North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Jacquelyn Kuehn <jakuehn@verizon.net>]

I am in need of quite a few more articles for the fall Pomona; your experiences and observations are valuable to all. If you have a few minutes, please write them down and send them along to me. Thanks to all who have already submitted something for fall!
<x-tad-bigger>Jacquelyn A. Kuehn</x-tad-bigger>
Musician, writer
http://www.pennsacreskitchen.net
www.wmugradio.org
11 AM-12:30 PM M-F (Eastern) 



On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:21 PM, nafex-request@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> Send nafex mailing list submissions to
> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> nafex-request@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> nafex-owner@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nafex digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. California's screwed tree crops (Alan Haigh)
> 2. Re: California's screwed tree crops (Ginda Fisher)
> 3. Re: California's screwed tree crops (Ernest Plutko)
> 4. Re: California's screwed tree crops (Mark Angermayer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:36:38 -0700
> From: Alan Haigh <alandhaigh@gmail.com>
> Subject: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
> To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID:
> <1f544d60907240636v6a0e5835k94681b5d04b0f874@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Please members, can we refrain from another fruitless debate on global
> warming?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/nafex/attachments/20090724/75e4ef48/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:49:08 -0400
> From: "Ginda Fisher" <list@ginda.us>
> Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
> To: "North American Fruit Explorers" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>,
> "nafex@lists.ibiblio.org" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <200907241349.ADQ37564@ginda.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Sure, I don't want to fight about global warming today. ?I do want to elaborate a little on the prior post, from Richard Harrison, asserting an increase in hill hours in some warmer states.
>
> That's not inconsistent with global warming. ?My understanding is that chill hours are not hours when it's really cold, but are only hours when it's sorta chilly (near or above freezing, up to 40 or 50F), when the trees are metabolically active but 'feel cold'. ? I gather that in very cold places the native ?trees don't need a lot of chill hours, since they have to come out of dormancy quickly and do their thing. ?It's places with long bumpy springs and late frosts where the local trees have adapted by needing a lot of chill hours.
>
> So if global warming is linked in some areas with a longer spring, you could easily get both higher average temps and more or similar chill hours.
>
> Also, the US is a large country with lots of climate zones, some quite chilly. ?Surely agricultural plantings can move north if we get even quite a lot of global warming. ?Concurrant disruption of rainfall patterns is a more serious agricultural threat, but I'm sure the US will continue to be able to grow food _somewhere_, however cliate change plays out.
>
> -- Ginda
>
> Alan Haigh wrote:
>
> Please members, can we refrain from another fruitless debate on global warming?
>
>
> _______________________________________________?
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/nafex/attachments/20090724/7f10af86/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:03:59 -0500
> From: "Ernest Plutko" <ernestplutko@wiktel.com>
> Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
> To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <380-22009752414359531@wiktel.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Every writer has opinions that are interesting to read.  
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: alandhaigh@gmail.com
> To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: RE: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:36:38 -0700
>
> > Please members, can we refrain from another fruitless debate on globa
> > l
> > warming?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:13:00 -0500
> From: "Mark Angermayer" <hangermayer@isp.com>
> Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
> To: "Ginda Fisher" <list@ginda.us>,	"North American Fruit Explorers"
> <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <003a01ca0c79$9fde42c0$711ef504@computer5>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"
>
> I've no opinon on global warming, but do have an opinon on predictions.
> They tend to be extremely fallable, even by learned folks.  I thought an
> article in the last Pomona illustrated this remarkably.  The article was
> written by an educated man, Dan Henenway, who used to participate on this
> forum.  The original article was written in 1983, and was reprinted by
> permission in the last Pomona.  The article is a call to action for urban
> communities to grow their own food.  Agricultural errors aside, the article
> makes two predictions illustrating man's non-niscience.
>
> First, the article states that although California provides nearly two
> thirds of our vegetables today (1983) by the year 2000, California "will be
> barely self-sufficient in food for its own people."   This did not come to
> pass.  California' is still the number one state exporter of most fruits,
> and virtually all vegetables.  California has also become the number one
> producer of milk, surpassing Wisconsin.
>
> The article further states, "And bear in mind that the U.S. Department of
> Agriculture predicts that by 2000 a loaf of bread will cost you well over
> $7.00."  Here we are a decade later, and a loaf of bread in these parts
> costs about 2 bucks.
>
> I've come to take these type of predictions with a grain of salt.
>
> If there's a food shortage in the U.S, I doubt it will be caused by drought,
> climate change, or pests.  War, economic collapse, and corrupt governments
> are generally the cause in the modern era.
>
> Mark
> KS
>
> P.S. Although I disagree with much of what Mr. Hemenway wrote, I agree its a
> good idea for folks to be more self-sufficient when it come to growing food.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Ginda Fisher
> To: North American Fruit Explorers ; nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
>
>
> Sure, I don't want to fight about global warming today.  I do want to
> elaborate a little on the prior post, from Richard Harrison, asserting an
> increase in hill hours in some warmer states.
>
> That's not inconsistent with global warming.  My understanding is that chill
> hours are not hours when it's really cold, but are only hours when it's
> sorta chilly (near or above freezing, up to 40 or 50F), when the trees are
> metabolically active but 'feel cold'.   I gather that in very cold places
> the native  trees don't need a lot of chill hours, since they have to come
> out of dormancy quickly and do their thing.  It's places with long bumpy
> springs and late frosts where the local trees have adapted by needing a lot
> of chill hours.
>
> So if global warming is linked in some areas with a longer spring, you could
> easily get both higher average temps and more or similar chill hours.
>
> Also, the US is a large country with lots of climate zones, some quite
> chilly.  Surely agricultural plantings can move north if we get even quite a
> lot of global warming.  Concurrant disruption of rainfall patterns is a more
> serious agricultural threat, but I'm sure the US will continue to be able to
> grow food _somewhere_, however cliate change plays out.
>
>
> -- Ginda
>
>
>
>
> Alan Haigh wrote:
>
> Please members, can we refrain from another fruitless debate on global
> warming?
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nafex mailing list
> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
> This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web
> sites.
> Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have
> permission!
>
> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
> Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
> No exceptions.
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used
> to change other email options):
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
>
> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
> Please do not send binary files.
> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>
> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> nafex mailing list 
> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed.
> This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web sites.
> Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have permission!
>
> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
> Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded.
> No exceptions.  
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used to change other email options):
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
>
> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
> Please do not send binary files.
> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
>
> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
>
>
> End of nafex Digest, Vol 78, Issue 52
> *************************************