HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Land Application of Waste Water Sludge
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:05:20 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <1992Nov21.232611.27549@samba.oit.unc.edu> london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London) writes:
>

Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Land Application of Waste Water Sludge
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Keywords: 
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 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.
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. 
Runoff collection basins below slopes on this farmland could 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: rjsalvad@IASTATE.EDU (Ricardo J Salvador)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Reply-To: rjsalvad@IASTATE.EDU (Ricardo J Salvador)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:38:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.180943.6953@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don
Christie) writes:
> >>It must be added that in a naturally occuring ecosystem "exotic" toxins
> >>or foreign trace elements as probably occur only metres away as thousands
> >>of miles. For that matter, many trees will actually drip toxins onto the
> >>understory to kill it in competing for the local soil nutrients.
> >
> >Good point...that's something to be considered.
> >
> 
> these chemicals are called phytoalexins... their very existence was the topic
> of hot debate for years... now they are generally accepted to exist, and in
> fact some researchers are investigating the possibilities of exploiting
> them.

A friendly clarification: the chemicals first alluded are called
_allelochemicals_, and are associated with an effect known as "allelopathy."
Many examples are known not only in undisturbed ecosystems (e.g., creosote
bush in the southwestern US reduces competition for water by secreting
allelochemicals) but also in cropping systems (e.g., rye is known for
its strong allelopathic effect on a large number of other species, and
maize has a documented allelopathic effect _on itself_).  The best known
allelochemicals are decomposition products of plant residues, and seem to
be rather simple chemicals (e.g., alcohols).

On the other hand, phytoalexins are secondary metabolites (the best examples
are derivatives of the shikimic acid pathway, e.g., scopoletin in oats) that are
produced by plants in response to invasion by pathogens.  The reaction
cascade they trigger may lead to engulfment of pathogens by phagocytosis, or
the phytoalexins themselves may be fungicidal or antibiotic. An interesting
feature of this response (known as "induced resistance") is that it is
systemic (infection of the root confers resistance to the invading pathogen
throughout the plant, for example), and that it can be transferred by
grafting "induced" plant tissue onto a non-induced plant (the classical
demonstration of this is: Jenns & Kuo. 1979. Graft transmission of systemic
resistance of cucumber to anthracnose induced by C. lagenarium and tobacco
necrosis virus. Phytopathology 69:753-756.)  Such observations lay open
the tantalizing posibility that crops might be protected by "immunizing"
them by innoculation with avirulent pathogenic species, particles, or
other suitable elicitors of resistance.  Other studies aim to investigate
the possibility of chemically identifying phytoalexins that can be
sprayed as "preventive antibiotics," (they are fairly non species-specific).

-Ricardo
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:03:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Nov16.201331.18282@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

 >>>Farms uses a very small fraction of this country's energy consumption.
 >>>We use more energy *cooking* food than we do growing it.  In a
 >>
 >>This definitely supports the idea that the agricultural system is NOT a
 >>major consumer of fossil fuels.
 >
 >You're forgetting the use of petroleum as a feedstock for fertilizers and
 >pesticides.

Wrong.  The computation of energy used in growing food includes the
energy used in making fertilizers and pesticides (the energy used in
making pesticides is rather small, btw; their mass isn't very large.)


 >It does to me.  And if we were to run out of petroleum to use for feedstock,
 >what would we use?  Coal?  Natural gas?  And when they're gone?  Sure, we're
 >talking about *huge* resources here.  But huge isn't the same as "infinite".

Well, guess what -- we *already* use natural gas to make nitrogen
fertilizer.  It's the major feedstock, and has been so for years.
There are some exceptions -- the Chinese are using some coal, for
example -- but, worldwide, natural gas is the feedstock of choice.

In artificial nitrogen fixation, the fossil fuels serve as sources of
hydrogen (produced by reforming the fuel with steam/oxygen), which is
then combined with nitrogen on a catalyst at elevated pressure and
temperature.  Any other source of hydrogen would also work.  For
example, ammonia can be made using hydroelectricity, or wind- or
solar- electricity, or from nuclear, or from gasified biomass.

Fuels for farm vehicles would be a bit more complicated, but we can
make liquid fuels, such as methanol or ethanol, from biomass by
various routes, or even from hydrogen and CO2, at a cost.

The amount of non-fossil energy produced in the US every year --
hydro, nuclear and biomass, mostly -- already comfortably exceeds the
primary energy inputs to US agriculture.  There is considerable room
for expanding all the non-fossil sources (save hydro).

If current agriculture is not "sustainable", it's not because we're
running out of energy.  If anything, there's too much fossil fuel
around.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:41:28 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Nov16.020414.17836@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
>
>Academics and fools are alike from the point of view that they both feel the
>need for proof of the absolutely obvious! Principia Mathematica... a document
>some feel to be a significant one in terms of mathematics, devotes a
>spectacular amount of space to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 .... the organizers
>of many of these `special interest groups' like the Green Movement and like
>greenpeace make shall we say `substantial' salaries.... a few years ago
>Barbara Frum (on the Journal) asked the head of Greenpeace on national
>television what he earned... he declined comment.... she asked himspecifically
>if the reason he was doing what he was was based more upon money or was
>it a more humanistic interest... like the environment. His response, of course
>was that he was interested in the environment... but he sure didn't convince
>me... Of course none of this constitutes PROOF... but then nobody said that
>these people were STUPID... they cover their asses so that there isn't anything
>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? 
>
>You haven't even proven to me yet thga
>that we can't trust the academic and technical people who currently lead the
>agricultureal industry... why do we need to duplicate/replace/supplement
>their efforts with the Green Movement or Greenpeace or whatever???

You suggest that the Green Party is mainly interested in money then you
offer proof that Greepeace is only interested in money, then you say
that proof is not needed.  If it is absolutely obvious to you that you
are right when you have no proof then I guess thats the end of the
discussion.  I brought it up because I know for a fact that the national
Green organization is Kansas City is not money-oriented.  I will tell
you right here that noone has a salary over 20K, that many of them
are owed back pay and continue to work.  I am not defending Greenpeace.

>
>>>//Don
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
>
>//Don
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Returning nutrients to the soil
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 08:11:30 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov16.162448.18365@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:

 > Now why would that be? compost, as I understand is `rotted' plant and animal
 > material... it's normally an excellent source of organic content in soil,
 > and an excellent source of nutrients..... but.... the `rotting' process is
 > accomplished mostly by fungi. It is a fact that 90 percent of the things
 > that make plants sick are fungi.... they cause their damage either through
 > direct toxicity or through the structural damage they cause to the plant.

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.

--
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: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:34:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.174832.28921@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>>
>>Wrong.  It's accomplished mostly by bacteria.  But even if fungi live in the
>>compost, they're indigenous fungi that the local flora tolerate (proof by
>>existence).
>
>no, I'm afraid it's you who is wrong here. Fungi are one of five kingdoms of
>life. they are the decomposers for the animal and plant kingdoms... not an
>opinion... fact!

Compost is decomposed primarily by aerobic bacteria.  But, as I said, the
existence of fungi in compost does not invalidate my point that they are
indigenous and extremely unlikely to be harmful to local flora.

>>>It is a fact that 90 percent of the things
>>>that make plants sick are fungi....
>>
>>Oh yeah?  Got a reference?  Not that it is relevant to the point...I just doubt
>>it's a fact.
>
>yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a reference. Agrios. He wrote a book 
>called Plant Pathology... a bona-fide reference book and guide for pathologists
>If you want an ISBN number, I'll get it for you.

Again, irrelevant to the point.  But what does it mean to say "90 percent of the
things that make plants sick are fungi"?  90% of sick plants are sick due to
fungi?  90% of the species of microorganisms that can make plants sick are fungi?

>>If you stick to local vegetation, you're mimicking the same process that been in
>>place for thousands of years.  It's extremely unlikely that you'd be able to
>>create significant quantities of substances that the natural process doesn't.
>
>true, but you're concentrating them.

Agreed.  That's pretty much what cultivation is all about, though.

>>Is it really that hard to follow?  The closer one mimicks the natural processes,
>>the more likely one is to be practicing sustainable techniques.  That doesn't
>>mean there's no other way to do sustainable ag, though.  Techies prefer to
>>determine exactly which nutrients are consumed and in what quantities then whup
>>up a soup containing these nutrients in the prescribed quantities.  That's fine,
>>as long as it's done right, and takes into account the health of soil, etc., but
>>it's very *hard*.
>
>no, it's not. At least, it's not when you have a bit of background... why
>don't you read Agrios and make up your own mind then?
>While you're at it, a book on soil microbiology might be useful too.

I don't need a degree in botany or microbiology to understand why organic
techniques work.  I don't need to read Agrios to know that compost is good for
plants--there's a wealth of empirical (at least) evidence that it is.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.175419.29589@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>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?

I'm making big $$ doing what I want to do.  I also happen to have 31 acres, an
interest in gardening/farming, conservation, and sustainability.  I think I'm
entitled to contribute here, or have the rules of USENET changed?

>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...

Don't be a jerk, Don.  I have a better than average background in the natural
sciences for college-educated U.S. citizen.

>yet here you are telling people the how's and why's of
>organic food production. 

I have never claimed expertise...I'm just an interested novice.  If you want to
debate my writings on their merit, that's fine.  But please don't stoop to ad
hominem attacks such as this.

Notice I haven't attacked your level of knowledge/education/credentials...just
some your statements on their own merit.

-- 
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
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Real-world solutions
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 07:07:10 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov15.172626.14620@cal.isac.ca> jameson@cal.isac.ca writes:

 > 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?

Whoever else might be talking about ways to sustain the present
system, I am certainly not and I doubt very much that Don Christie is
either. My comments have all been directed to the political problem of
*maintaining* the present system until a future implementation of
sustainable agriculture is possible, as the underlying difficulty
some of these activists and panic merchants are chafing hysterically
against.

I see no benefit in arguing against people who are involved in trying
to manage the present reality; you only make the job more difficult and
in doing so only increase the risk of failure. Running around trying to
berate people with a "compleat answer to everything" certainly does not
bring sustainable agriculture any closer, and at times I would myself
just as soon give it all away to spend time with my family enjoying
my life than be facing much more of the stress and heartache of the
past 25 years.

If we are to do anything about it at all, the task right now is to
explain the priority for sustainable production in a manner usually
under-educated people do not find threatening, so that over a period
we might work better together to introduce more appropriate globally
effective food production strategies.

That period will cover several generations at least, so the added
burden we have is to educate the next generation of educators, some
of whom will need to take on that task for their next generation in
turn, and if you do not want to be involved with that process you
might as just well relax a little.

If you do want to be involved, doing whatever you can do locally in
your own community to reduce consumption on the one hand, and to be
a little more productive and self-sufficient on the other, would be
a very worthwhile contribution, let me assure you.

--
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: why
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:17:03 GMT

In article <-1363802229snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <psmith.722016865@cunews> psmith@alfred.carleton.ca writes:
>
> > Anyone who has been involved in government knows the power and
> > importance of lobby groups.  I'm afraid your attack on non-government
> > environmental groups is an over-generalization.
> >  
> > I don't think you need to make an apology to anyone; this groups is
> > surely a proponent of freedom of speech.  Ignore anyone who demands
> > things from you and don't take the newsgroup too personally.
> >  
> > thanks for your comments
>
>I agree, Don. I get all this fruitcake mail at my end too, but few
>persist with it for long enough to bother overly much. In the end if
>they do insist on the last word, after you get bored with playing cat
>& mouse games and getting them *really* frustrated and upset, you just
>let them have it . . .

I guess that's basically what I've been doing, Gil. On the one hand it's 
pretty hard to take some of these people seriously... on the other hand,
they're annoying and therefore difficult to ignore. I was thinking last
night that there must be quite a few `lurkers' out there who read the group
but who don't post.... I'd be willing to bet that many of them could
contribute something useful, if they were allowed to, but they'd have to be
nuts to voluntarily subject themselves to the type of abuse we've seen
on this newsgroup! Pigeon-holing people as pro-this or anti-that can be 
a dangerous exercise. It's easy to criticize someone else's work/discipline/
profession when you don't have to bear the consequences of your efforts.

NONE of the more obnoxious posters are commercial farmers, so it isn't THEM
who would ever have to `toe the mark' they're drawing... it isn't THEM that
would go bankrupt, and it isn't THEM that would lose their home and livelihood
on the basis of ranting zealots! Most of them have never SEEN things like
the wheat fields on the Canadian prairies, or even IMAGINED the scale of 
things as they exist in California and Florida... yet they have the answer
for everything all rolled up into one neat word: `organic' !! 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve
From: fritz@fc.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz)
Subject: Left -> Right brain?
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:08:12 GMT

In an email conversation with Loren Larsen, the topic of left vs. right
brain operations came up.  I realize this is sort of a controversial
topic in some circles, but...

I'm, like, way totally left-brained, dude.  :-)  I tend to think very
linearly.  I tend to express myself verbally instead of graphically.

On the other hand, I guess maybe "way totally" is an exaggeration.
I *do* perceive graphical models pretty well, and I think I'm more
visual than audio or kinesthetic.  But I don't think well in a
graphical manner, don't create graphical models very well, and so on.

Now maybe I'm just fine the way I am, but I think I'd like to expand
my right-brain abilities.  Does anyone have any suggestions for 
cerebral calisthenics to train my brain to spend more time on the 
other side of the corpus callosum?

Thanks!
Gary
From: joek@cogs.sussex.ac.uk (Josef Karthauser)
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve
Subject: TEST
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:01:48 GMT
Organization: University of Sussex

This is a test posting.... Please can you mail me if this reaches the outside
world?

Joe

(joek@susx.cogs.uk.ac)
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve
From: fritz@fc.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz)
Subject: Re: Left -> Right brain?
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:27:13 GMT

Todd I. Stark (stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: fritz@fc.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz) writes...
: >In an email conversation with Loren Larsen, the topic of left vs. right
: >brain operations came up.  I realize this is sort of a controversial
: >topic in some circles, but...
: 
: On the general topic, a lot of the pop psych literature in this area is trash,
: as I'm sure most readers here know.  

Right.  That was what I meant by "controversial", but left/right brain is
the simplest way to describe what I was looking for.  To be honest, I really
don't care if the linear/spatial thinking differences come from left/right,
top/bottom, inside/outside, yin/yang, day/night, or ren/stimpy.  It's the 
difference between linear&verbal vs. spatial&visual that I'm interested in.

So, to reword my question:  how can I increase my spatial&visual thinking?

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve