Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 At 09:44 AM 10/18/2004, you wrote: >I'm still interested in what you define as " completely sustainable " which >you claimed some of your local organic farms are? Would you mind describing >how you define this? Lately, I've been thinking about what sustainable >really means and what others mean when they use the word.. > > > > >Suze Fisher to me, sustainable means that if the world went mad-max tomorrow, this farm could keep going for many generations, continuing to produce high brix food. sustainable means completely eliminating man-made soil erosion and thoughtfully managing natural soil erosion, and protecting water sources. not using any artificial inputs, not using highly processed inputs (ie, processed beyond what you can do yourself). it even means saving seeds and managing perennial planting, and learning ethical wildcrafting. it means carefully teaching children the right way to do farm work, and ensuring that you don't need machinery to do your work (though i think it's acceptable, since this isn't mad-max-world, to use recycled bio-fueled machinery shares, which is what we do for our hay cropping at the moment). it means that truly EVERYTHING on your farm is environmentally friendly - your electricity (ours is from methane), what you paint your barn/house with, the building materials you use, where your tools/clothing/fencing/anyproductyoubuy was made (ie, fair trade and ecologically responsibly, reusing pre-existing stuff, etc) how you manage your trees, etc. it also means that the farm is in and of itself a living ecosystem - diversified in terms of plant and animal life. (ie, the poultry manage the bugs so that the cows don't need pesticides) it also means having the least possible footprint in your environment. this is something i'm struggling with in terms of fencing. right now we use a combination of solar electic fences and regular electric fences (again, our electric comes from methane). we use recycled electric fencing (the last farmers left a lot of it up, though it needed repairs) and untreated wooden posts (some we make from downwood or from thinned birch saplings, others from a neighbor's cedar lot. cedar fencepost trees are a cash crop here) however, i'm upset that our grazing areas have disrupted the local deer herd's grazing habits. we purposefully leave deer egresses, but i'm not certain that's sufficient. i have been working on ideas for other fencing methods for our animals (anyone have any suggestions?) that will have less of an impact on the deer's grazing habits without opening up the herd to coy dog threat. i'm prolly missing something, but this should get you started. -katja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 At 01:33 PM 10/19/2004, you wrote: > " " (again, our >electric comes from methane) " " ???????? ! > >-- >-- >Steve http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/ vermont is cool. in madmax world terms, of course, we don't need any electricity: we have a soapstone stove and a hundred acres of woods, we have a coldroom, and we have manual pumps for the well/gravity feeds for the springs. and a river to do our laundry in. but since it's not madmax, we're happy with cowpower. there are some drawbacks to cowpower, however, they are not so much related to the energy source as the large dairies that it comes from. that's another issue though. for right now, since that dairy exists with or without the power generator, i think it is more ethical to use the power and support the large dairy than not, while we work on other sources. -katja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 For the sake of discussion here, I think it's very important to talk about organic farming, the sort of organic farming that puts food on many of our tables, with an understanding of what it is by definition, rather than just speaking as though it can be anything we imagine it is. Organic is not, for example, non-farmer European emigrants destroying topsoil through their lack of skill or knowledge; the fact that they did not have access to chemicals does not make them 'organic farmers.' It is also very important for everyone to know that according to Lee, the spiritual founder of the agroecology movement, chemical farming began in the US when urea was synthesized in 1804. Here are definitions of " organic farming, " " sustainable agriculture " (a goal of organic farming!), and 'the organic movement' (a movement that, like it or not, Sally Fallon and WAP is very much part of, and a movement that should be respected for it tenacity in the face of the more economically successful 'agribusiness') The following definitions are from www.workiq.com, a non-bias source of meanings. If these definitions are not adequate, we really should form our own and post them on the native nutrition webpage so that subsequent 'arguments' can be within an intelligible framework. pax, -Allan Organic Farming Organic farming is a way of farming that avoids the use of synthetic chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and, according to its proponents, follows the principles of sustainable agriculture. In many countries, including the US and in the EU, organic farming is also defined by law. Sustainable agriculture Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental stewardship, farm profitability, and prosperous farming communities. These goals have been defined by a variety of philosophies, policies and practices, from the vision of farmers and consumers. In production terms, sustainable agriculture refers to the ability of a farm to continue producing indefinitely, with a minimum of outside inputs. In order to grow, the crops and livestock draw energy from the soil, air, water, and sunlight. As crops are harvested, the energy they used must be replaced in order to continue the production cycle. Some of that energy comes from the larger environment, from sun, air, and rain. Some can be recycled: crop residues and manure from livestock retain nutrients that can be returned to the soil. Using animals (including the farmers!) that are fed by the farm to perform farm labor is another form of energy recycling. Anything that has to be imported, like fertilizer for plants, or petroleum products to run machinery, reduces sustainability. The less the farm needs outside inputs to maintain production levels, the greater its level of sustainability. In environmental terms, given the finite supply of natural resources, agriculture that is very inefficient - low on the sustainability scale - will eventually run out of resources, or the ability afford scarce resources, and cease to be viable. And agriculture that relies mainly on outside inputs contributes to the depletion and degradation of natural resources. In an economic context, the farm must generate revenue in order to acquire things that cannot be produced directly. The way that crops are sold then becomes part of the sustainability equation. Fresh food sold from a farm stand requires little additional energy, beyond growing and harvest. Food that is packaged and sold at a remote location, like a farmers' market, incurs a greater energy cost, for materials, labor, transportation, and so forth. The more complex the food system in which the farm participates, the greater the farm's costs, including energy consumption, and the more it relies economically on externals, notably, the price of oil. In a social context, the approaches required for higher sustainability profoundly affect business methods and our way of life. Current large-scale agricultural practices are not conducive to sustainability. In order to increase sustainability, significant changes in agribusiness would be required. In practice, there is no single approach to sustainable agriculture, as the precise goals and methods must be adapted to each individual case. Organic Movement Organic movement broadly refers to the organizations and individuals involved worldwide in the promotion of sustainable agriculture and organic farming, and a general opposition to agribusiness. Its history traces back to the first half of the 20th century, when modern large-scale agricultural practices began to appear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 > RE: Organic and the Environment > > > >At 09:44 AM 10/18/2004, you wrote: >>I'm still interested in what you define as " completely sustainable " which >>you claimed some of your local organic farms are? Would you mind >describing >>how you define this? Lately, I've been thinking about what sustainable >>really means and what others mean when they use the word.. >> >> >> >> >>Suze Fisher > > >to me, sustainable means that if the world went mad-max tomorrow, >this farm >could keep going for many generations, continuing to produce high brix >food. sustainable means completely eliminating man-made soil erosion and >thoughtfully managing natural soil erosion, and protecting water sources. >not using any artificial inputs, not using highly processed inputs (ie, >processed beyond what you can do yourself). Here is my question regarding inputs: if the world went mad-max tomorrow, there probably wouldn't be a transportation system to bring *inputs* to the farm. Aside from that my understanding is that one of the sustainability goals of both organic and biodynamic farming is to have as much of a *closed input* system as possible. Which, I think we'd all agree is more sustainable than bringing lots of inputs from other parts of the planet, thus draining nutrients from other areas. Yet another goal of these farming approaches is to produce nutrient-dense foods. Where are those nutrients supposed to come from? IOW, if a farm does not have a closed *output*, in that they are a commercial farm that regularly grow produce that takes up nutrients from the soil, then gets sold to consumers OFF the farm, thus taking those *nutrients* OFF the farm, how can a commercial farm raise nutrient-dense produce year after year when the nutrients are being taken OFF the farm, but none or very little are being brought back TO the farm, to their soil? It seems like a fairly simple mathematical equation, what goes out must be replaced, some how, some way IF the produce is to remain nutrient-dense year after year. I can understand where a given farm may not need *annual* inputs at a time when the soil is particularly rich in nutrients, but eventually, as those nutrients get sold off the farm in the form of produce or livestock, they need to be replaced IF one wants to maintain nutrient density. According to the Australian national standards for biodynamic and organic produce (http://www.bfa.com.au/Downloads/Documents/National-Standard-December-2002.p df), " External farming inputs must be kept to a minimum and applied only on an " as needed " basis. " I don't recall if the US organic standards have a similar specification, but I fail to understand how farms are expected to grow nutrient-dense produce year after year (another goal of these farming systems) by minimizing inputs (including nutrients) while at the same time not minimizing outputs (including nutrients)..? What do you think about this? it even means saving seeds and >managing perennial planting, and learning ethical wildcrafting. it means >carefully teaching children the right way to do farm work, and ensuring >that you don't need machinery to do your work (though i think it's >acceptable, since this isn't mad-max-world, to use recycled bio-fueled >machinery shares, which is what we do for our hay cropping at the moment). >it means that truly EVERYTHING on your farm is environmentally friendly - >your electricity (ours is from methane), what you paint your barn/house >with, the building materials you use, where your >tools/clothing/fencing/anyproductyoubuy was made (ie, fair trade and >ecologically responsibly, reusing pre-existing stuff, etc) how you manage >your trees, etc. it also means that the farm is in and of itself a living >ecosystem - diversified in terms of plant and animal life. (ie, >the poultry >manage the bugs so that the cows don't need pesticides) All this sounds great - thanks for providing the details of your vision of sustainability :-) you guys are probably more sustainable than most, I'd think if you do all these things. Here is another thing where I wish more organic farmers would follow - diversified plant AND animal life. I think I already mentioned that several of the organic farms I know do not have any livestock to my knowledge. That seems like an important part of maintaining a rich ecosystem that recycles nutrients (relatively speaking) and enriches the soil. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 > Re: Organic and the Environment > > > >For the sake of discussion here, I think it's very important to talk >about organic farming, the sort of organic farming that puts food on >many of our tables, with an understanding of what it is by >definition, rather than just speaking as though it can be anything we >imagine it is. Organic is not, for example, non-farmer European >emigrants destroying topsoil through their lack of skill or >knowledge; the fact that they did not have access to chemicals does >not make them 'organic farmers.' Which is precisely why I said that they were not following sustainable practices as put forth by an organic association, but they were organic in the sense that they weren't chem agribiz since Katja was arguing that *agribiz* is responsible for unsustainability. I would not argue that they were organic in the sense that Katja, for example, is organic, But that's beside the point, since my point was that agribiz is not the only soil stripper. >Here are definitions of " organic farming, " " sustainable agriculture " >(a goal of organic farming!), and 'the organic movement' (a movement >that, like it or not, Sally Fallon and WAP is very much part of, and >a movement that should be respected for it tenacity in the face of >the more economically successful 'agribusiness') > >The following definitions are from www.workiq.com, a non-bias source >of meanings. Allan, that link isn't right. Can you double check it. It leads to a go daddy " coming soon " page. I've looked at some definitions of sustainable ag too. I'm wondering what it means to those who practice organic, biodynamic or other eco-ag style farming. I'll be interested to see if this " unbiased " source takes its info from these movements themselves, or where their definition is from. If these definitions are not adequate, we really should >form our own and post them on the native nutrition webpage so that >subsequent 'arguments' can be within an intelligible framework. > I don't think it's necessarily a matter of this particular website's definitions not being adequate. As I mentioned, I'd like to see the definition(s) from those who practice these various farming methods. Hopefully the page you are referencing contains some universally agreed upon definitions of " sustainability " by those practicing these methods. That way we can all be on the same page in terms of what we're discussing. > >Organic Farming > >Organic farming is a way of farming that avoids the use of synthetic >chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and, according >to its proponents, follows the principles of sustainable agriculture. >In many countries, including the US and in the EU, organic farming is >also defined by law. > > >Sustainable agriculture >Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental >stewardship, farm profitability, and prosperous farming communities. >These goals have been defined by a variety of philosophies, policies >and practices, from the vision of farmers and consumers. > >In production terms, sustainable agriculture refers to the ability of >a farm to continue producing indefinitely, with a minimum of outside >inputs. Yeh, but what about growing *nutritious* food? How can that be done with a minimum of outside inputs since nutrients are *leaving* the farm and cannot be conjured out of nothing? In order to grow, the crops and livestock draw energy from >the soil, air, water, and sunlight. As crops are harvested, the >energy they used must be replaced in order to continue the production >cycle. Some of that energy comes from the larger environment, from >sun, air, and rain. Some can be recycled: crop residues and manure >from livestock retain nutrients that can be returned to the soil. They retain SOME of the nutrients, but many of the nutrients are sold OFF the farm. What are your thoughts on this issue of closed or minimal inputs? How can one grow nutrient-dense foods year after year by moving nutrients OFF the farm but minimizing the nutrients brought TO the farm? >Using animals (including the farmers!) that are fed by the farm to >perform farm labor is another form of energy recycling. Anything that >has to be imported, like fertilizer for plants, or petroleum products >to run machinery, reduces sustainability. The less the farm needs >outside inputs to maintain production levels, the greater its level >of sustainability. At the cost of nutrition? I'm sure there are ways to keep inputs at a minimum but still produce nutrient-dense foods, I just wonder how farmers who DO produce nutrient-dense foods know when and how much nutrient INPUT is required. I mean, those just doing the NPK tests are missing a lot, as I understand it. I imagine those doing more thorough testing a la Albrecht and or Reams might have a much better idea of what they're missing and need to add to their soil. But how does the ordinary organic farmer know? What tests are required of them to determine the fertility of their soil? > >In practice, there is no single approach to sustainable agriculture, >as the precise goals and methods must be adapted to each individual >case. This is an important statement. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 In a message dated 10/24/04 10:21:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > I'm sure there are ways to keep inputs at a > minimum but still produce nutrient-dense foods _____ ~~~~> Like throwing your crops in a compost heap instead of selling them? ;-) Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 In a message dated 10/24/04 12:57:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, twyllightmoon@... writes: > Maybe we don't want to do it exactly that way! > But mightn't there be a way to recycle wastes > that could make the circle of sustainability big > enough to include commercial farms and > nonfarming customers? ______ ~~~~~> Providing inputs to farms should be the task of a specialized third party. If one was to utilize the poop and garbage of other consumers, then they would be better equipped than individual farms to monitor whatever needed to be monitored. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 So the only truly sustainable farms would be farms that supported people who lived there, and no one else. This could be expanded to a whole village, where inputs and outputs cycled around, but didn't leave the area. But it pretty much rules out commercial farming, doesn't it? Unless we all take our compost and wastes back to the farm? " I'd like a pound of butter, please. And here's this week's poop and garbage. " Hmmm. The farm would have to worry about what medicines you might have taken, or inorganic wastes slipped into your garbage. Maybe we don't want to do it exactly that way! But mightn't there be a way to recycle wastes that could make the circle of sustainability big enough to include commercial farms and nonfarming customers? Aven --- In , " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@v...> wrote: > Here is my question regarding inputs: if the world went mad-max tomorrow, > there probably wouldn't be a transportation system to bring *inputs* to the > farm. Aside from that my understanding is that one of the sustainability > goals of both organic and biodynamic farming is to have as much of a * closed > input* system as possible. Which, I think we'd all agree is more sustainable > than bringing lots of inputs from other parts of the planet, thus draining > nutrients from other areas. Yet another goal of these farming approaches is > to produce nutrient-dense foods. Where are those nutrients supposed to come > from? IOW, if a farm does not have a closed *output*, in that they are a > commercial farm that regularly grow produce that takes up nutrients from the > soil, then gets sold to consumers OFF the farm, thus taking those > *nutrients* OFF the farm, how can a commercial farm raise nutrient-dense > produce year after year when the nutrients are being taken OFF the farm, but > none or very little are being brought back TO the farm, to their soil? It > seems like a fairly simple mathematical equation, what goes out must be > replaced, some how, some way IF the produce is to remain nutrient-dense year > after year. I can understand where a given farm may not need *annual* inputs > at a time when the soil is particularly rich in nutrients, but eventually, > as those nutrients get sold off the farm in the form of produce or > livestock, they need to be replaced IF one wants to maintain nutrient > density. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 >I can understand where a given farm may not need *annual* inputs >at a time when the soil is particularly rich in nutrients, but eventually, >as those nutrients get sold off the farm in the form of produce or >livestock, they need to be replaced IF one wants to maintain nutrient >density. I suppose you can use that reasoning for any patch of land prior to the advent of human beings. For any given piece of land there is a finite amount of: 1. Organics 2. Minerals Now organics come from decomposing living things, so anything that grows will produce organic compost unless it washes or is taken away. In any system, a lot of it DOES wash away, but a person can lessen that. In any case, the bulk of organic material is produced by plants from the following: Sun, water, air. We can assume that even though we call this a " closed " system, sun, water and air are being input daily. From sunlight energy, H20, C02 and N2, the plants produce carbs, fats, proteins, and cellulose (also a sugar) which are eaten by plants, animals, and microbes to produce the bulk of what you see when you look at a piece of land. Most of who you are, and what plants are, is composed of gasses (H, C, N, O). As for minerals ... There are only 100 or so types of atoms, and maybe 40 that are the type we call minerals (copper, iron, magnesium, etc.) and a lot of minerals are ones we don't like (uranium, lead, arsenic). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ----------------- http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body, which breaks down as follows: 65% Oxygen 18% Carbon 10% Hydrogen 3% Nitrogen 1.5% Calcium 1% Phosphorous 0.35% Potassium 0.25% Sulfur 0.15% Sodium 0.15% Chlorine 0.05% Magnesium 0.0004% Iron 0.00004% Iodine Additionally, it was discovered that our bodies contain trace quantities of fluorine, silicon, manganese, zinc, copper, aluminum, and arsenic. Together, all of the above amounts to less than one dollar! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ----------------------- Even though minerals are essential to life, they are not present in huge quantities, even in good soil. But to ask where how can they get there, you have to ask, where did they come from in the first place? Certainly no one went around the prarie supplementing the soil way back when. One answer is rocks and sand. All soils normally have rocks and sand, and these are slowly breaking down always, leaching minerals into the soil. Some are helped by bacteria ... arsenic in soil gets there because some bacteria in the soil release arsenic from rocks. Another answer is the air ... dust is brought down in rain, which is full of stuff (like rock dust, volcano ash) that was swept up in winds in other parts of the world. Some gardeners are buying pulverized rocks to use as fertilizer. Obviously buried bones are another source ... and such things as birds that happen to die on your property. Also if minerals are washed *off* property, then maybe they are being washed *on* to your property from the neighbors or from the mountains (depends where you are). Mountain streams that are full of glacial runoff are FULL of minerals. So is a lot of well water, which is usually considered " hard " because it is so loaded with minerals. So the question is, will the inputs *balance* the outputs. Obviously if you allow the rain to wash out the soils and take large quantities of plant matter off the property, they won't balance. But for most of the earth, pre-human, they balanced ok even though there was " drainage " of resources always in one form or another (and some areas, like mine, got the worst of the bargain and were scraped clean). Anyway, that said, the concept of a " totally self-sufficient " farm is more a goal (an nice one, I think!) than a reality. I have been through a few short term crises where I'm really glad we are *fairly* self-sufficient, but the truth of the matter is that if the world really went " mad max " , our utter inter-dependence with the rest of the world would probably wipe us out because of such details as roaming militias, radioactive fallout, rogue viruses way before the soil could be so depleted. In a less severe scenario, if produce and animals are going off the property you can assume that some things are also coming ON the property. If in fact *nothing* is going off the property, then the daily sunlight and water will take care of the organics, and the few minerals that wash away would be replenished by decomposing rocks, bones, and dust -- depending on the part of the world, of course. Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Aven, I have recently run across a composting toliet... I hear it works quite well! So, that takes care of the poop. As for the garbage...get a worm bin...input garbage, output fertilizer. That's the organic garbage. Anything else you were going to give to the farmer? So, instead it would be more like, " I'd like a pound of butter, please. And here's this week's dirt and fertilizer! " That might actually work! >From: " Aven " <twyllightmoon@...> >Reply- > >Subject: Re: Organic and the Environment >Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:53:10 -0000 > > >So the only truly sustainable farms would be farms that >supported people who lived there, and no one else. >This could be expanded to a whole village, where >inputs and outputs cycled around, but didn't leave >the area. > >But it pretty much rules out commercial >farming, doesn't it? Unless we all take our compost >and wastes back to the farm? > " I'd like a pound of butter, please. And here's this >week's poop and garbage. " Hmmm. >The farm would have to worry about what medicines >you might have taken, or inorganic wastes slipped >into your garbage. > >Maybe we don't want to do it exactly that way! >But mightn't there be a way to recycle wastes >that could make the circle of sustainability big >enough to include commercial farms and >nonfarming customers? > >Aven > > > >--- In , " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@v...