organic/gm co-existence

[screener]

Screener, so which is it? Organic agriculture needs protecting because it is only just got going or organic agriculture is the oldest form of farming there is and so presumably need no protection?

The oldest forms of agriculture stuggling to mount a comeback in time to help save the world from bad food habits and worse agricultural habits may need some protection from the marketing and lobbying power of the big agribusiness corps. In a similar way to NGO and governmental assistance in the protection of heritage seed resources.

I am not advocating a lift in adventitious presence standards for organic produce. Most organic certifying agencies don’t set an AP level and don’t test, so there is nothing to increase. Although the EU is going to set an upper limit of 0.9% to bring organic produce in line with other produce. I am just pointing out that agreeing on a demonstrable AP level would save a fair bit of angst and give the consumers of organic produce some certainty. It is in fact possible at present in the US to have a significant % of organic produce as GM, so long as GM was not used in growing the crop. As there is no mandated upper limit and virtually no testing, consumers will be none the wiser.

So consumers would gain some certainty by becoming none the wiser.... I believe it could happen. I just don't think it's a good thing.

I suspect some organic agencies are keen to have it both ways: they want to claim nil presence, but don’t want their members penalised if there is some AP of GM material.

Which makes sense to me, why should they be penalized when it is the GM production that is the problem?

And frankly, if the organic industry can’t sort itself out over this and move towards developing a workable plan, why should anybody expect GM growers to take any notice? The current situation seems to be that organic growers start off by demanding that GM crops be banned outright, then move to banned in their state, then move to banned in their district. They demand a nil tolerance with no mechanism for determining and enforcing such a tolerance and generally don’t even try to engage with GM growers to develop a workable solution until after all else has failed. I suggest that with this sort of behaviour it is no surprise growers of GM crops take such little notice.[/quote]

I suspect that there is another reason why GM growers aren't concerned about their impact on other farmers. I think it is easy to not look beyond the eternal hope of more cash returns as promised by Monsanto et al. Shortsightedness.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by screener

The oldest forms of agriculture stuggling to mount a comeback in time to help save the world from bad food habits and worse agricultural habits may need some protection from the marketing and lobbying power of the big agribusiness corps. In a similar way to NGO and governmental assistance in the protection of heritage seed resources.

That is an opinion screener and not one that I believe can be backed by evidence. 1) I don't think organic agriculture will save people from bad food habits, you will just have processed organic food instead - actually I can already find this. 2) I don't believe organic agricultural habits are as a whole better than others - some might be, but excessive tillage is certainly not one of them. 3) Organic agriculture seems to be growing quite nicely according to most of the advertising by the industry despite the presence of big agribusiness. Actually, most agribusiness is not that interested in organics until it becomes large enough for them to make a profit out of, in which case I expect them to move right into the sector.

Originally Posted by screener

So consumers would gain some certainty by becoming none the wiser.... I believe it could happen. I just don't think it's a good thing.

That is not what I said. I said that consumers are none the wiser now. Some rules would provide them with some certainty. For example, how much GM material is allowed in US (or Canadian) organic product now before it can't be sold as organic?

Originally Posted by screener

Which makes sense to me, why should they be penalized when it is the GM production that is the problem?

Indeed, but if they are not going to create a rule, how can they expect anyone to abide by it?

Originally Posted by screener

I suspect that there is another reason why GM growers aren't concerned about their impact on other farmers. I think it is easy to not look beyond the eternal hope of more cash returns as promised by Monsanto et al. Shortsightedness.

I doubt it. More likely it is easier to ignore a small rump industry that represents no more than 2% of production and which only wants to shout at you and tell you how bad you are instead of engaging in meaningful discussion.

[screener]

1. I think organic agriculture is struggling to make a comeback in time to help save the world. If their public relations are any good they'll be offering their product as an alternative that will allow people to be healthier than that provided in over processed sugar and salt and plastic.

2. excessive tillage is not part of an organic farming practise. How could it be, by definition organic strives to improve the earths potential for production.

3. I expect the agri-food conglomerates will try to move into organic and sustainable food production and not even know enough to do it properly. All the more reason to put the brakes on them now.

This is from the Canadian organic standards, I guess it is the rule that producers, consumers, and government have agreed should cover the contamination of organic produce by gm pollution.

"a. all materials and products produced from genetic engineering as these are not compatible with the principles of organic production (growing, preparing and selling) and therefore are not accepted under this standard"

It seems pretty straight forward, easy to understand, and possible within the factors controllable by the farmer. This is the point where the bioengineering companies can step up to the plate and say " Yes we are making billions selling our accursed products around the world, but to show our hearts are in the right place we will require farmers growing our gmied crops to leave border strips of non GM crops so that these people who are actually trying to do something good for the planet can have a chance." I don't even care if they snigger when they get to that last part. So long as they do it.

As to engaging in meaningful discussion perhaps it is just that the agrifood multinationals are so involved in grubing for shickels that it isn't possible to have a meaningful dialogue with them or their public relations people.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by screener

1. I think organic agriculture is struggling to make a comeback in time to help save the world. If their public relations are any good they'll be offering their product as an alternative that will allow people to be healthier than that provided in over processed sugar and salt and plastic.

I am not as convinced as you are that organic agriculture will help save the world. I also don’t think it is struggling too much, except just now.
Sticker Shock in the Organic Aisles - New York Times

Farmers are just not choosing the organic option all that quickly. While the area is growing impressively, organic agriculture still remains a miniscule percentage of all agriculture. This seems to be despite the large amount of advertising for organic agriculture that seems to be appearing in urban newspapers – except they call them articles and they are written by people like Michael Pollan.

Originally Posted by Screener

2. excessive tillage is not part of an organic farming practise. How could it be, by definition organic strives to improve the earths potential for production.

The normal ground prep practices for organic onions involve plowing to a depth of 16 to 18 inches, disking the field and then deep-ripping up to 30 inches. The soil is then land-planed. "Then, we're ready to spread some compost," Rizzo says, and the chicken manure compost is disked in, finish-chiseled and bedded up for planting on 40-inch onion beds. Precision seed planting is done from February to late March for the harvest of bulbs from July through late August.

Growing: Onion Pests

Tester uses a moldboard plow for weed control, also a chisel plow or disc. There are 4 to 5 tillage operations between plowing down a green manure and seeding the next crop. He seeds everything with a John Deere 9350 drill with 6-inch spacing.

AgHorizons - Organic Grain Farming

Organic mechanical weed control consists of 4 distinct phases, each one very important to the overall success of your weed control program. These phases are: 1. Tillage; 2. Planting; 3. Blind cultivation; 4. Row cultivation”

The basics of effective tillage techniques

Originally Posted by screener

This is from the Canadian organic standards, I guess it is the rule that producers, consumers, and government have agreed should cover the contamination of organic produce by gm pollution.
"a. all materials and products produced from genetic engineering as these are not compatible with the principles of organic production (growing, preparing and selling) and therefore are not accepted under this standard"

Full quote: “1.8.1. When producing or handling organic products sold or labelled as being products whose content is partially or wholly organic, it is forbidden to use any of the following substances or techniques:
a. all materials and products produced from genetic engineering as these are not compatible with the principles of organic production (growing, preparing and selling) and therefore are not accepted under this standard “

http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/on_the_n...310_2006-e.pdf

Merely says it is forbidden to use the technique, not that organic food has a nil (or any other tolerance) to AP.

Originally Posted by screener

As to engaging in meaningful discussion perhaps it is just that the agrifood multinationals are so involved in grubing for shickels that it isn't possible to have a meaningful dialogue with them or their public relations people.

I suggest the boot is firmly on the other foot, it the following are anything to go by. The organic industry hardly looks like it want dialogue when it gets up to these sorts of tactics.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/docume...l%20letter.doc

http://www.bfa.com.au/_files/2007081...%20Review1.pdf

Campaign Against Genetically Modified Wheat- Genetically engineered wheat GM wheat GE wheat monsanto GMO Monsanto biotech

GMO

[screener]

Hey cricket, do you ever wonder if we speak different but very similarily written languages? I just ask because I did not say, let alone evoke conviction that organic will help save the world. For the third time I said I think organic is struggling to make a comeback in time to help save the world. Let me put this another way, I hope Organic sustainable agriculture can help to save the world. I think that Organic is struggling in it's efforts at least in part because of the lobbying and PR of the companies who are making so much money from the status quo. And I think that the comeback I'm referring to is a move from basically unsustainable practices of the past.

Good article from the New York Times Sticker Shock in the Organic Aisles - New York Times

It should be remembered that prices for all foods have risen recently as the article states, more than organic in some cases. People will be having to make choices. I hope that part of the reasoning in those choices has a view to sustainability.

All of your excellent articles on tillage are valid discussions of various types of farming using tillage. None suggest that this is excessive. Given the condition of the soil and the care with which it is done, soil health may be improved rather than depleted. As well, in the earlier standards I linked, it states that one of the objectives of organic farming is to perform the minimum tillage required.

And thank you for your links to the various organic growers and consumers associations. I was unable to open the first one as my computer said it didn't look safe, if anyone else has that problem please let us know. The other three were great though and the "tactics" they're using that you suggest are counter dialogue, look pretty mild compared to the lobbying, and legal actions, and advertising of the GM industry.

I was very interested in the border requirements being suggested by DEFRA in Britain, and the organic soil associations comments that they seem inadequate. Thankyou

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by screener

I did not say, let alone evoke conviction that organic will help save the world

Originally Posted by screener

I said I think organic is struggling to make a comeback in time to help save the world

Yes screener sometimes I do think we speak different languages. If that last statement above does not imply that organic agriculture is not in some way necessary to save the world, I am very much confused. Let me put the opposite version. If organic agriculture is not necessary in any way to save the world, why is it a problem that organic agriculture is struggling to make a comeback in time?

As to the articles on tillage in organic agriculture, I posted these because the authors considered them best practice for organic farming. Of course they then would not say that there was excessive tillage. However, I content that 5 to 7 tillage operations to grow a single crop is excessive. Tillage damages soil structure leading to compaction, erosion and loss of organic carbon. Stubble retention with minimum to zero tillage practices are ideal for reversing these problems. I would be interested in your counter arguments that 5 to 7 tillage operations are OK.


Screener, below is the letter from the document you did not open. The point I am making is not that the statements by organic organisations are necessarily right or wrong per se (although I am happy to discuss my opinion of them if you like), but that taking the unbending attitude that other forms of farming should be banned outright is hardly conducive to getting those farmers to consider the concerns of a small rump group.

To farmers considering growing GM canola or crops, ………………(date)

On behalf of growers wishing to remain GM-free, I wish to notify you of our intention for our property and produce to remain GM-free and of the risk that the planting of any GM crops on your property poses to our properties. Accordingly, we are also notifying you that we will not accept the burden of any damage, or loss, which may be consequent on any decision by you to grow GM crops. Should you wish to grow GM canola or other GM crops, you must ensure none of your GM crop or residue escapes and contaminates our land holdings or otherwise causes damage or loss.

Governments have recommended common law as suitable for recovering any damage and economic loss associated with GM crops. Therefore we will be seeking legal recourse if GM crops result in any costs, damage or economic loss including, but not limited to:
• Testing costs or additional contractual requirements required due to market perception that your choice to grow GM crops will cause contamination of our crops and/or produce.
• Segregation costs over and above what is currently required.
• Loss of market access or market premium due to detection of GM in our produce or an inability to prove a GM-free status.
• Loss of certification if applicable.
• New control measures required to remove canola from grain sold including any grading at outturn.
• Any payments due or deducted as end-point royalty or user fees from GM companies for unintentional GM use.
• Any costs associated with destroying unauthorised GM crops on our property.
• Spray drift from post emergent glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium.
• All associated and consequent costs and all legal costs.

We emphasise that this list is not closed, and the nature of GM technology means that the scope of potential damage and downstream effects may be far-reaching and significant. We accordingly are putting you on notice so you are aware that these and other scenarios and losses are fully foreseeable and not remote from any action taken by you to plant GM seeds.

While it is our preferred option to ensure the company selling you GM seeds is liable for any economic, environmental or health losses, we regret to inform you that as a GM grower, you will be held jointly and severally liable for any loss we experience. We suggest that you ensure that your insurance covers you for any future claims made against you.

Please be advised that following crop management plans or coexistence principles will not provide sufficient mitigation or afford you an adequate legal defence as these plans are based on an assumption that non-GM growers will accept unrealistic impositions. Management impositions NOT accepted include, but are not limited to:
• A “tolerance level” of GM contamination which will not be accepted in either seed or produce for market as these limits are set on labelling requirements for GM if applicable, not for non-GM products. As GM canola oil escapes a label for GM in Australia, to give consumers the promised choice, a “GM-free” or “Non-GM” label will be required. Any grower whose produce bears a “GM-free” label can be in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 if any amount of GM is detected in the product, even if unintentional. Action has recently been taken successfully against a company for false and misleading labelling when 0.007% GM was detected in both “GM-free” and “Non-GM” labelled products.
• Providing 5 metre or larger buffer zones on non-GM properties where produce derived from these buffer zones are not to be marketed as “GM-free”.
• Responsibility for notification to the GM companies if unwanted GM plants are found on our property, following recommendations for volunteer control at our expense and allowing the GM companies access to assess if contamination was suitably controlled.
• Any fees applicable for growing GM crops if contamination is not controlled or a GM-free status is not proven unless the GM crop was deliberately planted.
• Sowing crops any differently to what is current best management practise (eg sowing crops off-season to avoid coinciding flowering times).
• Application of additional chemicals or tillage to control unwanted GM plants on our property.
• Routinely testing for GM.
• Cleaning out machinery more than is normally required.
• Compulsory quality assurance or identity preservation requirements.
• Loss of ability to save crop seed for replanting.
• To market produce co-mingled with GM produce if there is any sign of market rejection for GM.

As a precaution, we will be retaining seed samples pre seeding and post harvest and collecting any evidence of economic loss we have experienced.

Thank you.


….……………………………(signature) ……………………………(witness signature)

………..………………………… (name) ………..………………………(witness name)

…………………………………(address) ………..……………………(witness address)

…………………………………………… ………………………………………………….
Note: Please retain a copy of this letter.

[screener]

cricket tragic, try reading it one word at a time. there are times when our languages are quite similar.

Getting back to organic/sustainable style food production appears to be something that isn't just chic, but may be necessary for humans to get beyond peaking oil, climate change, and tough economic times. This from an article out of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Which link I have lost recently but if you are interested I'll have another look.

re tillage operations, there may be farmers that are still following the practise of up to 7 tills of their fields, I don't expect that would be each year, as rotations of green manure play a big part of organic production and in cases like that you can go three or four years without tillage. You suggest that zero and minimum till operations are "ideal" . What does that mean in the context of different soil structures, different crops, and different farming methods?

In the event that farmers striving for sustainability are tilling their land four or more times in any given year I expect that at each of those tills is working fibre of one sort or another into the soil. This worked in material helps to improve the quality of the soil. excessive tillage would by my definition be tillage that is degrading the soil, ie not sustainable, it would appear by it's nature to be counter-productive to the effort.

The "small rump" sector you keep referring to might take offense at the suggestion. I'm sure their rumps are pretty much of a size with conventional or gm type farmers.

Let's try an analogous situation to the organic. Say a small native fishery dedicated to the continued existance of wild salmon were suddenly confronted with an aquaculturist bringing in another species, that through an unhealthy mixture of resource depleting feedstocks, poor disease or pest control, and numbers of escaped fish that would threaten the wild salmon stock for which the native nation had built up a small and trusting market and the infrastructure to meet it. I think it would be completely valid for the organization of a movement to stop the aquacultural venture. Then if you were to throw in a GM splice that could potentially infect the local salmon run and I think it could be serious.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by screener

cricket tragic, try reading it one word at a time. there are times when our languages are quite similar.

Screener, I tried that and am still none the wiser as to what you specifically meant. Your previous explanation was not much help either. All I can think of is that you have run two unconnected thoughts together and that I have unwittingly connected them.

Originally Posted by screener

Getting back to organic/sustainable style food production appears to be something that isn't just chic, but may be necessary for humans to get beyond peaking oil, climate change, and tough economic times.

The problem with saying we need to go back to an older style of food production is that we now have nearly 7 billion people in the world. In 1900 when manures were the only nitrogen source we had 1.6 billion people. I am quite willing to believe that organic agriculture has come some way since 1900, but as grain production is essentially nitrogen limited, we need to find a way to solve that or lose 3 billion people. I am not quite willing to be one of the latter, so I am going to opt for the former. You need to remember that fossil fuels are just an energy source. If push comes to shove, ingenious people will come up with new energy sources. Going forward we are going to need tools from all sorts of systems. For me that includes ideas from organic agriculture as well as GM technologies.

Originally Posted by screener

re tillage operations, there may be farmers that are still following the practise of up to 7 tills of their fields, I don't expect that would be each year, as rotations of green manure play a big part of organic production and in cases like that you can go three or four years without tillage. You suggest that zero and minimum till operations are "ideal" . What does that mean in the context of different soil structures, different crops, and different farming methods?

In the event that farmers striving for sustainability are tilling their land four or more times in any given year I expect that at each of those tills is working fibre of one sort or another into the soil. This worked in material helps to improve the quality of the soil. excessive tillage would by my definition be tillage that is degrading the soil, ie not sustainable, it would appear by it's nature to be counter-productive to the effort.

If you read the descriptions you will note these are for a single harvested crop. The tillage operations typically occur over a period of 1 or 2 years depending on whether nitrogen came from a green manure or spread manure. Only one tillage operation worked in fibre of any sort. The rest were for weed control and to create a fine seedbed for sowing. No till is simply that. No tillage operations and as little disturbance as possible with the planting operation. Minimum tillage is a single tillage operation per crop either before or with planting. You can do them in any soil type you like and they help. You see faster improvement in soil quality with lighter soils.

[screener]

Cricket tragic, you said, "Stubble retention with minimum to zero tillage practices are ideal for reversing these problems. " I was wondering how ideal that is when in order to farm under that kind of regime you're either adding manure or chemical fertilizer, and the latter is unsustainable.

Then you said "You need to remember that fossil fuels are just an energy source." That's a little like saying the oceans are mostly water. Fossil fuels are the basis of "modern" farming and it wouldn't exist without the cheap oil and gas of thirty and fourty years ago. Since then reality is coming home to roost. IDEAL becomes a little different when more factors are considered. Whatever the energy source of the future it will be more expensive yet, unless society goes along with subsidizing ourselves again.

No til and even gm may have a place in the future of agriculture but society will have to recycle it's sewage into fertilizer cleanly, which is an idea whose time came twenty or thirty years ago.

Personally I think there is enough agricultural land around the globe that farmers are able to produce enough food using local sustainable resources, water, energy, and fertilizer. We just have to stop giving all our returns to the oil and agribusiness giants, and the banks.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by screener

Cricket tragic, you said, "Stubble retention with minimum to zero tillage practices are ideal for reversing these problems. " I was wondering how ideal that is when in order to farm under that kind of regime you're either adding manure or chemical fertilizer, and the latter is unsustainable.

Then you said "You need to remember that fossil fuels are just an energy source." That's a little like saying the oceans are mostly water. Fossil fuels are the basis of "modern" farming and it wouldn't exist without the cheap oil and gas of thirty and fourty years ago. Since then reality is coming home to roost. IDEAL becomes a little different when more factors are considered. Whatever the energy source of the future it will be more expensive yet, unless society goes along with subsidizing ourselves again.

No til and even gm may have a place in the future of agriculture but society will have to recycle it's sewage into fertilizer cleanly, which is an idea whose time came twenty or thirty years ago.

Personally I think there is enough agricultural land around the globe that farmers are able to produce enough food using local sustainable resources, water, energy, and fertilizer. We just have to stop giving all our returns to the oil and agribusiness giants, and the banks.

Who says chemical fertilizers are unsustainable? They are only so if you take the view that fossil fuels are the only way to make them. For nitrogen, there is plenty of N in the atmosphere, you only need an energy source to fix it. In principle you could use solar to fix N into fertilizer, although I suspect we might use some other energy source. Phosphorus is 0.12% of the earth’s crust. It is only a matter of extracting it. If it is cheaper, we can get it from the ocean although it is only 85 ppb there. Phosphorus doesn’t disappear, it goes back into the system. We just need to move it from waste to use. If fertilizers become expensive enough, some of these things will occur. Food will become more expensive of course and that will be a problem.

Frankly there is not sufficient arable land to feed the current World’s population with organic farming. You would need to at least double the land used for grain cropping to account for the need for non-crop rotations. You might make some of that back through pasture in the non-crop year, but not enough. You additionally have the problem of average yields in organic being lower, so even more land required. If you use the land for crop growth, you can’t use it for something else, like forests.

While I would dearly like not to have to give any money to banks or any one else, that won’t mean any more food is grown.