sherwindu wrote:
I don't know what part of the planet you live in, but in the Midwest
here, the yellow jackets can sometimes be a big problem. Haven't
seen many this year, but previously, they went after my peaches. I
had one good sting when I tried to pick up a fallen peach on the
ground, and it took a lot of antihistamine to quiet that one down.

EV also doesn't seem to be growing fruit, or she would not be so
complacent about apple maggots, plum curcullio's, etc. The only time
I stop spraying is when the blossoms are out, since I don't want to
kill my pollinators (bees).

Sherwin


I didn't spray the cherry tree at all this year and the insect and brown
rot loss wasn't that bad -- less than what I lost to the robins.

I live in Southern Minnesota (there's an oxymoron for ya) and the
curcullios and apple maggots are awful here. I don't spray anything
until after 100% petal drop out of respect for the bees; they're having
a tough time here with the mites. I didn't spray any fungicides this
year and it shows, but a little scab on the apples doesn't hurt
anything. I stopped spraying in July (out of laziness) and was afraid
the apple maggots would ruin everything, but diligent clean-up of fallen
apples last year seems to have paid off. In the past, some years even
with spraying the apple maggots have totally destroyed my crop.

I would love to get to where insects and disease could be controlled
with just a dormant oil spray before the buds break, followed by
Integrated Pest Management (with a sprayer of malathion standing by,
unused, just in case of emergency.) I don't know if IPM works here or
if the insect load is just too high. I think proper orchard hygiene,
traps, and minimal spraying whenever the traps show a high insect
population might be more effective and more ecological than prophylactic
spraying every 10 days and every time it rains.

Bob

escapee wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 05:41:21 GMT, sherwindu opined:

(...)

I will repeat myself again by saying the best tasting fruit varieties are
not grown
by organic gardeners because of their susceptibility to attack. I grow a
Williams Pride
Apple because it is a disease resistant variety and a nice early apple, but it
doesn't
taste as good as a Cox's Orange Pippen or a Hudson Golden Gem. Your State of
Washington is known for it's large production of 'Red Delicious' Apples. This is
an
almost tasteless fruit that only sells because it is large, bright red, and holds
up well
from orchard to market place. Many people are getting into organic growing not
because of their love of the environment, but because of the profit motive. They

have scared people to death about getting cancer from chemicals, and know they
can charge big bucks if they just stick the 'organic' label on their produce.

Excuse me, but organic growers are known for growing varieties which are disease
and pest resistant.

I never said they didn't grow these resistant fruit.

It's part of the holistic approach to organic growing. I
have only tasted bad 'Delicious' apples when they were woody or lay around too
long, other than that, they are superior in taste, IMO, to many other varieties
of eating apples.

I think you should expand your horizons and start tasting more varieties of fruit.



You are also incorrect about "profit motive" since many organic farms are very
small, and sell their produce at farmers markets, not on grocery shelves. I
have news, the grocery stores hike up the prices, not the growers. For
instance, bananas. If you see the word organic on a banana, it's generally a
useless term. Bananas normally never need pesticides to produce. In the case of
organic bananas, they are grown without the use of synthetic fertilizers. The
store hikes up the price because they are in their special organic section. I
shop either at the farmers market, or Whole Foods Market and their prices are
maybe 5% more than commercially grown foods, which use pesticides and synthetic
fertilizers. I know because Whole Foods Market also sells conventionally grown
fruits and vegetables, so I see the price side by side in many cases.

I shop occasionally at Whole Foods Market and the markup is much greater than 5%.
I see things like a bunch of organic carrots selling for two dollars, while the
non-organic
bunches are selling for one dollar.
These growers are not stupid. If they see the fruit selling for higher prices, they
would
be remiss, if they didn't ask more for their harvest.



Oh, yes, people indeed DO get cancer from the chemicals being used. But since
the toxin developers are in bed with politicians, not much will be done about
it, at least till we get a different administration. AND, in one month, to take
this to another level, you'll once again be able to buy an AK47.

What's with you organic enthusiasts. Do you all believe the world is going to soon
end?
Pollution from our factories and vehicles is a much much greater threat than the
pesticides being used. When we convert all our energy sources to solar, nuclear,
etc.,
than I think we can worry about the pesticides.

Sherwin D.



Good morning sunshine.

Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

escapee wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 05:41:21 GMT, sherwindu opined:

(...)

I will repeat myself again by saying the best tasting fruit varieties are
not grown
by organic gardeners because of their susceptibility to attack. I grow a
Williams Pride
Apple because it is a disease resistant variety and a nice early apple, but it
doesn't
taste as good as a Cox's Orange Pippen or a Hudson Golden Gem. Your State of
Washington is known for it's large production of 'Red Delicious' Apples. This is
an
almost tasteless fruit that only sells because it is large, bright red, and holds
up well
from orchard to market place. Many people are getting into organic growing not
because of their love of the environment, but because of the profit motive. They

have scared people to death about getting cancer from chemicals, and know they
can charge big bucks if they just stick the 'organic' label on their produce.

Excuse me, but organic growers are known for growing varieties which are disease
and pest resistant.

I never said they didn't grow these resistant fruit.

