In praise of genetically engineered foods (In theory)

[Andy Carson]

Carl, I think you make some excellent points, and I think I agree with every one. It has always seemed to me that the whole idea of patenting a gene or an organism is somehow wrong and I think we can agree on that. I can certainly “get behind” the idea of not allowing these types of patents. In that kind of world, selective breeding (and possibly genetic engineering) might be done only by those interested in truly improving thier plants or animals and have as much of a commercial bias. It is likely though, that those type of manipulations simply wouldn’t be done unless there is a really pressing need… Perhaps these are the only times when it’s appropriate anyway… I’ll have to think on this…

[mitchmaine]

andy, i have to ring in on the side of natural selection. all or most of our lives here have been lived under the threat of nuclear war, because we split the atom and it was going to benefit mankind greatly and change our lives forever. they got that part right. it took us 100,000 years of evolution to develop our brain and mind. and we always seem to be one step behind it in managing what ever it seems to dream up. transportation, electronics, communication, climate change, you name it, we are always in trouble. 500 years ago, you had to look the man you were about to kill in battle right in the face as you committed the act. very honest. he’s trying to get you too. ever get a feelin’ you was born too late?

mitch

[blue80]

Without putting all genetically engineered food projects in one bag, I’d have to as a whole be quite skeptical.
There are no quick fixes in nature, this has been proven in the past; though improvements, usually land infrastructure and simple hybridization has been a blessing to cultures through history.

The problem in Africa/”3rd world” ( and this is a term I hate but use for simplicity) isn’t their inability to grow food or the quality thereof, its that the outsiders dump cheap subsidized goods on their market so cheap that the local African farmers can’t compete. But now “we” provide them with solutions to their problems. What good neighbours we are “solving world hunger”!:rolleyes::eek: They are supplied with food to control them, enough said…..

I don’t see ge as solving any problems, rather just attaching the producer to the corporate teat so to speak, so that ge/gmo are common and accepted, the producer has no choice but to continue with the programs. For instance, we see a plethera of weeds resistant to glyphoshate already, and the original roundup patents for glyphosphate have largely expired. So to keep up Roundup sales, engineered plants are Roundup ready; (one must use Roundup on Roundup ready crops, not generic competing glyphosphate products….
Of course I see the next logical step as a new roundup type product that will kill the roundup resistant weeds, and then new crops resistant to that spray. Ever while, the available seed bank in the world is dwindling faster than ever before in history. Spray spray spray, it’s easy and profitable!:rolleyes::eek:

I feel the need to simplify often in life, to get things to make sense for me. So the question I ask in this case, is “Do genetically engineered products increase or decrease options for the consumer and community?” I believe the answer is that options will be decreased, and that makes me think that genetically modified is overall bad, though on paper with discerning scientists and ethical businessmen this technology could benefit society. I am not holding my breath, I saw what the bunnies did to Australia…..

Do genetically engineered foods provide the same or better nutritional levels so that organisms can grow and increase immunity? The answer is no. In most cases, nutrition values suffer. Not all bushels of wheat are equal…

So Andy thanks for posting your view, but I think I disagree with you on this one, largely because I don’t have faith in the establishment to make good decisions.

Kevin

[jac]

Well said Kevin… what we also need to remember regards a lot of “3rd world” countries and food production is that historicaly white men stole their land and did mono culture {instead of agriculture} like all tobbaco or tea for example and stripped the goodness out the soil then moved on !!..
John

[Andy Carson]

I have a number on thoughts on this issue and this snowy day is a good opportunity to jot them down… I truly appreciate everyones thoughts on this. I do not believe that we are going to really reach a consensus opinion, nor do I see to create one. I simply think that with such a minority of the US population involved in agriculture, I think it is important to understand both sides of these types of issues and try to find common ground between “big ag” and “small ag” when possible. I started thinking about this with the food safety bill, were it seemed the “big ag” wanted to regulate “small ag” and “small ag” wanted to regulate “big ag.” It would have been a more powerful lobby if both big and small ag said “we don’t need regulated” but I digress…

Here’s some fun with math that relates to the “natural” versus “man-made” nature of just one crop (corn):

Using North American natives as a model, it is interesting to figure out just how many man-hours have been dedicated to the creation and maintenance of corn. Before Europeans arrives in North American, there were roughly 50 million native Americans here already, many of whom had grown corn for 10,000 years already (give or take). The number of these people involved in farming varies greatly from tribe to tribe and also greatly over history, but for many, corn was the staple of their diet. Given the important of corn in many of these cultures, I would say that at least 1% of the total population would be dedicated to growing it. Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if the true number was 20 times higher than this, but this info seems hard to get a hold of… So, if 500,000 people have been growing and maintaining corn for 10,000 years, that’s over 10 TRILLION man-hours!!! This number assumes that prehistoric Indians work at similar hours per year as modern man, but again, the true number is lost in time. 10 trillion is a hard number to relate to… Some estimate that it took about 4 billion man-hours to build one Egyptian pyramid. So, the amount work done to create and maintain corn to the modern day is roughly equivalent to the work needed to build about 2500 great pyramids!!! Maybe people ought to alter what is commonly considered to be “monuments” to man.

Biodiversity:
Tim brings up an excellent point concerning the lack of biodiversity that results from growing only one variety of crop. This is definitely a problem, but I would argue that this is not a problem that is unique to genetically engineered crops. Probably the best example of a lack of genetic variation leading to crop failure is the Irish Potato famine where the vast majority of the potatoes grown were of the “lumper” variety and were uniformly devastated by a blight. This was over a hundred years before genetic engineering…

Ecological damage:
Erika brings up the possibility of ecological damage that may result from genetically engineered foods. This is also and good point, but I also don’t think this is a problem unique to genetically engineered crops or even animals. Ancestral cattle (the Auroch) is extinct, as are all four ancestral strains of horse/pony used to create modern horses. The transformation of prairie and forest to grow heirloom crops has occurs for centuries and resulted in great ecological devastation and extinctions through simple habitat destruction. I would argue that this is the fault of the people doing this, not the crops they grow.

Seeming failures of genetic manipulations:
Geoff brings up a good point about the seeming failures of genetic interventions to achieve their intended consequences. Vaccines are a good example. I think a lot of people seem to focus on the examples of vaccines NOT being effective and forget about the times when they are. Nature has a great ability to mutate and adapt, but humans do too. The success of vaccines for a particular disease is intimately linked to this ability. A large complex organism can only evolve slowly, which is why vaccines again large, complex viruses such as smallpox and vaccinia are effective. And they are unquestionable effective, causing the virtual extinction of smallpox off the globe. How much more effective can something be??? Vaccines against viruses that mutate quickly (such as HIV) or are highly stealthy (such as HSV) are less effective. But the failures of HIV vaccines are what people often hear about and give the impression that vaccines don’t work. I would say they do work, just not all this time…

I think that genetic manipulations of crops have actually been quite successful at achieving their intended results. Having over 90% of the sugar beets grown in the county being round-up ready is, I’m sure, considered a commercial success. Here again, genetic manipulations achieved the intended result. If the intent was not right here (and I don’t think it was) I blame to person/company, not the technique.

Dependency:
I agree with Carl that the widespread use of genetically engineered crops can lead to dependency of farmers on the seed sources. I also don’t like this, and still have to think about this more, but to some extent, each farmer has a choice to be dependant (use GE seed) or not (use heirloom seed). I definitely choose the independent, traditional and organic path, and I am glad I have the freedom to do so. When in doubt, I prefer to protect the freedom of others to choose a different path.

[near horse]

QUOTE=Countymouse;22598]I have a number on thoughts on this issue and this snowy day is a good opportunity to jot them down… I truly appreciate everyones thoughts on this. I do not believe that we are going to really reach a consensus opinion, nor do I see to create one. I simply think that with such a minority of the US population involved in agriculture, I think it is important to understand both sides of these types of issues and try to find common ground between “big ag” and “small ag” when possible. I started thinking about this with the food safety bill, were it seemed the “big ag” wanted to regulate “small ag” and “small ag” wanted to regulate “big ag.” It would have been a more powerful lobby if both big and small ag said “we don’t need regulated” but I digress…

What? What threat is small ag to big ag? None whatsoever that I can see but the “manifest destiny” attitude of big ag continues to destroy the remnants of small ag. Overproduction and reduced prices are just two of the obvious results of big ag dominance and that movement IS what has led us to the huge reduction in the number of farmers you speak of.

Here’s some fun with math that relates to the “natural” versus “man-made” nature of just one crop (corn):

Using North American natives as a model, it is interesting to figure out just how many man-hours have been dedicated to the creation and maintenance of corn. Before Europeans arrives in North American, there were roughly 50 million native Americans here already, many of whom had grown corn for 10,000 years already (give or take). The number of these people involved in farming varies greatly from tribe to tribe and also greatly over history, but for many, corn was the staple of their diet. Given the important of corn in many of these cultures, I would say that at least 1% of the total population would be dedicated to growing it. Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if the true number was 20 times higher than this, but this info seems hard to get a hold of… So, if 500,000 people have been growing and maintaining corn for 10,000 years, that’s over 10 TRILLION man-hours!!! This number assumes that prehistoric Indians work at similar hours per year as modern man, but again, the true number is lost in time. 10 trillion is a hard number to relate to… Some estimate that it took about 4 billion man-hours to build one Egyptian pyramid. So, the amount work done to create and maintain corn to the modern day is roughly equivalent to the work needed to build about 2500 great pyramids!!! Maybe people ought to alter what is commonly considered to be “monuments” to man.

You make some large assumptions that truly inflate the man-hrs calculation. Planting, growing and harvesting corn is not and never was an 8hr/day 365day/yr job but regardless, what is the relevance of man-hrs spent throughout history required to create and maintain corn to genetically engineered corn except to demonstrate how much we have to lose?

Biodiversity:
Tim brings up an excellent point concerning the lack of biodiversity that results from growing only one variety of crop. This is definitely a problem, but I would argue that this is not a problem that is unique to genetically engineered crops. Probably the best example of a lack of genetic variation leading to crop failure is the Irish Potato famine where the vast majority of the potatoes grown were of the “lumper” variety and were uniformly devastated by a blight. This was over a hundred years before genetic engineering…

While bioengineering is obviously not responsible for the Irish potato famine, it is disingenuous to then draw the conclusion that it has no effect on reducing biodiversity. Even if using RR engineered crops only reduces the number of varieties of corn/soybean/beets/canola being planted, by that very act it has reduced biodiversity.

Ecological damage:
Erika brings up the possibility of ecological damage that may result from genetically engineered foods. This is also and good point, but I also don’t think this is a problem unique to genetically engineered crops or even animals. Ancestral cattle (the Auroch) is extinct, as are all four ancestral strains of horse/pony used to create modern horses. The transformation of prairie and forest to grow heirloom crops has occurs for centuries and resulted in great ecological devastation and extinctions through simple habitat destruction. I would argue that this is the fault of the people doing this, not the crops they grow.

Extinction is a natural occurring event when it is in response to natural changes in the environment. Heck, the precursor to the modern horse Eohippus spp became extinct not by the hand of man. I don’t know that the Auroch became extinct because of human selection and breeding – but perhaps. I’ll admit that human history is ripe with species and environments that we’ve wiped out or ruined. But it it seems that you’re admitting that genetically engineered crops/animals DO pose an environmental threat but justify it by saying we’ve destroyed the environment and irreparably altered ecosystems in the past without using genetic engineering so it’s okay. I hope that we’re grown more enlightened than that and can see past who’s signing our paycheck.

Seeming failures of genetic manipulations:
Geoff brings up a good point about the seeming failures of genetic interventions to achieve their intended consequences. Vaccines are a good example. I think a lot of people seem to focus on the examples of vaccines NOT being effective and forget about the times when they are. Nature has a great ability to mutate and adapt, but humans do too. The success of vaccines for a particular disease is intimately linked to this ability. A large complex organism can only evolve slowly, which is why vaccines again large, complex viruses such as smallpox and vaccinia are effective. And they are unquestionable effective, causing the virtual extinction of smallpox off the globe. How much more effective can something be??? Vaccines against viruses that mutate quickly (such as HIV) or are highly stealthy (such as HSV) are less effective. But the failures of HIV vaccines are what people often hear about and give the impression that vaccines don’t work. I would say they do work, just not all this time…

I think you are debating something here that wasn’t even brought up and hope you’re not thinking I believe vaccination programs are a bad thing. In fact, I don’t recall mentioning vaccines except in response to the “banana-vaccine combo” and said that it was unwise to risk foodstuffs to provide a vaccine. I certainly didn’t question the efficacy of vaccines which, as you say, are effective in most cases. The failures I spoke of were related to the safety measures/guarantees provided to the public with regard to released GMO crops.

I think that genetic manipulations of crops have actually been quite successful at achieving their intended results. Having over 90% of the sugar beets grown in the county being round-up ready is, I’m sure, considered a commercial success. Here again, genetic manipulations achieved the intended result. If the intent was not right here (and I don’t think it was) I blame to person/company, not the technique.

That’s the point! We don’t need nor want the “intended results” which could not have been achieved without the technique.

Dependency:
I agree with Carl that the widespread use of genetically engineered crops can lead to dependency of farmers on the seed sources. I also don’t like this, and still have to think about this more, but to some extent, each farmer has a choice to be dependant (use GE seed) or not (use heirloom seed). I definitely choose the independent, traditional and organic path, and I am glad I have the freedom to do so. When in doubt, I prefer to protect the freedom of others to choose a different path

The point is that while farmers may “want” to use heirloom seeds, their availability is becoming more limited with many only saved in small numbers in seed banks. And, more importantly, those heirloom varieties, when planted in the environment, now run the risk of being contaminated with pollen from GE strains. I’m not feeling the freedom you speak of protecting.

Andy –

“Me thinks though dost protesteth too much” You have laid much of the blame for GE crop issues on “the people/company” not “the technique” but I have trouble separating the two. The technique(s) were/are developed to answer questions that are coming from the industry folks who you are blaming for how they use the technique. I think their motives, while something I find loathsome, are certainly no secret.

[mitchmaine]

right on, geoff. the svalbard global seed bank, 800 miles from the north pole on sptitzbergen island, northern norway, high and dry, 400 feet under permafrost on a permanantly stable tetonic plate, exists as a safety net anticipating the loss of diversity in the traditional seedbanks around the world. tens of thousands of strains of thousands of different plant forms from around the globe safe for the moment in case of disaster.
what kind of a disaster?? someone tampering with our food. food, water, oxygen, shelter, our real needs are actually small, but pretty important, wouldn’t you say??

if it works, don’t fix it. they want to own the food. its about power and money. plain and simple. i will never trust them. grow your own food.

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 22608 wrote:

You make some large assumptions that truly inflate the man-hrs calculation. Planting, growing and harvesting corn is not and never was an 8hr/day 365day/yr job but regardless, what is the relevance of man-hrs spent throughout history required to create and maintain corn to genetically engineered corn except to demonstrate how much we have to lose?

Yes, lots of assumptions, but I still my estimate is on the low side, not on the high side. I bet more than 1% of the population farmed, I bet it was harder than a 40hour/week “modern job,” and this estimate doesn’t even take into account the whole of south America. It’s an enormous amount of work no matter what numbers you plug in.

Regardless of the details of the analysis, the point is that our modern crops are man-made, not natural, and the argument that GE crops are different because they are not natural doesn’t hold water.

While bioengineering is obviously not responsible for the Irish potato famine, it is disingenuous to then draw the conclusion that it has no effect on reducing biodiversity. Even if using RR engineered crops only reduces the number of varieties of corn/soybean/beets/canola being planted, by that very act it has reduced biodiversity.

Biodiversity is being reduced by the farmers who chose this seed over other options. I don’t really think that this is a better option, but many clearly do. Any seed of variety that was clearly viewed as “better” would similarly dominate to market no matter how it was produced. Are we to make sure that no one improves anything so that it won’t come to dominate the market??? That seems silly…

Extinction is a natural occurring event when it is in response to natural changes in the environment. Heck, the precursor to the modern horse Eohippus spp became extinct not by the hand of man. I don’t know that the Auroch became extinct because of human selection and breeding – but perhaps. I’ll admit that human history is ripe with species and environments that we’ve wiped out or ruined. But it it seems that you’re admitting that genetically engineered crops/animals DO pose an environmental threat but justify it by saying we’ve destroyed the environment and irreparably altered ecosystems in the past without using genetic engineering so it’s okay. I hope that we’re grown more enlightened than that and can see past who’s signing our paycheck.

First off, I do not perform any genetic engineering of crops, nor do I plan to in the future. I have had friends that do this (banana example), but none write my paycheck. The point here is that the growing of conventional crops has altered ecosystems in the past. By pointing this out, I do not mean to say that all ecological damage is OK, just that it is not unique to GE crops. Every crops and practice really ought to be analyzed on it’s own merits for potential to cause damage. It’s not “black and white” situation where conventional = “no damage” and GE = “damage.” I see not reason why GE crops could not be grown in ways that cause no damage. Heck, it’s even possible that with the right genes, GE crops might be more “green” than conventional crops. It’s a case-by-case analysis.

I think you are debating something here that wasn’t even brought up and hope you’re not thinking I believe vaccination programs are a bad thing. In fact, I don’t recall mentioning vaccines except in response to the “banana-vaccine combo” and said that it was unwise to risk foodstuffs to provide a vaccine. I certainly didn’t question the efficacy of vaccines which, as you say, are effective in most cases. The failures I spoke of were related to the safety measures/guarantees provided to the public with regard to released GMO crops.

OK, that is actually what I thought you were thinking (about the vaccines)… These are good examples of things where man can and has “fiddled” with nature and got good results.

That’s the point! We don’t need nor want the “intended results” which could not have been achieved without the technique.

That is exactly my point too!!! I (and I really emphasize the word “I”) don’t want these either. But I do have other goals with crops, and if genetic engineering could meet these, I would be open to considering planitng these crops.

The point is that while farmers may “want” to use heirloom seeds, their availability is becoming more limited with many only saved in small numbers in seed banks. And, more importantly, those heirloom varieties, when planted in the environment, now run the risk of being contaminated with pollen from GE strains. I’m not feeling the freedom you speak of protecting.

If I were to plant an hierloom variety of corn next to my neighbors non-GE corn, there would be cross pollination as well. About the seeds, I find it hard to believe that a farmer who really wants to grow an heirloom variety of some thing can’t find any seed. Maybe not variety X,Y, or Z, but to find at least one heirloom variety is not hard. I certainly haven’t had a hard time finding seed, although I only need enough to plant a acre at a time… IF the seeds don’t sell, can you blame seed companies for not trying to sell them??? Again, are these companies supposed to ensure that each seed they produce is inferier to heirloom varieties so that farmers would pick the heirloom varieties??? Pretty silly.

Andy –

“Me thinks though dost protesteth too much” You have laid much of the blame for GE crop issues on “the people/company” not “the technique” but I have trouble separating the two. The technique(s) were/are developed to answer questions that are coming from the industry folks who you are blaming for how they use the technique. I think their motives, while something I find loathsome, are certainly no secret.

Geoff, here I have to differ with you dramatically. These techniques were developed by ACADEMIC SCIENTISTS (not Monsanto, etc) in the early 80’s. They were ABSOLUTELY NOT created by industry for industry. Big corporations have highjacked this technology and have used it (as big corporations do) to increase their profit margins by focusing on whatever makes the largest profit with the least effort. Genetic engineering is simply another tool, and I place the blame of GE failures on the operator(s), not the tool.

[jac]

I wonder who was paying the scientists in the 80s ? Mitch is right in saying its about power and money im afraid. With traditional plant breeding the results get analised on a slow time scale. This gm seems to speed up that proccess. Can they be 100% sure that the gm crop that they want the world to use isnt going to succum to a disease that they cant control and lead to major crop failure ?. At least with a huge choice of seeds we can minimize the risk..
John

[Carl Russell]

Countymouse;22611 wrote:

If I were to plant an hierloom variety of corn next to my neighbors non-GE corn, there would be cross pollination as well. About the seeds, I find it hard to believe that a farmer who really wants to grow an heirloom variety of some thing can’t find any seed. Maybe not variety X,Y, or Z, but to find at least one heirloom variety is not hard. I certainly haven’t had a hard time finding seed, although I only need enough to plant a acre at a time… IF the seeds don’t sell, can you blame seed companies for not trying to sell them??? Again, are these companies supposed to ensure that each seed they produce is inferier to heirloom varieties so that farmers would pick the heirloom varieties??? Pretty silly.
…..

….. Genetic engineering is simply another tool, and I place the blame of GE failures on the operator(s), not the tool.[/quote]

So, I will just add that my points about the availability of seed had less to do with the few of us, and in pure volume of food produced the heirloom market is very small, who are trying to grow food with free choice seed, and more to do with a food system that becomes dependent on capital investments in infrastructure required to produce the genetic-material-du-jour.

The fascinating thing about life on Earth is that there is a natural flow of energy from the sun into all things living, which is free for all to engage in, and it works well with no investment. As participants we can choose how much we want to invest to increase productivity, but when we make choices that require brick and mortar, computers, and significant energy inputs just to get the seed we need to start a plant, it JUST DOESN”T MAKE SENSE.

As so many other modern processes the theory as science goes is fascinating, and fun to work with, but in the scheme of life on Earth it is little more than a intellectual rabbit hole. I can truly see the supposed benefits, but the lack of understanding of the natural process of food growth and harvest, and the modern economic addiction to economy of scale and capital investment in infrastructure is a huge cultural barrier. This is not the FAULT of Monsanto et al., nor “Scientists”, but it has been at the root of the negative changes in farming over the last century.

Whether it be GMO, or CFO, the theory that you can amortize the cost of infrastructural investment over the production of large numbers of managed organisms is a failing formula. There are many who make a lot of money under this misconceived notion, but the rest of us and our planet are accumulating huge deficits as a result.

This is the greatest weakest link in the GMO theory as far as I am concerned.

Carl

[mitchmaine]

pure science is a wonderful thing. we create marvelous things just because we can. i don’t blame the scientist either (it is his job). how we alter the plants genetic make-up is the job of the scientist. who’s job is it to ask “if” or “should” we be doing it. morally and ethically, should we be tampering with something that john points out, could come back to haunt us with disasterous results. we seem to jump in too quickly (again with the money), to recoup and satisfy the investors, long before we know for sure what’s gonna happen next.

[jac]

We should take a lesson from history with what big corperations can achieve… I read a book once that detailed the history of… I think JD or IH … I cant quite remember now but anyway in the late 20s the big tractor boys were struggling to sell tractors so the story goes they employed horse dealers to go round and buy up draft horses and create an artificial shortage so the farmers had little choice but switch to tractors… We need to be on guard against being told what is good for us by people driven by shareholders…
John

[Tim Harrigan]

Andy, I have been interested in a problem many of our farmers have been commenting on in recent years related to delayed breakdown and degradation of corn residue from some of the high yielding varieties that are in use today. Some wonder if the problem is related to these genetically stacked varieties. I think it is mostly a problem for no-till growers where crop residue is not adequately rotted down in the spring and it interferes with planting the subsequent crop. Here is a link to an interesting article I found:

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/9/1704

In case the link does not work, here are the last two sentences of the abstract:

Chemical analysis confirmed that the lignin content of all hybrids of Bt corn, whether grown in a plant growth room or in the field, was significantly higher (33–97% higher) than that of their respective non-Bt isolines. As lignin is a major structural component of plant cells, modifications in lignin content may have ecological implications.

Now I am not smart enough to know what all the ecological implications are, but I know that if I try to feed Will and Abe forage with 99% more lignin I will have to feed a lot more forage and I will have a lot more manure than I do now because lignin is mostly undigestable fiber. Can these traits leak to other crops?

What I find most disturbing about this is in discussing this with some of our other researchers they tell me that the seed companies will not provide seed or it seems cooperate in research where public disclosure is required. If you look on the seed bags they note that the seed can not be used for research. WTF…? And good luck trying to find out the non-stacked isoline for comparative work. Does that seem like they have the public good in mind? Makes me think they know something they do not want us to know.

The difference now compared to the past is how fast the genetic changes occur, how big the changes are and how much seed can hit the ground in a short period of time because of the marketing and distribution power of these companies. This, and their overwhelming interest in keeping scientific information about these plants asymmetrical look a lot like big red flags to me. They want to not only control the seed source and distribution, but what we know about it as well. Are you comfortable with that?

I have had many discussions over the years with our more traditional plant breeders about things like developing varieties with more site specific vigor, for instance cold hardiness etc. They always said there was only so much room to add new traits and to add you had to remove something as well and that usually meant a yield decline. The no free lunch thing. So I can’t help wondering what is being lost in creating these high-rise stacks. Well, it seems like our traditional public research infrastructure has been largely (deliberately) left out so I guess we will just have to wait and see. I am sure we can trust them to do the right thing. :rolleyes:

[mitchmaine]

hey guys, my dad told me once, if you have a friend and want to keep him, don’t lend or borrow money from him if you can help it, but above all, don’t talk religion or politics with him (or her). this thread seems to wander off that way sometimes, so even though i feel strongly about it and can sound so sometimes, its just my opinion and i value everyone elses too. reading over it, i wonder if we differ that much fundamentally.
anyway, snow squalls this morning, so pen and i got up early and moved the hens around to the south side of the house, close to water for the winter. we are ready.

mitch

[dominiquer60]

I was starting to think along Mitch’s lines, so I am going to take the good with the bad, put a couple more things away for the winter and catch a bus to Long Island, see you all when I get back.

Erika

[Author]

Posts