Is Organic Farming Feasible??

[Michaelangelica]

Transitioning to Organic Production

32 pp; published in 2003; free

Format: Print

Description | How to Order | Online HTML | Online PDF (1252 k)

 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education - Publications - List of All Bulletins

[Michaelangelica]

Some interesting figures sent to me by SANET(Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education)

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

Bonn, February 14th, 2007

Nearly 31 Million Certified Organic Hectares Worldwide

IFOAM, FiBL and SÖL present new facts and figures about the organic sector at BioFach 2007

 

Bonn/Frick/Bad Duerkheim/Nuremberg, February 14th 2007 - The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and the Foundation for Ecology and Farming (SÖL) will present the latest statistics about organic agriculture worldwide at BioFach 2007. The results of this year’s study The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007, which was supported by the NürnbergMesse, will be presented at the world’s largest trade fair for organic products on Friday February 16th at 10:00 in room St. Petersberg.

The study shows that nearly 31 million hectares are currently certified according to organic standards. Australia continues to account for the largest certified organic surface area, with 11.8 million hectares, followed by Argentina (3.1 million hectares), China (2.3 million hectares) and the USA (1.6 million hectares). Germany is in the seventh position worldwide. The most significant portion of global organic surface area is in Oceania (39%), followed by Europe (23%) and Latin America (19%). In terms of the certified organic agriculture as a proportion of all arable agricultural surface area, the Alpine countries, such as Austria with more than 14%, top the statistics. Dr. Helga Willer und Minou Yussefi, who have headed up the study for the last eight years, emphasize that the growth exhibited in the USA (more than 400,000 hectares) and certain European countries (more than 110,000 hectares in Italy and 85,000 hectares in Poland) has been the most noteworthy. In addition to the

certified organic arable land, nearly 62 million hectares are currently certified to organic standards for the collection of wild product, according to research by the International Trade Center (ITC).

The global market for organic products reached a value of 25.5 billion Euros in 2005, with the vast majority of products being consumed in North America and Europe, according to the market research experts of Organic Monitor. For 2006, the value of global markets is estimated to be at more than 30 billion Euros. Healthy growth rates are expected to continue in the coming years. Angela B. Caudle, IFOAM Executive Director, suggests that the ever-growing demand for organic products offers attractive opportunities for producers – especially those in developing countries.

The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007 is being presented for the eighth consecutive year at BioFach 2007. In addition to chapters reviewing organic agriculture worldwide, numerous illustrations and graphs, and completely revised reports about the emerging trends and regional development highlights on each individual continent, the study includes a comprehensive annex with the entire data set and expanded coverage of commodity specific data.

Contacts

 

 

Dr. Helga Willer, Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstr., CH-5070 Frick, Tel. +41 79 2180626, Fax +41 62 8657-273, E-Mail [email protected], Internet FiBL Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau

Minou Yussefi, Foundation for Ecology and Farming (SÖL), Weinstr. Süd 51, D-67098 Bad Dürkheim, Tel. +49 6322 98970-0, Fax +49 6322 98970-1, E-Mail [email protected], Internet Stiftung Ökologie & Landbau

Neil Sorensen, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Tel. +49 228 92650-16, E-Mail [email protected], Internet ifoam.org | International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

NürnbergMesse, BioFach, Messezentrum Nürnberg, D – 90471 Nürnberg, Tel. +49 911 8606-4909, Fax+49 911 8606-4908, E-Mail [email protected], Internet Willkommen zur BioFach 2007 - BioFach

Information about the study

[Cedars]

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education - Publications - List of All Bulletins

 

Good link. At this site I have read:

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education - Publications - A Whole Farm Approach to Managing Pests -

and

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education - Publications - Diversifying Cropping Systems -

 

Very good articles with a broad overview of the needs to convert. If someone was interested in switching over, these are helpful.

 

 

Some interesting figures sent to me by SANET(Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education)

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

 

This link gave me access to region specific help sites so I can look up more details covering Minnesota, with its cold climate and the shorter growing season.

 

Ya did good!

Thanks!

[gribbon]

One of the things I don’t like about organic farming is that it seems to me to be an ideology more than a practice. I don’t know about you, but I hate this new idea that has come into play in the last few years, one which can only be described as “snob-value”.

 

Certain people, usually in developed and wealthy countries, suffer from an illusion that things were better as they were in the old days, and hence are never satisfied with modern methods of production, education etc. They believe that by going back to the past, where things were made all by hand, and where huge amounts of waste where put into the manufacture of anything, they can find a better product.

 

I’ll give you an example: If the marble used on a building they see has been imported from a local quarry, then naturally, people will assume that it is just not the same quality as marble that has been imported from the other side of the country. And, of course, if it has been imported form Tunisia, then it must be even better. And, if it was dug out the ground using “traditional” methods, as opposed to modern machinery, then of course, the quality is far superior. Similarly, if a meal has been prepared in a factory, or if food has been grown in a laboratory, then it just can’t be as good as “hand prepared vegetables”.

