David,
This is not a rumor. Please reread the posts carefully. Roberto and I are
saying that within at least Tennessee and the Philippines extensions, certain
chemicals are specified (required) for use with most cost-share programs. For
instance, pasture renovation programs require the use of Roundup to kill all
existing plants before over sowing new pasture plantings.
NRCS requires this in some of their programs. A friend in Kentucky (who will
remain nameless for obvious reasons) was required to purchase enough NPK
fertilizer to spread at recommended rates on his pond berm and disturbed areas in
order to qualify for a pond construction program. He had to show them the
receipt before being reimbursed. He wanted to use his own on-farm composted
manure to keep it organic. So, he bought the fertilizer, produced the receipt,
spread the manure and seeded. He still has the pallet of fertilizer in his barn.
There was another post saying how North Carolina doesn't require chemical use and
now you say all extensions in New England don't have such requirements. (Oh, to
farm there!) I wish it were so here and other states, but it's not. These are
not rumors but fact. If you don't believe us, contact UT or the Philippines
extensions and get information on the requirements for their cost share programs.
And as for your duhs, it's my opinion that you could get your point across much
better without disparaging those with whom you have a difference of opinion. To
answer specifically:
Duh Point 1.) These are not individual agents' recommendations. They are spelled
out in the program guidelines.
Duh Point 2.) These are not research programs comparing various materials and a
control group within identical parameters.
It sounds like you and the extension agents you have contact with have had some
bad experiences with some organic advocates. That is no reason to dismiss all.
There are negative, reactionary people on both sides of all issues. I have found
the majority on both sides of the chemical/organic issues to be open and
reasonable. Especially where farmers are concerned. We don't need to divide
ourselves over any issues. There are far too few of us left.
Alex McGregor
Walden Farm
David Stanley wrote:
> 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
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