AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (89) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

organics opposition
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> AgTalk CafeMessage format
 
jcs
Posted 9/12/2012 13:24 (#2587545 - in reply to #2587523)
Subject: Re: organics opposition


Oklahoma
I agree with Mac4440 and GoldenLeaf, bashing other producers and regulations are the two biggest things. Alot of the organic process just seems to be "paperwork" and "certification" to make middlemen wealthy. In general it appears it ends up rewarding the biggest liars with lots of money, rewarding those good folks that are willing to jump through all the hoops for a premium, and weeding out anyone who wants to do the right thing and do what is best in the long run or put up with the regulations. Just what I have seen in OK.

I will also add, it has been a few years since I have looked into organics. At one time one of the reccomendations for control of XYZ was applying quite a bit of copper sulfate (I think 10-20 lbs/ac). I was told that this was safer for the environment. When I asked for specifics on the "environment" I wasn't given a specific answer. When I explained that to the sheep which would be grazing a residue/cover crop, copper was more toxic than the other "chemical" they were bashing they just blew it off as I was an idiot. Maybe I am an idiot but I was trying to explain that there were no environmental hazards with 0.5 lb/ai of this "chemical" but the large amounts of copper was potentially toxic to something.

Water is good for us but too much water and we can drownd. I think some of the organic crowd thinks that more of X is always better than less of Y regardless of anything else. That is why we went to treating everything as if my family was going to eat it, organic, conventional, or a combination of the two.
Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)