 

It is purely a backward and philistine ideology, comparable to the way in which some people believe that anything more expensive is of better quality. What annoys me is how people in developed countries try and instigate this nonsense elsewhere in the world. Charity and aid organisations are coming under increasing pressure to find ways of alleviating poverty in the poorest regions of the world, yet at the same time preserve “traditional values”. As if a starving African farmer really cares whether the food on his plate was grown in a laboratory, or using “traditional” methods. Only the elites will insist that food grown in a traditional manner tastes better, and is more beneficial to its consumer!

 

“This product has been made using natural ingredients only”, the label on new foods boasts, as if this really means it is nutritious.

 

What concerns me, (and what my suspicion is), is that this “organic” farming is just an extension of the pretentious “snob-value” which is infiltrating consumers.

 

What I would like would be confirmation that this is not just another fad which supermarkets can profit from. In particular, who came up with this whole idea first of all, and how can it be confirmed that this is a practice, and not a pretentious ideology?

 

One thing which no-one else has mentioned so far is the idea that the only reason why organic frams cope with pests is because thy are usually surrounded by inorganic farms which keep the pests under control for them. This arument works in reverse however, seeing as one oculd argue that all the pests would gather on the organic farm like on on island.

 

Here’s a quote which seems to confirm my suspicion that worries about pesticides are just completely baseless:

 

“Dozens of health and cancer institutions have concluded that there is no realistic threat to human health from the tiny traces of synthetic pesticides on our food, including the US National Research Council (NRC), the US Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute of Canada.”

 

spiked-science | Article | Unearthing the truth about organic food

BBC News | HEALTH | Organic food 'no healthier'

 

CGFI: New Rodale Study: Organic System Yields 30 Percent Less Food

 

The truth is that there are many modern pesticides which have far lower rates of soil inflittartion, solubility, and now with modern technonogy, it is possible to reduce half lives to as little as few days, fro heaven’s sake.

 

Compare some of the best pesticides in use:

 

Anilazine, which has a half-life of just one day, a movement rating clasified as “extremely low” a solubility of 8 mg/l, and last but not least, a Sorption Coefficient (soil Koc) of just 1000.

 

What about Bromoxynil octanoate ester, which has a half of 7 days, an infiltration rated “extremely low” a solubility of just 0.08 mg/l, and an absorption coefficient of 10,000? Is that not adequate?

 

What about Captafol (2)?

 

Very Low, 7-day half-life, 1.4 mg/l, 3000 Koc...

 

...Hmmm...I can think of some other ones, but I'm not entirely sure about the full list...but here's some impotant bits I know about a few commonly used pesticides...

 

Trade name Half life Solubility (mg/l) Absorption rate (Koc)

for pesticide

followed

by infiltration

rate(Extremely

low, Very low,

High etc)

 

 

Captan

 

Very Low 2.5 5.1 200

 

Chlordane

 

Extremely Low 350 0.06 20,000

 

Chloropicrin

 

Extremely Low 1 2270 62

 

Chlozolinate (2)

 

Extremely Low 2 1 10,000

 

Dichlorvos (2)

 

Extremely Low 0.5 10,000 30

 

Diflubenzuron

 

Extremely Low 10 0.08 10,000

 

Fenoxycarb

 

Extremely Low 1 6 1000

 

Fosetyl-aluminum

 

Extremely Low 0.1 120,000 20

 

Lactofen

 

Extremely Low 3 0.1 10,000

 

Malathion

 

Extremely Low 1 130 1800

 

Naled

 

Extremely Low 1 2000 180

 

Propanil

 

Extremely Low 1 200 149

 

Streptomycin sulfate (8)

 

Extremely Low 1 20,000 339

 

All the ones I have listed are classified as “extremely low” or “Very low” meaning that we can rely on these chemicals not to seep into our groundwater systems and streams. They also have short half-lives which reduces risks further, and also quite low solubility, meaning they are less likely to wash off into streams as the result of a downpour. But what if it turns out that these are not the pesticides currently in use? Well, the table in the link below (pg. 26) shows you the most commonly used pesticides in the U.S (where around 34% of pesticides are used in the first place).

 

http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/market_estimates2001.pdf

 

Does anyone know if biological control is more feasible? I find it hard to believe that evolution could drive away competition with pests quicker than research into pesticide development, but I may be wrong...anyone know?

[HydrogenBond]

One only has to compare the price of chem-food and organic food to realize that the poor would starve if there is only organic food. Food production on a large scale only became possible because of the use of chems making it cheap enough to leave the farm. The organic food is more of a marketing scheme under the guise of altruism.

 

I used to grow organic veggies, mostly for the challenge. Over a years time, all the organic waste was composted. The following year this was tilled into the garden. Some crushed marble was added, for slow release K, crushed limestone for Mg, Ca, earthworms and manure near the plants for extra nitrogen. I selected seeds that were resistant to disease and pests. Used black plastic to control weeds. Some years added bonemeal, bloodmeal, sea kelp, etc for additional slow release nutrients. It works fairly well.

 

Eventually I did a compromise. I still composted and selected resistant seeds to avoid most secondary chems, but substituted 10-10-10 for the organic plant food. The results were equally good with less work.

[Michaelangelica]

..

 

...Hmmm...I can think of some other ones, but I'm not entirely sure about the full list...but here's some impotant bits I know about a few commonly used pesticides...

 

Trade name Half life Solubility (mg/l) Absorption rate (Koc)

for pesticide

followed

by infiltration

rate(Extremely

low, Very low,

High etc)

 

You make some great points:)

1 I agree the price of organic food is silly, as more is produced however, hopefully, the price will go down. There is no need for it to be more expensive except as you say "snob value".

There is no research I know that shows it has better nutrition. Better flavour perhaps if some heritage seeds are used.

 

2.The main reason to go organic would be the environment and soil health. While it is great to see new pesticides coming out with half lives of days rather than years many people do not trust big chemical companies because of previous lies. I mentioned (in another thread?) about a presentation I went to for a new pesticide. I was impressed. However the 50 or so garden writers who were with me were not prepared to promote the product as "You can't trust what they say". A very unfair attitude when the chemical companies are making the effort to be responsive to community concerns and needs - but, they have created their own history

 

However I don't know where you get your half life info from because it is wrong. Chlorinated hydrocarbons average a half life of 18 years or so ( Dichlorvos chlordane) Chlordane is especially long lived and potent

The organo-phosphates like malathion are also very persistent.

 

 

Perhaps your figures are with-holding times?

With-holding times (how long before you can sell the crop after spraying -legally) are a joke. They are not enforced and all that happens is the pesticide spreads out enough for you not to get a toxic dose.

As you know, both families of pesticide pollute the whole ecosystem for generations.

If you believe in Homeopathy you have to be very scared of tiny pesticide residues.

 

There is a "spray-til-it-drops" mentality among gardeners and farmers when spraying should be only one of many ways of managing pests.

 

(There are a lot of great biological controls Dipel is one that comes to mind- Bacillus thungerensis and friends.).

 

As a society we seem to be insect-phobic. Hollywood revels in it. If it crawls kill it. Without insects there would be little life on the planet. Insects are all part of the web, we need them. A touch more Buddhism in our approach to "creepy crawlies" is needed.

When I sold plants for a living I was often asked as the person purchased the plant "What should I spray it with" This always dumbfounded me

 

3. The other point you don't mention is fertilizers.

At the moment many of the chemical ones come from oil. Enough said?

 

Studies have shown that over a period of ten years an organic farm can be more economic in its use of fertilisers; soil fertility overtaking a 'chemical' farm in three years; maintaining that advantage, and reducing costs.

 

The "Terra preta" idea shows how important soil organic matter is to the zoology of the soil. (Including sequestering carbon -look up "glomalin").

 

You also have many pollution problems in lakes and rivers due to chemical fertiliser run off (look up Mississippi )

 

Thanks for your intelligent, thoughtful post

m

 

PS

Can we please have an ENGLISH spell checker!

[Cedars]

What I would like would be confirmation that this is not just another fad which supermarkets can profit from. In particular, who came up with this whole idea first of all, and how can it be confirmed that this is a practice, and not a pretentious ideology?

 

Does anyone know if biological control is more feasible? I find it hard to believe that evolution could drive away competition with pests quicker than research into pesticide development, but I may be wrong...anyone know?

Sorry for the long post....

 

There is more 'organic' farming going on in the world than can be established by the places watching numbers. As I read about the definitions, I realized that the calves we shipped out in the fall probably qualified back then under todays terms of 'organic'. Our herd of cattle nearly qualified 100% of the time, but the issue would have been in the grain they received in the winter. I cannot say that was purely organic. I do know when it was ordered, we specifically ordered the stuff that didnt have antibiotics added in because we had that choice. It may very well be that our whole herd qualified under organic, which would mean at least several of our neighbors would have fallen under those terms. The strawberries we grew in our garden would have qualified for sure. Theres probably other things that would have, it was a kick *** soil base for a garden that didnt require the use of chemical ferts, only the manure was tilled into the soil. Pesticide was used on some plants, especially the cabbage. And we didnt need herbicides. Tilling, hand weeding and mulching took care of that.

 

This would apply also to many countries in the world with less extensive farm-to-market networks such as local bazaars/marketplaces in cities in mexico (for example). Just because chemicals are available for use doesnt mean they are being used by every farmer even in the USA or the UK.

 

I can pick out differences in vegetable tastes on various store shelves. Its not always because broccoli bunch A was harvested yesterday and broccoli B was harvested 5 days ago so much as what soils these products were grown in.

 

There are real issues for farmland that may be addressed by more organics used in more farms. Topsoil loss is a huge issue that some of these practices may address better than the methods being used. There is topsoil loss thru runoff and thru winds. If you lose too much of your topsoil, you lose the nutrients inherant in that soil and force the increased use of chemicals which do run off into the waterways or congregate in the low spots in the fields. As I understand it, it is via congragation that herbisides, pesticides and fertilizers are entering the groundwater in most of the areas in Minnesota where this has become an issue. You also lose the microbes that impact various pests/fungus quantities. I cant say we know enough about these little predators to give an assessment of their positive impacts.

 

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy: MCEA Unveils Print Ads To Warn Of Detection Of Pesticide Contamination In Minnesota Groundwater

 

There is the reality that insects develop resistance to pesticides and weeds develop resistance to herbicides (weed being a subjective term). That is a known fact and its a driving factor in why there is always new products being developed to address these issues. So there is validity in the organic side when they claim the use of pesticides/herbicides impact the enviroment in multiple negative ways. With some of these chemicals staying in the soils for many years beyond their usefulness and the fact that you have to change the chemical composition of the new products results in large numbers of chemicals soaking into the soils and reaching waterways and ground waters for many years beyond their use. There is also the reality that some beneficial insects are harmed by the use of these chemicals, honey bees come to mind, and they are a significant source of pollenation in the USA.

 

And I would refer you to this thread for an idea of some of the chemicals being found in waters in various places:

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/9104-water-contaminates-sex.html

 

I would also refer you to the terra preta thread for additional information on impacts via more organic methods of growing things: http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html

 

I dont know that you have to show organics are More feasable to justify their use. I think you only need to show they are equally feasible, whether it is thru gains in soil retention, lessened impact on waterways, reduced chemical consumption, higher production and/or a combination of these beneficial effects.

 

My biggest questions regarding all this revolve around the How to do it feasibly/How to sell it to the people who farm. I cant answer some significant questions regarding these issues.

[IDMclean]

I just wanted to make a few comments about this.

 

First of which, just to get it out of the way. Is that the food we send to africa and similarly disadvantaged countries has been damaging to their development. As we have been finding, we needed to have built a highway system, for instance, in africa before we tried supplying them with our excess food. When we talk mass production, we often forget that more important is mass distribution.

 

Now as for the actual topic, and not a sub tangent. Organic farming, as I understand it is actually more feasible for one major reason than the current standard. Sustainability. I have a moto that goes "That which is ecological is economical." Which make sense as long as you realize that an economy is Law of eco (system). Ecology is study of eco (system).

 

Now what is advocated here by Michealangelica is a sustainable (and balanced) eco system model of farming. Which in the long run should be the best choice.

 

What is missed in the mass production era (1800s-Now), is that entropy trumps and power is not free. Our resources though massive are limited and diminishing (in the sense that we are tying them up in stuff that is not easy to reduce to raw material and reuse).

 

It would not be possible for me to give an economic or ecological overview in full here, but to give you an idea of the Mass Production Problem that will be the challenge of our children's children is that the average american produces 1 ton of waste (Affluenza on ?PBS?) per year, to produce the things that those americans waste, ultimately, produces another 20 tons.

 

To make those insoluable chemicals, I have to question how much they are truely impacting our ecological (read: Habitat and Economy) system?

 

Last comment:

Organic food is higher priced because there is a shortage. Supply versus demand. There are more "standard" farms world wide than "organic" farms. As such the demand is high (in california for instance) but the supply is low. According to the laws of supply and demand, the price should then be high for the more limited goods (Organics).

 

Why I bring this up is that it then becomes a fleeting matter. The price at the grocery store reflects the fact that there is not enough organic farms to meet demand. Organic produce nets farmers higher profits (when done correctly) so the natural progression will ulitmately be towards more organic farms, as this transition occurs the price will vary and once supply meets demand we will have equalibrium.

 

So give it a few decades and I am willing to bet that organic farming, or more sustainable farming will surplant the existing model, method, and paradigm. If not surplant then modify. Either way, it has to move towards equalibrium(economicly, ecologically, monetarily, etc).

 

Such is nature.

[Michaelangelica]

i agree with cedars alot more organic farming is going on than we realise.

With family farms spreading their risk among a lot of animals and crops getting total farm organic certification may be difficult Although I believe there are "grades" you can go through. (I sympathise about the cabbage the cabbage-white-moth-butterfly can probably smell your cabbages growing from here -try Bacillus thungerensis as a control)

 

One reason for this is many farmers are more ecologically minded than many give them credit for. They are closer to the earth, the seasons, to nature and have a greater respect and knowledge of the web of life.

The other reason is costs. No doubt many Mexican farms are residual-pesticide free, because farmers can't afford them.

