On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
> at Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:21:49 GMT in
> >,
> (Lena B Katz) wrote :
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
>>> (Lena B Katz) wrote :
>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
>>>>> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, (Neil) wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>>>>>> farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to
>>>>>>> developers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... Farmers
>>>>>> are successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public
>>>>>> desires. Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.
>>>>>
>>>>> It must be said that in fact organic production contributes a great
>>>>> deal to that end....
>>>>
>>>> there are other alternatives. like farming _intelligently_. ...
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "farming intelligently"? That's a pretty broad
>>> term and you haven't taken any time to describe what you mean.
>>
>> Using all the tools at your disposal....
>>
>> in other words, the kind of farming that journal authors do. (at least
>> the ones that don't make homemade pesticides...)
>
> The methodologies you propose are certainly commendable, but while they can
> help the environment, they generally don't provide a viable alternative for
> the small farmer because without the ability to label the product as
> "organic", the farmer can't get much, if any, of a price premium. So he
> ends up being stuck in the low-margin, cutthroat world of conventional
> farming, and loses out to the big boys against whom he can't compete in
> terms of price.
you mean we're supposed to cry about it?
I've known good farmers, and they used homemade pesticides, and had
visitors from Washington D.C. That's what you get for increasing
biodiversity (they sold antique apples).
>>>> Meanwhile they also have an organic version of the same product
>>> available for only a trivial amount more, so no matter what your
>>> concern is - whether quality or environmental sensitivity, there is a
>>> better choice.
>>
>> quality is better when you use all the tools at your disposal. You
>> wouldn't say that someone has a quality kitchen without having any
>> silverware, would you?
>
> I believe there is a balance in terms of tool use. Quality only improves
> with increased use of more and more specialised tools up to a point. Thus,
> a kitchen with no silverware I would think a little unusual (although I
> could imagine possible in certain Asian countries, where chopsticks are the
> norm),
chopsticks are silverware. perhaps in some areas where soups are not a
normal part of business, there might be no silverware (think using pita).
> but a kitchen without a microwave I think is a mark of *increased*
> quality over one with a microwave.
that's just dunderheaded. a microwave is good at one thing: heating
water. Ever had one of those days when you had too few burners? Using
the microwave is a good idea, then.
> There are also gadgets of questionable
> value and which call into doubt the intelligence of the cook. I'd wonder
> about a kitchen equipped with a special-purpose herb chopper, especially if
> it had a wide assortment of quality knives as well.
it depends on how much you use it.
> Same thing applies to agriculture. Some modern practices are undoubtedly
> beneficial. Others are of dubious use and/or designed for a very narrow
> use. These may actually diminish quality rather than improving it.
when used narrowly, they will increase quality.
>> regardless, "environmental sensitivity" says that going organic is a
>> stupid idea, because you end up using more of the earth's soil for
>> making the same amount of product.
>
> Not necessarily. Very high-intensity agriculture depletes local soil
> quickly, so in the long run it ends up being more environmentally damaging.
> Furthermore, toxins introduced into the water table and into soils can
> linger for years. And high-intensity agriculture can also lead to
> diminished yields in the long run.
depleting local soil means more room for appletrees! yay! go apples!
> When it comes to land conservation, however, if organic agriculture can
> forestall suburbanisation, I believe that represents a more intelligent use
> of the land. Suburban sprawl is surely the *least* environmentally
> sensitive, most wasteful use of valuable land - inasmuch as it ends up
> paving or building over large tracts of fertile land, that might be more
> wisely used for farming. Futhermore, suburban sprawl tends to sap the
> vitality of urban cores, diminishing as much the urban experience as the
> rural one. Meanwhile by contrast a dense-packed urban center well-confined
> by acres of profitable, productive agricultural hinterland supplies the
> best of all worlds - the city is alive and vibrant because there are enough
> people packed tightly enough to *force* people to interact, fresh, local
> food is readily available because the farms can cluster close to the
> population centres (which further increases profitability to the farmers
> because an urban populace typically will pay more for the same products
> than a rural one, not to mention because of decreased shipping costs), and
> wilderness can be preserved as well because farms aren't pushed out ever-
> further into what had been wild country.
i agree on this in principle. i just think that organic farming isn't the
answer.... more intelligent farming is.
lena
who doesn't see big farms as evil farms