A Seed Saver's Garden

[flowerbug]

What a waste that's just so selfish. There are people in need of food everywhere.

This company should be really ashamed

the least they could have done is tried to donate them to a local seed library or given them away. throwing things away that can be used is just one of the many wrong things in our society these days.

a few years ago one of the hardware stores had seed packets from the previous year for $0.10 each and i picked up quite a few of them. i told them i'd be happy to take them all for a few $ but they weren't quite at that stage yet. i don't frequent that hardware store very often any more but when i do i'll ask them about what they do and encourage them to donate them to a seed library instead of throwing them away if that is what they end up doing with them.

 

[heirloomgal]

Never tried it myself. Would love a recipe

I posted the recipe in a thread called 'For Those Who Detest Kale'

 

[heirloomgal]

Not to be Pharlap aGAIN, but we should all be trying to save our seeds as much as possible and I encourage anybody who is lurking this thread to get your 2022 seeds NOW before you cannot find them.
Don't Count on the box stores. I almost fell over when I went to Menard's first week in August to be told that they threw away ALL of the seeds that hadn't sold. Their display was at least 12 ft wide and 4 ft tall. You could have fed a small town from that produce and it was trashed.
Box stores have NO compulsion to help you grow things, just sell you what the population says that wanna buy.
In early 2021 seed companies had sold out of stock. Even if you look NOW, you will discover some varieties that were saved THIS year for 2022 are out of stock and won't be restocked.
Just a warning...else Ducks will be saying: "I told you so!"

I've been surprised how hard it has been for the mom & pop seed companies to catch up with the demand, if not impossible since 2019. I see that some of them have omitted whole pages from their websites so as not to have people scrolling through pages and pages of 'sold out' varieties. Peas & beans especially seem to be wiped out in many places, tomatoes a bit less so.

 

[jbosmith]

the least they could have done is tried to donate them to a local seed library or given them away. throwing things away that can be used is just one of the many wrong things in our society these days.

a few years ago one of the hardware stores had seed packets from the previous year for $0.10 each and i picked up quite a few of them. i told them i'd be happy to take them all for a few $ but they weren't quite at that stage yet. i don't frequent that hardware store very often any more but when i do i'll ask them about what they do and encourage them to donate them to a seed library instead of throwing them away if that is what they end up doing with them.

There used to be an organization called America the Beautiful that collected all the old packets from the big companies and donated them to community organizations. I actually got some of my favorite varieties from them when I was growing a lot of foodbank plots. Thompson & Morgan had a lot of good stuff in those boxes

 

[Zeedman]

I've been surprised how hard it has been for the mom & pop seed companies to catch up with the demand, if not impossible since 2019. I see that some of them have omitted whole pages from their websites so as not to have people scrolling through pages and pages of 'sold out' varieties. Peas & beans especially seem to be wiped out in many places, tomatoes a bit less so.

Many seed companies have not yet finished packing & cataloging their 2021 seed, so it may not be as bad as it presently appears. Several of the websites I've checked state that they expect to begin taking orders in December, hopefully we will know more when everybody updates their websites. But it does still appear that few seed companies have adjusted to the increased demand. Time will tell.

But speaking of "pages and pages of 'sold out' varieties". I have been planning on doing a sweet potato trial for several years, and had been looking at Sand Hill Preservation previously - because they have literally HUNDREDS of (mostly heirloom) sweet potato varieties. Last year they were hit hard by the Iowa Derecho, and posted that they were expecting to have lost many varieties. They just opened up their sweet potato list for 2022 - and it looks like they lost 65 of their 200+ varieties. More than 65 were actually lost; but apparently another collector stepped up to restore quite a few, which Sandhill expects to re-offer in the future.

Unfortunately, a couple of the sweet potato varieties still missing met the criteria for my trial... and given that some of those heirlooms might never be recovered, I may pay a price for my years of procrastination.

On the bright side... manufacturers of garden machinery seem to have stepped up their production. There were tillers for sale locally even late last summer, a big improvement over 2020, when everyone was sold out.

 

[Pulsegleaner]

But speaking of "pages and pages of 'sold out' varieties". I have been planning on doing a sweet potato trial for several years, and had been looking at Sand Hill Preservation previously - because they have literally HUNDREDS of (mostly heirloom) sweet potato varieties. Last year they were hit hard by the Iowa Derecho, and posted that they were expecting to have lost many varieties. They just opened up their sweet potato list for 2022 - and it looks like they lost 65 of their 200+ varieties. More than 65 were actually lost; but apparently another collector stepped up to restore quite a few, which Sandhill expects to re-offer in the future.

Unfortunately, a couple of the sweet potato varieties still missing met the criteria for my trial... and given that some of those heirlooms might never be recovered, I may pay a price for my years of procrastination.

On the bright side... manufacturers of garden machinery seem to have stepped up their production. There were tillers for sale locally even late last summer, a big improvement over 2020, when everyone was sold out.

Ah THAT sort of gets into the deeper philosophy of seed saving, and how much it is ethically permissible to ask in the pursuit of preserving varieties.

After all the most efficient way and place of keeping a variety around is in it's place of origin. But what happens if no one there wants to keep growing it. You can encourage and do what you can to help, but if you REALLY want to ensure it, you more or less might have to cross the line and FORCE the people to grow it, and no other (to keep it pure). And that poses a sort of ethical dilemma.

It's a bit like those people who say the answer to saving the rainforest is to simply require all countries to expel everyone from it and declare it off limits to everyone from now on. It might be a very good way to preserve it, but the rights of the people who live by it to use it have to be respected too.

All of us, even if we are growing for food production purposes, are gardeners by CHOICE, and get to CHOOSE what plants and varieties we grow. Taking that away, even in the name of preserving maximum diversity, is probably unethical.

Then again, there is no pursuit, however noble, that cannot be seen as horrifically criminally evil if viewed from a slightly different viewpoint.

 

[Zeedman]

Ah THAT sort of gets into the deeper philosophy of seed saving, and how much it is ethically permissible to ask in the pursuit of preserving varieties.

After all the most efficient way and place of keeping a variety around is in it's place of origin. But what happens if no one there wants to keep growing it. You can encourage and do what you can to help, but if you REALLY want to ensure it, you more or less might have to cross the line and FORCE the people to grow it, and no other (to keep it pure). And that poses a sort of ethical dilemma.

It's a bit like those people who say the answer to saving the rainforest is to simply require all countries to expel everyone from it and declare it off limits to everyone from now on. It might be a very good way to preserve it, but the rights of the people who live by it to use it have to be respected too.

All of us, even if we are growing for food production purposes, are gardeners by CHOICE, and get to CHOOSE what plants and varieties we grow. Taking that away, even in the name of preserving maximum diversity, is probably unethical.

Then again, there is no pursuit, however noble, that cannot be seen as horrifically criminally evil if viewed from a slightly different viewpoint.

I'm a little lost, as how my post could be so misconstrued as to imply that seed saving & preservation is a form of unethical coercion. Seed saving is purely voluntary, and I can't see how efforts to preserve diversity in food plants could "be seen as horrifically criminally evil if viewed from a slightly different viewpoint". There are zealots within the movement, as there are within any topic where fame or a book deal can be used to personal advantage... but those efforts do no harm, and no one is forcing people to grow something against their will.

It is a tragedy that expressly because seed saving is voluntary, and because too many eggs are often held in a single precarious basket, that many unique varieties are continuously being lost to extinction. What happened to Glen's sweet potato collection is an example of how vulnerable some varieties are. Government seed banks, and NGOs like SSE, can't save them all. The question of whether we should save them all involves the value we place on any unique life form, and what their loss could mean for the future.

Where I do see harm being done is when a region or ethnicity claims exclusive ownership of a food plant, and uses the power of force (law) to prevent others from growing it. That is no different philosophically than patenting a food plant, and punishing those who grow it without permission. IMO anything which restricts the rights of others to grow & eat the food of their choice is unethical.

"After all the most efficient way and place of keeping a variety around is in it's place of origin. But what happens if no one there wants to keep growing it."

There is no denying that the best way of preserving an heirloom, is to continue growing it at its source. But what happens when the children either move away, or choose not to grow it? At that point, there are really two choices: abandon it to extinction, or preserve it elsewhere. Forcing people to grow it at its point of origin is an option being proposed by no one. The philosophy of seed saving is that while the present generation doesn't choose to grow something, their children - or others - may choose differently. It's about preserving that choice, not eliminating it.

In many ways, the seed saving movement is a response to coercion. The power of governments & corporations has been used to force heirloom & OP varieties out of commerce, at the expense of traditional varieties grown for generations. Just because something is not suitable for large scale cultivation - or doesn't generate huge profits for seed companies - doesn't make it worthless. To the contrary, as many gardeners know, many of the varieties rejected by commercial agriculture are not only well suited to garden culture, but may be more flavorful & nutritious when carried straight from garden to table.

 

[heirloomgal]

There used to be an organization called America the Beautiful that collected all the old packets from the big companies and donated them to community organizations. I actually got some of my favorite varieties from them when I was growing a lot of foodbank plots. Thompson & Morgan had a lot of good stuff in those boxes

Thompson & Morgan...Grandpa Ott morning glories...

 

[ducks4you]

You don't remember the efforts of Monsanto to sue farmers over patented seed being cross pollinated, therefore the farmers or private gardeners were being sued over their produce.
I thought all would see that the Shakers started a movement to sell seeds to others in packages, just like we have all seen our entire lives.
I THINK it would be a good idea to make sure that you have the seeds you need. There are gardeners HERE who have vegetable preferences, and talk about the names of their tomatoes, beans, cucumbers, etc. I don't care that much, as long as I can get tomatoes, beans, cucumbers, etc from the seeds that I plant.
THIS year gardeners are STILL competing with panicky new gardeners afraid that they will starve and wearing out their CC's buying seed. THEREFORE, seeds are a little bit scarce. I think that warm weather seeds have already been processed and saved by seed companies, but I understand that some of them end up buying from other smaller seed companies if their inventory runs low, so that they have product.
I don't think that ANY seed company I have bought from recently--High Mowing, Jung, Burpee--really care if I save any seeds from my harvest of seeds I have brought from them.
The heirloom seed saving/seed selling industry was started ~50 years ago by people who were watching seeds become not available, and thought it good to grow them, save the seeds, Sell the seeds, and keep them alive.
Think about tomatoes. The tomato during the 1700's was a tiny version of the bumpy heirlooms and really only used to make a sauce. It went over to Europe, and around the world and was bred into many different heirloom varieties, most a lot bigger fruit.
Same with chickens. If you raise white cornish hens, which are hybreds, only grown commercially for MEAT, when the carcass is plucked it's really hard to see any feathers that are left. You can see any feathers missed on a Rhode Island Red.
Nobody coerced me OR you to save any seeds this year, so I don't get it either.

 

[Pulsegleaner]

I'm a little lost, as how my post could be so misconstrued as to imply that seed saving & preservation is a form of unethical coercion. Seed saving is purely voluntary, and I can't see how efforts to preserve diversity in food plants could "be seen as horrifically criminally evil if viewed from a slightly different viewpoint". There are zealots within the movement, as there are within any topic where fame or a book deal can be used to personal advantage... but those efforts do no harm, and no one is forcing people to grow something against their will.

It is a tragedy that expressly because seed saving is voluntary, and because too many eggs are often held in a single precarious basket, that many unique varieties are continuously being lost to extinction. What happened to Glen's sweet potato collection is an example of how vulnerable some varieties are. Government seed banks, and NGOs like SSE, can't save them all. The question of whether we should save them all involves the value we place on any unique life form, and what their loss could mean for the future.

Where I do see harm being done is when a region or ethnicity claims exclusive ownership of a food plant, and uses the power of force (law) to prevent others from growing it. That is no different philosophically than patenting a food plant, and punishing those who grow it without permission. IMO anything which restricts the rights of others to grow & eat the food of their choice is unethical.

"After all the most efficient way and place of keeping a variety around is in it's place of origin. But what happens if no one there wants to keep growing it."

There is no denying that the best way of preserving an heirloom, is to continue growing it at its source. But what happens when the children either move away, or choose not to grow it? At that point, there are really two choices: abandon it to extinction, or preserve it elsewhere. Forcing people to grow it at its point of origin is an option being proposed by no one. The philosophy of seed saving is that while the present generation doesn't choose to grow something, their children - or others - may choose differently. It's about preserving that choice, not eliminating it.

In many ways, the seed saving movement is a response to coercion. The power of governments & corporations has been used to force heirloom & OP varieties out of commerce, at the expense of traditional varieties grown for generations. Just because something is not suitable for large scale cultivation - or doesn't generate huge profits for seed companies - doesn't make it worthless. To the contrary, as many gardeners know, many of the varieties rejected by commercial agriculture are not only well suited to garden culture, but may be more flavorful & nutritious when carried straight from garden to table.

I wasn't saying it was. I was just trying to point out that it WOULD be unethical to FORCE people to save seed.

As you say it is a tragedy that so many varieties are lost, but when it comes to what to DO about it, I was trying to say that saying to people " You HAVE to grow this, because your ancestors did, and we will MAKE you do so." isn't right either anymore that to say "No, you CAN'T move away from home, you have to stay on your forbears land, as do you children and your children's children forever and ever.", or "We don't care if circumstances have changed and your traditional crops no longer work well enough to make you a living, or even keep your family fed. Keeping those crops alive on their point of origin is more important than you or your families lives." There are some zealots out there who might say the crop is more valuable than the people.