Eating Canna

"Can you eat it?"

Ed is one of my gardening friends. Every time someone in the community garden mentions a new or interesting plant to grow, Ed's first response is, "Can you eat it?"

My father has been growing canna "lilies" (which are not lilies) for years. We never knew much about them except that they were very prolific. He got a few rhizomes from a friend several years ago and they multiply so much that he can't find enough people to give them away to and he ends up throwing away buckets full after he lifts them each fall.

He passed some along to me when I finally got my own bit of earth and they made quite a lovely show this past summer in one of my heavily composted raised beds, growing to a height of over seven feet and feeding hoards of hummingbirds with their gaudy red blooms. While everyone else "oooohed and ahhhed" and wanted to know what these beauties were, Ed remained unimpressed. "Can you eat it?"

As far as I knew, because of their attraction to the ruby-throated hummingbirds, my cannas exemplified only one of my current garden obsessions - being helpful to pollinators. So when Ed asked, "Can you eat it?" I told him that, unfortunately, I didn't think so. But of course I started doing research and discovered that the large, banana-like leaves are often used as a wrap for cooking fish and other things.

Ed and Steve are friends and Steve is growing cannas also. Steve and I were loving the mystery if it all...his Chinese mom brought their cannas from California and they were both surprised that my variety appears to be exactly the same. Both our cannas look like photos of the original "wild" canna that comes from South America. I've also read that Native Americans in the Northwest used them as an important food source (citation needed.) If THAT is true, then another of my gardening obsessions is fulfilled - NATIVE PLANT, folks!

And then came the kicker. Steve told me that his mom told him about cooking and eating the roots as a cure for arthritis. Really? This rocked my world. I'm very excited at the prospect of cooking and eating some of my canna rhizomes. I was growing them for the WOW! factor of their height and beauty, plus their value to the hummers and then I found out that they might be native plants and THEN I found out-quite by accident-that they are truly edible. Quadrupal whammy!

Beeing

I have become a Beewatcher. In the same way that many erstwhile Birdwatchers prefer to be called Birders, I have dubbed myself a Bee-er. I go Birding. I also go Beeing.

Here is my latest "observation" from a prestigious published source.

In the following recent article, The New York Times has (partially) atoned for their poorly researched article of almost two years ago that claimed the bees are dying from a virus.

While reading this new article, please don't forget that at least one of the experts quoted, David Fischer, GETS PAYED BY THE COMPANY THAT IS MAKING THE PESTICIDE THAT IS KILLING THE BEES! (I get to say that with such positivity because I am merely a private citizen and not a scientist who is SUPPOSED to be balanced and fair. I say whatever I want and I can be as prejudiced as I please. Thanks to journalist Carl Zimmer for being balanced and fair for all of us.)

OK - Read on!

"2 Studies Point to Common Pesticide as a Culprit in Declining Bee Colonies" By CARL ZIMMER Published by The New York Times: March 29, 2012

"Scientists have been alarmed and puzzled by declines in bee populations in the United States and other parts of the world. They have suspected that pesticides are playing a part, but to date their experiments have yielded conflicting, ambiguous results.

"In Thursday’s issue of the journal Science, two teams of researchers published studies suggesting that low levels of a common pesticide can have significant effects on bee colonies. One experiment, conducted by French researchers, indicates that the chemicals fog honeybee brains, making it harder for them to find their way home. The other study, by scientists in Britain, suggests that they keep bumblebees from supplying their hives with enough food to produce new queens.

"The authors of both studies contend that their results raise serious questions about the use of the pesticides, known as neonicotinoids.

“'I personally would like to see them not being used until more research has been done,' said David Goulson, an author of the bumblebee paper who teaches at the University of Stirling, in Scotland. 'If it confirms what we’ve found, then they certainly shouldn’t be used when they’re going to be fed on by bees.'

"But pesticides are only one of several likely factors that scientists have linked to declining bee populations. There are simply fewer flowers, for example, thanks to land development. Bees are increasingly succumbing to mites, viruses, fungi and other pathogens.

"Outside experts were divided about the importance of the two new studies. Some favored the honeybee study over the bumblebee study, while others felt the opposite was true. Environmentalists say that both studies support their view that the insecticides should be banned. And a scientist for Bayer CropScience, the leading maker of neonicotinoids, cast doubt on both studies, for what other scientists said were legitimate reasons.

"David Fischer, an ecotoxicologist at Bayer CropScience, said the new experiments had design flaws and conflicting results. In the French study, he said, the honeybees got far too much neonicotinoid. “I think they selected an improper dose level,” Dr. Fischer said.

"Dr. Goulson’s study on bumblebees might warrant a “closer look,” Dr. Fischer said, but he argued that the weight of evidence still points to mites and viruses as the most likely candidates for bee declines.

"The research does not solve the mystery of the vanishing bees. Although bumblebees have been on the decline in the United States and elsewhere, they have not succumbed to a specific phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder, which affects only honeybees.

"Yet the research is coming out at a time when opposition to neonicotinoids is gaining momentum. The insecticides, introduced in the early 1990s, have exploded in popularity; virtually all corn grown in the United States is treated with them. Neonicotinoids are taken up by plants and moved to all their tissues — including the nectar on which bees feed. The concentration of neonicotinoids in nectar is not lethal, but some scientists have wondered if it might still affect bees.

"In the honeybee experiment, researchers at the National Institute for Agricultural Research in France fed the bees a dose of neonicotinoid-laced sugar water and then moved them more than half a mile from their hive. The bees carried miniature radio tags that allowed the scientists to keep track of how many returned to the hive.

"In familiar territory, the scientists found, the bees exposed to the pesticide were 10 percent less likely than healthy bees to make it home. In unfamiliar places, that figure rose to 31 percent.

"The French scientists used a computer model to estimate how the hive would be affected by the loss of these bees. Under different conditions, they concluded that the hive’s population might drop by two-thirds or more, depending on how many worker bees were exposed.

“'I thought it was very well designed,' said May Berenbaum, an entomologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"But James Cresswell, an ecotoxicologist at the University of Exeter in England, was less impressed, because the scientists had to rely on a computer model to determine changes in the hive. 'I don’t think the paper is a trump card,' he said.

"In the British study, Dr. Goulson and his colleagues fed sugar water laced with a neonicotinoid pesticide to 50 bumblebee colonies. The researchers then moved the bee colonies to a farm, alongside 25 colonies that had been fed ordinary sugar water.

"At the end of each year, all the bumblebees in a hive die except for a few new queens, which will go on to found new hives. Dr. Goulson and his colleagues found that colonies exposed to neonicotinoids produced 85 percent fewer queens. This reduction would translate into 85 percent fewer hives.

"Jeffery Pettis, a bee expert at the United States Department of Agriculture, called Dr. Goulson’s study “alarming.” He said he suspected that other types of wild bees would be shown to suffer similar effects.

"Dr. Pettis is also convinced that neonicotinoids in low doses make bees more vulnerable to disease. He and other researchers have recently published experiments showing that neonicotinoids make honeybees more vulnerable to infections from parasitic fungi.

“'Three or four years ago, I was much more cautious about how much pesticides were contributing to the problem,' Dr. Pettis said. 'Now more and more evidence points to pesticides being a consistent part of the problem.'"

A version of this article appeared in print on March 30, 2012, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: 2 Studies Point to Common Pesticide as a Culprit in Declining Bee Colonies.

Low-Maintenance Dwarf Fruit Trees III (FINAL RESULTS)

OK - I've finally narrowed it down to three top contenders for low-maintenance, productive, non-towering species to plant in our common space at the Community Garden (only my opinion, of course). For my earlier research processes, geeky gardeners can look here and here. Meanwhile, the post that you are reading contains the best of the best.

***************************************************************************************

A TRUE MULBERRY BUSH!
There is a variety of dwarf mulberry - Morus 'Gerardi Dwarf' - that might be available at Whitman Farms (they have a website, but buyers must call.)

