FIBS Board backgammon forum

SumOfUs is a movement of consumers, workers and shareholders speaking with one voice to counterbalance the growing power of large corporations.

http://sumofus.org/campaigns/

EXAMPLE



Don't let Bayer overturn the ban on bee-killing pesticides

Wow. Bayer has just sued the European Commission to overturn a ban on the pesticides that are killing millions of bees around the world. A huge public push won this landmark ban only months ago -- and we can't sit back and let Big Pesticide overturn it while the bees vanish.

Bayer and Syngenta, two of the world's largest chemical corporations, claim that the ban is "unjustified" and "disproportionate." But clear scientific evidence shows their products are behind the massive bee die-off that puts our entire food chain in peril.

Just last month, 37 million bees were discovered dead on a single Canadian farm. And unless we act now, the bees will keep dying. We have to show Bayer now that we won't tolerate it putting its profits ahead of our planet's health. If this giant corporation manages to bully Europe into submission, it would spell disaster for the bees.

Sign the petition to tell Bayer and Syngenta to drop their bee-killing lawsuits now.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/bayer-bees-lawsuit/13/2/

Ship that pesticide here. Last week a swarm of 80,000 African killer bees stung two pitbulls to death in a Tampa back yard.

Bob

you've already got it== that's one of the reasons why you have pollination problems...

QuoteIn May, 50,000 dead bees were discovered littering a parking lot in Oregon. Last month, a shocking 37 million bees were reported dead across a single farm in Ontario.

After years of research, scientists have finally figured out what's causing the massive bee die-offs all around the world, from China to the UK: It's a class of dangerous pesticides called neonics. And here's the wildest thing -- even though we know they're killing the bees, in most parts of the world, neonics are still in widespread use.

As consumers, we need to demand that these retailers pull the devastating pesticides from the shelves. Close to 140,000 SumOfUs.org supporters have taken action to protect bees. The SumOfUs.org community also sponsored bee activists to come to Chicago to speak about the bee die off during the Independent Garden Center Show and bought ads to let attendees and the Chicago public know about the plight of bees. Will you join us to save our bees and say no to neonics?

http://action.sumofus.org/a/bees/

QuoteThe global die-off of bees represents an enormous danger to the planet. 30% of our crops -- and 90% of wild plants -- rely on bees to thrive. Without bees, our entire global food supply is in serious trouble. Pulling bee-poisoning pesticides that include neonics off the market is key to the fight to protect bees.

Independent American garden store owners are critical to the fight to stop neonics and save the bees. Your local garden store owner down the street probably sells neonics to your neighbors, who are in turn spraying them on their flowers and poisoning bees all around you. Collectively, these independent garden stores are the largest single group of commercial pesticide distributors in the world.

And what is the largest gathering of independent garden store owners in America? The Independent Garden Center Show in Chicago, of course. The SumOfUs.org community wants to be a counter to Bondie, Bayer, and other neonics producers at the Independent Garden Center Show.

Close to 140,000 SumOfUs.org supporters have spoken out against neonics. The SumOfUs.org community has also contributed money to buy ads on buses on route to the Independent Garden Center Show, and fly in activist beekeepers who've been watching their bees die for years, and buy them tickets to the conference. They are taking their case directly to the garden center owners -- talking to them at their booths, distributing scientific research, holding press conferences and more. They'll get the convention buzzing about the dangers of neonics, and convert garden center owners to the side of science, the bees, and our environment.

If you too are concerned about the global bee die-off, please sign the pledge to protect bees and say no to neonics.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/bees/

Reading this reminds me of the early days of the environmental movement and some of the hysterical, chicken-little predictions made by highly regarded scientists which turned out to be completely bogus and, in one case, resulted in millions of deaths which continue to this day.

In 1962 the book SILENT SPRING, by Dr Rachel Carson, was published. In Silent Spring, Carson stated that the overall rise in U.S. cancer rates between 1940 (the dawn of the DDT era) and 1960 proved that DDT was a carcinogen. She predicted that DDT and other pesticides would spark a cancer epidemic that would wipe out "practically 100 percent" of the human population within a single generation. As Carson saw it, a race of super-insects, immune to the effects of pesticides, would infest the crops grown on American farms. Desperate farmers, she said, would respond to these infestations by using much greater quantities of DDT. In this way, Carson explained, the pesticide would eventually poison the entire food chain, killing off, in sequence, bugs, worms, birds, fish, and finally mankind.

Prior to Dr Carson's horrific predictions the pesticide DDT was widely used to wipe out mosquitoes that transmitted malaria. This deadly infectious disease had afflicted the human race since the dawn of time and by one estimate had killed approximately half the people who had ever lived on earth. In India during the 1930s, for example, approximately 100 million people contracted malaria each year, and at least a million of them died as a result. In Africa, hundreds of millions of people per year became infected, and several million of them lost their lives as well.

Wherever DDT was used in significant quantities, the incidence of malaria declined precipitously. In South America, for example, malaria cases fell by 33 percent between 1942 and 1946. In 1948, there was not a single malaria-related death in all of Italy. After DDT was sprayed widely in India's Kanara district (where some 50,000 people had typically contracted malaria in any given year during the pre-DDT era), the number of newly diagnosed malaria cases dwindled to about 1,500 per year by the late 1940s—a 97 percent decrease. Throughout the entire Indian nation, the number of malaria cases fell from about 75 million in 1951 to 50,000 in 1961. In Sri Lanka, DDT spraying was initiated in 1946, at which time approximately 3 million new cases of malaria were being diagnosed each year. By 1956, that figure had fallen to 7,300; eight years after that, in 1964, a mere 29 Sri Lankans contracted malaria.

Rachel Carson's bestselling book, Silent Spring warned of the dangers that DDT allegedly posed to all manner of plant, animal, and human life. These threats were so great, said Carson, that on balance they more than negated whatever benefits were to be gained from using the pesticide to prevent malaria. Echoing Carson's nightmarish prognostications was the biologist Paul Ehrlich, who wrote:

    "The Department of Health, Education and Welfare announced studies which showed unequivocally that increasing death rates from hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and a series of other diseases has resulted from the chlorinated hydrocarbon load. They estimated that Americans born since 1946 [when DDT usage was becoming widespread] now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and predicted that if current patterns continued, this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out." Looks like my two younger brothers and I beat HEW's expectation by almost 50% and still counting. WHEW !!!

Ehrlich had also distinguished himself by writing that the world had entirely too many people and could no longer feed itself, that due to famines the USA would lose almost 200 million people due to starvation. India, he stated, was a hopeless case and would essentially cease to exist, starving itself to death. When he made this prediction the earth's population was about 3 billion compared to the near-7 billion today.

Of course the extreme environmentalists of the day jumped all over the issue and were successful in having DDT banned. By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable.

Fast forward to today, the Centers For Disease Control report that malaria is one of the most severe public health problems worldwide. It is a leading cause of death and disease in many developing countries, where young children and pregnant women are the groups most affected. According to the World Health Organization's World Malaria Report

    3.3 billion people (half the world's population) live in areas at risk of malaria transmission in 106 countries and territories

    In 2010, malaria caused an estimated 216 million clinical episodes, and 655,000 deaths. An estimated 91% of deaths in 2010 were in the African Region, followed by 6% in the South-East Asian Region and 3% in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (3%). About 86% of deaths globally were in children.

For more info  http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259

I'm sure that stog is sincere in his efforts to protect the loveable insects that pollinate our flowers and provide us with all that yummy honey. Unfortunately I've seen this movie too often, my antennae rise and my suspicious side takes over.

Bob

When it comes to questions of medicine and chemistry, laymen are obliged to choose a scientist with an opinion that they can trust. Quoting your scientist of choice in an argument and failing to consider a different view is a commonplace error.

The main problem with ddt when used against malarial mosquitoes is not that it passes into humans with adverse consequences, although it does, but that mosquitoes develop resistance to it within a very short time span. The use of ddt to spray mosquito breeding grounds was abandoned because it was no longer cost-effective, rather than because of other health concerns. Basically, it worked in the short term but failed in the long term, as mosquitoes became resistant to it. Its dangers to other wild life and humans remained unchanged.

The big problem with ddt was in its agricultural use, very effective against crop-eating insects but also very damaging to all other forms of wild life and humans. It also contributed very significantly to the evolution of ddt resistant mosquitoes of course, being used in much greater quantities than when used to spray breeding grounds. However ddt is still useful in what is called vector control, basically the spraying of the inside walls and ceilings of homes and sheds in affected areas and it continues to be used in this way. Modern methods of controlling malaria, filling in breeding grounds, spraying oil on standing water in the egg laying season and free issue of impregnated mosquito nets are also proving very effective.

As to bees, the scientific concensus is clear. Bees are vital to the production of any crops that depend on pollination and virtually all wild plant life, but bee numbers are declining at an alarming rate and the main reason is clear, neonic pesticides.

One can always find a scientist who swims against the tide to provide an opinion that supports one's own point of view, but it isn't scientific to do so. Science requires a consideration of all the data. Study of this subject and a reasoned resumé of ones findings would surely be welcomed by all. Lazy cut-and-paste from right wing websites adds nothing to the debate.

Your concern for polar bears, birds and, now, bees is well documented in your past posts. Unfortunately the absence of even one word about the millions of preventable human deaths speaks volumes about your concern for your fellow man. The fact that the preponderance of these human deaths were people of color in former British colonies only underscores your questionable priorities.

Bob

without proper pollination of crops, we as a species are all the more susceptible to disease ...

there are many many issues that concern our modern world

this thread deals with issues that can be sorted relatively simply if we stand firm against some multinational corporations, where there is often a vested interest and where some people derive short term profits at the risk of many..with short term thinking

re malaria -- dorbel is correct about the use of insecticides, better the use of nets or even genetic-sterilized mosquito introduction, than a toxic approach..

there are 62 pages with about 5 campaigns per page at http://sumofus.org/campaigns/

not all are as pressing as others but that they represent many peoples' concerns is unquestionable

You haven't mentioned the alternatives to the pesticides you're opposed to. What are they ? What, if any, are the trade-offs ?

If there's a better way to go that spares bees but accomplishes what the existing pesticides do I'd be in favor of it.

Bob

organic farming, rotation, less extensive area farming, mixed hedgerow farming, (natural barricades with creatures and insects that will keep pests in balance) less intensive farming utilising fallow years with more use of natural manures; both will also give a better draining soil, less driven to erode or windblown because of small areas with natural windbreaks etc (root value around fields, and mulched fields allow also for better drainage and water retention -- amazing!) and allow for slower release of nutrient

use of lucerne in every other fallow year

the list above is not exhaustive, but relies a lot on local grown bought / less transport packaging and an acceptance of eating produce in season (and of course needs us to be less in the hands of the big supermarkets)

oh and paying a fair price for a better quality -- ie after a few years of a more organic type of agriculture, vitamin and mineral content of veg for example can be much higher, but in land which has been intensively farmed and artificially supplemented or fertalised, it can take many many years to achieve a good balance...

but it works

stog mentions "lucerne".  Had to look that one up.........it's British alfalfa.

More and more farmers are going the organic way.  The prices on organic produce are much higher than the other produce, however, and farmers are still going up for sale and out of business. 

I have noticed and in my area, where it used to be strictly crops, we are seeing cows replacing the crops. 

I'm still wondering why more farmers aren't growing hemp which is naturally insect resistant and better by far than cotton. 

socksey



Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence. ~ Aristotle

You might find this of interest...........

"There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health," said Dena Bravata, MD, MS, the senior author of a paper comparing the nutrition of organic and non-organic foods, published in the Sept. 4 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

A team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford's Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school's Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.

The researchers found little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods. No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient — phosphorus — was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance). There was also no difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk, though evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

The researchers were also unable to identify specific fruits and vegetables for which organic appeared the consistently healthier choice, despite running what Bravata called "tons of analyses."

"Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious," said Smith-Spangler, who is also an instructor of medicine at the School of Medicine. "We were a little surprised that we didn't find that."

The review yielded scant evidence that conventional foods posed greater health risks than organic products. While researchers found that organic produce had a 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. What's more, as the researchers noted, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within the allowable safety limits.

Quoteoh and paying a fair price for a better quality

Seems the good doctors found no better quality, which of course begs the question, WHY PAY MORE ?

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

Bob

I thought you might also be interested in this piece, since it combines two of your pet interests into one gigantic disaster.

The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that
dump fertilizer into the water supply.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming.

And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.

The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases.

That makes the hidden costs even more significant.

"This is an ecological disaster," said Craig Cox with the Environmental Working Group, a natural ally of the president that, like others, now finds itself at odds with the White House.

But the Obama administration stands by its environmental policy, highlighting corn-based ethanol's benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

"We are committed to this industry because we understand its benefits," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who spoke to ethanol lobbyists on Capitol Hill recently.

"We understand it's about farm income. It's about stabilizing and maintaining farm income which is at record levels," he said.

Well, golleeeeeeeeeeeee, I thought it was about reducing our dependence on foreign oil while also reducing greenhouse gases.

The other negative consequence was the price of corn going from $ 3 to $ 7 per bushel, causing chaos with world food markets.

Even our pre-eminent global warmist and Nobel Laureate has backed away from his earlier support for corn-ethanol with a rather startling admission.

Al Gore says his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies while serving as vice president was a mistake that had more to do with his desire to cultivate farm votes in the 2000 presidential election than with what was good for the environment.

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee," he said, "and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

In other words he was whoring for votes and would say anything to that end.

Bob

back to bees and your question about what alternatives to pesticides there are

organic husbandry was my suggestion

you find something/someone to say that their study shows little difference between organic food nutrient  and envirorape agriculture. i would recommend you read more on the subject..

before i go on i must admit to having studied and been involved with, a fair bit about nutrition and soil over the years,  and have seen, grown and tasted, the benefits  of organically produced produce many times over the years.

if you start with the Rothampsted studies..(the longest running agricultural trials in the world)

tracts of land tested over years and years - side by side, the nutrient/mineral % available in the organically produced produce, greatly exceeds that of the artificial fertilised, but more importantly, it was found that rotation and fallow years allow for replenishment of the ground nutrient..

if this is not done, then there is an inevitable leaching, and diminishment of said nutrient and mineral, which cannot be made available by artificial fertiliser alone, as the soil so weakens, that it becomes closer to dust.

the cost of production is also eventually more with agri-rape  - and its a lose/lose

if the artificial fertiliser is not in absolute proportion to what is required, at any given time, then roots are either too shallow or chelation or thin growth can occur -- basically over years, a more weakened soil produces a more vulnerable crop.

a crop will take which nutrients it requires, as and when, and these nutrients stay in better proportion, in a balanced organic soil.

over the years, trace elements do get leached out of all soils, and the stats on older soils compared to our own, are staggering. the amounts of trace minerals and vitamin available is so much less -- its incredible


(and then you get build up in river estuary approaches of for example selenium which doesn't do the fish much good in too high concentration.)

but the older methods of dredging and return to the land, along with addition of livestock manures and seaweeds does allow for a more amenable soil -- ie the plant or vegetable grown in that medium will test with much higher % of most nutrients and  minerals.


it's a massive subject but not only does properly organically produced (soil association standard) veg taste better it has a much better spread nutrient %

Quoteyou find something/someone to say that their study shows little difference between organic food nutrient  and envirorape agriculture. i would recommend you read more on the subject..

I found a rather exhaustive study by two doctors/researchers at one of the finest schools in America. My guess is their bona fides likely exceed yours, and if you bothered to read the full article I linked to, you'll find their research was rather exhaustive, maybe even greater than your own. What they wrote surprised me because I believed, as you do, that ORGANIC meant BETTER, even though I rarely, if ever, bought organically grown goods.

You want to live your life paying more for tomatoes that taste better to you, great. I've tried both and my unsophisticated palate can't tell the difference, so I'll pay less.

Bob

i would recommend you investigate agricultural college studies
start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothamsted_Research

if you start a comparison study on lacking soil, then it will be years before the nutrient can be made up to good proportion with an organic approach

Several agricultural field experiments have run for more than 100 years.

ie that no-difference organic food mentioned in your articles, will be even better in years to come, its soil better -- if fallow and clover years along with rotation are practiced with good manures, whereas the typical artificial soil will become even more exhausted, and the cost to maintain it, in any order at all, will rise exponentially ..

ie they have concluded their assessments way way too soon

or to put it another way, you are not just paying more for those tomatoes today -- you are paying for a better soil and tomato for your childrens' children

it is husbandry -- we are merely caretakers

but so many setups are not -- they are for immediate satisfaction/gratification or inflated profit, and don't give a damn for what is left for future generations.

our laws need to better protect the caretaker and do more to prevent and punish the charlaton

QuoteYour concern for polar bears, birds and, now, bees is well documented in your past posts. Unfortunately the absence of even one word about the millions of preventable human deaths speaks volumes about your concern for your fellow man. The fact that the preponderance of these human deaths were people of color in former British colonies only underscores your questionable priorities.

I am not particularly concerned over the fate of polar bears, birds or even bees. I am concerned for the fate of a world that can no longer support wild life, because it will be a world increasingly inhospitable for humans.

Ýou couldn't be more wrong about the history of ddt if you tried, as the most superficial glance at published papers would show you. I recommend http://whosrilanka.healthrepository.org/bitstream/123456789/336/1/History%20of%20Malaria%20Control%20-%2016th%20sept%2009.pdf , a History of Malaria Control in Sri Lanka if you are really interested in the subject.

Your offensive personal slurs don't merit any sort of reply.

stog writes... they are for immediate satisfaction/gratification or inflated profit, and don't give a damn for what is left for future generations.our laws need to better protect the caretaker and do more to prevent and punish the charlaton

I couldn't agree more. I suspect we just disagree over who the charlatans really are. Do you think the politicians, farmers and ag-businesses who wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies to create corn-based ethanol under the guise of reducing greenhouse gases are genuine caretakers of the land or just fast-buck charlatans ?

When I've been critical of "settled science" generated from prestigious universities in the USA and abroad I'm derided as a "denier", as if that puts me in the same class as bank robbers or child molesters. Here, you've been presented with findings from two esteemed scientists from a prestigious university that disagrees with your own beliefs and you're as vigorous in your denial as any opponent of the global warming industry. How many more esteemed scientists would have to reach the same conclusions as those two at Stanford before you buy into the "consensus" of their "settled science" ?

In the face of the Stanford study, and the inherent higher prices of organically grown produce, why shouldn't people conclude that the organic movement isn't itself a fast-buck scam perpetrated by charlatans ?

Who are you to determine when someone's profit is "inflated" or not ? It seems to me that if organically grown produce requires fewer fertilizers, pesticides, etc, yet sells at higher prices, maybe the organic types are the ones ripping off buyers and pocketing obscene profits.

Bob

you seem in your posts throughout this forum, very hung up about status - economic, racial, educational

who am i to question a harvard or stanford study?

always ask

who sponsors the study? how long is it? how big is it? how is it conducted? what do the peer reviews think/ are there any? etc

re agriculture studies of soil -- they need to be long enough .. simple

they need to take into account all costs of production and what state the soil is in, by the end of the study

a short study will not give a true picture.

---

just because a professor is involved, or the institution is harvard or stanford does not guarantee robust  conclusions or even diligence.

eg

remember the economic professors used on Bank Boards/ regulating bodies, and their complicity in the recent Banking crashes...

look for the vested interests...

top fellows!

---

academia is not immune to corruption whether directly or indirectly complicit, whether knowingly or otherwise (too badly run to notice?)

see http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/inside_job_2010/

Your post is absolutely priceless. You think nothing of criticizing or ridiculing global warming skeptics for basically asking the same questions or voicing the same concerns you do when your own personal ox is being gored.

Quotealways ask who sponsors the study? how long is it? how big is it? how is it conducted? what do the peer reviews think/ are there any? etc

I couldn't agree more, yet when I or people of similar opinions dare to question esteemed scientists at prestigious universities, we're sneered at and ridiculed. Why should you be accorded different treatment when you do the same thing ?

Quotejust because a professor is involved, or the institution is harvard or stanford does not guarantee robust  conclusions or even diligence.

I couldn't agree more. I might even paraphrase you by saying JUST BECAUSE PROFESSORS LIKE PHIL JONES OR MICHAEL MANN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA OR PENN STATE ARE INVOLVED DOES NOT GUARANTEE ROBUST CONCLUSIONS OR EVEN DILIGENCE

Quoteacademia is not immune to corruption whether directly or indirectly complicit, whether knowingly or otherwise

I couldn't agree more. I refer you to the episode over the leaked CLIMATEGATE emails which certainly demonstrated corruption at the highest levels of academe.

Quotewho am i to question a harvard or stanford study?

I never asked you that question. I asked

QuoteWho are you to determine when someone's profit is "inflated" or not ?

I asked that because your disdain for making profits is a common theme of your posts. That in itself is fair enough but I must wonder what your expertise is in deciding when profits are too little, too much or just right. As often as I hear this from politicians or everyday random humanoids I have yet to see a chart or formula which defines those limits. I doubt I ever will, but it's still a great demagogic sound bite.

Perhaps you can clarify your position by providing us with a few examples of corporations whose profits are too low, too high or just right.

Perhaps, in the future, when someone dares to question some aspect of science, and those questions indicate he is on the other side of the issue from you, you might cut him some slack and realize that he is merely asking the same questions you've asked in your most current post.

Bob

profit is a subject worthy of its own thread

apply some of the adjectives you have already used

try reasonable, cooperatively shared, ploughed-back(re-invested), working

as opposed to excessive exorbitant greedy short-term

most organic farmers i know try and make a profit, and in no way do they make exorbitant profits; their production is often more labour intensive (as vehicle over use compresses and reduces soil drainage) some i know use heavy horses, mules or fell ponies -- excellent 4x4 they all are

theirs is a lifechoice and ensures that not only might there be the farm or land to pass on to future generations, but that ithe soil won't be 'bleached' or 'leached' but that it will be at least as good as they got it, if not ever improving.

diversity is often required and helps protect against bad harvests or natural events, mixed farming; arable and livestock where sufficient and suitable land is available.

marginal land is more difficult and it is much harder to maintain profit but here in the eec there are subsidies which allow for example sheep farming on the fells or saltmarshes to be viable..or at least subsistence viable

it is not my decision or my opinion on profit

it is is what it is

dependent as ever on circumstance at a given point,


however if there is a company like beyer which is making good profits for its shareholders, but whose neonic sales are at the expense of so much, and will continue to affect so much to come, then we could describe that 'profit' as immoral

i certainly wouldn't invest in them or recommend others to invest in them

indeed it is incumbent on many of us to pressure our politicians to stand up against such bad practice

some folks are not over tied to dogma , and may temporarily fertilise using balance required  chemicals/minerals if they cannot source seaweed etc but it is an understanding of basic husbandry learnt over hundreds of years that is the expertise of folks who farm particular areas, and the increasing discovery that some short term fixes (artificial fertiliser, neonic pesticides, expansive - open to wind erosion fields - set up for mechanisation that further compresses soils, causing flooding and run off etc etc ) are just that -- short term, and create more problems in the long term

it is for that reason that agricultural studies of soil management need to be extremely long term, else the derived results/conclusions will be incorrect - false- and further possibly negligent

i repeat

they need to take into account all costs of production and what state the soil is in, by the end of the study

a short study will not give a true picture.

Quoteif you start a comparison study on lacking soil, then it will be years before the nutrient can be made up to good proportion with an organic approach

Several agricultural field experiments have run for more than 100 years.

ie that no-difference organic food mentioned in your articles/papers, will be even better in years to come, its soil better -- if fallow and clover years along with rotation are practiced with good manures, whereas the typical artificial soil will become even more exhausted, and the cost to maintain it, in any order at all, will rise exponentially ..

ie they have concluded their assessments way way too soon

hefted* herdwick sheep and swaledales


* http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/footnmouth/hefted1.html

http://www.herdwick-sheep.com/

---

Organic is a much used term and can be open to abuse

here in the UK one of the major standards is the Soil Association

some reasons why true organic produce is more expensive

fallow years/rotational crops/ lower yield but better quality (a given improvement on most land and a proven time of no residual chemical chelation -- see my posts above)
conversion time/expense /upheaval

this from the soil association requirements uk

QuoteHow long will it take to convert my land to organic?
Organic production is governed by UK and EU legislation. Part of this legislation specifies a conversion period before any land or products can be marketed as organic. This period provides time to start establishing organic management techniques, build soil fertility and biological activity, as well as to develop a viable and sustainable agro-ecosystem.
During the conversion period you will have time to gather information, develop your markets and embark on the learning curve that commencing organic farming brings. It also allows time for the break down of any traces of agrochemical residues left in the soil from previous management practices.
You will need to go through a two-year monitored conversion period before your land gains organic status. Once the conversion period is complete, the next crop planted into the organic soil can be sold as organic. For perennial crops (excluding grassland) the conversion period lasts 36 months. In certain circumstances you may get a short reduction in the conversion period of up to four months, if you can prove that no prohibited inputs were used on the land for at least the same period before the start of conversion.

soil testing
regular (every 3 years or so) soil tests are strongly recommended. They help to build a picture of the present levels of N, P and K, as well as minor trace elements in your soil. Organic matter tests are also recommended. Soil tests can help with planning your rotation by identifying where particular deficiencies or abundances lie.
Under organic management, a soil analysis may be needed to show specific nutrient deficiencies before your organic certification body allows the use of restricted fertilisers or minerals.
Can I sell crops as in-conversion?

One of the aims of the conversion period is to build soil fertility and biological activity, so it is best to take a long term view and use the conversion period for this purpose.
However, if a conversion period of at least 12 months has been completed before harvest then your crop may be marketed as 'in-conversion'. There is a market for in-conversion produce where there is an understanding of organic systems, and in some cases it may be possible to sell at a price above that of non-organic produce.
It is important to talk to your certification body about the labelling of in-conversion products. Soil Association Certification licensees can market in-conversion crops under the description 'Soil Association approved organic conversion' once they have been through at least 12 months organic management and they have had in-conversion crops added to their trading schedule.

http://www.soilassociation.org/