Robert,
A near neighbour of mine grew apples, and as is fairly common here in
Ireland, we both use(d) paclobutrazol as a gibberellin inhibitor,
because it improves tree productivity, reduces pruning costs, and
improves light penetration and fruit colour. When my neighbour removed
orchard, he leased the land to a potato grower, who planted potatoes in
the land. They did not grow well, as the levels of paclobutrazol in the
soil were high, and the potato stems did not elongate, so proper leaf
cover was not established, and hence the tubers produced by autumn were
very small and unmarketable. After checking, he found that this was a
known problem associated with growing potatoes (and some other crops if
I remember rightly) after apples, and that after using paclobutrazol
for ten years, it is reckoned that potatoes should not be grown for at
least 30 years.
This would certainly call into question the sustainability of using
paclobutrazol for a farmer growing potatoes and apples (quite a common
combination among direct-sales producers here in Ireland), especially
since an alternative gibberellin inhibitor is now available.
There are many other examples, many of which are to do with long-
lived soil-applied residual herbicide residues, which can affect
subsequent crops.
It is appropriate to think of the long term effects.
For that reason, I would also ask Russell if he is confident that the
existing Glyphosate/Gramoxone program is causing the basal cankers, or
if there might be some other explanation. The use of residual
herbicides tends to present a greater risk of long-term negative
effects than the chemicals Russell mentioned above.
Con Traas
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:apple-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Philip Smith
Sent: 14 March 2007 21:30
To: Apple-Crop
Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article
Such as??
----- Original Message -----
From: robert
To: Apple-Crop
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article
Sustainability means looking that things from a much longer term
perspective. It means considering whether a practice that is going to
be profitable for the next several years will make the land less
productive for your great grandchildren.
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Smith
To: Apple-Crop
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article
"Crumbling our natural foundations out from under ourselves"????
Goodness, I had no idea! In fact, I never really thought that what I'm
doing wasn't "sustainable". It's not strip mining. I'm having trouble
figuring out this whole "sustainable" business. I''m not sure if it
means something practical or if it's just a feel-good concept.
Philip Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Shoemaker
To: Apple-Crop
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article
Con
Like you, I like the word sustainable. But I do think the previous
comments about economics are important. We need to bridge the gap
between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability to
have a viable operative term for growers and the planet. In the end,
humans are part of the ecosystem too. We need to find a way to avoid
crumbling our natural foundations out from under ourselves.
Bill Shoemaker, Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops
University of Illinois - St Charles Horticulture Research Center
www......nres.uiuc.edu/faculty/directory/shoemaker_wh.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Con.Traas
To: Apple-Crop
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:48 AM
Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
Hello Kurt,
I never thought about it much, but definitely prefer the word
sustainable to unsustainable. I run an orchard, and it is economically
viable, profitable, rewarding, successful (at least some would say so),
and I, like you, would like to be a responsible steward of what we have
been given. However, to be that, I think that what I do needs to be
sustainable. If I were to engage in some orchard practice that meant
that I lost 5% of my top soil each year, I might be profitable for 20
years, but after that I would run out of soil, and business. I would
classify this as unsustainable. If I use a water resource for
irrigation in such a way that I deplete it over time (unsustainable),
again, this is clearly harmful in the long run, and will end up closing
my farm. If I use it it a sustainable way, I can go on forever. So I
like sustainable.
Obviously, some forms of sustainability or unsustainability are not so
obvious. If the inhabitants of our planet are going to use up the
fossil fuels that amassed over a period of 300 million years in a mere
500 years, and if our production of fruits depends on these fossil
fuels for fertiliser production, plant protection chemicals, fuel to
deliver produce to market etc., then how sustainable is our fruit
production?
I personally do not think that we can answer this yet, as it depends on
what other forms of energy we can harness as current forms grow scarce.
But I do think that it is a good idea to consider the sustainability of
what we do, as the most profitable orchard today might not be the most
sustainable, but a more sustainable orchard today is likely to be more
profitable tomorrow.
Perhaps in the US, sustainable agriculture has come to
mean the something like subsistence agriculture, which you nicely
describe as being stuck under water with just a straw to breath
through. However, over here, it is something that most growers are
happy to consider.
I wish you the best of luck with your pruning.
Con Traas
The Apple Farm
Cahir
Ireland
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:apple-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kurt Alstede
Sent: 13 March 2007 13:21
To: 'Apple-Crop'
Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
Growers,
Does anyone else disdain the word "sustainable" as much as I do?
Setting aside the USDA definition, I cannot help but have a minds eye
image of being stuck under water and breathing through a little straw
that just pokes above the surface. Indeed, I am sustaining, but the
situation really sucks. Frankly, that is not the way that I want to
exist in commercial agriculture. My personal desire is to be a very
responsible steward of God's resources, enjoy my work, and to make a
good living...ie make money. Certainly there are better words to use
than sustainable...for instance "economically viable," "profitable,"
"successful," "rewarding," etc. Who really came up with the term
"sustainable" anyway? I don't believe it was the full time farm
community. I think that the term "sustainable" really shows the hand
of the greens who are not at all interested in your or my families
making a comfortable living and having a successful business, but only
interested in their own agenda and use us whenever we fit in and find
us quickly disposable when we don't.
Happy Pruning,
Kurt W. Alstede
General Manager
Alstede Farms, LLC
P. O. Box 278
Chester, New Jersey 07930
United States of America
Tel. 908-879-7189
From:[email protected] [mailto:apple-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of alan surprenant
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
i couldn't agree more with arthur's observations. looking at the
progress towards sustainable agriculture, in our case- tree fruit
growing, over the long term (as arthur does) i can see so many good
things that have come to be. ron prokopy and the work he and his
people did (and still do) , the ever increasing knowledge of soil
health and it's effect on fruit growing, and folks like michael
phillips and his work at always pushing the organic envelope, have done
much to aid this 'healthier' direction.
my disdain for much of the federal organic certification aside, these
are just mere bumps on the road towards sustainable agriculture.
my question is how can we spend so time writing our opinions on-line
when there's still so much pruning left to do? (it's probably a
function of how deep the snow is in the orchard)
alan surprenant brook farm orchard ashfield, massachusetts
From: Arthur Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Apple-Crop" <[email protected]>
To: Apple-Crop <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
>I could agree with most of what you say about organic foods, but I'm
not sure that what
>you regard as silliness is the same as the silliness I observe. In
conventional food
>standards it is far more silly ---and dangerous to health---than what
goes on in
>organics. I speak as an organic inspector and author of Harvey v
Veneman. Most of my
>life was spent working in conventional apple orchards where the
prevailing view is that
>Guthion---or whatever---is perfectly safe because the manufacturers
say so, and the feds
>have not contradicted them until very recently. Interestingly, the
Fruit Growers News
>which I have been reading for more than 40 years, has within the past
couple of years
>turned away from their contemptuous attitude toward organic
orcharding, and now has
>positive and helpful coverage.
>
>
>--- Steve Demuth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kurt,
> >
> > I actually agree with you that you, and other farmers, are probably
> > better served by the personal relationship than they would be by
> > certification alone (nothing, I might add, prevents one from
> > benefiting from both). My point was that the consumer's trust is
> > based mostly on the good feelings from the personal relationship,
> > even though there is no demonstrable correlation between this and
the
> > things that people claim to value about food production methods.
> >
> > And the physician example is in fact perfectly apropos. Firstly,
> > because physicians are certified, and required to periodically
> > re-certify in their chose area of practice. I suspect it matters a
> > great deal to most people that their doctor actually graduated from
> > medical school, finished a residency, and is regularly re-certified
> > in their speciality.
> >
> > Secondly, it is true that people do choose physicians on
> > recommendations, and personal trust. And, it's a lousy way to
choose
> > them. Having been involved research on clinical outcomes, I can say
> > quite certainly that the fact that a physician appears competent,
> > caring and trustworthy is very poorly correlated with whether or not
> > they produce above or below average results for their
patients. Many
> > well-loved physicians are, statistically at least, a very bad bet
for
> > your health.
> >
> > This of course hardly bolsters my case for certification. Despite
> > our best efforts to certify physician competence, there is still a
> > huge variance in quality. However, there is an important difference
> > between organic certification and doctor certification: organic
> > certification certifies methods, not knowledge alone. There is a
> > movement afoot in the medical field to start doing this with
> > hospitals (if you can't verify that every post heart-attack patient
> > is getting the most proven effective drug regimen, you may lose your
> > blessing as a cardiac care center); organic already does this with
> > horticultural practice.
> >
> > All of this is not to say that I think organic is an altogether
great
> > thing. I don't actually like the direction that organic has taken
in
> > the last 20 years; many of the regulations in the current
> > certification are to my mind just plain wrong headed. And I
> > certainly think that a local, ecologically-minded agriculture is
> > preferable in many ways to a distant, organically certified one.
> >
> > But, how am I know to that my local grower is following best
> > horticultural, pesticide, and ecological practice. Trust? Not
> > alone. On this one I'm with Ronald Reagan, "trust but
verify." That
> > is the value of certification.
> >
> > Which bring me back to my starting point: this isn't an either
> > or. Can't there be a certification program for ecologically sound
> > agriculture that steers clear of the silliness in the organic
> > standards, and which tells me something useful about what is going
on the farm?
> >
> > At 02:18 PM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
> > >Fellow Growers,
> > >
> > >I think that Steve's conclusion about the gullibility of consumers
is a
> > >little misdirected. I have found that what consumers (people)
really value
> > >and desire in America is personal relationships. Certification
may well
> > >serve and be necessary for the 900 mile "local" model as well as
the box
> > >stores but I believe that it has been born out of the realization
of these
> > >retailers that they must somehow compete with the consumer desire
to have a
> > >personal relationship with a person that they trust. I view the
situation
> > >as being similar to having a physician. One generally chooses a
personal
> > >physician not based on the fact that they have a PhD from a
prestigious
> > >university and scored well on their finals, but rather on the
recommendation
> > >and endorsements from others who have established trusting personal
> > >relationships with that physician. Defining consumer trust may be
mostly
> > >subjective, but it is very real. To a retailer, it manifests the
bottom
> > >line. I feel much more confident building our retail farm
business on our
> > >ability to create, build, and maintain personal relationships with
the
> > >consumers that we serve (and we do this successfully with 10 of
thousands of
> > >customers) as opposed to trusting our future business growth to a
> > >bureaucratic regulatory certification program. Indeed, as growers
we must
> > >always endeavor to do our job correctly in order to produce safe
and
> > >nutritious food, but it is the personal relationship that people
really want
> > >and desire. And it is this reality, I believe, that will solidify
and grow
> > >the retail farm market consumer spending share that is being
aggressively
> > >sought after by the box stores and supermarkets.
> > >
> > >
> > >Kurt W. Alstede
> > >General Manager
> > >Alstede Farms, LLC
> > >P. O. Box 278
> > >Chester, New Jersey 07930
> > >United States of America
> > >
> > >Tel. 908-879-7189
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: [email protected] [mailto:apple-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >On Behalf Of Steve Demuth
> > >Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:34 PM
> > >To: Apple-Crop
> > >Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Time article
> > >
> > >People often do trust things they are familiar
with. Unfortunately,
> > >they do this without much analysis of whether this is wise. That
> > >people trust locally grown and marketed produce says nothing
> > >whatsoever about the nutritional, economic or ecological bona fides
> > >of such product. That can only be done by well enforced
> > >certification programs. And that, whatever the faults of organic
> > >certification (and there are certainly many), is the real benefit
of
> > >the organic label.
> > >
> > >So, while I am a great proponent for consuming locally grown
produce,
> > >I think that Kurt's endorsement below points out mostly the
> > >gullibility of consumers, not anything virtuous about local
> > >production. Even the "petroleum miles" benefit claimed in the Time
> > >piece is not necessarily as obvious as it seems. If one hauls
> > >30,000lbs of apples cross country (say, 3,000 miles) in a
> > >semi-trailer, that can easily burn 600 gallons of fuel. But,
suppose
> > >2000 consumers drive out to their local U-pick an average distance
of
> > >10 miles round trip to get an average of 15 lbs of apples
> > >each. That's thte same 30,000lbs of product. Want to bet which
uses
> > >more petroleum? In fact, the consumers would have to average 33+
> > >miles/gallon to beat the truckload - highly unlikely with today's
> > >cars. And if the local producer is delivering to local markets,
> > >rather than running a U-pick? The economics probably favor the
local
> > >produce in this case, assuming an efficient and truly local route,
> > >but the margin will whither rapidly if they are delivering partial
> > >loads with 200+ mile round trips.
> > >
> > >And, as for the certainty a consumer may feel that a local grower
> > >from whom they buy personally will be attentive to safe use of
> > >pesticides and sound land use - a clean farm storefront, firm
> > >handshake and welcome smile no more assure this than good manners
> > >make used car salesmen honest. Most local growers do pay attention
> > >to these things, of course, but then so do most organic growers
> > >(particularly as they need to worry about inspections to assure
that
> > >they do). Again, the advantage to the consumer of the local grower
> > >is more about perception than reality.
> > >
> > >My favorite analogy in this department is airplane travel. I don't
> > >really care whether I know personally the mechanic who services the
> > >next AirBus or Boeing that I get on. I do care that there are
> > >certification programs for the mechanic, the airframe, the pilot,
and
> > >basically everything else to do with my flight. So too with
> > >food. Again, organic has gone directions that I sincerely disagree
> > >with, but I think the notion of certification is at it's core, a
lot
> > >more valuable to society than "a farmer you know and trust."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >At 08:42 AM 3/11/2007, you wrote:
> > > >Hello Jon,
> > > >
> > > >You are right on as was the Time Article. In the final
analysis, people
> > > >trust the face and the person that they can see and
touch...their local
> > > >farmer. We have seen this to be the case in all of our direct
marketing
> > >and
> > > >have cultivated it in all of our advertising and marketing
efforts. I was
> > > >thrilled to see Time give this subject favorable front page
attention.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Kurt W. Alstede
> > > >General Manager
> > > >Alstede Farms, LLC
> > > >P. O. Box 278
> > > >Chester, New Jersey 07930
> > > >United States of America
> > > >
> > > >Tel. 908-879-7189
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: [email protected] [mailto:apple-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >On Behalf Of Jon Clements
> > > >Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:05 PM
> > > >To: Apple-Crop
> > > >Subject: Apple-Crop: Time article
> > > >
> > > >Although I am hesitant to fan any embers -- I know there are
quite a
> > > >few out there -- into flames, it might be worth your while to
pick up
> > > >the March 12th issue of Time magazine. There is a cover article
on
> > > >organic vs. 'buy local.' A couple quotes:
> > > >
> > > >"In the end I bought both apples (organic vs. 'conventional New
York
> > > >state local'). They were both good, although the California one
had a
> > > >mealy bit, possibly from it's journey." (Is the author
English -- a
> > > >"mealy bit?")
> > > >
> > > >"Eating locally also seems safer. Ted's (an upstate NY
diversified
> > > >producer) neighbors and customers can see how he farms. That
> > > >transparency doesn't exist with, say, spinach bagged by a distant
> > > >agribusiness. I help keep Ted in business, and he helps keep me
fed
> > > >-- and the elegance and sustainability of that exchange make more
> > > >sense to me than gambling on faceless producers who stamp
ORGANIC on
> > > >a package thousands of miles from home."
> > > >
> > > >Now, I have been trying to fully explain the phenomenal
direct-market
> > > >sales many Massachusetts apple growers -- and I understand it was
> > > >beyond MA too -- had last season. I know the weather was good,
and
> > > >that makes a huge difference, but I am starting to think the buy
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>On another topic, the federal law governing organic foods was recently
amended by lobbyists hired by some manufacturers. This will allow
synthetic ingredients to be added to organic-labeled foods.
>If this is important to you, please visit my website,
www.RestoreOrganicLaw.org
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
><http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
>Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
>Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent
>"official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
>the content.
>
>
>
>
>
