Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] manures/GAP training

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: KAKerby AT aol.com
  • To: market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] manures/GAP training
  • Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:04:02 EST

I'm sorry, folks, but I'm getting really overwhelmed with all this.  I started this thread because I just took the class and was concerned about what I learned.  I was curious if other folks had gone through the GAP training and if so, whether they were going to change their practices because of them.  Now I'm fielding all sorts of questions about why this paper?  Why those testing protocols? Why didn't the researchers do this and that, and did they know about such and such, and so on.  I have no idea.  I don't know why they set up that particular research project they way they did.  I've provided just about as much information as I have from the class, without just posting all the Powerpoint slides themselves (which may be already be available online somewhere).  I can forward this list to the WSU staff who gave our particular GAP training but they also didn't run the particular research cited.  They may or may not be able to answer all the questions listed below.
 
If I'm reading all these responses correctly, the general sentiment is that these new guidelines are over the top and do not accurately reflect real world growing conditions, and/or would be mitigated by other practices, so are relatively useless as working guidelines.  Is that basically an accurate summary?  If so, that's what I was originally asking.  But I can't provide any answers as to why the research was set up the way it was, or whether other researchers are pursuing these other possibilities.  If anything, if this research isn't providing us with useful information, that's reason enough to start asking that researchers actually do the research we want them to do.  My impression from the class was that while it was bad news, the WSU folks were trying to provide helpful information that growers could put into use.  If that's not the case, then we need to tell our extension offices that we need something else.  Otherwise they're just working in the dark.  Perhaps that's already happened.  But I'm not the one to hear those requests and act on them.  Sorry if I gave any suggestions to the contrary.
Kathryn Kerby
Frog Chorus Farm
Snohomish, WA
 
 
In a message dated 3/3/2010 10:05:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, organic87 AT frontiernet.net writes:

On Mar 3, 2010, at 1:41 AM, KAKerby AT aol.com wrote:

I didn't do any research per se; I was just repeating what they told us in class. I was mainly wondering of other folks who had gone through GAP training had heard the same things.  I must say that it seemed pretty straightforward in class but you all have brought up excellent points.  Many of which cast some doubt not only on the results but also the implications/management solutions. 
 
I still have the contact info for the researchers and I'm debating with myself whether to pose some of these questions to those individuals, just to see what they'd say.  I'm particularly interested in the beneficials issue, since clearly these E coli don't exist in a vacuum.  Ways and means for out-competing other bacteria is something we've seen in other natural systems (such as promoting desirable bacteria in fermented products).  It would seem perhaps a beneficial "recipe" for soils treatment would be the more constructive approach than simply banning materials altogether. 
 
If I did pose those questions, I'd be curious what specific questions you all would want me to ask?
Kathryn Kerby
Frog Chorus Farm
Snohomish, WA
 

1) Did they test specifically for pathogens, or only for E Coli in general?

2) In how many different locations, and in how many different years, did they run the tests?

3) Do they know of other studies done in this area, and what were the results of those studies?

4) Have they themselves done, or are they doing, other studies in this area? If any others are completed, what were the results? 

5) Were all results from all studies they know of published, or only selected studies and/or results? If only some, what were the selection criteria?

6) What were the climate and weather conditions?

7) What were the soil types? 

8) What was the organic matter content of the soil, and what was its other nutrient balance?

9) Had the plots previously been organically managed or conventionally managed? For how many years had they been so managed? If they had not been in farm use, what was the previous use for the past few years?

10) Were the plots conventionally or organically managed during the trial?

11) What was applied to the plots during the trial besides the manure and seed? (including all soil amendments, pesticides, any sterilization techniques?)

12) What had been applied to the plots during the previous couple of years?

13) What tillage and harvest techniques were used?

13) What, if any, tests were done to determine what other life (bacterial, fungal, worm, etc) was in the soil? If any were done, what were the results?

14) In addition to soil life, what living creatures had access to the field during the trials?

15) Was irrigation used? If so, what was the source of irrigation water, and what if any tests were done on it?

That should do to go on with . . . 

(I should note that at least some of this may well be answered in the study itself. If little or none of it is addressed in the study, that would be a huge red flag in itself.)



-- Rivka; Finger Lakes NY, Zone 5 mostly
Fresh-market organic produce, small scale



=

_______________________________________________
Market-farming mailing list
Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page