> >wrote: > > Here is my question regarding inputs: if the world went mad-max >tomorrow, > > there probably wouldn't be a transportation system to bring *inputs* to >the > > farm. Aside from that my understanding is that one of the sustainability > > goals of both organic and biodynamic farming is to have as much of a * >closed > > input* system as possible. Which, I think we'd all agree is more >sustainable > > than bringing lots of inputs from other parts of the planet, thus >draining > > nutrients from other areas. Yet another goal of these farming approaches >is > > to produce nutrient-dense foods. Where are those nutrients supposed to >come > > from? IOW, if a farm does not have a closed *output*, in that they are a > > commercial farm that regularly grow produce that takes up nutrients from >the > > soil, then gets sold to consumers OFF the farm, thus taking those > > *nutrients* OFF the farm, how can a commercial farm raise nutrient-dense > > produce year after year when the nutrients are being taken OFF the farm, >but > > none or very little are being brought back TO the farm, to their soil? >It > > seems like a fairly simple mathematical equation, what goes out must be > > replaced, some how, some way IF the produce is to remain nutrient-dense >year > > after year. I can understand where a given farm may not need *annual* >inputs > > at a time when the soil is particularly rich in nutrients, but >eventually, > > as those nutrients get sold off the farm in the form of produce or > > livestock, they need to be replaced IF one wants to maintain nutrient > > density. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 > Re: Organic and the Environment > > > > >So the only truly sustainable farms would be farms that >supported people who lived there, and no one else. In an absolute sense, I think that is the case. But of course, that's not practical, otherwise we'd all have to grow/raise our own food and abolish all commercial farming. So commercial farms have to minimize their inputs as much as possible in order to be more sustainable. But where this gets problematic, as I understand it, is when consumers want *nutrient-dense* foods. Lots of farms, I'm sure, have minimal inputs. But then most of them, from a brix perspective, are producing nutrient-deficient crops. It's easy enough to have minimal input, but how can this be done while maintaining high nutrient crops, is my question. >This could be expanded to a whole village, where >inputs and outputs cycled around, but didn't leave >the area. Which is probably how it used to be for Price's primitives, for the most part. > >But it pretty much rules out commercial >farming, doesn't it? Unless we all take our compost >and wastes back to the farm? > " I'd like a pound of butter, please. And here's this >week's poop and garbage. " Hmmm. >The farm would have to worry about what medicines >you might have taken, or inorganic wastes slipped >into your garbage. > >Maybe we don't want to do it exactly that way! >But mightn't there be a way to recycle wastes >that could make the circle of sustainability big >enough to include commercial farms and >nonfarming customers? > >Aven > That's what I wonder. There are certainly plenty of companies selling ammendments, but I don't know of any producing and selling ammendments recycled from consumers. I guess the big issue would be the " organicness " of the waste as you mentioned...medicines, pesticides and all the other crap humans and animals consume. :-( Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 > Re: Organic and the Environment > > > >Aven, >I have recently run across a composting toliet... I hear it works quite >well! So, that takes care of the poop. My brother has one of these. It produces " humanure " . He uses it on his garden. As for the garbage...get a worm >bin...input garbage, output fertilizer. That's the organic garbage. >Anything else you were going to give to the farmer? So, instead it >would be >more like, " I'd like a pound of butter, please. And here's this >week's dirt >and fertilizer! " That might actually work! > > It would if a whole bunch of people did it. But you know the average SAD'er won't likely do this, and besides, you wouldn't want what they consume on your garden anyway! Really, homesteading is looking better and better all the time... Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Suze - The links work for me. Just go to www.wordiq.com and then search on the words or concepts. I just picked wordiq as the source of definition so that we could have a basis of discussion about definitions. They most certainly are NOT an authority on organics or sustainable agriculture, HOWEVER, they have done a pretty good job. Without working from a definition, discussion will be as pointless as trying to nail jello. I think if you go to wordiq and check out 'organic farming' and 'sustainable agriculuture,' many of the questions you have raised in this post will be answered. BTW - I spoke with Jerry Brunetti over the weekend and asked him about his 'organic causes soil loss' statement. He said that what he was trying to say was that SOIL DISRUPTION causes soil loss and, if not propoerly managed, ORGANIC as well as conventional ag can cause soil loss. He went on to say that the last 3 slides in his presentation (was I asleep?) went on to show that properly managed farms - organic or conventional - can conserve top soil and can avoid the loss of top soil. Aside from this, both biointensive and biodynamic methods claim to actually PRODUCE topsoil. In fact, biointensive claims to produce a substantial amount of topsoil and to do so MUCH FASTER than nature can. These claims are consistent with my own experienced. I should be farming rather than writing right now, but let me insert this, also: in this sort of discussion it is ALWAYS essential to make sure we know whether we are talking about INDUSTIRIAL ORGANIC farms or ORGANIC MOVEMENT farms. They tend to be far from the same thing. At its simplest, industrial organic is done solely for the purpose of making money, it is reductionist and allopathic and tends to work from a 3rd parties list of what can be used as inputs and what the accepted cultural practices are (these are for the most part agri-biz farms that have gotten into organic certification so that their produce can be sold in Europe). Organic Movement farms have generally been founded due to a personal philosophy of the farmer, one that generally involves producing pure food for hir family and customers. It is a holistic approach and seeks to restore the soil as a living entity as well as restore the individual identity of the farm. I better run. More information below. -Allan From wordIQ's definition of 'organic farming' Overview Methods of organic farming vary. Each farm develops its own organic production system, determined by factors like climate, crop selection, local regulations, and the preferences of the individual farmer. However, all organic systems share common goals and practices: ? no use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, and no GMOs; ? protection of the soil (from erosion, nutrient depletion, structural breakdown); ? promotion of biodiversity (eg: growing a variety of crops rather than a single crop); ? no drugs (eg: antibiotics, hormones), and access to outdoor grazing, for livestock and poultry. In many parts of the world, organic certification is available to farms for a fee. Depending on the country, certification is either overseen by the government, or handled entirely by private certifiction bodies. Where laws exist, it is usually illegal for a non-certified farm to call itself or its products " organic " . It is important to make the distinction between organic farming and organic food. Farming is concerned with producing fresh products - vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy, eggs - for immediate consumption, or for use as ingredients in processed food. The manufacture of most processed food is well beyond the scope of farming. Organic farming is not " new " . In fact, it is a reaction against the large-scale, chemical-based farming practices that have steadily dominated food production over the last 80 years. The differences between organic farming and modern conventional farming account for most of the controversy and claims surrounding organic agriculture and organic food. Organic Conventional Size relatively small-scale, independent operations (eg: the family farm) large-scale, often owned by or economically tied to major food corporations Methods low use of purchased fertilizers and other inputs; low mechanization of the growing and harvesting process intensive