If I build a hoop house about 18 ft by 48 ft and install raised beds in it,
Would heavy duty rebar be able to hold the side of the raised beds in place
?

I am thinking of beds being 10 to 11 inches high and it would be easy to
drive 5/8 rebar into the ground about every 4 feet to keep the sides up.

Also pressure treated wood would not pose a problem would it.?

any feed back would be very helpful I want to get the house as close to
right as possible the first time.

Harold

harold steig wrote:


Also pressure treated wood would not pose a problem would it.?

Only if you plan to eat any of the things you grow in your hoop house.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:38:54 -0500, "harold steig"
wrote:

If I build a hoop house about 18 ft by 48 ft and install raised beds in it,
Would heavy duty rebar be able to hold the side of the raised beds in place
?

I think so.

I am thinking of beds being 10 to 11 inches high and it would be easy to
drive 5/8 rebar into the ground about every 4 feet to keep the sides up.

Also pressure treated wood would not pose a problem would it.?

Yes, it's a problem.

See:
http://www.dph.state.ct.us/Publicati.../pressurtr.pdf

There are alternative pressure-treating methods that are
said to be less of a problem: they're more expensive and
might need to be special-ordered. We just got some planks
(we're also building a hoophouse), and they were more
expensive and we needed to special-order them. They weren't
CCA-treated - I don't know what they were treated with (my
husband dealt with this and he's not home at present).

You can find a lot of info on this if you Google as follows
(note punctuation - do it exactly like this):

"pressure-treated" + edible

any feed back would be very helpful I want to get the house as close to
right as possible the first time.


We do too.

You've seen the various plans/directions for building a
hoophouse that are available online?

If not, Google on 'hoophouse' and you'll come up with lots
of plans and directions to choose from.

Also, these folks are selling hoophouses at not a whole lot
more than it would require to build them yourself (you still
need to supply the lumber for the end-walls though):

http://www.hoophouse.com/

We didn't buy a kit from these people but we may regret it -
we'll see. I know someone who has a hoophouse built from
one of their kits, and she's very happy with it.

Pat

Pat Meadows wrote:


Also pressure treated wood would not pose a problem would it.?

Yes, it's a problem.

See:
http://www.dph.state.ct.us/Publicati.../pressurtr.pdf

Pat

Pat, your own link, on page 3, says it's not a problem. I quote "the amount
of arsenic in produce grown in such beds will not be a health concern."
Moreoever there have been studies done that show there is almost no lateral
leaching (a border of french marigolds would serve multiple purposes here).
Your article acknowledges this by pointing to cultivation as being a
disseminating mechanism but not mentioning lateral leaching at all.

His heaviest exposure to arsenic will be during the construction phase. If
he will wear a particul dust mask while working with it and treat the
cut-to-size-but-not-yet-assembled lumber to a boiled linseed oil soak to
seal it, he (and it) should be fine for many years into the future.

If redwood, cedar, or similar rot-resisting woods are available he should
consider their use but the actual numbers on leached arsenic are small
enough to shrug off.

Arsenic is a lot more common than most folks realize. It is, as your cited
web page noted,"a natural trace element present in soil, drinking water,
food and air." Wine, for instance, carries appreciable quantities of it and
the upper level of As in wine is a regulated number.

The use of the word 'contaminate' carries negative connotations that are
intended to incite less knowledgeable people into errors of caution. A clam
peeing in the ocean 'contaminates' it. Use of the word "contaminate"
without also quantifying it is misleading.

I would recommend a review of the material at
http://www.backyardamerica.com/cca.htm before he makes his final materials
decision.

Phrases such as "EPA has not concluded that CCA-treated wood poses any
unreasonable risk to the public or the environment." and "While available
data are very limited, some studies suggest" and "This action comes years
ahead of completing the Agency's regulatory and scientific assessment of
CCA" do not 'facts' make.

The actual fact sheet (
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsh...als/cca_qa.htm ) states:

"What risks does arsenic pose to human health?
Arsenic is a known human carcinogen and is acutely toxic. When estimating
the potential risks that a chemical may pose, one must consider two
factors: toxicity and exposure. Toxicity is described as the harmful
effects that the chemical may cause, which is often dependent on the amount
or dose received. Exposure is the dose received, typically orally or
through contact with the skin, or by inhaling, over a certain period of
time. Thus, whether any risk of toxic effects exists is dependent on both
toxicity and exposure. As part of our comprehensive reassessment, EPA is
evaluating both the toxicity and the potential exposure to arsenic from
CCA-treated wood in light of the most recent scientific studies, which will
allow EPA to characterize the potential risks from CCA-treated wood. EPA
expects to release its comprehensive risk assessment for public and
scientific review in 2003."

In other words, while a chemical may kill 50% of a population within 24
hours (LD50) at a given level, at some lower level it may cause no damage
at all. Sodium Chloride (table salt) is just one example of this. Alcohol
is another. Repeated, prolonged and intense exposure to alcohol has bad
effects where lighter doses can actually be therapeutic.

Make what you wish of the facts, but make certain the you actually have the
facts before making a decision.