Re: Organic and the Environment

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

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>

>----------------------------

>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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>

>----------------------------

>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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/

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

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!

[Guest guest]

> 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!

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>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