HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:46:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.221858.28494@cal.isac.ca>, jameson@cal.isac.ca (Kevin Jameson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.134104.7810@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>>Farms uses a very small fraction of this country's energy consumption.
>>We use more energy *cooking* food than we do growing it.  In a
>
>This definitely supports the idea that the agricultural system is NOT a
>major consumer of fossil fuels. But is that the same as being
>sustainable?  Doesn't sustainable mean "to live off the renewable
>interest of the capital resources of the land/planet/sun, instead of
>off the stored capital (fossil fuels) itself?"

Agricultural systems do indeed use a fair bit of fossilized fuel... some is
used directly as fuel for machinery. Some is also used by farm machinery
indirectly in the form of electricity. But there is a pretty substantial
chunk of fossil energy converted every year into nitrogen fertilizer...

Your point is a valid one... it encompasses the agricultural sector and 
nearly every other identifiable segment of society. Our thirst for energy
has put us in the position where we are consuming fossil fuels much, much
faster than they are being formed. 

It's fairly obvious that there isn't much point in going to the expense and
pain of developing sustainable agricultural techniques if we are going to
pollute ourselves out of existence whilst producing energy to satisfy some
other segment of society. 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:09:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.134937.1527@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>
>the solutions they seek are to problems that exist in a scale beyond any 
>that mankind has tackled so far. What I'm saying is that answers to the ills
>that agriculture has and is causing are VERY elusive.. I was sort of hoping
>that someone out there in net.land might have some ideas worth bashing around,
>but instead I've found that all they want to bash is established agriculture.

Bashing established agriculture is like stealing candy from a baby for anyone
with an open mind and even the merest exposure to organic farming techniques. 
We didn't create this newsgroup so we could take pot shots at the current
practices.

>When John F. Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what
>you can do for your country" he was responding to a sentiment shared amost
>universally by the public at large. They all have their hands out .... and when
>someone gets something that someone else does not get there's hell to pay...
>but when the shoe is on the other foot... i.e. when your country is asking 
>you to warm your brains up and contribute something useful... then that's
>a horse of a different colour altogether! At that point John Q. Public 
>decides to pass the buck and point to someone else... anyone else... just so
>he/she doesn't have to (shudder..) THINK...  

Hmmm.  I wonder if we're reading the same alt.sustainable.agriculture.  I don't
see anyone here passing the buck or refusing to think.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: jameson@cal.isac.ca (Kevin Jameson)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: ISA Corp. (Calgary)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 22:18:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.134104.7810@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>Farms uses a very small fraction of this country's energy consumption.
>We use more energy *cooking* food than we do growing it.  In a

This definitely supports the idea that the agricultural system is NOT a
major consumer of fossil fuels. But is that the same as being
sustainable?  Doesn't sustainable mean "to live off the renewable
interest of the capital resources of the land/planet/sun, instead of
off the stored capital (fossil fuels) itself?"




Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:30:02 GMT

>It doesn't really take five years of college to become an agrichemical 
>salesman. Looks as if you'd have realized that before you wasted all
>that time studying, with nothing to show for it.

I'm not trying to sell anything... Just stating the facts as they are. 
Chemicals are an integral part of agriculture, and they will remain so until
we have found better ways to produce food. It seems that in your opinion,
that means `organic' pure and simple... no exceptions and no other way 
possible. Organic may be, as I have said, PART of the solution, but it isn't
the ONLY solution. 

I too thought YOU might have something to contribute to a newsgroup like
this one, but I see your closed-minded attitude will prevent that from
being the case. You don't see the big picture at all. And as for baiting
folks, that's a matter of point of view.... perhaps my motivation is to
provoke conversation. 

>You could always work for a year on an organic farm and get yourself
>completely straightened out.

Yeah, sure... 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:31:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.104212.22503@leland.Stanford.EDU>, spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
>Dave Sill writes
>> *Most* conventional fertilizers don't have trace elements,
>> don't improve/maintain soil condition, and often leave
>> substantial salt residues.  Not *all*, *most*.
>> 
>> ... isn't [it] possible that some as-yet "undiscovered"
>> element/compound is missing?  Of course certain organic
>> mendments might also be lacking some trace elements, but with
>> the pot pourri of minerals in natural products, there's a
>> least a possibility they might be there.
>
>Why do you assume all such minerals-we-don't-know-about, whether  
>trace or otherwise, would always have a beneficial effect (either on  
>crop growth or on the health of anybody ingesting them)?

What makes you think I do?  In fact, I don't.  But the very existence today of
plants supported for millions of years by natural soil components, and
animals, including people, that have thrived on them, it sure seems unlikely.
Of course, the more exotic the natural amendment, the more likely it is that
such an unexpected anti-nutrient/poison exists.  E.g., if you use a compost of
indigenous plant matter and apply a dust made from local rock, it's very
nearly impossible that you'd be causing a substantial negative impact.  On the
other hand, if you import rock dust from thousands of miles away or grow or
compost exotic species, the probability is much higher.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:11:50 GMT

In article <-1363904206snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>Also waxy fungal infections cause the soil itself to lose its ability to
>absorb and retain water, bringing about the need to regularly apply more
>chemicals in the form of soil whetting agents in order to establish any
>plant growth at all.

Right, which explains why the Earth is a barren, waxy waste?  Or perhaps there
are bacteria that break the waste down?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:48:34 GMT

>Again, the point here is that the relationship between the bank
>and farmer is an unhealthy one in many perhaps most cases 
>currently since farmers are struggling to make their loan
>payments in the face of an overall faltering economy.
>In such a situation, the bank has a tendency to exercise more
>bureaucratic power over the farmer, some of which can be
>insulting.

how is this any different for the struggling breadwinner who needs
a new car.... banks can be MORE than insulting to anyone who darkens their
doors!

>Thus, getting involved to the point of telling the farmer
>whether he is fertilizing properly is certainly an insult
>to the farmer.  Next thing you know these bank bureaucrats
>will be telling the farmer how to milk cows, bail hay, etc.
>only to make sure that the farm is running successfully and
>therefore able to make its loan payments, of course.

this is nothing new... farmers are being bombarded with all sorts of
insults... 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 04:35:46 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov10.153641.60642@cc.usu.edu> fahole@cc.usu.edu writes:

 > While I agree that sustainable agricultural systems are important to our
 > long term survival, I am more concerned about sustainable urban systems.
 > The urban environments are resulting in orders of magnitude more health
 > threatening pollutants and toxins than any agricultural systems, yet I
 > hear very little about sustainable cities.

Thank you indeed for this insight, David, although here in Australia
over 90% of our population is urbanised and we are more acutely aware
of the issues here than perhaps you Americans may be. Our particular
problem arises from so very many people having arrived here as migrants
to settle directly in the established cities, without ever learning a
single thing about how such European colonies might be sustained in
this antipodean and as yet largely unknown environment.

Sustaining the flow of energy and nutrients into these quite alien
population centres, and then coping with the massive levels of waste
they generate, has  created a major national issue we are far from
resolving.

Part of the further difficulty we rural stock are struggling with is
that the city people are so defensive about it, and have the political
clout to impose their own priorities on issues concerned with Landcare,
conservation and systems sustainability in any event.

I understand, however, that this particular hierarchy was planned to
grow along, say, sustainable.community and sustainable.development
as the discussion builds, that those will provide a forum where some
of the arguments can be informed by diverse points of view and sorted
out toward a more global common interest agenda.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: why
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:46:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.201703.22296@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>
>NONE of the more obnoxious posters are commercial farmers, so it isn't THEM
>who would ever have to `toe the mark' they're drawing... it isn't THEM that
>would go bankrupt, and it isn't THEM that would lose their home and livelihood
>on the basis of ranting zealots!

OK, raise your hand if you're a commercial farmer.

I suspect if we were to allow only commercial farmers to post here, this would
be a very quiet newsgroup.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Returning nutrients to the soil
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:53:11 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov17.145636.11267@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV writes:

 > Firstly, I'm not a part of any "organic movement".  I'm a concerned individual
 > who considers himself a conservationist/environmentalist, and supporter of
 > sustainable lifestyles, including sustainable agriculture.  The so-called
 > "organic" methods appear to me to be at least a step in the direction of
 > sustainability.  I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say they are the last
 > word in sustainable agriculture.

Thanks for the resume on your qualifications and experience in this
area.

 > Secondly, I did *not* conclude that there were undiscovered plant nutrients.  I
 > *think* there probably are micronutrients we don't fully understand the
 > importance of, and I think there probably are certain plants whose nutritional
 > requirements aren't fully understood.

Are there, or are there not? Do you suggest that the entire corpus of
what we *do* know be rejected in a new search for "undiscovered" plant
nutrients? After all we have been dependent on plant growth since the
year dot, fellow, and you might pay some overdue attention to what we
have learned in that time.

 > >Seems that anything chemical must, by definition, be bad.
 >  
 > Horseshit.  Don't be a fool, Don.  We have all come to terms with
 > "chemicals"--that's not the problem.  The problem is inappropropriate
 > application of technology.

Now why would technology be inappropriately applied? Is it perhaps due
to chronic ignorance and hunger among whole populations struggling merely
to survive, while more appropriate technology is being implemented?

 > Oooh!  You had me scared there, Don.  Next thing you know, you'll be telling me
 > I'm being constantly bombarded with radiation!
 >  
 > Sheesh.

This last says it all.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:13:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.221858.28494@cal.isac.ca>, jameson@cal.isac.ca (Kevin Jameson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.134104.7810@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>
>>Farms uses a very small fraction of this country's energy consumption.
>>We use more energy *cooking* food than we do growing it.  In a
>
>This definitely supports the idea that the agricultural system is NOT a
>major consumer of fossil fuels.

You're forgetting the use of petroleum as a feedstock for fertilizers and
pesticides.

>Doesn't sustainable mean "to live off the renewable
>interest of the capital resources of the land/planet/sun, instead of
>off the stored capital (fossil fuels) itself?"

It does to me.  And if we were to run out of petroleum to use for feedstock,
what would we use?  Coal?  Natural gas?  And when they're gone?  Sure, we're
talking about *huge* resources here.  But huge isn't the same as "infinite".

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 05:22:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  Mr. Christie defines new levels of net etiquette for us:


"...you poor, pathetic little boy!  did your mommy........" etc.



Again, the point here is that the relationship between the bank
and farmer is an unhealthy one in many perhaps most cases 
currently since farmers are struggling to make their loan
payments in the face of an overall faltering economy.
In such a situation, the bank has a tendency to exercise more
bureaucratic power over the farmer, some of which can be
insulting.
Thus, getting involved to the point of telling the farmer
whether he is fertilizing properly is certainly an insult
to the farmer.  Next thing you know these bank bureaucrats
will be telling the farmer how to milk cows, bail hay, etc.
only to make sure that the farm is running successfully and
therefore able to make its loan payments, of course.



-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: momotaro@cwis.unomaha.edu (Bryan Stack)
Subject: Split this group?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:31:14 GMT

What do you say we set up a companion group called
alt.sustainable.agriculture.talk in which people can argue and call each
other names, and reserve this one for discussion of actual practices in
agriculture and their evaluation?

--
>>> Bryan Stack, Government Documents Librarian, University Library
University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha NE 68182-0237 USA
Email: momotaro@cwis.unomaha.edu   Phone: 402-554-3258   FAX: 402-554-3215
         One of these days I'm going to stop procrastinating.
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: News from ATTRA: ...
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:42:21 GMT

This is good, useful information, Larry.  Thanks for posting it!

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: why
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:14:04 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <psmith.722016865@cunews> psmith@alfred.carleton.ca (Peter Smith) writes:
>I don't think you need to make an apology to anyone; this groups is
>surely a proponent of freedom of speech.  Ignore anyone who demands
>things from you and don't take the newsgroup too personally.

Don sees himself as being at war with the "Greenies", therefore
he doesn't need to be polite or friendly with them in a public forum,
or even listen to them, for that matter.
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture,misc.rural
Subject: Re: Fruit & Nut trees
Date: 23 Nov 1992 02:53:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  Gee, I am glad to see postings from this part of the continent.
I have toured British Columbia a number of times, met some
people who had recently settled in the Queen Charlottes and
of course have read of the great totems and traditions of the
Native People of that region.

It also  appears that there is Usenet access up there, at least
for certain  newsgroups; the world is getting smaller.

Anyway I have some files of fruit and nut tree production but
this climate region where you are: if possible  can you give
temperatures, low and high for the year, approx temps for
May through October, and also is there heavy wind exposure,
perhaps a local weather bureau station would have some of this
info.
It would help immensely in determining viability of trees.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Need Help--PLEASE Read!
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:47:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <bdw12pj@rpi.edu> thomat@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu (Todd Michael Thomas) writes:
>I am an architectural student currently doing an affordable/sustainable housing
>community project that is to include a 50% self-sufficient agriculture base.
>This proposed community will be located in Troy, NY. This is near Albany, NY.
>I need to find out...
>     1. What crops/vegetables grow well in a New England Climate?
>     2. Same question as 1, but in a `winter garden' or 'greenhouse' year-round?
>     3. Does current law allow 'aqua-culture treated' blackwater be used to
>        water/fertilize edible crops?
>     4. And rough space requirements for crops in ques. 1 & 2.
>                                                                            
>Todd Thomas--------thomat@rpi.edu-----------------------------------------> ^_^
>
>ps:thanks if you can help me( quick answer would even be of help ).
> 
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 06:51:17 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1e5dt1INNhgm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

 >   Mr. Hardwick emphatically supports Mr. Christie who states:
 >  
 > "....if a soil test (by a special bank loan officer trained
 > in agricultural economics) indicated that a given field
 > scored in a normal nutrient range for the intended crop,
 > the recommendation would not be for more fertilizer..."
 >  
 > and again:
 >  
 > "...In the eyes of such a loan officer, a farmer who was
 > applying fertilizer or other agri chemicals which are not
 > needed is wasting money..."
 >  
 >  
 > Indeed!  Thank goodness we have these specially trained
 > bank loan officers to tell the farmer how much fertilizer
 > to use, etc.!
 >  
 > The poor farmers.  And I though they were only being
 > harrassed by the organic advocates.

Looks like I need not point out your child-like confusion after all,
Mikey. You can obviously do it all by yourself . . .


--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *