Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
in general
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Land Management
Author 
 Message
cab



Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Ebyss wrote:

With all due respect Cab, I think he's talking in a philosophical sense here. In the same way there's no such thing as weeds in nature, there are no such thing as pests when everything is in balance. He saying pests are only pests when viewed from a human, agricultural perspective, and that nature makes no such distinctions. This is made clear in his books, and the article you refer back to simply paraphrases a very small part of "The Natural Way of Farming" and out of context it doesn't quite have the same meaning. He's not saying that plant diseases don't exist, just that don't exist from nature's point of view. Each living organism has a job to do : survive. Where that becomes a problem for us (and thus a pest) is when it competes directly for something we need or want.


With respect to you, I have no respect for HIM in any way if that's what he really means.

Many pathogens only exist because they infect other organisms. Wheat eye spot, for example, only lives on wheat. Potato blight only affects certain solanaceae and very, very few other plants. Eachliving organism does not have a 'job' to do; they exist and reproduce or they don't, there is no 'job' as defined by any outside force. Or, to put it another way, natural is not a moral construct.

Look at wild plants. Really look at them, like you're inspecting them to eat. You find pathogens, insect pests, commensal organisms, and parasites; these factors play a MAJOR role in the population dynamics of many plants. For example, this year I've seen that the water mint locally is late, but that it's growing profusely. I know, I can say with cast iron certainty because I've seen it before, that a fungal pathogen, possibly a rust, will have a field day in autumn, and that the early spring population of water mint next year will be smaller than it was this year.

Look closely at leaves of trees of Acer species in mid to late summer. Look closely. They're COVERED in splotches on some trees; that's a common viral pathogen. And then go looking for the poor, lose elms of the English countryside.

Pathogens exist in natural and artificial environments; we define them as pests if they cause us a problem. It just so happens that you can get a great yield of crops using organic means if you're careful about it, but to assert that there are no pests makes no sense from any perspective at all.


Quote:

Ok, I think the problem here is that you resent in some way his claim that his way is different to organic agriculture.


Not really. I resent the way that the claim that his farming is low input is patently untrue; I use a lower concentration of fertiliser than that in my garden and I get great yields, but I don't make a song and dance about it.

Quote:

I think a few things need to be kept in mind. (A)This guy is in his late 80's - 90's. When he wrote these books he was younger, there was no real "organic" movement to speak of in Japan. The entire country practised "modern" chemical agriculture. "Organic" just didn't exist over there. He completely changed the way he farmed rice to show that all that work was completely unnecessary.


Kind of true, in that food rice was produced in rather intensive farms with almost no exception; remember, though, that rice for koji fermentations was, legally, required to be grown by more traditional methods for certain products. So that's only kind of true.

Quote:
(B) He is talking largely about rice farming in his books, as that's what he knows. The books were orginally written for japanese farmers, then translated for those who are interested abroad. The difference between his methods and normal methods of rice farming are vastly different.


In Japanede food production, yes. Although go over into China and you'll find that even through Maos 'great leap forward' many people clung to methods not so VERY dissimilar to this.

Quote:
(C) Saying "Well, lots of people have been doing that for years so it's nothing special" is kind of irrelevent. It's like saying that lots of people have been Smallholding for years, so John Seymour is nothing special. After all people were doing it way before he did. Add to that the fact that his books were also written years ago, when they may have been more relevant (or not, as the case may be).


Seymour didn't, to the best of my knowledge, make any completely unsubstantiated claims about what he was doing being 'low input' or even radically novel.

Quote:
I disagree about the amount of manure with you, simply because conventional agriculture piles on the chemical fertilizer when there's little or no need. I'm not comparing this to organic farming, I'm comparing it to conventional farming, where the inputs are far greater.


Do the maths.

900lb of chicken manure per quarter acre (upper end of what he suggests, but I'm ignoring his second application for ease) would be 3600lb per acre, or 1633kg (or near as damn it). There's about two and a half acres in a hectare, so that's what, near as hell 4000kg (4t) chicken manure per hectare.

The upper end estimate for fertiliser application in normal farming in Japan is around 300kg ha. That figure from:

https://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn33/pn33p9b.htm

His total fertiliser input per unit area is more than 13times greater in mass.

I don't have a dry mass composition for chicken manure handy; it's packed full of nitrogen, though, in the form of uric acid (the white stuff in bird droppings) and other nitrogenous compounds, I should think.

By any standards, this is shedloads. And if my memoryof Japanes agricultural methods is correct, he's adding this TWICE per year, once for rice and once for barley.

That's an obscene input. By any standards it's massive.

Quote:

Ah. I'm not saying he shouldn't be able to back up his work with numbers. I'm saying he does just that. The numbers are there for everyone to see in his book. He provides the numbers, as he should. I'm saying he doesn't have to shout it round the world with a megaphone just because some people don't believe him without actually having looked at the numbers themselves. The numbers are there, he has willingly printed them in his books. Why he should have to print them anywhere else is beyond me.


I read up on this, gosh, must have been 1993 or 1994. The sums made this look silly then like they make it look silly now. I'm glad you mentioned it, because I'd completely forgotten about it.

Quote:

I don't see how working 3-4 hours a day can be called "labour intensive farming".


Someone has to collect all that chicken waste and apply it. It's labour intensive, allbeit that you're paying someone else to do the labour.

Quote:

Especially when the yields equal or exceed the highest yields in the country.


Hardly surprising when the inputs are far in excess of those of other farmers in his country.

Quote:
There are other differences between this and typical organic farming, in that this is strictly "no till", where tilling is perfectly acceptable in organic farming. It's very similar, but not exactly the same. It's not "against" organic farming, it's just different. I agree, labour, land and money are problems facing this method and organic farming. However it is very cost effective. You essentially pay with your labour (and ducks) and that's it. No tractors, no spraying, no chemical fertilizers. Very similar to organic farming. I think it would be great if more people could embrace these kinds of farming.


It's classic no-dig agriculture; it's an application of a thick organic mulch to suppress weeds, and then planting in that. It's how you prepare a fertile bed if you're in a hurry, but you don't do it every year because you can't be doing with carting that much s**t every year.

Quote:

No, again, he hasn't tried to "take anybody" in.


He has asserted that this is low input. His own figures show that it is demonstrably not. If he isn't trying to take anybody in, what is the purpose of the statement?

Quote:
His claims that this is something very different apply directly to his situation when he wrote the books in Japan. He has never tried to make it anything more than it is. What he does is truly different that anything else in Japan. If foreigners want to apply his method to other grains, then great (and some have tried, and succeeded), but they'll have to follow the guidelines for the rice and barley, and try to apply it to these new grains. It may not be anything "very special" now, but when he published his work, it was completely against the grain, completely different, even revolutionary, at the time he did it. Kind of like organic farming. Nothing special at all. My grandad has been gardening like that for his entire life, as he didn't like chemical pesticides or herbicides. Along comes the organic movement and calls it something "new and special". Well, it was to the huge establishment that is modern agriculture, and we still see alot of resistance to organic farming, despite the fact that it is one of the only sectors making money.


If you like, I'll tell you why I haven't been taken in by the hype around organic farming either.

Quote:
Fukuoka isn't trying to take you in, or claim that his way is magic... it's just a different way of rice farming. One that works with nature instead of against it.


Natural is not a moral construct; and more to the point, there's nothing natural about putting an almost inconceivable volume of dry chicken manure on the ground twice a year.

Quote:
When he wrote One Straw Revolution, organic farming hadn't even been heard of in Japan. I only read the book this year, and when asked for information about the method, I gave it. I never claimed it was anything special either, just that I was going to give it a go because it was something I wanted to try. So though it might sound "new", it's not, its' been around for more than 30 years... it's just I've only found out about it now.


Read further about it, but apply some critical logic to the claims therein. In my opinion, for the reasons I've given, they don't hold water.[/i]

wellington womble



Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 15051
Location: East Midlands
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Honestly - I lose the net for a few days, and you lot go and write 5 pages of debate for me to read through! It's very informative, and I can't add anything specific, but there is a general observation I'd like to make. I think we're missing the fundamental point here which is balance.

Farming has evolved to use animals for all the reasons people have mentioned - power, fertisliser, milk, eggs etc and not just meat, but animals produce more animals, and to prevent them overunning the farm, we eat them. I don't have a moral problem with that, but that isn't what happens anymore, and we have got into some very bad eating habits, which are highly detrimental to animal welfare, and now farming doesn't represent any kind of holistic balanced system.

This doesn't mean (in my opinion) that we should go totally veggie, which would be just as unbalanced in the other direction, and although not wrong in any way, is problematical, but that we should look at the balance of our farming and our eating. I agree with some of Milo's points, in that meat farming can be wasteful, ineffcient and cruel, but it doesn't have to be, and I don't think the solution is vegetarianism or veganism (although I have not problem with either of these diets if people choose them)

Lastly, obviously everyone is very passionate about their views here, which is highly admirable, but its not a competition to produce the most facts, and noone is going to 'win' Debate is good, and can provide solutions, but they're not going to be perfect and there is never going to be a point where everyone agrees. There's no reason why debate shouldn't raise questions that hadn't previously been thought of or that can't be answered - so could we keep a little bit more friendly?

