Subject: About Killing Things/Organics vs. non-organics

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 09 May 94 12:30:48 PDT

> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Articles About Killing Things
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Sender: [email-masked] (USENET News System)
> Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO
> Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 17:32:49 GMT
> 
> 	Keep in mind also that when you go 100% organic, it requires more
> 	land to get similar yields as conventional methods.  I don't see how
> 	putting even more land into cultivation (some sources say up to 2x)
> 	can really be considered taking care of the earth.  I'll stick with
> 	high yield crops and responsible use of available technologies.
> 
> 	BTW, we have a garden in the back and three cats (and they only go
> 	out on a leash).
> 
> 	Rick Hoffman
> 

Certainly not to flame here, but I really do question the validity of such a 
blanket statement as the one above, talking about requiring more land for 
organic methods.  The methodology or technology used in urban gardens of by 
farmers is by far not exacting enough for such statements.  I have seen this 
statement supposedly supported and disproved in both organic and non-organic 
situations.  Using organic does not naturally limit your productivity any 
more that insuring greater productivity.  The appropriateness of any 
technology (organic or non-organic) to a given situation is what creates 
this sort of situation.  I feel it is inappropriate to give people the wrong 
idea about one approach of the other, or to seem to discount one approach on 
only one point.  Farming &/or horticulture are so complex in the factors 
which effect yield, such simplicity of thought is foolishness.

Concerning non-organic methods:  Many great strides have been made recently 
in the area of sustainable agriculture, which to my mind is primarily 
appropriate for long term economic as well as environmental reasons.  
Appropriate technology should always be applied to any situation if we are 
to operate efficiently and productively.  You can be passivley organic 
and produce a rather rotten crop, and therefore require a larger amount 
of land for that same yield.  But many agressivly organic farmers are now 
showing that yields can be extremely high using these practices.  But 
farming is a very different situation from the average persons urban or 
suburban garden.

For the average homeowner, there is genreally little need for the amount of 
non-organics that are marketed to them annually, only to be required again 
and again in the short term - sound economics for the product marketer - 
poor idea for the consumer and the environment.  Any situation that would 
SEEM to require a non-organic action (or for that matter, any sort of 
expensive, time-consuming, disruptive activity), should be analyzed first to 
assess need, impact, payback, etc.  More often that not, people figure out 
that little or no action is required.  If some sort of action is required, 
an approach with minimal impact to the non-problem aspects of the garden 
would certainly be perfered.

One of the major advatanges in my mind of organic methods over non-organics 
is the fact that they promote balanced natural systems in the environment 
(either your garden or globally).  These natural systems evolved over 
millions of years and can be harnessed to work for us, just as we have 
domesticated wild animals.  Why not 'cash-in' on a process that will work 
for you, instead of trying to be the process by controlling the environment 
through articficial means and therefore working against these natural 
processes.  Certainly, if we are to be able to grow vegies or farm 
commercially, we need to have A DEGREE of control over things.  But 
fostering a process that will sustain itself, by itself, more easily over 
the long run is certainly preferable (and make a lot more sense) than a 
short term 'fix' that will be needed again and again in the future, doing 
little to sustain itself or its effect, and running the risk of becoming 
ineffective over time due to the same natural evolution (i.e bugs becoming 
resistant to some pesticides).

My 2 (or 20) cents

       Sean A. O'Hara, 710 Jean St., Oakland, Ca. 94610-1459
            [email-masked] or [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (howard fujimoto)
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 00:07:01 GMT

>             [email-masked] or [email-masked]

O.k.  My two cents.  My family has and all ways will be farmers of one type
or another.  From up to a thousand to five acres  of land.  Half of us are
organic and half of us are not.  I believe that over the years we have all
had our more than fair share of success.  With some crops and plants better
than others.  But, what has caught our eyes and interest is that there are
large amount of Amish, that do only Organic crop farming and are making a
profit, while other farmers with non-organic, modern methods are losing
thier livelyhood.  Slowly, all farmers in our family are pulling towards
organic and less modern methods....It may be a whole lot harder and a whole
lot more time consuming BUT My children can get involved... THAT pleases me
to no end.  They get to release the lady bugs to eat the aphids..  They are
learning that MODERN is not always best in all situations...   I realize
that there are going to be people that dis-agree but, hey.. my two cents...

Any comments... please send to internet.. 

Patti

---

From: [email-masked] (howard fujimoto)
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 00:07:01 GMT

Patti