Showing posts with label plant health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plant health. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2018
Stinging Nettle Video — The Most Nutritious Plant On Earth?
Stinging Nettle — The Most Nutritious Plant On Earth?
Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica) is plant whose edible, medicinal, and utilitarian benefits typically surpass those of other wild species. In this video, we discuss all things stinging nettle — including proper identification, look-alikes, medicinal properties, and more!
Sunday, September 23, 2018
STINGING NETTLES - For the Garden
STINGING NETTLE - Urtica dioica
Stinging Nettle offers extraordinary nutrition, both for plants and humans. The nettles plant provides edible, medicinal, and utilitarian benefits, surpassing those of other wild plant species.
Stinging Nettle offers extraordinary nutrition, both for plants and humans. The nettles plant provides edible, medicinal, and utilitarian benefits, surpassing those of other wild plant species.
Stinging Nettle grows in the wild throughout the US, especially in areas with regular rainfall. Nettles are partial to rich, moist to wet soil, and may also be found deep in the woods, or even on roadsides. They can be very successful weeds, tolerating a wide range of soil conditions.
This herb is extraordinarily rich in nitrogen, potassium, magnesium, oligoelements, enzymes, and trace minerals, especially iron.
This herb is extraordinarily rich in nitrogen, potassium, magnesium, oligoelements, enzymes, and trace minerals, especially iron.
The herb acquired its name because of its sting, which doesn't last more than a
few hours, but is highly irritating. You don't want to brush up against a nettle plant, because they will definitely let you know who they are - Stinging Nettle. Gloves are advised when harvesting, and/or digging up a plant to transplant to your garden. Best to plant in an out of the way area that you do not have to closely pass by very often.
How to Use Nettle in the Garden
Stinging nettles seems to stimulate the "immune system" of plants, by providing good balanced nutrition, which makes them more resistant to insect and disease attacks.
For those unable to forage seaweeds from the beach, stinging nettle is the answer for making compost and tea for the garden.
Stinging Nettle Tea for your Plants
How to make Nettle Tea - purin-d'ortie
1. Use a large container, such as a large plastic garbage can and cover with a lid. Need to use a non-chlorinated water, such as from a rainbarrel. Chlorine inhibits the fermentation of the tea.
2. Cut fresh nettles tops at about half their height. Mix the cuttings with water in the can.
3. Mix one gallon of water with every pound of fresh nettles (or with every 2 ounces of dried nettles). Keep covered with lid. Fermented nettle tea has a very strong odor. Allow the nettles to brew/ferment from one to three weeks, depending on the ambient temperature. The hotter it is, the quicker the process. Note: place can in shade during the summer to prevent the mixture from overheating and killing the necessary fermenting bacteria. When the fermentation has ceased, the tea is ready. Stir the mixture to test this. Cover your nose, or turn head away to avoid the fumes, then quickly peak at the mixture. If there are no more bubbles, then the fermentation is complete.
4. Strain the tea as soon as the fermentation has stopped. Store the infusion in clean plastic or glass containers in a cool spot and label well. It is ready for use as an herbicide, or dilute to use for foliar feeding or as a nutritional soil drench.
Use Diluted Nettle tea as a Supplementary Plant Food
3. Mix one gallon of water with every pound of fresh nettles (or with every 2 ounces of dried nettles). Keep covered with lid. Fermented nettle tea has a very strong odor. Allow the nettles to brew/ferment from one to three weeks, depending on the ambient temperature. The hotter it is, the quicker the process. Note: place can in shade during the summer to prevent the mixture from overheating and killing the necessary fermenting bacteria. When the fermentation has ceased, the tea is ready. Stir the mixture to test this. Cover your nose, or turn head away to avoid the fumes, then quickly peak at the mixture. If there are no more bubbles, then the fermentation is complete.
4. Strain the tea as soon as the fermentation has stopped. Store the infusion in clean plastic or glass containers in a cool spot and label well. It is ready for use as an herbicide, or dilute to use for foliar feeding or as a nutritional soil drench.
Use Diluted Nettle tea as a Supplementary Plant Food
Nettle tea must be diluted before using as a foliar feeding spray or applied as a nutritional soil drench.
To dilute the tea for
soil applications - dilute to a 10% solution (1 cup of original infusion to
10 cups of water)
To dilute the tea for foliar feeding - dilute to a 5% solution (1 cup of original infusion to 20 cups of water)
Use Undiluted Nettle tea as a Organic Herbicide
Undiluted nettle tea can be used as an organic herbicide. Use the undiluted nettle tea on actively growing weeds, and two weeks later, the weeds will be gone and the ground will be richly fertilized and ready for planting.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Compost and its Importance to the Food We Eat
Sitric Compost Garden Community -
Dan Barber, US chef extraordinaire and champion of sustainable agriculture (www.bluehillfarm.com/food/overview/team/dan-barber) explains that COMPOST is the most important ingredient in his recipe for the best tasting salad.
Compost warms the greenhouse seedlings. Compost does so much more .
Dan Barber, US chef extraordinaire and champion of sustainable agriculture (www.bluehillfarm.com/food/overview/team/dan-barber) explains that COMPOST is the most important ingredient in his recipe for the best tasting salad.
Compost warms the greenhouse seedlings. Compost does so much more .
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Organic farming continues to rise across the globe
World Progress Watch
2 million of the world’s 1.5 billion farmers are now producing organically, with nearly 80 percent based in developing countries. India boasts the most certified organic producers, followed by Uganda and Mexico.
By Kendra Nordin, Staff writer February 17, 2015
Across the decades of boom and bust that characterize agricultural history runs a trend: the rise and recognition of organic farming worldwide.
According to the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), 2 million of the world’s 1.5 billion farmers are now producing organically, with nearly 80 percent based in developing countries. India boasts the most certified organic producers, followed by Uganda and Mexico.
Currently 164 nations have certified organic farms, powering an industry worth $63.9 billion. (In 2000, there were 86 countries with certified farms producing $15.2 billion.) With this growth come opportunities for farmers to add value to their products and access expanding markets.
While the 94 million acres of certified organic agricultural land constitutes less than 1 percent of total global agricultural land, industry analysts call the growth of organics significant, also noting that the certified numbers fail to account for the vast numbers of small-scale farmers who use organic methods by default.
“[There are] probably 500 million small family farms worldwide; most of those are traditional farmers who farm primarily through organic principles,” says Andre Leu, president of IFOAM.
He adds that 200,000 organic farmers become newly certified each year. “In most places there is still a dramatic loss [in the numbers] of farmers and ... where we see growth is in the organic sector.”
Farmers today, battling climate swings and plummeting farm incomes, are essentially faced with four options: leave farming completely, obtain off-farm income, expand and play the commodity game more efficiently, or find ways to add value per unit of production, says Joel Gruver, a soil science professor at Western Illinois University in Macomb.
“Basically, organic farming anywhere in the world – if you are certified – is the one label that is most clearly defined,” says Professor Gruver, the university’s director of organic research. “Each nation has its own rules in how they define organic, but the general set of rules is very much the same,” he says. Organic methods eschew chemical additives and rely on such practices as crop rotation to harness ecological processes that promote healthy soils and fight disease, weeds, and pests.
For consumers, organic farming addresses a range of issues on which many feel conventional farming falls short: environmental impact, pesticide residues, and nutritional quality. It addresses concerns about energy consumption and climate change, and even restores a social connection to the land that many feel commodity farming has eroded.
In fact, consumer demand is the driving force behind the growth. In 2012 in the United States and Europe, markets with a healthy appetite for organic goods, there was a 10 percent year-on-year rise in sales.
