Conventional farming using pesticides, herbicides, and GMO's
Again e-coli has raised it's head and made the news. So much work to control outbreaks and the disasterous effects associated with it. I use synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and some GMO Sweet corns. I hear about it from a lot of sources. I don't think any of the chemicals I am using have e-coli causing attributes. I have not heard of one sickness, let alone death associated with GMO crops, and if it did happen, we would really have heard about it from all the organic gurus.
I am just bringing out the irony that I feel when chastised for not being "organic", when I see just as many illnesses, maybe more, caused by organic methods, while they dis GMO's as unknown and potentially dangerous, while in their own camps there is empirical evidence of some dangers. They are not pesticide, herbicide free. They just use organic pesticides and herbicides. (Look up Rotenone sometime) But they don't really discuss that they use pesticides/herbicides, better to let the public think they don't use those things. But they will sure let the public know conventional farmers use "synthetic" poisons.
Any way, just looking at recent headlines, I hope no one, in whichever camp they are in, will ever have to go through anything like this, and that also includes any of our customers also.
Greg, now into the very busy season
"A conscientious convetional farmer"
Views: 237
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Ellis on -
Actually, locally-grown produce is MUCH LESS likely to have e-coli contamination. It seems from the news reports that I have read that all of these incidents have been traced to packing house wash lines with recirculating systems -or field-packed by large crews of field workers that share one portable toilet with inadequate or nonexistent sanitary facilities for washing hands, etc. In a smaller operation like ours, pickers have access to a regular bathroom with hot water and soap, and we always have a small utility vehicle in the field for them to use because it's a long walk. I hate to say this, but if you have ever used a public restroom in Mexico, you know that sanitation standards are virtually non-existent in that culture. Workers must be retrained and proper facilities must be available - which can be expensive at best and impossible at worst for a large grower. When one of our pickers go to the bathroom, they're gone for 15 or 20 minutes - okay for a non-profit, but a big expense for a commercial grower paying by the hour.
We have to be very careful. Nowdays they have the technology to trace these things all the way back to the grower - and they make mistakes! They announce their findings prematurely, and innocent growers are wrongfully implicated. In the recent e-coli outbreak in Germany, they blamed cucumbers first, and then tomatoes, and now they've decided it came from a hydroponic bean sprout grower. Before they point fingers at someone they should be sure of their data!
Jack
-
Permalink Reply by Lise Rousseau Silva on
-
Hey Greg, it's me, the "THEY" you are referring to.
Don't use rotenone. Hope to never need to use any pyrethrins. Work very hard to educate our customers that we do use chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides, water, even) and what they are. Don't use herbicides, though.
Don't know you. Don't feel it is appropriate to chastise you other than to say making generalizations is shortsighted. Vilification of the other shuts down communication pretty completely. We all do what we feel is right for us as farmers. You choices wouldn't work for me, obviously mine don't work for you.
I know many farmers who are not organic who use a great deal of manure. Where do they fit into your scenario of you and they? As an organic farmer, I am constrained by regulations about when I can apply manure, including grazing. To my knowledge such rules are not applied to conventional farmers. And I can tell you that at least in my state, the inspection process of a small organic farmer is pretty rigorous.
I do have concerns about GMO foods. My gut tells me that any corporation saying they are doing something for my benefit is untruthful. Our system is not set-up for truly independent testing, for any product, organic or non, and the wolves are guarding the hen house. Somehow that just doesn't feel right. Your own example of rotenone is perfect. Folks once that it was ok because it is "natural." We now know this simply isn't true, but time and experience had to prove that out. Perhaps one day the disagreement about GMOs and conventional vs. organic farming will be settled in your favor, but until such time, I choose to err on the side of caution. (And holding farmers captive by not letting them save seed is 1) wrong, and 2) just mean. Suing them for letting their crops get contaminated is pretty mean-spirited, too.)
