Building Ecology

The best practice for pest management on farms, is building the ecological webs.

In a conventional farm, substances are sprayed over the whole field.  Depending on the pesticide, it either will kill all the of the bugs, or select few.  But it's difficult to target specific organisms without disrupting others.  If one organism is targeted -- and let's say it kills the larvae, suddenly the predator that typically feeds on that organism will need to find another food source, their numbers will drastically dwindle. And unlike the 'prey' or the 'pest' species who has evolved to produce many offspring and very quickly as a response to be being attacked by predators, the predator population has evolved to be slow reproducing with few offspring to make sure through it's numbers it doesn't deplete it's food supply.  This makes it very difficult for predator numbers to bounce back, as 'prey' or 'pest' populations can and do -- and often times with greater resistance to the pesticide if the pesticide was sprayed in 'sublethal' doses. The predator doesn't really have that quick of a turn over rate to build tolerance as the 'pest' species does.  Thereby, pesticides further erode top insect 'predators' from the landscape, while further strengthening pest populations.   This severely impairs the resiliency of that agroecosystem (the farm's ecosystem).  Because now that farm is very dependent on chemicals to 'control' outbreaks.

Synthetic fertilizers also create a very 'unnatural' environment for plants.  Since the nutrient is so readily available and typically spread very evenly on the fields, plant roots will stay very close to the surface.  They don't need to 'scavenge' for nutrients in the soil.  This creates an environment of plants which become very dependent on regular waterings as well as nutrition.  This is because plants who live under more 'natural' conditions, where nutrients come through compost and other organic debris, it creates a reserve of nutrients.  Not only does organic debris maintain water more readily, but the micro-organisms in this matter also break down the nutrients in webs and patterns, making it necessary for plants to stretch their roots further out.  Essentially the more 'outstretched' plant or trees roots are, the more resilient they will be to change in weather patterns or in infrequent 'nutrient' inputs-- because the roots have access to a greater proportion of soil.

Organic practices come closer to replicating natural systems in many cases than do conventional farms.
The less we target to exterminate 'pests' the less we accidentally end up targeting beneficial organisms which feed into the larger ecological system in the farm.  The more diverse the farm is, the more resilient it can be to extreme weather situations.  The better it will be in breaking down organic debris into nutrients for plants.  Different micro-organisms specialize in the breakdown of different types of organic matter.

Also many conventional farmers spray fungicides -- which don't typically get a lot of media attention, but this can dramatically affect soil health.

They do this, in order to prevent fungal diseases on the plants, but when these fungicides seep down into the soil, they prevent beneficial fungal relationships between plant roots and fungi.  These mycelium networks attach to tree and plant roots and act as somewhat of an extension of roots to the plants, they will help the plants by finding nutrients and water for the plant, and the plant will benefit the fungi by providing energy from photosynthesis to the fungi.

Everything works together in such beautiful harmony.

The more we can learn nature's processes, the easier it will be to team with her, to create beautiful bountiful systems.

Expanding our circle of love

It is interesting, that for what makes a 'good' person, generally, for the most part, people regard other people as 'good' if they are involved in 'humanitarian' affairs.

This involves, feeding the poor, building homes for the poor -- anything to do with helping the poor in any way shape or form.

It involves being kind to people, it involves working hard for your family.  It involves seeking to find cures for cancer and aids, being a doctor or a lawyer -- professions known for their service to others.  Granted, it also pays quite well.  But this is exactly what people find worthy of higher prices, they want to make sure that they can get the best doctor and the best care that they can.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these factors.  However, the cultural appropriateness of our times, has imbedded these values so deeply into our psyche that we are not quite emotionally associated with them, as we are ideologically attached to them.  So we value them almost on a superficial level,  helping humanity in this way, is the 'good' thing to do, I will 'earn' a lot of money, it will look 'good' on a resume, I will impress so many people, people will 'like' me because of this.  The list goes on.

If the compassion was real.  It wouldn't stop at humans.  Because we have this heightened value on being human without a real connection to what compassion actually means, It barricades humanity from really understanding what it means to be of full service to life.  Our cultural parameters are currently giving no direction on enlightenment.  In fact, it's doing quite the opposite, it seems to be reinforcing habits and behaviors that pull consciousness towards the ego.  

