Future of Farming: BBC world news last night Re: organic labelling in foodstores and the responsibility of government
Archimedes Plutonium
(all snipped for brevity)
Continuing with my harangue yesterday of how pitiful the USA government
is
with dispersing of information to the general public when it can do so
easily. I wrote yesterday that a school such as Iowa State University or
any "state ag"
university in the USA spends 95% of its time on teaching farmers how to
apply
chemicals to the land, and spends zero percent of time analyzing the
food before it reaches the mouths of consumers.
Example: Utah State University in the 1960s and 1970s had a "ice cream
stand" in which the University made home-made ice-cream utilizing almost
everything that USU does as far as education of farming and farming
practices. Except one
thing, for which the University was also capable of doing. USU analyzes
the drinking water of Logan community, yet, being a ag school never
checks the ingredients of its ice cream. Nor does any USA ag school.
They spend 95% of their time on application of farm chemicals and spend
zero amount of time on
learning, understanding and informing people of what quality or
disquality of
food that reaches their mouth.
Would you buy an ice-cream bar if you read on the ingredients that it
contained
a million more molecules of farm-chemicals than another ice-cream bar
that was
"organically grown" and had none of those farm chemicals?
In the BBC world news of last night (10JUL) depicted a German farmer who
was going "organic farming" and interviewed this German farmer said that
people want more quality food. The news segment was mostly about Farm
Subsidies of the EU and depicted a British farmer who was thinking of
expanding his operation by building more storage bins.
You see, present world farming is not sustainable. It is subsidized and
yields poor quality of food because it is laden with chemicals. The USA
farm subsidy
bill just passed promises 170 billion dollars to farmers.
No wonder the people of the USA want regular drinking water analysis,
but never want food-analysis. Because if food analysis was as
commonplace as drinking water analysis and placed on food products sold
in stores, that all of a sudden the Organic Food Section would be the
majority section of the stores.
Would you buy a loaf of bread that was a million parts more contaminated
with
farm chemicals than a loaf of Organic bread that did not have those
chemicals?
The BBC World News last night suggested a way for EU countries to get
off of
farm subsidies. Get off by having farmers convert to Organic Farms where
the price of their products is much higher and can sustain farmers
without any hand-out subsidies.
But, I recommend also that governments make the Information and
knowledge fair to the consumer. If you walk into any foodstore in the
USA there is no
information as to the contents of the food as far as farm chemicals are
concerned.
A can of corn or spinach or fresh grown tomatoes in the store may
contain
abnormal amounts of chemicals. And there is no way of comparing those
amounts with the food in the Organic section.
So, if the USA government was doing its job of informing the public as
to what is actually inside the food that they buy in the stores and
allow the consumer to judge whether they are safe to eat, then the
Foodstores would quickly change from the Organic section becoming the
largest section of stores and the Chemically grown food shrinking.
Food prices would go up, naturally, since the time taken to grow the
food increases. But the quality of food increases. And the subsidy of
farming vanishes.
The essential role that government must do, for which it has been
negligent
so far is the role of informing people of the quality or disquality of
food they
are putting into their bodies. Do we pay 170 billion to farmers to
produce more
chemically laden foods at a cheap price and have the highest rates of
Parkinson
and other diseases, or do we follow the trend that is emerging in
Europe, where
subsidies are vanishing and farmers becoming organic growers and food
prices rising, but the quality of food is excellent!
Question: about chokecherries. Can someone tell me if the toxicity of
chokecherry seeds becomes a threat in canning whole chokecherries? The
heat of canning --- will that heat diffuse that toxin? The reason I ask
is because otherwise chokecherries are too time consuming to process.
Archimedes Plutonium, 11JUL02, a_plu...@hotmail.com
The Idaho Anderson's
high a bit, but close. One thing too is that it all doesn't go to the
farmers: http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/ I don't agree 100% of the time with
G.W., but have to give him credit for affording more of this farm bill to
"organic research" than what Clinton allowed. Which is surprising in
itself. We have subsidies problems just like our EU counterparts and like
our counterparts over there we American farmers are turing to alternative
methods of growing and production. Good luck on the chokecherries, enough
natural cyanide in there to kill a herd of cows...no matter what temperature
you can them at.
D. Anderson
Moscow, Idaho USA
"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plu...@dtgnet.com> wrote in message
news:3D2DCFF8...@dtgnet.com...
Archimedes Plutonium
> Nice points, but they do stray here and there. Your quote of 170 billion is
> high a bit, but close. One thing too is that it all doesn't go to the
> farmers: http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/ I don't agree 100% of the time with
> G.W., but have to give him credit for affording more of this farm bill to
> "organic research" than what Clinton allowed. Which is surprising in
> itself. We have subsidies problems just like our EU counterparts and like
> our counterparts over there we American farmers are turing to alternative
> methods of growing and production. Good luck on the chokecherries, enough
> natural cyanide in there to kill a herd of cows...no matter what temperature
> you can them at.
>
> D. Anderson
> Moscow, Idaho USA
>
From reading your above, I sense you failed to grasp the key issue of that
recent BBC World News report on a German farmer compared to UK farmer
and all of farming in the EU. The central issue is that the EU can eliminate
all farm subsidies immediately where every EU nation has 0 farm subsidies
and all farming in EU is *organic farming* where the produce fetches a premium
price. Organic farming in Europe and the USA already command
a higher price.
But due to subsidies, most people buy "chemical-laden foods" because it is
widely available and because most farmers farm that way.
So, we have two choices:
Farmers farm based on petrol machines and produce vast quantities of
chemical laden foods which is subsidized by the government and is cheap in
the stores.
or,
Farmers farm organically based on 19th century practices where there is
no government subsidy and the food at the stores is much more expensive
but much more healthy. The Midwest USA has the highest Parkinson rate
in the world. Most people say "who cares" as long as they do not come
down with Parkinsons.
Most people of the 20th century preferred cheap and unhealthy food. Like
eating at MacDonalds for every meal for the rest of your life.
Perhaps in the 21st century when oil becomes pricey and earth sports 8
billion people instead of 2 billion, that farming and food will have to
approach Organic Methods once again.
My vote is that I would rather go through life paying more for my food and
knowing that I had eaten the best food available on Earth, rather than live my
life having eaten low quality cheap food.
So, the main issue of the BBC news is that farming practices must change.
They must change because oil is going up. And the USA farming is based
totally on oil. The subsidy by government is to basically remove the price
of oil in the equation. But as world oil is depleted and as oil rises,
governments will drop the subsidy. And the farmers who went along with that
ride will end up in a predicament.
No-one can escape this formula:
oil based farming-- for every 1 unit of energy produced, costs 50 units of
energy
muscle based farming-- for every 50 units of energy produced, costs 1 unit
of energy
Europe had oil-based farming in the 20th century, but slowly Europe is
realizing that 19th century farming where not a drop of oil was used for
tractors, but all muscle powered farming, is the final solution. The food
produced by Organic Farming is better, more healthier, more expensive, but it
needs no subsidy.
They should label the chemical analysis in loafes of bread. It is public
information what chemicals are in the Boise Idaho drinking water. But pick up a
loaf of bread in Boise Idaho and no-one ever is required to provide the
chemical information of that bread. A loaf of bread that has pesticide of parts
per thousand not parts per billion can be sold in Boise Idaho grocery store.
No wonder Alzheimers is the fastest growing disease in the USA. The country
that has the largest chemical laden food supply. When you suppress information
to people as to what chemicals are added to the food they buy, then they buy
the cheap stuff. And who cares if 20 or 30 or 40 years later they die of that
chemical overload.
Summary: BBC News reported that Europe realizes farm subsidies are not
sustainable and are bad. Thus, the EU is moving to eliminate all Farm subsidies
and having all farmers return to Organic Farming Methods (more muscle than oil
or chemicals)
Michelle Fulton
>
> My vote is that I would rather go through life paying more for my food and
> knowing that I had eaten the best food available on Earth, rather than
live my
> life having eaten low quality cheap food.
You must have a very good job and no (few) children to feed...... Most
people don't have a choice. If they want their children to eat, and have
clothing and shelter, they can only afford the cheap, chemical laden food
:-( I'm one of the lucky ones who can afford to buy at organic shops, but
the prices are ridiculous and not affordable to *most* people.
M
Ian St. John
"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote in message
news:wSEZ8.4595$gQ3.58...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
1: This is partly a result of the increasing wage gap. Low income earners
should still be able to buy good food.
2: I don't think that 'organic' is necessary. A concern for flavor,
nutrients, etc and some changes in farming practices could do it.
CTV, Friday, July 05, 2002
Are vitamins vanishing from fruits and veggies?
By Avis Favaro, CTV Medical Reporter
BREAKING NEWS
They were the days before modern agriculture took over. When life was
simpler. And is it possible the produce was better for us?
In 1951, Canada began analyzing the vitamin and mineral levels in fruits and
vegetables. We compared those 1951 findings to the most recent government
nutrient analysis to see if anything had changed.
Of the 25 fruits and vegetables we compared, many appeared to lose their
nutritional value. Here are some examples:Broccoli lost 62 per cent of its
calcium, which is essential for building healthy bones and teeth; Potatoes
lost virtually all their vitamin A content, which is important for eyesight;
An apple has lost nearly half of its iron, a component of healthy blood;
Only one trace mineral, niacin, increased in all the produce.
In all, the three most important nutrients dropped in the majority of fruits
and vegetables tested: 68 per cent lost vitamin A content; 76 per cent
dropped in iron content; and 80 per cent lost calcium content.
Phil Warman, a professor of soil science at the Nova Scotia Agricultural
College, examined CTV's data. He agreed that it appeared time has wrought
changes.
"The chart implies that there has been quite a change in the last 50 years
in the nutritional content of many fruits and vegetables," Warman said.
Comparing nutrient values over 50 years isn't the most scientific way to do
this type of analysis. But he agrees it is the only data available, and it
does suggest a drop in some nutrients.
Warman cautioned that scientists first need to confirm our findings, but he
believes nutrition has never been a top priority for fruit growers.
"My guess is that we've changed varieties quite dramatically in the last 50
years," Warman said. "We've bred for certain characteristics. Not that we've
bred out nutritional qualities, but no one has put the emphasis there."
That's largely because of consumer demand we want our fruit shiny, our
vegetables colourful. "The consumer wants something that looks good," Warman
said. "They want something that handles well, and the wholesaler wants
something that stores well and can be transported."
That demand has led to growers selecting varieties of foods that grow bigger
faster. They also choose plant varieties that resist pests, and that produce
consistently attractive fruits and vegetables.
Weight over content
Stuart Hill, with the School of Social Ecology at the University of Western
Sydney in Australia, agrees that such considerations are major factors in
what farmers choose to grow.
"As long as we reward growers primarily for weight of produce, they will
naturally make all decisions to maximize weight," Hill told CTV News. "And
the easiest way for plant breeders to increase yield is to increase the
water content of produce -- thereby diluting the nutrient content."
"This is why early tomatoes contained 50 mg of vitamin C per gram, whereas
modern cultivars commonly contain 5 mg -- a 10 times dilution," he added.
Some others suggest that modern farming techniques have stripped minerals
from the soil. Minerals are micronutrients that man-made fertilizers can't
replace, since they're based solely on nitrogen phosphorus, and potassium.
Soil scientists disagree with this thesis, and say modern farming techniques
have generated more produce at cheaper prices, making fruits and vegetables
available more readily across North America. This offsets any potential
decline in nutrient content.
Still, the comparative data deserve a closer look, because they may hint at
a previously uncovered trend in food growing.
"These data do raise the question of whether we are changing something in
our production practices or breeding practices that should be examined,"
says Beverly Hale, a professor of Land Resource Science at the University of
Guelph.
Dr. Khursheed Jeejeebhoy, a professor of nutritional sciences at the
University of Toronto, believes the drops in nutrient contents are so low,
they probably wouldn't affect an individual's overall health. And there are
no signs of increasing nutrient deficiencies among Canadians.
"My view is that there is nothing to worry about," Jeejeebhoy said, "because
the sources which are really rich in recommended nutrients are still quite
rich in what they are supposed to have."
Indeed, the CTV/Globe analysis showed that grapes gained vitamin C content,
as did red peppers and carrots. Carrots, a major source of vitamin A, saw
levels of this vitamin rise by 135 per cent.
Some agricultural specialists suggest these crops rose in certain vitamins
because growers are breeding for a deep rich colour, which often contributes
to a rise in certain vitamins.
Other scientists question whether the decline in nutrients is real.
"Did they really go down," wonders Professor Len Piche of the University of
Western Ontario, "or did we just have better techniques for analyzing those
nutrients?"
Piche believes it's an important question because studies suggest half of
Canadians don't eat the recommended five to 10 servings of fruits and
vegetables each day. And if we are missing out on important nutrients, it
could cause widespread health problems down the road.
"If there is a problem," Piche said, "I'm confident the government will take
it seriously and do the necessary research and address it on behalf of all
Canadians."
Global trends
Research in Britain suggested there was a decline in nutrient content there
as well.
The trend worries nutritional scientist Virginia Worthington, who works out
of Washington D.C., because research is constantly linking vitamins and
minerals to disease prevention. For example, low levels of folic acid may
contribute to heart disease.
"Vitamins and minerals interact. For example, vitamin C helps vitamin E to
work. And vitamin E helps vitamin A. And vitamin C helps the body absorb
more iron," Worthington said. "We don't know what the net effect could be.
It could be that all these small drops in nutrients could have a much bigger
effect when you take the interactions into account."
It also begs the question: if breeders can select varieties for size and
yield, why can't they also grow more nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables?
Warman says it certainly is something that could be done.
"It seems to me to be a relatively easy thing to do -- to look at the
varieties we have today and select those higher in nutritional values and
let people know," Warman suggests. "As a consumer I would certainly pick
something that has a higher nutritional value."
But Cathy Bakker, a graduate student at the University of Guelph, says
breeders aren't interested in nutrition content nor are consumers.
Neverthless, it's a connection she appears to have made. Bakker learned she
could grow broccoli with higher levels of vitamin C, by using less nitrogen
fertilizer.
"If you can grow broccoli that looks just as good with less nitrogen and
more vitamin C that would be fantastic," Bakker said. "And I think there
would be benefits for the consumers and benefits for the growers."
CTV, Friday, July 05, 2002
CHARTS: Nutrient Changes in Vegetables and Fruits, 1951 to 1999
Compiled by Jeffrey Christian for CTV News
BREAKING NEWS
The following tables and charts show the changes that have occurred in
levels of certain vitamins and trace minerals in our food supply over 50
years.
The tables were constructed following the lead of researchers in the United
States and the United Kingdom. These studies have for the most part been
done independently of each other. The results would seem to indicate the
same occurrences in different geographic areas.
All the American and British studies followed the same basic method.
Researchers would take nutrients tables as published from different time
periods and compare the levels of vitamins and minerals for a given food at
a given weight. This analysis uses Canadian tables as printed in 1951 and
1999 and compared the nutrients available from 100 grams of the given food
type.
Wherever possible I compared raw, edible portions of the food (uncooked and
unprocessed). Squash, corn and peas are the exceptions: Squash is listed
only as cubed and baked, corn as boiled and drained and peas as solids from
a drained can.
The 1951 tables are all based on 100 grams of edible food product. Later
tables have inconsistent weights. To maintain consistency 100 grams is used
as a base. For later values the weight listed (e.g. 87 grams) is multiplied
by an equivalency factor (100g\87g*x) where x is the value of the nutrient
measured). All listings in the table then are based on 100 g weights. The
conversion factors are listed as comments in the electronic version.
All numbers in the chart have been rounded to two decimal places to maintain
simplicity.
To flesh out the results, food tables from 1972 were added to see if the
changes were consistent over the time period. While the additional tables
aren't entirely consistent, they show a steady fluctuation in the nutrient
value of foods. The 1972 table values generally show up in between the 1951
and 1999 tables. The bottom row, % Change, refers to total change from 1951
to 1999.
Apple, raw with skin (7 cm diameter), 138 g., 100/138=0.72
Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 6.00 0.30 90.00 5.00 0.04 0.03 0.20
1972 5.33 0.27 3.33 2.00 0.03 0.01 0.07
1999 7.20 0.14 53.00 5.80 0.01 0.01 0.14
% Change 20.00 -53.33 -41.11
16.00 -75.00 -66.67 -30.00
Banana, one medium raw, 115 g. 100/115=0.87 Calcium(mg) Iron
(mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 8.00 0.60 430.00 10.00 0.04 0.05 0.70
1972 5.71 0.46 131.43 6.86 0.03 0.04 0.46
1999 6.10 0.35 81.00 8.70 0.04 0.10 0.69
% Change -23.75 -41.67 -81.16 -13.00 0.00
100.00 -1.43
Blueberries, raw, 77g. 100/77=1.3 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 16.00 0.80 280.00 10.00 0.02 0.02 0.30
1972 15.00 1.00 100.00 14.29 0.03 0.06 0.43
1999 6.50 0.13 100.10 13.00 0.05 0.05 0.39
% Change -59.38 -83.75 -64.25 30.00 160.00
160.00 30.00
Broccoli, Raw, 3 spears, 93g. 100/93=1.08 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 130.00 1.30 3500.00 104.00 0.10 0.21
1.10
1972 87.78 0.78 2500.00 90.00 0.09 0.20
0.78
1999 48.30 0.86 1542.00 93.50 0.06 0.12
1.07
% Change
-62.85 -33.85 -55.94 -10.10 -40.00 -42.86 -2.73
Carrots, one medium, raw, 80g. 100/80=1.25 Calcium(mg) Iron
(mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 39.00 0.80 12000.00
6.00 0.06 0.06 0.50
1972 36.00 0.80 11000.00 8.00 0.06 0.06
0.60
1999 27.50 0.50 28305.00 8.80 0.10 0.06
1.13
% Change
-29.49 -37.50 135.88 46.67 66.67 0.00 126.00
Cauliflower, raw pieces, 106g. 100/106=.94 Calcium(mg) Iron
(mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 22.00 1.10 90.00 69.00 0.11 0.10 0.60
1972 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1999 21.70 0.47 18.90 46.20 0.06 0.07 0.94
% Change
-1.36 -57.27 -79.00 -33.04 -45.45 -30.00 56.67
Celery, one stalk, raw, 40g. 100/40=2.5 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 50.00 0.50 1000.00 7.00 0.05 0.04 0.40
1972 40.00 0.25 100.00 10.00 0.03 0.03 0.25
1999 40.00 0.50 135.00 7.50 0.05 0.05 0.50
% Change
-20.00 0.00 -86.50 7.14 0.00 25.00 25.00
Cherries, raw, 10 cherries, 68g. 100/68=1.47 Calcium(mg) Iron
(mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 18.00 0.40 620.00 8.00 0.05 0.06 0.40
1972 14.80 0.28 664.00 4.80 0.03 0.02 0.20
1999 14.70 0.44 214.62 7.35 0.04 0.06 0.59
% Change
-18.33 10.25 -65.38 -8.13 -11.80 0.00 47.00
Corn, one ear of corn on or off cob, boiled and drained, 121g. 100/121=.83
Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 4.00 0.40 150.00 5.00 0.02 0.04
0.90
1972 1.43 0.36 221.43 5.00 0.06 0.06 0.71
1999 5.40 0.45 240.00 5.40 0.05 0.07 1.44
% Change
35.00 12.50 60.00 8.00 125.00 80.00 60.00
Cranberries, raw 50g. 100/50=2 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 14.00 0.60 40.00 14.00 0.03 0.02 0.10
1972 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1999 8.00 0.20 46.00 14.00 0.04 0.02 0.20
% Change
-42.86
-66.67 15.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 100.00
Cucumbers, one, sliced and peeled, 110g. 100/110=.91 Calcium(mg)
Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 10.00 0.30 n/a 8.00 0.03 0.04 0.20
1972 16.00 0.40 n/a 12.00 0.04 0.04 0.20
1999 13.65 0.27 215.00 5.46 0.03 0.02 0.27
% Change
36.50 -10.00 n/a -31.75 0.00 -50.00 35.00
Grapes, 10 grapes, raw, 50g.100/50=2 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 17.00 0.60 80.00 4.00 0.06 0.04
0.20
1972 9.80 0.26 65.36 1.96 0.03 0.02 0.13
1999 12.00 0.20 72.00 10.00 0.10 0.06 0.40
% Change
-29.41
-66.67 -10.00 150.00 66.67 50.00 100.00
Green peppers, one pepper, raw, seeded, 164g. 100/164= .61
Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 11.00 0.40 630.00 120.00 0.04 0.07
0.40
1972 9.46 0.68 418.92 127.03 0.08 0.08 0.54
1999 9.15 0.49 631.96 89.00 0.07 0.03 0.67
% Change
-16.82
22.50 0.31 -25.83 75.00 -57.14 67.50
Lettuce, iceberg, chopped, 59g. 100/59=1.69 Calcium(mg) Iron
(mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 22.00 0.50 540.00 5.00 0.04 0.08
0.20
1972 20.04 0.51 330.40 6.39 0.06 0.06 0.29
1999 19.00 0.50 330.00 3.30 0.05 0.03 0.30
% Change
-13.64 0.00 -38.89 -34.00 25.00 -62.50
50.00
Onions, chopped, raw, 85g. 100/85=1.18 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 32.00 0.50 50.00 13.00 0.03 0.04
0.20
1972 27.27 0.55 36.36 10.00 0.04 0.04 0.18
1999 20.06 0.24 0.00 5.90 0.05 0.02 0.47
% Change
-37.31
-52.80 -100.0 -54.62 57.33 -41.00 136.00
Oranges, one orange, raw, 131g. 100/131=.76 Calcium(mg) Iron
(mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 33.00 0.40 1900.00 49.00 0.08 0.03
0.20
1972 30.00 0.28 144.44 36.67 0.07 0.03 0.28
1999 39.50 0.08 204.00 53.20 0.08 0.03 0.50
% Change
19.70
-80.00 -89.26 8.57 0.00 0.00 150.00
Peaches, one peach, raw, 87g. 100/87=1.15 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 8.00 0.60 1400.00 7.00 0.04 0.04
0.90
1972 7.89 0.44 1157.89 6.14 0.02 0.04 0.88
1999 4.60 0.10 53.00 7.00 0.01 0.05 1.00
% Change
-42.50 -83.33 -96.21 0.00 -75.00 25.00
11.11
Peas, canned, drained solids, 90g. 100/90=1.11 Calcium(mg) Iron
(mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 32.00 2.10 670.00 9.00 0.12 0.06
1.00
1972 23.57 2.07 635.71 8.57 0.11 0.06 1.07
1999 19.98 1.00 765.90 9.99 0.12 0.08 1.22
% Change
-37.56
-52.43 14.31 11.00 0.00 29.50 22.10
Pears, one pear, raw with skin, 169g. 100/169=.59 Calcium(mg)
Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 13.00 0.30 20.00 4.00 0.02 0.04
0.10
1972 7.14 0.27 16.48 3.85 0.02 0.04 0.11
1999 11.20 0.02 20.00 4.10 0.01 0.04 0.20
% Change
-13.85
-93.33 0.00 2.50 -50.00 0.00 100.00
Potatoes, one potato, peeled before boiling, 136g. 100/136=.74
Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 11.00 0.70 20.00 17.00 0.11 0.04
1.20
1972 5.74 0.49 0.00 16.39 0.09 0.03 1.15
1999 7.97 0.30 0.00 7.25 0.09 0.02 1.74
% Change
-27.55
-57.14 -100 -57.35 -18.18 -50.00 45.00
Red pepper, one, seeded, 164g. 100/164=.61 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg
)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 11.00 0.40 2000.00 125.00 0.07 0.04
0.40
1972 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1999 9.15 0.49 5702.00 190.00 0.07 0.03 0.67
% Change
-16.82
22.50 185.10 52.00 0.00 -25.00 67.50
Spinach, chopped, raw, 59g. 100/59=1.7 Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 81.00 3.00 9420.00 59.00 0.11 0.20
0.60
1972 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1999 99.71 2.70 6714.37 28.73 0.08 0.19 1.35
% Change
23.10 -9.87 -28.72 -51.31 -23.18 -7.05 125.33
Squash, winter squash, cubed and baked, 108g. 100/108=.93
Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 34.00 0.60 4950.00 8.00 0.05 0.12
0.50
1972 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1999 14.00 0.40 3582.36 9.30 0.08 0.03 0.93
% Change
-58.82 -33.33 -27.63 16.25 60.00 -75.00 86.00
Strawberries, five medium strawberries raw, 60g. 100/60=1.67
Calcium(mg) Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 28.00 0.80 60.00 60.00 0.03 0.07
0.30
1972 20.81 1.01 60.40 59.06 0.00 0.07 0.67
1999 13.30 0.30 26.70 57.00 0.02 0.07 0.30
% Change
-52.50 -62.50 -55.50 -5.00 -33.33 0.00 0.00
Tomato, one, raw, 6.6 cm diameter, 123g. 100/123=.81 Calcium(mg)
Iron (mg)
Vitamin A (I.U.) Vitamin C (mg) Thiamine(mg) Riboflavin (mg)
Nicacin(mg)
1951 11.00 0.60 1100.00 19.00 0.06 0.04
0.50
1972 13.33 0.53 900.00 22.67 0.07 0.04 0.67
1999 4.88 0.49 623.00 18.70 0.06 0.05 0.73
% Change
-55.64 -18.33 -43.36 -1.58 0.00 25.00 46.00
© 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Visit ctv.ca for the latest on news, entertainment, weather, and more!
Jim Webster
> Thu, 18 Jul 2002 05:16:49 GMT The Idaho Anderson's wrote:
> >
>
> From reading your above, I sense you failed to grasp the key issue of
that
> recent BBC World News report on a German farmer compared to UK farmer
> and all of farming in the EU. The central issue is that the EU can
eliminate
> all farm subsidies immediately where every EU nation has 0 farm
subsidies
the EU is not attempting to eliminate all subsidies, currently the move
is to shift them from pillar 1 to pillar 2, uncoupling them from
production and linking them directly to an area basis. The effect is
take them out of the WTO.
snip
>
> Summary: BBC News reported that Europe realizes farm subsidies are not
> sustainable and are bad. Thus, the EU is moving to eliminate all Farm
subsidies
> and having all farmers return to Organic Farming Methods (more muscle
than oil
> or chemicals)
total rubbish.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Gordon Couger
"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote in message
news:wSEZ8.4595$gQ3.58...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
regular market because there is no more demand for it. I believe Denmark and
the UK are having the same problem with milk. There are only so many fools
that will pay a premium for nothing but a nice story and warm feeling.
Gordon
Archimedes Plutonium
>
> You must have a very good job and no (few) children to feed...... Most
> people don't have a choice. If they want their children to eat, and have
> clothing and shelter, they can only afford the cheap, chemical laden food
> :-( I'm one of the lucky ones who can afford to buy at organic shops, but
> the prices are ridiculous and not affordable to *most* people.
Part of the eating-of-food experience is the mind experience along with it.
We go to a Organic Food Store to rest and console our minds and overlook
the bland taste of many items compared to regular food. Some organic food
is more gourmet than the regular food. And even if the price is double regular
foods, we like to satisfy our minds that the food in our body is not going to
harm our health.
I remember visiting a farm a long time ago and one of the grain bins had
spilled oil in the bin and got a air compressor to spray gasoline to remove
the oil. Some of the grain had oil on it and some of the grain had gasoline
on it. So some people in the world got some oil and gasoline along with
their food.
I remember visiting another farm that had problems of grain storage and
rats. And so they spread poison. It is possible that no food has rat poison in
it
but it is more likely that most food found in stores has some rat chemicals
in it.
Not all the problem is the farming, for contaminates and chemicals are
added in the processing. And the source of contaminates is not solely farmers
but in the processing of foods. Chemicals are added to potatoes to stop them
from sprouting. Those chemicals are probably deleterious to humans. And
stores have problems with rats and mice and moths that contaminate food on
the shelves.
Peace of mind and knowing are important. And there is no reason why the
USA government should not and cannot analyze main food items and put them on
the labels periodically.
Have the State Universities use their labs to check out the chemical
ingredients of food items in stores and label them and post them to the
Internet. Perhaps random samples. If I buy a jar of peanut butter from the
organic section and a jar from the regular section I want to know if one
contains more rat material, pesticide and herbicide. I maybe surprized that
some organic foods are higher in contaminates than regular foods.
Provide a percentage or parts per million of foreign contaminates. A percentage
of chemicals that are pesticide derivatives. Percentage of herbicides.
Processing chemicals. Have the analysis as detailed as the drinking water
analysis. I want to know how much fungicide is in frozen concentrated orange
juice.
As Scott Douglas keeps saying that USA chickens are washed in fecal matter. I
want to know if my buffalo wings I buy have fecal matter.
When you provide the general public with knowledge and information to make a
choice, is far better than when you leave them in the dark. And especially when
the USA government has the resources and capability in providing that
information, via the State University labs.
Such a knowledge system implemented, would slowly turn the Food stores into
more and more of Organic Food stores and where the regular food becomes
marginalized as the junk food that is cheap.
At present there can be no peace of mind or relaxed mind of the food bought
in USA stores, because the government does not analyze the food and inform
people of what is in it. They have the means and ability to analyze and to
broadcast the results. I pay 3 times the price for a sack of organic potatoes
than regular potatoes. And the USA government can and should analyze what
chemicals are in those potatoes. Not every sack of potato but random samples
spread throughout the USA.
As long as no-one really knows what is in the foods, they cannot be improved.
Tim Worstall
coin.
Organic farming requires more land to produce the same calories. So,
to provide the amount of food that we do currently, using only organic
methods would require more land than currently in use. And what does
that do to our fellow inhabitants, the wild animals ?
One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states. ( to see the full
figures try and get a copy of PJ O´Rourke ´All the Trouble in the
World ´).
There is also a further point. Pesticides do cause cancers. Current
estimates are about 3,000 - 5,000 a year, concentrated in those who
handle and use them, rather than those who eat the food ( these
figures come from a big study done by the Canadian Cancer Institute
back in 1999 or so , also repeated in Lomborg´s book ).
It is also true that absent smoking ( very definately the leading
cause of age adjusted cancers ) the main cause of cancer is
insufficient fruit and vegetables in the diet.
As Norman Bourlag ( Nobel Prize winner, father of the green revolution
) has pointed out, exclusively organic farming would mean higher ( and
he thinks much much higher ) prices for fruit and veg, which would
then , obviously, become a smaller part of the diet. This would lead
to increased cancer rates.
So, from those who know, a move to organic farming would lead to
increased use of wild lands, leading to further reductions in
biodiversity. And higher cancer rates in humans.
Not quite the benefits we though we were going to get from having
fewer chemicals in our food, is it ?
Especially since of the mutagens, carcinogens and other ´poisons´in
our food, 99.9 % of them are ´natural ´in that they are produced by
the plants themselves, and only 0.1 % is added by the application of
chemicals to the fields.
Tim Worstall
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<3d37...@audacity.velocet.net>...
Torsten Brinch
>..>
>One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
>would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
>farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
USA land area is 915 million hectares (50 states), 8 states would then
be 146 million hectares. Current land use in USA has 176,950,000
hectares arable. What you write would seem to imply that USA has ~150
million hectares land suitable for arable farming currently left
unused for arable farming. Where is that land, and what is it
currently being used for?
><..leaving aside smoking> the main cause of cancer is
>insufficient fruit and vegetables in the diet.
The corollary of which would be too much meat, right?
><..> exclusively organic farming would mean higher <..>
> prices for fruit and veg, which would then , obviously,
>become a smaller part of the diet. This would lead
>to increased cancer rates.
Otoh, we would expect meat in particular to become a
smaller part of the diet.
This should lead to decreased cancer rates -- and furthermore
to more efficient use of land to produce food for humans.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Tracy Aquilla
> CTV, Friday, July 05, 2002
> Are vitamins vanishing from fruits and veggies?
>
> By Avis Favaro, CTV Medical Reporter
> BREAKING NEWS
Where is this published in the peer-reviewed literature? It's difficult to
trust the accuracy of a reporter who doesen't even seem to know a vitamin
from a mineral!
Ian St. John
"Tim Worstall" <t...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.02071...@posting.google.com...
> What seems to be missing from this discussion is the other side of the
> coin.
> Organic farming requires more land to produce the same calories. So,
> to provide the amount of food that we do currently, using only organic
What is missing from this thread is the question you seem to be responding
to. I said nothing about organic farming. My post was on the reduction in
nutrients due to overly intensive agriculture, and lack of focus on nutrient
content in developing faster growing or longer lasting produce.
You seem to equate better nutritional content with organic farming. Why is
that, and is it true? I don't think the article showed any such reasoning.
Ian St. John
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:PzOZ8.15$ws4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Or they can't afford it any more. I don't think the subject is really about
organic vs factory farming, but nutrition levels in food (best food
available) and costs to produce. The problem is that the nutrition levels
are dropping due to intensive use of the soil, lack of key elements in
fertilizer use, and the development of seed varieties for fast growth ( only
so much energy available in cellular factories, so more goes to growth and
less to other factors such as vitamins, etc ). One might also blame the
emphasis on production and ignorance of nutritional content. Please see my
other post on nutrient levels and their trends.
In addition, 'cheap' is hard to justify. The true cost is not reflected at
the super market. Cheap is more an effect of government interference( $40B
yearly in subsidies) than of farming productivity. That distorts the markets
severely and leads to the end of the family farm as acreage, not
productivity is the key to success. See:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DF835-2733-1D2A-97CA809EC588EE
DF&catID=2
Michelle Fulton
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:PzOZ8.15$ws4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> regular market because there is no more demand for it. I believe Denmark
and
> the UK are having the same problem with milk. There are only so many fools
> that will pay a premium for nothing but a nice story and warm feeling.
Is the demand decreased because of exorbitant prices or because people
decided it was all just "nice stories and warm feelings"? And if the
organic farmers have to lower their prices to compete, as you would expect
them to have to do, how can they stay in business?
It is a bit insulting for you to say that my desire to feed my family (small
as it is) food that hasn't been laden with chemicals and antibiotics. The
fact that I want to eliminate those hazards from my diet doesn't make me a
fool, does it??????
M
Ian St. John
"Tracy Aquilla" <aqu...@bpmlegal.com> wrote in message
news:3d381223$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Hey. That's just the title. The title doesn't have to include every detail.
"Canada began analyzing the vitamin and mineral levels" gives a more
detailed view, and yes, they do focus on mineral content more than vitamin.
"Only one trace mineral, niacin, increased in all the produce" OTOH, seems
to be indefensible, except that this is a *news reporter*. They are not
known for getting details right.
However, sources:
"In 1951, Canada began analyzing the vitamin and mineral levels in fruits
and
vegetables. We compared those 1951 findings to the most recent government
nutrient analysis to see if anything had changed" i.e government studies.
"The tables were constructed following the lead of researchers in the United
States and the United Kingdom. These studies have for the most part been
done independently of each other. The results would seem to indicate the
same occurrences in different geographic areas."
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80633e/80633E0k.htm
"In the early 1950s, a table of nutrient values for 185 foods was prepared
as part of a nutrition education booklet, Healthful Eating [2], which was
written for teachers, nurses, and the general public. Because of the large
demand for this publication, an expanded separate leaflet called Nutrient
Value of Some Common Foods [4] was issued. "
The above reference has a database which can be used to extract equivalent
current nutrient levels. Most data is from USDA sources, which seems
appropriate since agriculture practices are very similar.
Torsten Brinch
<mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
>news:PzOZ8.15$ws4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>> >
>> The prices will get right. Aready the UK is selling organic meat on the
>> regular market because there is no more demand for it. I believe Denmark
>and
>> the UK are having the same problem with milk. There are only so many fools
>> that will pay a premium for nothing but a nice story and warm feeling.
>
>Is the demand decreased because of exorbitant prices or because people
>decided it was all just "nice stories and warm feelings"? And if the
>organic farmers have to lower their prices to compete, as you would expect
>them to have to do, how can they stay in business?
(I can't speak for UK.) In Denmark organic milk has seen a tremendous
stepwise increase in demand and supply, organic has now an apparently
stable ~30 % market share of fresh milk, that should still be expected
to increase further, but only slowly. As to surplus, for the big
dairy company in Denmark, it has been important to secure contracts
with organic farmers which gives the company a surplus of organic milk
to enable exploitation of markets for processed organic dairy products
at home and on export markets, where and when opportunities arise.
Some surplus organic milk is currently being used as feed stock for
conventional dairy products. Weirdly, the existence of this surplus is
taken by some as a weakness of the Danish organic milk sector. It is
rather the opposite.
>It is a bit insulting for you to say that my desire to feed my family (small
>as it is) food that hasn't been laden with chemicals and antibiotics. The
>fact that I want to eliminate those hazards from my diet doesn't make me a
>fool, does it??????
Don't take Gordon too seriously. Anti-organic is kind a religion to
him, with one of the obligatory articles of faith being 'Only suckers
buy organic'; I am sure he didn't mean to take it out on you.
Best regards
Torsten Brinch
Jim Webster
Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:65agju8ppnkehaghs...@4ax.com...
in the UK there is such a large surplus of organic milk that
approximately half of it is being sold on the conventional market at no
premium.
As organic producers have trouble getting their somatic cell count down
to the sort of level obligatory for conventional producers, some organic
producers selling onto the conventional market are actually being
penalised because of this
Archimedes Plutonium
19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700 Tim Worstall wrote:
> What seems to be missing from this discussion is the other side of the
> coin.
No, because Organic farming was everything up until about the 19th
century when factory of chemicals and the petroleum industry was born.
So, if I ate a peach or orange in the 18th century, it would have been
cleaner and healthier then eating a peach or orange in the 20th century.
>
> Organic farming requires more land to produce the same calories. So,
My point exactly. Which would you rather have. An Earth packed full of
humans to the tune of 10 billion persons eating unhealthy food. Or an
Earth circa 1900 when there were 2 billion inhabitants and where all the
food can be organically grown.
As we increase human population the food deteriorates and the living
standard deteriorates. Nearly all the food produced in the 19th century
was Organic Food.
>
> to provide the amount of food that we do currently, using only organic
> methods would require more land than currently in use. And what does
> that do to our fellow inhabitants, the wild animals ?
We should have Earth where only 2 billion humans live. All eating
fresh organic and healthy food. All enjoying full employment.
All enjoying full education. Plenty of room for wild animals, unlike the
year 2002 with extinctions by the minute. Unlike year 2002 with
weird weather and Global Warming about to overwhelm us.
Why do you invite disaster by asking for unchecked and increasing
human population? And the increasingly chemically polluted and
unhealthy food to feed this human overpopulation.
>
> One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
> would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
> farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states. ( to see the full
> figures try and get a copy of PJ O´Rourke ´All the Trouble in the
> World ´).
So, how do we educate this planet to decrease human population from
current 7 billion down to 2 billion where all food is Organic Grown Food?
Of course more people will be working on farms than presently. And
of course farm sizes will have shrunk since petrol farming will not be
allowed in the future simply because oil will eventually be depleted.
>
> There is also a further point. Pesticides do cause cancers. Current
> estimates are about 3,000 - 5,000 a year, concentrated in those who
> handle and use them, rather than those who eat the food ( these
That is an underestimate. If we look at the statistics of the 19th century
before society was overwhelmed by chemical factories and petroleum
industry we find that the cancer rates of the 19th century were
insignificant compared to 20th century. Cancer increases follow a
direct linear relationship with the increasing use of chemicals in
modern society.
If the entire farming system reverted to 18th century style farming and
human population be at 2 billion instead of 7 billion, then the cancer
rate in all of human society would tend to be insignificant.
>
> figures come from a big study done by the Canadian Cancer Institute
> back in 1999 or so , also repeated in Lomborg´s book ).
> It is also true that absent smoking ( very definately the leading
> cause of age adjusted cancers ) the main cause of cancer is
> insufficient fruit and vegetables in the diet.
> As Norman Bourlag ( Nobel Prize winner, father of the green revolution
> ) has pointed out, exclusively organic farming would mean higher ( and
> he thinks much much higher ) prices for fruit and veg, which would
> then , obviously, become a smaller part of the diet. This would lead
> to increased cancer rates.
I accept the belief that fruits and vegetables, especially vitamin C, are the
cleaners-out-of-the-body. So to speak the soap detergent for cleaning out
the insides of animal bodies. One of the reasons I often eat 5 to 10 oranges
a day.
But you miss the point of economics. As a item rises in price because of
demand, there will be more farmers going into the lucrative fruits and
vegetables to meet that demand and hence a ample supply.
>
>
> So, from those who know, a move to organic farming would lead to
> increased use of wild lands, leading to further reductions in
One can argue better that the petrol and chemical based farmer of
the 20th century raped the land more than organic farming. The
organic farmer could never destroy the amazon rainforests. It takes
the petrol farmer with his heavy equipment to destroy the land
cover and install new plants.
>
> biodiversity. And higher cancer rates in humans.
> Not quite the benefits we though we were going to get from having
> fewer chemicals in our food, is it ?
> Especially since of the mutagens, carcinogens and other ´poisons´in
> our food, 99.9 % of them are ´natural ´in that they are produced by
> the plants themselves, and only 0.1 % is added by the application of
> chemicals to the fields.
>
> Tim Worstall
The DDT chapter is over with. The PVC fish chapter is cleaning up phase.
The Chemical Industry was new to humans in the 20th century. The
Petroleum industry was new to humans in the 20th century. And being
new, humans would not handle them properly. It would take centuries
for humans to get *chemicals and petrol* under a wise plan of action.
We still do not have these industries to the point where they serve
humanity best. People of the 20th century were mostly guinea pigs to
the chemical and petrol industry as far as the food they ate.
The answers for the future lie in Renewables. Lie in controlled and checked
human population. Lie in minimal use of any chemical and petroleum
based farming.
And lie in the governments informing people of the content of foods as
to the degree of contamination. Analysis of foods and the labeling and
informing the general public of food content.
Back in the 1960s they used to analysis seafood for mercury levels. And
I stopped eating as much tuna fish as possible. But since the 1960s the
USA government has become derelict in its duty to analyze food and to
report the analysis. So derelict that the USA government goes about trying
to hide the facts and data. E.G. the USA government tries to muffle the
data that the USA Midwest has the highest Parkinson disease rate in the
world.
The next chapters in the history of agriculture and farming should be
chapters of where government is having University labs test the food for
chemicals and contaminates and labelling and reporting their findings.
And where governments are ending their subsidies to farming and where
Organic Farming becomes more viable than does petrol-based-farming.
Why should the most basic economic unit of society--- Food --- receive
any subsidy? That is so stupid that the governments who subsidize food
should subsidize breathing-of-oxygen. Food needs no government to
step in and subsidize them.
So, when someone wants to analyze and write the history of farming and
agriculture for the 20th century compared to any earlier century. The subsidy
of farming for the 20th century was to give farmers free gasoline for
which they would thus create world wide surplus of grains and crops.
Oil was new to the 20th century and civilization could squander oil in that
century, but as oil depletes and no fusion engineering ever materializes.
Then all of human society will have to convert to Renewable and stable
farming which is Organic Farming a la 18th century style.
Archimedes Plutonium, 19JUL02, a_plu...@hotmail.com
no-...@dont.spam.me
> No-one can escape this formula:
>
> oil based farming-- for every 1 unit of energy produced, costs 50 units of
> energy
>
> muscle based farming-- for every 50 units of energy produced, costs 1 unit
> of energy
>
Of course, muscle-based farming also traditionally required many more
people, and many animals to produce a crop, all of whom consumed a major
fraction of the crop produced, leaving less for anyone else. If those 8
billion people you expect are going to be supported by 19th century
farming methods, roughly 6 billion of them, and about 6 billion draft
animals are going to have to be devoted to the farming itself. Not to
mention that the arable acres required for those 19th century farming
methods to support 8 billion people is going to be something far beyond
the actually available (or even optimistically imaginable) number of
arable acres on this planet. Or were you planning on filling in a couple
of oceans to make enough land available? The "good-old-days" weren't a
pancea at the time, what makes you think they will be one now?
--
** NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47,
Chapter 5, any and all non-solicited commercial E-mail sent to this
address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500.
E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. **
no-...@dont.spam.me
>
> Part of the eating-of-food experience is the mind experience along with it.
> We go to a Organic Food Store to rest and console our minds and overlook
> the bland taste of many items compared to regular food. Some organic food
> is more gourmet than the regular food. And even if the price is double regular
> foods, we like to satisfy our minds that the food in our body is not going to
> harm our health.
I'm really glad to hear you say that, as I sincerely hope to produce
organic food soon, and I'm counting on consumers willing to pay (even
slightly) more for organic. I expect reduced yields, at least at first,
and a premium price is necessary to make that feasible. I also expect the
yields to rebound as the fully organic methods bring the soil conditions
back into a more natural balance. Perhaps if the idea catches on, more
and more food production can become "organic" and as organic food become
the mainstream, the prices will also become mainstream, though there is no
guarantee that they wouldn't still be slightly higher than they would have
been under chemical-intensive farming.
Of course, I have no illusions about producing food by the muscle-based
methods of the 19th century which you have advocated. Producing organic
food has little or nothing to do with "muscle-based" farming, it means
producing food without using non-organic fertilizers and herbicides and
insecticides.
Fertilization can come from organic sources, and there are a few organic
means of defending crop plants from weed competition and insect attacks,
but most of organic weed control depends upon cultivation, physically
disrupting the weed plants to give the crop plants a relative advantage.
Any attempt to do that at a high volume (like feeding billions of people
instead of just a few) will require mechanical cultivation, not
"muscle-based" cultivation. The number of people needed to hand-plow,
hand-plant, hand-hoe and hand-harvest enough grain to feed 8 billion
people would be... nearly 8 billion people!
Doing it with horse-drawn (or ox-drawn) equipment would still need about 6
billion people, plus billions of horses (or oxen). And getting the
resulting food to those few who don't actually live next to the fields
would be just as inefficient using "muscle-based" methods. Horse-drawn
wagons loaded with food move slowly, and food is mostly a perishable
commodity, especially if (as I do) you hope to avoid using more chemicals
as preservatives. So mechanized farming is not the antithesis of organic,
and in fact is going to even more necessary if organic farming is actually
going to be more than a "boutique" vendor for relatively wealthy
customers.
> I remember visiting a farm a long time ago and one of the grain bins had
> spilled oil in the bin and got a air compressor to spray gasoline to remove
> the oil. Some of the grain had oil on it and some of the grain had gasoline
> on it. So some people in the world got some oil and gasoline along with
> their food.
