nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio
List archive
- From: "Stephen Sadler" <Docshiva@Docshiva.org>
- To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [NAFEX] chemical vs organic
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:26:00 -0700
Well, I’m a scientist and garden organically. I rely on
published research from scientists. I’ve met a lot of farmers, and hereabouts
most don’t have much postgraduate science education. However, there are some
that do, and they farm organically. Given the published tests and studies that scientifically
examine organic methods, it’s just silly to say that conventional is scientific
and organic is not. Anyone growing food can rely on proven or unproven
methods, but neither proven nor unproven equates to conventional or organic. Both
have tested, reliable methods. ~ Stephen From:
nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On
Behalf Of Kieran &/or Donna Someone,
I think it was Fluffy or maybe Alan who said organic people
are "unscientific". That's not entirely true.
Most of us are simply naive idealists who really believe that God or
Nature is benign and nice. We have read that if we just improve our
soil enough, that the bugs and disease will go away. That generally
seems to hold true for truck crops. I haven't seen a bean beetle in
years. Fruit trees seem much harder to deal with. The borer
for every species thing doesn't help. The curculio seem to have
developed the perfect system, simply ruin all the fruit for any other
creature but let a few fruits hang on long enough to make a few
seeds for the trees to reproduce. Codling moths aren't nearly as
efficient. Someone asked me at work about what
was eating the leaves on various species of veggies in her first ever
garden. Two of us were interrogating her, as she was obviously
describing rabbit or deer damage. the same bug does not attack all those
species, and each one does it's own very specific thing. The older
men in the family had simply gone out and dusted Sevin to deal with all those
other pests. Here our worlds divide. I adore bugs, except for the
ones I hate with a passion. I could never spray my garden with an
insecticide, it would kill too many of my miniature wildlife. ( I
don't have to go on safari to Africa or even use binoculars to
observe amazing creatures and great drama. Try watching one of those
special spider wasps in action. You know, the blackish ones with the
orange curly antennae. Know what they use those antennae
for? They feel the spider very carefully with them to find the right
spot to sting. It's rather obscene to watch, esp as I am so fond of
wolf spiders. ) I know a great deal about all kinds of bugs,
including those that have no economic impact on me. Tennessee oldtimers
don't know these things, they kill everything with Sevin. That is
scientific? I get a big kick out of explaining to oldtimers about
why the blister beetles they hate so much are only a mixed curse, because their
young feed on grasshopper eggs. Once we got banties running loose
eating grasshoppers, the blister beetles became rare.
Sevin is one of the 4 food groups in Tennessee. Never mind that it is a
neurotoxin that mammals can break down in their livers because they have an enzyme
that insects don't have. Never mind that this enzyme can be used up by
repeated exposure or that certain medications can use it up. Never mind
the reports in Organic Gardening, that magazine for superstitious organic
gardeners about how Sevin can last 40 days in the garden in certain
conditions. Never mind the final conclusion in the book A PLAGUE OF
FROGS that it was the breakdown product of a pesticide that interfered
with the thyroid function in the developing frogs and caused the limb deformities.
The researchers working with the pesticide itself did not get these results,
giving the impression that it would not affect frogs. Yes, there is also
some kind of amphibian infection running around that can do this, but the
Canadian researcher said flatly that in his years of sampling, that only farm
ponds with lots of pesticides produced deformities. Is it truly
scientific to assume that chemicals don't break down into intermediate products
out in Nature? Some of us organic nuts are now bitter and
twisted, having realised that the world consists mostly of creatures saying
gimme. We watch longingly the simple lives of chemical
users, but are still only too aware that the miracle of modern
chemistry is biting America's backside in the rates of cancer
and other health problems.
This is not intended as an attack on anyone on this group, I am merely
addressing the great divide in Nafex. Never mind politics, we don't go to
Nafex meetings and then immediately try to figure out whether we are talking to
a Dem or Rep, we want to know if we are talking with someone who grows
resistant stuff or who grows the best of everything and sprays. Both
groups start out naive, but one trusts the chemical companies and sprays, the
other puts their faith in Nature and doesn't spray. Both get rewards, but
often the organic bunch have to do a whole lot more learning first.
Personally, I would love to see the concept of IPM agriculture blossom. I
would love to be able to buy IPM produce in my local grocery. But somehow
the concept has never gotten major attention among consumers and publications
to consumers. IPM is definitely the most scientific form of agriculture
in my opinion. It is based on the intersection of 3 realities, economic
reality, and the knowlege of biology and chemistry.
I suppose this is the foundation for an article I have long wanted to write for
Pomona but never could quite figure out how to approach. The divide in
Nafex between the organic and the chemical people is quite deep. People
have their minds as made up already as they did in the last election. I
soon discovered last year that I could only discuss politics with like minded
people, that there were no discussions between sides, only arguments. I
think the divide is addressed by the Meyers-Briggs, Kiersey-Bates personality
tests. The division is between the 25% of the population who see the
forest, and the 75% who see the trees. Between the big
picture and the details. The big picture people think the detail
people are idiots because they can't grasp the implications of what they
do. The detail people think the big picture people are idiots because
they are vague. For the extremes of either type, there is sudden glazing
over of the eyes when forced to converse with someone of the other brain
type. I have watched it happen, I have experienced it myself. My
husband once endured an excruciating conversation between a brother
and BIL of mine, 15 full minutes regarding a scratch on a car and what to do
about it. Our attitude is, the car is transportation, a scratch means
nothing to that purpose. To detail people, a scratch is a very real
thing.
For the purposes of this discussion, ask yourself which type you are, and would
you please report in which type you are and whether you think organic gardening
is stupid and chemicals are fine. Remember there are people in the
middle, more versatile people than the ones at the ends of the spectrum.
If you are in the middle, what is your opinion re chemicals, in 25 words or
less? Thank you. Any input regarding an article for Pomona on
this subject would be very much appreciated. A group effort will produce
a better balanced article. Some details, some theory, something for
everyone. Donna |
-
[NAFEX] sandy soil and sugary fruit,
Alan Haigh, 06/12/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] no summer for the North?, Kieran &/or Donna, 06/12/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] sandy soil and sugary fruit, Kieran &/or Donna, 06/12/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] chemical vs organic,
Kieran &/or Donna, 06/12/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] chemical vs organic, Mark Angermayer, 06/12/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] chemical vs organic, Stephen Sadler, 06/12/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] chemical vs organic, Kevin Moore, 06/14/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.