organic hell


sorabji.com: The Stalking Post: organic hell
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 11:53 am:

    i heard an opinion piece on the radio this morning. i have no idea if the data is valid. i haven't checked.

    anyway. apparently it takes twice as many cows to make organic milk than industry standard milk.

    it takes considerably more land to grow the same amount of organic wheat than industry standard wheat.

    apparently this holds true for most all produce, grains, etc.

    so, organic farming really isn't all that great for the environment, either.

    interesting.


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 11:54 am:

    sorry. "data are valid"

    forgive me.


By Platypus on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 12:05 pm:

    but it is better for the animals, in the case of milk production.


By patrick on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 12:13 pm:

    is it better for the humans?




    so the environs are making a sacrifice for the animal rightists?


    PETA vs Greenpeace. cage match.


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 12:25 pm:

    it's probably better for the humans, on an individual level. the hormones in a cow go right into the milk. we shouldn't be drinking that shit.

    adults shouldn't be drinking milk anyway, though.

    twice as many cows means twice as much feed, twice (or more?) as much greenhouse gas production, twice as much manure.




By sarah on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 12:47 pm:

    organic milk is ultra pasturized, too. meaning, ultra processed.

    it does take more land to grow organic crops because they have less yield per acre.

    organic is still better than inorganic. the real problem, however, is the food industry standard of monoculture, and the "need" to transport large volumes of produce to climates where certain plant foods do not grow naturally.


    read The Botany of Desire, by Polon.




By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 01:05 pm:

    "organic is still better than inorganic"

    why?


By Antigone on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 01:59 pm:

    Drink soymilk.

    Anyway, regarding organic farming, consider two scenarios:

    Grow crops on plot A, 2 acres, use .25 gallon of pesticide.

    Grow crops on plot B, 1 acre, use 1 gallon pesticide.

    Which is better?


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 02:07 pm:

    depends on your concern.

    if you concern is undeveloped rural areas, B is better.


By Antigone on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 02:35 pm:

    So, you'd like pesticide runoff from densely treated farmland to pollute the undeveloped rural areas?


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 02:54 pm:

    scale your example to what is necessary to provide produce for the world and then tell me which one you think is better.


By Antigone on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 03:08 pm:


By Ophelia on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 03:21 pm:

    damn, thats pretty cool. it makes a lot of sense, rather than trying to create something from scratch, to use what nature has spent so much time to perfect as our model. Humans do tend to try to improve on systems without fully understanding how good natures systems are.


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 03:27 pm:

    odd that we agree.


By Spider on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 03:56 pm:

    Is it the end times already?

    Ah, just kidding.


By sarah on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 03:58 pm:


    because pesticides don't work anyway. why use harmful, carcinogenic, pollutant substances that don't work?

    failure of pesticides to control the desired pests due to biodegradation as well as pests' evolved increased resistence cost agriculture industries hundreds of millions of dollars per year. the estimated total pesticide purchase by farmers in the US increased from 184 million dollars in 1955 to 1 billion dollars in 1968. this increase in the sale of pesticides occurred in spite of the fact that harvested acres fell during this period from 335 million to 294 million acres. as the use of pesticides has increased over the succeeding years, the killing of insects has decreased by one half.

    but anyway, the real problem is monoculture, whether we're talking apples or cattle. more food is produced overall on less land with polyculture, just not mass quantities of a single food item.

    oh, and the author of The Botany of Desire is Pollan, not Polon. Michael Pollan. sorry 'bout that.



By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 04:34 pm:

    if pesitcides didn't work, why would anyone use them? capitalism doesn't work that way.

    i'm not in support of pesticides, anyway.


By Homer on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 04:47 pm:

    mmmmmmmmmm, pesticides


By Hawkeye Peirce on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 04:51 pm:

    Through early morning fog I see,
    Visions of the things to be,
    The pains that are withheld for me,
    I realize and I can see...
    That pesticide is painless.
    It brings on many changes.
    And I can take or leave it if I please
    I try to find a way to make,
    All our little joys relate,
    Without that ever-present hate,
    But now I know that it's too late, and...
    That pesticide is painless.
    It brings on many changes.
    And I can take or leave it if I please
    ...And you can do the same thing if you choose.


By Ophelia on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 05:37 pm:

    thats capitalism.

    i think the most important thing about the system is that we carefully educate ourselves to make the best choices. Its not just looking at the immediate price tag. Sorry for stating the obvious. For a long time i was missing it, so yeah, i'm just starting to appreciate the beauty of the system. clearly there are problems, but its overall effect is positive, and i'm feeling positive too.


