Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |