| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
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. p.s. "The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2001 showed total income of $7,818,439, most of which came in large grants. Other known funders include: Ag Processing Inc American Cyanamid Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Ciba-Geigy ConAgra Foods DowElanco DuPont Exxon Mobil HJ Heinz Lilly Endowment McDonalds Monsanto National Agricultural Chemical Association Novartis Proctor & Gamble Sunkist Growers United Agri Products" http://tinyurl.com/2uj4k |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"ta" wrote in message ... 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. ==================== OK let's expand it. Here's one from Clemson. Supported by big business to you, I'm sure... "...Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides...." http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm another... "...Rotenone is more acutely toxic than many synthetic pesticides. Chronic exposure to rotenone has been tentatively linked to Parkinson's disease in humans. It is fairly toxic to mammals and birds. It is very toxic to fish..." http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm I see you have nothing to add to the discussion though. Figures. Come on, show some support for claims of organic being cruelty/pesticide free farming. p.s. "The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2001 showed total income of $7,818,439, most of which came in large grants. Other known funders include: Ag Processing Inc American Cyanamid Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Ciba-Geigy ConAgra Foods DowElanco DuPont Exxon Mobil HJ Heinz Lilly Endowment McDonalds Monsanto National Agricultural Chemical Association Novartis Proctor & Gamble Sunkist Growers United Agri Products" http://tinyurl.com/2uj4k |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
I don't know the origin of this thread or the course its taken so far, and I
have neither the desire, intellectual capacity or the need to prove to anyone either in real life or on a newsgroup that using organic means to provide nutrient and biological balance in my garden environment is the best way for me. *I've trimmed the crossposting cos for the reasons above I don't care to argue with the inhabitants of 15 different newsgroups* There will ALWAYS be folks who will try to prove, no matter what, that what someone says can be disproved .... But my take is this I would rather use an organic solution than an inorganic one. But that's me .......(your mileage may vary) What are your opinions ? .... if we take at face value the statement that some organic substances are more toxic than some synthetic ones .... would YOU rather use the organic one than the synthetic one ? (assuming they are being used for the same purpose) Pete "rick etter" wrote in message hlink.net... "ta" wrote in message ... 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. ==================== OK let's expand it. Here's one from Clemson. Supported by big business to you, I'm sure... "...Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides...." http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm another... "...Rotenone is more acutely toxic than many synthetic pesticides. Chronic exposure to rotenone has been tentatively linked to Parkinson's disease in humans. It is fairly toxic to mammals and birds. It is very toxic to fish..." http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm I see you have nothing to add to the discussion though. Figures. Come on, show some support for claims of organic being cruelty/pesticide free farming. p.s. "The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2001 showed total income of $7,818,439, most of which came in large grants. Other known funders include: Ag Processing Inc American Cyanamid Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Ciba-Geigy ConAgra Foods DowElanco DuPont Exxon Mobil HJ Heinz Lilly Endowment McDonalds Monsanto National Agricultural Chemical Association Novartis Proctor & Gamble Sunkist Growers United Agri Products" http://tinyurl.com/2uj4k |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
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.. If you make two lists, one of organic approved pesticides, another of synthetic pesticides not approved for organic farming, you will find 'some' on either list, which have mammalian toxicities far higher than 'many' on the other list. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"ta" wrote in message ... 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. Does the messenger make the message any less correct? What Alex fails to mention are the pest that organic pesticides won't touch. The boll weevil, alfalfa aphid and corn root worm to name a few. In the last 100 years we have made ever effort to make farming less invasive on the land and going back to organic farming would not only reduce yields and increase erosion but plunge the world into famine if it was the only way allowed as many want. He is overstating the use of oil and sulfur on organic crops as they are used in conventional crops as well. He is not overstating the shortfall in food that organic method produces or the soil erosion it causes. The sponsors of the Hudson Institute are responsible for most of the infrastructure in agriculture. Without them or comparable firms we would be SOL when it came to getting seeds, chemical or machinery and finding markets. Just look at Africa with no infrastructure where the simple http://www.approtec.org/ can make the difference between starving and prosperity. That is the first step to mechanization and research but they fortunately do not have to spend the 5 generation it took my family to get the fruits of modern agriculture they can pick many of them today off the rack as West Africa has done with GM cotton. Farmers say http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/d...078-0,00.html. With out the likes of the supporters of the Hudson Institute we would be in only slightly better shape than the third world countries in terms of infrastructure. Private firms are the back bone of agriculture they keep the government run programs honest. Co ops and Government programs with out private completion are extremely inefficient. Look at the price of wheat in Oklahoma. "U.S. No 1 HARD RED WINTER WHEAT: 1 to 3 cents higher. 3.44-3.70 Davis, Shattuck 3.44, Buffalo 3.45, Alva, Clinton, Weatherford 3.49, Cherokee, Manchester, Medford, Temple 3.51, Banner, El Reno, Geary, Kingfisher, Okeene, Watonga, Yukon 3.52, Frederick, Hobart, Lawton 3.53, Keyes, Ponca City 3.57, Perry, Stillwater 3.58, Eldorado 3.59, Afton, Miami 3.70, Gulf 4.34." Frederick, Hobart, Lawton 3.53, all having prices within pennies of Ponca City 3.57, Perry, Stillwater 3.58 While Frederick, Hobart, Lawton are 500 mile from a port and Ponca City 3.57, Perry, Stillwater are less than 100 mile from the barge port of Catoosa. and Miami is 167 from Kansas city a terminal market. There is a very strong grain merchant in south west Oklahoma that over comes nearly 400 miles of freight from in price of the weak markets of the bankrupt coop system in central Oklahoma. And in the price at Miami shows the influence of having a really solid thermal market in a reasonable distance. Just an example of the value of a strong private business in agriculture that runs efficiently. Anyone intersted in the particulars of the value of private enterprise in farming communities contact me direct. I don't feel like explaining the way that the price of wheat is derived but it is based on the price set at Kansas City but delivered to Houston and the freight deducted back from there. The Port of Catoosa is a barge port that put wheat on the Arkansas River and then the Mississippi and ships it to New Orleans. Most of the rest of the wheat in the state is shipped via rail and truck to Ft Worth, TX and Houston Some in the North west goes though Enid and various points in Kansas. But all the prices are based on Gulf pikes that I am failure with. In the mid west and further north it change on the condition of the Mississippi river and Great Lakes depending on the route it is being shipped. For the first time in the 128 years my family has owned some of the land we have we see organic matter increasing in the soil using no till methods. We have land that ranges from one of the oldest ranches in the world under continuous uninterrupted family management to the most modern irrigated land and preserving the land for the future is one of the top priorities. I could see the possibilities the first time that genetic modification was explained to me and my field is cattle and machinery. Although I have 50 years experience in raising crops, killing weeds, bugs and combating soil erosion. We threw out organic methods as soon as there were alternatives. My grandfather was and engineer and nearly all the next generation had some college education in agriculture some with masters in agronomy and my generation all have degrees. My 95 year old father laughs at fools that think the ways they used back when they had no better choices are of any use today. He remembers them all to well. He chopped 90 acres of cotton for exercise 5 years ago by him self. And we still rotate that farm in Alfalfa hay more than most organic rotations call for becuse it is the most profitable crop we can grow on the land but it sure wouldn't be using organic methods. The bugs and weeds would take in short order. Having some association rule on the correctness of farming practices that can change at a rate of twice a year or faster is the most foolish things in agriculture today. - Gordon Gordon Couger Stillwater, OK www.couger.com/gcouger |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
In article , "Pete" writes:
I don't know the origin of this thread or the course its taken so far, and I have neither the desire, intellectual capacity or the need to prove to anyone either in real life or on a newsgroup that using organic means to provide nutrient and biological balance in my garden environment is the best way for me. *I've trimmed the crossposting cos for the reasons above I don't care to argue with the inhabitants of 15 different newsgroups* There will ALWAYS be folks who will try to prove, no matter what, that what someone says can be disproved .... But my take is this I would rather use an organic solution than an inorganic one. But that's me .......(your mileage may vary) What are your opinions ? .... if we take at face value the statement that some organic substances are more toxic than some synthetic ones .... would YOU rather use the organic one than the synthetic one ? (assuming they are being used for the same purpose) Pete There are organic and inorganic pesticides. One of them you would use if you want to grow organically, the other - well you know the arguements of the spent fossil fuels, the reduced biodiversity and the harmful residues in the food. If you are unable to reach a state of self-sufficiency with the resources available to you, then, like me you have to make a choice. Do you buy organic as a matter of principle, ignoring the fact that it is shipped in from foreign parts, thus costing heavily in the use of fossil fuels to ship it? Or do you buy local? I don't think we have enough choice in Britain, even the non-organic produce in the shops are grown abroad. David Lloyd So open-minded - my brains dribbled out. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"rick etter" wrote in message thlink.net...
"ta" wrote in message ... 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. ==================== OK let's expand it. Here's one from Clemson. Supported by big business to you, I'm sure... "...Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides...." http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm another... "...Rotenone is more acutely toxic than many synthetic pesticides. Chronic exposure to rotenone has been tentatively linked to Parkinson's disease in humans. It is fairly toxic to mammals and birds. It is very toxic to fish..." http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm I see you have nothing to add to the discussion though. Figures. Come on, show some support for claims of organic being cruelty/pesticide free farming. Who claimed that organic farming was "pesticide free" or "cruelty free"? Sounds like a big giant straw man to me. p.s. "The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2001 showed total income of $7,818,439, most of which came in large grants. Other known funders include: Ag Processing Inc American Cyanamid Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Ciba-Geigy ConAgra Foods DowElanco DuPont Exxon Mobil HJ Heinz Lilly Endowment McDonalds Monsanto National Agricultural Chemical Association Novartis Proctor & Gamble Sunkist Growers United Agri Products" http://tinyurl.com/2uj4k |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
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. I was questioning the overall conclusions drawn about organic farming. For example, they conclude that: "Obviously, a switch to organic farming by a large number of U.S. farmers—the recommendation of several prominent environmental groups—would result in a massive increase in U.S. fungicide use and significantly increased soil contamination." and . . . "The prospect of significantly increased organic pesticide use raises another question: What are the social and ecological costs of producing the additional organic pesticides? Many organic insecticides are extracts of plants. Pyrethrum is extracted from the flowers of pyrethrum chrysanthemums, much of it produced in Kenya and Peru. In 1981, Levy estimated that global demand for pyrethrum flowers exceeded 25,000 tons annually, satisfied by an estimated 150 million flowers hand-harvested daily.5 In 1995, USDA statistics indicate that Kenya produced over 100,000 tons of dry flower petals, indicating a significant increase in pyrethrum production since 1981. How much land is required to meet current pyrethrum production and how much land would be needed to increase organic pesticide production if all U.S. farmers went organic? What are the social costs of large populations of agricultural workers—most of them poor women and children in developing countries—hand-picking flowers for organic pesticide production? Is this not analogous to a sweatshop?" and . . . "The only category of pesticide use that would decrease under an all-organic scenario is herbicides. But this decline in herbicide use would be accompanied by lower crop yields and higher soil erosion." and of course the big one . . . "A major U.S. shift to organic agriculture would mean more pesticide use, not less; more toxicity, not less; and higher pressures on agricultural and other natural resources without any apparent offsetting benefits." This is really the heart of the argument that I am looking to explore, not this silly straw man argument about organic farming using pesticides. This is just rick etter beating on his drum to try to "win" an argument that no one has even presented. I'm interested in the overarching issue of whether organic farming is a viable, desirable altnerative to chemical-based agriculture. My feeling is that in order to account for some of the issues raised in the article that organic is not enough - that organic combined with *smaill-scale* farming is more likely a better solution. Of course these large-scale organic operations, like the ones out in California, have ecological problems of their own to deal with. My sense is that organic + small = best. If you make two lists, one of organic approved pesticides, another of synthetic pesticides not approved for organic farming, you will find 'some' on either list, which have mammalian toxicities far higher than 'many' on the other list. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"ta" wrote in message om... "rick etter" wrote in message thlink.net... "ta" wrote in message ... 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. ==================== OK let's expand it. Here's one from Clemson. Supported by big business to you, I'm sure... "...Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides...." http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm another... "...Rotenone is more acutely toxic than many synthetic pesticides. Chronic exposure to rotenone has been tentatively linked to Parkinson's disease in humans. It is fairly toxic to mammals and birds. It is very toxic to fish..." http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm I see you have nothing to add to the discussion though. Figures. Come on, show some support for claims of organic being cruelty/pesticide free farming. Who claimed that organic farming was "pesticide free" or "cruelty free"? Sounds like a big giant straw man to me. ===================== Another dodge, I see. Can't refute what I say huh? Try reading the past posts for awhile and catch up. That is Always brought up as the alternative pesticide and cruelty free. p.s. "The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2001 showed total income of $7,818,439, most of which came in large grants. Other known funders include: Ag Processing Inc American Cyanamid Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Ciba-Geigy ConAgra Foods DowElanco DuPont Exxon Mobil HJ Heinz Lilly Endowment McDonalds Monsanto National Agricultural Chemical Association Novartis Proctor & Gamble Sunkist Growers United Agri Products" http://tinyurl.com/2uj4k |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"Sirius631" wrote in message ... In article , "Pete" writes: I don't know the origin of this thread or the course its taken so far, and I have neither the desire, intellectual capacity or the need to prove to anyone either in real life or on a newsgroup that using organic means to provide nutrient and biological balance in my garden environment is the best way for me. *I've trimmed the crossposting cos for the reasons above I don't care to argue with the inhabitants of 15 different newsgroups* There will ALWAYS be folks who will try to prove, no matter what, that what someone says can be disproved .... But my take is this I would rather use an organic solution than an inorganic one. But that's me .......(your mileage may vary) What are your opinions ? .... if we take at face value the statement that some organic substances are more toxic than some synthetic ones .... would YOU rather use the organic one than the synthetic one ? (assuming they are being used for the same purpose) Pete There are organic and inorganic pesticides. One of them you would use if you want to grow organically, the other - well you know the arguements of the spent fossil fuels, the reduced biodiversity and the harmful residues in the food. If you are unable to reach a state of self-sufficiency with the resources available to you, then, like me you have to make a choice. Do you buy organic as a matter of principle, ignoring the fact that it is shipped in from foreign parts, thus costing heavily in the use of fossil fuels to ship it? Or do you buy local? I don't think we have enough choice in Britain, even the non-organic produce in the shops are grown abroad. David Lloyd So open-minded - my brains dribbled out. Hi David and thanks for the reply I agree that you have to make choices depending on what resources are available, although I was referring more to land management choices rather than food purchases. We try to produce as much as we can using what resources we have available and though we tend to lose lots of "produce" to pests I've (so far) never thrown in the towel and blasted everything with the really heavy stuff, (I've used cabbage dust and pyrethrum sprays) ... so my question was really aimed at folks who like us, get lots of bugs and beasties sharing their home grown produce and try to control them with an organic solution ... better land management and companion plantings, use of animals for pest and weed control, animal manures, mulches and worms for nutrient and soil improvement etc ...not specifically sprays or powder but using the "bigger" picture to hopefully balance things out and avoid the use of toxins. Good to see someone is still reading the NG David .... *looks North and sees people in Scotland sunbathing !!!* Pete |
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 Hi Torsten, Before swallowing the yield claims of organic corn being 94% of conventional corn I would like to see the trials. As no other studies by ether organic or non organic papers have every pretended to claim yields that high for nitrogen hungry crops like corn and wheat. Even the organic papers admit 25 to 33% decrees in grain yield in most cases. In a publication that discusses chemotherapy for veterinary uses I would not put much stock in the stuff published there. As a chemist you must have some standards that publications must meet before using them as sources. Surely you don't think that dilutions of chemicals where no molecules of the chemical is left in the solution that is used for treatment can have any effect. Try not to dig so deeply in the pig sty for rebuttals. Best regards Gordon. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
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. -- 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) |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:17:08 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "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 .. 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 Hi Torsten, Before swallowing the yield claims of organic corn being 94% of conventional corn I would like to see the trials. Huh? But, I am not referring to that article in the bulletin. We are taking about Avery's plump piece 'Nature's Toxic Tools', Gordon. And Nancy Creamer's scathing critique of said. Is that hard for you to read. (Perhaps if you took off your welding glasses .... :-) (But, if you SO much like to see those trials mentioned in some other article you've stumbled over, tell me, what have you actually -done- to get to see them? Nothing .... right?) .. In a publication that discusses chemotherapy for veterinary uses I would not put much stock in the stuff published there. .. Suggesting guilt by association? How fallacious of you :-) Well, that's yet another article in the bulletin which I did not refer to. Tell me, are you trying to talk with me about -anything- but the Creamer article, which is so straightforwardly relevant here in the context, and which I -did- refer to? |
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. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"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 |
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) |
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 |
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 |
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) |
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. :-) |
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. :-) |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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.) |
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/ |
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/ |
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 |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"Chuck" wrote in message
ink.net... "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-1 404 ( http://tinyurl.com/uvdi ) Apparently you've never done any actual research either. Chuck I've not personally compared organic and industrial yield, no, ... the people that prepared the above report 'Adding Values to Our Food System: An Economic Analysis of Sustainable Community Food Systems', for the United States Department of Agriculture Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, Utah State University, did that "actual research". |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"len gardener" wrote in message ... 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/ Hiya Len Good to se you're still around too mate. My ISP's news server has been having some hiccups and some posts of mine didn't get posted so I now have a couple of different newservers so if my posts look like they came from somewhere else they probably did. We are getting some rain here ..dribs and drabs mostly but big thunderstorm last night ... so far its looking pretty good for the farmers seeding and we are hoping to build on last years effort of rejuvenating one of the small paddocks (if I get me Fergie tractor back together again quickly). At this time of year the biggest pests are the snails, we don't get many slugs (unless they are just hiding from me) and its also the time of year when the Sleepy lizards go to sleep for the winter so they are no help in controlling the snails, definitely need some ducks. One of the troubles I have is protecting the young plants from lizards so I planted some stuff (mainly herbs) in old cut down water tanks which of course stops lizards from getting to the plants but also stops em from getting to the pests too. As far as the flying sap sucking type of bugs go I think the Little Willie wagtail is the king of bug eating birds and although the African boxthorn plant is a declared pest here they seem to prefer this shrub for nesting in on my place, so I have one that will stay just as a home for these little guys. A couple of weeks ago the whole place was swarming with flying ants and other "midgy" type insects then the dragonflies moved in and I was fascinated just standing in the middle of the paddock watching millions of em eat their way through the swarms ..it really was like being in another world ... if you've ever stood in one of those butterfly houses and been surrounded by that eerie silence as butterflies flutter inches from your nose you'll know what I mean, they even seem to look directly in your eyes (no I wasn't drunk :-)). I don't blame anyone for using synthetic means to control pests, each to his/her own...but I just couldn't do it. I love doing things the way I do em ...right or wrong ....and nature never ceases to amaze me, I don't want to do anything to stop being amazed. Pete |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
g'day pete,
yeh we still here, just about to give up on the alt.pc news group it looked almost dead of late, not like those good ole days a few years back. the willy is a great bug eater, legend is that he is supposed to be bad luck in your garden, ah but who cares them and their close cousins the fly catcher (we have), and babbler, yellow rumped thornbills, piplets etc.,. etc.,. the bugs have a hard time. we have that snail the little cigar shaped one gets to around oh i dunno 1/2" peky little ting if we don't keep on top of them they even eat the yellow part of the skin on the lemonade fruit. no never been in a butterfly house but i can well imagine what you mean, we're even encouraging the owls to come back seems if a care to look outside after dark there is usualy one flying around or sitting on one of our poles, so things are looking realy rosy. we've planted a lot of trees over the last 12 months 300+ so this place should look a treat in a couple of years when they all reach a visible height, we have managed to control the blady grass and now ahve vwery little of it, a wide variety of pasture grasses exotics and natives ranging from calf height to head height some almost to 2 meters. be good to win lotto ad get some calves on here for fattening they would love it. as me signature line says hey pete? "you gotta do what you gotta do" hey, if you need to use a quick fix then that's it just that it is done with all eyes open. our food orchids are doing well heaps of manda's and lemonade fruits this year, the top tropical orchard has lots of holes to fill losses due to the place being so dry and we being too impatient. but the trees that are up there are having a minimising efect on the frosts and we can actualy sit under the shade of a young tree that we planted something that wasn't there before. currently we are gathering different varieties of bunching and those type onions and leeks so we can keep ourselves supplied in some sort for the table at all times. i'm also cheif garlic grower for ted and us. ted's doing well he is starting to see some fruits for his efforts vege garden wise this is the common scenerio when we take on degraded land hey. anyhow you take care i'm ready for a chat anytime all the time. 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/ |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
In article , "Pete" writes:
Hi David and thanks for the reply I agree that you have to make choices depending on what resources are available, although I was referring more to land management choices rather than food purchases. We try to produce as much as we can using what resources we have available and though we tend to lose lots of "produce" to pests I've (so far) never thrown in the towel and blasted everything with the really heavy stuff, (I've used cabbage dust and pyrethrum sprays) ... so my question was really aimed at folks who like us, get lots of bugs and beasties sharing their home grown produce and try to control them with an organic solution ... better land management and companion plantings, use of animals for pest and weed control, animal manures, mulches and worms for nutrient and soil improvement etc ...not specifically sprays or powder but using the "bigger" picture to hopefully balance things out and avoid the use of toxins. Good to see someone is still reading the NG David .... *looks North and sees people in Scotland sunbathing !!!* Pete When growing our own, there is nothing like a successful organic system. What I have is nothing like a successful organic system. I either have to improve rapidly, or continue to accept predation. I don't see any genuine alternative to organics when it comes down to soil improvement. Good old muck and sweat! I might be able to talk my neighbours into letting me use some of their 'wasteland' for a chicken coup, so I can get a new input/output interface. Talk about people in Scotland sunbathing, for a sun worshiper like me there is a conflict with permaculture - my best secluded sunbathing patch is also my best growing patch. Suppose I should be happy to save water by not wearing clothes that I have to then wash ;) David Lloyd So open-minded - my brains dribbled out. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"len gardener" wrote in message ... g'day pete, yeh we still here, just about to give up on the alt.pc news group it looked almost dead of late, not like those good ole days a few years back. the willy is a great bug eater, legend is that he is supposed to be bad luck in your garden, ah but who cares them and their close cousins the fly catcher (we have), and babbler, yellow rumped thornbills, piplets etc.,. etc.,. the bugs have a hard time. we have that snail the little cigar shaped one gets to around oh i dunno 1/2" peky little ting if we don't keep on top of them they even eat the yellow part of the skin on the lemonade fruit. no never been in a butterfly house but i can well imagine what you mean, we're even encouraging the owls to come back seems if a care to look outside after dark there is usualy one flying around or sitting on one of our poles, so things are looking realy rosy. we've planted a lot of trees over the last 12 months 300+ so this place should look a treat in a couple of years when they all reach a visible height, we have managed to control the blady grass and now ahve vwery little of it, a wide variety of pasture grasses exotics and natives ranging from calf height to head height some almost to 2 meters. be good to win lotto ad get some calves on here for fattening they would love it. as me signature line says hey pete? "you gotta do what you gotta do" hey, if you need to use a quick fix then that's it just that it is done with all eyes open. our food orchids are doing well heaps of manda's and lemonade fruits this year, the top tropical orchard has lots of holes to fill losses due to the place being so dry and we being too impatient. but the trees that are up there are having a minimising efect on the frosts and we can actualy sit under the shade of a young tree that we planted something that wasn't there before. currently we are gathering different varieties of bunching and those type onions and leeks so we can keep ourselves supplied in some sort for the table at all times. i'm also cheif garlic grower for ted and us. ted's doing well he is starting to see some fruits for his efforts vege garden wise this is the common scenerio when we take on degraded land hey. anyhow you take care i'm ready for a chat anytime all the time. 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/ Hiya Len Don't give up on the old NG .... we'll stir some of them lurkers outa their holes Looks like you've been real busy with the tree planting .. I looked at the list on your site. that's impressive mate ... did ya have to keep wiping the sweat from Bev's brow while she planted em ? ... the things we do for them wimmin eh? ... they just don't know how lucky they are, I even pass Maureen's welding rods for her sometimes .... wears me out I tell ya. I've been trying to get old Fergie ready for turning the soil a little, last year we had a good combination of natural growth and a little barley we threw around that we are eager to try to see if we can improve on the ground cover and we are planting some old man salt bush around some low lying, salty areas to try to lower the water table around those problem areas. Fergie has had a total strip down, derust and paint job ...which started off as a water pump replacement... which led to replacing some oil seals and which in turn led to lots of parts being replaced cos I snapped and bent things as I removed em because they were sooo rusty ... but she fired up on the 3rd turn after being sat for 3 months in bits ..not bad for a 51 year old ex boat tractor.. still some wiring and a bit more painting to do then she'll be too sexy for her own good. I remember Mollison saying that if you can turn the top few centimetres and improve that then go a little deeper each year you can achieve a good deep structure which will not only allow moisture in but retain it longer, the area I am working has been fairly well sealed by previous rains to a point where before last year it wouldn't allow any moisture in and after lightly turning the top and throwing a bit of seed around we were amazed at the amount of natural seed that must have been lying dormant waiting for a more suitable structure and some rain of course. We had a good storm the other night and got 40 points (10 mm) out of it... don't larf that's a torrent for us ... so you can see we need to catch and try to hold all the rain we get... cos we don't get that much. I hand dug a biggish pond and thought I'd have a few yabbies ... the Cormorants had other ideas .... I tried fish ... they liked them even more ......... so I have this big hole in the ground ... got any ideas ? (apart from burying Cormorants.. I thought of that one) I also have a big mound of earth at the side of the big hole ... looks like it would just fit in there nicely. Good to hear Ted is getting his place together as well .... He's on a good wicket getting you to grow his garlic for him .... What is it about Onions and garlic ? I love growing them ... Onions take a season and a half out of the garden patch but I reckon the garden isn't complete without rows of onions in it .... I just wish Onions liked me as much as I like them :-( take care mate Pete |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"Sirius631" wrote in message ... When growing our own, there is nothing like a successful organic system. What I have is nothing like a successful organic system. I either have to improve rapidly, or continue to accept predation. I don't see any genuine alternative to organics when it comes down to soil improvement. Good old muck and sweat! I might be able to talk my neighbours into letting me use some of their 'wasteland' for a chicken coup, so I can get a new input/output interface. Don't talk to me about muck and sweat ....... ok ya can this seems the right place, we have to improve every bit of soil we plant in ... our soil (or whatever it is) is very salty and has little organic matter ..it is soupy when wet and rock hard when dry, it gets to a stage where it is almost impossible to re-wet it ... a lot of Aussie soils have this unwettable characteristic ... its a weird one. Talk about people in Scotland sunbathing, for a sun worshiper like me there is a conflict with permaculture - my best secluded sunbathing patch is also my best growing patch. Suppose I should be happy to save water by not wearing clothes that I have to then wash ;) You need to grow broad leaf plants so ya can quickly dash under em if anyone comes ... Pumpkin leaves are good for that but ya get a bit muddy rolling under em .....erm or so I'm told..... should we start calling you Adam ? Dont eat the apple !!! Pete |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
g'day pete,
be good if you can stuir them up we used to have good chat before and lots of it. yeh trouble is she folds too quickly under the noon day sun gotta keep using the cattle prod lol. she has been a great supporter and partner through all this. sounds like you've got an old classic restored there in fergie, you must be a pillar of patience. sounds like you are doing great guns with you soil ted has a salt probem in his soil not like yours i would think, in his case there is too high a levle of salt content, so everything he did initialy was a dissapointment to him but he is starting to win now. mmm you realy do have a low rainfall area but like you say you do things to trap and hold as much of the water for as long as possible, even though we are in a much higher fall area than you the rain that used to fall was doing very little for anything it just ran straight off the top, but now that we have gotten it into the sub-surface things tend to grow more than die and we can sustain a longer dry period than other before our grasses show it. maybe you could turn the hole into a health spa? make some un supportable sorry supportable claim and attract lots of nubile um ladies you get me drift, i always say to bev if we don't make it with perma-c here i might turn itn into a nudist colony for ladies um and i could vet all applicants so to speak huh lol, ok ladies only jokin only jokin. right now we are back on the market still fine tuning realtionship problems but we will be going this time, but i was planning on more garden beds so i could devote 1 bed to each type of onion thingy and maybe2 or 3 beds for garlic, as it is nigh on impossible to get local grown garlic anymore up here that chinese bleached white imported stuff ahs flooded the market. thsi will dry up reserves of plantable corms for people like us and make buying this stuff fresh for use is going to get expensive could be a bit of a money spinner in years to come. the best to you and yours 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/ |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
In article , "Pete" writes:
should we start calling you Adam ? rofl. It's been hot and humid here over the last few days. I find that being raw, so to speak, stops me feeling grimey, thus helps cut down on the water I'd use having extra showers. David Lloyd So open-minded - my brains dribbled out. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
In article , "Pete" writes:
Don't talk to me about muck and sweat ....... ok ya can this seems the right place, we have to improve every bit of soil we plant in ... our soil (or whatever it is) is very salty and has little organic matter ..it is soupy when wet and rock hard when dry, it gets to a stage where it is almost impossible to re-wet it ... a lot of Aussie soils have this unwettable characteristic ... its a weird one. Sounds like raised beds would be the best bet. That is is what I'm using. I can't keep all the soil moist all the time with my rain water storage and supply capacity. I do need to expand this, but finances might soon dictate that I sould have held on to the cash. I can take solice in the fact that sparrows, which have been suffering a big dip in numbers, will invade in hoards to take a dust bath when the soil gets to that hydrophobic state. David Lloyd So open-minded - my brains dribbled out. |
Organic does not mean pesticide free...
"len gardener" wrote in message ... Snippings i always say to bev if we don't make it with perma-c here i might turn itn into a nudist colony Len meet David ... David meet Len .... Ok I snipped the "for ladies bit" :-) cos David is looking for somewhere to sunworship. right now we are back on the market still fine tuning realtionship problems but we will be going this time, So ... as soon as I come back on the group you decide to move house so I can't find ya eh? Are you looking for somewhere with land again Len or are you thinking of becoming a city kid again? but i was planning on more garden beds so i could devote 1 bed to each type of onion thingy and maybe2 or 3 beds for garlic, as it is nigh on impossible to get local grown garlic anymore up here that chinese bleached white imported stuff ahs flooded the market. thsi will dry up reserves of plantable corms for people like us and make buying this stuff fresh for use is going to get expensive could be a bit of a money spinner in years to come. I agree about the garlic though we still get a fair bit of locally grown stuff in our nearest greengrocers ... I'm hoping to get a reasonably sized shadehouse finished this year and produce some seedlings and maybe seed for sale. I saw in a garden/hardware shop recently...a punnett of half a dozen cabbage plants for $5.00 !!! thats unbelievable, they were the most unhealthy looking plants too. Good luck with the sale and move when it happens mate. Pete |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter