Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Why I can't believe a word out of Dennis Avery's mouth

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Del Williams" <delannw AT dlogue.net>
  • To: <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Why I can't believe a word out of Dennis Avery's mouth
  • Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:23:59 -0600

Marc,

I'm with you in the sense that I don't think we ought to accept claims
without substantiation. Your questions are reasonable and they deserve
reasonable answers. Not someone looking down their nose at you like you are
an idiot who just doesn't get it.

I have my ideas about organic. I was also married to a professional
horticulturist and I have seen what those professional level fertilizers can
do. He used to shake his head at my organic thing and he was also impressed
at the outcomes. I valued his opinions on that. He was the first to remark
on the effects of soil improvement.

I shook my head at his days of using Vapam. I remember what he was like
after a day of that. Nasty stuff. He would also be one of the first to say
that he was happy to see more regulation about the uses of such things.
They are dangerous chemicals with great potential for harming people when
used improperly.

My problem with Avery was his disregard for data that he was using only in
part. Of course, I have never had an opportunity to discuss it with him.
Never will, I think. As a statistician I was very curious about the CDC's
data on E Coli that year. Sure enough, he only looked at the data on the
lettuce. That was an anomaly ... not something IDed in other years. One
would expect to see it occur more often if, in fact, it were a common
practice to use improperly composted manure in fertilization. Anyone doing
that kind of analysis, doesn't generalize from one observation.

I felt that it was inappropriate to indict an entire industry over the
practices of a particular grower/processor.

The same for sustainable agriculture.

I have this idea that if one wants to do that sort of thing it makes sense
to do it with what you have and where you are. For example, for me it
doesn't make good sense to ship in amendments that would not be available
around here. That is, what is possible in this location with what is
available around here? Well, "here" is central Illinois. Would I have that
luxury if I were trying to grow food in say, Nevada? People still have to
eat. So, that's my thing and not one I would necessarily think others
should follow to be sustainable.

I guess I come down harder on pesticide/herbicide use. I read the research
on the potential effects on humans. Ever read, "Living Downstream" (Sandra
Steingraber) on cancer? Environmental effects are difficult to prove. It
doesn't mean they don't exist.

Nevertheless, I have training in experimentation and statistical analysis.
Much of that methodology comes out of early agricultural research. The
analysis of variance is based on it. Geoffrey Keppel's book, Design and
Analysis (1973) on the sensitivity of certain experimental designs was
enlightening for me when I first read it. He points out the limitations and
strengths in identifying main effects, interaction effects and higher order
effects in various designs. The robustness of certain designs and the
beauty of some factorial experiments.

OK, I'm a bit of a geek on that kind of thing. I admit it.

I spend a lot of time in my regular job trying to clarify the meaning of
statistical analyses and statistical significance to clients. That it
doesn't mean an outcome is worth looking at. That certain kinds of analyses
do not identify cause. I have watched other consultants do what you sort of
described. Come out with these elitist recommendations and arguments almost
like snake oil salesmen trying to baffle the client with BS. I shake my
head.

We are all trying to make sense of what we read and what we hear. I
listened to Avery carefully and I have looked at the Hudson Institute. They
aren't trying to hide too much because they don't have to. Most people
don't have the background or the skills to sort through the BS. What I
think is that they select what supports their political agenda and the
interests of those corporations who support them. And they know most people
aren't looking at the rest of the data.

Well, I did look and I know. I think it was very intentional and very
misleading. After that, I continued to look at their claims with skepticism
and to keep an open mind on others.

Ya know, there were farmers who didn't like the idea of going to metal plows
at one time because they thought the metal would poison the soil. That was
a long, long time ago.

Del Williams
Clifton, IL






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page