HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: woodgold@emr1.emr.ca (Cathy Woodgold)
Subject: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:13:21 GMT

>In article <BxBCFJ.Fpn@cda.mrs.umn.edu> kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Nicholas J. Kilen 1621537) writes:
>>2. An organic farm can never become a net exporter of masss produce
>>without running down soil fertility.  The only way I know of that
>>organic farms can keep there farms fertile is to get phosphate and
>>potash by importing feeds produced by fertilisers.

It makes sense that a farm that keeps exporting organic material
might have to import something to replace various substances that are
lost.  One idea which has been successfully implemented is to have
municipal garbage collection which separates out the organic waste
somehow and composts it into organic fertilizer, which is then sold
to farmers.  (Described in the book Open Door to Health, available
through the La Leche League).  In order to recover all the organic
material, it would be necessary to recover human waste also.
It would have to be composted and/or treated somehow to make sure
diseases weren't propagated.  I guess it would make excellent 
fertilizer.  As it is now, when we flush the toilet, I suppose
the waste flows to the oceans and is lost to agriculture.
Chemical fertilizers replace a few specific minerals, but there
are many minerals necessary to human health (and which may or may
not be useful to the health of the crops, too) and people don't
usually fertilize their soil carefully with all of them.  Recovering
human waste as fertilizer would save those nutrients.  Another way
to do it would be to list ALL the minerals needed for plant
and human health, decide on reasonable proportions of them to 
use, and grind up and mix together rocks containing those minerals,
and use that as fertilizer.

In that same book, Open Door to Health (which is mainly about
nutrition and dental health) it mentions studies in which
plants were grown on very good soil and on not-so-good soil,
and the ones on very good soil had no parasites, while the
others had parasites.  The implication is that if the crops are
fed properly, pesticides are not needed (or are needed less),
just as if a human is fed properly, disease is unlikely to
develop and drugs are less likely to be needed.

Cathy  woodgold@seismo.emr.ca  Ottawa, Canada  My opinions only
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:01:11 IST
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture

In article <1doeasINNtt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
>    I happen to believe that cows ==do== produce fertilizer
>  quite nicely, thank you.  (and thank you, Betsy).
>
>  As for Mr. Marder's contention that hormones and
>  antibiotics are "natural, organic products",
>  I apologize for not diagramming a complete
>  flow chart of all known chemical materials,
>  before discussing agricultural methods.
>  Hormones and antibiotics....well that does seem
>  to be stretching the concept of "natural" a bit.
Actually, any form of agriculture is a stretching of the concept of
natural.  "Natural" for most of Europe means deciduous forests, not wheat,
potatoes or any other cultivated crop.   The modern cow is as man-made as the
machine that milks her!  Agriculture is about diverting the normal course
of nature to serve the purposes of humankind.  I personally believe that the
best way to do this is by clever manipulation to "outsmart" nature, rather
than by head-on confrontation.  Humankind has a tendency to adopt the
latter approach, as reflected in "modern" agricultural practice. But is is
stupid to claim that "organic" farming has all the answers.

>  I guess all those medical studies pointing to
>  harmful effects on humans from these occurring
>  in food should be revised.
>
>  As for delving the deep and true meaning of
>  "agrochemicals are not inherently dangerous"
>  as originally stated by Mr. Kilen, well I see
>  what Mr. Marder is getting at:  agrochemicals
>  certainly are not dangerous if left lying there
>  in their drums quietly minding their own business.
I have no argument with your concern about the use of harmful chemicals.  This
should always be tightly regulated.  But you can't assume that anything
made in a factory is bad.

>  However, when I apply for work on one of those
>  models of community, the kibbutz, (and I am
>  serious about this), I request plenty of cows,
>  and absolutely no hormones, antibiotics,
>  and supplemental viruses, thank you.
I truly wish you the best of luck with this.  You can report back
first-hand about the conflicts between your present sentiments and
the practices you might have to follow.
>
>  Shalom.
From me too . . .
--
                                 '      Jonathan B. Marder
Internet: MARDER@AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL |      Department of Agricultural Botany
Bitnet:   MARDER@HUJIAGRI        | /\/  The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Phone:    (08 or +9728) 481918   |/  \  Faculty of Agriculture
Fax:      (08 or +9728) 467763   /      P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:54:34 GMT

In article <1396@bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM>, camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer 764-6339) writes:
>In article 26442@nstn.ns.ca, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>>
>>Anybody can redefine the word and print `ORGANICALLY PRODUCED' on packaging
>>if he/she thinks someone will buy it. Many do already.
>>
> 
>In California there is a certification program.  It's illegal to label
>produce "organic" that's not.  The certification criteria are simple and
>well understood, and were developed by a coalition of growers and consumers,
>not by the government.

California may be a big place, but it isn't the whole world! Legislation which
actually defines the term `organic' certainly is a step forward, but it's
very difficult to control the use of the term outside the jurisdiction it
serves. For example, if someone in Timbuktoo decides to label produce as
`organically grown'... (this assumes there is no such legislation in place in
Timbuktoo) then they can send produce here to Nova Scotia so marked, regardless
of how the food was ACTUALLY produced. Any producer who wants to cash in on
the growing trend to purchasing `organically produced' foodstuffs can do so
by simply affixing one of these little stickers to the package. Since such
regulations are not universal, it is a relatively simple matter to skirt
the law and market the produce. And where there are dollars to be made, there
certainly will be people ready to do so!



//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: malthusREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 08:36:12 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov5.091114.1@agri.huji.ac.il> marder@agri.huji.ac.il writes:

 > Sorry to disillusion you, but much as I like the idea of the kibbutz, I
 > think that in practice it is not significantly more sustainable than other
 > societies.  I don't want to discuss the social aspects because these are
 > outside the context of this list.  However, as regards agriculture, the
 > kibbutz acts much as any large-scale agricultural concern.  The goal is
 > short term profit for the collective.

Agreed. I think we are getting onto something here; ie, the integrity
of localised communities with respect to their own environment. It has
something to do with those who make the decisions being the ones who
bear the consequences, not somebody else far away. Moreover, I do find
a problem with any definition of "sustainability" which arises from
any idea that it is not something that has to be worked hard at. Any
neglected system is bound to collapse sooner or later.

 >    The main advantage of the kibbutz is that generally the economic and
 > social aspects are highly intertwined.  This means that the decision making
 > for the productive side takes account of social factors e.g. work hours,
 > seasonal labour inputs, aesthetics etc.  These factors can rule out an
 > otherwise profitable venture (a company might consider it worthwhile just
 > to pay higher salaries to get some sucker to work under awful conditions).
 > However, even the kibbutzim end up using contractors for certain jobs - and
 > the contractors are then free to exploit their own workers.

Again, I think, at least restoring some balance to the proportion of
exploiters to exploited within a localised community, which is a
different order of business to the mass exploitation of an anonymous
population (even referred to as "the masses") peculiar to industrial
society and to whom someone else is always responsible for the state
of things.

 >    With all that said,  I should repeat that I know (from personal past
 > experience) of the many positive aspects of kibbutz life and I would be
 > disappointed if this NEW form of community (i.e. age < 100 years, most less
 > than 50 years) fails to survive.

A question: What is the history of kibbutzim and what thinking lead to
their institution in Israel?

--
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: 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: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:58:44 GMT

>Instead of starting a redundant political movement, why not join
>the worldwide Green movement, which has been working the issue for
>a while from exactly the angle you suggest.  Find your local Green
>Party and go to a meeting.  The local meetings are the heart and
>soul of the Green movement, since that's where *all* the decisions
>are made.  If your local Green Party hasn't formed yet, find your
>regional organizer and volunteer.

The Green movement, like many of the other so-called `environmentalist'
groups like Greenpeace, exist as much for economic gain as they do
for their stated purpose. Many of the rank-and-file membership are indeed
sincere in their desire to better our environment. The organizers, on the
other hand, gain financially from their efforts, and I suggest that much,
if not MOST of their motivation for promoting the movement is to bolster 
their incomes.


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: flynn@Condor.mcs.kent.edu (Mark Flynn)
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Organization: Kent State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:23:57 GMT

I suggest that Mr. Kilen create a new newsgroup for his posting. Perhaps
alt.status.quo.agriculture, or alt.nonsustainable.agriculture? 

Mark Flynn

Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:45:25 GMT

>>That, Cathy, is exactly what is already being done. The list of essential
>>nutrients for plants is well-known, and the formulation for fertilizers is
>>based upon our knowledge of plant nutrition. 
>
>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. 

I know... I can read!

>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.

yer all wet on this one... `factory-synthesized' fertilizer indeed! Where do
you think the source of potash and phosphorus come from? Nitrogen is the
element most commonly associated with a manufactured nutrient... but to
characterize all fertilizers as `factory-synthesized' (and the connotation is
of course that they MUST therefore be harmful) is absurd. It is indeed readily
possible to purchase commercial fertilizer with trace elements included.
What makes the organic movement think that they have any exclusive domain over
knowledge of things like trace elements... or the formulations of 'politically
correct' fertilizers? You talk as if a conventional farmer and/or anybody
who defends his/her practises cannot possibly know what they are doing...
just because their point of view differs from yours!

>
>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.
>
As I've said before, the answer to the question is YES, I've seen organic 
operations... good ones... and they were indeed well-run, innovative and
successful. My point is, however, that organic production practises do not
constitute any `magic' answer to the problems of agriculture. They certainly
are a PART, but organic practises aren't practical in all situations with all
crops. 
>
>

//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: Real-world solutions
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 03:17:08 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov10.224641.17906@cal.isac.ca> jameson@cal.isac.ca writes:

 > How can any agricultural system that's as heavily dependent on fossil
 > fuels  as ours is make any reasonable claim of being sustainable?  Our
 > food supply system would instantly collapse without the fossil fuels to
 > run the tractors, to generate the fertilizer, and to  transport the
 > food around the country.

I have heard no claim from anywhere in the world that the mechanised
monocultural production to which you apparently refer is in any way at
all sustainable.

What to do about the situation without bring a collapse of the present
system of mass production, leading to mass hunger in the cities and an
acute political instability, is what we are concerned about here, isn't
it?

It does remain a problem indeed to somehow or other maintain the level
of energy and nutrient input to the system sufficient to produce so much
food for so many people, when solar energy and background nutrients are
vastly inadequate to the job.

Do you have any ideas? Fortunately, the USSR has already tested the
Lysenkoist solution so that is one less you won't have to think about.

--
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: rjsalvad@iastate.edu (Ricardo J Salvador)
Subject: Re: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:43:04 GMT

In article <1392@bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us writes:
>
>Two experienced, professional farmers and a number of
>environmentalists have alleged to me that the agricultural banking
>system favors overuse of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.
>
>The alleged mechanism is in the formulae used to determine
>creditworthiness for seed money.
 [...]
>I'd like to hear from anyone who has studied or experienced this
>alleged phenomenon.  Literature citations welcome.

Cameron,

A group of us tested just such a "theory" using data from Mexico
(Macias, A., R. Salvador, B. Ramirez, F. Martinez & P. Martinez. 1988.
How the Commercial Banking System Distributes Agricultural Credit in
Mexico: 1978-1984.  Abstracts of the 8th Annual Farming Systems Research
/Extension Symposium. Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Oct. 9-12, 1988).

We found that over the period of study the number of beneficiaries of
the commercial banking system increased six-fold, but the bulk of the credit
was going to farmers whom we defined as "commercial" (capitalist, using
irrigation, mechanization, chemical inputs who were export-oriented) when
compared to "semi-commercial," "small-scale" and "peasant" farmers.
This asymmetrical distribution of credit disbursal was not
explainable on the basis of land area cultivated by each farming sector,
nor on the gross agricultural product of each of these farming groups,
nor on the basis of parsimonious distribution per capita. We found the
major criterion (using data from the Bank of Mexico) seemed to be the
risk assumed by the lending institution.  Therefore, while a banker would
not state as you have above that he "favored overuse of chemicals and
fertilizers," he would state that farmers using such inputs would be
more likely to overcome climatic and management adversities and therefore
resulted in a safer investment.  Though this mechanism does not support
the "conspiracy" theory you allude to above, the effects may in fact be
indistinguishable.

-Ricardo
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: government organic food purchase
Date: 10 Nov 1992 04:38:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Mr. Campbell gave me permission to post this which was originally
on alt.activism   (from    acampbell@peg.pegasus.oz.au  )

GREEN ISSUE?

Food certified as organic is produced without any artificial
fertilisers, herbicides, or pesticides and processed in an
appropriate way is moving slowly but surely from being the concern
of a minority to the mainstream.
encourages sustainable use of resources.
A shift by Australia to an all organic agriculture would possibly
have the following effects.

1. A massive reduction in asthma, skin disease, immune deficiency
problems etc.
2. A reduction in blue algae pollution.
3. Elimination of the foreign currency spent on imports of various
chemicals and fertilisers.
4. Either elimination of imports of food or a change by foreign
farmers to organic production.
5. A massive increase in the acceptability of Australian exports of
food particularly to Europe.
6. A massive rise in local employment.

i.e. healthier people, a healthier environment and wealthier to
boot. (  it might even be wise as well  )

It seems to me that if all levels of government in this country
were to take the lead and insist that where at all practical they
would buy organic only that the present trend to organics would
receive a massive boost.

It also seems to me to be not a bad political issue. Local
employment up, imports down, exports up, foreign debt reduced,
and a healthier environment and population.

Of course there would be a large and loud scream from various
powerful interest groups but the claim that it can not be done is
untrue.  There are many successful organic farmers in this country
and overseas and they are represented by articulate organisations.
e.g. Biological Farmers of Australia

Does anyone out there think it is a worthwhile issue to take up
with an aim of achieving this change to the extent of a stated
political intention within say three years?


A. Campbell      acampbell@peg.pegasus.oz.au



(reposted by m. romano)
-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Nicholas J. Kilen 1621537)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:16:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris

With all the recent talk on this subject in this newsgroup I think there
is a need to look at some facts.

1. A lot of the chemicals used in farming are just as organic as the
so-called natural organic materials.  In 1827 Friedrich Wohler proved
that there is no great divide between natural compounds in chemicals.
In reality, there is no difference between urea produced in a factory
and the urine of an organically fed cow.

2. An organic farm can never become a net exporter of masss produce
without running down soil fertility.  The only way I know of that
organic farms can keep there farms fertile is to get phosphate and
potash by importing feeds produced by fertilisers.

3. Organically grown food do not protect against pests and diseases.
Look at history folks.  The Irish were growing potatoes organically
until the great potato famine.  Additionally, I have a hard time
believing insects like grasshoppers and locusts will leave an
organically grown farm untouched.

4. Agrochemicals are not inheirently dangerous to humans.  Chemicals in
food have been used since the 1940's, yet life expectency has only gone
up since then, even though the vast majority of Americans have been
eating chemically grown food.

5. Organic farming is not better for wildlife.  A farmer would get
smaller yields. This would mean that more acres would have to go into
production leaving less land for wildlife.

Amerians send the least amount of their disposable income on food.  Many
civilized countries spend 125-150% of what we do, higher in countries
such as the old U.S.S.R. and China. The organic farming lobby may well
destroy that if they are able to continue spreading facts that are not
subject to scientific examination. I have yet to hear of one case of a
patient whose symptoms come from too much nitrates in his or her water.
I will repeat what I have said in previous articles, American (and
Canadian) farmers are feeding the world as cheaply and as safely as
possibles.  They have to pass tests to be able to aplly chemicals on
crops, and the government is always looking right over a farmer's
shoulder.  Instead of the criticims that a farmer is usually subjected
to, they should be admired for the great job they are doing.
4. Agrochemicals are i
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture