HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Sources of beneficial insects.
Keywords: biocontrol
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:24:49 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


(1217)  Thu 19 Nov 92 13:54
By: Cissy Bowman
Re: Free Info on biological controls

I just got a wonderful free booklet in the mail.  You can all get one too by
writing to the California EPA, Dept. of Pesticide Regulation Environmental
Monitoring and Pest Management, 1220 N. St. PO Box 942871, Sacramento, CA
9427-0001. Request the 1992 Edition of "Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms in
North America."
Xref: sparky alt.sustainable.agriculture:360 misc.rural:2566
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture,misc.rural
Subject: Re: Fruit & Nut trees
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:31:30 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <B6wkuB3w165w@questor.org> myahgula@questor.org (Michael Yahgulanaas) writes:
>There is asmall community of indigenous persons living at latitude 54 40 
>on the northern shores of a large archipelago called Haida Gwaii. The 
>colonial maps read Queen Charlotte Islands. The climate is temperate and 
>marine ( wet ) and major wind storms occurfrequently and especially in 
>the fall.  This community is considering planting an area of some 10 
>acres with food producing trees. The site includes standing water, 3 
>meter organic ( coniferious forest humus ) on top of marine gravels and 
>sand. Slight northern aspect subjects lands to occasional arctic winds 
>off south east Alaska. Looking for information on type of food producing 
>trees that might be approriate, available. Important social 
>reconstruction work underway.
>
>Thanks for the moment.
>
>Chief Councillor of the Village Council of Old Massett, Haida GWaiis/
>s/
>
>
>--
>  Michael Yahgulanaas (myahgula@questor.org)
>    | QUESTOR:  Free Dial-in Public Access to Usenet Health, Medical News |
>    | & AIDS forums, and Info on Global Environment at  +1 604  681 0670. |
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture,rec.gardens,rec.food.historic
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Subject: Colonial Garden Plants
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:18:07 GMT



                     Popular Colonial Garden Plants

The following herbs and vegetables were included in an order for 
seeds from John Winthrop, Jr., an early colonist, to his sources 
in England in the year 1631.
For persons interested in recreating th eherb garden of colonial 
times, the list may provide some historical clues to authenticity.

     Winthrop's Name                        Modern Day Name
     ________________________________________________________________
     Alisander                              Horse parsley (England)
     Angelica                               Angelica
     Bludwort                               Dock (pot herb)
     Buglos
     Burradg                                Borage
     Cabedg                                 Also Cauliflower
     Charnill                               Chervil
     Clary                                  Sage
     Colewort                               Cabbage
     Corn sallet                            Lamb's lettuce (pot herb)
     Endive                                 Endive
     Hartichockes                           Artichoke
     Hyssop                                 Hyssop
     Lang de beefe                          Bugloss
     Lavadg                                 Lovage
     Maudelein                              Field daisy
     Nipp                                   Catnip
     Punsland
     Skerwort
     Spynadg                                Stock

Other garden plants popular in colonial times included:

     Anise                                  Gillyflower
     Apple                                  Hop
     Bean                                   Jerusalem artichoke
     Bedstraw                               Lavender
     Beet                                   Lettuce
     Berries --                             Lily of the valley
       blueberry                            Mint
       cranberry                            Onion
       currant                              Parsley
       elderberry                           Parsnip
       raspberry                            Pea
       strawberry                           Pear
     Carrot                                 Plum
     Cherries -                             Pot marigold
       choke cherry                         Pot marigold
       pin cherry                           Potato
     Corn                                   Pumpkin
     Cress                                  Radish
     Cucumber                               Radish
     Dandelion                              Rose
     Dianthus                               Sweet flag
     Fennel                                 Tobacco
     Garlic leek

J. Robert Nuss, Prof. of Ornamental Hort.
P. A. Ferretti, Assoc. Prof. of Veg. Crops
Horticulture Department
The Pennsylvania State University
May 1987

PENpage Number:  0940181

Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: jameson@cal.isac.ca (Kevin Jameson)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: ISA Corp. (Calgary)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 17:26:26 GMT


What is the Lysenkoist solution?

The classic ideas for solving the sustainability problem that make sense to
me are ones I'm sure you've heard before:  (1) reduce population,
(2) reduce consumption of fossil fuels, (3) increase use/research toward
sustainable solar energy sources, and (4) become active in promoting
these ideas elsewhere.

What puzzles me is that everyone talks about finding ways to sustain
the current system, instead of recognizing the fairly obvious futility
of doing so.  Why don't we talk more about reducing the consumption of
the current system---until it's sustainable---and THEN concentrate on
making things better and bigger?
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Land Application of Waste Water Sludge
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:19:43 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


Regarding land application of sewage sludge and the accumulation of
dangerous levels of toxic metals in the soil:

Many, perhaps hundreds, of hyperaccumulating plants have been identified.
These take up large quantities of toxic metals from the medium in which
they are grown. Perhaps large tracts of marginal farmland could be devoted
to sludge recycling where certain hyeraccumulating plants could be grown
as cover crops, harvested and themselves recycled to reclaim the heavy metals.
Tracts farmed this way could be rotated allowing a certain percentage
of the total acreage to lay fallow for periods of time.
The plant residue allowed to remain after harvest would serve to raise
levels of organic matter in the soil, thus increasing soil tilth and reducing
the time required for soil preparation with farm equipment.
During fallow times, acreage could be used to produce cash crops such as
ornamental nursery stock (esp. plant material used for erosion control,
bioremediation (air cleaning in urban areas), wind, sound, visual buffers
and wildlife habitat). Tree farming for saw timber, fuel, wood pulp and
chips, growing of biomass for synfuel and paper production could be done as
well. 
Collection basins below slopes on this farmland could collect runoff to be
processed in partitioned lagoons inside greenhouses where a variety of
marine organisims and aquatic plants could detoxify the effluent.

--------
Could anyone suggest any references about hyperaccumulating plants,
marine and soil organisims that are able to thrive under polluted conditions
and bioremediation technology?

Lawrence

london@sunsite.unc.edu 
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: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:02:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.104212.22503@leland.Stanford.EDU>, spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
>Dave Sill writes
>> *Most* conventional fertilizers don't have trace elements,
>> don't improve/maintain soil condition, and often leave
>> substantial salt residues.  Not *all*, *most*.
>> 
>> ... isn't [it] possible that some as-yet "undiscovered"
>> element/compound is missing?  Of course certain organic
>> mendments might also be lacking some trace elements, but with
>> the pot pourri of minerals in natural products, there's a
>> least a possibility they might be there.
>
>Why do you assume all such minerals-we-don't-know-about, whether  
>trace or otherwise, would always have a beneficial effect (either on  
>crop growth or on the health of anybody ingesting them)?

Right on, Stefano... and furthermore, Mr. Sill demonstrates another of the
characteristics of the organic movement... they don't trust anyone's knowledge
who differs from their point of view. How else could one come to the conclusion
that there wer `undiscovered' elements/compounds necessary to plant nutrition?

Seems that anything chemical must, by definition, be bad. It's like 
dihydrogen monoxide contamination in potato chips... its a helluva thing
and scary too, until one realizes that dihydrogen monoxide is more commonly
known as `water'! 

//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: Land Application of Waste Water Sludge
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:02:54 GMT

>Many, perhaps hundreds, of hyperaccumulating plants have been identified.
>These take up large quantities of toxic metals from the medium they're
>growing in. Perhaps large tracts of marginal farmland could be devoted
>to sludge recycling where certain hyeraccumulating plants could be grown
>as cover crops, harvested and themselves recycled to reclaim the heavy metals.
>Tracts farmed this way could be rotated allowing a certain percentage
>of the total acreage to lay fallow for periods of time.
>The plant residue allowed to remain after harvest would serve to raise
>levels of organic matter in the soil, thus increasing soil tilth and reducing
>the time required for soil preparation with farm equipment.

When plants `take up' these toxic heavy metals, they don't necessarily
incorporate them into their structure, nor are they metabolized... in short,
they may indeed take up heavy metals, but after they do, the plants themselves
would become toxic... if allowed to remain on the field, they would simply
re-contaiminate the soil.

I have seen a demonstration of blackwater treatment using an artificially-
created type of swamp, and it did indeed make the effluent less harmful. It
was suggested that municipalities could use some of this type of technology
to reduce the effects of sewage pollution, but they didn't make any mention
of using it as a remedial treatment on soil that has been polluted by using
sewage sludge for fertilizer. It's an interesting idea, but it is still in its
infancy. 


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Date: 14 Nov 92 19:57:36 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Nov13.192927.22344@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.124921.8198@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>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.
>
>yes, this is all true. But at least agribusiness people don't try to pass 
>themselves off as the `saviours of the planet'.... and the people `who make
>all the decisions'.... they are straight-forward about their profit-oriented
>modus operandi. The organizers of the Green movement (or, for that matter,
>many similar organizations like Greenpeace) are doing basically the same
>thing as Jim Bakker did. 
>
Once again, I ask you for a shred of evidence that this is true of the
Green Party.  
>
>//Don
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: efredric@dante.nmsu.edu (Ed Fredrickson)
Subject: Ecological Livestock Production
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:07:40 GMT
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: organic production methods
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 04:54:18 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov18.142225.18806@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV writes:

 > 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.

Just on this one point, I would suggest that it is the natural holistic
approach which is traditional, having been practiced globally since
time immemorial. It is its failure to have produced *enough* food to
forestall political instability which is behind the development of the
capitalist agriculture we see today supported by science, since at
least the sixteenth century.

Yes, we are seeing such production methods reach their limits, and the
problem is somehow to *integrate* everything we currently know into a
new global production strategy.

To set a political movement promoting a return to traditional "organic"
farming methods against modern production techniques, on the other hand,
however inefficient or non-sustainable they may well be, is simply STUPID.

Utterly mindless!

--
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: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Kibbutz (was Malthus)
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:12:59 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov10.162800.1@agri.huji.ac.il> marder@agri.huji.ac.il writes:

 > The first Kibbutz was set up at the start of the century.  The founding
 > members were youngsters from E. Europe.  They were also left-wing
 > idealists.  At the time, the Jewish community in Europe contained a large
 > socialist element.  One branch was the Jewish Labor "Bund" which was
 > probably the single largest subgroup within the Social Democrats (ie..
 > Bolsheviks + Mensheviks).  However, there was also a strong socialist
 > Zionist movement who supported both Socialism, and the concept of Jewish
 > national renewal.  The latter founded the Kibbutz movement and were a
 > dominant force in Israeli politics.

Apart from a sophisticated domestic sector, here in Australia we have
in place a highly capitalised agricultural production strategy designed
to cater to world demand which contrasts strongly with the traditional
hunting and gathering of our indigenous peoples. In the Middle East,
how does the Kibbutz agricultural practice compare with traditional
farming methods of the region, say, among the Palestinians or the
Lebanese, or along the Nile Delta?

--
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: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Subject: Re: Land Application of Waste Water Sludge
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:26:11 GMT


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: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:54:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.161150.14306@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <-1363904206snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>>
>>Also waxy fungal infections cause the soil itself to lose its ability to
>>absorb and retain water, bringing about the need to regularly apply more
>>chemicals in the form of soil whetting agents in order to establish any
>>plant growth at all.
>
>Right, which explains why the Earth is a barren, waxy waste?  Or perhaps there
>are bacteria that break the waste down?
>

Dave, if you have such a firm grasp of biology in general, how come you're not
making the big $$ teaching or something? You have demonstrated in this news
group that you don't have as good a background in the natural sciences as a
high-school student... yet here you are telling people the how's and why's of
organic food production. 


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au (Ian Staples)
Subject: Re: Split this group?
Organization: Qld Dept Primary Industries
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:12:06 GMT

In article <momotaro.722104274@cwis> momotaro@cwis.unomaha.edu (Bryan Stack) writes:
>What do you say we set up a companion group called
>alt.sustainable.agriculture.talk in which people can argue and call each
>other names, and reserve this one for discussion of actual practices in
>agriculture and their evaluation?
>
I wonder how one draws a distinction between "discussion" and "argument" -
or do we just rely on the tone [vocabulary] of the participants to draw
the line:-)

But I do agree that there could be some separation of sus.agric technology
from the more esoteric discussions of Malthus etc. etc.

One problem the whole network suffers from is that most of the participants
appear to be computer folk, so one tends to get opinions rather than facts
in most discussion of subjects outside computer science and related topics.


-- 
Ian Staples                       | Internet : ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054,                | Fax      : +61 (0)70 923 593
MAREEBA  Queensland  4880         | Voice    : +61 (0)70 921 555
Australia.                        | Home     : +61 (0)70 924 847
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 11:12:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


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

I hope you are able to find a well paid, secure bureaucratic
position somewhere in which to expound your abstractions,
pontifications, etc.

Your concern about food shortage in the poorer countries
is shared by all of us.  The problem is 99% political.
However some of us do not share your very simplistic
down
down on the U.S. syndrome.  The U.S. has done a great
deal of damage to various countries; it has misused
its power, been exploitative, etc.  But this newsgroup
should have an optimistic, practical, scientific and
open aspect.  Sustainable agriculture has already been
defined. I just posted a list of journals.
I have also posted a number of informative lists of
information for those interested in participating in
various constructive programs.

Name calling is not necessary and it is not a sign of
intellectual maturity.  Proper debate is a constructive
activity, or should be.

You state repeatedly that the organic movement will not
have a significant effect on world agriculture.
I hope you're wrong.
The agri chemical industry has created a great deal of
chemicals that are not necessary, even harmful.
When monoculture is done, with heavy crop fertilizers,
then often pesticides also must be heavily used.
It is a vicious circle.
Again let's not resort to name calling and try to
focus on positive activities.

I have already listed permaculture, community supported
agriculture, university programs, ecological communities,
etc.

I will continue to look for specific, constructive
material for those who wish to do something about the
problem.



-- 
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: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchas
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 07:25:39 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov16.042338.29982@samba.oit.unc.edu> london@sunSITE.unc.edu 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.
 > >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?
 > It's for sure we can trust those leaders who are supportive of natural &
 > sustainable farming systems, ones that use low-input regenerative methods.
 > It's chemical ag people like you, who rely on delivering misinformation
 > to the public for survival, who build distrust.

Frankly, all of this type of drivel should be pursued in alt.politics,
or anywhere else but here for that matter.

--
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