Three Sisters - Wrapped up

The three sisters project has come to a close this year. We harvested and froze three bags (1 gallon each ) of corn, and had fresh corn on the cob nearly every night for a couple weeks. (Probably close to another half gallon.

We managed a couple meals of green beans - A rather embarrassing turnout, really. But the Zuchinni made up for that.

We had close to a dozen harvests like this one. Some ended up as bread, some were shredded and frozen, for later use in bread. Some went into salads and spaghetti sauce. Some were sliced and fried. And some became compost. The new application (which I have greatly enjoyed) is to slice them thinly, dry them to crispy, and use them as a replacement for chips in chips and salsa.(I recommend a little garlic salt before drying). Who new chips and salsa could be health food, right?

The pumpkins did very well also.

Too bad nobody in my house likes pumpkins. Oh well, they make great decorations, and will add to the compose pile. I might try to harvest an roast the seeds this year (though we will replant some as well). I am tempted to give pumpkin soup a try. What else can you do with pumpkins?
Here is one last look at the garden.

And here is a few days later after my sons Anakin and Yoda demolished the trade federation  corn troopers with their light sabres.

Pretty thorough, those two lads...




So, the experiment is done for this year. Lessons learned?

If I were to do it again, I would do pits rather then mounds, to reduce erosion, and to keep my watering efforts more controlled. I might also double plant the beans, to improve likelihood of success (that, or start and transplant). I would also wait an extra week or two on the pumpkins/squash, to ensure the beans had a good head start. Once the corn and squash start to fill out, if the beans are well established, they will get choked out and starved for sunlight by the other two.

That said, I probably won't repeat next year, for the following reasons:

1. Harvesting the beans is a pain,you have to step in and around the pumpkin vines, and hunt through the corn for them.
2. I don't have deer or racoon problems, so I don't really need the pumpkin vines to protect the corn and beans.
3. I can achieve the same (or better) weed control as provided by the pumpkins around the corn and beans, by planting a low growing green manure after the corn/bean plants are established (something like a red clover). Many green manures also serve the function of nitrogen fixing.
4. I can get the same soil building benefits by using crop rotation techniques. Plant a neat, tidy row of beans one year, and a neat, tidy row of of corn in that same spot the next year.

Nonetheless, it was a very enjoyable experiment. And it looked pretty cool too.

Taxing the 1%

I have recently seen several pictures on the web of individuals holding signs claiming they work two jobs, pay their way through college, etc… ending with some comment to the effect that the wall street protesters should quit whining and get to work, or that the few who claim to be part of the wealthiest 1% of the population, and who are more or less demanding that the government tax them more, should shut-up.

The core of their argument - as I read it- is that the wealthiest 1% of the American population already carries 50% of the tax burden, and since they are the hard working, chief job creators of the country, they and their money should be left alone, so they can use it to create more jobs and thus fix our economic woes (or at least prevent them from getting worse).

That argument is visualized in the following image. Poor Mr. 1% having to bear the same burden as the other 99%, all by his lonely self….

Looks pretty unfair, very progressive (in case you’ve forgotten, a progressive tax system is one in which the percentage of your income which is taken for taxes increases as your income increases [i.e. if you make  $10 you pay $1, if you make $20 you pay $5]. A regressive system takes a larger percentage of your income as your income decreases [if you make $10 you pay $5, if you make $20, you pay $5]. The midpoint between these two is a flat percentage [such as everyone pays 10% of their income]. The US tax structure, ignoring all loopholes, provisions etc..., is designed to be slightly progressive [the poorest pay nothing, the middle class pays a small percentage, the wealthiest pas a slightly higher percentage]).

There is a problem with the above picture however. It lacks context.

You see taxes are not a burden placed on the public, but a portion of resources (wealth) taken away. The number that really matters is percentage of income.  

Solid numbers on income distribution are difficult to come by. Percentage for the top 1% is claimed to be 50%, 80% and everything in between. Now, the lower end claims (50%) all appear to be based on 2007 numbers, and appear to include total wealth, not just income.  Numbers for 2007, income only range from sixty to seventy-five percent. Every report I could find was in agreement that the top 1% have experienced an increase in income over the past several years, while everyone else on average has experienced no change, to a slight drop in income.  So, income distribution looks something like this, (using the 70% value).

Let’s use some numbers now to see what’s going on (these are completely made up numbers. It is the percentages which are crucial here).

Let’s say there are 100 people in America, and a total wealth of $100,000. 

Then 1 of those people (we’ll call him Bill Buffet) owns $70,000,

and the remaining 99 people each own approximately $303.

Now, let’s assume a total tax burden of $20,000. 

As previously stated, Bill is paying half of it, or $10,000, 

which means his tax rate is approximately 14.3%. 

The remaining $10,000 is paid by the other 99 people, and amounts to one third of their income! 

A tax rate of 33.3%!!! 

What appeared to be very progressive is in fact regressive. Even if we assume the lower value of 60% for income distribution, then Bill is paying 16.7% and everyone else is paying 25%.

In the real world, you also have to consider that some percentage of those 99 are paying nothing (yes, some are lazy bum’s. But there are also many who are just having an extended “bad day”, whether it is medical woes, a recent job loss, and difficulty finding a new job…), which means the percentage goes even higher for the middle class.

This isn’t a matter of unfairly increasing the tax burden of the wealthiest. It is a matter of getting them to pay their fair share. Certainly, I agree with the sentiment that lazy people shouldn’t get a free ride. I don’t want to subsidize some deadbeat sitting on the couch eating Cheetos all day, but I also don’t want to subsidize Bill Buffet’s personal Jet.

 (Oh, and by the way. Wealthiest 1% don’t create most of the jobs. More than half of the jobs created are by small businesses. The middle class (Again) is carrying the bulk of the burden, on their ever shrinking share of the pie.

Chicken and egg, meet behavior and gene...

I recently read “the Genius in All of Us” by David Shenk. An interesting and thought provoking book, which challenges commonly accepted ideas about how genetics works.

In it, he mentioned two particularly interesting bits of research.

The first involved mice, and diet. The original paper on this research can be found at http://chd.ucsd.edu/seminar/documents/Morgan.08.pdf. It reads like a Scientific Journal paper (most likely because it is a Scientific Journal paper), but the interesting bit is that the authors observed that by feeding a yellow mouse a specific diet, her offspring would have brown fur. And more interesting still, this genetic alteration would continue through future generations.

The second bit, from Washington State University was similar, and involved exposing rats to a couple agricultural chemicals (pesticide and fungicide). The result of this was a reduced fertility in the rats, and the next four generations of offspring (http://www.americanhealthcarefoundation.org/fibromyalgia-md/ArticleE.cfm is a nice, relatively non-boring summary).

There appears to be some debate about how significant a role epigenetic inheritance plays. It nonetheless causes one - upon hearing news that scientist have discovered the “anger gene” or the “alcoholism gene” or the “gay gene” or the "sociopath gene" or… - to ask oneself “Did the gene trigger the behavior, or did the behavior trigger the gene?”

The case for a king

No form of government is more efficient or effective than a dictatorship. Now, make sure you read to the bottom before you freak out on me. 

But think about it for a minute. In a representative or parliamentary government, you have this whole body of “leaders” you pay salaries to, vs. the cost of just one king. And that is the small cost in this analysis. The higher cost is the daily administration of government. With a Congress, parliament, or true democracy, every decision is a decision by committee. The process is time consuming. Days, weeks, months, even years are spent debating, arguing, positioning, maneuvering…  The end result of all this is often overly wordy and ineffective policies which do little to truly advance common interest.

A dictator simply reviews the facts, makes a decision, and puts it in play. If the decision is not ideal, the dictator can bypass all the finger pointing and re-legislating and simply correct course. The entire system of establishing policy and reacting to issues is extremely efficient, and incredibly fast. The dictator can move with equal efficiency in the mobilization of his war machine, when required to protect his subjects. He can react with in a timely fashion to a natural or economic disaster, re-allocating resources where they are most needed.

Consider as an example the present model for charity in the US. There are literally hundreds of organizations which collect and distribute money to those in need. Some of those organizations are government organizations, such as WIC, the food stamp program, and many others. All of these programs require salaried people to handle the distribution process. And since they are government programs you also have the government costs of legislation, policy making and so forth. The other primary option is non-profits. Non-profits may not operate for profit, but they still have costs. There is the staff to pay for, who collect and distribute resources. There are advertising costs.  There  are storage and transportation costs. And there are so many of these organizations, each generating these same wastes. An additional problem is that all these charities are competing for the same resources. If the junior diabetes foundation does particularly well at collecting funds, it may mean the cancer foundation, or feeding the homeless program comes up short.

