Sanet and rumor mongers everywhere:
How do you correct the expression of a rumor: Make it a worse rumor to
cover-up the mistake.
I have NOT heard of such a practice (requiring pesticide use by
participants) by New England Extension Services, either for round-up or for
the use of pesticides in general. Some individuals may not offer any useful
pesticide substitute information, just going with common practice, or be
inappropriately excited about certain inputs, but there is no conspiracy
that I am aware of. Those agents who have a responsibility to reduce
pesticide use, typically work with growers most likely to be using way too
much (duh), and this is misinterpreted by the organic community.
Also, if you want to conduct an experiment on testing the consequences of
removing a commonly used pesticide application(s)(suspected of having no
marginal effect, or actually harming pest control by killing natural
enemies), or replacing it with one more selective (like a Bt), I guess you
have to require that someone use the baddie for the control plot, or that
participants be growers that commonly use the pesticide being removed (duh,
again).
>From what I have heard from extension folks I work with, the first call to a
specialist by an organic advocate (some have turned out to be "not actively
growing at this time") is often laced with innuendo and accusations and
resembles what I would call harassment more than anything else. Of course,
the Extension agents I know, take it in stride and act professionally, the
same as when a pesticide salesman whispers to me that Extension is not
recommending Brigade because "they are behind the times". (Anybody who gets
hammered by both extremes is alright in my book).
My experience with Extension, throughout most of the North East, and Upper
Midwest, is that information about biological control and cultural practices
that reduce or eliminate pesticide use is prompt, ENTHUSIASTIC, and I could
not do my job without it. Most of them would like to see pesticides reduced
far more than they are, and unlike most people with strong opinions on the
subject, they actually know how it could be done. This is not a group of
people that organic growers should be dropping their chores for, in order to
make some time available to alienate.
If there is a conspiracy, it is in the form of subtle and not so subtle
hints by chem companies about how they would react to criticism of their
products. The good news is that all information on pesticidal effects on
natural enemies and pollinators is SCRUPULOUSLY REFERENCED and could be used
effectively by the organic community to undercut the propaganda spewed out
by pesticide companies by making this information available to conventional
neighbors. Failure to use this information amounts to collusion in my eyes.
As in any profession, (including yours and mine) there are weenies who avoid
tough issues, in the case of extension, pest resurgence and secondary pests,
especially by those who work with diseases. In the case of the organic
community, folks more interested in finding an easy enemy than reducing
overall pesticide use.
Sincerely,
David Stanley
Stanley Gardens IPM
44 Paige Hill Rd
Brimfield MA 01010
(413)245-9701
sgipm@mail.ccsinet.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sanet-mg@cals.ncsu.edu
[mailto:owner-sanet-mg@cals.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Roberto Verzola
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 2:05 AM
To: waldenfarm@sprintmail.com
Subject: Re: a place for RoundUp in a sustainable farm?
Alex,
I'm quoting your message entirely so it gets posted on SANET too.
At what scale of operation, roughly, would you say herbicide use
becomes really necessary? (Perhaps one comment might be such scale of
farming isn't itself ecologically sustainable anymore...)
If herbicides are toxic to human, to soil life and presumably other
animals, they obviously don't fit the ecological sustainability
criterion. However, they might fit - by your description - the
financial viability criterion (for which some people use the word
"sustainability" too) although they do it by passing on certain costs
to others (ie, externalizing them).
I also find interesting your note that MOST extension programs require
the use of Roundup to participate. I wonder if others can confirm that
this is truly the case, as I find it an amazing example of the biased
context under which organic farmers work, which subsidizes
anti-ecological farming but makes life very difficult for organic
farmers. I wonder what is the ratio (say in dollar terms) of extension
programs that require Roundup to programs that require organic
methods? Any idea?
Roberto
Alex wrote:
>If you don't mind me jumping in here, maybe I can explain about most
>herbicide use.
>
>First, I neither use nor condone the use of pesticides (pesticides
>being inclusive of insect... and herb...). For two reasons- One, they
>are toxic to humans. Two, they are toxic to soil life. (It depends
>on your perspective which of these is the most important.)
>
>Now, to the use of herbicides. It mostly has to do with scale. The
>bigger the farming operation, the less able we are to manage weed
>pressure through the techniques you describe. Herbicides make it
>possible for few people to farm large tracts. And the introduction of
>no-till has definitely increased the sales of Roundup. Also, most
>extension programs (i.e. pasture renovation) require the use of
>Roundup to participate.
>
>So, it all has to do with scale- of farms and mass marketing. But,
>there are exceptions. NRCS put out a video with Raymond Burr
>narrating in which a farmer said he could buy all new mechanical weed
>control equipment every year and still save money over his former
>herbicide cost. But there's still the balance of fuel and passes over
>a field versus the impact of the manufacture of herbicides and their
>impact on the soil life and environment. Sadly we have no research on
>these impacts- we ignore this.
>
>So, a farm can be said to be sustainable through the use of
>herbicides. All we have to do is ignore their impact living
>creatures. And it depends on one's definition of sustainable. Might
>I remind us all that every pesticide has been deemed "safe" when it
>was introduced. It is only after we see their incredible impact that
>we realize what we're doing. I am remembering the impact of DDT on
>birds and the link to breast cancer. And now Dursban...
>
>Alex McGregor
>Walden Farm
>
>Roberto Verzola wrote:
> I find it difficult to understand how herbicides like RoundUp can be
> part of a sustainable farm. Maybe you can explain...
>
> There seem to be enough cultural practices for weed control that makes
> herbicide applications unnecessary.
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
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 - 12:00:38 EDT