writes:
sherwindu expounded:

No, no! You obviously missed the irony of my statement. What I meant
was
you pursue this organic kick like a religion.

And you pursue your chemical kick like a religion. I'd rather follow
the organic cult. As a matter of fact, I do.

That is my style also.

I do appreciate this thread. There were points brought out of which I
either had not been aware, had forgotten, or not realized the importance.
For instance, I have left fruit on the ground for the winter birds. I will
now confine that to one area which will be destroyed (covered with a good
coating of fresh manure!) before springtime is in bloom. Two years ago, I
taped some wonderful video of one of our feathered friends eating apples,
something that is a great thing to have. Though we put up a nesting box
for it, the squirrels took it over so he/she nested elsewhere. :-(

Last summer, while driving in the car, I heard a marvelous show on NPR
about a farm in the Midwest that farms all organically with both livestock
and crop rotation. It was a fairly large farm and outproduced all of its
chemical-using neighbors, quite impressively (yes, they gave actual
production rates of the farms in the area). Did anyone here, by some
remote chance, hear the program? I was driving with no opportunity of
writing down anything, and my short-term memory is often garbage, one of
the side effects of my son's death. I would dearly appreciate if anyone
heard that program and knows where the farm is located and lets us/me know.

Something I've often not understood is how so many people could exist
without chemicals and produce sufficient food for so many thousands of
years and we backyard gardeners sometimes feel the need to grab the
chemicals. My ladybugs and birds are my pesticides. My elbow is my
herbicide. It works. Good fortune has contributed to my garden, but
respect for the critters and plants has probably also helped tremendously.
I read the cautions on the labels of "that stuff" and it scares me; if
this is what they admit to, what else is there? It seems logical to me
that they will not put even one precaution on that label that they are not
required to place there; what else do they know (and deny) that they do
not place there? (And, yes, that concern extends to commercially marketed
food products.)

Glenna

writes:
you are a great person, ev...and i would LOVE it if you could possibly
contact me via private email...my earthlink spam go-getter will say HALT!
all spammers who go there...just request to be entered into my address
book
and then we can communicate more closely without all the nuts.

I'm not ev but did send you an email and got the blocker thing. However,
when I tried to unblock, my computer locked up so you'll have to do
something on your end to accept it. :-(

Glenna

Glenna,

Glenna Rose wrote:

writes:
sherwindu expounded:

No, no! You obviously missed the irony of my statement. What I meant
was
you pursue this organic kick like a religion.

And you pursue your chemical kick like a religion. I'd rather follow
the organic cult. As a matter of fact, I do.

That is my style also.

I do appreciate this thread. There were points brought out of which I
either had not been aware, had forgotten, or not realized the importance.
For instance, I have left fruit on the ground for the winter birds. I will
now confine that to one area which will be destroyed (covered with a good
coating of fresh manure!) before springtime is in bloom. Two years ago, I
taped some wonderful video of one of our feathered friends eating apples,
something that is a great thing to have. Though we put up a nesting box
for it, the squirrels took it over so he/she nested elsewhere. :-(

Last summer, while driving in the car, I heard a marvelous show on NPR
about a farm in the Midwest that farms all organically with both livestock
and crop rotation.

Crop rotation is not the exclusive domain of organic farmers.

It was a fairly large farm and outproduced all of its
chemical-using neighbors, quite impressively (yes, they gave actual
production rates of the farms in the area). Did anyone here, by some
remote chance, hear the program? I was driving with no opportunity of
writing down anything, and my short-term memory is often garbage, one of
the side effects of my son's death. I would dearly appreciate if anyone
heard that program and knows where the farm is located and lets us/me know.

I missed the show too. You might try contacting NPR directly for details.



Something I've often not understood is how so many people could exist
without chemicals and produce sufficient food for so many thousands of
years

Yes, but how many people died of starvation and the world population
was a lot smaller than now.

and we backyard gardeners sometimes feel the need to grab the
chemicals. My ladybugs and birds are my pesticides. My elbow is my
herbicide. It works. Good fortune has contributed to my garden, but
respect for the critters and plants has probably also helped tremendously.
I read the cautions on the labels of "that stuff" and it scares me;

It would scare me more if there were no cautions. We enjoy the protection
of many government agencies, like the FDA, to check on these thing to keep
us warned and healthy. Just putting an 'organically grown' label on food
does
not convince me of it's purity. I wash all my fruits and vegetables from
the market
and my garden, and that's the best insurance policy.

if
this is what they admit to, what else is there? It seems logical to me
that they will not put even one precaution on that label that they are not
required to place there; what else do they know (and deny) that they do
not place there? (And, yes, that concern extends to commercially marketed
food products.)

That's why I'm glad we live in the USA, where these things are controlled.
Drug manufacturers put all kinds of possible side effects on their labels.
Does
that mean we should stop taking our medications, which in many cases is
keeping
us alive?

Sherwin Dubren



Glenna

writes:

Crop rotation is not the exclusive domain of organic farmers.

You do seem to tend to read into things something which was not said,
don't you?

I did not say crop rotation was exclusive to organic farmers. I only said
that particular farm produced more product with both animal and crop
rotation and no chemicals of any kind.

Crop rotation has been practiced for thousands of years by those who
observed nature. If you look through U.S. history, you will find Ben
Frankin's writings on that very thing. Chemical fertilizers only work in
the short-term which is why they must be re-applied constantly, and, yes,
I consider every growing season as constantly. Through my childhood, I
watched my grandfather run a productive farm in eastern Washington
utilizing crop rotation and no commercial fertilizers. It makes no sense
to purchase something that is free if one plans ahead.

I will continue to believe there is no valid reason for back yard
gardeners to spray chemicals on their food/yards. One might believe many
do it to be "in" because they see the advertisements that say it works.
It's rather like folks buying the latest fashion in clothes, appliances or
cars. It ain't because it's better, it's so they can be kool.


Yes, but how many people died of starvation and the world population
was a lot smaller than now.

As many people die of starvation today as did in bygone years. Where have
you been?! That the population is larger doesn't say a lot about the
quality of life for those who are less fortunate than us. I might
counter by asking with how many people, in a world which is healthier and
more advantaged than centuries ago, die of things related to chemicals.

You can offer no valid defense of back yard gardeners using this stuff in
their gardens/yards to me that will convince me to reach for that bottle
of pesticide. Ladybugs (and other predatory insects) and birds do a very
good job. Miracle Gro and other such products offer a short-term fix
only; healthy soil lasts. The truth to me appears to be that it's just
easier, a quick fix, like sending the kids to the neighbors to play
because they are irritating at that moment.

You try to compare a time when we have all the advantages of machinery for
harvest with a time when the hands and backs of individuals were all the
harvesting machinery available. At this point in time, I'm living in the
last half of my life and have observed many things about our humanoids.
Sadly, we are called humans but we are more sheep in that we believe
things if we see it enough. War is a good example . . . living through
the Viet Nam era was a convincer. People have become accustomed to
violence in all forms as they see it on the evening news, horrible,
unspeakable things have been broadcast, and have come to accept it as they
become far too used to it, after all, it won't happen to them, will it?
It's the same way with chemicals related to food.

Look at medicine. After moving away from literally all traditional
treatments after WW II, the medical community is re-embracing
centuries-old treatments as valid and effective. Current medical students
are learning many of those discarded practices/treatments. Sadly, we
humans are too quick to embrace the new and throw out the old, at least
Americans tend that way. Why bother to repair the old when we can buy new
seems to be the attitude of the bulk of our population which moves into
why use the old methods when the advertisers are pushing new methods at us
.. . . all methods designed to make a profit for themselves without much
concern to what is good for the consumer. Geez, look at the number of
SUVs sold to people who live in apartments and never leave the city!