From GardenWeb in 2008:
"Mature size 6-8ft tall and spread. Berries are excellent and bear longer than most. I wouldn't think there would be much mess because it's more like a shrub with no canopy. I just planted 1 bareroot from Burnt Ridge Nursery, and the little thing already has a couple fruitlets. In fact all 3 of my mulberries have been in the ground less than a year and all have fruits forming. Great low care fruit trees! Oh, and try Burnt Ridge (as of spring 2011, no hits), Edible Landscaping (Spring 2011=not available right now), or Whitman Farms for Gerardi."

***************************************************************************************

HONEYBERRY BUSH
The Honeyberry is extremely pest and cold resistant. Because it originated in Siberia, some (but not all) varieties might prefer shade in our Connecticut climate. It requires a companion pollinator planting.

The Honeyberry (aka Haskap) is a non-vining (read non-invasive), bush honeysuckle which puts out edible, blue fruits with a yummy taste.

"An attractive small bush, it produces tasty small fruits about the size and flavor of blueberries....Very easy to grow with no pest or disease problems." (quoted from Edible Landscaping Online.)

Currently available at Logees - $29.95. Good growing information here (from Shallow Creek Nurseries, a company which recently stopped selling plants.)

**************************************************************************************

HAZEL NUTS
I was initially interested in hazel nuts (aka filberts), because rumor has it that they are bush like. The downside is that the nuts take a long time to cure. They must be harvested before they are ripe because they attract squirrels. One source noted that the harvested nuts are typically ready to eat by December. I think that the Honeyberry or the dwarf Mulberry would be a better choice because of the immediate gratification factor (once they are established), especially for kids!

***************************************************************************************

Low-Maintenance Dwarf Fruit Trees I

I just attended the annual meeting of our local community garden and was sent home with the task of researching varieties of low-maintenance dwarf fruit trees for possible plantings in the common area at the center of the garden.

Fun!

So I'll deposit some of my findings here, just for convenience. In keeping with my personal mission of examining social alternatives to pesticide use, I'm interpreting "low maintenance" as "pest resistant". Basically, I'm looking for varieties of dwarf (or ultra-dwarf!) fruit trees that lend themselves to being grown organically (and maybe neglected a bit.)

First I found an older article from Mother Earth News, excerpted from Designing and Maintaining Your Edible Landscape — Naturally , by Robert Kourik (copyright © 1986 by Robert Kourik). Good for background, but not too specific about modern varieties available.

Next I'm going to spend some time here. OK-not so useful.

University of New Hampshire makes pear trees sound a bit dicey, but I need to go back and read their paper on home-grown dwarf apple trees.

Here is a short, but specific article with a very few dwarf varieties, plus notes detailing hardiness zones and pest issues, courtesy of gardenguides.com. The most useful information here was about an apple tree:

"Dwarf Apple ‘Thornton’ Starkspur Winesap
‘Thornton’ Starkspur Winesap is a dwarf apple (Malus pumila) hardy to minus 20 degrees F. A hybrid from Missouri's Stark Brothers, it stands between 8 and 10 feet high and wide. Its showy, fragrant white blooms appear in May, attracting bees and butterflies. The red fruit on trees in the coldest parts of its hardiness range--USDA zone 5--ripens in mid-October. While ‘Thornton’ is relatively resistant to common apple diseases and insects, it may require spraying to prevent pest damage, according to the Missouri Botanical Garden. This tree needs full sun and prefers well-drained, acidic (pH below 6.8) deep loam. Good fruit production requires pollination from another apple variety."

We should look through some catalogs, of course. As usual, real people seem to be the most helpful source of practical information for each other. On the Garden Web forum, brandon7 recommends a whole slew of fruit tree suppliers that have all have excellent or very good Garden Watchdog ratings. Hmmm....never heard of that...

So-I think I'll save these last two hits for further investigation. Until next time!

The New York Times

Bees like blue, yellow and white flowers best. Coincidentally, I'm obsessed with chicory, dandelions and Dutch clover.

A few weeks ago, I dug up chicory and dandelions from the side of the road and planted them in my nursery bed. The chicory plants had gone to seed and almost immediately I found myriad baby chicories growing! I will transfer them to their own bed in the spring and I'm hoping that the bees will like them. And I will force myself to enjoy dandelion and chicory greens, even if I have to boil them two or three times to reduce the bitter taste.

I seeded my garden with Dutch clover this autumn. My community garden neighbors think it is a cover crop. It is not. It is a CROP! Bees like the little white Dutch clover better than the huge purple clover, which is too deep for their little "tongues" (do they actually use their tongues to gather nectar?)

OK-so I'm starting to hate The New York Times. Considering the fact that so many people still take this newspaper's word as gospel, I think they should be a little more careful about checking their sources. I am talking about their recent proclamation on October 6, 2010 that honey bee hive collapse is due to a combination of a virus and a fungus. The title of the article proudly proclaims, "Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery." No mention of PESTICIDES as a contributing factor, even though the bee scientists, led by Jerry Bromenshenk of the University of Montana in Missoula, state that more research is needed to determine "how much environmental factors like heat, cold or drought might play a role."

HUH? This seemed weird to me. Aren't pesticides now an "environmental factor"? Given the fact that our bodies seem to have been so infiltrated by pesticides that scientists are now studying the correlation between learning disabilities in children and the amount of pesticide residue found in their urine, why wouldn't pesticides be on any agricultural scientist's list of "environmental factors"?

Two days later, a rebuttal article, "What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths" was published on the Fortune magazine page over at CNN. It turns out that the study's lead author, Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk has a cozy FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP with Bayer Crop Science, a subsidiary of the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG and the LEADING MANUFACTURER of pesticides, particularly so-called neonicotinoids, a class of neurotoxins that kills insects by attacking their nervous systems.

Kudos to journalist Katherine Eban for her fast work and fine article which reveals: "In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination. Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant."

Specific details follow later in the article, complete with names, dates and citations. Pow!

As for Kirk Johnson who wrote the original New York Times article, I pee pee on you. And many, many thanks to my friend Karen for alerting me to both of these articles.

Researcher Moms

Not surprisingly, moms are sometimes strongly motivated to do research on pesticides for the sake of their children. I believe that observant parents can see how their children are affected by the world around them, whether for good or ill, and no matter what "science" tells them.

Five years ago, author Audrey Schulman wrote a fascinating (and really well-written) story about her effort to research the nature of the pesticide used on her father's cranberry farm.

Audrey writes, "Three years ago, while my extended family was vacationing at my dad's cranberry farm, he mentioned that one of his fields would be sprayed that evening. There were five children under 10 in the house, and I was eight months pregnant. The field was 100 feet away. I asked my dad about the pesticides, but he said, 'Don't worry. The government runs tests on the chemicals. They make sure they're safe.'"

After some thorough reading at the website of the Environmental Protection Agency, Audrey learned that the safety experiments her father spoke of were all conducted by the manufacturers and then reported--often under strict confidentiality--to the EPA.

So this is what we are up against:

"Although the analyses are performed by professional scientists, the results are often reported only to the EPA. They are rarely published in peer-reviewed journals, and must often be requested through the Freedom of Information Act, a process that can take years."

Audrey concludes:

"The son I was pregnant with when the cranberry bog was sprayed has developed slowly in different ways. He started talking so late the state sent a speech therapist over to tutor him. My older son, who was also there, can't draw. He's 5 now and gets frustrated trying to make even a stick figure. The one time he tried to draw me, it looked like an amoeba with three eyes.

"Does this have to do with drifting pesticides? I can't tell you. None of us will know for sure the effects of these chemicals until there's good science involved -- science that isn't funded and reported by the very people making the chemicals in the first place."

Maybe there is hope for the future, if organizations like the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) can continue to make pesticide research more accessible to the masses. I love the name of their website: What's On My Food