Hello all Just look what you can catch when you go nightfishing on the net. Here are just some of the morsels that came in with my catch: In July 2000 the UK advertising watchdog, The Advertising Standards Agency, ruled that most of the claims made in a leaflet by the UK Soil Association for organic produce and its production were unsupportable. The Soil Association replied that “the nature of this market is not well understood and the use of science in the debate is, paradoxically, obscuring reality”. www.asa.org.uk Is that the stench of hypocrisy i smell? Seems there are plenty of people out there 'obscuring reality'. Or: “An extensive literature review of over 150 studies comparing organically and conventionally grown foods found no evidence of better tasting properties or improved nutritional value. In fact, organic produce often had a lower nitrate and protein content.” Woese, K, et al. J. Sci Food Agric, 74, 1997 OR: The difference between pesticides used in organic farming and other crop protection technologies is not their toxicity, only their origin. Pesticides used in organic farming are extracted from plants, insects, or mineral ores and not by chemical synthesis. In fact, two of the most popular organic-approved pesticides, oil and sulphur, are used more than any other pesticide, by volume, in the USA. US dept of agriculture “Conservation or reduced tillage (one or no cultivation together with one application of herbicide) is often used in integrated systems, which greatly benefits wildlife. In addition, integrated farming methods can produce more food from less land than an organic system, hence land can be taken out of cultivation and used to encourage wildlife.” Holland et al, 1994 More to come. Have found some cracking and up-to-date research performed by a completely independant chap who is not connected to agriculture in any way. Mayo

Mayo, Well done, old lad in the search for truth and fact. However, people who remember my long and some would say tedious search after truth in the GM debate will confirm what a helluva job it was. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" spring to memory. Time after time I was able to debunk the falsehoods put out by the Soil Association, Friends of the Earth(???) et al. However the clever part of minority group campaigning tactics is that they very rarely deal in fact, only supposition and fear. Once they have got the likes of Monty Don on side pushing organic to dear little Deidres mother you cannot win. Keep trying though, I,ve had enough. Jack Caley. PS Even though we grew GM we have found no problems in the field, theonly problems we do have are as a result of the propoganda put by those who were economical with the truth.

Mayo Some really nice quotes there to throw back at the bunny huggers next time they try to me look like the environmental vandel they think I am !! Thanks Now how to we get that across to Joe public - oh I forgot the NFU do that for us don't they ???? I propose tht instead of paying NFU subs we all put the cash in to get Max Clifford or the like to do UK ag PR

Clive. Do you not think Prince Charles might not better than Max Clifford? At least you would know what he really thought. He,ll need time for a honeymoon though. Jack Caley

Hello Jack My trip up north proved most unprofitable, however, with the closing of one door another opens. Have now been offered the chance to go to NZ. Its in consideration. The research i have found was performed by a Dr A. Trewavas, from the institute of cellular and molecular biolodgy, University of Edinburgh. Fascinating to read. The man is so capable and yet has enough preception as to be able to apply his understanding to a field rather unusual to him. I can only imagine the hours of research and background reading he must of done. Read and you will understand: In attempting to examine the claims of organic agriculture it is necessary to establish suitable systems where the only difference is in the technology. The root difference between organic and other forms of agriculture are the rejection (supposedly) of soluble minerals and synthetic pesticides and herbicides(2). Natural pesticides are instead allowed where necessary; or at least this is the rhetoric. How far copper sulphate or soap (two organic pesticdes) should be regarded as natural is a debatable issue. The distinction between natural and synthetic has little meaning when as Leake(1) showed the synthetic version of copper (mancozeb) is superior to copper sulphate in every environmental aspect(1) or when synthetic pyrethroids can be shown to work at much lower concentrations and with less general environmental effect than pyrethrum itself(2). How natural is sulphur or oil (organic pesticides) really when they have to be mined, chemically modified or distilled before use? The only objection to synthetic pesticides that can reasonably be made is that they are not sufficiently selective to deal with just the pest. The advantage of using GM pest resistant crops therefore stands out as an obvious solution and it is illogical that GM is rejected despite its environmental benefits. Such rejection is however the revealing aspect that shows organic proponents really to be frightened of new technologies and presumably to wish some return to some supposedly golden past when the problems didn't exist. That is hardly a philosophy that should be encouraged in societies like ours with government-sponsored action plans, particularly as societies (again like ours) depend on new technologies and their development for their survival. He cites no less than 49 references, and his article has been peer-reviewed. It also places some intresting findings in my grasp regarding energy useage and supposed environmental benefits regarding organic farming. Or Organic farmers assert on principle that organic sources of minerals produce crops with superior quality to inorganic mineral fertilisers. Manure is the permitted fertiliser but minerals from manure breakdown have not been observed to produce crops with superior qualities (8, 9, 55). Furthermore the nutritive value tested on children was higher in crops grown on inorganic fertiliser than manure (33). Intensity of fertilisation is more important, as is location of the farm to crop quality. Organic fertiliser, soil type or synthetic pesticide are of little importance (31). The availability of free N between different fields receiving no fertiliser and under the same management varies by at least three fold. Contrary to organic expectations, no relationship between the organic content of the soil and freely available N was observed (32 and references therein). A further organic assertion that inorganic fertilisers damage soil structure has instead been shown to result from lack of crop rotation (29). Organic associations claim that current unstable synthetic pesticides are dangerous. Only natural pesticides like rotenone, (a highly-toxic, fish-killing chemical) or Bt spores (which causes fatal lung infections in mice (21-23)) are used to kill insects on organic farms. Pyrethrum (a common fly killer) is also used; the more effective and equally unstable, synthetic pyrethroids are banned. Any competitive organic farmer will keep his cropped area as clean of insects as possible by whatever means permissible (27). Studies in Texas showed that organic insecticides can be used at 100 fold higher dose than conventional products (64 ). Organic farmers use copper sulphate to treat plant disease but this is to be banned by the EC. Bordeaux mixture, the organic form used, has induced liver disease in vineyard workers, caused deaths and is probably carcinogenic. Copper sulphate kills earthworms, fish and leads to serious copper contamination of food (24). Use of this chemical by the organic community for many years indicates the dangers of assertion rather than knowledge. Organic ideology derives from the common assumption that natural things are good and man-made things bad. But are tapeworms, lice and malaria-carrying mosquitoes good and antibiotics, vaccines and anesethetics obviously bad? More to come Mayo

Great stuff for us when confronted by the ecowarriors,keep at it. Dick

What goes round comes round,conventional farmers have had to endure years of smear and abuse from the organic lobby.It's high time that a noisy campaign was started opposing organic farmers "poisoning of the countryside and soil" with massive doses of copper etc.etc.etc.

Mayo, Whatever your opportunity is in NZ, it is a great country. Jack Caley

Life on earth exists because inorganic sun and minerals are turned into organic life. The next BIG SCARE would be here by now but for the fact that it concerns low levels of trace elements in some soils and therefore foods. A problem to rectify if you belong to the organic only religion.

Do I gather correctly that lottery money is going to be used to subsidise the purchase of organic food for school dinners (from Sainsburys who pay Jamie Oliver?)

Owen What you say is correct in the most part. Some of my research turned up this: Mineral recycling on organic farms is sustainable 'A well grown crop of potatoes (60t/ha) for example if sold removes from the farm 29, 338,12, 4 and 5 kg/hectare of P, K, Mg, Ca, Na and micronutrients in the tubers which must be replaced otherwise the soil is mined. UKROPS (organic regulations) permit mined CaCO3, KCl, MgSO4, rock phosphate, trace elements and eight other renewable inorganic chemicals for a claimed chemical-free agriculture? There is concern over potential and likely organic food micro-nutrient deficiency such as in selenium which is not required for plant growth but is essential for human health. There are therefore no plant deficiency symptoms. When examined slow declines in mineral content of organic soils can be detected particularly in K and P2. Again measurements at Rothamsted indicate that 86% of organic soils analysed are deficient in phosphate whereas only 15% conventional soils are in this state(32). Recent detailed analyses of soil on a metre by metre basis indicate substantial variability in mineral content and yield of individual fields. Because dumping manure requires increased labour, than distributing minerals it has been found that fields farthest from manure heaps on organic farms are the least treated and experience most deficiency. What effect P deficiency will have on the quality of food is not known but changes in metabolism are surely inevitable towards a stress response (would this be oxidative stress leading to some accumulation of vitamin C?) . More crucial is that organic regulations constrain the numbers of animals on organic farms so that excess manure can neither be produced nor distributed. In that case organic farming becomes dependent on manure from other sources i.e conventional farms where it is produced with the aid of soluble minerals. To quote from reference 32 b, "The data presented here also suggest some cause for concern in relation to sustainability of organic dairy systems because of their dependence on imported feedstuffs and bedding for P and K and for N on the very variable fixation by legumes of imports of manures or composts". On its own then organic farming is not sustainable except as part of another form of agriculture on which it is actively dependent and which it opposes. Either that situation will occur or it will have to import minerals of one sort of another which due to slow breakdown will cause problems in matching requirements with yield as figures already indicate. In that case it will no longer be able to claim to be chemical free. The notion that organic farms can operate as small totally self-contained entities which was the original philosophy is a complete delusion.' And about the supposed energy savings organic agriculture provides: Leake(48) at CWS farms measured every last drop of fuel used on organic conventional and integrated no- till agriculture and observed that organic used the most draft energy. Organic used three fold more than integrated farming and substantially more than conventional farming. Putting the Bertillson figures (for fertiliser and transport) with those of Leake on fossil fuel use on farms, the efficiency of conversion of fossil fuel use into seed energy can be estimated. The figures for organic in kWhr/tonne of yield are organic 200, integrated 132, conventional 140. The latter two forms of farming are more efficient in their conversion of energy into product. Thus Organic= 200kw/h/tonne Conventional= 140kw/h/tonne No-till= 132kw/h/tonne I still have some more findings but i am closely examining how they produced their data. PS this article has been peer-reviewed and has 49 references, AND 4 appendices. Mayo

Very interesting. No doubt output per worker follows the same trend. No one suggests solving traffic problems by using methods that lower output per car worker. Anyway has organic consumption peaked? I notice at my local super store shelf space for organics has not been increased for some time and casual observation suggests low customer levels around these shelves. Could it be that organics are there as a feel good factor that encourages spending in other parts of the store?