"Regulation is a signal of design failure. If we design agricultural systems according to ecological principles we do not need regulations." Sarah Stai

pg. 101 The very idea of "consumer" is a big handicap to thinking straight - err, I mean thinking circularly. The word falsely conveys that what we purchase disappears from the ecosystem. But actually, we consme nothing at all. There is no “away” to which we can throw our stuff. That’s the heart of what the ecological awakening teaches us.
More accurate terms are "buyer", "purchaser, or "user". Using them we’re reminded that we are simply a pass-through in a conversion process. Our “stuff” moves from extraction and processing to another state - and that state is either destructive pollution or re-use and, ultimately, healthful integration back into the wider ecosystem.

pg. 74
In fact, we have no choice about whether to be world changers. If we accept ecology’s insights that we exist in densely woven networks, then we also must accept that every choice we make sends out ripples, even if we’re not consciously choosing. So the choice we have is not whether, but only how, we change the world.

Atina Diffley, published in the MIX

Our nation’s investment in agricultural research profoundly affects the future of our food, farming, and in due course, our soil, water and air. Research leads and drives agricultural activities. And, agriculture accounts for one-third of our land use. The way our land is used, ultimately dictates the health of our eco-systems.

Despite consistent growth in the organic sector of 15-22% annually since 1990 , organic research funding has continuously lagged far behind its “fair share” of agriculture research dollars. The U.S retail market share of organic foods is around 3.5% while the USDA’s research and extension expenditure for organic agriculture was less than 1.5 percent of its total research budget.

Organic research is crucial to the development of viable organic methods and to develop ecologically sound solutions to grower’s challenges. Enhancing the knowledge base of organic systems helps fulfill government goals to reduce pesticide use, protect environmental resources, and create additional opportunities for small farms and the rural economy.  Organic research also brings credibility to the high yield potential, drought resistance, climate change mitigation and other environmental gains from organic farming. Credibility brings the attention and involvement of universities, extension agents and governments. Peer reviewed research provides expert evidence in court cases and assists the work of developing government policies, supportive of the transformation to regional, ecologically based, organic food and farming systems.

Thanks to a rise in grassroots pressure, the 2008 Farm Bill takes a few important steps toward improving this unequal allocation of farm bill research funds, authorizing new national programs and making more resources available for important work on organic agriculture research.

The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) includes a five-fold increase in mandatory funding, going from $15 million over five years in the 2002 Farm Bill to $78 million for five years in the 2008 Farm Bill. OREI funds research, education, and extension projects that enhance the ability of producers and processors to grow and market high quality organic agricultural products.

The OREI grant review process for the 2009 fiscal year has been completed and the successful applicants have been notified.  USDA’s CSREES will make a public announcement of the grantees later this summer. Despite the increase in funds, the $17.2 million available for this fiscal year was not nearly enough money to meet the demand.  There were 134 applications totaling $98 million.
 
This evidences the need for consumers to pressure the agriculture appropriations subcommittees in both houses to protect the mandatory status of $20 million for FY 2010.  It also suggests the need to ask the appropriators to provide an additional $5 million in FY 2010 money.  This increase was authorized by the farm bill but is not mandatory. Ag subcommittees in both houses expect to make decisions in July.
 
Other organic research programs also received increases in funding bringing the total for organic research in 2009 to 48 Million. This much needed increase in organic research funding still falls far short of an organic fair share of the total 2.4 billion being spent in 2009 on agricultural research.

There also is time to contact the appropriators regarding the need to increase the share of organic research done by the Agricultural Research Service from the approximately $16.9 million provided in FY 2009 to $33 million in FY 2010.  ARS, USDA’s primary in-house research agency, has a unique and important role as a federally funded, intramural research agency.  With the ability to fund projects over the long term, ARS is able to maintain continuity in its research efforts to solve problems that universities and private industry would not be able to address.

An increase to $33 million would put the ARS organic research effort in line with the “fair share” approach pushed by the organic community.  The current ARS organic research effort represents about 1.5% of the agency’s budget while organic represents at least 3.5% of the domestic retail market.  This change in allocations within the agency does not require an increase in the ARS budget; it simply says that ARS should allocate more of its resources to organic research.  This, too, is a reasonable request for consumers to make.

