It has been sustainable for over 6000 years and there are trees older than
the USA so I would say organic growing is sustainable and it is mankind
that makes it not. Organic farming is one of the few thing in life that
are sustainable. you can start with say 3 hens and 1 cock and soon have
flocks of chickens you can start with 1 tree and in time have a orchard.
In organic growing my soil has been growing in humus and soil life every
year where as in chemical farming they promote fumigation (killing of the
web of life) herbicides( there goes humus)pesticides (there goes the good
bugs) etc. Organic depends on sustain ability of the web of life chemicals
farming depends on chemicals and is about as sustainable as a heroin habit
as long as you have a fix you can grow but it is killing the real life in
the soil.
>Sustainable logically means that the methods used will permit the
>survival of life supporting ecosystems that include mankind, for as long
>as possible. In other words, methos that are compatible with the
>biological processes that gave rise to evolution as we know it -
>generation, as distinct from degeneration - health as distinct from
>sickness. (Here, I submit that none should disagree, although more can
>be said on the matter).
>
>> For example, it seems to me that if
>> "biological" pesticides are marketed as safe when they really are not so
>> safe, then farmers who switch to those "safe" pesticides are really not
>> doing much of a service to the environment. Furthermore, I am under the
>> impression that these non-synthetic pesticides are outrageously
>> expensive.
>
>This is a far more complex issue. Homo Sapiens is not a disinterested
>party and different substances may give rise to different environments
>whic in turn give rise to different organisms. Once again, the
>distinguising criteria to be applied may be that of universality and
>generative force: that which gives rise to the greatest number and
>diversification of organisms. (If any of you academics care to object
>here, I'll be happy to provide my credentials).
>
>As for economic sustainability, this will not occur until the costs of
>cleaning the environment is calculated in the cost of production and
>placed squarely on the shoulders of the contaminators. The
>responsibility for this lies with government and the academic community
>on who government must rely on for input. (Any comments from the
>research community? Chuck)? Then too, issues included with the context
>of economic sustainability are those related to the pay scale provided
>farm workers and the sometimes excessive profits realized by brokers,
>ditributors and retailers as distinct from farmworkers and small scale
>growers.
good I always wondered if they find herbicide in their drinking water can't
they tell which herbicide it is and make the folks that make it pay for the
clean up? Big fish will eat the little fish and the USDA is not interested
in the small grower. They say a small grower is one that sells less than
$5000 showing me that they could care less if the small farmer lives of
dies off. If you sell over $5000 you have to pay a certifier,an
inspector,I also pay the state of Ca. and soon we will have to pay the fed.
gov. because we voluntary grow and sell our organic crop as organic. Many
will run when they feel the hardship the gov. is putting on the small
organic grower because they feel every extra cent they have to pay .
>> When reading the NOSB's recommendations for organic crop
>> production standards, I noticed the lengthy Organic Farm Plan that
>> farmers must fill out before they can become certified. I am curious to
>> know how farmers feel about this.
I can list what I have done in the past but I can not tell the future and
do not know what i will be using next year. I can tell you what I use to
grow the crop this year but they want you to tell the future to be an
organic grower.
>(Hey Sal, Lawrence, Dan and others).
>
>> I hope that the small farmers, as difficult as it may be, can
>> stay small and not get sucked in to the false glory of being a factory
>> grower or lose your land because of the increased costs (TAXES).Those of
>> you that love the land and are a steward to the environment as well as
>> to the local communities surrounding you, keep it up because we want you
>> around. In fact, we need you.
small farms are for the first time growing with organic and CSA and farmers
markets but this new USDA law my put a stop to that growth. if you have
real radio check out
http://www.kcrw.com/c/guest/la_guest971027.html
>You are getting to the heart of the matter. It appears that there some
>former champions of small community and family farms have sold out and
>that farmers are doing so or feeling the pressure to do so. If the OFPA
>is implemented as written it may well get worse, since the farmer's (or
>distributor's) freedom to differentiate his offering to the consumer is
>compromised - limited to the terms of the OFPA, even though a given
>aspect or aspects of his product may be significantly difference from
>other offerings also labeled as "organic" or "natural", words which be
>appropriated by the USDA in the terms of the Act and limited to
>CERTIFIED organic products, certified by certifiers registered with the
>USDA, even when a product was cultivated under conditions that otherwise
>adhere to a traditional and legitamate definition of organic
>agricultural practices.
>
>There are economic interests motivating some of those who insist that
>the "public" owns the word and that government is the "publics"
>appropriate watchdog. Others believe that more and greater abuses than
>otherwise occur will be (and already are being) perpetrated in the name
>of the "public good" if the law is implemented as now written, and I
>myself for one promise to try to get the matter on the Supreeme Court
>agenda if that happens (no small feat but there's no lack of conviction
>behind that statement).
>
>susan wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am a senior at the University of Maryland, College Park and I am
>> studying Natural Resources Management, not Agriculture. However, I am
>> currently taking a class on Sustainable Agriculture. This is a topic I
>> am just learning about and it is of significant interest to me.
>
>As one that began farming organically in the U.S. (where I am still a
>citizen) in 1968 and one who has NEVER used a synthetic agrochemical,
>your comments appear not only astute and timely but sorely needed, much
>as the child's comments were in "The Emperor's New Clothes" (his was the
>only comment not reflecting intimidation by the powers that be and those
>both in their hire or too cowardly to do other than pay them lip service
>- the one who came out and said " But the Emperor's naked"). In other
>words, they show a fresh, intelligent and truthful point of view (even
>if somewhat misinformed on a few minor points discussed further on).
>
>> As a
>> requirement for the course we have to do a term project and my project
>> entails researching the process of Organic Certification. It seems to
>> me that this is a very long, tiring and especially expensive process.
it is a never ending process as I have to pay now 4 different people to say
I am organic and soon it will be 5. I pay the state for the same thing I
pay my certifier for and I also have to pay a local chapter and I also get
a bill every year for an inspection and the state can audit me also and
this is every year year after year if my farming practices change or not.
Soon you can add the bill we will get from the Feds and don't forget that
what the USDA charge the certifier will also be passed down to the grower
adding even a greater cost to the small grower and may even kill off the
small certifiers with the small farmers. the rule is if you sell over
$5000 you can not tell anyone you are organic unless you pay off all these
folks or you are braking the law if it is true or not.
>Very true, and needlessly so (some may disagree), especially if
>certified organic products are to be competitive with convertional ones.
>
>> I
>> also noticed that there really is no federal certification but rather it
>> is done from state to state. This is of concern to me because one
>> state's definition of organic could be different from that of another
>> state's.
the federal gov not only will not certify you but force you to find a party
to do it . Our state will audit and walk through but also will not certify
you . how many pencil pushers does one have to pay off to tell folks you
are organic . No one know for sure and no one knows the cost . It can be
from $150 in Texas for 20 acres to 1000's in Ca. for the same amount of
land and the fed. law will only add to the cost.
>The Federal "Organic Foods Organic Production Act" of 1990 (but not yet
>fully implemented) would provide national standards, but would do so at
>a needlessly high expense - in terms of the process mandated but
>ESPECIALLY in terms of the Civil Rights issues involved, i.e. those
>related to freedom of speech, free association and access to a gainful
>livelihood. (That's your cue, Sal, Lawrence and others). Once again,
>some may disagree (That's you, Eric. Steve S?).
These folks that are making up this law know how to use words to get around
any civil right issues don't forget slavery and the law that black man was
not to be educated that was a law . they can frame the mischief in such a
way to make it sound right. watch them they are good at this. they will
get their R DNA because they know how to frame the words they will get
their USDA label because they have people that word things in such a way
that they can steal widows houses and they will take away your right to
free speech by saying things like "if you voluntary call you food organic
you pay " the key word is voluntary . by saying that no one is forcing you
to say you are organic they get around freedom of speech. They will tell
you it is like grade a meat or prime etc. face it they have taken the word
organic and it is no longer ours. They own all the words and know how to
twist them. they are going to call radiation of food electronic
pasteurization to fool the people and They can twist words and they do. .
>> Another issue that concerns me is whether or not "Organic"
>> farming is "sustainable" or not--although, who knows what sustainable
>> really means? I am not just considering environmental sustainability but
>> economic sustainability as well.
>
>Sustainable etymologically and logically means that the methods used
>will permit the survival of life supporting ecosystems that include
>mankind, for as long as possible. In other words, methods that are
>compatible with the biological processes that gave rise to evolution as
>we know it - generation, as distinct from degeneration - health as
>distinct from sickness. (Here, I submit that none should disagree,
>although more can be said on the matter).
>
>> For example, it seems to me that if
>> "biological" pesticides are marketed as safe when they really are not so
>> safe, then farmers who switch to those "safe" pesticides are really not
>> doing much of a service to the environment. Furthermore, I am under the
>> impression that these non-synthetic pesticides are outrageously
>> expensive.
>
>This is a far more complex issue. Homo Sapiens is not a disinterested
>party and different substances may give rise to different environments
>which in turn give rise to different organisms. Once again, the
>distinguishing criteria to be applied may be that of universality and
>generative force: That which gives rise to the greatest number and
>diversification of organisms. (If any of you academics care to object
>here, I'll be happy to provide my credentials).
>
.
>
>> I hope that the small farmers, as difficult as it may be, can
>> stay small and not get sucked in to the false glory of being a factory
>> grower or lose your land because of the increased costs (TAXES). Those of
>> you that love the land and are a steward to the environment as well as
>> to the local communities surrounding you, keep it up because we want you
>> around. In fact, we need you.
>
>You are getting to the heart of the matter. It appears that there some
>former champions of small community and family farms have sold out and
>that farmers are literally doing so or feeling the pressure to do so.
>If the OFPA is implemented as written it may well get worse, since the
>farmer's (or distributor's) freedom to differentiate his offering to the
>consumer is compromised - limited to the terms of the OFPA, even though
>a given aspect or aspects of his product may be significantly different
>from other offerings also labeled as "organic" or "natural", words which
>be appropriated by the USDA in the terms of the Act and limited to
>CERTIFIED organic products, certified by certifiers registered with the
>USDA, even when a product was cultivated under conditions that otherwise
>adhere to a traditional and legitimate definition of organic
>agricultural practices.
>There are economic interests motivating some of those who insist that
>the "public" owns the word and that government is the "public's"
>appropriate watchdog. Others believe that more and greater abuses than
>otherwise occur will be (and already are being) perpetrated in the name
>of the "public good" if the law is implemented as now written, and I
>myself for one promise to try to get the matter on the Supreme Court
>agenda if that happens (no small feat but there's no lack of conviction
>behind that statement).
>
>> Living in Maryland, local produce is
>> unfortunately only available during the summer and early fall. However,
>> as some of you may know, more and more corporate farms are entering the
>> picture. Especially chicken farms. Not only are they polluting our
>> rivers but they are polluting the Chesapeake Bay. How can these farms
>> benefit from organic. It seems to me that the only way to preserve our
>> land and become sustainable is to create more small farms--that sell and
>> market their product locally--from these large scale industrial farms.
>> Can anyone clear up my confusions and perhaps give me some insights for
>> my project.
I don't see confusion here I see insight.
>Hope this has helped. Undoubtedly there will be other comments
>elaborating in greater detail on some of the points I've touched on
>lightly or not at all.
>
>> What is the most important aspect of organic certification that
>> needs to be addressed?
.
A organic grower should not have to pay one extra cent to grow and sell his
organic produce as organic. If they want to make laws let them enforce
them . As it is now the grower is forced to support all these programs .
add up the cost of all certification and all inspections and all state
organic laws and all fed. laws and know that the man who voluntary call
himself organic will pay for all of it. They tax the organic grower and
let the chemical grower skate.
>The insistence of the OFPA as written that ONLY certified products be
>permitted to use the words organic and / or natural and that no further
>or distinct differentiation will be tolerated.
>
>Do you feel that "organic" as we understand it
>> or according to NOSB is "sustainable?"
>
>Those are two different things. The OFPA will change things. The issue
>is: Sustainable for who? For certifiers, distributors, big business
>interests (and their cohorts), or for the definition given above?
>("Once again, the distinguishing criteria to be applied may be that of
>universality and generative force: That which gives rise to the
>greatest number and diversification of organisms").
>
>> Do you feel that using
>> "biological" pesticides is a safe alternative to using those that are
>> synthetic? Do you feel that it is fair that you as an organic or
>> potential organic farmer has to live next to a farm that uses (or
>> probably overuses) synthetic pesticides and fertilizers? They do drift
>> and get into your "pure" soils. What if lethal doses of your neighbor's
>> pesticide or fertilizer application disrupt your organic ecosystem? How
>> is this regulated? How do you feel about the NOSB farm plan?
>
>I'm sure others will cover these points in a more than adequate way.
>>
>> Thank you for your time and understanding,
>> Susan Haebler
>
>
>Thank you too, Susan.
>
>--
>
>Douglas M. Hinds, Director General
>Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
>(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
>Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address)
>Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address)
>Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
>U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked)
>U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked)
>Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct)
>e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@.ucol.mx
>
>
>
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".