Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
The message
from "Pete" contains these words: Good to see someone is still reading the NG David .... *looks North and sees people in Scotland sunbathing !!!* Is there no privacy? Janet. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
Gordon Couger writes
Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in continues wheat or some other rotation. Both are first wheats after break. The organic rotations have far more breaks than the arable ones. The largest loss in organic agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations that produce low value or no value crops. Of course. Some of these are complete losses being, in effect, cover crops. Red clover is a typical one, with herbiage all ploughed under, in all-arable organic rotations. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use. Use (whitelist check on first posting) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"Oz" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger writes Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in continues wheat or some other rotation. Both are first wheats after break. The organic rotations have far more breaks than the arable ones. The largest loss in organic agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations that produce low value or no value crops. Of course. Some of these are complete losses being, in effect, cover crops. Red clover is a typical one, with herbiage all ploughed under, in all-arable organic rotations. Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Gordon |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Oz" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger writes Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in continues wheat or some other rotation. Both are first wheats after break. The organic rotations have far more breaks than the arable ones. The largest loss in organic agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations that produce low value or no value crops. Of course. Some of these are complete losses being, in effect, cover crops. Red clover is a typical one, with herbiage all ploughed under, in all-arable organic rotations. Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Gordon You seem to bed missing the point. We no more want intensive organic farms, then we want intensive factory farms. Intensive farming simply does not work, it's destroying the planet and that's why we have a huge cry for "back to basics" farming. As for organic not being pesticide free, so what. The whole idea is to allow nature to do what it does best, looking after us. ********************************************** 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world. There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ Newsgroup ettiquette 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you. 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond. 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself. 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining they're having no effect. 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know how to avoid them. 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored. 7) Eat vast quantities of pies. 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades. 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while secretly reading it. 10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're as bent as a roundabout. 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet 12) Die of old age 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you will have a penis the girls can see. --------------------------------------- "If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them" "Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded" The Big Yin. Need a fake diploma for fun? contact my collegues Malcolm Ogilvie or Michael Saunby who both bought one and got one free, only $15 each, have as many as you like www.fakediplomas.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
Gordon Couger writes
Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Yes, but if they do that then the results are truly, truly, dreadful. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Probably, to be fair, between 30 and 50%. The big problem is that they really need 50%+ livestock and a very high cereal price. Unfortunately that proportion would produce an unsaleable glut of meat, that would destroy the economics. Its not for nothing that brits ate large amounts of beef pre war. It was cheap ..... -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use. Use (whitelist check on first posting) |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
X-No-Archive: Yes
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message ... The message from "Pete" contains these words: Good to see someone is still reading the NG David .... *looks North and sees people in Scotland sunbathing !!!* Is there no privacy? Janet. Aha!!!! so ... twas you I could see all pink and blistering while us southerners freeze to death. As for privacy ..... erm ....letmethinkaboutitNO. :-) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Grin. So now you dream up an imaginary study, complete with results showing -exactly- what is written on the inside of the welding glasses you are wearing. :-) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote:
Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Compare the yields here; http://tinyurl.com/uvdi . Bear in mind; '2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic production Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin, 1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques. Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1 may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production. Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy, diverse soil ecosystem, the yield reductions experienced in the initial phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte). We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm gate sales efforts). 3. Organic crop yields are less variable than industrial yields Organic crop yields are reportedly less variable than industrial methods (Hanson et al, 1990). As well, growing season precipitation is an important factor influencing crop yields and organic crop production systems appear to perform better than industrial farming systems under drought conditions (Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). Thus, sustainable crop production provides a benefit to risk-averse farmers. Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior yields to industrially grown crops. Furthermore, just as research has resulted in an improvement in yields for industrial crops (e.g. winter wheat), there is likely to be similar improvement in yields for organic crops as more research is conducted and organic farming methods become more commonplace (Lampkin, 1989). ...' http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosy...er3.htm#eiii-1 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
Actually, the plots appear to be selected after the idea was formulated.
Good research makes a supposition and then does the experiment to prove it factual, not the other way around. Chuck "Gordon Couger" wrote in message news:6W7xc.9290$1L4.1531@okepread02... "Oz" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger writes Before swallowing the yield claims of organic corn being 94% of conventional corn I would like to see the trials. ===========posted a couple of years ago========= With considerable difficulty I have obtained permission to post part of the 2001 ARC results. Cirencester Organic after grass ley. Top: 5.54 T/Ha. (deben) Ave: 4.61 T/Ha Of interest Widgeon @ 3.96 T/H Squarehead Masters : 2.61 T/Ha (worst) Squarehead Masters is a 19C variety. A major variety grown for decades, possibly a century. It went flat, but straw to be sold for thatching. I have seen this variety grown in plots (supported by canes) and it was over 5' (1.5m) tall. It's a classic low fertility weed outcompeting variety probably similar to landrace varieties grown for centuries. The conventionally grown trial at Cirencester (but obviously not the same field) yielded 8.3 T/Ha ave with the best variety yielding 9.9 T/Ha. Comments would be as previous trial post. NB UK arable farmers really should join ARC and get this, and a truly vast array of other data on timings, seedrates, pesticide trials etc etc, complete. (www.arable.co.uk) ======================================== =====Posted by torsten snipped Below, some results from the Elm Farm Research Centre stockless organic trial, Berkshire. Rotation Course 1 2 3 4 A Red Clover Winter Wheat Winter Wheat Spring Oats B Red Clover Potatoes Winter Wheat Winter Oats C Red Clover Winter Wheat Winter Beans Winter Wheat All first wheats which followed the fertility build achieved similar yields (A2 and C2), wheat following wheat (A2 to A3) yielded much lower than wheat following potatoes (B2 to B3) Wheat yield (t/ha at 15% moisture) means, 1988-1995 Winter Wheat A2 A3 B3 C2 C4 Yield 4.21 2.67 4.34 3.77 4.05 [Oz: notice appalling yields] The yield achieved by C4 indicates the grain legumes, which when harvested do export much of the N they have fixed, still can leave sufficient reserves to advantage the next cereal crop. ===================== =====another ozpost Source: Crops magazine (Reed business pub) 6 Nov 1999 P10 This article discusses a 'unique' ten year experiment comparing large- scale organic, integrated crop management and conventional side by side. I can't type out the whole article but the following points are made. [NB View tables in a monopitched font] Yield wheat T/Ha Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Con 8.7 7 7.8 9 7 7.25 9.25 Org 5.2 5.2 5 5.8 4.9 4.5 4.85 ICM 7.8 7.9 8.3 8.3 ROTATIONS etc Organic: Organic approved pesticides and fertiliser. Two year clover-grass conversion ley. Then a) Spring wheat/winter oats/winter beans/winter or spring wheat b) 18mth red clover c) spring wheat. [This isn't very clear but I *think* they mean combinable crop (winter or spring), 18mth red clover followed by spring wheat and then cycling:Oz] ================== There are more, but that will do. Do the conventional plots rotate the same as organic plots, are they in continues wheat or some other rotation. The largest loss in organic agriculture is the years that the land is in low production rotations that produce low value or no value crops. Gordon |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"pearl" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Compare the yields here; http://tinyurl.com/uvdi . Bear in mind; '2. Lower yields are experienced during the transition to organic production Most researchers agree that yields tend to drop for three to five years during the conversion from industrial to organic approaches (Dabbert and Madden, 1986; US Congress, 1983; Hanson et al, 1990; Lampkin, 1989; Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). This is because it takes time for the soil to develop the positive attributes associated with organic agriculture. It also takes time for operators to learn organic crop management techniques. Some of the lower organic crop yield estimates cited in Exhibit III-1 may have been from industrial farms in transition to organic production. Given that organic production relies on soil fertility and a healthy, diverse soil ecosystem, the yield reductions experienced in the initial phases of transition from industrial practices tend to be eliminated over time (Sparling et al, 1992; pers. comm. Cornwoman; pers. comm. Tourte). We note that the economic transition time can be twice as long as the biological transition time; it can take an extra four years for the farmer to fully recoup the financial losses that occurred during the transition (Hanson et al, 1990). This transition period can be shortened significantly with creativity (e.g. substituting crops, enhancing farm gate sales efforts). 3. Organic crop yields are less variable than industrial yields Organic crop yields are reportedly less variable than industrial methods (Hanson et al, 1990). As well, growing season precipitation is an important factor influencing crop yields and organic crop production systems appear to perform better than industrial farming systems under drought conditions (Smolik and Dobbs, 1991). Thus, sustainable crop production provides a benefit to risk-averse farmers. Based on the above, it appears that with strong farm management, small scale, organic crop production can produce competitive and even superior yields to industrially grown crops. Furthermore, just as research has resulted in an improvement in yields for industrial crops (e.g. winter wheat), there is likely to be similar improvement in yields for organic crops as more research is conducted and organic farming methods become more commonplace (Lampkin, 1989). ..' http://www.manyfoldfarm.com/comfoosy...er3.htm#eiii-1 Apparently you've never done any actual research either. Chuck |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jun 2004 09:20:43 -0700, (ta) wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote in message . .. On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 20:01:30 -0400, "ta" wrote: rick etter wrote: And that means also not cruelty-free. Just what I've been saying... "...some organic pesticides have mammalian toxicities that are far higher than many synthetic pesticides..." http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf Wow, I can't *believe* CFGI, which is funded by the right-wing think tank Hudson Institute, could possibly be promoting information that supports their big agribusiness clients like Monsanto, ConAgra, and Archer Daniels Midland, who have everything to lose by the success of organic farming. But to be fair, I can't answer the specific charges as I'm not an expert, so I'm expanding the thread to get a wider range of input. The quoted statement is rather vacuous, ta, but not controversial.. Of course, you're right. I wasn't referring to the claim about the toxicity of non-synthetic pesticides per se; everyone knows that organic farming employs non-synthetic pesticides. I was referring to CFGI's critique of organic farming in general, as laid out in the referenced PDF file. It is crude propaganda (as so much is, that come out of the Averys at Hudson Institute.) Nancy Creamer has an article on it in OFRF Information Bulletin, summer 2001, which you may be interested in reading. http://www.ofrf.org/publications/news/IB10.pdf Very good, thank you. FYI, here is some more information I came across: "In Drinkwater and colleagues' conventional, high-intensity system, pesticides and mineral nitrogen fertilizer were applied to a maize/soybean crop rotation just as on typical farms. Two 'organic' alternatives represented partial returns to traditional agriculture, and neither synthetic fertilizers nor pesticides were used. One of these alternatives was a manure-based system in which grasses and legumes, grown as part of a high-diversity crop rotation, were fed to cattle. The resulting manure provided nitrogen for periodic maize production. The other system did not include livestock; instead, nitrogen fixed by a variety of legumes was incorporated into soil as the source of nitrogen for maize. Amazingly, ten-year-average maize yields differed by less than 1% among the three cropping systems, which Drinkwater et al. say were nearly equally profitable. The manure system, though, had significant advantages. Soil organic matter and nitrogen content — measures of soil fertility — increased markedly in the manure system (and, to a lesser degree, in the legume system), but were unchanged or declined in the conventional system. Moreover, the conventional system had greater environmental impacts — 60% more nitrate was leached into groundwater over a five-year period than in the manure or legume systems." http://tinyurl.com/2lpvs and . . . "some 223,000 farmers in southern Brazil using green manures and cover crops of legumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of maize and wheat to 4-5 tons/ha; * some 45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras have used regenerative technologies to triple maize yields to some 2-2.5 tons/ha and diversify their upland farms, which has led to local economic growth that has in turn encouraged re-migration back from the cities; * more than 300,000 farmers in southern and western India farming in dryland conditions, and now using a range of water and soil management technologies, have tripled sorghum and millet yields to some 2-2.5 tons/hectare; * some 200,000 farmers across Kenya who as part of various government and non-government soil and water conservation and sustainable agriculture programmes have more than doubled their maize yields to about 2.5 to 3.3 t/ha and substantially improved vegetable production through the dry seasons; * 100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico who have adopted fully organic production methods, and yet increased yields by half; * a million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam who have shifted to sustainable agriculture, where group-based farmer-field schools have enabled farmers to learn alternatives to pesticides whilst still increasing their yields by about 10%." http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/article2.htm |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:08:36 GMT, "Chuck"
wrote: "pearl" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Ever wondered how quoted lines get so bungled? It's because you are using Outlook Express for posting. It has a bug which makes them so. I think you will agree, it is not pretty. You'd do yourself and everyone a favor by downloading and installing the fix for the problem. He http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ (And no, it is not a virus or anything, it is a very fine fix, you won't regret.) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
g'day pete,
hope things are fairing well in your neck of the woods, like most a bit of rain wouldn't go astray to say the least. we look at managing our pests more than trying to erradicate so we are probably less tempted to go for the big guns, my main driving force is bad health that i feel was at least contributed to by residues in what is perported to be fresh fruits and vege's. so in our garden we accept some quiet visible predation by bugs, as yet our system is young so the good guys are still to come into balance, but they are appearing, and we attract very many birds around our food growing areas they also help. but for us it will be the chilly spray and coffee spray. we too are managing our resource using basically a common sense approach and all is working quiet well in our books. and for countries that need to import fresh food due to lack of agricultural land or whatever well! that is a whole other issue, but maybe community farms may go part the way to bridging the gap a lot of staple foods can be grown on a 5 acre patch. and people can grow a lot of the other stuff they want in containers. just some thoughts. len snipped -- happy gardening 'it works for me it could work for you,' "in the end ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do" but consider others and the environment http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gardenlen1/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
where'd you buy yor binnoculars pete, i can't see me own hand though
mine lol, g'day janet. len snipped -- happy gardening 'it works for me it could work for you,' "in the end ya' gotta do what ya' gotta do" but consider others and the environment http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gardenlen1/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:08:36 GMT, "Chuck" wrote: "pearl" wrote On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 02:47:37 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Then for a true picture the total yield in some unit, dollar or pounds sterling per acre in total yield of wheat, feed, fiber meat and what ever should be totaled up and divided by the number of years in the study giving true value of the output of an organic farming operation per unit area compared to a conventional or modern farm. Showing how much far they are really behind modern methods. With total production nearer 25% or less that of a modern farm ran in an intensive operation. Ever wondered how quoted lines get so bungled? It's because you are using Outlook Express for posting. It has a bug which makes them so. I think you will agree, it is not pretty. You'd do yourself and everyone a favor by downloading and installing the fix for the problem. He http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ (And no, it is not a virus or anything, it is a very fine fix, you won't regret.) Very nice! thanks |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Organic Turf / Pesticide Free Turf | Lawns | |||
Free Website, Free Domain, Free Installation, Free Scripts | United Kingdom | |||
Parker neem : Pure neem oil Bio pesticide, Neem cake organic fertilize | Gardening | |||
organic pesticide? | Edible Gardening | |||
Is there an organic pesticide that can kill caterpillars on thyme? | Gardening |