High Mowing's 2023 Organic Seed Catalog

 Things I learned from High Mowing Organic Seeds's 2023 Catalog

Grafting: in vegetables, only used for tomatoes. Instead of transplanting, graft onto established roots.

I remember hearing some drivel about how tomatoes aren't vegetables, they're a fruit.  But, botanically, half of the vegetables are fruits.  Beans, cucumbers, eggplant, melons, okra, peppers, pumpkins, squash, tomatoes, watermelon, zucchini.  I don't hear anyone proclaiming "green beans are fruits!"

Most category-consistent omission:  strawberry seeds. It’s a berry, not a vegetable!  Even though they are often grown as annuals, maybe they are marketed under the category of fruit trees and perennial fruit bushes...

Spinosad and Bt are popular organic insect pest controls and are non toxic to humans and, if used correctly, mostly harmless to beneficial insects. 

Most surprising omission: sweet potatoes seeds.  Maybe because HM are mostly focused on northern crops?  Also surprisingly limited selection of collard greens, okra and swiss chard.   I noticed on the HM website that all of the conference/expos they attend are in Northern-tier states.

Least surprising omission:  cannabis seeds.  Cash crop anyone?

Most interesting omission:  mushroom seeds.   Inoculant is very popular in some areas, but with mixed success.  Is the omission a sign of lack of interest?

Most organic omission:  Imperator-type carrots.  The main type sold commercially (even "baby carrots" are whittled from these), and HM has all of the other types:  Nantes, Danvers, Chantenay… the catalog sometimes references mainstream conventional varieties of other vegetables (e.g. "Payday") but doesn't include them.  Seems organic breeders have mostly focused outside the mainstream.

Interesting which vegetables don't have disease resistance traits.  Do they not need it or has it not been selected yet?

Most confusing "seeds":  potatoes.  Apparently no one grows potatoes from seed.

Lowest-common denominator certification:  Non-GMO Project.  Is this the cheapest certification or just the best marketing logo?  Either way this seems to be the go-to certification for everything.  I have friends who say they won't buy GMO.  But organic?  Regenerative?  Bee Better?  Too expensive, what, what?  I guess it does make sense for High Mowing since they sell corn and soy. 

Pollinators

I was surprised there wasn't more mention of pollinator requirements.  Which vegetables need pollinators?  All of the fruits… 

But peas and soy can self-pollinate.  Corn should be planted in blocks so it can be wind-pollinated.

Gynoecious and monoecious cucumbers need to be planted with another variety for pollination. Parthenocarpic cucumbers don't need pollinators (= good for greenhouses). 

Seedless watermelons :  one variety needs pollination from a different variety. 

The insect apocalypse is real.  This summer I heard from people in different parts of the country who had to hand-pollinate their squash because they couldn't get any fruit otherwise.  I visited a remnant prairie patch in Ohio in July that was in full flower, but completely silent and devoid of insect life.  All blooming and no buzzing.

Hybrid vs OP vs Heirloom

Seed saving controversy:  Advocates like Bill McDorman make hybrid seeds seem almost immoral.  He claims seed-saving as an inalienable right of indigenous and small-holder farmers everywhere.  But its hard.  His very interesting book* gives detailed specifications for how far apart you have to plant different varieties to avoid cross-pollinating, in-breeding depression, or outbreeding depression.  I wonder how many farmers save seed?

Descriptions in HM imply that hybrids are better than OP.  Also interesting how many varieties are protected (from seed-saving) by UP or PVP. 

References

Bill McDoman. Basic Seed Saving: Easy step by step instructions for 18 popular vegetables. 

 Attachments

Excerpt from a conventional seed catalog.

Is Organic Agriculture Healthier for the Environment and the Consumer?

This deceptively simple question is difficult to prove.  In a widely-read science blog post, Dr. Christie Wilcox (her PhD is in marine biology, not agriculture) argues that the supposed benefits of organic farming are all myths.

While some of her specific claims, such as that organic farmers are allowed to use the incredibly toxic natural compound rotenone, are off-mark, much of her critique appears to stand.  The reasons are various, but telling:  there are costs and benefits to different agricultural systems, and organic farms face many of the same challenges of conventional farming.  For example, herbicides allow no-till farming, with myriad benefits for soil structure and water quality.  It is extremely difficult to practice no-till without some means of removing weeds.

Certified organic farms may not use synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.  But if organic farmers choose to use a natural compound to kill weeds or pests there is nothing to guarantee that such a compound would be less toxic to the ecosystem and to humans. Natural compounds on organic farms may be more toxic than their synthetic analogues!

Unfortunately, while there are comprehensive databases of the type and amount of pesticides found on conventional food (see the Environmental Working Group's annual Dirty Dozen list), no such testing of natural compounds on organic produce is conducted.  Apparently synthetic compounds are investigated more than natural compounds, perhaps due to an unstated belief in the Naturalistic Fallacy, i.e. that natural chemicals must be healthier than synthetic chemicals.  But many plants (for example, nightshades) contain totally natural compounds... that are totally toxic as well.

A good take-home message would be to wash all of your fruit and veggies, whether they are organic or not.  And learn which plants are poisonous.  I'm not even going to get into all of the (natural and synthetic) chemicals and preservatives in grains, let alone refined flours, etc.

Wendell Berry on the Problem of Private Land Ownership

"We share a common health....

....If we have the "right to life" as we have always supposed, then that right must stand upon the further right to air, water, food, clothing, and shelter.

It follows that every person exercising the right to hold private property has an obligation to secure to the rest of us the right to live from that property...an obligation to use it in such a way as to not impair or diminish our rightful interest in it.

 But --and here is the catch-- that obligation on the part of the landowner implies a concurrent obligation on the part of society as a whole. If we give our proxy to the landowner to use-- and as is always implied, to take care of -- the land on our behalf, then we are obliged to make the landowner able to afford not only to use the land but also to care properly for it.

This is where the grossest error of our civilization shows itself. In giving a few farmers our proxies to produce food in the public behalf for very little economic return we have also given them our proxies to care for the land in the public behalf for no economic return at all. This is our so-called cheap-food policy, which is in fact an antifarming policy, an antifarmer policy, and an antiland policy.

We hold the land under a doctrine of private property that in practice acknowledges no common health."

---from Another Turn of the Crank.  Essays by Wendell Berry.

Harvest Reflections on Growing Food

"When does the keen knife edge of human ambition dull into a mere quest for survival?  Perhaps it relates somehow to those "lives of quiet desperation" that Thoreau was always harping about as he often expressed opinions on the futility of the agricultural lifestyle.  I can relate, perfectly."
--Joe Hutto, Touching the Wild

General Thoughts

Agriculture is hard, necessary, and always just-in-time.  Whatever you may think about agricultural policy exceptionalism (i.e. exemption from the Clean Water Act (this is changing), tariff protections and subsidies), the truth is that farming is hard and food is a miracle.

While I support organic agriculture and believe we must find holistic solutions to meet our nutritional needs, I don't begrudge any farmer who chooses to use every tool available... whether that means artificially-bred chickens that grow 4x faster than heirloom breeds, or GMO crops (still no scientifically-documented health risks), to the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides.

I have some personal experience with organic and Permaculture farming; enough to know I'm lucky that my ability to get food on the table isn't dependent on my success in the garden.  Whether its trying to keep crops alive in 110 degree heat of a Tucson June, or trying to defend my pumpkins this summer in Albuquerque from squash bugs, I haven't always been successful!

It seems amazing that it would take less time, energy, and money to produce chemical pesticides in a factory somewhere, ship cross-country, and spray on my pumpkins -- then it is for my wife and me to spend an hour each and every morning picking bugs off our plants.  In the Big Argument whether organic food can feed the world, its important to weigh the individual microeconomic decisions of farmers; how much  time they're willing to devote to organic agriculture.  In Albuquerque, I would argue that almost no one has the time to grow organic pumpkins and squash: either you don't grow them, or get ready to rain down chemical death on your adversaries.  (I've also heard that planting very late, i.e. after monsoons begin in July, may mean missing peak squash bug season.)

Gardening is slow knowledge that takes time to build.  Next year I think I'll try planting late -- but I'm also going to keep a chemical arsenal ready.  Just as I try to eat healthy and avoid antibiotics (in soap, etc), I won't refuse antibiotics if I get really sick or my pumpkins get infested with squash bugs again.  Every tool should be on the table.   This is one issue some organic consumers run into when they shop at local farmers markets  -- many local farmers try to grow organic, but don't certify as such because 1) certification is expensive, and 2) they don't want to give up tools they might need if their crops are sick.  So supporting local agriculture means coming to terms with a world that isn't black-and-white, where there is a place for local knowledge, building the soil, complementary planting AND chemical pesticides.

Post-Mortem on our Garden

Our corn was lackluster this year -- either because we bought the local variety, or maybe a lack of fertilizer and poor soil quality.  We let morning glories climb over everything because they have pretty flowers , but they really are pernicious weeds w/out many redeeming qualities.

Three Sisters Agriculture seems like bullshit.  Pests hide in dense vegetation, and we've found that well-spaced plants are healthier and easier to maintain with fewer insects and mold problems.

Native Wildflower Mix + Straw = Tons of Weeds
Native wildflowers grew slowly, if at all, and were easily overwhelmed by look-alike weeds that grew quite well on little precipitation and bad soils.  The fact is that weeds grow amazingly well in New Mexico (as any botanist will observe) -- in a land where not much else can survive.

Tried to grow (again) Chia seeds but the tall mint-like plants never flower.  We also tried growing quinoa, which is supposed to grow robustly in arid regions -- it is in the same family as some of the most successful weeds in New Mexico, so it might have a chance...!

A streamlined, GIS version of USDA's Environmental Benefits Index

USDA calculates the environmental benefits of applying conservation easements to farmland.  The University of Minnesota has developed an online tool for mapping three important components used by decision-makers to prioritize farmland conservation funding:

Soil loss is calculated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation, which factors in slope angle and distance, soil texture,

Water quality risk was calculated using a Stream Power Index, and proximity of land parcels to streams.

Habitat quality was calculated using by intersecting known stressors such as roads and development with known areas of high quality habitat, such as areas with endemic or endangered species, high biodiversity, and/or high game abundance.

The combined metric for all three layers generates the Environmental Benefits Index.

Screenshot from maptool from the EBI page of the Natural Resources Research Institute at the University of Minnesota.

Environmental Benefits Assessments for USDA Conservation Reserve Program

The USDA uses an  Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) to rank Conservation Reserve Program land applications by prioritizing soil conservation, water quality, and wildlife habitat.  Six factors are considered:

1. Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from covers on contract acreage 
2. Water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff and leaching 
3. On-farm benefits from reduced erosion 
4. Benefits that will likely endure beyond the contract period 
5. Air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion
6. Cost

1.  Wildlife habitat is determined by looking at planting composition (introduced or native), number and composition of species (more species, and more functional groups such as legumes, shrubs, trees, forbs, and grasses have higher value), and landscape context (strips, blocks or mixtures that form corridors or gaps).  Points are also available for providing pollinator habitat and for enhancing wildlife in areas high-priority areas.

2.  Water quality benefits are determined by whether or not the property is in a designated surface water quality impairment zone, the type of soil, potential soil erosion, and distance to major waterbodies.

3.  Not discussed.

4.  Enduring benefits are determined subjectively based on the probability that conservation will continue beyond the CRP contract.  For example, trees would be expected to live longer than the 10-year CRP contract.

5.  Air quality benefits are determined by calculating potential wind erosion (based on average wind speed and soil texture), whether the property is in a air quality nonattainment area, and the potential to sequester carbon in the soil by planting trees, shrubs, or grass.

For more information, see the CRP Farm Science Administration website at USDA.gov.


....USDA also periodically reviews the effectiveness of their programs using the Conservation Effects Assessment Project.  Data and papers can be found here.

Ohio Agricultural Production

Ohio agricultural production has declined, so why hasn't fertilizer pollution?

Agroforestry: the "Evergreen Revolution"

Dr. Dennis Garrity spoke today at SENR about how agroforestry is transforming entire landscapes in Africa. Dr. Garrity detailed a number of ways farmers are growing more crops by cultivating trees in their field. The details differ, but usually involve a leguminous tree that can provide both fertilizer for the field and fodder for livestock. One such tree, Acacia (Faidherbia), has the amazing added benefit of loosing its leaves during the wet season when farmers grow crops. This is basically the perfect tree, providing timed inputs of fertilizer, light, and forage at just the times the crops, farmer, and livestock need them.

According to Dr. Garrity, Faidherbia does not grow in the wild and is dependent on human cultivation. But until 10 years ago, no one knew how to propagate the tree: farmers tended them when they found them, but attempts to plant seeds or take cuttings had failed. Once researchers from the World Agroforestry Centre developed a cheap and easy way to propagate Faidherbia, its use has been rapidly adopted, especially in the Sahel region of Africa, where millions of hectares have been transformed.

Many of the questions from the audience focussed on possible problems and objections to this agronomic technique. What if pests wiped out the tree, or used the tree as refuges? If it was so good, why hadn't farmers adopted it before? What would happen when commercial farms replaced small holders? Some of these questions had initially occurred to me as well, but after reflection, the question I was most interested to ask would have focussed on what this example of agroforestry innovation could teach us to look for in the future. How can we learn from this example to look for other species in other parts of the world that might become essential components of new agricultural systems that can increase diversity, resilience, and production for the 21st century?

The real insight of this talk is that productivity is not set in stone: humans can and should manage their environments to improve them over and above what is "natural".

This presentation has in-depth information on the spread of agroforestry in Niger.

This is a great agroforestry organization: http://www.plant-trees.org/about.htm

Nutrient Pollution Management in 2011: New Regulations

Dr. Larry Antosch, Senior Director, Program Innovation and Environmental Policy, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation presented "Water Quality and Agricultural Nutrient Management – Many Forces Converge" to finish up the seminar series theme of Water Quality here in the School of Environment and Natural Resources. Dr. Antosch is well-placed to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date view of nutrient management and water quality, having worked in the field for 30 years, first for the EPA and now for the FBF, which recently sued the EPA over pending nutrient restrictions in the Chesapeake Bay (CB) watershed. Dr. Antosh pointed out that since Ohio is in the CB "airshed" (some of our air pollution is deposited in the CB watershed) these regulations could impact us directly. They could also impact Ohio indirectly as EPA gears up for an even bigger watershed nutrient reduction program for the entire Mississippi.

In Dr. Antosh's opinion, some of the regulatory impetus is misplaced, because science does not have all the answers yet. For example, the increased of dissolved Phosphorous (rather than particulate phosphorous) entering Lake Erie and causing harmful algal blooms, is a mystery. Farmers or cities? Which techniques could best eliminate excess nutrients? Some have even pointed to no-till as a possible source, because nutrients are applied to the surface rather than mixed in.

Although Dr. Antosch emphesized the uncertain nature of water quality science, I believe there is enough information to act today. Several simple examples come to mind: (1) Regulations against applying manure and fertilizer in the winter, when plants are not growing and hence don't absorb any of the nutrients; (2) Existing steps to eliminate phosphorous fertilization of residential lawns; (3) Creating new wetlands to filter the runoff that does occur.

Economic Incentives and Water Quality in Ohio

Brent Sohngen, a professor in Ohio State University’s Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, presented “Economic Incentives and Water Quality in Ohio”, an interesting talk about paying farmers for the reductions in runoff pollution they deliver. This economics-inspired approach differs from that typical of Soil and Water Conservation grants that pays for specific installations like riparian buffer strips, containment ponds for sewage, and conservation research program fallow fields.

Dr. Sohngen experimentally signed a contract that would pay farmers for pollution reductions in a small watershed in West Ohio. Unfortunately pollution increased when one of the farmers in the watershed decided to double his hog production. Still, Dr. Sohngen thinks the technique has promise, given that the farmers were responsible for more pollution than a nearby town's wastewater treatment plant. Given what we are willing to pay to upgrade the plant, shouldn't we be willing to pay a similar amount to the farmers?

I like the idea, but the economic logic seems to falter because it is based only on what society is willing to pay, not the cost to the farmer. I would have liked to ask about how much money, given the farmer's decision to invest in additional hogs, it would actually take for the farmer to pollute less. What is the opportunity cost of reduced pollution?

Intensive farming may ease climate change

"Land saved from cultivation offsets carbon emissions" Nature 465, 853 (2010)

This Nature News item reviews a paper published by Burney et al in PNAS entitled "Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification." The article shows that agriculture today is more land-efficient than in 1960. Yet it has been interpreted to say that modern intensive industrial agriculture is better than organic. The authors should write a statement clarifying their work but they may not. The reason? The study, as written, is trivial, and only with the added implication is it interesting. But the implication is not true.

In addition to commiting the unforgivable sin of reasoning based on historical counterfactuals, the article presents a myopic and simplistic either-or argument rather than a systematic analysis of factors contributing to agricultural land use. The fact that 50% of all food produced is wasted strikes me as one area where adding efficiency could reduce the overall footprint of agriculture. Certainly the choice of which land to pave over (usually the most fertile agricultural land) and which land to convert to agriculture (eg primeval Amazonian rainforest) has been especially perverse and unnecessary. Furthermore, our society's choice of food is also not a given "quality of life" as the article assumes; rather, it is a socially constructed and contigent demand on land use. If Americans consumed more primary production (plants) and less secondary production (animals) we could vastly decrease our agricultural footprint.

Other issues could be raised, but these points show some of the many analytical failings of this article. Despite, or perhaps because of its unsupported thesis, it has also been extensively commented upon; the authoritative review of responses in here.

Sustaining Lives through Organic Farming

Association for India's Development, Columbus, along with the EARTH Center and Students for Food Sovereignty welcomes AID Fellow and organic farming expert, Ms. Revathi.

Revathi has worked with more than 32,000 farmers in the organic movement in Tamil Nadu and her work has been recognized by the governments of India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. She has hands-on knowledge in the importance of rejuvenating the soil using a holistic approach towards soil restoration, seed selection techniques, methods to create organic pest repellent and herbicides. She described the use of Sesbania ("dhaincha") to reclaim soils made saline by the tsunami as well as conventional agriculture.

More info.

Lithic Mulch

I have done field ecology throughout New Mexico and Arizona -- but no matter how long I live in the Southwest it seems there is always more to discover...I recently discovered the existence of lithic or cobble mulch gardens while perusing a report by Richard D. Periman featured in "Desired future conditions for Southwestern riparian ecosystems: Bringing interests and concerns together," produced by the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, and have spent an enjoyable morning reading some of Dale Lightfoot's papers about sites in Northern New Mexico and the Safford Valley of Arizona. Both are areas where I have spent considerable time, and I am now wondering if I have unknowingly visited some of these prehistoric gardens. I am especially interested to learn how thoroughly these type of sites have been studied...from my natural history work I understand that sometimes the best preservation strategy for valuable sites is to keep them undocumented, but I wonder if there is a GIS layer of inventoried sites? These archeologists deserve congratulations on bringing this remarkable phenomenon to light; discoveries like these may help transform how we ecologists think about the Natural Range of Variation (NRV) in these areas.

"Lithic-mulched features have not been thoroughly studied, in the USA or elsewhere. Details are spotty...The research by Maxwell and Anscheutz in the Ojo Caliente Valley in northern New Mexico is very good. The Fish’s work on Hohokam Arizona is good. Berlin et al. 1977 are quite thorough, as is Engel’s work in the Andes. Much remains to be done at all other sites associated with lithic mulching. I understand your comment about leaving things undocumented. It’s best, sometimes, though in cases where features are on the verge of being obliterated, as were many of the gravel mulched plots I worked on in 1988-89 south of Santa Fe (1990 dissertation and subsequent articles), it’s best to record what you can, when you can (i.e. salvage archaeology).

I know of no GIS inventory related to lithic mulching anywhere. I have no plans on the immediate horizon to work on this topic in the U.S. Southwest, but I didn’t have any plans to work on the Safford project, either, until Bill Doolittle approached me about joining his project and I could clearly see a way to contribute to the project."

Farm Bill Letter

Senator,

I am very concerned about the upcoming vote on the Farm Bill. I consider the existing farm bill a prime example of government "pork". The basic issue is whether we, the American consumers, should be allowed to choose which food and which farmers to support.

This is a very important issue, one that we are confronted with every week at the supermarket. Government subsidies have made it cheaper to buy Coca-cola than local apple juice. Why the government would want to promote corn syrup while we are in the midst of a diabetes crisis boggles my mind.

Please stay out of my dinner. Let the market decide which foods are produced (that's what capitalism is good at). By all means provide funding to retrain farmers who were dependent on subsidies, and put tariffs on imports from countries that lack our environmental and labor standards. But let us, the American people, choose how to spend our own money.

Thank you.

Conor Flynn