Alex:
Tennessee, Ky and the Philippines, do not constitute most, and the way the
statement was presented was misleading. Anyone suspicious of, or with no
contact with, Extension could construe what was said to mean that Extension
requires certain pesticides to be used in order to participate in any
Extension led programs. It sounded very similar to some blather I have
heard in these parts, and perhaps I got a little too excited, please strike
the "duhs" from the record.
I work with vegetable and fruit growers, who do not have much access to cost
share programs. I have no idea what is required of dairy, but I would
imagine that such requirements would be politically untenable in these
parts. I have heard of banks requiring proof of pesticide use in order to
approve loans, but that was years ago. (now they say: what's a farm?).
Look, I am very defensive towards Extension because they mostly do good
work, but are nipped at and blamed by many. I am not too pleased with the
way some are handling FQPA, fighting for "crop protection tools", however,
the way they are funded (and not funded) forces many to follow grower
consensus rather than lead. As you know, grower consensus is largely the
result of unopposed corporate manipulation, which is why I get so disgusted
(and perhaps trigger happy) with some of the pronouncements proffered on
this news group by those who COULD provide respectable opposition. (I
encourage folks to engage their neighbors and not leave them alone with the
pesticide salesman, and smile, dammit, when you do it).
There are many excellent projects that are now being starved for money,
probably through the pesticide mafia and their lobbyists. The best example
is the data base being constructed at OSU, which is attempting to collect
all available data on pesticide effects on various taxa of natural enemies.
(http://www.ent3.orst.edu/Phosure/database/selctv/selctv.htm) There is also
suspiciously little public and new data on newer materials used outside of
tree fruit (like brigade). This makes it difficult for a grower (or
Extension agent) to assess true costs (resurgence, secondary pests,
fertility problems) to the farm of a broad spectrum pesticide (Not counting
externalized costs, but those significant ones buried in other accounting
categories within the enterprise). By starving Extension on the one hand,
the pesticide mafia hopes to make them more dependent on corporate grants.
But I digress into my Big Issue (destruction of beneficial organisms). I am
amazed at the quality and usefulness of work from many Extension Services in
the face of such pressures, and so should everybody else.
P.S., are you (waldenfarm@sprintmail.com) in Massachusetts?
D.S.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex McGregor [mailto:waldenfarm@sprintmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:06 AM
To: David Stanley
Cc: Sanet; Roberto Verzola
Subject: Re: Roundup (no, I mean pesticides) Rumors and Extension
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