Ben Zumeta

hans muster wrote:

John Polk wrote:The "European Honey Bee" was brought to North America in the early 1600's.

They have been in the U.S. long before tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, zucchini, potatoes, cantaloupes, corn, watermelons, okra (and hundreds of other fruits/vegetables).  If he wants to be an ass about the bees not being native, give him Hell about his selection of vegetables.

Corn was in the US much earlier than the Europeans, originating from Latin America.
It was documented Canada in the year 400-600, and was in New York 500 years earlier.
Crawford et al. 2006 wrote a paper about the topic.
https://tinyurl.com/3zbfhvnt
I find it really interesting how the different crop were domesticated and evolved in different regions. Corn, after reaching Europe post-Columbuss, even lead to diseases as the nixtamalization process was unknown.

Tomatoes, peppers and potatoes are all native to North America as well.

I have been guiding kayak trips on the Smith River of NW California, the heart of Tolowa country. Seeing the old growth and its stark contrast with the 96-98% that has been logged (mostly out of view but obvious on way to put in), people often express the “humans bad” sentiment mentioned above. While addressing the way things are, and how we got here (the world’s largest fraudulent land acquisition by logging barons exploiting and abusing the Homestead and Graves Acts) I try to emphasize how powerfully positive people can be without sugar coating history. It is a matter of culture and choices made. Along with other tribes like the Yurok, the population here pre-colonization was larger than our county’s current 30,000 people. The Tolowa have a village site (now Jed Smith Campground), that archeologists estimate at 10,000-12,000yrs of continuous inhabitation. When the Tolowa lost their land and rights to colonizers, they had a forest without equal and salmon runs so thick they could swamp a canoe. A culture of exploitation dismantled their stewardship in a few generations. It will take many more generations to restore, but we have blueprints for how to live with every biome from its native stewards, and modern tools to help. The risk of not trying is far greater than failing.

Former Rodale’s editor and health science journalist Mike McGrath talks about creosote (often used on railroad ties):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/you-bet-your-garden/id1438148749?i=1000662105707

Roberto pokachinni wrote:Hi Ben.  

However, Robert, while of course your points about tree growth rates are useful in selective logging of second growth to maximize regrowth,

 I think that my discussion on the topic was speaking of growth rings or growth rates, regardless of tree species, or forest systems, or management systems, that growth rings do not necessarily get smaller as a tree gets older.  This may be true of Redwoods, once they get to an extreme old age, but I'm speaking generally, of trees.  If a tree has growth rings that are countable, then the width of those rings directly correlate to how good of a season it had in terms of it's primary needs: sun, nutrients, moisture, and in terms of how these needs are effected by outside influence.  Anything that deprives a tree of any of these will hinder it's growth and thus create smaller growth rings, and any factor that increases these needed inputs will create greater growth, and this is correlated to larger growth rings.  A pair of tree rings is produced annualy.  The thinner one is produced during it's slower growing or in extreme cold climates, dormant period, whereas the fatter ring is produced during the intense growing season that peaks at the summer solstice.  Most of the forests that I have seen logged, where I planted trees (in the North Coast Temperate Rainforest), were old growth, or ancient (meaning, that unlike old growth that might have a catastrophic fire reset the majority of the system every 350-500 years, an ancient forest-usually as smaller groves within an old growth system- is so wet that even a lightning strike fire in the heart of summer is unlikely to burn more than that one tree, or perhaps it's closest neighbor, and these forests are dominated by extremely old trees 500-2000+) at the time of the clearcut.  I've seen time and again that the pattern of the rings are not uniform, that they vary significantly from year to year in some areas but can have some uniform patterns over the span of decades, and I have been led to believe that this is as a result of what the tree experienced in any given year.  Sometimes there is uniformity in it's pattern, which is a result of steady growth  (this is more likely in an even aged stand following a catastrophic event, but happens in all types of forest and correlates with a period (years, decades... ) of steady relatively even growth), but generally there will be some variations in the width of the rings due to multi aged effect of healthy old growth systems, and the effect of one tree on the next in addition to the correlations between climatic and external influences, such as drought, el nina type extreme wetness, damaging scars from impacts, fires, et cetera.  This is not simply to do with second growth forests, but is true (to my knowledge) across the board (pun intended).  I've seen way too many huge old growth sawn stumps to consider your initial statement about growth rings as valid”

Robert, did you do the math of the relative biomass of the skinnier outer rings going around a much larger circle, and up a taller tree? Tree rings stack like traffic cones. The thick rings in the middle are aroun a small circle and short tree. I think this is hard for us to grasp just looking at the rings, like many aspects of older forests’ exponential growth. Either way, you do not have to believe me, you can look it up (Noss, 1998: Redwood Ecology—among many other academic sources. A large redwood can put on an equivalent amount of wood to a 4” thick, 80ft tall trunk. I do not see any number of young trees in the same footprint doing that. With the exception of their ability to grow from reiterations, I think you are correct, redwoods are just like any other conifer, only more-so. They all grow exponentially faster (on average) over time until within about 50yrs
of their maximum life expectancy.

Or perhaps you are taking the words “grow more wood every year” literally, when I meant it has that trend with obvious exceptions for years with unfavorable growth conditions, which often kill younger trees but not older ones.

Moreover, trees are generally not water positive for their watershed unti over 20yrs old, and become exponentially more beneficial thereafter with more surface area to slow, spread, and store water.

Apparently I am not smart enough to figure out the quote function on my phone after nearly a decade on permies, but I do know trees, and would bet all of my appendages that I am correct on the above counterpoints. A large, old tree is exponentially more valuable than any number of younger trees in the same footprint.

A trail crew member the year before I worked in Olympic used his mouth to remove his gloves a few times while moving railroad ties. From what I heard, this was the presumed cause of subsequent permanent brain damage. I would not use them in any landscape I am stewarding.

I studied abroad in Samoa, where “family first” seemed to actually be a central aspect of the culture more than anywhere I’ve ever been. This was especially true in the village of Lotofaga, where traditions were still strong because the extended family networks had been maintained by a lower rate of young men leaving to work for remittances. Another central component was less prevalence of the culturally disintegrating aspects of technology, like refrigeration, which allows a nuclear family to horde their harvests and groceries at the expense of the extended family and village ties bound by sharing of food that is central to the culture. When we would harvest at the family farm I “helped” at (I was in the best shape of my life and could barely keep up with my hosts!), we would go around the village sharing mangos, taro, bananas etc and in return got some epic hugs and a sonorous “Malo” (good health). This tied extended families together in a way that gave positive alternatives to toxic parents in aunties and uncles, cousins and grand parents. If a parent was abusive, they got their ass kicked by their own family. It was a beautiful place with a beautiful culture (in the Kantian sense and every other way I could imagine). While a lot of the culture is adapted for a tropical climate, we could do well to learn from fa’aSamoa (the Samoan way).

Alina Green wrote:This guy appears to have tested the nutrients NPK in "weed tea" and also mentions a paper on similar liquid fertilizer made in Zimbabwe from plants.  (you can find the paper by searching online)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7cxfzPFQc

That guy also endorses the use of chemical fertilizers instead of compost teas, and does seem to miss the point about how soil life chelates and cycles nutrients for much higher efficiency per unit of NPK etc. I’d never trust a “garden expert” wearing a tux!

I have found leaf mold or finished compost sprinkled on top of the brew bucket can help reduce odors greatly.