The knowledge is there. We humans should be intelligent enough to use of
the old what is good and supplement it with the new, not just replace it.

It would scare me more if there were no cautions. We enjoy the
protection
of many government agencies, like the FDA, to check on these thing to
keep
us warned and healthy. Just putting an 'organically grown' label on
food
does
not convince me of it's purity. I wash all my fruits and vegetables
from
the market
and my garden, and that's the best insurance policy.

That there are cautions is no insurance. Have you ever read of what
happens before those cautions are ever put on labels, all of the laws that
have to be considered and met to require them? How many people are dead
of lung cancer right now who might be alive and healthy if those warning
labels were on tobacco products in the first part of the 1900s? Or if cigs
weren't in the hands of every major actor/actress? I've amazed that
anyone can pay to pull smoke into their lungs . . . it defies all logic.
Why don't they just build a smoldering fire and inhale? Because they want
to be cool, smoke like their favorite actor/actress and they will be
handsome/glamorous also.

I didn't see anyone here say that a label of "organically grown" meant
purity. We are, after all, talking about home gardening on this group.
I'm very aware that I have no control over the food that goes into the
animals that produce the manure I put on my garden so there are some
unknowns. However, those unknowns are far less harmful to my body or
psyche than a bottle of chemicals purchased to make a chemical
manufacturer richer.

For the record, it isn't the washing that protects us from what goes into
the soil that gets into our food. But even washing does not protect us
from surface applications; that stuff does get absorbed into the food
itself. Minute? Yes, but minute adds up over time, especially in the
bodies of small children.


That's why I'm glad we live in the USA, where these things are
controlled.
Drug manufacturers put all kinds of possible side effects on their
labels.
Does
that mean we should stop taking our medications, which in many cases is
keeping
us alive?

Dear, dear Sherwin. You really do live in LaLa Land, don't you? We are
controlled and protected aren't we? Have you heard of a little thing
called Stilbestrol (sp) that led to cancer in female babies, even to
hysterectomies in children as young as nine months old? That was an
approved drug that was still prescribed to pregnant women long after they
knew the dangers. I know that because my own doctor prescribed it to me
in 1968 and 1971 after it was on their warning list. I was fortunate that
I didn't go to the doctor until after the danger period in which it caused
cancer in the fetus; however, he had the warnings and still prescribed it
to someone who had no idea what it could do to her child. He was one of
many thousands of doctors throughout this nation who did the same.

As for those medications that keep us alive, many are killing us whether
you want to admit it or not. Take the cholesterol medication as an
example. The doctors are only too willing to reach for the prescription
pad and the patients only too willing to take a pill instead of living
healthier. Oat bran is a good example. A half-cup of oat bran cooked
into whatever form is palatable and eaten every morning will do far more
than any medication to lower cholesterol; however, doctors don't tell that
to patients. Sadly, most don't even know. What's best about it is that
it has *no* side affects, meaning no liver damage, no dizziness, no
shortness of breath, etc., with the added advantage of adding that
necessary fiber to the body. However, you won't get that from your
doctor. What you will get is a prescription for one of the meds
advertised by the drug companies. The side affects are often then treated
with another prescription, and it goes on and on. This is the country
which you tout as safe because we have the FDA. Read the inspection
percentages of food products done by the FDA. Read who controls the tests
done on medications.

Yes, it's nice that we have the protective agencies. It's better than
nothing. However, people rely too much that they are doing what we
perceive they are doing and therein lies the danger, our perception that
we are safe because the agency exists. The truth of life is that we must
all do what we can to make our lives healthier. For me, that means no
chemicals sprayed on my garden. For you that means all sorts of chemicals.
Isn't it nice that we have the choice?

The truth is that you can rant on and call other posters names and hint at
their intelligence and knowledge, but it won't change those of us who
truly want our lives/food to be healthier. It does, however, cause you to
appear to be small-minded which you may very well not be at all. There's
lots of room in this world for all views and all opinions. The greatest
thing about philosophies is that there is no completely wrong or
completely right. Debate is good, we all learn if we care to learn.
However, insulting others is just plain immature as well as being close
minded. As I said in my first post in this thread, I have appreciated this
thread and learned from it.

If I were to make a request of you, it would be to debate not to be
insulting as some of your comments have appeared to be (and, hopefully,
were not meant to be). I don't care if you agree with me, but I do care
how you treat others. There is never a valid reason for being rude and
insulting to others.

Glenna

Funny. I haven't been following the thread, but knew it was a troll thread
from the first post, though I don't think the original poster meant it. Take
a lesson.

Glenna Rose wrote:

writes:

Crop rotation is not the exclusive domain of organic farmers.

You do seem to tend to read into things something which was not said,
don't you?

I did not say crop rotation was exclusive to organic farmers. I only said
that particular farm produced more product with both animal and crop
rotation and no chemicals of any kind.

Crop rotation has been practiced for thousands of years by those who
observed nature. If you look through U.S. history, you will find Ben
Frankin's writings on that very thing. Chemical fertilizers only work in
the short-term which is why they must be re-applied constantly, and, yes,
I consider every growing season as constantly. Through my childhood, I
watched my grandfather run a productive farm in eastern Washington
utilizing crop rotation and no commercial fertilizers. It makes no sense
to purchase something that is free if one plans ahead.

I will continue to believe there is no valid reason for back yard
gardeners to spray chemicals on their food/yards. One might believe many
do it to be "in" because they see the advertisements that say it works.

Oh yes, we backyard gardeners love to dress up in all that protective
clothing
and sweat on the hot days, spend our valuable time spraying, cleaning up,
mixing
chemicals, etc. It's all a lot of fun, and we love to do it.

Should I believe the organic propaganda as being anymore truthful and less
"in".
If anything, organic has become the latest buzz word, as it promises
everyone
longer life, health, and happiness.


It's rather like folks buying the latest fashion in clothes, appliances or
cars. It ain't because it's better, it's so they can be kool.

There is nothing kool about spraying chemicals. I think the organic thing
is
the latest craze, and it's promising things it cannot do.




Yes, but how many people died of starvation and the world population
was a lot smaller than now.

As many people die of starvation today as did in bygone years.

Wrong, we have a larger world population, and thus more people starving.

Where have
you been?! That the population is larger doesn't say a lot about the
quality of life for those who are less fortunate than us. I might
counter by asking with how many people, in a world which is healthier and
more advantaged than centuries ago

Years ago, people were dying from the plague,etc., until science found a way
to
cure them and innoculate them with those man made antigens.

, die of things related to chemicals.

You can offer no valid defense of back yard gardeners using this stuff in
their gardens/yards to me that will convince me to reach for that bottle
of pesticide.

Thats because you are satisfied with mediocre tasting fruit and probably
have
never tasted a really excellent apple. Those are the apples that organic
farmers
don't grow because they are not inherantly disease resistant.

Ladybugs (and other predatory insects) and birds do a very
good job. Miracle Gro and other such products offer a short-term fix
only; healthy soil lasts. The truth to me appears to be that it's just
easier, a quick fix, like sending the kids to the neighbors to play
because they are irritating at that moment.

You try to compare a time when we have all the advantages of machinery for
harvest with a time when the hands and backs of individuals were all the
harvesting machinery available. At this point in time, I'm living in the
last half of my life and have observed many things about our humanoids.
Sadly, we are called humans but we are more sheep in that we believe
things if we see it enough. War is a good example . . . living through
the Viet Nam era was a convincer. People have become accustomed to
violence in all forms as they see it on the evening news, horrible,
unspeakable things have been broadcast, and have come to accept it as they
become far too used to it, after all, it won't happen to them, will it?
It's the same way with chemicals related to food.

Is this your way of saying that people who spray chemicals are war mongers?
Give me a break.



Look at medicine. After moving away from literally all traditional
treatments after WW II, the medical community is re-embracing
centuries-old treatments as valid and effective. Current medical students
are learning many of those discarded practices/treatments. Sadly, we
humans are too quick to embrace the new and throw out the old, at least
Americans tend that way. Why bother to repair the old when we can buy new
seems to be the attitude of the bulk of our population which moves into
why use the old methods when the advertisers are pushing new methods at us
. . . all methods designed to make a profit for themselves without much
concern to what is good for the consumer. Geez, look at the number of
SUVs sold to people who live in apartments and never leave the city!

The knowledge is there. We humans should be intelligent enough to use of
the old what is good and supplement it with the new, not just replace it.

It would scare me more if there were no cautions. We enjoy the
protection
of many government agencies, like the FDA, to check on these thing to
keep
us warned and healthy. Just putting an 'organically grown' label on
food
does
not convince me of it's purity. I wash all my fruits and vegetables
from
the market
and my garden, and that's the best insurance policy.

That there are cautions is no insurance. Have you ever read of what
happens before those cautions are ever put on labels, all of the laws that
have to be considered and met to require them? How many people are dead
of lung cancer right now who might be alive and healthy if those warning
labels were on tobacco products in the first part of the 1900s? Or if cigs
weren't in the hands of every major actor/actress? I've amazed that
anyone can pay to pull smoke into their lungs . . . it defies all logic.
Why don't they just build a smoldering fire and inhale? Because they want
to be cool, smoke like their favorite actor/actress and they will be
handsome/glamorous also.

I didn't see anyone here say that a label of "organically grown" meant
purity. We are, after all, talking about home gardening on this group.
I'm very aware that I have no control over the food that goes into the
animals that produce the manure I put on my garden so there are some
unknowns. However, those unknowns are far less harmful to my body or
psyche than a bottle of chemicals purchased to make a chemical
manufacturer richer.

For the record, it isn't the washing that protects us from what goes into
the soil that gets into our food. But even washing does not protect us
from surface applications; that stuff does get absorbed into the food
itself. Minute? Yes, but minute adds up over time, especially in the
bodies of small children.


That's why I'm glad we live in the USA, where these things are
controlled.
Drug manufacturers put all kinds of possible side effects on their
labels.
Does
that mean we should stop taking our medications, which in many cases is
keeping
us alive?

Dear, dear Sherwin. You really do live in LaLa Land, don't you?

No, we live in the USA which has the best protection for consumers of
any country in the world. Yes, the system is not perfect, but that's why
you have a brain ( I hope) to make the proper decisions.

We are
controlled and protected aren't we? Have you heard of a little thing
called Stilbestrol (sp) that led to cancer in female babies, even to
hysterectomies in children as young as nine months old? That was an
approved drug that was still prescribed to pregnant women long after they
knew the dangers. I know that because my own doctor prescribed it to me
in 1968 and 1971 after it was on their warning list. I was fortunate that
I didn't go to the doctor until after the danger period in which it caused
cancer in the fetus; however, he had the warnings and still prescribed it
to someone who had no idea what it could do to her child. He was one of
many thousands of doctors throughout this nation who did the same.

As for those medications that keep us alive, many are killing us whether
you want to admit it or not.

Again, these medications, for better or worse, are keeping millions of
people alive.

Take the cholesterol medication as an
example. The doctors are only too willing to reach for the prescription
pad and the patients only too willing to take a pill instead of living
healthier. Oat bran is a good example. A half-cup of oat bran cooked
into whatever form is palatable and eaten every morning will do far more
than any medication to lower cholesterol;

I take Oat and Wheat bran with my cereal every morning, but it still does
not keep my blood pressure down. Yes, I exercise, but if not for my
medication,
I would probably have had a stroke, by now.

however, doctors don't tell that
to patients. Sadly, most don't even know. What's best about it is that
it has *no* side affects, meaning no liver damage, no dizziness, no
shortness of breath, etc., with the added advantage of adding that
necessary fiber to the body. However, you won't get that from your
doctor. What you will get is a prescription for one of the meds
advertised by the drug companies. The side affects are often then treated
with another prescription, and it goes on and on. This is the country
which you tout as safe because we have the FDA. Read the inspection
percentages of food products done by the FDA. Read who controls the tests
done on medications.

OK., so you go out and tell everyone to throw their medication is the
garbage can.



Yes, it's nice that we have the protective agencies. It's better than
nothing. However, people rely too much that they are doing what we
perceive they are doing and therein lies the danger, our perception that
we are safe because the agency exists. The truth of life is that we must
all do what we can to make our lives healthier. For me, that means no
chemicals sprayed on my garden. For you that means all sorts of chemicals.
Isn't it nice that we have the choice?

The truth is that you can rant on and call other posters names and hint at
their intelligence and knowledge, but it won't change those of us who
truly want our lives/food to be healthier.

Excuse me. It was Rat Lady who started with the bad language and insults.
You are not much better than her.


It does, however, cause you to
appear to be small-minded which you may very well not be at all. There's
lots of room in this world for all views and all opinions. The greatest
thing about philosophies is that there is no completely wrong or
completely right. Debate is good, we all learn if we care to learn.
However, insulting others is just plain immature as well as being close
minded. As I said in my first post in this thread, I have appreciated this
thread and learned from it.

If I were to make a request of you, it would be to debate not to be
insulting as some of your comments have appeared to be (and, hopefully,
were not meant to be).

You go back and CAREFULLY read this thread and see who started with the
insults.
I held back for a while, until it got to be very irritating.

I don't care if you agree with me, but I do care
how you treat others. There is never a valid reason for being rude and
insulting to others.

Glenna

Glenna Rose wrote:

If I were to make a request of you, it would be to debate not to be
insulting as some of your comments have appeared to be (and, hopefully,
were not meant to be). I don't care if you agree with me, but I do care
how you treat others. There is never a valid reason for being rude and
insulting to others.

Glenna



If you'll look back, you'll see that Paghat was the main one hurling
insults, and the one who started the mudslinging, and the one who kept
escalating it. (She is entertaining though...)

Best regards,
Bob

Glenna Rose wrote:

If I were to make a request of you, it would be to debate not to be
insulting as some of your comments have appeared to be (and, hopefully,
were not meant to be). I don't care if you agree with me, but I do care
how you treat others. There is never a valid reason for being rude and
insulting to others.

Glenna



If you'll look back, you'll see that Paghat was the main one hurling
insults, and the one who started the mudslinging, and the one who kept
escalating it. (She is entertaining though...)

Best regards,
Bob

Glenna Rose wrote:

writes:

Crop rotation is not the exclusive domain of organic farmers.

You do seem to tend to read into things something which was not said,
don't you?

I did not say crop rotation was exclusive to organic farmers. I only said
that particular farm produced more product with both animal and crop
rotation and no chemicals of any kind.

Crop rotation has been practiced for thousands of years by those who
observed nature. If you look through U.S. history, you will find Ben
Frankin's writings on that very thing. Chemical fertilizers only work in
the short-term which is why they must be re-applied constantly, and, yes,
I consider every growing season as constantly. Through my childhood, I
watched my grandfather run a productive farm in eastern Washington
utilizing crop rotation and no commercial fertilizers. It makes no sense
to purchase something that is free if one plans ahead.

I will continue to believe there is no valid reason for back yard
gardeners to spray chemicals on their food/yards. One might believe many
do it to be "in" because they see the advertisements that say it works.

Oh yes, we backyard gardeners love to dress up in all that protective
clothing
and sweat on the hot days, spend our valuable time spraying, cleaning up,
mixing
chemicals, etc. It's all a lot of fun, and we love to do it.

Should I believe the organic propaganda as being anymore truthful and less
"in".
If anything, organic has become the latest buzz word, as it promises
everyone
longer life, health, and happiness.


It's rather like folks buying the latest fashion in clothes, appliances or
cars. It ain't because it's better, it's so they can be kool.

There is nothing kool about spraying chemicals. I think the organic thing
is
the latest craze, and it's promising things it cannot do.




Yes, but how many people died of starvation and the world population
was a lot smaller than now.

As many people die of starvation today as did in bygone years.

Wrong, we have a larger world population, and thus more people starving.

Where have
you been?! That the population is larger doesn't say a lot about the
quality of life for those who are less fortunate than us. I might
counter by asking with how many people, in a world which is healthier and
more advantaged than centuries ago

Years ago, people were dying from the plague,etc., until science found a way
to
cure them and innoculate them with those man made antigens.

, die of things related to chemicals.

You can offer no valid defense of back yard gardeners using this stuff in
their gardens/yards to me that will convince me to reach for that bottle
of pesticide.

Thats because you are satisfied with mediocre tasting fruit and probably
have
never tasted a really excellent apple. Those are the apples that organic
farmers
don't grow because they are not inherantly disease resistant.

Ladybugs (and other predatory insects) and birds do a very
good job. Miracle Gro and other such products offer a short-term fix
only; healthy soil lasts. The truth to me appears to be that it's just
easier, a quick fix, like sending the kids to the neighbors to play
because they are irritating at that moment.

You try to compare a time when we have all the advantages of machinery for
harvest with a time when the hands and backs of individuals were all the
harvesting machinery available. At this point in time, I'm living in the
last half of my life and have observed many things about our humanoids.
Sadly, we are called humans but we are more sheep in that we believe
things if we see it enough. War is a good example . . . living through
the Viet Nam era was a convincer. People have become accustomed to
violence in all forms as they see it on the evening news, horrible,
unspeakable things have been broadcast, and have come to accept it as they
become far too used to it, after all, it won't happen to them, will it?
It's the same way with chemicals related to food.

Is this your way of saying that people who spray chemicals are war mongers?
Give me a break.



Look at medicine. After moving away from literally all traditional
treatments after WW II, the medical community is re-embracing
centuries-old treatments as valid and effective. Current medical students
are learning many of those discarded practices/treatments. Sadly, we
humans are too quick to embrace the new and throw out the old, at least
Americans tend that way. Why bother to repair the old when we can buy new
seems to be the attitude of the bulk of our population which moves into
why use the old methods when the advertisers are pushing new methods at us
. . . all methods designed to make a profit for themselves without much
concern to what is good for the consumer. Geez, look at the number of
SUVs sold to people who live in apartments and never leave the city!

The knowledge is there. We humans should be intelligent enough to use of
the old what is good and supplement it with the new, not just replace it.

It would scare me more if there were no cautions. We enjoy the
protection
of many government agencies, like the FDA, to check on these thing to
keep
us warned and healthy. Just putting an 'organically grown' label on
food
does
not convince me of it's purity. I wash all my fruits and vegetables
from
the market
and my garden, and that's the best insurance policy.

That there are cautions is no insurance. Have you ever read of what
happens before those cautions are ever put on labels, all of the laws that
have to be considered and met to require them? How many people are dead
of lung cancer right now who might be alive and healthy if those warning
labels were on tobacco products in the first part of the 1900s? Or if cigs
weren't in the hands of every major actor/actress? I've amazed that
anyone can pay to pull smoke into their lungs . . . it defies all logic.
Why don't they just build a smoldering fire and inhale? Because they want
to be cool, smoke like their favorite actor/actress and they will be
handsome/glamorous also.

I didn't see anyone here say that a label of "organically grown" meant
purity. We are, after all, talking about home gardening on this group.
I'm very aware that I have no control over the food that goes into the
animals that produce the manure I put on my garden so there are some
unknowns. However, those unknowns are far less harmful to my body or
psyche than a bottle of chemicals purchased to make a chemical
manufacturer richer.

For the record, it isn't the washing that protects us from what goes into
the soil that gets into our food. But even washing does not protect us
from surface applications; that stuff does get absorbed into the food
itself. Minute? Yes, but minute adds up over time, especially in the
bodies of small children.


That's why I'm glad we live in the USA, where these things are
controlled.
Drug manufacturers put all kinds of possible side effects on their
labels.
Does
that mean we should stop taking our medications, which in many cases is
keeping
us alive?

Dear, dear Sherwin. You really do live in LaLa Land, don't you?

No, we live in the USA which has the best protection for consumers of
any country in the world. Yes, the system is not perfect, but that's why
you have a brain ( I hope) to make the proper decisions.

We are
controlled and protected aren't we? Have you heard of a little thing
called Stilbestrol (sp) that led to cancer in female babies, even to
hysterectomies in children as young as nine months old? That was an
approved drug that was still prescribed to pregnant women long after they
knew the dangers. I know that because my own doctor prescribed it to me
in 1968 and 1971 after it was on their warning list. I was fortunate that
I didn't go to the doctor until after the danger period in which it caused
cancer in the fetus; however, he had the warnings and still prescribed it
to someone who had no idea what it could do to her child. He was one of
many thousands of doctors throughout this nation who did the same.

As for those medications that keep us alive, many are killing us whether
you want to admit it or not.

Again, these medications, for better or worse, are keeping millions of
people alive.

Take the cholesterol medication as an
example. The doctors are only too willing to reach for the prescription
pad and the patients only too willing to take a pill instead of living
healthier. Oat bran is a good example. A half-cup of oat bran cooked
into whatever form is palatable and eaten every morning will do far more
than any medication to lower cholesterol;

I take Oat and Wheat bran with my cereal every morning, but it still does
not keep my blood pressure down. Yes, I exercise, but if not for my
medication,
I would probably have had a stroke, by now.

however, doctors don't tell that
to patients. Sadly, most don't even know. What's best about it is that
it has *no* side affects, meaning no liver damage, no dizziness, no
shortness of breath, etc., with the added advantage of adding that
necessary fiber to the body. However, you won't get that from your
doctor. What you will get is a prescription for one of the meds
advertised by the drug companies. The side affects are often then treated
with another prescription, and it goes on and on. This is the country
which you tout as safe because we have the FDA. Read the inspection
percentages of food products done by the FDA. Read who controls the tests
done on medications.

OK., so you go out and tell everyone to throw their medication is the
garbage can.



Yes, it's nice that we have the protective agencies. It's better than
nothing. However, people rely too much that they are doing what we
perceive they are doing and therein lies the danger, our perception that
we are safe because the agency exists. The truth of life is that we must
all do what we can to make our lives healthier. For me, that means no
chemicals sprayed on my garden. For you that means all sorts of chemicals.
Isn't it nice that we have the choice?

The truth is that you can rant on and call other posters names and hint at
their intelligence and knowledge, but it won't change those of us who
truly want our lives/food to be healthier.

Excuse me. It was Rat Lady who started with the bad language and insults.
You are not much better than her.


It does, however, cause you to
appear to be small-minded which you may very well not be at all. There's
lots of room in this world for all views and all opinions. The greatest
thing about philosophies is that there is no completely wrong or
completely right. Debate is good, we all learn if we care to learn.
However, insulting others is just plain immature as well as being close
minded. As I said in my first post in this thread, I have appreciated this
thread and learned from it.

If I were to make a request of you, it would be to debate not to be
insulting as some of your comments have appeared to be (and, hopefully,
were not meant to be).

You go back and CAREFULLY read this thread and see who started with the
insults.
I held back for a while, until it got to be very irritating.

I don't care if you agree with me, but I do care
how you treat others. There is never a valid reason for being rude and
insulting to others.

Glenna

[major snippage]

writes:
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.

I feel so very sorry for you if you've never had a Red Delicious that was.
It is, indeed, one of the best apples grown. It seems you have had a
cold-storage apple from an old crop that was also picked too green. Even
growing up in eastern Washington, I could buy those at the store.
However, fresh ripe Red Delicious apples directly from the tree on a brisk
fall morning are without equal.

In Illinois, you are hardly one to judge what a fresh Washington apple is
compared to one that has gone through months of storage and travel. Come
to Washington in late October/early November, visit an orchard and eat one
there and then tell us what you think.

Washington State, and Hood River area (Oregon), grow the best apples in
the world, but like any perishable produce, they must be compared fresh to
fresh, not what cold storage has altered. I only think of what my first
*ripe* orange tasted like to know how true that is. How about a ripe
Brandywine tomato off the vine on a cool morning? That cannot be compared
with the plastic from the store or even one from a farmers' market.

For the record, Japan importers pay premium price for Washington apples.
Wonder why?

Also, Washington is known for far more apples than the Red Delicious, just
for the record. You picked on one that is not a good traveler and tends
to get mealy in cold storage. I noted you didn't mention the Golds or even
the Gaylas, or the Romes or many other cooking apples that are also grown
here.

Many people are getting into organic growing not
because of their love of the environment, but because of the profit
motive.

Yup. Many are. They've learned they can be more productive and, therefore,
more profitable, by growing organic. I don't care if they do it for the
environment or for profit as long as they do it.

A very dear friend of mine said he wouldn't buy a Prius because he cared
about the environment or pollution, that was someone else's problem, that
he would buy for efficiency and performance. After much research, he did
order a Prius, and is waiting for months to get it, not because he cares
about pollution but because of savings to him. I don't care about his
reasons because he will be driving a non/minimum-polluting car instead of
another all-gasoline car. When I see another Prius on the road, I don't
question if that person is environmentally conscious or just financially
astute, I simply appreciate that there will be that much less pollution in
the air, the air which I breathe.

Whether a farm is organic for production or for profit (though often the
two are hand-in-hand), doesn't matter to me. What matters is there are
fewer chemicals, many of which cause much harm to us as well as to the
environment (which is also us!). Anything that tells me to wear
protective clothing or to not get it on my skin is something I shouldn't
be using, either inside or outside. But then, I don't use drain cleaner
either because *hot* water regularly in the pipes does the job (and use a
sink strainer!). I might add that a previous owner constantly was calling
a plumber to unclog the drains, the same drains I've not had a problem
with in the five years I've owned this house.

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.

So, are you saying people don't get cancer from chemicals? How naive you
appear to be.


I don't subscribe to NATURE and living in Illinois, I haven't any
contact with
Washington State U. or MSU.

WSU has web pages which, if you are interested, can lead to your answers.


Maintaining good soil does help, but people were doing that long
before
organic gardening came along.

Some were. Most were depleting the soil and moving on which is exactly
what would be happening today if there were anywhere to move to.

If we stopped spraying insecticides now, we would have a world famine.
You
should be a little more patient with your campaign.

There will be no world famine if we stop spraying insecticides in our back
yards. That is just plain absurd. This group is about the home gardener,
not about major farming conglomerates, or undeveloped countries that do
not have irrigation available and other such advantages that lead to good
production. There's a lot more to famine than pesticide spraying.


Like everything else, pesticides can be misused.

And too often are. I have neighbors that use them as a matter of course.
I never have and have no problem with undesirable bugs. Fortunately, as
my every-spring introduction of ladybugs has been happening, the others
have reduced/stopped spraying as they find no need to do so. Suppose it
might be the increase of beneficials from my own yard that might be
contributing to this? Gee, let's think about this for a moment.

I truly believe each of us can make a difference, and do, good or bad.

Glenna

Glenna Rose wrote:

[major snippage]

writes:
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.

I feel so very sorry for you if you've never had a Red Delicious that was.
It is, indeed, one of the best apples grown.

It was possibly a good apple Stark's first grew it. Now it has been
contorted
into a tasteless, shinny, good looking apple, that stores well for
shipping. You
can still buy the original Red Delicious from Starks, which I have not
tasted, but
expect it to be a much better apple.

It seems you have had a
cold-storage apple from an old crop that was also picked too green.

I belong to two fruit growers clubs. One with over 100 members. The
other with
many more than that. We exchange ideas about apples that we grow and
know about.
The general opinion about Washington Red Delicious coincides with mine.
Even the
growers in Washington are recognizing this, as they are starting to grow
Fuji and other
varieties to appeal to a new market of people looking for tasty apples.

Even
growing up in eastern Washington, I could buy those at the store.
However, fresh ripe Red Delicious apples directly from the tree on a brisk
fall morning are without equal.

You better widen your tasting experience.



In Illinois, you are hardly one to judge what a fresh Washington apple is
compared to one that has gone through months of storage and travel. Come
to Washington in late October/early November, visit an orchard and eat one
there and then tell us what you think.

The problem is not freshness, but it's the genes that have been bred into
that apple.



Washington State, and Hood River area (Oregon), grow the best apples in
the world, but like any perishable produce, they must be compared fresh to
fresh, not what cold storage has altered.

I actually grew a Red Delicious Apple when I first got into fruit growing
and didn't
know any better.


I only think of what my first
*ripe* orange tasted like to know how true that is. How about a ripe
Brandywine tomato off the vine on a cool morning? That cannot be compared
with the plastic from the store or even one from a farmers' market.

Agreed. I grow Brandywine also.



For the record, Japan importers pay premium price for Washington apples.

That was before they discovered Fuji.


Wonder why?

Also, Washington is known for far more apples than the Red Delicious, just
for the record. You picked on one that is not a good traveler and tends
to get mealy in cold storage.

Really, I thought Red Delicious was a good keeper, at least for shipping.

I noted you didn't mention the Golds or even
the Gaylas, or the Romes or many other cooking apples that are also grown
here.

Many people are getting into organic growing not
because of their love of the environment, but because of the profit
motive.

Yup. Many are. They've learned they can be more productive and, therefore,
more profitable, by growing organic. I don't care if they do it for the
environment or for profit as long as they do it.

A very dear friend of mine said he wouldn't buy a Prius because he cared
about the environment or pollution, that was someone else's problem, that
he would buy for efficiency and performance. After much research, he did
order a Prius, and is waiting for months to get it, not because he cares
about pollution but because of savings to him. I don't care about his
reasons because he will be driving a non/minimum-polluting car instead of
another all-gasoline car. When I see another Prius on the road, I don't
question if that person is environmentally conscious or just financially
astute, I simply appreciate that there will be that much less pollution in
the air, the air which I breathe.

There is nothing financially astute about buying organic produce. It is
far
overpriced for my budget, plus they don't grow the varieties I like.



Whether a farm is organic for production or for profit (though often the
two are hand-in-hand), doesn't matter to me. What matters is there are
fewer chemicals, many of which cause much harm to us as well as to the
environment (which is also us!). Anything that tells me to wear
protective clothing or to not get it on my skin is something I shouldn't
be using, either inside or outside. But then, I don't use drain cleaner
either because *hot* water regularly in the pipes does the job (and use a
sink strainer!). I might add that a previous owner constantly was calling
a plumber to unclog the drains, the same drains I've not had a problem
with in the five years I've owned this house.

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.

So, are you saying people don't get cancer from chemicals? How naive you
appear to be.

Yes, people who don't wash their produce properly. However, there is
usually
a much reduced amount of chemicals on fruit, since the sun burns most of it
off.




I don't subscribe to NATURE and living in Illinois, I haven't any
contact with
Washington State U. or MSU.

WSU has web pages which, if you are interested, can lead to your answers.

These web sites talk about chemicals as well as organic methods.




Maintaining good soil does help, but people were doing that long
before
organic gardening came along.

Some were. Most were depleting the soil and moving on which is exactly
what would be happening today if there were anywhere to move to.

If we stopped spraying insecticides now, we would have a world famine.
You
should be a little more patient with your campaign.

There will be no world famine if we stop spraying insecticides in our back
yards. That is just plain absurd.

Yes, but previous contributors to the thread opened up this aspect that
these
chemicals affect the whole world.

This group is about the home gardener,
not about major farming conglomerates, or undeveloped countries that do
not have irrigation available and other such advantages that lead to good
production. There's a lot more to famine than pesticide spraying.


Like everything else, pesticides can be misused.

And too often are. I have neighbors that use them as a matter of course.
I never have and have no problem with undesirable bugs.

I can show you my friend's organic farm near me, where there are loads of
spoiled fruit on the trees.

Fortunately, as
my every-spring introduction of ladybugs has been happening, the others
have reduced/stopped spraying as they find no need to do so. Suppose it
might be the increase of beneficials from my own yard that might be
contributing to this? Gee, let's think about this for a moment.

I truly believe each of us can make a difference, and do, good or bad.

Glenna

sherwindu wrote:

Glenna Rose wrote:

[major snippage]

[]
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.

Organic certification can be a long arduous process. The requirements are
stringent (at least here in Canada).

So, are you saying people don't get cancer from chemicals? How naive you
appear to be.

Yes, people who don't wash their produce properly. However, there is
usually a much reduced amount of chemicals on fruit, since the sun burns most
of it
off.

Are you sure about that? Then how come they keep finding it in fruit ... among
other things?

-------------
POPs found in all foods:
wvlc.uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/
module5/Jepidemilologyarticle/pesticidesinfoodpdf.pdf
[]
Based on data from the US Food and Drug
Administration, this article provides a brief overview of
POPs residues in common foods in the United States food
supply. The analysis focuses on 12 chemical compounds
now targeted for an international phase out under the
Stockholm Convention on POPs. The available information
indicates that POPs residues are present in virtually all categories
of foods, including baked goods, fruit, vegetables,
meat, poultry, and dairy products. Residues of five or more
persistent toxic chemicals in a single food item are not unusual,
with the most commonly found POPs being the pesticides
DDT (and its metabolites, such as DDE) and
dieldrin. Estimated daily doses of dieldrin alone exceed
US Environmental Protection Agency and US Agency for
Toxic Substances Disease Control reference dose for
children. Given the widespread occurrence of POPs in the
food supply and the serious health risks associated with
even extremely small levels of exposure, prevention of further
food contamination must be a national health policy
priority in every country.
[]
--------------------------------



Yes, but previous contributors to the thread opened up this aspect that
these chemicals affect the whole world.

In actual fact, they do. Here's why.

If someone in India dumped DDT into the ocean, how long do you think it would
take to get to the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Would you believe less than 2 weeks?
It's called The Grasshopper Effect
(http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay/article2_e.html), and it's just one of the
ways that toxics travel around the world. This is why DDT, which has been banned
in NA since the 70's, is still found in the belugas of the St. Lawrence. This is
why they constantly need to replenish the Peregrine Falcons in the wild release
programs. Pesticides (and/or their breakdown products) that were used from the
40's to the 70's are still out there in the food chain.

Pesticides permeate every body of water on the planet and are highly detrimental
to aquatic life:

http://rainbow.ldgo.columbia.edu/edf/text/ddt.html
[]
Worldwide, levels of DDT are between 1 and 10 ng/l in estuaries and coastal
areas, and between 0.1 and 1 ng/l in the open sea (Kennish, 1994). While DDT
concentrations in surface waters are largely controlled by the concentration of
DDT in the atmosphere, the ocean serves as a sink for DDT (Iwata et al., 1993).
[]
In the Arctic, the highest concentrations of DDT in surface waters are reported
near the Indigirka River in the East Siberian Sea (2.5 ng/l) and in the vicinity
of the Ob' River in the Kara Sea (2 ng/l, Melnikov and Vlasov 1992).
DDT in belugas generally ranges from 1 to 5 ug/g in the Alaskan and Canadian
Arctic (Muir et al., 1990; Careau et al., 1992; Schantz et al., 1993). Note that
these values are about 1 million times higher than DDT levels in seawater. An
average of 58 ug/g was measured in belugas from the St. Lawrence estuary, a high
value indicative of past heavy use of DDT as a pesticide in eastern Canada (Muir
et al., 1990). New data indicate that the White Sea is similar to the St.
Lawrence estuary, with a value of 64 ug/g (Muir and Norstrom, 1994).
[]
Once ingested, DDT and its metabolites accumulate in the fatty tissues of
organisms. Today, birds and mammals continue to retain both DDD and DDE, in part
from retention in fat, and in part from uptake of residual contamination. An
important concern with DDT is that it becomes concentrated as it is transferred
up the food chain. In an aquatic environment, DDT at a concentration of 0.001 to
0.01 ppb (- or m? check), results in a 0.1 ppm concentration in aquatic
invertebrates, 0.2 to 2 ppm in fish, and 10 ppm in birds (Edwards, 1973). Because
pesticide residues can be transferred to offspring through excretion in the egg,
progeny may begin life with an elevated body burden of DDT.
[]
---------------------------------------
More about Belugas and pesticides:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/199...uise-full.html
Overhunting in the 1rst half
of the century was the probable cause for this population to dwindle from
several thousand animals to the current estimate of 500. The failure of
the population to recover might be due to contamination by organochlorine
compounds, which are known to lead to reproductive failure and immunosuppression
in domestic and laboratory animals and seals. [snip] Overall, St. Lawrence
belugas might well represent the risk associated with long-term exposure to
pollutants present in their environment and might be a good model to predict
health problems that could emerge in highly exposed human populations over time.
-- Environ Health Perspect 103(Suppl 4):00-00 (1995)
----------------------------------
Organochlorine levels in whales tissue samples from Trent University:
http://whale.wheelock.edu/bwcontaminants/results.html
----------------------------------
Global Pesticide Release Database from Environment Canada:
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/data/glo...nowledge_e.cfm
[] Organochlorines, which are stable and vapour-forming, can be carried by air
currents for long distances. Eventually they condense and are deposited on land
and water, particularly in cold climatic regions.
Oganochlorine residues have been detected in air, water, soil, sediment, fish,
and birds global wide. They have also been found in remote areas, such as open
oceans and polar regions.
If they contaminate the food supply of animals, organochlorines become more
concentrated as they move up through the food chain. For this reason, the highest
levels of organochlorines are found in species at the top of the food chain:
human beings, fish-eating birds, and marine mammals.
[]
-----------------------------

POP's such as aldrine, dieldrine, endrine, chlordane, DDT, heptachlore,
hexaclorobenzene, mirex, chlordecone, lindane, and toxaphene, build up in
tissues.

----------------
wvlc.uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/
module5/Jepidemilologyarticle/pesticidesinfoodpdf.pdf
All living organisms on Earth now
carry measurable levels of POPs in their tissues. POPs have
been found in sea mammals at levels high enough to qualify
their bodies as hazardous waste under US law, and evidence
of POPs contamination in human blood and breast milk has
been documented worldwide.
There is strong evidence that exposure to even miniscule
amounts of POPs at critical periods of development—
particularly in utero—can cause irreversible damage. The
effects of such exposures may take years to develop,
sometimes appearing first in the offspring of exposed parents.
[]
-----------------

As we are at the top of the food chain, humans get the most concentrated doses of
contaminants. Among whales, the females are less toxic than the males. Studies
revealed that the reason for this is that females release the toxins from their
fatty tissues into their milk.
(http://whale.wheelock.edu/bwcontaminants/results.html) It's the same for humans.
There are also indications that, due to their interactions inside the body,
pesticide cocktails can be more toxic than the same amount of a single pesticide.

----------------------------------
Oraganochlorines in human breast milk:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/pesthist.htm
DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of
seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its
persistence, it was
being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from
the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably
high
concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through
interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant
in human milk around the
world.
When you think about it, human breast fed babies are way up there on the food
chain, and are thus very susceptible to the effects of biomagnification and
bioconcentration. For persistent compounds like DDT (or other persistent
compounds, such as dioxins or PCB's -- see "POPs," below) human milk is the most
contaminated of all human foods. Typically, concentrations of organochlorines
(such as DDT) in human milk are 10 - 20 times higher than in cow's milk, and
prevailing levels are often greater than those allowed in commercial food stuffs.

[]
-----------------------------

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/fs09200/
Human exposure to organochlorine pesticides has been
documented by studies detecting these compounds in various
human tissues, including breast milk. Consumption of contaminated
food (including fish and shellfish) is a major route of human
exposure to organochlorine pesticides. []
Organochlorine compounds tend to be stored
in high-fat tissues within the body, but can be mobilized during
lactation or starvation. Levels of some organochlorine compounds
in human tissues in the United States do not appear to have
declined, at least through the early 1980s. Examples include DDT in
breast milk and dieldrin in adipose tissue (fat).
[]
---------------------------------

Body stores of pesticide are also associated with breast cancer:
http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site...70679&ct=90190

So why is there that much pesticide in the environment? Who's using it all?

Trends in Pesticide Use:
"One major environmental science text book asserts that the average US homeowner
uses 2 - 6 times more pesticide per acre than do farmers."

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/pesttren.htm
[]
We will focus on farms, because farmers consume (that is, use) about 77% of all
pesticides in the US. However, it is important to realize that the problem isn't
all related to farm uses. It is estimated that about 10% of the land area in the
US (including forests, lawns, etc.) is treated annually with pesticides. Home
gardeners are often some of the most extravagant ? and sloppy ? users!) (One
major environmental science text book asserts that the average US homeowner uses
2 - 6 times more pesticide per acre than do farmers.)
In the US, the total pounds of pesticide active ingredients applied on farms
increased 170% between 1964 and 1982 (the increase was 33 fold between 1945 and
1990). These figures related only to the agricultural sector. In evaluating these
increases, it is important to remember the increased toxicity of pesticides; one
pound of active ingredient for current products is many times greater than one
pound for earlier generations of pesticides in terms of toxicity.
One might think that this trend was driven by increasing agricultural acreage
over this time? Recall, during this time, total acres under cultivation basically
decreased , so the increase in pesticide use wasn't driven by increased
agricultural acreage.
[]
------------------------------

So, obviously, more is less.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use

In the US, an average of 1599 kg of pesticide are used for each hectare of
cropland, that's 3525 lb per hectare. 1 hectare= approx. 2.5 acres, so that makes
it about 1,410 lbs of pesticide per acre.

So if home gardeners are using just twice that amount, it comes to 2,820 lbs of
pesticide per acre. If they all stopped using pesticides, it would be a
significant amount not going into the environment.



This group is about the home gardener,
not about major farming conglomerates, or undeveloped countries that do
not have irrigation available and other such advantages that lead to good
production. There's a lot more to famine than pesticide spraying.

No amount of pesticide will control the locust infestation plaguing parts of
Africa today. And ... That good irrigation is what gets pesticides into the water
table:

Pesticides in Ground Water:
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestgw...2001_Text.html
-------------------------
Pesticides found in all the bodies of water on the planet.
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/index.html
-------------------------
PESTICIDES ANALYZED IN NAWQA SAMPLES:
Use, Chemical Analyses, and Water-Quality Criteria
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/anstrat/index.html#t3
-------------------------


Like everything else, pesticides can be misused.

The evidence suggests that they ARE being misused. And the more they're misused,
the less effective they'll be.

And too often are. I have neighbors that use them as a matter of course.
I never have and have no problem with undesirable bugs.

Probably because the pesticides are acting in your yard as well. They're easily
airborne.

I truly believe each of us can make a difference, and do, good or bad.

Glenna

That is irrefutably true. :-)

For people who persist in spraying, IPM is the better way. Spraying can be cut in
half using IPM methods. Better for the environment, the pocket book, and the
back.

An entomologist, who works at the big research station near here developing IPM
protocols for peaches, told me that the main reason for IPM is that bugs adapt
too readily to pesticides. Pesticides work really well for a few years and then
start to be less effective as the bugs adapt. The big worry is soon there won't
be any pesticides that work. IPM strives to keep pesticide use to a minimum, so
that when it is used, it works. The added bonus for growers is lower cost, and
better yield.

IPM borrows from successful organic principles, such as predatory control, and
the proper timing of applications. Now that the life cycles of pest insects are
better understood, controls (natural or otherwise) can be tailored to be more
effective.

That's why I try to learn about every single new bug, or problem, that I find.
For instance, I found out the plum curculios like the cool, dampness and lack of
sun in the middle of the tree. I checked my tree, and the plums on the outside,
that get sunshine through most of the day are the healthiest. I think I need to
prune my tree to get more light into the middle ... now all I have to do is learn
more about proper plum tree pruning.

EV

EV wrote:
So, obviously, more is less.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use

In the US, an average of 1599 kg of pesticide are used for each hectare of
cropland, that's 3525 lb per hectare. 1 hectare= approx. 2.5 acres, so that makes
it about 1,410 lbs of pesticide per acre.

Where did that statistic come from?

So if home gardeners are using just twice that amount, it comes to 2,820 lbs of
pesticide per acre. If they all stopped using pesticides, it would be a
significant amount not going into the environment.

But they don't use twice as much per acre. Home gardeners might use
twice as much pesticide per fruit tree, but they don't have that many
trees. They don't grow crops like soybeans and corn and cotton. They
also use way too much chemicals on their lawns, but I doubt that even
*that* comes to 1/100 of the amount you are saying. Being able to scale
a dubious statistic and convert to different units or measure doesn't
magically give it credibility.


I have found that non-chemical controls are better at reducing the
insect levels to the point where they might be tolerable. Then when you
have a major infestation, the chemicals are more effective because they
bugs aren't used to them. I'm trying to figure out how this principle
relates to apple production in the Upper Midwest.

Bob

zxcvbob wrote:

EV wrote:
So, obviously, more is less.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use

In the US, an average of 1599 kg of pesticide are used for each hectare of
cropland, that's 3525 lb per hectare. 1 hectare= approx. 2.5 acres, so that makes
it about 1,410 lbs of pesticide per acre.

Where did that statistic come from?

Did you check this link?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use


So if home gardeners are using just twice that amount, it comes to 2,820 lbs of
pesticide per acre. If they all stopped using pesticides, it would be a
significant amount not going into the environment.

But they don't use twice as much per acre.

That isn't going to fly here, Bob. It's a non-argument.

Home gardeners might use
twice as much pesticide per fruit tree, but they don't have that many
trees.

Please don't be coy. Twice as much per tree is still twice as much, whether it's on an
acre or not. It all adds up.

They don't grow crops like soybeans and corn and cotton. They
also use way too much chemicals on their lawns, but I doubt that even
*that* comes to 1/100 of the amount you are saying. Being able to scale
a dubious statistic and convert to different units or measure doesn't
magically give it credibility.

Pardon me for saying so, but that's a silly comment. I converted the units because I
know that Americans are not familiar with kilograms, and acres are more meaningful to
most people than hectares. Whichever units it's described in, the numbers add up to
the same amount. I wasn't hiding anything.

I was looking for an overall statistic of pesticide use. Since that doesn't satisfy
you, you can go the USGS site where they list close to 200 pesticides and their
estimated rate of application, complete with useage maps:
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/index.html

I've gone to the individual pesticide useage pages on the USGS site and just added up
some of the totals (broken down by crop). I chose the ones that sounded familiar to
me. I don't know which are, or aren't, the most heavily used.

These figures represent the total estimated amounts, in lbs, used on all crops (for
agricultural use) in a year (1992) in the US. Since not all counties reported, and it
is now 12 years later, I expect that the numbers are much higher now. The maps show
the distribution of the application if you're interested.

Atrazine: 63,947,512 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/atrazin.html

Alachlor: 25,647,683 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/alclr.html

Captan: 3,774,667 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/captan.html

Diazinon: 1,066,220 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/diaznon.html

Malathion: 2,689,831 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/malthion.html

Maneb: 2,808,304 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/maneb.html

Phosmet: 904,832 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/phosmt.html

That's just 7 of almost 200 pesticides listed by the USGS as being used for ag
purposes. Together these pesticides alone come to 97,064,382 lbs of pesticide per year
.... almost a BILLION pounds from just 7 pesticides.

Home growers were not surveyed. Also not factored in are the pesticides that people
apply to their lawns or for insect control in and around the home. Now, if home
gardeners use 2 to 6 times as much pesticide as commercial growers ... even if they
constitute a fraction, in acres, of commercial production, it's still a significant
amount.

I, too, thought that the figure of 1,410 lbs pesticide per acre sounded high. But when
you look at the total use of just 7 or hundreds of pesticides, it doesn't really seem
all that implausible.


I have found that non-chemical controls are better at reducing the
insect levels to the point where they might be tolerable. Then when you
have a major infestation, the chemicals are more effective because they
bugs aren't used to them.

That's the basic idea behind IPM. So if home growers feel compelled to use pesticides,
that's the way to go.

I'm trying to figure out how this principle
relates to apple production in the Upper Midwest.

various resources:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie...G=Search&meta=

ID-93: Midwest Tree Fruit Pest Management Handbook
.... Integrated pest management (IPM) disease management guidelines for organic apple
production in Ohio. ... Integrated pest management for apples and pears. ...
www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id93/app.htm

http://axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selec...st.apples.html
http://axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/index.html

Happy growing,
EV

zxcvbob wrote:

EV wrote:
So, obviously, more is less.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use

In the US, an average of 1599 kg of pesticide are used for each hectare of
cropland, that's 3525 lb per hectare. 1 hectare= approx. 2.5 acres, so that makes
it about 1,410 lbs of pesticide per acre.

Where did that statistic come from?

Did you check this link?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pes_use


So if home gardeners are using just twice that amount, it comes to 2,820 lbs of
pesticide per acre. If they all stopped using pesticides, it would be a
significant amount not going into the environment.

But they don't use twice as much per acre.

That isn't going to fly here, Bob. It's a non-argument.

Home gardeners might use
twice as much pesticide per fruit tree, but they don't have that many
trees.

Please don't be coy. Twice as much per tree is still twice as much, whether it's on an
acre or not. It all adds up.

They don't grow crops like soybeans and corn and cotton. They
also use way too much chemicals on their lawns, but I doubt that even
*that* comes to 1/100 of the amount you are saying. Being able to scale
a dubious statistic and convert to different units or measure doesn't
magically give it credibility.

Pardon me for saying so, but that's a silly comment. I converted the units because I
know that Americans are not familiar with kilograms, and acres are more meaningful to
most people than hectares. Whichever units it's described in, the numbers add up to
the same amount. I wasn't hiding anything.

I was looking for an overall statistic of pesticide use. Since that doesn't satisfy
you, you can go the USGS site where they list close to 200 pesticides and their
estimated rate of application, complete with useage maps:
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/index.html

I've gone to the individual pesticide useage pages on the USGS site and just added up
some of the totals (broken down by crop). I chose the ones that sounded familiar to
me. I don't know which are, or aren't, the most heavily used.

These figures represent the total estimated amounts, in lbs, used on all crops (for
agricultural use) in a year (1992) in the US. Since not all counties reported, and it
is now 12 years later, I expect that the numbers are much higher now. The maps show
the distribution of the application if you're interested.

Atrazine: 63,947,512 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/atrazin.html

Alachlor: 25,647,683 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/alclr.html

Captan: 3,774,667 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/captan.html

Diazinon: 1,066,220 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/diaznon.html

Malathion: 2,689,831 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/malthion.html

Maneb: 2,808,304 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/maneb.html

Phosmet: 904,832 lbs per year
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/phosmt.html

That's just 7 of almost 200 pesticides listed by the USGS as being used for ag
purposes. Together these pesticides alone come to 97,064,382 lbs of pesticide per year
.... almost a BILLION pounds from just 7 pesticides.

Home growers were not surveyed. Also not factored in are the pesticides that people
apply to their lawns or for insect control in and around the home. Now, if home
gardeners use 2 to 6 times as much pesticide as commercial growers ... even if they
constitute a fraction, in acres, of commercial production, it's still a significant
amount.

I, too, thought that the figure of 1,410 lbs pesticide per acre sounded high. But when
you look at the total use of just 7 or hundreds of pesticides, it doesn't really seem
all that implausible.


I have found that non-chemical controls are better at reducing the
insect levels to the point where they might be tolerable. Then when you
have a major infestation, the chemicals are more effective because they
bugs aren't used to them.

That's the basic idea behind IPM. So if home growers feel compelled to use pesticides,
that's the way to go.

I'm trying to figure out how this principle
relates to apple production in the Upper Midwest.

various resources:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie...G=Search&meta=

ID-93: Midwest Tree Fruit Pest Management Handbook
.... Integrated pest management (IPM) disease management guidelines for organic apple
production in Ohio. ... Integrated pest management for apples and pears. ...
www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id93/app.htm

http://axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selec...st.apples.html
http://axp.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/index.html

Happy growing,
EV