It's part of the holistic approach to organic growing. I
have only tasted bad 'Delicious' apples when they were woody or lay around too
long, other than that, they are superior in taste, IMO, to many other varieties
of eating apples.

I think you should expand your horizons and start tasting more varieties of fruit.



You are also incorrect about "profit motive" since many organic farms are very
small, and sell their produce at farmers markets, not on grocery shelves. I
have news, the grocery stores hike up the prices, not the growers. For
instance, bananas. If you see the word organic on a banana, it's generally a
useless term. Bananas normally never need pesticides to produce. In the case of
organic bananas, they are grown without the use of synthetic fertilizers. The
store hikes up the price because they are in their special organic section. I
shop either at the farmers market, or Whole Foods Market and their prices are
maybe 5% more than commercially grown foods, which use pesticides and synthetic
fertilizers. I know because Whole Foods Market also sells conventionally grown
fruits and vegetables, so I see the price side by side in many cases.

I shop occasionally at Whole Foods Market and the markup is much greater than 5%.
I see things like a bunch of organic carrots selling for two dollars, while the
non-organic
bunches are selling for one dollar.
These growers are not stupid. If they see the fruit selling for higher prices, they
would
be remiss, if they didn't ask more for their harvest.



Oh, yes, people indeed DO get cancer from the chemicals being used. But since
the toxin developers are in bed with politicians, not much will be done about
it, at least till we get a different administration. AND, in one month, to take
this to another level, you'll once again be able to buy an AK47.

What's with you organic enthusiasts. Do you all believe the world is going to soon
end?
Pollution from our factories and vehicles is a much much greater threat than the
pesticides being used. When we convert all our energy sources to solar, nuclear,
etc.,
than I think we can worry about the pesticides.

Sherwin D.



Good morning sunshine.

Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

paghat wrote:

In article , sherwindu
wrote:

If we stopped spraying insecticides now, we would have a world famine.

Provide a REAL citation for that fatuous chemical industry propoganda
slogan, the blurting out of which indicates nothing but that you're a
hopeless case.

Oh, so people in Africa are not starving and they are not having massive
crop failures from weather and insects. Programs like National Geographic
must be giving me some of that propaganda. Shame of them.

You demanded citations from me & got them though obviously
you never really wanted them & still could not care any less about the
truth.

Your so-called documentation is worthless.

You persist in this kind of merely political myth-making -- still
being that suicidal nutcase who no matter how many reasons to live he is
given, always has one more excuse why you should even so shoot yourself in
the head, taking down as many others as with you as you can.

I prefer that you shoot yourself in the mouth.



Your knowledge of the causes of famine is way down there in the zero range
with much else you've been mistaken about this week. Get this if you get
nothing else:

Chemical dependency leads to environmental degradation leads to famine.

Talk about propaganda!


Organic farming is sustainable.

I will follow up with my usual complete overview, but if you're capable of
learning, all you need is the above two sentences to be much less foolish
than you've been up to now.

I don't think I can learn anything from you. All you know is how to insult
people.



In some regions starvation has resulted because the best land has been
turned over to coffee bean production or sugar cane or some similar crop
to be shipped to the west, all land & profits gained by the land belonging
to a ruling wealthy minority, & no aerable land is available to peasants.
In other places it is due to patterns of drought & cataclysmic climate
changes such as the expansion of the Sahara. In others it is due
exclusively to warfare or to scorched-earth campaigns. In others it is due
to concentrations of populations due to migration to finite areas,
resulting from drought & desert expansion or even more commonly from
warfare. In the distant past there have been famines caused by dependency
on single crops & those single crops became diseased, & there is some
worry that this may recur in the future due to agribusiness's reliance on
decreasing numbers of species & strains of those species. In India which
many years ago undertook an unfortunate transition toward chemical
dependency for nationalistic reasons has increased the amount of land
that can no longer be farmed at all because toxic salts have built up from
continuous use of chemical boosters & pesticides -- this land is being
abandoned by rich agriculturalists but it is no longer useful for peasants
to farm.

So there are many causes of famine.

You did not mention crop destruction by swarms of locusts, etc.



Organic farming has never been one of them.

As reported by the Soil Association in SOIL: The Importance & Protection
of Living Soil (2001), chemical & biotech dependent crops have been
leaching soil to death, & are will lead to famine. They recommend a
return, in both Europe & Africa, to organic farming methods which are the
only sustainable methods in the long run, besides producing a higher
quality of produce in the short run.

Even if SOME crops could be increased with chemical dependency, that issue
has no relevance in improverished parts of the globe which cannot afford
the chemicals. Whereas improving upon their own traditional methods can
increase crop yields 200 to 300% without resorting to chemicals. While
chemical fertilizers & pesticides deplete soil over time & kill its
essential living microorganisms, improving organic methods increases soil
richness & increases microorganism population, hence SUSTAINABLE increases
in crop production WITHOUT chemicals.

