HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer 764-6339)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: GP wants you, was Re: government organic food purchase
Summary: Why reinvent the wheel when you can jump on the bandwagon?
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:36:26 GMT
Reply-To: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM


In article 1dneboINNfhj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>GREEN ISSUE?
>
>Food certified as organic is produced without any artificial
>fertilisers, herbicides, or pesticides and processed in an
>appropriate way is moving... to the mainstream.

>It seems to me that if all levels of government in this country
>were to take the lead and insist that where at all practical they
>would buy organic only that the present trend to organics would
>receive a massive boost.
>
>It also seems to me to be not a bad political issue. Local
>employment up, imports down, exports up, foreign debt reduced,
>and a healthier environment and population.

>Does anyone out there think it is a worthwhile issue to take up
>with an aim of achieving this change to the extent of a stated
>political intention within say three years?


Instead of starting a redundant political movement, why not join
the worldwide Green movement, which has been working the issue for
a while from exactly the angle you suggest.  Find your local Green
Party and go to a meeting.  The local meetings are the heart and
soul of the Green movement, since that's where *all* the decisions
are made.  If your local Green Party hasn't formed yet, find your
regional organizer and volunteer.


Cameron, who brings you greetings from the 110,000 members of
the Green Party of California, up from nothing in two years.
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Subject: Re: Returning nutrients to the soil
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.152207.28470@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
Cathy:
>>Chemical fertilizers replace a few specific minerals, but there
>>are many minerals necessary to human health (and which may or may
>>not be useful to the health of the crops, too) and people don't
>>usually fertilize their soil carefully with all of them.  
>>Another way
>>to do it would be to list ALL the minerals needed for plant
>>and human health, decide on reasonable proportions of them to 
>>use, and grind up and mix together rocks containing those minerals,
>>and use that as fertilizer.

This is the current trend amongst organic farmers. See Eliot Coleman's
and John Jeavons' books.

Don:
>That, Cathy, is exactly what is already being done. The list of essential
>nutrients for plants is well-known, and the formulation for fertilizers is
>based upon our knowledge of plant nutrition. 

I think what she said was that various rocks should be pulverized, blended
and applied as such directly to farm soil as slow-release long-lasting
soil amendment. 
The common grades of commercial factory-systhesized chemical fertilizer,
the kinds that are most often used by non-organic farmers, have no trace
minerals or raw rock powders in their formulations, much less manure,
fish, seaweed, bone meal, bean meal, tankage, feather meal, etc.

Seriously, have you never seen a well-run organic farm? You should
visit a few to see first-hand problems, solutions, successes,
failures, trial and error, experimentation, innovation encountered in 
day-to-day operation.



Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:39:57 GMT

>
>While I agree that sustainable agricultural systems are important to our
>long term survival, I am more concerned about sustainable urban systems.
>The urban environments are resulting in orders of magnitude more health
>threatening pollutants and toxins than any agricultural systems, yet I
>hear very little about sustainable cities.

I think this is a very good point... although it is slightly off the topic
of sustainable agriculture. How often do we hear of pollution and cancer-
causing chemical topics in relation to agriculture? 

Consider for a moment a day in the life of the average homeowner. We get up
in the morning and flush the toilet right away.... we wash using chemicals
collectively known as soaps or detergents... many of which are perfumed/
coloured/improved with other chemicals. We wear clothing which consists of
artificially produced fibers which are chemicals, coloured with dyes which
are also chemicals, and we cook our meals using electricity which has been
produced by any of several means, ALL harmful to the environment.

then we go off to our respective jobs, often in machines that belch carbon
monoxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. These machines, which are
constructed of metals, plastics, solvents and a wide assortment of toxic 
petrochemicals, are about fifteen percent efficient, I am told.... the
vast majority of the energy from the gasoline going to heat, which also
pollutes the environment. 

When at work, items such as paper, metal objects and other things too numerous
to mention become classified as `garbage'... 

Upon return home, we eat food packaged in plastics, glass and metals, and
the majority of this material similarly becomes `garbage'.

In short, even a modest `average citizen' is a serious polluter. And yet,
when we hear about pollution and environmental degradation, it is usually
in an agricultural context. Yet ordinary citizens outnumber farming citizens
by a factor of more than thirty to one!

Urban dwellers are quick to look at the agricultural sector and moan about
the grief that farmers are causing THEIR environment... but they don't give
very much thought to the damage they themselves are causing to the 
agricultural sector. This is part of the reason why I maintain that 
sustainable agriculture must ultimately involve the whole of society, not just
those who are actually producing food.



//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Real-world solutions
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.224641.17906@cal.isac.ca> jameson@cal.isac.ca (Kevin Jameson) writes:

> How can any agricultural system that's as heavily dependent on fossil
> fuels  as ours is make any reasonable claim of being sustainable?

Because we can be reasonably assured that substitutes for fossil fuels
will be available.  For example, so-called renewable energy sources
could serve to make hydrogen, the feedstock for ammonia synthesis.
Ammonia can also be made from hydrogen obtained from gasified waste or
other biomass (this would likely be cheaper unless the "wholesale"
price of electricity goes below $.02/kWh).

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
sustainable world, will all food be eaten raw?

A better example is mineral fertilizers, particularly phosphorus.
Even there, available supplies will last for centuries, at least.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
From: mracette@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Michael Racette)
Subject: College programs in Sustainable Ag
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 21:38:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Could someone please send me the listing of colleges and 
universities that have programs in sustainable agriculture
that appeared in this newsgroup earlier. 
Thanks in advance. 

Mike R.
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 13:43:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   I happen to believe that cows ==do== produce fertilizer
 quite nicely, thank you.  (and thank you, Betsy).

 As for Mr. Marder's contention that hormones and
 antibiotics are "natural, organic products",
 I apologize for not diagramming a complete
 flow chart of all known chemical materials,
 before discussing agricultural methods.
 Hormones and antibiotics....well that does seem
 to be stretching the concept of "natural" a bit.
 I guess all those medical studies pointing to
 harmful effects on humans from these occurring
 in food should be revised.

 As for delving the deep and true meaning of
 "agrochemicals are not inherently dangerous"
 as originally stated by Mr. Kilen, well I see
 what Mr. Marder is getting at:  agrochemicals
 certainly are not dangerous if left lying there
 in their drums quietly minding their own business.

 However, when I apply for work on one of those
 models of community, the kibbutz, (and I am 
 serious about this), I request plenty of cows,
 and absolutely no hormones, antibiotics, 
 and supplemental viruses, thank you.

 Shalom.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Kibbutz (was Malthus)
From: marder@agri.huji.ac.il
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:28:00 IST
Distribution: world
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Agriculture

In article <-1364766724snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
[ discussion about Kibbutz and sustainable agriculture)
>
> A question: What is the history of kibbutzim and what thinking lead to
> their institution in Israel?

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.
>
> --
> 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 * *
--
                                 '      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: 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: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:02:45 GMT

In article <1dr03aINNo09@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>
>   Cathy Woodgold has brought out some important issues in
> connection with a truly sustainable agriculture.
>
> Recycling of organic matter can be greatly improved in all
> areas of this country.  Much is wasted and not recovered.
> The larger commercial farms which grow hundred or 
> thousands of acres of the same crop face the greatest
> problems as far as replenishing the soil.
> Overall the figure in the U.S. for depletion of topsoil
> since the beginning of the century is about 25%.
> Through history, the most efficient natural farming has
> been in parts of the world where there is great population
> density in relation to amount of arable land.
> In China, all organic waste has been reused very efficiently
> in cultivation of intensive food gardens with great
> diversity of crop planting arrangements.  A fascinating
> book on this subject is Farmers of Forty Centuries
> written by F.H. King who was chief of the USDA in the
> early 1900's.  He toured China and Japan and wrote in
> great detail about their farming methods.
> Certain fish are efficient intermediators in the processing
> of animal and human waste.  Catfish for example can be
> raised on such material and catfish farming is a growing
> industry in the southern U.S.  The carp species can
> feed on various waste such as duck and other poultry
> manures; the tilapia of that species is gaining 
> popularity here in the U.S., already being widely
> eaten in other parts of the world.

that's all well and good.... but somehow I can't see Joe Herbie's wife
purchasing foodstuffs that have been fertilized with human shit... regardless
of what intermediaries were used!


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 05:14:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Mr. Kilen states that there is no difference between organic
and factory produced, similar products, such as nitrogen,
potash, etc.  There is a difference in efficiency, having an
entire factory to produce what a herd of cows, etc. could do
nicely instead.
But beyond this issue, the much more urgent was has to do with
the chemicals used as pesticides and other special additives
such as hormones, antibiotics, etc.  I am not concerned about
the N P K business at this point when there is so much else to
be concerned about.

Mr. Kilen states:

"Agrochemicals are not inherently dangerous to humans."
This is a simple statement, easy to comprehend and all inclusive.
Pesticides are agrochemicals.
Many pesticides have been banned over the last few decades by
agencies of the US government, being deemed a serious cancer or
other health risk.
However...many of these same "agrochemicals" are still allowed
to be produced legally here in the US and then sold to other
countries which then use them on their crops and the crops are
==legally== again sold back to consumers in the US market.

Is there a problem here?

Or should we just stop worrrying.  Everything is as it should be.
Let's stop criticizing the farmers:
Kilen:
"Instead of the criticism that a farmer is usually subjected to,
they should be admired for the great job they are doing."

I find the reasoning here very simplistic.  I certainly do not
isolate the farmer to be criticized, since the system of using
agrochemicals has been promoted from all sides, agrochemical
companies, government, journals, universities, until only 
recently, why should I blame the farmer for trusting the
experts?
I would never be that simple minded.
Still there is a serious problem.  There are a myriad of synthetic
chemicals available for use in agriculture, there is not the
rigorous examination of these that Mr. Kilen suggests, and there
are ==most definitely== a number of these agrochemicals which
have been banned yet are still making their  way back to the
shelves on our tomatoes, cucumbers, canteloupe, etc.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: College programs in Sustainable Ag
Date: 10 Nov 1992 02:22:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I originally posted a rather long list of academic programs
in sustainable agriculture.
Unfortunately I do not seem to have it saved anywhere so to
avoid re typing it by hand...does anyone have it saved...if
so, now would be a good type to repost it to this newsgroup
(you have my permission!), in fact I think it should be posted
here (and perhaps to other relevant newsgroups) on a regular
basis.
Also we need to add two or three additions that have been
posted by various individuals of specific college programs
that were not on the original list.
thanks.
mike romano
-- 
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: Virtual Communities/Intentional Communities
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 04:02:07 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1djavkINN342@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> colinj@monet.ccs.itd.umich.edu writes:

 >         With the discussion as it is on Communities I am wondering
 > what people think about virtual communities. A friend has created a
 > community in print in the form of a newsletter that he sends to people
 > that know him or other people who receive the newsletter.
 >  
 >         Given the number of mailing lists available on the net it
 > seems that virtual communities are really happening. What do people
 > think about this in terms of Intentional Communities? Do people have
 > to be in physical contact to be part of an intentional community? And
 > if they don't when can we define a virtual community as an intentional
 > community. 

Why not simply refer to a newsletter mailing list as a "mailing list"
without such pretentious misappropriation of language? Newsletters may
well form a valued service to a community, but to propose that their
distribution represents something of the same order as a community is
frankly preposterous.

Communities do not form around someone mailing sheets of paper with
writing on them to other people, but around the real-life contingencies
of raising children and educating them, of caring for the ill, the frail
and the elderly, of interring and mourning for the dead, of being able
to grow enough food for the living, of policing and preventing crime,
and not least of keeping the territory secure from invasion.

Please leave us an adequate vocabulary for communicating those real
contingencies; it is bad enough now trying to get anything done with
so much obfuscation and misunderstanding to confuse the issues.

--
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: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:00:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.134525.28134@nstn.ns.ca>, dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie) writes:
>
>... but to
>characterize all fertilizers as `factory-synthesized' (and the connotation is
>of course that they MUST therefore be harmful) is absurd.

It's a generalization.  Like a stereotype, it is dangerous to assume that is
either always true or not somehow based in reality.  *Most* conventional
fertilizers don't have trace elements, don't improve/maintain soil condition,
and often leave substantial salt residues.  Not *all*, *most*.

>It is indeed readily
>possible to purchase commercial fertilizer with trace elements included.

Known trace elements, perhaps, but isn't possible that some as-yet
"undiscovered" element/compound is missing?  Of course certain organic
amendments 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.  With man-made fertilizers, it's most likely not in there unless it's
been added.  Obviously, a processed natural material, e.g., phosphoric acid
from Florida rock, *would* have unexpected trace elements.

>What makes the organic movement think that they have any exclusive domain over
>knowledge of things like trace elements... or the formulations of 'politically
>correct' fertilizers?

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.

>You talk as if a conventional farmer and/or anybody
>who defends his/her practises cannot possibly know what they are doing...
>just because their point of view differs from yours!

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.

>My point is, however, that organic production practises do not
>constitute any `magic' answer to the problems of agriculture.

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.

>They certainly are a PART, but organic practises aren't practical in all
>situations with all crops.

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

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham