From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 2 18:05:48 2000 Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 18:05:48 -0500 (EST) From: Mail System Internal Data Subject: DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA X-IMAP: 0941183004 0000000919 Status: RO This text is part of the internal format of your mail folder, and is not a real message. It is created automatically by the mail system software. If deleted, important folder data will be lost, and it will be re-created with the data reset to initial values. From london@metalab.unc.edu Thu Oct 28 10:24:37 1999 -0400 Received: from franklin.oit.unc.edu (franklin.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.59]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA28922 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:24:39 -0600 From: Skye Reply-To: "permaculture" Organization: Instituto de Permacultura de Mexico AC, http://www.tortuga.com/permacultura MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "permaculture" Subject: New Web Pages Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 1 Hola tod@s Just a quick note to let everyone know that there is now a Permaculture WEB Page covering what is happening in Mexico - some of it is in spanish and some in English - maybe you'd like to check it out http://www.tortuga.com/permacultura And I have also put up the start of a page for those interested in Participatory Processes - ie for those who feel to work with people, rather than play the know-it-all-PC-expert. To me this is the People Care part of our ethics - but I won't get into that rave here - it is not quite complete - and if anyone wants to add further articles, links etc let me know - if could build into the Permaculture People (Zone 0) page!!!! http://www.tortuga.com/participation Thats enough for now Keep growing Skye -- Skye - Sevilla #312, Col. Portales, CP 03300, DF México. 5539 0716 http//www.tortuga.com/permacultura Profesor y diseñador en Permacultura Director del Instituto de Permacultura de México A.C. Talleres de desarrollo humano, planeación participativa y economía comunitaria. --- You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: london@metalab.unc.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-permaculture-75156P@franklin.oit.unc.edu From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 04:53:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA15599 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24834 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:11:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24634 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA31973 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:10:37 +0200 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (LUFA.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07422 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:11:24 +0200 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 29 Oct 99 10:03:50 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 29 Oct 99 10:03:50 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:03:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: BSE update Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <14F8061F83@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2 just for info: PARIS, Oct 25, (AFP) - A new case of madcow disease, probably due to cross contamination between animal feed, has been detected in a herd of cattle in western French region of Mayenne, the Agriculture Ministry announces Monday. The ministry said in a communique that the animal infected in Mayenne was born in 1994, four years after the ban imposed on animal feed using meat and bones which were considered the main reason for madcow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Officials said France has shown a rise in the number of madcow cases since 1991 -- a total of 71 cases -- probably due to cross contamination between feed for cattle, pigs and fowl. They said that as late as August of 1996, animal feed for pigs and fowl still included such ingredients as remains of a cow's central nervous system, considered a high risk for madcow disease. Although such matter is now destroyed, it has an incubation period of five years and scientists say they expect new cases of madcow disease in France until the end of 2001. The latest case detected in Mayenne brings to 22 the number of cows infected since the start of the year in France. As in each case, the entire herd was destroyed to prevent the disease spreading. klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 05:30:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA15824 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA03564 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:08:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA03477 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 204.149.164.43 (mx3-29.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.43]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA24087; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:05:24 -0500 Message-ID: <381966FB.362B@smallfarms.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:21:00 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Subsidies and Priorities Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3 Yesterday Steve Suppan of IATP sent me a short piece by a Montana wheat farmer, Jerry Sikorski entitled "Oversupply or Monopoly?". It includes this passage: "Tiger Woods gets paid ten cents for having his picture on each box of Wheaties, and the farmer gets five cents for raising the wheat." Can this really be true? I hope someone will pursue this further. chuck Dear Chuck: With apologies to my fellow farmer Mr. Sikorski and the excellent people at IATP (http://www.iatp.org). Tiger Woods had a better year than we did.... Further apologies to Mr. Woods, the fine Asian American golfer. What if we did find that the figures are accurate? In my opinion, it will only confirm that General Mills and other major food labels are doing a better job of marketing our food than we are. I'm concerned that we would, to use a golf analogy, suffer paralysis by analysis. And apologies to Babe Ruth, too. Chuck, they out marketed, out promoted and out smiled us again, as they've done for the last thirty years. (Please don't research this one.) If anyone knows Mr. Sikorski, please tell him I owe him a free farm registration at smallfarms.com. If any farmer out there has a smile like Tiger Woods', you have a free registration for life! For regular small farmers who think they have little to smile about these days, the free registrations are still available. Register your farm today! glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com Tiger Woods simply had a better year than we did.... To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 08:36:57 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17268 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13503 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:09:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13452 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (mailcore0.oh.voyager.net [207.0.229.17]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25965 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer (d70.as0.gnvl.oh.voyager.net [207.90.122.198]) by mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA71516 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008501bf2209$00b9f460$c67a5acf@oemcomputer> From: "Paul Schmitmeyer" To: "Sanet" Subject: chlorpyrifos Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:27:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4 Hi all, Just what is chloropyrifos? Thanks Paul To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 09:11:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17651 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14370 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:51:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14284 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cwb.ca ([205.200.215.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26850 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mint.cwb.ca id <26882>; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:00:29 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: CWB From: "Pat Elazar" To: "Paul Schmitmeyer" cc: "Sanet" Message-Id: <99Oct29.080029cdt.26882@mint.cwb.ca> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:49:16 -0500 Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 5 Paul asked: Just what is chloropyrifos? Pat replies: Chlorpyorphos is a broad spectrum, non-systemic insecticide sold by Dow-Elanco as Lorsban or Dursban. It works by contact, ingestion & vapour action (inhalant). It is used for control; of mites; aphids; cutworms; army worms; corn maggots; tarnish bugs; 'hoppers; diamondback moths & others in cereals, oilseeds, corn, sugar beets, sunflowers & potatoes. From Saskatchewan dept of Agriculture guide to chemical control. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 09:42:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18268 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01047 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:22:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01034 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA27702 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id IAA23607; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:20:56 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma021959; Fri, 29 Oct 99 08:19:49 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:19:49 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC2@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: "'Paul Schmitmeyer'" Cc: Sanet Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:19:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6 Paul, > Just what is chloropyrifos? Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Dursban) is a moderately toxic, moderately persistent (in the environment, not in the body) organophosphate insecticide that is very widely used for many things like termite control, flea collars, foliar application, lawn insect control, in-furrow application (eg for rootworms), and indoors for ant and roach control. http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/chlorpyr.htm http://www.dowagro.com/main/product_results.asp Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of a problem. In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you couldn't find it in your urine. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:00:58 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18687 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12126 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:40:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12047 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id NAA02677; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:06:19 GMT Message-ID: <38199B7D.ACB41EC0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:05:02 -0500 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: Free range chickens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 7 To: Mike Miller Yes, predation will be a factor in raising free range chickens. However, all is not hopeless. Big chickens w/broods and dutiful roosters can be pretty fiesty when it comes to the cat. If not, then try the .22 solution. A good dog (or 2) will help against ground varmits such as 'coons and 'possums. Plenty of cover in the form of evergreens, holly type bushes, etc. will help the chickens hide from owls and hawks (not to mention hiding from you). The 12 ga. solution, or a good dog (or 3) is often used to control the problems with coyotes and dump dogs. And yes, I speak from experience. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:13:05 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18935 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19974 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:49:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19963 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA28442 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id IAA09261; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:48:01 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma008185; Fri, 29 Oct 99 08:47:33 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:47:33 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC3@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: "'Paul Schmitmeyer'" Cc: Sanet Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:47:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 8 One of the URL's I posted doesn't work. Try this instead. Look under "U.S. label & MSDS System" for information about Lorsban and Dursban. http://www.dowelanco.com/ Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:47:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19572 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29026 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:06:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28884 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:06:25 -0400 (EDT) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from www.pcsia.com (unverified [206.162.14.2]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:02:45 -0500 X-ROUTED: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:02:44 -0600 X-TCP-IDENTITY: MMiller Received: from [206.162.14.250] by www.pcsia.com with smtp id 091e283c ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:02:40 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991029085015.008f4560@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:50:15 -0500 To: Subject: Hybrid to OP Corn? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 9 >From: dmhinds@acnet.net >Date: 29 Oct 99 01:44:50 -0600 >Subject: Re[2]: Time and the "Benefit" of BT Corn You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my hybrid and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with the same characteristics. Then why are we spending all this money on hybrid seeds? The farmers have no margin left to spend on unnecessary expenses. If true, it seems this would be a money saving way to go. After all farmers have the equipment, the land and the know-how to grow and harvest the crop, so why not develop our own open pollinated types that works best in our own area? What if every farmer devoted, say 2 acres to his own research? You would not lose the odd 20-70 dollars an acre from growing a regular crop and with a little of your own work, you would have the potential to save money in the long run. Another benefit would be mental. At least you would be doing something so save your farm from the inevitable fate that awaits you if you just go along with the current system. I would not hold my breath waiting for the congress et al to break up the grain/packing house monoplies so the expense reduction is going to have to come on the input side. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Mike Miller major snip >AMcG> This led us to hybrids > >Hybrids are simply the results of natural breeding methods (cross >pollination) that happen to NOT reproduce true to seed, due the >instability of the particular genetic cross. > >Further cross breeding (continued seed selection) can sometimes revert >this reversion to type. In other words, if the cross proves stable and >reproduces true to type, you've got a new OP variety on your hands, >which is harder to make proprietary. It has also been found that the >tension involved in a genetic cross that is inherently unstable can >sometimes introduce a kind of temporary (since it doesn't reproduce) >vigor in the progeny. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:51:39 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19620 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02292 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:11:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02197 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from node11e64.a2000.nl ([24.132.30.100] helo=zap.a2000.nl) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11hCiO-00062B-00 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:09:12 +0200 Message-ID: <3819AF32.540BCC1A@zap.a2000.nl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:29:06 +0200 From: wytze X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: rediscovery of old way of plant breeding Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 10 Hi, This is my first posting on this list. It is a summary of an article I found in today's Dutch Agrarian Journal. Wytze de Lange Heading: Old method of Plantbreeding rediscovered. By: Joost van Winsen Introduction: Can a plant adapt to its environment? If that appeared to be true, than it offers (huge) breedingpossibilities for organic agriculture and agriculture in poor areas. Trials at the Russian Timirasov-University show that winterwheat adapts itself to growthcircumstances and can be selected on this. Wageningen:- Sonja Temirbikova is a Russian doctor in plantbreeding and cropprotection. Since ten years she is testing winterwheat on their capacity to adapt to circumstances of growth. The research started after meeting with Jan Diek van Mansvelt from the Agricultural University Wageningen in the Netherlands. Van Mansvelt visited Russia ten years ago to see what the possibilities are for organic agriculture in Russia. In the first year of the research Temirbikova planted Dutch wheat between Russian wheat of the same variety.Ten percent of the Dutch wheat appeared to be suitable for the extreme cold circumstances in Russia. Also the second year the Dutch wheat proved resistent to the Russian frost. "A quality of which we knew nothing in the Netherlands" says van Mansvelt. This finding is in itself not new. Temirbikova: "plantbreeding in former times was based on this principle. In grainshippings there were several sisterlines which were used for selection. Nowadays, this principle is being judged as a negative phenomena. It disturbs the homogenicity. According to van Mansvelt, breeding on the basis of sisterlines was in Scandinavian countries common practice till the end of the last century. Also farmers in 'developing' countries use this principle in breeding. Knwoledge about it is not very much present. It was lost with breeders who selected this way. Breeding is for some length of time a matter of crosses and since recent times of genetic engineering. The lack of knowledge is one of the reasons why Temirbikova went on with the research. She used three varieties: the Russian Mironowskaja 808, Okapi and Rector. After ten years of research she concludes that without crossing in five to six years a new biotype can be selected from a population. "With crossing this would take twelve years". she says. Points taken into consideration were yields and tolerances, but the wheats also could be selected for diseaseresistance. Russian Ministery of Science saw enough reason to continue subsidizing the research. The research opens possibilities for organic agriculture."Farmers can take up breeding themselves and do not need to be dependant on big breeding companies. This can work cost reducing". The research is still young but promising. "The principle can also be used with potatos and vegetables" concludes Temirbikova. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:55:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19668 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03574 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:14:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from torrex1.theitgroup.com (itcrp.com [207.247.16.114]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03538 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:14:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by torrex1.theitgroup.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:12:22 -0700 Message-ID: <9940D59A824BD31196EB00902798D1AE4943A2@KNOXEX1> From: "Cole, Ralph" To: "'mmiller@pcsia.com'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: free range eggs Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:12:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 11 Mike- Here's what we did: bought an old school bus ($150+towing), cut the floor out and replaced it with 2"x2" wire, installed roosts, nesting boxes, and a feed hopper. Screened out the cab area for feed/utility storage. Hung a bell waterer off the side. I open up the emergency exit every morning for the girls to come down a ramp. I collect eggs and close the bus every evening. Move the bus every week or so with the tractor to a new spot on the pasture. All the hens are protected at night when the varmints are out. During the day, they can dive for cover under the bus if they see a hawk. We had trouble with a coyote last year, but he didn't get too many, and haven't seen him this year though there are plenty of coyotes around. Domestic animals, well, we cull our barn cats if they show too much favor for chasing chickens. Some do, some don't. This setup has worked real well for us and was cheap to build. You could adapt the concept to your flock size by using whatever vehicle fits your plans. Could be a van, minibus, or greyhound. Our unit houses 75 heavy breed layers easily. Could go higher. Roosting space is the limiting factor. Visit the PasturePoultry list for all your poultry Q's and A's. Grace to you, Ralph > -----Original Message----- > > Alright, you all have me convinced. I have wanted to start with a few > chickens here on the farm but how do free range birds hold up with the > red-tailed hawks, raccoons, possums, owls and my major worry, my barn cat To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 10:56:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19694 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01889 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from ncatark.uark.edu ([130.184.56.248]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01868 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from REXD.uark.edu ([130.184.56.55]) by ncatark.uark.edu (8.8.7/UW7.1.0) with SMTP id JAA11873; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:06:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199910291406.JAA11873@ncatark.uark.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rex Dufour" To: jaweaver@epix.net Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:03:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Check this out Reply-to: rexd@ncatark.uark.edu CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu In-reply-to: <3818F316.18B99D9C@epix.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 12 Jim, Well, at least Ed Shonsey, President of Novartis Seeds, got this part right--, "Ignorance on the part of a group of people, who... have imperiled the near-term future of agricultural biotechnology" Yup, there was an ignorant group of people that chose to ignore input from an important group of stakeholders. The stakeholders had legitimate concerns about the risks of a new biotechnology (some of which (the concerns) have since been born out) being widely dispersed in the environment. The heads of the companies in question chose to ignore (root of ignorant) these legitimate concerns, tactically focusing instead on the gleam of large short-term profits. This turned out to be a large strategic blunder. Now, an interesting and possibly useful technology has been tainted in the public mind due to the haste and greed of company leaders too willing to externalize environmental/social costs upon the rest of society. I'm not sure the idea of "terminator technology" improved biotech companies' corporate images, either... The analogies of adoption of biotech with the widespread use of pesticide technology (and the resulting environmental side effects) should've been obvious to even company CEO's--after all, the companies pushing biotech are many of the same companies that manufactured and sold synthetic pesticides--at least the parallels were obvious to the European public... The biotech companies have only themselves to blame for the present cloud of distrust and suspicion which hovers over them and their products. Rex Dufour > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:06:30 -0400 > From: Jim Weaver > Reply-to: jaweaver@epix.net > Organization: GCES > To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Check this out > Ignorance imperils future of agriculture > > Farmers are in fight or flee mode; they are confused, > scared and angry, observed Ed Shonsey, the president and > CEO of Novartis Seeds, Thursday in an Iowa speech. "And > you know what bothers them the most?" he asked. "It's not > the government. Or the weather. Or even the seed > companies. What has farmers upset -- so upset their > eternal optimism is in serious danger of becoming > permanent pessimism -- is ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance > on the part of a group of people, who, in the name of > protecting the environment, have imperiled the near-term > future of agricultural biotechnology." He makes an > impassioned case for the science behind, and the > potentially great benefits of biotechnology. Read the > full text of his speech here: > > > http://www.agriculture.com/scgi/notebook/nb.cgi?FNC=Corres > pondents__Anb_list_html___780 > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the > command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest > format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To > Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the > command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:18:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20262 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04354 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:17:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04206 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id NAA02717; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:42:24 GMT Message-ID: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:42:24 -0500 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 13 To London et al: On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Lynne Carpenter-Boggs wrote: > No-till is a wonderful thing, and even with the increased herbicide > input it is a much more productive and environment-friendly system > than currently practiced in many places. London replied: "How is increased herbicide use/acre more environment-friendly?" My reply: No-till is not the be all - end all of environmentally sound farming. However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. No-till farming: Environmental panacea? Nope. Environmentally friendly? Yep. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:20:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20341 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03791 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from envsci.rutgers.edu (envsci.rutgers.edu [165.230.5.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03783 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from the-ufos-asy-35.rutgers.edu (the-ufos-asy-35.rutgers.edu [128.6.249.35]) by envsci.rutgers.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA28799; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:10:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: envsci.rutgers.edu: the-ufos-asy-35.rutgers.edu [128.6.249.35] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <3819D4B8.42@envsci.rutgers.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:09:12 -0700 From: Loren Muldowney Reply-To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Organization: Individual X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wilson, Dale" CC: sanet Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos References: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC2@vela.phibred.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 14 Wilson, Dale wrote: > Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, > although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that > traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of > a problem. Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is disregarded as being in the category of things we call "a problem." By this reasoning, if a person breaks into my home by picking the lock, but does not actually break the lock in doing so, and proceeds to alarm my family, tells bad jokes, has vile body odor, and sit on the furniture, but does not immediately kill anyone or steal or break anything, then the presence of this trespassor "is not, in itself, indication of a problem." I shall poll everyone I run across for the next 7 days, and shall submit this situation to their scrutiny. I shall ask "Would you consider it a problem to have a tresspassor hanging out in your home? Please answer yes or no." I'll report the results when they are compiled. I hypothesize that it would be considered indication of a problem. Or is there some error in the analogy? > In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you > couldn't find it in your urine. No argument here. LM To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:29:25 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20529 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12924 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.1starnet.com (1starnet.com [207.243.104.17]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12854 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joepaloff [207.243.107.57] by mail.1starnet.com (SMTPD32-5.04) id A144182016C; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:37:56 CDT Message-ID: <05cb01bf221b$861a5fc0$396bf3cf@joepaloff> From: "Minelle & Joe Paloff" To: Subject: Free range chickens.....comment Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:40:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 15 I raised free range chickens both in northern Arkansas and now down here in Texas. In AR, I must have had about 100 chickens running around in the yard and nearby woods. I had a good chicken house with a light, which I kept on all the time. At night, most of the chickens would go into the house, and then we would go out and close the door. In the morning, we would open the door and let them out again. I had quite a few dogs which kept predators away. One time, I had a black snake which sneaked in at the top of the house near the roof through a tiny hole. We soon took care of that prob. LOL Down here in Texas, I do not have a nice chicken house like I did in Arkansas; however, I raised a few chickens out in my goat pen ( after they were old enough to leave the brooder), and most did quite well. I still have dogs which I trained from tiny puppies to leave the chicks alone. I have four dogs outside. A Great Pyranees ( who has never attempted to kill anything), a tri-colored collie, and two mixed collie-chows. They are great dogs and really work at night. In my way of thinking, to be really successful , one needs a good chicken house for the chickens to go in at night and in foul weather, a light in the chicken house, fresh water, good food, and some good dogs. As for diet, I fed corn chops, leftover cornbread, veggies, leftover popcorn, etc. I also saved the egg shells, baked them in the oven until crisp, then put them in a plastic bag and crushed them with my rolling pin, then put them in with the corn chops for added strength to the eggs. Minelle Paloff To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:34:32 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20681 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16824 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:44:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA16812 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id JAA19585; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:37 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma019423; Fri, 29 Oct 99 09:42:30 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:30 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC4@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: "'Dave Lewington'" Cc: Sanet Subject: RE: Benefit of BT Corn Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:42:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 16 Dave, > As far as I'm concerned, all seed companies should be required to > make available the non GMO base hybrid that is in every GMO > hybrid. I tend to agree, but I don't like the idea of the government dictating what varieties we must offer. If I were the head of product planning, I would offer all the elite material as non-GMO hybrids to give customers the choice. Keep in mind that often, the non-GMO version IS marketed, but just not identified as the non-GMO equivalent of the more trendy GMO hybrid. > Either that or you are going to drive all of us that don't wish to > grow GMO to the small local companies or to open pollinated corn. I think the big companies are beginning to realize this. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:34:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20689 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21819 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:59:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from spdmgaae.compuserve.com (ds-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.206.138]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21789 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spdmgaae.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) id KAA03163 for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:56:39 -0400 From: Tom Green Subject: Environmental Marketing Conference To: Sanet posting Message-ID: <199910291056_MC2-8AEC-7E22@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id KAA21795 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 17 Please feel free to circulate to listservs, friends and neighbors. Conventional producers who are interested in learning more about opportunities in environmentally identified production and marketing are especially encouraged to attend. To: News Editor October 29, 1999 From: Thomas A. Green, Ph.D., President, IPM Institute of North America, Inc. (608) 232-1528, fax (608) 232-1530 E-mail: ipminstitute@cs.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE #### Conference Set on Adding Value to Food Products through Environmental Marketing, December 6-7, 1999 in Madison, WI How concerned are consumers about the environmental impacts of agricultural production practices? How can producers effectively communicate their efforts to reduce these impacts? What market advantages are available to food and fiber producers, processors and retailers who can document and deliver environmental benefits? More than 50% of consumers indicate a preference for goods produced in an environmentally sound manner. The organic market is currently $5 billion dollars, growing 20% annually, and now includes marketing giants such as Quaker Oats and General Mills. Products identified with other eco-labels and environmental standards, including ISO 14001, are also experiencing double digit sales growth in domestic and international markets. How can you turn this challenge into an opportunity for your organization? At this conference, you will discuss these issues with national experts and industry leaders, including Harvey Hartman, a consultant advising senior management of Fortune 500 companies on environmental and marketing strategies; Katherine DiMatteo, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association, representing over 1000 members; Mark Retzloff, Senior Vice President of Horizon Organic Dairy, the largest organic brand with over $57 million in annual sales; Daniel Burke, President of Pacific Soybean and Grain, an international supplier of identity-preserved grains; Jeff Wilson, owner, Birkbank Farms, producer of fruit and vegetables and participant in the Ontario Farm Plan; Tom O'Neill, Manager, Norfolk Fruit Growers Association, completing ISO 14001 environmental certification; Ron Lautrup, National Commodities Manager, United Natural Foods, the largest natural foods distributor in the U.S., with $729 million in sales and 73% growth in 1998, Harold Coble, former USDA National IPM Coordinator and others working in well-established and newly developed environmentally based production and marketing systems. "Adding Value through Environmental Marketing: Opportunities for Food Producers, Processors and Retailers" with special focus on production, marketing and distribution of field crops, meat and dairy products will be held December 6-7, 1999, at the Edgewater Hotel in Madison, Wisconsin. Attendance is limited to the first 160 registrants. For more information, contact the IPM Institute of North America, 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison, WI 53705, (608) 232-1528, Fax (608) 232-1530, E-mail , or visit the web site at ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13141 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from po4.wam.umd.edu (po4.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.166]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13067 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 129.2.68.82 (aglifesurge-82.umd.edu [129.2.68.82]) by po4.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA20890 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819791A.2015@wam.umd.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:38:31 +0000 From: Valerie Berton Organization: SARE X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: New on-farm research bulletin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 18 A new, 12-page bulletin for farmers, ranchers and the extension educators who work with them outlines how to conduct research at the farm level. Published by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program’s Sustainable Agriculture Network, the bulletin offers practical tips for both crop and livestock producers, as well as a comprehensive list of more in depth resources. Real-life examples -- from a Pennsylvania vegetable farmer testing new rotations to a Montana producer experimenting with a legume called black medic to build soil and prolong pasture -- may stimulate research ideas. Co-written by a team of research scientists, the bulletin features many SARE grant recipients. The free publication is available at www.sare.org/san/htdocs/pubs/ or call (301) 504-6422 and request a copy of "Put Your Ideas to the Test: How to Conduct Research on Your Farm or Ranch." Valerie Berton SARE Communications Specialist (301) 405-3186 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 11:42:35 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20917 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29777 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:11:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.30]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29751 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uoguelph.ca ([128.146.210.212]) by mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21063 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819C685.337C4AFE@uoguelph.ca> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:08:37 -0500 From: "E. Ann Clark" Organization: University of Guelph X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use (long) References: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 19 Folks: mike (son of richard) richardson wrote regarding no-till: > However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental > benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, > cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. > However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero > (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, > reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, > etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As > for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with > some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types > for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, > so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till > also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air > pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the > farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. Pasture - which is an "alternate" form of the livestock nutrition (grains) produced with no-till - does all of the above, and better - without need for chemicals in the first place. Let's not frame the discussion so narrowly as to create a strawman-type argument. If we really stand back and analyze land use practices objectively (whatever that is), starting with - what do we grow these crops for in the first place - this opens up a much wider array of options than just no-till or till. Might also add that even well managed no-till inherently and inescapably creates a whole suite of problems (which well managed pasture doesn't), including weed shifts to favor hard-to-control perennials like dandelion and quack. The obligatory dependence on herbicides (to the exclusion of all other approaches) also accelerates herbicide resistance (note Benbrook's authoritative commentary earlier on the increase in mean glyphosate use in the US in just the last few years, owing largely to no-till and RR crops (probably in that order too). In Ontario, long-time no-till farmers (experienced and commited people; leaders in the field) have begun to plow up their land, following several dry years in a row. For reasons that I still do not understand (given all the presumed increase in soil OM and water conservation under no-till (which is disputed, see below)), no-till land apparently has performed worse than tilled land under dry conditions. I'd have thought the reverse. It may have something to do with the accumulation of macropore space opening directly to the surface, conveying water too readily down to tiles before it can be absorbed. These same uninterrupted macropores, by the way, also convey liquid manure, herbicides, and anything else that has been surface applied directly down to tiles and out into surface water systems - completely bypassing buffer strips and other vehicles recommended to protect the integrity of watercourses. Colleagues in Land Resource Science tell me that no-till slows down the rate of loss of OM under annual arable cropping, but does NOT increase full-profile soil OM. Distribution is affected, with more concentrating in the surface layers, but less in the lower layers, with a net effect that total OM does NOT increase. The only way to materially increase soil OM is to withhold the land from cultivation under a perennial sod - like a pasture or hay field. And then there is the issue of N-use efficiency. I recall a paper co-authored by Rennie (former dean of ag at Sask and major proponent of conservation tillage) showing the potential for anaerobic microsites and anaerobiosis under surface vegetation on no-tilled land in the spring promoted denitrification and N-loss on wheat land. The amounts were fairly hefty if memory serves - say, 20-50 kg N/ha. Surface residues also keep soil colder longer, which effectively shortens the growing season in a short season climate, such as we have in Canada. Surface residues, particularly in combination with cold, can also retard plant establishment and seedling vigor, promoting susceptibility to a range of soil damping-off and other pathogens. Only certain crops *can* be grown no-till, which reduces rotation complexity and hampers the ability to constructively design rotations to deal with weed, pest, and nutrient management issues. Another unintended effect of no-till is leaving allelochemically active residues on the soil surface, where they can impact weed and subsequent crop growth. As it happens, one of the major no-till crops in Canada is no-till wheat. Research by Purvis et al., in Australia, has shown that the allelochemics released by decomposing wheat straw stimulate wild oat germination and growth. Thus, failure to incorporate the residues created a mega-problem with wild oats. And wild oats are a major problem in the prairies, which have adopted no-till wheat with a vengence. So, from a different (pro-pasture, admittedly) vantage point, no-till is a proprietary band-aid to patch up a arable crop technology (annual tillage to produce annual grain crops) that is fundamentally at odds with the ecological integrity of farm land. The problem(s) with tillage is soil erosion and degradation, with consequent effects on related processes, as water use efficiency. So, no-till addresses those issues, but in so doing, creates a suite of other issues. Pasture - which is what ruminants are actually evolved to eat in the first place - avoids most of these issues entirely (granted, you have to manage it to avoid overgrazing, erosion, etc.). Admittedly, pasture also creates some potential problems, relating to soil compaction (and water infiltration etc.) and N leaching/volatilization - although these are at least partly managable through such practices as restricting labile N (less chemical N; lower % legume). Management intensive grazing is a largely non-proprietary technology which can be mastered by men, women, and children, can be a useful (if not sole) source of nutrition year-around (even in Canada), and can retain a much larger share of farm gate receipts in the hands of farmers than no-till, conventional till, or any kind of annual arable cropping. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why commodity-specific subsidy/entitlement programs always favor annual crops and completely omit pasture (and often hay) crops. Ann To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:32:38 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21953 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22095 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:45:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22058 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00898 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:43:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [148.233.231.88] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:42:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:40:19 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <11444.991029@acnet.net> To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Subsidies and Priorities In-reply-To: <199910281529.IAA02084@enaila.nidlink.com> References: <199910281529.IAA02084@enaila.nidlink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 20 Thursday, October 28, 1999, 9:42:51 AM, you wrote: ... CB> Amount spent to produce food consumed in the US in 1996 (farm CB> cost): $126 billion. Amount spent on marketing it: $421 billion" ... CB> "Tiger Woods gets paid ten cents for having his picture on each CB> box of Wheaties, and the farmer gets five cents for raising the CB> wheat." CB> Can this really be true? I hope someone will pursue this further. CB> chuck Probably true and not surprising. Farmers do not control the food industry, where more weight is held by the distribution end of it. (Incidentally, an organic farmer in California and Mexico who also distributes his own and other peoples organic food products world wide, told me once that his distribution costs were higher than his production costs). In any case, there is nothing that prevents farmers from forming organizations that take charge of the whole food chain - except their own capacity to organize, finance, administrate, collaborate etc. I suggest: Do it! Provide an alternative. Easier said than done? Of course. Got anything better to do? Is this something that is necessary, or not? Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:34:57 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22021 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24239 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:52:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.internet.com.mx (mail.internet.com.mx [200.10.239.229]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24208 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ssc053.sancristobal.com.mx (customer-23-246-140.uninet.net.mx [200.23.246.140] (may be forged)) by mail.internet.com.mx (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA12282 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:50:48 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991029103155.00728ea8@mail.internet.com.mx> X-Sender: danamex@mail.internet.com.mx X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:31:55 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Ronald Nigh Subject: Re: rediscovery of old way of plant breeding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id LAA24217 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 21 Dear SANET and Wytze de Lange Thank you for this interesting post, Wytse. Indeed, the subject is so important that I think it would be helpful if you could clarify some of the points that I don't quite understand. What exactly does "crossing sister lines" involve in practical terms? With corn crossing is fairly easy, but how does it work with wheat? What exactly is the nature of Temirbikova's research? There is precious little research on this issue. I just saw a presentation of fascinating results by Hugo Perales, Mexican agronomist, who found that traditional farmers in Central Mexico are able to maintain adapted races of corn that perform as well or outperform available hybrids. Farmers freely use the hybrids when they work, but for the most part, the traditionally maintained varieties do just as well (including by responding to chemical fertilizer and irrigations etc.) and in some conditions consistently outperfom hybrids. Two factors maintain these varieties: the incredibile reserve of genetic variety farmers possess and conserve (with know help from anybody) and the continual experimentation and selections by farmers from that variety (one again, with no support). Mexican government ag policy has, for decades, actively discouraged this activity among farmers. There is a lot of hype about 'modern plant breeding' and now 'biotechnology' as being what has 'fed the world' over the past decades as we grew to 6 billion. But it seems to me this activity by farmers that has maintained the viability of our crops all over the world is far more important to our food security, past and future, than any systematic breeding or genetic engineering ever has or will be. In fact, the concern now is that GE, seed patents and such might threaten this traditional source of crop productitivity. How much of our basic crop production do we really owe to modern plant breeders and how much do we owe to farmers? I think giving the plant breeders credit for 10 per cent of it would be generous. Would it be possible to come up with quantitative estimate? Not that we don't appreciate them! I hope modern plant breeders will continue to ply their trade. But the coroporate hype has blown their contribution way out of proportion and detoured our attention from the truly vital process we should be concerned about: in situ conservation and selection by farmers. This is the heart of agricultural sustainability. Ronald Nigh Dana, A.C. Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF) 529-678-72-15 (Chiapas) danamex@mail.internet.com.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:36:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22062 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23643 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:51:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA23540 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id KAA05413; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:47:03 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma004596; Fri, 29 Oct 99 10:46:28 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:46:27 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC5@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Do-it-yourself corn breeding Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:46:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 22 Alex and Mike, Alex wrote: > Of course, GMOs are the same mentality. This mentality has > been operating since the beginning of agriculture. (Keep > in mind that any type of cultivation is unnatural.) > > We started out just selecting individual plants for their > properties, but that wasn't good enough. Then we had to > start cross pollinating for characteristics. (grafting is > just a mutation of this.) This led us to hybrids and then > to GMOs. All of this is a manipulation of nature, so there > are no sacred cows, such as heirloom varieties or standard > fruit trees. This kind of fundamental, human-mediated evolution lies at the root of agriculture and is interlocked with the evolution of human culture. Just about all our fruit species came from Asia, for example. Our most serious pests are fairly recent introductions too. Such manipulation is only "unnatural" if you believe that humans (or the human mind) is not part of nature. I am not saying that everything we do is desirable or good, just that appeal to natural law is a weak foundation in these matters. > The goal initially, with selection, cross pollination and > grafting was to bend the plants to our needs- production, > flavor and nutrition. The goal of hybrids was to do all > this AND own a variety which didn't breed true- to make > growers dependent on seed companies. The same is true of GMOs. Okay, Okay! lets deal with this head on. If I am smart and organized enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong with my protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I have a right to earn a living? Mike wrote (in response to Douglas I think): > You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my > hybrid and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with > the same characteristics. Then why are we spending all this > money on hybrid seeds? > so why not develop our own open pollinated types that works > best in our own area? Because selection pressures experienced by OP corn tend to select against certain important traits. But I would encourage you to try (if you do, I think you will decide that Pioneer Seed is a pretty good deal). You might want to emulate the successful 19th century farmer-seedsmen from whom we have received our most productive germplasm, people like James Reid (Reid Yellow Dent) and Issac Hershey (Lancaster Sure-Crop). Forrest Troyer wrote an excellent review article on these OP breeders "Background of U.S. Hybrid Corn" (Crop Science 39:601-626) In summary he wrote "Adaptation is everything - the sole driving force of evolutionary biology. Better adaptation to the environment means higher yielding corn. U.S. corn breeding is accelerated evolution to adapt a tropical crop to a temperate environment." Dale PS: If anyone is interested in development of OP supersweets with good seed vigor, I would be happy to share my germplasm with you and cooperate in breeding. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:42:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22152 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04313 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:06:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04302 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:06:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Twittman@aol.com Received: from Twittman@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id 7XGOa29634 (3998) for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.ac0cac93.254b1f89@aol.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:04:25 EDT Subject: Fwd: Temperature Resistant E.coli To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 23 --part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Folks, Any help on this would be appreciated. Thank you, Thomas Wittman --part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:55:23 2000 Received: from mail.cruzio.com (mail.cruzio.com [208.226.92.37]) by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v62.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:55:09 2000 Received: from [165.227.129.94] (sa-165-227-129-94.cruzio.com [165.227.129.94]) by mail.cruzio.com with ESMTP id FAA14256 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: sambo@mail.cruzio.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 05:54:12 -0700 To: twittman@aol.com From: Sam Earnshaw Subject: Temperature Resistant E.coli Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: "Porter, Christy" >To: compost@compostingcouncil.org >Cc: "Sam Earnshaw (E-mail)" >Subject: Temperature Resistant E.coli >Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:47:45 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Have any of you heard of a new strain of E.coli that is not killed by >131 >degree composting? There's a farmer in the Santa Cruz, California, area who >is being sued by a neighbor who claims that the spreading of compost is >causing E. coli contamination of the wells. The neighbor is quoting an >article by the infamous Dennis Avery. Any help would be greatly >appreciated. Has anyone seen this article? > > >Christy Porter >Organic Materials Outreach Coordinator >California Integrated Waste Management Board >8800 Cal Center Drive, MS 22 >Sacramento, CA 95826 >(916) 255-2410 > --part1_0.ac0cac93.254b1f89_boundary-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 12:46:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22208 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:46:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03101 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:05:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03015 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com (m8.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.196]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01291 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from eweigel@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id EP4ZHBCE; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:59:20 EDT To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:41:59 -0700 Subject: range chickens (was RE: free range eggs) Message-ID: <19991029.084307.3502.1.eweigel@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,12,20,25,33-35 From: Edna M Weigel Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 24 Mike asked about wildlife and dogs and cats as danger to chickens: One of my books says chicks are of interest to cats only after they fledge until they are a few months old. My hunting cat (who can take a cotton tail nearly her size) is leery of the chickens (but she is timid of anything she doesn't understand.) On the other hand, our three dogs got into the chicken yard and eliminated 6 or the 12 birds in the few minutes it took me to feed our neighbor's cats (5 of the 6 survivors managed to get through or over the fence into garden, drive, or wild area). I have the chicken yard fenced in a dog/coyote proof fence (the gate the dogs got through is now securely bolted). When we moved here, my neighbor insisted hawks and owls and coyotes would get our cats within a few weeks. Same for any chickens. So far this hasn't been a problem except for our own dogs. However, unless you have secure sleeping quarters for the chickens and close them up over night, you might have a lot more problems. Depending on the wildlife in your area, your defenses might have to be adjusted; back on the farm in Kansas, our defenses were constantly challenged by opossums, raccoons, weasels (they can get through a very small opening), skunks, and probably a few other things I've forgotten. Here in southeast AZ, I have a friend who lost lots of chickens to a bob cat. We have a small pen attached to the chicken house with a chicken-sized door into it for times when we won't be around at dark to close them up. The chickens hate the confinement and I try to avoid having to use it, but it also worked as a nursery for young chicks this spring. About hawks, my chickens crouch under trees when they spot a hawk (their color camouflages them nicely), but once a hot air balloon drifted over. The dogs were going berserk barking at it but the chickens ignored it until its shadow passed over them. There was an enormous commotion of panicky skwaks, cackles, flapping of wings, etc as they ran for cover. >From the balloon, I heard one distinct question: "Are those flamingos?" They are Rhode Island Red's, which are reddish brown, hardly the pink associated with race-track flamingos! Good luck if you try chickens. Edna ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Fri Oct 29 13:30:24 1999 -0400 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23066 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2ivf01f.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.128.47]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04421 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819DA55.D1C875AF@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:33:09 -0400 From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." Reply-To: lflondon@mindspring.com Organization: InterGarden X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: london@metalab.unc.edu Subject: Sustainable Apple Growing in Illinois Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 25 From: "S. K. Kurtural" Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Subject: Re: Landcare in Australia Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:25:23 -0500 Organization: Souhtern Illinois University Lines: 11 Message-ID: <7hnj0u$vuo$1@saluki-news.it.siu.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: port6.aixdialin.siu.edu X-Trace: saluki-news.it.siu.edu 926895966 32728 131.230.253.6 (16 May 1999 23:06:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: netnews@siu.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 1999 23:06:06 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Xref: wnb1 alt.sustainable.agriculture:14812 I am involved ina research project which is titled 'Sustainable Apple Growing in Illinois'. I don't know how much of pomology is important to your project but we have some good ideas on revive communities that lost their livelihood due to the closure of coal mines down here (or up here I should say) with the help of planting of high management apple orchards. We would like to exchange some ideas with you all. S.K. -- Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu /intergarden/orgfarm /intergarden /permaculture /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 13:59:31 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23587 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13412 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:12:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13312 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from node11e64.a2000.nl ([24.132.30.100] helo=zap.a2000.nl) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11hFWf-0001qf-00; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:09:17 +0200 Message-ID: <3819D967.CD770FDF@zap.a2000.nl> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:29:12 +0200 From: wytze X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Nigh CC: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: rediscovery of old way of plant breeding References: <3.0.1.32.19991029103155.00728ea8@mail.internet.com.mx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 26 Dear Ronald Nigh, I will try to connect mr. van Mansvelt and than come back to it. As far as I understand there is not such use of crossing but rather growing of sister lines and selecting them further. I will let you know when I talked to someone involved in the research. Wytze Ronald Nigh wrote: > Dear SANET and Wytze de Lange > > Thank you for this interesting post, Wytse. Indeed, the subject is so > important that I think it would be helpful if you could clarify some of the > points that I don't quite understand. > > What exactly does "crossing sister lines" involve in practical terms? > > With corn crossing is fairly easy, but how does it work with wheat? > > What exactly is the nature of Temirbikova's research? > > There is precious little research on this issue. I just saw a presentation > of fascinating results by Hugo Perales, Mexican agronomist, who found that > traditional farmers in Central Mexico are able to maintain adapted races of > corn that perform as well or outperform available hybrids. Farmers freely > use the hybrids when they work, but for the most part, the traditionally > maintained varieties do just as well (including by responding to chemical > fertilizer and irrigations etc.) and in some conditions consistently > outperfom hybrids. Two factors maintain these varieties: the incredibile > reserve of genetic variety farmers possess and conserve (with know help > from anybody) and the continual experimentation and selections by farmers > from that variety (one again, with no support). Mexican government ag > policy has, for decades, actively discouraged this activity among farmers. > > There is a lot of hype about 'modern plant breeding' and now > 'biotechnology' as being what has 'fed the world' over the past decades as > we grew to 6 billion. But it seems to me this activity by farmers that has > maintained the viability of our crops all over the world is far more > important to our food security, past and future, than any systematic > breeding or genetic engineering ever has or will be. In fact, the concern > now is that GE, seed patents and such might threaten this traditional > source of crop productitivity. How much of our basic crop production do we > really owe to modern plant breeders and how much do we owe to farmers? I > think giving the plant breeders credit for 10 per cent of it would be > generous. Would it be possible to come up with quantitative estimate? > > Not that we don't appreciate them! I hope modern plant breeders will > continue to ply their trade. But the coroporate hype has blown their > contribution way out of proportion and detoured our attention from the > truly vital process we should be concerned about: in situ conservation and > selection by farmers. This is the heart of agricultural sustainability. > > Ronald Nigh > Dana, A.C. > Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas > Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF) > 529-678-72-15 (Chiapas) > danamex@mail.internet.com.mx > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 14:26:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24017 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03131 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:41:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03086 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKD00BXVL1FKD@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:36:26 -0700 From: Misha Subject: Communicating about biotech In-reply-to: <3818F316.18B99D9C@epix.net> To: SANET-mg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" References: <3818F316.18B99D9C@epix.net> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 27 Howdy, all-- Jim found and shared this: >Ignorance imperils future of agriculture > >Farmers are in fight or flee mode; they are confused, scared and angry, >observed Ed Shonsey, the president and CEO of Novartis Seeds, Thursday >in an Iowa speech. "And you know what bothers them the most?" he asked. >"It's not the government. Or the weather. Or even the seed companies. >What has farmers upset -- so upset their eternal optimism is in serious >danger of becoming permanent pessimism -- is ignorance. Ignorance. >Ignorance on the part of a group of people, who, in the name of >protecting the environment, have imperiled the near-term future of >agricultural >biotechnology." He makes an impassioned case for the science behind, >and the potentially great benefits of biotechnology. Read the full text of >his speech here: The Biotech CEO Who Speaks for Farmers. Wow, scary; sounds like a Halloween movie release. In my view, CEO Ed's speech is a highly predictable response, not only content-wise (this kind of speech goes back to at least the 19th century technical press around innovations like electricity), but rhetorically. I see him using two common rhetorical methods whereby the powerful try to discredit those who disagree with them. In brief they try to recast the communication into something they control, when they feel threatened on that front. Here's how it works: Novartis and other biotech companies are trying to argue that biotech is good good good good simply all-American scientific good goodie goodness. Some are getting sucked into the Cold War of Words and responding by saying, no no no, it's bad baddy baddness. From where I'm sitting, though, it appears many people are taking a more complex approach: "Wait, it's not as simple as good versus bad...there are many shades of grey and colors as well between those two poles...many things we don't know...we don't even know what questions to ask, never mind what the answers are." And interestingly enough, to me, many of the most vocal opponents of GMOs are *right there.* Yeah, they think it's bad, but they're raising incredibly complex and perceptive challenges to corporate PR about GE--challenges on the fronts of biology, ecology, economics, morality, ethics, democratic government, and more. So one would expect that the corporations would try to re-impose their binary, black-white, good-evil, for-agin thought structures on the discourse. Get things simple and controllable again. PR and advertising are about encapsulating idiotically simple messages in sugared niblets that wedge themselves in your brain like prions. Once people start thinking, they start paying less attention to PR and advertising. I.e., the communications lifeblood of the corporate structure. Or they view those messages from a stance that doesn't enhance the corporations' marketing efforts. (Have you all seen the fabulous Canadian magazine, /AdBusters/?) What is one of the most tried-and-true rhetorical ways to reinforce a binary discourse, when things threaten to get complicated by multi-hued, multi-textured reality? Projection. For instance, CEO Ed says *farmers*--who in my experience are asking some of the most complex, deep, and probing questions about this technology--are having "fight or flee" (binary) responses. Optimism vs. pessimism. Ignorance vs. knowledge. Not CEO Ed's corporation. Oh no...not them. Farmers. Not only that, *the farmers* are confused, scared, and angry (obviously emotional, and we all know what THAT means). Whereas CEO Ed is "impassioned" in favor of science. He has no confusion, fear, or anger about the fact that his expensive pin-striped butt is on the line to sell investors and the public on a technology that's getting more suspect by the hour, that his company exists to sell. Oh, no; he's rational, and when he gets emotional, it's in favor of rationality. Farmers get used a lot this way, in this society. Silver screens onto which people and organizations project their own fears, goals, desires, hopes, hatreds, biases, etc. What's sad is that guys like CEO Ed and his Marketing Mavens generally have no incentive to stretch themselves to think and communicate in any other way. This is part of their privilege. The world must come around to their way of thinking--impoverishing higher-order thinking and analysis because THEY SAY SO. This is a variation on the Engineer Mentality issue that got brought up here recently, complete with a joke involving a sexually deviant naked woman. I bit my tongue on that, in part because I believe "Engineer Mentality" is code for "UberMale thinking," and this joke seemed to demonstrate that without requiring comment. By the way....it was Darth Cheezer--a corporate engineer and a boy--who observed this connection between gender and technocratic thinking/communication. Quite some years ago now. In observing his and my communications these past 10 years, and more recently, and in watching him as he has worked to grow into a more complex, skilled communicator...I've concluded he's absolutely right. And who better than a boy to observe how boys are taught to communicate???? But I've been told repeatedly that looking at gender and communication has nothing to do with sustainable ag. Just ask Wendell Berry. :^) peace mish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michele Gale-Sinex Communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison http://www.wisc.edu UW voice mail: 608-262-8018 Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH) Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If there was a law they was workin' with, maybe we could take it, but it ain't the law. They're workin' away our spirits, tryin' to make us cringe and crawl, takin' away our decency. --Tom Joad To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 14:27:51 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24086 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03165 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:42:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03136 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:41:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKD00BXVL1FKD@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:37:12 -0700 From: Misha Subject: Beef wars/England, France To: SANET-mg Cc: iffs@nal.usda.gov Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1270903800==_ma============" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 28 --============_-1270903800==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Howdy, all-- Darth Cheezer passed this item along. From today's SF Gate/SF Chronicle, an AP story highlighting some cultural aspects of key food safety issues. As Glenn repeatedly reminds us, bless his persistent boots, it's in the market that these issues ultimately get played out. When I read stuff like this, it helps me understand why so many people fled to the New World as soon as they could--to escape the weight of centuries-long cultural sniping like the following. Only to translate it into things like the (now defunct) Mets-Cubs rivalry, or the hatred of drivers who come from adjoining states. :^) Again, it's interesting that there's this strong focus on some French farmers' use of sewage as fodder...while ignoring the Dutch, Belgian, and German examples. peace misha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ French and British at war again: Whose beef is dirtier? MAUREEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Friday, October 29, 1999 Breaking News Sections (10-29) 01:16 EDT LONDON (AP) -- It may not rank with the battles of Agincourt or Waterloo, but it's war. At least that's what the tabloids say. Britain and France, those centuries-old enemies and allies, are at it again -- this time not over dynasties and domain, but over who produces the dirtiest, most unhygienic and dangerous-to-eat beef. The dispute promises to be the most serious since, well, since the issue was cheap British lamb in the '80s. Or perhaps since the historic 1994 opening of the undersea Channel Tunnel that physically linked Britain with France for the first time -- ushering in a new era of Anglo-French misunderstandings. This latest skirmish, while it began over beef, has spread to other products as tempers flare higher and higher. French farmers have lit burning barricades in front of British trucks at the tunnel entrance. ``England is an island. It is easier to blockade than the continent,'' declared farmers' leader Luc Guyau. A British aristocrat with an ancient title, Lord Cranborne, has banned French goods from the tourist shop on his family estate, and the agriculture minister is denying himself French delicacies. The Daily Star tabloid is running a ``Just Say Non'' campaign, urging Britons to drink Californian, Bulgarian, Australian or anyone, but anyone, else's wine. ``The Frogs may have started it, but it's hard to know which side of the Channel is behaving worse,'' Polly Toynbee wrote in London's upmarket, pro-European Guardian newspaper. And that's about as liberal and even-handed as it gets. The beef war began in August -- or rather entered a new, more emotional phase -- when France refused to join the rest of Britain's partners in the 15-nation European Union in lifting a ban on British beef. The ban was imposed in 1996 because of an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, which researchers linked to a new strain of the fatal human brain ailment Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. France claims to have its own scientific evidence that British beef is still unsafe. Having spent millions cleaning up its act, Britain has made strong objections, laced with suspicions that the French are protecting their own farmers. An EU scientific committee began meeting Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, to examine the French claim. Officials said they expected a ruling Friday. Last week, in the sweetest of revenge for the British, an EU report accused French rendering plants of using sewage in livestock feed. London-based tabloids went wild. ``Why oui hate 'em,'' cried the Daily Star, listing 20 reasons to dislike the French. The top-selling Sun double-printed its front page Thursday, once in English, once in French with the headline over a burning barricade: ``We don't want war but France is wrong.'' Britain's opposition Conservative Party wants an immediate ban on imports of French meat. But for Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair, seeking to smooth over traditional British edginess with the Continentals, it's proving a lot more difficult. Braving accusations of being spineless, Blair said that, despite the sewage report, the EU had ruled French meat is not a danger to health and that any ban would therefore be illegal. His position sounded a shade tame this week in the tumult of shouting Tory legislators in the House of Commons. As ever, this dispute is tinged both with historic overtones and the near-certainty that after it's over, something else will crop up. And though it's deadly serious, with livelihoods, free trade and the British liking for French cuisine at stake, some tongues are firmly in cheeks. The Daily Star offered this among its reasons for hating the French: ``Speak to them in fluent, faultless French which you've painstakingly studied for three years at night school, and they will stare at you blankly as if you are a mound of smoldering donkey dung.'' --============_-1270903800==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Howdy, all-- Darth Cheezer passed this item along. From today's SF Gate/SF Chronicle, an AP story highlighting some cultural aspects of key food safety issues. As Glenn repeatedly reminds us, bless his persistent boots, it's in the market that these issues ultimately get played out. When I read stuff like this, it helps me understand why so many people fled to the New World as soon as they could--to escape the weight of centuries-long cultural sniping like the following. Only to translate it into things like the (now defunct) Mets-Cubs rivalry, or the hatred of drivers who come from adjoining states. :^) Again, it's interesting that there's this strong focus on some French farmers' use of sewage as fodder...while ignoring the Dutch, Belgian, and German examples. peace misha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Times_New_RomanFrench and British at war again: Whose beef is dirtier? MAUREEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Friday, October 29, 1999 Breaking News Sections (10-29) 01:16 EDT LONDON (AP) -- It may not rank with the battles of Agincourt or Waterloo, but it's war. At least that's what the tabloids say. Britain and France, those centuries-old enemies and allies, are at it again -- this time not over dynasties and domain, but over who produces the dirtiest, most unhygienic and dangerous-to-eat beef. The dispute promises to be the most serious since, well, since the issue was cheap British lamb in the '80s. Or perhaps since the historic 1994 opening of the undersea Channel Tunnel that physically linked Britain with France for the first time -- ushering in a new era of Anglo-French misunderstandings. This latest skirmish, while it began over beef, has spread to other products as tempers flare higher and higher. French farmers have lit burning barricades in front of British trucks at the tunnel entrance. ``England is an island. It is easier to blockade than the continent,'' declared farmers' leader Luc Guyau. A British aristocrat with an ancient title, Lord Cranborne, has banned French goods from the tourist shop on his family estate, and the agriculture minister is denying himself French delicacies. The Daily Star tabloid is running a ``Just Say Non'' campaign, urging Britons to drink Californian, Bulgarian, Australian or anyone, but anyone, else's wine. ``The Frogs may have started it, but it's hard to know which side of the Channel is behaving worse,'' Polly Toynbee wrote in London's upmarket, pro-European Guardian newspaper. And that's about as liberal and even-handed as it gets. The beef war began in August -- or rather entered a new, more emotional phase -- when France refused to join the rest of Britain's partners in the 15-nation European Union in lifting a ban on British beef. The ban was imposed in 1996 because of an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, which researchers linked to a new strain of the fatal human brain ailment Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. France claims to have its own scientific evidence that British beef is still unsafe. Having spent millions cleaning up its act, Britain has made strong objections, laced with suspicions that the French are protecting their own farmers. An EU scientific committee began meeting Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, to examine the French claim. Officials said they expected a ruling Friday. Last week, in the sweetest of revenge for the British, an EU report accused French rendering plants of using sewage in livestock feed. London-based tabloids went wild. ``Why oui hate 'em,'' cried the Daily Star, listing 20 reasons to dislike the French. The top-selling Sun double-printed its front page Thursday, once in English, once in French with the headline over a burning barricade: ``We don't want war but France is wrong.'' Britain's opposition Conservative Party wants an immediate ban on imports of French meat. But for Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair, seeking to smooth over traditional British edginess with the Continentals, it's proving a lot more difficult. Braving accusations of being spineless, Blair said that, despite the sewage report, the EU had ruled French meat is not a danger to health and that any ban would therefore be illegal. His position sounded a shade tame this week in the tumult of shouting Tory legislators in the House of Commons. As ever, this dispute is tinged both with historic overtones and the near-certainty that after it's over, something else will crop up. And though it's deadly serious, with livelihoods, free trade and the British liking for French cuisine at stake, some tongues are firmly in cheeks. The Daily Star offered this among its reasons for hating the French: ``Speak to them in fluent, faultless French which you've painstakingly studied for three years at night school, and they will stare at you blankly as if you are a mound of smoldering donkey dung.'' --============_-1270903800==_ma============-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 15:14:57 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24879 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA07057 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07035 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:36:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24210; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA22516; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:34:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: mike richardson cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use In-Reply-To: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 29 On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, mike richardson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Lynne Carpenter-Boggs wrote: > > > No-till is a wonderful thing, and even with the increased herbicide > > input it is a much more productive and environment-friendly system > > than currently practiced in many places. > > London replied: "How is increased herbicide use/acre more > environment-friendly?" > > My reply: No-till is not the be all - end all of environmentally sound > farming. However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental > benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, > cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. The conventional farming methods you described are, for the most part, and in only certain specific situations environmentally unfriendly and are at worst temporary in nature. Chemical use, worse yet, increased chemical use is long lasting, semi-permanent and in some cases close to being permanent when you consider the loss of plant/animal/microorganism diversity that invariably results. The risk to human health, farmers, FARM WORKERS, and consumers alike is undeniable and potentially long-term. > However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero > (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, > reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, > etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As > for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with > some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types > for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, > so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till > also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air > pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the > farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. > > No-till farming: Environmental panacea? Nope. Environmentally > friendly? Yep. Thanks for the interesting description of (chem no-till but you haven't convinced me. There are conventional farms in my immediate neighborhood, one of the best is a dairy farm where the owner spreads ALL his manure on his land, sheet composts it and tills it (and weeds) under with a Soil Saver (a chisel plow and a Yeomans (Keyline System) plow will work as well but both are smaller implements). He uses this tillage tool exclusively and has very little weed problem, with very little herbiocide use, and has rich friable loamy soil to be proud of. Of course if a farmer is trying to get rich farming marginal land he may, unless he has been enlightened about natural methods (read a little Alan Chadwick about improving poor land - http://metalab.unc.edu/london/pc/Alan.Chadwick/), may in desperation resort to chemical use - but why farm marginal land? The key to weed control is effective tillage and cover cropping in a system of rotating fallow land with land in production with grazed land. Initial tillage with a soil saver could be followed with light weed-removal tillage followed by 1) cover-crop/till-under-covercrop/plant-cash-crop or 2) cover-crop/let-land-lay-fallow/use-soil-saver/plant-cash-crop. A system using either of the above methods can be followed by successive, incremental, plantings of crops that are increasingly intolerant of competition with other plants, i.e. "weeds". IOW following 1) or 2) plant lespedeza, rye grain, vetch or any number of other cover crops; follow these with sudex or milo, canola or hemp, more rye, tall sweet clover; follow these with soybean and/or millet, corn, wheat or sesame or barley; followed with a legume soil builder/ hay crop, followed by more grain, beans or vegetables. Some root crops like mangel, beets or carrots, daikon could be integrated effectively into this system, possibly heavy seed-bearers and other persistent crops like tall sweet clover and comfrey could be integrated effectively without adding to the weedseed bank. I'll continue to resist sanet-mg being turned into a handy podium for those inclined to rationalize the use of agrichemicals, even though the term sustainable agriculture was long ago co-opted by that crowd. Roundup use=sustainable farming, indeed! To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 15:58:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25813 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29367 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:12:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from relay4.hawaii.edu (relay4.hawaii.edu [128.171.94.12]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA29300 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.171.125.93] ([128.171.125.93]) by relay4.Hawaii.Edu with SMTP id <373606(8)>; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:10:07 -1000 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991029091646.007e2a90@pop-server.hawaii.edu> X-Sender: mikerobo@pop-server.hawaii.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:16:46 -1000 To: SANET From: Michael Robotham Subject: Courses/trainings on FSR at US/Canadian universities Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 30 Hello SANET subscribers, In order to improve a paper we are revising on the future of farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) in the US and Canada, Hal McArthur and I am looking for information on courses taught or training programs regularly conducted at US and Canadian universities that include FSR theories and methodologies. If you are (or have been) involved in such a course or training program, could you send me some basic information including: Title of the course/training Instructor(s) When did it start (year) How often is it taught/conducted Typical mix of students (Graduate/undergraduate/combination) Typical number of students What is the role of FSR in the course (primary focus, one of several components, mentioned but not covered in any depth, etc.) Any other information you could provide that would help us better understand the goals, structure and expected outcomes of your course/training. For courses/trainings that are no longer offered, could you provide the last year of the course/training and a brief comment on why it was discontinued. Please reply directly to me, Michael Robotham, at mikerobo@hawaii.edu. I will gladly post a summary of the results to the list or send them directly to others who are interested. Please contact me if you would like additional information on the goals and structure of our analysis or would like a copy of the final paper. Thank you for your help. If you know of others who are involved in courses and/or trainings that include FSR, please pass along this message. Sincerely, Michael Robotham PS My apologies for cross-postings --------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Robotham, Ph. D. Phone: (808) 956-6835 (office) Education Specialist (808) 956-2617 (workroom) Agronomy and Soil Science Fax: (808) 956-6539 University of Hawaii at Manoa Email: mikerobo@hawaii.edu 1910 East-West Road Home Page: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~mikerobo Honolulu, HI 96822 USA ...none but ourselves can free our minds (Bob Marley--Redemption Song) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 16:21:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26317 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:21:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22942 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:49:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22900 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.192.219.119] by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with ESMTP id <0FKD00B41QXSR2@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:44:47 -0700 From: Misha Subject: Cryptosporidiosis/petting zoos To: SANET-mg Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 31 Howdy, all-- Thought this might interest those of you who have petting zoos. p m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CRYPTOSPORIDIOSIS, HUMAN - NEW ZEALAND (03) ******************************************* A ProMED post Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:22:10 -0400 From: Marjorie P. Pollack Source: New Zealand News from The Press, 26 Oct 1999 [An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis] in Hawke's Bay is alarming health officials. Sixty-seven cases have been reported this year compared with eight at the same time last year. Healthcare Hawke's Bay medical officer of health, Caroline McElnay, said 12 cases had been reported for October compared with three in August and nine in September. Health officials blamed the time of year and children feeding animals for the outbreak. The disease, which caused "bloody diarrhoea" and terrible stomach pain, left people feeling generally unwell, Dr McElnay said. Most of the cases since September were young people under 15, but people of all ages could be affected. "At this time of year, children could become infected after handling pet lambs and calves, as animals often carried cryptosporidium cysts in their faeces," Dr McElnay said. The disease was easily spread, so it was essential that people preparing food washed their hands thoroughly, she said. "People who have diarrhoea must stay out of the kitchen." In past outbreaks, public swimming pools had been targeted as potential carriers of the cryptosporidium cysts. There was no evidence that this had happened this time, as most of the cases appeared to be unrelated, Dr McElnay said. People who have had diarrhoea should not swim in a public pool until two weeks after having diarrhoea. Dr McElnay urged people with symptoms to see a doctor so the public health unit could isolate the cause to stop it spreading. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michele Gale-Sinex Communications manager Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison http://www.wisc.edu UW voice mail: 608-262-8018 Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH) Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you knew what life was worth, you would look for yours on earth. And now you see the light--you stand up for your rights. --Bob Marley, Peter Tosh To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 16:25:55 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26405 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27377 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:55:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27317 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu [152.1.1.165]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06377 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unity.ncsu.edu (2405p200.ppath.ncsu.edu [152.1.176.53]) by uni02mr.unity.ncsu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8/UR01Feb99) with ESMTP id PAA16493; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3819FC08.51BA463F@unity.ncsu.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:56:57 -0400 From: Russ Bulluck X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Twittman@aol.com, Sustainable Ag Subject: Re: Fwd: Temperature Resistant E.coli (long) References: <0.ac0cac93.254b1f89@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 32 > >Have any of you heard of a new strain of E.coli that is not killed by >131 > >degree composting? There's a farmer in the Santa Cruz, California, area who > >is being sued by a neighbor who claims that the spreading of compost is > >causing E. coli contamination of the wells. The neighbor is quoting an > >article by the infamous Dennis Avery. Any help would be greatly > >appreciated. Has anyone seen this article? That Avery article is in American Outlook, Fall 1998. (It's also online at www.hudson.org.) "The Hidden Dangers of Organic Food" pages 19-22. It's likely the article that your "Friend" was talking about. The following quotes were taken directly from the article online. each quote is followed by comments from me. Quotes are always in quotation marks and (hopefully) indented. And as I've said, these come from the above article by Dennis Avery, and are quoted from online sources. (I hope "Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer for their food crops. Animal manure is the biggest reservoir of these nasty bacteria that are afflicting and killing so many people." " The new reality is quite sobering. Organic and "natural" food producers supply only about 1 percent of the nation’s food, but the Centers for Disease Control have traced approximately 8 percent of the confirmed E. coli 0157 cases to such foods. Consumer Reports recently found much higher levels of salmonella on free-range chickens than on conventionally raised ones. Many other organic foods also pose higher salmonella risks than "supermarket" foods. To be sure, most strains of salmonella are mild and are easily killed by cooking one’s food adequately. But the new salmonella, S. typhimurium, is far stronger than other varieties. Infection often proves fatal. The CDC estimates that there are up to four million cases of salmonella poisoning per year in the U.S., and it has identified one-fourth of the culture-confirmed cases as the more virulent S. typhimurium." This appears to state that one is eight times more likely to get food poisoning from organic foods. What is really said is that 92% of E. coli food-borne illness is not related to organic foods, and that 99% of our food in the US is conventionally produced. I don't think I'll be eating anymore steak tartar! The article implies that the new S. typhimurium is less likely to be killed by heating, when the bacterium simply produces more toxin than other strains. By the way, in the United States, Salmonella spp. are found on 37% of chicken from supermarkets, 55% of pet snakes, and 36% of pet lizards (Foodborne Bacterial Pathogens, M. P. Boyle, ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., 796 pp). "To be sure, it is an overstatement to say, as one physician recently did, that organic food is "grown in animal manure." Few organic farmers actually put fresh manure on their crops. Most of them compost the manure for several weeks before using it on their crops. But the composting guidelines have been fuzzy and are probably inadequate. A common rule of thumb is to compost for two months at 130 degrees F. or better. The bad news is that a study by Dr. Dean Cliver of the University of California at Davis found that the deadly new E. coli 0157 bacteria can live at least seventy days in a compost pile—and it probably takes an extended period at 160-degree heat to kill it." This may be true, but I can't find the exact reference that Avery is quoting here. And, although I'm not an expert on the subject, I highly doubt that E. coli would be able to survive these temps too long. Avery states that E. coli O157:H7 can survive up to 70 days in a compost pile. He didn't say _Where_ in the pile that the organism could survive. Yes, it could survive on the outside of the pile, but wouldn't thrive in the environment. Other ref's by Cliver point to degradation of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella tiphimurium 2 days to 5 weeks in temps at 4, 20, and 37 degrees C (much lower than the 71 degrees C that Avery used) (in 1999 FEMS Microbiology Letters 178:251-257). Other E. coli strains have also been shown not to last long in soil and water samples (on the order of days, Bogosian 1996, Appl. Env. Micro. 