>From: The Korrows
Christy wrote
> our latest revelation is that the small percentage of organic farms (8000
certified >farms in the US- 90,000 farms in Kentucky alone) is not going to
turn around >agriculture,
Its a shame more people in organic and biodynamic agriculture dont realise
this - certification is the problem! It infers an all or nothing situation -
either you go organic and become certified or you remain (in the eyes of the
certified) a chemical farmer. The greatest benefit to agriculture will come
from integration of biodynamic and organic practices on conventional
(chemical) farms, after all if you eliminate entirely the use of chemicals
on a small area say ten or twenty acres of certified land, in the overall
scheme of things thats not much chemical. A reduction in the rate applied on
one normal scale commercial farm would make a far more significant reduction
in amount of chemical used and it is easy to do. We just have to get the
farmers attention and show that these things work on normal commercial
farms. Greg Willis is doing this, Glen Atkinson in new Zealand has trial
results supporting his use of bdpreps on chemical farms replacing toxic
chemical applications with potentised preps, we are seeing these things, and
other non toxic tactics working on our own farm. There is a huge opportunity
here for serious reductions in toxic chemical usage without the attendant
reductions in crop yield and financial pain. But I still cop a fair amount
of flack along the lines of ' when are you going to do things properly and
get certified' from some people within the bd movement - I admit its got
more friendly as time goes on (or am I less sensitive to it).
I realise we need some of the purist approach or the whole thing will
get watered down to mediocrity but I also think that many people dont
consider the first step because they are under the impression that they have
to go the whole way or there will be no result. Painless transition should
be our aim!
Cheers
Lloyd Charles
