Our family is a generational wheat/cattle farmers. If people have wheat farmers in their area (or close enough to drive to), have them contact the farmers and ask if they have wheat that is not GMO and if they would sell non-GMO wheat out of the field to them (during harvest). Our family does not grow GMO wheat. We farm 2,000 acres (not where we live). You want the wheat right out of the field because the grain elevators spray the wheat for bugs as it’s going into the storage bins. We used to own an elevator and feed store, too. Keep in mind that harvest is the most stressful time of the year for the farmer. Try not to bother him if you can help it and have all of your ducks in a row when you go to get the wheat. If you aren’t getting a whole lot, he might have you come to the farm and get your wheat at the house instead of from the fields right out of the combine. Buying straight from the farmer should be cheaper than anywhere else, too, and the farmer will still be getting more for his wheat than he does selling to the commodity markets. Be prepared to take care of your wheat when you get it home. If the farmer has a really good combine, then the wheat should be pretty clean of bugs, dirt, etc., but you should still clean it before storing it. A strong fan works – pour it slowly down in front of the fan from one bucket to another and the fan will blow out the lighter weight bugs/dirt/cheat seed/etc. – put a tarp or sheet on the ground so you catch the cheat seed/etc. or any wheat that might escape and feed it to the chickens or whatever. We used to feed the cattle ground up wheat cleanings from our elevator that was mostly cheat seed to fatten them for butcher. It was amazing how well they did. After you clean it, have something to put it in that bugs can’t get into it. Storing it in a freezer is the easiest thing, but can take up a lot of room. Wheat like this that is stored correctly can last for years and still sprout—even thousands of years. Keep the wheat cool, dry and clean. Buying from a company, especially if it has to be shipped to you, can be very expensive, especially now that the shipping costs are going up so bad.
Dear Family Farmer,
Thank you for writing in! We appreciate when our readers respond with timely information such as this that helps others figure out a way to be prepared and save money. God bless, and thank you for all you do to help feed us!
I shared the article from January 30, 2012 titled “Global Warming or Approaching Ice Age? Scientists Say the Sun Will Have the Last Word.” A recipient replied back to me with this:
“I believe that global warming is well-accepted by the scientific community, but theories are often disproven later when new evidence emerges. We must all be careful to consider the sources of our information. For example, this article is likely junk, like many articles one finds on the Internet. Please don’t send things like this out to everyone. If you find scientific articles from reputable peer-reviewed journals, then please share.”
The part he wrote about…. “For example, this article is likely junk, like many articles one finds on the Internet,” concerns me. Can you be of assistance? Is this article by Tim George junk?
Thank you for writing. As has been demonstrated time and time again, the theory of climate change is less science than it is political expediency and a means for raising large sums of cash. If you look at the article, it quotes several scientists involved in the climate change debate, from both sides. It gives a platform to opinions ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other. While the author’s opinion is given at the end of the article (that we’re making far-reaching decisions based on science that is yet unproven), he does not spin the article one way or the other. He provides links to other sources of information. His report is quite neutral and allows the reader to formulate their own opinion. Isn’t that what we want our journalists to do? Give us the information, all the information, in an unbiased, neutral fashion and let us determine what we feel the truth to be?
Unfortunately, those in charge of the debate and the inclusion of articles in these peer-reviewed journals refuse to even acknowledge the lack of evidence, the falsifying of data, and the politicization of the entire climate change world-view. To them, climate change is a given. Like many religious adherents to a tenet of faith that is called into question and challenges the whole basis of their belief system, they will not look at any contrary evidence in an objective manner. Consider these quotes from those in the forefront of the whole climate change movement:
“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” – Ellen Goodman, national syndicated columnist
“David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change. At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime.” – Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki
The IPCC’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, recently compared eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. “What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s?” Pachauri told a Danish newspaper. “If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing. – National Review
So now, those who even bring up any troubling evidence that goes against the established thought and belief of climate change proponents are now on par with Hitler, Holocaust deniers, and should be jailed for crimes against humanity? This is the platform of free thinking and debate that these people supposedly espouse? Notice they do not attempt to answer the questions or challenges brought forth to their theories, but instead attack those who would dare question the legitimacy of their conclusions.
Internationally known scientists have left the organizations from which these journals originate in protest that their views and articles, which question the accepted climate change model, are deliberately being left out of the scientific discussion. You will not see anti-climate change articles in peer-reviewed journals because it goes against the whole paradigm of the climate change proponents’ belief system and they are the ones in charge of the journals. It was not too long ago that the editor of a scientific journal was pushed to resign his position because he dared publish an article by U.S. scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, which claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase. Instead of bringing this information into the debate, the hard-core climate change scientific community wanted him strung up by his toes. Shades of Galileo, anyone?
We hire reputable writers to provide articles for our readers. Sometimes they may miss the mark and sometimes they may get something wrong. They are, after all, only human. When that happens we acknowledge and correct those errors. But the integrity and character of these writers have never been in question to me, especially Tim George, who adheres to the highest possible standards in his personal and professional life, as well as in all that he writes.
Got a question for the editor? Send it to [email protected]