chemical programs and reliance on mechanized production, using specialized equipment and facilities Markets mostly local, direct to consumer, through on-farm stands and farmers' markets (see also local food) wholesale, with products distributed across huge territories (average supermarket produce travels hundreds to thousands of miles) The contrast is as much economic as it is between methods of production: to date, organic farming has remained typically small business, and conventional farming is big business (often called agribusiness). However, the situation is changing rapidly as consumer demand encourages large-scale organic production. Development of organic farming techniques is also a function of economics. Most of the agricultural research over the last several decades has concentrated on chemical-based methods - little funding and effort have been put into using current scientific knowledge and tools to understand and advance organic agricultural approaches. Methods > > Re: Organic and the Environment >> >> >> >>For the sake of discussion here, I think it's very important to talk >>about organic farming, the sort of organic farming that puts food on >>many of our tables, with an understanding of what it is by >>definition, rather than just speaking as though it can be anything we >>imagine it is. Organic is not, for example, non-farmer European >>emigrants destroying topsoil through their lack of skill or >>knowledge; the fact that they did not have access to chemicals does >>not make them 'organic farmers.' > >Which is precisely why I said that they were not following sustainable >practices as put forth by an organic association, but they were organic in >the sense that they weren't chem agribiz since Katja was arguing that >*agribiz* is responsible for unsustainability. I would not argue that they >were organic in the sense that Katja, for example, is organic, But that's >beside the point, since my point was that agribiz is not the only soil >stripper. > > > >>Here are definitions of " organic farming, " " sustainable agriculture " >>(a goal of organic farming!), and 'the organic movement' (a movement >>that, like it or not, Sally Fallon and WAP is very much part of, and >>a movement that should be respected for it tenacity in the face of >>the more economically successful 'agribusiness') >> >>The following definitions are from www.workiq.com, a non-bias source >>of meanings. > >Allan, that link isn't right. Can you double check it. It leads to a go >daddy " coming soon " page. I've looked at some definitions of sustainable ag >too. I'm wondering what it means to those who practice organic, biodynamic >or other eco-ag style farming. I'll be interested to see if this " unbiased " >source takes its info from these movements themselves, or where their >definition is from. > > > > >If these definitions are not adequate, we really should >>form our own and post them on the native nutrition webpage so that >>subsequent 'arguments' can be within an intelligible framework. >> > >I don't think it's necessarily a matter of this particular website's >definitions not being adequate. As I mentioned, I'd like to see the >definition(s) from those who practice these various farming methods. >Hopefully the page you are referencing contains some universally agreed upon >definitions of " sustainability " by those practicing these methods. That way >we can all be on the same page in terms of what we're discussing. > > > > >> >>Organic Farming >> >>Organic farming is a way of farming that avoids the use of synthetic >>chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and, according >>to its proponents, follows the principles of sustainable agriculture. > >In many countries, including the US and in the EU, organic farming is >>also defined by law. >> >> >>Sustainable agriculture >>Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental >>stewardship, farm profitability, and prosperous farming communities. >>These goals have been defined by a variety of philosophies, policies >>and practices, from the vision of farmers and consumers. >> >>In production terms, sustainable agriculture refers to the ability of >>a farm to continue producing indefinitely, with a minimum of outside >>inputs. > >Yeh, but what about growing *nutritious* food? How can that be done with a >minimum of outside inputs since nutrients are *leaving* the farm and cannot >be conjured out of nothing? > > > > > In order to grow, the crops and livestock draw energy from >>the soil, air, water, and sunlight. As crops are harvested, the >>energy they used must be replaced in order to continue the production >>cycle. Some of that energy comes from the larger environment, from >>sun, air, and rain. Some can be recycled: crop residues and manure >>from livestock retain nutrients that can be returned to the soil. > >They retain SOME of the nutrients, but many of the nutrients are sold OFF >the farm. What are your thoughts on this issue of closed or minimal inputs? >How can one grow nutrient-dense foods year after year by moving nutrients >OFF the farm but minimizing the nutrients brought TO the farm? > > > > >>Using animals (including the farmers!) that are fed by the farm to >>perform farm labor is another form of energy recycling. Anything that >>has to be imported, like fertilizer for plants, or petroleum products >>to run machinery, reduces sustainability. The less the farm needs >>outside inputs to maintain production levels, the greater its level >>of sustainability. > >At the cost of nutrition? I'm sure there are ways to keep inputs at a >minimum but still produce nutrient-dense foods, I just wonder how farmers >who DO produce nutrient-dense foods know when and how much nutrient INPUT is >required. I mean, those just doing the NPK tests are missing a lot, as I >understand it. I imagine those doing more thorough testing a la Albrecht and >or Reams might have a much better idea of what they're missing and need to >add to their soil. But how does the ordinary organic farmer know? What tests >are required of them to determine the fertility of their soil? > > > >> >>In practice, there is no single approach to sustainable agriculture, >>as the precise goals and methods must be adapted to each individual >>case. > >This is an important statement. > > > > > >Suze Fisher >Lapdog Design, Inc. >Web Design & Development >http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg >Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine >http://www.westonaprice.org > >---------------------------- > " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause >heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- >Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt >University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. > >The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics ><http://www.thincs.org> >---------------------------- > >> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Suze - The links work for me. Just go to www.wordiq.com and then search on the words or concepts. I just picked wordiq as the source of definition so that we could have a basis of discussion about definitions. They most certainly are NOT an authority on organics or sustainable agriculture, HOWEVER, they have done a pretty good job. Without working from a definition, discussion will be as pointless as trying to nail jello. I think if you go to wordiq and check out 'organic farming' and 'sustainable agriculuture,' many of the questions you have raised in this post will be answered. BTW - I spoke with Jerry Brunetti over the weekend and asked him about his 'organic causes soil loss' statement. He said that what he was trying to say was that SOIL DISRUPTION causes soil loss and, if not propoerly managed, ORGANIC as well as conventional ag can cause soil loss. He went on to say that the last 3 slides in his presentation (was I asleep?) went on to show that properly managed farms - organic or conventional - can conserve top soil and can avoid the loss of top soil. Aside from this, both biointensive and biodynamic methods claim to actually PRODUCE topsoil. In fact, biointensive claims to produce a substantial amount of topsoil and to do so MUCH FASTER than nature can. These claims are consistent with my own experienced. I should be farming rather than writing right now, but let me insert this, also: in this sort of discussion it is ALWAYS essential to make sure we know whether we are talking about INDUSTIRIAL ORGANIC farms or ORGANIC MOVEMENT farms. They tend to be far from the same thing. At its simplest, industrial organic is done solely for the purpose of making money, it is reductionist and allopathic and tends to work from a 3rd parties list of what can be used as inputs and what the accepted cultural practices are (these are for the most part agri-biz farms that have gotten into organic certification so that their produce can be sold in Europe). Organic Movement farms have generally been founded due to a personal philosophy of the farmer, one that generally involves producing pure food for hir family and customers. It is a holistic approach and seeks to restore the soil as a living entity as well as restore the individual identity of the farm. I better run. More information below. -Allan From wordIQ's definition of 'organic farming' Overview Methods of organic farming vary. Each farm develops its own organic production system, determined by factors like climate, crop selection, local regulations, and the preferences of the individual farmer. However, all organic systems share common goals and practices: ? no use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, and no GMOs; ? protection of the soil (from erosion, nutrient depletion, structural breakdown); ? promotion of biodiversity (eg: growing a variety of crops rather than a single crop); ? no drugs (eg: antibiotics, hormones), and access to outdoor grazing, for livestock and poultry. In many parts of the world, organic certification is available to farms for a fee. Depending on the country, certification is either overseen by the government, or handled entirely by private certifiction bodies. Where laws exist, it is usually illegal for a non-certified farm to call itself or its products " organic " . It is important to make the distinction between organic farming and organic food. Farming is concerned with producing fresh products - vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy, eggs - for immediate consumption, or for use as ingredients in processed food. The manufacture of most processed food is well beyond the scope of farming. Organic farming is not " new " . In fact, it is a reaction against the large-scale, chemical-based farming practices that have steadily dominated food production over the last 80 years. The differences between organic farming and modern conventional farming account for most of the controversy and claims surrounding organic agriculture and organic food. Organic Conventional Size relatively small-scale, independent operations (eg: the family farm) large-scale, often owned by or economically tied to major food corporations Methods low use of purchased fertilizers and other inputs; low mechanization of the growing and harvesting process intensive chemical programs and reliance on mechanized production, using specialized equipment and facilities Markets mostly local, direct to consumer, through on-farm stands and farmers' markets (see also local food) wholesale, with products distributed across huge territories (average supermarket produce travels hundreds to thousands of miles) The contrast is as much economic as it is between methods of production: to date, organic farming has remained typically small business, and conventional farming is big business (often called agribusiness). However, the situation is changing rapidly as consumer demand encourages large-scale organic production. Development of organic farming techniques is also a function of economics. Most of the agricultural research over the last several decades has concentrated on chemical-based methods - little funding and effort have been put into using current scientific knowledge and tools to understand and advance organic agricultural approaches. Methods > > Re: Organic and the Environment >> >> >> >>For the sake of discussion here, I think it's very important to talk >>about organic farming, the sort of organic farming that puts food on >>many of our tables, with an understanding of what it is by >>definition, rather than just speaking as though it can be anything we >>imagine it is. Organic is not, for example, non-farmer European >>emigrants destroying topsoil through their lack of skill or >>knowledge; the fact that they did not have access to chemicals does >>not make them 'organic farmers.' > >Which is precisely why I said that they were not following sustainable >practices as put forth by an organic association, but they were organic in >the sense that they weren't chem agribiz since Katja was arguing that >*agribiz* is responsible for unsustainability. I would not argue that they >were organic in the sense that Katja, for example, is organic, But that's >beside the point, since my point was that agribiz is not the only soil >stripper. > > > >>Here are definitions of " organic farming, " " sustainable agriculture " >>(a goal of organic farming!), and 'the organic movement' (a movement >>that, like it or not, Sally Fallon and WAP is very much part of, and >>a movement that should be respected for it tenacity in the face of >>the more economically successful 'agribusiness') >> >>The following definitions are from www.workiq.com, a non-bias source >>of meanings. > >Allan, that link isn't right. Can you double check it. It leads to a go >daddy " coming soon " page. I've looked at some definitions of sustainable ag >too. I'm wondering what it means to those who practice organic, biodynamic >or other eco-ag style farming. I'll be interested to see if this " unbiased " >source takes its info from these movements themselves, or where their >definition is from. > > > > >If these definitions are not adequate, we really should >>form our own and post them on the native nutrition webpage so that >>subsequent 'arguments' can be within an intelligible framework. >> > >I don't think it's necessarily a matter of this particular website's >definitions not being adequate. As I mentioned, I'd like to see the >definition(s) from those who practice these various farming methods. >Hopefully the page you are referencing contains some universally agreed upon >definitions of " sustainability " by those practicing these methods. That way >we can all be on the same page in terms of what we're discussing. > > > > >> >>Organic Farming >> >>Organic farming is a way of farming that avoids the use of synthetic >>chemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and, according >>to its proponents, follows the principles of sustainable agriculture. > >In many countries, including the US and in the EU, organic farming is >>also defined by law. >> >> >>Sustainable agriculture >>Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental >>stewardship, farm profitability, and prosperous farming communities. >>These goals have been defined by a variety of philosophies, policies >>and practices, from the vision of farmers and consumers. >> >>In production terms, sustainable agriculture refers to the ability of >>a farm to continue producing indefinitely, with a minimum of outside >>inputs. > >Yeh, but what about growing *nutritious* food? How can that be done with a >minimum of outside inputs since nutrients are *leaving* the farm and cannot >be conjured out of nothing? > > > > > In order to grow, the crops and livestock draw energy from >>the soil, air, water, and sunlight. As crops are harvested, the >>energy they used must be replaced in order to continue the production >>cycle. Some of that energy comes from the larger environment, from >>sun, air, and rain. Some can be recycled: crop residues and manure >>from livestock retain nutrients that can be returned to the soil. > >They retain SOME of the nutrients, but many of the nutrients are sold OFF >the farm. What are your thoughts on this issue of closed or minimal inputs? >How can one grow nutrient-dense foods year after year by moving nutrients >OFF the farm but minimizing the nutrients brought TO the farm? > > > > >>Using animals (including the farmers!) that are fed by the farm to >>perform farm labor is another form of energy recycling. Anything that >>has to be imported, like fertilizer for plants, or petroleum products >>to run machinery, reduces sustainability. The less the farm needs >>outside inputs to maintain production levels, the greater its level >>of sustainability. > >At the cost of nutrition? I'm sure there are ways to keep inputs at a >minimum but still produce nutrient-dense foods, I just wonder how farmers >who DO produce nutrient-dense foods know when and how much nutrient INPUT is >required. I mean, those just doing the NPK tests are missing a lot, as I >understand it. I imagine those doing more thorough testing a la Albrecht and >or Reams might have a much better idea of what they're missing and need to >add to their soil. But how does the ordinary organic farmer know? What tests >are required of them to determine the fertility of their soil? > > > >> >>In practice, there is no single approach to sustainable agriculture, >>as the precise goals and methods must be adapted to each individual >>case. > >This is an important statement. > > > > > >Suze Fisher >Lapdog Design, Inc. >Web Design & Development >http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg >Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine >http://www.westonaprice.org > >---------------------------- > " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause >heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- >Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt >University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. > >The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics ><http://www.thincs.org> >---------------------------- > >> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 At 10:19 AM 10/24/2004, you wrote: >What do you think about this? i agree. that's why i said that you shouldn't need inputs that you can't make yourself. in our case, if we had to live madmax, we'd use a combination of fallow-rotations, silt and runoff (we live on a hill farm, and get good rich runoff from the hundred acres of woodland up our mountain), and silt from the river if we needed it, in combination with manure and the usual stuff - nitrogen fixing ground cover, etc. if life was slightly less than madmax, i'd do sea solid ammendment too, since it's not tooooo far for us to get to the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 At 10:19 AM 10/24/2004, you wrote: >Which is precisely why I said that they were not following sustainable >practices as put forth by an organic association, but they were organic in >the sense that they weren't chem agribiz since Katja was arguing that >*agribiz* is responsible for unsustainability. I would not argue that they >were organic in the sense that Katja, for example, is organic, But that's >beside the point, since my point was that agribiz is not the only soil >stripper. where agribiz includes the huge organic monocroppers too, just to continue the clarity. agribiz is agribiz, no matter who's doing it. i was arguing agribiz/organic agribiz vs. small organic family sustainable farms. -katja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 >where agribiz includes the huge organic monocroppers too, just to continue >the clarity. agribiz is agribiz, no matter who's doing it. i was arguing >agribiz/organic agribiz vs. small organic family sustainable farms. Thanks, Katja for this clarity. It is very important for everyone who eats for nutrition to be aware every time they say 'organic' (the real 'O' word!) whether they refering to USDA agri-business farming-for-profit organic (industrial organic, checklist organic) or if they are referring to the organic movement, the movement that has worked since 1924 to make sure that living, fully mineralized foods are not lost to this culture and that they are available SOMEWHERE for those with who do not farm to buy. Incidentally, EDEN is one of the few large packagers left that actually has a conscious knowledge of the difference between industrial organic and organic movement foods. Eden was one of the few national packagers that stood up against the USDA's desire to allow sewer sludge, GMOs and irradiation in orgaNICALLY certified products. All of the other processors said something like 'Ok, that's fine, just so we know what the law is.' Eden, fortunately, still cleaves to the bigger law, the one that we CSA operators always look towards to see what is right or wrong. -Allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have to agree with that!...Now if we could just afford to.... > >Really, homesteading is looking better and better all the time... > >Suze Fisher _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Folks - If you are concerned about sustainability, food purity and nutritional density, one of the best things you could do is to join a CSA and work as a volunteer to make certain as few nutrients as possible actually leave the farm (by arranging shareholder composting, vermiculture, etc) We CSA farmers dream of the day that shareholders will be able to will their bodies to the compost pile at the end of their own cycles, there -by coming even closer to closing the CSA nutrient cycle. As far as Suze's question about nutritionally dense food and too many nutrients leaving the farm, that's not really the case in biological agriculture - and, as far as I know, only biological agriculture (which includes eco-agriculutre and biodynamics) produces nutritionally dense foods. The point here is that if the soil is truly alive (thriving soil food web www.soilfoodweb.com) and if the farm is on an appropriate site (e.g. native plants grew well there at some time, so there must be good parent rock accessibility), the plants can produce carbon (sugar) via photosynthesis and flush it out to the microbial populations which, in turn, become excited and one-way-or-another make more of the parent rock minerals available to the plants. It just goes on. It is said that a plant on living soil never needs a nitrogen supplementation: all the nitrogen necessary for good plant growth can come from the atmosphere, via the metabolism of the living soil. check out Elaine Ingham's work at the url above. She accounts for plant succession (increasingly complex plants on the same plot of land) by the evolution of the local soil food web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 > RE: Organic and the Environment > > > >As far as Suze's question about nutritionally dense food and too many >nutrients leaving the farm, that's not really the case in biological >agriculture - and, as far as I know, only biological agriculture >(which includes eco-agriculutre and biodynamics) produces >nutritionally dense foods. The point here is that if the soil is >truly alive (thriving soil food web www.soilfoodweb.com) and if the >farm is on an appropriate site (e.g. native plants grew well there at >some time, so there must be good parent rock accessibility), the >plants can produce carbon (sugar) via photosynthesis and flush it out >to the microbial populations which, in turn, become excited and >one-way-or-another make more of the parent rock minerals available to >the plants. It just goes on. Allan, This is all contingent on the crops being grown on some " parent rock " and the farmers knowing how to work the soil food web in order to tap into the minerals therein. How many farms are on a parent rock that is not too deep down to have utilizable minerals? How close to the surface must that parent rock be? It sounds great, but I wonder how many farms are actually operating like this. I'd wager to guess an extreme minority. I didn't see anything on the soilfoodweb site about parent rock, but would like to read more about it if you have any other URLs that might discuss this? BTW, what happens to the parent rock over time as the minerals are taken from it? > >It is said that a plant on living soil never needs a nitrogen >supplementation: all the nitrogen necessary for good plant growth can >come from the atmosphere, via the metabolism of the living soil. > >check out Elaine Ingham's work at the url above. She accounts for >plant succession (increasingly complex plants on the same plot of >land) by the evolution of the local soil food web. This is an interesting site. I think she is giving a workshop with Arden Andersen at the Acres USA conference coming up in Dec. I hadn't heard about Ingham till I saw her lecture listed for that conference. If I go, I will probably catch her lecture as it looks like she has some interesting information. I'm going to plant a garden in the spring and need all the help I can get! Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > RE: Organic and the Environment > > > >At 10:19 AM 10/24/2004, you wrote: > >>What do you think about this? > >i agree. that's why i said that you shouldn't need inputs that you can't >make yourself. >in our case, if we had to live madmax, we'd use a combination of >fallow-rotations, silt and runoff (we live on a hill farm, and get good >rich runoff from the hundred acres of woodland up our mountain), and silt >from the river if we needed it, in combination with manure and the usual >stuff - nitrogen fixing ground cover, etc. if life was slightly less than >madmax, i'd do sea solid ammendment too, since it's not tooooo far for us >to get to the ocean. Would you continue to sell nutrients OFF the farm? Or are you talking about gonzo madmax - just take care of your own family? Maybe if the silt you are getting from the surrounding hundreds of acres of woods was plentiful, you'd be set for several years to come. You're fortunate to have that resource as one of your inputs. I imagine many farms don't have a similar set-up, so they'd have to rely on outside inputs more if they wanted to maintain nutrient-density. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 > RE: Organic and the Environment > > > >>where agribiz includes the huge organic monocroppers too, just to continue >>the clarity. agribiz is agribiz, no matter who's doing it. i was arguing >>agribiz/organic agribiz vs. small organic family sustainable farms. > >Thanks, Katja for this clarity. Well, I understood her point from the beginning. And I wasn't arguing that agribiz, organic or not, doesn't strip the soil. I only countered that they are not the ONLY ones that strip soil. Although they may be the worst offenders. > >Eden was one of the few national packagers that stood up against the >USDA's desire to allow sewer sludge, GMOs and irradiation in >orgaNICALLY certified products. Good 'ol USDA putting our tax dollars to work for us. Sheesh.... Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Suze - Of course, anything I said 'depends.' There are, of course, no cut and dried answers that are not site-dependent, but if we can't agree about what we are talking about, we are going to keep going around in circles. As far as 'parent rock' not being on the SFI site, sometimes you've got to climb down off your websearch and actually dig for these things. Surely the principles of how plants feed the microbes and the microbes feed the plants was made clear. That's what I'm talking about. " All " organic movement BIOLOGICAL ORGANIC farms are doing this, to one degree or another. Some are using more effective methods than other, etc. So, remember that when we do a soil test we are testing for nutrients that are AVAILABLE to the plant. With the microbe herds we are MAKING nutrients avail to the plants. Don't got no parent rock? There is a rule in biological farming: never discard a stone that is smaller than a HARDBALL. What's that stone, well, for the sake of this discussion, it 's a chunk of parent rock. Show me a farm without a bunch of rocks in the tilled land and, damn, I'll probably try to buy it! (AND START TRUCKING IN ROCK DUST!!! _ Yex, why don't you sign up for that pre-confernence workshop with ARDEN ANd Elaine? If you haven't heard of Elaine before, you've definitely been out of the biological farming mainstream! She's the cat's meow right now (at least her lab and her theories are!!) Gotta go get 2tons of SUMMA right this minute (not kidding!) LATER - ALLAN >Allan, > >This is all contingent on the crops being grown on some " parent rock " and >the farmers knowing how to work the soil food web in order to tap into the >minerals therein. How many farms are on a parent rock that is not too deep >down to have utilizable minerals? How close to the surface must that parent >rock be? It sounds great, but I wonder how many farms are actually operating >like this. I'd wager to guess an extreme minority. I didn't see anything on >the soilfoodweb site about parent rock, but would like to read more about it >if you have any other URLs that might discuss this? > >BTW, what happens to the parent rock over time as the minerals are taken >from it? > > >> >>It is said that a plant on living soil never needs a nitrogen >>supplementation: all the nitrogen necessary for good plant growth can >>come from the atmosphere, via the metabolism of the living soil. >> >>check out Elaine Ingham's work at the url above. She accounts for >>plant succession (increasingly complex plants on the same plot of >>land) by the evolution of the local soil food web. > >This is an interesting site. I think she is giving a workshop with Arden >Andersen at the Acres USA conference coming up in Dec. I hadn't heard about >Ingham till I saw her lecture listed for that conference. If I go, I will >probably catch her lecture as it looks like she has some interesting >information. I'm going to plant a garden in the spring and need all the help >I can get! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 > RE: Organic and the Environment > > > >As far as 'parent rock' not being on the SFI site, sometimes you've >got to climb down off your websearch and actually dig for these >things. Surely the principles of how plants feed the microbes and the >microbes feed the plants was made clear. That's what I'm talking >about. " All " organic movement BIOLOGICAL ORGANIC farms are doing >this, to one degree or another. Some are using more effective methods >than other, etc. I'm familiar with that, I just didn't know what you meant by " parent rock " I guess. >Don't got no parent rock? There is a rule in biological farming: >never discard a stone that is smaller than a HARDBALL. What's that >stone, well, for the sake of this discussion, it >'s a chunk of parent rock. Show me a farm without a bunch of rocks in >the tilled land and, damn, I'll probably try to buy it! (AND START >TRUCKING IN ROCK DUST!!! _ So, can you please explain what you mean by " parent rock " ? > >Yex, why don't you sign up for that pre-confernence workshop with >ARDEN ANd Elaine? If you haven't heard of Elaine before, you've >definitely been out of the biological farming mainstream! She's the >cat's meow right now (at least her lab and her theories are!!) Ha, funny. I Just talked to a midwest farmer yesterday who's been to one of her presentations and said everyone was falling asleep - that she over complicates things with all her diagrams and such. Oh well, can't please everyone. I wish I *could* sign up for their pre-conference workshop but I'm not even sure I an afford the conference itself. We'll see. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > >>Allan, >> >>This is all contingent on the crops being grown on some " parent rock " and >>the farmers knowing how to work the soil food web in order to tap into the >>minerals therein. How many farms are on a parent rock that is not too deep >>down to have utilizable minerals? How close to the surface must >that parent >>rock be? It sounds great, but I wonder how many farms are >actually operating >>like this. I'd wager to guess an extreme minority. I didn't see >anything on >>the soilfoodweb site about parent rock, but would like to read >more about it >>if you have any other URLs that might discuss this? >> >>BTW, what happens to the parent rock over time as the minerals are taken >>from it? >> >> >>> >>>It is said that a plant on living soil never needs a nitrogen >>>supplementation: all the nitrogen necessary for good plant growth can >>>come from the atmosphere, via the metabolism of the living soil. >>> >>>check out Elaine Ingham's work at the url above. She accounts for >>>plant succession (increasingly complex plants on the same plot of >>>land) by the evolution of the local soil food web. >> >>This is an interesting site. I think she is giving a workshop with Arden >>Andersen at the Acres USA conference coming up in Dec. I hadn't >heard about >>Ingham till I saw her lecture listed for that conference. If I go, I will >>probably catch her lecture as it looks like she has some interesting >>information. I'm going to plant a garden in the spring and need >all the help >>I can get! > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 >So, can you please explain what you mean by " parent rock " ? What I meant when I said that is the rock that the soil is more or less derived from. The source of the mineral fraction of the current soil or of the original soil, or whatever. This is being said to differentiate that mineral from the mineral that is in a state that is accessible by plants. Of course, it seems to me that current theory is that plants do not access ANY minerals but get all of their mineral-derived nutrition from the protoplasm of dead biota. I've read plenty that contradicts this, incudling being told that there are photomicrographs of feeder roots taking nutrients from humus. Just the same, unless I'm mistaken, current view is that healthy plants live off the protoplasm of microbiota. They can, of course, take up nutrients in liquid, which is the basis of conventional agriculture with its water-based or water-soluable fertilizers. Back on the BRIX path, it is the contention of many biological farmers that liquid fertilizers are taken up by a plant without it's choice (it went for a drink and got a dowse of NPK), but plants that actually choose their own food (by feeder roots sucking up protoplasm from dead microbes) develop to be the plants that our DNA developed with. (e.g. plants that were NOT grown on liquid fertilizers) Suze - I'm just talking off the cuff here. Anything I say is just pointers for further thought/investigation. > >> >>Yex, why don't you sign up for that pre-confernence workshop with >>ARDEN ANd Elaine? If you haven't heard of Elaine before, you've >>definitely been out of the biological farming mainstream! She's the >>cat's meow right now (at least her lab and her theories are!!) > >Ha, funny. I Just talked to a midwest farmer yesterday who's been to one of >her presentations and said everyone was falling asleep - that she over >complicates things with all her diagrams and such. Oh well, can't please >everyone. " over complicates things'? What sort of a MID-WEST farmer was this? Is his soil food web cooking, or what? Most people find her presentations stimulating and downright exciting. Worse than that, I hosted her at our conference two years back and I think she spoke about 20 hours out of the 3 day conference!! It was incredible. (And people complained when I finally gave her the hook!) Gotta love her. She's a trooper!! > >I wish I *could* sign up for their pre-conference workshop but I'm not even >sure I an afford the conference itself. We'll see. You should talk to her. Maybe she has scholarships. Or work study.... Latelr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.