The dictator doesn’t have these issues. Everything is under his control. If a particular need is seen, appropriate resources are shifted to that need. All those individuals who would be administrating the shuffling of resource in the multiple non-profits model can instead be put to productive work, generating more resources.

Yes a dictatorship is unquestionably the most effective form of government you could choose to live under, If….

(Surely you knew that was coming)…

If only you could be guaranteed that the dictator in question would be completely wise, humble, beneficent, and selfless. A king who is not these things is a burden to his subjects. At best.

How many kings of this ilk have there been? Here’s what I have found with a little poking around in history books:  

Joseph II, Holy Roman emperor from 1765 to 1790 seems to have come close. He abolished slavery and peasantry during his reign. He also instituted a policy of religious tolerance. However he was greedily expansionist, forcing his people to go to war to claim territories they neither needed, nor wanted.

King Khama in Africa (1819-1923) Known as “The Good King of Bechuanaland” Is noted as peace loving. He is said to have sought technological innovation through scientific process. It is claimed he achieved a period of zero crime. On the other hand he appears to have been a bit heavy handed in his imposition of Christianity on his people, to the extent that his abolishment of cultural traditions led to a breakdown of family mores.

If you accept the bible as historical information, then you can point to a few who started out well, but  ultimately failed as “good dictators”, King David who through a minor act of omission, set in motion a chain of bad decisions culminating in murder. King  Solomon, renowned for his wisdom, got caught up in palace building, thus becoming a heavy tax burden upon his subjects. And his successors were worse in that respect, until the people ultimately rebelled and the kingdom split.

There are also Enoch, and Melchizedek, who seem to have achieved dictatorial Nirvana, though there isn’t really enough information about either to really say conclusively.

If you accept the Book of Mormon as historical fact, then you gain a few more exemplary leaders, in King Benjamin, who worked in the fields alongside his people, to avoid the becoming a tax burden to them. His son, King Mosiah, seems to have been similar in character.

But that is only a few out of thousands (Tens of Thousands?) of kings in History. And if you don’t accept the Bible or Book of Mormon as historical fact, the numbers dwindle practically to zero.

  

Enlightened despots are an anomaly, enlightened successors even more so. As appealing as the efficiencies may be, as charismatic as the candidates appear, one simply cannot concede to the rule of a king.

Three sisters part 5

I haven't been keeping up with my blogging on the three sisters project of late, been spending all my time hanging around the hospital. Hopefully this isn't going to turn into a medical blog.

Anyhoo, here is a picture of the three sisters today...

The corn has come on nicely, we have been eating it every night for the past few days. I am estimating we will get somewhere around 100 ears in total. The beans... We manged to harvest enough for everyone to have a couple mouthfuls. And there are some more blossoms, so we'll see.

 The pumpkins and zucchini are doing very well. Here is one of the recent zucchini harvest, with a 12 inch ruler for reference.

The zucchini bread was delicious.I also tried drying some. I sliced it into thin chips, and seasoned in a few different ways. Then ran the food dryer overnight, till they were nice and crispy. The salt was okay. The salt and pepper was marginally disgusting . The garlic salt ones were quite tasty, and the ones seasoned with chili powder were pretty good eats as well.

The pumpkin hiding below (still yellow in color). Is roughly basketball sized.

 Unfortunately, the squash bugs have made a comeback, and are starting to kill the vines.

I have circled a couple egg clusters in the picture below. (sorry the picture is a little fuzzy, I have nearly the cheapest camera I could find at the time).

 I don't want to spray again now though, while we are harvesting beans and corn. So I am hand squishing what I can. Hopefully that will be sufficient to keep the plants sufficiently alive and healthy. Anyone have any tips on squash bug control?

I have been reading a book "The New Organic Gardener" by Eliot Coleman. Not a new book by any means, but really quite informative. He does spend a little time on the typical "Organic is good, non-organic is bad" spiel you would expect from a book of that title. However, he keeps it to a minimum, he doesn't do so in a preachy way, and he backs up what he says with logical analysis, and scientific research. Most of his time is spent focusing on tips, tools, and techniques for successful, economic, and high quality gardening. It is a good read. I am looking forward to trying out some of th ideas he suggests.

One of the ides he proposes is that sufficiently healthy soil can help significantly  in the control of plant pests. I am  not sure I buy that one. I don't quite see how that will make a difference. perhaps it isn't referring to all types of pests - He does site some cases specific to certain soil pests, and I can see how it would help there. Not sure good soil will slow down the squash bugs, and the aphids. Worth a try over the next couple years though. Nothing to lose in improving my soil. But of course. If anyone has any other suggestions, particularly for those two pests, I would love to hear them.

Three Sisters - Part 4

Well,... I gave up on "Organic" this time around. The three sisters were being overrun by bugs. They were doing a number on the Zuchinni...

 

The corn was still keeping ahead, but...

I panicked and turned to chemical solutions. I sprayed the whole thing down with Sevin. That was about a week ago. It is looking much improved already...

Check out the Bean climbing the corn! How cool is that?!

I am looking into getting either a couple chickens or a couple ducks for next year. Hopefully they can manage the pests for me (With the possible added bonus of fresh eggs). I have been told ducks are less expensive to keep (Not to mention they look cooler). But I don't care for duck meat. Chicken on the other hand is quite tasty, but chickens are messier, and- I am told, more expensive. I have quite a few more months to do research. Opinions anyone?

"Organic" Gardening

Warning: Boring personal philosophy post ahead…

I like the idea of "Organic". I would like to be more organic in my gardening, lawn care, etc… I am a little leery of the word “Organic”. Once a word has been buzzed into marketspeak, it tends to be a bit unreliable. For instance, the USDA qualification for organic is:

Products labeled “organic” must consist of at least 95

percent organically produced ingredients (excluding

water and salt). Any remaining product ingredients

must consist of nonagricultural substances approved

on the National List including specific non-organically

produced agricultural products that are not

commercially available in organic form.

(http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo)

That sounds pretty good. Other than what is on that list of "non-organically produced" products that can make up 5% of the ingredient list?

The rules for Organic certification vary from one country to the next as well. The U.S. classifies copper sulfate as an organic substance (used in organic fungicides and pesticides), while many countries have completely banned it due to health and ecological concerns. Just how organic is ”organic”? And just because a pesticide is “Organic”, does that actually make it safe for human consumption? 

So, setting aside the word Organic for the moment, I like the idea of using strategies which are natural and sustainable. Well, that didn’t help either. Both of those words have been converted to marketspeak as well. One more try…

I prefer to use homegrown compost for fertilizing (Though since I have no cows or chickens, I am happy to acquire manure from elsewhere. Straw also, as I don’t have space to grow much of that). I prefer non-chemical pest controls when possible (wasp traps, manual elimination of squash bug eggs, hand weeding, lady bugs, chickens, ducks…).

There are two key reasons for this. First, I’d prefer to avoid things which have the potential to be harmful to myself or the local ecosystem. Law of unintended consequences and all that. Sure, the stuff has been deemed safe, when properly used, but how safe is it really? How thorough are the studies? I’d rather play it safe and avoid the stuff altogether, if possible.

And there are those little environmental issues as well. I have a friend who lives in an agricultural area – big commercial fields which get sprayed with pesticides. The up-side to this is he doesn’t have many pest issues in his garden. The down side is there are very few bees to pollinate his garden.

Another example, A (different) friend of mine moved into a new house and sprayed for spiders. This killed off all the little common house spiders. Four months later the place was overrun with hobo  spiders. The little spiders he got rid of hunt hobo spiders, with them gone, the hobo’s moved in from nearby fields and multiplied.

The second reason is purely economic. Fertilizers and Pesticides cost money. Using them means an increase in the price of the produce I am growing. So, if I can save on the costs of fertilizers by re-using my table scraps, if I can save on the cost of pesticides by spending a few minutes pulling weeds, and squishing squash bug eggs…

Not that I am militantly opposed to the use of “non-organic” things. I’d just rather not, if I can. Of course my challenge is in finding really smart people who know the best tricks for dealing with various problems and pests, so that I can use them. Not a bunch of evangelizing – I’m not going to expend twice the money and three times the effort just to say I’m “super green”. I am too much of a pragmatist for that. I just want a good compendium of tried methods, tips and tricks. That would be a book worth having.