<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>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
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<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>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>A few days ago Mr. Glynn Skerratt <R.G.Skerratt@staffs.ac.uk> was disserting
about olive mill effluents on treatment
options for both liquid waste and solid waste (from the traditional and 3 phase
systems).That is a serious problem for the miller.
Discussing about organic farming Mr Volker made very sharp observations about
organic and inorganic farming.
In the last three years I used mill's vegetable waters as fertilizer for my
olive trees. Did someone else test the same procedure ?
What is your opinion about it ?
Regards
Antonio
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>Volker
It is interesting to note your observations on the oil from urea fertilised
trees.
I myself am an advocate for sustainable farming practices and believe that
continued chemical use on our lands will have eventual consequences.
I quote from 'An Agricultural Testament' by Sir Albert Howard
'Nature has provided a marvelous piece of machinery for conferring
resistance on the crop.This machinery is only active in soil rich in
humus;it is inactive or absent in infertile land and in similar soils
manured with chemicals.The fuel needed to keep this machinery in motion is a
regular supply of freshly prepared humus,properly made.Fertile soils then
yield crops resistant to disease.Worn out soils, even when stimulated with
chemical fertilisers, result in produce which needs the assistance of
insecticides and fungicides to yield a crop at all'
Building a healthy soil, rich in organic matter, with balanced nutrients,
elements, and pH promotes strong vigorous plant growth, and assures the
availability of trace elements such as boron ,copper,iron,
magnesium,molybdenum, and zinc.Trace elements are vital to the growth of
healthy plants.If trace elements are deficient or unbalanced. cell structure
breaks down, inviting disease.
Although I am only a new grower of olives I am developing a fertilisation
programme based on available organic materials.My mix makes use of the
following materials;
sheep manure,dolomitic lime,reactive phosphate rock[ex Tunisia],dried
blood,ground feldspar rock[ex China] and elemental sulphur plus fish
emulsion which is sprayed onto the ground around the trees.My soils are also
deficient in Boron and this is applied to the foliage together with liquid
fish.The reasoning for the use of fish sprays is twofold.It serves to
stimulate soil microbial action plus it acts as a control for a number of
plant pathogens.As a result of this feed what you get is a soil with a high
earthworm population.Earthworms are an indicator that you have a heathly
soil.
Neville Burt.

-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Piasta <piasta@sirt.pisa.it>
To: maillist olive oil <OliveOil@onelist.com>
Date: Monday, August 16, 1999 5:26 AM
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>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>>In the last three years I used mill's vegetable waters as fertilizer for my
olive trees. Did someone else test the >same procedure ? What is your
opinion about it ?
>Regards
>Antonio

We have spread the water between the olive trees right in the middle between
the trunks on a limited bases. We have noticed some improvement in the
yield. Another farmer nearby uses the olive vegetable water to spray
around his pomegranate trees and he noticed also improvements in the size
and quantity of the fruits.

Does anyone have a complete breakdown of the chemical composition of this
vegetable water? Which elements are harmful to the underground water or the
sewer system, and why?

Sadoun
</pre>
</td></tr></table>

<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, [iso-8859-1] Antonio Giannò wrote:

> In the last three years I used mill's vegetable waters as fertilizer for my
olive trees. Did someone else test the same procedure ?
> What is your opinion about it ?

I've got some ethnographic and historical references to using the waste
water (lees or amurca) as fertilizer in the olive orchards. There is some
mention that it (like the solid wastes used as fertilizer as well) helps
prevent grass and herbaceous plants from growing.

Peter Warnock


> Regards
> Antonio
>
>
> [Attachments have been removed from this message]
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ***** 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>