you can call it whining when we complain about herbicides in our water you
can call it whining when we loose our organic ness because of your friends
drift. you can
call it whining when every year more and more bottom feeders take your money
and frame their bullshit and call it law and steal your life and your land.
I call it telling it like it is. there is no reason for our government to
regulate us that do not use that junk and let your friends over spray and
drift onto what we are keeping clean. the USDA asked for comments and to
you it may seem like whining but to me it is comments. no that it is going
to do any good . a bunch of power-hungry bureaucrats in made jobs get
together in a little room and frame their mischief and call it law and use
that law to steal our money and kill us off. if the USDA can make us be
certified and want to take over organic they can dam sure protect us from
drift and chemical trespass. it should be too sided if they want me to
make sure I only use organic stuff they must make sure they don't release
stuff that makes it imposable for me to follow that law and the ans. is sure
not for me to give up my land because someone else drifts or contaminates
me. what is with that. the USDA can regulate me but that same USDA do
don't have to protect me so it is just a joke. I do the good I know yet I
still loose. I do all I can to make sure my product is organic and they can
drift and contaminate it sounds like that its a bad deal . no thanks you
tell your friend at lest keep their contamination on their side of the
fence. that should be common since and a good start to . an atmosphere of
> mutual respect. thats your side this is my side thats your well this is
my well thats your crops these are mine . I have a right to farm too.
check out an organic farmers homepage
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html
sals@rain.,org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Clark" <aclark@nal.usda.gov>
To: <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Cc: <sgipm@mail.ccsinet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 11:06 AM
Subject: Forwardng RE: Socially and Ecologically Responsible Agriculture
> Forwarding... from David Stanley.
> ____________
>
> From: "David Stanley" <sgipm@mail.ccsinet.net>
> To: <sanet-mg@cals.ncsu.edu>
> Subject: RE: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1807;"sal" <sals@rain.org>
>
> Several points:
>
> Most people, and farmers, are not evil but merely act in what they
perceive
> as their self interest. If you want to affect a neighbor farmer to
respect
> your way of farming, you need to establish some human to human contact
that
> is based on equality and mutual respect: You need to make a choice between
> affecting their behavior and being able to complain about it.
>
> You should also abandon any organization that would cut-off your
livelihood
> should something out of your control affect your status within that
> organization (your level of un-cleanness). If such an organization
persists
> in this un-just behavior, they should offer crop insurance as
compensation,
> and categories of minor "un-cleanliness" where you would still have some
> market while you get back on your feet. Otherwise, your neighbor ain't
the
> real enemy.
>
> Most "conventional" farmers are victims of 150 years of cheap-food policy
> meant to "optimize" their profits (give them just enough to hang on, the
> rest goes to the input salesmen). In fact, it is identical to drug
> addiction where only a few souls are capable of quitting cold turkey
without
> professional help or a well structured plan. One could argue that present
> organic growers are this self-selected bunch, and their ranks will not
grow
> unless they attract and reach out to those making the transition.
>
> I work with conventional farmers, using IPM as a way to start the process
of
> withdrawal from pesticide addiction. My clients choose how far to go and
> many have gone far. I do not preach but I do hammer on the financial
> benefits of reduced inputs, especially emphasizing the preservation of
> natural enemies, pollinators and soil life. These I call "assets",
> primitively valued at the amount of pesticide and tractor time they can
> save, and show to clients at each visit so they can take ownership (and
> can't avoid the reality of their existence). Experience shows that even
> conventional growers, unless they are real stupid, will not annihilate
their
> own property once discovered.
>
> Any organic growers nearby (there are none) would benefit as this process
> unfolds (unless their main purpose in life is to complain about the
un-clean
> in their midst, in which case, I would be removing their reason for
> existence).
>
> I advocate (perhaps futilely) a radical change in the US agricultural
> support programs, from ones that relentlessly promote cheap food (done),
to
> ones that promote a stable food supply by preserving farmers. This can
only
> be done by changing Extension from an organization obsessed with yield to
> one obsessed with farm profit. This would remove the emphasis on inputs
by
> systematically removing those that add unjustified costs and drive down
> farm-gate prices.
>
> In such a research paradigm (I hate that word), all inputs would be
> evaluated, and the present assumption that present practice is in any way
> optimal would be abandoned (because dropping prices remove the
profitability
> assumptions in place at the time of first adoption of new inputs). Those
> inputs, that when removed, lower costs more than the value of yield
> reduction, would become the subjects of educational outreach. The
emphasis,
> and I risk being burned at the stake, would be on small increments of
yield
> reduction, justified by increased profits, that would globally reduce
> supplies sufficiently to raise prices for the farmer (once widely
adopted).
> Yield-neutral cost reduction would be left to private industry (me). The
> key would be finding attractive targets at present prices to get the ball
> rolling. These would probably be broad spectrum biocides that usually
cause
> resurgence in target pest populations and that cause secondary pest
> outbreaks (which go unaccounted for on the books and hide as "acts of God
or
> Nature", even though definitely human(management)-inspired).
>
> Ignoring affects on the environment (and neighbor farmers), the cost of
> these biocides to the using enterprise is habitually misallocated for the
> reasons listed above. Accuracy here would reduce their use, even by
"evil"
> farmers.
>
> So, instead of whining, invite your neighbors out to lunch this winter and
> attempt to discuss some of these points. Give them the facts (the science
> based literature is there) and see how far you can get in an atmosphere of
> mutual respect.
>
> sgipm
>
> -----
>
>
>
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:13 EDT