62:4114-4120). However, I'd check with Dr. Cliver, himself before believing what Dennis Avery wrote about what he wrote. Avery has a way of turning results around in such a way that they say what he needs them to say. "The real surprise is that nobody is telling the public about the new dangers from organic food, or trying to persuade organic farmers to reduce these risks. Activist groups, government, and the press—all of which have shown no reluctance to organize crusades about matters such as global warming, tobacco addiction, and the use of pesticides—are allowing organic farmers to endanger their customers without any publicity whatever. A press corps eager to find headline-worthy dangers would long ago have exposed any other farmers guilty of so blatantly and unnecessarily endangering the public. And other farmers would certainly have been condemned, or even closed down, by government regulators." This article was quoted in the Wall street Journal on 8 December 1998 (I think). I wonder when Dennis Avery will hear about our little SANET group! Anyway. . .I have some additional articles about the fate of E. coli in soils and water. there are also tests that can be run to determine what the likely source of contamination is. Check with the local health dept. And give Dr. Cliver a call. I know when I talked to Dr. Paul Mead (of the CDC, misquoted in the same article) he was interested to know about the Avery Article. He had heard something about the CDC saying organic food way eight times more likely to cause food poisoning, and knew he had spoken to Dennis Avery. Russ -- Russ Bulluck Ph.D. Candidate Department of Plant Pathology North Carolina State University PO Box 7616 Raleigh, NC 27695-7616 http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/plantpath/Personnel/Students/webpage.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The soil population is so complex that it manifestly cannot be dealt with as a whole with any detail by any one person, and at the same time it plays so important a part in the soil economy that it must be studied. --Sir E. John Russell The Micro-organisms of the Soil, 1923 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 17:11:37 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27109 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA17234 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:26:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA17104 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id PAA05321; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:24:13 -0500 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma003918; Fri, 29 Oct 99 15:23:10 -0500 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:23:09 -0500 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC7@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: "'Ronald Nigh'" Subject: More do-it-yourself breeding (Was: rediscovery of old way of plan t breeding) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 15:23:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 33 Ronald, > With corn crossing is fairly easy, but how does it work with wheat? Crossing is a lot harder with crops like beans, wheat, soybeans, but selfing is a lot easier (just grow the crop). The crossed population segregates, in the course of several generations, into a mixture of pure lines. > Two factors maintain these varieties: the incredibile reserve > of genetic variety farmers possess and conserve (with know help > from anybody) and the continual experimentation and selections > by farmers from that variety (one again, with no support). Land-race varieties of self pollinated crops, unlike corn, are mixtures of pure-lines, each of which breed true. Much gain is made initially by selection, but then gain declines to practically zero. Different species have different rates of mutation and sexual recombination, but in general, these processes that create diversity operate more slowly than the breeding enterprise in self-pollinated crops. Human plant breeders keep creating diversity by causing sexual recombination, allowing continuing progress. It is difficult for amateur breeders to make crosses in soybeans or wheat, since one must dissect the flower bud to do it. One approach is to have some agency or organization make the crosses and increase the progeny in bulk for one or two generations. Then the F2 or F3 bulk is distributed to amateur breeders, who perform selection at their unique sites, on the segregating material. Even a half dozen F2 seeds can produce thousands of distinctive pure-lines after segregation. Some of these might be just what you are looking for on your farm. So the farmer-breeder obtains his customized "land-race" and doesn't have to mess with tweezers and a magnifying glass. > There is a lot of hype about 'modern plant breeding' and now > 'biotechnology' as being what has 'fed the world' over the > past decades as we grew to 6 billion. But it seems to me this > activity by farmers that has maintained the viability of our > crops all over the world is far more important to our food > security, past and future, than any systematic breeding or > genetic engineering ever has or will be. I think a lot of people would dispute this. I have heard that Norman Borlaug is practically worshipped in India for is work with dwarf rice. I know that the improved rice varieties turned Colombia from a net rice importer to a strong rice exporting country. I am less familiar with the wheat story of the green revolution, but it is probably a big success too. Most of the green revolution work was done by public-sector breeders. I think it has been a clear success. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 17:41:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27601 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06527 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:53:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06471 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lanfear.nidlink.com (root@lanfear.nidlink.com [216.18.128.7]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08009 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [216.18.128.8]) by lanfear.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA24204; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from benbrook (pm5-5.nidlink.com [216.18.141.12]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA03137; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910292051.NAA03137@enaila.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:05:03 -0700 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, From: Charles Benbrook Subject: Interesting Talk re Food System Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id QAA06484 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 34 The Federal Reserve system has established a Center for the Stidy of Rural America. At a press ocnferene in D.C. announcing the center, Mark Drabenstott made some very interesting remarks re trade, government policy, and the impacts of structural change on rural communities. He is a well-respected observer and his thoughts warrant wide circualtion. You can get the full text at: http://www.kc.frb.org/marks%20rural%20ctr%20remarks.html A few excerpts follow -- "An Introduction to the Center for the Study of Rural America" October 13, 1999 Washington, DC Agriculture is redefining the way it does business. Many farmers no longer grow the generic commodities of the past. Instead, they have signed on as the first link in a more tightly choreographed food system. The key component in this choreography is the business alliance known as the supply chain. In a supply chain, farmers sign a contract with a major food company to deliver precisely grown farm products on a pre-set schedule. The move to supply chains is a tidal wave of change sweeping through agriculture and rural America. Once confined to a handful of products, such as chickens and vegetables, supply chains are beginning to dominate hog production and are spreading to grain. In 1997, for instance, nearly 60 percent of all hogs in the United States were sold under some form of contract, compared with less than 5 percent in 1980. Supply chains change not only how agriculture does business but also who does business. In almost all cases, supply chains include relatively few farmers since the firm putting the chain together wants to minimize the costs of managing its alliances. For instance, the pork industry may end up with less than 40 chains that will engage a fraction of the 100,000 hog farms now scattered across the nation. Thus, farmers increasingly want to know how they can stay in the rapidly changing game of agriculture. Without doubt, some will be left out. While redefining the farming business, supply chains are literally redrawing the rural landscape. Indeed, agriculture’s new geography may be its most profound and least understood new feature. For the past 200 years, a hallmark of commodity agriculture in the United States has been its wide dispersion. Corn, for instance, has been grown across more than 1,000 miles of the nation’s midsection, from the rolling hills of Pennsylvania to the wide-open prairies of Nebraska. Supply chains lead to a much different geography—one based on concentration in relatively few rural places. In that sense, the highly concentrated poultry industry may be prelude to the future. This new geography will turn into an economic revolution for rural America. Many rural places’ dependence on commodity agriculture will continue for the foreseeable future. The struggle for these "commodity communities" will be building an economic future with fewer farms, fewer banks, and fewer businesses. Meanwhile, some rural communities will hitch themselves to the new world of supply chains, but relatively few communities may ultimately prosper in this world. Rural policy must embrace broader issues The final issue is rural policy. The economic changes now sweeping rural America will raise a broad new slate of policy issues in the new century. While agricultural policy was rural policy throughout the 20th century, a much broader approach will be required if rural America is to achieve its economic potential in the 21st century. Conclusions In closing, a vital part of the U.S. economy, rural America is undergoing enormous changes as the 20th century draws to close. Agriculture, currently in a deep slump, is also being transformed by a new way of doing business—supply chains. The ebb and flow of rural America’s other industries have left a deeply divided rural economy—a number of booming growth havens and a countryside full of communities being left behind. Unlocking rural America’s economic potential in the new century will fall in part to a new generation of rural policy, a policy that must extend far beyond agriculture. Obviously, a lot is happening in rural America, and there is plenty of work ahead for those of us in the new Center. We look forward to sharing the news from rural America’s new economic companion. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net 5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 18:18:30 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28309 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16870 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:48:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16712 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id VAA03708; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:14:16 GMT Message-ID: <381A0DD8.F951988F@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:12:56 -0500 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: no-till chemical use Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 35 Had some great replies to my post this a.m. on using no-till as an envionmentally friendly farm tool. As to be expected, London and Clark were not exactly enthusiasticly embracing my perspective. However, rather than rant about my acceptance of no-till farming (as some would) they both offered intelligent, reasoned arguments to the debate. 1. To London: Conventional tillage does indeed have tremendous potential for environmental damage. One need only look to the gullied Southern states in the first half of the century or to the infamous dust bowl, or the ongoing devestation in China etc.. Soil erosion is neither modest nor temporary (in human life terms) in many circumstances. Not all farms are blessed with rich, loamy soils, on nearly flat fields. And I agree, there are probably other tillage methods that would work for those type of farms. However, much of our productive farm land is rolling and it is not practical or economical to suggest that row crop farmers should just pick up and move to the flat, flat land of loamy soils. I do agree wholeheartedly that rotations are healthy for soils and crops alike. Monoculture is a bane on agriculture. However I disagree on using fallow land in a rotation except in unusual circumstances. Land that is farmed around here is much too expensive to lay idle, and much too rolling (read erosive) to be fallow tilled during the growing season. Use of cover crops, rotation with grass, and rotation of crop species are much more practical. I am not familiar with the tillage tool that you described. However I do remember seeing a demonstration of a "para plow" a few years ago that I thought had promise, but haven't heard much of since. The para plow went nearly as deep as a subsoil shank, but had "wings" at the base that lifted and fractured the soil above. Very narrow surface tillage, with similar efffects to breaking up the plow layer of soil with a conventional plow, as well as improving the tilth of the upper subsoil. Good tool when used with reduced tillage systems, it seemed. 2. To Clark: I think I understand your thread that instead of growing annual row crops for beef that we should grow beef on grass instead. Point taken, although I've eaten both grass fed and grain finished beef, and much prefer grain fed. However, please remember that not all annual row crops are grown for (non-human) animal consumption. Besides many food products, annual crops such as soybeans and cotton provide material for other uses for instance. Row crops would continue to be a major portion of agriculture, even if never another grain was fed to a single cow. Also, I would tend to not accept at face value any statement that conventional tillage does better during dry weather than no-till, without knowing the circumstance. It sounds like it might be more in the line of an exception to the rule, rather than the rule. And lastly (whew!) if land is being drained with tiles, then why would anyone need to use no-till? Reduced tillage, or even ridge tillage maybe, but no-till is especially useful on rolling lands to stop soil erosion. Fields with subsurface tiling shouldn't have water erosion problems. To all: While I do not ascertain that no-till is the final word in environmentaly sound farming, I will not throw it out just because there are some chemicals used. Keep up the debate folks, and lets hear from some others besides London, Clark, or myself! Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 23:09:19 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01573 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA16857 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:45:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA16839 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [148.233.231.144] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:42:45 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:41:03 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <5903.991029@acnet.net> To: mmiller@pcsia.com CC: Subject: Re: Hybrid to OP Corn? In-reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991029085015.008f4560@pcsia.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991029085015.008f4560@pcsia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 36 Hi Mike, Friday, October 29, 1999, 7:50:15 AM, you wrote: MM> You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my MM> hybrid and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with the MM> same characteristics? No. I'm saying that unless you can somehow read the genetic map of a new variety, the variety is or isn't a hybrid depending on how it behaves. If it produces true to type for only 1 generation before reverting to the original distinct crosses, it can be considered a F1 hybrid (good for one generation more of relatively predictable production). Before new varieties are marketed, the developers know what they have and can promote it accordingly. Also, there are undoubtedly reasonably predictable patterns of what can be expected, depending on the crosses used, the genetic makeup of those, the differences between them, their past behavior etc. But in practice, whether or not a new variety is a hybrid or not, is something you determine retroactively. MM> Then why are we spending all this money on hybrid seeds? The MM> farmers have no margin left to spend on unnecessary expenses. There is a lot of money spend on promoting seed and getting "authorities" to join in. MM> If true, it seems this would be a money saving way to go. After MM> all farmers have the equipment, the land and the know-how to grow MM> and harvest the crop, so why not develop our own open pollinated MM> types that works best in our own area? There you go. You also want to develop a communications network, data bank and seed exchange program among them. You want to follow all the results with data collection and make that readily available. The protocols shouldn't be that hard to come up with. I'll even bet there are existing governmental (or non-governmental) support programs that would fund this. And hybrids may or may not prove to be the best option. Remember that there a lot of economic benefits that motivate the seed companies to develop proprietary (difficult to reproduce) varieties. But they're not farmers (they just live off of them). MM> What if every farmer devoted, say 2 acres to his own research? You MM> would not lose the odd 20-70 dollars an acre from growing a MM> regular crop and with a little of your own work, you would have MM> the potential to save money in the long run. A lot of money, and get better results. And when you make your own mistakes (assuming you will, to some degree) you have a better chance of learning from that and correcting them. MM> Another benefit would be mental. At least you would be doing MM> something so save your farm from the inevitable fate that awaits MM> you if you just go along with the current system. You would be taking (greater) control of your own needs and destiny. MM> I would not hold my breath waiting for the congress et al to break MM> up the grain/packing house monoplies so the expense reduction is MM> going to have to come on the input side. Congress will respond the same way as dogs do in relation to those that feed them. Some will value the farm vote and many will salivate in tune with the lobbyists. A big group of farmers could do that too, of course. What does the the Farm Bureau do? (Is that the name of the largest farmers organization in the US)? Can existing organizations take this up or does it take something new? MM> Nothing ventured, nothing MM> gained. Mike Miller Do it, Mike! MM> major snip >>AMcG> This led us to hybrids >> >>Hybrids are simply the results of natural breeding methods (cross >>pollination) that happen to NOT reproduce true to seed, due the >>instability of the particular genetic cross. >> >>Further cross breeding (continued seed selection) can sometimes revert >>this reversion to type. In other words, if the cross proves stable and >>reproduces true to type, you've got a new OP variety on your hands, >>which is harder to make proprietary. It has also been found that the >>tension involved in a genetic cross that is inherently unstable can >>sometimes introduce a kind of temporary (since it doesn't reproduce) >>vigor in the progeny. Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Fri Oct 29 23:45:28 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01920 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10353 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:18:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10285 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:18:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [148.233.231.144] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:15:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:14:16 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <7926.991029@acnet.net> To: "Wilson, Dale" CC: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself corn breeding In-reply-To: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC5@vela.phibred.com> References: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC5@vela.phibred.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 37 Hi Dale, Friday, October 29, 1999, 9:46:24 AM, you wrote: ... DW> This kind of fundamental, human-mediated evolution lies at the DW> root of agriculture and is interlocked with the evolution of human DW> culture. Agreed. DW> Just about all our fruit species came from Asia, for DW> example. Disagreed. The avocado, papaya, tomato, the various classes of sapotes (white, yellow, mamee & chico), and the annonas (sp?) - like the cherimoya are all from the Americas, and there are varities of grapes and persimmons that are also; muskmelons are from Persia, bananas and watermelon from Africa, Mangos from India (this is just off the top of my head and there are no doubt many more). DW> Our most serious pests are fairly recent introductions DW> too. Such manipulation is only "unnatural" if you believe that DW> humans (or the human mind) is not part of nature. I am not saying DW> that everything we do is desirable or good, just that appeal to DW> natural law is a weak foundation in these matters. Glad we agree. >> The goal initially, with selection, cross pollination and >> grafting was to bend the plants to our needs- production, >> flavor and nutrition. The goal of hybrids was to do all >> this AND own a variety which didn't breed true- to make >> growers dependent on seed companies. >> The same is true of GMOs. They are obviously harder to reproduce >> and can be patented, since they're man made. (You know damn well >> that God wouldn't be caught dead creating such a thing). DW> Okay, Okay! let's deal with this head on. If I am smart and DW> organized enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong DW> with my protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I DW> have a right to earn a living? Linux versus Microsoft. DW> Mike wrote (in response to Douglas I think): >> You are saying then that with some work/?luck? I can take my hybrid >> and turn it into a stable Open-Pollinated variety with the same >> characteristics. Then why are we spending all this money on hybrid >> seeds? so why not develop our own open pollinated types that works >> best in our own area? DW> Because selection pressures experienced by OP corn tend to select against DW> certain important traits. You want to begin by studying the issues involved. DW> But I would encourage you to try (if you do, I think you will DW> decide that Pioneer Seed is a pretty good deal). You might want to DW> emulate the successful 19th century farmer-seedsmen from whom we DW> have received our most productive germplasm, people like James DW> Reid (Reid Yellow Dent) and Issac Hershey (Lancaster Sure-Crop). DW> Forrest Troyer wrote an excellent review article on these OP DW> breeders "Background of U.S. Hybrid Corn" (Crop Science DW> 39:601-626) In summary he wrote "Adaptation is everything - the DW> sole driving force of evolutionary biology. Better adaptation to DW> the environment means higher yielding corn. U.S. corn breeding is DW> accelerated evolution to adapt a tropical crop to a temperate DW> environment." Good tips, Dale DW> Dale DW> PS: If anyone is interested in development of OP supersweets with good seed DW> vigor, I would be happy to share my germplasm with you and cooperate in DW> breeding. Good offer, Dale. That puts things one major step ahead. You may well become the Bill Stallings of the grow and share your own seed movement, cornerstone of the next green revolution (green in grass, not so much as in greenbacks. Having the grass greener on all sides of the fence). Who wants to take Dale up on this? Who else is interested in participating? Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Fri Oct 29 22:35:49 1999 -0400 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01363 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14113 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:59:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14044 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id JAA06196; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:44:20 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id FAA22591; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:03:16 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199910292103.FAA22591@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 30 Oct 99 04:05:44 Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 38 >Wilson, Dale wrote: >> Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, >> although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that >> traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of >> a problem. > >Loren Muldowney wrote: >Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is >disregarded as being in the category of things we call "a problem." If they get their way, I can imagine the biotech industry later saying "the fact that traces of transgenic DNA can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of a problem." >> In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you >> couldn't find it in your urine. > >No argument here. And I can imagine the biotech industry in the future likewise saying "in fact, transgenic DNA is so widely used it would be a surprise if you couldn't find it in your urine." I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination quite incredible... Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Fri Oct 29 23:06:12 1999 -0400 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01555 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 23:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA05657 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:29:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from outmta006.topica.com (outmta006.topica.com [206.132.75.208]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA05599 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:29:32 -0400 (EDT) To: PANUPS From: PANUPS Subject: PANUPS: Action Alert: Children Poisoned in Peru Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 19:27:19 -0700 Message-ID: <0.700000050.618464126-212058698-941250439@topica.com> Reply-To: panupdates@panna.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Loop: 700000050 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 39 =========================================== P A N U P S Pesticide Action Network Updates Service =========================================== Action Alert: Children Poisoned in Peru October 29, 1999 At least 24 children died in a remote Andean village after eating a government-donated breakfast contaminated with the organophosphate insecticide parathion. Another 20 children were poisoned and required medical treatment. The breakfast was served to schoolchildren between the ages of three and fourteen in the village of Tauccamarca, province of Cusco, on Friday, October 22. The milk substitute based on wheat, corn, soy and barley and packets of cookies were provided by the National Fund for Social Development and Compensation (FONCODES), as part of a government-sponsored nutrition program. The wife of the school's only teacher prepared the meal with the help of a 14-year-old student. Children began vomiting and convulsing within a half hour of eating the contaminated food. "The kids were screaming, vomiting and grabbing their bellies. Some were dead, others were writhing on the grass and still more were on the school patio. We had no idea what to do," a village woman said, according to media sources. Children collapsed outside the school, on the dirt roads leading to their homes, and in the doorways of their parents' houses. Healthy children attempted to lead sick children to their homes but many died along the way. Some villagers were able to carry their children to the town of Huasac, a 1 1/2 hour walk from Tauccamarca, where they could be evacuated to a hospital in the city of Cusco, several hours away. Parents of the victims said that if there were a road to their village, or if they had medical services there, some of the children might have been saved. The Minister of Health and other government officials visited the village but did not claim responsibility for the disaster. President Alberto Fujimori made no comment. By the time national officials arrived on the scene, local police had confiscated the remainder of the government-provided food and it was not available for testing. The government has offered several possible explanations for the event. Initially officials suggested that the milk substitute had been prepared in containers previously used for pesticides. Later the Minister of Health said that a local resident might have mixed some of the milk substitute with insecticide with the intention of poisoning a dog. Government officials denied the possibility that the company providing the food for FONCODES programs might be responsible for the contamination. Meanwhile, the schoolteacher and his wife were arrested and accused of criminal negligence. Children in other parts of the country have also suffered symptoms of poisoning after eating government-donated food, but all have survived. In response to this tragedy, the Red de Acción en Alternativas al uso de Agroquímicos (RAAA -- PAN Latin America) is calling for the immediate prohibition of highly toxic pesticides classified by the World Health Organization as 1a (extremely hazardous) and 1b (highly hazardous). RAAA is calling on the government to recognize that it is impossible to guarantee the safety of highly toxic pesticides such as organophosphates. Many potential pesticide users in Peru are illiterate and have no way to learn about the risks associated with pesticides. Many villagers speak only their native language of Quechua, and do not know Spanish. In addition, many rural areas have no health care centers to treat victims of pesticide poisonings. Highly toxic pesticides should not be distributed in areas where the population has no protection against the risks associated with their use. RAAA is asking the Ministry of Health to implement a program of quality monitoring to ensure that government-donated food is not contaminated with toxic substances. The Ministries of Health and of Agriculture should also develop a program to track pesticide poisonings throughout the country. As part of this program, doctors and nurses should receive training in the symptoms and treatment of pesticide poisonings. Finally, RAAA is calling on the Peruvian government to enforce its existing pesticide laws and to implement laws promoting safer alternatives. RAAA requests that concerned groups and individuals support the campaign to eliminate these toxic pesticides by faxing letters as soon as possible to the following addresses: Ingeniero Belisario de la Casa Piedra Ministro de Agricultura Fax (511) 431 0109 Señor Luis Campo Baca Comisión de Medio Ambiente y Amazonía Congreso de la República Fax (511) 428 2543 Please also fax or email a copy of your letter to RAAA. Sources: RAAA press release, October 23, 1999; RAAA communications to Minister of Health and others, October 24, 1999; Juan Paliza, "Peru Probes Child Food-Poisoning Deaths," Reuters October 24, 1999; "Tainted Milk Kills 28 Peruvian Kids," Associated Press October 23, 1999; La República October 24-27, 1999 Contacts: Luis Gomero, Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para America Latina (RAPAL), Apartado Postal 11-0581, Lima, Peru, phone (51-1) 425 7955; fax (51-1) 337 5170; email rapalpe@mail.cosapidata.com.pe; PANNA =========================================== Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) 49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA Phone: (415) 981-1771 Fax: (415) 981-1991 Email: panna@panna.org Web: http://www.panna.org To subscribe, send a blank message to: panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: panups-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com =========================================== _____________________________________________________________ Got a Favorite Topic to Discuss? Start a List at Topica. http://www.topica.com/t/4 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sat Oct 30 00:42:39 1999 -0400 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02334 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25207 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:21:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA25043 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:21:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id MAA11295; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:04:28 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id MAA25084; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:32:06 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199910300432.MAA25084@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 30 Oct 99 11:33:56 Subject: RE: Benefit of BT Corn To: WILSONDO@phibred.com Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 40 >I tend to agree, but I don't like the idea of the government dictating what >varieties we must offer. If I were the head of product planning, I would >offer all the elite material as non-GMO hybrids to give customers the >choice. Keep in mind that often, the non-GMO version IS marketed, but just >not identified as the non-GMO equivalent of the more trendy GMO hybrid. Pioneer's official policy is much more important in this particular case than the personal opinions of its employees, no offense meant to you. Can you tell us if it is Pioneer's policy to always make available to the farmer the non-GMO version of a GMO hybrid? Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 03:46:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03326 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21939 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA21905 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:14:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA03191; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id DAA02533; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:12:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:12:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: mike richardson cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: no-till chemical use In-Reply-To: <381A0DD8.F951988F@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 41 On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, mike richardson wrote: > Had some great replies to my post this a.m. on using no-till as an > envionmentally friendly farm tool. As to be expected, London and Clark > were not exactly enthusiasticly embracing my perspective. However, > rather than rant about my acceptance of no-till farming (as some would) > they both offered intelligent, reasoned arguments to the debate. > > 1. To London: Conventional tillage does indeed have tremendous > potential for environmental damage. One need only look to the gullied > Southern states in the first half of the century or to the infamous dust > bowl, or the ongoing devestation in China etc.. Soil erosion is neither > modest nor temporary (in human life terms) in many circumstances. Not This is very true but only very inept farmers would let this happen. All farmers in my area are acutely aware of the damage that occurs to their land from erosion and take the necessary steps to keep it from happening. I mentioned the Soil Saver (a very large chisel plow with a row of coulter blades in front for pre-cutting sod so it won't bind up ahead of the shanks) because it does a magnificent job of subsoiling and surface tillage; it leaves behind small or no furrows, which if used correctly can channel runoff across contours and in dry season can direct needed runoff from sparse rainfall from non-cropped areas to cropped for absorption and use. I probably need definitions of reduced tillage, no-till and ridge-till so I can better respond to your argument for no-till. My hay-farming neighbor "no-till drills" his Fall oat planting. I think this means cutting a slice in the sod and depositing seeds therein. My other farmer neighbor, the dairyman, describes his use of the Soil Saver as "reduced tillage" (my words), i.e. less disruption of the soil, less erosion, more organic matter retained. I have seen him use this implement; weeks after applying manure to the land, when the soil is adequately dry, as he pulls it over hundreds of acres the soil literally boils like an ocean wave rolling in on the beach behind his tractor. Loosening the soil to a great depth and aerating it combined with it's high organic matter content, high N and intense microbial life create this fine farm soil. Year after year, it only gets better. Using the Soil Saver in the Fall when the soil is dry enough leaves the land capable of absorbing much of the increased rain expected in the cold season with little or no erosion. Strip cropping could effectively control any erosion that did occur. In fact narrow-strip cropping could be really effective in this respect, especially in hilly country; strips could be only as wide as the Soil Saver. This man has operated in the black for decades and has never borrowed a penny and has never done anything but dairy farm. I don't really know how much herbicide he uses but I feel sure he keeps it to an absolute minimum; IOW he uses it very rarely. This method I have heard of using reduced or no till followed by cover cropping followed by burning down the CC for mulch, then follow with notill plant grain/bean/hay seems to me poor planning and highly destructive to the environment. Careful, timely tillage and different cover crop schemes can eliminate most weed problems. My first response to your proposal for no-till was to suggest ways of using tillage to control and eliminate weeds, thus precluding the need for herbicide. Incresed soil tilth and organic matter content also result from this method. > all farms are blessed with rich, loamy soils, on nearly flat fields. > And I agree, there are probably other tillage methods that would work I can't see any reason to work marginal farmland. And I can;t see any reason to sell off prime farmland for residential/commercial development. There ought to be laws ..... > for those type of farms. However, much of our productive farm land is > rolling and it is not practical or economical to suggest that row crop > farmers should just pick up and move to the flat, flat land of loamy > soils. There are ways to work rolling land but it may not be possible to accomplish miracles overnight. > I do agree wholeheartedly that rotations are healthy for soils and crops > alike. Monoculture is a bane on agriculture. However I disagree on > using fallow land in a rotation except in unusual circumstances. Land Leaving land fallow for a period is part of the weed eradication scheme I am suggesting. You have to allow enough time for specific cover crops to mature and crowd out undesirable competing plants. Like lespedeza some crops don't spread readily by seed and are easily cut under for organic matter to never or rarely return. L really covers the ground with dense shade. I have seen it outcompete (and in poor, hard, rocky soil, too) blackberry, honeysuckle, johnson grass, bermudagrass, rye and fescue grass. By the time L matures, many nearby weeds will have exhausted themselves and disappeared. Some mowing may be necessary along the way. The soil will have had a chance to rebound as will earthworms and microbial life. > that is farmed around here is much too expensive to lay idle, and much As I said, miracles don't always happen overnight. > too rolling (read erosive) to be fallow tilled during the growing > season. I am not suggesting doing that. > Use of cover crops, rotation with grass, and rotation of crop > species are much more practical. I am suggesting this also. > I am not familiar with the tillage tool that you described. However I > do remember seeing a demonstration of a "para plow" a few years ago that > I thought had promise, but haven't heard much of since. The para plow > went nearly as deep as a subsoil shank, but had "wings" at the base that > lifted and fractured the soil above. Very narrow surface tillage, with > similar efffects to breaking up the plow layer of soil with a > conventional plow, as well as improving the tilth of the upper subsoil. > Good tool when used with reduced tillage systems, it seemed. The "para plow" soounds just like the Yeomans Plow. Farmers owe it to themselves to have a look at the Soil Saver, the chisel plow and the Yeomans plow. Then there are hilling and bedding implements ....... > 2. To Clark: I think I understand your thread that instead of > growing annual row crops for beef that we should grow beef on grass > instead. Point taken, although I've eaten both grass fed and grain > finished beef, and much prefer grain fed. However, please remember that > not all annual row crops are grown for (non-human) animal consumption. > Besides many food products, annual crops such as soybeans and cotton > provide material for other uses for instance. Row crops would continue > to be a major portion of agriculture, even if never another grain was > fed to a single cow. > > Also, I would tend to not accept at face value any statement that > conventional tillage does better during dry weather than no-till, > without knowing the circumstance. It sounds like it might be more in > the line of an exception to the rule, rather than the rule. > > And lastly (whew!) if land is being drained with tiles, then why would > anyone need to use no-till? Reduced tillage, or even ridge tillage > maybe, but no-till is especially useful on rolling lands to stop soil > erosion. Fields with subsurface tiling shouldn't have water erosion > problems. > > To all: > > While I do not ascertain that no-till is the final word in > environmentaly sound farming, I will not throw it out just because there > are some chemicals used. Keep up the debate folks, and lets hear from > some others besides London, Clark, or myself! Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 06:27:09 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04150 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21579 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:10:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21523 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.iatp.org (iatp-2.InnovSoftD.com [208.141.36.66]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19269 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:08:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from markbert ([208.141.36.112]) by mail.iatp.org (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with SMTP id 199; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:15:16 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991030051116.01493d50@mail.iatp.org> X-Sender: mritchie@mail.iatp.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 05:11:16 -0500 To: "Wilson, Dale" , "'Paul Schmitmeyer'" From: "Mark Ritchie" Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Cc: Sanet In-Reply-To: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC2@vela.phibred.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 42 Dear Dale, Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of both property rights and human rights. The tobacco companies and gun companies are showing the way in terms of litigation as one approach to this kind of violation. I believe that the pesticide companies will be the next ones hauled into court, followed soon thereafter by the biotech companies. Sincerely, Mark Ritchie At 08:19 AM 10/29/99 -0500, Wilson, Dale wrote: >Paul, > >> Just what is chloropyrifos? > >Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Dursban) is a moderately toxic, moderately persistent >(in the environment, not in the body) organophosphate insecticide that is >very widely used for many things like termite control, flea collars, foliar >application, lawn insect control, in-furrow application (eg for rootworms), >and indoors for ant and roach control. > >http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/chlorpyr.htm > >http://www.dowagro.com/main/product_results.asp > >Chlorpyrifos has been around for a long time, and has a good safety record, >although a few people claim to be highly sensitive to it. The fact that >traces of this can be found in human urine is not, in itself, indication of >a problem. In fact, this is so widely used, it would be a surprise if you >couldn't find it in your urine. > >Dale > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > Mark Ritchie, President Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2105 First Ave. South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA 612-870-3400 (phone) 612-870-4846 (fax) mritchie@iatp.org www.iatp.org To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 09:34:45 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00902 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:34:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21308 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:05:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.internet.com.mx (mail.internet.com.mx [200.10.239.229]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21220 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ssc053.sancristobal.com.mx (customer-23-246-140.uninet.net.mx [200.23.246.140] (may be forged)) by mail.internet.com.mx (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA01689 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:03:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991030075802.00736f88@mail.internet.com.mx> X-Sender: danamex@mail.internet.com.mx X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 07:58:02 -0500 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Ronald Nigh Subject: Farmer plant breeding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id JAA21250 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 43 Dale Wilson wrote: >Crossing is a lot harder with crops like beans, wheat, soybeans, but selfing >is a lot easier (just grow the crop). The crossed population segregates, in >the course of several generations, into a mixture of pure lines. >Land-race varieties of self pollinated crops, unlike corn, are mixtures of >pure-lines, each of which breed true. Much gain is made initially by >selection, but then gain declines to practically zero... "Gain" in terms of increasing a given trait (yield, oil content) in a constant environment perhpas...but as Forest Troyer said, "Adaptation is everything - the sole driving force of evolutionary biology. Better adaptation to the environment means higher yielding corn.." Evolution is adaptation to a specific and changing environment and that is what farmer breeding achieves. So really the "gain" in this sense does not decline. But my question is how do farmer do this with self-pollinating crops? That is why the "sistem lines" research is interesting. For example. Chiapas is center for maize diversity. It easy to see how this diversity is maintained and used te create further diversity by farmers. But Chiapas is also a center of bean diversity. Every village seems to have its own bean variety. In general in Mexico bean diversity is astounding. How is this done? Ronald Nigh Dana, A.C. Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF) 529-678-72-15 (Chiapas) danamex@mail.internet.com.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 11:53:24 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01856 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00814 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:37:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00740 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:37:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:40:29 -0500 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.135] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A092B1801E8; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:36:50 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:34:42 +0100 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Proposed organic cost share program Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 44 On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT, Erorganic@aol.com wrote: >Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA >supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to me >members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis of >its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and >handlers. >My concerns are gargantuan. Eric and I frequently disagree. Not this time. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. It would be entirely consistent with past bureaucratic motives if the purpose of this was simply to make certified farmers more dependent on bureaucrats, thereby securinging the bureaucrats' jobs in this little developing empire at the National Organic Program. >The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to >have proposed the organic certification cost share program. The cynical side of me sees this as a means of gaining more control over FVO and OCIA particularly, as these are both "high standards" programs, neither of which (to my knowledge) has ever taken a nickel of government money. We can't have such important programs so immune to our control, now, can we ...? In a private message to Anita Graf answering her question to me about how it is that Canada --- with its rather tight controls on election expenditures, PACs and such --- can still have so much of the same problems of favoritism, croneyism, special deals and so on, I said, ++Same shenanigans, same waste, same corruption as in the US. Most of the ++dirty work is done within the bureaucracy, as it is in the US. Bureaucrats are generally invisible, unavailable, and unaccountable. They can do a lot of good, and many are unsung heroes. More often they do an amazing amount of anonymous harm. >The money ultimately ends up going >first to certified farmers [snip] and then is passed >back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by them. > In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use tax >money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program. In a time of tight budgets, bureaucrats are as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs... the most effective way to raise taxes is through all sorts of hidden fees, especially if they come direct to your little domain. >In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to >certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically produced" >for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has >increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these farmers >have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of >organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a >proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of farmer >applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic >farming. Very sadly, Eric, you understate the case. I see these guys all the time as an inspector. Just one example, from your state of Iowa... Conventional farmer with many hundreds of acres in heavy duty corn (anhydrous, etc). He had 130 acres (55 ha) that had been in the federal Conservation Reserve Program (at a tidy annual rent) for ten years. The whole thing was planted to food soybeans for 1999, which he wanted certified. The entire 130 acres was going to go *back* into CRP in 2000. In the course walking the field it became obvious to me that he had used herbicide(s) --- probably Pinnacle and Pursuit --- on the whole field. He didn't get certified, but I'll bet there are a lot more out there like him, and some of them *do* get certified. The real weak link in the whole system right now is INSPECTION. Many inspectors do not have practical production experience or knowledge. Relatively few have any understanding of *conventional* production --- its methods, its materials, and (above all) its *attitudes.* Increasing the number of applicants by encouraging them with subsidies is potentially disastrous for the little credibility remaining in the industry. The organic industry has largely done this to itself, with its slavish and anal-retentive preoccupation with *materials* rather than farm systems. It simply doesn't take as much understanding of agriculture to haggle over materials as it does to codify the irreducible minimum of a healthy system management. Because it's easier for programs (and bureaucrats) to haggle over materials, we have ironically undermined the entire inspection process. Inspecting for materials use is *NOT* easy. In fact, it is probably the most difficult aspect of the entire system to monitor. There are farms I *know* got sprayed within hours of when I headed down the lane for my next inspection. What really matters is how the whole system is put together and managed. That is difficult to codify, but once codified is relatively easy to inspect, even for inspectors of modest ability. There is absolutely no way, for example, that I could determine whether or not an applicant as used 25 kg/ha of Chilean nitrate, or 125 kg/ha, other than to trust his answer. That standard, therefore, is un-inspectable, un-verifiable, and thereby useless. What is *easy* to inspect is whether or not there is at least 25% legume sod in the rotation, and whether or not the applicant has a *written* management protocol for standard materials and procedures used in that particular operation. Less than 2% of the farms I inspected in 1999 had a written protocol for mineral fertility management, even though it is clearly required in the standards. If you think that doesn't matter, go back to the archives and review my comments about soil minerals and crop quality from about 3 weeks ago. The key questions are: a) Is this system designed and managed so as maximise system health and crop quality; b) Is it designed and managed to minimise the need for chemical inputs; c) Is this management protocol documented and followed, and d) Is there a chain of custody guaranteeing that the harvest has not been contaminated or co-mingled. Having de-emphasised these most important managerial elements (which are the *easiest* to inspect), and having over-emphasised materials (which are very difficult to inspect), the organic business has left itself extremely vulnerable. Federal cost sharing and the resultant influx of desperate conventional growers may well be all that is needed to tip an already-unstable system into the abyss. >There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants for >organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic >product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff of >the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic markets >for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under OFPA. >Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal >government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, >continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions that >are simply un-natural, not "organic." This is an additional cause for concern, but if the inspectability problem isn't resolved, it may not matter. There are inspectors (and certification committee members) out here with enough concrete examples to seriously damage the demand side of "organic" equation in the course of a single interview on '60-minutes.' Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sat Oct 30 10:14:52 1999 -0400 Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (firefly.prairienet.org [192.17.3.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01271 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25211; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:12:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24931 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:09:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Erorganic@aol.com Received: from Erorganic@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v23.6.) id mXNQ0Yjg0m (3859) for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0.7c591772.254c4450@aol.com> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT Subject: Against a proposed organic cost share program To: Organic4um@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Sender: owner-csa-l@prairienet.org X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 45 Hello all, Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of USDA supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to me members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis of its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and handlers. I have heard none. My concerns are gargantuan. Firstly, organic farming and handling is a free market activity now, with the only authorized activity of USDA or the Federal government made by Congress is to establish the National Organic Program. That has taken 10 years primarily because up until most recently qualified people were not hired to manage the proposed program. The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to have proposed the organic certification cost share program. What is this saying by the Agricultural Marketing Service initiating this proposal? Could it be that the cost for certification are going to be so high that we have to have government assistance to be a USDA certified organic farm or handling operation? Doesn't such a proposed cost share diffuse and cover over the much more important OFPA mandated statement of "reasonable" cost of certification and accreditation to all parties? Who really gains form such a program? --The money ultimately ends up going first to certified farmers (or more probably anyone applying for certification) (are handler applicants included also and if not why not?) who pay the money to USDA accredited certifiers (allowing their expansion of operations and farm/handler certification market share) and then is passed back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by them. In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use tax money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program. I am not clear on how fees collected from farmer/handler applicants and/or accredited certifying agents must be used by USDA. Perhaps, such funds cannot be directly deposited to AMS/NOP accounts. In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically produced" for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these farmers have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of farmer applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic farming. I have not heard any statement that this might be a one time cost share, meaning that such a program will probably become an annual conditioned response for those so applying. We see the utter collapse of the conventional farming "community" under the now 65 year continuous "cost share" program initiated during the 30's depression. A cost share program is worth the organic community considering as all options are, but why would any of us want to become dependent for part of our farming or handling operations on a government hand-out program? There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants for organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff of the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic markets for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under OFPA. Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions that are simply un-natural, not "organic." And lastly, anyone that is seriously considering organic farming or handling businesses can surely pay a "reasonable" fee for certification. If a farm or handling operation falls under the $5000 level of gross income stated in OFPA, they do not need to apply for certification. With this statement, Ripplebrook Organic Growers would like to bring everyone's attention to fact that supporting iinstituting of such programs without forethought may lead us to many more problems than we think. We fully understand that inserting such a program as part of the language of the second Proposed Organic Rule in the Federal Register for public comment does offer some degree of public dialogue. But, we question whether this proposal originated or has been thoroughly discussed within the private sector organic farming and handling community, which is where the effect will be felt. Best regards, Eric Kindberg From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 14:01:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02744 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26707 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:47:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26658 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lanfear.nidlink.com (root@lanfear.nidlink.com [216.18.128.7]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24969 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 13:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from enaila.nidlink.com (root@enaila.nidlink.com [216.18.128.8]) by lanfear.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA18277; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from benbrook (pm9-1.nidlink.com [216.18.141.56]) by enaila.nidlink.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA05193; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910301745.KAA05193@enaila.nidlink.com> X-Sender: benbrook@mail.nidlink.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:58:18 -0700 To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu, , From: Charles Benbrook Subject: Pioneer Policy re GMOs and Non-GMOs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 46 Questions and concerns have arisen recently on AgOnline, Sanet and other Internet lists regarding seed company policy re making available to farmers corn hybrids with advanced genetics, adapted to various regions with and without GMO genes/characteristics. National corn grower associations have raised strong concerns. Individual farmers have complained that in the 1998-1999 seasons, the best adapted hybrids for their soil/climatic region have been offered just in GMO versions (for examples, see the meeting notes from the June 1999 EPA-USDA Bt-corn resistance management meeting, ). Three issues have surfaced in several venues -- 1. Seed available only in GMO versions 2. Inadequate supply of the non-GMO seed was available, and hence those purchasing seed later in the season had limited choice 3. Farmers and others have had difficulty discerning which hybrid is the otherwise similar non-GMO version of a GMO variety. On the third issue, Pioneer has apparently heard farmers and has recently adapted its web page resources to make it very clear what the base genetics is for any herbicide tolerant or Bt hybrid. For example on the Iowa corn hybrid page, go to -- http://www.pioneer.com/us_products/iowa/corn/default.htm The columns in the characteristics tables are straightforward; the fourth column reports "Base Genetics," which is defined as -- "Identifies the non-converted hybrid which is modified to include new technologies. Mange similarly to the base genetic hybrid." On the first and second issue, it is clear on the Pioneer Iowa corn hybrid page that some of the non-engineered base genetic hybrids are not offered in 1999-2000. For example, the first variety listed -- 38P06 is a Bt hybrid with base genetics 38P05, but 38P05 is not listed in the ratings, suggesting it is not offered for sale in Iowa. The Pioneer "Iowa Corn Characteristics Ratings" page lists 23 Bt hybrids. Of these 23, the non-GMO versions are listed, and hence presumably available in 7 cases; they are not listed and hence presumably not offered in 13 cases; and the "Base Genetics" is not identified in 3 cases. Dale, if I missed something, please correct the record. These observations lead to a couple of questions which I hope someone from Pioneer will address -- * In the 13 cases where the "Base Genetics" hybrid is not offered, do farmers have a choice of very similar genetics? If so, how would they know? * In the 3 cases where "Base Genetics" are not identified, what other modifications have been made in those varieties? What genetic changes have been incorporated in these varieties in addition to adding the Bt trait? Information on the supply, demand and sale of different hybrids by region is needed to definitively answer questions related to the first two issues noted above. Such information is highly guarded by seed companies. We will have to await for any official word from Pioneer and/or other seed companies re their policies. I do know from several years of interactions with Pioneer people that Pioneer's policy is to offer for sale the hybrids and genetics that farmers are demanding. If demand grows for non-GMO varieties, it is fair to say, based on the company's history, that Pioneer will expand its offerings of non-GMO seed. If this proves not the case, farmers will complain and move to other companies. Both reactions will be unambiguous. If there is an overall nationwide shortage of non-GMO varieties next year, we will also hear about this and there will be consequences and the seed companies will have to respond. The adequacy of that response will determine whether and to what extent government actions are seen as necessary to restore a greater degree of responsive in the market. In the case of DeKalb (see url below), the information re GMO and matching non-GMO genetics is also pretty obvious in most cases, since most GMO hybrid designations are simply tacked onto the non-GMO variety -- for example, DK471 -- the modifier "IMI" for imidazolinone herbicide tolerance is added right after the 471, so that the modified hybrid becomes DK471IMI. Plus, in most cases, the herbicide tolerant or Bt transgenic hybrids follow right after the non-GMO base genetics, so no major mysteries here. There are exceptions on the DeKalb page -- for example DK545BtY is a Bt variety obviously, but the closest match in a non-GMO version appears to be DK540. If enough people raise questions, perhaps DeKalb will match Pioneer's lead and add a column to its characteristics tables which report "Base Genetics." DeKalb characteristics table for Iowa/corn -- http://216.17.44.19/seed2k/ProductCat.asp?cat=8&prod=5 Given the concerns re availability in GMO versus non-GMO seed for the year 2000 season, and the major uncertainty all seed companies face in predicting demand in today's highly volatile environment, it seems really important for USDA and the corn growers associations to develop cooperatively a survey of corn growers, to be undertaken in late spring, regarding their corn variety purchasing decisions. There will be all sorts of anecdotal information floating around, much of it subject to a degree of spin since almost no one these days has a completely dispassionate and disinterested perspective on these matters. Hence, the value of timely information from a properly designed statistical survey. If the survey documents significant mismatches between the genetics offered and farmer demand, it will hasten and help shape responses in both the public and private sectors and provide a baseline against which to monitor improvement in future years. chuck Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net 5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax) To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 17:54:55 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06511 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08016 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:37:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08010 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from earthlink.net (dialup-209.244.71.184.SanDiego1.Level3.net [209.244.71.184]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04748; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <381A7BC7.C61D4B0A@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:01:59 -0700 From: Bargyla Rateaver X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "E. Ann Clark" CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use (long) References: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> <3819C685.337C4AFE@uoguelph.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 47 How about, instead of all the fuss with this/that method, people use the Scriptural sabbatical year, when the land is let alone for a whole 7th year period. After all the Creator who set up the entire landscape is the one who said to make use of the 7th year total rest for the land. Yes, I know someone here just said it couldnot be done, economically, but who knows more than God does? E. Ann Clark wrote: > Folks: > > mike (son of richard) richardson wrote regarding no-till: > > > However, it certainly can have tremendous environmental > > benefits, compared to conventional farming (deep plowing, disking, > > cultivating, etc.) Yes, generally more chemical amounts are used. > > However, since the killed vegetation reduces soil erosion to near zero > > (major benefit), absorbs chemicals, slows surface water movement, > > reduces fertilizer loss, enhances water movement into the soil profile, > > etc. then there is less chemical running off into surface waters. As > > for chemical leaching into the ground water, that can be a problem with > > some chemicals used in no-till and conventional tillage (atrizine types > > for instance). However, many chemicals do break down while in the soil, > > so as they are moving through the soil they tend to degrade. No-till > > also enhances soil tilth, reduces fossile fuel use (thereby reducing air > > pollution and global warming), lowers labor and equipment costs to the > > farmer, and has been proven to maintain or even increase yields. > > Pasture - which is an "alternate" form of the livestock nutrition (grains) > produced with no-till - does all of the above, and better - without need for > chemicals in the first place. Let's not frame the discussion so narrowly as > to create a strawman-type argument. If we really stand back and analyze land > use practices objectively (whatever that is), starting with - what do we grow > these crops for in the first place - this opens up a much wider array of > options than just no-till or till. > > Might also add that even well managed no-till inherently and inescapably > creates a whole suite of problems (which well managed pasture doesn't), > including weed shifts to favor hard-to-control perennials like dandelion and > quack. The obligatory dependence on herbicides (to the exclusion of all other > approaches) also accelerates herbicide resistance (note Benbrook's > authoritative commentary earlier on the increase in mean glyphosate use in the > US in just the last few years, owing largely to no-till and RR crops (probably > in that order too). > > In Ontario, long-time no-till farmers (experienced and commited people; > leaders in the field) have begun to plow up their land, following several dry > years in a row. For reasons that I still do not understand (given all the > presumed increase in soil OM and water conservation under no-till (which is > disputed, see below)), no-till land apparently has performed worse than tilled > land under dry conditions. I'd have thought the reverse. It may have > something to do with the accumulation of macropore space opening directly to > the surface, conveying water too readily down to tiles before it can be > absorbed. These same uninterrupted macropores, by the way, also convey liquid > manure, herbicides, and anything else that has been surface applied directly > down to tiles and out into surface water systems - completely bypassing buffer > strips and other vehicles recommended to protect the integrity of > watercourses. > > Colleagues in Land Resource Science tell me that no-till slows down the rate > of loss of OM under annual arable cropping, but does NOT increase full-profile > soil OM. Distribution is affected, with more concentrating in the surface > layers, but less in the lower layers, with a net effect that total OM does NOT > increase. The only way to materially increase soil OM is to withhold the land > from cultivation under a perennial sod - like a pasture or hay field. > > And then there is the issue of N-use efficiency. I recall a paper co-authored > by Rennie (former dean of ag at Sask and major proponent of conservation > tillage) showing the potential for anaerobic microsites and anaerobiosis under > surface vegetation on no-tilled land in the spring promoted denitrification > and N-loss on wheat land. The amounts were fairly hefty if memory serves - > say, 20-50 kg N/ha. > > Surface residues also keep soil colder longer, which effectively shortens the > growing season in a short season climate, such as we have in Canada. Surface > residues, particularly in combination with cold, can also retard plant > establishment and seedling vigor, promoting susceptibility to a range of soil > damping-off and other pathogens. > > Only certain crops *can* be grown no-till, which reduces rotation complexity > and hampers the ability to constructively design rotations to deal with weed, > pest, and nutrient management issues. > > Another unintended effect of no-till is leaving allelochemically active > residues on the soil surface, where they can impact weed and subsequent crop > growth. As it happens, one of the major no-till crops in Canada is no-till > wheat. Research by Purvis et al., in Australia, has shown that the > allelochemics released by decomposing wheat straw stimulate wild oat > germination and growth. Thus, failure to incorporate the residues created a > mega-problem with wild oats. And wild oats are a major problem in the > prairies, which have adopted no-till wheat with a vengence. > > So, from a different (pro-pasture, admittedly) vantage point, no-till is a > proprietary band-aid to patch up a arable crop technology (annual tillage to > produce annual grain crops) that is fundamentally at odds with the ecological > integrity of farm land. The problem(s) with tillage is soil erosion and > degradation, with consequent effects on related processes, as water use > efficiency. So, no-till addresses those issues, but in so doing, creates a > suite of other issues. Pasture - which is what ruminants are actually evolved > to eat in the first place - avoids most of these issues entirely (granted, you > have to manage it to avoid overgrazing, erosion, etc.). Admittedly, pasture > also creates some potential problems, relating to soil compaction (and water > infiltration etc.) and N leaching/volatilization - although these are at least > partly managable through such practices as restricting labile N (less chemical > N; lower % legume). > > Management intensive grazing is a largely non-proprietary technology which can > be mastered by men, women, and children, can be a useful (if not sole) source > of nutrition year-around (even in Canada), and can retain a much larger share > of farm gate receipts in the hands of farmers than no-till, conventional till, > or any kind of annual arable cropping. > > Perhaps that is one of the reasons why commodity-specific subsidy/entitlement > programs always favor annual crops and completely omit pasture (and often hay) > crops. Ann > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 20:08:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07501 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05407 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:44:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from acme.sb.west.net (acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05340 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.254.241.195] (term6-3.vta.west.net [205.254.241.195]) by acme.sb.west.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0554E24A34; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: , From: colibri@west.net (Beth von Gunten) Subject: Swiss farmers seek compensation for GE contamination of maize seed Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 48 [In response to Sal's query from a couple days ago:] Swiss soiled seed prompts tolerance question by Ingeborg Furst Nature Biotechnology, Volume 17 / July 1999 Page 629 On July 1, the Swiss government's tolerance standard for genetic purity of food comes into effect. Switzerland is the first country in Europe to set a limit for genetic contamination, but current controversy over genetically contaminated corn seeds highlights the urgent EU-wide need for such a standard for crops. In May, it was discovered by the Swiss Department of Agriculture (Budesamt fur Landwirtschaft; Bern) and the district president of Baden-Wurtlemberg (Tubingen, Germany) that Pioneer Hi-Bred's (Des Moines, IA) nongenetically modified corn seed varieties, Ulla and Benicia, actually contained novel genes from a variety of corn genetically modified to be resistant to the corn borer, Bacillus thuringiensis. Contamination of the seeds, which were harvested in the United States, was "probably caused by stray pollen during the growing season," says Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany, which represents the grain manufacturer in Switzerland. It is likely that incorporation of pollen from GM varieties into Ulla and Benicia occurred this way because "Pioneer does not offer a commercial GM variety of Ulla or Benicia." Before the contamination was discovered, Pioneer had sold enough Ulla and Benicia seeds to sow 400 hectares (roughly 0.5% of total corn cultivation in Switzerland), about 200 hectares of which had already been planted. Estimates of the amount of genetic contamination of non-GM DNA by GM DNA vary between 0.1 and 0.5%-- respectively below the limit set in both countries for contamination resulting from physical mixing of varieties. Under German and Swiss seed market laws, this "technical" contamination with seed from weed and other varieties can be as high as 3% and 5%, respectively. But because there are no tolerance standards set for genetic purity, the contaminated Pioneer seeds are not approved for release into the environment, and planting therefore infringes the Swiss environment conservation law (Umweltschutzgesetz), as well as violating the German gene technology law (Gentechnikgesetz). As a result, the Swiss Department of Agriculture (Bundesamt fur Landwirtschaft, Bern) has prohibited the import and trade of contaminated Ulla and Benicia and has ordered the destruction of any already sown. However, Pioneer and the entire grain industry are not able to guarantee the genetic purity of their conventional non-GM varieties, says Schmidt. "Genetic inserts are in the nature of things," agrees Rainer Linneweber, spokesperson for Novartis Seed (Bad Salzuflen, Germany). "Despite our high-level quality management and our ISO certification, even a 100% [technical] purity for conventional seed is utopian," he adds. But although the Swiss government has now set a 1% tolerance standard for genetic contamination of food, such a standard for crops remains absent. In the meantime, both Switzerland and Germany have analyzed the contaminated seed: The Swiss Department of Agriculture could detect by PCR the presence but not the amount of DNA sequences from GM corn varieties. But analysis ordered by the Baden-Wurttemberg district has called two specific GM varieties into question &endash; one from Pioneer and one from another unnamed grain manufacturer, according to Grit Puchan, spokesperson for the Baden-Wurttemberg district. "We still need to clarify whether or not these GM-corn seed varieties have been granted marketing approval in the EU and subsequently in Germany," says Puchan. If they have, the release of their contaminants would already be approved under the existing EU 90/220 directive. In this case, Pioneer must simply label the seeds accordingly to satisfy German authorities, says Edgar Muschketat, spokesperson for the Berlin-based Robert-Koch-Institut, which approves the release of GMOs into the environment. But this question is irrelevant, according to Hans-Georg Dederer, jurist at the Institute for Public Law at the University of Bonn, who says a loophole in the law means that genetically contaminated seeds need no special approval under 90/220. "A crop genetically modified by stray pollen is not a product within the meaning of 90/220, because 'product' implies a willful preparation," he says. Meanwhile, a "witch hunt-like atmosphere" reigns in Switzerland, says Klaus Ammann, director of the Botanic Garden at the University of Bern and member of the Commission for Biosafety (Kommission fur biologische Sicherheit). But although some corn fields have been destroyed by fire or herbicides, many farmers (mainly in western Switzerland) refuse to destroy the corn until Pioneer and the Swiss government agree to compensate them. In addition, the Swiss farmers' association (Schweizerischer Bauernverband) is deciding whether to file a class action lawsuit against Pioneer (via the Swiss seed importer), and Pioneer is considering halting sales via the Swiss seed importer to farmers in Switzerland. As Nature Biotechnology was going to press, the Swiss seed importer Eric Schweizer Samen AG agreed to pay farmers 700 Swiss Francs per hectare. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 20:08:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA07500 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01280 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:41:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01200 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:41:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acme.sb.west.net (acme.sb.west.net [205.254.224.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA29373 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 19:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.254.241.195] (term6-3.vta.west.net [205.254.241.195]) by acme.sb.west.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 47F3224B34 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu From: colibri@west.net (Beth von Gunten) Subject: BSE fears prompt USDA order to destroy Vermont flock Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 16:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu id TAA01205 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 49 Sunday, October 24, 1999 Rutland (Vermont) Herald and Sunday Times Argus WARREN Linda Faillace keeps her emotions under control until she gets to the point in her story when she told her children their animals face a death sentence. The tears start to flow, and she is forced to break off her account of how her small sheep farm became the focus of the government's concern over food safety. Six years of work, numerous trips to Europe, intensive research on animal health and genetics have come to this: Federal officials want the Faillaces' flock of imported sheep destroyed because of a possibility they may have been exposed to an untreatable, always fatal brain disease that could spread to humans. The Faillaces' saga extends to the science of emerging diseases and the politics of international trade. But it's also a story of one family's attempt to start a new agricultural enterprise in a state where traditional dairy farming is threatened. The East Friesian sheep the family brought in from Belgium and the Netherlands make prodigious amounts of milk, which is then used to produce a variety of specialty cheeses. While an average U.S. sheep used for milking may give 100 pounds of milk a year, these tall, long-eared ewes can produce 1,000 pounds annually. Although the cheese is selling well, the real money was supposed to come from the sale of breeding stock. Because the USDA halted imports soon after the Faillaces bought their sheep in 1996, the Warren operation and another farm in Greensboro have the only U.S. flocks of East Friesian sheep. The Greensboro farm belongs to Houghton Freeman, a philanthropist whose Freeman Foundation has donated millions of dollars for education and land conservation efforts in Vermont. Freeman and the Faillaces saw the East Friesian breed as having strong potential for Vermont agriculture. Freeman invested significant amounts of money in launching his sheep operation, which is run by a young couple. "In reality, there probably isn't a return for him," said his lawyer, Thomas Amidon. "The return is the (sheep) genetics would be something helpful to Vermont hillside farms." It's as if these were the only two farms in the early days of the dairy industry to own high-producing Holstein cows. Others looking to get in on the ground floor of the emerging dairy sheep business have offered up to $25,000 for a bred ewe, Faillace says. The business plan is now on hold, while state and federal officials decide their next move. The animals were imported under a plan approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They were certified free of scrapie a sheep brain disease that has been endemic in Europe and the United States for years and were quarantined in both Europe and this country. But last year, federal agriculture officials told the Faillaces they wanted to buy and then destroy the 300 animals held on their farm and on the Freeman farm in Greensboro. Government specialists said that the sheep came from an area of Europe where bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) had been found and that they could potentially harbor the deadly disease. The sheep are not sick, and the cheese is safe to eat. But at the USDA's request, the state Department of Agriculture quarantined both flocks in 1998. BSE is more commonly known as Mad Cow Disease, and is believed to have infected and killed in its human variant 46 people in the United Kingdom. The disease the word "spongiform" describes the holes it leaves in brains is insidious and always fatal. Its victims become disoriented and then slip into dementia and death. The U.K. outbreak led to a ban on British beef sales and the slaughter of millions of animals there. BSE has not been found in U.S. cattle, according to the USDA. However, U.S. officials are concerned because laboratory experiments in which infected cow brains were injected into other species have shown that the disease can be transmitted from cows to sheep. The disease may also have been spread by a common but little-known practice of feeding animal meal to herbivores. Until the practice was curbed, commercial feed mills bought meat and bone meal for use as a protein source in feed. Many researchers believe the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom began when cattle were fed meal made from infected animals. Some also believe that meal made from sheep infected with scrapie a disease related to BSE jumped the species barrier and may have caused Mad Cow Disease in the United Kingdom. Belgium and the Netherlands both had cases of BSE, and the USDA says the Vermont sheep may have been exposed through feed. But the Faillaces argue there is no chance their sheep, or their forebears in Europe, were fed processed animal meal. They say their flock doesn't have scrapie. They have documentation that feed mills in the area where the sheep originated did not use animal products. No sheep has contracted BSE, outside the laboratory, they note. And tests on their sheep for a telltale protein that indicates the presence of BSE have all turned up negative. Larry Faillace, who holds a doctorate in animal health and worked in the early 1990s for a leading British researcher who advised the government on BSE, is confident the science is on their side. "The chances of any sheep in the world (getting BSE) are remote. The chances of these particular sheep getting it well, you'd have a better chance of a meteor landing on your front step tomorrow," he says. Freeman is also incredulous that the USDA wants the animals killed, after first helping to bring the animals into the country. "My client has said show us the evidence. There isn't any," says Amidon, the philanthropist's lawyer. But USDA officials have insisted for over a year that the most prudent course is for both flocks to be slaughtered. Nothing less than the national interest is at stake, according to Alfonso Torres, deputy USDA administrator. "The high stakes involved mandate very conservative measures if there is a possibility of the sheep being infected with the BSE agent. We are conscious that these actions require difficult choices on your part," Torres told the Faillaces in a letter this spring. "However this is a case in which the welfare of our nation must be placed above any other consideration." For a long time Linda and her husband had not discussed the issue with their three children, all of whom work on the farm. (Fifteen-year-old Francis does the pasture management; Heather, 13, does the daily milking; and Jackie, 12, is the cheesemaker along with her father.) But after a meeting with the USDA last October, the parents broke the news that the animals might have to be killed. "We sat down with our children and explained to them what was going on," Linda says, pausing to control her tears. "At that point, what we found out is that our children are as obstinate as we are. They said, 'No way, there's nothing wrong with our sheep.'" The Faillaces mustered scientific evidence. They flew over top veterinarians from Europe to meet with the USDA and an official from the National Institutes of Health. Their experts insisted the sheep were disease-free and safe. But USDA officials did not back down. Now the Vermont Department of Health, which only recently learned of the problem from state agriculture officials, has weighed in. After a meeting last week with Health Commissioner Jan Carney, the Faillaces believe Carney also wants the animals destroyed. Carney who is expected to rule on the issue this week did not return several calls for comment. "We're not real positive about what she's going to say," Linda says. "When she heard we were making cheese, she was shocked. … She (Carney) said if there's any risk, she has to protect the public." Indeed, if Larry and Linda Faillace have a ready rebuttal for every concern raised by the USDA, government officials also have a compelling comeback. Dr. Linda Detwiler, a leading BSE specialist and a veterinarian with the USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, says the public would be justifiably outraged if BSE did spread to the United States and the government had not done everything possible to stop it. Detwiler also notes there is some sign although the Faillaces dispute the significance that the brains of sheep culled from both farms have "vacules," small holes that could possibly indicate a spongiform disease. "The overriding issue is human health," Detwiler says. "If you protect animals, then you protect humans. If we ignore (the disease potential) and something happened, somebody could come back and say, 'Did you know they could have been exposed?' We'd have to say yes. And if they ask, 'Was there any indication in the brains of the animals (that they carried the disease)?' We'd have to say, 'Possibly, yes.' ... We don't know all the answers, but I think we know enough to be conservative." Detwiler acknowledges that there is nothing "overtly" wrong with the Vermont sheep. She says the issue "is exposure, or potential exposure." Neither the Faillaces nor the farmers who sold them the animals can be absolutely sure that the feed in Europe did not contain meat or bone meal, according to Detwiler. Belgium's government has told the USDA that feed mills cannot be ruled out as a source of the disease in Belgian cattle. And feed mills often changed their mixes depending on price and availability, she says. "A lot of time, the rations were developed by least cost calculations, so on any given day, there might be a substitute (such as meat or bone meal) for a protein source," she says. Dr. Gerald Wells, one of the leading British experts on BSE, agrees with the USDA's stance, after examining the slides of brain tissue taken from the two flocks, Detwiler says. "He said he couldn't say what it was. But he couldn't rule out (some form of transmissible encephalopathy). Given the background of the sheep, he would support the action taken by the state and USDA." Larry Faillace says the animals in Vermont were born after a ban on animal meal went into effect in Europe. And he and his wife say that the vacules detected by lab tests in the brains of the culled sheep are not evidence the animals have scrapie or BSE. Vacules in brain tissue can be caused by other illness or the way the slides for the microscope are prepared, they say. The alcohol used on the sample can dissolve lipids (fat molecules) in the tissue, giving the appearance that the tissue has small holes. They also say that researchers did not detect several other signs of transmissible brain disease, including the key protein associated with BSE. Dr. Bernard Carton, a Belgian veterinarian who works with the Faillaces, also says the lab work does not show their sheep have a brain disease. "I have followed all the details of this case. I do not understand why your government is acting like it is," he says. "To me, it has nothing to do with science, it just has to do with politics." The United States which has already faced a European ban on its beef over hormones in the meat wants desperately to keep its BSE-free status, Carton notes. But if the U.S. government destroys the Vermont sheep, it could have an impact on international trade, since dairy products from the same sheep breed are imported from Europe. If the sheep are deemed unsafe, what would happen to those cheese imports if the public believed the animals were at risk to get BSE, he asks. "I wonder what will happen with my (Agriculture) ministry if they kill these animals," Carton says. "Up until now, it's been very quiet, but what happens with cheese from Europe? This could be the beginning of a big war." While the USDA has moved aggressively to control BSE in sheep, government officials have allowed several Vermont farmers to import elk from western states where there is a similar brain disease infecting wild herds. The Faillaces feel there is a double standard at work. Elk are not tested, nor does the USDA or the state ban their import from infected states. "I can understand wanting to take a conservative approach. But if (they) were doing their utmost, testing elk, testing (other) sheep, then I could understand this. But to select us, to say these sheep are under more suspicion than any in the world, seems ridiculous," says Linda. Detwiler refers questions on the elk issue to the state Agriculture Department. Agriculture Commissioner Leon Graves says he is aware that elk in other parts of the country have the brain disease, but that no action has been taken in Vermont. "It's on the radar screen. We haven't done anything about that yet," he says. Graves says he supports the USDA's position. "We've never had BSE in this country and we can't afford to take the risk." The Faillaces believe some of the pressure to destroy their sheep comes from the beef industry, which does not want the United States to lose its BSE-free status. Detwiler, the USDA vet, says the issue goes beyond the beef industry. Many pharmaceutical products are made from cattle and other animal products. That industry could be jeopardized as well from a BSE outbreak. "It's the whole country, definitely not just the beef industry solely, that is interested in that (BSE-free) status," she says. "The overriding issue is human health." By eliminating the Vermont flocks, the USDA "can pre-empt having to undertake any kind of big national (eradication) effort," Detwiler says. The USDA has offered to pay market price for the Faillaces' animals. The couple has heard from state officials that the government could offer around $5,000 for ewes. But that figure would not begin to cover the lost business or the potential sales of breed stock. The Faillaces say they'd sell for $11.3 million. But they don't want to get rid of their animals. "We'd like the science to come out and the truth to come out. ... There's nothing wrong with our sheep," Larry says. "Let's figure out a way of solving this without killing them all." To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 21:22:17 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08086 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25824 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:02:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f70.hotmail.com [216.32.181.70]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA25787 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:02:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 75266 invoked by uid 0); 31 Oct 1999 01:00:25 -0000 Message-ID: <19991031010025.75265.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 128.84.227.215 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:00:24 PDT X-Originating-IP: [128.84.227.215] From: "Lester Loam" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Safety of chlorpyrifos Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:00:24 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 50 Did someone mention that chlorpyrifos (Dursban) was relatively safe? That's not what EPA is saying. lester DOW CHEMICAL PRODUCT MAY HURT HUMAN HEALTH - EPA Oct. 28/99 Reuters By Julie Vorman WASHINGTON - U.S. environmental officials were cited as saying one of the U.S. 's most popular pesticides may be unsafe for Americans who use it in their gardens, fields and homes. Blurred vision, muscle weakness, headaches and problems with memory, depression and irritability have been linked to large amounts of exposure to Dow Chemical's Dursban, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in a preliminary scientific assessment posted on its web site late Wednesday. The EPA analysis found exposure to Dursban on the skin, in food, or by inhaling it could be harmful to human health. The EPA was quoted as saying it had a "particular concern" with Dursban poisoning cases reported to federal officials. About one-fourth of 325 illnesses reported from 1993 through 1996 were serious enough to require hospitalization. "Data from the two human studies suggest that humans are as sensitive and possibly even more sensitive than animals," the EPA said in the detailed report. One of the studies was conducted with inmate volunteers at a prison. Dursban is used to kill insects that attack everything from home-grown tomatoes to corn fields. It is also a powerful weapon against termites and cockroaches, and is frequently used in homes, schools, hospitals, and in pet collars. More than 20 million pounds of Dursban are used annually in the United States, according to the EPA. The report laid out potential health risks, but did not indicate whether the agency planned to tighten use of Dursban, require new labels alerting consumers to the risk, or phase it out. The agency will not make any final decision until summer. "This preliminary risk assessment indicates that risks from the use of chlorpyrifos in residential settings, as well as its risks to applicators, are of concern," the EPA was quoted as saying in a brief statement released to the press. Dow Chemical, in a letter to the EPA that was included in the report, said EPA's analysis was misleading and based on "fundamental errors" of science. "Three decades of use have shown that unless seriously misused, chlorpyrifos products have wide margins of safety that protect users and consumers, including infants and children," the letter also read. Dursban is one of Dow's biggest pesticide products. EPA's scientific analysis of Dursban is part of a mammoth project to check for harmful residue in food, drinking water and households from some 9,000 U.S. pesticides. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sat Oct 30 21:54:45 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08281 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11003 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:32:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA10967 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sals (mp115.nc.rain.org [198.68.145.115]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E82EB61759; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e801bf233f$66a71140$739144c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: , "Beth von Gunten" References: Subject: Re: Swiss farmers seek compensation for GE contamination of maize seed Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 18:29:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 51 probably caused by stray pollen during the growing season," says > Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany, can Pioneer really have it both ways saying not to worry about stray pollen and yet use that stray pollen excuse for the reason they sold contaminated seed? so does this mean any seed from Pioneer may be GE contaminated and those that don't want GE corn can not buy Pioneer because even they with all their talk about no cross pollnation are so full of it, that they can not keep their own seed non GE. It is too bad that a big company like Pioneer sells GE contaminated maize seed to folks that say please don't sell us any GE contamination maize. how long before the whole earth is contaminated? is the barn door open who opened it? ----- Original Message ----- From: Beth von Gunten To: ; Sent: Saturday, October 30, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Swiss farmers seek compensation for GE contamination of maize seed > [In response to Sal's query from a couple days ago:] > > Swiss soiled seed prompts tolerance question > by Ingeborg Furst > Nature Biotechnology, Volume 17 / July 1999 Page 629 > > On July 1, the Swiss government's tolerance standard for genetic purity > of food comes into effect. Switzerland is the first country in Europe to > set a limit for genetic contamination, but current controversy over > genetically contaminated corn seeds highlights the urgent EU-wide need > for such a standard for crops. > > In May, it was discovered by the Swiss Department of Agriculture > (Budesamt fur Landwirtschaft; Bern) and the district president of > Baden-Wurtlemberg (Tubingen, Germany) that Pioneer Hi-Bred's (Des > Moines, IA) nongenetically modified corn seed varieties, Ulla and > Benicia, actually contained novel genes from a variety of corn > genetically modified to be resistant to the corn borer, Bacillus > thuringiensis. > > Contamination of the seeds, which were harvested in the United States, > was "probably caused by stray pollen during the growing season," says > Ulrich Schmidt, managing director of Pioneer in Buxtehude, Germany, > which represents the grain manufacturer in Switzerland. It is likely > that incorporation of pollen from GM varieties into Ulla and Benicia > occurred this way because "Pioneer does not offer a commercial GM > variety of Ulla or Benicia." > > Before the contamination was discovered, Pioneer had sold enough Ulla > and Benicia seeds to sow 400 hectares (roughly 0.5% of total corn > cultivation in Switzerland), about 200 hectares of which had already > been planted. > > Estimates of the amount of genetic contamination of non-GM DNA by GM DNA > vary between 0.1 and 0.5%-- respectively below the limit set in both > countries for contamination resulting from physical mixing of varieties. > Under German and Swiss seed market laws, this "technical" contamination > with seed from weed and other varieties can be as high as 3% and 5%, > respectively. > > But because there are no tolerance standards set for genetic purity, the > contaminated Pioneer seeds are not approved for release into the > environment, and planting therefore infringes the Swiss environment > conservation law (Umweltschutzgesetz), as well as violating the German > gene technology law (Gentechnikgesetz). As a result, the Swiss > Department of Agriculture (Bundesamt fur Landwirtschaft, Bern) has > prohibited the import and trade of contaminated Ulla and Benicia and has > ordered the destruction of any already sown. > > However, Pioneer and the entire grain industry are not able to guarantee > the genetic purity of their conventional non-GM varieties, says Schmidt. > "Genetic inserts are in the nature of things," agrees Rainer Linneweber, > spokesperson for Novartis Seed (Bad Salzuflen, Germany). "Despite our > high-level quality management and our ISO certification, even a 100% > [technical] purity for conventional seed is utopian," he adds. But > although the Swiss government has now set a 1% tolerance standard for > genetic contamination of food, such a standard for crops remains absent. > > In the meantime, both Switzerland and Germany have analyzed the > contaminated seed: The Swiss Department of Agriculture could detect by > PCR the presence but not the amount of DNA sequences from GM corn > varieties. But analysis ordered by the Baden-Wurttemberg district has > called two specific GM varieties into question &endash; one from Pioneer > and one from another unnamed grain manufacturer, according to Grit > Puchan, spokesperson for the Baden-Wurttemberg district. > > "We still need to clarify whether or not these GM-corn seed varieties > have been granted marketing approval in the EU and subsequently in > Germany," says Puchan. If they have, the release of their contaminants > would already be approved under the existing EU 90/220 directive. In > this case, Pioneer must simply label the seeds accordingly to satisfy > German authorities, says Edgar Muschketat, spokesperson for the > Berlin-based Robert-Koch-Institut, which approves the release of GMOs > into the environment. > > But this question is irrelevant, according to Hans-Georg Dederer, jurist > at the Institute for Public Law at the University of Bonn, who says a > loophole in the law means that genetically contaminated seeds need no > special approval under 90/220. "A crop genetically modified by stray > pollen is not a product within the meaning of 90/220, because 'product' > implies a willful preparation," he says. > > Meanwhile, a "witch hunt-like atmosphere" reigns in Switzerland, says > Klaus Ammann, director of the Botanic Garden at the University of Bern > and member of the Commission for Biosafety (Kommission fur biologische > Sicherheit). But although some corn fields have been destroyed by fire > or herbicides, many farmers (mainly in western Switzerland) refuse to > destroy the corn until Pioneer and the Swiss government agree to > compensate them. In addition, the Swiss farmers' association > (Schweizerischer Bauernverband) is deciding whether to file a class > action lawsuit against Pioneer (via the Swiss seed importer), and > Pioneer is considering halting sales via the Swiss seed importer to > farmers in Switzerland. > > As Nature Biotechnology was going to press, the Swiss seed importer Eric > Schweizer Samen AG agreed to pay farmers 700 Swiss Francs per hectare. > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 09:17:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12018 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29948 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:50:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from envsci.rutgers.edu (envsci.rutgers.edu [165.230.5.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29935 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from bermuda-asy-17.rutgers.edu (bermuda-asy-17.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.145]) by envsci.rutgers.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA02657; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:44:33 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: envsci.rutgers.edu: bermuda-asy-17.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.145] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <381C71A4.5DC1@envsci.rutgers.edu> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:43:16 -0800 From: Loren Muldowney Reply-To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Organization: Individual X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet , Organic Gardening List Subject: Mulch: Forwarding thanks from Peace Corps-Africa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 52 Greetings from the gambia. My name is Zachary Maichuk, the PCV Loren has been so generous to help out. I just wanted to thank you personally for all of the information you have sent me. Hopefully, I can pass it on effectively. sincerely, Zachary Maichuk To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 13:33:59 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14157 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26175 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:03:45 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26171 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:03:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.82] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:01:03 -0600 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:59:52 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <0541.991031@acnet.net> To: mmiller@pcsia.com CC: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: Hybrid to OP Corn? In-reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991030115815.007d2770@pcsia.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19991030115815.007d2770@pcsia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 53 (somewhat long) Saturday, October 30, 1999, 10:58:15 AM, you wrote: > At 22:28 29-10-99 -0600, you wrote: >>MM> so why not develop our own open pollinated >>MM> types that works best in our own area? >> >>There you go. You also want to develop a communications network, >>data bank and seed exchange program among them. You want to follow >>all the results with data collection and make that readily >>available. The protocols shouldn't be that hard to come up with. >>I'll even bet there are existing governmental (or non-governmental) >>support programs that would fund this. MM> Douglas, there is an organization here in Iowa called the Seed MM> Saver's Exchange located in Decorah. I will have to join this MM> group and see what I can learn. Perfect. MM> I just read the relevant sections in the Seed Saver's of Texas MM> booklet called the Vegetable Seed Saver's Handbook. Here is a MM> quote "Just as tradtitional Mexican farmers have learned to MM> naturally hybridize their corn plants with teosinte to increase MM> vigor, home gardeners can hybridize their own favorite plants to MM> increase the vigor and diversity of their seed stock. By allowing MM> varieties to 'hybridize' or cross-pollinate, new populations with MM> more diverse gene pools can be produced." It goes on to say the MM> you can then regrow and select for desirable traits and even MM> stress the plants to select for say drought resistance. That all sounds good, except that I don't know how many traditional Mexican farmers are around any more. Some of the folks that farm in the rural areas probably still save seed from the varieties that they have improved and that have always worked from them, and most plant more than one variety, in order to hedge their bets in relation to the weather and have sweet corn over a longer period of time (there's not much corn planted specifically / exclusively to sweet corn in the hills) but the big growers that live in the cities and grow larger mechanized fields on the plains probably buy their seed from Pioneer and DeKalb etc. >>MM> What if every farmer devoted, say 2 acres to his own research? >>You MM> would not lose the odd 20-70 dollars an acre from growing a >>MM> regular crop and with a little of your own work, you would have >>MM> the potential to save money in the long run. That's for sure. But I say that there should be an attempt to institute a coordinated effort among farmers. It would be faster and more efficient to spread the research load out among many growers, and tabulate the results. The collaboration and the involvement in the identification and / or development of good, locally adapted varieties would foment both the kind of collective culture and self reliance that the world and everyone in it needs. >>A lot of money, and get better results. And when you make your own >>mistakes (assuming you will, to some degree) you have a better >>chance of learning from that and correcting them. MM> When you think about it, it appears to be a daunting task but that MM> really is because at least in this country we have come to think MM> everything should be right now and not require hard work. I need MM> to adopt the poverb from somewhere that I heard, the longest MM> journey starts with a single step and not worry about the long MM> term. You don't have to wait to start, and every day's effort adds a little more toward getting closer to the end. I think the major difference is that virtually everything done in the US is done through someone else (i.e. a corporation or "professional" that makes a living at it, tries to corner the market and creates a framework that in and of itself contains and furthers many assumptions that serve to create a dependency), rather than in a self reliant way, supported by a culture that supports and provides the basis for that. There are many exceptions, of course. The tools are there and more accessible than in many (if not most) other places (i.e. the libraries, cheap and plentiful internet access, good highways - which are some of the things I like best about the US. Focus groups like sanet also provide an important means of gaining competence in a given field. But these are just means - people have to decide to use them and actually do it). Land is expensive though, in many parts of the U.S.; although credit is more easily available and cheaper than in many countries. >> What does the the Farm Bureau do? (Is that the name of the >>largest farmers organization in the US)? Can existing organizations >>take this up or does it take something new? MM> Not the Farm Bureau. Here is a intro/ending from an article in The MM> Progressive Populist, a populist newpaper published in Iowa. The MM> author of this is from the Nebraska Farmer's Union. MM> "The Farm Bureau, at both state and national levels, vigorously MM> promoted the farm and trade policies ... which are devastating the MM> family farm system of agriculture today. ... (some talk about MM> replacing crop price supports with subidized crop insurance - of MM> which the Farm Bureau controls about 1/3 of market) ... Whay does MM> the Farm Bureau favor policies which work against the interest of MM> farmers? Follow the crop insurance money trail, and the answer MM> emerges ..." I don't know. At the beginning of the decade, before Nafta had been approved, I was invited to an event in Guadalajara that had a number of speakers and the main speaker was an Adjunct Director of (I'm pretty sure) the Farm Bureau. He outlined what the position of the Farm Bureau was in relation to Nafta. Right away I could see what had to be done, and I verified this by talking briefly with this person after the event. (He was very cautious in his responses, as I was with my probing, but my evaluation of things stood up). It is absolutely indispensable to be well informed about the available production options available in a given area, the cost of each and the relevant market conditions. You also need to know the direction that the market is heading and above all, to what kind of person are directing your product. Ideally, it will be someone much like yourself, so that the process will be intuitive to a high degree, leaving just the need to establish contact and maintain constant feedback mechanisms working The bad part is that apparently not enough people have understood the nature of the opportunity nor the limited nature of the threat. Down here particularly, in many cases the traditional way of doing things simply won't cut it anymore. In each and every region, people need to be aware of the areas where they can and can't compete effectively, and how to do it. Costs are just part of the picture, although obviously an important part. MM> Greed and money as usual but "That's America" as Arlo Gutherie MM> says in one of his songs. The various Farmer's Unions might be MM> able to help but they are too small and farmer's are too MM> independent and vote mostly Repbulican, the very party that is MM> screwing them over. It's almost like an abusive personal MM> relationship but the pot is boiling now and for most non-corporate MM> farms, it is too late. The chicken and hogs serfs are being joined MM> by the cattle and grain serfs and so the take over will be MM> complete. It won't be complete until the only source of life is in the hands of these corporate conglomerates, which tend to leave a lot of room for other and better offers (not because the conglomerates want that, but because they are often incapable of even understanding just what it is that people really need. They try to create the impression that they're giving the public what it want's and some even seem to believe their own lies - Hi Dale - when what they are really doing is trying to convince people to buy a proprietary product that is neither needed nor recommendable. [Dale, I suggest forming a joint venture with others here and elsewhere to develop and really give the farmers that share these concerns, products that meet their needs, as they themselves understand them. Consultancy and facilitating the availability of appropriate inputs will probably play a greater role here than occurs with conventional seed companies, and help with marketing could also be offered. Anyone else interested]? The lie is so blatant that the only hope these corporations have requires stifling "truth in labeling" initiatives and bullying entire governments into turning against the will and best interests of their own constituents, through the the intervention of "free" or "world" trade organizations. (There is nothing inherently wrong with free or world trade or with having organizations that promote it. What's wrong is the way that some of these organizations are controlled and being used by vested and highly localized interests to further their own devious ends, that run in conflict with nature, biological evolution, a healthy biosphere, the public good etc. The rest of us have to organize too, but in a loose and independent way, rather than in the dominating, controlling, insidious, militaristic and ludicrously propagandistic way that the new chemical / agrochemical / seed conglomerates are trying to go about it. However, this time they have bitten off more than they can chew and the stage is set for better alternatives on a large scale. It will have to begin small of course, and already has. We're part of it). MM> Sorry to end on such a depressing note but until "democracy and MM> legislation are not bought with monopoly campaign dollars" we are MM> in for a rough ride. MM> Mike Miller It helps to know which battles have to waged. The thing to is go ahead with it all. Rough rides require rougher riders. And it's not that rough to do things right, particularly when you are eating well. That's a tremendous advantage, in and of itself. Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C. dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net (The m is for Miller, btw - my middle name, & my mother's maiden name). I am going to go ahead and post this, assuming that's fine with you. Maybe more will decide to get involved, or do it on their own. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 13:47:34 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14271 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10805 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:25:01 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10698 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:24:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01443 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id MAA19096; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:23:04 -0600 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma018951; Sun, 31 Oct 99 12:22:18 -0600 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:22:18 -0600 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC9@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: Sanet Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:22:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 54 Loren, Roberto, and Mark, Loren wrote: > Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is > disregarded as being in the category of things we call > "a problem." Roberto wrote: > I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination > quite incredible. Mark wrote: > Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of > both property rights and human rights. First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how sensitive modern quantitative analysis really is. At a sufficiently low level of contamination, this controversy devolves into theoretical hair-splitting. Second, society subjects all of us to all kinds of risks. Ordinary risks we accept without second thought are a lot bigger than pesticide risk (as far as I can tell). Third, we constantly ingest all manner of toxic substances that occur naturally. To a large extent, the function of kidneys and liver is to detoxify and/or eliminate these things. One of the reasons chlorpyrifos is relatively safe is that it is excreted rapidly. In the context of general chemical risk, it may not be that important. Lester forwarded: > Blurred vision, muscle weakness, headaches and problems with > memory, depression and irritability have been linked to large > amounts of exposure to Dow Chemical's Dursban... > The EPA analysis found exposure to Dursban on the skin, in food, > or by inhaling it could be harmful to human health... So...what else is new? Everybody knows this. > The report laid out potential health risks, but did not indicate > whether the agency planned to tighten use of Dursban, require new > labels alerting The press release is just spin, based on some routine EPA report. It may be that some uses like flea collars and in-home application should be banned. Is there a link to the EPA report, or some reliable source of technical information? Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 14:08:02 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14430 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24690 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24594 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:42:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw1.phibred.com (firewall-user@fw1.phibred.com [204.233.143.2]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01685 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by fw1.phibred.com; id MAA23528; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:40:14 -0600 Received: from orion.phibred.com(170.54.241.13) by fw1.phibred.com via smap (V4.2) id xma023450; Sun, 31 Oct 99 12:39:57 -0600 Received: by orion.phibred.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:39:56 -0600 Message-ID: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFCA@vela.phibred.com> From: "Wilson, Dale" To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu Cc: "'Charles Benbrook'" Subject: RE: Pioneer Policy re GMOs and Non-GMOs Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:39:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 55 Chuck, > On the first and second issue, it is clear on the Pioneer Iowa > corn hybrid page that some of the non-engineered base genetic > hybrids are not offered in 1999-2000. The industry was taken by surprise by the anti-GMO sentiment. I think that in some cases the expectation was that farmers would not want the non-GMO hybrid, if they could get the GMO version (which we tend to regard as better, in general). So sometimes companies didn't plan to offer the non-GMO variety, at least not in any quantity. We estimate demand 2 or 3 years in advance, to produce sufficent parent seed, so it will not be surprising if the industry is short on some popular non-GMO hybrids. > If there is an overall nationwide shortage of non-GMO varieties > next year, we will also hear about this and there will be consequences > and the seed companies will have to respond. There is probably a lot of non-gmo seed around. It might be hard to specifically get the non-gmo version of your favorite GMO hybrid in some cases though. > non-GMO genetics is also pretty obvious in most cases, since most GMO > hybrid designations are simply tacked onto the non-GMO variety -- for > example, DK471 -- the modifier "IMI" for imidazolinone herbicide > tolerance I don't think that (most ?) IMI corns are transgenic. I believe they were developed by ordinary crossing and selection. Dale To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 19:34:49 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18133 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06215 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from po3.wam.umd.edu (po3.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.165]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06037 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from rac2.wam.umd.edu (root@rac2.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.142]) by po3.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08396 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from rac2.wam.umd.edu (sendmail@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rac2.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08804 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (jgruv@localhost) by rac2.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08800 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rac2.wam.umd.edu: jgruv owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:49:56 -0500 (EST) From: Joel Brooks Gruver To: sanet Subject: Dick and Sharon Thompson's "problem child" In-Reply-To: <381A0DD8.F951988F@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 56 Hello to all... Last night, I was browsing an old issue of the Journal of Agronomic Education (~ 1991, so it may have been the newly named incarnation) and read a case study article titled "Dick and Sharon Thompson's problem child". The article was presented in the form of a case study that one would discuss with undergrad agronomy students or crop consultants in training. The case study presented that after ~20 years of organic integrated livestock and row crop production, the Thompsons decided that they had to start banding muriate of potash (KCl) to alleviate K deficiency. Tissue tests of their corn indicated a serious K deficiency but soil tests indicated K levels that were more than adequate. Since adopting organic management practices in 1969, the Thompsons had not applied any salt fertilizers but had ammended all fields with manure from their integrated cattle operation. For a number of years, they composted the manure prior to field application but eventually decided to abandon composting. Despite the fact that their soil test K levels had increased during their 20 years of organic management, something was causing their crops to become increasing K deficient. The article indicated that following the initiation of KCl banding, crops did show a yield response in most fields but continued to have low tissue levels of K. The article suggested that the Thompson's ridge tillage system may have been partly responsible for the unsual K dynamics. Sooo... ~ 7 years have gone by since this article was written... I am wondering whether the Thompsons have resolved or continued to struggle with their "K problem child" and/or what mechanisms were underlying the problem... Can anyone enlighten me ? Joel Gruver Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment Tufts University To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 19:35:14 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18144 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06888 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:46:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06714 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.iatp.org (iatp-2.InnovSoftD.com [208.141.36.66]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04780 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from markbert ([152.172.213.208]) by mail.iatp.org (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with SMTP id 268; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:18:39 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991031161327.00b7f720@mail.iatp.org> X-Sender: mritchie@mail.iatp.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:13:27 -0600 To: "Wilson, Dale" , Sanet From: "Mark Ritchie" Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos In-Reply-To: <8FEE1BDA0910D111BEB500805F1999C70219FFC9@vela.phibred.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 57 Hello, Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into my body that is not invited it is a violation of property rights and human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets. Those that have died will not see any benefit. Those that have been maimed may be compensated but not heal. Those conceived but not born may see some reduction over their lifetime and those not yet conceived will still be affected over several generations. It should be quite an interesting process of determining the damages. Sincerely, Mark Ritchie Some people will go to jail and=At 12:22 PM 10/31/99 -0600, Wilson, Dale wrote: >Loren, Roberto, and Mark, > >Loren wrote: >> Apparently, the clear evidence of chemical trespass itself is >> disregarded as being in the category of things we call >> "a problem." > >Roberto wrote: >> I find such cavalier attitude towards chemical contamination >> quite incredible. > >Mark wrote: >> Anything showing up in our bodies uninvited is a violation of >> both property rights and human rights. > >First, I don't think you folks have an appreciation of just how sensitive >modern quantitative analysis really is. At a sufficiently low level of >contamination, this controversy devolves into theoretical hair-splitting. > >Second, society subjects all of us to all kinds of risks. Ordinary risks we >accept without second thought are a lot bigger than pesticide risk (as far >as I can tell). > >Third, we constantly ingest all manner of toxic substances that occur >naturally. To a large extent, the function of kidneys and liver is to >detoxify and/or eliminate these things. One of the reasons chlorpyrifos is >relatively safe is that it is excreted rapidly. In the context of general >chemical risk, it may not be that important. > >Lester forwarded: >> Blurred vision, muscle weakness, headaches and problems with >> memory, depression and irritability have been linked to large >> amounts of exposure to Dow Chemical's Dursban... >> The EPA analysis found exposure to Dursban on the skin, in food, >> or by inhaling it could be harmful to human health... > >So...what else is new? Everybody knows this. > >> The report laid out potential health risks, but did not indicate >> whether the agency planned to tighten use of Dursban, require new >> labels alerting > >The press release is just spin, based on some routine EPA report. It may be >that some uses like flea collars and in-home application should be banned. >Is there a link to the EPA report, or some reliable source of technical >information? > >Dale > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > Mark Ritchie, President Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 2105 First Ave. South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA 612-870-3400 (phone) 612-870-4846 (fax) mritchie@iatp.org www.iatp.org To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Sun Oct 31 20:24:24 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18588 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15513 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:09:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from sscntex.ssc.msu.edu (ssc.msu.edu [35.8.70.66]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15495 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by SSCNTEX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:08:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Harris, Craig" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:08:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 58 it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of problems with certification . . . . first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda develop a national program of standards setting and certification . . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the legislation second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers . . . it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time mitigate the undue cost burden cheers, craig craig k harris department of sociology michigan state university 429b berkey hall east lansing michigan 48824-1111 tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856 > ---------- > From: Bluestem Associates[SMTP:bluestem@webserf.net] > Reply To: Bluestem Associates > Sent: Saturday 30 October 1999 10:34 AM > To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Proposed organic cost share program > > On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 08:53:36 EDT, Erorganic@aol.com wrote: > > >Before signing on to letters to the Agricultural Marketing Service of > USDA > >supporting an organic cost share program for certification, it appears to > me > >members of the organic community should supply some thoughtful analysis > of > >its implications and possible effects on certified organic farmers and > >handlers. > > >My concerns are gargantuan. > > Eric and I frequently disagree. Not this time. > > He who pays the piper, calls the tune. It would be entirely consistent > with past bureaucratic motives if the purpose of this was simply to > make certified farmers more dependent on bureaucrats, thereby > securinging the bureaucrats' jobs in this little developing empire at > the National Organic Program. > > >The Agricultural Marketing Service appears to > >have proposed the organic certification cost share program. > > The cynical side of me sees this as a means of gaining more control > over FVO and OCIA particularly, as these are both "high standards" > programs, neither of which (to my knowledge) has ever taken a nickel of > government money. We can't have such important programs so immune to > our control, now, can we ...? > > In a private message to Anita Graf answering her question to me about > how it is that Canada --- with its rather tight controls on election > expenditures, PACs and such --- can still have so much of the same > problems of favoritism, croneyism, special deals and so on, I said, > > ++Same shenanigans, same waste, same corruption as in the US. Most of > the > ++dirty work is done within the bureaucracy, as it is in the US. > > Bureaucrats are generally invisible, unavailable, and unaccountable. > They can do a lot of good, and many are unsung heroes. More often they > do an amazing amount of anonymous harm. > > >The money ultimately ends up going > >first to certified farmers [snip] and then is passed > >back to the Agricultural Marketing Service as fees for accreditation by > them. > > In fact the proposed organic cost share program is another way to use > tax > >money to support the Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic > Program. > > In a time of tight budgets, bureaucrats are as nervous as a long-tailed > cat in a room full of rocking chairs... the most effective way to > raise taxes is through all sorts of hidden fees, especially if they > come direct to your little domain. > > > >In the Midwest at least we have large numbers of farmers coming to > >certification agency meetings wanting to sell crops as "organically > produced" > >for the increased income earning potential. This is a trend that has > >increased markedly every year for 4 years now. Almost none of these > farmers > >have become really familiar with the principals, practices or system of > >organic farming. There main objective is increase farm income. Such a > >proposed organic cost share program will only increase the number of > farmer > >applicants with very little increase in applicant knowledge of organic > >farming. > > Very sadly, Eric, you understate the case. I see these guys all the > time as an inspector. Just one example, from your state of Iowa... > > Conventional farmer with many hundreds of acres in heavy duty corn > (anhydrous, etc). He had 130 acres (55 ha) that had been in the federal > Conservation Reserve Program (at a tidy annual rent) for ten years. The > whole thing was planted to food soybeans for 1999, which he wanted > certified. The entire 130 acres was going to go *back* into CRP in > 2000. In the course walking the field it became obvious to me that he > had used herbicide(s) --- probably Pinnacle and Pursuit --- on the > whole field. He didn't get certified, but I'll bet there are a lot more > out there like him, and some of them *do* get certified. > > The real weak link in the whole system right now is INSPECTION. Many > inspectors do not have practical production experience or knowledge. > Relatively few have any understanding of *conventional* production --- > its methods, its materials, and (above all) its *attitudes.* Increasing > the number of applicants by encouraging them with subsidies is > potentially disastrous for the little credibility remaining in the > industry. > > The organic industry has largely done this to itself, with its slavish > and anal-retentive preoccupation with *materials* rather than farm > systems. It simply doesn't take as much understanding of agriculture to > haggle over materials as it does to codify the irreducible minimum of a > healthy system management. > > Because it's easier for programs (and bureaucrats) to haggle over > materials, we have ironically undermined the entire inspection process. > Inspecting for materials use is *NOT* easy. In fact, it is probably the > most difficult aspect of the entire system to monitor. There are farms > I *know* got sprayed within hours of when I headed down the lane for my > next inspection. > > What really matters is how the whole system is put together and > managed. That is difficult to codify, but once codified is relatively > easy to inspect, even for inspectors of modest ability. There is > absolutely no way, for example, that I could determine whether or not > an applicant as used 25 kg/ha of Chilean nitrate, or 125 kg/ha, other > than to trust his answer. That standard, therefore, is un-inspectable, > un-verifiable, and thereby useless. > > What is *easy* to inspect is whether or not there is at least 25% > legume sod in the rotation, and whether or not the applicant has a > *written* management protocol for standard materials and procedures > used in that particular operation. Less than 2% of the farms I > inspected in 1999 had a written protocol for mineral fertility > management, even though it is clearly required in the standards. If you > think that doesn't matter, go back to the archives and review my > comments about soil minerals and crop quality from about 3 weeks ago. > > The key questions are: > > a) Is this system designed and managed so as maximise system health > and crop quality; > > b) Is it designed and managed to minimise the need for chemical > inputs; > > c) Is this management protocol documented and followed, and > > d) Is there a chain of custody guaranteeing that the harvest has not > been contaminated or co-mingled. > > > Having de-emphasised these most important managerial elements (which > are the *easiest* to inspect), and having over-emphasised materials > (which are very difficult to inspect), the organic business has left > itself extremely vulnerable. Federal cost sharing and the resultant > influx of desperate conventional growers may well be all that is needed > to tip an already-unstable system into the abyss. > > >There is a question whether large numbers of new "cost share" applicants > for > >organic farming certification will not stimulate oversupply of organic > >product. Every since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act, staff > of > >the Agricultural Marketing Service have been trying to expand organic > markets > >for us, expand organic supply for us. That is not their mandate under > OFPA. > >Let the markets and supply expand without, absolutely without, Federal > >government intervention. All such intervention twist the internally, > >continually re-balancing organic supply and demand system in directions > that > >are simply un-natural, not "organic." > > This is an additional cause for concern, but if the inspectability > problem isn't resolved, it may not matter. There are inspectors (and > certification committee members) out here with enough concrete examples > to seriously damage the demand side of "organic" equation in the course > of a single interview on '60-minutes.' > > Bart > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Sun Oct 31 23:14:32 1999 -0500 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19787 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:14:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24804 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:51:07 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA24709 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:51:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id LAA31422; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:45:36 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id MAA03312; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:28:26 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199911010428.MAA03312@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 30 Oct 99 13:22:57 Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself corn breeding To: WILSONDO@phibred.com Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 59 >Okay, Okay! lets deal with this head on. If I am smart and organized >enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong with my >protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I have a >right to earn a living? Yes, it is good to deal with this issue head on. What do you mean, steal them? You took the varieties from the public pool, didn't you? Once you release your breeding results, they're back to the public pool, and the public is entitled to use them. That's what all farmers have been doing. Earning a living has nothing to do with stealing from the public pool. Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 10:06:46 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25060 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:06:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01734 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:45:25 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.30]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01727 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:45:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from uoguelph.ca ([128.146.210.212]) by mail1.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08008 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:43:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381DB4E6.A7A9CF99@uoguelph.ca> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 09:42:31 -0600 From: "E. Ann Clark" Organization: University of Guelph X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: [Fwd: no-till] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks: FYI. Ann Maroc wrote: > Good article in April 1999 Canadian Cattlemen on Manitoba farmer who > switched from 2,700 ac of zero-till wheat and durum, to 560 ac of pasture, > grazing 1,100 stockers. > > Don Maroc > Vancouver Island, Canada --------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.cs.uoguelph.ca (inbound.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.96.75]) by pobox.cs.uoguelph.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16699 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by mailhub.cs.uoguelph.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21315 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 01:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [199.175.106.44] [199.175.106.50] by mail.islandnet.com with smtp id m11hRK1-0006f2C for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:45:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: maroc@mail.islandnet.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:48:27 +0000 To: eaclark@uoguelph.ca From: maroc@islandnet.com (Maroc) Subject: no-till Good article in April 1999 Canadian Cattlemen on Manitoba farmer who switched from 2,700 ac of zero-till wheat and durum, to 560 ac of pasture, grazing 1,100 stockers. Don Maroc Vancouver Island, Canada --------------162DDF1FA7157919879D8E54-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 10:44:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25885 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18653 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:23:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18585 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:23:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-136.rain.org [198.68.144.136]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8E4861742; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Harris, Craig" , , "'Bluestem Associates'" References: Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 61 ----- Original Message ----- From: Harris, Craig To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > problems with certification . . . . > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA develop > a national program of standards setting and certification . . . if one has > disagreements with those two objectives, then one's disagreements are with > the legislation as passed by congress and signed by the president, not with > the USDA-ams implementation of the legislation calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. I can't afford to give all these folks money now. the organic tax is a rip off. > second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released for > review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of > certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers . . . it > seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that criticism . . . if > one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing proposals, i think one has > to suggest ways in which they can be revised (or alternatives implemented) > which at the same time mitigate the undue cost burden easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling the truth not pay this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth organic Gestapo extortion force labor slavery the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we have to pay. I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic grower for doing the good that he knows. Its too much now not one more cent I need my money go rob someone else. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 12:16:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27899 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02173 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:48:23 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02152 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:48:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id QAA01304; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:13:41 GMT Message-ID: <381DBC07.81379A41@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:12:55 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: No-till Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 62 Great post, London! The tillage definitions you were asking about are (briefly) 1. No-till - minimizing seed bed preparation to just the cutting of a slit in the existing ground cover (sod, cover crop, last year's unincorporated crop residue), dropping the seed and pressing the slit closed with press wheels. This method can be used with or without chemicals, depending on other factors. 2. Minimum (reduced) tillage - shredding crop residues after harvest to provide ground cover during winter, followed by just enough tillage in the spring to allow seed drills proper access. Generally the term minimum tillage is used where at least 30% of the field surface is covered by last year's crop residue after planting of the new crop has been completed. There are several different methods of reduced tillage and specialized equipment for some of those methods. 3. Ridge tillage - using cultivating tools to create planting ridges a few inches higher than the between row area. Primarily used where soils have a hard time drying out in the spring in time to plant. The middles are often left with last year's crop residue as an additional protection against erosion. 4. Conventional tillage - plow, disk, spray, plant. Liked your description of the Soil Saver tillage tool. Sounds pretty much like the para plow. Strip cropping is and can be an effective erosion fighter, but is not always suitable to the terrain. For instance, it is used extensively in Wisconsin, but rarely anymore in Tennessee. Different terrain, different soils, different agriculture. Define marginal land. There is such a thing, but in between really marginal land and really good crop land there is a lot of land that could be defined either way, depending on your perspective. Lespedeza (sericea?) has been used successfully as a soil saver/builder. However, there are many other plant types available to farmers now that are easier to manage and provide more usable production. I do not recommend use of sericea anymore, like I did 20+ years ago. Gotta go. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 12:36:16 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28290 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:36:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09667 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:00:08 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09641 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id QAA01310; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:24:09 GMT Message-ID: <381DBEA7.737C8F58@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 10:24:08 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: FYI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 63 North Dakota Chapter of SWCS Forum on Carbon Sequestration Bismarck, North Dakota December 8-9 Of interest to farmers, ranchers, industry, conservationists, environmentalists, and others interested in agriculture and its potential role in reducing CO2 and global warming. Open to the public. Registration fee: $45. Continuing education credits for Certified Crop Advisors available. Contact Jon Stika on (701) 225-5113 or at Information is also available on To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:01:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28681 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25239 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:33:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mesa.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (mesa.ACNS.ColoState.EDU [129.82.100.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25169 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from coop.ext.colostate.edu (coop.EXT.ColoState.EDU [129.82.139.50]) by mesa.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA39162; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:31:20 -0700 Received: from nrcs3.cohugo.fsc.usda.gov (nrcs3.cohugo.fsc.usda.gov [199.153.37.252]) by coop.ext.colostate.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA14636; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:25:11 -0700 Message-Id: <199911011725.KAA14636@coop.ext.colostate.edu> From: "Will Arnold" To: "'Anita Graf (Staff)'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, Walker Bennett Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 10:36:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: political change Reply-to: warnold@coop.ext.colostate.edu In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 64 A few years ago I heard someone on NPR relate how they thought if we moved the decision makers out of Washington D.C. and held legislative sessions every two years in different states we would remove much of the corruption we now face. I really liked the idea. The scerio would go something like this. For the House we elect representatives to serve four year terms, (Senate stays 6) butboth houses only meet every two years. Each state makes available on a rotational basis their state houses for a 12 week session. All business not accomplished would table over until next session. The President has the authority to call special sessions in times of dire need that would meet in D. C.. Committee work ( where I think the most damage is done anyway would begin over e-mail) and then the last four weeks of the normal yearly session (off year) would be devoted to this work in various sites around the U.S.. I don't know what we would do with all those buildings but maybe we could quit building new ones for quite some time and rent out the others for other purposes. Of course this is pie in the sky but I liked the concept. Will Will Arnold Regional Extension Specialist/RC&D Community Development P.O. Box 157 Hugo CO 80821 (719)743-2370 ext 112 warnold@coop.ext.colostate.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:02:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28689 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23685 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23668 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:29:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28137; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id MAA29701; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program In-Reply-To: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 65 On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800 > From: Sal > To: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, 'Bluestem Associates' > Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Harris, Craig > To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM > Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > > > > it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > > problems with certification . . . . > > > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA > develop > > a national program of standards setting and certification . . . if one has > > disagreements with those two objectives, then one's disagreements are with > > the legislation as passed by congress and signed by the president, not > with > > the USDA-ams implementation of the legislation > > calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks > if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the > inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy > now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil > pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and > they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats > with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic > because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off > there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. > I can't afford to give all these folks money now. > the organic tax is a rip off. Right on, Sal! Keep shouting it out loud and clear. There _are_ folks listening! another organic small grower Lawrence Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:07:39 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28798 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:07:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01382 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:40:44 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01375 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id RAA01512; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:06:13 GMT Message-ID: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 11:06:12 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 66 Mark: You said "Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into my body that is not invited it is a violation of property rights and human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets. " Go ahead, and while you are at it sue all industries that have even the slightest emissions into the air or water, regardless of how well they conform to existing laws. Go after state and federal road programs too, especially in the areas where seams of Chattanooga shale have been exposed (natural radiation source). Lets back the EPA when they find the most miniscule traces of carcinogens (remember saccarin), regardless of whether they really pose an identifiable seriouse health risk. Farmers should be sued en mass since they contribute soil erosion pollution to the water and air no matter how conscientious they are. Your argument reminds me of the wildly disproportional response to the unfounded Alar scare. A lot of good people were hurt by the media's irresponsible "reporting" of a danger that never was. I'm sorry, but while I agree that we should find those things that truely pose a health threat and either stop or mitigate the problem, I have little patience with those that believe in a fairy tale environment that is all pure and good, or that finds enviromental boogymen hiding under the bed every night. Son of Richard To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 13:09:20 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28829 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29864 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:37:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29757 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28264; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id MAA29793; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:35:30 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:35:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program In-Reply-To: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 67 On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800 > From: Sal > Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program > > calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off A magnificent message from Sal! It could not have been said better. I hope all sanet subscribers read every word of it. It will have been worth it. He speaks the truth! The Devil take the petty system some would impose on the small organic grower. It goes against all reason and morality. Convinced, Lawrence Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 14:13:16 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00531 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:13:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23881 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:25:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23856 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.141] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:22:17 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:21:10 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <4514.991101@acnet.net> To: "Sal" CC: "Harris, Craig" , , "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program In-reply-To: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> References: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 68 Hello Sal & all Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it requires, if any. Craig too is correct when he says: > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the > legislation Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. Douglas Hinds Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: S> ----- Original Message ----- S> From: Harris, Craig S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of >> problems with certification . . . . >> >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of S> the legislation S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. S> the organic tax is a rip off. >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers >> . . . S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time S> mitigate the undue cost burden S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling S> the truth not pay S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth S> organic Gestapo S> extortion S> force labor S> slavery S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we S> have to pay. S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic S> grower for doing the good that he knows. S> Its too much now S> not one more cent S> I need my money go rob someone else. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 14:14:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00562 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27936 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:36:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu (mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.32]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27889 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from uoguelph.ca ([128.146.210.212]) by mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29660 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:34:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381DEB03.6166DEE4@uoguelph.ca> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:33:23 -0600 From: "E. Ann Clark" Organization: University of Guelph X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: chlorpyrifos References: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 69 Mike, Mark and others: mike richardson wrote: > Mark: You said "Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into > my body that > is not invited it is a violation of property rights and human rights. It > should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets. " > Then Mike said: > Go ahead, and while you are at it sue all industries that have even the > slightest emissions into the air or water, regardless of how well they > conform to existing laws. snip > Your argument reminds me of the wildly disproportional response to the > unfounded Alar scare. A lot of good people were hurt by the media's > irresponsible "reporting" of a danger that never was. Perhaps this is the point to recall that evocatively perceptive statement of William McDonough, Dean of Architecture at Virginia - "Regulations are an indication of design failure". He said that regulations were needed "so we didn't kill each other too quickly". And just think about how many regulations - and how much money is being wasted in managing, refining, and monitoring regulations - complicate our lives today.. Before you are tempted to pooh-pooh this as wishful utopian thinking, understand that McDonough also heads a design firm with clients who have a combined annual income of $400 billion - who pay him to bring his brilliance into action in their particular firm, whether it is a textile plant in Switzerland or Nike or Walmart in the US. He walks the walk. Look for his upcoming book - Cradle to Cradle. At any rate, all this talk about chlorpyrifos and Alar (which was NOT a hoax by the way; look at John Wargo's densely referenced text Our Children's Toxic Legacy. Yale Univ Press (1996) - he is a wild-eyed radical masquerading as a Yale university professor) is really rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I am reminded of Steingraber's powerful text Living Downstream, which drew its title from a hypothetical village, whose inhabitants noted an alarming increase in the number of drowning people floating by their village. They developed very elaborate and effective means of grabbing and resuscitating the victims, but were so busy doing so that they had no time to go upstream and see who was pushing them in. That's what all this verbage about chlorpyrifos et al. is about. Why should we (collectively, as a people) be allowing our creative energies to be sapped by this pinhead dancing (is 0.0001 picograms too much? how much more risk is 0.001 picograms?) when it would be so much more fruitful and life-enhancing to design and operate production systems that didn't create the niches allowing pests to proliferate to pestiferous proportions in the first place? It is the flawed system design (corn-soy-corn-soy-corn-soy) or 3000 cow dairies or megahog factories that has encouraged the slide into dependence on biocides. We know this. This is not rocket science. Yet we keep getting diverted into dead-end arguments and "it is toxic" or "it isn't toxic" or "risk is less than being struck by lightening" or whatever - instead of pulling back and asking the more fundamental questions - how to avoid the problems in the first place instead of using chemicals or ecologically deranged production practices to *fix* them after we've created them. We are talking about fixing self-created problems here. But is there another way? Can this be done? Of course it can - it is being implemented every day by farmers who farm using ecological principles - including but not limited to organic farmers - who probably never took a course in ecology. So, if it is so great, why isn't everyone doing this? Well the short answer is because systems that internalize costs of production (e.g. full cost accounting) simply have to *pay* more costs more than systems which externalize (don't pay) some of the true costs of production (in contaminated ground- and surface water, antibiotic resistant cattle, salmonella-contaminated chicken etc.). This puts the former at an economic disadvantage - until society realizes just how much damage is actually being done to them and calls us to task - which they are already doing. Look for more of this, in spades, in the near future.. Ecologically sound systems are also less dependent on input suppliers, which makes them a threat to those with a vested interest in ecologically unsound, inputs-based production systems. So, you won't see ecologically sound farmers between the covers of Fantazmagorical Farmer, in between the Pioneer and John Deere ads, and you will very likely find them the object of rejection and ridicule from their neighbors in the local coffee house. Negative peer pressure is a powerful disincentive to stepping over the traces and doing something differently. You don't imagine that Avery and the like are gearing up their anti-organic distribes just lately as a lark, do you? Count on more of this blather in the near future. Farmers who attempt to use ecologically sound design principles often don't have an easy time of getting guidance, assistance, or solutions to production problems that may arise during the season (as has been amply discussed on SANET in recent weeks). This means that - unlike their conventional neighbors, who simply call up the fertilizer salesman, seedsman, or extension/university expert - ecological practicioners have to absorb the cost and risk of doing their own research on their own farms, to address their own issues. They don't have a multi-million dollar societal investment in govn't and academic research waiting to service their needs. This puts them at a further financial and managerial disadvantage. But all of this is changing, in part because of the skyrocketing demand for organic produce (now, why is that, do you suppose?). Look for more of this, particularly if the US and Canada remain obstinately adamant that GE foods are substantially equivalent to real food and require neither testing nor labeling. So, next time you find yourself getting waylayed into one of the "he said/she said" whine-olas about biocides, let the wisdom of McDonough or Steingraber shine into your mind and keep you focused on the real issues. Ann To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 14:58:04 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01658 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19220 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:19:04 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19188 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:16 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.187] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id A76DBA8D0086; Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:18:05 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:16:24 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: 'Small' farms & certification Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 70 On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it wasn't by a lot. Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. Additional costs like paperwork and certification. I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including certification) to justify that premium. I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is simply wrong. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 15:03:11 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01751 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20974 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:24:40 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20963 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:24:34 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from www.pcsia.com (unverified [206.162.14.2]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:39 -0600 X-ROUTED: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:38 -0600 X-TCP-IDENTITY: MMiller Received: from [206.162.14.77] by www.pcsia.com with smtp id 0d0a133c ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 13:22:18 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991101130939.007d89f0@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 13:09:39 -0600 To: Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself corn breeding Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 71 Roberto's discussion below is the crux of the matter in many of our discussions. Privatizing public resources for corprate gain and it's cousin - Externalizing private costs to the public. We saw it with: * neem insecticide in India, *tropical plants in the pharaceutical industry, *in the chemical trespass argument - privatizing my right to a full life by increasing the cancer risk of my environment *in the premature development of lepidotera resistance to the BT bacteria by the massive enviornmental dispersion of the associated toxin in various BT products. *odor, insects and manure spill problems from various types of excessively large and/or improperly sited livestock confinement operations. This problem of how to motivate people to work for economic gain and still maintain some moral responsibility in the enterprise had no doubt exercised liberal economists as much as God's allowance of evil in the world has exercised theologian. In the book, Winner Take All Society, the author discussed the misallocation of resources brought on by technogical change. His solution included the politically taboo idea of the taxing these exessive incomes in order to reduce the over allocation of resouces into these technologically driven areas. As Somebody said "The love of money is the root of all evil." Mike Miller > >Okay, Okay! lets deal with this head on. If I am smart and organized > >enough to come up with superior varieties, what is wrong with my > >protecting them from people who would steal them? Don't I have a > >right to earn a living? > >Yes, it is good to deal with this issue head on. What do you mean, >steal them? You took the varieties from the public pool, didn't you? >Once you release your breeding results, they're back to the public >pool, and the public is entitled to use them. That's what all farmers >have been doing. Earning a living has nothing to do with stealing from >the public pool. > >Roberto > >To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >"subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > >All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 17:02:48 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05295 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02520 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:32:09 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02344 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.23] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:29:02 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 15:27:59 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <17644.991101@acnet.net> To: mike richardson CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re[2]: chlorpyrifos In-reply-To: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> References: <381DC884.ACA363D0@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 72 Hello Mike, Mark and all, I think we have two extremes here and I will attempt here to take a more measured approach. When Mark refers to "a violation of property rights and human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and bullets", he's making a valid point but the analogy is somewhat premature. Tobacco has been proven to contain a large number of known carcinogens and other harmful substances and offers absolutely NO redeeming social value, while bullets do what they are intended to do: Kill and/or maim. With the first it's a fairly clear cut case (it's still legal for adults with full use of their faculties to commit slow suicide via this means, but it's gotten a lot harder and more costly for anyone to foist damage on third parties), and with the second it's a matter of who's using them against who, under what circumstances and the legal rights (and the ability to defend those rights) of the respective parties involved. But when we talk about toxic pesticides, we're discussing what is still the current convention, and one with a number of claimed redeeming social values. However, the situation is changing, and changing ever-more rapidly. As ecologically sane alternatives to toxic pesticides become increasingly available and the use of them more common, the preference of the public for foods produced via these means is also increasing, logarithmically. Incidentally, another of the hidden foibles of OFPA is the certainty of elevating (or maintaining elevated) the cost of "organically" produced food stuffs. (Could this have been intentional)? But as economies of scales are reached and biologically based technologies continue to mature, the costs for ecologically sane agriculture will continue to lower, relative to those of "conventional" (i.e. toxic) agricultural practices, given that ecologically sane agriculture benefits far more easily than does "conventional" agricultural from new knowledge relating to biological systems approaches (since agriculture itself has never ceased to be wholly biological phenomena, at bottom, and can more easily incorporate and take advantage of these discoveries). The point is that it's just a matter of time before the greater public at large (and the legislation generated indirectly through their elected representatives) perceives toxic pesticides as unnecessarily damaging elements with no redeeming social value and at that point, the perception of those who recognize and resent the danger that these toxic substances represent will meet little resistance. (Not that long ago, smoking was freely permitted in elevators). As things stand, although it's just a matter of time, it will require both quantifying the damage on the one hand and the clear dominance of alternative technologies on the other, before becoming the order of the day. For now, current EPA, FDA & USDA regulations will determine where liabilities do and don't lie, but those too can be subject to litigation and where clear and wanton damage can be proven, large settlements may well be result from it. In short, liability depends to a large degree on the alternatives available, the need for and degree of the damage done, in addition to proving the existence of the damage. In any case, precedents need to be set and class action suits may well prove viable in the near term. Unlike the long establish practice of toxic pesticide use, the needless and exploitatively motivated introduction of GMOs into the environment at large is meeting an unanticipated resistance facilitated by modern and economic communications media, just as TV exposure put an end to war no stupider or more useless than other before it, 2 or 3 decades ago. But before any of you veterans jump on my cage for saying that, let me make it clear that I was ALWAYS willing and able to go do my share for my country. Yes sir, I said, count me in. Just put a gun in Nixon's hands and I'll follow, close behind him. (Which reminds me, that this was the war that invented the word "fragging"). On the other hand, we could wait until "the enemy" really represents a threat to the nations integrity (rather than to the economic interests of just a few US fat cats); and that was how it wound up, with the government deciding that I was best left in reserve, as a secret weapon. (I'll bet some of you think I'm kidding). But I digress. Nothing new follows below. Monday, November 01, 1999, 11:06:12 AM, you wrote: mr> Mark: You said mr> "Maybe I wasn't clear. If a corporation puts something into my mr> body that is not invited it is a violation of property rights and mr> human rights. It should and will be litigated like tobacco and mr> bullets. " mr> Go ahead, and while you are at it sue all industries that have even the mr> slightest emissions into the air or water, regardless of how well they mr> conform to existing laws. Go after state and federal road programs too, mr> especially in the areas where seams of Chattanooga shale have been mr> exposed (natural radiation source). Lets back the EPA when they find mr> the most miniscule traces of carcinogens (remember saccarin), regardless mr> of whether they really pose an identifiable seriouse health risk. mr> Farmers should be sued en mass since they contribute soil erosion mr> pollution to the water and air no matter how conscientious they are. mr> Your argument reminds me of the wildly disproportional response to the mr> unfounded Alar scare. A lot of good people were hurt by the media's mr> irresponsible "reporting" of a danger that never was. mr> I'm sorry, but while I agree that we should find those things that mr> truely pose a health threat and either stop or mitigate the problem, I mr> have little patience with those that believe in a fairy tale environment mr> that is all pure and good, or that finds enviromental boogymen hiding mr> under the bed every night. mr> Son of Richard mr> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command mr> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command mr> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". mr> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command mr> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". mr> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: mr> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 17:21:06 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05631 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:21:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16720 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:00:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from ntscspdcexch1.caldwellspartin ([208.24.177.8]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16669 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by NTSCSPDCEXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:59:00 -0500 Message-ID: From: Walker Bennett To: "'mmiller@pcsia.com'" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: free range eggs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:58:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 73 The chicks would be a worry from all of the predators you describe. However, the cat will soon learn not to tackle a bird bigger than it (chickens are NOT nice birds). Your biggest problems from your list would be the raccoons and dogs. Walker Bennett wbennett@caldwellspartin.com wabennett@gw.total-web.net w_bennett@msn.com ___________________________________________________________ A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election. - Billy Vaughan Tuesday, November 2nd is election day! Remember to vote. ___________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: mmiller@pcsia.com [mailto:mmiller@pcsia.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 8:14 PM To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: free range eggs >Subject: RE: free range eggs > I read a few years back that a lot of the yellow was actually caused >by the increased chlorophyll that a free range chicken ingests from grass, >etc.. The firmness caused by the increased protein from insects rather than >grain in commercial feed. This with all of the other 'trace' nutrients they >get from scratching and pecking at everything. Alright, you all have me convinced. I have wanted to start with a few chickens here on the farm but how do free range birds hold up with the red-tailed hawks, raccoons, possums, owls and my major worry, my barn cat, who the other morning brought me a adult rabbit as big as he is. (looked like a mini-lion dragging the rabbit between his legs)? Then there are the coyotes and wild dog pack from people in the city who dump their unwanted litters out here in the country. I figure I would have to cover any chicken pen just to assure there would be chickens left after the first month. What is your experience? Would I just be feeding the wildlife? Mike Miller To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 17:45:33 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06056 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04584 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:28:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04566 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:28:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from 204.149.164.225 (mx3-82.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.225]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10310; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:26:11 -0600 Message-ID: <381E172F.763@smallfarms.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 12:41:52 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com Organization: smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Credit cards. Not solicitation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 74 Hi. And no this isn't one of those credit card solicitations. A farmer who's thinking about registering for free at smallfarms.com is considering whether offering credit card services will increase his sales. As you know, we do not offer credit card services at smallfarms.com as a way for making registration easier for farmers and ranchers. For us, It would increase costs beyond our low $29.00 / year regular fee, and we trust small farmers and ranchers to pay us in a timely manner. We have no relation to the following sites and do not endorse them. Sales, Marketing and promotions are important to farming and we pass these sites on as information. Start with their FAQs. http://www.charge.com/ http://www.itransact.com/index.html glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 18:59:10 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07313 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:59:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA16427 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:37:14 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailhub.iastate.edu (mailhub.iastate.edu [129.186.1.102]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16417 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 18:37:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from dewitt.iastate.edu (dewitt.agron.iastate.edu [129.186.20.17]) by mailhub.iastate.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01183; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:35:17 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19991101173101.00765eac@exnet.iastate.edu> X-Sender: x1dewitt@exnet.iastate.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 17:31:01 -0600 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Jerry DeWitt Subject: Leopold Center Announcement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 75 To: Saneters From: Jerry DeWitt Iowa State University The search for the Director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Iowa is nearing completion. The search was extended so that candidates for the Leopold Director position could be informed of the list of candidates being interviewed for the Dean of the College of Agriculture position. For many potential candidates this information was very important because the Director of the Leopold Center will report to the Dean of the College of Agriculture. Shown below are the candidates being interviewed for the Dean's position. Applications for the Director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture are still being accepted with an announcement of finalists expected in mid-November. Application information is available by calling Wendy Wintersteen, Chair of the search committee at 515-294-7801 or by accessing http://www.ag.iastate.edu/news/leopold.html College of Agriculture Dean finalists are Alan Bennett, associate dean of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Davis; Cornelia Butler Flora, director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State; Joseph Jwu-shan Jen, dean of the College of Agriculture, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Gary Minish, head of the department of animal and poultry sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg; Colin Scanes, executive associate dean of agriculture at Iowa State; and Paul Wangsness, senior associate dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:23:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08778 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08438 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:02:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from amani.ces.ncsu.edu (amani.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.51]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08429 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (mailcore0.oh.voyager.net [207.0.229.17]) by amani.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15877 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (d14.as1.gnvl.oh.voyager.net [207.90.124.142]) by mailcore0.oh.voyager.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01941 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:00:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004f01bf24d0$85d21b40$8e7c5acf@oemcomputer> From: "Paul Schmitmeyer" To: "Sanet" Subject: proposed organic cost share legislation Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:20:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 76 Hi all, This is quite an interesting thread. I'm not really where to attack it, I just know I don't like the direction this legislation is all leading. There is a proplem in as much as there are too many certification agencies with too many different sets of rules and regs. Compound that with the different inspectors and how they might interpret different regs. It reminds me a lot of the current crop insurance program we have currently in place. If you happen to get a sympathetic adjuster they will work things as far as he knows he can get away with. Also just the opposite is true. Another thing that worries me is that this is all leading towards federal involvement, something none of us should want. Like someone wrote earlier said, there will be a day of reconning, a day to pay the Piper. They have screwed up our ag system completely. Subsidies have only helped the Big farmer get bigger yet. Yes, it helps out the small farmer also, but at what price? Paul To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:23:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08779 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08330 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:01:51 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from purple.tmn.com (purple.tmn.com [205.177.137.5]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08310 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from tmn.com ([164.106.173.25]) by purple.tmn.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA17370; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:56:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381E35DB.BFA1E78D@tmn.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:52:43 -0500 From: tabeles Reply-To: tabeles@tmn.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Douglas Hinds CC: Sal , "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re: Proposed organic cost share program References: <006601bf247c$c139d280$889044c6@rain.org> <4514.991101@acnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 77 It is interesting to look at this exchange. A number of years ago I warned those in the organic industry that if they got gov't in the middle it would be a muddle (hmm, sounds like Dr. Seuss). The rationale was that if the gov't provided the cert that it would be a seal of uniform approval and a way to keep interlopers and the greedy out of just labeling something as organic. The industry was self regulating- once upon a time. But now you can't unscramble eggs and you get a half baked, expensive omlet that, like any gov't reg, has enough loopholes that you can drive a big 4WD right through it. sounds like that old Abbott/Costello exchange "Who's on First?" thoughts tom abeles Douglas Hinds wrote: > Hello Sal & all > > Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally > wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a > decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic > community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but > USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non > compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let > the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it > requires, if any. > > Craig too is correct when he says: > > > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda > > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > > > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the > > legislation > > Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not > make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification > constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again > when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In > fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. > > OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. > If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities > generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. > > Douglas Hinds > > Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: > > S> ----- Original Message ----- > S> From: Harris, Craig > S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' > S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM > S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program > > >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of > >> problems with certification . . . . > >> > >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA > S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . > S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's > S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and > S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of > S> the legislation > > S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks > S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the > S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy > S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil > S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and > S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats > S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic > S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off > S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. > S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. > S> the organic tax is a rip off. > > >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released > S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of > >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers > >> . . . > S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that > S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing > S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be > S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time > S> mitigate the undue cost burden > > S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much > S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same > S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone > S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by > S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a > S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not > S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling > S> the truth not pay > S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter > S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and > S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have > S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes > S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the > S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this > S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more > S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now > S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how > S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth > S> organic Gestapo > S> extortion > S> force labor > S> slavery > S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by > S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we > S> have to pay. > S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. > S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other > S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be > S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them > S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic > S> grower for doing the good that he knows. > S> Its too much now > S> not one more cent > S> I need my money go rob someone else. > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:28:18 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08832 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:28:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14167 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:12:10 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from landcare.cri.nz (landcare.cri.nz [202.27.240.7]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA14017 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:12:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from Lincoln-Message_Server by landcare.cri.nz with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:10:07 +1200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:09:38 +1200 From: Will Allen To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Cc: Ian.Brown@orc.govt.nz Subject: Whole farm environmental planning Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 78 This information from the recently established NOSLaM web site (http://noslam.co.nz/) may be of interest to members of this group interested in whole farm environmental planning. A group of New Zealand farmers now has several properties in the final stages of environmental certification under a group scheme, to ISO 14001 standards. The North Otago Sustainable Land Management (NOSLaM) group's major project is the development of the ENVIRO-AG Farm Environmental Certification scheme, modeled on ISO 14001 environmental certification. The ENVIRO-AG process helps farmers objectively assess the environmental impact of their farm practices, develop suitable management practices and monitoring methods, then prove their compliance. The farmer controls this process and tailors the plan to suit his or her own needs. Over 80 properties throughout the region now operate ENVIRO-AG plans, which is seen locally as a major step toward achieving the goal of gaining recognition in the market place, both nationally and internationally, as a community operating sustainable farming systems. Since NOSLaM began in 1994, the group has encouraged the uptake of environmentally preferable farming methods through newsletters, field days, seminars and on-farm demonstrations. There is also evidence of the increased use of improved farming methods. While NOSLaM cannot claim full credit for this, survey results show that North Otago farmers have increased the use of less damaging crop establishment and pasture renewal methods, improved effluent disposal and other farm practices. Independent assessment has investigated the success of a non-regulatory approach in improving farmer practices, and the group's methods appear to be working well. NOSLaM's new web site may be viewed at http://noslam.co.nz/ The web site has further information about the group and the ENVIRO-AG system. There are various downloads available in PDF format of farm plans, as well as the ENVIRO-AG handbook. The group is keen to establish links with other related web sites and others interested in using the ENVIRO-AG system. and would welcome feedback on their approach. For further information contact Ian Brown, Manager Land Resources, Otago Regional Council (e-mail: Ian.Brown@orc.govt.nz) This posting made by: ===================================================== Will Allen Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research NZ Ltd. PO Box 282, Alexandra, New Zealand Tel: +64 3 4489932 Fax: +64 3 4488939 http://www.landcare.cri.nz/science/social/ E-mail: allenw@landcare.cri.nz WEBSITE: NRM_changelinks: Improving Community Participation in Environment & Development URL: http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/ ===================================================== To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 20:59:52 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09213 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04887 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:45:46 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04779 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:45:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from node11e64.a2000.nl ([24.132.30.100] helo=zap.a2000.nl) by smtp1.a2000.nl with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 11iSzD-0004JK-00; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:43:47 +0100 Message-ID: <381E4688.70D869CD@zap.a2000.nl> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 03:03:52 +0100 From: wytze X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, biotech_activists@iatp.org Subject: Hunza agriculture Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 79 The site below is on the remarkable Hunza people, their agriculture and their way of live. http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0203longevitycat/020302hlthyhunza/02030207.html To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 21:10:39 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09334 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09229 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:51:11 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from aurora.nal.usda.gov (aurora.nal.usda.gov [192.54.138.38]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09149 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by aurora.nal.usda.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id <4QTHK3NP>; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:50:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: Andy Clark To: "'sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu'" Subject: FW: International Short Course on Agroecology Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:50:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 80 -----Original Message----- From: Agroecology Shortcourse [mailto:shortcourse@agroecology.org] Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:26 PM To: Andy Clark Subject: International Short Course on Agroecology Greetings from the University of California, Santa Cruz! We invite you to join our International Short Course on Agroecology, to be held at the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, August 7-18, 2000. The course is designed to give extensionists, farm advisers, trainers, NGO managers, farmers, graduate students, researchers, professors, and other agricultural professionals a practical, "hands-on" experience with the application of agroecological principles to the design and management of sustainable farming systems. The full course announcement is available on-line at: http://www.agroecology.org/shortcourse.htm A printable version of the course announcement is available as an adobe acrobat file: please print and distribute the course announcement at your workplace. The adobe acrobat reader/printer can be downloaded for free at: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html. If you plan to attend, please submit your application as soon as possible, before the application deadline of March 1, 2000, so that your place in the course can be guaranteed. Application details are included in the course announcement. Please let us know if you have any other questions, or would like to be kept updated as new information becomes available. A Spanish version of the course announcement is available on-line at http://www.agroecology.org/espanol/cursocorto.htm. Agroecologically yours, Stephen R. Gliessman, Alfred Heller Professor of Agroecology Erle C. Ellis, Agroecology Short Course Coordinator ----- International Agroecology Short Course Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 Tel: (831) 459-2506 | Fax: (831) 459-2867 -->http://www.agroecology.org/shortcourse.html To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 21:19:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09419 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12925 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net (mailmtx.acnet.net [170.76.16.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12866 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 20:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.116] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:56:40 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:55:15 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <7830.991101@acnet.net> To: tabeles CC: Sal , "Harris, Craig" , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, "'Bluestem Associates'" Subject: Re[2]: Proposed organic cost share program In-reply-To: <381E35DB.BFA1E78D@tmn.com> References: <381E35DB.BFA1E78D@tmn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 81 Hi Tom & all, Monday, November 01, 1999, 6:52:43 PM, you wrote: TA> It is interesting to look at this exchange. A number of years ago I TA> warned those in the organic industry that if they got gov't in the TA> middle it would be a muddle (hmm, sounds like Dr. Seuss). It could have been done right. There IS a proper role for government in the matter, but that ISN'T the role that OFPA designates. TA> The [ostensible] rationale was that if the gov't provided the cert TA> that it would be a seal of uniform approval and a way to keep TA> interlopers and the greedy out of just labeling something as TA> organic. The industry was self regulating- once upon a time. Not quite. That is why third party certification organizations were created. Undoubtedly some are better than others, but truly interested and involved parties have or will develop (alone or with help), an appropriate criteria that gets to the medulla of what organic means and represents. They'll know who to trust, and falsehoods will be exposed, just as they are in politics or what have you. In the end, the products own quality speaks for itself and buyers already specify which certifying bodies they'll accept, when they require certification. (There are many instances when it's not needed, as in many CSA operations). Still, there is a need for an OFPA, but not the way this one reads at present. TA> But now you can't unscramble eggs and you get a half baked, TA> expensive omlet that, like any gov't reg, has enough loopholes TA> that you can drive a big 4WD right through it. Not only are there loopholes (that is, there is no guarantee that it will produce the desired results), OFPA creates abuses and injustices of it's own. I suspect that it will never be implemented, at least not as presently written. And if it is, the following morass in the courts will obviate any benefits it could have brought. All it needed to do was develop a consistent national standard that is congruent with organic principles and tradition, and achieves a consensus with the organic community. But any certification program that is linked to it will have to be voluntary: i.e., one option among others. This is not to say that the above mentioned consistent national standard wouldn't be backed truth in labeling laws and penalties for misrepresentation; but as Sal suggested (and he did this in 1997 as well - I happened to be searching the sanet archives for something else and ran on to this thread), just as was done with drag racers who questioned whether their opponents car was "stock" or not (requiring the the engine be dismantled), the cost of this was born by the party that was proved right - a cheater was penalized, while he who accused falsely the other without foundation was also. In short, we don't need a police state (and another bureaucracy with links to "friends" in the industry) running the show, we need a valid legal structure to provide an effective recourse for allowing consumers, growers and "value added" intermediaries to operate within defined limits that they themselves have defined and control. If government eats this, it will bloat, die and go rotten. TA> sounds like that old Abbott/Costello exchange "Who's on First?" Except that it's not funny. TA> thoughts TA> tom abeles nothing new follows below. -------------- TA> Douglas Hinds wrote: >> Hello Sal & all >> >> Sal was very eloquent and is totally right! OFPA is fundamentally >> wrong in mandating obligatory USDA Organic Certification. Once a >> decent Organic Rule has been developed and supported by the organic >> community, those that need it will adhere to it and participate; but >> USDA Organic Certification is going to have to be either non >> compulsory or unconstitutional. Let it rest on it's own merit and let >> the buyer insist on which certification program he, she or it >> requires, if any. >> >> Craig too is correct when he says: >> >> > first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that usda >> > develop a national program of standards setting and certification . >> >> > . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's >> > disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and >> > signed by the president, not with the usda-ams implementation of the >> > legislation >> >> Having been passed by congress and signed by the president does not >> make the obligatory aspect of USDA Organic Certification >> constitutional (much less necessary or fair), and Sal is right again >> when claiming that the $5000 limit for exemption is a "rip off". In >> fact, it's ridiculous and offensive. >> >> OFPA as written will either be amended or become bogged down in court. >> If implemented as it now reads, there will be serious liabilities >> generated that will have attended to at a high cost, in the end. >> >> Douglas Hinds >> >> Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:21:21 AM, you wrote: >> >> S> ----- Original Message ----- >> S> From: Harris, Craig >> S> To: ; 'Bluestem Associates' >> S> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:08 PM >> S> Subject: RE: Proposed organic cost share program >> >> >> it seems to me that two things are being ignored in this catalogue of >> >> problems with certification . . . . >> >> >> >> first, the national organic standards legislation mandates that USDA >> S> develop a national program of standards setting and certification . >> S> . . if one has disagreements with those two objectives, then one's >> S> disagreements are with the legislation as passed by congress and >> S> signed by the president, not with the USDA-ams implementation of >> S> the legislation >> >> S> calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off >> S> taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off >> S> set the standards and fine those that break the law not the honest folks >> S> if you come and inspect me and i am telling the truth u pay for the >> S> inspection if I am lying I pay and get a fine . easy >> S> now I pay a certifier, a inspector ,the state of Ca. etc how many pencil >> S> pushing bureaucrats do I have to pay off just for telling the truth and >> S> they all require paper work and can all charge me what they want. whats >> S> with that. no one can tell you what you will have to pay to be organic >> S> because every one charges what they want and u have to pay. it's a rip off >> S> there are too many folks NOW with their hands in our pockets now. >> S> I can't afford to give all these folks money now. >> S> the organic tax is a rip off. >> >> >> second, when the first draft of the proposed implementation was released >> S> for review last year, one of the major criticisms was that the cost of >> >> certification would be unduly burdensome for small organic farmers >> >> . . . >> S> it seems to me that a cost-share arrangement addresses that >> S> criticism . . . if one is going to be critical of the cost-sharing >> S> proposals, i think one has to suggest ways in which they can be >> S> revised (or alternatives implemented) which at the same time >> S> mitigate the undue cost burden >> >> S> easy take the burden off the backs of the growers. they are paying to much >> S> now. why do I have to pay a certifier and the state of Ca. both for the same >> S> thing and why should I pay the USDA for the same thing I am paying everyone >> S> else for. why do I have to give paper work to the state and be inspected by >> S> the state and the certifier and pay them both for the same dam thing. its a >> S> big rip off NOW and the USDA are talking about adding to the burden not >> S> lifting it. I say let those that are lying pay and those that are telling >> S> the truth not pay >> S> this whole thing is a rip off. Mafia protection money . you get a letter >> S> from the state of Ca. ok your organic now you have to pay us every year and >> S> kiss up to us and the certifier sends a letter ok your organic now You have >> S> to pay us every year year after year and the inspector sends us a bill yes >> S> you are organic now you have to pay me every year year after year for the >> S> rest of your life . I know I am organic what did i get from all this >> S> nothing but a stinking little piece of paper more work. more bosses more >> S> slavemasters now the USDA want to get into the act. ok your organic now >> S> every year year after year after year you have to pay us. bull shit how >> S> many pencil pushing bottom feeders do u have to pay off to tell the truth >> S> organic Gestapo >> S> extortion >> S> force labor >> S> slavery >> S> the Mafia won they are now the Government and they got the organic grower by >> S> the cohoniess and all these folks can charge what every they want and we >> S> have to pay. >> S> I can go on and on . those that feel it know it. >> S> I say organic growers should not have to pay one cent more than any other >> S> grower to grow and sell their crops and if they are organic they should be >> S> able to tell anyone the truth. if the USDA wants to set a standard let them >> S> if the USDA wants to regulate certifiers let them but don't tax the organic >> S> grower for doing the good that he knows. >> S> Its too much now >> S> not one more cent >> S> I need my money go rob someone else. >> >> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command >> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". >> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command >> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". >> >> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: >> http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 21:34:31 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09584 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21750 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:13:40 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21741 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from epix.net (qrvl209-74-60ppp88.epix.net [209.74.60.88]) by lima.epix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/1999100101/PL) with ESMTP id VAA05152; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 21:11:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <381E49FE.6DB73217@epix.net> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 21:18:39 -0500 From: Steve Groff Reply-To: sgroff@epix.net Organization: Cedar Meadow Farm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "E. Ann Clark" CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: no-till chemical use (long) References: <3819A43F.76778695@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> <3819C685.337C4AFE@uoguelph.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 82 sanet, Ann Clark, (whom I admire as a pasture expert) wrote a long post on her take of the notill system and for the most part was suggesting that it is not environmentally friendly. "E. Ann Clark" wrote: > Might also add that even well managed no-till inherently and inescapably > creates a whole suite of problems > The obligatory dependence on herbicides > Colleagues in Land Resource Science tell me that no-till slows down the rate > of loss of OM under annual arable cropping, but does NOT increase full-profile > soil OM. > > And then there is the issue of N-use efficiency. > > Surface residues also keep soil colder longer, which effectively shortens the > growing season in a short season climate, such as we have in Canada. > Only certain crops *can* be grown no-till, > Another unintended effect of no-till is leaving allelochemically active > residues on the soil surface > > So, from a different (pro-pasture, admittedly) vantage point, no-till is a > proprietary band-aid to patch up a arable crop technology (annual tillage to > produce annual grain crops) that is fundamentally at odds with the ecological > integrity of farm land. The "Permenant Cover Cropping System" that I have developed utilizes very little chemicals and soil quality has increased dramatically. It is fundementally based on notill. Notill has a place in Sustainable Ag. Just look at all the SARE funded projects that have notill as a component. > The problem(s) with tillage is soil erosion and > degradation, with consequent effects on related processes, as water use > efficiency. and this is a *HUGE* issue that most conventional farmers AND organic farmers convieninatly sweep under the rug and ignore. It is the "skeleton in the closet" of the organic row crop farmers. There is no ideal ecologically perfect way to farm. Tillage is a diaster for soil life and it is not natural, but that doesn't make notill the only way to farm. As pointed out, it does have some negative baggage, but so does a well managed pasture system. > Admittedly, pasture > also creates some potential problems, relating to soil compaction (and water > infiltration etc.) and N leaching/volatilization - although these are at least > partly managable through such practices as restricting labile N (less chemical > N; lower % legume). > Steve Groff "Enhancing the Environment" http://www.cedarmeadowfarm.com/ Cedar Meadow Farm 679 Hilldale Road Holtwood, PA 17532 USA To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 22:27:43 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10091 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00614 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00603 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:12:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09915; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id WAA12199; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:10:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:10:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: wytze cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, biotech_activists@iatp.org Subject: Re: Hunza agriculture In-Reply-To: <381E4688.70D869CD@zap.a2000.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 83 On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, wytze wrote: > Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 03:03:52 +0100 > From: wytze > To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu, biotech_activists@iatp.org > Subject: Hunza agriculture > > The site below is on the remarkable Hunza people, their agriculture and > their way of live. > >http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0203longevitycat/020302hlthyhunza/02030207.html Start here and go to the health library then to longevity http://www.soilandhealth.org The Healthy Hunzas J.I. Rodale The entire book is digitized and put online for reading or download Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 22:28:09 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10096 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:28:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00863 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:14:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from crow.a001.sprintmail.com (crow.prod.itd.earthlink.net [209.178.63.7]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00855 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from sprintmail.com (sdn-ar-001tnchatP005.dialsprint.net [158.252.94.13]) by crow.a001.sprintmail.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA17519 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:12:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <381E57FB.39BD5F03@sprintmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 22:18:19 -0500 From: Alex McGregor Reply-To: waldenfarm@sprintmail.com Organization: Walden Farm X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: Time and the Benefit of BT Corn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 84 Douglas, You seem to have misread my post. I was agreeing with you from the beginning. Maybe you don't agree that agriculture is an unnatural act, but I happen to believe we left the natural world when we stoppd being hunters/gatherers/scavengers. And I was trying to say that GMOs are an aberation, but follow a sequence of manipulation throughout our plant breeding history. And I didn't say that heirlooms and GMOs were the same thing. I was saying that most of our varieties are the result of some manipulation. AND you said, "How long were you breast fed, BTW?" Around here, the common response to an insult like that would be, "Yo mamma so stank..." or announcing that it's time for the little 'uns to bunch up and the big 'uns to line up. But I will forgo the local customs and await an appropriate apology. Alex To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Mon Nov 1 23:24:21 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10965 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 23:24:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28363 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:59:39 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28130 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:59:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from earthlink.net (dialup-209.244.68.137.SanDiego1.Level3.net [209.244.68.137]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02490; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:56:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <381D2D7D.8BD35802@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:04:45 -0800 From: Bargyla Rateaver X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brooks Gruver CC: sanet Subject: Re: Dick and Sharon Thompson's "problem child" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 85 I can't see how, if one utilized seaweed, either as the fairly cheap soluble powder, or the more expensive per acre seaweed meal,how one could ever, ever get K deficiency. Seaweed has plenty of it. I haven't heard anything about those people, for a long time. Are they still farming? Joel Brooks Gruver wrote: > Hello to all... > > Last night, I was browsing an old issue of the Journal of > Agronomic Education (~ 1991, so it may have been the newly named > incarnation) and read a case study article titled "Dick and Sharon > Thompson's problem child". The article was presented in the form of a case > study that one would discuss with undergrad agronomy students or crop > consultants in training. > > The case study presented that > after ~20 years of organic integrated livestock and row crop > production, the Thompsons decided that they had to start banding muriate > of potash (KCl) to alleviate K deficiency. Tissue tests of their corn > indicated a serious K deficiency but soil tests indicated K levels that were > more than adequate. > > Since adopting organic management practices in 1969, the Thompsons had > not applied any salt fertilizers but had ammended all fields with > manure from their integrated cattle operation. For a number of years, they > composted the manure prior to field application but eventually decided > to abandon composting. Despite the fact that their soil test K levels had > increased during their 20 years of organic management, something was > causing their crops to become increasing K deficient. > > The article indicated that following the initiation of KCl banding, > crops did show a yield response in most fields but continued to have low > tissue levels of K. The article suggested that the Thompson's ridge > tillage system may have been partly responsible for the unsual K dynamics. > > Sooo... ~ 7 years have gone by since this article was written... I am > wondering whether the Thompsons have resolved or continued to struggle > with their "K problem child" and/or what mechanisms were underlying the > problem... Can anyone enlighten me ? > > Joel Gruver > Center for Agriculture, Food and Environment > Tufts University > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From london@metalab.unc.edu Tue Nov 2 00:34:52 1999 -0500 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11811 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10243 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:07:02 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mayumi.iphil.net (rufino2.gw.iphil.net [203.176.0.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10163 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mayumi.iphil.net (8.8.7/8.8.8) with UUCP id NAA15221; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:01:02 +0800 Received: (from uu1@localhost) by phil.gn.apc.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id NAA09535; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:34:12 +0800 From: Roberto Verzola Message-Id: <199911020534.NAA09535@phil.gn.apc.org> Date: 02 Nov 99 12:13:23 Subject: high cost of organics To: dmhinds@acnet.net Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 86 >Incidentally, another of the hidden foibles of OFPA is the certainty >of elevating (or maintaining elevated) the cost of "organically" >produced food stuffs. (Could this have been intentional)? Of course, it is intentional. There are two options for the government to do: 1) if you choose to be organic, you must pay me to inspect you that you don't use chemicals blah blah, as Sal said. 2) if you use chemicals, you must pay me to inspect you that you don't use too much blah blah The first option favors the chemical firms, because it makes organic expensive, even with lower inputs. In effect, it makes chemical use the default. The second option favors organics, because it makes chemically-grown crops more expensive. It makes organic the default. If the government used the first option (we're not even talking of subsidies here!). Organics will take over very quickly. This approach will automatically take care of the cheats who falsely claim they are organic, but use chemicals. They can be prosecuted for evading inspection. No chemicals, no need for certification. This should be the goal. Roberto To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 02:18:41 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12854 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14337 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:02:07 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14236 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 02:01:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.166] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:59:20 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:58:11 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <240.991102@acnet.net> To: Alex McGregor CC: "sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re[2]: Time and the Benefit of BT Corn In-reply-To: <381E57FB.39BD5F03@sprintmail.com> References: <381E57FB.39BD5F03@sprintmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 87 Hello Alex, Monday, November 01, 1999, 9:18:19 PM, you wrote: AM> Douglas, AM> You seem to have misread my post. I was agreeing with you from the AM> beginning. I'll agree we agree. AM> Maybe you don't agree that agriculture is an unnatural act, AM> but I happen to believe we left the natural world when we stoppd being AM> hunters/gatherers/scavengers. No, I think man by nature is a farmer, actually an extension of the plant, a walking, talking plantman that can do things to his his own kind. This we can do because we don't have roots, but that's exactly why we depend on the rest of them (us) to keep us (unrooted ones) sustained. How about them apples? I'm going father back in time than you. And even a hunter / gatherer alters the ecosystem. To me the conscious act is were it's at. Only humans understand so much what a seed represents, what it can become. we don't just eat, fly and shit like birds, we take care of what we plant. This is the BASIC human trait, to me. I but still agree that we agree. AM> And I was trying to say that GMOs are an aberation, but follow a AM> sequence of manipulation throughout our plant breeding history. Working with, not against the plant is OK. We're helping those that are most generous and not probably NOT the ones that out their effort into outgrowing the rest. No, these PRODUCE a life giving quality that goes beyond themselves. (Poetic, isn't it). AM> And I didn't say that heirlooms and GMOs were the same thing. I was AM> saying that most of our varieties are the result of some manipulation. Ditto to the above. AM> AND you said, "How long were you breast fed, BTW?" Around here, the AM> common response to an insult like that would be, "Yo mamma so stank..." AM> or announcing that it's time for the little 'uns to bunch up and the big AM> 'uns to line up. But I will forgo the local customs and await an AM> appropriate apology. AM> Alex No Alex, people who weren't breast fed or who did it for a short time often feel less integrated and intuitive with nature - they don't identify with it to the same degree as those that had more mother's milk do and there was no offense meant nor made so forget the apology. It was a legitimate question and I'm interested in your answer. BTW, my brother's name is Alex too (as was my grandfathers), and he nursed for a much shorter period than I did and there is no doubt in my mind that this had some effect in terms of his development, behavior and present day assumptions, but he's still my brother (and a good one) and it certainly was not his fault (nor my mother's for that matter). He's strong in his own way and has done more than I have in some respects, to date. In any case, there's no conflict between us and never has been. And if you think there is with you, it's strictly imagined. Look for another excuse to get belligerent, but do it on your own hook, because my comment had a basis in fact and I have no idea why you find anything wrong with it. These are things that happen to form part of life and the world we live in. I sure you agree that we're all civilized adults here, and I'm confident that you will accept my explanation and rectify your error of interpretation. Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C. Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil (Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization) Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico Apdo. Postal No. 171 Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz 94471 Mexico Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present) U.S. Voicemail (email linked) 630 300 0550 U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555 dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 03:37:13 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13406 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:37:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA00529 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:20:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (smtp.ncc-mannheim.net [62.104.117.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA00385 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [62.132.27.12] (may be forged)) by smtp.ncc-mannheim.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA12621; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:19:05 +0100 Received: from lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (LUFA.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de [192.168.3.254]) by www.lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20782; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:19:55 +0100 Received: from LUFA/SpoolDir by lufa-sp.vdlufa.de (Mercury 1.44); 2 Nov 99 09:12:18 +0100 Received: from SpoolDir by LUFA (Mercury 1.44); 2 Nov 99 09:11:45 +0100 From: "Klaus Wiegand" Organization: Landw. U.-& Forsch.-Anstalt Speyer To: benbrook@hillnet.com, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:11:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Subsidies and Priorities Reply-to: Wiegand@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <751AC278E5@lufa-sp.vdlufa.de> Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 88 hello charles, > A post this a.m. on this tread included the following: > >"GEMA Summary April, 15 1998: > >Amount spent to produce food consumed >in the US in 1996 (farm cost): $126 billion. >Amount spent on marketing it: $421 billion" > you mustn't wonder : In an average american life, an entire year is spent watching television commercials. by the time they graduate from high school, typical american teenagers have been exposed to 360,000 advertisements. thousands of consumer messages a day tell americans to buy things. advertisements are often the only source of information a consumer has about a product, and as discussed in the section above on eco-labeling, complex information is required for a consumer to make an informed decision about the environmental impact of a product. (source: whitehouse.gov) half of all purchases are made on impulse. and if an sustainable agriculture wants to gain land against the agressive advertisements of their business rivals, they really should think it over, if it's enough to say: "our products/philosophy speaks for itself". i do not talk of aggressive and competor-hostile advertising, but of fair information about the relationship between income of industrial workers and farmers and the percent income spent on healthy food vs. other quite useless products. sustainable agriculture today has one ENORMOUS advantage (thanks to industry!!). for years the big companies rode the train of "natural" foods ("all-natural", "no preservatives", "prepared like at mom's", "aunt sally's cookies", ads with pictures of undistorted, green meadows, little green dwarfs harvesting little green peas from little green plants in midst of nice green fields, farmers caring for their animals like they were their own children, production of corn flakes (mr. kellog would turn himself in his grave, if he would see today's production methods of his label), which perfectly fits into the picture of sustainability and "in harmony with nature". and the same picture has become their "kismet" of today. for years they earned a lot of money (for free) with these adds, which had nothing to do with reality, but with fooling of consumers. result: nowadays they have the problem to explain, why the meanwhile welltrained consumers should shift away from it to GMO's, functional food or additives. scientific explainations won't help, no matter how true/honest they are. the ghosts, they once called.... again: sustainable agriculture needs more advertising. that's something, a lot of organic farmers won't agree with, because it's meddling with their philosophy. but advertising certainly is not restricted to tv ads.. and finally you will have to deal with the ethical question, whether you have to compete unfair, manipulating and wrong ads with a fair behavior... sociology says NO. (the prisoners' dilemma, the evolution of cooperation, game theory. btw: axelrod's "the prisoners' dilemma" - also known as the game of "tit for tat" shows a nice example, how a altruistric group can invade a group of aggressive enemies). klaus To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 03:47:49 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13480 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:47:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05434 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05409 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13278 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id DAA18521 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:30:26 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 03:30:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Interesting website: Holism, Evolution & Ecology Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 89 Holism, Evolution & Ecology http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/ecotao/std-1.htm Nature's Holism Ecotechnology Ecotaoism <><><><> Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 10:55:10 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18006 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04859 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:48:04 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04844 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:47:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-148.rain.org [198.68.144.148]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FA2761746; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:46:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002401bf2540$fa9a15c0$949044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Bluestem Associates" , References: Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:45:58 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 90 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:16 PM Subject: 'Small' farms & certification > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > > I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold > for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers > 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, > but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. > > Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. all the more reason not to charge these poor farmers money they need to live on. The government they love duplication and overlap and easy made jobs and powertrips. they feel organic growing is the cash cow and they are all out to milk it . Mafia protection money if you don't pay you can't do business. I have to pay a certifier,an inspector,the state of Ca. and now you want me to pay the Fed. USDA for the same dam thing. send paper work to all four and bow down to the power trips that all four are on. Your a farmer king of you farm and you get all these powertripers tell you what u have to do to meet their power trip and the funny part is that it has nothing to do with if u are organic or not but how u cross your ts and dot your i. this is every year over and over . it is getting to be real bull shit. and every year someone else forces you to pay them. it is always let the farmer pay for it all he can get the money back from his customers. where is that guarantee at. and why should I tax my customers who are the only folks I care about. > *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in > a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate > and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it > wasn't by a lot. so what if there is a thief in a town they don't search every ones house in the whole town to find the one thief why make the honest folks pay because someone cheats. > Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, > need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to > cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. > Additional costs like paperwork and certification. this is bull shit I don't get a organic premium and I'm lucky to sell my stuff at the same price big farmers get. this is the most bullshit I ever heard . are u going to guarantee me a premium? who guarantees me a supposed premium the certifier the inspector the state of ca the usda . > I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the > full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to > make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including > certification) to justify that premium. all these certifiers and inspectors and usda made jobs and state run rip-offs don't make me organic and don't justify any premium I may get it is the fact that I farm organic my own labor not what these pencle pushers do . if you don't trust me and you don't trust CCOF and you don't trust IFOAM and you don't trust the state of Ca. what makes you think they will trust the USDA. i don't understand if I did not do anything different this year than last year why just because the date changes and it 99 or 20000 why do they all get to line up and get paid again . just because the year changes does not mean I changed anything. so why every year what does that date change have to do with being organic . > I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre > annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving > absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but > they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if > they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the > certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making > that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is > simply wrong. so what! you know a cheater big deal so make every one doing good give up their right to innocent until proven guilty and the organic grower is guilty until he pays to prove he is innocent. and pays and pays and pays over and over again every year. year after year.to more and more people. bullshit. I did not do anything different this year than last year yet they line up to get their pound of flesh every year. are you organic ok pay us. bullshit why should I pay more than a chemical farmer to sell my goods . whats is fair about that. who is this USDA and STATE and inspector and certifier that their word is better than mine and why should I pay all of them. What happen to my robe of innocence? you mean the state does not trust the certifier and the certifier does not trust the inspector and the USDA does not trust any of them. hehe I am certified for my customers but this is getting nuts. I can't even support me let alone a big bureaucratic sink hole. every one charging what they like and I am in the middle being force to pay what every they ask and do what every they ask and bow to all these folks that don't do shit for me but take my money. My customers are happy with my CCOF and IFoam certification and I don't need any more people to pay off. so you know a cheater turn him in don't make me pay for his wrong doing I can't afford it. turn in his certifier turn in his inspector but because some one growing organic may cheat don't make me pay over and over again to more and more people what ever they bill me. the inspectors just gave themselves another raise now they get full pay for driving to your house plus gas and motel room . the state guy is getting paid and only works a three day week is on a real powertrip just talking to him makes me sick and they did not send me my registration for over 8 months just to show me how much power they have. powertripers they got to show you they got the power if you are cheating or not and the USDA is releasing living Frankenstein plants that will make organic growing imposable. you think drift was a problem wait till these GMO start to drift. and you want me to bow down and kiss up to these folks. don't get me started. they all got to show you how much power they got don't do any thing to help u only there to whip their power trip on you . yes boss slavemasters extortionists the Mafia won that's why you don't hear about them. now the government controls the gambling and the loan sharking and the extortion. When the Mafia did it they called it numbers game now the government calls it the lottery . you better worry about the real cheaters the fox you all want to watch the hen house. Just say no to the organic tax just say no to oppression of the poor and rightous. > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 10:56:18 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18035 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:56:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06632 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:01:14 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mail.pcsia.com (mail.pcsia.com [206.162.14.3]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06616 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:01:10 -0500 (EST) From: mmiller@pcsia.com Received: from www.pcsia.com (unverified [206.162.14.2]) by mail.pcsia.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:59:18 -0600 X-ROUTED: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:59:18 -0600 X-TCP-IDENTITY: MMiller Received: from [206.162.14.73] by www.pcsia.com with smtp id 080d0b3c ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 08:59:10 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991102084630.007c79b0@pcsia.com> X-Sender: mmiller@pcsia.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 08:46:30 -0600 To: Subject: USDA BioTech Website Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 91 This is excerpted from the Enviornment New Service's Ameriscan posting. Mike Miller BIOTECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE EXPLORED ON NEW WEBSITE WASHINGTON, DC, November 1, 1999 (ENS) - A new website that will be a clearinghouse for agricultural biotechnology issues has been created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). "There is an incredible amount of information on biotechnology available through hundreds of sites on the Internet," said Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "By creating this new central website, we're providing a starting point for the general public, media, industry, academia and our international trading partners to access information about USDA's role in agricultural biotechnology." The new site offers answers to some common biotechnological questions, along with recent speeches by Glickman on agricultural biotechnology. The site also includes pages on biotechnology and trade, regulations and research. Links to many of the other government agencies involved in biotechnology are also provided. The site will be updated as new reports and information are released by USDA. Several USDA agencies have a role in biotechnology issues. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food Safety Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Marketing Service help regulate the biotechnology industry. The Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service conduct or fund agricultural biotechnology research. The Foreign Agricultural Service addresses biotechnology trade issues. The biotechnology website can be accessed at: www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 11:12:13 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18499 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10270 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:27:15 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov (cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov [199.146.249.191]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10245 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from tn.nrcs.usda.gov by cook.tncookevi2.fsc.usda.gov with ESMTP (8.7.6/itc-cust.Revision: 1.11 $) id OAA05349; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:52:35 GMT Message-ID: <381EFA79.3472D51E@tn.nrcs.usda.gov> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 08:51:38 -0600 From: mike richardson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; UNIX_SV 4.2MP i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: RE: chlorpyrifos Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 92 Hinds said: ".......when we talk about toxic pesticides, we're discussing what is still the current convention, and one with a number of claimed redeeming social values. However, the situation is changing, and changing ever-more rapidly. As ecologically sane alternatives to toxic pesticides become increasingly available and the use of them more common, the preference of the public for foods produced via these means is also increasing, logarithmically." Clark said: "Why should we (collectively, as a people) be allowing our creative energies to be sapped by this pinhead dancing (is 0.0001 picograms too much? how much more risk is 0.001 picograms?) when it would be so much more fruitful and life-enhancing to design and operate production systems that didn't create the niches allowing pests to proliferate to pestiferous proportions in the first place? It is the flawed system design (corn-soy-corn-soy-corn-soy) or 3000 cow dairies or megahog factories that has encouraged the slide into dependence on biocides." Excellent responses (exerpts). I agree that while we should be looking for alternatives to dependency on chemicals in farming, I also believe that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water, or get into picking the smallest of nits. People in general seem to have this need to swing on pendulums (spelling is not my forte), going from one extreme to another. "Plant fence row to fence row, boys," and use whatever chemicals are needed to get the job done ! Swhoooosh "Lets go back to the days of hunters and gatherers and live in caves, etc." Surely there is some middle ground we can come to where we are not *dependent* on chemicals, but also where sustainable agriculture is not some pie in the sky life led by latter day hippies. Remember, while it often takes time to get into trouble, it usually takes even more time to get out of it. Son of Richard PS to Hinds - I am a VV (1970-71), did my part proudly and still proud of my active & reserve career, but came to realize the futility and stupidity that was behind that war. Don't have any problems with anti-warriors as long as they realize that the GI's were not the problem. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 11:40:45 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19040 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27661 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:01:52 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27651 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:01:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:05:11 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.156] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id AAB373A90070; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 10:00:51 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 15:59:19 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: The word "organic," a right? Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 93 Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word "organic" in the marketplace. He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be earned. There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." Bart To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 11:59:34 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19356 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02830 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:24:24 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from ars.usda.gov (ars.usda.gov [199.130.152.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA02796 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:24:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from NPA-Message_Server by ars.usda.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:07:26 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:16:31 -0700 From: Ted Rogers To: dmhinds@acnet.net, mrichardson@tn.nrcs.usda.gov Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re[2]: chlorpyrifos -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 94 EPA documents concerning chlorpyrifos and process of review and decisionmaking. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/chlorpyrifos.htm To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-csa-l@prairienet.org Tue Nov 2 14:21:49 1999 Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (firefly.prairienet.org [192.17.3.3]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22280 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from firefly.prairienet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07601; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:19:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from web804.mail.yahoo.com (web804.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.64]) by firefly.prairienet.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07314 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:16:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <19991102191626.27546.rocketmail@web804.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [192.54.138.167] by web804.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:16:26 PST Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:16:26 -0800 (PST) From: Kirsten Saylor To: CSAlist , sanet Cc: ecofarm@accokeek.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-csa-l@prairienet.org X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 95 Forwarded for Shane -----Original Message-----From: shane labrake [mailto:ecofarm@accokeek.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:21 AM Subject: apprenticship/intern positions at Ecosystem Farm, AccokeekFoundation Dear Friends and Colleagues, Attached is an announcement for apprenticeship positions and an internship at the Ecosystem Farm of the Accokeek Foundation in Piscataway Park in Accokeek, MD. Please forward to any interested students or to any other forums where appropriate. Thanks in advance for your interest and cooperation. Sincerely, Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager Accokeek Foundation/RWS Ecosystem Farm 3400 Bryan Point Road Accokeek, MD 20607 Contact: Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager (301) 283-2113 ext. 906 (301) 283-2049 FAX e-mail: ecofarm@accokeek.org URL: http://www.accokeek.org Please Note: snail mail or phone contact preferred RWS Ecosystem Farm is hiring 3 full-season apprentices and 1 4-month summer intern for the year 2000 season. This is an intensive land-based training program in organic vegetable production for those who have a serious and mature desire to pursue farming as a way of life. The work is challenging – physically, mentally and emotionally, though thorough instruction and encouragement are provided in a safe and nurturing manner. Applicants must have a strong desire to learn, a willingness to work cooperatively with others, and be willing to work outdoors in all types of weather and to work hard under pressure. The apprentices normally work 55 hours/week. Some prior experience in farming is preferred, though not necessary. Apprentices will receive instruction in use of hand and mechanical tools (including tractor operation). The apprentices will also learn CSA operation and management and philosophy of sustainable agriculture. Apprentices will be involved in all aspects of production including greenhouse work, soil preparation, planting, transplanting, drip irrigation, cultivation and mulching, pest control and harvest. We offer a monthly stipend of $1250.00 and will assist the apprentices in finding local and affordable housing. A Senior Apprenticeship position follows the first season with a $1500.00 monthly stipend. The Accokeek Foundation is an equal opportunity employer. The Ecosystem Farm is an 8-acre certified organic vegetable farm (includes blueberries, cut flowers, culinary herbs and cover crops), on the banks of the Potomac River in Piscataway National Park. We use solar power for irrigation and potable water. We operate a 75-household CSA. Please contact by Dec. 20, 1999 for the 2000 season. Inquiries accepted year-round. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:46:47 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22956 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:46:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04800 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:18:49 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from web804.mail.yahoo.com (web804.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.64]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA04767 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:18:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19991102191626.27546.rocketmail@web804.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [192.54.138.167] by web804.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:16:26 PST Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:16:26 -0800 (PST) From: Kirsten Saylor To: CSAlist , sanet Cc: ecofarm@accokeek.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 96 Forwarded for Shane -----Original Message-----From: shane labrake [mailto:ecofarm@accokeek.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:21 AM Subject: apprenticship/intern positions at Ecosystem Farm, AccokeekFoundation Dear Friends and Colleagues, Attached is an announcement for apprenticeship positions and an internship at the Ecosystem Farm of the Accokeek Foundation in Piscataway Park in Accokeek, MD. Please forward to any interested students or to any other forums where appropriate. Thanks in advance for your interest and cooperation. Sincerely, Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager Accokeek Foundation/RWS Ecosystem Farm 3400 Bryan Point Road Accokeek, MD 20607 Contact: Shane J. LaBrake, Farm Manager (301) 283-2113 ext. 906 (301) 283-2049 FAX e-mail: ecofarm@accokeek.org URL: http://www.accokeek.org Please Note: snail mail or phone contact preferred RWS Ecosystem Farm is hiring 3 full-season apprentices and 1 4-month summer intern for the year 2000 season. This is an intensive land-based training program in organic vegetable production for those who have a serious and mature desire to pursue farming as a way of life. The work is challenging – physically, mentally and emotionally, though thorough instruction and encouragement are provided in a safe and nurturing manner. Applicants must have a strong desire to learn, a willingness to work cooperatively with others, and be willing to work outdoors in all types of weather and to work hard under pressure. The apprentices normally work 55 hours/week. Some prior experience in farming is preferred, though not necessary. Apprentices will receive instruction in use of hand and mechanical tools (including tractor operation). The apprentices will also learn CSA operation and management and philosophy of sustainable agriculture. Apprentices will be involved in all aspects of production including greenhouse work, soil preparation, planting, transplanting, drip irrigation, cultivation and mulching, pest control and harvest. We offer a monthly stipend of $1250.00 and will assist the apprentices in finding local and affordable housing. A Senior Apprenticeship position follows the first season with a $1500.00 monthly stipend. The Accokeek Foundation is an equal opportunity employer. The Ecosystem Farm is an 8-acre certified organic vegetable farm (includes blueberries, cut flowers, culinary herbs and cover crops), on the banks of the Potomac River in Piscataway National Park. We use solar power for irrigation and potable water. We operate a 75-household CSA. Please contact by Dec. 20, 1999 for the 2000 season. Inquiries accepted year-round. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:50:28 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22998 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05136 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:19:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05101 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:19:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22189; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA27998; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:56 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification In-Reply-To: <002401bf2540$fa9a15c0$949044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 97 For those interested in following this thread and who may have missed reading any of the messages in it I am archiving it, on an ongoing basis, in its entirety at: http://metalab.unc.edu/intergarden/issues-and-news-issues/The.Truth.About.Organic.Certification Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: <><><> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:50:38 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23002 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02724 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02719 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:12:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21795; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA27660; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:11:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Sal cc: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification In-Reply-To: <002401bf2540$fa9a15c0$949044c6@rain.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 98 WHAT HE SAID! Sal, you're the man! You should become head of NOP! USDA organic certification is just (yet) another example of undo government intrusion and heavy handed intervention in our fine system of free enterprise and directly in the lives and livelihoods of many good hardworking, productive, resourceful, taxpaying citizens. Certtification of organic food production systems should not be mandatory, it should only be voluntary. The american consumer is intelligent enough to discern what products are worth buying in the marketplace. Retailers are fully capable of "certifying" the organic certifiers. Customers can simply look at a regularly-updated chart posted in plain view in a store to see which certifying agencies the store recommends, details on their track record and how to find certification information on each product labelled "organically produced" in the store. The government cannotget a patent on "I grew this product with materials suppied by Nature" using methods emulating natural processes." Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Sal wrote: > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:45:58 -0800 > From: Sal > To: Bluestem Associates , sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: 'Small' farms & certification > > > check out a organic growers web page > http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bluestem Associates > To: > Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 7:16 PM > Subject: 'Small' farms & certification > > > > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 07:21:21 -0800, Sal wrote: > > > > >calling a small farm $5000 is a rip off > > >taking money from folks because they grow organic is a rip off > > > > I believe that the US Small business Administration sets the threshhold > > for 'micro' businesses at $250,000 annual sales and below. That covers > > 94% of all American farms. I don't know where the upper threshold is, > > but it's probably more than my businesses are ever likely to gross. > > > > Half of US farmers have less than $10,000 in annual sales. > > all the more reason not to charge these poor farmers money they need to live > on. The government they love duplication and overlap and easy made jobs > and powertrips. they feel organic growing is the cash cow and they are all > out to milk it . Mafia protection money if you don't pay you can't do > business. I have to pay a certifier,an inspector,the state of Ca. and now > you want me to pay the Fed. USDA for the same dam thing. send paper work to > all four and bow down to the power trips that all four are on. Your a > farmer king of you farm and you get all these powertripers tell you what u > have to do to meet their power trip and the funny part is that it has > nothing to do with if u are organic or not but how u cross your ts and dot > your i. this is every year over and over . > it is getting to be real bull shit. and every year someone else forces you > to pay them. it is always let the farmer pay for it all he can get the > money back from his customers. where is that guarantee at. and why should > I tax my customers who are the only folks I care about. > > > > *However* when I was living in Wisconsin I was tangentially involved in > > a case in which an organic grower was routinely using calcium nitrate > > and some other prohibited materials. If he was bigger than $5,000, it > > wasn't by a lot. > > > > so what if there is a thief in a town they don't search every ones house in > the whole town to find the one thief why make the honest folks pay because > someone cheats. > > > > Cheaters come in all sizes, including small, which is why they, too, > > need to be certified. The organic premium is supposed (in part) to > > cover the *additional* costs of producing organically, is it not. > > Additional costs like paperwork and certification. > > > this is bull shit I don't get a organic premium and I'm lucky to sell my > stuff at the same price big farmers get. this is the most bullshit I ever > heard . are u going to guarantee me a premium? who guarantees me a > supposed premium the certifier the inspector the state of ca the usda . > > > I'm not sure who is "ripping off" whom when organic growers want the > > full premium for their production, but seem pathologically unwilling to > > make the efforts in soil care and recordkeeping (including > > certification) to justify that premium. > > all these certifiers and inspectors and usda made jobs and state run > rip-offs don't make me organic and don't justify any premium I may get it > is the fact that I farm organic my own labor not what these pencle pushers > do . if you don't trust me and you don't trust CCOF and you don't trust > IFOAM and you don't trust the state of Ca. what makes you think they will > trust the USDA. i don't understand if I did not do anything different this > year than last year why just because the date changes and it 99 or 20000 why > do they all get to line up and get paid again . just because the year > changes does not mean I changed anything. so why every year what does that > date change have to do with being organic . > > > > > I have been on 2 acre organic vegetable farms with 125-150 ton/acre > > annual erosion rates. They were pocketing their premium and giving > > absolutely nothing back to the land. Their sales were under $5,000 but > > they should no more have the right to call themselves organic than if > > they had been using Sevin to control squash bugs. It us the > > certification process --- with all its flaws --- that should be making > > that determination. Self-definition as organic, regardless of size, is > > simply wrong. > > > so what! you know a cheater big deal so make every one doing good give up > their right to innocent until proven guilty and the organic grower is guilty > until he pays to prove he is innocent. and pays and pays and pays over and > over again every year. year after year.to more and more people. bullshit. > I did not do anything different this year than last year yet they line up to > get their pound of flesh every year. are you organic ok pay us. bullshit > why should I pay more than a chemical farmer to sell my goods . whats is > fair about that. > who is this USDA and STATE and inspector and certifier that their word is > better than mine and why should I pay all of them. > > What happen to my robe of innocence? > > you mean the state does not trust the certifier and the certifier does not > trust the inspector and the USDA does not trust any of them. hehe I am > certified for my customers but this is getting nuts. I can't even support > me let alone a big bureaucratic sink hole. every one charging what they > like and I am in the middle being force to pay what every they ask and do > what every they ask and bow to all these folks that don't do shit for me but > take my money. My customers are happy with my CCOF and IFoam certification > and I don't need any more people to pay off. > so you know a cheater turn him in don't make me pay for his wrong doing I > can't afford it. turn in his certifier turn in his inspector but because > some one growing organic may cheat don't make me pay over and over again to > more and more people what ever they bill me. > the inspectors just gave themselves another raise now they get full pay for > driving to your house plus gas and motel room . the state guy is getting > paid and only works a three day week is on a real powertrip just talking to > him makes me sick and they did not send me my registration for over 8 months > just to show me how much power they have. powertripers they got to show you > they got the power if you are cheating or not and the USDA is releasing > living Frankenstein plants that will make organic growing imposable. you > think drift was a problem wait till these GMO start to drift. and you want > me to bow down and kiss up to these folks. don't get me started. they all > got to show you how much power they got don't do any thing to help u only > there to whip their power trip on you . yes boss slavemasters extortionists > the Mafia won that's why you don't hear about them. now the government > controls the gambling and the loan sharking and the extortion. When the > Mafia did it they called it numbers game now the government calls it the > lottery . you better worry about the real cheaters the fox you all want to > watch the hen house. Just say no to the organic tax just say no to > oppression of the poor and rightous. > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 14:50:56 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23006 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04456 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:31 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from saffron.propagation.net (saffron.propagation.net [216.221.160.23]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04406 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from 204.149.164.194 (mx3-51.ilhawaii.net [204.149.164.194]) by saffron.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26709; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:15:12 -0600 Message-ID: <381F3BE8.76F0@smallfarms.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:30:48 -1000 From: Glenn Reply-To: glenn@smallfarms.com Organization: smallfarms.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: who are our friends? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: X-UID: 99 Morning! I visited the http://www.thehungersite.com, the people who donate food for hits we make there. Their numbers are impressive! Have a look at their list of sponsors which is varied and really impressive. It reminded me of the importance of seeking out and retaining our friends and partners in the sustainable, organic, small farms part of the food business. We know of at least one chef who is listening to our discussions because he posted a short message recently. Who else are we talking talking with? Are we covering all of our friends? glenn Buy from the Farmer http://www.smallfarms.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 15:10:54 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23282 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08751 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08649 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:29:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22398; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:27:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id OAA28146; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:27:18 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:27:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Bluestem Associates cc: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 100 On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Bluestem Associates wrote: > Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 15:59:19 > From: Bluestem Associates > To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" > Subject: The word "organic," a right? > > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. > > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. It is not the government's business to enforce this process. Private organic certification agencies and discerning consumers are all that is required to carry this out successfully. Of course if "We're THE Organic People", Inc. UnLtd. wants to mass market "official USDA Certified Organic soy doodles" to 1 billion dumbells who can't or won't read the label, then that's another matter, but WHY do skilled, committed, productive, deserving small organic growers have to make huge sacrifices to make this scam possible both for the government and their favored buddies in the corporate megalith agribiz world. I know, Dennis Avery told them it was OK. > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." > > > Bart Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 15:25:54 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23784 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:25:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15610 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:39:29 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from THE-SPA.COM (the-spa.com [204.97.227.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15537 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:39:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisa ([206.153.193.183]) by THE-SPA.COM with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 4839700 ; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:37:07 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991102143716.00794be0@buylocalfood.com> X-Sender: markl@buylocalfood.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:37:16 -0500 To: jimdpitts@aol.com, jazzli@crocker.com, emaltby@open-field.org, begg@together.net, Mmaide@aol.com, bschultz@hampshire.edu, barts@valinet.com, bwallace@javanet.com, pickens@crocker.com, dcooley@microbio.umass.edu, kruhf@smallfarm.org, jcutson@hampshire.edu, Mmaide@aol.com, gabyi@buylocalfood.com, nefood-l@listproc.tufts.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu From: Mark Subject: High Tech Food Fight Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 101 >From the National Journal, 10/23/99, p. 3075: More than two dozen Washington trade associations eager to promote wider public acceptance of genetically altered food have formed the Alliance for Better Foods. The group's members include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Meat Institute, the Food Distributors International and the National Food Processors Association. The group, which was cooked up earlier this month, is focusing on public relations rather than lobbying, said Stephen Gaskill, a spokesman for the group. The coalition, he added, operates out of the Washington office of BSMG Worldwide, a New York City-based PR firm. "Biotech food has such promise, and the science is so sound, that we wanted to ensure that products were not derailed by opposition before people have a real chance to understand what this is and what it can do," Gaskill said. The Alliance for Better Foods joins another group - the International Food Information Council - which has worked on public education about biotech food since 1985. Both groups face continuing criticism of genetically altered foods from, among other organizations, Greenpeace and Consumers Union. Exemplifying the influence of such foes, Greenpeace convinced Gerber Products CO. earlier this year to keep genetically engineered products out of its baby foods, according to Charles Margulis, a specialist in genetic-engineering issues for Greenpeace in Washington. ---------------------------------------------------- Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) An independent non-profit organization. http://www.buylocalfood.com 893 West Street Amherst MA 01002-5001 T: 413-559-5338 F: 413-559-5404 To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 16:47:50 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25192 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:47:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04695 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:10:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04625 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:10:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24626 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:08:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (london@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id QAA02461 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:08:28 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: london owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:08:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Lawrence F. London, Jr." X-Sender: london@titan.oit.unc.edu To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 102 On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Bluestem Associates wrote: > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. To repeat your words, "a *privilege* to be earned" is exactly right in the context of a producer wishing to market products labelled CERTIFIED organic as opposed to "organic", a label that anyone should be free to use, putting their credibility, accountability and quality assurance on the line for public scrutiny of, course. Organic certification agencies not given a free ride through government enforcement of organic labelling laws it creates and tailors to its own desired ends, would be motivated to compete with fellow certification agencies for clients seeking certification, touting their standards as the most exacting and reliable. Producers would strive to attain certification from the best agencies in order to gain maximum market access. "Letting the government do it" simply gives certification agencies a free ride and opens the door to abuse of the system, on the backs of the small organic grower who cannot afford the time and expense of getting certification and would rather rely on nearby local sales and building reputation and sales by "word of mouth", a perfectly legitimate and extremely effective way of doing business. Customers would gain by participating in such a system by having access to a broader range of products, possibly of better or equal quality to "certified organic" ones and participaion in a time-honored traditional marketing system that is more farmer, customer and and community-friendly, a system modeled in part on the Fertile Crescent, foodshed and food circle concepts. Get and keep the government out of the organic labelling business and let it stick to enforcing truth-in-labelling laws and monitoring the safety of products. > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn > the privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet > all the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher > unless I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups > offering that service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* > not matter. > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." Nothing wrong with that and it usually comes with a high price tag these days as so many food products in the marketplace continue be adulterated and of poor nutritional quality. Lawrence F. London, Jr. Venaura Farm http://metalab.unc.edu/permaculture /intergarden /intergarden/orgfarm /ecolandtech lflondon@mindspring.com london@metalab.unc.edu To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 17:18:30 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25788 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23181 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:38:47 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from coyote.rain.org (postfix@coyote.rain.org [198.68.144.2]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23164 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:38:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sals (maxmp-128.rain.org [198.68.144.128]) by coyote.rain.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 030B861765; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:36:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001c01bf257a$5b644900$809044c6@rain.org> From: "Sal" To: "Bluestem Associates" , References: Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:36:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 103 check out a organic growers web page http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Bluestem Associates To: Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 3:59 PM Subject: The word "organic," a right? > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. > > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. > > The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone > can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." > I have been certified for over 15 years and have my land inspected and have paid a certifier and a inspector and the state of ca. all that time every year,year after year and I do care what is called organic what u talking about. and if a Rabbi comes to my house and kills a chicken and tells me it is kosher I would trust him . You trust the paper more than the Rabbi. hehe whats up with u telling folks How I feel. I been playing by the books for so long because I do care where organic is going and I don't like what I see. you going to force your powertrip on me telling me how I feel and saying I need some big brother to watch over me because I am "growing organic"I don't know what non natural and natural is and saying I have to bow to the USDA who are the real folks that don't know GMO from natural. your right I do disagree with you I feel if you grow organic you should be free to tell the world you do by growing organic that is what give me the right to use that word. I feel I have as much a right to use that word as anyone because I grow organic. ... .they have turned the word organic into a political football subject to hard money and soft money and back door money and under the table money and we want our word back. I have been using it and folks have grown organic for 6000 years and only now this generation of vipers want to tax u for being natural . they want to make you pay for the chemicals you don't use.is this a joke or what. is this backwards or what. and u bluestem associates what ever that means don't tell folks what I think I can tell them my self. I don't think this take over of the word organic and the con job by the USDA is a good idea and I don't like paying the state of Ca. just because I am organic why should they get extra money from me just because Im organic. . you are right I do feel if I grow organic I have the right to tell folks how I grew their food something the USDA does not feel folks have a right to know. we are paying too many people to much of our hard earned money. its a rip off. how many bureaucratic pencil pushing bottom feeders do I have to pay off just to be able to tell the truth. farming is hard enough with out all these bosses working their power trips on you . the bureaucratic bullshit is harder than the farming. they are all on powertrips who needs it. the biggest pest i have is this bureaucratic bullshit pest . they don't pick up a hoe or help u pick food or even pull a weed yet they feel they have a right to your money and the feel they have the right to tell you what they want from u because u are organic. they do nothing only boss u each with his own power trip what a night mare . they love to show you how much power they have. I don't need anymore more bosses . they think they are such bigshots give them a little power and they powertrip on you. It is that old slavemaster sprit they still have it. the USDA in all my years has not been the organic growers friend or the small farmers friend or the black farmers friend in fact they are the biggest reason you don't see many of these kinds of farmers. the fox watching the hen house . we don't need no stinking badges. > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 18:52:04 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27150 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21950 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from envsci.rutgers.edu (envsci.rutgers.edu [165.230.5.130]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21899 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from bermuda-asy-1.rutgers.edu (bermuda-asy-1.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.129]) by envsci.rutgers.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA10956; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:11:50 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: envsci.rutgers.edu: bermuda-asy-1.rutgers.edu [128.6.248.129] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <381F999E.72AD@envsci.rutgers.edu> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:10:38 -0800 From: Loren Muldowney Reply-To: loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU Organization: Individual X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bluestem Associates CC: sanet Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 104 Bluestem Associates wrote: > > Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word > "organic" in the marketplace. > > He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious > who-knows what. I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be > earned. There exists at least one other option, and I would welcome commentary from everyone involved in buying, selling, marketing, or regulating, since the concept can be applied much more widely than just to the "organic" market. This option is basing the regulatory frame, not upon the dollar amount sold, but on the level of anonymity involved in the transaction chain, or the number of steps between producer and consumer, or some kind of measure other than a financial one. So, if I am buying personally, face to face, from a local farm, and I know these people and my kids go to school with their kids, and I see every day how they live their lives and I go past their fields and can ask them personally about various practices and problems, that is really very different than if I am making an anonymous purchase through a third party. Why not make the exemptions based, not on income, but on the relationship between buyer and seller? If I am in position where t's physically possible to decide personally whether I trust that specific producer personally, what is the interest of the Federal Government, state government, or anybody else in that transaction? The matter is in the realm of personal affairs between two individuals. This can apply to buying milk, eggs and butchered livestock from my neighbors as easily as to organic produce. When I am "protected" only from making my own decisions, who is really served? Who would object to making the criteria based on relationship? > There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the > privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all > the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless > I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that > service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. Well, actually, some individuals accept one organization's standards of kosher and not others. And as long as the consumer knows who is doing the certifying, who is harmed? It's just like when the different organic certifiers didn't have to pretend they were all the same, when in fact they were not. I used to be able to purchase based on who did the certifying, and those days will be over soon, probably devolving to the lowest common denominator, but possibly even worse. In the case of kosher food, the word "kosher" is not the deciding thing, it is the registered trademark of the certifying organization which carries the weight. Speaking here from the hub of orthodox Judaism in the USA...... LM To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 20:34:30 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28875 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03829 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:10:19 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from taurus.greensoft.com ([204.77.122.1]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03809 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from webserf.net (unverified [10.0.0.101]) by taurus.greensoft.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.179) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:13:42 -0600 Message-ID: Received: from bluestem [204.77.126.175] by webserf.net (SMTPD32-4.03) id AB3C634500BC; Tue, 02 Nov 1999 19:09:16 CDT From: "Bluestem Associates" To: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 01:07:53 Reply-To: "Bluestem Associates" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 105 On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:10:38 -0800, Loren Muldowney wrote: >There exists at least one other option, and I would welcome commentary >from everyone involved in buying, selling, marketing, or regulating, >since the concept can be applied much more widely than just to the >"organic" market. This option is basing the regulatory frame, not upon >the dollar amount sold, but on the level of anonymity involved in the >transaction chain, or the number of steps between producer and consumer, >or some kind of measure other than a financial one. I agree totally, big or small, size has nothing to do with it. Certification is institutionalised trust. When the trust relationship is there, you don't need the institution. In fact, I'll take well-placed trust over 'institution' any day of the week. The question of certification has everything to do with distance and intermediaries. Allow me to quote from an article I wrote in Growing for Market in May of 1999. I was referring to lot numbers, but that is a good substitute for the whole system of certification. "[certification] is almost always unnecessary for vegetables sold primarily into local markets (CSA, farmers' markets, farm stand, a few restaurants, etc.) In broad terms, if there is no more than one intermediary between you and the customer you can dispense with [certification] altogether for produce. Once you get into wholesale markets, however, where there are two or more intermediaries, [certification] is generally more important." (page 8) Let me add, since some folks seem to have some confusion about the matter, that I am categorically opposed to government involvement in certification beyond (possibly) the establishment of minimum standards as a mandatory *floor* (not ceiling), thereby eliminating all the California Code charlatans currently undermining the market for legitimate organic growers of all sizes. To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail From owner-sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Tue Nov 2 20:40:23 1999 Received: from shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (shasta.ces.ncsu.edu [152.1.45.61]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28972 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11175 for sanet-mg-outgoing; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:21:31 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shasta.ces.ncsu.edu: majord set sender to owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu using -f Received: from mailmtx.acnet.net ([170.76.16.10]) by shasta.ces.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11063 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:21:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [148.233.231.168] by mailmtx.acnet.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52476U50000L50000S0V35) with SMTP id net; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:18:41 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:17:32 -0600 From: Douglas Hinds X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.36) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: Douglas Hinds Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1803.991102@acnet.net> To: "Bluestem Associates" CC: "sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu" Subject: Re: The word "organic," a right? In-reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 106 Hi Bart (and all the rest of you fellow saneters), Before going any further, I want to say that I have tremendous respect for Bart and consider many of his accomplishments to be extremely important. Having said that, I must state that I seem to share the "fundamental difference over use of the word "organic" in the marketplace" that he says he seems to have with Sal; except that in this instance I share it with Sal. Here's why (we'll continue below): Tuesday, November 02, 1999, 9:59:19 AM, you wrote: BA> Sal and I seem to have a fundamental difference over use of the word BA> "organic" in the marketplace. BA> He sees it as a *right* to be revoked only in the case of egregious BA> who-knows what. Here's what: It is true that the word "organic" has more than one usage. On the one hand, it represents a set of philosophic principles that in turn, have become embodied in specific farm production systems and the products that emanate from same. On the other hand, it is a word that has arrived at, through the hard work, perseverance and integrity of many (not the least of which is Bart Hall), at an important level of public and specifically, *consumer* recognition. In other words, the word organic itself has become imbued with it's own market value and can be considered a valuable commodity, the control of which lends considerable power and opportunity to whoever holds it. The meaning of a word is invariably related to it's etymology, or origins; coupled with the more recent and current common usage the word has been given, in practice. As things now stand, organic foods are those that were produced, handled and sometimes processed, using methods consistent with the organic philosophy and tradition. Additionally, an industry of third party "objective witnesses" has also developed, some of which have achieved a fair degree of respect within certain circles of buyers, be they consumers of intermediaries. These self proclaimed "objective witnesses", supported by those that value their "services" proportion a kind of affidavit as to the products' adherence to organic principles and processes, a "certification" as it were. Some state governments, building on their ability to make obligatory the use of this service from the vantage point of the political power they wield, have themselves entered into the "certification business". >From this perspective (a third definition), a product isn't organic on the basis of the way it was cultivated, handled and sometimes processed (Sal says it is, but Bart says it isn't), because from *this* perspective, the product is organic at the moment THE MAN with the POWER says it is, and not before. In short, words define states. The question is, which definition are we to accept? Which state is the real one? (Can states stand up and talk? You're damn right they can. Read on). BA> I (and many others) see it as a *privilege* to be BA> earned. And WHO, good buddy, doles out that *privilege*? Do we have to stand in line for it, after having followed all the appropriate principles, precepts and practices? Are our buyers and those who consume our products demanding that? BA> There are many other marketing words for which you must earn the BA> privilege of use --- kosher being the most obvious one. I may meet all BA> the requirements of kosher, but I cannot call my products kosher unless BA> I'm certified by one of the half dozen or so major groups offering that BA> service. Whether I'm small or not does not, and *should* not matter. We are not even going to discuss in this forum, the power that religion holds over it's disciples. BA> The most obvious example of Sal's preferred system --- in which anyone BA> can call themselves whatever they feel like --- is "natural." BA> Bart Bart, what we really need is a comprehensive and consistent definition of what "organic is and isn't". But leave the need for verifying or not verifying that to those involved in each and every transaction. Once a valid legal definition that in turn is congruent with organic principles and tradition, one that is supported by the organic community exists; the state of being organic or not organic is INHERENT IN THE PRODUCT. The product embodies that state, and this state is something VERIFIABLE when this is appropriate; that is, when for the demand for it arises. This is true because we are talking about the possibility of consumer fraud having been committed. The questions Sal raised (and they're good ones) is WHO should bear the cost of verification and when should that cost be incurred. The answer is simple. (In reverse order): When reasonable doubt exists as to the veracity of the claims made, the cost being born by those that have made false claims when these have been proved false. On the one hand a given product is proclaimed to be organic, and on the other a suspicion has been raised that it isn't. Payment for the verification procedure should depend on the outcome of those tests. This is what Sal is saying. Let the USDA get into the certification business if it wants to, but let it compete in the market for those services like anybody else: Based on the merit of the service provided, as judged by those who use the service. For many, verification on demand will be preferable to obligatory and universal certification, and the legal basis for needs to be created. We can talk about legal definitions, talk about congress and the president of the united states if you like - but reality is not created by decree, my friends; nor is the meaning of words, particularly when they've been around as long as this one has, and has come to mean what it does precisely because there IS a difference in the value and results of different types of agricultural production systems, one founded on biological principles and processes, the other on easily commercialized bottles of chemicals that make little or no effort to account for the effects on the environment and human health they produce. I share Sal's outrage and find ample basis for his totally sincere and well founded analysis of the present situation. He's getting screwed as things stand and deserves much better treatment from the elected authorities who've sworn to uphold the public good, with liberty and justice for all. He's supporting a whole network of bureaucrats that add no value to the crops he himself produces, at his own cost. The idea that someone farther away from the scene is better equipped to determine whether or not his product is as he and his clients say it is, is an insult. If a reasonable doubt exists, that that doubt be raised in an appropriate forum, with the risk shared by both parties. If periodic inspections are called for due to public health concerns (as they could be in any industry and for organic and conventional farmers alike), funding for these should be derived from the same tax moneys that fund any other governmental activity at present, without penalizing the farmers that are doing more than the rest to produce a healthy, nutritious product without damaging the environment, and doing so on the basis of their own