Re: Organic and the Environment

October 14, 2004

>Are there any more points I should include or be aware of? Most of my

>proof would be from the WAP website, with supplements if necessary.

>Any input would be very, very helpful and very, very appreciated!

>

>Thanks,

>Nina

-- Local farm-raised beef is likely a LOT CHEAPER

-- Local farm-raised beef is likely a lot tastier!

Much of the hamburger nowadays is from old dairy cows,

and besides being likely full of hormones, antibiotics,

and chemicals, it *doesn't taste as good*. Anyway, I've

gotten a few families addicted to good beef not by

argument, but by giving them a few steaks to try out.

It is harder to feed a whole school though, than to

feed a family, and finding good food in bulk can be

a challenge.

There was also a study posted some time ago where a school

switched to healthy foods and started having far less

behavioral problems ... THAT would be an excellent argument

too. See:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_243/ai_109946508

The program has been so successful that ACA and Natural Ovens produced an

11-minute video in 2001, that interviews students and staff who testify to the

benefits of good nutrition. Students are calm, well-behaved, more receptive to

learning, and happier. In the video, principal LuAnn Coenen says that the school

had no dropouts, no expulsions, no drug or weapons incidence, and no suicides in

the three years since the program started. The students report that food choice

affects their ability to focus as well as physical stamina. The school district

is expanding the nutrition program to include area elementary and middle

schools.

There was a better writup of the program but I can't

find it at the moment ... granted that program wasn't WAPF,

but it is a step in the right direction (I don't think

anyone is going to convince a school to start making

chicken soup with chicken feet floating in it ...)

>

Heidi Jean

October 14, 2004

> Organic and the Environment

>

>Good evening all,

>

>I'm the vice president of my school's environmental (and animal

>rights) club. I'm currently trying to write a proposal to the

>administration to convince them to switch to organic foods and meat.

>My school is quite open-minded and ecologically-oriented, so I am

>positive that, if I can make a convincing argument, I can persuade

>them to make a change. At the moment I have the following arguments:

>

>--organic foods/sustainable agriculture does not encourage

>pesticide/fungicide resistant bugs, pests, bacteria and molds

>--organic foods do not cause pesticide runoff into ground water and

>streams

>--sustainable agriculture does not leech nutrients from the soil and

>leave it unable to produce quality food

Hi Nina,

This is a wonderful thing you are doing :-) I hope you are able to convince

them. Here are a few things I want to point out about what you've written.

Organic farming is not sustainable, unfortunately. According to Jerry

Brunetti who spoke at the recent WAPF conference organic farming causes 5

lbs. of soil loss for every pound of food produced. So, in terms of

livestock, it is best to emphasize consuming *pasture raised* livestock,

rather than organically raised (which eat non sustainably raised organic

feed). In my experience, pasture-raised livestock are typically not given

drugs (other than ocassional dewormers), nor is their pasture treated with

any chemicals (although there could be occassional exceptions to the rule).

So they are by and large, defacto organic, yet also more sustainably raised

than those fed *organic* feed or conventional feed. In many cases, farmers

will supplement pasture feeding with a small amount of hay or veggies or

grains. If you live in the north, they may eat mostly hay, grain or veggies

in the winter months.

As for produce, there are lots of defacto organically grown crops that are

not *certified* organic, and are less costly. If sustainability is your

number one goal, then perhaps biodynamic is what you're looking for. But

neither biodynamic nor organic will give you any guarantee of nutritonal

quality, if that is something you're interested in.

>--organic foods, especially local foods, support local farmers and

>proliferates similar environmentally-friendly behavior and practices

This is a good one.

>--factory-farmed animals are treated with pesticides/vermicides, shut

>into small spaces and create huge amounts of waste that run off into

>the ground water supply

Indeed. And they are typically fed GMO crops like soy and corn.

>--wind-borne pesticides also effect nearby animals (Silent Spring all

>over again)

>--heavy use of fertilizers is not cost-effective and requires tons of

>crude oil to produce

Yep.

>--free-range animals are much happier and healthier, both during their

>lifetime and for the consumer; they are not treated with antibiotics,

> they are not treated cruelly, and they are allowed to live a natural life

Yep. BUT, the term " Free-range " is for all intents and purposes meaningless

because it can mean the animals range freely in a *barn* with only a small

dirt pen attached. No grass is required in that term. So I'd be sure to

locate *grass-fed* or *pasture-fed* livestock. Be sure to use these terms

when asking farmers how they raise their livestock, otherwise you really

can't tell whether they are truly on grass pasture or in a barn and dirt

pen.

>--milk and eggs are from battery-raised animals, which are treated

>similarly or worse than factory-farmed animals (small cages, cramped

>spaces, unable to move, etc)

*Supermarket* milk and eggs are from battery-raised animals. But these foods

can be obtained from pastured cows/chickens in healthy forms (raw, in the

case of milk).

>--farmed fish, such as salmon, contaminate the waters and contain

>harmful chemicals such as PCBs and colorings

I think all fish pretty much contains PCBs for the most part. But farmed

fish are fed low quality fish chow and antibiotics, and they do contaminate

natural bodies of water.

Best of luck with this important project!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

October 14, 2004

At 08:43 AM 10/14/2004, you wrote:

>Organic farming is not sustainable, unfortunately. According to Jerry

>Brunetti who spoke at the recent WAPF conference organic farming causes 5

>lbs. of soil loss for every pound of food produced. So, in terms of

oh suze, please.

we know you're the brix angel. we get your point. organic isn't enough.

but please don't say things like this, cause you're just wrong.

you would have a lot more credibility if you said " unfortunately, not all

organic farmers practice sustainable farming " or " unfortunately, not all of

the organic standards are sustainable practices "

when you say that organic farming is not sustainable, you're making a

blanket statement that simply doesn't fit. true, organic agribiz is not

sustainable, but the unsustainable part is the agribiz, not the organic.

organic family farms are very often completely sustainable. we've been

around and around on this and yet you continue to demonize organic farmers

as a group. organic monocroppers? yep! they're bad. us small organic family

farms who are so often even using your own stinking methods to improve our

soils? yeah. we're the ones you should be fighting for, not against. when

you use blanket statements like this, though, you completely erase all the

hard work that family farmers like me and my friends are doing, and we

don't need that. it's hard enough to get the message out!

also, your schtick about pasture-raised isn't true. non-organic

pasture-raised cows often are treated with pesticides on a yearly basis or

even twice a year, and organic cows are often completely pasture

raised/grassfed.

it is, indeed, critical that consumers don't simply stop at the " organic "

label, but also that they ensure that the organic practices being used are

sustainable, and not the allowable un-sustainable practices. it's also

important that we work to tighten organic controls by lobbying the

certifying boards to cut out the unsustainable allowable practices, for

example. however, for the love of ever-lovin'-whatever-it-is-you-love,

please stop with the blanket negative statements. you KNOW that a lot of us

are on your side; please start reflecting it in your speech.

-katja.

October 14, 2004

Thanks for the points and the link. I wasn't sure about including

points that didn't have to do with the environment/animal welfare (it

is a environmentally focused club after all), but now that I think

about it it might be a good idea. I'll be sure to include the article

in my letter.

Nina

>

> >Are there any more points I should include or be aware of? Most of my

> >proof would be from the WAP website, with supplements if necessary.

> >Any input would be very, very helpful and very, very appreciated!

> >

> >Thanks,

> >Nina

>

> -- Local farm-raised beef is likely a LOT CHEAPER

>

> -- Local farm-raised beef is likely a lot tastier!

>

> Much of the hamburger nowadays is from old dairy cows,

> and besides being likely full of hormones, antibiotics,

> and chemicals, it *doesn't taste as good*. Anyway, I've

> gotten a few families addicted to good beef not by

> argument, but by giving them a few steaks to try out.

>

> It is harder to feed a whole school though, than to

> feed a family, and finding good food in bulk can be

> a challenge.

>

> There was also a study posted some time ago where a school

> switched to healthy foods and started having far less

> behavioral problems ... THAT would be an excellent argument

> too. See:

>

> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_243/ai_109946508

>

> The program has been so successful that ACA and Natural Ovens

produced an 11-minute video in 2001, that interviews students and

staff who testify to the benefits of good nutrition. Students are

calm, well-behaved, more receptive to learning, and happier. In the

video, principal LuAnn Coenen says that the school had no dropouts, no

expulsions, no drug or weapons incidence, and no suicides in the three

years since the program started. The students report that food choice

affects their ability to focus as well as physical stamina. The school

district is expanding the nutrition program to include area elementary

and middle schools.

>

> There was a better writup of the program but I can't

> find it at the moment ... granted that program wasn't WAPF,

> but it is a step in the right direction (I don't think

> anyone is going to convince a school to start making

> chicken soup with chicken feet floating in it ...)

>

> >

>

> Heidi Jean

October 14, 2004

Wow, thanks a lot for your commentary. I have added/change some things

from the list, but most of it has remained the same, so I'll be sure

to incorporate some of these pointers.

Nina

> [snip]

> Hi Nina,

>

> This is a wonderful thing you are doing :-) I hope you are able to

convince

> them. Here are a few things I want to point out about what you've

written.

> [snip]

> Best of luck with this important project!

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> http://www.westonaprice.org

>

> ----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. "

--

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

>

> >

October 14, 2004

Oh yeah, one more thing.. I haven't been able to find grass-fed beef

that is cheaper than grocery-storebought... the farm I buy from is

about $3 a pound on average but is based on preslaughter weight and

includes bones, so I don't know how that would compare... In any case,

cost isn't too much of a problem as my school is a private institution

and they spend so much money on junk anyway (free bagels, cookies,

donuts every Friday, loads of canned soups and white bread, candy,

desserts... it's awful). They even use Krispy Kreme donuts as a bribe

for people to be " spirited " , which just really pains me to see.

Nina

> -- Local farm-raised beef is likely a LOT CHEAPER

October 15, 2004

>Oh yeah, one more thing.. I haven't been able to find grass-fed beef

>that is cheaper than grocery-storebought... the farm I buy from is

>about $3 a pound on average but is based on preslaughter weight and

>includes bones, so I don't know how that would compare...

I get mine for $1.35 hanging weight (which includes bones, but

not guts, hide, head etc.). You might check the local auction prices.

Some farms charge a real premium for grass fed beef, esp. if they

market to the organic crowd. Which is fine, and good for them,

but I just go to a farmer that I know raises cows right but isn't

trying for a special market.

>In any case,

>cost isn't too much of a problem as my school is a private institution

>and they spend so much money on junk anyway (free bagels, cookies,

>donuts every Friday, loads of canned soups and white bread, candy,

>desserts... it's awful). They even use Krispy Kreme donuts as a bribe

>for people to be " spirited " , which just really pains me to see.

>

>Nina

Having a private school budget certainly helps! In some days past

some schools had a " school garden " where the students helped

grow their own food.

Heidi Jean

October 15, 2004

> RE: Organic and the Environment

>

>At 08:43 AM 10/14/2004, you wrote:

>>Organic farming is not sustainable, unfortunately. According to Jerry

>>Brunetti who spoke at the recent WAPF conference organic farming causes 5

>>lbs. of soil loss for every pound of food produced. So, in terms of

>

>oh suze, please.

>we know you're the brix angel. we get your point. organic isn't enough.

>

>but please don't say things like this, cause you're just wrong.

>

>you would have a lot more credibility if you said " unfortunately, not all

>organic farmers practice sustainable farming " or " unfortunately,

>not all of

>the organic standards are sustainable practices "

>

>when you say that organic farming is not sustainable, you're making a

>blanket statement that simply doesn't fit. true, organic agribiz is not

>sustainable, but the unsustainable part is the agribiz, not the organic.

Well, I got that from Jerry Brunetti's lecture at the WAPF conference, so if

you think it's not credible, then perhaps you should be questioning *his*

credibility along with mine (which is perfectly legitimate to do). He didn't

say that only organic *mono cropping* causes 5 lbs. of soil loss for every

pound of food produced, he said " organic farming " , as in " per se. " Now it's

possible that's an average, with mono cropping clearly causing the most

loss, but he didn't say that. He just said something to the effect " organic

farming causes... " . If he ever gets back to me on some questions I emailed

him on a related issue, I'll ask him to elaborte on that statement and I'll

let you know what he says. You *could* be right that he only meant

mono-cropping, but he didn't *say* that. I agree with you that some organic

farms are clearly more sustainable than others, there's no question about

it. But I was countering the commonly held impression that Nina seemed to be

be under and that expressed in her email, equating organic with

sustainability " per se " , and that's just not that case. Remember that in a

previous thread we agreed (and you stated this yourself) that NOFA is

probably quite exceptional among organic ag organizations in what it teaches

and preeches. Not that there aren't other good organic ag organizations out

there, but I suspect Jerry might be right about the unsustainability of

organic farming as a whole.

Also keep in mind that much of our American topsoil was stripped by the

*pre-industrial* settlers! Who were, by and large, family farms, that first

stripped our Eastern topsoil, then moved West stripping the topsoil as they

went. And they were by default, organic. They may not have followed this or

that sustainable practice as put forth by an organic association, but they

weren't chem agri-biz either. So, just because a farm is family-run and

organic, does not make it sustainable.

I was also trying to make my reply brief and concise so as not to overwhelm

Nina (plus I just didn't have the time to go any deeper into the subject at

the time) and so didn't get into the nuances of degrees of sustainability.

But you are right, that I should've thrown in a quick caveat that there

*are* some organic farms that are more sustainable than others.

>organic family farms are very often completely sustainable.

I'm curious as to what your definition of " completely sustainable " is?

we've been

>around and around on this and yet you continue to demonize organic farmers

>as a group.

I'm not demonizing them now, nor have I in the past. I'm simply stating

facts that happen to be not so palitable to those who are, to put it mildly,

entrenched in the organic paradigm. I think it has *some* things to offer

and fails on other accounts. (I think the same thing about Reams' biological

farming approach too, for that matter.) IMO, the chief advantage of organic

farming is that it offers us non-GMO food (contamination issues aside) and

relatively toxin-free food. These are two factors that are important to me.

And I'm sincerely grateful to have the option of choosing organic foods that

are free of these things (by and large).

organic monocroppers? yep! they're bad. us small

>organic family

>farms who are so often even using your own stinking methods to improve our

>soils?

*I* don't have a method...yet. But I assume you are referring to high brix

farming? If so, I think we pretty much established in the last brix thread

that organic farmers are not, as a rule, growing high brix foods nor using

the high brix methods we' discussed. So again, you and NOFA are likely an

exception to the rule in that area since you are more into the brix thing.

yeah. we're the ones you should be fighting for, not against. when

>you use blanket statements like this, though, you completely erase all the

>hard work that family farmers like me and my friends are doing, and we

>don't need that. it's hard enough to get the message out!

I'm not fighting against you at all! I posted what Jerry said in his speech.

As I said, I'll try to get more info from him about it and let you know what

he says.

>

>also, your schtick about pasture-raised isn't true. non-organic

>pasture-raised cows often are treated with pesticides on a yearly basis or

>even twice a year, and organic cows are often completely pasture

>raised/grassfed.

I wrote:

" In my experience, pasture-raised livestock are typically not given

drugs (other than ocassional dewormers), nor is their pasture treated with

any chemicals (although there could be occassional exceptions to the rule). "

How can I be wrong when I said " In MY experience...blah blah blah " ? And, I

added that there could be exceptions to the rule that I've observed in MY

experience. I don't think that needs *correction* as it IS correct as far as

my_experience goes. Additionally, later in my post I suggested Nina use

terms like " grass-fed "

when_she_questions_farmers_about_how_they_raise_their_livestock. IOW, I

assumed she was going to ask them all relevant questions when deciding which

farms to choose as her organization's supplier. My point was that she

shouldn't be overly concerned as to whether livestock are *organically*

raised, but rather, should be seeking *pasture-raised*, not only for

sustainability reasons, but also for nutritional reasons, and that she will

likely be able to find some who do not use any chemicals on their pastures.

Personally, NON of the grass-based farmers I know use any chemicals on their

pastures, FWIW. Depending on where she lives, I think she should be able to

find at least *some* similar farms in her area.

>

>it is, indeed, critical that consumers don't simply stop at the " organic "

>label, but also that they ensure that the organic practices being used are

>sustainable, and not the allowable un-sustainable practices. it's also

>important that we work to tighten organic controls by lobbying the

>certifying boards to cut out the unsustainable allowable practices, for

>example.

This is where we differ the most. I don't believe that the federal gov't,

which is now in charge of organic standards for ALL US organic farmers

ultimately (right?) is needed, nor desired to have a hand in how our food is

raised or grown. This is why we're in the awful mess we're in now with the

horrible quality of the US food supply (which, BTW, was the topic of this

year's WAPF conference).

however, for the love of ever-lovin'-whatever-it-is-you-love,

>please stop with the blanket negative statements. you KNOW that a

>lot of us

>are on your side; please start reflecting it in your speech.

I think the question is not whether what I repeated from Jerry's lecture is

negative or not, but whether it's true. I'm much more interested in the

truth than the negative or positive impressions that people have of it.

FWIW, from what I've heard about how YOU farm, I'm very impressed! My post

was not in any way meant to criticize *your* farming methods nor those of

your friends (whom I don't know and whose farming practices I don't know

anything about). I mainly wanted to make it clear that " organic " does not

automatically equate to sustainability and that *pasture-fed* is far more

desirable from a sustainability AND nutritional perspective (as long as the

pasture is not chemically treated).

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

October 15, 2004

>

>FWIW, from what I've heard about how YOU farm, I'm very impressed! My post

>was not in any way meant to criticize *your* farming methods nor those of

>your friends (whom I don't know and whose farming practices I don't know

>anything about). I mainly wanted to make it clear that " organic " does not

>automatically equate to sustainability and that *pasture-fed* is far more

>desirable from a sustainability AND nutritional perspective (as long as the

>pasture is not chemically treated).

>

>Suze Fisher

what i'm saying is that since we've established that NOFA is requiring

sustainable practices, albrecht-reams soil management, and allows very few

unsustainable organic practices (grain feeding being among them - i

consider that unsustainable, though i think some people, like butterworks,

who grows all their own grain with really good soil management, would

disagree there), and since we don't know whether NOFA is unique in that way

(we've merely noted that it's the only one people are aware of as

different. but we don't nearly represent the whole country nor all the

organic boards), i think it's really irresponsible to make claims about the

badness of *all* organics, whether the you in question originated them or

quoted them.

supporting the fact that the organic movement has the capacity to make a

difference in the quality of our food doesn't make one " entrenched " . the

organic movement is certainly imperfect, but it is not inherently

" government regulation " - there are many private certifiers - and it's not

done either. but it is a pretty darned big captive audience for change, and

it's the only group of people who are organized into trying to make an

ACTUAL change in the mainstream. no sticker is an excuse to turn your brain

off, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, is all i'm saying.

-katja

October 15, 2004

>I was also trying to make my reply brief and concise so as not to overwhelm

>Nina (plus I just didn't have the time to go any deeper into the subject at

>the time) and so didn't get into the nuances of degrees of sustainability.

>But you are right, that I should've thrown in a quick caveat that there

>*are* some organic farms that are more sustainable than others.

I haven't taken a poll of organic farms, but I'd have to say that

at least *some* of them are doing a great job. Discover had

a bit a few years ago about farms in India, which are adding

topsoil at a nice rate. That's been my experience too, in our

little garden ... the more we garden the thicker the topsoil

gets (we started with very little topsoil ... the glaciers didn't

leave much!) and it gets rich and black. And this is in an area

where it rains constantly, and I'm a rather lazy gardener at

that.

So I'm always amazed when I hear this bit about how

farming kills the soil ... I'd guess it does for some

people, or they wouldn't say that. And I'm SURE a lot

of our soil gets washed away with all the rain, but

it builds up too. But I'd guess the norm for a home

gardener at least is that the soils get better the

more you work them.

Heidi Jean

October 15, 2004

At 12:32 PM 10/15/2004, you wrote:

>So I'm always amazed when I hear this bit about how

>farming kills the soil ... I'd guess it does for some

>people, or they wouldn't say that. And I'm SURE a lot

>of our soil gets washed away with all the rain, but

>it builds up too. But I'd guess the norm for a home

>gardener at least is that the soils get better the

>more you work them.

>

>Heidi Jean

the biggest cause of soil loss is the enormous monocrop fields in the

midwest (or anywhere), where they leave the bare earth exposed many months

of the year. bare earth is baaaaad, and when it rains, it's pretty much

instant erosion, and any water that does seep in evaporates again quickly

cause there's nothing to protect it (ie, plants). combine that with

compaction from the enormously heavy equipment they drive over it, which

degrades the quality of what's left, making it dryer/grainier/more

suseptible to erosion...i mean, we're talking miles of bare earth during

the off season.

on our farm, we permaculture, so there's never any bare earth (except our

dirt driveway and whatever the pigs happen to be disrupting at the moment.

that's a real problem but it's the nature of pigs, so we just reseed

regularly.). we only disturb enough earth to get the seeds in, which is at

worst a 3-inch wide row. at best, we use perennial planting for things like

pumpkins, cukes, and of course perennial herbs, etc, so there's no tilling

required for those crops at all! also, we hand till, which is less

disruptive. in between the " rows " we permacrop clover for good nitrogen

conversion and to promote a healthy soil food web. the idea here is that

the less the disruption, the better the quality of the soil because the

ecosystem of the bugs, bacteria, fungi, nutrients, etc doesn't get

traumatized. another good way to handle this is with lots of mulching...but

in general, bare earth is a problem. i'm betting you likely mulch your

garden, which is why you're improving the soil quality...

-katja

October 15, 2004

*snip snip*

I did know before that organic and sustainable are not the same, but

thank you for reminding me to research each local farm for

sustainability practices. I'll be sure to keep all of your advice in

mind when I'm looking for sources.

Nina

October 15, 2004

>the biggest cause of soil loss is the enormous monocrop fields in the

>midwest (or anywhere), where they leave the bare earth exposed many months

>of the year. bare earth is baaaaad, and when it rains, it's pretty much

>instant erosion, and any water that does seep in evaporates again quickly

>cause there's nothing to protect it (ie, plants). combine that with

>compaction from the enormously heavy equipment they drive over it, which

>degrades the quality of what's left, making it dryer/grainier/more

>suseptible to erosion...i mean, we're talking miles of bare earth during

>the off season.

Bare earth is next to impossible in my yard ... if you leave the earth

bare an instant crop of 3 ft high fireweed appears! But yeah, I remember

bare earth from when I lived in California. I agree it is bad.

>on our farm, we permaculture, so there's never any bare earth (except our

>dirt driveway and whatever the pigs happen to be disrupting at the moment.

>that's a real problem but it's the nature of pigs, so we just reseed

>regularly.).

Actually I read that you SHOULD disrupt the soil occasionally, preferably

with animals. We throw the chickens in the garden and let them tear

it up before planting.

> we only disturb enough earth to get the seeds in, which is at

>worst a 3-inch wide row. at best, we use perennial planting for things like

>pumpkins, cukes, and of course perennial herbs, etc, so there's no tilling

>required for those crops at all!

How do you use " perennial planting " for pumpkins cukes etc? I'm trying

to use more perennials ... Again, I like the " lazy gardener " idea, and

the berries more or less take care of themselves.

>also, we hand till, which is less

>disruptive. in between the " rows " we permacrop clover for good nitrogen

>conversion and to promote a healthy soil food web.

Does the clover actually keep the rest of the weeds down?

I'd love to have a cover crop that I don't have to mow.

The chickens do a pretty good job of keeping the grass

down though. I just put the chicken feed where I want

mowing done.

>the idea here is that

>the less the disruption, the better the quality of the soil because the

>ecosystem of the bugs, bacteria, fungi, nutrients, etc doesn't get

>traumatized. another good way to handle this is with lots of mulching...but

>in general, bare earth is a problem. i'm betting you likely mulch your

>garden, which is why you're improving the soil quality...

I toss straw all over everything, though I admit it is mostly to keep

weeds down. And when I do pull up fireweed etc. I lay it down

under the plant (again, laziness, it's easier than pulling weeds,

putting them in buckets, and hauling them somewhere else,

though I'm told it's a bad idea because it promotes fungus).

Also I bury garbage between the rows (or used to, before

I got the worm bin and chickens). The local gardening guru

recommends laying paper down over the rows, like layers

of newsprint, then straw, but I don't know what stuff is

in newsprint (you can grow worms in newsprint, it isn't

toxic to them, but it seems like there'd be weird stuff

in it).

In my ideal world I'd have a really robust ground cover,

something like strawberries that also gives a crop,

and some big plants sticking out of it (like collards).

But when you plant things like potatoes it gets more

complex, because you MUST dig up the soil to get

the potatoes out.

And letting the chickens tear things up gets rid

of cutworms etc. which really does help, though

they pretty much get rid of everything green.

I'd guess that combining chickens and lots of straw

would protect the soil better though.

>

Heidi Jean

October 18, 2004

>

> >on our farm, we permaculture, so there's never any bare earth (except our

> >dirt driveway and whatever the pigs happen to be disrupting at the moment.

> >that's a real problem but it's the nature of pigs, so we just reseed

> >regularly.).

>

>Actually I read that you SHOULD disrupt the soil occasionally, preferably

>with animals. We throw the chickens in the garden and let them tear

>it up before planting.

well, i think it would depend. i think if the soil is really healthy, it

shouldn't need disruption. the bugs and stuff do that for us. but maybe

that's more in theory than practice.

> > we only disturb enough earth to get the seeds in, which is at

> >worst a 3-inch wide row. at best, we use perennial planting for things like

> >pumpkins, cukes, and of course perennial herbs, etc, so there's no tilling

> >required for those crops at all!

>

>How do you use " perennial planting " for pumpkins cukes etc? I'm trying

>to use more perennials ... Again, I like the " lazy gardener " idea, and

>the berries more or less take care of themselves.

oh it's great! you just leave some of the stuff out there to rot over the

winter. takes care of itself. beware if you do this with tomatoes...you'll

have a tomato JUNGLE, so make sure to thin them next season...or, ya know.

enjoy your jungle

> >also, we hand till, which is less

> >disruptive. in between the " rows " we permacrop clover for good nitrogen

> >conversion and to promote a healthy soil food web.

>

>Does the clover actually keep the rest of the weeds down?

>I'd love to have a cover crop that I don't have to mow.

>The chickens do a pretty good job of keeping the grass

>down though. I just put the chicken feed where I want

>mowing done.

it really really does. we didn't mow at all! at the end of the season we

just toss the sheep and chickens in, and presto. you're done. in the first

year that you transition, if you find that you do get some stuff growing in

with the clover, just take your weedwhacker to it every month or so.

> >the idea here is that

> >the less the disruption, the better the quality of the soil because the

> >ecosystem of the bugs, bacteria, fungi, nutrients, etc doesn't get

> >traumatized. another good way to handle this is with lots of mulching...but

> >in general, bare earth is a problem. i'm betting you likely mulch your

> >garden, which is why you're improving the soil quality...

>

>I toss straw all over everything, though I admit it is mostly to keep

>weeds down. And when I do pull up fireweed etc. I lay it down

>under the plant (again, laziness, it's easier than pulling weeds,

>putting them in buckets, and hauling them somewhere else,

>though I'm told it's a bad idea because it promotes fungus).

>Also I bury garbage between the rows (or used to, before

>I got the worm bin and chickens). The local gardening guru

>recommends laying paper down over the rows, like layers

>of newsprint, then straw, but I don't know what stuff is

>in newsprint (you can grow worms in newsprint, it isn't

>toxic to them, but it seems like there'd be weird stuff

>in it).

yeah...i wouldn't go with the paper. just the straw seems good to me...

>In my ideal world I'd have a really robust ground cover,

>something like strawberries that also gives a crop,

>and some big plants sticking out of it (like collards).

>But when you plant things like potatoes it gets more

>complex, because you MUST dig up the soil to get

>the potatoes out.

yeah. we don't grow potatoes, so i'm not sure how i'd manage that, but

....hold on...thinking...yeah. i'd just do it. just grow your potatoes where

you grow them, and don't worry too much about it. we grow carrots and beets

that way - we just only pull up what we need, which doesn't disturb

everything. anyway, and just not worry too much about that.

>And letting the chickens tear things up gets rid

>of cutworms etc. which really does help, though

>they pretty much get rid of everything green.

>I'd guess that combining chickens and lots of straw

>would protect the soil better though.

or just put your chickens in for only two or three days, maybe - so they

can do less damage?

in general though, i don' thtink the chicken-scratch/straw-cover is a bad

idea...

> >

>

>Heidi Jean

>

October 18, 2004

>>>But when you plant things like potatoes it gets more complex, because you

MUST dig up the soil to get the potatoes out.<<<

One idea for growing potatoes without digging is to use old car tyres. You place

one tyre flat on the ground, put a potato in the middle and fill the rest of the

cavity with soil. As the plant grows taller, you put more tyres on top and keep

filling with soil. When they're ready, you take the stack of tyres apart and

shake out the taters.

Cheers,

Tas'.

October 18, 2004

>>>One idea for growing potatoes without digging is to use old car tyres. You

place one tyre flat on the ground, put a potato in the middle and fill the rest

of the cavity with soil. As the plant grows taller, you put more tyres on top

and keep filling with soil. When they're ready, you take the stack of tyres

apart and shake out the taters.<<<

Here's a method where you mostly use straw in the tyres:

" #2. Rubber Car Tyres:

This method is good if you only have a very small garden (and a supply of car

tyres!)

Take one tyre, place it on the ground and put straw inside it. Place about 6

seed potatoes on the straw - add more straw. Put another tyre on top of the

first one, continue layering straw, seed potatoes, straw, tyres, etc. until you

have 4 or 5 stacked up. Cover the top layer with about 2 inches of soil and some

slow release fertiliser. Now leave them until the shoots appear through the

soil. Wait until the shoots are 12-18 inches tall then you can harvest the top

layer by removing the straw and taking out the potatoes. You then take off the

top tyre and in a couple of weeks or less you will be able to harvest the next

layer of potatoes, and so on down to the bottom. "

Cheers,

Tas'.

October 18, 2004

>>>But when you plant things like potatoes it gets more complex, because you

MUST dig up the soil to get the potatoes out.<<<

Here's another way of growing them without digging soil:

" An alternative method of planting potatoes is the permaculture way, under

straw. This is done by laying the seed potatoes directly on the top of the

ground, but can they can be placed on any surface at all, including concrete.

Bales of peastraw, or similar, or even grass clippings, are mounded up to 50 cm

deep on top of the potatoes. This will gradually break down as the time passes

and added to as the potatoes grow. A thick layer is preferable, as any light

that penetrates will cause the exposed potatoes to turn green and toxic. A thick

layer of sheep manure is placed directly on top of the peastraw, with a generous

application of blood and bone to the surface, which combine to provide the

fertiliser needs to give the best crop. "

Cheers,

Tas'.

October 18, 2004

>yeah. we don't grow potatoes, so i'm not sure how i'd manage that, but

>...hold on...thinking...yeah. i'd just do it. just grow your potatoes where

>you grow them, and don't worry too much about it. we grow carrots and beets

>that way - we just only pull up what we need, which doesn't disturb

>everything. anyway, and just not worry too much about that.

You know, I'll have to try some of your ideas, but I get the

feeling things grow very differently there! I know in California

I had groundcovers etc. that worked pretty well, but

here it is so hard to keep the weeds out of ANYTHING. The

only thing that seems to want to be a groundcover are buttercups,

which of course are toxic.

My main idea for next year is to plant a " duck friendly " garden

and let the ducks eat the weedlings and slugs, since the chickens

tend to uproot the plants. And use lots and lots of straw ...

Heidi Jean

October 18, 2004

>One idea for growing potatoes without digging is to use old car tyres. You

place one tyre flat on the ground, put a potato in the middle and fill the rest

of the cavity with soil. As the plant grows taller, you put more tyres on top

and keep filling with soil. When they're ready, you take the stack of tyres

apart and shake out the taters.

>

>Cheers,

>Tas'.

That's kind of what we did, only we used metal wire cages and landscape

cloth (I'm not sure what chemicals are in tires, plus we didn't have any handy).

And it worked great, we had wonderful potatoes. But that isn't permaculture!

Now in a sense they ARE permaculture potatoes because the little ones stick

around in the dirt and they come up on their own the next year (and we put

them in the little cages). And they seem to be the only crop that doesn't

easily get weed infested, which is neat.

I like the staw idea with potatoes ... We had some growing in the

compost bin, growing in tossed vegie peels that kept getting tossed

on top of old sprouted potatoes I threw out. They sure were nice

big potatoes!

Heidi Jean

October 18, 2004

Jeesh, I don't know where you folks have been - or where you are

(maybe this is a US problem only!), but there have been health

warnings out against using tires in a food garden for at least the

last 10 years. Not only are tires in a garden potentially bad for

humans - they can also leach contaminants that can effect plant

growth in the garden for years to come!

I'm sensitive to this because I was part of a homeless vet's

gardening program that was working with the Luthern church to place

tire gardens at the doorsteps of low income families. In the 2nd

season, we learned that by doing so, we were increasing the amount of

cadmium and zinc in their diet! Talk about misplaced altruism!!

Here is what the Boulder, CO community gardens rule book has to say about it:

>TIRES

>Tires are not permitted on site because they leach cadmium into the

>soil and plants.

>

I realize that this issue has been clouded by the number of times we

see school grounds with ground rubber mulch or 'playground padding.'

It doesn't matter: those sites are dangerous, too, contaminated with

cad and zinc.

There's a Japanese saying: The Bigger the Front, the Bigger the Back.

When you get innovative with recycled materials in around food crops,

you better be watching you Back!

Good eating!

-Allan

> >>>One idea for growing potatoes without digging is to use old car

>tyres. You place one tyre flat on the ground, put a potato in the

>middle and fill the rest of the cavity with soil. As the plant grows

>taller, you put more tyres on top and keep filling with soil. When

>they're ready, you take the stack of tyres apart and shake out the

>taters.<<<

>

>Here's a method where you mostly use straw in the tyres:

>

> " #2. Rubber Car Tyres:

>This method is good if you only have a very small garden (and a

>supply of car tyres!)

>

>Take one tyre, place it on the ground and put straw inside it. Place

>about 6 seed potatoes on the straw - add more straw. Put another

>tyre on top of the first one, continue layering straw, seed

>potatoes, straw, tyres, etc. until you have 4 or 5 stacked up. Cover

>the top layer with about 2 inches of soil and some slow release

>fertiliser. Now leave them until the shoots appear through the soil.

>Wait until the shoots are 12-18 inches tall then you can harvest the

>top layer by removing the straw and taking out the potatoes. You

>then take off the top tyre and in a couple of weeks or less you will

>be able to harvest the next layer of potatoes, and so on down to the

>bottom. "

>

>Cheers,

>

>Tas'.

>

October 18, 2004

Jeesh, again - Tas', have you actually done this or are you passing

on something you read? If so, where did you read it? If you have done

this, what were your yields like? And what do potatoes made out of

sheep manure, straw, blood and bone taste like? And how well do they

store?

I do know some good Georgia growers who use a modification of this

technique. After mowing down an over wintered stand of rye and vetch

on 'beds' that were composted the previous fall, they spade the

stubble into the top 6 inches of the soil. (Spading machines do not

invert the soil. They simply 'stir' it.) Seed potatoes are then

pushed into this loose top soil as deeply as they may go (probably

not even as deep as their height.) After this, FEET of straw or hay

or applied. I understand that yields can be amazing and are easily

harvested by hand workers. Of course, I only hear this, I haven't

done it. ;-)

-Allan

> >>>But when you plant things like potatoes it gets more complex,

>because you MUST dig up the soil to get the potatoes out.<<<

>

>Here's another way of growing them without digging soil:

>

> " An alternative method of planting potatoes is the permaculture

>way, under straw. This is done by laying the seed potatoes directly

>on the top of the ground, but can they can be placed on any surface

>at all, including concrete. Bales of peastraw, or similar, or even

>grass clippings, are mounded up to 50 cm deep on top of the

>potatoes. This will gradually break down as the time passes and

>added to as the potatoes grow. A thick layer is preferable, as any

>light that penetrates will cause the exposed potatoes to turn green

>and toxic. A thick layer of sheep manure is placed directly on top

>of the peastraw, with a generous application of blood and bone to

>the surface, which combine to provide the fertiliser needs to give

>the best crop. "

>

>Cheers,

>Tas'.

>

October 18, 2004

Man!!! There goes another idea down the gurgler.