TOPIC: This years plantings report, w/ pic's

Whitjr wrote:

Opened the Pandora's box... chasing our tails 'round and 'round.... both apply to this definition split-hair distinction inbetween wild- sim and woodsgrown.

I appreicat eht input, however IMHO, it's a disinction that hope that NC doen't get into too heavily. I like Ohioo's def, however not too keen on the the kY def.

But the problem is that there has to be a definition and way to distinguish wild and wild sim, especially if we are too look to the future. Otherwise, wild sim falls right under wild rules, and that's per CITES rules.

Woodsgrown and cultivated, both under artificially propagated are easy.

you have a point re: CITES... however IMHO, I still sit where I posted above.

I can't make a gov't difference... however perhaps some onelike you can have some sway there in that way. If folks in your capacity can understand that having wild-sim and woodsgrown are but little differences, and definately different from Wild.. then that's most of the battle, yes?

I see where kyjabber is coming from. We need to protect our interest and investment if it ever comes down to it. We are all actually growing woodsgrown if you get right down to it. Just at different degrees from amendments to fungicides to scratching the ground with a rake. Maybe we should forget about calling it wild simulated and call it woodsgrown and if the end result looks as good as wild,it should still bring a hefty price.
Keep a record of your seed and expenses.

rootman

rootman and others, I believe if we buy the seed, then it is all the same no matter how we choose to grow it or what it looks like when we harvest.It shouldnt be any concern to the government. If they cant tell if its woodsgrown or truly wild then thats their problem, not ours.

Fascinating read and very informative....I appreciate all the links posted also.

As I've stated before, I'm new to all of this and just kind of feeling my way around, but I think I will concentrate my efforts on proper documentation, (keeping seed receipts, identifying planting locations, amounts sowed, and recording dates in a journal of some kind),and possibly even planting wild simulated in rows.

Surely, even the most stringent interpretor of possible future CITES regs would recognize that a planting area that contained multiple 4'x 32' areas, each containing straight rows of plants, had been planted that way, and was NOT a natural occurrence of ginseng.

It is more work than broadcasting seeds, but it seems far less likely to be labeled as wild plants, where enforcement of regs is concerned. No spraying, no tilling, and no soil enhancements.

Simulated wild plantings... roots that for all practical intents and purposes are produced wild,and look wild,...but are grown in a recognizable, orderly, systematic fashion that precludes tham being labeled as wild, in the context of falling under CITES regulations?

TonyL,
I think you are right on the money. Proper documentation will surly help if things change down the road.
Latt

In an effort to document the distinctions, I have kept meticulous records of the endeavor I'm up to. I thnk, that because of this... I won't have any troubles to prove the manner grown on the event of sale [many years from now.!].

Above posted suggustions of records kept are what I'd recommend as well.

BTW, one of the panels from the recent expo suggusted that we as growers could write our senators/congressmen [at the state level] to ask for funding for further research and documentation of standards, as a way of making the legislators duly and properly informed. Maybe this will make some difference... like KYJabber suggusted.