“Milk Date Labels Contribute to Food Waste | Agweb.com” article offers potentially dangerous advice

“Ohio State Researchers: Milk Date Labels Contribute to Food Waste”

Source: Ohio State Researchers: Milk Date Labels Contribute to Food Waste | Agweb.com

Screen Shot 2018-02-20 at 5.29.01 AMSo I ran across this item this morning over at Agweb and while I agree that the dating system used on most food products is often highly misleading, there are statements in that article that I find troubling.

Generally speaking, the dates you see on most food products you buy in the grocery store are pretty much completely bogus. I certainly agree with that. Often those dates have nothing to do with the safety of the product.

Most of the time the date is about product quality. After the date on the label, the product begins to lose flavor or the texture degrades. There is nothing actually wrong with the product, it just might not taste as good as one would like. Sometimes the dates are utterly ridiculous. I was looking at dried beans for soup the other day and noticed there were “use by” dates on them and found myself wondering how in the world dried beans could go bad because they pretty much can’t. As long as they’re stored properly, don’t get wet, and the packaging is intact, those dried beans should be perfectly fine for food for years and years. I’ve even heard that a lot of those dates aren’t based on any kind of research, but are just picked out of thin air by the manufacturer.

But when it comes to dairy products, meat and other food items that require refrigeration, I become a bit more wary, and here is where I begin to disagree with the article over on Agweb. It makes this statement:

“Pasteurized milk is safe past the sell-by date unless it has been cross-contaminated. While it may not taste as good — it can go sour and have flavors that people don’t like and may make them feel nausea — but it isn’t going to make them sick.”

Now wait just a minute…  Your senses of smell and taste are your first line of defense against spoiled or contaminated food that could potentially make you ill. If your milk smells sour, has “off” smells, has an odd texture or doesn’t seem right in some way, don’t use it. Yes, it could be “safe” in that it won’t actually make you sick, but can you tell the difference between milk that has merely gone a bit sour or milk that is actually gone bad? Do you want to take the chance?

And that statement about nausea? Really? Foods that make you throw up are fine to eat? Look, if consuming a food product makes you feel nausea or makes you throw up, that food has, by definition, made you sick. Nausea is not a normal reaction to consuming food. It is a symptom that something is wrong.

So yes, the sell-by dates on most food products are pretty much bogus. But you need to use common sense. I don’t care what this guy says up there in that quote. If a food product does not smell right, looks odd, and doesn’t taste right, don’t use it. Yes, it might be “safe”, but do you want to take that chance?

 

Oh No He’s Going To Break It Isn’t He?

Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 6.34.33 AMHopefully no, I’m not going to break it. But I’ve been doing this blog for a long time now and I’m tired of looking at the same style all the time. I haven’t changed the layout or design of this thing since I started it, so it’s high time for a refresh.

I’m not sure if I like this design or not yet. We’ll see. Don’t be surprised if it changes again in the near future. You may see a few posts like this one that essentially have little or no actual useful content (Ha! You could say that about a lot of my articles here, couldn’t you?) so have patience. If there’s something about the new styles you like or don’t like just leave a comment or email to old.grouchyfarmer@gmail.dom.

Okay so I just looked at it and it doesn’t look utterly horrible. Maybe.

I don’t know about you but I get tired of reading stark black text on a bright white background all the time, so that’s the first thing that got changed.

It’s also supposed to be able to do pull quotes. Well, we’ll see about that

This is supposed to be able to do pull quotes too. Well, we’ll see about that. I’ve been promised pull quotes in the past

 

This format is also supposed to let me put up images at a larger size and higher resolution than the old one did, so we’ll see about that.

Also it’s about 6 in the morning because I can’t sleep and I’m bored so I start fiddling with things.

 

 

 

Amateur Radio: More on FT8

On Feb 12 I decided to take a serious look at what operating with the FT8 mode was all about. I had the software configured, the equipment all ready to go, fired everything up, tuned up on 18.100, and started trying to make contacts and, well…

In a short time I’d logged contacts with Southern California, Oregon, Brazil, England, Finland, Spain, France… Wow.

The next day I got curious about just how well I was getting out and went to the PSK Reporter website to check. If you’ve never heard of PSK Reporter, it is a great service that links monitoring stations all over the world to a mapping system that will show you what monitors received your signals (or anyone else’s for that matter) and when. You can see what overall band conditions are like, or you can plug in your call sign and a date and time, along with a specific band if you like, and see if anyone heard your transmissions.

I pulled up the map and, well, look:

Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 5.40.25 PM

Every one of those blobs with an “hrs” label is a report of my transmissions being heard that day. I was hitting large parts of the US, almost all of Europe, the west coast of North Africa, South Africa for pete’s sake, and, amazingly, New Zealand.

I played around for a while yesterday and had similar results. I made contacts in England and the west coast of the US, and the map showed results similar to the one above.

Oh, and I had one contact on 17 meters with Elkhart Lake, WI, about 20 miles from here. I’m still trying to figure out what kind of weird system of propagation allowed that to happen.

I already knew FT8 was wildly popular, and now I had first hand experience of why. Once you get the hardware and software set up, operating is a snap. Pick a clear spot on the water fall for transmission, click a mouse button to start a CQ and sit back and wait. The CQ is automatically transmitted every 15 seconds until you either stop it or someone responds. When someone does respond, the software picks up their call sign, plugs it in the right spot in the pre-programmed responses, and begins the automatic exchange of grid square, reception data, and then ends the contact and pops up a box to log the contact.

If you see someone calling CQ that you want to try contacting, just double click on the call sign and the system begins trying to make contact with them, and if it does, goes through the automated exchange.

Because of the digital coding system used by the software, this is a very efficient way of making a contact. It is a very narrow bandwidth, can handle signals down to -20 dB or so, and lets people make contacts they normally would never have been able to log.

So what’s the controversy all about? Why do some people seem so upset about FT8? I’m not really sure. Yes, there is very little actual “communication” going on, but the same is true for a lot of other contacts going on as well. Most PSK communications, even RTTY, is little more than an exchange of pre-recorded macros. Same with a lot of other digital modes. And may of those modes are just as automated as FT8 is.

Everyone in amateur radio is excited by different aspects of the hobby. Some like to talk, some like to experiment with electronics, some like to try to design better antennas, some are fascinated with how radio signals are propagated through the atmosphere. Some like EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) or moon-bounce. Some are into satellite communications. Some like contesting. Some enjoy DX chasing, trying to make contact with far away places that are hard to reach. And for DXers, FT8 is just another tool they can use to try to reach a goal of contacting a hard to reach country or region.

Are there problems with FT8? No doubt about it. The main one seems to be overcrowding. Last night down on 20 meters, and even on 80 and 160 meters the FT8 portions of the band were almost solid red all the way across the waterfall display. It looked and sounded like no one was even bothering to try to find a clear frequency. They were just hitting “transmit” anywhere on the band, whether they were sending over the top of someone else or not, and hoping the software could sort out the mess.

I have to admit that when I started looking at FT8 I was prepared to dislike it. But the thing is very addictive as you start to watch contacts from far away places go into the log, and I’ll probably keep playing with it as time permits.

Amateur Radio’s New Digital Mode, FT8. Let the controversy begin…

Screen Shot 2018-02-11 at 8.43.39 AM
Gads, what a mess

Amateur radio has a new toy to play with, a new digital mode called FT8. The name

Screen Shot 2018-02-11 at 8.44.04 AM
WSJT software in action

comes from the first two letters of the last names of its developers, Franke (K9AN) and Taylor (K1JT), plus the number 8 because it uses 8 frequency shift keying. The new mode has only been generally available since late June or July 2017 when it released as a beta. And it almost immediately took over amateur radio down on the HF bands. I’ve seen estimates that claim that more than half of all contacts on HF are now taking place using FT8.

FT8 is a “weak signal” mode, meaning that you can often successfully decode signals that are down around -20 dB. This is not as good as some of the other digital modes out there such as JT65 which can go as low as -28 dB. But it is much, much faster to make a contact with FT8 than with JT65. Like any communications mode, it has advantages and drawbacks. And like most digital communications modes, it requires a computer interfaced to your transceiver.

I’m always up for something new, and with temperatures hovering down around 0(F) fiddling around with FT8 has seemed like a good way to spend my free time over the last few days. I already had the WSJT software installed on my Win10 computer but hadn’t really had much incentive to do much with it until now.

I won’t go into the details of getting the software installed, configured, hooking things up to your transceiver, etc. There are dozens of tutorials out there. How you set it all up is going to depend on your computer, what transceiver you’re using, sound card, etc. In my case I’m using a Kenwood TS-990 with a RigBlaster Advantage, the same equipment I use for my other digital modes.

Initial setup wasn’t too difficult. The FT8 Operating Guide by Gary Hinson was a big help in getting everything working properly and is highly recommended.

Screen Shot 2018-02-11 at 12.21.21 PM
First FT8 contact

Much to my surprise, I actually got everything working without a great deal of difficulty and after getting set up and calibrated I took a stab at calling CQ on 15 meters and actually made a contact. WA7MPG in Canada BC.

So, what’s the controversy I mentioned in the title of this? Nothing less than (drum roll please) the end of amateur radio! (Imagine spooky voice saying that)

Yes, according to some out there, FT8 heralds the end of amateur radio. Well, true, they said the same thing about SSB, packet radio, repeaters, PSK, digital voice, SSTV, dropping the morse code requirement and, well, pretty much every innovation to come along in the last 100 years or so. But this time it’s really the end! Really!

Oh, brother…

The complaints are due to the fact that FT8 is almost entirely automated. Contacts via FT8 consist of brief, 15 second long exchanges of call sign, grid location, signal strength, and then a 73 to end, all done by the software. A click or two of the mouse is all it takes to start the whole process, and then you sit back and watch the computer do the work.

And this is what they’re complaining about. It takes the “human element” out of the whole thing, they claim. It is just making contacts for the sake of racking up another contact in the log. It isn’t “real” amateur radio. It isn’t real communications. It’s just two computers talking to one another.

The arguments are just silly, of course. Yes, it’s real communications. Information is being exchanged. And as for the other arguments, well, the same things could be said about any digital mode of communications; RTTY, PSK, etc. If you monitor the people who use those modes you’ll quickly find that most “conversations” take the form of pre-written and stored messages or macros that are sent automatically. Heck, if you monitor the CW portions of the bands you’ll find a lot of people are doing the same thing even with CW using decoding software and keyers.

Look, amateur radio includes a huge variety of methods of communications, both analog and digital. Everyone has their own favorite thing to do. But there are a lot of amateur radio operators out there who can’t afford to operate a contest quality station with acres of antennas and ten thousand dollar transceivers and amplifiers, but who would still love to log contacts with other amateur radio operators in far off places. FT8 allows people with modest equipment and antennas to use a weak signal mode to make contacts that they normally would probably never be able to make. It doesn’t encroach on the territory of the SSB or CW portions of the bands.

So why all the complaints? I’m not really sure. FT8 has become wildly popular for a lot of very good reasons, and it isn’t going to go away any time soon. Even better, it’s getting a lot of amateur radio operators who weren’t all that active before to start exploring the hobby once more.

Am I going to use FT8 a lot? Heck, I don’t know. I’m one of those very odd amateur radio operators who doesn’t actually like to talk to people. I’m more into it because of the technology. But I still like to get on the air once in a while, if for no other reason than to test equipment and antennas. FT8 could at least make my contact log look a lot less sparse, so maybe. We’ll see.

 

Strangeness in New Tax Law for Farmers

The interesting thing about the new tax law that got rammed through is that no one really seems to have known what was in it, not even the people who wrote it. This law was literally written in secret, behind closed doors, with only a very few people being allowed to know what was actually in it. Special clauses were inserted for no other reason than to get support from members of congress who threatened to vote against it. And often the people writing it had no idea what they were actually putting into the law. Except for a few high profile items and talking points, none of it was allowed to be made public until it came to the floor for a vote. And finally it was passed in such a rush that the people voting on it didn’t know what they were actually voting for or against.

Apparently even the people who actually had specific items inserted into the law didn’t know what the clauses that they themselves had put in would actually do. Part of the new law, IRC Section 199A that applies to earned income from pass through business activities is one of the items that even it’s authors didn’t really understand.  And one section of the 199A deduction could have a huge impact on farmers and how they sell the commodities they produce. I ran across this over at WallacesFarmer and it gives a brief rundown on how it works. But if you don’t have time to go read it yourself, here is how it would work.

The law includes a deduction for income from cooperatives for members of co-ops that is calculated differently from other sources of income. Basically income derived from selling your crops to a co-op you belong to is treated entirely differently from income from selling your products to a non-co-op.

The whole thing is a bit complex. What it essentially does for farmers is that in certain situations it carves out a huge deduction for selling your commodities to your co-op instead of to a commercial grain dealer. In the example they give in the article over at Wallaces, a farmer who sells his grain to a non-co-op business like an ethanol facility and ends up with a $50K profit, will end up owing about $4K in taxes on the profits from the sale.

If he sells it to a co-op, however, the farmer will end up owing zero taxes on the net income from the sale.

The really scary part is that the senators who inserted this into the tax bill, apparently had absolutely no idea this would be the result of the clauses they put into it. Two senators, Hoeven of ND and Thune of SD seem to have been largely responsible for shoving this into the bill just hours before it passed, and both claim that they did not intend to favor co-ops over any other business, despite the fact that is exactly what this does.

And this is just one clause in a law that is hundreds of pages long. No one knows yet what kind of traps, loopholes, give aways or other little surprises are lurking in this thing, and it could be months before we really know. And you can be sure that a lot of this is going to end up going through the courts before it all gets settled.

 

Farm Catch Up

I haven’t done one of these in a while, so let’s take a look at what’s been going on in agriculture. And since this is January 2018, maybe take a peek at the crystal ball (I actually use an old tennis ball because, well, have you seen what a good crystal ball costs these days?) and see what might be going on in the upcoming year.


Dicamba has been in the news again. This time the Arkansas state legislature has weighed in on the issue. It’s legislative council has approved the Arkansas plant board’s ban on the use of Dicamba from April 16 to Oct. 31. The board put the ban in place after receiving almost 1,000 complaints of Monsanto’s new “no-drift” blend of the herbicide doing exactly that, drifting, and damaging thousands of acres of crops in the state. The company has released the hounds lawyers, is filing for court orders, is threatening to sue everyone in sight, has launched attacks against at least one individual member of the plant board, and it’s getting nasty real fast.

Meanwhile other big soybean growing states have instituted new, much stricter controls on the use of the new herbicide after hundreds of thousands of acres of crops were allegedly damaged by the new blends. Even the feds have gotten into the act, instituting stricter rules and usage regulations about using the stuff.

Monsanto and it’s partners that are selling these blends claim that the drifting isn’t their fault, and that it’s the farmers and people performing the applications that are to blame. The clam is that they’re using the wrong equipment, spraying at the wrong time, at the wrong temperature, and even using not Monsanto’s patented product, but straight dicamba that they’re purchasing elsewhere that volatilizes much more easily. But in order for this much damage to be caused that way, a huge number of farmers and applicators would have to be breaking the law, and I don’t believe that. Commercial applicators won’t risk it. They could lose their licenses, get huge fines, be sued, basically be put out of business if they didn’t apply these products in the proper way. And farmers who apply these products themselves would face similar penalties.


A2 Milk – I don’t recall now if I’ve talked about so-called “A2” milk before, but if you haven’t heard of it yet, you will in the near future. I suggest you go read the Wikipedia article on it which goes into extreme detail, and which has a plot like a soap opera, complete with bankruptcies, threats, untimely deaths, utterly ridiculous health claims including that it cured diabetes, cancer, etc., bogus marketing scams and I don’t know what all else before it finally became “legit”. I just re-read it and– oh brother, it’s a mess. The thing you want to remember about A2 milk is that it is, well, milk. The only difference is that the casein in the milk has a slightly different chemical makeup than A1 type milk. Nor is A2 milk entirely free of the A1 type of casein. Despite all of the hype, it is still just milk, and there seems to be no real basis in fact for any of the health claims being made for it. If you want to drink it, fine. But for heaven’s sake, don’t pay more for it than you’d pay for regular milk because it doesn’t cost any more to produce the stuff than it costs to produce A1 milk.


Dairy – There doesn’t seem to be much good news for the dairy industry for 2018. Thanks to continued overproduction and a projected increase in production during 2018 of 3% or more, milk prices look like they’re going to be heading down, with some people predicting the price could drop to $13/CWT or even lower. A dairy economist over at UW Madison thinks prices could climb as high as $16 in the second half of the year, but he seems to believe that production and demand are going to start to balance out, and frankly there doesn’t seem to be any real reason to believe that.

Some people think China is going to dramatically increase imports of milk products, but there’s no real reason to believe that, either. China has had a moderate increase in imports, but not to the point where it is having much effect on milk prices.

Don’t look to NAFTA for any help, either. If anything, the NAFTA negotiations are doing little more than making Mexico and Canada increasingly irritated. But more about that lower down on the page.

About the only good thing that’s happened in the dairy industry is that cattle feed prices have remained fairly low. But while that’s good news for dairy, it’s bad news for grain farmers.


Corn – Corn prices don’t look like they’re going to get much better either. Despite predictions that farmers are going to be planting less acreage in corn in 2018, the amount of grain actually produced isn’t going to be shrinking much because of improvements in yield, and as a result the price of corn on the commodities market has remained at or near the $3.50 level, where it’s been for months now. Demand for corn appears to be relatively flat.