With all of the confusing signals, it's no wonder that humanity is actually in sort of semi conscious delusional state.  Where value is spoken about human life.  We attempt to value human life, but we get confused and 

I would like to say, 'human life'.  Because everyone 'knows' culturally, that this is what makes you a 'good' person, but in actuality, the feelings are quite dull and disorganized.  This is why it's so easy for wars to start, for mothers to kill babies, for abuse in homes and for murder on the streets.  You can't associate value to one aspect of life, while ignoring the rest of it, and expect the masses to blindly follow.  Life doesn't work like that.  You either have love and compassion for all of life, or you don't. Picking and choosing, only creates separation, and that separation starts bleeding into the parameters that were first designed to create that original distinction.. which in our case, is being human.  

It's gone quite chaotic actually.  On the outside, everything we do, is for the sake of 'humanity'.  But in reality, it doesn't exist, everything that ends up being done, is really just being done in this state of confusion.  And the person doing the 'good' ends up just being allotted more 'resources' for being 'good'.   It creates, definitely a negative feedback loop.  People striving for higher and higher achievements for greater and greater personal gains disguised as 'worldly gains'.  

This is not meant to throw any one under a bus, what I mean is, if the person is supposedly 'giving to humanity'  but creating massive destruction in regards to the environment or parts of humanity that go unseen or subjugating animals... in no way, are these functions, actually 'giving or serving humanity'.  In our system, unfortunately we don't have these checks.. and actually the people who make the most money for 'serving humanity' are most often destroying nature and living organisms in the process.  

Let's take agriculture.  The latest dilemma among top agricultural scientists, is "how to feed the world".  This has got to be the most ridiculous scientific pursuit, if I have ever heard of one.  

Of course, no one deserves to starve.  But currently the debate in the agricultural community is this,

1-- Organic agriculturists claim that organic has the answer -- that it can easily feed the world and do so in a way that would be affordable to small rural poor farmers, it can also provide ecological functions long term, it doesn't degrade the land or the soil or the water supplies. ... etc.

2-- Among conventional agriculturists, they claim that organic agriculture will need 2x as much land to feed the world than conventional farms will to 'feed the world', so they claim that this will destroy more pristine habitat in order to accomplish 'feeding' the world' under an organic system. 

Conventional agriculturists say that the 2nd green revolution is coming and it will involve GMOs feeding the world.  They will create pesticide tolerant plants and vitamin enhanced grains.

So, the conventional folk are leaving out some major factors.

1- They are not considering that organic agriculture in many parts of the world are making use of degraded, barren plots of land -- that have already been abandoned by conventional farmers -- who farmed for too long unsustainably in one place.  Organic does not inherently mean that we need to destroy more forests and pristine habitat.  They are also not considering that when comparing yields of multi cropped systems, organic agriculture often fairs ahead of the game.  Actually this is the only way to reduce malnutrition.  Feeding one town with only one grain-- even if it is enhanced with more vitamin A-- won't be sufficient in meeting their nutritional needs.  

2- These fancy GMOs and other agricultural technologies often don't make it to impoverished areas.. and if they do they wreck havoc on the local economy because farmers are permanently indebted to these huge companies.  Blanket solutions that are thought to solve 'world problems'  are complete propaganda.  Every place is dramatically different, with dramatically different weather systems, cultural norms, soil types.. we need individualized solutions to fit specific places.. not 'world solutions' to fit every place.   It's complete arrogance for big agricultural companies to convince people that this is the way to 'feed the world'.  They are masking their own greed for wealth, by essentially 'selling' their product to a market--which economically speaking, of course they are going to want to sell it to the 'world',  they make billions in revenue every year.

The first green revolution Cargill's revenue increased by 86% in 3 months.  This was the phase of synthetic chemicals and pesticides.  Their revenue jumped from 553 million to 1030 million.  

And did it actually feed the world?  Not even close.  Actually today, there are more hungry people then we have ever seen in history.  Why?  Because they are being trickled food.. enough to reproduce yet not enough to live normal lives, and the 'food' that these companies say will feed them.. is white rice.. wheat.... These foods are not nutritionally adequate.  

3- They also forgot to mention that creating genes that are more pest resistant.. actually is only short term, the pests become increasingly immune.. and again we are in an arms race with bugs... bugs evolving to cope with the drugs, and we either having to continually splice more pest resistant genes or apply more pesticide.  What we DONT know.  Is what affects these pesticides have on human bodies in that kind of amount.. especially if pesticides are spliced into all of the vegetable genes? Scientific studies have already been published associating neurological disorders with certain pesticides.  Nothing is proven.. but are we willing to take that risk?  If the large corporations take over our food supply and start splicing genes.. there is no going back.  