Hopefully you meant to say that some human had spilled oil in the grain
bin, not that the bin itself had spilled the oil. In that case I guess
you have the equivalent of a cook who spits into the cook pot! That
speaks more to the morality of the human than the farming method, what
about "muscle-based" farming methods would prevent such an immoral human
from throw something noxious into the grain, either deliberately or
accidentally? Major examples of carelessly or deliberately fouled food
happened in the 19th century just as easily as they can happen now,
perhaps more easily. Sinclair Lewis horrified this country about 100
years ago by describing such things, the miscreants needed neither
gasoline engines nor chemical pesticides to foul that food, just an utter
disregard for the health of their customers and unrestrained greed, both
of which have been available in generous supply throughout human history
(and probably always will be in some humans).
> At present there can be no peace of mind or relaxed mind of the food bought
> in USA stores, because the government does not analyze the food and inform
> people of what is in it. They have the means and ability to analyze and to
> broadcast the results. I pay 3 times the price for a sack of organic potatoes
> than regular potatoes. And the USA government can and should analyze what
> chemicals are in those potatoes. Not every sack of potato but random samples
> spread throughout the USA.
If by "means and ability" you mean the necessary staffing, they do not.
People say they want safe food, and they say they would be willing to pay
what that might cost, but in fact they buy food (even fresh produce)
strictly on appearance and low price. They select their public servants
the same way, appearance and (the promise of) low price.
Real inspection would require thousands more inspectors, and inspectors
truly independent of the industry they are supposed to regulate. Who do
you think pays those inspectors we do have? The rush to cut "big
government" always seems to focus more on government regulations (and
regulators) than on legislative and executive staffs. This is true not
only of food regulation, it has been reported that of the thousands of
shipping containers arriving on our shores daily, there are sufficient
customs inspectors to open and examine only a tiny fraction. The
potential for terrorist attacks (or simple smuggling) based on that single
example of "de-regulation" boggles the mind.
But is there the political will to fund 20 or 30 or even 50 times as many
customs inspectors? There isn't even yet the political will to fund
enough sky marshalls to guarantee that there is even one such marshall on
each commercial airliner flying overhead. Which politician is going to
suggest spending the additional billions of (tax or fee) dollars for
hiring thousands and thousands of food inspectors so that even a tiny
fraction of the food supply can be sampled, not to mention thousands of
lab technicians to test those samples?
Tell the american people that you want to raise their taxes to fund even
such a vital function, and you can kiss your political career good-bye.
Tell them it can be done without raising their taxes (in other words - lie
through your teeth) and they will elect you. Then you can forget your
impossible promises. Don't worry about the consequences, the voters have
short attention spans and will take much more interest in your private
life than in your performance as a public servant.
> As long as no-one really knows what is in the foods, they cannot be improved.
And what they already do know is mostly lost on them, how many people
bother to read the labels already mandated? Again, appearance and price
mean everything to the average consumer, look at what sells best in the
grocery store.
Gordon Couger
>
>
> 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700 Tim Worstall wrote:
>
> > What seems to be missing from this discussion is the other side of the
> > coin.
>
> No, because Organic farming was everything up until about the 19th
> century when factory of chemicals and the petroleum industry was born.
>
> So, if I ate a peach or orange in the 18th century, it would have been
> cleaner and healthier then eating a peach or orange in the 20th century.
>
> >
> > Organic farming requires more land to produce the same calories. So,
>
> My point exactly. Which would you rather have. An Earth packed full of
> humans to the tune of 10 billion persons eating unhealthy food. Or an
> Earth circa 1900 when there were 2 billion inhabitants and where all the
> food can be organically grown.
>
> As we increase human population the food deteriorates and the living
> standard deteriorates. Nearly all the food produced in the 19th century
> was Organic Food.
>
Gordon
no-...@dont.spam.me
> No, because Organic farming was everything up until about the 19th
> century when factory of chemicals and the petroleum industry was born.
Actually, my grandfather was technically an organic farmer (though he
never heard the term) up until about WW2, after which chemical
fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides became widely available, cheap
and highly touted. Petroleum on the other hand became a factor in farming
a bit sooner, his father used a Model T truck to get his crops to market
in the 1920's, and converted to tractor-drawn cultivation in the 1930's.
> So, if I ate a peach or orange in the 18th century, it would have been
> cleaner and healthier then eating a peach or orange in the 20th century.
Neither cleaner nor healthier would have been a guaranteed aspect of 18th
century fruit, though the absence of non-organic chemicals would be.
Those aren't the same thing, no matter how much you wish to equate them.
Peaches packed in wicker baskets and loaded into the back of a horse-drawn
wagon sound clean don't they?
But did the person who picked and packed those peaches ever wash his
hands? With soap? After tending to his cows and horses? And what were
those baskets used for previously? Were they washed before re-use? Does
the dust churned up by horses hooves on an unpaved road contain fragments
of horse manure dropped there last month, along with the spores of the
bacteria from horse intestines? How will those peaches sit out in the
open-air market before you buy them? Will the flies swarming around piles
of horse manure land on the peaches later? When you get them home, will
you wash the peaches? Do you even have running water, or do you get your
water from a shallow, hand-dug well in your backyard, drawing water from a
water table contaminated by the nearby stable where you keep your own
horse, not to mention that privy in the other corner of your garden?
I'd like to eat food free of the chemicals which currently characterize
"conventional" farming, but I wouldn't consider anything from the 18th
century to be either "cleanier" or necessarily "healthier" than what I can
buy today.
By the way, do you necessarily live in an area that would grow oranges?
If not you needn't worry about how clean or healthy those might have been
in the 18th century, unless you were wealthy.
> We should have Earth where only 2 billion humans live.
Are you volunteering to be one of the excess humans who go somewhere else,
or just die? Most of us can agree that a smaller human population would
be nice (for a vast number of reasons beyond food), but nobody ever
volunteers for the reduction program. Most people, no matter how
miserable their lives, seem to take exactly the opposite point-of-view,
struggling stubbornly to stay.
> we find that the cancer rates of the 19th century were
> insignificant compared to 20th century. Cancer increases follow a
> direct linear relationship with the increasing use of chemicals in
> modern society.
Of course, cancer rates also seem to follow a direct relationship with
life expectancy. An average lifespan of thirty to forty years pretty much
guarantees that most people won't ever have to worry about cancer.
Especially when much of that statistic is based on high rates of infant
and child mortality.
> If the entire farming system reverted to 18th century style farming and
> human population be at 2 billion instead of 7 billion, then the cancer
> rate in all of human society would tend to be insignificant.
Maybe, or maybe not. Finding a way to accomplish your utopia without also
lowering life expectancy to 18 century levels would be the only valid test
of that theory. Try it out, and let me know what results you get. Or
better yet, you go ahead and volunteer for the population reduction
program, I'll farm organically amongst the reduced population, and if I
live to 100 and die cancer free I'll, let you know as soon as I join you
in heaven. :-)
> organic farmer could never destroy the amazon rainforests. It takes
> the petrol farmer with his heavy equipment to destroy the land
> cover and install new plants.
Actually, even the most primitive farmer with stone tools can and did (and
still do) practice slash-and-burn agriculture in a rainforest ecology.
Only their low population density allowed the rainforest to regenerate. 7
or 8 billion subsistence farmers using hand labor or animal power would
have to strip every square foot of rainforest, not to mention having to
mine every other ecosystem except perhaps the floor of the ocean and the
peaks of snow-capped mountains in order to survive. The ancient people of
Easter Island wiped out every tree on the island. England and Ireland
were converted from nearly solid forests to totally domesticated farmland
by people using stone and/or bronze tools. Not to mention that only
hand-tools and animal power was needed to convert the nearly completely
forested eastern half of the U.S. to the farmland it is now.
Even more interesting is the fact that since the advent of mechanized
farming, forested acreage in some parts of the U.S. has actually
increased. It certainly has in my area, because marginal land which was
cleared for 19th century farms, by the last arriving immigrants, have now
been abandoned as most of the rural population moved away to the cities
and the draft animals have vanished from the remaining farms. Those of us
who are left manage to produce vast surpluses on less land, letting the
forest reclaim some of its old range. All with our big bad petrol fueled
equipment. Without it, we would need all those people to move out of the
cities, back out to the farms to supply the labor needed just to feed
them.
> Why should the most basic economic unit of society--- Food --- receive
> any subsidy? That is so stupid that the governments who subsidize food
> should subsidize breathing-of-oxygen. Food needs no government to
> step in and subsidize them.
So you know as little about economics as you do about farming methods.
> So, when someone wants to analyze and write the history of farming and
> agriculture for the 20th century compared to any earlier century. The subsidy
> of farming for the 20th century was to give farmers free gasoline for
> which they would thus create world wide surplus of grains and crops.
And even less about history.
> Oil was new to the 20th century and civilization could squander oil in that
Actually new to the 19th century, but why let the facts interfere with
your thesis?
> century, but as oil depletes and no fusion engineering ever materializes.
> Then all of human society will have to convert to Renewable and stable
> farming which is Organic Farming a la 18th century style.
Which is organic, but has nothing whatsoever to do with your historical
fantasy about the 18th (or 19th, since you use them interchangeably)
century.
In the probably futile attempt to enlighten you, food truly doesn't need
government to step in and subsidize them (whatever that might mean, even
if syntaxed properly). But governments need cheap food to prop up their
popularity with the mostly urban population. So governments (all of them,
everywhere around the world) need to step in and subsidize CHEAP food, for
their own purposes. But it didn't give farmers "free gasoline", it gave
them cheap fertilizers and pesticides, and subsidized research to find
ways (any way) to increase production so that the ever fewer farmers can
feed ever more non-farming city dwellers, many of whom know as little
about the economics and farming methods involved as you do. The
subsidization of gasoline prices in the U.S. has more to do with the
demands of urban drivers than farmer's tractors, again happy urban
dwellers with cheap food and cheap gas tend to re-elect incumbent
politicians.
Gordon Couger
> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>
>
> >..>
> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
>
> USA land area is 915 million hectares (50 states), 8 states would then
> be 146 million hectares. Current land use in USA has 176,950,000
> hectares arable. What you write would seem to imply that USA has ~150
> million hectares land suitable for arable farming currently left
> unused for arable farming. Where is that land, and what is it
> currently being used for?
>
removed from cultivation by government programs. Previous to that hill side
land that was allowed to erode to the point it was no longer economic to
farm was returned to grass. Those ~150 million hectares of land that is not
under the plow is not nearly as productive as the land still in production.
In the area I am failure with at least 75% of the land taken out of
production would fare rather poorly under organic farming that relies on
tillage for weed control. The slope is steep 3.5% or more and the soil is
thin. If carefully farmed with minimum disturbance of the soil and adequate
nutrients added to the thin soil the soil will make reasonable yields with
controllable erosion. Most of the soils have heavy clay subsoiles and the
nitrogen is more or less trapped in the 1 to 3 inches of top soil subject to
easy denirification in wet weather. Few legumes do very well in these soils
so using them to put down nitrogen is difficult. A very large part of the US
is moisture limited so soiling crops are poor choices because they use up
the stored moisture and there is no subsoil moisture to make it thorough dry
spells in the summer. This of course is worse on thin soils.
Much of the land should never have been put to the plow in the first place.
The people that settled the west of the Missippippi river were not aware of
the very high density rainfall events that happen there and broke out land
that would have been fine to farm in areas where raining fell at a rate of 2
inches per hour but has very serious problems with even short rainfall
events of 10 or 15 inches per hour even if the only last for a few minutes
let alone an event that drops 7 inches in an hour with bust of 20 inches per
hour during the event.
Wet lands suffer a similar problem with denitrificaton form standing water.
Some of the gourd was taken over by the owners and put in the conservation
reserve program and the owner took all the payment. Some farmer did this and
retired and some took the land from the renters although it was supposed to
be arranged so that didn't happen. That probably represents most of the good
land in the program.
The program was designed to remove fragile land from production for a rather
long period of time. Program like it in the past have resulted in a good
part of the land staying in grass and out of production and safely protected
from erosion. Reducing production was a secondary goal of the program at the
time it was announced. That was a long time ago and things may have changed.
At the beginning of the program I contracted to helped the then local Soil
Conservation office to generate computer paper work that implied the work
done by the employees in filling out the papers. For that county the
program was applied more fairly than most with environmentally concerns
being a substantial part of the process not who you were.
Hopefully most of that land will stay in grass were it belongs.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote in message
news:wSEZ8.4595$gQ3.58...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
bit saver than the food down the street. If you did there would be a pile of
peer reviewed papers that would fill the organ store to over following
claiming your victory. As it is you company you puny efforts against farming
methods 10 to 20 years our of date. Compare you sweet corn to modern GM
serve corn or you cotton to modern GM cotton. If you want to use the old
ways check the gorganid meat market in th GB or mik is Denmark
Lets jointogater and fight food born illness, the real danger in food.we all
have it in the form of food born pathogens we and al do something about it.
Will one person me.
Gordon
Jim Webster
Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
the things they used to add to milk to whiten it are unbelievable
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> Gordon
>
>
Jim Webster
>
> One can argue better that the petrol and chemical based farmer of
> the 20th century raped the land more than organic farming. The
> organic farmer could never destroy the amazon rainforests. It takes
> the petrol farmer with his heavy equipment to destroy the land
> cover and install new plants.
it has to be admitted that this clown pushes back the frontiers of
ignorance. The forests in the UK were all cleared by "organic farmers".
Slash and burn agriculture is an old old technique
does America have compulsory education and if so how did Archimedes miss
out?
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
>"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
>news:r23gjukvj7gkh5k89...@4ax.com...
>> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>> >..>
>> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
>> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
>> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
>>
>> USA land area is 915 million hectares (50 states), 8 states would then
>> be 146 million hectares. Current land use in USA has 176,950,000
>> hectares arable. What you write would seem to imply that USA has ~150
>> million hectares land suitable for arable farming currently left
>> unused for arable farming. Where is that land, and what is it
>> currently being used for?
>>
>A substantial number of acres of highly erodable land and wetlands have been
>removed from cultivation by government programs.
How much? (In 1950 USA cultivated about 20 % of its land , which is
about the same fraction as today.)
The previous poster suggested, that in an exclusively organically
farmed USA, a further 150 million hectares of USA would be taken away
from nature and wildlife, to be used as arable land.
Is the fact not that there is no such 150 million hectares, currently
being spared for nature, of potentially arable land in USA?
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
> does America have compulsory education and if so how did Archimedes miss
> out?
Is Arch an american? Anyway to answer your question we have compulsory
requirement for attendance (to a certain age) and a mostly universal
opportunity for education, but you cannot compel successful education...
as the old say goes, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
him drink.'
Boxer
Jim Webster
<bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
news:boxer-20070...@a2-41.madison.chorus.net...
> In article <ahaujm$l0t$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> > does America have compulsory education and if so how did Archimedes
miss
> > out?
>
> Is Arch an american?
afraid so,
someone said that he is the Janitor in some college somewhere.
Apparently it is his real name.
Anyway to answer your question we have compulsory
> requirement for attendance (to a certain age) and a mostly universal
> opportunity for education, but you cannot compel successful
education...
> as the old say goes, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't
make
> him drink.'
>
reminds me of one old man who told me that education was like throwing
sh*t against the wall and seeing what stuck :-))
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Boxer
Tim Worstall
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:51:44 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
> >news:r23gjukvj7gkh5k89...@4ax.com...
> >> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> >> >..>
> >> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
> >> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
> >> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
> >>
> >> USA land area is 915 million hectares (50 states), 8 states would then
> >> be 146 million hectares. Current land use in USA has 176,950,000
> >> hectares arable. What you write would seem to imply that USA has ~150
> >> million hectares land suitable for arable farming currently left
> >> unused for arable farming. Where is that land, and what is it
> >> currently being used for?
No, I didn´t imply that.
What I implied was that if we went to only organic farming, we would
need it. The other shoe , is of course, that that land is not
available , so we can´t go to 100 % organic farming and maintain the
current diet and number of Americans.
Now that leads to another set of questions.......should the population
shrink ? Should we change our diet ? All interesting and capable of
being answered in a number of different ways....but also a necessary
set of questions to answer of you want the US to go all organic.
> >>
> >A substantial number of acres of highly erodable land and wetlands have been
> >removed from cultivation by government programs.
>
> How much? (In 1950 USA cultivated about 20 % of its land , which is
> about the same fraction as today.)
>
> The previous poster suggested, that in an exclusively organically
> farmed USA, a further 150 million hectares of USA would be taken away
> from nature and wildlife, to be used as arable land.
You are also making a small mistake here, one that I failed to outline
before.
The original research actually named the states required to give the
land area.....and I can´t remember them now. But as _US states are not
all of the same size, the calculation is slightly more complex than 50
divided by 8 times farmland.
>
> Is the fact not that there is no such 150 million hectares, currently
> being spared for nature, of potentially arable land in USA?
Absolutely correct. This land does not exist. So the US can´t go all
organic.
So worry about something else, please.
Tim Worstall
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
Tim Worstall
> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>
>
> >..>
> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
>
> USA land area is 915 million hectares (50 states), 8 states would then
> be 146 million hectares. Current land use in USA has 176,950,000
> hectares arable. What you write would seem to imply that USA has ~150
> million hectares land suitable for arable farming currently left
> unused for arable farming. Where is that land, and what is it
> currently being used for?
No, the point is that the land doesn´t exist, so therefore the US
cannot go all organic at current population and diet. Changing either
of those changes that possibility of course.
>
> ><..leaving aside smoking> the main cause of cancer is
> >insufficient fruit and vegetables in the diet.
>
> The corollary of which would be too much meat, right?
Could be, could be.
Although a grain / legume based diet would still be deficient in
certain vitamins and minerals, despite being adequate in protein,
carbohydtrates etc, and entirely meat free.
>
> ><..> exclusively organic farming would mean higher <..>
> > prices for fruit and veg, which would then , obviously,
> >become a smaller part of the diet. This would lead
> >to increased cancer rates.
>
> Otoh, we would expect meat in particular to become a
> smaller part of the diet.
Again, could be, could be.
>
> This should lead to decreased cancer rates -- and furthermore
> to more efficient use of land to produce food for humans.
Why ? Are you claiming that meat eating causes cancer ? Didn´t see
that in the Cancer Institute´s report on it. I said that inadequate
fruit and veg cause cancer. There are other protein sources ( wheat
for example ) which can be used instead of meat.....but they don´t
solve the lack of fruit and veg problem.
So replacing meat with wheat would not, on the face of it, do anything
about diet induced cancers.
You should also note that there are vast areas of pasture and
grassland that should ( could ? ) not be ploughed efficiently ( see
Gordon Cougar´s post ) and can therefore only be used as grazing for
meat and milk producing animals if they are to contribute to food
production.
Torsten Brinch
>Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message news:<r23gjukvj7gkh5k89...@4ax.com>...
>> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>> >..>
>> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
>> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
>> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
>> <..> Where is that land, and what is it
>> currently being used for?
>No, the point is that the land doesn´t exist, so therefore the US
>cannot go all organic at current population and diet. Changing either
>of those changes that possibility of course.
If your point is that the US population must change its diet
to go all organic (something, which is possible), why then _say_
that it must expand its arable farmland (which is not possible)?
>> ><..leaving aside smoking> the main cause of cancer is
>> >insufficient fruit and vegetables in the diet.
>>
>> The corollary of which would be too much meat, right?
>Could be, could be.
>Although a grain / legume based diet would still be deficient in
>certain vitamins and minerals, despite being adequate in protein,
>carbohydtrates etc, and entirely meat free.
If the main cause of cancer seems to be insufficient fruit
and vegetables in the diet, there's got to be a corollary
of too much of something else in it which it would seem to be
caused by. But you are right, that would not necessarily have
to be meat. If not too much meat, then perhaps too much
grain/legumes.
>> ><..> exclusively organic farming would mean higher <..>
>> > prices for fruit and veg, which would then , obviously,
>> >become a smaller part of the diet. This would lead
>> >to increased cancer rates.
>> Otoh, we would expect meat in particular to become a
>> smaller part of the diet.
>Again, could be, could be.
Why say that fruit and vegs in the diet would have to
decrease, if it could be that it were meat that did?
>> This should lead to decreased cancer rates -- and furthermore
>> to more efficient use of land to produce food for humans.
>Why ? Are you claiming that meat eating causes cancer ?
Certainly not. But the best cohort studies we have do suggest there
is an association.
MS Sandhu et al. Systematic review of the prospective cohort studies
on meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analytical
approach. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2001 10:
439-446.
"A daily increase of 100 g of meat was associated with a 14% increased
risk of colorectal cancer (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval
1.04 to 1.25).
A daily increase of 25 g of processed meat was associated with a 49%
increased risk (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to
1.81). Processed meat was defined as processed, cured or nitrate meat,
or sausages."
>Didn´t see
>that in the Cancer Institute´s report on it. I said that inadequate
>fruit and veg cause cancer.
SA Smith-Warner et al. Intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of
breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001 285:
769-776.
"Intakes of fruit, fruit juice, total fruit, total vegetables and
total fruit and vegetables were not associated with breast cancer."
>There are other protein sources ( wheat
>for example ) which can be used instead of meat.....but they don´t
>solve the lack of fruit and veg problem.
Why are you assuming there would be a lack of fruit and vegs in an all
organic USA?
>So replacing meat with wheat would not, on the face of it, do anything
>about diet induced cancers.
>You should also note that there are vast areas of pasture and
>grassland that should ( could ? ) not be ploughed efficiently ( see
>Gordon Cougar´s post ) and can therefore only be used as grazing for
>meat and milk producing animals if they are to contribute to food
>production.
Indeed. Per capita, USA is richly endowed with both arable and
pasture land. If I may say it, you should be able to make do with only
half of it ;^)... IOW, in an all organic USA, the population could get
a rich diet not only with fruits, vegs and cereals, indeed they could
also get meat and dairy.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Jim Webster
note that there is a difference between arable and pasture land. If you
want to cut down the amount of meat in the diet you cannot use the
pasture land for pasture and Gordon has already pointed out that much
pasture land is useless as arable. This nicely takes us back to the
point that there may well not be enough arable land in the US to give
everyone an organic diet and current standard of living
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > >> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > >> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
> > >> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
> > >> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
> organic.
> So worry about something else, please.
>
> Tim Worstall
With all due respect to Tim, Torsten and everyone else, I have to ask if
anyone here has actually farmed using organic methods?
This whole discussion seems to hinge on estimates that organic methods
would result in vastly reduced yields, yet the farmers I've spoken to who
already converted to organic tell me that their yields fell at first but
eventually rebounded to reasonable levels as they gained experience in the
methods.
Remember that what we call "conventional" farming is simply the (recent)
substitution of synthetic chemicals for previous organic methods and
materials. Substituting back again is not some sort of catastropic event,
it is simply substitution. Remember also that we (in the U.S. at least,
but apparently also in many other countries) currently produce surpluses
that depress prices, despite the continued litany that the growth of
highways and suburbs is taking more and more farmland out of production.
My own opinion (which I intend to test in the real world, putting my own
money on the line) is that slightly reduced yields along with greatly
reduced costs will yield not only sufficient supplies but more importantly
increased profitability, not only at slightly premium prices but even at
the "conventional" prices.
Is there anyone here who can show me that they have tried this idea
consistently for a statistically significant length of time, and that it
simply did not work? Otherwise, this is all interesting academic
speculation, but hardly enlightening.
Boxer
P.S. Someone cited P.J. O'Rourke... I've always enjoyed his sense of
humor and bought his books for that reason, but I've never been impressed
with his logic. Though of course he can obviously think rings around our
poor old Archie, but then so can my PDA.
Gordon Couger
flooding and very difficult weed problems with the equipment available. On
my wife's home place they terraced or ditched the hillsides and farmed them
and ran hogs in the bottom. In Europe you have little experiance faming
virgin land. The hillsides produced well for a number of years depending on
the level of conservation used farming them. Some are still being farmed but
many were either too steep or were not managed well and became marginal to
farm about the same time the bottom land was being broken out because the
flooding was being controlled and tractors were replacing horses greatly
increasing the ability of one man to control weeds.
Starting in the 1930's a massive flood control project across the country
was started that is still in process today that greatly reduced the flooding
in the bottom land. Allowing a great deal more of it to be farmed.
The bottom land was more fertile, much flatter and had much deeper soil. My
home place has a sandy loam soil that increase to a larger sand or small
gravel 40 feet deep setting on a impermemlble red bed that acts as the floor
of the aquifer.
My father in laws words were the bottoms were too fowl to farm before we got
tractors. This is in an area that has about one meter per year in rainfall.
You can imagine the problems in higher rainfall areas.
In the 20's the lands in much of the west had only been in production a few
years. So they had not cleared a lot of the best land yet because you can
only work with a little of the bottoms at a time with horses or the weeds
take you.
In fact the place my wife owns in west Texas was not put in cultivation
until sometime in the 1940's it was still part of the XIT cattle operation
until then. This is land that is nearly as flat as a pool table and has very
good soil for farming.
Starting in the 1930's a massive flood control project was started that is
still in process today that greatly reduced the flooding in the bottom land.
Allowing a great deal more of it to be farmed.
Gordon Couger
<bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
news:boxer-20070...@a26-5.madison.chorus.net...
> In article <825e2890.02072...@posting.google.com>,
> t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > > >> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall)
wrote:
> > > >> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic
methods
> > > >> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just
the
> > > >> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
> > Absolutely correct. This land does not exist. So the US can´t go all
> > organic.
> > So worry about something else, please.
> >
> > Tim Worstall
> > > Torsten Brinch
>
> With all due respect to Tim, Torsten and everyone else, I have to ask if
> anyone here has actually farmed using organic methods?
>
>
>
> This whole discussion seems to hinge on estimates that organic methods
> would result in vastly reduced yields, yet the farmers I've spoken to who
> already converted to organic tell me that their yields fell at first but
> eventually rebounded to reasonable levels as they gained experience in the
> methods.
Yes, I have
Gordon
Gordon Couger
I have not intent to insult you. But there is no basis in fact that the
claims organic promoters make about conventional food have one bit of truth
in them.
I am one of the few people here that ever made my living from farming and
ranching as far as I know the only one here that has actually made their
living farming with what are now called organic methods. I also farmed two
places using methods the same as what are now call organic methods because
that what the landlord wanted for a year or two before taking one feild an
using what were then modern methods and convincing them that using balanced
fertilzer and controlling pest paid a great deal more than it cost and
produced a great deal more of a healthier product with less damage from
insects and disease.
If you choose to believe that the last 150 years of scientific investigation
of agriculture is wrong and a bunch of folks with some sound bytes and no su
pportable facts are right its your money. The organic food isn't any more
likely to hurt you than conventional food it nor is it any better for you.
I have no problem with what you eat. But the idea that the world should turn
its back on a hundred and fifty years of progress because of a bunch of
hocus pocus is ridicules. There is no magic to farming the old way it just
costs more, produces less and contributes to an immense amount of soil
erosion.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
You know I don't care who eats organic I just firmly believe that the answer
to the worlds agriculture needs is to follow the best science we know. Not
to go back to the ways of my grandmother at the beginning of the last
century.
Gordon
Jim Webster
> consistently for a statistically significant length of time, and that
it
> simply did not work? Otherwise, this is all interesting academic
> speculation, but hardly enlightening.
>
> Boxer
I farm livestock conventionally but have kept up with organic farming
locally as if it ever became sustainably more profitable then I would
happily change.
in the UK, with livestock, organic normally runs at approximately 30%
lower yields than conventional. There have been a lot of farms go into
organic dairy in the last couple of years and these figures are pretty
well accepted. The 30% fall in production doesn't seem to be recovered
but if the price is right for organic then this lower level of output
doesn't matter.
Oz posted some figures from UK organic cereals crops.
Oz
>With all due respect to Tim, Torsten and everyone else, I have to ask if
>anyone here has actually farmed using organic methods?
===================
I have been given permission to publish results from ARC organic trials
done in 2000.
Dutchy Farms Glos
Best (exsept) 5.17 T/Ha,
worst (savannah) 2.41 T/Ha,
ave 3.62 T/Ha.
Maris Widgeon (1960's milling wheat) 4.00 T/Ha
Great Carlton (under conversion) following peas.
Best (aardvark) 3.93 T/Ha,
worst Widgeon 2.54 T/Ha (probably lodged)
ave 3.33 T/Ha.
We have conventional results from Great Carlton
(but obviously a different field) first wheats:
Best 9.63 T/Ha
Worst 7.63 T/Ha
Ave 8.88 T/Ha
==========================
With considerable difficulty I have obtained permission to post part of
the 2001 ARC results.
Cirencester Organic after grass ley.
Top: 5.54 T/Ha. (deben)
Ave: 4.61 T/Ha
Of interest
Widgeon @ 3.96 T/H
Squarehead Masters : 2.61 T/Ha (worst)
Squarehead Masters is a 19C variety. A major variety grown for decades,
possibly a century. It went flat, but straw to be sold for thatching. I
have seen this variety grown in plots (supported by canes) and it was
over 5' (1.5m) tall. It's a classic low fertility weed outcompeting
variety probably similar to landrace varieties grown for centuries.
The conventionally grown trial at Cirencester (but obviously not the
same field) yielded 8.3 T/Ha ave with the best variety yielding 9.9
T/Ha.
Comments would be as previous trial post.
NB UK arable farmers really should join ARC and get this, and a truly
vast array of other data on timings, seedrates, pesticide trials etc
etc, complete. (www.arable.co.uk)
=============================================
FW 14/sep/01 P36
ADAS research centre in Dyfed (wales) converted.
Target was 60% of conventional stocking with all stock sold fat.
Achieved stocking rate but poor growthrates meant ALL animals sold as
stores and none fat.
Target is 20-25% clover but this was not maintained long term, falling
to 10% (they appear to be using a stoloniferous white clover: the
correct decidion IMHO). Clovers crash every 5-7 years due death of tap
rooted parents (probably due disease) and the stolong connected
plantlets suffer high mortality.
They are now tying up with lowland organic farms to finish the stock.
NB Judging from the picture this is NOT steep poor land at all. It all
appears to be ploughable as well from the text.
======================
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Gordon Couger
> t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> > > >> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall)
wrote:
> > > >> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic
methods
> > > >> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just
the
> > > >> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
> > Absolutely correct. This land does not exist. So the US can´t go all
> > organic.
> > So worry about something else, please.
> >
> > Tim Worstall
> > > Torsten Brinch
>
> With all due respect to Tim, Torsten and everyone else, I have to ask if
> anyone here has actually farmed using organic methods?
>
farmed a few years with them. I rented some places from landlords that had
been using what are now called organic practices and convinced them that the
methods of the time made them more money and produced far better products
than organic methods and ran one place that advertised itself as an organic
farm.
I have been actively involved in agriculture in some way with my money in it
or my living coming from it since 1957.
I made my living fulltime in faring and ranching from 1967 to 1986 except
for 2 years working for International harvester in 1969 and 1970 and a few
months working retail in San Antonio Texas while looking for a ranch to
manage.
I took over my dad operation in 1972. I grew it form 400 acres to 1,500
acres I farmed and an equal amount I did for hire as custom work most years,
A combination of doubling my operation in 1979, 21% interest rates in 1980,
no rains in 1980 and the first serious attack of multiple sclerosis in the
summer of 1980 put me in a corner that I didn't get out of. If I had baled
out in 1981 I would have been done much better. Had I known then what I know
about MS today I would not have tried to fight that much of an uphill
battle. The neurologist said it may be a single episode and seldom affects
your mental functioning. Well it almost always affect your mental functions
and it was just a couple of episodes but it took 8 years to get my act back
together. I will say my creditor were very helpful and understanding through
our the process.
From there I went to programming computers for the Ag Engineering Department
at Oklahoma State University. Doing models, embedded systems and data
collection work. Until after about 8.5 years MS screwed things up again.
My wife I still have a interest in farming as a landlord in land scattered
over Texas and Oklahoma. My mothers family owns a small ranch that has been
in the family since 1874 and my wife and her sibling own the south
headquarter for the XIT ranch in Texas that has since been broken out and
half put in irrigation and they are drilling on the other half and will put
in as much drip irrigation as they find water for.
I will turn 60 this year and sit here typing this to you.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Torsten Brinch
>In article <825e2890.02072...@posting.google.com>,
>t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>> > >> On 19 Jul 2002 01:19:17 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>> > >> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
>> > >> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
>> > >> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
>> Absolutely correct. This land does not exist. So the US can´t go all
>> organic.
>> So worry about something else, please.
>>
>> Tim Worstall
>> > Torsten Brinch
>
>With all due respect to Tim, Torsten and everyone else, I have to ask if
>anyone here has actually farmed using organic methods?
I can't speak for Tim and everyone else. But as for myself, I am not
a farmer, have never been.
>This whole discussion seems to hinge on estimates that organic methods
>would result in vastly reduced yields, yet the farmers I've spoken to who
>already converted to organic tell me that their yields fell at first but
>eventually rebounded to reasonable levels as they gained experience in the
>methods.
From time to time, we see posters claiming that organic leads to
vastly reduced yields, or conversely that organic can yield quite
equivalently to conventional. Truth is somewhere between these two
extremes.
>Remember that what we call "conventional" farming is simply the (recent)
>substitution of synthetic chemicals for previous organic methods and
>materials. Substituting back again is not some sort of catastropic event,
>it is simply substitution.
I disagree. Organic is not just about substitution of one type of
inputs with another type of inputs. Rather the common trait between
organic systems is that they are trying to minimize external inputs.
This is also why one generally cannot expect an organic system to
produce as much output as a conventional system.
>Remember also that we (in the U.S. at least,
>but apparently also in many other countries) currently produce surpluses
>that depress prices, despite the continued litany that the growth of
>highways and suburbs is taking more and more farmland out of production.
>My own opinion (which I intend to test in the real world, putting my own
>money on the line) is that slightly reduced yields along with greatly
>reduced costs will yield not only sufficient supplies but more importantly
>increased profitability, not only at slightly premium prices but even at
>the "conventional" prices.
As a devout organic consumer for many years, it is my clear impression
that if I were to turn up at the farmgate to demand organic farm
produce to the same price as conventional, then there would not be a
supply.
>Is there anyone here who can show me that they have tried this idea
>consistently for a statistically significant length of time, and that it
>simply did not work? Otherwise, this is all interesting academic
>speculation, but hardly enlightening.
The proof is in the pudding. If there is a growing system, which
reduces yields slightly relative to current conventional practice,
while greatly reducing costs -- thus leading to increased
profitability at constant prices for outputs, then that growing
system will be adopted as conventional practice.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
>news:65agju8ppnkehaghs...@4ax.com...
>> Don't take Gordon too seriously. Anti-organic is kind a religion to
>> him, with one of the obligatory articles of faith being 'Only suckers
>> buy organic'; I am sure he didn't mean to take it out on you.
>You know I don't care who eats organic
Of course you don't. Whoever they are they are all suckers,
so why should you care.
>I just firmly believe that the answer
>to the worlds agriculture needs is to follow the best science we know.
But that is what I am saying. Your antagonist attitude to organic
farming is basically a matter of firmly held beliefs, i.e. it is a
religious attitude. See, for example each time there is a proper piece
of agricultural science pertaining to organic farming, there is no end
to your criticism. Otoh, unsubstantiated antiorganic rumor, or
religious agitation from your own antiorganic church, that is
something you can eat line, hook and sinker, to regurgitate
faithfully on sci.agriculture as elsewhere.
Btw. you almost, but not quite, managed to give another of your
anti-organic articles of faith a clear expression. Allow me to help:
"Organic farming is antiscientific"
>Not to go back to the ways of my grandmother at the beginning
>of the last century.
Thanks, and there was a declaration of yet another of your articles
of faith: "Organic farming is living in the past"
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Torsten Brinch
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
Thanks. But perhaps you will now return to my question whether or not
there is 150 million hectares of potentially arable land in USA,
currently being spared for nature by high-yielding farming?
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Oz
>
>I disagree. Organic is not just about substitution of one type of
>inputs with another type of inputs. Rather the common trait between
>organic systems is that they are trying to minimize external inputs.
>This is also why one generally cannot expect an organic system to
>produce as much output as a conventional system.
Conventional most certainly also seeks to minimise inputs.
It's done commensurate with likely return, not by a religion, though.
Jim Webster
> On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 23:06:06 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
> >"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
> >news:65agju8ppnkehaghs...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Don't take Gordon too seriously. Anti-organic is kind a religion to
> >> him, with one of the obligatory articles of faith being 'Only
suckers
> >> buy organic'; I am sure he didn't mean to take it out on you.
>
> >You know I don't care who eats organic
>
> Of course you don't. Whoever they are they are all suckers,
> so why should you care.
>
> >I just firmly believe that the answer
> >to the worlds agriculture needs is to follow the best science we
know.
>
> But that is what I am saying. Your antagonist attitude to organic
> farming is basically a matter of firmly held beliefs, i.e. it is a
> religious attitude.
it is interesting to note that Gordon has farmed organically, you have
not farmed at all. Perhaps his firmly held beliefs are based on reality
and experience whereas yours are based on?
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
> <bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
> > This whole discussion seems to hinge on estimates that organic methods
> > would result in vastly reduced yields, yet the farmers I've spoken to who
> > already converted to organic tell me that their yields fell at first but
> > eventually rebounded to reasonable levels as they gained experience in the
> > methods.
> ================
> Yes, I have
> Gordon
Gordon,
Do you mean that you have converted your farm to organic?
Thanks,
Boxer
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I have been given permission to publish results from ARC organic trials
> done in 2000.
Thank you!
How long altogether have these trials run? Also, at any time were they
able to compare yields on the same field? It sounds like they experienced
the same sort of drop in yield immediately after conversion that I have
been warned to expect.
But naturally my long-term interest is in the long-term results. Once
I've cycled through the rotation sequence a time or two, and am
comfortable with the entire "organic" regime, I expect to be able to
compare yield, and more importantly make a realistic comparison of
profitability, which is what really matters in the end.
Boxer
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
> I was raised on a farm that used what are today called organic methods. I
Gordon,
Thank you for sharing all that about your background, it is nice to
know that someone here has real world experience. I have great respect
for academics and the research they do, but it can never be considered a
substitute for actual practice.
Boxer
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
> From time to time, we see posters claiming that organic leads to
> vastly reduced yields, or conversely that organic can yield quite
> equivalently to conventional. Truth is somewhere between these two
> extremes.
Possibly true, however I have occasionally found that two extreme opinions
can actually be so wrong that the truth isn't even between them anymore.
> >Remember that what we call "conventional" farming is simply the (recent)
> >substitution of synthetic chemicals for previous organic methods and
>
> I disagree. Organic is not just about substitution of one type of
> inputs with another type of inputs. Rather the common trait between
> organic systems is that they are trying to minimize external inputs.
That depends on what you mean by "external" inputs. If I buy crushed
limestone from a quarry and use it to lime a field, that would certainly
be "external" but need not be considered non-organic. Ditto with using
manure as a source of nitrogen and other nutrients, would you call those
"external"? The organic-certification process I've been exploring allows
(in fact encourages) the use of "external" inputs as long as those inputs
are themselves certified as organic.
After all, even a native prairie or forest doesn't exclude any "external"
inputs, wildlife has always been generous in their distribution of manure,
and never exactly where they grazed the original source of that manure.
> This is also why one generally cannot expect an organic system to
> produce as much output as a conventional system.
On the contrary, if I can provide my crops with sufficient nutrients from
organic sources, I would expect the only difference in yield to depend
upon my reluctance to eradicate every possible competing weed and every
possible pest (i.e. non-paying unscheduled consumers). The flip-side of
course is that the chemical (non-organic) means of achieving that
eradication may well be killing beneficial insects and plants as well,
thus actually reducing yield by some unknown amount.
> As a devout organic consumer for many years, it is my clear impression
> that if I were to turn up at the farmgate to demand organic farm
> produce to the same price as conventional, then there would not be a
> supply.
But if the supply of organically-grown crops ever exceeds the demands of
the devoutly organic consumers (which is certainly possible, even if not
yet experienced), then the price will have to drop, and could approach the
price of conventionally-grown crops. The economic laws involved are just
as immutable as the law of gravity.
> The proof is in the pudding. If there is a growing system, which
> reduces yields slightly relative to current conventional practice,
> while greatly reducing costs -- thus leading to increased
> profitability at constant prices for outputs, then that growing
> system will be adopted as conventional practice.
Exactly. The term "conventional" is merely relative to the most recent
experience. And if "organic" inputs work that way for me, they will
become "conventional", at least on my fields.
Boxer
Jim Webster
<bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
news:boxer-21070...@a31-47.madison.chorus.net...
> In article <xGTeslBn...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have been given permission to publish results from ARC organic
trials
> > done in 2000.
>
> Thank you!
>
> How long altogether have these trials run? Also, at any time were
they
> able to compare yields on the same field? It sounds like they
experienced
> the same sort of drop in yield immediately after conversion that I
have
> been warned to expect.
>
> But naturally my long-term interest is in the long-term results. Once
> I've cycled through the rotation sequence a time or two, and am
> comfortable with the entire "organic" regime, I expect to be able to
> compare yield, and more importantly make a realistic comparison of
> profitability, which is what really matters in the end.
Rothamstead has done trials which have lasted (from memory) over 150
years. I suggest you try a google search
While not strictly organic v conventional they do look at different and
no inputs and you might find food for thought
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Gordon Couger
<bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
news:boxer-21070...@a31-47.madison.chorus.net...
> In article <XRn_8.365$BC4.2...@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Gordon Couger"
> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
> > <bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
>
> > > This whole discussion seems to hinge on estimates that organic methods
> > > would result in vastly reduced yields, yet the farmers I've spoken to
who
> > > already converted to organic tell me that their yields fell at first
but
> > > eventually rebounded to reasonable levels as they gained experience in
the
> > > methods.
>
>
> > ================
> > Yes, I have
> > Gordon
>
> Gordon,
> Do you mean that you have converted your farm to organic?
> Thanks,
When I use the methods that are now called organic farming there was no such
thing as organic faming. There is no way I would return to high labor low
production agriculture and turn my back on what I have learned in my life.
My dad still uses a wheat, cotton and alfalfa rotation that spends more time
in legumes than most organic farms. But his farmer certainly doesn't let
insects, weed and lack of nitrogen limit the life of the hay meadows and the
yield of the crops to a fraction of what they are capable of making.
If I was farming a place near a large city were I could sell direct to the
public I might look at organic farming as niche market because of the high
income. But as a practical way to raise food for the world it is a cruel
joke.
Gordon Couger
<bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
news:boxer-21070...@a31-47.madison.chorus.net...
> In article <IHv_8.188$dO4....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Gordon Couger"
> <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
> > I was raised on a farm that used what are today called organic methods.
I
>
> Gordon,
> Thank you for sharing all that about your background, it is nice to
> know that someone here has real world experience. I have great respect
> for academics and the research they do, but it can never be considered a
> substitute for actual practice.
>
Almost all the agricultural scientist at Oklahoma state were raised on farms
and most still have owner ship in farms. At least a quarter farm as well as
work for the university and many retire and return to the farm. The people
in industry and regulation are much the same.
Very few people come into agricultural fields that don't have ag
backgrounds. The pay is not that good and the glamour is sure not that good.
Every year a few kids form the city sign up for an ag course of study but by
the third week of orientation most have decided something else is better
suited for them. I don't know how agronomy does it but animal science used
to scheduled a trip through a slaughter house early on so they could get
their fees back if they found that they had miss judged what the though
animal science was.
Very, very few student with out farm ties make it in agriculture fields.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
it has been removed as a soil conservation measure over the years to take
highly erodable land out of production and to restore wetlands. The programs
have almost always been implemented at times of over production. If we had
stayed with the production methods that were basically the same as organic
methods we would never have had an over production problem so I would say
that increasing yield have led to removing some land from production.
In that same time frame there has been little or no new land brought into
production.
In the US since we treat crops as an export commodity increasing production
has been seen more as having more product to sell. So in reality so much of
our ag output is export so if our high yield agriculture is protecting land
it most of it is probably beyond our borders.
The problems of land use and sustainability are of much less of a
consequence in the US were we have worked for over 70 years on a sustained
soil conservation effort than in the third world were there is little or no
oversight on land management.
If the third world continues to use the same methods to feed their people
the use now when they need more food they need more ground to grow it on.
Many time much more because the land that they are breaking out is much less
productive than the land they are farming. If we want to prevent this the
only answer is to help them to produce more on the land they now farm.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Oz
>In article <xGTeslBn...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have been given permission to publish results from ARC organic trials
>> done in 2000.
>
>Thank you!
>
>How long altogether have these trials run?
The land in the first was (see post) Prince Charles's farm and has been
organic for a long time and managed without financial restriction.
The organic trials have been going a few years but I have seen others
done with pretty well identical results which are completely compatible
with best farmer results from the 60's (few weedkillers, little bag
fert).
>Also, at any time were they
>able to compare yields on the same field?
It wouldn;t be a fair comparison as you could only do organic on a non-
organic farm for obvious reasons.
>It sounds like they experienced
>the same sort of drop in yield immediately after conversion that I have
>been warned to expect.
Most people find it goes on decreasing because of soil nutrient draw-
down and increased weed problems, but the initial drop is large.
>But naturally my long-term interest is in the long-term results. Once
>I've cycled through the rotation sequence a time or two, and am
>comfortable with the entire "organic" regime, I expect to be able to
>compare yield, and more importantly make a realistic comparison of
>profitability, which is what really matters in the end.
Remember most farmers, conventional or organic, practice crop rotation.
Conventional to control disease and to some extent weeds.
Organic primarily to control weeds, cereals are a very dirty crop grown
organically.
Oz
>On the contrary, if I can provide my crops with sufficient nutrients from
>organic sources, I would expect the only difference in yield to depend
>upon my reluctance to eradicate every possible competing weed and every
>possible pest (i.e. non-paying unscheduled consumers).
For some crops that is so, for others not at all. For some the timing of
the fertiliser (particularly N) is important. Put it all on early and
the crop goes flat, seriously reducing yield. Put it on later and it
goes into the seed/whatever growth increasing yield.
It's easy with bag fertiliser, but rather hard with organic sources (eg
manures) which tend to need ploughing in or cause a lot of crop scorch.
Pest control is pretty obvious.
>The flip-side of
>course is that the chemical (non-organic) means of achieving that
>eradication may well be killing beneficial insects and plants as well,
>thus actually reducing yield by some unknown amount.
There should be trial work that allow you to gain some insight. Look for
the 'untreated' plot yields. These usually have proper fertiliser
application but have some treatments withheld. For example fungicide
treatments in UK wheat give a 10-40% yield increase over untreated plots
that still had ALL the other inputs. Due to plot x-protection the real
firld-scale untreated yield would be even less.
Tim Worstall
I mentioned PJ....
The particualr book I mentioned is a funny take ( of course ) on
environmentalism. Most of his facts come from ´The True State of the
World ´edited by Ronald Bailey. That book as the facts and
references...but PJ is much more fun to read.
A factoid from the UK Sunday papers....
Organic wheat costs £200 a tonne to produce, conventional £ 70. It´s
going to be tough to compete there without the organic premium, which
is being eroded away in the UK anyway given the largernumber of
farmers producing organically, adn the relatively static number of
consumers willing to pay the premium.
Tim Worstall
Tim Worstall
> On 20 Jul 2002 11:20:31 -0700, t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote:
>
> >Torsten Brinch <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message news:<r23gjukvj7gkh5k89...@4ax.com>...> >> >..>
> >> >One estimate in the US implied that a move to entirely organic methods
> >> >would lead to 8 states worth of extra land being needed. Not just the
> >> >farmland in 8 states, but all the land in 8 states.
>
> >> currently being used for?
>
> >No, the point is that the land doesn´t exist, so therefore the US
> >cannot go all organic at current population and diet. Changing either
> >of those changes that possibility of course.
>
> If your point is that the US population must change its diet
> to go all organic (something, which is possible), why then _say_
> that it must expand its arable farmland (which is not possible)?
Because its part of the chain of logic.
To say ´The US must change either its population or its diet if it
goes all organic ´is true so far as it goes. But the next wuestion
will be ´Why ? ´. And the naswer to that is that there is not enough
land to grow the required calories, given the lower yields.
I started from the land area, as a way of showing how 100 % organic is
not possible, at current diets.
>
> >> ><..leaving aside smoking> the main cause of cancer is
> >> >insufficient fruit and vegetables in the diet.
> >>
> >> The corollary of which would be too much meat, right?
>
> >Could be, could be.
> >Although a grain / legume based diet would still be deficient in
> >certain vitamins and minerals, despite being adequate in protein,
> >carbohydtrates etc, and entirely meat free.
>
> If the main cause of cancer seems to be insufficient fruit
> and vegetables in the diet, there's got to be a corollary
> of too much of something else in it which it would seem to be
> caused by.
No, not necessarily. The cancer is not caused by too much meat, or too
much grain, or too much anything. It´s caused by a lack of fruit and
veg.
But you are right, that would not necessarily have
> to be meat. If not too much meat, then perhaps too much
> grain/legumes.
>
> >> ><..> exclusively organic farming would mean higher <..>
> >> > prices for fruit and veg, which would then , obviously,
> >> >become a smaller part of the diet. This would lead
> >> >to increased cancer rates.
>
> >> Otoh, we would expect meat in particular to become a
> >> smaller part of the diet.
>
> >Again, could be, could be.
>
> Why say that fruit and vegs in the diet would have to
> decrease, if it could be that it were meat that did?
It isn´t meat what does it. It´s not what people are consuming, its
what they are not consuming.
Just to reiterate......there are no ´poisons ´in meat which cause
cancer. But a diet deficient in fruit and veg ( the famous five
portions a day thing ) does not contain enough vitamins, minerals,
deoxidants etc etc that protect you against cancer.Its not too much of
something, its a lack of something.
So whether meat , grains or whatever is your protein source makes no
difference at all.( and please note that this is about cancers....not
heart disease or anything else to do with high fat / low fat diets ).
>
> >> This should lead to decreased cancer rates -- and furthermore
> >> to more efficient use of land to produce food for humans.
>
> >Why ? Are you claiming that meat eating causes cancer ?
>
> Certainly not. But the best cohort studies we have do suggest there
> is an association.
>
> MS Sandhu et al. Systematic review of the prospective cohort studies
> on meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analytical
> approach. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2001 10:
> 439-446.
>
> "A daily increase of 100 g of meat was associated with a 14% increased
> risk of colorectal cancer (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval
> 1.04 to 1.25).
> A daily increase of 25 g of processed meat was associated with a 49%
> increased risk (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to
> 1.81). Processed meat was defined as processed, cured or nitrate meat,
> or sausages."
>
> >Didn´t see
> >that in the Cancer Institute´s report on it. I said that inadequate
> >fruit and veg cause cancer.
>
> SA Smith-Warner et al. Intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of
> breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001 285:
> 769-776.
>
> "Intakes of fruit, fruit juice, total fruit, total vegetables and
> total fruit and vegetables were not associated with breast cancer."
Both of these studies are about one specific cancer each. The Canadian
research was about all cancers combined.
For example, we know that smoking is connected with lung cancer. And
that it is not with prostate cancer. So should we conclude that a
study of the effect of smoking on prostate cancer shows that it is
safe ? Or should we be looking at all cancers ?
>
> >There are other protein sources ( wheat
> >for example ) which can be used instead of meat.....but they don´t
> >solve the lack of fruit and veg problem.
>
> Why are you assuming there would be a lack of fruit and vegs in an all
> organic USA?
Because the lower yields will lead to higher prices....and it´s fairly
basic economics that higher prices lead to lower consumption.
>
> >So replacing meat with wheat would not, on the face of it, do anything
> >about diet induced cancers.
>
> >You should also note that there are vast areas of pasture and
> >grassland that should ( could ? ) not be ploughed efficiently ( see
> >Gordon Cougar´s post ) and can therefore only be used as grazing for
> >meat and milk producing animals if they are to contribute to food
> >production.
>
> Indeed. Per capita, USA is richly endowed with both arable and
> pasture land. If I may say it, you should be able to make do with only
> half of it ;^)... IOW, in an all organic USA, the population could get
> a rich diet not only with fruits, vegs and cereals, indeed they could
> also get meat and dairy.
My point is that an all organic diet in the USA will lead to lower
biodiversity, as more land will be required, and more cancer, as the
increased prices of fuit and veg will lead to lower consumption. In
fact, that´s what I said in the beginning, and further pointed out
that this conclusion might come as a surprise to those who support
organic farming.
Tim Worstall
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
Gordon Couger
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6Yn8r4A345O9Ewr$@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
I live in a climate that from many years running insects are not a problem,
weeds can be control well with organic methods but there is no organic
source of N. To support cereal crops even when we raise 1/3 alfalfa, 1/3
wheat and 1/3 cotton. Cotton. We followed the alfalfa with wheat to get all
the N that was high in the soil profile that we could for 3 or 4 year and
clean up he summer weeds and go to cotton that used the leached nitrogen. We
would get very positive response to nitrogen in wheat the second year out of
alfalfa.
This magic source of organic nitrogen is hard to find when you need enough
to cover 1,000 acres. several hundred miles from a major source of nitrogen
waste. That won't pay hauling over 30 miles based on the N content. For some
of you 30 miles may seem a pretty long way but to check every place I worked
took 140 miles to make the rounds. That just got you to the gate.
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
> Rothamstead has done trials which have lasted (from memory) over 150
> years. I suggest you try a google search
> While not strictly organic v conventional they do look at different and
> no inputs and you might find food for thought
Thanks, I'll look into that.
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
> I live in a climate that from many years running insects are not a problem,
> weeds can be control well with organic methods but there is no organic
> source of N. To support cereal crops even when we raise 1/3 alfalfa, 1/3
> wheat and 1/3 cotton. Cotton. We followed the alfalfa with wheat to get all
> the N that was high in the soil profile that we could for 3 or 4 year and
> clean up he summer weeds and go to cotton that used the leached nitrogen. We
> would get very positive response to nitrogen in wheat the second year out of
> alfalfa.
> This magic source of organic nitrogen is hard to find when you need enough
> to cover 1,000 acres. several hundred miles from a major source of nitrogen
> waste. That won't pay hauling over 30 miles based on the N content. For some
> of you 30 miles may seem a pretty long way but to check every place I worked
> took 140 miles to make the rounds. That just got you to the gate.
You have my envy for the lack of insects, and my sympathies for the lack
of everything else. I can't imagine a place so dry that we'd have no
insect problem!
As far as N, there are plenty of organic sources here, so it isn't such a
problem to choose one or the other. And around here 30 miles would indeed
be a long way, so transport would not be a problem either.
Did I understand correctly that you even need to add N just to grow
alfalfa? What a shame, we can use alfalfa as a first and even second year
source of N for the following crops! I knew Texas and Oklahoma were dry,
but I had no idea the effects were so severe, no wonder most of it was
traditionally limited to grazing.
Oz
>In article <ahf52r$lrh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
><j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>> Rothamstead has done trials which have lasted (from memory) over 150
>> years. I suggest you try a google search
>> While not strictly organic v conventional they do look at different and
>> no inputs and you might find food for thought
>
>Thanks, I'll look into that.
Waste of time. They do not publish stuff on the web because, horror of
horror, people might use it without paying!
Even 20++ year old experiments!
I have had very acrimonious arguments with them about that.
Torsten Brinch
>In article <772lju4g412ms9ogr...@4ax.com>, Torsten Brinch
><ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
>> From time to time, we see posters claiming that organic leads to
>> vastly reduced yields, or conversely that organic can yield quite
>> equivalently to conventional. Truth is somewhere between these two
>> extremes.
>
>Possibly true, however I have occasionally found that two extreme opinions
>can actually be so wrong that the truth isn't even between them anymore.
Yes, that is right. Science can yield some insight, for example by
studying side by side comparisons of plots modeling farming systems. I
can dig a bunch of data up, suffice to say, they do support that there
is a some yield reduction in organic systems. (Oh, and I see you are
interested in the drop and rebounce after conversion, there would be
scientific observations of that too)
As you can understand it is not possible to generalize, but typically
studies find this reduction to be 20-30 %. In some cases or crops,
very little reduction are found, indeed organic systems can then
outperform conventional systems, but generally they can't. And in some
cases or crops, yield reductions up to 50 % can be found. This figure,
'about half' is usually taken and generalized by one of the extreme
positions I was talking about, as being representative for the yield
reduction in organic systems.
>> >Remember that what we call "conventional" farming is simply the (recent)
>> >substitution of synthetic chemicals for previous organic methods and
>>
>> I disagree. Organic is not just about substitution of one type of
>> inputs with another type of inputs. Rather the common trait between
>> organic systems is that they are trying to minimize external inputs.
>
>That depends on what you mean by "external" inputs. If I buy crushed
>limestone from a quarry and use it to lime a field, that would certainly
>be "external" but need not be considered non-organic. Ditto with using
>manure as a source of nitrogen and other nutrients, would you call those
>"external"?
If you bought it in to your farm, I would call it external to your
farm, although I would not call it external to the larger organic
farming system you would be part of (where you get the manure from).
I am not saying that organic farming considers external inputs
non-organic (see remark on language use in last paragraph of this
post). But the thought that any deficiencies on the farm can just be
filled by external inputs is foreign to organic farming. In particular
is fertilizer nitrogen not supposed to be imported into an organic
farming system, but rather must be produced within it. In that sense,
manure is not a source of nitrogen, but rather a temporary carrier for
it within the organic system.
>The organic-certification process I've been exploring allows
>(in fact encourages) the use of "external" inputs as long as those inputs
>are themselves certified as organic.
>After all, even a native prairie or forest doesn't exclude any "external"
>inputs, wildlife has always been generous in their distribution of manure,
>and never exactly where they grazed the original source of that manure.
Modern conventional farming has developed strong non cycling behavior,
allowing in principle unlimited inputs, and not necessarily balanced
with outputs, whereas organic farming seeks to close cycles. It is
essential to organic farming thinking that the land has certain
regenerative properties, which should be nurtured, improved,
maintained and utilized more or less fully as a first priority. It is
not organic farming thinking that these regenerative properties can or
should be substituted with external inputs, if that seems in a jiffy
more convenient. For example, it is not an option for organic farming
to substitute the lands ability to produce its own nitrogen
fertilizer with bags of artificial N-fertilizer from the general
store.
>> This is also why one generally cannot expect an organic system to
>> produce as much output as a conventional system.
>On the contrary, if I can provide my crops with sufficient nutrients from
>organic sources, I would expect the only difference in yield to depend
>upon my reluctance to eradicate every possible competing weed and every
>possible pest (i.e. non-paying unscheduled consumers). The flip-side of
>course is that the chemical (non-organic) means of achieving that
>eradication may well be killing beneficial insects and plants as well,
>thus actually reducing yield by some unknown amount.
Weeds would be one important reason that an organic system tends to
yield less, other important reasons would be limits on nitrogen
supply, and on plant-available potassium. Note that whenever such
problems appear, a conventional farmer can just reach out for a
weed killer, nitrate, or potassium chloride. An organic farmer
can't do that.
>> As a devout organic consumer for many years, it is my clear impression
>> that if I were to turn up at the farmgate to demand organic farm
>> produce to the same price as conventional, then there would not be a
>> supply.
>But if the supply of organically-grown crops ever exceeds the demands of
>the devoutly organic consumers (which is certainly possible, even if not
>yet experienced), then the price will have to drop, and could approach the
>price of conventionally-grown crops. The economic laws involved are just
>as immutable as the law of gravity.
>> The proof is in the pudding. If there is a growing system, which
>> reduces yields slightly relative to current conventional practice,
>> while greatly reducing costs -- thus leading to increased
>> profitability at constant prices for outputs, then that growing
>> system will be adopted as conventional practice.
>Exactly. The term "conventional" is merely relative to the most recent
>experience. And if "organic" inputs work that way for me, they will
>become "conventional", at least on my fields.
That is confusing language use. Strictly the term 'organic' would in
this context make reference to farming systems not inputs. It is of
course ok to talk about 'organic inputs', but it should be remembered
that it would means 'inputs originating from an organic system', or
perhaps, in other context, 'inputs allowed in organic systems'.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Torsten Brinch
>I started from the land area, as a way of showing how 100 % organic is
>not possible, at current diets.
What you wrote;
"Organic farming requires more land to produce the same calories. So,
to provide the amount of food that we do currently, using only organic
methods would require more land than currently in use. And what does
that do to our fellow inhabitants, the wild animals ?"
I can only read this to mean that 100 % organic, at current diets, is
possible, only farmland would need to be expanded, raising concerns
for wildlife.
>> >> ><..leaving aside smoking> the main cause of cancer is
>> >> >insufficient fruit and vegetables in the diet.
>> >>
>> >> The corollary of which would be too much meat, right?
>>
>> >Could be, could be.
>> >Although a grain / legume based diet would still be deficient in
>> >certain vitamins and minerals, despite being adequate in protein,
>> >carbohydtrates etc, and entirely meat free.
>>
>> If the main cause of cancer seems to be insufficient fruit
>> and vegetables in the diet, there's got to be a corollary
>> of too much of something else in it which it would seem to be
>> caused by.
>No, not necessarily. The cancer is not caused by too much meat, or too
>much grain, or too much anything. It´s caused by a lack of fruit and
>veg.
What? So, what about the study (reference below) which shows that
colorectal cancer is associated with meat consumption? It seems
weird to me to say that colorectal cancer is caused by a lack of fruit
and vegetables, but it is associated with consumption of meat.
And what about the study (reference below) which shows that breast
cancer is not associated with consumption of fruits and vegs.
It seems weird to me to say that breast cancer is caused by too
little consumption of fruits and vegs, but it is not associated
with the consumption of fruit and vegs.
>> >> ><..> exclusively organic farming would mean higher <..>
>> >> > prices for fruit and veg, which would then , obviously,
>> >> >become a smaller part of the diet. This would lead
>> >> >to increased cancer rates.
>>
>> >> Otoh, we would expect meat in particular to become a
>> >> smaller part of the diet.
>>
>> >Again, could be, could be.
>>
>> Why say that fruit and vegs in the diet would have to
>> decrease, if it could be that it were meat that did?
Again, why say that one thing in the diet would have to decrease
when it could be that it were another thing that would decrease?
I mean, if that is the case, why would you prefer to say that it would
have to be the first thing that decreased?
>It isn´t meat what does it <..> there are no ´poisons ´in meat
>which cause cancer.
MS Sandhu et al. Systematic review of the prospective cohort studies
on meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analytical
approach. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention 2001 10:
439-446.
"A daily increase of 100 g of meat was associated with a 14%
increased risk of colorectal cancer (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence
interval 1.04 to 1.25).
A daily increase of 25 g of processed meat was associated with a 49%
increased risk (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to
1.81). Processed meat was defined as processed, cured or nitrate meat,
or sausages."
>> >Didn´t see
>> >that in the Cancer Institute´s report on it. I said that inadequate
>> >fruit and veg cause cancer.
>>
>> SA Smith-Warner et al. Intake of fruits and vegetables and risk of
>> breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001 285:
>> 769-776.
>>
>> "Intakes of fruit, fruit juice, total fruit, total vegetables and
>> total fruit and vegetables were not associated with breast cancer."
>
>Both of these studies are about one specific cancer each. The Canadian
>research was about all cancers combined.
I do not think you have given a reference to this Canadian research?
>For example, we know that smoking is connected with lung cancer. And
>that it is not with prostate cancer. So should we conclude that a
>study of the effect of smoking on prostate cancer shows that it is
>safe ? Or should we be looking at all cancers ?
Right, we cannot conclude from the fact that Smith-Warren did not find
an association between fruit and veg consumption and breast cancer,
that there is no association with other cancers. The interesting thing
is that until Smith-Warren made the study, one could and did, more or
less conclusively claim on the balance of the evidence, that fruit and
veg consumption is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer.
Many previous studies had used case-control designs, which notoriously
suffer from recall bias (if everyone 'knows' that you get breast
cancer from too little fruits and vegs, then breast cancer patients
will tend to recall that they have eaten less fruits and vegs than
they actually have, and the controls will tend to recall that they
have eaten more than they actually have) Otoh, Smith-Warren looked at
prospective cohort studies, in which populations are followed for a
long period, while their actual diet, and cancer incidence is
recorded. And, in such studies there could not be found any
association between fruit and veg consumption and breast cancer.
>> >There are other protein sources ( wheat
>> >for example ) which can be used instead of meat.....but they don´t
>> >solve the lack of fruit and veg problem.
>>
>> Why are you assuming there would be a lack of fruit and vegs in an all
>> organic USA?
>Because the lower yields will lead to higher prices....and it´s fairly
>basic economics that higher prices lead to lower consumption.
Reganold et al, Nature 410, 926 - 930 (2001)
Sustainability of three apple production systems
"It has been claimed [..] that organic farming systems are less
efficient, pose greater health risks and produce half the yields of
conventional farming systems. Here we report the sustainability of
organic, conventional and integrated apple production systems in
Washington State from 1994 to 1999. All three systems gave similar
apple yields. <snip>"
If organic apples -- unlike all other foods -- do not suffer from
lower yields, they should become cheaper relative to other foods.
It's basic economics that this would lead to a higher consumption of
apples.
>> >So replacing meat with wheat would not, on the face of it, do anything
>> >about diet induced cancers.
>>
>> >You should also note that there are vast areas of pasture and
>> >grassland that should ( could ? ) not be ploughed efficiently ( see
>> >Gordon Cougar´s post ) and can therefore only be used as grazing for
>> >meat and milk producing animals if they are to contribute to food
>> >production.
>>
>> Indeed. Per capita, USA is richly endowed with both arable and
>> pasture land. If I may say it, you should be able to make do with only
>> half of it ;^)... IOW, in an all organic USA, the population could get
>> a rich diet not only with fruits, vegs and cereals, indeed they could
>> also get meat and dairy.
>My point is that an all organic diet in the USA will lead to lower
>biodiversity, as more land will be required,
That would presumably be the loss of wildlife you will experience
when you start farming the unused farmland, which you do not have.
>and more cancer, as the
>increased prices of fuit and veg will lead to lower consumption.
Or perhaps less cancer since apples might become cheaper relatively to
other foods, and the consumption of apples would therefore increase?
Or perhaps less cancer since meat would become relatively more
expensive, and thus become a smaller fraction of the diet?
Or perhaps less cancer, since bread would be come relatively cheaper
(the farm output cost is a lower fraction of the price of bread
than it is of other products, and it does not cost more to bake an
organic bread than a non-organic one)?
Or perhaps quite generally a more healthy diet?
>In fact, that´s what I said in the beginning, and further pointed out
>that this conclusion might come as a surprise to those who support
>organic farming.
Yada, your plot has been played with variations for years,
over and over again on sci agriculture.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Jim Webster
<bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
news:boxer-22070...@a3-47.madison.chorus.net...
such a
> problem to choose one or the other. And around here 30 miles would
indeed
> be a long way, so transport would not be a problem either.
> Did I understand correctly that you even need to add N just to grow
> alfalfa? What a shame, we can use alfalfa as a first and even second
year
> source of N for the following crops! I knew Texas and Oklahoma were
dry,
> but I had no idea the effects were so severe, no wonder most of it was
> traditionally limited to grazing.
>
> Boxer
one thing that this news group really drives home to those who do farm
is just how vastly different everyones conditions are and how wild
generalisations are merely that. Gordon farms in conditions almost
inconcievable to me as we have 60 inches of rain a year.
This is one reason why it probably makes sense to give a location when
starting the discussion, just in case we make too many assumptions about
what is and isn't possible :-))
Obviously a lot of the evidence/data that you manage to find will be
useful or at least interesting. Comments that Oz makes or Gordon makes
might well be useful, but when push comes to shove, it is only what you
can do on your patch that really counts.
It might be that you are nicely on the edge of a city which gives you a
chance at premium markets. have a relatively good source of organic
matter for manure cheap and easily available, and a suitable climate. In
these circumstances then you could well make a real success of the job
and come out on top.
Stuck in the middle of a desert a thousand miles for anywhere and 150
miles from tarmac probably limits your options :-))
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Rothamstead has done trials which have lasted (from memory) over 150
> Waste of time. They do not publish stuff on the web because, horror of
> horror, people might use it without paying!
> Even 20++ year old experiments!
> I have had very acrimonious arguments with them about that.
Well, if they've published their results in any reputable ag journal,
academic journal, or a book, I'll find it at a good ag-college library.
There are advantages to gov't spending... :-)
Thanks for the warning,
bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
> It might be that you are nicely on the edge of a city which gives you a
> chance at premium markets. have a relatively good source of organic
> matter for manure cheap and easily available, and a suitable climate. In
> these circumstances then you could well make a real success of the job
> and come out on top.
> Stuck in the middle of a desert a thousand miles for anywhere and 150
> miles from tarmac probably limits your options :-))
If I was in the middle of a desert, or beyond the reach of decent road
transport, I'd be inclined to follow the advice of the late Sam
Kinison... :-) and MOVE!
But seriously, it is amazing the range of conditions in which people will
attempt to farm. I wouldn't have the courage they must need. If my soil
were such that it couldn't hold water or nutrients for any length of time,
and needed constant incremental additions timed to each phase of the plant
life-cycle, I'd be tempted to just replace it with gravel in concrete
troughs, maybe put the whole thing under a greenhouse cover and go to
hydrophonic gardening instead. :-)
Boxer
Gordon Couger
as wetter places. Of course grass hoppers which do well in dry weather give
us fits every now and then.
I do not need nitrogen for Alfalfa the sentence was poorly constructed. I
also no longer am free of insects. At the time I was farming using what are
now called organic methods the land had only been farmed for 50 years. There
was still a new balance of insects, weeds and wild live evolving. Twice
since then boll weevil have shut down cotton production except on irrigated
land where the yields made it economically feasible to spray the weevil and
then the boll worm the prospered after the beneficial insect population was
destroyed along with the boll weevil. Boll weevil eradication programs that
require an early spray before the beneficial insects develop and late season
spray to kill the weevil before it goes in the stage to over winter but past
the time that boll worms can do any damage to cotton is working very well to
control the weevil. We have only been trying to get this program in place
for something over 40 years and we finally got it done on a multi-state
basis that it takes to make it work. It was a true political nightmare to
implement. In addition to getting all the cotton farmers to agree it
effectively outlaws organic cotton. If you grow cotton you must comply with
the program written in state laws. There was no intention to impact organic
cotton but we learned long ago that the program only works if every one
sprays every acre of cotton or some large grower will opt out and provide a
breeding ground for weevil that can seed a very large area as the weevil is
carried north on by the wind.
If Jim thinks that my rain fall is sparse in southwestern Oklahoma it is
nearly twice what my wife place in west Texas gets at 17 inches per year and
the dryland cotton yields out there about the same as they are at home
because the rains are more timely due to summer monsoons.
A weevil that attacks alfalfa has moved in that requires spraying almost
every year at the start of the season or they kill the stand in one or two
years. Aphids have adapted to become a more effective pest in wheat and
require control most years now and new aphids have arrived that are more
serious than regular green bugs.
Improved breeding in wheat makes yields possible that require more nitrogen
than can be supplied for more than one year after the alfalfa. When 20
bushels of wheat per acre was a decent yield legumes and other natural
sources of nitrogen could the job. Now that we have wheat that can make 60
bushels to the acre we need a great deal more nitrogen than we did then.
If we came up with a new set of crops that didn't have insects that were
serious threats to them we could probably go back to pesticide free crops
until the bugs found us.
And the price of labor, fuel and machinery makes controlling weed with
tillage and a hoe too expensive. We replaced it with herbicides and
machinery to reduce the cost of labor and become less dependant on the
shrinking labor pool as they went elsewhere to find better jobs that were
full time year round work instead of seasonal day labor.
If you can find enough fertizer reasonably well balanced to your needs and
can control the weed and insects there is no reason your yields any
different than anyone else. Unfortunately your hands are tied on insect
control.
Not knowing you location, soils, crops and insects I can't say anything
specific about your situation.
But I can say something's that generally apply to all specialty faming
operations. First try to sell direct to the consumer for a substantial
premium. The consumer gets the most value by buying direct if you are
raising a good product because it can be picked at the peak of readiness and
delivered with the least damage. Find your market before you choose your
operation. If you are in the UK putting in an organic dairy does not seem to
be a very bright move when there is more organic milk than the market will
absorb. An organic goat dairy that produces products and sell direct to the
customer might make more sense to because you have something that they can't
buy off the shelf.
Try to pick products that do well on your soils and are not very susceptible
to insects. In my area okra would be an excellent choice. It is well
accepted as a vegetable and it is no longer raised commercially on any large
scale and it is drought and insect resistant. The reason it is no longer
grown is that after you pick it you itch and we can import it from central
America at prices that are competive with our labor and it
Organic beef for me would be a good choice. I could rent ground that could
be certified and work out an all grass and alfalfa program and do like Jim
does and deliver the finished product to the customer. Right now if I could
find the customers I would consider buffalo since the bottom has fallen out
of the market and I can buy a young cow for $300 about half what a cow costs
and I should be able to get considerably more for it than I can beef.
Something that I have thought of for insect control in green houses is to
raise the CO2 or lower oxygen levels periodically to inhibit insects. I
don't know how effective that is in green houses but it should be OK with
organic rules.
A bit of technology from precision agriculture that organic farming can use
to good effect is to use a GPS to record yields, disease, soil tests, notes
and fertization. When you identify your high yielding areas start testing
the soil in them vs. the lower producing areas and plan your fertization
accordingly. I expect it will come out the same it does for conventional
farming that you high yielding area need more fertilzer and your low
yielding areas already have all the fertility that they need and some other
factor is limiting their yields in many cases.
Gordon
Oz
>In article <0OIfevAKz$O9E...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Rothamstead has done trials which have lasted (from memory) over 150
>
>> Waste of time. They do not publish stuff on the web because, horror of
>> horror, people might use it without paying!
>> Even 20++ year old experiments!
>> I have had very acrimonious arguments with them about that.
>
>Well, if they've published their results in any reputable ag journal,
>academic journal, or a book, I'll find it at a good ag-college library.
>There are advantages to gov't spending... :-)
There are reams and reams of rothamstead-based reports.
So with good access you should be OK.
Oz
>But seriously, it is amazing the range of conditions in which people will
>attempt to farm. I wouldn't have the courage they must need. If my soil
>were such that it couldn't hold water or nutrients for any length of time,
>and needed constant incremental additions timed to each phase of the plant
>life-cycle, I'd be tempted to just replace it with gravel in concrete
>troughs, maybe put the whole thing under a greenhouse cover and go to
>hydrophonic gardening instead. :-)
How about giving your climate, rainfall and soil type.
Rough location would help.
Gordon Couger
<bo...@dont.spam.me.tds.net> wrote in message
news:boxer-22070...@a25-23.madison.chorus.net...
> In article <ahhhg4$aeu$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> > It might be that you are nicely on the edge of a city which gives you a
> > chance at premium markets. have a relatively good source of organic
> > matter for manure cheap and easily available, and a suitable climate. In
> > these circumstances then you could well make a real success of the job
> > and come out on top.
> > Stuck in the middle of a desert a thousand miles for anywhere and 150
> > miles from tarmac probably limits your options :-))
>
>
> If I was in the middle of a desert, or beyond the reach of decent road
> transport, I'd be inclined to follow the advice of the late Sam
> Kinison... :-) and MOVE!
Where I farmed and own land is farm from desert. We use methods of farming
that conserve water and find things like cover crops and soiling crops a
waste of water. For cover we use the residue of the previous crop. We are
still learing ways to better conserve mosture. I would much rather put up
with the unpridicibilty of weather than the predictibility of beurocrocy in
the UK and EU.
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/webb/
If you will scroll down to page 19 you will see the almost all of the great
plains and much of the Mississippi River valley fall in the 20 to 40 inch
rainfall belt. Those two areas make up a large part of the US farm land.
There are many advantage to faming in lower rainfall areas. I have nevery
boutght a pound of lime or potasium. I actualy investigated usings sulfuic
acid to reduce the pH on one place to get the spots over 8.5 to 9.5 down
under 8. It would cost way more than it was worth. I did always use amonium
sulfate on that place. It helped a little The lowest pH I have ever seen is
6.9. I have very few probems with fungal diseases. Just enough to make seed
treatment woth while.
The only limit on the abiltiy to grow is you ability to manage and obtain
financing. I spread my crops in different seasons and may run a couple of
differnt cattle enterprises. If I have more wheat pasture than I have cattle
I may look over a four state area for someone who needs pasture and lease
the extra to them and when I am short be calling them to see if they have
any extra pasture or send them to feed lot if pasture is too short.
Not having a bunch of regulators looking over my sholder at every turn I can
make a lot more agile manuvers to take advantage of temporary situations. If
they are eventualy headed for slaugher cattle can be moved almost with no
paper work at all. If they orginate in a TB area they probably have to be
tested. To cross state lines with heifers I used to have to have papers
saying I was not going to use them for breeding stock if I brought them out
of Texas before it was Bang's free.
>
> But seriously, it is amazing the range of conditions in which people will
> attempt to farm. I wouldn't have the courage they must need. If my soil
> were such that it couldn't hold water or nutrients for any length of time,
> and needed constant incremental additions timed to each phase of the plant
> life-cycle, I'd be tempted to just replace it with gravel in concrete
> troughs, maybe put the whole thing under a greenhouse cover and go to
> hydrophonic gardening instead. :-)
==============
And what would you raise to pay off all that capital investment. And what
about the millions of acres that don't have water quailty good enough to do
irrigation, hydorpondics or greenhouses. You can't compete with the
irrigated land that has good soil and inxpesive water or the famer in Oz
that farms 10,000 acers of wheat with money worth a third what yours is.
We are in the process of looking for water to put in drip irrigation in west
Texas. On a really good year the increase in crop will pay for about a forth
to a sixth of the investment. If it doesn't get hailed out or a sand storm
kill the cotton. And the investment is about twice the value of the land
before the irrgation system is installed.
If there is not enough rain for crops run cows on it. I drove through New
Mexico for 70 miles on one mans fence. There are places that the stocking
rate is measured in cows per square mile.
Gordon