Japanese beetles
Dear Friends, I was just checking the best ashing times for insects as listed on the BD Association website and was wondering if anyone knew whether Japanese beetles would come under the same category as the Colorado potato beetle. I have a jar full of Japanese beetles awaiting the right moment. Thanks for any help you may offer. Cordelia
Fred K on the Future of Agrarianism
from the Leopold Center Home Page: The Future of Agrarianism: Where Are We Now?[1] Frederick Kirschenmann Director, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture If the [current] pattern holds, farming as a way of life will mainly disappear within the next 50 years, large swaths of the country will be virtually depopulated. --Jedidiah Purdy When Wendell Berry was writing his singular work, The Unsettling of America, from 1974 to1977, the industrialization of agriculture was already well underway. The transformation of agriculture into an industry was enthusiastically endorsed by many agricultural pundits and experts. In fact, as Wendell tells us in the preface to the first edition of Unsettling, he was incited to begin taking the first notes for his book in 1967 when President Lyndon Johnson's special commission on federal food and fiber policies made its report. In the view of the commission, a major problem with U.S. agriculture was that we still had too many farmers on the land. The technological advances had so reduced the need for farm manpower that national farm income simply could no longer support as many farmers. By 1986, when Wendell wrote the preface to the second edition of Unsettling, very little had changed. Farmers were still being pushed off the land at the same rate. And while some Americans became concerned when larger commercial farms started going out of business during the farm crisis of the 1980s, the media and the majority of agricultural experts continued to insist that the problem was too many farmers. A few took exception. By the early 1990s, Calvin Beale at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) suggested that the continuing decline of farm populations throughout the decades of the 1950s through the 1980s had put us in a free fall situation, and called it a trauma.[2] The decline in farm population could no longer be seen as an aberration, or a correction to an otherwise healthy system. Beale further pointed out that the rate of decline in farm population had not changed appreciably during the entire four-decade period from 1950 to 1990. The rate of decline in the 1950s was 3.8 percent; in the 1960s, 4.6 percent; in the1970s, 3.1 percent; and in the 1980s, 2.7 percent. It is revealing that the rate of decline in the boom years of the 1970s was slightly higher than it was in the crisis years of the 1980s---evidence that decline in farm population is not strictly linked to market and price fluctuations. In other words, the decline in farm population is systemic; it is endemic to the industrialization process. As a result, the total number of farms has declined from 6.5 million in 1935 to 2.05 million in 1997, and most of this huge decline took place among family-type farms.[3] It occurred among farms where a family makes all the important operating and investment decisions, owns a significantportion of the assets, and supplies most of the farm's labor---the very farms that are at the heart of the agrarian ideal. It is also instructive to recognize that while farmers always have been reluctant to adopt industrialization, in the end they have always complied. Frederick Buttel pointed out that farmers have been aware of the treadmill that industrialization inevitably puts them on, but economic forces ultimately force them into compliance.[4] Consequently, one can only agree with Wendell's remark in the preface to his 1986 edition that every problem that he had identified in the earlier edition had grown worse since the book was written. Toward a Bifurcated Food and Farming System So where are we now? Well, I wish I could say that things have gotten better---but for the most part they have continued to deteriorate. Not only have farm numbers continued to decline (with the exception of the very small farms), but we are now faced with major structural changes that threaten to dramatically alter the landscape of rural America. Here is what we are seeing. We are moving rapidly into a bifurcated food and farming system. At one end of the scale are a decreasing number of increasingly large farms that produce a single, undifferentiated bulk commodity, for a consolidated firm, most often under a contract written to accommodate the business interests of the firm. According to the most recent (1997) USDA statistics, 61 percent of our total national agricultural product is now being produced by just 163,000 farms, and 63 percent of that production is tied to a market or input firm by means of a contractual relationship. Direct-market farms occupy the other end of the spectrum. These farmers sell their products directly to food customers through various marketing arrangements---farmers markets, community supported agriculture arrangements (CSAs), direct sales off-the-farm, home deliveries, and various Internet networks that directly link producers and consumers. This is a rapidly growing sector of the food industry, but it remains a tiny portion of
Re: Vitality and fertility ofsoils
- Original Message - From: James Hedley [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Vitality of the soil seems to not get coverage on BDnow. Maybe one of the reasons is that until I started to research this concept I had never heard of vitality as being measurable parameter of soil. I write this in the hope that some of you who have experience of Reams techniques may be able to enlighten me, or head me in the direction of further areas of study of his methods. I James I have enjoyed studding and putting into practice the Reams method of testing soils,composts, liquid sprays, weeds and plant on a weekly basis to be able to grow plants with out weed ,pests and disease. Reams talks about energy within the above and how to get it in balance that will enhance optimum plant growth. I feel with in myself that there is a link between energy and vitality. As I am not a particularly good at writing about these things I have posted below information that I have collected about this subject .This coming winter I hope to study some of Carey Reams books. A friend is going to lend them to me as they are out of print Philip Wheeler's book The Non-Toxic Farming Handbook is the best book I have read . Other books are Science In Agriculture, Dr Arden BE Andersen Mainline Farming for the 21st Century, Dr Dan Skow All found at the Acres USA site http://www.acresusa.com Each of these author have a different slant on the subject. A VISIT to this web site will give you a very good edited background to working with the Albrecht Model. http://www.healthyag.com/index2.html I will soon be purchasing Mr Jones books his work as been recommended to me by Cheryl .His work is very user friendly. 99 The Brix man Rex Harrill www.brixpage.com www.crossroads.ws/brixbook/BBook.htm (Rex Harrill's booklet) Pike Labs Good background material here http://www.pikeagri.com/tissuetest.html The Meter Man - David von Pein http://www.themeterman.com.au This guy can talk for hours on the subject . He recons soil can be turned around in about 3years I found him very helpful. James I do have a number of emails from this list on the subject if you are interested I could send them offline I hope this is of assistance Best Regards Tony Robinson New Zealand Down Under
Re: Vitality and fertility ofsoils
- Original Message - From: James Hedley [EMAIL PROTECTED] claim that food is better if grown biodynamically. I love my plants and take great delight in growing plants that have a look of vitality about them. Although they may appear to be very vital plants, each year the seed loses some of it's vitality. My problem then became how do I increase vitality, James Some time ago when Peter Bacchus and I were working together in the fields we had a great discussion on plant breeding and the use of BD preps to effect this . What comes to mind ,as no notes were taken we were grubbing weeds, was that we talked about the use of different preps to aid in cross breeding to improve colour, quality, vigour etc. Maybe Peter may be able to help you in this area. Just a thought that came to mind as I grubbed another lot of weeds. Regards Tony.
Re: Help
- Original Message - From: Allan Balliett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:23 AM Subject: Re: Help What sort of experiences have you (anyone) had with using 501 in a greenhouse? I think that Grotzke advised that it is too strong for use in a greenhouse. (?) For this reason, I have held off using it. First outbreak of aphids makes me think of using it. I think heinz mentioned a residual and a generalized effect that henceforth makes the house uncomfortable for seedlings. But, what is you life experience? Thanks -Allan Hi I have been using 501 and Potentised 501 under 30,000 sq feet of plastic houses for 10 years and havn't had any problems . In fact growing under cover I feel that you should be using it more often particularly when light levels are low and plant growth is soft. Cheers Tony R
Re: Vitality and fertility ofsoils
Hi James and Tony James wrote (a while back) I love my plants and take great delight in growing plants that have a look of vitality about them. Although they may appear to be very vital plants, each year the seed loses some of it's vitality. Then Tony James Some time ago when Peter Bacchus and I were working together in the fields we had a great discussion on plant breeding and the use of BD preps to effect this . What comes to mind ,as no notes were taken we were grubbing weeds, was that we talked about the use of different preps to aid in cross breeding to improve colour, quality, vigour etc. We started out about eight years ago using a compounded (hot mix) trace element seed dressing - immediate visible increase in seedling vigour and for pennies an acre we got eight to sixteen % measured grain yield increase from that one small input, we have since moved on from that material (we hope) to using a remineralising fertility program and seed dressings and foliars based on natural materials like fish, kelp etc. The vitality of our seed wheat increases steadily with each generation and I believe the key to it is availability and uptake of trace minerals. What method we use to achieve this is of minor importance. For the conventional farmer down the road a cutback in toxic inputs and use of the seed dressing product we used initially is probably best bet, a BD farmer has a philosophic need to look to some other method, so catalysing rock dust input with the preps becomes the way for some. Whatever it takes to get those trace minerals into the plant and concentrated in the fruit or seed is whats needed. I believe thats a major factor in what we are calling 'vitality' Cheers Lloyd Charles ps for all I think on our farm we are starting out from a much lower base of vitality than what James would have so its easier to make progress .
[no subject]
Saskatchewan Organic Directorate Box 310 Rockglen, SK S0H 3R0 Phone: 306-476-2089 Fax: 306-476-2146 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: www.saskorganic.com February 28, 2003 Adrian C Measner President and Chief Executive Officer Canadian Wheat Board 423 Main Street P.O. Box 816, Stn. Main Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 2P5 Dear Mr. Measner, In response to your letter of February 5, 2003, the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) does not support any initiative that will compromise the future ability of farmers to grow non-GMO wheat and that will compromise the ability for people to choose food that is not genetically engineered. In your letter you ask for support for the document which outlines the conditions necessary to pave the way for the introduction of GM1 wheat. The document, Conditions for the Introduction of Genetically Modified Wheat'2, was developed by the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) along with representatives from the Canadian Seed Growers Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Western Elevator Association, the Inland Terminal Association, the Canadian National Millers Association, the Canadian Grain Commission, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Monsanto Canada, and a Farmer at Large. This group known as the Canadian Grain Industry Working Group on GM Wheat, does not represent the full spectrum of views held by farmers, and certainly not consumers of wheat products. Consumers after all, should be the final arbiters of any direction the food producing sector takes in regards to the introduction of GM wheat. The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate does not support the thrust of this document which we believe is fundamentally flawed in many of it's assumptions. As one example, it is faulty logic to say that the ability to meet requirements for non-GM wheat markets would depend in part on the establishment of an achievable tolerance level for GM wheat in non-GM wheat shipments. It is implied in this wily language that we must be prepared to accept some level of GM contamination. Presently Saskatchewan farmers are able to achieve a zero GM contamination level to supply our market. We in the SOD believe it is our right to continue to have that ability. Customers of organic wheat do not want their wheat contaminated by genetically modified varieties... period. Furthermore, SOD believes that anyone who contaminates the food system at whatever level, with GM crops, and compromises our ability to serve that market; that they be held liable. The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate believes there are no conditions under which GM wheat can be introduced, that will adequately protect the needs of customers of non-GM wheat. The segregation system alluded to in the document Conditions for the Introduction of Genetically Modified Wheat would be a morass of very expensive regulations that will be impossible to implement, and ultimately will fail. The result would be widespread GM contamination of the food system, and probably an end to the ability to farm organically. The stark fact of this threat to organic agriculture clearly shows the falsehood of the assumption in this document that there is some kind of cost/benefit analysis that would apply to all farmers. Your letter asks for confirmation from the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate that it believes the conditions developed in the document 'Condition for the Introduction of GM Wheat' are necessary and sufficient to protect the interests of farmers and customers. Furthermore you state that these conditions outlined in the document should be incorporated formally into the regulatory process. 1 GM or genetically modified means living products derived from transgenic/recombinant DNA technologies 2 Conditions for the Introduction of Genetically Modified Wheat document on CWB website: www.cwb.ca In response, the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate states that adding the flawed principles of this document to an already flawed government regulatory system will not address the concerns and interests of organic farmers, nor those of our customers, about the introduction of GM wheat. Therefore the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate will not endorse the enclosed draft sign on letter to the Minister of Agriculture Lyle Vanclief, asking for regulatory change which incorporates the conditions contained in the document Conditions for the Introduction of Genetically Modified Wheat and more particularly the proposed regulatory market impact test as outlined in the supplementary document Market Impact and the Potential Introduction of Genetically Modified Wheat. Although the proposed regulatory market impact test goes part way to addressing legitimate concerns, the suggestion that this additional criteria need not alter the current safety approval criteria nor the criteria currently assessed by registration recommending committees. is unacceptable based on our determination of the fundamental
Monsanto's Wheat
The post I sent about the Saskatchewan Organic directorate was meant as information, I came across while on the net. about Monsanto's GM Wheat and what one group of farmers are in Canada is doing about the problem. Saskatchewan is a huge province, the main crop is wheat and many consider it to be the bread basket of the world. These people are at the forefront of the fight. do what you can locally this must be stopped I know I sound like a fanatic Peace Eric
OT: fwd ; Archetypal view of the conflict
- Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 6:50 PM Subject: FW: Is the United States Government Suffering from Archetypal Possession? Forwarded by a friend, this looks at the Bush/US/Iraq scenario from an archetypal standpoint. - Jeffrey-An archetypal analysis of how the country came to stand at the brink of war.By Carol S. PearsonIf I was frightened of my neighbor because he had guns and I knew he did not like me, I could not simply declare the need for a preemptive strike and kill him. If I had actual grounds -- say, he had threatened me -- I could go to the police and seek protection or go to court and try to get a restraining order. In either case, I could not say: "Help me or I'll kill him."If I actually did kill him -- however fearful I was that he might someday kill me -- I would be the one treated as a criminal. It is likely that I would be convicted and sent to jail or executed.Why?No law on earth -- for individuals or nations -- allows you to kill people because they have weapons and do not like you. Self-defense requires imminent danger.How does the above example differ from President Bush's doctrine of a preemptive strike? How is it different from his going to the United Nations and saying that if it does not act, we will attack Iraq by ourselves?If we should have learned anything from inventing and then dropping nuclear bombs, it is that whatever we do, others will want to do, too. One might even think of this as a kind of karma--what you put out comes back at you.It is fairly obvious that once some countries have weapons of mass destruction, other countries will want them, including those run by ruthless dictators. They want them for the same reasons we do.So, if the U.S. decides that it can strike preemptively, then every other country can--and in some cases will--as well. Many countries have good reason to believe that we do not like them. Indeed, our president has even publicly named countries he regards as evil. In addition, he has treated our allies and the United Nations with disdain. It seems to me that it is only the fact of our military might that allows the president to presume to bully the world.Won't other countries seek to arm to the teeth if they think that at any time we might attack them? It often happens that the bully who kicks sand in the other boys' faces gets beat up when they band together against him.Figuring this out is not rocket science. The logic that all this inevitably will come back to haunt us seems to me obvious enough--and it seems to be obvious to most of the rest of the world, too.What is happening here?Reductive Thinking and Archetypal PossessionArchetypes can possess people -- and whole nations, as well. When this happens, individuals and nations stop thinking straight and just live out the plot of that archetype's story. Given enough fear, the Warrior archetype can possess almost anyone. And when it does, the whole Warrior way of thinking kicks in. We have been hearing it from President Bush.It goes like this: We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. When we defeat them, the world will be a better place and we will be Heroes.This makes for a good cowboy movie, but it is lousy foreign policy.Sam Keene, in Faces of the Enemy, shows how normally reasonable, caring people, if they are frightened enough, will be willing to go to war whether or not it makes sense to do so. Part of whipping them up to kill is to present "the enemy" as less than human, avoiding any empathy with how the other side sees the situation.For a brief time after 9/11, we had the opportunity to move into a more complex understanding of the world and our own role in it. While grappling with incredible grief and determining how to care for the families of those who died, the U.S. appeared to be open to learning from the event--even trying to understand why many people around the world hate us.However, in his public statements and speeches in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush told an archetypal story that shut that sort of thinking down. He explained the situation simply, giving only two reasons that others might attack us militarily or philosophically: Either our detractors hate freedom or they are evil. And he demanded that the rest of the world choose sides. Other nations were to be with us (and thus good) or against us (and thus evil).Unfortunately, for many Americans, thinking stopped there. The fact that most people accepted this archetypal and reductive story is not surprising. People look to their leaders for guidance, especially when they are frightened. Thinking in a more complex way about the world, moreover, feels much more vulnerable than retreating to the comfort of a
GAIA
Does anyone have thoughts on the Gaia Hypothesis? Thanks. Timothy H. In the 1970s the British scientist James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which has attracted many followers. According to this theory, named after the Greek goddess of the earth, the planet behaves like a single living organism. Lovelock postulated that the earth, like many organisms, can regulate its temperature, dispose of its wastes, and fight off disease. Although the Gaia hypothesis serves as a convenient metaphor for the interconnections among living beings, it does not have any particular scientific merit.
Re: fwd ; Archetypal view of the conflict
S, If you have not yet seen this, and have sufficient time, do read as it is an excellent andeloquent view of our situation. hbdragon - Original Message - From: manfred To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:42 AM Subject: OT: fwd ; Archetypal view of the conflict - Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 6:50 PM Subject: FW: Is the United States Government Suffering from Archetypal Possession? Forwarded by a friend, this looks at the Bush/US/Iraq scenario from an archetypal standpoint. - Jeffrey-An archetypal analysis of how the country came to stand at the brink of war.By Carol S. PearsonIf I was frightened of my neighbor because he had guns and I knew he did not like me, I could not simply declare the need for a preemptive strike and kill him. If I had actual grounds -- say, he had threatened me -- I could go to the police and seek protection or go to court and try to get a restraining order. In either case, I could not say: "Help me or I'll kill him."If I actually did kill him -- however fearful I was that he might someday kill me -- I would be the one treated as a criminal. It is likely that I would be convicted and sent to jail or executed.Why?No law on earth -- for individuals or nations -- allows you to kill people because they have weapons and do not like you. Self-defense requires imminent danger.How does the above example differ from President Bush's doctrine of a preemptive strike? How is it different from his going to the United Nations and saying that if it does not act, we will attack Iraq by ourselves?If we should have learned anything from inventing and then dropping nuclear bombs, it is that whatever we do, others will want to do, too. One might even think of this as a kind of karma--what you put out comes back at you.It is fairly obvious that once some countries have weapons of mass destruction, other countries will want them, including those run by ruthless dictators. They want them for the same reasons we do.So, if the U.S. decides that it can strike preemptively, then every other country can--and in some cases will--as well. Many countries have good reason to believe that we do not like them. Indeed, our president has even publicly named countries he regards as evil. In addition, he has treated our allies and the United Nations with disdain. It seems to me that it is only the fact of our military might that allows the president to presume to bully the world.Won't other countries seek to arm to the teeth if they think that at any time we might attack them? It often happens that the bully who kicks sand in the other boys' faces gets beat up when they band together against him.Figuring this out is not rocket science. The logic that all this inevitably will come back to haunt us seems to me obvious enough--and it seems to be obvious to most of the rest of the world, too.What is happening here?Reductive Thinking and Archetypal PossessionArchetypes can possess people -- and whole nations, as well. When this happens, individuals and nations stop thinking straight and just live out the plot of that archetype's story. Given enough fear, the Warrior archetype can possess almost anyone. And when it does, the whole Warrior way of thinking kicks in. We have been hearing it from President Bush.It goes like this: We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. When we defeat them, the world will be a better place and we will be Heroes.This makes for a good cowboy movie, but it is lousy foreign policy.Sam Keene, in Faces of the Enemy, shows how normally reasonable, caring people, if they are frightened enough, will be willing to go to war whether or not it makes sense to do so. Part of whipping them up to kill is to present "the enemy" as less than human, avoiding any empathy with how the other side sees the situation.For a brief time after 9/11, we had the opportunity to move into a more complex understanding of the world and our own role in it. While grappling with incredible grief and determining how to care for the families of those who died, the U.S. appeared to be open to learning from the event--even trying to understand why many people around the world hate us.However, in his public statements and speeches in the aftermath of 9/11, Bush told an archetypal story that shut that sort of thinking down. He explained the situation simply, giving only two reasons that others might attack us militarily or philosophically: Either our detractors hate freedom or they are evil. And he demanded that the rest of the world