While the CHEMICAL and BIOTECH (GM) companies have undertaken a world-wide
campaign to promote the idea that organic growers in Europe & the USA are
"criminal" for turning more & more to organic farming, because they could
otherwise be growing much more chemical-dependent crops & send the excess
to famine-stricken countries. This of course is completely fatuous since
growers in the west can even be paid to grow NOTHING due to overproduction
driving costs down. At any hour, this very hour, world hunger would end if
all it took was to distribute more food from the west to countries where
drought or warfare or peasant lack of access to aerable land has caused
starvation. Blaming organic gardening

I'm not blaming organic gardening for anything other than a naive concept
that it can completely control our pest problems.

for any of it is on the surface
completely loony -- you swallowed it because you already convinced
yourself of a lie before someone handed you a greater lie to reinforce
your first one.

The reality is that organic farming for orchard crops & many annuyal
crops produces the same or more produce than chemical dependent farming,
does so more cheaply, in a manner that protects the soil for future crops.
Even those annual crops that CAN be increased in yield with chemical
dependency deplete soil at such a rapid rate that land is soon depleted;
in Brazil the answer to this problem is to take a load of chemicals deeper
into the jungle, slash & burn so that nothing of the jungle remains, &
start over with a very few years of high-yield crops ending in land that
can never be used again. The chemical biotech industrialists expertly
trumpet "High Yield Non-Organic Farming" with no underlying science to
support what is purely a POLITICAL campaign so that a very few biotech &
chemical giants can control the production of food in third-world
countries.

Yes, its all a conspiracy to get us.



In villages where traditional methods are still practiced, yields are low
but meet the local needs. When it becomes necessary to buy chemical
fertilizers & pesticides or special herbicide-resistant grains, the
expectation is not to feed people better but to have a salable excess
beyond local need; unfortunately, even if "greed is good" it is not good
in this situation. Profitable excess never happens in regions where the
main feature to overcome is limited water resources. Even in the fewer
cases where profitable short-range profits do occur from momentary high
yelds, the soil is rapidly depleted & the short-range gain ends in
long-run losses -- & famine. By then the soil may take years to restore if
it ever is restored, & the interuption in the use of traditional methods
results in extinction of sustainable seed strains, making it difficult to
return to the sustainable organic methods.

As oil-based products skyrocket in price, chemical-dependent crops become
less & less economically feasible.

I see the opposite. In my garden centers, the organic stuff costs way more
than the chemical stuff.

There are no chemical-dependent farming
methods that have ever been shown to increase production in regions with
limited water resources, & if the Hopi became non-organic farmers
tomorrow, their corn strains would soon become extinct. And indeed, one of
Monsanto's great goals is to drive desert-hardy, fertile, & sustainable
corn crop strains to extinction, in favor of their own seed alleged to
provide super-crops (impossible in desert conditions) which produce crops
that are sterile so that no percentage of the seed can be held back for
future crops. The purpose is NOT being to feed starving people but to make
starving people perpetually dependent on agribusiness for their seed. No
cash for the next year's seed, say hello to famine.

There's the same conspiracy theory again.



The governments of Kenya , Uganda & Tanzsania, in order to fight famine by
the best means, have undertaken nations-wide campaigns to re-establish &
upgrade sustainable organic farming methods. The chemical companies'
successful intrusions to do away with organic farming practices have been
a direct contributor to the destruction of croplands.

The BETTER system would have been, & still is, to share advances in
organic methods that may improve on localized primitive agricultural
systems without doing away with those traditional systems. Just one
example: the use of compost toilets can make an entire village a source of
organic fertilizer, breaking the cycle of dependency on chemical
fertilizer to prop up depleted soils; the use of the organic compost will
reverse soil depletion caused by the use of chemicals, thus resulting in
better more sustainable produce. Every problem has an organic answer that
in every case does indeed turn out to be the superior choice.

You accuse me of picking up e-colli laden fruit from under my trees, but you

are pushing the recycling of human waste, which in many cases contains a
wealth of harmful bacteria, and I wouldn't trust composting to kill it all.



-paghat the ratgirl

some random quotes from others:

"If you apply organic principles and you take care of the soil in the
proper way, you can very much increase your yield. This is the most
sustainable way, not only for the export market but also for food
security." [Thomas Cierpka, executive director, International Federation
of Organic Agricultural Movements]

"Contrary to what its opponents sometimes suggest, organic farming is not
in the least anti-science and looks to biological science particularly
for assistance in dealing with fertility, crop pests and diseases.
Although research institutes in Europe have done much pioneering work and
several new centres are coming on-stream, Cuba probably has more
scientific resources employed in organic farming research than the rest
of the world combined. It had to - otherwise there could have been famine
back in the '90s when it was largely abandoned by its major supporter,
the USSR." [Grace Maher, Agriculture & the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, Sept 2002]

"Output levels in organic farming can match and exceed that of chemical
farming - eg see Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, recent report. And where they
don't, decent research funds would undoubtedly raise productivity. There
are many more studies - I'd be glad to cite them if requested. But, at a
practical level, take even my own humble case; I grow garlic, organically,
about 40,000 plants, and get yields over 100% more than the European
commercial average. Furthermore, a study I made on potatoes shows,
remarkably, that modern agriculture still hasn't equalled the output
levels achieved in Ireland before the 1840's Famine

Why did they have a famine? Wasn't it because of some blight that wiped
out their crops? Maybe the right chemicals would have saved more of
their potatoes.

. .... Chemical farming
has left us a legacy of a degraded environment, mountains and lakes of
surplus produce, factory farming of animals, decreased employment and
profits in agriculture, and, of course, food contamination. Directly add
the costs of these effects to our conventional food (which we pay for
indirectly anyway) and we'll see the real price of food. The men in white
coats are scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments to bolster a
losing case. Again, a pro-GM scientist (Conference on GM food,
Skibbereen, Feb '99 ) said - almost with a giggle! - that, 'organic
potatoes are poisonous and you organic farmers here should throw them all
away.'" [Jim O'Connor, Ireland, from a widely circulated letter in the
Irish Times]

Organic farming and gardening is a fine goal to aim for, but there is still
a need
for chemicals to keep pests under control. Some places can rely more
heavily
on organic methods, but other's need the chemicals. In my case, a high
priority
for me is the very best tasting fruit with the least damage. I don't think
I can go
completely organic in today's world. If and when the organics are developed
to
do the job, I am ready to convert over. I don't like spraying these
chemicals,
but for now, there are no good alternatives.



--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

paghat wrote:

In article , sherwindu
wrote:

If we stopped spraying insecticides now, we would have a world famine.

Provide a REAL citation for that fatuous chemical industry propoganda
slogan, the blurting out of which indicates nothing but that you're a
hopeless case.

Oh, so people in Africa are not starving and they are not having massive
crop failures from weather and insects. Programs like National Geographic
must be giving me some of that propaganda. Shame of them.

You demanded citations from me & got them though obviously
you never really wanted them & still could not care any less about the
truth.

Your so-called documentation is worthless.

You persist in this kind of merely political myth-making -- still
being that suicidal nutcase who no matter how many reasons to live he is
given, always has one more excuse why you should even so shoot yourself in
the head, taking down as many others as with you as you can.

I prefer that you shoot yourself in the mouth.



Your knowledge of the causes of famine is way down there in the zero range
with much else you've been mistaken about this week. Get this if you get
nothing else:

Chemical dependency leads to environmental degradation leads to famine.

Talk about propaganda!


Organic farming is sustainable.

I will follow up with my usual complete overview, but if you're capable of
learning, all you need is the above two sentences to be much less foolish
than you've been up to now.

I don't think I can learn anything from you. All you know is how to insult
people.



In some regions starvation has resulted because the best land has been
turned over to coffee bean production or sugar cane or some similar crop
to be shipped to the west, all land & profits gained by the land belonging
to a ruling wealthy minority, & no aerable land is available to peasants.
In other places it is due to patterns of drought & cataclysmic climate
changes such as the expansion of the Sahara. In others it is due
exclusively to warfare or to scorched-earth campaigns. In others it is due
to concentrations of populations due to migration to finite areas,
resulting from drought & desert expansion or even more commonly from
warfare. In the distant past there have been famines caused by dependency
on single crops & those single crops became diseased, & there is some
worry that this may recur in the future due to agribusiness's reliance on
decreasing numbers of species & strains of those species. In India which
many years ago undertook an unfortunate transition toward chemical
dependency for nationalistic reasons has increased the amount of land
that can no longer be farmed at all because toxic salts have built up from
continuous use of chemical boosters & pesticides -- this land is being
abandoned by rich agriculturalists but it is no longer useful for peasants
to farm.

So there are many causes of famine.

You did not mention crop destruction by swarms of locusts, etc.



Organic farming has never been one of them.

As reported by the Soil Association in SOIL: The Importance & Protection
of Living Soil (2001), chemical & biotech dependent crops have been
leaching soil to death, & are will lead to famine. They recommend a
return, in both Europe & Africa, to organic farming methods which are the
only sustainable methods in the long run, besides producing a higher
quality of produce in the short run.

Even if SOME crops could be increased with chemical dependency, that issue
has no relevance in improverished parts of the globe which cannot afford
the chemicals. Whereas improving upon their own traditional methods can
increase crop yields 200 to 300% without resorting to chemicals. While
chemical fertilizers & pesticides deplete soil over time & kill its
essential living microorganisms, improving organic methods increases soil
richness & increases microorganism population, hence SUSTAINABLE increases
in crop production WITHOUT chemicals.

While the CHEMICAL and BIOTECH (GM) companies have undertaken a world-wide
campaign to promote the idea that organic growers in Europe & the USA are
"criminal" for turning more & more to organic farming, because they could
otherwise be growing much more chemical-dependent crops & send the excess
to famine-stricken countries. This of course is completely fatuous since
growers in the west can even be paid to grow NOTHING due to overproduction
driving costs down. At any hour, this very hour, world hunger would end if
all it took was to distribute more food from the west to countries where
drought or warfare or peasant lack of access to aerable land has caused
starvation. Blaming organic gardening

I'm not blaming organic gardening for anything other than a naive concept
that it can completely control our pest problems.

for any of it is on the surface
completely loony -- you swallowed it because you already convinced
yourself of a lie before someone handed you a greater lie to reinforce
your first one.

The reality is that organic farming for orchard crops & many annuyal
crops produces the same or more produce than chemical dependent farming,
does so more cheaply, in a manner that protects the soil for future crops.
Even those annual crops that CAN be increased in yield with chemical
dependency deplete soil at such a rapid rate that land is soon depleted;
in Brazil the answer to this problem is to take a load of chemicals deeper
into the jungle, slash & burn so that nothing of the jungle remains, &
start over with a very few years of high-yield crops ending in land that
can never be used again. The chemical biotech industrialists expertly
trumpet "High Yield Non-Organic Farming" with no underlying science to
support what is purely a POLITICAL campaign so that a very few biotech &
chemical giants can control the production of food in third-world
countries.

Yes, its all a conspiracy to get us.



In villages where traditional methods are still practiced, yields are low
but meet the local needs. When it becomes necessary to buy chemical
fertilizers & pesticides or special herbicide-resistant grains, the
expectation is not to feed people better but to have a salable excess
beyond local need; unfortunately, even if "greed is good" it is not good
in this situation. Profitable excess never happens in regions where the
main feature to overcome is limited water resources. Even in the fewer
cases where profitable short-range profits do occur from momentary high
yelds, the soil is rapidly depleted & the short-range gain ends in
long-run losses -- & famine. By then the soil may take years to restore if
it ever is restored, & the interuption in the use of traditional methods
results in extinction of sustainable seed strains, making it difficult to
return to the sustainable organic methods.

As oil-based products skyrocket in price, chemical-dependent crops become
less & less economically feasible.

I see the opposite. In my garden centers, the organic stuff costs way more
than the chemical stuff.

There are no chemical-dependent farming
methods that have ever been shown to increase production in regions with
limited water resources, & if the Hopi became non-organic farmers
tomorrow, their corn strains would soon become extinct. And indeed, one of
Monsanto's great goals is to drive desert-hardy, fertile, & sustainable
corn crop strains to extinction, in favor of their own seed alleged to
provide super-crops (impossible in desert conditions) which produce crops
that are sterile so that no percentage of the seed can be held back for
future crops. The purpose is NOT being to feed starving people but to make
starving people perpetually dependent on agribusiness for their seed. No
cash for the next year's seed, say hello to famine.

There's the same conspiracy theory again.



The governments of Kenya , Uganda & Tanzsania, in order to fight famine by
the best means, have undertaken nations-wide campaigns to re-establish &
upgrade sustainable organic farming methods. The chemical companies'
successful intrusions to do away with organic farming practices have been
a direct contributor to the destruction of croplands.

The BETTER system would have been, & still is, to share advances in
organic methods that may improve on localized primitive agricultural
systems without doing away with those traditional systems. Just one
example: the use of compost toilets can make an entire village a source of
organic fertilizer, breaking the cycle of dependency on chemical
fertilizer to prop up depleted soils; the use of the organic compost will
reverse soil depletion caused by the use of chemicals, thus resulting in
better more sustainable produce. Every problem has an organic answer that
in every case does indeed turn out to be the superior choice.

You accuse me of picking up e-colli laden fruit from under my trees, but you

are pushing the recycling of human waste, which in many cases contains a
wealth of harmful bacteria, and I wouldn't trust composting to kill it all.



-paghat the ratgirl

some random quotes from others:

"If you apply organic principles and you take care of the soil in the
proper way, you can very much increase your yield. This is the most
sustainable way, not only for the export market but also for food
security." [Thomas Cierpka, executive director, International Federation
of Organic Agricultural Movements]

"Contrary to what its opponents sometimes suggest, organic farming is not
in the least anti-science and looks to biological science particularly
for assistance in dealing with fertility, crop pests and diseases.
Although research institutes in Europe have done much pioneering work and
several new centres are coming on-stream, Cuba probably has more
scientific resources employed in organic farming research than the rest
of the world combined. It had to - otherwise there could have been famine
back in the '90s when it was largely abandoned by its major supporter,
the USSR." [Grace Maher, Agriculture & the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, Sept 2002]

"Output levels in organic farming can match and exceed that of chemical
farming - eg see Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, recent report. And where they
don't, decent research funds would undoubtedly raise productivity. There
are many more studies - I'd be glad to cite them if requested. But, at a
practical level, take even my own humble case; I grow garlic, organically,
about 40,000 plants, and get yields over 100% more than the European
commercial average. Furthermore, a study I made on potatoes shows,
remarkably, that modern agriculture still hasn't equalled the output
levels achieved in Ireland before the 1840's Famine

Why did they have a famine? Wasn't it because of some blight that wiped
out their crops? Maybe the right chemicals would have saved more of
their potatoes.

. .... Chemical farming
has left us a legacy of a degraded environment, mountains and lakes of
surplus produce, factory farming of animals, decreased employment and
profits in agriculture, and, of course, food contamination. Directly add
the costs of these effects to our conventional food (which we pay for
indirectly anyway) and we'll see the real price of food. The men in white
coats are scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments to bolster a
losing case. Again, a pro-GM scientist (Conference on GM food,
Skibbereen, Feb '99 ) said - almost with a giggle! - that, 'organic
potatoes are poisonous and you organic farmers here should throw them all
away.'" [Jim O'Connor, Ireland, from a widely circulated letter in the
Irish Times]

Organic farming and gardening is a fine goal to aim for, but there is still
a need
for chemicals to keep pests under control. Some places can rely more
heavily
on organic methods, but other's need the chemicals. In my case, a high
priority
for me is the very best tasting fruit with the least damage. I don't think
I can go
completely organic in today's world. If and when the organics are developed
to
do the job, I am ready to convert over. I don't like spraying these
chemicals,
but for now, there are no good alternatives.



--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

zxcvbob wrote:

sherwindu wrote:
I don't know what part of the planet you live in, but in the Midwest
here, the yellow jackets can sometimes be a big problem. Haven't
seen many this year, but previously, they went after my peaches. I
had one good sting when I tried to pick up a fallen peach on the
ground, and it took a lot of antihistamine to quiet that one down.

EV also doesn't seem to be growing fruit, or she would not be so
complacent about apple maggots, plum curcullio's, etc. The only time
I stop spraying is when the blossoms are out, since I don't want to
kill my pollinators (bees).

Sherwin

I didn't spray the cherry tree at all this year and the insect and brown
rot loss wasn't that bad -- less than what I lost to the robins.

I live in Southern Minnesota (there's an oxymoron for ya) and the
curcullios and apple maggots are awful here.

Bob,

Try telling that to Rat Lady, who thinks everyone has the same
environment as her Washington home. I believe Apple Maggots,
for one, are predominantly found East of the Rocky Mountains.

I don't spray anything
until after 100% petal drop out of respect for the bees; they're having
a tough time here with the mites. I didn't spray any fungicides this
year and it shows, but a little scab on the apples doesn't hurt
anything. I stopped spraying in July (out of laziness) and was afraid
the apple maggots would ruin everything, but diligent clean-up of fallen
apples last year seems to have paid off. In the past, some years even
with spraying the apple maggots have totally destroyed my crop.

Did you use an effective spray like Imidan? That one really works on
apple maggots, but it is not available to the home orchardist anymore.
If
you can locate a supply of it (farmers can still get it), give it a try.



I would love to get to where insects and disease could be controlled
with just a dormant oil spray before the buds break, followed by
Integrated Pest Management (with a sprayer of malathion standing by,
unused, just in case of emergency.) I don't know if IPM works here or
if the insect load is just too high. I think proper orchard hygiene,
traps, and minimal spraying whenever the traps show a high insect
population might be more effective and more ecological than prophylactic
spraying every 10 days and every time it rains.

My experience is that by waiting too long between spraying, say over one
month,
problems develop. Most years I average about every three weeks. I
missed one
apple tree( Cox's Orange Pippen) on one of my three week cycles, and the
tree
is now showing signs of attack. The leaves are turning prematurely
yellow with
brown spots, and the fruit is being attacked. It may be a coincidence,
but I suspect
the pests found a window of opportunity.

Sherwin D.



Bob

zxcvbob wrote:

sherwindu wrote:
I don't know what part of the planet you live in, but in the Midwest
here, the yellow jackets can sometimes be a big problem. Haven't
seen many this year, but previously, they went after my peaches. I
had one good sting when I tried to pick up a fallen peach on the
ground, and it took a lot of antihistamine to quiet that one down.

EV also doesn't seem to be growing fruit, or she would not be so
complacent about apple maggots, plum curcullio's, etc. The only time
I stop spraying is when the blossoms are out, since I don't want to
kill my pollinators (bees).

Sherwin

I didn't spray the cherry tree at all this year and the insect and brown
rot loss wasn't that bad -- less than what I lost to the robins.

I live in Southern Minnesota (there's an oxymoron for ya) and the
curcullios and apple maggots are awful here.

Bob,

Try telling that to Rat Lady, who thinks everyone has the same
environment as her Washington home. I believe Apple Maggots,
for one, are predominantly found East of the Rocky Mountains.

I don't spray anything
until after 100% petal drop out of respect for the bees; they're having
a tough time here with the mites. I didn't spray any fungicides this
year and it shows, but a little scab on the apples doesn't hurt
anything. I stopped spraying in July (out of laziness) and was afraid
the apple maggots would ruin everything, but diligent clean-up of fallen
apples last year seems to have paid off. In the past, some years even
with spraying the apple maggots have totally destroyed my crop.

Did you use an effective spray like Imidan? That one really works on
apple maggots, but it is not available to the home orchardist anymore.
If
you can locate a supply of it (farmers can still get it), give it a try.



I would love to get to where insects and disease could be controlled
with just a dormant oil spray before the buds break, followed by
Integrated Pest Management (with a sprayer of malathion standing by,
unused, just in case of emergency.) I don't know if IPM works here or
if the insect load is just too high. I think proper orchard hygiene,
traps, and minimal spraying whenever the traps show a high insect
population might be more effective and more ecological than prophylactic
spraying every 10 days and every time it rains.

My experience is that by waiting too long between spraying, say over one
month,
problems develop. Most years I average about every three weeks. I
missed one
apple tree( Cox's Orange Pippen) on one of my three week cycles, and the
tree
is now showing signs of attack. The leaves are turning prematurely
yellow with
brown spots, and the fruit is being attacked. It may be a coincidence,
but I suspect
the pests found a window of opportunity.

Sherwin D.



Bob

sherwindu expounded:

What's with you organic enthusiasts. Do you all believe the world is going to soon
end?
Pollution from our factories and vehicles is a much much greater threat than the
pesticides being used. When we convert all our energy sources to solar, nuclear,
etc.,
than I think we can worry about the pesticides.

So we're not supposed to take care of what we can, and eliminate toxic
chemicals from our soils and foods? No, small market farmers can
right now take care of it, and they are. The organic gardener/farmers
are making money now, whereas the same can't be said for
conventional/chemical using farmers. Plus their produce is higher
quality; they aren't catering to the mass-shipping market, but tend
to either direct sell or sell locally so they can grow produce that's
actually bred to taste good, rather than withstand shipping. And
finally, the produce is coming down in price, as more and more farmers
enter the market. I welcome and celebrate it, and know that people
who think like you are becoming fewer and fewer (thankfully).

http:///www.biodemocracy.org

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

sherwindu wrote:

I don't spray anything until after 100% petal drop out of respect
for the bees; they're having a tough time here with the mites. I
didn't spray any fungicides this year and it shows, but a little
scab on the apples doesn't hurt anything. I stopped spraying in
July (out of laziness) and was afraid the apple maggots would ruin
everything, but diligent clean-up of fallen apples last year seems
to have paid off. In the past, some years even with spraying the
apple maggots have totally destroyed my crop.


Did you use an effective spray like Imidan? That one really works on
apple maggots, but it is not available to the home orchardist
anymore. If you can locate a supply of it (farmers can still get it),
give it a try.


I used a mixture of malathion EC and methoxyclor WP (I'll add captan or
maneb in the spring next year). If I had seen actual signs of apple
maggots, I would have sprayed diazanon in July and then switched back to
malathion in August, and stop spraying in mid-August. I have a quart of
diazanon 50 EC.


I would love to get to where insects and disease could be
controlled with just a dormant oil spray before the buds break,
followed by Integrated Pest Management (with a sprayer of malathion
standing by, unused, just in case of emergency.) I don't know if
IPM works here or if the insect load is just too high. I think
proper orchard hygiene, traps, and minimal spraying whenever the
traps show a high insect population might be more effective and
more ecological than prophylactic spraying every 10 days and every
time it rains.


Best regards,
Bob

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:

What's with you organic enthusiasts. Do you all believe the world is going to soon
end?
Pollution from our factories and vehicles is a much much greater threat than the
pesticides being used. When we convert all our energy sources to solar, nuclear,
etc.,
than I think we can worry about the pesticides.

So we're not supposed to take care of what we can, and eliminate toxic
chemicals from our soils and foods?

No, I didn't say that. It's putting organic farming way up there as the way to
save the world. The concept is good, but the fanaticism is not called for.

No, small market farmers can
right now take care of it, and they are. The organic gardener/farmers
are making money now, whereas the same can't be said for
conventional/chemical using farmers. Plus their produce is higher
quality; they aren't catering to the mass-shipping market, but tend
to either direct sell or sell locally so they can grow produce that's
actually bred to taste good, rather than withstand shipping.

Organic grown produce may have reduced traces of chemicals (that's why I
wash all my purchases), but there is nothing about organics that makes the
fruit taste any better, or hold up better in shipment. The organic stuff will spoil
as quickly as the chemically grown stuff. However, you can change the genetics
of a fruit, for example, to hold up better in shipping, like the Red Delicious Apple.
Unfortunately, that can reduce the taste of the fruit. Properties like taste and
holding
ability for shipment are in the genes of the fruit. Organics does not change those!
As I mentioned in earlier postings, organics growers are almost forced to select
varieties which are inherently disease resistant, to get any results with the lower
powered organic preventatives. Unfortunately, these fruits are not the very best
tasting varieties. If you pick a particular apple, for example, and grow it
organically
and also chemically, I cannot see there being any difference in taste or long term
storage abilities. I grow a William's Pride Apple which is disease resistant to
fungicides,
but I still have to spray it with insecticides. It is not a bad tasting apple, but
doesn't
compare to my other apples, like Honeycrisp or Ashmead Kernel. I will stick with the
chemical sprays to grow my excellent tasting apples, until the organic people come up
with a spray that can protect all varieties.

And
finally, the produce is coming down in price, as more and more farmers
enter the market.

I still see double prices for organic grown produce at my local Jewel Food Store.

I welcome and celebrate it, and know that people
who think like you are becoming fewer and fewer (thankfully).

Yes, but these people have never tasted a really good apple.



http:///www.biodemocracy.org

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:41:22 -0700, paghat wrote:



Paghat, have you ever written a brief response?

Yes.

But I'm not all that interested in communicating with people with the
attention span of a gnat.

Now a report on the yellowjackets.

'much snipping of stuff, to allow for a short response posting...

I must agree with the point of Paggers posting, since I have left my
garden to the "critters" I have noticed that it is much happier, less bug
damage and no issues with me getting stung, since I keep my attitude
towards my friends in that mindset, and so the yellowjackets that are
constantly in my garden gobbling up those bugs that I don't want, don't
even notice me other than to stay out from under my feet ;^)

I really do feel that we spend way too much time trying to stop what our
EarthMother has given to us from doing us good, and instead seem to want
to destroy it, sigh...

FWIW Paghat try a more positive/encouraging reply to others postings, and
you may find them more willing to listen to you...

Peace

Douglas Cole
human resident
MotherEarth

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Yes it is. But EV doesn't have a hedge full of yellow jackets and an
allergic wife - I do :-).

Yellowjackets are gardeners' friends, as they eat garden-chomping insects.

snip of long tirade

I knew I'd get at least one anti-pesticide fanatic :-).

I'm more concerned about the antibiotic-resistant bacteria we're
breeding with all the "antibacterial" products on the market today than
I am about killing a few thousand insects - there's no shortage.

The problem is the same. The more pesticide that's used, the more resistant the
insects become. That is the main reason for the development of IPM. The
commonly used pesticides lose their efficacy after a while. They're running out
of pesticides that are toxic enough to kill bugs, but not people.

EV

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Yes it is. But EV doesn't have a hedge full of yellow jackets and an
allergic wife - I do :-).

Yellowjackets are gardeners' friends, as they eat garden-chomping insects.

snip of long tirade

I knew I'd get at least one anti-pesticide fanatic :-).

I'm more concerned about the antibiotic-resistant bacteria we're
breeding with all the "antibacterial" products on the market today than
I am about killing a few thousand insects - there's no shortage.

The problem is the same. The more pesticide that's used, the more resistant the
insects become. That is the main reason for the development of IPM. The
commonly used pesticides lose their efficacy after a while. They're running out
of pesticides that are toxic enough to kill bugs, but not people.

EV

escapee wrote:


You are also incorrect about "profit motive" since many organic farms are very
small, and sell their produce at farmers markets, not on grocery shelves. I
have news, the grocery stores hike up the prices, not the growers. For
instance, bananas. If you see the word organic on a banana, it's generally a
useless term. Bananas normally never need pesticides to produce.

I don't know where you got your information, but it's not correct, I'm afraid. Emile
Frison is one of the world's leading banana researchers, and according to Dr. Frison:

www.futureharvest.org/pdf/banana.pdf
[]
Bananas are threatened by the rapidly spreading fungus Black Sigatoka that has been
undermining banana production for the past three decades. It has reached almost every
banana-growing region in the world and typically reduces yield by 30 to 50 percent.
Other
diseases and pests that cripple yields include a soil fungus, parasitic worms, weevils,
and
viruses such as the Banana Streak Virus, which lurks inside the banana genome itself.
Commercial growers can afford and rely extensively on chemical fungicides, often
spraying their crops 50 times per year—the equivalent of spraying nearly once per week,
which is about 10 times the average for intensive agriculture in industrialized
countries. Chemical inputs account for 27 percent of the production cost of export
bananas. Agricultural chemicals used on bananas for diseases and pests have harmed the
health of plantation workers and the environment.
“If we can devise resistant banana varieties, we could possibly do away with fungicides
and pesticides all together,” said Frison. “In addition, resistant strains are essential
for small-holder farmers, who cannot afford the expensive chemicals to begin with. When
Black Sigatoka strikes, farmers can do little more than watch their plants die.
Increased hunger can swiftly follow.”
[]
www.futureharvest.org/pdf/banana.pdf

EV

escapee wrote:


You are also incorrect about "profit motive" since many organic farms are very
small, and sell their produce at farmers markets, not on grocery shelves. I
have news, the grocery stores hike up the prices, not the growers. For
instance, bananas. If you see the word organic on a banana, it's generally a
useless term. Bananas normally never need pesticides to produce.

I don't know where you got your information, but it's not correct, I'm afraid. Emile
Frison is one of the world's leading banana researchers, and according to Dr. Frison:

www.futureharvest.org/pdf/banana.pdf
[]
Bananas are threatened by the rapidly spreading fungus Black Sigatoka that has been
undermining banana production for the past three decades. It has reached almost every
banana-growing region in the world and typically reduces yield by 30 to 50 percent.
Other
diseases and pests that cripple yields include a soil fungus, parasitic worms, weevils,
and
viruses such as the Banana Streak Virus, which lurks inside the banana genome itself.
Commercial growers can afford and rely extensively on chemical fungicides, often
spraying their crops 50 times per year—the equivalent of spraying nearly once per week,
which is about 10 times the average for intensive agriculture in industrialized
countries. Chemical inputs account for 27 percent of the production cost of export
bananas. Agricultural chemicals used on bananas for diseases and pests have harmed the
health of plantation workers and the environment.
“If we can devise resistant banana varieties, we could possibly do away with fungicides
and pesticides all together,” said Frison. “In addition, resistant strains are essential
for small-holder farmers, who cannot afford the expensive chemicals to begin with. When
Black Sigatoka strikes, farmers can do little more than watch their plants die.
Increased hunger can swiftly follow.”
[]
www.futureharvest.org/pdf/banana.pdf

EV