HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Returning nutrients to the soil
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 04:39:30 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov12.191130.25982@samba.oit.unc.edu> london@sunSITE.unc.edu writes:

 > I think what she said was that various rocks should be pulverized, blended
 > and applied as such directly to farm soil as slow-release long-lasting
 > soil amendment. 
 > The common grades of commercial factory-systhesized chemical fertilizer,
 > the kinds that are most often used by non-organic farmers, have no trace
 > minerals or raw rock powders in their formulations, much less manure,
 > fish, seaweed, bone meal, bean meal, tankage, feather meal, etc.

The problem we have here in Australia arises from the fact that our
continent is geographically so ancient with so much of the traces long
ago having been leached away, and so little of these wonderful rich
organic formulations available anyway, the above techniques are not
even usefully described. I expect that situation applies to most of
the world, in fact.

We depend on chemical additives to produce anything at all, but the
very person I am wanting to discuss the matter with is subject to the
most egregious slur campaign I am wholly unable to lend its promotors
any sort of credibility whatsoever. Does anyone here understand that
yet?

 > Seriously, have you never seen a well-run organic farm? You should
 > visit a few to see first-hand problems, solutions, successes,
 > failures, trial and error, experimentation, innovation encountered in 
 > day-to-day operation.

I trust this world forum well not become overwhelmed with what works
even at an experimental stage for some parts of Europe or North America.
We have quite *different* problems here, and I am concerned myself to
hear what others have to say about them, if some of you more ardent
panic merchants will just back off a little.

It would be quite dangerous if anyone were to presume that what they
think they know is *right* while someone else is *wrong*, especially
when there are no clear solutions to global food production at all in
sight anywhere.

BTW, to the fruitcakes who e-mail me with political scandal mongering
about someone or other, I suggest you just get off it, eh?

--
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 * *
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Greenhouse Wastewater System
Date: 23 Nov 1992 04:44:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Greenhouse Wastewater System Operating Since 1990

Creater of Garfield comic strip Jim Davis hired John Todd of
New Alchemy Institute to build this system especially for
Davis'  Garfield cartoon products company plant called
Paws, located near Muncie Indiana but having no public
sewers to connect to.
The system purifies sewage water at the rate of 1,575 gallons
per day.  This treated water is used to grow horticultural
plants commercially within the same greenhouse system.

A variety of  fauna and flora are used to process the waste
water.  The holding tanking pumping system forms a uniform
mixture of human waste, grey water, and some kitchen waste
from the dishwasher.  No toxic chemicals are allowed in the
plant system.
The first stage pumps this waste water into two 700 gallon
clear fiberglass solar tanks which  allow solar exposure
which in turn activate biological growth.  Two types of
bacteria are introduced: a grease eating bacterium and a
nitrifying bacterium which then reproduce indefinitely.
The nitrifying bacterium converts the ammonia and algae
eat the converted nitrates, as well as the water hyacinths.
The snails eat the algae.  Hyacinths need to be harvested
often and are converted to compost.  The rest of the system
is self regulating.
Aeration is required at all stages and is accomplished by
pumping air through plastic irrigation pipes placed at the
bottom of the tanks.  Cleaned water is transferred to the
second set of tanks where snails, algae and bluegills con-
tinue to process the waste water.  After a third stage of
tanks with similar ecosystem, the waste water is pumped to
a lagoon  4 feet wide, 20 feet long, and 2.5 feet deep.
There are sodium vapor lights above the lagoon to assist
with lighting and heat.
The lagoon supports:  arrowhead, duckweed, black willow tree
seedlings, water hyacinths.  The lagoon is also stocked
with Japanese koi, tropical sucker fish (Placastema),
mosquito fish  (Gambusia), and bluegills.
From the lagoon the water is pumped to an artificial wet-
land marsh built up from  2.5 feet of 2 inch stones,
overlaid with  6 inches of pea gravel, with a thin layer
of water covering.  This marsh area is for experimental
trials of ornamental plants to be sold commercially and
includes: elephant ear, reed  canary grass, bulrushes,
papyrus, wild aster, monkey flowers, variegated orchard
grass, Japanese blood grass, wild iris, calladium, smart-
weed, and angel trumpets.  
It takes 5 days for water to travel through the system
and it is released well within purity standards; no
chemicals  are  added to the system at any point.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 04:08:49 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1e7vm4INNt8n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

 >    Yes Mr. Hardwick, I do have one "childish" idea:

        [verbiage deleted as read]

Where on earth in any of the above is our disagreement? Or is it just
that someone *outside* the US making exactly the same comments about
its foreign policies you have made here as an *insider* has got up
your nose?

Sorry, Mikey, I do not care one iota for the hysterical guilt trip
inherent in your discourse, presupposing non-existent conspiracies to
thwart your noble enterprise, and enemies around every street corner,
causing you to lash out in blind panic at the reasonable contributions
of other members of this forum.

Why don't you just get off it?

Partake of a little less caffeine (or amphetamines or whatever else
you are on) and calm down somewhat, perhaps?

