permaculture

[Claudia Joseph <permie@earthlink.net>]

Steve, LL and others following this thread,

Now that organics are big business, chemical companies are growing “organic” 
too. Scotts (maker of Miracle Grow) last year acquired a well established 
hydroponics company (General Organics)to capitalize on the indoor growing 
that is now popular. Grow houses are in vogue in urban areas. To require soil 
for all “organic” labeling is necessary. Human health and favorable food 
qualities rely on soil. Taking aquaponics aside, most grow hydroponic or 
aeroponic conditions are sterile, among other shortcomings. Soil’s inherent 
value is not apparent to most people and ”terroir” or "bio-nutrient density” 
are not commonly discussed. In public school science books, soil is part of 
the Non-Living World.

Here is a research portal I found while reading "USDA Awards $6.7 Million for 
Research to Support Healthy Agroecosystems”:

ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI AND SUSTAINABLE AGROECOSYSTEM RESEARCH IN NORTH 
CAROLINA
http://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0209455-arbuscular-mycorrhizal-fungi-and-sustainable-agroecosystem-research-in-north-carolina.html
 
<http://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0209455-arbuscular-mycorrhizal-fungi-and-sustainable-agroecosystem-research-in-north-carolina.html>

Checkout this link to learn how USDA frames the discussion of global and US 
food supply:
https://medium.com/usda-results/ch11-ad478971cba7#.g8ai6w774 
<https://medium.com/usda-results/ch11-ad478971cba7#.g8ai6w774>

Mainstream Climate Adaptation report:
at http://kresge.org/climate-adaptation <http://kresge.org/climate-adaptation>

Returning to small-scale agriculture will be a necessity, not a choice.

For Soil Health,
Claudia

>>  one can have democracy in our country or one can have most of the wealth 
>> concentrated in the hands of the few, but one cannot have both. 
> On Jan 22, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Steve Hart <stevenlawrencehart@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Yes LL....the problem is far bigger than the simple issues mentioned. To
> understand it and interpret what the reality is far deeper than most of us
> can imagine we need to dig deep and look at all the threads then join the
> dots. Most information fed us on a minute by minute basis is to mislead and
> deceive in order to lead us on a path far from the real path others are on.
> However, we can see examples through history where "People Power" has won.
> Our Grass Roots power needs mobilising. We have many links in this world
> which IMO needs massaging supporting and driving, if we have any hope for
> future generations....Steve Hart
> 
> On 23 January 2017 at 10:54, Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1)
>>> My view will not surprise anyone who has been paying attention: This
>>> another expected turn of the dialectical screw in the emergence and
>>> hegemony of industrial organic, in line with historical USDA goals.
>> Toward
>>> this objective, the agency is using the same Act it has used to subsidize
>>> big agriculture and foster its monopoly control over every sector of the
>>> food system. Crumbs are dropped along the way to deceive and pacify small
>>> farmers. How depressing that so many are fooled. History repeats itself,
>>> first as tragedy, then as farce.
>>> --
>>> Karl North -  http://karlnorth.com/
>>> "Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying
>>> "They only call it class warfare when we fight back" - Anon.
>>> "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son
>>> will ride a camel."
>>> —Saudi saying
>>> 2)
>>> Agreed Karl, looks like another checkoff program that steals from the
>>> small producer and benefits many others like industrial organic and folks
>>> who like to move money around get paid and accomplish very little except
>>> for enhancing corporate profits..
>>> Rich Molini
>>> Atlanta, Indiana
>>> 
>> 
>> Attn: Steve
>> 
>> Here is more in this thread:
>> 
>> "Karl S North" <knorth@binghamton.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Ai, caramba, Grace. Your words only reveal how different your view of how
>> the world works is from mine. There was no historical abuse because this
>> checkoff program was designed to generate the outcomes that occurred in
>> every sector in which it was applied - beef, sheep, grains, you name it.
>> The controlling powers in the food system do not see the version in
>> question as generic; they see organic as just another commodity sector to
>> conquer and control, which they have pretty much already done. In its
>> century of existence, the USDA presided over and fostered the most socially
>> and ecologically destructive form of agriculture in history. There is no
>> good in such an outfit to be made better.
>> 
>> The problem is much bigger than a single agency of government. Just as half
>> the electorate refused to vote for two slimy candidates, many small
>> producers see our whole country as a system of legalized crime,
>> racketeering by another name.  Louis Brandeis, the first Jew to attain high
>> office, simply stated what should be obvious: one can have democracy in our
>> country or one can have most of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the
>> few, but one cannot have both. Why does it take someone from a persecuted
>> minority to point that out? Why can't legions of highly educated Wasp
>> liberals figure that out?
>> On Jan 21, 2017 6:18 PM, "Karl S North" <knorth@binghamton.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Grace Gershuny wrote:
>> 
>>> look at the actual content of the proposal and examine the claims of its
>>> critics, rather than simply replaying the ideological construct that
>>> demands unquestioning opposition to anything labeled "industrial
>> organic."
>> 
>> 
>> ​Pointing to the common history of all checkoff program​s created under the
>> Act, and their consequences in subsidizing big agriculture is not
>> "replaying
>> the ideological construct". I wish you would look at the history. It's not
>> rocket science; the patterns in USDA history stand out like sore thumbs.
>> Isn't the assumption that this program under the same Act will suddenly be
>> different just more hopium?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>