The message
from "Pete" contains these words:

Good to see someone is still reading the NG David ....

*looks North and sees people in Scotland sunbathing !!!*

Is there no privacy?

Janet.

Gordon Couger writes

Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in
continues wheat or some other rotation.

Both are first wheats after break. The organic rotations have far more
breaks than the arable ones.

The largest loss in organic
agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations
that produce low value or no value crops.

Of course. Some of these are complete losses being, in effect, cover
crops. Red clover is a typical one, with herbiage all ploughed under, in
all-arable organic rotations.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use (whitelist check on first posting)

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger writes

Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in
continues wheat or some other rotation.

Both are first wheats after break. The organic rotations have far more
breaks than the arable ones.

The largest loss in organic
agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations
that produce low value or no value crops.

Of course. Some of these are complete losses being, in effect, cover
crops. Red clover is a typical one, with herbiage all ploughed under, in
all-arable organic rotations.

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds
sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever
should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving
true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area
compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are
really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that
of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation.

Gordon

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Oz" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger writes

Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in
continues wheat or some other rotation.

Both are first wheats after break. The organic rotations have far more
breaks than the arable ones.

The largest loss in organic
agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations
that produce low value or no value crops.

Of course. Some of these are complete losses being, in effect, cover
crops. Red clover is a typical one, with herbiage all ploughed under, in
all-arable organic rotations.

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds
sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever
should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving
true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area
compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are
really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that
of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation.

Gordon


You seem to bed missing the point. We no more want intensive organic
farms, then we want intensive factory farms. Intensive farming simply
does not work, it's destroying the planet and that's why we have a
huge cry for "back to basics" farming.

As for organic not being pesticide free, so what. The whole idea is to
allow nature to do what it does best, looking after us.















**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world.
There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

Need a fake diploma for fun? contact my collegues Malcolm Ogilvie
or Michael Saunby who both bought one and got one free, only $15 each,
have as many as you like www.fakediplomas.com

Gordon Couger writes

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds
sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what
ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the
study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation
per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm.

Yes, but if they do that then the results are truly, truly, dreadful.

Showing how
much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production
nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation.

Probably, to be fair, between 30 and 50%.

The big problem is that they really need 50%+ livestock and a very high
cereal price. Unfortunately that proportion would produce an unsaleable
glut of meat, that would destroy the economics.

Its not for nothing that brits ate large amounts of beef pre war.
It was cheap .....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use (whitelist check on first posting)

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Pete" contains these words:

Good to see someone is still reading the NG David ....

*looks North and sees people in Scotland sunbathing !!!*

Is there no privacy?

Janet.

Aha!!!! so ... twas you I could see all pink and blistering while us
southerners freeze to death.

As for privacy ..... erm ....letmethinkaboutitNO.

:-)

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds
sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever
should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving
true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area
compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are
really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that
of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation.

Grin. So now you dream up an imaginary study, complete with results
showing -exactly- what is written on the inside of the welding glasses
you are wearing. :-)

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote:

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds
sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever
should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving
true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area
compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are
really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that
of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation.

Compare the yields here; http://tinyurl.com/uvdi .
Bear in mind;
'2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic production
Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five
years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert
and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin,
1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil
to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It
also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques.
Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1
may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production.

Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy,
diverse soil ecosystem, the yield reductions experienced in the initial
phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over
time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte).
We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the
biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the
farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the
transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened
significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm
gate sales efforts).

3. Organic crop yields are less variable than industrial yields

Organic crop yields are reportedly less variable than industrial
methods (Hanson et al, 1990). As well, growing season precipitation is
an important factor influencing crop yields and organic crop production
systems appear to perform better than industrial farming systems under
drought conditions (Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). Thus, sustainable crop
production provides a benefit to risk-averse farmers.

Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small
scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior
yields to industrially grown crops. Furthermore, just as research has
resulted in an improvement in yields for industrial crops (e.g. winter
wheat), there is likely to be similar improvement in yields for organic
crops as more research is conducted and organic farming methods
become more commonplace (Lampkin, 1989).
...'
http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosy...er3.htm#eiii-1

Actually, the plots appear to be selected after the idea was formulated.
Good research makes a supposition and then does the experiment to prove it
factual, not the other way around.

Chuck


"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:6W7xc.9290$1L4.1531@okepread02...

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger writes

Before swallowing the yield claims of organic corn being 94% of
conventional corn I would like to see the trials.


===========posted a couple of years ago=========

With considerable difficulty I have obtained permission to post part of
the 2001 ARC results.

Cirencester Organic after grass ley.

Top: 5.54 T/Ha. (deben)
Ave: 4.61 T/Ha

Of interest
Widgeon @ 3.96 T/H
Squarehead Masters : 2.61 T/Ha (worst)

Squarehead Masters is a 19C variety. A major variety grown for decades,
possibly a century. It went flat, but straw to be sold for thatching. I
have seen this variety grown in plots (supported by canes) and it was
over 5' (1.5m) tall. It's a classic low fertility weed outcompeting
variety probably similar to landrace varieties grown for centuries.

The conventionally grown trial at Cirencester (but obviously not the
same field) yielded 8.3 T/Ha ave with the best variety yielding 9.9
T/Ha.

Comments would be as previous trial post.

NB UK arable farmers really should join ARC and get this, and a truly
vast array of other data on timings, seedrates, pesticide trials etc
etc, complete. (www.arable.co.uk)
========================================
=====Posted by torsten snipped
Below, some results from the Elm Farm Research Centre
stockless organic trial, Berkshire.

Rotation Course 1 2 3 4
A Red Clover Winter Wheat Winter Wheat Spring Oats
B Red Clover Potatoes Winter Wheat Winter Oats
C Red Clover Winter Wheat Winter Beans Winter Wheat

All first wheats which followed the fertility build achieved similar
yields
(A2 and C2), wheat following wheat (A2 to A3) yielded much lower
than wheat following potatoes (B2 to B3)

Wheat yield (t/ha at 15% moisture) means, 1988-1995

Winter Wheat
A2 A3 B3 C2 C4
Yield 4.21 2.67 4.34 3.77 4.05

[Oz: notice appalling yields]

The yield achieved by C4 indicates the grain legumes, which when
harvested do export much of the N they have fixed, still can leave
sufficient reserves to advantage the next cereal crop.
=====================
=====another ozpost
Source: Crops magazine (Reed business pub) 6 Nov 1999 P10

This article discusses a 'unique' ten year experiment comparing large-
scale organic, integrated crop management and conventional side by side.

I can't type out the whole article but the following points are made.
[NB View tables in a monopitched font]


Yield wheat T/Ha

Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Con 8.7 7 7.8 9 7 7.25 9.25
Org 5.2 5.2 5 5.8 4.9 4.5 4.85
ICM 7.8 7.9 8.3 8.3


ROTATIONS etc

Organic:
Organic approved pesticides and fertiliser.
Two year clover-grass conversion ley. Then
a) Spring wheat/winter oats/winter beans/winter or spring wheat
b) 18mth red clover
c) spring wheat.
[This isn't very clear but I *think* they mean combinable crop (winter
or spring), 18mth red clover followed by spring wheat and then
cycling:Oz]
==================

There are more, but that will do.

Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in
continues wheat or some other rotation. The largest loss in organic
agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations that
produce low value or no value crops.

Gordon

"pearl" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds
sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever
should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study
giving
true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area
compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are
really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less
that
of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation.

Compare the yields here; http://tinyurl.com/uvdi .
Bear in mind;
'2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic
production
Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five
years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert
and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin,
1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil
to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It
also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques.
Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1
may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production.

Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy,
diverse soil ecosystem, the yield reductions experienced in the initial
phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over
time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte).
We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the
biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the
farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the
transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened
significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm
gate sales efforts).

3. Organic crop yields are less variable than industrial yields

Organic crop yields are reportedly less variable than industrial
methods (Hanson et al, 1990). As well, growing season precipitation is
an important factor influencing crop yields and organic crop production
systems appear to perform better than industrial farming systems under
drought conditions (Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). Thus, sustainable crop
production provides a benefit to risk-averse farmers.

Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small
scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior
yields to industrially grown crops. Furthermore, just as research has
resulted in an improvement in yields for industrial crops (e.g. winter
wheat), there is likely to be similar improvement in yields for organic
crops as more research is conducted and organic farming methods
become more commonplace (Lampkin, 1989).
..'
http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosy...er3.htm#eiii-1

Apparently you've never done any actual research either.

Chuck

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jun 2004 09:20:43 -0700, (ta) wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:01:30 -0400, "ta" wrote:

rick etter wrote:
And that means also not cruelty-free. Just what I've been saying...

"...some organic pesticides have mammalian toxicities that are far
higher than many synthetic pesticides..."
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

Wow, I can't *believe* CFGI, which is funded by the right-wing think tank
Hudson Institute, could possibly be promoting information that supports
their big agribusiness clients like Monsanto, ConAgra, and Archer Daniels
Midland, who have everything to lose by the success of organic farming.

But to be fair, I can't answer the specific charges as I'm not an expert, so
I'm expanding the thread to get a wider range of input.

The quoted statement is rather vacuous, ta, but not controversial..

Of course, you're right. I wasn't referring to the claim about the
toxicity of non-synthetic pesticides per se; everyone knows that
organic farming employs non-synthetic pesticides. I was referring to
CFGI's critique of organic farming in general, as laid out in the
referenced PDF file.

It is crude propaganda (as so much is, that come out of the Averys
at Hudson Institute.) Nancy Creamer has an article on it in OFRF
Information Bulletin, summer 2001, which you may be interested in
reading.

http://www.ofrf.org/publications/news/IB10.pdf

Very good, thank you. FYI, here is some more information I came
across:

"In Drinkwater and colleagues' conventional, high-intensity system,
pesticides and mineral nitrogen fertilizer were applied to a
maize/soybean crop rotation just as on typical farms. Two 'organic'
alternatives represented partial returns to traditional agriculture,
and neither synthetic fertilizers nor pesticides were used. One of
these alternatives was a manure-based system in which grasses and
legumes, grown as part of a high-diversity crop rotation, were fed to
cattle. The resulting manure provided nitrogen for periodic maize
production. The other system did not include livestock; instead,
nitrogen fixed by a variety of legumes was incorporated into soil as
the source of nitrogen for maize.

Amazingly, ten-year-average maize yields differed by less than 1%
among the three cropping systems, which Drinkwater et al. say were
nearly equally profitable. The manure system, though, had significant
advantages. Soil organic matter and nitrogen content — measures of
soil fertility — increased markedly in the manure system (and, to a
lesser degree, in the legume system), but were unchanged or declined
in the conventional system. Moreover, the conventional system had
greater environmental impacts — 60% more nitrate was leached into
groundwater over a five-year period than in the manure or legume
systems."

http://tinyurl.com/2lpvs

and . . .

"some 223,000 farmers in southern Brazil using green manures and cover
crops of legumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of
maize and wheat to 4-5 tons/ha;

* some 45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras have used regenerative
technologies to triple maize yields to some 2-2.5 tons/ha and
diversify their upland farms, which has led to local economic growth
that has in turn encouraged re-migration back from the cities;

* more than 300,000 farmers in southern and western India farming in
dryland conditions, and now using a range of water and soil management
technologies, have tripled sorghum and millet yields to some 2-2.5
tons/hectare;

* some 200,000 farmers across Kenya who as part of various government
and non-government soil and water conservation and sustainable
agriculture programmes have more than doubled their maize yields to
about 2.5 to 3.3 t/ha and substantially improved vegetable production
through the dry seasons;

* 100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico who have adopted fully
organic production methods, and yet increased yields by half;

* a million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam who
have shifted to sustainable agriculture, where group-based
farmer-field schools have enabled farmers to learn alternatives to
pesticides whilst still increasing their yields by about 10%."

http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/article2.htm

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:08:36 GMT, "Chuck"
wrote:
"pearl" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds
sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever
should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study
giving
true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area
compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are
really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less
that
of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation.

Ever wondered how quoted lines get so bungled? It's because
you are using Outlook Express for posting. It has a bug which makes
them so. I think you will agree, it is not pretty. You'd do yourself
and everyone a favor by downloading and installing the fix for the
problem. He

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

(And no, it is not a virus or anything, it is a very fine fix, you
won't regret.)

g'day pete,

hope things are fairing well in your neck of the woods, like most a
bit of rain wouldn't go astray to say the least.

we look at managing our pests more than trying to erradicate so we are
probably less tempted to go for the big guns, my main driving force is
bad health that i feel was at least contributed to by residues in what
is perported to be fresh fruits and vege's.

so in our garden we accept some quiet visible predation by bugs, as
yet our system is young so the good guys are still to come into
balance, but they are appearing, and we attract very many birds around
our food growing areas they also help. but for us it will be the
chilly spray and coffee spray.

we too are managing our resource using basically a common sense
approach and all is working quiet well in our books.

and for countries that need to import fresh food due to lack of
agricultural land or whatever well! that is a whole other issue, but
maybe community farms may go part the way to bridging the gap a lot of
staple foods can be grown on a 5 acre patch. and people can grow a lot
of the other stuff they want in containers. just some thoughts.

len

snipped
--
happy gardening
'it works for me it could work for you,'

"in the end ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do" but consider others and the environment
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gardenlen1/

where'd you buy yor binnoculars pete, i can't see me own hand though
mine lol, g'day janet.

len

snipped
--
happy gardening
'it works for me it could work for you,'

"in the end ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do" but consider others and the environment
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gardenlen1/

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:08:36 GMT, "Chuck"
wrote:
"pearl" wrote
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or
pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat
and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of
years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic
farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or
modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern
methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern
farm ran in an intensive operation.

Ever wondered how quoted lines get so bungled? It's because
you are using Outlook Express for posting. It has a bug which makes
them so. I think you will agree, it is not pretty. You'd do yourself
and everyone a favor by downloading and installing the fix for the
problem. He

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

(And no, it is not a virus or anything, it is a very fine fix, you
won't regret.)

Very nice! thanks