By Antigone on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 07:55 pm:

    pesticides did work, for a while. But they become less effective as the environment adapts to them.

    Anyway, capitalism depends on an educated consumer to work properly. Capitalism doesn't work when the consumer has blind faith in capitalism. That's why you need to exercize as much skepticism on the capitalist system as you do on other subjects, Nateypoo. Otherwise, you're not being a good capitalist. After all, shouldn't the capitalist system itself be subject to pressure in the free market of ideas?


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 08:23 pm:

    no shit tiggy.

    the effect of capitalism i was talking about was minimizing costs and maximizing returns. as in, farmers wouldn't use pesticides if they didn't work. pesticides cost money.


By Antigone on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 08:43 pm:

    No shit, Natey. But farmers don't make the decision to use them completely based on reason. Maybe many of them are still using traditional methods because they don't know the alternatives. Maybe they don't know how to evaluate new methods or are too afraid to try something new. Cost is never the only factor and, as usual, you oversimplify.

    Maybe the old methods work "well enough" and they don't care to try something better. Maybe "well enough" gets worse every year, but it doesn't matter because the government steps in with economic aid to help pick up the slack, maintain the status quo.

    Maybe the majority of farms are controlled by large corporations which are slow to change, slower than the environmental adaptation. Maybe these corporations have deals with pesticide companies to use their products. Maybe the corporations which own the farms also own pesticide companies or develop pesticide products.

    Don't try to sell the simple "it's all supply and demand" argument here.


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 08:48 pm:

    anyone got a razor?

    it is simple, tiggy. in all your points.

    "Maybe many of them are still using traditional methods because they don't know the alternatives."

    if this was so, they'd get phased out.

    except,

    "but it doesn't matter because the government steps in with economic aid to help pick up the slack"

    the US government interferes with the free market. i have a huge problem with that. the farmer welfare state should be abolished. farms should sink or swim or find new methods.

    "Maybe the majority of farms are controlled by large corporations which are slow to change, slower than the environmental adaptation. Maybe these corporations have deals with pesticide companies to use their products. Maybe the corporations which own the farms also own pesticide companies or develop pesticide products."

    supply and demand, baby. if there was a better pesticide/policy then someone will use it and produce at less cost.




By Antigone on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 11:26 pm:

    "if this was so, they'd get phased out."

    They may get phased out, but usualy the "phasing" is done via being bought out by a bigger fish. Said bigger fish may do things more efficiently in other ways and still spray the heck out of the fields. In fact, their very cost savings in other areas could make it MORE feasable for them to be LESS efficient in their chemical use.

    As for your problems with the subversion of the free market, the problem is that many corporations and the government conspire to subvert the capitalist system. This is reality. You have to live in reality, Nate. Come down off that ideological mountain you live on in sunny California.


By Nate on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 11:35 pm:

    i thought we were talking about capitalism. i already made it clear i wasn't talking about US market reality.




By Joe on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 01:05 am:

    perhaps when we realize that we (the united states) are capable of feeding the entire world, and when everyone else realizes that eating = staying alive, maybe we can all figure out how to co-exist.


By Nate on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 01:30 am:

    where'd you get the idea that people somehow deserve to live?


By Joe on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 01:47 am:

    why don't they, nate?


By Nate on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 02:44 am:

    why do they?


By Moonit on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:38 am:

    some people dont


By Jesus Christ on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:24 am:

    Give a man fish, and he will eat for a day.
    Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for life.


By Jesus Christ on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:24 am:

    You don't Work, You Don't Eat.


By dave. on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:40 am:

    unless you have a trust fund.


By Dougie on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:42 am:

    Give a man fish, and he will eat for a day.
    Teach a man to fish, and he will sit around in a boat all day drinking beer and drowning bait.


By Nate on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:47 am:

    i think that dave. is fundementally pissed off about not having a trust fund.


By Jesus Christ on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:19 am:

    For even when I was with you, I gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
    I hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people I command to settle down and earn the bread they eat.


By patrick on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 12:14 pm:

    actually Joe, most of the world could feed itself if their individual governments wanted too. Too often to appease American demand they give up a staple crop that could feed their country to a cash crop, such as coffee.

    I read a National Geographic bit about 6 months about this subject and particularly India. i wish i could recall specifics but ive smoked a pound of pot since then and just don't recall.

    Bottom line, too often cash crops are grown instead of staples while natives starve.



    i wish tiggy and nate would just tongue kiss already, you know they want it.


By spunky on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 12:20 pm:

    Your just jealous


By semillama on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 03:12 pm:

    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
    Give him a GUN and others will give him fish
    for therest of his life.
    -"Bob"


By dave. on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 03:55 pm:

    i fucking well deserve a trust fund, dammit. or at least a sponsor. screw this personal responsibility crap and give me a dollar.


By spunky on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 04:38 pm:

    Hey, Dave and Sem seem to have a couple of good ideas.


By sarah on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 05:34 pm:

    keeping a high balance in your checking account is kinda like having a trust fund. you wouldn't believe how much stuff people will give you, or how far they'll take it up the ass if you want something.



    i won $5 in the state lottery about a month ago. i redeemed it today and bought five more picks. the jackpot is 36 million. if i win, dave., i'll give you a dollar.




By dave. on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 11:39 pm:

    well, dang. good luck. now if the rest of the planet will follow suit, i'll have about fifty bucks in a few years.


By agatha on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 11:06 pm:

    this doesn't have anything to do with anything, but i just wanted you all to know that Cleo and I both puked our guts out all night and day long. I'm miserable.


By spunky on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 10:27 am:

    Are you feeling better today, Agatha?


By sarah on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 05:55 pm:

    how awful. get better soon. lots of fluids and stuff.

    dave., i didn't win the lottery. sorry.




By agatha on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 08:44 am:

    feeling lots better today, thanks. i'm even eating a bowl of cereal and going to work. progress!


By Joe on Tuesday, September 3, 2002 - 01:56 am:

    hey, patrick, i hear you. why can't we just concentrate on feeding ourselves and make a better world?


By patrick on Tuesday, September 3, 2002 - 11:27 am:

    because we're pigs.

    a friend of mine, actually a previous manager at another job, who happened to be Iranian once said to me (during an impassioned anti-Bob Dole rant of his in 96) "humans are the dirtiest of animals, filthy filthy pigs we are."


By Joe on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 01:26 am:

    yeah, you're right. i see it every day here in northern virginia just outside of d.c. people think that they are so fucking important. perhaps they'll think about world hunger after they earn enough to ensure their retirement. eh? oops,..sorry,...that's when they will stop working.


By sarah on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 03:14 pm:


By Spider on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 03:46 pm:

    Cheese is a necessary foodstuff. It's a fact. I'd rather give up sugar than give up cheese, easily.


By Spider on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 03:50 pm:

    That article is deeply unsettling.

    (And so is the picture that accompanies it. It took me a few seconds to realize it was not a picture of a humpback whale arcing out of the water, about to crush the poor man using his plate as a shield.)


By droopy on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 12:23 am:

    i'm a i-very-little-money-tarian. it actually works out well for me, especially when you live in an area with lots of latino markets.


By RC on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 07:47 am:

    {{Hey Sarah!}} Long time... :)

    What food costs it not the same as the cost of food. Eating industrialized food with no nutritional value is the reason this country is a nation full of fat, diseased people. I've been studying food & nutrition informally for more than a decade. And the 1st step was having to make a complete paradigm shift becuz nearly EVERYTHING we've been taught to believe abt nutrition, diet & health is totally ass-backwards & wrong.

    That's becuz the commmerical food industry - & the lawmakers that support it - is more concerned with reaping huge profits rather than providing healthful food for the public.

    You remember reading abt The French Paradox back in the 90s? How the French cd eat a diet with so much butter & cream & delicacies like foie gras yet they aren't fat? Turns out the paradox really wasn't so paradoxical. GIGO: Garbage In = Garbage Out. The right fats are good for you -- butter being one of those right fats. (But it has to be the right kind of butter.) The fact that most of the French don't own cars & walk daily or take the train also makes a difference. As does a guaranteed 8-week vacation every year. The American Way of living is harmful in terms of stress levels. But we're certainly not as stressed now as we were during The Depression or WWII. I firmly believe we cd cope with stress much better in this nation if we had a better diet.

    A country like France, where food is the national religion, that prides itself on it's culinary traditions & regional specialties, is going to produce wonderful, healthy things to eat. The EU chose to ban genetically modified foods. (Did we? Of course not!) A country where the butcher, the baker, the cheesemaker all have union jobs that guarantee them good wages & benefits is a country that takes the business of feeding its people seriously. Food-service work isn't treated like bottom-of-the-barrel employment in France.

    The French gov't maintains strict controls over the food there. Laguiole cheese, for example, has a PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) label. Which means that only cheese made in Aubrac dairies using milk from Aubrac cows that have grazed in specific mountain regions may legally be called “Laguiole.” If one of those Aubrac cows wanders across the road to a field outside of the protected region, by law, her milk cannot be used to make Laguiole cheese for an entire year.

    Can you see the American gov't doing something like that over cheese?

    Here, we're lucky if the last package of ground beef we bought doesn't end up being recalled! One reason for all those meat recalls is that literally up until yesterday, it was perfectly legal to slaughter 'downer caws' & put them into the human food supply.
    http://tinyurl.com/6yzzol

    But eating right means changing the way you think abt food. Becuz virtually EVERYTHING we've been taught abt how we shd eat, from the USDA Food Pyramid to the 'safety' of pastaurized milk, is a lie. http://realmilk.com/why.html
    http://www.westonaprice.org
    http://www.coconutoil.com/

    Beef (& the fat that comes with it) really IS one of the healthiest foods you an eat -- providing the cows were raised right & allowed to eat what nature intended them to eat (wild grass & forage, not corn & soy meals). Sure, it takes more land to raise cows in open pastures. But cows raised the natural way produce less methane gas & fecal matter. Shit from a cow that spends all day in the pasture is going to hit the ground & become fertilizer very quickly. Shit from feedlot cows hits the cement floor & stays there, for the cows to walk thru, almost indefinitely.

    Less land wd be used to grow corn & soy to feed cattle if more cattle were being raised the way cattle shd be raised. Which wd mean fewer pesticides & fertilizers being put into the ecosystem.

    The nutritiional value of grassfed beef (& milk from grassfed cows), pork & lamb is far superior to that of commercially-raised meats. And bison/buffalo is even healtheir than beef!
    http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm

    Even pigs & chickens can be raised outdoors without being given commercial feed.
    http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/id78.htm

    So you can get a fast food burger or chicken sandwich for a buck or two. Which sounds like a bargain, until you look how that cow or chicken was raised. And you find out that not only does that sandwich have almost no nutritional value, it's actually [i]damaging[/i] to yr health. The bread on that sandwich was made from GM wheat, genetically altered to withstand the Round-up pesticide that wheat will be doused with as it grows. The meat in that sandwich was pumped full of growth hormones & fed antibiotics becuz the unnatrual diet it was forced to eat made it sick. (Actually, it's illegal to treat chicken with hormones. But growth hormone can be legally used in cattle, sheep & pigs. Antibiotics can be fed to all types of livestock -- even to farmed fish.)

    So it's not just a question of 'organic' once you get past fruits & veggies. What the meat & fish & poultry you eat was eating before it go to you & the conditions yr food was raised under make all the difference how healthful a meal you'll be getting.

    So is a buck for a sandwich really a bargain in the long run? What I pay for groceries is prolly what most folks spend on their car note every month. But I eat better than people who make 10x as much money a I do. I'm 47, not on any Rx meds & not feeling old yet. 95% of what I eat is food I cook myself, so I know exactly what's in it. And I know that eating right, more than any other factor, will keep a person healthy for a long time.


    - RC



By semillama on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 01:00 pm:

    Holy Crap, it's RC!!!! Welcome back!

    Back to the topic, has anyone read The Omnivore's Dilemma? It hits on a lot of the points RC raised, and has a great section on a family farm in Vermont that has a philosophy of raising animals in a system that results in a healthy farm, healthy animals, and healthy food. Check it out.


By sarah on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 02:58 pm:


    hey RC! righteous of you to show up for this thread. and i completely agree.


    the topic of food production is currently near the top of my OH MY GOD THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US list.


    i've not read Omnivore's Dilemma, but i've got on hold at the library his newest book "In defense of food : an eater's manifesto".


    though it sounds as if it's going to be a lot like his other books and periodical publications.



By platypus on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 05:22 pm:

    I liked Omnivore's much better than his latest, although I could have done without the chapter in which he waxes poetic on the beauty of hunting his own boar. But I thought Omnivore's was a lot more interesting and much less condescending and snobby than his later work, personally.

    (HI RC!!!)


By J on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 03:43 am:

    Did I ever mention I quit eating pork rinds?
    The hormones they put in meat can't be a good thing,I see 8 or 9 year old girls with breasts and I was wearing a training bra at 13 and I
    really didn't need the bra,I had nothing,then.
    RC,where have you been? Glad to see you:)


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact