No, long grass doesn't "attract rats." That's an entirely bogus excuse for town officials to impose their personal sense of aesthetic acceptability upon those who are more enlightened or innovative. I encountered that same scheme on my property. On my five rural acres, during construction of the house, I was served notice by the county health board that my "weeds were providing harborage for vermin" and I had five days to "cut and remove" the offending vegetation. I took the citation to the chief sanitarian and inquired what this was all about. He told me that the weeds on my property would "attract rats" and it was illegal to allow rats to persist in such untidy environments next to houses. I told him that I was a graduate field biologist, and that there is not a shred of scientific evidence that rats can persist in "weeds." I therefore invited him to set as many rat traps as he would like in my prairie "weeds," as evidence to be used in the court case I said I would pursue if he persisted in pushing the matter. He know full well that rats donÂt inhabit weedy fields, prairie or otherwise, and I asked him how many of these citations does the health department issue each year. He said over two dozen, and he gets 100% compliance. I asked him what the rate of compliance might be if an appeals court were to rule that the law is unreasonable, crushes my free speech rights, and therefore could no longer be enforced (as was determined in a previous case in another Ohio jurisdiction). At that point, the health officer knew that I had both scientific evidence and a court case on my side. He then volunteered to "overlook" my "violation," to preserve the health departmentÂs ability to coerce citizens to conform to landscape conventionality  whatever that might have to do with public health. Case closed. I continue to have OhioÂs tallest front yard, with 7-ft tall prairie grasses. Not a rat in 25 years.

It wasn't clear to me at first what you were seeking in this thread, legsbig. But it's becoming clearer now. From some of the things you said I thought you were talking about canning or preserving chiles in this thread and talking about fermentation of a mash in the other thread. Now it seems that what you really wanted to know about is the same in both threads and that is fermentation. The difference between the two is that in canning, you aim to prevent growth of any microbes while in fermentation, you deliberately cultivate certain ones. There are several types of fermentation. Some are desireable such as yeast fermentation of grape juice to make wine, bacterial fermentation of wine to make vinegar, bacterial fermentation of milk to make yogurt and bacterial fermentation of cabbage to make sauerkraut. Undesirable types of fermentation are ones which cause decay and spoilage. To make a chile pepper mash, I believe you specifically want a lactic acid fermentation, since that is the type used in all vegetable fermentation that I know of. To achieve that, you need to establish conditions favorable to the growth of that bacteria and conditions which will discourage growth of yeast and unwanted types of bacteria. This is done by adding the correct amount of salt to the mash and adjusting pH to a suitable level if necessary. The article linked below is rigorous and will explain all of this better than I can. Just remember that you are trying to nurture the lactic acid bacteria and discourage all other microbes. I hope you find this useful and are successful in making what you want. Jim Here is a link that might be useful: Bacterial Fermentations

Too bad UPS won't deliver beavers, Cathy. They would be more than welcome here, as long as the current resident beeves and muskers wouldn't mind. We don't have neighbors, and that means no humans except us to complain when their yards flood (ours is currently happily in the process of doing just that from all the 5+ inches of rain we are getting)and their plantings get chewed. I figure beavers were once a normal part of the picture here, and although I am sure things in my neighborhood are not the same as they were 300 years ago ecologically speaking, having them come back here would surely not have the impact on people that it would if this were a highly populated area. Amazing how the balance is always shifting...50 years ago you would be hard pressed to find a beaver anywhere in this area and now they are once again making their presence known in just about every watershed. I keep a section of log on my bookshelf, the first sign of beaver re-arrival I ever found in "my own" woods. Maybe one day seeing those chew marks and pointy little tree stumps will seem as common as noticing a squirrel-chewed walnut hull on the trail.

dabunch: "I'm talking about people WITH MONEY who just don't want to pay the mortgages because their houses are not worth today what they were worth 2 years ago... " A foreclosure is a foreclosure is a foreclosure. It doesn't matter WHY someone didn't pay the mortgage, only that the bank foreclosed on the property. As a matter of fact, how would (or could) you differentiate between someone who stopped making mortgage payments because they couldn't afford to, and someone who stopped making payments because they just didn't want to anymore? I don't think the bank is going to try to make that determination (correct me if I'm wrong Dave or Tricia), they're just going to take the property back after X number of missed payments. Of course, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ;-)