3 Mistakes You Make When Choosing Fruit Trees

Mistake 1: You lack Imagination

Just about every household has a Lemons and Oranges or whats popular but the problem with this is that when your oranges start fruiting the cost in the supermarket for the same orange is often super cheap and fresh. Because they are so popular the pests of this tree are popular. eg. Gall wasps are often controlled by industrial methods but the home gardeners tree gets attacked and they don't have the resources to out power these pests. Basically if the fruit in your backyard is the same as the one you easily buy every day of the year anyway you are only exposing yourself to 1% of what fruit has to offer you.

So why not choose something like a Mulberry Tree, Black Sapote, Pecan, Sapodilla, Miracle Fruit, Peanut Butter Fruit, Lychee, Soursop, Custard Apple. And when you do choose a variety choose a variety that isn't common to your supermarket. Eg. If you are going to get an Orange tree then grow the Navelina. After you eat this variety you will wonder if they really are selling oranges in the supermarket the taste is so different.

Mistake 2: You are a Cheapskate

A seedling tree might cost $10 but the same tree as a grafted variety can cost upwards of $35. So people choose the seedling and then get disappointed why it doesn't fruit. A grafted tree can fruit often 3 years before a seedling even thinks about bearing fruit plus the fruit being produced is a proven quality and taste. Obvious example is that you eat an orange, love it and then plant the seed. 8 years later that seed produces its first "oranges" and instead of tasting sweet and having orange skin, it has a very light yellow skin and is almost un-edible. Same goes for Lychees, Apples, Pecans, Macadamias etc etc.

Mistake 3: You Plant it "Wherever"

Fruit trees love the sun and they love good drainage. Pay attention to the way the sun falls on your backyard throughout the year, especially in Spring and then make sure you use that space for your fruit trees. Your shady spots are perfect for rainforest trees, so don't let them go to waist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference: http://blog.daleysfruit.com.au/

 

Read More

WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops

The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any Euroxpean Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show. In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops. "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. "The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," said Stapleton, who with Bush co-owned the Dallas/Fort Worth-based Texas Rangers baseball team in the 1990s. In other newly released cables, US diplomats around the world are found to have pushed GM crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. Because many Catholic bishops in developing countries have been vehemently opposed to the controversial crops, the US applied particular pressure to the pope's advisers. Cables from the US embassy in the Vatican show that the US believes the pope is broadly supportive of the crops after sustained lobbying of senior Holy See advisers, but regrets that he has not yet stated his support. The US state department special adviser on biotechnology as well as government biotech advisers based in Kenya lobbied Vatican insiders to persuade the pope to declare his backing. "… met with [US monsignor] Fr Michael Osborn of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, offering a chance to push the Vatican on biotech issues, and an opportunity for post to analyse the current state of play on biotech in the Vatican generally," says one cable in 2008. "Opportunities exist to press the issue with the Vatican, and in turn to influence a wide segment of the population in Europe and the developing world," says another. But in a setback, the US embassy found that its closest ally on GM, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the powerful Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the man who mostly represents the pope at the United Nations, had withdrawn his support for the US. "A Martino deputy told us recently that the cardinal had co-operated with embassy Vatican on biotech over the past two years in part to compensate for his vocal disapproval of the Iraq war and its aftermath – to keep relations with the USG [US government] smooth. According to our source, Martino no longer feels the need to take this approach," says the cable. In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto. "In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention." It also emerges that Spain and the US have worked closely together to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws. In one cable, the embassy in Madrid writes: "If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow." The cables show that not only did the Spanish government ask the US to keep pressure on Brussels but that the US knew in advance how Spain would vote, even before the Spanish biotech commission had reported. • This article was amended on 21 January 2011. The original sited the Texas Rangers team in St Louis. This has been corrected.

Read More

Invitation as a Guest Author

Please fill this form and get invitation of guest author from our side and share the knowledge with other and encorage peoples to read about agriculture. Lets join us and share knowledge with other

Read More

The right to know what you are eating

BY: Gary Hirshberg and Eric Schlosser

An unprecedented agricultural experiment is being conducted at America's dinner tables. While none of the processed food we ate 20 years ago contained genetically engineered ingredients, now 75 percent of it does - even though the long-term human health and environmental impacts are unknown. The Food and Drug Administration doesn't require labeling of genetically engineered foods. But as the current drive to get labeling on the ballot in California confirms, consumers want to know whether our food contains these revolutionary new things.
In 1992, the FDA ruled that genetically engineered foods didn't need independent safety tests or labeling requirements before being introduced. But one of its own scientists disagreed, warning there were "profound differences" with genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered seed manufacturers were allowed to sell their products without telling consumers. A 2006 survey found that 74 percent of Americans had no idea that genetically engineered foods were already being sold.
Biotech companies have fought labeling, claiming genetically engineered crops are "substantially the same" and produce larger yields - both unproven claims. But genetically engineered crops have led to the increased use of pesticides, often sold by the same companies that make genetically engineered seeds.
About 94 percent of U.S. grown soybeans are genetically engineered and contain a gene that protects them against glyphosate, now the nation's most widely used pesticide. But glyphosate is becoming ineffective as "superweeds" become resistant to it, forcing farmers to use even stronger herbicides. Widespread adoption of genetically engineered corn has also led to pesticide resistance.
Almost all the research on the safety of genetically engineered foods has been conducted by the companies that sell them. The potential harm to developing fetuses is of concern. A study of pregnant women found genetically engineered corn toxins in 93 percent of the women and 80 percent of their unborn children. All of their umbilical cords had glyphosate residues. Biotech companies say genetically engineered crops aren't different - but defend their patent rights by arguing they're unique and that anybody who grows them without permission should be prosecuted. These companies want it both ways.
Genetically engineered crops are different. They often contain genetic material from different species. Some survive large doses of pesticide, others produce their own pesticide, and many do both. That's why they must be labeled. A label allows people to choose. It lets the free market, not industry lobbyists, determine the fate of genetically engineered foods. If genetically engineered foods are so great, companies that sell them should be proud to label them.
Fifty countries, including the European Union, require genetically engineered food labeling.
A recent poll found 93 percent of Americans think genetically engineered foods should be labeled. This month, 384,000 people signed a Just Label It ( www.justlabelit.org) petition urging the FDA to mandate genetically engineered food labeling nationally. The FDA justifies its refusal to label on an agency rule that requires labeling only if a food tastes or smells different or has a different nutritional value. The FDA should change that policy - or make an exception for genetically engineered foods, as it did for irradiated foods.
The FDA doesn't let pharmaceutical companies test new drugs on people without their informed consent. Consumers should have the same right to know when it comes to what they eat. But even the narrow dictates of that FDA rule shouldn't block the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Everything about how they were introduced and spread nationwide, without our knowledge or consent, leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Gary Hirshberg is the president and CE-Yo of Stonyfield Yogurt. Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" and co-producer of the documentary "Food, Inc."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-right-to-know-what-you-are-eating-2289668.php#ixzz2GkPQyvKO

Read More

Environmental benefits of Turf grasses/ Well-maintained Lawns

Healthy well maintained lawns provide truly marvelous environmental benefits which contribute a lot to the world around it. Environmental benefits of Turf grasses/well-maintained lawns are as follows.

Cooler and quieter: when the heat is on, Turf grass helps keep you cool. Street or sidewalk temperatures may reach 100oF or higher, but turf remains at 75o. This could mean that the front lawns on a block of eight houses perform the same cooling work as 70 tons of air-conditioning-enough to cool off homes.

Turf also makes your life a bit quieter. It effectively absorbs and deflects sound. When combined with trees and other landscaping, a lawn can reduce harsh, unwanted noise to a distant murmur.

Help in breathing: A healthy lawn us an amazingly efficient production system. Turf plants remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce oxygen in return. Just 625 square feet of turfgrass supplies all the oxygen a person needs for one day. An average home lawn of 5,000 square feet produces enough oxygen for eight people each day. In comparison, it takes two 100-foot trees to provide the same amount of oxygen for eight people.

Soil saver: Turf grass controls erosion by knitting the soil together, trapping runoff water, and eliminating many of the problems caused by dust and mud. And it’s one of the more efficient water savers you will find in nature. A healthy lawn absorbs rainfall six time more effectively than does a wheat field.

Dust trap: if you have ever walked through a dry, barren area, such as a construction site, on a windy day, you have some idea of what life might be like without healthy lawns. Clouds of windblown dust make for difficult breathing, irritated eyes, and reduced visibility. Turfgrass is an effective air cleanser. It shows the air moving across its surface, so that dust particles settle out onto the blades and are eventually washed back to the ground. Every year Turfgrass traps millions of tons of dust that would otherwise blow unrestricted.

Pollution fighter: In one year’s time, the blades and roots in an acre of healthy turfgrass absorb hundreds of pounds of pollutants from the air and rainwater. Among them are sulpher dioxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrogen fluoride, nitrates, and other gases blamed for acid rain and greenhouse effect.

A common misconception is that the products put on lawns contribute to groundwater contamination and to algae blooms in nearby ponds and lakes. The truth is that few materials get past grass roots. The dense root system under a healthy lawn captures pollutants as water filters through the soil.

Safe surface: Perhaps the most important benefit is the recreational value lawns provide for young and old. Dense turf is a safer playground and playing field than nearly any other surface. It reduces the severity of many injuries and helps to cushion falls.

Read More