In article , jeff
wrote:



I had several I thought were about to get blossom end rot, they were
completely green. 10 days later in a bag with a banana (ethylene gas)
and they were red enough to eat.

On the ones still on the vine, the largest is just now getting redish.

Jeff



Paul



Fried or pickled green tomatoes still an option.

http://southernfood.about.com/od/tomatoes/a/green_tomatoes.htm


Just watch out for some of them )

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080391/

Bill

--

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Every Man wrote:
Very strange.

I'm in eastern Virginia -- Northumberland County, along the Potomac
River.

Last year as we were building our house we planted a dozen or so
tomato plants along the back of the lot and harvested tomatoes all
summer and into the fall.

This year, I have 26 plants, all heirloom varieties. They are in
raised beds that are filled with half-and-half compost and topsoil.

I prune my plants so there are 3-4 main stems. I have lots of
foilage, healthy plants, no pests, and lots of green tomatoes. However
-- only two of my plants are ripening. I have been picking an
occasional ripe tomato from these two plants for 3 weeks; the rest of
the plants show no sign of ripening although they are loaded with
tomatoes.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Slow here too in northern DE. I blame the weather as it's been cooler
and rainier than normal.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st...rica%20(excl.%
20Arctic

What the stations worth a look.

It's a small world after all.

Bill

As a global warming skeptic I got on the Heartland Institutes mailing
list and have publication of their study of the temperature measuring
stations in the US. This is part of it:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

There are over 1,200 monitoring stations in the US and so far the group
has looked at 850 of them and found that 89% fail to meet the National
Weather Services site requirements that they must be 30 meters or more
away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.

Satellite data is more reliable:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d06oct97_1.htm

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made
activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global
warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."
It would cost a lot of corporate profits to keep "greenhouse gases"
under the equivalent of 450 ppm CO2. It would require life style changes
for everyone as well.

Since none of us has the data, I guess we'll just have to decide which
side we trust. If Frank has chosen the correct side, the rest of us will
look pretty silly. If the Union of Concerned Scientists is right, we
could be looking at a mass extinction (us, among others). So the choice
of the undecideds is, would you rather take a chance on looking silly,
or would you rather take a chance on being extinct?
I just think it is prudent not to jump to conclusions. Suggest reading
Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". We all want a clean environment and
conservation of resources but draconian moves like the cap and trade
bill do little in this direction other than more government control.
Individual scientists continue to question and evaluate data while large
scientific organizations, like the American Chemical Society which I
belong to, tend to be very political.

Frank

I must admit that I am no expert on "Global Warming". I would just be
happy (at least in the short run), if I could just figure out what is
messin' my melons. I have looked into the subject, mostly superficially
(there is only so much time), and from what I see, Global Warming is
accepted by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (UCS), and "Scientific
American". If these scientists had investments in, say, parasol futures,
my doubts would be raised, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If you
have a response to my logic, from the last post (see above), I would
like to hear it. Until then, it remain my position.

You say read Crichton, and the UCS has a page devoted to rebutting him
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...lobal_warming_
contrarians/crichton-thriller-state-of.html
I only have so much time to research a question, and I feel that I have
spent mine. If someone says, "Here's the answer", for sure I'll read it.
Normally, I turn to some authority I trust, like the "League of Women
Voters" for voting, or the USC on scientific matters.

If you have time to go through the UCS website on "Global Warming"
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/, and can come up with holes in
their arguments, I would love to hear them. What time I have to study,
is mostly being spent in studying GMOs, and the physiological effects of
statins. Then there is the "job" which starts in ten days, which always
cramps my life style.

I'm a retired chemist. Maybe not a global climate expert but I do
understand a lot of the basic science. I read Al Gore's "Earth in the
Balance" several years ago and realized that it was just a political
polemic supporting the progressive view of more government control.

The environmentalists hate Crichton because while global warming is only
a background for the thesis of the book, he did extensive study and came
to conclusions they do not like.

Laws of science are not arrived at by consensus as the global warming
advocates would have you believe. In the past, there was a consensus
that the sun revolved around the earth, etc.

Even if the earth is heating or cooling, it is mainly due to Mother
Nature or more specifically the sun. One of my epa friends says it is
presumptuous of man to assume his effects are greater than that of
Mother Nature.

Also came across a pamphlet of the skeptics examining the carbon dioxide
argument. They point out that there was a time in the past when carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere was 20X today's level yet there was no
following greenhouse effect. Also carbon dioxide only absorbs sunlight
at a few narrow bandwidths and exceeding current levels leave no more to
be absorbed.

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Every Man wrote:
Very strange.

I'm in eastern Virginia -- Northumberland County, along the Potomac
River.

Last year as we were building our house we planted a dozen or so
tomato plants along the back of the lot and harvested tomatoes all
summer and into the fall.

This year, I have 26 plants, all heirloom varieties. They are in
raised beds that are filled with half-and-half compost and topsoil.

I prune my plants so there are 3-4 main stems. I have lots of
foilage, healthy plants, no pests, and lots of green tomatoes.
However
-- only two of my plants are ripening. I have been picking an
occasional ripe tomato from these two plants for 3 weeks; the rest of
the plants show no sign of ripening although they are loaded with
tomatoes.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Slow here too in northern DE. I blame the weather as it's been cooler
and rainier than normal.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st...merica%20(excl.
%
20Arctic

What the stations worth a look.

It's a small world after all.

Bill

As a global warming skeptic I got on the Heartland Institutes mailing
list and have publication of their study of the temperature measuring
stations in the US. This is part of it:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

There are over 1,200 monitoring stations in the US and so far the group
has looked at 850 of them and found that 89% fail to meet the National
Weather Services site requirements that they must be 30 meters or more
away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.

Satellite data is more reliable:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d06oct97_1.htm

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made
activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global
warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."
It would cost a lot of corporate profits to keep "greenhouse gases"
under the equivalent of 450 ppm CO2. It would require life style changes
for everyone as well.

Since none of us has the data, I guess we'll just have to decide which
side we trust. If Frank has chosen the correct side, the rest of us will
look pretty silly. If the Union of Concerned Scientists is right, we
could be looking at a mass extinction (us, among others). So the choice
of the undecideds is, would you rather take a chance on looking silly,
or would you rather take a chance on being extinct?
I just think it is prudent not to jump to conclusions. Suggest reading
Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". We all want a clean environment and
conservation of resources but draconian moves like the cap and trade
bill do little in this direction other than more government control.
Individual scientists continue to question and evaluate data while large
scientific organizations, like the American Chemical Society which I
belong to, tend to be very political.

Frank

I must admit that I am no expert on "Global Warming". I would just be
happy (at least in the short run), if I could just figure out what is
messin' my melons. I have looked into the subject, mostly superficially
(there is only so much time), and from what I see, Global Warming is
accepted by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (UCS), and "Scientific
American". If these scientists had investments in, say, parasol futures,
my doubts would be raised, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If you
have a response to my logic, from the last post (see above), I would
like to hear it. Until then, it remain my position.

You say read Crichton, and the UCS has a page devoted to rebutting him
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...lobal_warming_
contrarians/crichton-thriller-state-of.html
I only have so much time to research a question, and I feel that I have
spent mine. If someone says, "Here's the answer", for sure I'll read it.
Normally, I turn to some authority I trust, like the "League of Women
Voters" for voting, or the USC on scientific matters.

If you have time to go through the UCS website on "Global Warming"
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/, and can come up with holes in
their arguments, I would love to hear them. What time I have to study,
is mostly being spent in studying GMOs, and the physiological effects of
statins. Then there is the "job" which starts in ten days, which always
cramps my life style.

I'm a retired chemist. Maybe not a global climate expert but I do
understand a lot of the basic science. I read Al Gore's "Earth in the
Balance" several years ago and realized that it was just a political
polemic supporting the progressive view of more government control.

The environmentalists hate Crichton because while global warming is only
a background for the thesis of the book, he did extensive study and came
to conclusions they do not like.
I am unsullied by either.

How would you characterize the way in which Al Gore's "Earth in the
Balance" was a political polemic supporting the progressive view of more
government control and what do you mean progressive views? Survival?

Laws of science are not arrived at by consensus as the global warming
advocates would have you believe. In the past, there was a consensus
that the sun revolved around the earth, etc.

Frank, my degree is in chemistry too, but they'll probably have to pry
the pipette out of my cold, dead fingers.

Even if the earth is heating or cooling, it is mainly due to Mother
Nature or more specifically the sun.
How do you know this?
One of my epa friends says it is
presumptuous of man to assume his effects are greater than that of
Mother Nature.
And his proof is?

Also came across a pamphlet of the skeptics examining the carbon dioxide
argument. They point out that there was a time in the past when carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere was 20X today's level yet there was no
following greenhouse effect. Also carbon dioxide only absorbs sunlight
at a few narrow bandwidths and exceeding current levels leave no more to
be absorbed.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...ID=00037A5 D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

Impact from the Deep

Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could
the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
----

We seem to be in an endless round of he said, she said. When all is said
and done, it brings us back to:

"Since none of us has the data, I guess we'll just have to decide which
side we trust.

If Frank has chosen the correct side, the "Global Warming" side will
look pretty silly.

If the Union of Concerned Scientists is right, we could be looking at a
mass extinction (us, among others).

So the choice for the undecideds is, would you rather take a chance on
looking silly, or would you rather take a chance on being extinct?
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:03:34 -0400, against all advice, something
compelled jeff , to say:

On the ones still on the vine, the largest is just now getting redish.


I got two yesterday, and one today. I was worried for a while,
but it looks like it's going to be all right.



--

Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will
have to ram it down their throats.
- Howard Aiken

In article , Charlie wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:14:37 -0700, Billy
wrote:


Then there is the "job" which starts in ten days, which always
cramps my life style.

Oh dear, you poor sumbeetch. Last year you were in harness longer
than the previous year. How does it look this year? How looks the
afternoon nap situation?

Condolences
Charlie

Why thank you, Charlie. Normally when I tell people I only work half a
year, I get no sympathy. The ol' 8 to 8 routine, really breaks up the
day. This is where I normally talk about the 6 day weeks, and start
dragging my leg and howling.

Harvest, for sparking wines will start any day now. I'll soon be getting
sticky doing grape samples (tracking sugar, potassium, total acidity,
and pH), and the floor of the lab will get so dirty that we'll get
tempted to dig furrows and start planting. The winery ain't expecting
grapes 'till the end of the month, or early Sept. It's been a cool
summer here too, but we had a warm spring, and an early bud break
(beginning of March, instead of the middle).

Nice thing about work is that I get a lunch break, that's when I go toes
up. That and a cup of coffee, and I'm good for another 6 - 8 hr. I've
pulled a few 14 hr. days with this job, but it's nothing like working
for yourself.

It'll be the fourth year with these folks. I know the people and the
routine. All I have to do is harness up and hang on. Starting to feel
like a fire horse.
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.
~Channing E. Phillips

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Every Man wrote:
Very strange.

I'm in eastern Virginia -- Northumberland County, along the Potomac
River.

Last year as we were building our house we planted a dozen or so
tomato plants along the back of the lot and harvested tomatoes all
summer and into the fall.

This year, I have 26 plants, all heirloom varieties. They are in
raised beds that are filled with half-and-half compost and topsoil.

I prune my plants so there are 3-4 main stems. I have lots of
foilage, healthy plants, no pests, and lots of green tomatoes.
However
-- only two of my plants are ripening. I have been picking an
occasional ripe tomato from these two plants for 3 weeks; the rest of
the plants show no sign of ripening although they are loaded with
tomatoes.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Slow here too in northern DE. I blame the weather as it's been cooler
and rainier than normal.

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st...rica%20(excl.%
20Arctic

What the stations worth a look.

It's a small world after all.

Bill

As a global warming skeptic I got on the Heartland Institutes mailing
list and have publication of their study of the temperature measuring
stations in the US. This is part of it:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

There are over 1,200 monitoring stations in the US and so far the group
has looked at 850 of them and found that 89% fail to meet the National
Weather Services site requirements that they must be 30 meters or more
away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.

Satellite data is more reliable:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d06oct97_1.htm

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made
activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global
warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

It would cost a lot of corporate profits to keep "greenhouse gases"
under the equivalent of 450 ppm CO2. It would require life style changes
for everyone as well.

Since none of us has the data, I guess we'll just have to decide which
side we trust. If Frank has chosen the correct side, the rest of us will
look pretty silly. If the Union of Concerned Scientists is right, we
could be looking at a mass extinction (us, among others). So the choice
of the undecideds is, would you rather take a chance on looking silly,
or would you rather take a chance on being extinct.

we are debating something similar in NZ - our post Kyoto climate warming
emissions reduction. Seems our govt may be choosing for 15% BELOW 1990 bench
mark level by 2020 as out commitment. As it is, we are about 23% ABOVE 1990
levels now. www.350.org is calling for 40% reduction on 1990 levels.

As I said on my, aheam, hard hitting and (cough) informative environmental
show this afternoon - you put the bullet in the gun, you spin the chamber,
you put the gun to your head, you close your eyes, you pull the trigger, and
you hope...

rob

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Every Man wrote:
Very strange.

I'm in eastern Virginia -- Northumberland County, along the Potomac
River.

Last year as we were building our house we planted a dozen or so
tomato plants along the back of the lot and harvested tomatoes all
summer and into the fall.

This year, I have 26 plants, all heirloom varieties. They are in
raised beds that are filled with half-and-half compost and topsoil.

I prune my plants so there are 3-4 main stems. I have lots of
foilage, healthy plants, no pests, and lots of green tomatoes.
However
-- only two of my plants are ripening. I have been picking an
occasional ripe tomato from these two plants for 3 weeks; the rest
of
the plants show no sign of ripening although they are loaded with
tomatoes.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Slow here too in northern DE. I blame the weather as it's been
cooler
and rainier than normal.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st...America%20(exc
l.
%
20Arctic

What the stations worth a look.

It's a small world after all.

Bill

As a global warming skeptic I got on the Heartland Institutes mailing
list and have publication of their study of the temperature measuring
stations in the US. This is part of it:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

There are over 1,200 monitoring stations in the US and so far the
group
has looked at 850 of them and found that 89% fail to meet the National
Weather Services site requirements that they must be 30 meters or more
away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.

Satellite data is more reliable:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d06oct97_1.htm

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature
measurements
of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any
man-made
activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model
global
warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced
activity."

It would cost a lot of corporate profits to keep "greenhouse gases"
under the equivalent of 450 ppm CO2. It would require life style
changes
for everyone as well.

Since none of us has the data, I guess we'll just have to decide which
side we trust. If Frank has chosen the correct side, the rest of us will
look pretty silly. If the Union of Concerned Scientists is right, we
could be looking at a mass extinction (us, among others). So the choice
of the undecideds is, would you rather take a chance on looking silly,
or would you rather take a chance on being extinct?

I just think it is prudent not to jump to conclusions. Suggest reading
Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". We all want a clean environment and
conservation of resources but draconian moves like the cap and trade
bill do little in this direction other than more government control.
Individual scientists continue to question and evaluate data while large
scientific organizations, like the American Chemical Society which I
belong to, tend to be very political.

Frank

I must admit that I am no expert on "Global Warming". I would just be
happy (at least in the short run), if I could just figure out what is
messin' my melons. I have looked into the subject, mostly superficially
(there is only so much time), and from what I see, Global Warming is
accepted by the "Union of Concerned Scientists" (UCS), and "Scientific
American". If these scientists had investments in, say, parasol futures,
my doubts would be raised, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If you
have a response to my logic, from the last post (see above), I would
like to hear it. Until then, it remain my position.

You say read Crichton, and the UCS has a page devoted to rebutting him
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...lobal_warming_
contrarians/crichton-thriller-state-of.html
I only have so much time to research a question, and I feel that I have
spent mine. If someone says, "Here's the answer", for sure I'll read it.
Normally, I turn to some authority I trust, like the "League of Women
Voters" for voting, or the USC on scientific matters.

If you have time to go through the UCS website on "Global Warming"
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/, and can come up with holes in
their arguments, I would love to hear them. What time I have to study,
is mostly being spent in studying GMOs, and the physiological effects of
statins. Then there is the "job" which starts in ten days, which always
cramps my life style.

My take on why it is cooler here. Read somewhere as the ice melts it
exposes soil which can hold the solar gain so why not hotter now? Well
it seem the solar gain heat also melts the ice which runs off to the
ocean. Water lever rise imperceptible but something else occurs.

Ocean salinity is decreased which is no big deal. But the ocean
ability to hold heat is related to salinity. So we get cooler and
fluctuations . Think heat sink being effected.

Gabbing Bill.... look at below url on left side for Global Warming
stuff.

http://www.whoi.edu/

Much more on Sea water salinity and Global climate.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...mate+change&hl
=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

Bill

--

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

In article ,
"George.com" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Bill who putters wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Every Man wrote:
Very strange.

I'm in eastern Virginia -- Northumberland County, along the Potomac
River.

Last year as we were building our house we planted a dozen or so
tomato plants along the back of the lot and harvested tomatoes all
summer and into the fall.

This year, I have 26 plants, all heirloom varieties. They are in
raised beds that are filled with half-and-half compost and topsoil.

I prune my plants so there are 3-4 main stems. I have lots of
foilage, healthy plants, no pests, and lots of green tomatoes.
However
-- only two of my plants are ripening. I have been picking an
occasional ripe tomato from these two plants for 3 weeks; the rest of
the plants show no sign of ripening although they are loaded with
tomatoes.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.
Slow here too in northern DE. I blame the weather as it's been cooler
and rainier than normal.

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st...rica%20(excl.%
20Arctic

What the stations worth a look.

It's a small world after all.

Bill

As a global warming skeptic I got on the Heartland Institutes mailing
list and have publication of their study of the temperature measuring
stations in the US. This is part of it:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

There are over 1,200 monitoring stations in the US and so far the group
has looked at 850 of them and found that 89% fail to meet the National
Weather Services site requirements that they must be 30 meters or more
away from an artificial heating or reflecting source.

Satellite data is more reliable:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d06oct97_1.htm

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements
of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no
definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend
that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest
fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made
activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions
from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global
warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower
atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the
temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

It would cost a lot of corporate profits to keep "greenhouse gases"
under the equivalent of 450 ppm CO2. It would require life style changes
for everyone as well.

Since none of us has the data, I guess we'll just have to decide which
side we trust. If Frank has chosen the correct side, the rest of us will
look pretty silly. If the Union of Concerned Scientists is right, we
could be looking at a mass extinction (us, among others). So the choice
of the undecideds is, would you rather take a chance on looking silly,
or would you rather take a chance on being extinct.

we are debating something similar in NZ - our post Kyoto climate warming
emissions reduction. Seems our govt may be choosing for 15% BELOW 1990 bench
mark level by 2020 as out commitment. As it is, we are about 23% ABOVE 1990
levels now. www.350.org is calling for 40% reduction on 1990 levels.

As I said on my, aheam, hard hitting and (cough) informative environmental
show this afternoon - you put the bullet in the gun, you spin the chamber,
you put the gun to your head, you close your eyes, you pull the trigger, and
you hope...

rob

.. . . hope that you look silly.
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

I am enjoying a day off today, and puttering in the garden, and getting a little nervous with the chilly temps over the weekend... My roma tomatoes have ALOT of fruit, but not a single red or even pink tomato as of this morning. My Sweet 100's have produced many MANY fruit, and while they're ripening ever so slowly, at least we're able to get a little harvest out of them (less than 10 each day are ripe on 4 plants)

I also am growing 3 varieties of peppers, Jalapeño, Sweet Italian, and regular bell peppers. the fruit looks great, but nothing is turning red

Is anyone else in MA or NH having this issue? I know we have a short growing season but this is just crazy. Hopefully the warm-up this week will get some ripening action going... otherwise it's going to be "Fried green tommy-toes anyone??" (in which case I'll need a recipe)

In article ,
stephengor wrote:

I am enjoying a day off today, and puttering in the garden, and getting
a little nervous with the chilly temps over the weekend... My roma
tomatoes have ALOT of fruit, but not a single red or even pink tomato
as of this morning. My Sweet 100's have produced many MANY fruit, and
while they're ripening ever so slowly, at least we're able to get a
little harvest out of them (less than 10 each day are ripe on 4
plants)

I also am growing 3 varieties of peppers, Jalapeño, Sweet Italian, and
regular bell peppers. the fruit looks great, but nothing is turning
red

Is anyone else in MA or NH having this issue?

Heck, I'm in California, north of San Francisco, and we're having this
issue.
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stephengor wrote:

I am enjoying a day off today, and puttering in the garden, and getting
a little nervous with the chilly temps over the weekend... My roma
tomatoes have ALOT of fruit, but not a single red or even pink tomato
as of this morning. My Sweet 100's have produced many MANY fruit, and
while they're ripening ever so slowly, at least we're able to get a
little harvest out of them (less than 10 each day are ripe on 4
plants)

I also am growing 3 varieties of peppers, Jalapeño, Sweet Italian, and
regular bell peppers. the fruit looks great, but nothing is turning
red

Is anyone else in MA or NH having this issue?

Heck, I'm in California, north of San Francisco, and we're having this
issue.
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common
denominator in our exploitative economic system.
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In my experience with tomatos, if too many fruit get growing at once, they
ripen slowly, and then fall to fungus, sun split, and all sorts of things.
That's why I pinch my suckers, and keep only a few producing shoots going
instead of letting the whole plant turn into Audrey.

Steve

In article ,
"SteveB" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
stephengor wrote:

I am enjoying a day off today, and puttering in the garden, and getting
a little nervous with the chilly temps over the weekend... My roma
tomatoes have ALOT of fruit, but not a single red or even pink tomato
as of this morning. My Sweet 100's have produced many MANY fruit, and
while they're ripening ever so slowly, at least we're able to get a
little harvest out of them (less than 10 each day are ripe on 4
plants)

I also am growing 3 varieties of peppers, Jalapeño, Sweet Italian, and
regular bell peppers. the fruit looks great, but nothing is turning
red

Is anyone else in MA or NH having this issue?

Heck, I'm in California, north of San Francisco, and we're having this
issue.
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common
denominator in our exploitative economic system.
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In my experience with tomatos, if too many fruit get growing at once, they
ripen slowly, and then fall to fungus, sun split, and all sorts of things.
That's why I pinch my suckers, and keep only a few producing shoots going
instead of letting the whole plant turn into Audrey.

Steve

I wouldn't doubt that I'm doing something to retard my tomatoes
(although we had enough to make a significant addition to our salad last
night). My best producers so far (not saying much) have been the
Koralics and the Stupices. But I can't take all the credit for the lack
of ripe tomatoes, see:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article...CLES/908019974
Cool temps nurture crops
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm