|
|
Post by templeton on Jan 11, 2016 8:11:32 GMT -5
I offer moral support to all seedsaving initiatives, and encouragement to anyone who contributes time, energy, money or material to such endeavours. OK, this one hasn't got up, but are there lessons to be learned, or models of distributed preservation that might do a bit to save diversity? I suspect that there are only a relatively small number of people with the will and interest to run these things, if they are centralised. Without any expertise and just enough knowledge to make myself sound stupider than I actually am, are there resilient dispersed models that might work? I suggest this forum is one such model, as are the informal arangements I have with individuals and forums in Aust. There are multiple ways of doing this, and while my inclination is to go for the one that shoots the lights out, it needn't be gold plated to still be worthwhile. Diversity is good, after all. Perhaps a top down style wasn't the right organisational model to grow a grassroots network...
|
|
|
|
Post by reed on Jan 11, 2016 8:42:24 GMT -5
I think this forum is a grassroots seed network. Not only have I got seeds from folks here that I couldn't otherwise have found at any price, I have no idea how to put a value on what I'v learned here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Jan 11, 2016 10:26:02 GMT -5
In late winter, I pack up a couple of archive copies of my garden and send them as a gifts to a couple of random people. They might be local people. They might be people far away. Occasionally someone will buy an archive copy of my garden. More than a few times, seeds have come back to me from those archives. Even single packets that I share with people come back to me, either un-planted, or grown out for a few years in other places. Later this winter I am intending to send an archive copy of my garden to the Rocky Mountain Seed Aliance's seed bank. They will archive it for me in perfect seed storing conditions. There are a few people in the valley, and one in the next valley over, that are part of my routine swap network. Each year, they pack up a copy of their garden and send it to me, and I do the same for them. Or I stop by their gardens to chat, and go home with pocket's full of seed. Yesterday I was reading a paper about landrace seed preservation in a certain area... The gist of the article was that informal arrangements accounted for the vast majority of seed preservation and exchange, and that the centralized seed bank in the capitol was a very minor component of the system. The main problem that they identified, hampering the maintenance and exchange of varieties, was that the people doing the maintenance tended to be older, and it was hard for them to travel to the next village to acquire or share fresh seed. I'm starting to feel that myself... The major local seed swaps around here are in the big city, and getting there, even being there, is a PITA. The other component of the landrace preservation network that the researchers thought was important was the knowledge of how to grow and use the landrace varieties. The HG forum does a good job of preserving and disseminating knowledge about how to grow and preserve crops. Perhaps we could do a bit better about how to eat them. The best advice I have for preserving diversity is to not be afraid of impurity... Yes, I'm grumbling a lot that someone contaminated my sweet peppers with hot pepper genes. Partly my fault, cause I could have paid attention to what was being planted nearby. But in the general scheme of things, I think that my landraces are stronger when they are contaminated with a bit of new material. Perhaps a top down style wasn't the right organisational model to grow a grassroots network... Yup!!! |
|
|
|
Post by keen101 (Biolumo / Andrew B.) on Jan 11, 2016 17:50:03 GMT -5
Perhaps a top down style wasn't the right organisational model to grow a grassroots network... I agree. The name "grassroots" inherently suggests a bottom-up model. A top-down structure seems like it would fail every time. At least in the world in which we now live. People are tired of top-down models. We now live in a world where people hate patents, love open source, distrust large corporations, and love "the little guy". Or at least i like to think so. Some have said that i live in my own little fantasy world with unrealistic expectations. I think this forum is a grassroots seed network. Not only have I got seeds from folks here that I couldn't otherwise have found at any price, I have no idea how to put a value on what I'v learned here. I agree. I believe that was how i originally found this forum was because members here had plant varieties that could not be found anywhere else. Plus the enormous generosity in freely or low-cost sharing of seeds was tremendously inviting. The seeds may have brought me here, but it's the people i met here on why i decided to stay. There are a few somewhat local seed saving libraries or organizations in my region that i would love to eventually share seed with. Joseph Lofthouse has mentioned a few of them before. There are some other "open source" seed networks that may also have promise as well. But until i get to that point i will do my best to continue to bulk up seeds to share with those on this forum that have expressed interest. I still have some pea varieties to grow out so i can share back to a few generous individuals in England.  This past season i was pleasantly surprised at how well the watermelon seeds Joseph sent me did. Many of the melons were small (partly because they were vastly overcrowded), but they at least tripled the seed i planted. Enough to grow more next year and even plenty that i could share some back. I think i will try to grow it out a bit more and select out the moldy ones or the bad tasting ones first though. But certainly a collaborative effort that i find a lot of satisfaction from. |
|
|
|
Post by billw on Jan 11, 2016 18:19:27 GMT -5
I don't really know any of the background, but it seems like what some of the big collection maintainers really need is a common storefront through which they can sell their varieties, so they can make enough money to keep their collections going. It seems like that would be a heck of a lot easier than reinventing the SSE.
To me, even SSE just seems like a large seed store with unreliable stocking and variable quality control.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jan 11, 2016 23:17:32 GMT -5
To me, SSE seems too interested in getting bigger not to blunt its impact and fritter away its potential, but I'm a malcontent.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jan 12, 2016 1:03:17 GMT -5
It seems to be a common human inclination/failing, that when an opportunity to become rich/powerful/important arises, it is irresistible to the point of denying the initial purpose. When I'm in charge, things will be different!
|
|
|
|
Post by templeton on Jan 12, 2016 8:26:26 GMT -5
Um,
it might just be that these folks need to make a living, and that folks like us are tight arses or too few to make a living out of, so the only answer is to go mainstream? Doesn't mean we have to like it, but perhaps a bit of understanding? Then again, I AM known for my naiveté...
on the GSN issue, my somewhat trite post about top down v bottom up begs the question - how do you make a grassroots network, when you see declining diversity and worry about that loss? Sit around and hope it emerges out of good thought? A 'wicked' problem perhaps...
To stretch the analogy, what fertilizer, soil and seeds would encourage such a network to grow? Easy to critique, perhaps harder to nurture...
Often problems like this require someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. to digress a bit, the climate change debate, which gets scientists apoplectic, who then scurry around producing more facts, figures and informed opinion isn't a debate about science, but one about the sociology of science - they need sociologists, not more scientists.(but they don't like to be told that, just quietly...)
perhaps the GSN doesn't need experts who know about seeds, but experts who know about community-based structures, how they start, grow and fail...
just an idea...
T
|
|
|
|
Post by Walk on Jan 12, 2016 10:05:50 GMT -5
I don't really know any of the background, but it seems like what some of the big collection maintainers really need is a common storefront through which they can sell their varieties, so they can make enough money to keep their collections going. It seems like that would be a heck of a lot easier than reinventing the SSE. To me, even SSE just seems like a large seed store with unreliable stocking and variable quality control. I think you have a good point. The "storefront" should be online and could be setup and maintained by a co-op with the technical expertise necessary. Kind of like Etsy but for seeds. Maybe for members if they put seed in they get a credit that they can spend on getting seed from others? Non-members could just straight up buy packets. |
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Jan 12, 2016 13:22:41 GMT -5
I guess I should clarify a bit. I do believe that WB and the others who started GSN intended it to be more democratic and "grassroots" than SSE. SSE is the opposite of a democratic organization. The director and board act with total freedom from input or direction from the "members". Really it is a subscription service to access the other subscribers offerings. But all decisions regarding organizational structure, finances, mission/vision were outside of "members" jurisdiction. That was always true, and that was not true of the way GSN was/is designed. The other big problem with SSE is more institutional culture, Kent Whealy founded it and ran it as his own personal fiefdom until he was deposed. So the institution was built around a charismatic/autocratic, top-down "King of the Hill" structure internal culture-wise. When Whealy was removed/deposed/fired (choose your preference) what usually happens in that type of culture is that another "King" fills the power vacuum. Allegedly the new king is Amy Goldman. I am not privy to SSE internal politics any more than anyone else, but I cannot see how SSE has become any more responsive/transparent or open to critique since these transitions. And the membership is shrinking year by year.
GSN was intended to institutionally avoid that kind of social/political crap. Where I feel they went wrong was the idea was that the only thing wrong with SSE was the centralized decision making and that the seed distribution model was a sound one to emulate. I believe Will really wanted the old SSE distribution model to work for GSN (with a few tweaks), because it worked so well for his Scatterseed Project for so long. It is not hard to understand his desire to be able to continue his life's work, and I can envision how daunting incorporating a completely new distribution/interface structure for Scatterseed must have been. So the inherent desire to keep something that worked for a very long time, and had enabled him to create the astounding collection that Scatterseed became is very understandable.
The problem is, the internet changed the game for seed saving/sharing just like it changed the game for print media like magazines and newspapers. The genie is out of the bottle, and GSN was kind of attempting to ignore that fact. Add in a group of folks who had never (most of them) been involved in creating any organization or collaborative structure, some strong opinions and personalities and the thing kind of fell apart. It may not really have been anyone's fault, but its a damned shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by flowerweaver on Jan 12, 2016 14:21:32 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more with you Ox. I had hoped to help them get modernized, but met with resistance from the beginning. It was thought that people with large collections would not want to input each listing into searchable fields, and that it was important to have a way people could simply upload those collections as entire spreadsheets. There are board members who enjoyed 'reading' through SSE's catalog. I really don't have that kind of time. The proposed online GSN listings would have been just as cumbersome. Without searchable fields, to me the data is lost. Databases were one of my strengths as an elected board member. For many years I helped develop and maintain a national relational database for the botanic garden where I once worked. It's development was funded by grant money and I had many volunteers who input data for me. I saw no reason this model would not work for GSN. Trying to get the listing features functioning before developing the system architecture and seeking grant money to build it seemed like the cart before the horse. As it is, many well-intentioned volunteers have done/are doing their best to cobble what exists together, but it's not working. I think the reason why the HG forum is a good place for preserving seed diversity is not only are folks caring and generous, but we are first and foremost a community. One aspect of the 'genie' of which Ox speaks is that social media joins like minded people together. The GSN forum was never that kind of place. It is my hope GSN board members continue to read this thread, beyond the 'spanking' I got for telling it like it is, and listen to what you are saying. I do appreciate the support all of you on this forum have given me--both in my decision to run and to resign. |
|
|
|
Post by zeedman on Jan 12, 2016 22:20:34 GMT -5
Some good points, Templeton. I've got some thoughts along those lines, but I might struggle a bit trying to express them... and I still haven't got the multi-quote thing down pat yet, so my apologies to the sources. The autocratic model may be contributing to SSE's deterioration now, but it is not - in and of itself - a faulty concept. That same model, with a leader at the helm, is what built SSE into the organization it became. To pursue a mission - such as the cause of preservation - takes vision, drive, persistence, and leadership. It takes a crusader, or a very strong partnership. In the hands of the right leadership, the organization built to support that mission remains focused, and decisive. Under Kent, SSE's mission was Preservation, with a capital "P"; to preserve as much genetic diversity as possible... heirloom, commercial, domestic, foreign - EVERYTHING. The flaw of the autocratic model (aside from its vulnerability to human nature) is that the support of the stated mission is too reliant upon the strength & charisma of the leader (usually the founder). When the leadership changes, the mission is therefor at risk. The test of any organization is whether it will survive - true to its stated purpose - beyond the founding generation, or the loss of its founder(s). Supposedly, one of the purposes of the Board is to help provide mission continuity; but the influence of the Board seems to be overrated in that regard. SSE has now narrowed their focus to small "p", preservation of only heirlooms, and only those with documented North American history. They have forfeited any claim to be preserving food security, because by choosing to drop many accessions from their collection, they are abandoning varieties who have no other stewards to potential extinction... and wasn't it the action of Big Ag doing just that which contributed to the genesis of the heirloom movement? The problem with the pure democratic model is that it is indecisive. With no one to take the lead, it is hard to maintain focus, and get things done. It is more of an association, than an organization... and regardless of common purpose, it is hard to get everyone moving in the same direction. Absent leadership, disputes are never resolved, and action is held up in committee. It seems that something along those lines is what has bogged down GSN. That, I believe, is the question we should be asking. I like the idea of regional networks, and from what I've heard from some I correspond with (mostly on other boards) Canada is onto something with their "Seedy Saturdays". Bill Best has formed a very successful method for preserving Appalachian heirlooms. Seed libraries are on the increase. But what about Preservation, with the capital "P"? There is a lot of preservation going on, including a not insubstantial amount here... but I don't see anything with the organization, reach, or clout to replace the safety net that SSE once offered. I guess, that after many of us have individually done as much as we can, we just need to accept that some extinctions are inevitable.  |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Jan 12, 2016 22:58:35 GMT -5
I generate something like a million genotypes of corn per year in my garden. I suppose that 980,000 of them become extinct every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Jan 12, 2016 23:51:41 GMT -5
I accept the cautions and comments of all in this thread, especially noting the dialectic between "leadership" and "democracy", and the limitations on both. I think we must expand our understanding of bio-systems to apply to organizations: they arise, evolve (or not), and adapt (or go extinct); some die a-borning; some become relicts; some persist because they fit the environments in which they exist.
Due to my own personal inclinations, I find this forum a remarkably fertile ecosystem, lacking in authoritarian subjugation, abundant in curiosity and admirable expertise (to those of us who have put in years of academic study, kudos); I regret not having the "fire in the belly" to join your group; the relative lack of commercial interest is no small value. Guess it's my 60's Berkeley years that incline me to the "I've got this to spare; take it, if you want; enjoy!" model of human interaction. As Ben Franklin said, "We shall all hang together, or we shall surely all hang separately."
Until such time that civilization might collapse (don't laugh, we may be working on it), our mission is to survive and then some; I think this forum is very useful to that end, not least because of its loose, non-hierarchical structure. Keep the brains down in the gut, not in the head; that's what will work.
|
|
|
|
Post by kazedwards on Jan 13, 2016 0:35:03 GMT -5
My problem with SSE is the central concept of it, not to mention the price. I would like to see more of a network rather than a seed bank. Such as an online version of the SSE yearbook without everything else. Let the members do the preserving and have more of a database with seed sources. The varieties worth keeping around will stay and the ones that are not will go extinct.
As far a price $5 per variety is way too much, not to mention the membership. Membership would only need to cover the cost to run/setup the website. Not a farm, seed company, and a seed bank too. Someone would need to maintain/setup the site. Actually I'm sure it would take several people.
I had a lot of hope for GSN. I thought it might have some of the good qualities of SSE without the poor ones. I actually thought about getting more involved when Holly started this thread a few years ago, but just figured that my lack in experience would be of little help.
|
|