As is the case with milk, there is hope that China will start to ramp up imports of corn, but there seems to be no real proof that is going to happen any time soon. The biggest buyer of US corn used to be Mexico. In 2017 Mexico curtailed it’s purchases of US corn, and has been talking to sellers in Brazil and Argentina. Increased sales to Japan has made up for some of that loss, but the way things are going in the political arena, don’t look for any improvement in grain exports any time soon.


NAFTA – The trade agreement that administration officials were claiming would be done in just two or three weeks back in mid summer of ’17, wasn’t, of course. Negotiations are still going on, and despite public statements by the administration indicating things are going just fine, they aren’t. Behind the scenes reports from the proverbial “unnamed source” indicate that things are definitely not going well. And when one considers that the ruling party in DC can’t even negotiate with it’s own members to keep the government funded and has to depend on the opposition to get enough votes to keep government offices open, that shouldn’t be surprising.

The question isn’t when a new NAFTA will be negotiated, the question should be is there going to be any kind of NAFTA at all. Right now I’d say that the chances of NAFTA being successfully renegotiated are around 50/50.

Amaryllis

IMG_0810
I keep mine in a south facing window with a lot of other plants, and it’s been doing quite well there as you can see.

You have to love amaryllis. Those huge, brilliantly colored flowers are amazing. And the fact that this is the time of year when you most often see them in homes and shops when it’s so cold and bleak looking outside makes them all the more spectacular. MrsGF got me this one one for Christmas and it’s just come into full flower and it is spectacular. And they aren’t expensive, either. I saw them at Walmart selling for about $7.

A lot of people throw them away when they’re done blooming because they’re usually fairly inexpensive to buy and people think they’re hard to get to bloom again, but they aren’t difficult to get to flower again. It does take a bit of work but it isn’t hard to do. So if someone gave you one of these or you bought one yourself, here’s how to care for it so it will bloom again next year.

Once the flowers have wilted, cut the flowers from the flower stalk. When the flower stalk wilts, cut it off at the top of the bulb but leave the leaves alone.

The leaves will continue to be green and growing for about another six months. Then they will begin to yellow and die back naturally, usually in the fall of the year. When this happens, cut the leaves off about 2 inches above the top of the bulb. Remove the bulb from the potting soil.

Clean loose dirt from the bulb, but be careful not to scar or scratch the bulb itself if possible. It now needs to be kept in a cool, dark place. Like a lot of bulbs, it needs to go through a lengthy dormant period before it will regrow. Don’t wrap it in plastic or put it in something like a ziplock bag or a sealed plastic container or trapped moisture could cause it to mold. You can wrap it loosely in something like parchment paper or newspaper. The ideal temperature for storing the bulbs is around 40 – 50 degrees (F), so if you have an older house with a cool basement like we do, that’s a good place to put it. I’ve heard of people keeping them in the vegetable crisper in their refrigerators with good results as well.

Oh, I should add that you should never store the bulbs near apples. I’ve been told that apples give off a gas that can sterilize the bulbs.

The bulb needs to be kept in in storage for at least 6 weeks. You can keep them like this for longer. When you take the bulb out of storage depends on when you want it to flower. You want to plant it about 8 weeks before you want it to flower.

When you’re ready to plant it, get out a pot at least two or three inches larger in diameter than the bulb, and several inches taller. Use a good quality potting compost soil mix. You can make your own but the commercial versions work quite well and have the advantage of being pre-sterilized and have nutrients added so you may not have to fertilize. Put an inch or two of soil in the bottom of the pot. Exactly how much depends on the height of your pot. You want the neck of the bulb to be just above the level of the soil. Push the soil down around the bulb just tightly enough so there aren’t any air pockets, but not so tightly that the soil can’t absorb water.

Put the bulb in a window where it will get direct sunlight. Mine is sitting in front of a south facing window. Ideally it should be a fairly warm location. They like temperatures around 65 – 75 degrees, but will still grow fairly well if it’s a bit cooler than that.

Water lightly until the leaves begin to form. Once the flower stalk begins to emerge, increase the amount of water a bit. Some growers will tell you to fertilize as well, but I’ve never done that. If you use a fresh, commercial potting compost mix when you plant it, it should have enough nutrients. But if it looks like it’s not growing as quickly as you think it should, you can add a bit of something like Miracle Grow to the water once a week or so.

The bulb should start to flower about eight or nine weeks after planting. Exactly when depends on temperature, sunlight, etc.

So if someone gave you one of these or you bought one and the flowers are beginning to wilt, yes, you can keep them and get them to flower again next year with a little patience and very little work.