Avelhingst’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A brief primer on (bovine) poop:

  When a beef or a milch cow spatters dung onto an even mildly active pasture, a couple of things happen: first, a thin crust of dried (if it is sunny) or fibrous (if it isn't sunny) matter forms on top of the cowpat.  This crust retains much of the moisture and nitrogenous compounds in the cowpat.  Secondly, a horde of organisms decend upon the sumptuous banquet - depending on the time of year, in all but the depths of the coldest winter, this array of beasties changes (an in the depths of winter, the cowpats are frozen).  The matter of the poop is carted away by a staggering diversity of beetles, transformed into the larvae of the mustard-yellow, fuzzy cowpat fly (whose larvae, I might add, are gung-ho about eating the larvae of other, more odious species such as the common housefly and the stable fly), or just eaten by worms, or consumed by fungus, or what-have-you.  The cowpat exists as a micro-ecosystem for maximizing the sequestration of nutrients, whether nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, et cetera.

  The improper spreading (or any spreading, for that matter, to lesser degrees) of manure maximizes all the downsides of manure cycling.  Unfortunately, improper spreading is the norm in many places as margins erode.  Improper spreading can suffocate the organisms most suited to the immediate colonization of a living dung-conversion factory, pulse nutrients into the soil at improper times, lead to run-off, and, importantly in our context here, respire ammonia and nitrogenous compounds. 

  On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I've read Mr. Hurst's little tirade; unfortunately, he deviates not at all from the standard bloviations of the Farm Bureau-y set - extraordinarily reactionary bloviations that really don't help hisself nor anyone likehisself, but rather the folks that have been bleeding the poor bugger dry all these years, courtesy of the government subsidies. 

  On An 'agri-intellectual' talks back posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 49 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mr. Dilinger:

  In the interests of efficiency, I have some recommendations for the American corn/bean belt:  First, Cargill, ArcherDanielsMidland, Pioneer, Monsanto, et al. should merge into a large agro Trust.  Then the Trust would purchase all the short-and-regional railroads, followed by the barging concerns.  Thereafter, the Trust would work against its best interests (profits extracted from farmers) and purchase by means fair or foul every scrap of farmland twixt the Appalachians and the Western Desert to maximize efficiencies.  The Trust might also be interested in some port properties as well. 

  I am being facetious, of course.  I don't mean to be rude, either; however, I cannot resist pointing out that waving the 'efficiency flag' leads to market monopolization.  Moreover, for the amount of food currently produced, the american farmer is as efficient as it gets - yet still, we are barely able to scrape by.  It's quite painful to realize that the day I spent - from before sunup to after sundown - did not earn me a single penny (in fact, in may have cost me several thousand pennies).  Whee!  What fun!  But I digress: to fuel the modern american farm economically, we should focus away from fossil fuels and turn to other energy sources that are portable, storable, and can be produced anywhere - and battery power is NOT the answer, not for anybody who understands, like you or I, the needs of tractive power on american farms.  I suggest that the first real hydrogen economy revolution should be taking place in rural, humble places on the heavy equipment that farmers use.  I'd be interested to hear what you think on that.

  On An 'agri-intellectual' talks back posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 49 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have yet to meet a soil scientist (and yes, I do know a fair number despite their rarity) who espouses this 'nutritionist' philosophy of soil management.  From day one in their training, soil scientists learn that soil is a sort of living organism, a composition of time and climate and minerals and life.  But enought prating about whose scientific specialty is more to blame for some part of the failure of American agriculture to safeguard its assets!

  Another point: certain plant cultivars, massal selections, or clones are much more suited to organic agriculture than chemag, and vice-versa.  Herein lies the rub - certain parties are interested in proving that organic food is more 'nutritionally healthful' to consumers than chemag produce, but reducing the variables enough takes away from the research that might be done to show the differences in varieties that thrive in the differing environments.  Also, the nutrition debate takes away from the other aspects of organic production models, such as the elimination (as far as possible) of pesticide residues in our food supply.

  Really, too, we must continue to focus on how best to preserve and increase our soil's ability to produce food.  Ask any decent soil scientist, and they will tell you that the absolute best way to reduce erosion, leaching, run-off, and to increase soil aeration, water retention, nutrient cycling, and the ability of plants to fight infection is to turn to no-till systems (whether it be through chemical fallow, permanent cover, perennial crops); organic if possible.  Perhaps this is diverging from the debate about organic vs. chemag soil weltanschauungen in regards to human nutrition, but getting enough calories at all in the future is worth discussing as well.

  On A debate about soil, organics, and nutrition posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 24 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Late Blight, Black Rot, Black Blight, Late Black Blight - however you want to call it, the Phytophthora disease that harms tomatoes and potatoes, has a global reach, is highly infectious, and spreads like wildfire.  Blaming source X for spreading late blight is a bit like blaming a certain shipping line for importing mosquitos that carried and spread West Nile Virus - a bit late in the game.  The question we should be asking: "How is it that organic farmers can produce potatoes and tomatoes in areas infested with late blight?" since so many of them do, and do successfully...

  By the way, here's a quote from the American Journal of Potato Research, dated 1957: 

  "Surveys conducted in the period 1954–1956 yielded 1127 isolates ofP. infestans which may be grouped into 14 races occurring in nine provinces.
  The greatest number and the most complex races ofP. infestans have been found in Eastern Canada and the least number in this regard in the Prairie Provinces."
  On A debate about soil, organics, and nutrition posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 24 Responses