|
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"sw" wrote in message ... martin wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic". It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals. Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops. Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals? I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution. The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value. I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with -- and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet -- "water's a chemical, you know". It's as though some people find organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it depends who you work for. Mike. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
Mike Lyle wrote in message . .. Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals? I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution. The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value. I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with -- The trouble is not 'combing through' policy statements, the trouble us what happens when policy statements like that above meet the real world. In the real world of commercial organic apple growing, frequent large applications of copper-based fungicides are used. For non-organic commercial apple growing, smaller less frequent fungicide applications are used. Which of these two roads leads to, "stable and healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, better animal welfare including that of wildlife; an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value."? Meantime, poor plonkers in supermarkets are buying Organic (tm) produce that's been flown half-way round the planet, in order to save the planet! I have great respect for those who wish to garden without chemicals, especially those who swam against the tide decades ago when the white heat of the technological revolution dictated that modern=good, traditional=bad. However, I have no respect for those who dictate that their non-chemical gardening methods are the only legitimate way to do it, and I scorn those who scream 'poisons' about synthetic chemicals and ignore all natural poisons. and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet -- "water's a chemical, you know". I further have no respect for those who wilfully misunderstand the point or twist others words. It's as though some people find organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it depends who you work for. I have been saying for some time that the organic movement, in my humble opinion, is allowing the public to remain under the impression that organic supermarket produce is chemical-free and good for the planet. Eventually there will be a series of issues which come to the public's awareness, and the resulting crash in demand for organic produce will do alot of harm to small 'really' organic growers who will be tarred with the same brush. That will be a pity. The organic movement is only one among a variety of approaches for those who wish to sit lightly on the planet, and foster health and vitality in us and our surroundings. -- Anton |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes Folk should realise that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in the contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture. It's confusing, but an analogy is the different use of 'fruit' in botany and cookery - eg tomato and rhubarb. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
Franz Heymann wrote:
"sw" wrote in message ... martin wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic". It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals. Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops. Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals? Not unless you're so inclined. Organic food is food grown using a subset of the chemicals and techniques available to conventional agriculture. The taste of the chemicals is immaterial. regards sarah -- Think of it as evolution in action. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
martin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:39:59 +0100, (sw) wrote: martin wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic". It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals. Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops. The customers who buy "organic" products in supermarkets have no way of knowing. The chances are good that products sold bearing the logo of one of the registered organic schemes conform to the standards of the scheme, as these are enforced to the best of the scheme's ability. Anyone desirous of knowing what those standards allow can obtain a copy of the standards. Many of the "organic" alternatives are now on the EU banned list of chemicals. If so, then they're no longer in use by anyone :-) Many of the alternative chemicals being used were far more dangerous than the current stuff used by normal commercial growers, according to the BBC. There's a lot of pseudo science about. I blame rotten education. The last bit is certainly true. My wife grows vegetables on an allotment organically. She and other members use no chemicals. To me that's what organic is all about. Just muck and magic? I've no objection to a bit of science, especially when it aids growers producing stuff on a large scale. If we relied solely on produce raised without any inputs and/or science, we'd have starved long since :-) regards sarah -- Think of it as evolution in action. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"It seems that you're the one with twisted knickers. We all know what's meant without being pedantic." No we don't all know what's meant - that is the whole point of this discussion. It is a writer's responsibility to try to avoid misunderstandings on the part of their readers. That is why we have a common language. Ah - but if we had to define every word we used we'd really be in a pickle. Very many 'common' words have several meanings, if that were no so there'd be no need for a thesaurus. For example - a few words picked out of the air - common, pickle, several, mother, string, keep, stay ... I shan't bother to continue but they show my point - that words should be understood in the context they are used. This is a gardening ng therefore the word 'organic' is understood as having a meaning relevant to gardening and doesn't need to have a dictionary definition to qualify it. Mary |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
No! Really? Yes, really. "Irony doesn't work on usenet" ;-) So I've realised :-))) Mary -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
I'm curious, very curious. You certainly are! Mary |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In article , martin
writes My wife grows vegetables on an allotment organically. She and other members use no chemicals. To me that's what organic is all about. Organic gardening is about a lot more than not using chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides as I am sure your wife will agree. In a fully organic system they are not necessary anyway, but I see organic growing as a better way of treating plants on their way to becoming food, and a better way of treating the soil and the environment in which they are to grow. -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In article , Franz Heymann
writes I only commented on the vague usage of the term "organic" in gardening circles. The word organic has long been recognised by its practitioners as a less than satisfactory way of describing horticultural methods of that name. It originally arose 40/50 years ago from the idea of encouraging and using micro-organisms as distinct from using inert chemicals instead. Though times and methods have changed a lot since then, the description 'organic' remains for better or for worse. The term is not vague though, in fact its definition is protected by law. Any food to be sold to the public as organic has to comply with very rigorous regulations and standards. Those have been developed in EU and they are carefully monitored in all participating countries. The monitoring body appointed by UK Govt. is UKROFS - United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, from which certification bodies like Soil Association and others gain their authority to see that EU organic regs. are complied with by all in the food chain. Growers are given certification to use the well known organic symbol on their produce, and loss of that right can mean loss of their livelihood. Recreational growers can operate as they please providing they do not sell produce to the public described as organic. HDRA are the main body assisting and guiding those who wish to practice recognised organic methods. They have issued guidelines based on EU regs. where they are applicable, (i.e. leaving out matters such as marketing, transportation, packaging, advertising, storage, promotion etc.). For practical recreational gardening purposes, the question of whether some substance or method is organic, is defined by the guidelines. In those terms, substances like Glyphosate, Bordeaux Mixture, Nicotine and many others are not organic. This subject is dealt with in detail by the urg FAQ at: http://www.nugget.demon.co.uk/MetaFA...gardening.html -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message om... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "sw" wrote in message ... martin wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic". It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals. Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops. Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals? I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution. The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value. I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet -- "water's a chemical, you know". It's as though some people find organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it depends who you work for. I do not find it a threat of any kind. I just find it amusing to see how organic afficionados react when anyone dares to question their dogma. My policy is much simpler than yours, and I intend sticking to it: I will use any substance in my gardening efforts, if I have evidence that the good which might result from its use is likely to greatly exceed the possible harm which it might do. The moment I see evidence that my opinion of that substance is wrong, I will cease using it immediately. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Kay Easton" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes Folk should realise that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in the contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture. It's confusing, but an analogy is the different use of 'fruit' in botany and cookery - eg tomato and rhubarb. That's a good one. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message om... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "sw" wrote in message ... martin wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic". It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals. Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops. Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals? I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution. The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value. I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet -- "water's a chemical, you know". It's as though some people find organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it depends who you work for. I do not find it a threat of any kind. I just find it amusing to see how organic afficionados react when anyone dares to question their dogma. My policy is much simpler than yours, and I intend sticking to it: I will use any substance in my gardening efforts, if I have evidence that the good which might result from its use is likely to greatly exceed the possible harm which it might do. The moment I see evidence that my opinion of that substance is wrong, I will cease using it immediately. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Kay Easton" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann notfranz. writes Folk should realise that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in the contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture. It's confusing, but an analogy is the different use of 'fruit' in botany and cookery - eg tomato and rhubarb. That's a good one. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Alan Gould" wrote in message ... In article , Franz Heymann writes I only commented on the vague usage of the term "organic" in gardening circles. The word organic has long been recognised by its practitioners as a less than satisfactory way of describing horticultural methods of that name. It originally arose 40/50 years ago from the idea of encouraging and using micro-organisms as distinct from using inert chemicals instead. Though times and methods have changed a lot since then, the description 'organic' remains for better or for worse. The term is not vague though, in fact its definition is protected by law. Any food to be sold to the public as organic has to comply with very rigorous regulations and standards. Those have been developed in EU and they are carefully monitored in all participating countries. The monitoring body appointed by UK Govt. is UKROFS - United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, from which certification bodies like Soil Association and others gain their authority to see that EU organic regs. are complied with by all in the food chain. Growers are given certification to use the well known organic symbol on their produce, and loss of that right can mean loss of their livelihood. Recreational growers can operate as they please providing they do not sell produce to the public described as organic. HDRA are the main body assisting and guiding those who wish to practice recognised organic methods. They have issued guidelines based on EU regs. where they are applicable, (i.e. leaving out matters such as marketing, transportation, packaging, advertising, storage, promotion etc.). For practical recreational gardening purposes, the question of whether some substance or method is organic, is defined by the guidelines. In those terms, substances like Glyphosate, Bordeaux Mixture, Nicotine and many others are not organic. (a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"? (b) How is pyrethrum classified? (c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux mixture was classified as organic. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In message , Franz Heymann
writes Mike Lyle wrote, I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying approach. -- dave @ stejonda |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:32:41 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote: In message , Franz Heymann writes Mike Lyle wrote, I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility in the long term in a sustainable way. I hope that to be consistent you plough with a horse and only use wooden implements. -- Martin |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In message , Franz Heymann
writes Mike Lyle wrote, I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying approach. -- dave @ stejonda |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:32:41 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote: In message , Franz Heymann writes Mike Lyle wrote, I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility in the long term in a sustainable way. I hope that to be consistent you plough with a horse and only use wooden implements. -- Martin |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"dave @ stejonda" wrote in message ... In message , Franz Heymann writes Mike Lyle wrote, I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying approach. That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. or even Yorkshire -- Martin |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"dave @ stejonda" wrote in message ... In message , Franz Heymann writes Mike Lyle wrote, I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal, dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow. The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals directly into the soil? So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying approach. That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. or even Yorkshire -- Martin |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
martin wrote in
: On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. or even Yorkshire I don't get it; our farmers produce way too much and to prevent prices from dropping below living-standards they are kept at artificial levels and (in Holland at least) farmers are encouraged to close down. Some of them switch to organic methods; their production levels are almost the same as before (slightly less because of switchover problems). There is no reason why organic farming would produce less than conventinal methods. Agreed, if one could get political agreement to make a worldwide cooperative effort to turn the Sahara desert into a large plantation that would feed 1/4 of the third world, it might be best to start out with the high-tech conventional intensive methods, just to make a quick start. But because of the same protectionate measures that keep our prices high and keep low-priced products outside our borders, this utopic green sahara will not happen. The same ppl that tell us that we will not be able to feed the world with organic methods are the ones that keep the third world from dveloping competitive agriculture. We will not be able to incorporate them in a free-trade-world without leveling down our own prices and production; and that will never happen. Imho, it will never be so that these new technologies will benefit the ppl who most need it, so that argument is non-valid. I think, in the long run it would be more cheaper, safer and less complicated to use slower methods and develop food-farms in natural ways, more in balance with local environments. Even modern conventional farmers can tell you that using more and more chemicals and hormones is a road with no end and can only be sustained by keeping on growing and growing. It's not a stable system and it will implode when it reaches its critical mass. This is not the way. Ursa.. -- ================================== Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* * ___________/====================================\_______*-*______ |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
martin wrote in
: On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. or even Yorkshire I don't get it; our farmers produce way too much and to prevent prices from dropping below living-standards they are kept at artificial levels and (in Holland at least) farmers are encouraged to close down. Some of them switch to organic methods; their production levels are almost the same as before (slightly less because of switchover problems). There is no reason why organic farming would produce less than conventinal methods. Agreed, if one could get political agreement to make a worldwide cooperative effort to turn the Sahara desert into a large plantation that would feed 1/4 of the third world, it might be best to start out with the high-tech conventional intensive methods, just to make a quick start. But because of the same protectionate measures that keep our prices high and keep low-priced products outside our borders, this utopic green sahara will not happen. The same ppl that tell us that we will not be able to feed the world with organic methods are the ones that keep the third world from dveloping competitive agriculture. We will not be able to incorporate them in a free-trade-world without leveling down our own prices and production; and that will never happen. Imho, it will never be so that these new technologies will benefit the ppl who most need it, so that argument is non-valid. I think, in the long run it would be more cheaper, safer and less complicated to use slower methods and develop food-farms in natural ways, more in balance with local environments. Even modern conventional farmers can tell you that using more and more chemicals and hormones is a road with no end and can only be sustained by keeping on growing and growing. It's not a stable system and it will implode when it reaches its critical mass. This is not the way. Ursa.. -- ================================== Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* * ___________/====================================\_______*-*______ |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
Franz Heymann wrote:
snip ....... but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. Franz There will never be enough food to feed the whole world. Your concern is about an unsolvable problem. First priority should be to curb the population then apply a neat 'environmentally clean' solution to the food production. -- ned |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In article , Franz Heymann
writes (a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"? Nicotine is a dangerous poison not permitted for use by commercial growers of organic produce and not recommended for use by recreational gardeners wishing to follow organic methods. The fact that nicotine and many other banned substances originate from plant or animal material does not make them suitable for use in organic growing. (b) How is pyrethrum classified? (c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux mixture was classified as organic. Both Pyrethrum and Bordeaux Mixture are listed as not suitable for use in organic horticulture. Along with other substances, they are listed as permissible to be used by growers in the conversion period to organic growing. Produce grown with their use cannot be sold as organic. -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In article , Franz Heymann
writes (a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"? Nicotine is a dangerous poison not permitted for use by commercial growers of organic produce and not recommended for use by recreational gardeners wishing to follow organic methods. The fact that nicotine and many other banned substances originate from plant or animal material does not make them suitable for use in organic growing. (b) How is pyrethrum classified? (c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux mixture was classified as organic. Both Pyrethrum and Bordeaux Mixture are listed as not suitable for use in organic horticulture. Along with other substances, they are listed as permissible to be used by growers in the conversion period to organic growing. Produce grown with their use cannot be sold as organic. -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In article , Franz Heymann
writes (a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"? Nicotine is a dangerous poison not permitted for use by commercial growers of organic produce and not recommended for use by recreational gardeners wishing to follow organic methods. The fact that nicotine and many other banned substances originate from plant or animal material does not make them suitable for use in organic growing. (b) How is pyrethrum classified? (c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux mixture was classified as organic. Both Pyrethrum and Bordeaux Mixture are listed as not suitable for use in organic horticulture. Along with other substances, they are listed as permissible to be used by growers in the conversion period to organic growing. Produce grown with their use cannot be sold as organic. -- Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In message , Franz Heymann
writes So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying approach. That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. There's plenty of food-producing capacity. It's the inequalities in distribution and consumption that create an apparent shortage. Developed countries (particularly the US) need to reduce their over-consumption and stop leeching resources from the developing world. -- dave @ stejonda |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In message , ned
writes Franz Heymann wrote: snip ....... but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. There will never be enough food to feed the whole world. Your concern is about an unsolvable problem. First priority should be to curb the population then apply a neat 'environmentally clean' solution to the food production. Since each individual in a developed country consumes much more than a person in a developing country the first step should be to introduce population control in the US, UK... I can just see that getting onto western agendas. -- dave @ stejonda |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
In message , martin
writes On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. or even Yorkshire there may still be hope when economic development comes to Yorkshire - http://makeashorterlink.com/?N23F12895 -- dave @ stejonda |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
On 14 Aug 2003 23:10:19 GMT, Major Ursa
wrote: martin wrote in : On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. or even Yorkshire I don't get it; our farmers produce way too much and to prevent prices from dropping below living-standards they are kept at artificial levels and (in Holland at least) farmers are encouraged to close down. It's EU policy to encourage farms to close down. Where do you think all the farm houses bought for residential purposes in UK are coming from? Some of them switch to organic methods; better than injecting on average 2.5 cm of pig shit into the land per annum, as was done recently in the Netherlands. The trend in the Bollenstreek is to cover farm land with concrete and housing estates. their production levels are almost the same as before (slightly less because of switchover problems). I very much doubt it. Certainly UK organic farming does not produce the same levels. If it did then organic food should be cheaper as there should be a significant saving on chemicals used. There is no reason why organic farming would produce less than conventinal methods. yes there is. Agreed, if one could get political agreement to make a worldwide cooperative effort to turn the Sahara desert into a large plantation that would feed 1/4 of the third world, it might be best to start out with the high-tech conventional intensive methods, just to make a quick start. But because of the same protectionate measures that keep our prices high and keep low-priced products outside our borders, this utopic green sahara will not happen. The fact that there is no water available to make the whole of the Sahara green is also a factor. -- Martin |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:23:58 +0100, "ned" wrote:
Franz Heymann wrote: snip ....... but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. Franz There will never be enough food to feed the whole world. Your concern is about an unsolvable problem. First priority should be to curb the population then apply a neat 'environmentally clean' solution to the food production. a good place to start would be the Netherlands. -- Martin |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:04:48 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote: In article , Franz Heymann writes (a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"? Nicotine is a dangerous poison not permitted for use by commercial growers of organic produce and not recommended for use by recreational gardeners wishing to follow organic methods. The fact that nicotine and many other banned substances originate from plant or animal material does not make them suitable for use in organic growing. (b) How is pyrethrum classified? (c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux mixture was classified as organic. Both Pyrethrum and Bordeaux Mixture are listed as not suitable for use in organic horticulture. Along with other substances, they are listed as permissible to be used by growers in the conversion period to organic growing. Produce grown with their use cannot be sold as organic. why is pyrethrum not allowed Alan? -- Martin |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Major Ursa" wrote in message . .. martin wrote in : On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. or even Yorkshire I don't get it; our farmers produce way too much They produce far too much for local consumption at a cost which is far too high to enable it to be marketed in those countries in the world in which there is a chronic food shortage. and to prevent prices from dropping below living-standards they are kept at artificial levels and (in Holland at least) farmers are encouraged to close down. Some of them switch to organic methods; their production levels are almost the same as before (slightly less because of switchover problems). There is no reason why organic farming would produce less than conventinal methods. Unless I am mistaken, one of the aims (sometimes unspoken) of organic farming is to produce less food per unit area in order not to deplete the soil faster than it can recover. The reason is that the compost you put on the soil does not provide a fully complete menu. Some of the nutrients have to be dissolved out oif the almost insoluble rock. That takes time. Agreed, if one could get political agreement to make a worldwide cooperative effort to turn the Sahara desert into a large plantation that would feed 1/4 of the third world, it might be best to start out with the high-tech conventional intensive methods, just to make a quick start. But because of the same protectionate measures that keep our prices high and keep low-priced products outside our borders, this utopic green sahara will not happen. The same ppl that tell us that we will not be able to feed the world with organic methods are the ones that keep the third world from dveloping competitive agriculture. We will not be able to incorporate them in a free-trade-world without leveling down our own prices and production; and that will never happen. That is the problem, in a nutshell. Imho, it will never be so that these new technologies will benefit the ppl who most need it, so that argument is non-valid. I think, in the long run it would be more cheaper, safer and less complicated to use slower methods and develop food-farms in natural ways, more in balance with local environments. Even modern conventional farmers can tell you that using more and more chemicals and hormones is a road with no end and can only be sustained by keeping on growing and growing. It's not a stable system and it will implode when it reaches its critical mass. This is not the way. Franz |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"ned" wrote in message ...
Franz Heymann wrote: snip ....... but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were applied globally. Franz There will never be enough food to feed the whole world. Your concern is about an unsolvable problem. First priority should be to curb the population then apply a neat 'environmentally clean' solution to the food production. There is already enough food to feed the whole world: the problem is simply one of money to buy it. Even during its most notorious famine, Ethiopia was exporting agricultural produce; when at one stage many Indians were suffering malnutrition, India was still exporting rice and cotton. "Famine" is often misunderstood: it has rarely if ever meant that a whole country was short of food, but usually that weather conditions or war have pushed food prices beyond the reach of poorer people. The same was true even in the notorious Irish potato famine, which, I may say, was followed by a similar blight event in England. Population control happens naturally when a certain level of security is reached, and people no longer need large families. Some parts of Africa are actually underpopulated in terms of farm work-forces. Mike |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:39 +0100 (BST), Steve Harris wrote: In article , (Alan Gould) wrote: A few fag ends infused in water overnight would make a very effective insecticide, but it caused a lot of health and safety problems. But surely this insecticide is pretty organic? :-) Please dismiss the word "organic" from your vocabulary as regards both gardening (and farming) and chemical identity. Technically speaking, any chemical compound that contains at least one carbon atom is "organic". The category embraces everything from carbon dioxide and sugar (both lethal in large enough doses) to virulent poisons of which small doses can kill you in a few seconds. Nicotine, the active insecticidal compound found in tobacco, has a very high level of toxicity for mammals. You are a mammal. It is much less safe for you than the usual non-organic (sensu confusu) insecticides. The fact that it is derived directly from a natural source in no way makes a solution of cigarette butts a safe insecticide. To replace "organic" in reference to horticulture goings on, use the phrase "free of petrochemical derivatives not occurring in nature" and you will be more accurate and focussed in your objections -- which, I might add, I am in reasonable agreement with. At last someone has said it straight out in this ng. Folk should realise that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in the contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture. The more sensible dichotomy is between *beneficient* and *deleterious* substances. Both "organic" and "inorganic" substances in use in horticulture have examples in both camps. If a chemical does a lot of good and a minimum of harm, I will gladly use it, whether it is correctly or incorrectly classified as "organic" or "inorganic". Well, that's perfectly sensible. But if you have a problem with the way the various words are used and abused, the Soil Association is a rich source of information. I'm not a member, but I know the Association has for decades been working on all the problems this thread has been nibbling at, and has answers to most of them. It isn't silly to use "organic": it just happens to be the nearest we can get to a single word covering a particular system. The word has a large number of meanings (nearly 20, I think: see Oxford Dictionary if necessary) many of which are completely unrelated; this meaning (which is nothing to do with organic chemistry) is as good as any of the others. We may safely ignore anybody who thinks it should have only one meaning: he hasn't done his homework, and shall go to the bottom of the class. Mike. |
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
|
Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
ubject: Banned Herbicides & Pesticides From: "Franz Heymann" Date: 14/08/2003 15:11 GMT Daylight Time Message-id: "Laurie Moseley" wrote in message ... This is the problem. It's the usual trap of trying to make "I understand it in this way" mean "Everyone understands it in this way". That is one of the reasons why communication is often so poor. Could this be the basis for many divorces ? (Insert Smiley) How on earth are we supposed to know what you are talking about, when you have stripped off all headers and every vestige of context? Franz Fair point. A slip of the finger - I intended to reply to the sender, not to the group. My apologies. Laurie Laurie (Laurence) Moseley Plus Ultra Expert Systems, Decision-Making, Argentinian Tango & Golf |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter