From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: organic production methods
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:50:38 GMT

I have been inundated by insults and abusive email in regards to my posts
on a.s.a ... most of them in relation to organic production methods. 

since some of you out there seem to be so well informed on the subject,
and since these same people seem to feel that I'm NOT, I'd like to take
the time to GET informed.

As I've said many times, organic agriculture has a lot of merit. It can and
should be used where it can be used. there isn't much argument about that.

Being fanatically pro-organic has its drawbacks as well, though. For example,
in relation to the nutritional status of the soil... the term `organic'
precludes the possiblility that one would use chemical fertilizer of any kind.

But, what happens when nutrient levels are below those needed by a crop?
For example, what if phosphorus levels need to be supplemented... are you
going to apply some kind of organic amendment... or are you just going to
ignore it and hope it goes away naturally? What kind of organic amendment
are you going to make, and what is the difference between applying some
kind of material of known chemical origin and applying an organic mixture
of unknown origin or content? Are you going to apply lime to adjust pH...
or does the fact that lime is actually calcium carbonate preclude its 
application? or maybe pH isn't considered to be an important consideration..
it'll look after itself naturally.??

what are we going to do to the hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland
that have been abused by chemical agriculture for the last fifty years?
Are we going to conclude that it has been damaged beyond repair and therefore
abandon it? Or perhaps we could revitalize it somehow organically... 

I've heard lots of organic proponents brag about the reduced need for 
pesticides in organic culture... that's a real plus, and I sincerely feel
that is a real plus for the methodology... but what are we supposed to do
when pests DO become a problem? Even organic farms suffer from pests...
the great potato disaster in Ireland came about as a result of late blight
... a fungus ... even though there weren't any petrochemicals or pesticides
in use at the time. Are we supposed to idly sit by and watch our crops rot
in the fields because a fungicide is a chemical and therefore doesn't belong
in an organic production scheme?

Insects, fungi, weeds, viruses, viroids and mycoplasmas, nematodes and
many other species are all responsible for crop losses. These all exist
on organic farms just as they do on any other... perhaps what the organic
people are suggesting is that by using their methodology that these will
disappear... or perhaps they're suggesting that when crop losses occur due
to these pests that farmers should just accept them (since that's more
environmentally friendly than the alternative) and go banckrupt.

`Organic' certainly is the buzzword that goes around this newsgroup... I'm
curious as to why none of the other disciplines that have been developed
and implemented are mentioned here? The principles of Integrated Crop
Management are intended (each and every one) to reduce our dependency on
chemical pesticides. Crop rotation is another way modern farmers are
assisting themselves... crop rotation improves soil fertility by enhancing
its organic content... pathogen buildups (as occur in monocultures) are
much reduced by removing the host... so pesticides are required less.

A large effort is being put forward world-wide to breed plants and animals
that are resistant to disease... these are far-reaching and intensive
research investigations... Genetics doesn't depend on chemicals... how come
nobody is hollering `genetic' as loudly as they are hollering `organic'?
Perhaps it's because `genetic' isn't the politically correct buzzword!

In summary, I'd like to say that many of the people who have been posting
on this newsgroup and sending email seem to feel that the organic movement
is the ONLY valid approach to sustainable agriculture. It seems to me
that organic may indeed be a part of the solution, but it needs to be 
implemented with care, because it just isn't the cure-all that people on
this newsgroup would have us to believe. In fact, it's only a very small
part of the solution... in comparison to the social and economic barriers
that have to be overcome in order to achieve that noble goal.

In fact, it's the fanatical attitudes of the organic proponents that is
part of the problem when it comes to addressing the other aspects of
sustainable agriculture. Public education on this topic must be allowed to
present all sides of the problem... not just one relatively insignificant
aspect of it! Well-meaning but misguided people who assume that anyone
whose opinion differs from theirs is obviously either misinformed or a 
NAZI are specifically part of the social barrier that I refer to above.

to assume that anyone who advocates the use of chemicals (regardless of how
pressing the need) is nuts is itself nuts. 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture