Site Discussions

Enjoyed this; thanks.  Serviceberry is beautiful for landscaping, too, I’ve found.  We still wait ‘til the ground thaws for “buryin’”....I recall a photo of the town gravedigger on the front of The Herald of Randolph back in the early ‘90’s with the caption, “Gearing Up For A Busy Season”.

Elise—

I’m entirely in agreement that we need to reduce our overall energy use, and especially our use of fossil fuel energy, as quickly as possible. As the article points out, there are not enough trees in the forest to have biomass by itself solve our energy problems. Even if there were, I doubt we would we want to divert all of the wood we do cut away from its other uses, such as lumber for building.

Nevertheless, we do live amidst an amazingly resilient natural forest that has the capacity to provide some of our energy needs, assuming that we approach the issue thoughtfully. Therein lies the rub!

James—

Thanks for your comment on the contribution of water vapor to the greenhouse effect, which is far larger than the contribution from CO2. You’re absolutely correct, though I think you may be overlooking the fact that the greenhouse effect (the naturally occurring greenhouse effect, that is) is a good and necessary thing. Without the greenhouse effect, all of us on Earth would be frozen solid in the cold of deep space.

The problem we face is that we’re turning up the thermostat inside the greenhouse with our additional carbon emissions. I took a stab at this issue in an earlier article - see what you think. http://northernwoodlands.org/outside_story/article/wood-warms-you-twice-not-thrice1

Leslie,
I wish I could offer some encouragement. You seem to be ahead of me on this subject—I didn’t know there was any treatment for the disease, even one that costs a fortune.
I will try to check that out and if I learn anything helpful, I’ll let you know.
I’m sorry about your tree. It sounds like an unusually large specimen.
Virginia Barlow

I am so amazed at just how many learned folks are just listening to opinions by many, so called, green advocates.  I have seen where “scientists” have been hoodwinked by these huggers.  Don’t get me wrong, I sound like a “redneck”, but I do admire the move toward energy and nature conservatism, but I don’t admire the followers of uninformed greenhouse gas fanatics. Many many well meaning people remain on the wrong path in attempts to determine the real cause of any perceived or measured climate change. Current evidence shows the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor! 
    Total atmospheric carbon dioxide, both anthropogenic and natural, is only about 3.6% of the overall greenhouse effect; a big difference from the 72.3% figure ignoring water!
    Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests groups, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
    Conceding that it might be “a little misleading” to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is “customary” to do so!

Dear Dr. Amos,
Your article is very informative. I am trying to learn as much as I can about Vermont moles (not to kill them). I need to know whether the hairy-tale mole is likely to make a new tunnel in mid-winter below the permafrost? Is the gound at that depth too difficult for him because of the cold; is he more likely to wait for a thaw, meanwhile depending on the already existing system?
Sincerely, Dr. Roberta Fiske-Rusciano

We have a lovely Butternut tree that towers over our house. Trunk is approximately 5-6 ft diameter. It is diseased but since there is no cure and the treatment costs a fortune, we have not treated it.  It drops it’s leaves mid summer through fall. Not so much that you notice it on the tree but it litters the yard and gardens all summer.
I am searching for some treatment or care that I can give it to help stay as pretty as it is as long as I can. I would appreciate input ....
Leslie

I had never heard of Poison Parsnips until I got a case of it last Spring.  I hadn’t realized that I had gotten into it until one morning I got up and noticed that my chin was getting what I thought was a “zit”.  When my whole chin got red and swelled I thought I had a boil forming.  But then, after about the third day, I got what looked like poison ivy blisters and they oozed, just like ivy - except it never itched.  I had it for 3-4 weeks, with my chin swelling and crusting with oozing liquid.  I couldn’t go anywhere without a large bandaid covering it.  I finally got a prescription for prednisolone pills which turned it around, but I had a red scar for 6-8 months, which finally turned white - but my chin is permanently scarred.  I have never seen my skin react to poisoning like this did - where the blisters sank in and left an indentation in my chin, which never filled in with flesh when it healed.  I have a dent in my chin, now.  Very bad stuff to get.

It makes sense that the industry could suffer if somebody got sick from maple syrup. It is also not hard to figure where things can go wrong with the syrup making process. Vacuum pumps can leak oil into the sap, a mouse can fall into the bulk tank (seen it), the only clean sap line is a new sap line….....blah..blah. We small producers can do more to make our operations cleaner and safer. But lets ask this question, will we get paid more? I doubt it. This business already borders on a hobby for many. Yes there are some that claim they make money. When you start factoring time and equipment, its a tough go. As far as the packers, well they don’t pay us enough as it is. Now we got to do more, for basically less. Either the price has to go up or there will be many who will just make syrup for themselves.

Hi Carl,

Specifics would be good – I’ll see if I can track down the proposal and post it.

Not sure what you found objectionable about Olga’s story – it seemed down the middle to me. As for my own thoughts, I’d argue that what I’ve written here is an opinion, not a rant (though you’re free to consider it useless).

I would like to hear more about the new NOFA standards if you’d like to share. A lot of sugarmakers, myself included, don’t see any value in paying NOFA to be able to use the organic label on a product that is naturally organic. From my understanding, the only thing that separates “organic” syrup from non-organic syrup is the type of defoamer a sugarmaker uses. What’s new in the new standards?

With a similar-sized operation (about 2200 trees) I find that we’re already being regulated by the market due to new HACCP standards, and many other measures that bulk clients impose on us sugarmakers. I’ve had to do phytosanitary tests, build an HACCP plan, and create Certificates of Analysis for commercial clients. These are not things that are at all economical to someone making 50 gallons a year.

This is not all a bad thing (that lead tainted bottle is less likely to get out there), but it is certainly overkill in many respects. My sausage company client, which has federal inspectors working full-time within their facility, assumes that my maple syrup is as dangerous as any pig part that they have coming into the plant. A dirt smudge on the barrel is enough to have them send it back across the country. This is all to say that people with commercial clients are likely to find the government regulation small beer. People with only retail clients are in for a wake-up call.

Vermont state folks, maple syrup association people, and our congressional delegations can help in making sure that maple syrup is treated as the sort of product that requires a bit less scrutiny. For instance, we need not install chain-of-custody-wide temperature control systems. If our product is thrown into an overly-large bin of food products, we could have some pretty silly regulation, which I already find in the market-driven requirements.

-Tig Tillinghast

Thanks, Chuck Wooster, this was an engaging explanation of a pertinent topic.  It also got its point across without beating me up.

We would all benefit for more articles like this, I will keep reading and watching for them. And I hope you will keep raising sheep.

KJ

These articles are not useful.  What specifically are the proposed standards? 
Your comments and that of vtdigger are rather useless rants, with few specifics. 
You might also report on the new NOFA Organic maple standards. They are specific and clear, and ensure that organic syrup will command premium prices and meet health standards.

So, what are the expenses that exceeded the revenue? I know that you are using the sheep story as a vehicle to make a larger point about carbon in the atmosphere, still, what are the sheep related costs that put you in the red? The cost of the hay would be some percentage of property taxes, fuel, and equipment. Same goes for water. Do sheep require extensive veterinary care, dietary supplements, or do you buy additional lambs in the spring? Wishing you the luck of the 1860s with this years flock.

To your main point, there is a balance in nature. The problem of the parched Andes and the inundated Floridians may be offset by a longer growing season in New England or fewer logs in the stove during a Wisconsin winter. Is there a situation of compensating events that should be taken into carbon cost accounting?

Thank you for helping me understand why more people don’t have sheep on their land!
I understand from what you wrote that we can’t have it both ways: cheap gas for our cars, and cheap lamb to eat at our tables.
I’d rather have the cost of gas go up, not only so it is realistic, but also so it spurs people to invest in alternative forms of energy.  If this helps the sheep farmers, so much the better!
Rosemary Yaecker

Wow!  Thanks so much for making this important concept come alive through the sheep in your barn.  It’s such a critical idea for us to grapple with, and start to incorporate into how we think about costs.  Thanks!

While at the Sportsman Show in Essex this past week, having a
conversation with a game biologist, we were approached by a friend
carrying a folder. He was excited to open it up to show us an amazingly clear photo of a catamount taken by his wife from their camp window in Belvedere. There is no mistake, it is the real deal, a picture of a young catamount, perhaps a female, as it stopped along the wood line. I’m not sure what the next step will be. The Vermont
Fish and Wildlife are on board and it is just a matter of time before
the photo is released and made public.

Need help telling the difference between springwood,summerwood

As I emailed Vermont Fish and Wildlife earlier this month, they have not taken into consideration the private landowners who open up their property for hunting seasons. I am not a hunter, yet I have allowed hunters on my 120 acres for 22+ years. However, I informed them that I would seriously consider posting my property, something, as a native Vermonter, I take seriously, if this rule were passed. October should be off limits to another 4 days of muzzle loader season. This is a month we (as well as tourists) all love to go into our woods to enjoy the great weather and beautiful foliage.

Vermont could lose big if this rule were passed, from the lost infusion of money from foliage tourists to the private landowners forced to post more property. Is it really worth a few days more of hunting, when they could lose untold numbers of private property acres to posting?

One of the main reasons they want to do this is to remove does early in the year to save on available food sources to help the remaining deer make it through the winter. By removing them 6 weeks earlier, they would save a lot of browse for the remaining deer. I as a bowhunter don’t have problem with this because it is for the health of the deer. I would like to see have seen them not continue to allow shooting does, especially those bred does in the December muzzleloading season, which this plan allows. Bucks run themselves ragged chasing does for those few weeks in November and to have that energy wasted by shooting bred does doesn’t make sense to me. They should have an early hunt to remove what does need to be removed and be done with it!

Several years ago, a low-life neighbor whose own land is posted came onto my 90 acres to shoot an “extra” deer. Apparently bored or angry at his lack of success, he shot one of my dogs instead. Despite confessing to F&W and the State Police, cruelty to animals charges against him were dropped. At that point I seriously considered posting my land, but mindful of other hunters who treated my family and my land with respect, I served him with a no trespass order instead.

I’m willing to give my woods over to hunters in November. I keep my dogs on a short leash and have plenty to do around the homestead getting ready for winter. I’m not willing to give up the month of October, however. October is one of my favorite months for being in my woods. I’m either working, getting in the last of my winter wood, clearing roads and XC ski trails, or hiking with two- and four-footed family members. The cool, bug-free environment, the glorious vistas, and the opportunity to explore and enjoy my land mean too much to me to sacrifice for an October hunting season of dubious value. Simply put, if October hunting is allowed, the posted signs will go up on my land.