HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thomat@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu (Todd Michael Thomas)
Subject: Need Help--PLEASE Read!
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:54:16 GMT

I am an architectural student currently doing an affordable/sustainable housing
community project that is to include a 50% self-sufficient agriculture base.
This proposed community will be located in Troy, NY. This is near Albany, NY.
I need to find out...
     1. What crops/vegetables grow well in a New England Climate?
     2. Same question as 1, but in a `winter garden' or 'greenhouse' year-round?
     3. Does current law allow 'aqua-culture treated' blackwater be used to
        water/fertilize edible crops?
     4. And rough space requirements for crops in ques. 1 & 2.
                                                                            
Todd Thomas--------thomat@rpi.edu-----------------------------------------> ^_^

ps:thanks if you can help me( quick answer would even be of help ).
 
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: psmith@alfred.carleton.ca (Peter Smith)
Subject: Re: Split this group?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:53:31 GMT

In <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?

You may be on to something.  I can only take so much philosophy.  I
would be interested in seeing one of the following:

alt.market.gardening
alt.farming
alt.organic.farming
alt.organic.market.gardening

I realize there is a "rec.gardens" which has actually been useful.
But I'm more interested in hearing about commercial agriculture
practices whether organic or conventional.  I'm interested in topics
from soil conservation right down to pumpkin varieties and how best to
display your produce at market.  

The above comments aren't meant to be limiting...just food for thought:)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:42:12 GMT

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)?

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Returning nutrients to the soil
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 09:01:35 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov13.160029.16345@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV writes:

 > Occam's Razor.  What's more likely to be a complete, healthy, sustainable diet
 > for plants: a man-made concoction of everything we think plants need, or the
 > same natural products that have supported plants for the millions of years
 > they've existed on Earth?  Sure, it *could* be that we already know everything
 > there is to know about plant nutrition, that we know all the major and trace
 > elements required and how to supply them without damaging the soil.  But I
 > kinda doubt it.

Look, I think this point really has been stretched to its limits of
credibility. The facts are that the bulk of our food crops are grown
in environments very far removed indeed from where they might have
evolved over the millions of years they were sustained by "natural
processes". Even your rich red tomatoes grown to the very highest
organic standards are thriving on nutrients formulated and applied
by humans in a thoroughly alien environment located to best serve
the convenience of humans.

Whether you mix your compost by hand in your own back yard, or in a
factory using machines, is really six of one and half a dozen of the
other . . .

 > It's not a question of differing opinions.  It's a fact that our current
 > practices aren't sustainable.  If you have a plan for "nonorganic" sustainable
 > agriculture, lay it on us.

Yes, it is a problem very far indeed from being resolved, much less to
a point where any plan might possible be laid on you. That is all that
Don has been saying all along.

 > No, perhaps not.  But they're certainly more likely to be sustainble than the
 > current practices, and they're certainly more likely to solve the current
 > problems than continuing the current practices.

No, they are not at all likely to solve current problems because they
are simply not feasible on a global scale. Please do come to Australia
and have a look at the place, or Africa or Russia, or even many parts
of North America I expect.

 > Why not?  And are the current pracices practical in all situations will all
 > crops?

No, they are simply the best practices uneducated people are able to
achieve in their struggle to survive, as I have endeavoured consistently
to point out here. We would certainly be making progress if some of you
clever people with all the very best ideas were to put some energy into
educating such people a little better instead of arguing the pitch and
toss here, and in doing so possibly losing the main plot completely.

--
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: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: why
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:31:07 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


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 . . .

--
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: jameson@cal.isac.ca (Kevin Jameson)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: ISA Corp. (Calgary)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:31:38 GMT

It seems to me that you're saying that agriculture is (or could be) 
sustainable because it consumes so little fossil fuel compared to (1)
other human activities, and to (2) the net fossil fuel resources of the
planet.  This is true, but I'm not sure how it advances the discussion.

Wouldn't the same claim hold for any other individual or set of human
activities that collectively consumed less fossil fuel than (1) other
human activities and (2) our net planetary resources?  This would mean
that proponents of any such activity could claim that their favored
activity was sustainable, while others were not.

It seems to me that no activity based on fossil fuels is truly
sustainable, because fossil fuel resources are clearly finite.  Second,
the time period during which we will be able to burn them without
seriously  affecting the planet's atmosphere (global warming) has
already passed.  We should be cutting way back on fossil fuels, and be
developing solar and hydrogen power sources as fast as we can.
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Pesticides
Date: 19 Nov 1992 03:21:22 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


An overview of the current lack of regulation of potentially
and actually harmful agri chemicals can be initiated with
the following news brief:

Summer 1992:
Senator Patrick Leahy's Circle of Poison Act would close a
loophole in the US laws allowing the manufacture and export
of pesticides banned or not yet approved by the EPA  and
their subsequent reentry into the US in the form of residue
on produce imports.

The US imports such a volume of food produce and the FDA is
apparently so understaffed that less than 2% of imported
produce is even tested for pesticide contamination by the
FDA.

This Act would forbid the export by the US of pesticides
banned or lacking EPA registration.
Even the EPA does not know how many pesticides are 
unregistered and made only for export.

------

For those interested in reading more in this area,
the Journal of Evnironmental Science and Health does
numerous studies on health effects from pesticide
residues.  There are also literally thousands of studies
within the last few years available through Medline,
in various medical journals attempting to ascertain
health effects from agricultural chemicals.

Manuals such as The Pesticide Manual: A World Compendium
the Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, and  the Crop
Protection Chemicals Reference Manual all give detailed
description of the major chemicals used on crops,
including insecticides, fungicides, plant growth
regulators, and herbicides.
There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 different
chemicals currently available for use in the US in
these agriculture areas.
An interesting section of the Crop Protection Manual
shows each major crop and a list of chemicals used
for it beneath.
For example, broccoli:
can be treated with Ambush, Asana, Bravo, Cygen, Cythion,
Diazinon, Dacthal, Devrinol, Dibrom, DiPel, Dyfonate,
Javelin, Kryocide, Lannate, Larsban, Microthiol, Monitor 4,
Pounce, Ridomil and approx 30 other chemicals.



-- 
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: Returning nutrients to the soil
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:22:53 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov17.161150.14306@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV 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?

What are you on about here, David?  Or do you simply lash out once
again at anyone not so ideologically hysterical as you? If you do wish
to play such games I can guarantee to expose the full extent of your
ignorance with any trap I choose to set for you, at any time you least
expect it to happen.

In the meantime, if you care to put my comment back in its context,
you may perhaps observe my caveat about creating problems with alien
fungal infections to begin with, yes?

Also, if you do know of bacteria to treat soil problems with water
repelling fungi infecting reclaimed wetlands, or caused by mulching
with infected material, I would very much like further information
from you on workable and inexpensive solutions. Failing that, we shall
continue to treat it with the *organic* whetting chemicals we use now.

--
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 16:24:37 GMT

In article <-1363906760snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) 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.

>It is not a problem how plant nutrients are packaged;

Yes it is.  If they're supplied in the natural form, they support the entire
local ecosystem, e.g., soil microbes, not just the plants themselves.  If you
just supply highly available nutrients, you're feeding the plants only.  This
leads to reduced levels of microbes in the soil, which reduces the soil's
ability to convert indigenous minerals into nutrients.

>it is far more
>important to know *what* is being fed plants in the particular micro-
>climate to which they are best suited, regardless of the source of the
>material.

This is the micromanaging approach to growing plants.  You conduct various
studies to determine the levels of light, nutrients, micronutrients, etc., then
engineer a system to supply them in the required proportions.  Organic methods
are equivalent to macromanagement: ensure that the soil has enough of the raw
materials, and let *it* feed plants--the natural way.

>For that matter, it pays to retain access to expert advice
>and opinion before doing anything at all, instead of running around
>blindly insisting that people should do this or that on ideological
>grounds.

Agreed.

>You might well ask, "How does your garden grow?", before listening to
>what anyone has to say in any event . . .

There are at least two schools of thought on this.  One, apparently yours,
believes that the intimate details need to be understood before something can
be mastered.  The other, mine, agrees that it might be possible to do that, but
that it is not necessary.  It is often the case that processes can be managed
by taking care of the big picture and letting natural processes take care of
the details.

-- 
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: Split this group?
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:27:43 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov21.061206.20470@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au> ianst@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au writes:

 > 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.

I wonder how one would find any point discussing sus.agric technology
unless it was toward addressing the concerns of someone like Malthus?
The whole purpose of agriculture is to feed human populations, isn't it?

Again, I understand that as the hierarchy develops the next group to
be formed would be alt.sustainable.community. Because sustainable
production must be implemented in order to sustain communities, and
because communities must adopt sustainable values that sustainable
production can be implemented anyway, however, I find it difficult
to distinquish the two processes with any meaningful clarity.

If people think it is challenging now, I wonder how they will cope
when further steps toward integration are addressed, when a further
group such as alt.sustainable.development is added?

For all that, I do agree that the computer people and anyone else
might do some homework if they want to post to the Internet specialty
groups. Otherwise I have no complaint to make about who joins the
discussion; the more the merrier, IMHO.

--
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)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Seed money hostage to pesticide schedule?
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA

In article <1e5dt1INNhgm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
>  Mr. Hardwick emphatically supports Mr. Christie who states:
>
>"....if a soil test (by a special bank loan officer trained
>in agricultural economics) indicated that a given field
>scored in a normal nutrient range for the intended crop,
>the recommendation would not be for more fertilizer..."
>
>and again:
>
>"...In the eyes of such a loan officer, a farmer who was
>applying fertilizer or other agri chemicals which are not
>needed is wasting money..."
>
>
>Indeed!  Thank goodness we have these specially trained
>bank loan officers to tell the farmer how much fertilizer
>to use, etc.!
>
>The poor farmers.  And I though they were only being
>harrassed by the organic advocates.
>
>
you poor, pathetic little boy! did your mommy piss in your corn flakes
this morning? The farmer receives the results of soil and tissue analysis
in the mail, usually, and makes a decision about fertilizer amendments and/or
pesticide applications based in part on his/her own judgement and on the
recommendation from the laboratory/testing agency! The banker's role in
the process is to ensure that testing has been carried out... 

Your sarcasm and vitriol are not working towards any definable point.
In other words, you're wasting time... go do something useful...


>-- 
>Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
>            looks promising.... |-)

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:30:52 IST
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture

In article <1992Nov16.133132.29858@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>>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)?
>
> What makes you think I do?  In fact, I don't.  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.  As for human impact - forget about it because the human
population was insignificant until the last 1-2 millenia.  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.
--
                                 '      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: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Subject: Re: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:23:38 GMT

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.

Lawrence

london@sunsite.unc.edu