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Well said WW, a lot of good points there

Milo



Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Mr Womble, you're a sensible person!

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

She's not a Mr

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Milo wrote:
Mr Womble, you're a sensible person!


Does that mean you agree with her points on consumption of animals and mixed agriculture?

Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I'm mightily tempted to quote Orson Scott Card,

"The only way to learn is by changing your mind."

but I won't

Undoubtedly I have a tendency to portray issues in black and white. And why?

Well, grey is so dull, isn't it. Grey is the colour of fog. Fog is not renowned for perspicacity.

Movement is difficult in a fog. Fog is not a good starting place.

But have I never heard of the ancient art of (unarmed) compromise? Well, of course I have.

But, (big but),

* Unless you kill the animal showing no compassion

* and are needlessly cruel,

* why must killing it be a sign of lack of compassion?

I see very clearly that there are some gaps across which I might stride with only the very greatest difficulty - or not at all. And this is one of them. Personally (quite obviously) this (* above) to me does not make the slightest bit of sense.

How does this compassionate killing work? Will you forgive a little sarcasm?

Do you approach the creature and say (to yourself?),

"OK, fluffy bunny, (deary deer, lolloping lambkin or perhaps some other such silly emotive terminology which we might tend to use from time to time),

you're fit,

you're well,

you're enjoying a reasonably good life on or around my (cuddly) smallholding

and it's a beautiful sunny day,

your impact on my life(style) has been minimal,

but now is the time for me to kill you (compassionately)?

I might shoot you outright and you'll never know anything about it, I might herd you into a lorry or trailer and drive you to a place where someone else will kill you, but whether or not you become scared at any time during this process, I have decided, contrary to what I understand to be your wish, that I will kill you.

You might well have otherwise continued to live a good life for x number of years, but, because it suits me, you are going to die very soon.

And very compassionately.

Back to

* unless you kill the animal showing no compassion

* and are needlessly cruel,

I’ve seen no indication that there are any stupid people using this forum, (and don’t even think of pointing a finger at me, because, whatever else I might be, I’m clearly not stupid), so I’m slowly approaching a point where I might conclude that some folks here do quite clearly understand what I’m getting at, but because what I’m getting at is really most astonishing simple but doesn’t suit their current way of thinking, they have chosen to impose a layer, or at least patches, of non-blackandwhiteness over the proceedings.

Hey, let’s just pop back to that fluffy bunny, or was it a dairy cow, a boar just back from truffle-hunting in the woods, a deer which has been nibbling the tops out of those trees you planted only last year......,

When you kill it are you being kind to it?

Clearly, surely, you’re not.

If you’re not being kind to it, this creature the death of which is not essential, are you being cruel?

Is there such a thing as compassionate cruelty?

Clearly, surely, there is not.

joanne



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 7100
Location: Morecambe, Lancashire
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Milo,

You are missing our point as well - the thing is at some point nature and farming collide - its all very well to say that Mr Fluffy Bunny may have lived a good few more years but if I'm going to starve because Mr Fluffy Bunny has eaten all my crops - Mr Fluffy Bunny gets the chop

BUT Mr Bunny has had very little stress in his prematurely ended life and had the chance to bounce around the fields - I'm not saying its the compassionate choice but its a choice and I've made it - Mr Bunny could have equally been mown down by a car or eaten by Naughty Mr Fox.

The same goes for Constance the Cow and Percy Pig - I've provided them with shelter, food and care until they reached the ideal weight and then I choose to have them dispatched so I can eat the meat
- I've cared for Constance and Percy from calf and piglet hood - They have had the most natural life they could have - no factory farming for them. Happy non-stressed animals better tasting meat - simple.

Please don't think I think you should suddenly start eating meat - You are entitled to make your own choices about that - just allow me to make mine. We don't eat loads of meat, although due to the practice of not wasting anything there is probably some sort of meat related product in the major of meal - whether thats a few snippets of bacon in a salad or a soup made with chicken stock.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

jocorless wrote:
Naughty Mr Fox


Surely that should be Mr Poxy Foxy?

Milo



Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Jocorless,

* You are missing our point as well - the thing is at some point nature and farming collide...........

Doh, I'm not missing it. I'd have to be awfully stoopid to miss it.

* BUT Mr Bunny has had very little stress in his prematurely ended life and had the chance to bounce around the fields - I'm not saying its the compassionate choice, etc.

Bingo, and indeed, Eureka!

* The same goes for Constance the Cow and Percy Pig - I've provided them with shelter, food and care until they reached the ideal weight and then I choose to have them dispatched

Dispatched?

* so I can eat the meat

Unnecessarily.

* I've cared for Constance and Percy from calf and piglet hood - They have had the most natural life they could have

Within a farm setting

* no factory farming for them. Happy non-stressed animals better tasting meat - simple.

* Please don't think I think you should suddenly start eating meat - You are entitled to make your own choices about that - just allow me to make mine.

You won't find anywhere where I've said, Thou shalt not......

Regards,

Rascally Reynard


Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Milo, how do you live? Do you not use any animal products what so ever and not use anything that has or could harm animals? This does include many ceareal and vegetable crops due to pesticide use etc. Most people seem to be putting a reasonable argument across but i don't seem to know what your real point of view is and how you do it. It's very well saying "tomorrow everyone will not harm animals" but that's just not possible unless people are not around.

wellington womble



Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 15051
Location: East Midlands
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Milo wrote:
Mr Womble, you're a sensible person!


You'll make me blush!

I understand that your passion for not killing animals is high, and I admire you for living by those principles. I also understand that many people think that killing animals to eat, in a society where it isn't necessary for survival is morally wrong. I don't, but I'm always interested in other peoples points of view. What is it it that you object so strongly to?

Please understand that I don't think its 'wrong', or seek to convert you to my way of thinking, but I am interested in your views, and I think a lot of people have perhaps missed your points, as I have. You have used a lot of examples, but perhaps you could explain your basic principles more clearly? It doesn't matter if there not perfect or practical, or even flawed - nobody (or system!) is perfect and if there were no grey (even if you see it as black and white, a lot of people would see this as a very fuzzy!) we wouldn't be having an interesting and lively debate about it!

I disagree about the grey too - that's the interesting bit!

Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Ah-ha, the (old) hypocrisy angle?

Or perhaps you've inferred that I must be absolutely perfect?

* Do you not use any animal products what so ever and not use anything that has or could harm animals? This does include many ceareal and vegetable crops due to pesticide use etc.

Oh, damn. Time to beat myself up. Again!

I am a proper veggie, (5th generation) who also eats no eggs, very little cheese, no cow's (or should that be calf's) milk, unless someone's snuck it into summat we've bought in the form of a prepared meal.

And, of course, if the vegan police came around they'd catch me out almost certainly but, as you've probably gathered, I'm not really gonna beat myself up.

Sooner or later someone will mention, "leather shoes".

Well, I've a very old pair of leather boots, some non-leather open sandals which I wear all year round, smart veggie shoes for work, and two pairs of non-leather walking / climbing boots.

* Most people seem to be putting a reasonable argument across but i don't seem to know what your real point of view is

Well, it could be that I simply enjoy a good natter..........

* and how you do it.

Errrr, easily! Do what? Provoke / promote discussion?

* It's very well saying "tomorrow everyone will not harm animals"

I haven't, of course.

* but that's just not possible unless people are not around.

Well, I'm enjoying the natter so much I'm a little reluctant to mention this, but although I do realise that the practical interpretations will undoubtedly vary, should we go for,

"Let's try very hard and consistently to cause a real attainable minimum of harm to animals and to everyone and everything that's good and natural in our shared global environment"?

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Anonymous wrote:
Sooner or later someone will mention, "leather shoes".


Not quite. But to take that example, are shoes made from oil by-product then? Are clothes made from cotton? To be honest both of those are probably worse for animals than using leather.

Call me stupid but I cannot easily see how everyone can be vegetarian and not harm animals buy our existance. I'm interested to know how you think this can be done and that's why I ask. It's easy to say we don't need to eat meat but much harder to say how we should all exist.

Milo



Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 342
Location: Oop North-ish.
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 05 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

https://www.10000things.org.uk/pirsig.htm

That's near enough the full extent of my understanding of philosophy.

Hey, why does your name sound like a dinosaur's ?

* .........shoes made from oil by-product then? Are clothes made from cotton? To be honest both of those are probably worse for animals than using leather.

Hmmmm, explain? In detail!

* Call me stupid

No way!

* but I cannot easily see how everyone can be vegetarian and not harm animals buy our existance.

Doh, weren't you even the slightest bit impressed by,

"Let's try very hard and consistently to cause a real attainable minimum of harm to animals and to everyone and everything that's good and natural in our shared global environment". ?

* I'm interested to know how you think this can be done and that's why I ask. It's easy to say we don't need to eat meat but much harder to say how we should all exist.

I was once in a group situation where by answering a questionnaire our individual psychological profiles were assessed / measured. I was deemed to be a plant! (Some suggested a cabbage).

Apparently, if you're forming a group to tackle some project or other, you need one plant within the group. He or she is the person who reliably will come up with ideas, even if you don't (think you) want them!

Sadly, the plant by his / her very nature finds it quite difficult to show much more than the slightest interest in details, (you'll be not surprised to hear?).

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Land Management All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com