Hmmmm.....I didn't post my query about self sustaining farms with the intent
of starting WWIII on this listserv. However, there is something interesting
about the response and the polarization in the organic community. It would
appear that there are three mutually compatible, and also mutually
conflicting ideologies:
1. Farming as defined by the approved and unapproved inputs.
2. Farming as defined by methods and practices.
3. Farming as defined by its impact on the ecosystem, i.e. sustainability.
I am saddened by the lack of discourse on the quality of the products of
farming and their effect on animal / human health. In my mind, the measure of
success or failure of any farming method should be found in the effect that
the harvested product has on the health of animals and humans. Steiner /
Pfeiffer / Kolisko, etc. tried to qualitatively assess the quality or
vitality of foods and feeds using crystallization and chromatographic
techniques. Quality food is not the outcome of using or not using certain
inputs and methods: it is due to the enablement of energies and the end
product of living processes. I think that we could put an end to the
arguments about which methods and inputs are best, if we resurrected
Pfeiffer's quality tests, or developed new ones in a similar vein. If we were
arguing about which recipe to use or ingredients to include in a prepared
meal, I am sure that in the end, everyone would be saying: Let's taste the
food in order to decide whether it is good or not. Granted, taste is a
subjective thing, however, I believe that Pfeiffer was on the right track in
finding ways to measure the end result of formative forces, rather than just
a chemical analysis.
I will stick my neck out and suggest that if farm products have an enlivening
effect higher up on the food chain, and exhibit the desirable wholistic
traits as shown in Pfeiffer's chromatographs, that whatever farming methods
were used to reach this end, they will be truly sustainable.
One final remark about an eralier posting requesting research on the
prevalence of pathogenic E. Coli. in cattle versus husbandry methods. Rather
than look for a negative externality of farming and husbandry methods, why
not look to doing research that correlates the highest potentiality of the
product versus farming and husbandry methods. We have been living too long
with an acceptance that foods are "normally" contaminated with toxic
substances and pathogens. I find that the present "progressive" food movement
is content to move several pegs and eliminate toxic substances and pathogens.
But, does this result in food with the highest positive attributes, or merely
food free from negative attributes?
Hopefully, I am stimulating an informative discourse and not WW IV......
Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
Aqua-Terra Consultants
I am proposing that we redirect the discussion from looking at the farm for
validation, to looking at the farm products for validation of farming methods
and inputs. Otherwise, we will disintegrate into the Secretary of
Agriculture's assertions that "organic" farming is not about food quality and
safety, but about an alternative method of farming. How can the safety and
quality of food be detached from the method of cultivation?
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.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@cals.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 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:35 EDT