I use a Dow product whose organic formulation is almost 50% more expensive than their non-organic, with nearly the same product profile and the exact same active ingredient. I am told by my supplier that Dow charges more "because they can." In his words, "they've got you by the short ones." This from a guy who makes his living selling conventional chemicals, not organic ones.
I wish you continued success in your endeavors. Should you ever want consider trying organic methods, or if you want to truly understand what at least one organic farmer is doing, feel free to contact me. In the meantime, I will continue farming organically, or as my grandparents called it, farming. (Not my bit of sarcastic irony, but I like it.)
Cheers,
Lise
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Kilpatrick on
-
Greg, see below- pesticides, herbicides, and GMO's are not safe or cool-- I personally know a farmer from Maine (he was Hannaford's radish man for years- over 100 acres of radishes) that got so sick from the chemicals he stopped farming conventionally and is now an organic CSA farmer.
I dare you to read Genetic Roulette and The World According to Monsanto- they will change your life like they did mine.
hope your having a great season so far-
Michael
http://www.panna.org/blog/birth-defects-linked-pesticides-again
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUST...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12kristof.html?_r=2&s...
http://www.panna.org/blog/new-science-more-evidence-parkinsons-link
-
Permalink Reply by Heidi Johnson on
-
Throwing out those kinds of statements is pretty irresponsible ("when I see just as many illnesses, maybe more, caused by organic methods")... would love to know your specific data on these. Also... the data I've seen on e. coli outbreaks links it to irrigation... not pesticide, herbicide, or GMO use. So I'm not sure why you are defending those in this context? Certified Organic farmers are not allowed to use sewage sludge on crops... do conventional farmers have that same regulation? One of my pet peeves as an organic farmer is the perception by the general public (and LOTS of conventional farmers) that "organic" means you don't do anything... that we are a bunch of hippies that don't know anything about anything. We DO use non-synthetic pesticides, amendments, herbicides, etc. And we are constantly telling people that. We don't like that misperception any more than you do, and we don't see it being spread by organic farmers, but rather by the misinformed public. The big difference I see is that organic farmers are more hands-on... we have to be out in our fields, orchards, vineyards paying attention to what is going on. We have to show a need for input. There are economic thresholds and action plans for each and every pest that need to be determined. We don't, for example, spray an insecticide that will kill ALL insects in the field. We target those pests that are going to impact our bottom line, and we target them with the least harmful method. Seems to me that you should educate yourself a bit more about what "certified organic" actually means before you make blanket statements about all of us organic farmers.
...Heidi Johnson, chemical engineer and organic farmer
-
Permalink Reply by Matt on
-
I would have to agree with Michael. I am not a certified organic grower, but I do adhere to many of the principals. There are too many cases of animal and human health that is damaged by the wholesale use of synthetic chemicals that have no long term safety studies. Remember DDT, Agent Orange, etc.? All were "safe" until many decades later we found cancer and other problems. Monsanto continued to declare their safety even as they were being shown the devestation caused by their product.
To label "Organic" as having some type of e-coli issue is a canard. Do you realize that the strain of e-coli they isolated is resistent to the 4 most common antibiotics fed to cattle in addition to being a strain that produces a very unique toxin? There are two theories here. One is that the land or crop was contaminated with the barnyard waste of a nearby convential farm that was using antibiotics in the feed and the other is that a weaponized form of e-coli somehow was released into the environment.
In any event, antibiotic resistant (to four classes of antibiotics) e-coli DOES NOT develop on a farm that does NOT use antibiotics in the feed (Antibiotics are prohibited in Organic production). Think about that.
I do not use any chemicals created by Monsanto or their related transgenic crops. I feel that transgenic crops have taken away the profit margin that sustains many small family farms in the form of "technology fees". In addition I don't trust the technology that splices animal and plants DNA together. I think it is the height of arrogance when we think we can play with genetics the way we are and not have downsides.
Monsanto patents these seeds and then prevents anyone from saving them or reusing what they have grown. In addition Monsanto is busy buying up as many of the small seed production companies that are left so as to try and corner the market.
Do you also realize the RU Ready alfalfa went through only 6 months of environmental impact study? All of which was done by Monsanto?
In the following study GMO crops, in particular RU ready soy, was shown to make rats sterile (100%). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Soya_Fed_Rats.php Humans have gone through only maybe two or three generations since GMO crops were widely planted.
It has also now been proven that GMO crops are themselves damaged at the genetic level. Here is a study of BT Cry1AC GMO crops are severely damaged at the genetic level: http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/jun2011/363.pdf
And we sell this crop for humans to EAT. Would you go out and get a container of BT bacterium and EAT it? That is essentially what you are doing when you eat GMO corn.
As if this were not "enough", how about this:
"a small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto. More here: http://www.cheeseslave.com/2009/03/02/joel-salatin-on-spermicides-i...
Does it make you wonder WHY would these large agribusinesses be in the business of developing "food" that steralizes you? Why would our government be contributing funds for this research?
Starlink RU Ready GMO corn has been banned for five years in this country as it was shown to cause severe allergic reactions in some people. It is still found in yearly tests of corn crops. If the seed has been removed from the market and it is banned, then how is it STILL getting into the food supply?
Farmers need to look at ALL of the potential long term effects of the methods and inputs they use. THAT is responsible farming. Relying on the promises of companies whose sole motive is profit does not sound like a good long term strategy to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Fleming on
-
After mainly growing tree fruits both certified organic and conventionally for over 30 years my observation is conventional is more "ecological." Most organic insecticides are broad spectrum and short lived whereas most of the newer conventional insecticides are pest specific and longer lasting. With organic you end up killing your beneficials along with making more trips though the orchard, compacting the soil and burning more fuel.
As far as fertilizer, organic is better but only if you have a nearby source to avoid transport costs both monetarily and environmentally. Also seems more ecological to me to know what's in your manure or compost, most is laced with antibiotics and hormones, very little is known about the residues' effect on human and soil health. Most growers have no way to know what's in their compost.
Big problem in my area for folks who think they're doing everything organically by raising their own animals and using the manure for compost is the hay they feed may be contaminated with the herbicides Tordon or Milestone. The hay grower could have applied these products legally and is under no obligation to disclose it to hay buyers. I've seen many organic gardens killed after these persistent herbicides pass though a cow and the composting cycle.
I express my views on this to anyone who asks about organic vs. conventional and even the hardcore organic adherents walk away debating in their mind which is better for the enviroment.
I least I get them thinking...
-
Permalink Reply by Matt on
-
Manure used on organic fields can only come from organic animals. Hence there would be no chemicals or antibiotics in the fecal matter. You need to remember that a certified organic farm must have ALL inputs organically sourced with approved materials. Buying conventional hay from a local farmer for an organic farm would be grounds for loss of certification. Most dairy/beef operations are grazing anyway as the dairy guys are looking for higher conjugated linoleic acid content in the milk. This is a known cancer prevention component that is virtually non-existent in conventional milk. For beef operations the beef is leaner, has a higher protein content and, in my opinion, tastes better.
Conventional fertilizer has a VERY high ecological cost. 95% of it is made from petroleum sourced products that are then refined, prilled, etc., bagged, shipped to a distributor, shipped to the customer and then applied using a tractor. The small amount of fuel used to apply a naturally sourced product uses LESS fuel than the convential, synthetic fertilizer.
Obtaining petro based fertilizers usually involves the use of highly toxic drilling sludges which are landfilled or left in the ground. Most synthetic fertilizers also have trace heavy metals in them as stated on the bag. They can be explosive when stored and many are considered poison (when in the bag) and must be stored as hazardous material.
Many fertilizers/pesticides require a commercial applicators license. This is due to their toxic nature and risk for over or improper use.
Organic production was the ONLY production method for all of human history until the the early to mid part of the 20th century. Most farmers today wouldn't know to that they can fix 100 or more pounds of nitrogen per year with a cover crop of legumes. This is potentially the ONLY fertilizer required for a successful corn crop. I know. I have 10 farmers in my family and ALL are conventional. NONE of them knew that this much nitrogen could be fixed by a cover crop. NONE of them apply any of their chemicals (fertilizer or pesticides). NONE cared about what they sprayed as long as it worked. The local CO-OP did ALL of the spraying.
ALL of them plant GMO corn which REQUIRES Glyphosate in order to realize any benefit. MOST of them used two applications of Roundup. This was then followed-up with a pesticide for earn worms or a GMO varity that had coverage for corn borer, ear worms or both. ALL of them rely on government subsidies in order to make money.
I asked them if they could make a living WITHOUT price assistance. All of them said no. So, at least for the 10 family members I know, all of them could not survive without payments from the government.
That is not sustainable farming to me.
I think you need to read up on what is required for an item to be "organic". You may have a lot of misconceptions based on conjecture from friends and short online articles by those who don't understand organic production principals.
Look back at the numerous numbers of farmers who owned farmall Super A's, 100-140's, Ih 274, Case 265, John Deere 900Hc, etc. ALL of these tractors are dedicated to cultivation of row crops and veggies. Conventional farms have all but forgotten how to cultivate and rely mainly on GMOs and chemicals.
Organic and natural production is a completly different mindset, which is why I think so many conventional farmers look down at it. They don't understand it.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Fleming on
-
Matt you are very wrong about organic manure for certified organic, never has and never will be.
Read> http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/manure.html
Sorry but it makes any of your other so called facts suspect to me
-
Permalink Reply by Matt on
-
I do think you are wrong here:
NOP regulations do require that livestock manure not contain any synthetic substances not included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
This means that if a conventional farmer used any synthetic sunbstances in his operation and those substances can be measured in the manure, they would be banned for use on an organic field. This includes herbicides, GMO feed (since some grain always makes it through undigested), pesticides, hormones, etc.
It is up to organic grower to ascertain if it is worth the risk of dealing with a conventional farmer if he does not intimately know the farming practice of said conventional farmer.
My statement holds true. While the rules don't come right out and state that manure must be organic, the rules essentially state that it must be held to the same standard.
-
Permalink Reply by Lise Rousseau Silva on
-
Bill, you are right about manure in organic operations. Certified operations are not required to use certified manure, and noncertified animals on a certified farm are not required to be fed certified feed, although all other manure application rules do apply. It is a matter of debate in our community as to whether the rule is appropriate or not. As to your statement about whether that rule will ever change (others have) nothing is certain or absolute.
As for me, a certified organic grower, the rest of what Matt had to say is spot on.
Bill Fleming said:Matt you are very wrong about organic manure for certified organic, never has and never will be.
Read> http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/manure.html
Sorry but it makes any of your other so called facts suspect to me
-
Permalink Reply by Lise Rousseau Silva on
-
In theory, yes. In my experience, it is at the discretion of the certifier as to how strictly they apply the rule.
Matt said:
I do think you are wrong here:
NOP regulations do require that livestock manure not contain any synthetic substances not included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
This means that if a conventional farmer used any synthetic sunbstances in his operation and those substances can be measured in the manure, they would be banned for use on an organic field. This includes herbicides, GMO feed (since some grain always makes it through undigested), pesticides, hormones, etc.
It is up to organic grower to ascertain if it is worth the risk of dealing with a conventional farmer if he does not intimately know the farming practice of said conventional farmer.
My statement holds true. While the rules don't come right out and state that manure must be organic, the rules essentially state that it must be held to the same standard.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Ellis on
-
The issue is not organic vs conventional as Greg stated it. Organic produce is simply a niche market for consumers who demand it and are willing to pay the extra price. I don't understand why organic growers would want to impose their techniques on the rest of us - it just creates competition for what is a growing, but still fairly small, market.
Jack
© 2013 Created by Allison Bray.
