Solid Smackdown of Anti-GMO zealotry

[Orange_Crush]

You'd also put an astronomical number of folks on the street like me and my wife. Or shut down the entire town I grew up in and it's 2500 employees that work for the local sugar operation and all the employees that are an offshoot of that industry.

I think we both agree that you guys probably will never have to worry about that. And if a massive cultural change like that happened, you and your family would be in the best position to make the change and begin producing for yourself and your local community in a much more sustainable way.

 

[Orange_Crush]

How much mulch you got? How much per farm needed? Where in the heck would that all come from?

I have access to more than I need. Heck, the trees in my yard produce enough for four family gardens, as well as carbon material for compost piles. My neighbors pay the city to haul theirs off because they want manicured yards instead of gardens.

Stump grinding services, landscapers...

And as to "how much per farm", that's just it. It would be less about a few huge farms, and more about lots more tiny ones. You seriously saying that there isn't enough organic carbon matter produced in America to act as mulch? Shredded newspapers, cardboard boxes, etc? We have a serious shortage on waste paper products in the US?

 

[volinbham]

I have access to more than I need. Heck, the trees in my yard produce enough for four family gardens, as well as carbon material for compost piles. My neighbors pay the city to haul theirs off because they want manicured yards instead of gardens.

Stump grinding services, landscapers...

And as to "how much per farm", that's just it. It would be less about a few huge farms, and more about lots more tiny ones. You seriously saying that there isn't enough organic carbon matter produced in America to act as mulch? Shredded newspapers, cardboard boxes, etc? We have a serious shortage on waste paper products in the US?

I honestly don't know if there is enough in any practical sense and find it pretty unrealistic to think all productive farms (regardless of size) would use mulch as weed control. Is it theoretically possible? I guess.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Big agro crops are the ones bred to end up in the grocery store. Are you claiming that the crops produced for consumers are bred for nutritional value, or for size, color, shelf life...?

And I was answering your question about 'physically healthier'. Does this mean you concede the health benefits of locally-grown food?




Or perhaps you weren't following my point? You could have asked for clarity, but it seems your go-to is "moron" call-outs. But again, nonetheless...

You import nutrients harvested elsewhere, judge a mixture for it, spray it back into the ground, and start again. This is all done to try to produce a monoculture in a very unnatural way.

Nature designed things so that polycultures and animals define soil nutrient balances in a close cycle. One crop grows deep roots to harvest minerals from deep within. It dies and composts to become food for the shallow-rooted plants that couldn't access those minerals. A goat poops, releasing nutrients and carbon matter back into the soil to be recycled.

I guess I just think nature is better at its job than you are. It's more sustainable as a closed cycle with minimized inputs. And we're not having to rob nutrients from somewhere oversees as inputs to your system while we're talking about solving global food needs.

Or. I'm a moron. Either way, I'm cool with whatever you think.

:hi:

Whether a cow craps out phosphorus or its applied in the form of fertilizer it's still phosphorus. That cow derived it's phosphorus from grazing on a pasture that in all likelihood had phosphorus applied to it. The problem becomes if a soil is naturally low in nutrient reserves to begin with, it'll never get those nutrients back unless supplied in one way or another. In your program a crop dies releasing nutrients back into the soil, but you hauled off more nutrients than that vegetation can put back. Example; corn at 200 bushels/acre pulls off roughly 100 lbs of phosphorus/ace. 70 of that is in the grain and 30 is in the stover that remains in the field. Over time that 30 lbs is mineralized by bacteria/fungi and goes back into the soil solution the other 70 has not been replaced; it has to be supplied some time, some way. If it's manure that's fine. But that cow pulled off phosphorus from grazing, he keeps some of it to supply his bodily functions and craps the rest back out. So he too has created a net negative.

You just can't break out of your monoculture mindset can you? If all you grow is corn, or course the soil will run out of nutrients for corn. That's a large part of my point, and you're making it for me. Monoculture farming is unsustainable without large inputs from outside the system.

You ignored the part about polyculture plantings where deep-rooted plants mine minerals and redistribute them shallow for other crops. You also ignored compost, which naturally and sustainably uses waste products to rebuild topsoil.

You also gloss over the fact that big-agro increases our dependency on petrolium. As a matter of fact, isn't most/all fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides petro-based? So, there's another energy input that must be sustained, as well as shipping the nutrients you harvested overseas?

(Think about that for a second... We're not just importing more food, we're having to import soil nutrients just to be able to produce our own food! What does that tell you about what our big agriculture industry has done to our native soil?)

It's just one big process that has to have huge sums of money, energy and nutrients dumped back into it just to keep it going, at huge costs.

You'd also put an astronomical number of folks on the street like me and my wife. Or shut down the entire town I grew up in and it's 2500 employees that work for the local sugar operation and all the employees that are an offshoot of that industry.

And I suspect this is a large reason for your 'our way is the only way/better way' argument.

But it's all good from my view. I'm not a fanatic on all of this. Just thought I'd offer another perspective to the conversation.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I think we both agree that you guys probably will never have to worry about that. And if a massive cultural change like that happened, you and your family would be in the best position to make the change and begin producing for yourself and your local community in a much more sustainable way.

I don't farm. I'm on the input side; fertilizer to be exact.

 

[hog88]

I don't disagree.

Unless she lives in a community that is locally growing food. Let's bring it down to the smallest scale possible. She lives in a subdivision where her neighbors are growing their own food on 1/2 acre lots. Many of them are producing more than they can eat. She goes to her neighbors and buys from them instead of having food trucked from 1000 miles away. She'll probably get it cheaper since it came from next door and there were no petrodollars involved in the overhead.

She'll also be far more emotionally connected to her neighbors.



You're comparing big-agro organic to big-agro non-organic. I guarantee you that, on the longterm, I can produce food cheaper organically with permaculture concepts than you can produce and ship non-organically. I just read about an orchard that changed from traditional practices to permaculture practices. Their production went up, their costs went down, and they're far more sustainable.



You seem to equivocate "safe" to "healthy". But nonetheless...

Research has also shown that:

(1) Big-agro crops are not bred/developed for nutritional value, but for shelf life, look, and size. Not even bred/developed for taste as a deciding factor.

(2) Crops lose nutritional value as they lose freshness.

(3) Crops lose nutritional value as the soil loses its inherent nutrients.

(4) I don't care what you say. Spraying 'cides' on our food is not as healthy as organic foods.


Now, with permaculture, you produce and nourish soil naturally and don't have to spray nutrients back into raped soil. With permaculture, you are freer to use crops that are developed for more than 'bulk, appeal and shelf life'. With local produce, you are getting it closer to picking. With local produce, you're not releasing as much smog back to be breathed in.

So much pie in the sky with this.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So much pie in the sky with this.

I've already stated that I don't see a movement like this happening. But I've listed some major concepts that would make our food production more sustainable if such a movement were to occur, such a poly-cultures, composting, mulching, livestock integration, etc... I've referenced people who are actively doing it successfully (I can link to several if you'd like).

Which part (besides the societal change that I agree will probably never happen) seems to be 'pie in the sky'?

 

[Orange_Crush]

In the mid-1980s, our family set out to do the seemingly impossible: To create a new revolution in sustainable urban living. Finding ourselves owning a run-down circa 1917 craftsman-style house in the metropolis of Pasadena (the 7th largest city in Los Angeles County) and just 15 minutes from downtown Los Angeles with the intersection of 134 and 210 freeways 30 yards from our home, we shelved our dreams of idyllic country living and "five acres and independence" and decided to do what we could, with what we had -- RIGHT NOW. No one thought it was possible. Residents in our low income, mixed race neighborhood thought we were the "crazy white folks."

We forged ahead, calling our project the Urban Homestead® model and with no small means of blood, sweat and tears, we worked to transform this ordinary 66' x 132' urban lot [LINK: Comparison Diagram of Property ] into a self-sufficient city homestead with an organic garden that now supplies us with food year-round. Despite its diminutive size, the Urban Homestead model is a fully functioning urban farm in every way (although, some of us believe it should more aptly be described as a 10-ring circus) and it supplies our family with 6,000 pounds of organic produce annually. We recently upped our production to 7,000 pounds harvested (in 2010) and 90% of our vegetarian diet comes from the garden so we eat on almost $2.00 per day per person. [LINKS: Harvest Chart (last updated: 2009) & 6,000 lb Harvest Breakdown ]

We are living off the land "directly" -- supplying our diet, and "indirectly" -- we sell the excess harvest local establishments and individuals through a customized CSA program via our "Front Porch Farmstand" that can also be found online at: Account has been suspended.

About the Urban Homestead city farm | The Urban Homestead® - A City Farm, Sustainable Living & Resource Center, A Path to Freedom towards Self-Sufficiency

 

[Orange_Crush]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3riW_yiCN5E

Permaculture, biodiverse orchard with increased production and he hasn't fertilized since 2002.

 

[hog88]

I've already stated that I don't see a movement like this happening. But I've listed some major concepts that would make our food production more sustainable if such a movement were to occur, such a poly-cultures, composting, mulching, livestock integration, etc... I've referenced people who are actively doing it successfully (I can link to several if you'd like).

Which part (besides the societal change that I agree will probably never happen) seems to be 'pie in the sky'?

People will not/can not produce enough food to feed themselves. Right now there is no incentive for the people that have the resources to do so.

My dad looking at setting aside part of his herd for "organic" milk, the only real requirement (like milk isn't organic already) is that the cow never has received antibiotics or any form of steroids/growth hormone.

I find this hilarious that people are willing to pay double to triple for this non-sense.

 

[Orange_Crush]

People will not/can not produce enough food to feed themselves.

My links prove otherwise. The orchard I linked is supporting itself, selling food, as well as giving it away. The other link is producing 7000 lbs of produce on 1/10 acre, a block away from the interstate in Pasadina, CA.

What say you?

 

[hog88]

My links prove otherwise. The orchard I linked is supporting itself, selling food, as well as giving it away. The other link is producing 7000 lbs of produce on 1/10 acre, a block away from the interstate in Pasadina, CA.

What say you?

That is such a small scale it's not even worth mentioning.

You want proof people will not grow they're own food? How many dam lawn service companies do you see every frigging day? People wont mow their own yard!

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

You just can't break out of your monoculture mindset can you? If all you grow is corn, or course the soil will run out of nutrients for corn. That's a large part of my point, and you're making it for me. Monoculture farming is unsustainable without large inputs from outside the system.

You ignored the part about polyculture plantings where deep-rooted plants mine minerals and redistribute them shallow for other crops. You also ignored compost, which naturally and sustainably uses waste products to rebuild topsoil.

You also gloss over the fact that big-agro increases our dependency on petrolium. As a matter of fact, isn't most/all fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides petro-based? So, there's another energy input that must be sustained, as well as shipping the nutrients you harvested overseas?

(Think about that for a second... We're not just importing more food, we're having to import soil nutrients just to be able to produce our own food! What does that tell you about what our big agriculture industry has done to our native soil?)

It's just one big process that has to have huge sums of money, energy and nutrients dumped back into it just to keep it going, at huge costs.



And I suspect this is a large reason for your 'our way is the only way/better way' argument.

But it's all good from my view. I'm not a fanatic on all of this. Just thought I'd offer another perspective to the conversation.

No, what you're ignoring is every crop pulls off more nutrients than it has the ability to put back through decomposition. Even if you have two crops in a field or 100. The actual fruit of that crop pulls off nutrients. The vegetation from a tomato plant if it's plowed under or pulled off and put in a compost pile and reapplied only has so much nutrients. So that vegetation portion (minus the fruit that you picked) dies and supplies nutrients to a squash plant 3 feet away, ok. Is it enough to supply that squash? Maybe, because squash may have smaller nutrient requirements than tomatoes so what little goes back is enough. That doesn't help when the next crop to go in there or another crop growing next to it has a higher nutrient requirement. If tomato vegetation that is left to rot in the field puts 40# of P into the soil but the watermelon growing next to it requires 80# of P that other 40# is being pulled from the soil and eventually brought down over time or replaced via something. Compost can only add back the equivalent of what was pulled off if the compost included material from another source, outside of what was harvested.

Plants with longer root systems are mining nutrients further down, correct. And when they die those nutrients are available in a shallower portion of the soil profile, correct. That still doesn't account for the nutrient removal value by the fruiting portion of a crop, unless you're going to pick your tomato and then throw it right back down into the ground to rot.

The entire world imports potassium from somewhere, an overwhelming majority of the potassium comes from Canada, Belarus, Germany and China. China is the only one who's not a net exporter of potash, because of their growing agricultural sector. 90% of the potash used in the U.S. comes from Canada so we're not importing it from overseas.

It has nothing to do with how we've farmed our soils, it's natural chemical makeups that produce different nutrient balances in the soil. Positive nutrients stick to the soil profile, K, Ca, Mg, Na and H. The numbers of these nutrients in the soil are affected by parent material, that has nothing to do with human doing. Think of the soil as a parking lot, and it has 100 spots (everything in the soil adds up to an index of 100). If Ca occupies 90 of the 100 spots, that only leaves 10 spots for the other 4 positive ions I mentioned.

The soils of western KY and NW TN tend to have Ca levels in the 80-90 range. Why? Because the underlying parent material is calcium limestone. Over years of weathering and breakdown, this parent material has released Ca ions into the soil and they occupy more parking spots at the expense of K (potassium), Mg etc. Ideally your soils would have 3-5% occupied by K, 10-15% Mg and 65-72% Ca. This a "required" ratio for optimal yield, optimal mositure retention, optimal rooting ability etc. The soils in that part of the world have a makeup more along the lines of 1.5% K, 8% Mg and 80%+ Ca. Therefore, potassium has to be added to the soil to get back into optimal balance.

You go along the OH River in KY and their soils have Mg levels bordering 20%+ and Ca levels that are too low. Too much Mg creates a tight soil, which restricts root exploration, holds too much water to the point of saturation and crusts more easily in dry spells. Too much Ca creates a too porous soil and water retention is minimized. As a result of freer water flow through the profile, leachable nutrients such as nitrate forms of nitrogen, sulfur and boron, are more readily lost.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

My links prove otherwise. The orchard I linked is supporting itself, selling food, as well as giving it away. The other link is producing 7000 lbs of produce on 1/10 acre, a block away from the interstate in Pasadina, CA.

What say you?

FTR, their square footage is roughly a 1/4 of an acre.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That is such a small scale it's not even worth mentioning.

That's the whole point. It's small scale, which would be multiplied out.

You want proof people will not grow they're own food? How many dam lawn service companies do you see every frigging day? People wont mow their own yard!

That is a completely different conversation than your original claim that people can't produce enough food for themselves and others. I already agreed that our society will never change. I also agree that the sky is blue. Should we argue that as well?

 

[Orange_Crush]

FTR, their square footage is roughly a 1/4 of an acre.

OK.

 

[hog88]

That's the whole point. It's small scale, which would be multiplied out.



That is a completely different conversation than your original claim that people can't produce enough food for themselves and others. I already agreed that our society will never change. I also agree that the sky is blue. Should we argue that as well?

We might as well. Nothing better to do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, what you're ignoring is every crop pulls off more nutrients than it has the ability to put back through decomposition. Even if you have two crops in a field or 100. The actual fruit of that crop pulls off nutrients. The vegetation from a tomato plant if it's plowed under or pulled off and put in a compost pile and reapplied only has so much nutrients. So that vegetation portion (minus the fruit that you picked) dies and supplies nutrients to a squash plant 3 feet away, ok. Is it enough to supply that squash? Maybe, because squash may have smaller nutrient requirements than tomatoes so what little goes back is enough. That doesn't help when the next crop to go in there or another crop growing next to it has a higher nutrient requirement. If tomato vegetation that is left to rot in the field puts 40# of P into the soil but the watermelon growing next to it requires 80# of P that other 40# is being pulled from the soil and eventually brought down over time or replaced via something. Compost can only add back the equivalent of what was pulled off if the compost included material from another source, outside of what was harvested.

Plants with longer root systems are mining nutrients further down, correct. And when they die those nutrients are available in a shallower portion of the soil profile, correct. That still doesn't account for the nutrient removal value by the fruiting portion of a crop, unless you're going to pick your tomato and then throw it right back down into the ground to rot.

The entire world imports potassium from somewhere, an overwhelming majority of the potassium comes from Canada, Belarus, Germany and China. China is the only one who's not a net exporter of potash, because of their growing agricultural sector. 90% of the potash used in the U.S. comes from Canada so we're not importing it from overseas.

It has nothing to do with how we've farmed our soils, it's natural chemical makeups that produce different nutrient balances in the soil. Positive nutrients stick to the soil profile, K, Ca, Mg, Na and H. The numbers of these nutrients in the soil are affected by parent material, that has nothing to do with human doing. Think of the soil as a parking lot, and it has 100 spots (everything in the soil adds up to an index of 100). If Ca occupies 90 of the 100 spots, that only leaves 10 spots for the other 4 positive ions I mentioned.

The soils of western KY and NW TN tend to have Ca levels in the 80-90 range. Why? Because the underlying parent material is calcium limestone. Over years of weathering and breakdown, this parent material has released Ca ions into the soil and they occupy more parking spots at the expense of K (potassium), Mg etc. Ideally your soils would have 3-5% occupied by K, 10-15% Mg and 65-72% Ca. This a "required" ratio for optimal yield, optimal mositure retention, optimal rooting ability etc. The soils in that part of the world have a makeup more along the lines of 1.5% K, 8% Mg and 80%+ Ca. Therefore, potassium has to be added to the soil to get back into optimal balance.

You go along the OH River in KY and their soils have Mg levels bordering 20%+ and Ca levels that are too low. Too much Mg creates a tight soil, which restricts root exploration, holds too much water to the point of saturation and crusts more easily in dry spells. Too much Ca creates a too porous soil and water retention is minimized. As a result of freer water flow through the profile, leachable nutrients such as nitrate forms of nitrogen, sulfur and boron, are more readily lost.

What do you have to say about the orchard that hasn't fertilized in almost 15 years? He just got lucky with an endless supply of minerals and nutrients in his soil?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3riW_yiCN5E

Permaculture, biodiverse orchard with increased production and he hasn't fertilized since 2002.

One, he hasn't "fertilized" since 2007 not 2002 so that's 8 years.

Two, he hasn't used fertilizer in the commercial sense, not that he hasn't applied fertility either through manure, compost or nitrogen fixing plants. There's a difference in fertility and "fertilizer" and he caught himself.

The good thing with soil is its pretty forgiving, and it's pretty well supplied, at least in our lifetimes. An average acre furrow slice of soil (top 6 inches over an acre) has 30k lbs of potassium, 2k lbs of Nitrogen, 1.2k lbs of phosphorus, 10k of Ca and it mineralizes constantly and makes more of these available over time. If you never added anymore potassium to the soil, it would take 700 years at 165 bushels of corn to the acre to theoretically drain that soil of potassium.

I don't know the crop removal values for apples but even if this guy didn't supply nutrients to offset his removal, it could likely take him years to see any decline. Doesn't mean he's farming sustainably.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We might as well. Nothing better to do.

I love it. Well played, sir.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

What do you have to say about the orchard that hasn't fertilized in almost 15 years? He just got lucky with an endless supply of minerals and nutrients in his soil?

See my response below to this.

I knew you'd have nothing of substance to respond with to that post, because you don't understand soil and soil chemistry the way you think you do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

One, he hasn't "fertilized" since 2007 not 2002.

I'll have to rewatch. 8 years, then. Puts in crimp in your industry, nonetheless.

Two, he hasn't used fertilizer in the commercial sense, not that he hasn't applied fertility either through manure, compost or nitrogen fixing plants. There's a difference in fertility and "fertilizer" and he caught himself.

That's the point. Obviously we've both been talking about fertility replacement; we've just been talking about 'how'. He's using fertility management practices that don't rely on petroleum products and shipping nutrients that have been harvested across the globe.

The good thing with soil is its pretty forgiving, and it's pretty well supplied, at least in our lifetimes. An average acre furrow slice of soil (top 6 inches over an acre) has 30k lbs of potassium, 2k lbs of Nitrogen, 1.2k lbs of phosphorus, 10k of Ca and it mineralizes constantly and makes more of these available over time. If you never added anymore potassium to the soil, it would take 700 years at 165 bushels of corn to the acre to theoretically drain that soil of potassium.

So what is it about big agro practices that makes it barren in a few seasons then? I mean, if there's that much of a store in the soil, why are we relying on Spain to send us some? And why do they need you selling it to them soaked in petroleum products?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I'll have to rewatch. 8 years, then. Puts in crimp in your industry, nonetheless.



That's the point. Obviously we've both been talking about fertility replacement; we've just been talking about 'how'. He's using fertility management practices that don't rely on petroleum products and shipping nutrients that have been harvested across the globe.



So what is it about big agro practices that makes it barren in a few seasons then? I mean, if there's that much of a store in the soil, why are we relying on Spain to send us some? And why do they need you selling it to them soaked in petroleum products?

The availability of nutrients is the problem. Nutrients can be tied up with one another in forms that create a bond so strong it takes years to release. For example high Ca soils tie up phosphorus almost instantaneously because phosphorus is one of the most reactive elements in the system. All plants can only take up phosphorus in one form; the phosphate molecule which is PO4 (3-). The calcium phosphate molecule is not in that form and the bond is too strong for a crop's root secreted acid to break, therefore the phosphate portion is never released and never taken up. The aluminum phosphate bond that occurs in lower soil pH's is even stronger. Soil scientists haven't been able to put a timetable for release on these complexes and depending on the source it's believed to be anywhere from 50-500 years.

It's not barren, it just doesn't show up on a soil test because soil tests are predicated on what's available and not what's physically there. And it goes back to the ratios I previously mentioned. If that balance gets out of line it affects the interactions and availability of everything. Too much Ca or Al and phosphate comes up short, too much phosphorus and Zinc uptake is hindered, too much nitrogen and potassium uptake is affected. Plants can't differentiate between potassium and sodium so they take up whatever's in more abundance; too much Na and a plant dehydrates itself because potassium is what controls water retention in the cells and sodium dries them out, just like us drinking saltwater.

Study Mulder's chart for nutrient interactions

http://soilanalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/APAL-PLANT-NUTRIENT-INTERACTIONS-July-08.pdf

Your petroleum infatuation is funny as well as grossly overstated. All nitrogen based fertilizers are derived from ammonia as the starting point, which is derived from natural gas, not oil.

Peak Oil Debunked: 28. ISN'T FERTILIZER MADE FROM CRUDE OIL?

Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » Once Again, Fertilizer is Not “Petroleum Based”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/07/were-not-going-to-run-out-of-oil-based-fertilizer/

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Your disdain for Monsanto comes from where?

I am not going to post all the ways this company is absolutely horrible. Just do some research on them.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I am not going to post all the ways this company is absolutely horrible. Just do some research on them.

I work in the ag industry and have numerous friends and acquaintances who work as sales reps for Monsanto. I don't need to do any research, I was asking your reasons. But I don't really care so just disregard.