From guya@ncatfyv.uark.eduFri Feb 9 11:38:37 1996 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:32:48 -0600 (CST) From: Guy Ames To: Sal Schettino Cc: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: the word sustainable > > > Organic farming was the only method of farming for 6000 years of history. > Is it sustainable? I would guess yes. I agree according to the dictionary Sal, you really need to get the book I suggested earlier on Sanet--Topsoil and Civilization by Carter and Dale (University of Oklahoma Press). We (humans) have despoiled the earth far and wide with overgrazing, over-cultivation, and just plain over-use. Topsoil and Civilization chronicles all these abuses and shows how the abuse of the soil by various cultures was linked to that culture's downfall. Much of Greece, the site of the cedars of Lebanon, Crete, North Africa, the American "Dustbowl", etc. etc. were all sites that have been severely damaged by non-chemical agriculture. All these places were once rich, agriculturally productive areas. Some of these places are now deserts. So, if that was organic farming, then it was certainly not sustainable. That's the style of farming Bart Hall would call "organic by neglect," which is the style of farming I fear many large scale operators wanting to profit from consumer paranoia and cash in on "organic" will employ. As Bart has pointed out, OCIA and other organic certification groups include soil building and prtection as part of their certification requirements. But, apparently, the as-yet-to-be- finalized federal standards are weak in this area, leaving room for abuse by those who might meet the letter of the law but not the spirit. All I'm really trying to say in my postings is that organic certification is not THE answer. In fact it may impede progress toward a more sustainable agriculture in two important ways: 1) By fostering a belief that it is THE answer and inherently sustainable (someone on SANET mentioned that they thought organic farming was the "pinnacle" of sustainable agriculture), the organic movement is fooling the public (and many farmers) into believing that we won't have to do anything else to insure agricultures sustainability and a safe food supply. That is, once everyone is certified organic (the fellow from the Dana Association in Mexico suggested that ALL farmers should be certified organic as a requirement for allowing them to farm), we will no longer have to worry about the sustainability of agriculture. (As many other posters to SANET have pointed out, there are many practices that are certifiably "organic" but clearly not sustainable. One of my favorites to point out is the use of copper fungicides in organic certification programs. Not only can copper build up to phytotoxic levels in the soil so that plant growth is practically impossible, recent research also indicates that much smaller amounts of copper interfere with the flora in worms' guts, effectively killing the worms.) I'm seriously concerned that the Federal standards will tend to end debate about and stifle further evolution toward a more sustainable agriculture. The existence of the Federal program will lull people into believing the problem has been solved. 2) The second major way the Federal standards may actually impede progress toward a more sustainable agriculture is by impugning the safety of food produced by farmers who can't or don't want to be certified organic but are seriously trying to farm sustain- ably. The simple existence of the FEDERAL standards will imply to consumers that the certified stuff is safe while the other stuff is suspicious. (In my climate and with my disease and pest complex, I sincerely believe that my low-spray apple production system is more ecologically sound than what I would have to do to produce marketable apples organically. I can and do educate my local clientele, but it's impossible to do if I can't meet the buyers face-to-face and explain the complexities of the situation. Consumer paranoia is mounting, and I'm afraid that the Federal standards will push me into becoming certified organic and I'll have to spray--and I'm not exagerrating here-- about 10 times what I'm spraying now, including sprays of copper, botanical poisons, sulfur, etc.) . From MSRBPDR@fs1.ec.man.ac.ukThu Jun 20 11:15:21 1996 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:50:23 BST From: Dan Rigby To: SANET-MG@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: "Topsoil and Civilization" Dear All I am trying to track down the book by Carter and Dale (I think) entitled "Topsoil and Civilization". I have had no luck so far, any details of the authors (and their initials), the year of publication, publisher or ISBN number would be much appreciated. You can mail me at: dan.rigby@man.ac.uk Thanks for your time, Dan Rigby. ********************************************************************** Dan Rigby Centre for Agricultural Food and Resource Economics School of Economic Studies Manchester University Manchester M13 9PL. Tel: 0161-275-4795 Fax: 0161-275-4929 From MSRBPDR@fs1.ec.man.ac.ukFri Jun 21 12:28:00 1996 Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:10:16 BST From: Dan Rigby To: london@sunsite.unc.edu Subject: Re: "Topsoil and Civilization" Dear Lawrence Below, as requested, are details of the revised version of the Carter and Dale book I was seeking. Regards, Dan Rigby. Reference Type: Book Record Number: 995 Author: Carter, Vernon Gill; Dale, Tom Year: 1974 Title: Topsoil and Civilization Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press City: Norman, OK Number of Pages: xvi, 292 Edition: Rev ed. Label: Mann S419 D13 1974, ISBN 0-8061-0332-9, 0-8061-1107-0 (pbk) Keywords: agriculture, history, soils, sustainable agriculture Abstract: Indictment of agricultural practices that lead to erosion. Not very optimistic nor very political economic. Notes: Bibliography: p. 277-280 ********************************************************************** Dan Rigby Centre for Agricultural Food and Resource Economics School of Economic Studies Manchester University Manchester M13 9PL. Tel: 0161-275-4795 Fax: 0161-275-4929