HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psmith@alfred.carleton.ca (Peter Smith)
Subject: Potato Companions
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:19:50 GMT

I grew a very small potato crop in the last couple of years, and as is
he norm, I had a major potato beetle infestation despite rotation.
However, I had encouraging results with companioni planting of green
bush beans.

All the potatoes were within 1 acre of oneanother, and yet only the
potato rows ringed with green beans were untouched (ie:  I didn't find
one potato beetle on it).  Granted this wouldn't be foolproof on a
huge scale, but I have heard of people in PEI experimenting with such
techniques on larger scales.

So, I'm anxious to hear of other peoples' experiences (good or bad).
I'm trying other forms of companion planting, but this one is of
particular current interest.

thanks in advance
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: "Kricket Krap" fertilizer
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:17:54 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <1992Nov20.202355.23134@schbbs.mot.com> 
C11815@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Josette Giacobbi) writes:

True, this company has a fertilizer called "Kricket Krap". Organic. They
raise krickets for fishing. You can buy it by the jar. Cute present.
The catalog is free:  

Bricker's Organic Farms, Inc.  
824 Sandbar Ferry Road, Augusta, GA 30901.  
Telephone 1-706-722-0661. 
There are quite a few things to chose from.  I'm only about 1 hour from
there, and I didn't even know they existed until I saw their ad in
"Organic Gardening"   Josette
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:23:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.201331.18282@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.221858.28494@cal.isac.ca>, jameson@cal.isac.ca (Kevin Jameson) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.134104.7810@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) 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.
>
>>Doesn't sustainable mean "to live off the renewable
>>interest of the capital resources of the land/planet/sun, instead of
>>off the stored capital (fossil fuels) itself?"
>
>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".
>

I quite agree. Furthermore, using fossilized fuel in the way that we have been
creates serious pollution problems. Not only from the viewpoint of carbon
dioxide, but also from the sulfur and other compounds that are produced by
the burning of coal/oil/natural gas. Perhaps when these commodities get
expensive enough the use of by-products like methane will be more attractive.


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
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 16:24:48 GMT

>such an unexpected anti-nutrient/poison exists.  E.g., if you use a compost of
>indigenous plant matter and apply a dust made from local rock, it's very
>nearly impossible that you'd be causing a substantial negative impact. 

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.

since the manufacture of compost can involve any number of fungal and/or plant
species, there is no guarantee that some won't be pathogenic. (I refer here to
your statement that it is `nearly impossible' to have a negative impact... I
am merely stating one circumstance under which a compost could have a negative
effect) 

Local rock, when ground up, would seem to be a reasonable soil amendment...
until one considers what effect it will have on the soil pH and nutrient
content. Sometimes the availability of a given element to plants depends on
the relative abundances of other elements. Phosphorus is one case in point.
Unless some testing and qualification are done in terms of which rocks and
how much rock, then it is not at all `nearly impossible' to have a negative
effect on the soil environment.

Under most circumstances, I agree, compost and ground rock make good soil
amendments... but I take exception to the phrase `it is nearly impossible to
have a negative effect' simply on the basis of the fact that the additives
meet with the approval of the speaker. 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 03:01:30 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1e7b67INNcdv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:

 > Again, the point here is that the relationship between the bank
 > and farmer is an unhealthy one in many perhaps most cases 
 > currently since farmers are struggling to make their loan
 > payments in the face of an overall faltering economy.
 > In such a situation, the bank has a tendency to exercise more
 > bureaucratic power over the farmer, some of which can be
 > insulting.

Mikey, some sort of capacity for tuning in to what has been said would
lend credibility to your concerns. If you care to consider the actual
state of your overall faltering economy you will observe that *both*
banks and farmers are very much on the back foot as a consequence of
the quite massive over-extension of credit *both* industries have been
pursuing throughout the post-WW2 years.

The strategy of better educating bank loan officers about the need for
proper soil testing is being implemented in fact concurrently with a
similar strategy for educating farmers about the value system of money
and the nature of bank credit. The idea is that a higher standard of
education and better access to reliable information across the board
will very considerably advance us all toward a greater sustainability
of food production.

 > Thus, getting involved to the point of telling the farmer
 > whether he is fertilizing properly is certainly an insult
 > to the farmer.  Next thing you know these bank bureaucrats
 > will be telling the farmer how to milk cows, bail hay, etc.
 > only to make sure that the farm is running successfully and
 > therefore able to make its loan payments, of course.

If we are to adopt your line of argument, next thing we will have is
someone complaining that getting involved to the point of telling the
banker whether he is extending credit properly is certainly an insult
to the banker. Next thing you know these all uncouth dirt scratchers
will be trudging manure into the bank carpets, and altering the books
so they don't have to make any loan repaymnents, of course!

The option, however much you wish to sit there grating your molars
against it, is that we might all be trying to understand more about
the real complexities inherent in each others' enterprise, and working
together much better than we have been in the past. But taking such an
approach would undermine your stupid ideological campaign which seeks
to build up a mass hysteria by exacerbating and exploiting differences
instead, wouldn't it?

Sorry, but we are marginally more intelligent than you allow.

--
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:54:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.132853.29051@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:

 >>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.

 >as it runs out, it will become more and more expensive... and only then will
 >people get off their hands and find better ways of running the show. 

This attitude may have been appropriate back in the 70s, when many
people labored under the illusion that fossil fuels were nearly
exhausted.  We know better now -- if all the fossil fuels in the
ground are used, atmospheric CO2 will radically increase (much more
than double, if all the recoverable coal is burned).  To avoid that,
most of the carbon in fossil fuels will have to be kept out of the
atmosphere.  That means that technologies competitive with fossil
fuels will have to be developed before the fossil fuels get scarce.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
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: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:00:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.093052.1@agri.huji.ac.il>, marder@agri.huji.ac.il writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.133132.29858@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>> ...  But the very existence today of
>> plants supported for millions of years by natural soil components, and
>> animals, including people, that have thrived on them . . .
>
>You are certainly on a wrong tack here.  A forest can survive indefinitely
>if trees grow and die in the same place - that is until the climate
>changes.

Ecosystems adapt to climate changes, of course, or there wouldn't be any plant
life left.

>As for human impact - forget about it because the human
>population was insignificant until the last 1-2 millenia.

Who said anything about human impact?

>In those few
>(dozen) hundred years, the impact of human activity (particularly grazing
>by domesticated livestock) has been intense e.g. large parts of the Sahara
>desert.  Much of this PRECEEDS the use of industrially-produced
>agrochemicals.  Today, with the size of the global human population, the
>agriculture to feed them will have a LARGE environmental impact.  We have
>some limited choices in deciding the NATURE of that impact.

I agree.  So why am I on the wrong tack, as you suggest?

-- 
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: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchas
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:51:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.162804.27148@samba.oit.unc.edu>, london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London) writes:
>
>It's pretty obvious at this point that you, Christie and Kilen are phonies
>and are posting your drivel here in an attempt to disrupt this conference.
>In future I will neither read or archive any of your posts. When I learn
>how to create a kill file I'll purge your posts in a more efficient manner.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to read and reply to them.  I'm a neophyte, and I need
the practice.  :-)

-- 
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: kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Nicholas J. Kilen 1621537)
Subject: The cost of organic farming
Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:33:54 GMT

Back to Organic agriculture.  A poster once mentioned that maybe we
should pay a little more for our food so that it can be organic.  Right
now the percentage spent by Americans and Canadians of their income on
food hovers between 12.1-14.5%. Compare that to that spent on food by
those members of the former Soviet Union and China who have very few,
if any, chemicals on their agricultural products. They spend between
60-70% (possibly more in the new Soviet Union, the figures are a year
old) on food.

Until someone can convince the agricultural community that organic
farming can compare in price to chemical farming, things will not
change.  In addition, there is still the problem of keeping insects from
destroying crops and leaving the world in a state of famine.

					Nicholas J. Kilen
					kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu
________________________________________________________________________________

Destroy the cities and leave the farms, and the cities will spring back
again as if by magic.  Destroy the farms and leave the cities and I will
guarantee there will be grass growing in every street in America.
Agriculture may be a cross, but it is a cross of gold and one we all
must bear.
					William Jennings Bryan
  

Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:17:42 GMT

>If it requires a steady influx of a nonrenewable resource, it's not sustainable. 
>Period.  Sure, we might be able to substitute alternative resources, but until we
>do, we're not practicing sustainable agriculture.

Well, what do you know.... we agree on something! It's a start...

//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: 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 17:48:32 GMT

>
>>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.
>
>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!

>
>>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.

>
>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. 

>
>Again, the local soil is formed from the local rock and decomposed local
>vegetation.  The effect on pH of adding local rock will be pretty close to the
>effect of the natural breakdown of rock into soil.
>
>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.


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:53:12 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <1992Nov16.015139.16457@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
Don Christie writes:
[more useless drivel deleted]

There's a lame dweeb like you in every environmental newsgroup. Why don't
you leave us alone and go off somewhere and play with yourself?

I thought at one time you might have something useful to contribute
here but it seems you aren't up to the task. 

It doesn't really take five years of college to become an agrichemical 
salesman. Looks as if you'd have realized that before you wasted all
that time studying, with nothing to show for it.

Get out of here and find another newsgroup if all you want to do is bait
folks. 

You could always work for a year on an organic farm and get yourself
completely straightened out.

Lawrence

london@sunsite.unc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Subject: News from ATTRA: Information on documents
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:29:24 GMT


APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR RURAL AREAS, P.O. Box 3657,
Fayetteville, AR  72702; 1-800-346-9140

File Name:  Sus.Ag.Concept

     This publication summarizes information on sustainable
     agriculture researched and compiled by ATTRA technical staff. 

File Name:  OrgVeg.Concept

     This publication summarizes material from the ATTRA
     Information Package:  "Organic Vegetable Production,"
     prepared by ATTRA Technical Specialist Steve Diver.

File Name:  InsectPest.Mgt

     This publication summarizes material from the ATTRA
     Information Package:  "Integrated Pest Management,"
     prepared by ATTRA Sr. Technical Specialist Christine Rugen.


File Name:  Cover.Crops

     This publication summarizes material from the ATTRA
     Information Package:  "Cover Crops and Green Manures,"
     prepared by ATTRA Technical Specialists Steve Diver
     and Preston Sullivan.


File Name:  Org.Fruit.Prod

     This publication summarizes material from the ATTRA
     Information Package:  "Overview of Organic Fruit Production,"
     prepared by ATTRA Technical Specialist Guy Ames.
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: News from ATTRA: ...
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:57:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.124221.20598@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>This is good, useful information, Larry.  Thanks for posting it!
>

I was going to wait until I had read all the day's news before I posted a
message exactly to this effect. I agree with Dave for once! 

The information in these posts agrees almost exactly with what I have been
trying to say... I note that the authors don't advocate the immediate and
total abandonment of current agricultural techniques... they advocate instead
a more orderly approach. In note in addition that they recognize that 
we cannot simply stop the use of pesticides totally... their use should
obviously be drastically reduced from current levels, but there are times when
there is no other apparent alternative.... what I've been trying to say
exactly. If farmers take advantage of disciplines like ICM (which incidentally
is a bit different from IPM... ICM tends to concentrate on the role of the
crop in the ecology more than does IPM, which focuses more on the pests)
they have tools which have the potential to reduce pesticide consumption...
disease-resistant cultivars, reduced tillage, recognition of the exact 
identities of the weeds, insects and fungal pests.... all part of the scheme.

None of this material is really new... all of these topics were covered in
the course of my studies.... but this encapsulates the information so well 
that I intend to print it up and pass it along to a couple of professors who
teach the disciplines discussed. Whatever feedback I get I'll pass along
to anyone interested in reading it. 


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:19:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.030319.17126@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>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.)

Wrong.  I said *feedstock*, not energy used to produce.  I realize you were
already accounting for the latter.

> >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.

Fine, petroleum, natural gas, and coal are all used as feedstock to produce
agricultural chemicals.

>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.

If it requires a steady influx of a nonrenewable resource, it's not sustainable. 
Period.  Sure, we might be able to substitute alternative resources, but until we
do, we're not practicing sustainable agriculture.

-- 
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