From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: organic production methods
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:22:25 GMT

Well, it seems to be my week on the hotseat in this newsgroup, so I'll take a
stab at this even though I'm not an expert...

In article <1992Nov16.145038.8548@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>
>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.

I agree that fanaticism is to be avoided, and don't think that chemical
fertilizers and pesticides are evil.  That statement may disqualify as a
spokesman for the organic movement, but that's OK.

>But, what happens when nutrient levels are below those needed by a crop?

Organic amendments are added.

>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?

Certainly not.  Organic farming isn't black magic, and it's not unscientific. 
It just takes a natural, holistic approach rather than a purely traditional
scientific approach.  It recognizes the incompleteness of our understanding of
all of the factors involved in supporting a balanced ecosystem, and attempts to
emulate natural processes as closely as feasible.

>What kind of organic amendment are you going to make,

For a phosphorus deficiency standard organic amendents include bone meal and
pulverized phosphate rock.  Consult any good book for tables of various organic
amendments and their nutritional values.

>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?

The organic amendments tend to have nutrients in a form less accessible to
plants.  Proper soil microbial activity converts the nutrients to their usable
form at a rate acceptable to the plants.  Thus, organic amendments tend to be
"slow release" forms, whereas commercial fertilizers are fast acting.  By
feeding soil microbes, organic amendments help maintain the natural balance of
organisms in the soil, whereas commercial fertilizers bypass them altogether.

>Are you going to apply lime to adjust pH...

Lime is OK, but pulverized limestone is preferred, again, for it's slow release
property.

>or does the fact that lime is actually calcium carbonate preclude its 
>application?

I think lime is a "legal" organic amendment.

>or maybe pH isn't considered to be an important consideration..
>it'll look after itself naturally.??

No, and frankly this assumption that organic methods are ignorant of such
matters is offensive.  If you are really trying to learn, then you
should be more sensitive.  Organic farming doesn't deny the base of scientific
knowledge supporting N-P-K as the major nutrients, the importance of soil pH,
etc., it just takes a different approach to controlling these factors.

>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?

The first step is to stop making them worse.  Gradually phase out the harmful
practices and phase in sustainable replacements.  Seriously polluted fields
might need to lie fallow for a couple years while pesticide residues break
down.  Green manuring should be practiced to restore organic matter to the soil
and the microbes that such matter supports.

>Are we going to conclude that it has been damaged beyond repair and therefore
>abandon it?

Time heals all wounds.

>Or perhaps we could revitalize it somehow organically... 

Yes, hopefully the recovery can be speeded up by applying the appropriate
methods.

>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?

The organic "party line" is that pests only become a problem when the plants
and/or soil are unhealthy.  I.e., infestations are the symptoms of an
underlying 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.

Remember that potatoes are not native to Ireland.  Anytime you introduce an
exotic species, there's a chance that it could be susceptible to local pests. 
It's also possible that the potato plants weren't totally healthy when grown in
the local (to Ireland) manner.

>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?

Certainly not!  But you shouldn't then assume that the only solution is to
apply a pesticide whose side effects might well be worse than the problem
you're trying to cure.  You should instead determine what caused the problem
and adjust your methods accordingly.  Yes, you might lose a crop--but poisoning
your fields isn't the solution.

>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...

Not disappear, just not be a major problem.

>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.

If a farmer puts all his eggs into one basket, he's pretty much asking for
disaster.  All-out chemical warfare against any and all potential crops is
*not* the solution.  What you end up with is large-scale hydroponics--the dead
soil is nothing more than a medium to contain the applied nutrients and hold up
the plants.

>`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?

What other methods?  Perhaps they're not as well known.  This is also a new
newsgroup.

>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.

Crop rotation is an important part of organic farming.

>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'?

Disease-resistant cultivars are an important part of organic farming.

>Perhaps it's because `genetic' isn't the politically correct buzzword!

I don't think so.

>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's the only one I've seen so far.  I'd be happy to hear about others.

>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.

Upon what fact about/property of/research on organic farming do you make that
judgment?

>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.

There will be social and (short term) economic barriers to any new methods
used.

>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.

Perhaps you're mistaking the enthusiasm of people who have tried and proven the
validity of organic farming for fanaticism.

>Public education on this topic must be allowed to
>present all sides of the problem... not just one relatively insignificant
>aspect of it!

Excuse me?  Organic techniques are "relatively insignificant"?  A way to farm
sustainably *today* is insignificant?  I think not.

>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.

How about well-meaning but misguided people who presume to know why other
people do or say what they do?  People who claim ignorance on the subject of
organic farming out of one side of their mouths while proclaiming it
insufficient out of the other side?

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

Agreed.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson