Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Success Stories for Kikoricco

Expand Messages
  • Bart
    Maybe we should consider yields rather in terms of minerals, vitamins and general nutritional value per suare meter, instead of volume and weight. It appears
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Maybe we should consider yields rather in terms of minerals, vitamins
      and general nutritional value per suare meter, instead of volume and
      weight. It appears that organic vegetables have up to 100% more
      mineral content (preliminary studies cited in Paul Pitchford's
      "Healing with whole foods"). So in terms of mineral/vitamin/etc.
      yield, what at first sight (volume and weight) appears to be a lesser
      yield, may in fact be a far superior one.

      Volume and weight are really irrelevant; the ability of produce to
      sustain healthy life is the real issue. Looking at it that way,
      natural or veganic farming has a far superior yield compared to
      chemical farming.
      Also comparing input of energy and "products" (chemical or not) with
      output, natural and organic farming have a much higher relative yield,
      they are much more efficient.

      I myself experienced very clearly that I needed to eat much less
      volume and weight once I began to eat only organic food. It has a much
      higher nutritional "density", so to speak.

      So forget about producing only 80% compared with chemical neighbours,
      if you compare input-output-efficiency and nutritional "density", the
      neighbour looses spectacularly... It's even worse than that: some (or
      all) of chemically produced foods are even non-foods in reality,
      industrially grown cabbages for instance have been reported to cause
      infant death (intoxication by nitrates). Who cares for the chemical
      neighbours' nitrate bomb disguised as cabbage anyway?

      Bart
    • Tradingpost
      Couldn t agree more about the nutritional density factor. However I do believe the 80% figure allows the industrial farming sector to frame the debate, and
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Couldn't agree more about the nutritional density factor. However I do
        believe the 80% figure allows the industrial farming sector to frame the
        debate, and it's highly misleading. Studies have shown diversified small
        farms to be far more productive overall than industrial farms when total
        output is taken into account instead of a single cash crop mechanically
        farmed with chemicals.


        paul tradingpost@...

        Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
        --Henry David Thoreau
        *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

        On 2/2/2007 at 9:18 AM Bart wrote:

        >Maybe we should consider yields rather in terms of minerals, vitamins
        >and general nutritional value per suare meter, instead of volume and
        >weight. It appears that organic vegetables have up to 100% more
        >mineral content (preliminary studies cited in Paul Pitchford's
        >"Healing with whole foods"). So in terms of mineral/vitamin/etc.
        >yield, what at first sight (volume and weight) appears to be a lesser
        >yield, may in fact be a far superior one.
        >
        >Volume and weight are really irrelevant; the ability of produce to
        >sustain healthy life is the real issue. Looking at it that way,
        >natural or veganic farming has a far superior yield compared to
        >chemical farming.
        >Also comparing input of energy and "products" (chemical or not) with
        >output, natural and organic farming have a much higher relative yield,
        >they are much more efficient.
        >
        >I myself experienced very clearly that I needed to eat much less
        >volume and weight once I began to eat only organic food. It has a much
        >higher nutritional "density", so to speak.
        >
        >So forget about producing only 80% compared with chemical neighbours,
        >if you compare input-output-efficiency and nutritional "density", the
        >neighbour looses spectacularly... It's even worse than that: some (or
        >all) of chemically produced foods are even non-foods in reality,
        >industrially grown cabbages for instance have been reported to cause
        >infant death (intoxication by nitrates). Who cares for the chemical
        >neighbours' nitrate bomb disguised as cabbage anyway?
        >
        >Bart
      • Tradingpost
        Have to throw in these references about farm size and efficiency. paul tradingpost@lobo.net ... While the “bigger is better” myth is generally accepted, it
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Have to throw in these references about farm size and efficiency.

          paul tradingpost@...
          -----------------

          While the “bigger is better” myth is generally accepted, it is a
          fallacy. Numerous reports have found that smaller farms are actually more
          efficient than larger “industrial” farms. These studies demonstrate
          that when farms get larger, the costs of production per unit often
          increase, because larger acreage requires more expensive machinery and more
          chemicals to protect crops.
          from http://www.keepmainefree.org/myth3.html

          THE MYTH:
          Industrial agriculture is efficient.
          THE TRUTH:
          Small farms produce more agricultural output per unit area than large
          farms. Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical and
          chemical inputs. These ever increasing inputs are devastating to the
          environment and make these farms far less efficient than smaller, more
          sustainable farms.

          Proponents of industrial agriculture claim that “bigger is better” when
          it comes to food production. They argue that the larger the farm, the more
          efficient it is. They admit that these huge corporate farms mean the loss
          of family farms and rural communities, but they maintain that this is
          simply the inevitable cost of efficient food production. And agribusiness
          advocates don’t just promote big farms; they also push big technology.
          They typically ridicule small-scale farm technology as grossly inefficient
          while heralding intensive use of chemicals, massive machinery,
          computerization and genetic engineering - whose affordability and
          implementation are only feasible on large farms. The marriage of huge farms
          with “mega-technology” is sold to the public as the basic requirement
          for efficient food production. Argue against size and technology - the two
          staples of modern agriculture - and, they insist, you're undermining
          production efficiency and endangering the world's food supply.

          While the “bigger is better” myth is generally accepted, it is a
          fallacy. Numerous reports have found that smaller farms are actually more
          efficient than larger “industrial” farms. These studies demonstrate
          that when farms get larger, the costs of production per unit often
          increase, because larger acreage requires more expensive machinery and more
          chemicals to protect crops. In particular, a 1989 study by the U.S.
          National Research Council assessed the efficiency of large industrial food
          production systems compared with alternative methods. The conclusion was
          exactly contrary to the “bigger is better” myth: “Well-managed
          alternative farming systems nearly always use less synthetic chemical
          pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of production than
          conventional farms. Reduced use of these inputs lowers production costs and
          lessens agriculture’s potential for adverse environmental and health
          effects without decreasing - and in some cases increasing - per acre crop
          yields and the productivity of livestock management systems.”

          Output Versus Yield

          Agribusiness and economists alike tend to use “yield” measurements when
          calculating the productivity of farms. Yield can be defined as the
          production per unit of a single crop. For example, a corn farm will be
          judged by how many metric tons of corn are produced per acre. More often
          than not, the highest yield of a single crop like corn can be best achieved
          by planting it alone on an industrial scale in the fields of corporate
          farms. These large “monocultures” have become endemic to modern
          agriculture for the simple reason that they are the easiest to manage with
          heavy machinery and intensive chemical use. It is the single-crop yields of
          these farms that are used as the basis for the “bigger is better” myth,
          and it is true that the highest yield of a single crop is often achieved
          through industrial monocultures.

          Smaller farms rarely can compete with this “monoculture” single-crop
          yield. They tend to plant crop mixtures, a method known as
          “intercropping.” Additionally, where single-crop monocultures have
          empty “weed” spaces, small farms use these spaces for crop planting.
          They are also more likely to rotate or combine crops and livestock, with
          the resulting manure performing the important function of replenishing soil
          fertility. These small-scale integrated farms produce far more per unit
          area than large farms. Though the yield per unit area of one crop - corn,
          for example - may be lower, the total output per unit area for small farms,
          often composed of more than a dozen crops and numerous animal products, is
          virtually always higher than that of larger farms.

          Clearly, if we are to compare accurately the productivity of small and
          large farms, we should use total agricultural output, balanced against
          total farm inputs and “externalities,” rather than single-crop yield as
          our measurement principle. Total output is defined as the sum of everything
          a small farmer produces - various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and
          animal products - and is the real benchmark of efficiency in farming.
          Moreover, productivity measurements should also take into account total
          input costs, including large-machinery and chemical use, which often are
          left out of the equation in the yield efficiency claims.

          Once the flawed yield measurement system is discarded, the “bigger is
          better” myth is shattered. As summarized by the food policy expert Peter
          Rosset, “Surveying the data, we indeed find that small farms almost
          always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger
          farms. This is now widely recognized by agricultural economists across the
          political spectrum, as the inverse relationship between farm size and
          output.” He notes that even the World Bank now advocates redistributing
          land to small farmers in the third world as a step toward increasing
          overall agricultural productivity.

          Government studies underscore this “inverse relationship.” According to
          a 1992 U.S. Agricultural Census report, relatively smaller farm sizes are 2
          to 10 times more productive per unit acre than larger ones. The smallest
          farms surveyed in the study, those of 27 acres or less, are more than ten
          times as productive (in dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000
          acres or more), and extremely small farms (4 acres or less) can be over a
          hundred times as productive.
          ------------------

          Small-scale farming is as old as agriculture itself. One study of 15
          countries, primarily in Asia and Africa, found that per-acre output on
          small farms can be as much as four to five times higher than on large ones.
          Russia, over the years, has often produced 30% to 50% of its food on
          household plots representing as little as 3% to 5% of all Russian farmland.
          The productivity of small-scale farms is also being widely recognized by
          agricultural economists who call it the “inverse relationship between
          farm size and productivity.”
          http://www.growbiointensive.org/grow_need.html
          ---------------------

          "However, by managing more “intensively” the new farmers are able to
          net far more profit from each dollar of sales. They reduce their costs of
          purchased inputs through diversification, increase the value of their
          products through niche markets, focus on the things that they do best, and
          work together to do the things that they can’t do as well alone. As a
          result, their net return per dollar of sales may be 40 to 50 percent rather
          than the 15 to 20 percent for a conventional farm. Thus, the net returns
          on a farm with $100,000 in annual sales may be $40,000 to $50,000 and even
          a farm with $50,000 in annual sales may net $20,000 to $25,000 to support
          the small farm family. The bottom line is that 10 acres, intensively
          managed to produce high valued products, may generate more profits than
          1,000 acres used to produce bulk agricultural commodities - corn, cattle,
          wheat, cotton, etc. Many small farms make some fairly big profits."
          Farming for Profit and Quality of Life, John Ikerd
          http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/SFTkeynote.html
          --------------
          "“Get big or get out” is a refrain with which American farmers are all
          too familiar. Small farms are seen as being too small to survive, and
          thus, unworthy of serious consideration. For example, government programs,
          including publicly funded research and education, tend to focus on large,
          commercial agricultural operations as the future of American agriculture.
          In fact, the opposite is true. Most large, commercial farming today are
          too big to survive. Small farms are the future of farming in America. "
          Many Farms Are Too Big To Survive, John Ikerd
          http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/SFT-Too%20Big.htm
          -----------



          *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

          On 2/2/2007 at 8:10 AM Tradingpost wrote:

          >Couldn't agree more about the nutritional density factor. However I do
          >believe the 80% figure allows the industrial farming sector to frame the
          >debate, and it's highly misleading. Studies have shown diversified small
          >farms to be far more productive overall than industrial farms when total
          >output is taken into account instead of a single cash crop mechanically
          >farmed with chemicals.
          >
          >
          >paul tradingpost@...
          >
          >Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
          >--Henry David Thoreau
          >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
          >
          >On 2/2/2007 at 9:18 AM Bart wrote:
          >

          >>So forget about producing only 80% compared with chemical neighbours,
          >>if you compare input-output-efficiency and nutritional "density", the
          >>neighbour looses spectacularly... It's even worse than that: some (or
          >>all) of chemically produced foods are even non-foods in reality,
          >>industrially grown cabbages for instance have been reported to cause
          >>infant death (intoxication by nitrates). Who cares for the chemical
          >>neighbours' nitrate bomb disguised as cabbage anyway?
          >>
          >>Bart
        • Jamie Nicol
          Dear All, in an attempt to broaden the discussion of success and to avoid falling into esoteric chatter, I thought some words of Fukuoka would be
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear All, in an attempt to broaden the discussion of 'success' and to avoid falling into 'esoteric' chatter, I thought some words of Fukuoka would be pragmatic:

            " To achieve a humanity and a society founded on non-action, man must look back over everything he has done and rid himself one by one of the false visions and concepts that permeate him and his society. This is what the 'do-nothing' movement is all about. Natural Farming can be seen as one branch of this movement. Human knowledge and effort expand and grow increasingly complex and wasteful without limit. We need to halt this expansion, to converge, simplify, and reduce our knowledge and effort. This is in keeping with the laws of nature. Natural Farming is more than just a revolution in agricultural techniques. It is the practical foundation of a spiritual movement, of a revolution to change the way we live."

            Obviously, the tenor of these words seems to suggest that NF and 'success' might not be to do with yield, qualitative or quantitative.

            Jamie
            Souscayrous

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Tradingpost
            To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:10 PM
            Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re: Success Stories for Kikoricco



            Couldn't agree more about the nutritional density factor. However I do
            believe the 80% figure allows the industrial farming sector to frame the
            debate, and it's highly misleading. Studies have shown diversified small
            farms to be far more productive overall than industrial farms when total
            output is taken into account instead of a single cash crop mechanically
            farmed with chemicals.

            paul tradingpost@...

            Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
            --Henry David Thoreau
            *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

            On 2/2/2007 at 9:18 AM Bart wrote:

            >Maybe we should consider yields rather in terms of minerals, vitamins
            >and general nutritional value per suare meter, instead of volume and
            >weight. It appears that organic vegetables have up to 100% more
            >mineral content (preliminary studies cited in Paul Pitchford's
            >"Healing with whole foods"). So in terms of mineral/vitamin/etc.
            >yield, what at first sight (volume and weight) appears to be a lesser
            >yield, may in fact be a far superior one.
            >
            >Volume and weight are really irrelevant; the ability of produce to
            >sustain healthy life is the real issue. Looking at it that way,
            >natural or veganic farming has a far superior yield compared to
            >chemical farming.
            >Also comparing input of energy and "products" (chemical or not) with
            >output, natural and organic farming have a much higher relative yield,
            >they are much more efficient.
            >
            >I myself experienced very clearly that I needed to eat much less
            >volume and weight once I began to eat only organic food. It has a much
            >higher nutritional "density", so to speak.
            >
            >So forget about producing only 80% compared with chemical neighbours,
            >if you compare input-output-efficiency and nutritional "density", the
            >neighbour looses spectacularly... It's even worse than that: some (or
            >all) of chemically produced foods are even non-foods in reality,
            >industrially grown cabbages for instance have been reported to cause
            >infant death (intoxication by nitrates). Who cares for the chemical
            >neighbours' nitrate bomb disguised as cabbage anyway?
            >
            >Bart





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tradingpost
            High yield and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. To agree that you have to sacrifice one for the other gives up the field to the how will we feed the
            Message 5 of 27 , Feb 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              High yield and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. To agree that you
              have to sacrifice one for the other gives up the field to the "how will we
              feed the world" agribusiness spin. Serious researchers and growers have
              shown higher outputs from small areas grown organically. We know healthy
              plants producing well from healthy soil are higher brix and taste better.
              And I'm not talking about some weird hybrids either.

              paul tradingpost@...

              Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
              --Henry David Thoreau

              *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

              On 2/2/2007 at 4:52 PM Jamie Nicol wrote:

              >Dear All, in an attempt to broaden the discussion of 'success' and to
              >avoid falling into 'esoteric' chatter, I thought some words of Fukuoka
              >would be pragmatic:
              >
              > " To achieve a humanity and a society founded on non-action, man must
              >look back over everything he has done and rid himself one by one of the
              >false visions and concepts that permeate him and his society. This is what
              >the 'do-nothing' movement is all about. Natural Farming can be seen as one
              >branch of this movement. Human knowledge and effort expand and grow
              >increasingly complex and wasteful without limit. We need to halt this
              >expansion, to converge, simplify, and reduce our knowledge and effort.
              >This is in keeping with the laws of nature. Natural Farming is more than
              >just a revolution in agricultural techniques. It is the practical
              >foundation of a spiritual movement, of a revolution to change the way we
              >live."
              >
              >Obviously, the tenor of these words seems to suggest that NF and 'success'
              >might not be to do with yield, qualitative or quantitative.
              >
              >Jamie
              >Souscayrous
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Tradingpost
              > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:10 PM
              > Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re: Success Stories for Kikoricco
              >
              >
              >
              > Couldn't agree more about the nutritional density factor. However I do
              > believe the 80% figure allows the industrial farming sector to frame the
              > debate, and it's highly misleading. Studies have shown diversified small
              > farms to be far more productive overall than industrial farms when total
              > output is taken into account instead of a single cash crop mechanically
              > farmed with chemicals.
              >
              > paul tradingpost@...
              >
            • Bart
              I agree wholeheartedly that this is the real issue of natural farming, and that in natural farming yield is not a goal - in a sense, there is no goal. Thank
              Message 6 of 27 , Feb 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree wholeheartedly that this is the real issue of natural farming,
                and that in natural farming yield is not a goal - in a sense, there is
                no goal. Thank you for pointing this out.

                However, let's be careful not to get trapped in Nothingness (which is
                one of the diseases of zen). If my industrial farmer neighbour comes
                to me and tells me, "hey, did you see the sun came up in the west this
                morning", I will tell him that this is not true, i.e. that this is not
                the right way to use these words. I know there is really neither east
                nor west, that these are concepts or illusions, and that the sun
                (another concept) doesn't care, and so on. However, if you open your
                mouth and use words, you should use them correctly.
                In the same way, if he comes to me and tells me "you and your natural
                farming, your yield is pitifull", I think it is important not to let
                ourselves be trapped in his incorrect (selective) use of the term
                "yield", only referring to weight/volume and making abstraction of
                many other important factors.
                Or we can just smile to him of course, but I for one know that if my
                smile doesn't come profoundly from the heart, I better argue :)

                This "industrial high yield"-lie is a stick behind the door with which
                organic producers/consumers/sellers are often beaten on the head -
                with their own full cooperation, choosing to go along with the narrow
                weight/volume-perspective and not finding an adequate response.

                But again, I do think it is very iportant to remember, time after
                time, that he real issue in natural farming is doing nothing.

                Bart

                --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie Nicol" <jamienicol@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Dear All, in an attempt to broaden the discussion of 'success' and
                to avoid falling into 'esoteric' chatter, I thought some words of
                Fukuoka would be pragmatic:
                >
                > " To achieve a humanity and a society founded on non-action, man
                must look back over everything he has done and rid himself one by one
                of the false visions and concepts that permeate him and his society.
                This is what the 'do-nothing' movement is all about. Natural Farming
                can be seen as one branch of this movement. Human knowledge and effort
                expand and grow increasingly complex and wasteful without limit. We
                need to halt this expansion, to converge, simplify, and reduce our
                knowledge and effort. This is in keeping with the laws of nature.
                Natural Farming is more than just a revolution in agricultural
                techniques. It is the practical foundation of a spiritual movement, of
                a revolution to change the way we live."
                >
                > Obviously, the tenor of these words seems to suggest that NF and
                'success' might not be to do with yield, qualitative or quantitative.
                >
                > Jamie
                > Souscayrous
                >
              • Andrew E Fister
                The only time an argument exists between natural farming and conventional farming is when I am having it in my mind. If I am arguing (making one view good and
                Message 7 of 27 , Feb 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  The only time an argument exists between natural farming and conventional
                  farming is when I am having it in my mind. If I am arguing (making one
                  view good and another view wrong) that's when I get trapped in the
                  illusion of concepts. If I make a distinction between "nothingness" and
                  "somethingness" as if they are states of mind I could be trapped in, I am
                  also trapped. Once I start having this petty argument with my neighbor, I
                  am indeed trapped. Unless of course I also know the trap is an illusion,
                  in which case I can play and be in love with my conventional farming
                  neighbor.

                  If natural farming is about how "to do" and how "not to do" then I am not
                  doing it and not - not doing it.

                  Andrew Fister
                  Wandafar Sanctuary
                  Glasgow, KY

                  b 2007 08:53:16 -0000 "Bart" <bartovan@...> writes:
                  I agree wholeheartedly that this is the real issue of natural farming,
                  and that in natural farming yield is not a goal - in a sense, there is
                  no goal. Thank you for pointing this out.

                  However, let's be careful not to get trapped in Nothingness (which is
                  one of the diseases of zen). If my industrial farmer neighbour comes
                  to me and tells me, "hey, did you see the sun came up in the west this
                  morning", I will tell him that this is not true, i.e. that this is not
                  the right way to use these words. I know there is really neither east
                  nor west, that these are concepts or illusions, and that the sun
                  (another concept) doesn't care, and so on. However, if you open your
                  mouth and use words, you should use them correctly.
                  In the same way, if he comes to me and tells me "you and your natural
                  farming, your yield is pitifull", I think it is important not to let
                  ourselves be trapped in his incorrect (selective) use of the term
                  "yield", only referring to weight/volume and making abstraction of
                  many other important factors.
                  Or we can just smile to him of course, but I for one know that if my
                  smile doesn't come profoundly from the heart, I better argue :)

                  This "industrial high yield"-lie is a stick behind the door with which
                  organic producers/consumers/sellers are often beaten on the head -
                  with their own full cooperation, choosing to go along with the narrow
                  weight/volume-perspective and not finding an adequate response.

                  But again, I do think it is very iportant to remember, time after
                  time, that he real issue in natural farming is doing nothing.

                  Bart

                  --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie Nicol" <jamienicol@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear All, in an attempt to broaden the discussion of 'success' and
                  to avoid falling into 'esoteric' chatter, I thought some words of
                  Fukuoka would be pragmatic:
                  >
                  > " To achieve a humanity and a society founded on non-action, man
                  must look back over everything he has done and rid himself one by one
                  of the false visions and concepts that permeate him and his society.
                  This is what the 'do-nothing' movement is all about. Natural Farming
                  can be seen as one branch of this movement. Human knowledge and effort
                  expand and grow increasingly complex and wasteful without limit. We
                  need to halt this expansion, to converge, simplify, and reduce our
                  knowledge and effort. This is in keeping with the laws of nature.
                  Natural Farming is more than just a revolution in agricultural
                  techniques. It is the practical foundation of a spiritual movement, of
                  a revolution to change the way we live."
                  >
                  > Obviously, the tenor of these words seems to suggest that NF and
                  'success' might not be to do with yield, qualitative or quantitative.
                  >
                  > Jamie
                  > Souscayrous
                  >




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • rajuktitus
                  Dear Charie, This is working for me i opened this page send by you write mail to group fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com. Thanks Raju
                  Message 8 of 27 , Dec 17, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Charie,
                    This is working for me i opened this page send by you write mail to
                    group
                    fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com.
                    Thanks
                    Raju
                  • grannis04
                    Greetings from Maine. I am a new member to this site having arrived here from the fukuoka web site. I have been experimenting with natural farming/ gardening
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jan 13, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Greetings from Maine. I am a new member to this site having arrived
                      here from the fukuoka web site. I have been experimenting with natural
                      farming/ gardening for about three years. I have been an organic
                      gardener for forty years and now I am starting over and I'm completely
                      amazed! why did I not see this before. It is the Mahayana aspect of
                      natural farming that rings true to me. Last season we grew a corn crop
                      "Abenaki", a flint type from native american origin, of course. With
                      the high fuel prices last spring I said to myself, "grow a high input
                      crop such as corn and do it without fossil fuel input". I planted in
                      an orchard that was mixed grasses, clover, etc. I close cut with a
                      hand sythe and then covered rows with mulch in preparation for
                      planting. After two weeks I pulled back the mulch and pressed corn
                      seed ( saved from previous years crop) on to the soil. I covered the
                      seed with a light cover,Half inch, of finished compost. after
                      germination I applied cut grasses from the paths to the plants.
                      Thinned to one foot spacing then I top dressed lightly with chicken
                      litter and grass cuttings, this was done about three times during the
                      growing season. Every time I looked at my corn I would say," You guys
                      are A-Maize-ing!". The end of the story is that we are eating our own
                      cornbread made from the corn. The corn produced approx. 25 lbs. from
                      approx. 150' of row space. My next project is to see if I can produce
                      enough corn to supply my family and my chickens.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.