next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
n style=3D"font-weight: bold;">From:&l --001a113ea5f0b0ebb0052af792fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable this supposed contrast between forest and arable land lacks logic. 1. woodland does get depleted as a lot of Ca is in organic form and we already said 27% lost per full harvest and Ca critically low in NS and losses exacerbated by acidification 2. farmland is fertilized, gets depleted, it is limed. Farmland gets leached, nutrients and soil goes into rivers. Witness Cornwallis River, the Mississippi and the dead zone Gulf of Mexico, or the nitrate in the well water in the UK. Let's quit here before we are dragged through another illogical gyre. Point made that we don't want to lose: We are concerned with state of nature and where forestry or agriculture threaten that, naturalists have a voice and will use it. Nick On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: > Hi All Again, > Strange fate indeed when some fret about depletion of Ca in woodland = , > where trees can absorb year round, but imagine annual arable crops, which > must absorb everything in few months, can be extracted forever without > replacement of nutrients. > The key in all things is moderation and common sense. And if manure i= s > available all the better. We used to farm 20-30 acres with manure, recycl= ed > from meadow hay, and 2-3 bags of fertilizer for special needs. So we were > mostly organic but not too pig-headed to buy fertilizer with added B when > the turnips failed to do well etc. The term organic farming was unknown, = at > least to us, manure was free and mineral fertilizer was not free so we us= ed > it sparingly; not because it was against our religion but because not usi= ng > it saved scarce money. > For years as a kid we had a very prolific "Organic" Rhubarb patch; > smothered each fall with about 8" of fresh horse manure held in place by > posts and boards over winter. By the following fall, after removal of the > boards in spring, the action of weather and hens had worn it out to groun= d > level. This provided hen feed, weed control and excellent Rhubarb. > Yt, DW > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* David Patriquin <davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca> > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 12:49 PM > *Subject:* Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO > crops and loss of weedy species -Chemical fertilizer > > =E2=80=9CChemical fertilizer is like heroin..." sounds familiar. > > In a text published in 1897, Issac Roberts provides many pieces of > caution about use of fertilizers and noted " ...the effect of fertilizers > was likened to the effect of alcohol on the confirmed toper; but to stop > meant collapse and to go on implied constantly increased use." > *The Fertility of the Land.* Roberts, I.P. The MacMillan Co. 1897. > > In the early 1900s, Albert Howard observed that the new "artificials" > caused increased disease in crops and livestock and began to define the > alternative approaches of organic agriculture. Interestingly, writers in > the 1940s expressed great optimism that the chemical era was about to > end but as we know today it was just getting geared up.... > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John and Nhung <nhungjohn@eastlink.ca> > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > *Sent:* Thursday, February 4, 2016 12:14 PM > *Subject:* RE: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO > crops and loss of weedy species > > I remember hearing a rice farmer in Northeast Thailand make a similar > comment about inorganic fertilizer. > > Literal translation: > > =E2=80=9CChemical fertilizer is like heroin. When you start, you cannot = stop and > have to use more and more.=E2=80=9D > > This is an area with horrendously lousy soil, including > super--horrendously low organic content. > > *From:* naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto: > naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] *On Behalf Of *David Patriquin > *Sent:* February 4, 2016 11:09 AM > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > *Subject:* Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO > crops and loss of weedy species > > The weeds close to the crop are only problematical if you dont start with > a clean seedbed and/or heavily fertilize the seedbed before planting the > crop, which favours the weeds. Start with a clean seedbed and postpone > fertilization, and ...OK > > it's a treadmill. You start using herbicides and then you breed crops tha= t > are not competitive with weeds.. so yes those crops are very difficult to > control mechanically although it can be done. Mechanical tillage can be > very sophisticated. As well, we separate crops and livestock so we dont > want straw, so shorter cereals are OK. Separated livestock and crops > results in massive aquatic pollution-- we pay for that indirectly. Real > cost accounting would not rate GMO crops more cost efficient today and > their costs have gone up as more resistance develops. > > We have created an industrial production system that is part of our socia= l > fabric... it's not easy to re-evaluate.. and pursue a new tack but we nee= d > to start looking at it. Those gigantic fields of GMO maize, soy and canno= la > may give us "cheaper food" but we are paying for it in many other ways. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca" <rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca> > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > *Sent:* Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:35 AM > *Subject:* Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO > crops and loss of weedy species > > The reason Herbicides are so much better from a farmers point of view > David is that herbicides kill the weeds close to the planted crop. > The weeds in the middle of the rows are not very harmful and are easy > to control by cultivation. > However the weeds close to the plants cause the reduction in yields. > They rob moisture, nutrients sunlight and harbour insects but there > is no way a farmer can remove them by cultivation. short of the old hand > hoe. > In addition they make harvesting more difficult by not allowing the crop > to dry out in the short days of fall. > Farmers tell me herbicides give the best return on investment of > all their inputs. But maybe we would like to pay more for food! > Enjoy the thaw > Paul > > > On February 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM David Patriquin <davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca> > wrote: > > > > Incororating resistance to Roundup & now a couple of other herbicides > (because weeds also becoming resi