HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Cassava (was Re: malthus)
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 03:42:53 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov7.215015.20949@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu writes:

 > Agreed. But I think there is a wide gulf between "adequately nourished"
 > and starvation. The human organism can take abuse for a very long time
 > without final death (best examples are badly nourished drug addicts).
 > But getting enough of all types of nutrients is most likely important
 > to able use of higher functions like rational thought. That there has
 > been no serious study of this (at least not in the open) is probably
 > more political than scientific. The population issue has been anathema
 > in the third world for a *long* time, and that it was not discussed at
 > the Rio meetings (not even denigrated!) shows that this is still
 > important.

Perhaps population is simply not regarded an issue; merely being
symptomatic of other issues the "Third World" want discussed which
may be well considerably embarrass the "First World", who in their
attempts at obfuscation want to play mind games about the economic
reality faced by "over-populated" nations.

The silence on the matter is revealing indeed, while here we actually
find recommendation that the "Third World" subsist on cassava in the
meantime . . .

--
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: snider@mpr.ca (Duane Snider)
Subject: BRIX readings
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 04:06:55 GMT

My brother is heavily into sustainable agriculture in Alberta.

He was looking for information on optimal plant sugar levels, 
specifically in cereal crops.

Apparently these are called BRIX readings.  

Any ideas?

Duane Snider
snider@mpr.ca

Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: wsr@gtech.com (Bill Rubin)
Subject: Re: Cassava (was Re: malthus)
Keywords: Teff, basic foods, agriculture
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich RI
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:53:43 GMT


Does anyone know where I can get information on how to grow and cultivate 
the gain 'teff'.  What kind of soil, climate, etc. is need to grow teff.  
It is a vital source of food in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. 
It is full of protein and vitamins.


Please E-mail your response.

Thanks,

-Bill Rubin

wsr@soft.gtech.com



-- 
Aleksey Y. Romanov

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are entirely my own and do not
necessary reflect those of my employer or anyone else
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: malthusREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP
From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:11:14 IST
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture

In article <1d7tkvINNhj4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> It is an intriguing question to me....what communities could
> one vote for as the most ==sustainable== in terms of a number
> of factors, today?
> Various examples come to mind: the kibbutz in Israel, certain
> small but enduring communities or =communes= here in U.S.
[ ... ]
> I would probably vote for the kibbutz in spite of the
> terrible conflicts over there, the idea has endured very
> well through decades and has been able to accomodate the
> casual or temporary worker visitor with greater ease than
> any other such community I can think of.
>
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.
   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.
   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.

--
                                 '      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
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:55:41 IST
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture

In article <1dfjbrINNdop@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
> Mr. Kilen states that there is no difference between organic
> and factory produced, similar products, such as nitrogen,
> potash, etc.  There is a difference in efficiency, having an
> entire factory to produce what a herd of cows, etc. could do
> nicely instead.
Cows DON'T produce manure urea nicely - they produce large amounts of
methane (a significant greenhouse gas) and the sewage effluent needs
special treatment.

> But beyond this issue, the much more urgent was has to do with
> the chemicals used as pesticides and other special additives
> such as hormones, antibiotics, etc.  I am not concerned about
          ********  ***********  (two NATURAL, ORGANIC products)
> the N P K business at this point when there is so much else to
> be concerned about.
>
> Mr. Kilen states:
>
> "Agrochemicals are not inherently dangerous to humans."
                         **********

> This is a simple statement, easy to comprehend and all inclusive.
> Pesticides are agrochemicals.
> Many pesticides have been banned over the last few decades by
> agencies of the US government, being deemed a serious cancer or
> other health risk.
Read a bit more carefully.  Mr Kilen didn't say NEVER dangerous and
didn't propose abolition of the certification for agrochemicals.

What makes Mike Romano think that "natural" chemicals are inherently safe?
Some justification is needed here.  There's nothing safe about natural
agent like the smallpox virus or HIV, bacterial toxins etc. etc. etc.

[ ... more on agrochemicals etc.]
--
                                 '      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: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:49:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.155844.2610@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>
>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.

Agricultural chemical producers, like many of the other so-called
`agribusinesses', exist solely for economic gain, not an altruistic desire to
improve yields or farmer profits.  Many of the rank-and-file salesman are
indeed sincere in their desire to help farmers.  The management and
stockholders, on the other hand, gain financially from their efforts, and I
suggest that most, if not ALL of their motivation for promoting petrochemical
fertilizers and pesticides is to bolster their incomes.

-- 
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Cassava (was Re: malthus)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 06:10:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.011546.13112@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:

>>A diet of just cassava is inadequate for survival.
>
> Eben. If the millions who depend on it for food had enough food in an
> actual sense, then they would not depend on cassava as a staple. Since
> they plainly do, then it follows that there exist people who have
> populated their region to a greater extent than is reasonably
> sustainable, even by the most primary of standards.

Or, they augment the cassava -- which is fine as a source of *calories*
-- with some other foodstuffs to supply amino acids.  After all,
if their diet was inadequate for survival, they couldn't exist,
let alone populate their region to a great extent.  If cassava
yields can be increased, subsistence farmers can devote more
of their land and labor to growing these other crops.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: london@calypso.uucp (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:01:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <1992Nov9.022357.2320@mcs.kent.edu> flynn@Condor.mcs.kent.edu (Mark Flynn) writes:
>I suggest that Mr. Kilen create a new newsgroup for his posting. Perhaps
>alt.status.quo.agriculture, or alt.nonsustainable.agriculture? 

I'm sure he'd encourage an especially large following if, instead, he named
it:
alt.sustainable.agriculture.redefined-for-maximum-profit-through-
chemical-use-while-hoodwinking-the-consumers
From: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:11:56 GMT
Reply-To: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us


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.  Most lenders, it is alleged,
require a written, fixed schedule of fertilizer and pesticide
applications before they will even consider funding a seed loan.
Since almost all crops are planted in the US on borrowed seed,
this policy would erect a strong disincentive for farmers to
attempt integrated pest management or even an interactive approach
to fertilizer dosing.  

It is further alleged that many agricultural lenders are controlled
by petrochemical vendors through ownership, interlocking
directorships, or large deposits, and these lenders require specific
brand name chemicals be scheduled in advance of seed funding.

I'd like to hear from anyone who has studied or experienced this
alleged phenomenon.  Literature citations welcome.  I'll summarize
to the net if there's interest.

Cameron, in Santa Clara, Ca., which has paved its world-famous orchards.

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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:57:42 GMT

In article <1392@bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM>, camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer) 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.  Most lenders, it is alleged,
>require a written, fixed schedule of fertilizer and pesticide
>applications before they will even consider funding a seed loan.

There is another way this situation can be viewed: Bankers just MIGHT be 
interested in knowing whether a given farmer is following accepted practise
in order to obtain as good a yield as possible. Accepted practise in this
case includes the TESTING of soil (for pH and nutrient content) and the
TESTING of tissue to determine pest contamination... the fact that a farmer's
soil has been tested (regardless of the outcome of the tests) would usually
satisfy a banker. For example, if a soil test indicated that a given field
scored in a normal nutrient range for the intended crop, the recommendation
would not be for more fertilizer. The banker's interest is simply to ensure
that the tests are being done. Many banks in rural areas employ loans officers
whose background is specifically in agricultural economics... in other words,
they understand the foregoing. In the eyes of such a loans officer, a farmer
who was applying fertilizer or other agrichemicals which are not needed is
wasting money, and conversely, if a farmer is not using agrichemicals where
they ARE needed isn't going to get an economically viable yield.

I cannot speak for the whole world on this subject, but that certainly is
how things are in Nova Scotia, Canada.

>
>It is further alleged that many agricultural lenders are controlled
>by petrochemical vendors through ownership, interlocking
>directorships, or large deposits, and these lenders require specific
>brand name chemicals be scheduled in advance of seed funding.

In Canada we have legislation in place which makes this kind of thing illegal.


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Cassava (was Re: malthus)
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:50:15 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:

>>>A diet of just cassava is inadequate for survival.

>> If the millions who depend on it [cassava] for food had enough food in
>> an actual sense, then they would not depend on cassava as a staple.

>Or, they augment the cassava -- which is fine as a source of *calories*
>-- with some other foodstuffs to supply amino acids.  After all,
>if their diet was inadequate for survival, they couldn't exist,
>let alone populate their region to a great extent.  If cassava
>yields can be increased, subsistence farmers can devote more
>of their land and labor to growing these other crops.

Agreed. But I think there is a wide gulf between "adequately nourished"
and starvation. The human organism can take abuse for a very long time
without final death (best examples are badly nourished drug addicts).
But getting enough of all types of nutrients is most likely important
to able use of higher functions like rational thought. That there has
been no serious study of this (at least not in the open) is probably
more political than scientific. The population issue has been anathema
in the third world for a *long* time, and that it was not discussed at
the Rio meetings (not even denigrated!) shows that this is still
important.

Gruss,                                  The deadliest bullshit is
Bruce D. Scott                           odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik

--
   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
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Sustainable Development (from BIOSPH-L listserver)
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 04:02:05 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov8.002225.26884@samba.oit.unc.edu> london@calypso.uucp writes:

 > A moral imperative, which is the basis for much of the current
 > environmental ethic, is a monolith, and a transformative vision
 > has multiple dimensions in terms of peoples' states of mind.  The
 > two major variables in the sustainable growth matrix are
 > satisfying basic human needs for food, shelter, health, etc., and
 > satisfying human needs for self-expression and meaning.
 > Economists argue that environment and development are part of a
 > zero sum game.  Gain for one results in loss for the other.  This
 > is just another monolith built on the foundation of the rational
 > businessmans' technocracy.

This is not a merely *moral* imperative, it has a very considerable
practical application within appropriate management strategies toward
achieving anything at all resembling "sustainability".

The long regarded passe work of Abe Maslow in establishing priorities,
expressed as a Hierarchy of Needs, provides a cogent link in the matrix:

        5. Self-actualisation
        4. Esteem needs
        3. Love and belongingness needs
        2. Safety needs
        1. Physiological needs

It is extremely doubtful that a strategy toward education will have
any effect whatever on starving, dispossessed people constantly under
military threat, who nobody cares about. All they will do is keep on
breeding, as the only mechanism for survival left available . . .

--
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: psmith@alfred.carleton.ca (Peter Smith)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:01:40 GMT

In <1992Nov10.171321.5593@emr1.emr.ca> woodgold@emr1.emr.ca (Cathy Woodgold) writes:

>>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).

Also, in my area, some restaurants have volunteered to give their
vegetable leftovers/trimmings to local organic farmers.
Restauranteurs are business people, and some of them see even
short-term advantages in supporting organic growers.

>rest deleted

Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: A Model Program: UC Santa Cruz
Date: 10 Nov 1992 04:18:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  I believe the agroecology program at UC Santa Cruz, though
I have not seen it first hand, is one of the best in terms of
hands on experience:
Each year 30 students from a wide range of backgrounds, take
part in the program.  Apprentices make a full time commitment
to the course, giving up jobs and other activities to spend six
months at the Farm and Garden.
From April to October, they work with program staff, learning
the art of organic horticulture, cultivating fruits, vegetables,
herbs and flowers without synthetic chemical fertilizers or
pesticides.  There are classroom lectures as well, but he
the heart of the course is practical in nature. 
Started in the 60's with English master gardener Alan Chadwick
who laid out a program combining aspects of French Intensive
and Biodynamic methods.
The Student Farm today covers 25 acres at the base of the
campus.  The apprenticeship program was formalized in 1974
as a UC Extension course.
The UC Santa Cruz definition of sustainable agriculture:

A sustainable agriculture is one which recognizes the whole-
systems nature of food, feed and fiber production in equitably
balancing the concerns of environmental soundness, social
justice, and economic viability among all sectors of the 
public, including international and intergenerational
peoples.

-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: slgmj@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Query: Information sources?
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:02:35 MDT
Organization: Utah State University


 My name is Rick Mowery and I am an undergrad at Utah State University. I am 
deeply interested in sustainable agriculture practices, but do not have any
more agricultural background than comes from living in Omaha, NE for 10 years.

	My question to the assemblage here is this:

		Where can I find more information on alternative agriculture
		  practices that is unbiased (as much as humanly possible) and
		  in a form I can understand (with basic biology and chemistry
 		  backgrounds) ?

	Any suggestions are sincerely welcomed.


						- Thanks in advance
						- Rick Mowery
						  slgmj@cc.usu.edu