Indian farmers use a lot of Neem, a,very effective organic pesticide that can be home-grown, even though their chemical factories still produce and export DDT

I once imported herbs from France, most farms I saw around Provonce were organic because the French were too mean to spend $s on pesticide or fertiliser. Also the crops they grew seem to have a unique affinity with the area something they have learnt over 2,000 years of trial and error.

Interestingly the Australian customs made me fumigate the herbs with Methyl Bromide when they arrived here. (They were not for human consumption but even culinary herbs are treated in the same way)

 

I think one of the points KAC is making is the use of energy on the farm and in getting produce to the consumer. This concern has spawned a couple of movements the "Permaculture" Idea ( see website) and the "subscription" idea where you agree say, to take say $100 worth of whatever vegetables are available every week from the local organic farm

There are also some urban gorillas around collecting what supermarkets throw out and re-distributing it (In the UK I think -I don't know what they are called).

With the development of clean pyrolysis at least organic waste should be a thing of the past and charcoal can be re-distributed back to the farm (see Terra preta)

[IDMclean]

Well I mean many things, energy being one of the more important aspects but also I mean soil, air, water, and bio-diversity.

 

My Great Grandmother has ran a farm for like 50 years or something like that. I've watched what has gone on at the farm. They do not practice sustainable farming. It might take something like 100+ years to deplete the soil to the place of barrenness, but it will happen eventually. Then on top of it they kill off allot of the various creatures that live on and around the farm. This is both good and bad. It's bad because whole sale reduction of biodiversity without replacement will result in ecological instabilty and will ultimately affect their yeild and other things like that.

 

It's good because it gets rid of the truely unwanted, the parasitic pests.

 

What I am getting to is that the way they run the farm is such that the biodiversity is very low and the soil is consistently being depleted (there are many other issues but I don't wish to diverge off onto them).

 

The eco system is out of whack, and it will seek equalibrium one way or the other. I would prefer that my farm produce food (bio-equalibrium) rather than go barren (bio-depletion, a negative form of ecological equalibrium).

 

The trend must be, and is towards operating farms more as complete ecosystems than as pet store cages.

 

This is all without getting away from unnecessary and expensive machinery. Tractors are good, and needed for some operations but animals actually come out more efficient when used properly. You can grow food for animals, that is sustainable. You can not grow diesel for a truck or tractor in the same way. (You can extract it as a byproduct of fast food and other high waste vegatable oil industries).

 

Horses were good enough for our grand fathers, and rare as it is for me to admit, I would think that they prove to be adequate for many farming needs. Plus they provide fertilizer while they work. :D

 

It's all a matter of the right tools for the right jobs. The right blend of tools, persons, and enviroment/ecosystem for the right project.

 

As it is we make more food than we need, we consistently run surplus in wheat and other such things. We could shift over and not lose yeild, nor profit. It just would require some education and training of our newer farmers.

 

In the old day it was good enough to dig ditches to farm. Not so for what I am talking about. I am talking ecological engineering for a diversity of foods in such a way as to self-replenish. With the help of reprocessing of our vegatable matterial.

 

Then again, I am always talking about whole sale changes that effect far more than just the areas that others are talking about.

 

Just some thoughts in this direction. Perhaps tangent to what was being discussed. It's more as a reply to the thesis statement than any particular post.

[Michaelangelica]

 

My Great Grandmother has ran a farm for like 50 years or something like that. I've watched what has gone on at the farm. They do not practice sustainable farming. It might take something like 100+ years to deplete the soil to the place of barrenness, but it will happen eventually.

That is sad but I blame science. The advice your grandmother would have been given by "agricultural experts".

 

Some 100 years ago at I think Rothmede? in England someone burnt a plant and analyzed it. It contained N, P and K. So everyone was told add N,P,K to your soil and everything will be hunky-dory. It was for a while. We added a few trace elements to the mix and that was modern agriculture with improved pesticides and plant varieties -we were king.

 

Now we are discovering how complex the soil life is and how important organic matter is to it as well as to us (We need to store some carbon somewhere).

 

The discovery of glomalin a mere 10 years ago will change everyone's approach to agriculture.

 

Perhaps we will take the best of traditional and organic gardening.

 

We certainly need more research into what lives in soils, in different countries, and the dynamics of soil ecology and how we can be guardians of it for the next generation.

Horses were good enough for our grand fathers, and rare as it is for me to admit, I would think that they prove to be adequate for many farming needs. Plus they provide fertilizer while they work. :D

I often wished my tractor was a horse. It often broke down and, not being mechanically minded I would have loved to have shot it in revenge.:D

[Michaelangelica]

The FDA has given up with about 40,000 chemicals floating around us

OUR NEUROTOXIC WORLD (PART TWO): INDUSTRIAL

CHEMICALS - A SILENT

PANDEMIC?

(All In The Mind: 17/02/2007)

Lead in paint, methylmercury in fish and arsenic in groundwater: just

some of the toxic insults on our vulnerable brains.

Could the world's

children be experiencing a silent pandemic in neuro-developmental

disorders? Harvard's Professor Phillipe Grandjean thinks so. He joins

Deborah Cory-Slechta from Rutgers University to unpick the latest

compelling science.

Don't miss two of the world's trailblazers in

neuro-toxicology.

All In The Mind - 17 February 2007  - Our neurotoxic world (part two): Industrial chemicals - a silent pandemic?

Transcript avialable

It would be nice to know what the 200 chemicals are that they are most worried about. Anyone know how to get the list?

[Michaelangelica]

This is great, though a pity soil scientists are being fired.

transect points: Smithsonian soil exhibit

Smithsonian Institution, the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), and others are planning a 5,000 square foot soil exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. The projected opening for the “Soils:Worlds Underfoot,” exhibit, is 2008. The exhibit will occupy one entire hall of the museum and will be displayed for 1.5 years.

. . .

Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. The total cost is projected to be $4 million.

 

The exhibit will emphasize the living, biological nature of soils, the variation in soils from one region or locality to another, the dynamic nature of soil, the role soil plays in linking the earth's air, land and water resources, and the importance of taking care of our non-renewable soil resources.

 

This exhibit is welcomed with enthusiasm by soil scientists. It would be at any time, but now, when soil science is at the cross roads and with soil scientists keyed up about the profession, it is even more so.

 

Many soil scientists are asking if the profession can survive another generation. Soil science departments continue to close up shop,

[Cedars]

KACs post on his great grandma got me wondering what it would involve to convert an existing farm to Organic certification. I assumed she is located in CA but realize that might not be correct.

 

The Standards page. Required reading if your interested in converting your farm over to certified Organic:

 

Production and Handling: Regulatory Text

 

Three years of documented organic process before the product can be declared "organic". This does not mean the product cannot be sold to market, it only means it cannot be certified. So thats helpful to know.

 

The Main Page:

National Organic Program Home

 

Pretty useless if you are seeking information on 'How To':

California Organic Program

 

But I did find the one of the forms you have to fill out to become certified in CA:

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/publications/forms/pdf/dhs8593.pdf

 

Here is a handy link found at the CA gov site. These are certified sources for organic seeds:

 

OMRI Organic Seed Database

 

Another link that I havent had time to review.

Organic Trade Association

 

Organics Resource page.

Organic Farming Research and Information

 

One link from the above that I did a small bit of research on:

http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/7251.pdf

 

They mention one predator insect so I googled that

"trichogramma wasp" - Google Search

 

This gave some info but left me with more questions than answers. #1 issue was this predator insect doesnt seem to do a very good job and about the best they could really say was it was better than no pest control. The thing I was interested in that this piece didnt cover was the competition for the imported wasp vs naturally occuring species. Unfortunately they dont mention the names of the natural competitors, and they do not mention the predadation of non-target butterfly and moth eggs by this species as a part of their study.

The Trichogramma Manual

 

Farm Subsidy Database. Somewhat misleading because of context issues. For example, Ducks Unlimited receives some of the moneys and in turn does work on various farm eco important areas to reduce runoff into waterways and prairie/habitat/wetland restoration efforts. There are other programs which do the same thing such as Conservation Reserve and RIM Reserves and receive these fed monies to enhance the state programs:

EWG || Farm Subsidy Database

 

I post the above link so someone could reference total monies devoted to encouraging changeover to more organic methods (if you can find that data) compared to the other aspects of gov. subsidy

 

It seems a farmer is up against alot of problems to convert over to organics/sustainable farming.

[gribbon]

Last thing I knew Oil was made from the NPK nutrients, and seeing as oil doesn’t provide these, I don’t see what oil has to do with fertilisers. I know that Nitrogen fertilizer (N) is made from ammonia, but his uses natural gas, which isn’t running out so fast, and even when it does run out, fertilizer can be produced from coal, (like in China) where around 60% of nitrogen fertilizer production is currently dependent on coal, and even when coal runs out, there will still be plenty of ammonia available because vast quantities of it are produced daily in the form of human and animal urine....

 

Potash and Phosphate are in plentiful supply, too. As far as I can see there isn’t any threat to fertiliser production for some time to come.

 

Peak Oil Debunked: 28. ISN'T FERTILIZER MADE FROM CRUDE OIL?

 

As for the bit about half-lives, I remember reading this somewhere, (text book or something) and I found a pdf somewhere which seems to back this….its somewhere on this site….

 

National Pesticide Information Center - Technical Pesticide Information

 

Topsoil loss is a huge issue that some of these practices may address better than the methods being used.

 

 

So could other farming practices solve this…I'll have to look into this, but Horticulture is just as effective, (but this does lead to soil salinization, so there has to be another alternative).

