I agree with Never Give Up. The deer have done the same thing to my pole beans - stripped them right down to the vines clinging to the poles and a few beans. I would (and have) still eat them.

"wait, wait...are you saying I can put six HUNDRED plants in a 10x10 plot???" Those yields are based upon a degree of soil conditioning that is very labor-intensive... and while I have read of such recommendations, I have yet to see photos, or hear first-hand observations, proving that they would work for most gardeners. All of the digging aside, in my area, I'd be flirting with disaster if I crowded my beans that closely. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it. Most bush beans - when healthy & mature - have a footprint of 1/2 - 1 sq. ft. or larger. 100 plants (1 per sq. ft.) should be a safe bet; I've successfully used 6" between plants w/ 2-foot spacing between rows, which is close to the same thing. You might be able to get away with 2-3 plants per sq. ft. for the more compact varieties. Crowding more closely than that may work in the warm dry climate of California; but in the cooler, wetter Northern climes, it could lead to severe disease problems. I'm not saying that it wouldn't work... just that I wouldn't put all my eggs in that one basket, unless/until small-scale trials proved it to be successful. In a post above, I had mentioned "seed efficiency". To put that in perspective, large kidney beans are somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-60 seeds per ounce. If planted at the recommended bio-intensive density of 600+ for a 10' X 10' plot, you would need between 10-16 ounces of seed to plant... so you would need to buy (or save from the previous season) a pound of seed. Assuming you harvest 24 pounds of dry seed (which is, keep in mind, the best case scenario), it would represent a return of between 24/1 & 38/1, depending upon seed size. Most gardeners would get much less than that, since the maximum is for experienced gardeners, on well amended soil. In contrast, my observations are that large-seeded bush beans, given the 6" plant/2' row spacing I mentioned above, are easily capable of a seed increase of between 50/1 - 100/1. Small-seeded types will tend to yield about the same weight/plant, but at an even higher ratio of increase, well over 100/1... so in terms of cost effectiveness (if purchasing seed) small is often better. Pole beans can do better still; the "Striped Cornfield" I grew this year (@45 seeds/oz.) produced a return of over 500/1! My results were obtained by mechanical tilling, with leaves & mulch turned under each season. Using these numbers, the same kidney beans - if grown in 5 rows in the same 10' X 10' plot - would be 100 plants. This would produce between 5 & 10 pounds of seed minimum... with only 2 ounces of seed required for planting, the average in a packet of beans. Also, at this spacing, the plants have sufficient air flow through the foliage to minimize the chances of disease during prolonged periods of rainfall. Having tested that theory in some very bad years recently (such as in 2008) I consider these yields to be realistically attainable, year after year. I don't doubt that my spacings could be improved upon; it is something that I often experiment with. Most likely, there is a happy medium somewhere between row spacing & high-density plantings which will produce the best yield, for a given area, with the littlest possible seed. That "happy medium" should take into account the expected annual variations in climate, since what works well one year, might not work the next. With soybeans, I have had some success with closely-spaced double rows, with standard row spacing between the pairs... so that may work for bush beans as well. Given the observations I have made on over 100 bean varieties over the years, I expect the optimal spacing will vary widely, depending upon variety, climate, and soil fertility. So there is really no "one correct answer" for bean spacing... just starting points for personal experimentation. Keep in mind, John Jeavons' bio-intensive recommendations mentioned above pertain to bush beans only. Pole beans are not suitable for wide bed planting, due to shading. However, you can have the best of both worlds using pole beans. Planted in a single row on the North side of the bed (where they would not shade shorter crops), they take up a relatively small footprint. A high-yielding pole variety could give you 3-4 pounds of dry seed from one row in that same 10' X 10' bed. You could use the majority of the bed(s) for other things, and still get a good crop of beans. My apologies for all of the long (and probably dry) posts, but as an amateur researcher, I just wanted to share some "bean science". Just wish this was on the Bean Forum.

I thought Charlize Theron looked stunning in every way. You have to have a perfect face to pull off that haircut. Youth helps too. Jennifer Lawrence and her dress were gorgeous, but I thought it looked too much like a wedding gown. Possibly the Best. Wedding. Gown. Ever. :-) I wrote the following while going through the slideshow I linked above. Favorites: Amanda SeyfriedâÂÂs pale grey lace dress, Alexander McQueen Jennifer AnistonâÂÂs red Sandra BullockâÂÂs black lace Helen HuntâÂÂs royal blue Octavia SpencerâÂÂs blush chiffon Jamie FoxxâÂÂs beautiful daughterâÂÂs marine blue Jennifer HudsonâÂÂs blue Robin Robertsâ blue velvet Little Quvenzhane Wallisâ blue Not so thrilled: Anne Hathaway - maybe in a different color? Naomi Watts - looked too much like Star Trek Halle Berry - I rarely like Versace Jennifer Garner - I love her, and liked her dress, until she turned around. Renee Zellweger in Caroline Herrera as usual. I often like CH, but this was so molded! Amy Adams - I'm a fan, but thought she looked like a pale grey Big Bird. Kate CapshawâÂÂs dress seemed too young for her. Melissa McCarthy - that dress didn't do a thing for her. Helena Bonham Carter Sally Field. WhatâÂÂs with that train?? Quentin TarantinoâÂÂs date, Lianne Spiderbaby. I liked her dress about as much as I liked her name. Mark RuffaloâÂÂs wife's dress was odd. I like him, though! Not crazy about Jane FondaâÂÂs bright yellow and pointy shoulder pads. Versace again. Gloria ReubenâÂÂs blue - not my thing at all.

I don't normally. Although, my first car--a rugged and beloved, OLD Studebaker Lark VII--ended up with the name Puddle Jumper. Not my doing. My father was driving behind me, during a bad storm, and I went through a very deep puddle (one I'd have had the sense enough to avoid these days) without a hitch. Because of that, and the fact that my license plate started with PJ, she was puddle jumper from then on. I do sometimes call my current car Cookie Monster--only because it's one of those Cookie Monster colored FJ Cruiseers.