i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.

http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.

http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...bookletFINAL.p
df


songbird

I'm sure that Monsanto's response will be bigger, glossier, and praise
GM products to the heavens. Supporters of the Guardians Of Privilege
will see this as tampering with the free market. So, why are you
spitting into the wind, bird? ;O)

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:

i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.

http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf

I'm sure that Monsanto's response will be bigger, glossier, and praise
GM products to the heavens. Supporters of the Guardians Of Privilege
will see this as tampering with the free market. So, why are you
spitting into the wind, bird? ;O)


because it blows
big baby chunks
it blows


ok, having read through the report i was struck by
two things. as pictures are worth a thousand words.
the picture of the conventional soil next to the
organic soil and the other picture of the organic
field next to the conventional field during a time of
drought.

the only unfortunate thing in the report was the
misuse of the word prostrate it should have been
spelled prostate.


songbird

In article ,
says...
i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.

http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf


songbird



Got it. Thanks.

We're on the Rodale mailing list but notice hasn't made it through to us
yet or it got lost in the usual onslaught rush of emails.

One of our more enthusiastic but technically maladroit friends emailed
us something that I now believe was the summary but we couldn't make out
what he was trying to tell us and the attachment didn't take.

Notice will be going out across our mailing list soon and my wife will
be putting the links on our community gardens advocacy site ASAP.

phorbin wrote:
....
Got it. Thanks.

We're on the Rodale mailing list but notice hasn't made it through to us
yet or it got lost in the usual onslaught rush of emails.

One of our more enthusiastic but technically maladroit friends emailed
us something that I now believe was the summary but we couldn't make out
what he was trying to tell us and the attachment didn't take.

Notice will be going out across our mailing list soon and my wife will
be putting the links on our community gardens advocacy site ASAP.

you're welcome, it's a summary about 13 pages
long, not very high on details about specific
methods.


songbird

On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:01:49 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
i don't recall this link being posted,

i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a

comparison between conventional methods and

organic done for 30 years.



http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf
songbird

I certainly do like the concept of organic farming but that booklet
is PROPAGANDA as bad as the crap put out by the chemical and fertilizer
companies. I know of some farmers in this area who have given up on organic farming as the weed problem just overwhelmed them. Trying to fight quack grass and thistles the organic way was totally useless.
I believe in using chemicals if and when necessary but should be a last resort.

Round-Up type herbicides should be used as little as possible and certainly not as pre-harvest treatments as some farmers routinely do.

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:

i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.

http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...FSTbookletFINA
L.pdf

I'm sure that Monsanto's response will be bigger, glossier, and praise
GM products to the heavens. Supporters of the Guardians Of Privilege
will see this as tampering with the free market. So, why are you
spitting into the wind, bird? ;O)


because it blows
big baby chunks
it blows


ok, having read through the report i was struck by
two things. as pictures are worth a thousand words.
the picture of the conventional soil next to the
organic soil and the other picture of the organic
field next to the conventional field during a time of
drought.

the only unfortunate thing in the report was the
misuse of the word prostrate it should have been
spelled prostate.


songbird

The "Green Revolution" is more than a delivery system for commodified,
industrial toxin$, and patented seeds (be they GMO, or hybrid). The
"Green Revolution" was the breeding of improved varieties, by NGOs,
combined with the expanded use of fertilizers, irrigation, and other
chemical inputs ( insecticides). Now one of the three legs of the
"Green Revolution" (Agricultural Chemicals) threatens to undo the
benefits of the other two.

The first leg of the "Green Revolution" was the development of high
yielding varieties of rice, wheat, sorghum, millet, maize, cassava, and
beans. This was done without genetic engineering, and can still be done,
but it requires biodiversity to supply unique traits.

The second leg of the "Green Revolution" is irrigation, and having the
clean water to make it feasible. The easily accessed water is drying up,
and AgChemicals are responsible for the lack of organic matter in the
soil which can hold moisture. Soil with more organic material also
absorbs water more easily, resulting in less erosion of topsoil. At the
same time CAFOs are hard pressed to get rid of all the nitrogen
compounds that they produce. Putting the animals on the land would also
reduce the need for giving them antibiotics (recombinant bovine growth
hormone (rBGH), a synthetic cow hormone that spurs milk production when
injected into dairy cows is a different problem). The other alternative
is to double crop, or crop rotation with soybeans, which will add
organic nitrogen to the soil.

Our problems seem to come from the third leg of the "Green Revolution".
the chemical inputs. At first chemical fertilizers seemed amazing,
because they allowed farmers to skip crop rotation, or cover crops, but
the benefit is now seen as illusionary. Chemical fertilizers have
allowed the organic, water trapping content of the soil to fall.
Moreover, they have poisoned our drinking water, and destroyed large
swaths of rich fishing areas at the mouths of rivers, called "dead
zones".

Also, we are chronically exposed to low levels of industrial pesticides.
As the FST pdf pointed out, a diverse crop rotation is the primary line
of defense against pests.

Globalization of food, makes food supply dependent on politics, and
business cycles. If you grow broccoli for the world market, and the
demand drops, it will be impossible to get your investment back. Small
farms, that sell quality produce to the local area can charge more, pay
a decent wage, and be sustainable.

Food for thought.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-food-idUKTRE7272FN20110308

In any event, there are still the Mongongo nuts.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

songbird wrote:
i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.


http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf


songbird

So where are the details available that justify all these claims? In which
peer-reviewed journal was the detailed study published? Were are the methods
described? Who wrote this summary? Who supervised the study? Who audited
the books? How do the references given relate to the body text, that is,
who actually said what?

The summary has little content in 13 pages and lacks any reference to the
methods, the raw data or the analysis performed which relegates the document
to merely a public relations campaign that is all about asserting a case not
proving it. I was somewhat alarmed to find things like this definition
"sustainable is a system that can maintain or enhance soil fertility
indefinitely". A very narrow and to me even quirky definition. It makes
me wonder what other oddities there might be lurking in the detail. But
maybe there is more behind the scenes.

I would think 30 years of work could not be presented in a summary like this
as it would fill several fat books. It is also quite reasonable that a
first level summary ought to be pitched at the average citizen not a
technical audience. However a summary ought to at least tell you where to
get that detail so that it can be reviewed. So I followed the URL to their
site and down into the FST section. I found a page of references ( 40 or
more) to academic papers on individual topics. Highly specialised topics
like this:

Douds, D., Janke, R., and S. Peters. 1993. VAM fungus spore populations and
colonization of roots of maize and soybean under conventional and low-input
sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 43:325-335.

So there are in fact many studies in peer-reviewed journals but nothing in
between the two levels. Either it is the glossy magazine or you have to
read all the papers.

Do the papers support the summary? I don't know and probably cannot find
out as: a) I don't have a week or two to wade through 40 papers b) I would
doubt that there are many living individuals would have the breadth and
depth of knowledge to properly review such a wide spread of highly
specialised content, I am certainly not one. This is the crux of the
matter, to show that together all the low level changes they have documented
are real and relevant and together are responsible for the sweeping success
they claim. But they don't show that.

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.

David

In article ,
says...
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:01:49 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
i don't recall this link being posted,

i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a

comparison between conventional methods and

organic done for 30 years.



http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf
songbird

I certainly do like the concept of organic farming but that booklet
is PROPAGANDA as bad as the crap put out by the chemical and fertilizer
companies. I know of some farmers in this area who have given up on organic farming as the weed problem just overwhelmed them. Trying to fight quack grass and thistles the organic way was totally useless.
I believe in using chemicals if and when necessary but should be a last resort.

Round-Up type herbicides should be used as little as possible and certainly not as
pre-harvest treatments as some farmers routinely do.

You'd have to update yourself on just what these chemicals do to the
soil and to living organisms before settling on what is and is not
propaganda.

My recent efforts have been spent in the political domain dealing with
the political fog of war.

Sometimes I may not be the sharpest pin in the cushion but let me
challenge the foundation of your assertion by asking the question, "What
was it about this farmer's business that caused him to forego the
premium prices that organic production usually nets?"

That opens lines of investigation up to and including the possibility
that his organic seed had been contaminated with GMO pollen and he could
no longer produce organically. (Look into GMO contamination of flax.
It's nearly wiped out some organic flax farmers around here because the
GMO RR gene in their seed denies them access to the lucrative European
market.)

"songbird" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:

i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.


http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf

I'm sure that Monsanto's response will be bigger, glossier, and praise
GM products to the heavens. Supporters of the Guardians Of Privilege
will see this as tampering with the free market. So, why are you
spitting into the wind, bird? ;O)


because it blows
big baby chunks
it blows


ok, having read through the report i was struck by
two things. as pictures are worth a thousand words.
the picture of the conventional soil next to the
organic soil and the other picture of the organic
field next to the conventional field during a time of
drought.

the only unfortunate thing in the report was the
misuse of the word prostrate it should have been
spelled prostate.

Huh? Now I'm going to have to go and read it. Knowing of Rodales interest
int he plant world it'd make sense to me for Rodale to mention 'prostrate'
but I really can't see any reason for them to be referring to 'prostate' .
Cancer links from growing practices perhaps??? Off to read it.....

"songbird" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:

i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.


http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf

I'm sure that Monsanto's response will be bigger, glossier, and praise
GM products to the heavens. Supporters of the Guardians Of Privilege
will see this as tampering with the free market. So, why are you
spitting into the wind, bird? ;O)


because it blows
big baby chunks
it blows


ok, having read through the report i was struck by
two things. as pictures are worth a thousand words.
the picture of the conventional soil next to the
organic soil and the other picture of the organic
field next to the conventional field during a time of
drought.

the only unfortunate thing in the report was the
misuse of the word prostrate it should have been
spelled prostate.

Found 'prostrate'! And the sloppy mistake there is a reflection of the
whole doco! I was not the least bit impressed by it given that I kept
wondering where the evidence was. It's all excecutive summary but no
detailed that usually follows for those exceutives who really do give a
shit, can read and then analyse what is presented.

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

"Roy" wrote in message
...
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:01:49 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
i don't recall this link being posted,

i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a

comparison between conventional methods and

organic done for 30 years.




http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf
songbird

I certainly do like the concept of organic farming but that booklet
is PROPAGANDA

It may be propaganda but you have no more evidence for making that statement
att his point in time than Rodale provided. They may very well have good
evidence to back up everything they say but they didn't bother to provide it
in that doco.

Farm1 wrote:

the only unfortunate thing in the report was the
misuse of the word prostrate it should have been
spelled prostate.

Huh? Now I'm going to have to go and read it. Knowing of Rodales
interest int he plant world it'd make sense to me for Rodale to
mention 'prostrate' but I really can't see any reason for them to be
referring to 'prostate' . Cancer links from growing practices
perhaps??? Off to read it.....

"Glyphosate3-based herbicides, currently legal in our food at low levels,
have been shown to cause DNA damage, infertility, low sperm count, and
prostrate or testicular cancer in rats."

You really don't want any of that prostrate cancer, but it's not as bad as
the kind that climbs up the wall.



D

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
songbird wrote:
i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.


http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf


songbird

So where are the details available that justify all these claims?

Indeed.

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.

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


for a more scientific bent look into:

http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/

they've run studies for quite some time (150+
years). this is the most extensive set of
studies in the modern science/statistical bent
that i've found so far.


songbird