Cross-post in response to George's letter. Keith
>Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:55:06 -0600 >From: RDH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Low input vs. high input organic systems >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Keith, > >I can add some insight on a couple of points. > >One is that farmers generally are terrible book keepers. For someone doing >conventional farming to realize the benefits of sustainable agriculture, it >takes much thought, some good records, and a bit of math. Many farmers rate >their success in bushels and not in net profit. Often the net comes in the >mailbox in the form of deficiency payments. > >The question about the nitrogen content of manure: Cattle grazing crop >residue can produce 63 pounds of manure / day with a combined urine and >feces nitrogen benefit of 0.3 lbs / day. Adding sheep will increase the >nitrogen return without taking from the available forage for the cattle. >Worm casts (if not killed by chemicals) can generate almost 5 tons per acre >per year. Worm casts can increase the available nitrogen in the soil by >35%. Clover at 40% cover can add approximately 250 lbs. / acre per year in >available nitrogen. Often the missing link in nutrient cycling is the >livestock. It is important to plant so that you can let the livestock >harvest and manure for you. Interseeding legumes in most any crop and >grazing crop residue after will provide adequate and sustainable nutrients >for subsequent crops. The unseen missing link is the pharmaceuticals >(ivermectin) that kill the dung beetles, the chemical fertilizers (unlisted >fillers and salts) that destroy the balance of bacteria and fungi, and the >herbicides that destroy the photosynthesizing flora of the soil that make >the transition to organic painful. > >Crop pests are more often a result of inadequate nutrients in the soil, i.e. >sick plants. Pesticides on top of the rest of the chemicals take care of >any beneficial insects that help to balance the system. > >Organic production isn't so much a method as it is an understanding of the >natural processes and learning how to adapt one's needs to the capabilities >of one's land. Harmonic agriculture might better describe the intent of >most organic producers. > >RD > >P.S. There are some x,000 organic corn growers in the Midwest and plenty of >less informed organic livestock producers willing to feed it to their cattle >and goats. >I would say that is a very fair question. If it was possible I would. > >I know several organic farmer and they don't laugh all the way to the >bank. That is just an image they would like everybody to believe. In >order to reach the production goals required by today financial needs, >organic don't cut it. Not even close. Zero Input Sustainable >Agriculture (name used by the US government) is just a dream of the >extreme left wing enviromentalist. Looks good, sounds good but not >feastable. You need to draw a clear line between those that do organic >farming with an acre or so and those who farm on the x,000 acres plus. >To grow a couple of hundred corn plants on 1/2 acre and then petal the >roasting ears to people who you meet on the street is probably very >profitable but your going to need a job on the side. With a 27,000 >population per acre and 1000 acres of corn that's 27,000,000 roasting >ears. This is but one big problem. The places that broker organic food >are not capable of handling large volume. The market just isn't their yet. > >Do you have a clue how much manure it takes to equal 250 pounds of NH3. >The average amount of nirtrogen put on an acre of irrigated corn here in >KS. Or how many cows it would take to produce enough manure to fertilize >1000 acres of irrigated corn. The reason I say irrigated is that dryland >corn here in KS is a "iffy" crop at best. This doesn't even touch on the >labor required to load, haul, and spread the manure or the costs >involved. To use manure would not only be labor intensely, but terribly >costly as well. I would lose my butt big time to use all manure. They >say rotate your crops. Yes, alfalfa does put a little nitrogen into the >soil. But not nearly enough to grow 200 bu per acre corn. I do rotate >my crops, especially my dryland crops but I do rotate my irrigated as >well. To keep the chemical costs to a minmium. On a very small farm, an >acre or so, organic is the only way to go. Their are organic farms up >to 100 acres or so. But their not profitable, just diehard, stubborn >"Gonna do it organic" types. They would do it even if they were >starving. If I can't produce in the 175 and up range then I won't be >here next year. Someone else will be farming my farm and he won't be >organic. > >For chemicals their is no organic replacement. They simplely let the >bugs chow down. Diease is uncontrollable except by rotation. In bad >years like we had last year they don't raise a crop. If organic was >suddenly required by all governments in this world. No one would be >able to buy enough food to live on. It would simpley be a severe food >shortage. As long as organic has conventional farmer to produce for the >masses then they can produce for the few (and growing) who buy organic >only. If everybody tried to buy organic only, their would be one hell of >a long line everywhere they sell food. > >The simple fact is, organic is not ready to replace conventional >farming. Except on a small and local scale. > >One last comparision. I'm sure you don't like to buy gasoline for your >car or truck, whatever. I'm sure you don't like to buy tires, oil, and >repairs or that you don't like the idea of being a part of the pollution >that is generated in the world every day. So why don't you walk to work >everyday. I'm sure their is people out their who do, but is it >feastable for everybody to walk. Cut down on the gas comsumption of the >world, cut down on air pollution and get a lot of good exercise in >addition but it's just not workable for the vast majority. So it is with >American agriculture. Organic farming cannot feed the world. For me to >switch would create such a severe income loss that it is not even a >remote option. Conventional ag needs the ag chemicals to produce the >crop big enough to pay the bills by as few people (per farm) as possible > >To close, I'm sure their are places in the world where organic farming >on a larger scale than I am portraying here is possible, but they are >labor intensive. They just are not possible on a large scale and today's >agriculture is growing larger and larger on that scale. It has to, our >fixed costs go up every year and the only way to cope is to get bigger. > It is a vicious circle. Remember that question about "How many cows >would it take to fertilize 1000 acres of corn" How many ton of poop can >you scope in a day? While your scoping poop, who's going to be pinching >bugs? > >I hope I didn't bore you >George > > > > > > So why don't you? There's plenty of totally organic farmers who are > > laughing all the way to the bank. You > > too can end your chemical dependancy -- "Just say NO!" > > > > > > -- > > Harmon Seaver > > CyberShamanix > > http://www.cybershamanix.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
