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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:38:41 GMT

>>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...
>
>Who said anything about rashly implementing organic techniques?  Of course,
>*any* technology can be implemented poorly.

In my opinion, simply presenting organic production methods as the ONLY way
we can proceed is RASH
>
>>I admit, organic is one of those ways, but it doesn't even come close to
>>meeting the requirement of a hungry world.
>
>Why not?

they are too slow to be implemented IMMEDIATELY with the objective of 
maintaining a continuous uninterrupted supply of food.. to the whole world,
not just to the US of A!

>
>>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...
>
>I have concerns about genetic engineering, reliance upon hybrids, and the use
>of monocultures, but that's a can of worms of another color.

That just goes to show you what I've been talking about... you have CONCERNS,
but I note you didn't elaborate on the nature of those concerns... or what
they're based upon. There's a vast difference between genetic engineering and
BREEDING disease-resistant cultivars of crops. You haven't even gotten THAT
far... so how valid can your concerns be in relation to hybrids etc?

>
>>all of these things, when used, reduce our dependency on chemicals. How come
>>none of you out there have mentioned them?
>
>Perhaps because they're unproven, unsustainable, or contrary to our beliefs.

well, it wasn't so long ago they were saying those very same things about
organic production methods. The truth is they HAVE been proven, they ARE
sustainable (although not by laymen such as yourself), and they are not at all
contrary to anybody's beliefs that I know of. How, for example, could it be
against anybody's beliefs (or unprove, or unsustainable) to take advantage
of the fact that an insect overwinters in a particular way... by reducing
the initial numbers of the bugs in the spring, the whole growing season will
benefit. Reduction in this case could simply being a matter of debris removal
from the field... (i.e. doesn't of necessity mean chemical removal)... 

bugs, weeds and fungi all have features about their biology which can be used
as advantages when controlling them... many times without the need to resort
to chemicals. In fact, that's the basis for ICM in the first place. 

>How did you reach that conclusion?  Are you *that* sure there's no other reason
>they haven't been mentioned?

yes

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