<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Volker
Brilliant discourse and who can fault your premise?
Edward
-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Piasta <
piasta@sirt.pisa.it>
To: maillist olive oil <
OliveOil@onelist.com>
Date: 15 August 1999 18:26
Subject: [OliveOil] Organic farming discussion
>From: "Volker Piasta" <
piasta@sirt.pisa.it>
>
>The discussion about the efficiency of organic farming is an interesting
>theme and it is not only a philosophical question, as Mike Wilsons seems to
>believe. I myself am an engineer and I think I have a rather rational
point
>of view on these things. Anyway I am convinced that too much chemistry in
>agriculture is not helpful for quality on the long run.
>Starting with chemical fertilisers, which always provide only a part of the
>elements that the crop needs, be it N, P, K or something else. It is no
>secret that plants assume these elements well only if the soil has a
certain
>composition and structure and this is determined a lot by its
>microbiological composition. Nitrogen gets washed off easily if the soil
>does not fix it and therefore you need organic substance. If you never add
>organic material and chemically kill the organic material that grows, on
the
>long run you will lower the fertility of the soil and also its
productivity.
>But what is more important, nature is not a simple mechanical construction,
>but a very complex system. For instance why should inorganic nitrogen
>fertilisers raise fungine disease of the leaves? But they do. And why
should
>natural hedges along your camps be good for the quality of the olives? They
>do, and there are logical (+ACI-scientific+ACI-) reasons for it. Pesticides
can help
>in an actual attack of parasites, but they leave residues on the fruit, in
>the plant and in the ground. Are we sure about their effect on our health?
>Several years ago north italian corn farmers used large quantities of
>antracine to protect their crop and nobody knew about its negative effects
>on our health. They polluted a huge part of the water and there were big
>problems. This stuff is now forbidden by law. Do you remember DDT? We all
>know its negative effects, but when it came out, people believed it would
be
>the solution for many problems.
>As to herbicides, it is true that glyphosate (roundup) is one of the less
>harmful herbicides. And it is also true that the grass around the olive
>trees consumes too much nitrogen, so it should be limited. So it may be
>comfortable to eliminate the grass with glyphosate, and here in Italy it is
>the only herbicide allowed in +ACI-integrated agriculture+ACI-, which is
something
>between organic and +ACI-industrial+ACI- agriculture. But the law allows a
maximum
>of 2 treatments in a year and only directly around the trees, not for large
>areas. Why? Because on the long run these synthetic composites may create
an
>alteration of the soil and might also create resistance in the herbs. By
the
>way, it is true that +ACI-everything is chemical+ACI-, but this does+AGA-t
mean
>anything. In fact, the question is not if it is +ACI-chemical+ACI- but if
it is
>synthetic and that means that it is a substance that does not exist in
>nature or does not exist in these concentrations and thus disturbs the
>natural balance. The plants, the animals and we ourselves have been adapted
>throughout the evolution of millions of year to certain substances and
>naturally we live(d) (and can survive) in a not very toxic environment. The
>lots of synthetic substances that we produce nowadays pollute this
>environment and cause diseases, sometimes direct intoxication, sometimes
>nearly invisible changes that make us more sensible to certain diseases
like
>cancer and so on. This is true also for the plants. So I think it is a good
>idea to reduce the use of synthetical substances in agriculture, where we
>produce things to eat and drink, as much as possible.
>I think there is a big difference between a country where millions starve
>and where the introduction of synthetical fertilizers and herbicides may
>save millions of lives, and countries where the problem is not to starve
but
>to live healthier and with a still better quality of life.
>If there is so much wealth that people are willing to spend for living
>better and healthier, it is a good idea to work for that.
>I really don't believe in mysticism and I don't see what it could be good
>for to fill a cowhorn with strange stuff and bury it at full moon in the
>middle of your camp. This has nothing to do with scientific organic
>agriculture, but with religion or religious-like believes which I can
>respect but I don't share.
>But I think it is not correct and not useful to put these things on one
side
>and put the industrial agriculture that does not care about +ACI-overall
health+ACI-
>on the other side and tell us to choose between these two. There is a third
>way, and that is the one that makes us aware of nature as it is and us
being
>part of it, willing or not, and that leads us to understand that nature is
>neither mystical nor a machine that we can manipulate as we want to. We
>understand too little to be sure about what we do. On the long run we have
>to go +ACI-with+ACI- nature and not against it because otherwise we will go
against
>ourselves. If this is philosophy, ok, then may be we need philosophy also
in
>agriculture.
>Volker
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Congratulations to Molly Jones
>This week's FRIENDS & FAMILY WINNER!
>To enter, go to
http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ***** Life is healthier with Olive Oil *****
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Others can subscribe to the OliveOil list by visiting:
>
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/OliveOil
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
</pre>
</td></tr></table>