If we are serious about 'feeding the world'. We have to eradicate this complete bizarre notion that we can 'feed the world'.  It's atrocious wording. 

Let us help our brothers and our sisters feed themselves.  Let's reinvigorate natural habitats, restore previous forests and wetlands -- these are the most sustainable food supplies we could have ever been given.  They don't need outside water, they don't need constant care.  We need to restore the land, before the land restores us... to the land because we haven't figured out what ACTUALLY supports humanity.  Which is actually... every living and non living being on planet earth.

We have falsely assumed that humanity supports humanity.  This is a huge joke.  We can only support other humans, if we have healthy ecosystems.  

Many conventional agriculturists believe that organic can't feed the world because it is too expensive.

This is something else that obviously hasn't really been considered.  Conventional agriculture uses massive amounts of fossil fuels, in order to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere into synthetic compounds to use on the farm.  Which actually becomes more of a salt.. so it only gives the appearance of big plants.. when actuality, it's mostly water retention.  This is why organic produce is often smaller, because the vegetables and the fruits are closer to their natural form with much more condensed nutrition load.  This is another reason why they say yield is so much greater for conventional, but in reality they are adding up water weight mostly.

Another thing that was not considered is that organic agriculture is not subsidized-- it's possible that perhaps some large farms could be, but for the most part organic farms are too small to be subsidized and they have too much variation in their produce.  Subsidies typically come from a very large supply of one kind of crop -- typically something like rice, soybean or corn.  

Huge subsidies are allotted to these grains, and then to industries that create meat.  

If we were to raise the cost of meat.. to it's actual cost. A pound of beef would cost something like $27.

That is just conventionally raised!  

Perhaps one of the best things we could do, is take away our subsidies on grains, and start subsidizing diverse fruit and vegetable crops.  This would raise the price of grain and meat, providing a real incentive for people to lower their consumption of these foods, which actually could be the best thing 'humanity' could do for our current health issues. 

Large meat and grain consumption have huge health implications, because many people only eat these foods and totally ignore the importance of a diet mostly based on fruit and vegetables.  Heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes.. etc, all are effects of a diet based on too little vegetable and fruit intake.  

The more we can learn to care about our surrounding ecosystem functions, the lives of other plants and animal species, and the quality of life as it is... without trying to be improved upon and re-invented... the more we will actually see the what it means to live life with integrity, purpose, compassion and good-will.  This curse of anthropocentrism needs to end.. before it ends all of us.

We are only a strand in this huge web of life... somehow we have successfully encouraged and perpetuated the demise of other living organisms.. and soon we will find that we were attached to them all .. all along, as their demise, only drags us along.  

Zinc Foliar Sprays

12. (and the list continues)

It's interesting that a common practice in farms are foliar nutrient sprays.  Once a year the farmer will spray a diluted nutrient, for example zinc, on his crop.  The interesting thing is, even if the plant or the tree is showing signs of deficiency, the nutrient sprayed on the plant will be immediately taken in by the leaves, flowers and even fruit to help alleviate those problems.  It seems like such a bizarre yet amazing thing that fruits and flowers can directly use the nutrients applied to them.

On the flip side, is that this means that everything we spray on our plants, is readily taken in by the plant.  All the pesticides, the insecticides, herbicides.  Plants have evolved to take in substances through their leaves, flowers and fruits.  Of course before we created these 'cides', this ability of the plant to absorb from their leaves, could only be of benefit to the plant, and perhaps some of these chemicals don't necessarily hurt the plant, but everything has repercussions up the food chain.

bon appetit.  Another reason to buy organic.

According to this study:
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/41/1/99.full.pdf

Even with organic trees deficient in Zinc, and no zinc foliar sprays applied due to lack of availability, the same trees the very next year were not deficient in Zinc.  In fact they had equivalent levels of zinc to the conventional plots which had received foliar sprays.

Because compost is essentially, a 'whole' food for plants.  It should contain all the nutrients that the plants need for growth and health.  It may seem like we need micro-manage every part of our operation, but it may not be so necessary.

We have three 30year+ old apple trees in the backyard.  For 3 years, and most likely much longer as well, there are no visual signs of past pruning on the trees, they haven't been pruned.  They also haven't been fertilized by us, the most we have done is mow the weeds/grass underneath them.

Much literature will say that the fruits will be small, won't taste as good and may break the tree, because it produces more than it can properly support.  While I think this may be more true with younger trees and especially peach trees, it's not always the case.

We get an immense supply of apples on our trees, every year, we do have some kind of bugs getting into some of them, but not enough to destroy the apple enough that I am not interested in eating it.  Perhaps the apples are smaller than the ones you get in the store.  However the taste is amazing.  We harvested ample supply of apples this year and honestly, once I've eaten through 1/2 of a box, once I try store fruit again, all I can taste is water.  It's almost unbelievable.

Has the quality of taste of our fruits and vegetables from the store really become water?

During the time of harvest-- when local foods are at their best, yes, my taste buds usually are heavily disappointed with grocery store food at that point.

Not saying that this is a possibility for many farmers, to do nothing.  Because at the end of the day, beauty unfortunately pays more than taste and quality.  On top of the fact that it's rare if not impossible to find a fruit tree production site which isn't in a typical orchard tree growing fashion, where each row has as many trees that it can fit and nothing else is produced but fruit.  In these orchards, most if not all of the trees are harvested, and those nutrients that were in the soil, were first harvested by the tree, into the fruit, and now that fruit is being shipped across the state or country.  When farmers don't replenish their soils, it can be a sort of, 'soil mining'  Getting everything from the soil as possible, until serious deficiency problems start occurring.  In these large scale operations it is really important to add back to the soil.

My farm can get away with it since, we have a variety of plants and weeds growing, and the act of mowing underneath the fruit trees can add a good proportion of nutrients back into the soil.   But once our compost is ready, I'll be sure to give these trees a nice dose :)

Plus, our families income isn't dependent on the income from these fruits, in fact we mostly give it away for free.

Basically what I am saying is, there is an easier way to farm.  It's less complex than we think, and it makes healthier tastier food.

Thanks!

Gmo or no GMO?

I mentioned in the last post that I was going to write a series of commentaries on organic comebacks.  So here goes the next topic, GMO.

This is perhaps a little less scientifically oriented as perhaps a GMO activists would like it to be.  But, science can't deny the fact that some issues, just don't feel necessarily 'okay'.  Here are just a few reasons I feel that.  I don't claim to be anyone important or anyone who should know any more than anyone else.  I just felt like sharing what I currently view about these topics.  

I am not quite sure why I chose this specific article to go through and make rebuttals.  Although he is a 'botanist' and a professor.  I find his way of writing... a little over the top with caps locks, and sometimes quite un-meaningful claims.  But, he has written a lot, and if I am able to go through these reasons, I find it unlikely that any would be left out, he seems to have explained the pro-GMO argument quite extensively, even though his method of argument could use some editing .. in my opinion :)

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/hypocrisy.html

Lol, I'll even address some of the claims that make me giggle.  Only because right now, I have nothing else urging to do, otherwise, I would probably think that this was a complete waste of time, but hehe anyway, here we go.

1-- organic supporters are fundamentalists-

 -- Sure, I can agree to that.  Organic agriculture does have a strict set of rules that needs to be followed in order to be labelled as such, without this strict adherence, there would be little meaning in the word 'organic'.  It ensures that artificial fertilizers aren't used, sludge isn't used, biodiversity is considered, alternative farming methods are considered, water and soil aren't contaminated with man made chemicals that have long- residual effects on the eco-system -- or even other natural elements.

-- being a fundamentalist isn't necessarily a bad.. or a good thing, it just is.  Even conventional agriculturists are fundamentalists in a way.  They are proponents of chemicals, gmos, of not changing the current system. If they were interested in another way... they would probably be a finding another way to do things.  

Of course that is on one side of the spectrum, the other side of the spectrum would be  totally against tilling, weeding, chemicals, gmos, etc etc, altogether.  

I've also met an organic farmer who was a huge proponent of GMO's-- of course she couldn't grow them with the organic label that she had, but there are all types of people.  Some fit more into specific categories than others.. in the end, fundamentalist doesn't mean much, mostly because the organic label was created by the USDA, and is managed by the USDA -- atleast in the USA, abroad there are different organizations that decide-- but it's all under international agreements about what organic means and how it ought to be labelled.  This was requested by the poeple and for the people.  

The author's next point is on the 'health' argument for/against organics.  I address that in a previous blog.  

But I will mention a tiny detail about what he says at the end of the paragraph -- about a study done to prove that conventional food is perfectly fit for consumption.

-- All I have to say is, "Can we really be sure, with 100% certainty that these biological toxins are safe in small doses on all of our foods, not just in our generation, but for the upcoming generations? Can any 2-4yr scientific experiment be enough to tell us with accuracy how this will affect our minds and bodies or those of our children 50,100 or 200 years down the line?"  

And by that time, if there are any kind of negative consequences associated, and we've invested all of our farmland into producing GMO's to 'save' the world... then... what...? 

2. Organic Farming takes up much more land than conventional farming.

In the end, organic and conventional means really nothing when it comes to how much land it takes up. Honestly, it's a style of farming, but within that either conventional or organic farming can be extremely land consuming, or can be literally produced in the backyard.

His argument is that organic farming needs manure, and if we are 9 or 10 billion soon to be people on earth, than we won't have enough manure to meet these needs.  Well, what about our excrement, we've got plenty!  But this is the assumption that organic farming needs manure.. which isn't always the case.  Organic farming doesn't necessarily need manure, or anything for that matter, there are plenty of farmers who don't actually put anything into their gardens.  Where I work the main source of nutrient is actually planting legumes interspersed with the crops.  This adds nitrogen back into the soil for a fraction of the cost of manure.  Also compost can be used, which essentially could be left over plant material, either plant residue or table scraps, or carrot tops, whatever, yard clippings.  Manure doesn't need to be used.

And currently synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is produced from using a non-renewable product. Natural gas.  Which is, in it's own regard land consuming, and polluting--when extraction doesn't go as planned.   Conventional farming systems use mono-crops, which doesn't really utilize all the vertical space that could be used for growing food.  Organic can include companion planting-- groundcovers, vines, tall plants, short plants, trees... the more mixed the operation the more the land can produce, not necessarily of one product but of many.  This in the long run is much healthier for the soil and more financially stable than only growing one crop.  Think of a farmer who only grows tomato... they have one bad pest year for tomatoes and their whole crop is finished, it might even put the farmer out of business if it's bad enough.  But if only part of his garden is tomatoes, he'll still get enough food and product to use and sell to not be totally destroyed as a farmer for that year.

3. Organic Agriculture can't feed the world.

Again, he is using the same reasons that he mentioned above for this point.  He says that we are already using all of the arable land, so the only way to increase production is to increase the productivity of the farm lands we are already have.

He says that with current models organic ag can only feed 4 billion people.  

 --- This may be true with the assumption that every person on earth needs animal products 3 or more times per day.  This is pretty unsustainable and actually, conventional farming can't even keep up with the demands of food for people today.  At the rate we are currently destroying the rain forest for these, "conventional practices"  We may find ourselves living in an a very oxygen deprived world.  :/  

These ideas that conventional practices can feed the world and will save the world, are nice thoughts, but the reality of it is, is that these countries that are currently providing the western world with all of their meat, foods, fibers and other products aren't really able to afford these agriculture chemicals and soil additions that the west can.  We've introduced them to this 'superior' way of life where we obtain a livelihood from destroying our surroundings.  Because they can't afford to buy these agro-chemicals, the lands can only produce food and fiber for a year or two before they have slash and burn the next segment of rainforest.  In places where it 'seems' like they can afford it, for example India -- because they are able to use pesticides and fertlizers on their land, its not because they can afford it, it's because they have taken out so many loans that are pretty much indentured servants to England and other countries who have set up these systems for them.  There are 100's of Indian farmer suicides every year because farmers feel completely lost and hopeless as to how they can ever get out of debt or ever make a proper livelihood for themselves.  

The more we emphasize organic, the more we can teach people how to be self sufficient how they can use the rainforest to acquire all the needs for their own livelihood sustainably--- for example brazilian nuts, are an example of a cash crop which can only grow in the most pristine forests, therefore, buying brazilian nuts, preserves those very delicate eco-systems.  We can teach those communities in South America about composting, about utilizing what they have available and to combine agroforestry with their crops so they can preserve more land.  (as well as every other place on earth currently destroying natural land for their livelihood)

Organic definitely isn't perfect, and it doesn't automatically mean that our problems will magically vanish.  But it is a step towards re-considering our current farming methods and ways in which we can do them more efficiently and also incorporating native wisdom-- before it's all gone.  Indigenous people have such history and such knowledge of their forests, who are we to say that our thinking/ rational brains and chemical laboratories are more beneficial than 10,000 year old wisdom??  

So far it hasn't failed us.. but at the rate that we are currently destroying the rainforests... it seems a little too obvious that red flags are in the air... that an alternative relationship to our natural world may be approaching, if humans wish to stay here a little longer.  

4.  The author puts a lot of emphasis that GMOS have been around for a whole, 20 years.  

How wonderful.  and twenty years is supposed to be a long time?  Plants are plants?  For some reason this argument as it is, just isn't enough of an argument for me to even want to say anything.  Ancient wisdom which has been around for 1,000's of years, where communities knew not to wash their dirty hands in streams because some society down stream would then have to deal with that in their water.... And today this.. All I have to say about GMO's is this,

Scientists are learning all the time about micro-nutrients and the perfect balances of substances found in plants continually.  Why is it not possible for human beings to survive on supplements alone?  

Why have their efforts to enrich white breads and pastas with nutrients haven't worked to provide superior food for people?  It may or may not be possible to survive on enriched white bread alone.. but I know how I feel after I've only had 1 meal of it.  

Scientists can do their best to make the 'healthiest' foods available.  But in the end, we haven't learned everything.  We don't know everything.  We are all children in a sense, we have only made hypothesis, and have tested them over and over again, but just because those results have seemed to fit our educated guesses, doesn't mean they have 100% accuracy.  I guess I would personally rather not play god.  I do think that nature is perfect as it is.  If bugs are eating our crops, so what.  If weeds are wanting to grow next to crops, so what.  This is life :)  This is how it's supposed to be.  If you feel like manipulating with plant genes and inserting fish genes into them--- in the end, there's nothing I can do or say to stop you.  But don't make me eat whatever you have created, because to me, it just seems weird and unnatural.  

Scientists also talk about putting more calcium into carrots and pesticides into plant cells.  

Here is my issue:

If every plant is a perfected composition of millions of years of evolution and we have for 1000s of years evolved with that process, how can we possibly make a better composition of genes from our thoughts... 

Nutritionists do the best they can to proportion nutrients in vitamin pills in a way that there aren't any excess nutrients, because excess nutrients can cause your body to leach other vital nutrients.  But in the end, it's a best guess, nutritionists can't explain why someone who gets all of their nutrients from actual fruits and vegetables are much healthier than someone who eats a standard diet and supplements with those same nutrients from a pill.  This is modern science.  Any nutritionist who says otherwise, isn't mainstream, and is following their intuition.  

So if we are manipulating plant genes so that they carry excess calcium?  We just don't know the effects that that may cause.  

If this was something people kind of took less seriously and people only had what, 1 gmo carrot every year or every other week even.  Nothing is most likely going to happen.  But the way our governments work, they like to subsidize what they think, is 'economically beneficial for the masses'  

For example a diet high in fruit and vegetables would be the healthiest.... However, filling people's bellies is higher on the priority, therefore, the government really subsidizes grains to help farmers grow more grains.  These become our staple crops.

These even become our staple crops for all of our farmed animals.

And according to this author, corn and wheat are actually completely made up varieties of plants... through breeding -- which I don't really have an issue with, as plants interbreed themselves all the time.  However I do find it interesting that corn doesn't get digested by the human gut and wheat is one of the biggest human allergens.  

... coincidental? If crazy breeding can create this for humans... what would be the effects of GMOS long term on the human?

Wheat and corn have already caused widespread hunger and malnutrition in many areas, as they aren't complete proteins and have fractions of the amino acids that many of the traditional grains that people grew had such as millet, quinoa, amaranth, etc. 

5-- Pesticide producing plants

BT-- a natural pesticide used in organic farming, however not allowed in BT producing GMO plants.

Okay, so this author finds the organic movement as hypocritical because they allow BT as a spray and they don't allow the genes to be intermixed with the crops they plant.

To me, this one is obvious.

Okay, if a pesticide is on the outside of your food, you can wash it before you eat it, plus it has no residual life, so by an hour or so after spraying.. it's no longer lingering in the environment it's already broken down.  If plants are made to produce this toxin.. it's always pumping out.. This is a bacteria.... could this cause your immune system to suffer, by eating all foods containing this toxin?  I don't know, but this idea disturbs my gut.

6-- Gmo's can be planted back.

Okay firstly... would we even want them to be planted back?  Actually this isn't exactly considered a good thing, a lot of measure is taken by scientists to make sure that these strains of 'super' plants don't get into the environment.  we think we have a problem with 'invasive weeds' currently..... well what happens when our genetically modified Frankenstein plants start invading the natural world?  

And if they don't spread and don't re-seed so easily.. well it's definitely better, but then what for those farmers who are stuck buying seed every year... with larger and larger bills to the scientific community for having to develop these seeds in a lab every year.  Something about this image, seems like.. planet zeroxtera.  Yes.. that planet doesn't exist.  Yes, this idea seems so foreign and unnatural to me that it's making me come up with strange planet names lol.

Maybe it's true organic farming won't feed the world

But if we can learn to create more natural places in our world and learn more about native plants, it may be able to significantly supplement our need for organic farms.  

Anyway, I enjoy my organic garden, I don't have to worry about the taste of chemical residues on my plants and I can see all the happy critters and creatures buzzing and living out their happy lives.

As long as I can have this close relationship with my surroundings, I'm going to.

And if in the meantime that makes me a hypocrite, a fundamentalist or an extremist.. than that's how it is.  But I enjoy seed saving and I enjoy this intimate relationship I have with the natural world and it's gifts.  Nothing needs to change or improve for me to be happy or for me to feel like the world needs to do anything differently.  

Let conventional farmers and scientists go on this crazy goose chase to save the world and create whatever life that floats their boat.  

I'll sit back, watch the sunset and play with the ladybugs.  at least whatever animals/insect they keep trying to eradicate will have a home at mine, and whatever indigenous peoples they try to convert, will hopefully instead follow the rhythm of their own intuition.  

May all beings find peace

May all beings find happiness

  

Comeback Organic Arguments, Round I, Organic is 'not Healthier'

It's really amazing, how diverse people are.  Perspectives are so different that one issue will look like a godsend to someone and sinister to someone else.

Eating organic produce, is one of those subjects.  There are many extreme perspectives and many of which are found online. It's easy to tell, though when the author is getting emotionally activated, they often express their anger or confusion.  Which there is no issue with that, but from what I have been noticing, from researching organic articles and scientific journals, when there is emotional activation, often the facts are tweaked and presented in a way that isn't really fair to the argument.

In my opinion, the biggest reason to eat organic, is because the chemicals allowed in conventional agriculture are mostly synthetic.  And despite the research we have currently done, it's truly impossible for us to make accurate judgments on how these will affect our soils, water and bodies in 20,30,40 or 100 years from now.

Common arguments against organic agriculture (other arguments will come in later blogs):
1.  It's not healthier --
They claim that organic agriculture actually does use 'pesticides', that nutritional content is the same, and actually because they use manure, it's likely contaminated with E-coli.

Yes, organic agriculture is allowed to use 'pesticides'.  However, they are organically approved pesticides.  These don't include man made chemicals that aren't able to be broken down by natural processes in the soil.  Most soil organisms can consume anything and everything applied to the soil.  However, there are few man made chemicals, that nature doesn't quite know how to break down, and they persist in our natural world for long after our lifespans.  Those who claim organic agriculture apply much more 'pesticide' to the field are sometimes correct.  It's because when organic, or naturally derived pest control is sprayed in organic fields, it immediately starts breaking down.  This is why often more has to be applied to limit a 'pest' outbreak, but within days, the substance typically will be completely broken down.  But these are really the last measures for organic producers.  Many do their best to follow holistic pest practices, which are often preventative.  They will often use mixed crops to create more diversity in their garden, thereby diversifying the kinds of insects they have.  The more insects are present, the more nature will take care of any 'pest' overpopulation problems that may occur.

The nutritional argument isn't necessarily true.  In conventional agriculture, we have developed a system where farmers are dependent on synthetic nutrients.  The main ones being NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium).  These nutrients, even when over applied, mostly will just leach out of the soils, so actually it only hurts the farmers wallet if he applies more macronutrients (NPK) than the plants actually can benefit from.  In the beginning of this agro-industry age, micro-nutrients used to be added along with macronutrients to the soils, but companies slowly phased out the micronutrients (Zinc, Iron, Boron, Manganese, etc) in the synthetic fertilizers, perhaps due to cost, and perhaps due to farmers having difficulty with their plants.  If too much synthetic micro-nutrients get added to the soil, plants will suffer, and toxicity will occur, both for the plants and for those eating the plants.

When manure and compost are applied to the soil, everything is added back to the soil, micronutrients  and macronutrients.  When nutrients are derived from natural sources, it is almost impossible for farmers to add too much nutrients.  It's like saying that you will have a vitamin C toxicity if you eat too many oranges.  People will most likely get too full before ever experiencing a vitamin C overload from oranges.  However, give them a bottle of Vitamin C supplements, and it would actually be possible for them to get toxicity from eating too many supplements.  A farmer would obviously know not to bury his plant in manure, but it's often too difficult to know how much 'powdery' supplement (synthetic fertlizer) to add.  So actually in organic farms -- as long as they are adding composted material back on their land after harvesting, the produce would be higher in nutritional value than a farmer who had been farming the same soils for 20 years and only added NPK (which is more often the case then not).  The soil, works kind of like our bodies work.  If we don't eat enough, our body starts depleting our fat reserves, muscle reserves and even bone reserves to get the nutrients it needs to generate energy and new cells.

In the soil, plants are constantly taking nutrients out of the soil-- nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus work almost like calories do for people.  They give plants the energy they need to survive, however when we eat plants only fertilized with these macro-nutrients, suddenly we are getting less nutrients than our bodies have evolved to get from plants (because of the lack of micro-nutrients), we can survive, just not thrive.  Nutrient excesses or deficiencies tend to have more of an effect the further up the food chain you go.

The last argument about E-coli, is a bit of a hit or miss argument.  Organic certification does require inspections and paper work verifying when farmers apply manure to their fields --( atleast 90 days before harvest, which allows anything not fully composted a chance to become fully composted-- meaning E-coli wouldn't be an issue).

--Out of 18 reported cases of E-coli outbreaks in the past 7 years in the US, only 1 was from Organic Spinach and in the report they don't give any information as to how the contamination happened.  For all the consumer knows, it could have been a factory farm upstream that contaminated their water supply.  Without a proper report, no one can really make assumptions.

The bigger risk of E-coli is actually from meat and dairy products.

More Organic rebuttal rebuttals to come! 

Embracing the elements

It's interesting. We spend so much time learning and gathering all of the information about everything we are afraid of, or what we perceive as 'damaging'. Often times, we don't spend so much effort learning about that which supports us. 

Perhaps because we become blind to it, because we take it for granted? Here's a farming example: I'm currently doing a lot of research for a university, putting together fact sheets for sustainable fruit production. It's amazing how much literature and how much emphasis is put on 'weeds' and 'pests' and poisons that kill both and ways to 'destroy' their homes and their 'babies'. There is one bug in particular which does a lot of damage to fruit crops in the US-- which is associated with growing legumes along with fruit trees. This bug has several papers which have been written about it, and complete emphasis on how terrible it is. I looked up some of it's natural predators, and surprisingly enough it had several. Also, hardly if any literature came up on any of it's natural predators, for example-- ways to attract them into the garden, what they like.. etc. The whole focus of farming seems to be way off currently.

We are so afraid of having something we 'don't want' in the garden that we try to destroy everything in hopes that our crop will survive. This mentality is completely .. insane. I've noticed, from my own garden, honestly, I maybe have briefly removed a few big plants, or trimmed a few plants (that would be considered 'weeds' -- I honestly dislike the word, because it's misleading, it's assuming that there are good plants and bad plants, which I think there are only.. plants which have a variety of uses and benefits each) -- that were literally choking out plants I seeded. But mostly I let all and any plants grow. I don't spray, I do mulch areas of the garden looking like they need a little boost. But the garden is seriously more full of life, than I've seen it anywhere else. It's covered in spiderwebs, I see lots of lady bugs and preying mantises (all of which are predatory insects). I've had quite the bounty as well, with no 'pest' problems. Sure a few swiss chard leaves had a couple of bug bites, but if that's the worst, from having a vibrant garden using no chemical additives.. bring it on 

Gardeners sometimes assume that 'weeds' can only host, 'bad' insects. They also assume that spraying 'bad insects' will get rid of their infestations. Not necessarily, when you spray them, these sprays may be just as damaging, if not more damaging to those other insects that are its predators. Chemicals tend to concentrate the further you go up the foodchain.

Nature works together perfectly. The less we think we have to 'manage' things, the healthier everything will be. Let go of fears, embrace and learn about the beneficial elements, the interconnection of all life cycles.