The third research area where some additional funding is needed is the Organic Transitions Program, an older and much smaller competitive grants program also administered by USDA’s CSREES.  It was renewed by the farm bill and $1.8 million is in the FY 2009 budget for this program.  A Request for Proposals for this year is still in the works but should be out soon.  The program has been folded into a USDA water quality program and the organic research involved would deal with the positive impact of organic farming on water quality.  The organic community is asking the appropriators to increase funding for this organic transitions effort to $5 million in FY 2010 and this, too, would be an increase that benefits consumers.
 
A final area to pressure the appropriators is to provide $5 million in the FY 2010 budget for organic production and market data initiatives authorized by the farm bill.  The organic sector is still without vital comprehensive data on a par with what USDA provides for conventional agriculture.

While the 2008 Farm Bill mandates the amount of money to fund organic research and other food initiatives for five years, the appropriations or "funding phase" of the policy cycle happens annually. And mandated funds can be subjected to “chimping”, the official method of taking funds away from mandatory programs, Change In Mandatory Programs or CHIMP. 
It is important that the ag appropriations committee hears from consumers on the importance of fairly funding organic research. Your voice has a strong influence. The word power comes from the Latin root posse – poder. Taken to its root, power simply means to be able, and demonstrates our capacity to act. Input from informed citizens and co-producers  demanding that it is time to fairly fund organic research and initiatives has huge power. Congressional representatives and senators need to hear from you about why you think a particular farm bill program should be funded in the following years' budget and appropriations bill.  Much more influential then signing a mass email are: 1) a phone call to committee members; 2) an in-district meeting with your Representative and Senators or their staff; or 3) a letter that is faxed or mailed to their office.

Ag appropriations committee members for Congress and the Senate are listed on these websites. http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_ardf.shtml http://appropriations.senate.gov/agriculture.cfm

Information on applying for funding on organic research, organic transition support, conservation initiatives, beginning farmer programs, farmers market promotion funds, food education and other farm bill programs can be found at the USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/business.html
Comments on this article can be directed to Atina Diffley at atina@organicfarmingworks.com

The first thing I did this morning was; opened every window, turned on ALL the fans and chased yesterday out of the house.

I have strategically placed the kitchen garden immediately outside the front entrance. It is just a pop out the door to poke my finger in the soil. Scratch the surface and see that YES, the rain went through the dust, it was a soaker.

This now is when I know spring is truly here and will not leave us stranded with our dreams of summer heat and green.

The chives are at their moment of perfection, of shining oneness. Twelve inches tall, clumps of perfect curve. Hundreds of long slender chive strands perfectly shaped and working together in their knoll of chive. Waving slowly with each breath of wind passing through. They are right where and what and how they are meant to be. Evolved in their niche – for their purpose – doing just what they are meant to do. Nature’s perfection.

About 6 inches of snow melted in one day. The waterways were rushing with snow melt run-off. The up water field is in a corn/soy rotation and always bare over the winter. The erosion off the neighbor's land is usually pretty serious in the spring melt. I took a sample of water where it enters the farm – then it crosses GOE through a 2500 foot long grassed waterway. I took another sample at the exit end of the farm.

The difference in color was very visible with the eye. How wonderful that that much filtering can happen in only 2500 feet grass. hows that for an ecosystem service. Imagine if everyone covered his or her waterways! It would be useful to have nitrate samples and particulate tests from the two ends.

This glass of water is taken from the water entering Gardens of Eagan from the up water field.
<a href="http://s13.photobucket.com/albums/a294/atinagoe/?action=view&current=offopenland1of1.jpg"

This glass of water is taken after the spring melt water has moved across GOE over 2500 feet of grassed waterway.
On the down water side. Still has soil particles in it but it looks noticeably less dark then when it entered  the property.

<a href="http://s13.photobucket.com/albums/a294/atinagoe/?action=view&current=after2500feetofgrass1of1.jpg"


How wonderful! that in only 2500 feet of grass that much filtering happens. Now if we can only teach other farmers to do the same.

Reflections after a week in Washington DC with ROGER Blobaum and MARL (Minnesota Agriculture and Rural Leadership Training Program)

If MARL is an acronym then so is ROGER: Reflective, Organic, Generous, Enlightened Roger

As a child, my husband’s parents would not allow him to join 4-H. They called the 4-H leaders “brown shirts”, equating at some level, the destruction of nature they were teaching with their pesticides and herbicides, with the genocide of Jews by Nazis.

I started my DC trip with a visit to the Native American Museum (NAM) and ended it at the Holocaust. Both provide powerful visual and visceral learning experiences about violent action and prejudiced thinking, snapshots in time, of acts of genocide, against a group or groups of peoples.

Two exhibits at NAM that were particularly emotive were 1) An exhibit of guns used against Native Americans, traded with native Americans, used by Native Americans. 2) An entire wall of bibles, many shapes and sizes, beaded covers, leather fringed, or brown paper cases, written in numerous indigenous tongues.

Which weapon, the bible or the gun, cause more destruction of the indigenous people’s cultures, communities, families, food webs and ultimately their lives and livelihoods; spiritually, emotionally and physically?

When I left the Holocaust Museum (HM) I sat on the steps and balled. It wasn’t Hitler and the Nazis that were confusing me. As horrifying as their thinking was, I can sort of understand it, as they were absolutely crazy. Absolutely crazy people have absolutely crazy thinking and do absolutely crazy things. And I can even sort of comprehend the German people who didn’t do anything. I imagine they must have been terrified for their lives and their families. Plus if anti-semitic attitudes were so strong many of them must have also believed the bigoted lies that create hate capable of over-riding compassion for fellow human beings. People in fear and terror, laced with prejudice wouldn’t likely think or act clearly.

But what about the rest of the world, especially the United States? I’m not talking about getting in the war and fighting. Why didn’t they allow the Jewish refugees into their countries? Allow is too weak of a word. Why didn’t the United States invite, make way for, send ships and airplanes. Why did the government and the people of the United States not rescue these persecuted people when they knew clearly what was going on? Were they equally prejudiced?

From 1933-1939 – Jews were stripped of their personal and property rights and forced into ghettos. They were told to leave the country. Many tried to leave and no one would let them in. The US only allowed in 1,500 a year. After the war ended, after the Allies had cleaned up the camps and seen; smelled, felt, touched, first hand; filmed, written, and photographed what had happened in them, the surviving Jews were still “displaced people”. And America did not let them in for years.

I asked Esther Ouray for her thoughts on this. She said, “if the United States recognizes genocide, if the U.S. accuses other countries of genocide, if the US. extends itself to stop genocide and help the victims of genocide, then the U.S. has to admit its own acts of genocide against the Native American Peoples.”

And does this also apply to the destruction of nature? If we recognize the damage to nature that we are condoning with our policies and industries, perpetuating with our chemical fertilizers, monocultures and pesticides, do we then have to face a horrifying shame and guilt for the damage we have done? Is our fear of facing and admitting our mistakes a set of blinders that keep us moving ever forward down the same path of chemical warfare that is destroying the most basic element of live itself.

Instead we find excuses; we must feed the growing population of the world, chemicals are necessary, we don’t know whether they are harmful, technology has the answers, it is not our fault – it is the cities. And the destruction goes on…….

And if the analogy carries, who then is the rest of the world who must do something to end this craziness?

What are the issues before us - the human race - living on planet earth? Hunger, disease, climate change, homelessness, depression , poverty and lack of access to clean water and air are just a few. While there are numerous and complex issues, many of them are rooted in land use decisions. How we manage our land and the resources associated and dependent upon land directly affect our health and the health of the ecosystem.

The law of the environment is a very simple law. Healthy and diverse ecosystems provide high-quality ecosystem services and goods. Healthy water, soil and air support healthy people and high quality of life. Unhealthy ecosystems collapse and the collapse affects the well-being and health of all life depending on it. Ecosystems evolve, change and adapt, but not all species in our ecosystems are able to change and adapt fast enough to survive.

So how should our land resources be managed? What are key criteria to guide our decisions? How much should be left to individuals to “do the right thing”. When does the market push people into self-protection and self-preservation at the expense of a healthy ecosystem? When does the market make it challenging for the ecosystem to be honored and protected? Why do we see what looks like so much greedy, self-interest lobbying?  Where is the ethic of making decisions based on the goal of what is best for the ecosystem, which in turn is the best for the people and all life in the ecosystem?

We are not outside of the ecosystem. We are active members of its web. What is best for the ecosystem is best for the people and all life in it. We cannot affect one part of the ecosystem without affecting the whole. When we tug on one part of nature we tug on the whole.

Should the ecosystem – the environment  - have a right as an entity? Should counsel in a court of law represent it as we make the decisions that affect it and ultimately all of us living in it? Why does industry seem to have more rights then the ecosystem? Why do we have an International Trade Commission (ITC) who determines whether domestic industry is injured by imports, but doesn’t ask what the cost is to the ecosystems involved? An ITC who investigate challenges to intellectual property but doesn’t recognize the evolving ecosystem as being the ultimate creator and thus owner of genetic and biological diversity. How can we make these decisions when our ecosystems are not treated as entities, with the rights, protections and power of an entity?

To maintain healthy ecosystems we must maintain the biological diversity of our soils, waters and farms. How do farming practices affect this biodiversity and ecosystem health? Is sufficient carbon being added annually to prevent erosion, maintain a complex and diverse soil food web, provide water holding, hydrological health, and viable tilth? Do chemical fertilizers cause ground water population affecting all species that have a relationship with that water? Do chemical fertilizers have a negative affect on the biological diversity of the soil, the microbial and insect life in the soil food web? Do fungicides destroy the huge resource of beneficial fungi, which create aggregates and nutrient cycling? Do pesticide and herbicides create a monoculture, disturbing the diverse balance of species?

I have asked many more questions here than I have answered.

What really concerns me is the health of our planet’s ecosystems. The planet and the life on it are not ours to use up for our own personal gain. The earth is abundant. We must obtain our nourishment and sustain our health from it and leave it as healthy as when we found it. This is our responsibility and my goal.

I value stewardship, I value conscientious living, I value holding respect for all life on the planet.

Especially that life which cannot defend itself in our courts and legislative halls.

The overall increase in acres in vegetables is significant. Moving from $3,698.744 in 2002 to $4,682,588 in 2007
Number of farm grew from 54,391 in 2002 to 69,172 in 2007

The number of vegetable farms and number of acres per farm at
small scale (less then 5 acres) skyrocketed.

The number of less then one acre farms grow from 7,550 in 2002 to 13,426 farms in 2007
The 1- 4.9 acre size grow from 18,692 farms to 27,752 farms.

From 5 -15 acres farms and acres grew

Medium scale (15-249 acres) farms and acres per farm declined significantly.
 
Large scale (250 -5,000 acres) number of farms and acres per farm grew significantly

Despite the large gains in number and acreage of small vegetable farms, the total percentage of acreage in vegetable production on less then 15 acre farms fell from 34% in 2002 to 32% ini 2007.

The index to all tables is here:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/index.asp

"We live off of what comes out of the soil, not what's in the bank. If we squander the ecological capital of the soil, the capital on paper won't much matter...

"if our agriculture is not sustainable then our food supply is not sustainable...

When we face the fact that civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their farmland, it's clear that we don't really have a choice."

Exerpt: Wes Jackson, co-founder of The Land Institute, in an interview with Alternet -- Read the Full Interview

 Paragraph from an article advising farmers to wait until the temperature is below 50• to apply anhydrous so that nitrates won't be lost.

"N-serve is an additive producers may use with anhydrous ammonia in fall application to kill bacteria that can transform ammonia to nitrate. Using N-Serve decrease the risk of nitrogen looses over winter and spring by reducing the rate of ammonia transformation to nitrate by soil bacteria", said Franzen.

Hows that for a symptomatic response!

For an excellent publication on great sustainable soil management.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/soilmgmt.html

Ten Principles of Sustainable Soil
http://www.ohioagconnection.com/story-state.php?Id=96&amp;yr=2009

Implementation and Appropriation

"In agriculture, all roads lead back to the soil, from which farmers make
their living. In the United States, within a comparatively short time, water
and wind have flayed the skin off the earth's surface, causing widespread
losses. The soil problem is really a problem of the well-being of the
people. And not for today only. The well being of future generations must
also be considered. One of the great national objectives is to pass the soil
and water on to our descendants as nearly unimpaired as possible."

This call to action from Henry Wallace, US Secretary of Agriculture, was published 70 years ago in the 1938 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture, Soils and Men. Hambridge, G. (1938) United States Government Printing Office. Somehow, after this was written, the USDA set aside preservation of soil and water as national treasures in favor of public policies, which have endorsed and promoted a non-sustainable, industrialized agricultural system based on fossil fuel inputs.

The sustainable agriculture community has worked hard on the 2008 Farm Bill to promote soil and water preserving policies. The new Farm Bill contains many programs and initiatives that can be the seeds for sowing regenerative and ecological food production systems and practices.

Some of the organic, sustainable, new farmer and local food initiatives and programs include:

•    New conservation initiatives and nearly $4 billion in increased funding for conservation programs that will benefit both farmers and the environment.

•    The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program provides financial assistance to help defray the costs of organic certification. Producers and handlers can receive up to 75% of their annual certification costs up to a maximum payment of $750 per year.

•    The Organic Conversion Assistance program will provide funding and technical assistance for farmers wanting to transition to organic
production.

•    The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative includes a
five-fold increase in mandatory funding. OREI funds research, education, and extension projects that enhance the ability of producers and processors to grow and market high quality organic agricultural products.

•    The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program will provide grants to entities that offer training, mentoring, and land-link opportunities for new farmers.

•    The new Local and Regional Food Enterprise Program will fund enterprises that process, distribute, aggregate, store, and market local and regional foods.

•    The Farmers’ Market Promotion Program funds marketing proposals for community-supported agriculture programs, farmers markets, roadside stands, and other direct marketing strategies.

•    The Outreach and Technical Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program provides grants to work with minority farmers and assist them in owning and operating farms and participating in agricultural and USDA specific programs.

For detailed information about sustainable agriculture programs in the 2008 Farm Bill, visit http://sustainableagriculturecoalition.org/

These new policies and programs in the farm bill are just the first step toward creating farm bill support for sustainable agriculture. Your voice is needed to ensure implementation. Legislative gains in the 2008 Farm Bill will not be realized without informed citizen input in the other critical phases of the policy-making cycle, administrative implementation and annual appropriations.

After Congress has passed the Farm Bill into law, the federal agency
responsible for administering the farm bill programs write the rules for
how these programs will be implemented. Proposed rules and interim final
rules are usually open for public comment for a specific period of time,
often between 30-90 days. Informed citizen comments during the
"implementation" phase are crucial.

The appropriations or "funding phase" of the policy cycle happens annually. It is important for your congressional representatives and senators to hear from you about why you think a particular farm bill program should be funded in the following years' budget and appropriations bill.  Much more influential then signing a mass email are: 1) a phone call to your Member's offices; 2) an in-district meeting with your Representative and Senators or their staff; or 3) a letter that is faxed or mailed to their office.

To sign up for action alerts: http://sustainableagriculturecoalition.org/take-action/

It is equally critical that the word gets out about farm bill programs so
that farmers, ranchers and non-governmental organizations and communities across the county can benefit from them. Requests for proposal notices for competitive grants, as well as sign-ups
for farm bill programs are posted in the Federal Register. www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

Successful implementation of regenerative and sustainable farming practices on a national basis will depend on two factors: a strong bottom-up demand for change from informed citizens, and a top-down shift in state and national policy to support farmers in this transition.

Comments on this article can be directed to Atina Diffley at atina@organicfarmingworks.com

Agricultural biodiversity cannot be saved without saving farmers. Equally, a rural community cannot survive without biodiversity.

Home from Terra Madre; so much to say. I will post again with Madre thoughts.
For now: Thee are some of the best documents I ever read on climate change, food and farming.
Concise, articulate, clear and directed. Free download:

http://www.arsia.toscana.it/petizione/clima.aspx
MANIFESTO ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE FUTURE OF FOOD SECURITY
MANIFESTO ON THE FUTURE OF SEED
MANIFESTO ON THE FUTURE OF FOOD

I love my thoughts when I first wake up. Formed of the minerals of my own pre-historic muck. From the antediluvian storehouse of everything I’ve learned since the beginning of my learning, including all the things I didn’t know I learned and all the things I’ve forgotten I’ve learned. Everything I’ve ever experienced, both first and left handed, vicariously and overtly. And everything I’ve sensed both awake and asleep.

So I write them down.

Next to my bed in a dog-eared pocket notebook, with a stubble-worn pencil, I write in illegible, left-brained scribbling, those golden nuggets of halfway-illusions.

Sometimes they are direct communications from my own internal stockpile of wisdom, answers to deep ponderances or immediate issues. Other times they are cryptic riddles begging to be decoded.

And today my first thought was:“ I just got let into the secret club.”

Participatory Plant Breeding for Organic Agriculture, Organic Seed Alliance

Why we need “Organic Breeding”

In the relatively short history of modern organic agriculture there has been very little plant breeding done specifically for the organic grower. Classical plant breeding (breeding without transgenic techniques) in the past 100 years has been very effective in overcoming specific agricultural problems. Unfortunately, most of the breeding that has been performed in the past 40 years has been directed at high input, intensive agricultural systems. Crop varieties bred for these systems are highly uniform with every plant in the field nearly genetically identical. The cropping methods, external inputs, and environments common to these systems are equally uniform. This is in sharp contrast to the diverse cropping methods, environments, and inputs found in organic agriculture.

Crops produced with low external input organic practices are frequently exposed to a greater set of challenges including variable nutrient availability, drought, and weed or pest pressure than crops grown under conventional systems. Yet, at present, organic producers rely primarily on varieties bred for conventional systems. Organic markets also have different needs than their conventional counterparts. Organic customers are interested in qualities such as nutrition, flavor, color and local availability. The continued improvement of organic agriculture requires the development of crop genetics adapted to low input, diverse organic systems that meet the needs of the local community.

Participatory Plant Breeding

Organic Seed Alliance (OSA) has an integrated approach to seed systems including advocacy, education and research. OSA works with farmers to breed new varieties and restore older varieties for the needs of organic farming. These varieties do well without synthetic inputs, and have a broad genetic base that allows them to be selected for local environments. Genetically elastic, adaptable crop varieties have proven to produce higher, more dependable yields in low input, diverse agricultural systems than the more narrowly selected, genetically homogeneous crop varieties of modern agriculture.

OSA promotes on-farm Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB), where farmer-breeders collaborate with
university, nonprofit and seed company plant breeders to improve crop genetics for organic systems. A successful PPB program creates benefits and incentives that encourage farmers to take a lead role in breeding projects. A farmer’s role can involve all aspects of this process, from setting breeding objectives, determining traits for selection, executing selection, determining the final phenotype for distribution, and then increasing and genetically maintaining the variety for distribution. This decentralized model of crop development can supply organic farmers with the varieties they need. Farmer innovation has long been the foundation of success in organics. Farmer innovation in seed can increase farmers’ ability to produce, bring dditional momentum to the organic marketplace and create long term health in the community.

Cooperative PPB Sweet Corn Project with Gardens of Eagan, University of Wisconsin, and OSA
Sweet corn is a mainstay crop for Gardens of Eagan (GOE), but the challenge is to find varieties that combine good cold soil germination and vigor with great flavor, sweetness, standability, resistance to common rust and corn smut, and yield large, well-filled ears. In a PPB project with GOE, farmer-breeder Martin Diffley is collaborating with the University of Wisconsin (UW) and OSA to breed his own variety that combines these crucial traits. Dr. Bill Tracy of UW selected parents with variability for these traits and made a series of crosses as starting populations for the project. Bill’s graduate student, Jared Zyskowski planted seeds from these crosses in over 200 test plots at GOE which will be evaluated by Martin, Jared, and Dr. John Navazio of OSA. They will select the best populations which will be mated again this winter in South America. These crosses will become the parents for next year’s plots, where the breeding will continue until a variety is created that meets GOE’s needs.

We’ve had ten days of warmer temperatures and the crops are growing like they have a bus to catch. It’s amazing how they want to play catch-up. The corn has tassels. Silks soon to follow. Lately than last year but we’ll take it whenever it arrives. The cucumbers are pumping out; long, green and crisp. Melons and tomatoes are set and gaining weight like a hog at the trough. So hang on to your bibs. The crops are coming.