Farm1 wrote:
....
Does anyone know if there is link to a real report or is Rodale now doing
only a dumbed down Dummies job?

i looked, but i didn't find any data archived
any place. they may publish it for a fee or
include it in one of their books so they may
not ever put the whole data set on the internet.

we'll see...


songbird

Billy wrote:
....
So Rodale sent me some pdfs, which I've only very briefly looked at so
far. I doubt that they will be satisfactory on all counts to everyone.
Two choices, either contact them yourselves (Seidel, Rita
), or write to me
, and I'll send you what they sent to me.

thanks Billy,


songbird

songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
They may conceivable be right but I don't see this type of
presentation making too many converts. The faithful will of course
love it but that won't influence those who ought to take notice;
farmers, business leaders and legislators. Which is all rather sad.

well like i said, the two pictures were worth
thousands of words.

The comparison pics show something was different. But what exactly? They
don't say. Soil building is admirable but just because you can build soil
doesn't mean all the other requirements of a sustainable food production
system are met. Unless, like them, you carefully define sustainability in
terms of soil building.

I have the same problem with a local community-based horticultural trial.
They are getting good results but so far have not produced enough analysis
to show what the full costs are. If you put enough inputs (including hard
work) into a trial you can do wonders in almost any situation but can you do
it efficiently, can you keep it going on a large scale if you have to pay
full price for your labour, manures etc and can you compete, or at least get
close to it, regarding selling price with conventional systems?


i agree with you though, that i'd like to see
the information behind the Rodale study.


I will have a look at the material Billy was sent.

D

"songbird" wrote in message
...
Farm1 wrote:
...
Does anyone know if there is link to a real report or is Rodale now doing
only a dumbed down Dummies job?

i looked, but i didn't find any data archived
any place. they may publish it for a fee or
include it in one of their books so they may
not ever put the whole data set on the internet.

we'll see...

Well it won't have any impact on how any of use who post here garden or the
opinions we have. Frank will still get hysterical about things that don't
accord with his world view :-))

Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:

....where's the beans, err, numbers...
we'll see...

Well it won't have any impact on how any of use who post here garden or the
opinions we have. Frank will still get hysterical about things that don't
accord with his world view :-))

as a god fearing atheist i try to love
all of his/her/its creatures no matter
how deluded or confused certain of them
may be.


songbird (it doesn't mean i always succeed
but i do try...

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
They may conceivable be right but I don't see this type of
presentation making too many converts. The faithful will of course
love it but that won't influence those who ought to take notice;
farmers, business leaders and legislators. Which is all rather sad.

well like i said, the two pictures were worth
thousands of words.

The comparison pics show something was different. But what exactly? They
don't say.

they say the one handful of dirt that was darker
was from the organic plot and the other handful
was from the conventional plot. and the other
picture was showing the difference between the
organic and conventional plots during a drought
with the organic plot showing taller and greener
plants.


Soil building is admirable but just because you can build soil
doesn't mean all the other requirements of a sustainable food production
system are met. Unless, like them, you carefully define sustainability in
terms of soil building.

from my continued studies i'd say it is a
good start in a world that is mostly going
the other direction (destroying topsoil faster
than making it).


I have the same problem with a local community-based horticultural trial.
They are getting good results but so far have not produced enough analysis
to show what the full costs are. If you put enough inputs (including hard
work) into a trial you can do wonders in almost any situation but can you do
it efficiently, can you keep it going on a large scale if you have to pay
full price for your labour, manures etc and can you compete, or at least get
close to it, regarding selling price with conventional systems?

you use the word "efficiently" but i think
that word is often a focus and over-simplified
into "easy". the base rate of soil production
with no inputs is the absolute minimum in terms
of energy expenditures. where there are no
other inputs or passes of machinery or anything
other than walking through and picking whatever
is desired and then putting it directly in the
mouth.

some complexities and inputs added above that
type of system can be offset by getting more
out of the garden plot. yet i don't think a
lot of people keep that close of an eye on
expenses or time spent because they get a lot
of happiness out of raising their own food or
they like the larger variety of foods they
can grow that they'll not find at the store.
it's hard to put an exact price on what is
good about being able to go out and have fresh
beans or strawberries right off the plants.

for myself, just having a good reason to
get outside and exercise in a meaningful way
is a huge benefit. i hate having to exercise
just for the sake of exercise itself, but i
can go outside and putter around in the gardens
for hours and the time goes by so quickly.


i agree with you though, that i'd like to see
the information behind the Rodale study.

I will have a look at the material Billy was sent.

they are on my reading list too.


songbird

songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
They may conceivable be right but I don't see this type of
presentation making too many converts. The faithful will of course
love it but that won't influence those who ought to take notice;
farmers, business leaders and legislators. Which is all rather
sad.

well like i said, the two pictures were worth
thousands of words.

The comparison pics show something was different. But what exactly?
They don't say.

they say the one handful of dirt that was darker
was from the organic plot and the other handful
was from the conventional plot. and the other
picture was showing the difference between the
organic and conventional plots during a drought
with the organic plot showing taller and greener
plants.

It was the difference in treatments that resulted in such visible
differences that I was after.



Soil building is admirable but just because you can build soil
doesn't mean all the other requirements of a sustainable food
production system are met. Unless, like them, you carefully define
sustainability in terms of soil building.

from my continued studies i'd say it is a
good start in a world that is mostly going
the other direction (destroying topsoil faster
than making it).


Soil building is necessary but not sufficient.


I have the same problem with a local community-based horticultural
trial. They are getting good results but so far have not produced
enough analysis to show what the full costs are. If you put enough
inputs (including hard work) into a trial you can do wonders in
almost any situation but can you do it efficiently, can you keep it
going on a large scale if you have to pay full price for your
labour, manures etc and can you compete, or at least get close to
it, regarding selling price with conventional systems?

you use the word "efficiently" but i think
that word is often a focus and over-simplified
into "easy".

That isn't what I meant. I mean so that you can compete on a large scale
without a subsidy. They are using grant money to get started, the question
is can they produce food sustainably using just the proceeds of sales in
future?

the base rate of soil production
with no inputs is the absolute minimum in terms
of energy expenditures. where there are no
other inputs or passes of machinery or anything
other than walking through and picking whatever
is desired and then putting it directly in the
mouth.


There are plenty of inputs required and if there is to be little or no
machinery then there will be labour costs instead. The methods appropriate
for a family are not going to scale up to where you can feed the whole
district.

some complexities and inputs added above that
type of system can be offset by getting more
out of the garden plot. yet i don't think a
lot of people keep that close of an eye on
expenses or time spent because they get a lot
of happiness out of raising their own food or
they like the larger variety of foods they
can grow that they'll not find at the store.
it's hard to put an exact price on what is
good about being able to go out and have fresh
beans or strawberries right off the plants.

I was more interested in large scale commercially viable systems where the
cost of labour and other inputs is critical.


for myself, just having a good reason to
get outside and exercise in a meaningful way
is a huge benefit. i hate having to exercise
just for the sake of exercise itself, but i
can go outside and putter around in the gardens
for hours and the time goes by so quickly.


I agree with you about home produce but that isn't what the Rodale study or
my local horticulture trial is about.

David

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
They may conceivable be right but I don't see this type of
presentation making too many converts. The faithful will of course
love it but that won't influence those who ought to take notice;
farmers, business leaders and legislators. Which is all rather
sad.

well like i said, the two pictures were worth
thousands of words.

The comparison pics show something was different. But what exactly?
They don't say.

they say the one handful of dirt that was darker
was from the organic plot and the other handful
was from the conventional plot. and the other
picture was showing the difference between the
organic and conventional plots during a drought
with the organic plot showing taller and greener
plants.

It was the difference in treatments that resulted in such visible
differences that I was after.

i've not gotten to the details yet...


Soil building is admirable but just because you can build soil
doesn't mean all the other requirements of a sustainable food
production system are met. Unless, like them, you carefully define
sustainability in terms of soil building.

from my continued studies i'd say it is a
good start in a world that is mostly going
the other direction (destroying topsoil faster
than making it).


Soil building is necessary but not sufficient.

i'd accept soil stability in many places that
still have topsoil.

the differences in productivity between topsoil
and subsoil is significant. when any farm runs
out of topsoil the required inputs for reaching
the same level of outputs as before is quite
large (especially when using high yield grains)
sometimes by several factors or even a magnitude
shift.

in the future those costs will be much higher
as cheap oil turns into more scarce oil.


I have the same problem with a local community-based horticultural
trial. They are getting good results but so far have not produced
enough analysis to show what the full costs are. If you put enough
inputs (including hard work) into a trial you can do wonders in
almost any situation but can you do it efficiently, can you keep it
going on a large scale if you have to pay full price for your
labour, manures etc and can you compete, or at least get close to
it, regarding selling price with conventional systems?

you use the word "efficiently" but i think
that word is often a focus and over-simplified
into "easy".

That isn't what I meant. I mean so that you can compete on a large scale
without a subsidy. They are using grant money to get started, the question
is can they produce food sustainably using just the proceeds of sales in
future?

if the subsidies already in place for
the conventional system are made available
to the organic system it would be a fair
comparison.

the conventional system has all the
advantages in many areas because the
infrastructure is already in place to
support it along with the marketing and
lobbying of politicians to ensure it
continues. the conventional system is
also getting a free pass on pollution and
abuse of fresh water resources and
destruction of topsoil turning land into
desert or salt pans.

to do an accurate comparison we need to
list all the costs of each. the conventional
system may be more efficient, but it may also
be more efficient at destruction or pollution
or wasting fresh water.


the base rate of soil production
with no inputs is the absolute minimum in terms
of energy expenditures. where there are no
other inputs or passes of machinery or anything
other than walking through and picking whatever
is desired and then putting it directly in the
mouth.


There are plenty of inputs required and if there is to be little or no
machinery then there will be labour costs instead. The methods appropriate
for a family are not going to scale up to where you can feed the whole
district.

yes more labor, but last i knew unemployment
is a concern.

i think much of the scaling problem is over-
hyped. if you take most of the greens and
fresh veggies production and do what the Cubans
have done then you've concentrated the perishables
nearer to the population centers. transportation
and infrastructure costs stay reasonable. for
the farms further away they shift to a crop
rotation system which gives them transportable
plantstuffs or animals, but i think it is much
better to process the animals on the land where
they are raised to keep the nutrients there as
much as possible (and transportation from the
population centers should be bringing organic
materials out when they are picking up stuff to
bring in). this reduces fuel costs as then only
the actual edible parts are shipped. you get
an increase in fuel costs hauling organic
materials from the cities, but there is some
cost in that already because the stuff currently
ends up in a landfill or at a recycling center.


some complexities and inputs added above that
type of system can be offset by getting more
out of the garden plot. yet i don't think a
lot of people keep that close of an eye on
expenses or time spent because they get a lot
of happiness out of raising their own food or
they like the larger variety of foods they
can grow that they'll not find at the store.
it's hard to put an exact price on what is
good about being able to go out and have fresh
beans or strawberries right off the plants.

I was more interested in large scale commercially viable systems where the
cost of labour and other inputs is critical.

eventually energy costs and an accurate
assessment of the pollution costs will show
that organic systems are viable. large scale
organic farms exist now.

if food becomes scarce you can be sure that
there will be a wider push to encourage more
people to grow food in small plots and to
reclaim unused spaces or to restore degraded
areas. already i see a lot more gardens than
before.


for myself, just having a good reason to
get outside and exercise in a meaningful way
is a huge benefit. i hate having to exercise
just for the sake of exercise itself, but i
can go outside and putter around in the gardens
for hours and the time goes by so quickly.

I agree with you about home produce but that
isn't what the Rodale study or
my local horticulture trial is about.

i don't know what your local horticultural
trial is about. how large is it?

the claims of the Rodale study is that the labor
and fuel increases of the organic approach are more
than compensated by the reduced input costs and the
higher prices for the organic outputs. i think the
cost of fuels can be worked on in various ways that
aren't considered useful now, but will become more
important when the price of oil goes up.

i think with an accurate accounting of the damage
from conventional system the organic system comes
out even further ahead. my own small scale
practice has shown me enough details and i'm not
even pressing production very hard or getting very
complicated.


songbird

Billy wrote:
....
So Rodale sent me some pdfs, which I've only very briefly looked at so
far. I doubt that they will be satisfactory on all counts to everyone.

unfortunately there isn't one overall study of the
whole 30yrs, but instead a series of smaller studies
and they did change their methods every so often for
the organic plots as they learned a better rotation
schedule.

i've skimmed through a few of them and found a few
items of interest. when i get more rainy weather
and have a bit more time i'll write up reviews of
each.

organic methods can still have nitrogen leaching
problems (if the nitrogen generating cover crop
(they had a bumper hairy vetch crop) is turned
under and the following crop doesn't grow well (weed
problems caused a failure with the corn crop) then
the leftover nitrogen still goes into the ground
water). i'm not sure how that compared to the
nitrogen leaching from a conventional fertilized
field for that same season. i still have to go
through that one again more slowly.

though i think the overall comparisons were done
well enough, including accounting for any extra
labor that was required for the organic spaces.

i'm not really sure if they gave the organic
method a credit for generating the nitrogen that
was used by the following crops and of course
they did put the seed costs down as minus, but
for an organic farm that is saving seeds this
expense could be much less too (after the equipment
for seed cleaning has paid for itself the rest is
all gravy).


songbird