--
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,alt.co-evolution
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: New Alchemy Institute
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:44:41 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <luden.69.722530757@lehigh.edu> luden@lehigh.edu 
(Dean E. Nelson) writes:
>In article <slnq8+h@lynx.unm.edu> jdaves@triton.unm.edu 
(Jonathan Daves-Brody) writes:
>>From: jdaves@triton.unm.edu (Jonathan Daves-Brody)
>>Subject: New Alchemy Institute
>>Date: 20 Nov 92 17:07:49 GMT
>
>>Hello.  Does anybody know anything about the New Alchemy Institute?  I've
>>seen a couple of interesting books about low-tech fish farming, windmills
>>, etc.  The most recent publication dates I've seen have been about 1980.
>>Does anybody know anything else, or had any experience with this place?
>
>>Thanks, yours, Jonathan Daves-Brody
>
>I have been looking into 'low-tech fish farming' and have just finished 
>reading a book by Bill McClarney who gathered a lot of his experience at the 
>New Alchemy Institute.  I recently posted to another discussion group on 
>aquaculture and a reply mentioned a course using McClarney's book at Ocean 
>Arks International in Falmouth, MA.
>
>It struck me that this might be associated with the New Alchemy Institute.
>
>Dean Nelson  den0@lehigh.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: why
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:39:23 GMT

>   In the first place, I see government as the agency responsible for setting
>   the agenda for all of society, including agriculture. 
>
>If government could be trusted to do a good job at this, I wouldnt mind.
>But the US government, for one, hasnt shown that it is trustworthy.

And you just had an election...

>
>You, Don, through your lack of good judgement in how you post, through
>your uncalled for, insulting remarks to various people, and through
>your obviously fallacious arguments have lost my trust in just about
>anything you might say.

That's too bad. I suspect there might be other individuals in this group
who share my fate... and if there are none, then I suspect YOUR judgement.




//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: Michael.Lowry@launchpad.unc.edu (Michael Lowry)
Subject: Land Application of Waste Water Sludge
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:24:07 GMT

Organic matter is a vital component of healthy, fertile soil, improving 
soil structure, aeration, water flow, capacity to store and provide 
nutrients, microbiology, etc.  Many recommend application of manure, compost,
mulch, etc. to supply organic matter to the soil.  

One proposed, readily available alternative is the application of sewage
sludge, a byproduct of standard waste water treatment.  This sludge
primarily contains biological material in the`form of bacteria and
extracellular polymers which hold the cells together in globs.

Potential problems include nitrate pollution of ground and surface water 
and oversaturation of the soil with heavy metals--chromium, lead, etc.
It is my understanding that soils accumulate all heavy metals applied,
which can lead to plant toxicity.  

Thus, land application of sewage sludge can provide much needed soil
organic matter, which certainly would be a component of a sustainable
agricultural system. However, the costs include the accumulation
of heavy metals, which does not seem to be regenerative at all. 

I have no academic background in agriculture or soil science, but I have
read generally to satisfy my curiosity.  I would be interested to hear
others' comments on this matter.  

Michael Lowry
University of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
30MLOWRY@uncsphvx.BITNET

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchas
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:56:19 GMT

>
>None of us organic folks have been bogging down the discussion.

that's true... there is no discussion... your contribution to this newsgroup
is essentially limited to a vote for `organic is the way to go'.... other
than that, you've said nothing constructive. The term `discussion' implies a
bilateral flow of information... 

>
>
>It's pretty obvious at this point that you, Christie and Kilen are phonies
>and are posting your drivel here in an attempt to disrupt this conference.
>In future I will neither read or archive any of your posts. When I learn
>how to create a kill file I'll purge your posts in a more efficient manner.
>
>Why don't you start your own newsgroup, i.e. alt.agriculture, where
>you might feel more comfortable?
>

you know, sometimes it's better to be THOUGHT a fool than to open your mouth
and PROVE it! 


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Nicholas J. Kilen 1621537)
Subject: Re:the cost of organic farming
Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:49:06 GMT

(sigh)
In regard to my previous article about the true cost of organic farming,
I was just presenting one basis for comparison(and really the only one I
am really aware of).  In addition, to keep farmers from using chemicals
would require a giant bureaucracy and policing force that would probably
rival the communist structures of Russia and China.

					Nicholas Kilen
					kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu


Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:44:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.042338.29982@samba.oit.unc.edu>, london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.020414.17836@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
>>that can be used as evidence agsinst them... so there isn't any PROOF... but
>>like I said, why do we need to prove the obvious? 

>The NAZIS weren't much interested in proof, same as you.

the NAZIS weren't much interested in agriculture either, same as you.

>
>>You haven't even proven to me yet 
>>that we can't trust the academic and technical people who currently lead the
>>agricultureal industry

>I suppose you have some idea as to who they might be?

as a matter of fact, yes. Just because you don't doesn't mean they don't exist.

>It's for sure we can trust those leaders who are supportive of natural &
>sustainable farming systems, ones that use low-input regenerative methods.

Why? just because they espouse production methods that you approve of? I guess
it doesn't matter that our already fragile food production system probably
would collapse form the financial hardship your methods would impose if 
implemented in a rash way... YOU wouldn't be the one to go hungry, now would
you? As I've said, we have to come to grips with the fact that current 
production methods must continue until we find better ways. I admit, organic
is one of those ways, but it doesn't even come close to meeting the 
requirement of a hungry world. For your information, organic production
methods are just ONE of a host of disciplines that are and have been worked
on for at least ten years. Integrated Crop Management techniques pull together
the sciences of biology, mathematics and agriculture. Plant and animal
breeding produces species which are resistant to pests and diseases in a non
polluting way... Scouts and pest monitoring personnel are in place in some
places to give farmers accurate information on pest population levels...

all of these things, when used, reduce our dependency on chemicals. How come
none of you out there have mentioned them? Perhaps it's because you didn't
know about them... and that, Mr. London, could be construed as reason 
enough to pass your flame right back at you.... you aren't informed enough
to be able to contribute any insight besides `I love organic' 


>
>It's chemical ag people like you, who rely on delivering misinformation
>to the public for survival, who build distrust. 

what misinformation? Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't make
me necessarily WRONG... and conversely, my being WRONG (which falls everyone's
lot from time to time) doesn't necessarily make you RIGHT.

I'm here for the duration... 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:28:53 GMT

>
>If current agriculture is not "sustainable", it's not because we're
>running out of energy.  If anything, there's too much fossil fuel
>around.

as it runs out, it will become more and more expensive... and only then will
people get off their hands and find better ways of running the show. 

//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: Returning nutrients to the soil
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 07:28:56 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov16.133132.29858@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV writes:

 > 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.

It must be added that in a naturally occuring ecosystem "exotic" toxins
or foreign trace elements as probably occur only metres away as thousands
of miles. For that matter, many trees will actually drip toxins onto the
understory to kill it in competing for the local soil nutrients.

It is not a problem how plant nutrients are packaged; it is far more
important to know *what* is being fed plants in the particular micro-
climate to which they are best suited, regardless of the source of the
material. For that matter, it pays to retain access to expert advice
and opinion before doing anything at all, instead of running around
blindly insisting that people should do this or that on ideological
grounds.

You might well ask, "How does your garden grow?", before listening to
what anyone has to say in any event . . .

--
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: oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Subject: Re: The cost of organic farming
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:15:48 GMT

In article <Bxxo0J.Dto@cda.mrs.umn.edu> kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Nicholas J. Kilen 1621537) writes:
>now the percentage spent by Americans and Canadians of their income on
>food hovers between 12.1-14.5%. Compare that to that spent on food by
>those members of the former Soviet Union and China who have very few,
>if any, chemicals on their agricultural products. They spend between
>60-70% (possibly more in the new Soviet Union, the figures are a year
>old) on food.

Why not be bold and compare us to Somalia or Liberia and show that 100% of
their income goes on the non-chemical'd foods.  

The incomes in the socialist economies of the former SU and China do
not correspond in any logical way to the productivity or labour of the
people.  The housing expenses in those countries are well under 10% of
the people's income (as opposed to 30% or more in US) and they pay
practically no taxes (as opposed to a total of some 45% for the middle
class in US). 

You are blithely ignoring these factors in your comparisons, but they make
your example misleading and irrelevant.
-- 
Oleg Kiselev at home			...use the header to find the path
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Real-world solutions
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 08:01:37 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov15.172626.14620@cal.isac.ca> jameson@cal.isac.ca writes:

 > What is the Lysenkoist solution?

Lysenko was the fruitcake responsible for murdering all the Russian
Mendelian geneticists and employing Lamarkists in their place, so
that within one generation chronic hunger became the normal condition
in the cities because the entire Soviet system of food production had
collapsed. Where Tsarist Russia had been one of the great suppliers
of grain to world markets, now their people are still today forced to
queue for hours to buy even a single loaf of bread at inflated prices.

Well, the kulaks (ie, the successful farmers comprising the agrarian
"middle classes") were all murdered too when they refused to heed
the Party activists, which did contribute to the problem somewhat.

Reagan and Bush did not defeat the Societ Union, their own stupidity
did. China found itself in similar hot water following Mao Zedong's
Great Leap Forward, which in its turn spawned the excesses of the
Cultural Revolution before they finally woke up a little.

The lessons of recent history merely there to be learned, as you
wish . . .

--
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: joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark)
Subject: Re: why
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.124636.20873@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>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

Surely Mr Christie and Mr Hardwick are commercial farmers.  They have so
much information at their disposal.

While I do own 21 acres of farmland, half currently in Filberts, I have
been unable to fully support my family with this endeavor.

I have been reading this group in hopes of some valuable information on how
to utilize the rest of my land to produce a greater (and more valuable)
harvest in hopes of achieving a sustainable farm business.  

My bias is not toward solving the "world food supply" problem in one fell swoop.
I just want to deal with my small corner of it. 

joel clark