 

And I would refer you to this thread for an idea of some of the chemicals being found in waters in various places:

 

At what dose? The dose is what makes the poison…

 

The "Terra preta" idea shows how important soil organic matter is to the zoology of the soil. (Including sequestering carbon -look up "glomalin").

 

I can see that, it’s just the anti-fertiliser pesticides doctrine of organic farming, which I despise….

 

If you believe in Homeopathy you have to be very scared of tiny pesticide residues.

 

Don’t worry buddy, I don’t….:hihi:

 

(There are a lot of great biological controls Dipel is one that comes to mind- Bacillus thungerensis and friends.).

 

That interests me more…pesticides are fine from what I can see, but biological control will always allow for a less precarious food supply. Better biological controls are far more economical than pesticides, returning a benefit-to-cost ratio of 11:1 though some cliam that £32 in benefits for each £1 invested in developing and implementing the program is the reality, and I think that 13:1 is the comparable profit ratio for chemical programmes…

 

Xylocoris flavipes, resulted in a 79-100% suppression of moth populations in small storages of peanuts, up to 99% reduction of saw-toothed grain beetle populations in 35-quart lots of corn, and a 90-98% suppression of red flour beetles in a simulated peanut warehouse. I’m also pretty certain that the parasitic wasp Anisopteromalus calandrae managed to suppress Rice Weevils in wheat spillage by 96%, and furthermore, the Trichogramma pretiosum in tandem with the larval parasitoid Bracon hebetor abridged Indian meal moth populations by 84% and almond moth (Cadra cautella) populations by 98% in peanut stores. Pretty impressive eh? Finally, B. hebetor, completely unaccompanied subjugated almond moth populations by 97.3%.

 

I can think of some more examples where biological control could be/has been implemented effectively.

 

- Myrothecium verrucaria could be used to manage Amaranthus (sometimes called pigweed/water hemp) species, and seeing as Amaranthus species are common throughout Midwestern fields and are developing resistance to herbicides, this may soon prove essential.

 

-Biocontrol of common cocklebur with Alternaria helianthi looks promising from what I can gather, and furthermore, control of (Sesbania exaltata) by Colletotrichum truncatum has already proven successful. I’m not entirely sure about this next bit, but I think that Cocklebur is common in the southern portions of the mid-west, but the hemp sesbania is not found in the region, so only opne bio-control would be needed here.

 

-Eighteen species of beetle have been investigated as possible controllers, but none are yet available.

 

-The encrytid wasp (I think its called Comperia mercet) specifically latches onto the egg cases of the brown banded cockroach, and the University of California Berkeley has tested and proven that they are effective, although they do not attack other types of cockroaches. (Hence the limits to their usage).

 

-Likewise, the eulophid wasp Aprostocetus hagenowii, (which has a broad range of targets) latch onto the cases of many American cockroaches, and genus Aphidius attack aphids and have proven good at controlling them in backyard gardens, commercial fields, and urban landscapes, which, in addition to killing aphids directly, the commotion they cause in aphid colonies cause many aphids to fall off the plants and die, doubling their effectiveness. (But I don’t know if they are commercially available).

 

These are the examples of biological control for agriculture I can think of that is applicable to the circumstances seen for the world’s breadbasket (the U.S.), where an enormous intimidation looms on the endless cereal covered horizons. The shear efficiency of this type of agriculture has lead to its own weakness. If a new disease or pest invasion were to emerge, this could wipe out food supplies within weeks, and the whole of the western world would starve.

 

*Only Biological control would be able to rescue food supplies under such circumstances.*

 

I don’t know of any negative consequences of Biological control in general, but there was one example of where disaster has struck: when the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rat population, and instead, the mongoose ate Endemic birds of Hawaii, especially their eggs, more often than it ate rats.

 

Similairly, the Parasitoids and predators that were expected to curtail the stem borers, (Busseola fusca, Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, and Chilo partellus), were introduced in South Africa in order to aid maize grain and sorghum crops, their motion was inadequate in reducing pest populations to low enough levels, nor was it able to stop C. partellus.

 

Biological control programmes can be a waste of money, but from what I can see, they are generally a brilliant alternative. Overall, it would appear to me that biological control; alongside genetic engineering would be a major step forward.

 

:hihi: :hihi:

[Cedars]

Topsoil loss is a huge issue that some of these practices may address better than the methods being used.

 

 

So could other farming practices solve this…I'll have to look into this, but Horticulture is just as effective, (but this does lead to soil salinization, so there has to be another alternative).

 

Other farming practices that could solve this include methods being incorporated by the organic farming methods. See post #6 for some links discussing some of the practices that aid soil retention.

 

Good webpage on soil erosion:

Soil: erosion and conservation

 

found on this page (lots of links to good sites):

GeoResources - Geography website: Edexcel Unit 4

 

Heres a good satellite image of runoff and the article talks about issues:

 

Great Barrier Reef awash in river pollutants - World Environment - MSNBC.com

 

And I would refer you to this thread for an idea of some of the chemicals being found in waters in various places:

 

At what dose? The dose is what makes the poison…

 

 

The dose to what? Fish? Birds? Plants? Amphibians? Beneficial microbes? Phytoplantons? Humans? Reproductive success/failures of the previously mentioned?

[Michaelangelica]

(N) is made from ammonia, but his uses natural gas, which isn’t running out so fast, and even when it does run out, fertilizer can be produced from coal, (like in China) where around 60% of nitrogen fertilizer production is currently dependent on coal, and even when coal runs out, there will still be plenty of ammonia available because vast quantities of it are produced daily in the form of human and animal urine....

 

Potash and Phosphate are in plentiful supply, too. As far as I can see there isn’t any threat to fertiliser production for some time to come.

 

Peak Oil Debunked: 28. ISN'T FERTILIZER MADE FROM CRUDE OIL?

I seem to be wrong. Sorry not a chemist

Pesticides and herbicides are made from crude oil

Comment like these can give you the wrong idea:-

Agriculture (massive food shortages) depends heavily on fertilizers and chemicals made from oil.

Oilcrash.com: Home Page

Fertilizers are made from raw materials refined by oil.

Michigan Water Environment Association

 

As for the bit about half-lives, I remember reading this somewhere, (text book or something) and I found a pdf somewhere which seems to back this….its somewhere on this site….

No the half life of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons is on average 18 yeras.

From your site (boy it is big no wonder the FDA don't want to know about the other 40,000 chemicals out there!)

says chlodane can have ahalf life of 10 years.

Again this whole "half life" idea is a bit of a worry as no-one has shown what many of these these chemicals actually break down into. DDT becomes a more toxic DDE for example

 

National Pesticide Information Center - Technical Pesticide Information

 

So could other farming practices solve this…I'll have to look into this, but Horticulture is just as effective, (but this does lead to soil salinization, so there has to be another alternative).

?

 

At what dose? The dose is what makes the poison…

Very true

The above web site again says chlordane can cause liver cancer and the toxic dangerous inhalation dose is less than 0.05mg/l

Again the whole concept of LD50 testing is also a worry

this is where the toxic dose kills 50% or more of the treated animals.

usually this is done in a lab under controlled conditions. This will not reflect effects from long term exposure such as birth defects, cancer, reproductive problems etc

 

 

I can see that, it’s just the anti-fertiliser pesticides doctrine of organic farming, which I despise….

MM,

for me the problem is mainly with plastic pesticides, especially their harmful ecological effects. Your great, great grandchildren will be excreting CHs in their breast milk. (Us guys can't excrete them at all )

There are a lot of pesticides that I, and I think organic gardeners, are OK about.

"Neem" is amazing you should try it.

 

Don’t worry buddy, I don’t….:xparty:

NO, I don't think I do either, but I could be wrong

 

That interests me more…pesticides are fine from what I can see, but biological control will always allow for a less precarious food supply. Better biological controls are far more economical than pesticides,

 

I can think of some more examples where biological control could be/has been implemented effectively.

Amazing info.They all sound a bit scary I'll come to you for advice if I find any in may garden. B. thungerensis is as far as I go + sharing the place with lots of spiders, etc (much to my visitor's horror- my wife makes me evict them from their webs when we are having "guests") Don't see to have the native cannibal snail here yet, but always careful not to squish one.

-Eighteen species of beetle have been investigated as possible controllers, but none are yet available.

Was is Darwin who said that God must have loved beetles as he made so many of them?

other types of cockroaches. (Hence the limits to their usage).

Cucumber peel thrown about the hose helps repel them

 

Australia is paranoid about bringing in disease. Sylvester Stalone ran foul of customs last week.

The big cock ups here have been

1. Lets introduce rabbits and foxes so we can go hunting?

1 trillion rabbits later. . .

2. Lets introduce this cane toad which eats a naughty beetle that eats sugar cane.

No, ate everything else and killed/kills anything that eats it (native snakes etc)

That one is still out of control

A lot of work now goes into BC. One success story was a dung beetle. The native dung beetle could not cope with cow pats (Kangaroo poo is pea sized)

So we invented the "Australian Salute" and hats with corks on them (Still sold to US tourists) to keep the zillions of flies away. Things have been a lot better with the new immigrant the industrial strength dung beetle.

 

I don’t know of any negative consequences of Biological control in general,

Biological control programmes can be a waste of money, but from what I can see, they are generally a brilliant alternative. Overall, it would appear to me that biological control; alongside genetic engineering would be a major step forward.

The calici virus has knocked the Oz rabbits for a loop. If it would only rain we would see plants we haven't seen in generations

BUT

Australian scientists are monitoring a virus that appears to be giving rabbits immunity to the calici virus nearly eight years since its official release in . .

It is a never ending battle

In the end we need insects and they need us.

Nice talking to you.

 

Ps the information collected on this thread is awesome.