWD-infected deer.

Walter currently is assembling funding to add a DNA-testing component to the research, starting in August, in which deer testing both positive and negative for chronic wasting disease will be analyzed. One of the things he hopes to learn is whether white-tailed deer in Virginia and West Virginia have the same "lineage" as those in the mountains of northcentral Pennsylvania.

"If they share genetics between populations, then we might be able to infer whether the CWD positives came from captive animals transported between deer farms or whether the disease has spread from within wild populations across the region," he explained.

"This has not been done in the Northeast before, but it has been done in Wisconsin and Illinois," he said. "However, it could be a different situation here because deer are known not to travel as far in the forests and mountains of Pennsylvania as they do in the open agricultural landscape of the Midwest."

With the short distances deer move in the East, it would take centuries for a deer lineage to advance from Virginia to northern Pennsylvania. Walter and his research team will collect nearly 500 samples a year from hunter-killed deer in the four states to analyze DNA. 

Wildlife scientists suspect the transport of captive deer play a major role in the spread of CWD. But the spread of the disease in the East is mysterious because West Virginia and Virginia don't have a lot of game farms. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, has the second highest number in the country behind only Texas, Walter said.

"There is no known direct link to say that CWD actually spread from West Virginia to Virginia to Maryland to Pennsylvania. It is not accurate to say that, because so much time passed between finding positives in each state -- we can't really connect the dots and determine a path. But we hope the pending DNA testing and genetic component of the research can help us solve that mystery."
Shop How-To DVDs at Back40GeneralStore:


Penn State Ag Sciences News is a free, electronic distribution of news and feature articles about research, educational programs, faculty, staff, students and events in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences and Penn State Extension. It is distributed by Ag Communications and Marketing, News Unit, 134 Agricultural Administration Building, University Park, PA 16802.

Eat Well / Walmart to Sell Wild Oats Organic Products at 25% Discount
« Last post by Little Feather on April 10, 2014, 07:43:06 AM »
Walmart to sell Wild Oats organic products, promises 25 percent lower prices

Walmart is attempting to shake up the $29 billion organic foods market by offering such products for 25 percent cheaper than other similar brands.

By Ananth Baliga   |   April 10, 2014 at 4:17 PM   

Wild Oats is coming out with a line of organic food products including tomato sauce, chicken broth and olive oil

BENTONVILLE, Ark., April 10 (UPI) -- Walmart said Thursday it will sell Wild Oats organic products at prices that will match conventional products beat other organic brands by 25 percent.
Walmart, the world's largest retailer and largest seller of food in the U.S., is entering and trying to shake up the $29 billion organic foods market. The Wild Oats items will appear in around 2000 stores, half of its national footprint, as early as this month and will be available in the more than 4,000 Wal-Mart stores across the country that sell groceries.

"We know our customers are interested in purchasing organic products and, traditionally, those customers have had to pay more … We are changing that" said Jack Sinclair, executive vice president of the grocery division at Wal-Mart U.S.

According to a Walmart internal survey, 91 percent of their customers would prefer to buy organic products if their prices were lower than they are currently. The same research also found that nine in ten people felt that organic foods were better than conventional foods.

The Wild Oats brand is familiar to many customers who buy organic foods. The chain of stores was acquired by Walmart in 2007 and is now relaunching a line of organic foods that will include tomato sauce, chicken broth and spices, with Wal-Mart as its only national retailer.

Over 90 percent of Wild Oats offerings at Walmart will be organic and the rest will adhere to company standards about additives and ingredients, but not conform to U.S. Food and Drug Authority requirements.

Wanting to get a bigger piece of the organic foods market, Target announced Wednesday that it was banding together natural and organic food growers like Annie's Homegrown, Horizon Organic and Plum Organics to help make it easier for customers to buy such products. Target said its sales of natural and organic products grew 15 percent last year.

[The New York Times]
 [Chicago Tribune]

Read more:
Recipes / Lacto-Fermented Rustic Salsa
« Last post by BottleFed on April 03, 2014, 06:33:52 AM »
Lacto-Fermented Rustic Salsa


Food Processor (here’s what I use)
Large Glass Bowl
Mason Jars or Ferment Jars

The Players

6 medium organic tomatoes, halved
1 large organic onion, peeled and halved
4 organic sweet bell peppers; stem, pith, and seeds removed
4 organic cloves of organic garlic, peeled
1 (to 2) small organic jalapenos (depending on how hot you like it), stem and seeds removed (optional)
2 teaspoons sea salt (where to buy sea salt)
4 tablespoons liquid whey or Veggie Starter Culture (where to buy starters)
filtered water, if needed (see what water purifiers I recommend)

The How-To

1. Get your food processor ready with the regular blade attachment. Process the tomatoes first, blending until the juices release and the tomato chunks are at your desired size (I love small bits, but you can always go bigger). Transfer to the glass bowl.

2. Repeat the same process as with the tomatoes with the onion, bell peppers, garlic, and jalapenos. Transfer all ingredients to the glass bowl, add the sea salt and liquid whey. Mix well until everything is evenly distributed.

3. Distribute the prepped salsa equally between two one-quart mason jars. Be sure that the salsa is covered with the salsa liquid by at least 1 inch, if it is not and there is not enough liquid, add filtered water as needed. Allow to ferment on the counter for 2 to 3 days and then transfer to your refrigerator. Now your lacto-fermented salsa is ready to eat. Enjoy!

Shop How-To DVDs at Back40GeneralStore:
The New American Farm In a Sustainable Capitalist Economy

John Ikerd

We live in perilous times. At no time since the Great Depression of the 1930s has the U.S. economy been so vulnerable to economic chaos and collapse. We came pretty close to the brink in 2008 and we have not backed far from it since. Those in positions of political and economic power would like us to believe that the worst of the current recession is behind us. However, there is no sign of recovery in the “real economy,” where those in the middle class must make their living. A “jobless recovery” is only an economic oxymoron.


A real economic recovery will not come about until we find something to replace the good paying jobs that U.S. corporations have moved, and continue to move, to lower-wage countries of the world, such as Mexico, India, and China. Real economic growth cannot be sustained until American middleclass workers can again earn enough money to buy the things they “make in America.” They simply can’t continue borrowing money to maintain consumer spending at levels needed for an economic recovery. Many Americans are already suffering from far too much debt, with “maxed out” credit cards and home mortgages larger than the deflated values of their homes.


The government is in no better financial condition than is the average taxpayer. With the federal financial bailout and the economic stimulus programs, the federal debt has skyrocketed to levels unthinkable a mere decade ago. The U.S. has been forced to resort to borrowing from other countries, particularly Japan and China, as our own citizens are unwilling or unable to lend money to their government. Furthermore, there is no indication U.S. taxpayers will ever be willing to tax themselves to pay off the mounting U.S. debts to other nations. An economic recovery fueled by government loans that taxpayers won’t repay is no more sustainable than was the economic boom fueled by housing loans that borrowers couldn’t repay.


Perhaps most worrisome, nothing of any real significance has changed since the recent financial meltdown. The large financial institutions remain essentially unregulated, even after the recent so-called “financial reform.” If anything, the government’s response to the current crisis has increased the likelihood that something similar will happen again. A jobless financial recovery will likely be just another “house of cards.” If so, when the new house of cards begins to fall, with government credit maxed out and taxpayers tapped out, it’s difficult to think of anything that might prevent a U.S. and global financial collapse.

Shop How-To DVDs at Back40GeneralStore:


We are not actually going to solve today’s economic problems until we are willing to face the reality of what’s causing them. Today’s economic problems are direct consequences of decades of economic extraction and exploitation. All economic value is derived either from natural or human resources; there is simply nowhere else to get anything that has economic value. In our narrow pursuit of individual, economic self-interests – particularly over the past three decades – we have depleted the productivity of both nature and society. Sooner or later we must face the reality that we are rapidly depleting our only possible sources of real economic value. We are threatening the future of our economy, our society, and of humanity.


At no time in recorded history has humanity faced ecological risks comparable to those of global climate change and “peak oil.” Even the major oil companies now grudgingly admit that we are either at or near a peak in global oil production, the only source of cheap fossil energy. We have depleted approximately half of the world’s total stocks of petroleum in just over a century. All of the remaining reserves of fossil energy – including oil, natural gas, and coal – will be less abundant and more difficult and costly to extract and use. With booming economies in the most populous nations of the world, particularly China and India, all of the economically recoverable stocks of fossil energy may be largely depleted by the middle of this century. All of the logical alternatives to fossil energy – biofuels, wind, water, photovoltaic, and nuclear – will be more limited in quantity and higher in cost.  The days of cheap energy are over.


Meanwhile, our continuing reliance on fossil energy is creating a growing threat to the global environment. Ecological disasters such as the “blow out” of the BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico may be commonplace as the energy companies go deeper under the seas and into ever more remote regions in search of earth’s remnant fossil energy.  In addition, the key chemical elements in greenhouse gasses are bound up in oil, natural gas, coal, and other fossil energy resources. These elements are released with the release of each calorie of fossil energy. No one can possibly predict the ultimate consequences of a rapid change in global climate. The cumulative impacts of these catastrophic threats could threaten the future of human life on earth. We simply cannot sustain our capitalist economy by relying on fossil energy.


Neither can we sustain the American economy on the backs of the American worker. After decades of corporate exploitation of the U.S. workforce, the economic disparity between the rich and the average American has reached levels unprecedented since the “gilded age” of the early 1900s. The annual income of the highest paid one-percent of U.S. workers is greater than the incomes of the poorest one-half. The disparity in wealth is even greater; the top 25% of American society being 33-times wealthier than the 25% that makes up the lower middle class.  As Alan Greenspan wrote upon leaving his position as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, “The income gap between the rich and the rest of the U.S. population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.”[1] That eventuality has become a reality. The futures of both capitalism and democracy are in peril.


We simply can’t keep on doing the things we have been doing. The industrial era of economic development has brought tremendous material progress and no one would choose to return to pre-industrial times of widespread drudgery, deprivation, disease, and early death. However, we simply cannot continue depleting the natural and human resources upon which all economies ultimately must depend for their productivity. Reflecting on the current economic crisis, French President, Nicolas Sarkozy proclaimed, "A great revolution is waiting for us. For years, people said that finance was a formidable creator of wealth, only to discover one day that it accumulated so many risks that the world almost plunged into chaos. The crisis doesn't only make us free to imagine other models, another future, another world. It obliges us to do so."


Industrial economic development is not sustainable. It cannot meet the needs of the present without diminishing opportunities for the future. This is not a personal opinion. It is a conclusion based on the most fundamental laws of science and most basic principles of economics. Sustainability ultimately is a matter of energy. Our houses, automobiles, clothes, food, all things of use to us… require energy to make and energy to use. In fact, all material things are concentrated forms of energy. That’s what Einstein’s famous equation E=MC2 is about: E equals energy, M is matter, and C is the speed of light. All useful human activities – working, thinking, creating… – also require energy. In fact, the brain accounts for about one-fifth of energy used by the human body. In addition, we are not born as productive individuals but as helpless babies. We have to be nurtured, educated, socialized, and civilized by families, communities, and society before we become “useful.” All of this requires energy, including “social energy.” The sustainability of human life on earth depends on sustaining the usefulness of energy.


According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, which might suggest that sustainability is inevitable. However, according to the second law of thermodynamics, each time energy is used, some of its usefulness is lost – the law of entropy. Whenever energy is used, it always changes in form, specifically from more concentrated, organized forms to more dispersed, disorganized forms, as when gasoline explodes in the engine of an automobile. In fact, this natural tendency to disperse is what makes energy useful. Each time it is used and reused, it becomes less concentrated, less organized, and thus, less useful. Some forms of energy can be reconcentrated and restored, but this requires energy, which is then unavailable for other uses. No matter how efficiently energy is used and reused, energy inevitably tends toward uselessness, toward entropy.


Solar energy is the only source of new energy available to offset the loss of useful energy to entropy. Consequently, the sustainability of human life on earth ultimately depends on capturing, concentrating, and storing sufficient quantities of solar energy to offset the usefulness of energy lost to entropy. This is the essence of sustainability.


Economists have shown little interest in sustainability because neoclassical economics is based on the unspoken assumption that science and technology will always be capable of finding substitutes for anything we use up and solving any problem we create. Most economists seem to believe all we need to do to ensure a sustainable economy is to provide the appropriate economic incentives. However, things have economic value only because they are useful, and their usefulness ultimately is derived from energy. All economic value must be derived from either natural or human resources – from nature or society – the only sources of useful energy. Once all of the useful energy in nature and society is used up, there will be no source of economic value.


The fundamental problem in relying on economic incentives is that economic value is inherently individualistic; it places no value on purely social or non-instrumental relationships. To an economist, a rational relationship is always a means to an economic end. It makes no economic sense to do anything for the sole benefit of someone else or for society in general. Likewise, it makes no economic sense to invest in anything for the sole benefit of those of future generations. There is no way for an individual to realize economic value after he or she is dead. Since life is inherently uncertain, we value things we can enjoy today more highly than things we might or might not be able to enjoy in the future. There is no logical reason to believe that even the most pure of economic incentives will be adequate to ensure economic sustainability.


We are at one of those times that come along every few hundred years in human history when one era is dying a painful death and another is struggling to be born. Industrial economic development seemed appropriate for a world with relatively few humans and vast natural resources, including a seemingly endless capacity of nature to absorb our wastes.  Our world of today is becoming crowded and its remaining resources are scarce and fragile. In such a world, our current approach to economic development is creating far more problems than it is solving.


As Albert Einstein once wrote, we can’t solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them. Our current economy reflects a mechanistic way of thinking that emerged during the “enlightenment,” which began in the 1600s. The thinkers of those times visualized the world as a big complex machine – like a clock. Mechanisms are very efficient means of extracting useful energy, but they are fundamentally incapable of energy regeneration. No matter how efficiently they may use energy, mechanistic organizations of the future – businesses, governments, nonprofits – eventually will lose their ability to do anything useful for humanity. 


Sustainable economic development will require an organismic way of thinking – the world as a complex living organism. Only living systems are capable of self-renewal and regeneration and thus capable of offsetting the loss of useful energy to entropy. Green plants have the ability to capture energy from the sun and store energy in their tissues. Plants are biological solar energy collectors. People also are capable of capturing solar energy; we use windmills, water impoundments, and photovoltaic cells. However, humans are inherently dependent on the biological energy collected and stored by green plants. Living things, including people, also have a natural inclination and ability to devote a significant portion of their life’s energy to reproduction, meaning renewal and regeneration. Sustainable economic development must be based on the paradigm and principles of biological, living systems.


Agriculture provides a compelling metaphor for the inability of current thinking to address the real issues of economic sustainability and the necessity to rethink our view of the world and our place within it. Food is among the most basic of all human needs. We are biological beings. If we destroy the biological integrity of the earth, we destroy the future of humanity. There are already too many people on the earth to return to hunting and gathering. Therefore, the sustainability of human life – at any level remotely comparable to that of today – depends on the sustainability of our supply of food, specifically the sustainability of agriculture.


Today’s dominant paradigm of industrial agriculture provides a useful metaphor for the perils of industrial economic development. Conventional American agriculture relies on the basic industrial strategies of specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control. In the quest for economic efficiency, farms have been transformed into factories without roofs and fields and feed lots into biological assembly lines. The industrialization of agriculture has yielded impressive results, at least in terms of productivity and economic efficiency. However, it has degraded its natural resource base, depleted its human resource base, and destroyed economic opportunities for the future. Today’s industrial agriculture fails every test of sustainability.


As American agriculture has become more industrial, it has become increasingly dependent on fossil energy. The total food system currently claims about 20% of all fossil energy used in the U.S. with farming accounting for about one-third of the total. In fact, our industrial food system requires about ten calories of fossil energy for every calorie of food energy it provides. Agricultural pollution represents negative energy, in that it destroys the usefulness of other energy resources or requires energy to mitigate its negative impacts. Industrial agriculture pollutes the air, water, and soil with toxic agrochemicals and livestock manure. In fact, agriculture has become the number one source of nonpoint source pollution in the U.S., creating huge “dead zones” in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico. Industrial agriculture also is a major source of the greenhouse gasses that contribute to global climate change. An industrial agriculture is not ecologically sustainable.


Industrial agriculture also is a significant contributor to the depletion of “social energy.” Farm workers today are among the lowest paid workers in the U.S., while working under dangerous and disagreeable conditions, most without adequate health care or other fringe benefits. A growing reliance on migrant farm workers also creates cultural and political conflicts in an economy where jobs are scarce. The pollution of air and water and threats to human health associated with large scale confinement animal operations or CAFOs also invariably rip the social fabric of rural communities apart. Industrial agriculture has meant larger farms and fewer farm families. Farming communities depend on farm families, not just to support businesses on Main Street but also to maintain viable local schools, health care, and other public services. As a consequence of industrialization, rural communities in agricultural areas have suffered decades of economic and social decline and decay. An industrial agriculture is not socially sustainable.


These negative ecological and social impacts are defended as being economically necessary – to ensure an adequate supply of safe and healthful foods at prices that are affordable to all. However, there are no fewer hungry people in the U.S. or in the world today than before the industrial era in agriculture began. The introduction of genetically modified organisms or GMOs as a means of addressing world hunger instead casts a pall over the future of global food supplies. While their ultimate impacts on human health and the environment are inherently uncertain, and thus risky, the prevalence of GMOs most certainly would place future global food production under the control of a few giant multinational corporations.  There are also growing indications that many of today’s industrially produced foods are not healthful or even safe to eat. Outbreaks of salmonella and E-Coli have become commonplace. Millions of Americans suffer from diet related illnesses, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and various forms of cancer, all of which are most common among those with the lowest incomes.


Industrial agriculture certainly hasn’t been economically viable for most farmers. The total number of farmers in the U.S. has dropped from more than six-million in the 1930s to around two-million today, and a large majority of farm household incomes today come from something other than farming. In fact, many farm families fare little better than migrant farm workers, as independent farmers are periodically forced out of business to make room for further consolidation. Much of today’s agricultural production is carried out under comprehensive contracts with multinational agribusinesses which leave farmers little better off than serfs on their own land. An industrial agriculture is not economically sustainable.


There is no scarcity of information today concerning the impacts of industrial agriculture. Best-selling books, such as Fast Food Nation[2] and Omnivore’s Dilemma,[3]  are awakening mainstream society to the dramatic changes in the ways our foods are being produced, processed, distributed, and marketed.  The End of Food[4] and America’s Food[5] covers virtually all aspects of the industrial, corporately-controlled, global food system. Video documentaries such as Future of Food,[6] Broken Limbs,[7] Food Inc[8] and Fresh; The Movie[9] provide gripping images of the negative ecological and social impacts of an industrial food system on nature, society, and on the future of humanity.  They all tell the same story of an unsustainable food system – lacking in ecological, social, and economic integrity. Specialization, standardization, and consolidation are not the future of American agriculture but they could well mean the end of American agriculture.


Thankfully, the food and faming books and video documentaries also tell the story of a hopeful future for farming and food production – the story of agricultural sustainability. Sustainable agriculture provides a metaphor for the promises or possibilities of creating sustainable economies. Sustainable farmers rely on green plants to capture and store solar energy and to regenerate the organic matter and natural productivity of the soil. They use crop rotations, cover crops, intercropping, managed grazing, and integrated crop and livestock systems to manage pests and maintain the fertility of their soils. They manage their farms as living organisms, of which they as decision makers are integral parts. By relying more on nature, they are able to rely less on purchased inputs, many of which are derived from fossil energy, reducing economic costs and environmental impacts while maintaining their productivity and profitability.


Sustainable farmers build personal relationships with their customers, not just to create a market but also because they value their friendships. Farmers and their customers find a renewed sense of community at farmers markets, community supported agricultural associations (CSAs), and community gardens, and other direct marketing venues. Sustainable farmers give priority to their local communities in marketing their products and purchasing products and local consumers give priority to local farmers – both value community and society. Farmers are able to increase product value and profitability while helping to build stronger local economies and communities.


Most important, sustainable farmers accept an ethical and moral commitment to preserve the natural productivity of their land and their communities by leaving them as good as or better than they found them. Sustainable farmers realize direct value from their relationships with their land and with people, not just the instrumental or economic value. They work in harmony with nature, not just to maintain productivity, but also to respect their honored role as stewards of the land. They work in harmony with society, not just to create new markets, but to respect their honored role as responsible members of the human community.


The new sustainable approach to farming has many names, including organic, biodynamic, holistic, bio-intensive, biological, ecological, and permaculture. Such farmers and their customers share a common commitment to sustainability – to creating a new food system that meets the needs of the present without diminishing opportunities for the future. They are committed to relying on solar energy to renew, regenerate, and sustain the productivity of the natural and human resources that must support human life on earth, now and in the future. They are committed to agricultural and economic sustainability. They are the future of farming in America – the New American Farm.


These New American Farmers are real farmers. Real farming is a way of life as well as a way to make a living. Real farming is as much about family, community, society, and humanity as it is about production and profits. A real farmer is a good provider for his or her family, but also a good neighbor, a responsible member of society, and a responsible caretaker of the earth, and the living things of the earth, for the future of humanity. Industrial agriculture is agribusiness; sustainable agriculture is farming.


Public perceptions of the New American Farmer are being shaped by a few Celebrity farmers, such as Joel Salatin[10] (Polyface Farms, Inc.) of Swope, VA and Will Allen[11] (Growing Power Inc.) of Milwaukee, WI. However, there are tens of thousands of these new American farmers scattered across the country.  At least six “sustainable agriculture” conferences in the U.S. and Canada draw 1,500 to 2,500 people each year.  Conferences drawing 500 to 700 people are becoming almost commonplace and virtually every state in the U.S. has an organic or sustainable agriculture organization hosting conferences that draw 100 to 250 people annually.


Smaller independent food processors and retailers are beginning to form alliances with these new farmers to compete with the large, corporate agribusinesses, which increasingly dominate both national and global food markets. A growing number of progressive retail food chains, such as New Seasons Market[12] in Portland, OR and Hen House Markets[13] in Kansas City, MO are building their reputations and growing their businesses around locally grown foods. Discriminating restaurants, such as Judy Wicks’ White Dog Café[14] in the Philadelphia area and Jesse Z. Cool’s[15] restaurants in northern California are redefining really good food as local and sustainable. They are committed to the principles of sustainability, sourcing as much food as possible from local growers and keeping integrally connected with their local communities.


The movement is certainly not limited to restaurants and supermarkets. Multi-farm CSAs and food cooperatives such as Grown Locally,[16] Idaho’s Bounty,[17] and the Oklahoma Food Cooperative[18] range from local, to regional and state-wide in scope and offer a variety of local products under various purchase and delivery options. Good Natured Family Farms[19] not only provide local foods for Hen House Markets but also operates their own multi-farm CSA in the Kansas City area. These innovative agripreneurs are creating the template for the New American Food System.


Over time, with supportive changes in public priorities and policies, a global network of sustainable, community-based food systems can and eventually must replace the current industrial, corporately controlled global food system. Various natural food retailing surveys have shown that approximately one-third of American consumers today are looking for alternatives to industrial foods, specifically foods that have ecological, social, and economic integrity, and their numbers are growing rapidly.[20] A sustainable alternative to the current fossil energy dependent, industrial food system is an absolute necessity in a world that is filling up with industrial wastes and running out of fossil energy.


The emergence of the New American Farm opens new opportunities for America’s small farms. Many of today’s farms are too specialized, too standardized, and too large to meet the growing necessity for sustainably produced foods. Thus, farms of the future will be more diversified, individualized, and smaller in size. They will be individually owned and operated, rather than corporately controlled, because there will be no advantage to consolidation of control. Sustainable farming must balance the ecological, social, and economic dimensions of farming. There are sound, practical reasons to believe the balance and harmony needed to achieve agricultural sustainability will result in a larger number of smaller, more diverse, independent family farms rather than a smaller number of large, standardized, corporate farms.


Nature is inherently diverse. Geographic regions are different, watersheds are different, farms are different, and even fields on given farms are different. Industrial agriculture treats different fields, farms, watersheds and even regions as if they were all pretty much the same. Industrial farming systems can be tweaked a bit here and there, but the same breeds and varieties, same fertilizers and feeds, pesticides and antibiotics, machinery and equipment, and the same business and marketing strategies are used across fields, farms, and watersheds, in all regions of the country. The current environmental problems associated with industrial agriculture provide strong and growing evidence that most farms have already outgrown their ecological niches. Sustainable farms will respect the diversity of nature; they will be smaller ecologically.


The markets for food are also inherently diverse. Today’s mass markets are made up of individual consumers, and being individuals, we are all different. We don’t all need or want the same things. In fact, each of us actually prefers something just a little bit different, and thus, values the same things a bit differently. Mass markets are created by lumping together a lot of people who are willing to accept the same basic things. The explosion in markets for locally grown foods indicates that many consumers not only prefer but demand something different from today’s industrial foods. Sustainable farms will respect the diverse tastes and preferences of their customers; they will be smaller economically.


Small farms are real farms. Small farmers care about families, customers, communities, and humanity. They committed to finding ways to make a decent living without compromising their social or ethic values. This gives small farms a comparative advantage in meeting the unique needs of individuals and small groups of consumers without compromising their ecological integrity. That’s why the numbers of farmers markets and CSAs have been more than doubling during each ten year period over the past couple of decades. That’s why the organic farming movement was initiated and led by small farmers and why organics has been the fastest growing segment of the food retailing for the past twenty years, doubling every three to four years. That’s also why local foods have replaced organic foods as the most dynamic sector of the food market, as large-scale, industrial production has become more common in organics. Small farms, real farms, are the American farms of the future.


The same things that are happening in agriculture are happening all across our economy and society.  Everything of economic value, not just our food, must be derived from either the resources of nature or society. We are depleting not only the productivity of agricultural land and rural people but also the productivity of all natural and human resources. The relationships are just more direct and easier to see in agriculture. The environmental, social, and economic challenges confronted today by American and global society are a direct consequence of the lack of sustainability of today’s paradigm of industrial economic development. We are systematically destroying the future of humanity.


The same opportunities that are emerging in American agriculture are emerging throughout the U.S. economy. Businesses, governments, and all other organizations of the future must be managed as living organisms, rather than the inanimate mechanisms. The basic principles of sustainable farming also must permeate societies, economies, and communities. The most fundamental of these principles are those of self-renewing, regenerative, living systems. At the most basic level, every living thing is defined by selective boundaries. Every healthy living cell in defined by semi-permeable or selective membranes. Living organisms and organizations are defined by boundaries that are also semi-permeable, meaning they are selective in what they allow in and out. This selectiveness – this ability to let some things in, keep some things out; keep some things in, let some things out – allows living organisms and organizations to live, renew, and reproduce.


The great transformation in our economy and society will bring new opportunities to revitalize America’s rural and urban communities. Industrialization has destroyed the economic and social boundaries that once defined America’s communities, making their natural and human resources vulnerable to economic extraction and exploitation. Sustainable communities of the future must reestablish the boundaries that once defined local social networks and local economies to protect their resources from outside exploitation. The purpose of such boundaries is not to prevent communications or economic transactions with those outside the community, but instead to allow communities to be selective in their social and economic relationships with outsiders. Sustainable communities need not be self-sufficient but must have sufficient sovereignty, including food security, to participate only in relationships of choice rather than relationships of necessity.


The same kinds of opportunities that are emerging in agriculture are also emerging for businesses in other sectors of the economy. As a consequence, most businesses in sustainable communities of the future will be individual proprietorships or partnerships – independently owned and operated. Smaller family-owned or locally-owned corporations may have places in the future, but large publicly-owned corporations will be seen as a relic of the old industrial past. Even today, small businesses provide more than half of the new jobs and the proportion will likely be far higher before the current economic recession is actually over. The people who own and operate small businesses in the future will be real people, not faceless corporations, and most will be responsible members of their local communities. Their business decisions will reflect not only their individual self-interests but also their interests in the well-being of their communities as a whole – and the future of humanity. Many of the owners and operators of these new businesses will choose to locate in rural communities.

Shop How-To DVDs at Back40GeneralStore:


People in sustainable communities will show preferences for local businesses whenever such preferences are in the long-run best interest of the community. Thus, government policies of the future must allow communities to give priority to sustaining their local economies over the economic efficiency of interstate commerce and international trade. Inter-community and interstate commerce will take place only when it’s mutually beneficial.  Rural communities will no longer be the dumping grounds for animal waste, solid wastes, or toxic substances created and discarded by the rest or society. Communities must demand the right and accept the responsibility to protect their natural resources and their people from extraction and exploitation.


This is not some idealistic dream. A growing number of eco-municipalities in Sweden, Canada, and the United States are working to develop “ecologically, economically, and socially healthy communities for the long term.” The Natural Step[21] community development process seeks to minimize wastes from both naturally occurring and manufactured substances while maintaining natural ecosystems and sustaining a healthy, productive local society. More than 70 communities in Sweden, ranging in size from 300 to 700,000 and representing about 25% of all Swedish municipalities, have adopted the Natural Step process. At least three eco-municipalities in Canada and twelve in the United States, mostly in Wisconsin, have adopted sustainability planning objectives based on Natural Step principles and their numbers are growing.


The Business Alliance for Local Living Economies is an international alliance of more than 50 independently operated local business networks dedicated to building local living economies.[22] A living economy is defined as one in which economic power resides locally, for the purpose of sustaining healthy community life and natural life as well as long-term economic viability. There is no shortage of programs to guide development of sustainable local economies. The challenge is to convince people of the advantage and necessity of investing their time, energy, and money locally, rather than continuing to support the unsustainable paradigm of industrial development.


Sustainable farms, businesses, and communities can persist only if they exist within the context of sustainable economies. Many prominent people around the world are beginning to realize the current neoclassical conception of capitalism is not sustainable. French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, in responding to the meltdown in global financial markets stated, “The idea that the markets are always right was mad.” He blamed the crisis on a betrayal of the “spirit of capitalism.” He argued that capitalist economies should never have been allowed to function without strict government oversight and regulation. He was right. It remains to be seen whether capitalism can survive the betrayal.


The critics of capitalism are correct in their conclusion that unbridled, neoclassical capitalist economies are fundamentally incompatible with economic sustainability. The founders of classical economics, including Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and John Stewart Mills, understood the necessity for social and ethical constraints on market economies.[23] Adam Smith wrote in his 1776 classic, Wealth of Nations, “improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks” should never be regarded as “an inconvenience to the society… what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole.”[24] He also wrote that land, meaning natural resources, “constitutes by far the greatest, the most important, and the most durable part of the wealth of every extensive country,”[25] suggesting that the public must accept responsibility for protecting the land -- their common wealth.


While the ecological and social risks of capitalism are real, no other economic system has been found that can rival its efficiency in carrying out economic activities that are legitimately private, personal, or individual in nature. Societies that have tried communism, socialism, and religious theocracies have never been able to meet the physical and material needs of their people. They are ultimately rejected by their people because they are not economically sustainable. Most individual economic decisions do not deprive anyone of their basic human rights or violate any moral imperative. These decisions legitimately belong in the individual, private economy, where there is no logical alternative to free markets. Capitalism, with all of its inherent risks, is still humanity’s best hope for economic sustainability.


That said, the current neoclassical concept of capitalism is not consistent with economic sustainability.  Classical economists understood that economies also must function within semi-permeable or selective bounds that allow the economy to meet our needs as individuals but does not allow it the economy to extract more energy from either nature or society than it renews and regenerates. A capitalist economy is sustainable only to the extent that it renews and regenerates the ecological and social capital from which it must extract its economic capital. We must be selective in what we expect the economy to do to meet our individual needs and what we must do collectively to meet our common needs as members of communities, societies, and humanity. 


An effective government is absolutely essential for economic sustainability. The most fundamental purpose of any government is to ensure the rights of the people it governs. The economy will not ensure equal access to those things to which all people have equal rights. As Americans, we don’t have equal rights to all things, but we do have equal rights to some things, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness doesn’t require equal income or wealth, but it does require some minimum level of material well-being as well as an ability to relate freely with others and to pursue a purposeful, meaningful life of dignity and respect. The economy rewards people in relation to their ability to produce economic value, not in relation to their rights or needs. People are inherently unequal in their abilities to create economic value.


If people have a right to the pursuit of happiness, they must be able to live in a clean and healthy environment and be protected from economic exploitation. To ensure life and liberty, not only of ourselves but of our posterity, those of future generations must be afforded the same rights as those of current generations. To ensure these rights, people must be willing to work together for the common good through government. The most important single act of government to support economic sustainability would be to adopt a constitutional amendment assuring equal rights for all people of future and current generations. Every piece of legislation and every economic transaction would then have to consider the possible implications for opportunities of future generations. That said, constitutional changes cannot be imposed upon the governed, but instead must reflect the consent of the governed. The people of America must choose sustainability. This is not socialism or communism; this is grass roots democracy.


To create a sustainable economy, we must abandon our pursuit of individual material wealth for the pursuit of a more enlightened concept of self-interest. Certainly, we are material beings and we need to accept responsibility for our individual, economic well-being. But we are also social beings. We need purely personal relationships that are not predicated on the expectation of economic benefits in return. We also are ethical and moral beings. We need to feel a sense of rightness and goodness in the things we do – to give purpose and meaning to our lives. Sustainability will require only that we choose a more enlightened concept of self-interest, meeting the needs of the present without diminishing opportunities for the future. This is not some radical, new idea. In the early 1800s, in his classic book, Democracy in America, Alex De Tocqueville called it “self-interest rightly understood,”[26] deeming it necessary for democracy.


Real economic recovery will be achieved, not by resuming an unsustainable rate of economic growth but through a more equitable sharing of economic rewards among those who create things of “real” economic value. The government budget deficit will be erased, not by future economic growth but through a more equitable allocation of the economic burden of government among those who benefit economically from an equitable and just society. A new era of human progress will be born when Americans realize that true prosperity – happiness, well-being – does not require continual, unsustainable economic growth. This is not socialism or communism; this is sustainable capitalism. Sustainability is not about government ownership of land or other means of production; it is not about central planning by government. It’s about ensuring that free markets do what markets are capable of doing, and working together through government to do those things markets can’t do – to ensure the common good.  This is true democratic capitalism.


We are in the midst of a great transformation in human history. We simply cannot continue doing what we have been doing because we are rapidly depleting the natural and human resources upon which the survival of humanity ultimately depends. Today’s capitalist economies are not sustainable. Economic sustainability is no longer an option; it is a necessity, if there is to be a future for humanity. The recreation process must begin with each of us, as individuals, as farmers, as business people, as members of local communities and of human society. We must begin with a new ecological understanding of the living world and of our place within it. We must then create new sustainable farms, businesses, and communities capable of sustaining our economy. The good news is that by working together we can create new sustainable farms, new sustainable communities, and a sustainable economy, and in so doing, we can create a fundamentally better way of life, not only for ourselves and also for those of future generations. We don’t have to wait for someone else; we can begin making changes in our own lives, on our own farms and businesses, and in our own communities today. Together we can create a better way of life in America; hopefully, we still have time.


End Notes


Prepared for presentation at a Thermalito Community Meeting, held at the Thermalito Grange Hall in Oroville, California, June 26, 2010.

[ii] John Ikerd is Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO – USA; Author of, Sustainable Capitalism, , A Return to Common Sense,, Small Farms are Real Farms, Acres USA ,, Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture, University of Nebraska Press; and A Revolution of the Middle and the Pursuit of Happiness, on line at .

Email:; Website:



[1] Alan Greenspan, as quoted in Christian Science Monitor, “Gap Between Rich and Poor Gaining Attention,” , June 15, 2005.

[2] Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001).

[3] Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (New York: The Penguin Press, 2006).

[4] Paul Roberts, The End of Food (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2008).

[5] Harvey Blatt, America’s Food: What You Don’t Know About What You Eat (Boston: The MIT Press, 2008).

[6] The Future of Food <>

[7] Broken Limbs, <>

[8] Food Inc., <>

[9] Fresh; the Movie <>

[10] Polyface Farms Inc. <>

[11] Growing Power, <>

[12] New Seasons Market, <>

[13] Hen House Markets, Buy Fresh, Buy Local, <>

[14] White Dog Café, <>

[15] Jesse Z. Cool, <>

[16] Grown Locally, <>

[17] Idaho’s Bounty, <>

[18] Oklahoma Food Cooperative, <

[19] Good Natured Family Farms, <>

[20] Allison Wortington, Sustainability, the Rise of Consumer Responsibility, The Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA, Spring, 2009.

[21] Sarah James and Torbjorn Lahti. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can Change to Sustainable Practices (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, Inc., 2004).

[22] BALLE, Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, “Mission and Principles Statement,” <>.

[23] Adam Smith and Herbert W. Schneider, Adam Smith's Moral and Political Philosophy (New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1948).

[24] Adam Smith, 1904, original copyright 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, fifth edition, ed. Edwin Cannan (London: Methuen and Co., Ltd),  Book I, Chapter 8, paragraph 55, also available at <> .

[25] Smith, Wealth of Nations, I, 11, 237.

[26] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, (New York: Bantam Books, 2000, original copyright, 1835), 646-649.

MARKET FARMING & GARDENING / Wineberry Plants for sale Year Around
« Last post by Little Feather on March 31, 2014, 08:21:48 AM »

I don't know why Rubus phoenicolasius, the Wineberry, should be so uncommon. It is no more difficult to grow than a raspberry, to which it is closely related. What is more, it has something to offer at most seasons of the year. Native to Korea and China as well as Japan, this vigorous deciduous shrub grows to 2.5m or 3m tall.

The species is a perennial plant which bears biennial stems ("canes") from the perennial root system. In its first year, a new stem grows vigorously to its full height of 1-3 m, unbranched, and bearing large pinnate leaves with three or five leaflets; normally it does not produce any flowers. In its second year, the stem does not grow taller, but produces several side shoots, which bear smaller leaves always with three leaflets; the leaves are white underneath.

The flowers are produced in late spring on short, very bristly racemes on the tips of these side shoots, each flower 6–10 mm diameter with five purplish red to pink petals and a bristly calyx. The fruit is orange or red, about 1 cm diameter, edible, produced in summer or early autumn; in botanical terminology, it is not a berry at all, but an aggregate fruit of numerous drupelets around a central core. Ripening occurs from early summer. The canes have fine, red thorns, which appear much like red hair.

In addition to seed propagation, new plants are formed from the tips of existing canes touching the ground. They enjoy moist soil and grow near and within wooded areas.

As a fruit develops, it is surrounded by a protective calyx covered in hairs that exude tiny drops of sticky fluid.  The Wineberry has orange-red bristles thick as down on its arching stems and protective calyces. These stems show up well in winter, especially when sunlight strikes them. Just like the raspberry it is biennial; that is, the canes grow one year and fruit the next. The emerald-green leaves are up to 18cm long with white felted undersides, and are composed of three, coarsely toothed, rounded, ovate or heart-shaped leaflets.

In early summer the small, star-like, whitish-pink, self-fertile flowers emerge shyly, encased in a calyx - bristly armour made up of five long, triangular bracts. Small, glistening, conical, orange-red fruit follow in early August. These remain almost surrounded by the calyx until they are ripe.  This keeps the berries safe from the birds until they are ready to pick.

You can eat them straight off the canes or cook them in the same way as raspberries. As Coral Guppy of Kore Wild Fruits Nursery puts it: "The Japanese wineberry nicely bridges the gap between summer and autumn raspberries."

Every year I can hardly wait to pop my first wineberry of the season into my mouth.  Heavens!  How can such a small, tiny ruby-red berry taste so yummy?!  This is a berry bush that has excellent potential as a family favorite or as a good seller at farm stands or farmer’s markets.  It also can be easily propagated by the farmer or gardener so once you have some growing plants you won’t need to buy more: you can produce as many as you want.   This is a good thing since there are only 2 nurseries in America that offer the plants for sale. 

Fortunately, the Resilience Research Farm is licensed as a Missouri grower and plants are available from The plants are available in two sizes and are dug and shipped as orders arrive so you are insured of fresh, viable stock.  The plants are shipped in a soil-less mix in plastic bags.  Nursery stock can not be shipped to Massachusetts or Connecticut.
Price minded folks can order 6" well rooted 1st year transplants for $19.95 each or 5 or more for $14.95 each.  Price includes priority Shipping anywhere in the U.S.

All plants are shipped with planting, maintenance, and propagation instructions included.


 Growing tips
Plant the Japanese wineberry in adequately drained but fertile soil, preferably in a sheltered place. You will get the best fruit against a sunny wall. Water well in summer. You can tie the canes along wires, cutting out those that have fruited and tying in the replacements. Because the stems are vigorous you can pinch them back in spring to encourage branching. In theory, wineberries should be prone to pests and diseases that assail raspberries, but in practice they are rarely troubled. Birds and insects find it difficult to get at the fruits through the calyces.

To increase your stock, bury the cane tips in the soil in late summer. (Japanese wineberry roots so effectively that you must take care to prevent the arching stems of shrubs grown in the open from touching the ground.) Or, you can take hardwood cuttings in late autumn.

wineberry plants, wineberry, wineberries, wineberry nurseries, buy wineberry plants, purchase wineberry plants, The Farm at Nature's Pace Sanctuary, Resilience Research Farm, Hartshorn Missouri, Back40General Store, berry plants, brambles, Rubus phoenicolasius, wineberries for sale, wine berry, wine berries, wine berry plants

Modify message

Organic Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthius tuberosus 'Stampede') seed tubers are now available from Back 40 General Store for Spring planting.  This extra-early strain produces large, white, potato-like tubers often weighing over 1/2 lb. each. They store well and can be eaten raw or cooked. The tall, 6-8', plants with bright yellow blooms make an attractive windbreak, helping to prevent soil erosion. Flowers in July and matures over a month before common varieties. Winter hardy in severe cold. Perennial in Zones 3-8. Organically grown at Nature’s Pace Farm.

Botanical Name: Helianthius tuberosus 'Stampede' Height: 6- 9 feet. Spacing: 18 - 24 inches between plants, 3 -- 4 feet between rows. Depth: 4 - 5 inches. Spread: Continuous. Yield: 5 bushels per 100 foot row. Color: Bloom color yellow. Foliage: Green foliage. Days To Maturity: 4 plus months. Flower Form: Member of the sunflower family. Soil Requirements: Deeply worked, rich, organic soil. Size: Up to 5 inches.
 Comments: Each tuber can be cut into several crowns, or knobs, and planted. Work a fertilizer with a PH of 10-10-10 into the soil before planting at a rate of 1 1/2 to 2 lbs. per 100 square feet. With proper care, a tremendous yield is produced. Harvest: these artichokes can be left in the ground and dug as they're needed through the Winter, until the ground freezes. Trim the stalks back in the Fall as they begin to die. Trim back to 1 foot. Mulch the rows with a thick layer of straw or leaves after the 1st hard frost. Although freezing improves the flavor, you can dig the tubers in the Fall and store in sealed containers in the refrigerator or cool area. Unable to ship to: AE AK GU HI PR

Price:   $ 22.00 per pound + shipping

Limit per order: 5 #

Click here to visit the General Store:

Jerusalem artichoke, Jerusalem Artichoke Tubers, Helianthius tuberosus, Helianthius tuberosus "Stampede", Helianthius tuberosus seed, organic Helianthius tuberosus, organic Jerusalem artichoke tubers, Jerusalem Artichoke seed, Back 40 General Store
Homesteader's Discussion / Design Details to Build into Your Coop
« Last post by BottleFed on March 27, 2014, 07:35:10 AM »
 Design Details to Build into Your Coop
Design a chicken coop to fit your style and space while providing the features neededtto keep your chickens healthy.

There is no one perfect chicken coop design. If there were, its creator would be extremely wealthy, because providing your flock a safe place to sleep and lay their eggs is one of the most important chicken-keeping decisions you can make. Coops vary in size, materials, and design, with many factors being personal preference. However, there are several important features that all good designs incorporate. Here are some things to consider when building or buying a coop.

1. Size
Allow 2 to 4 square feet of interior floor space per hen, depending on the size of your chickens (i.e., bantams need less space, Jersey Giants need more) and how many waking hours they spend in the coop. If your flock spends all day free-ranging outdoors, then you can probably get away with 2 square feet per hen.

Consider the eventual size of your flock. It’s far easier to start with a larger coop than to add on to your existing coop when your flock grows from five to a dozen or more, so build big.

2. Flooring
Coop flooring is another important consideration. Predators can easily dig and burrow under dirt floors. While concrete floors are impregnable, they can be expensive and often not a DIY option for beginner coop builders. Wood floors can house mites and other parasites, as well as mold and rot if they get wet.

Consider covering plywood with inexpensive vinyl flooring. This makes for easy cleanup and creates an inhospitable environment for mites. Simple to cut and staple down, vinyl is also easy to replace as needed.

3. Elevation
Raised coops are more secure from predators than coops set directly on the ground (unless you pour a concrete floor) and will prevent a wooden floor from rotting underneath. Raising your coop 8 to 12 inches off the ground allows chickens to easily fit underneath, providing them welcome shelter from sun in the summer and from sleet and snow in the winter.

4. Roosts
Provide a minimum of 8 inches of roost space per hen. Again, plan on enough space for the eventual number of hens you’ll be raising. Using 2x4 beams with the 4-inch side facing up works well for roosting bars. The wide, flat side of the board will help keep your chickens' feet protected from frostbite in winter.

5. Nesting Boxes
You should provide one nesting box for every three to four hens, though the reality is that no matter how many boxes you have, all of your chickens will want to lay in the same one—at the same time. That’s just the way chickens are.

Boxes should be approximately 1 square foot by 1 foot high and positioned lower than your roosts so your chickens won't be tempted to sleep in them at night. If you live in a very cold climate and frozen eggs are a concern, consider interior boxes that you need to enter the coop to access, instead of exterior boxes that are accessible from outside the coop and therefore more exposed to low temperatures.

6. Ventilation
One-fifth of your coop’s wall space should be vented. Good ventilation is very important year-round. Even in winter, some vents should be left open to allow for airflow, as frostbite is caused more by moisture than by actual cold. Place vents higher than the roosts, though lower vents that can be left open in the summer and closed during the cold months are important, as well.

Cover vents with 1/2-inch hardware cloth to prevent predators from gaining access. Staple or nail the wire in place, and then secure it by screwing furring strips or screws and washers along the edges. Chicken wire is not sufficient to keep out predators. Mice, weasels and snakes can fit through the large holes, and raccoons, dogs and foxes can easily rip it.

7. Latches
Coop doors and nesting- box covers should be fitted with secure latches. Raccoons can turn knobs, untie knots, undo bungee cords, lift latches and slide deadbolts. A predator-proof eye hook with a spring-loaded catch works well on nesting-box lids, while a deadbolt installed at least 4 feet from the ground and a second lower latch secured with a carabineer works well on coop doors.

Incorporating these features into your coop will get you well on your way to successful chicken keeping. Protecting your flock from predators and providing a healthy environment is of utmost importance.

About the Author: Lisa Steele is the author of Fresh Eggs Daily: Raising Happy, Healthy Chickens...Naturally (St. Lynn’s Press, 2013). She lives on a small farm in Virginia with her husband and a variety of chickens, ducks, dogs, horses and a barn cat. She is a frequent contributor to various chicken keeping publications, as well as her blog, and is an avid gardener, crafter, baker and knitter in her free time.

Click the Image Below to learn about Herman Beck-Chenoweth's Best selling Book & DVD Combo at Back 40 General Store:

Story from Hobby Farm's Newsletter
Eat Well / “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Become the Industry Norm
« Last post by BottleFed on March 27, 2014, 06:32:34 AM »
How “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm

By Thomas Bøhn and Marek Cuhra

Food and feed quality are crucial to human and animal health. Quality can be defined as sufficiency of appropriate minerals, vitamins and fats, etc. but it also includes the absence of toxins, whether man-made or from other sources. Surprisingly, almost no data exist in the scientific literature on herbicide residues in herbicide tolerant genetically modified (GM) plants, even after nearly 20 years on the market.

In research recently published by our laboratory (Bøhn et al. 2014) we collected soybean samples grown under three typical agricultural conditions: organic, GM, and conventional (but non-GM). The GM soybeans were resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

We tested these samples for nutrients and other compounds as well as relevant pesticides, including glyphosate and its principal breakdown product, Aminomethylphosponic acid (AMPA). All of the individual samples of GM-soy contained residues of both glyphosate and AMPA, on average 9.0 mg/kg. This amount is greater than is typical for many vitamins. In contrast, no sample from the conventional or the organic soybeans showed residues of these chemicals (Fig. 1).
Crop spraying, South Africa, Thomas Bøhn

Crop spraying, South Africa, Thomas Bøhn

This demonstrates that Roundup Ready GM-soybeans sprayed during the growing season take up and accumulate glyphosate and AMPA. Further, what has been considered a working hypothesis for herbicide tolerant crops, i.e. that, as resistant weeds have spread:

“there is a theoretical possibility that also the level of residues of the herbicide and its metabolites may have increased” (Kleter et al. 2011)

is now shown to be actually happening.

Monsanto (manufacturer of glyphosate) has claimed that residues of glyphosate in GM soy are lower than in conventional soybeans, where glyphosate residues have been measured up to 16-17 mg/kg (Monsanto 1999). These residues, found in non-GM plants, likely must have been due to the practice of spraying before harvest (for desiccation). Another claim of Monsanto’s has been that residue levels of up to 5.6 mg/kg in GM-soy represent

“…extreme levels, and far higher than those typically found” (Monsanto 1999).
Residues of glyphosate and AMPA in Soybeans

Figure 1. Residues of glyphosate and AMPA in individual soybean samples (n=31). For organic and conventional soybeans, glyphosate residues were below the detection limit.

Seven out of the 10 GM-soy samples we tested, however, surpassed this “extreme level” (of glyphosate + AMPA), indicating a trend towards higher residue levels. The increasing use of glyphosate on US Roundup Ready soybeans has been documented (Benbrook 2012). The explanation for this increase is the appearance of glyphosate-tolerant weeds (Shaner et al. 2012) to which farmers are responding with increased doses and more applications.

Shop How-To DVDs at Back40GeneralStore:

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of glyphosate in food and feed
Globally, glyphosate-tolerant GM soy is the number one GM crop plant and glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide, with a global production of 620 000 tons in 2008 (Pollak 2011). The world soybean production in 2011 was 251.5 million metric tons, with the United States (33%), Brazil (29%), Argentina (19%), China (5%) and India (4%) as the main producing countries (American Soybean Association 2013).

In 2011-2012, soybeans were planted on about 30 million hectares in the USA, with Roundup Ready GM soy contributing 93-94 % of the production (USDA 2013). Globally, Roundup Ready GM soybeans contributed to 75 % of the production in 2011 (James 2012).

The legally acceptable level of glyphosate contamination in food and feed, i.e. the maximum residue level (MRL) has been increased by authorities in countries where Roundup-Ready GM crops are produced, or where such commodities are imported. In Brazil, the MRL in soybean was increased from 0.2 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg in 2004: a 50-fold increase, but only for GM-soy. The MRL for glyphosate in soybeans has been increased also in the US and Europe. In Europe, it was raised from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg (a 200-fold increase) in 1999, and the same MRL of 20 mg/kg was adopted by the US. In all of these cases, MRL values appear to have been adjusted, not based on new scientific evidence, but pragmatically in response to actual observed increases in the content of residues in glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans.

Has the toxicity of Roundup been greatly underestimated?
When regulatory agencies assess pesticides for safety they invariably test only the claimed active ingredient.

Nevertheless, these do not necessarily represent realistic conditions since in practice it is the full, formulated herbicide (there are many Roundup formulations) that is used in the field. Thus, it is relevant to consider, not only the active ingredient, in this case glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA, but also the other compounds present in the herbicide formulation since these enhance toxicity. For example, formulations of glyphosate commonly contain adjuvants and surfactants to stabilize and facilitate penetration into the plant tissue. Polyoxyethylene amine (POEA) and polyethoxylated tallowamine (POE-15) are common ingredients in Roundup formulations and have been shown to contribute significantly to toxicity (Moore et al. 2012).

Our own recent study in the model organism Daphnia magna demonstrated that chronic exposure to glyphosate and a commercial formulation of Roundup resulted in negative effects on several life-history traits, in particular reproductive aberrations like reduced fecundity and increased abortion rate, at environmental concentrations of 0.45-1.35 mg/liter (active ingredient), i.e. below accepted environmental tolerance limits set in the US (0.7 mg/liter) (Cuhra et al. 2013). A reduced body size of juveniles was even observed at an exposure to Roundup at 0.05 mg/liter.

This is in sharp contrast to world-wide regulatory assumptions in general, which we have found to be strongly influenced by early industry studies and in the case of aquatic ecotoxicity assessment, to be based on 1978 and 1981 studies presented by Monsanto claiming that glyphosate is virtually non-toxic in D. magna (McAllister & Forbis, 1978; Forbis & Boudreau, 1981).

Thus a worrisome outlook for health and the environment can be found in the combination of i) the vast increase in use of glyphosate-based herbicides, in particular due to glyphosate-tolerant GM plants, and ii) new findings of higher toxicity of both glyphosate as an active ingredient (Cuhra et al., 2013) and increased toxicity due to contributions from chemical adjuvants in commercial formulations (Annett et al. 2014).

A similar situation can be found for other pesticides. Mesnage et al. (2014) found that 8 out of 9 tested pesticides were more toxic than their declared active principles.

This means that the Accepted Daily Intake (ADI) for humans, i.e. what society finds “admissible” regarding pesticide residues may have been set too high, even before potential combinatorial effects of different chemical exposures are taken into account.

For glyphosate formulations (Roundup), realistic exposure scenarios in the aquatic environment may harm non-target biodiversity from microorganisms, invertebrates, amphibians and fish, (reviewed in Annett et al. 2014) indicating that the environmental consequences of these agrochemicals need to be re-assessed.

Other compositional differences between GM, non-GM, and organic
Our research also demonstrated that different agricultural practices lead to markedly different end products. Data on other measured compositional characteristics could be used to discriminate statistically all individual soy samples (without exception) into their respective agricultural practice background (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Discriminant analysis for GM, conventional and organic soy samples

Figure 2. Discriminant analysis for GM, conventional and organic soy samples based on 35 variables. Data was standardized (mean = 0 and SD = 1).

Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile with more glucose, fructose, sucrose and maltose, significantly more total protein, zinc and less fiber, compared with both conventional and GM-soy. Organic soybeans contained less total saturated fat and total omega-6 fatty acids than both conventional and GM-soy.

Roundup Ready GM-soy accumulates residues of glyphosate and AMPA, and also differs markedly in nutritional composition compared to soybeans from other agricultural practices. Organic soybean samples also showed a more healthy nutritional profile (e.g. higher in protein and lower in saturated fatty acids) than both industrial conventional and GM soybeans.

Lack of data on pesticide residues in major crop plants is a serious gap of knowledge with potential consequences for human and animal health. How is the public to trust a risk assessment system that has overlooked the most obvious risk factor for herbicide tolerant GM crops, i.e. high residue levels of herbicides, for nearly 20 years? If it has been due to lack of understanding, it would be bad. If it is the result of the producer’s power to influence the risk assessment system, it would be worse.

Shop How-To DVDs at Back40GeneralStore:

American Soy Association, Soystats.  2013. 16-5-2013.
Annett, R., Habibi, H. R. and Hontela, A. 2014. Impact of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides on the freshwater environment. – Journal of Applied Toxicology DOI 10.1002/jat.2997.
Aumaitre, L. A. 2002. New feeds from genetically modified plants: substantial equivalence, nutritional equivalence and safety for animals and animal products. – Productions Animales 15: 97-108.
Benbrook, C. M. 2012. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years. – Environmental Science Europe 24:24.
Binimelis, R., Pengue, W. and Monterroso, I. 2009. “Transgenic treadmill”: Responses to the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass in Argentina. – Geoforum 40: 623-633.
Bøhn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J. and Primicerio, R. 2014. Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. – Food Chemistry 153: 207-21
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Banner or Text Ads Available