“Organic farming is the fastest growing multi-product sector in the world,” says Mr. Leu. “[I]f you go into any store now, organic products are in every section. Anything from dairy to [prepared foods] to body care products to organic clothing.... And there is no other sector like that.”
Organic farming does draw critics. Some question the consistency of its accreditation and labeling system. There is debate over whether organics deliver higher nutritional value, and concern that the certification process is too costly to allow for financial success. And there is doubt over whether organic methods can yield enough to feed an ever-growing population. Yet consumer preference continues to grow.
“[T]here is more demand than supply,” says Anna Lappé, author of “Diet for a Hot Planet.” Ms. Lappé also points out that less than 1 percent of agricultural research funding now goes toward refining proven chemical-free farming methods.
Still, there have been considerable efforts to support organic farmers. A growing number of nonprofits provide microloans. IFOAM publishes the principles of organic farming on its website for those who want to practice it but can’t yet afford certification. Countries such as Denmark and Sweden have set goals for organic agriculture. The US offers small grants and loans.
Commercial investment may gain momentum, too. Nature’s Path, an organic cereal manufacturer, recently bought 5,640 acres of farmland in Canada and northern Montana in efforts to support organic family farmers there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Progress-Watch/2015/0217/Organic-farming-continues-to-rise-across-the-globe
2 million of the world’s 1.5 billion farmers are now producing organically, with nearly 80 percent based in developing countries. India boasts the most certified organic producers, followed by Uganda and Mexico.
By Kendra Nordin, Staff writer February 17, 2015
According to the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), 2 million of the world’s 1.5 billion farmers are now producing organically, with nearly 80 percent based in developing countries. India boasts the most certified organic producers, followed by Uganda and Mexico.
Currently 164 nations have certified organic farms, powering an industry worth $63.9 billion. (In 2000, there were 86 countries with certified farms producing $15.2 billion.) With this growth come opportunities for farmers to add value to their products and access expanding markets.
While the 94 million acres of certified organic agricultural land constitutes less than 1 percent of total global agricultural land, industry analysts call the growth of organics significant, also noting that the certified numbers fail to account for the vast numbers of small-scale farmers who use organic methods by default.
“[There are] probably 500 million small family farms worldwide; most of those are traditional farmers who farm primarily through organic principles,” says Andre Leu, president of IFOAM.
He adds that 200,000 organic farmers become newly certified each year. “In most places there is still a dramatic loss [in the numbers] of farmers and ... where we see growth is in the organic sector.”
Farmers today, battling climate swings and plummeting farm incomes, are essentially faced with four options: leave farming completely, obtain off-farm income, expand and play the commodity game more efficiently, or find ways to add value per unit of production, says Joel Gruver, a soil science professor at Western Illinois University in Macomb.
“Basically, organic farming anywhere in the world – if you are certified – is the one label that is most clearly defined,” says Professor Gruver, the university’s director of organic research. “Each nation has its own rules in how they define organic, but the general set of rules is very much the same,” he says. Organic methods eschew chemical additives and rely on such practices as crop rotation to harness ecological processes that promote healthy soils and fight disease, weeds, and pests.
For consumers, organic farming addresses a range of issues on which many feel conventional farming falls short: environmental impact, pesticide residues, and nutritional quality. It addresses concerns about energy consumption and climate change, and even restores a social connection to the land that many feel commodity farming has eroded.
In fact, consumer demand is the driving force behind the growth. In 2012 in the United States and Europe, markets with a healthy appetite for organic goods, there was a 10 percent year-on-year rise in sales.
“Organic farming is the fastest growing multi-product sector in the world,” says Mr. Leu. “[I]f you go into any store now, organic products are in every section. Anything from dairy to [prepared foods] to body care products to organic clothing.... And there is no other sector like that.”
Organic farming does draw critics. Some question the consistency of its accreditation and labeling system. There is debate over whether organics deliver higher nutritional value, and concern that the certification process is too costly to allow for financial success. And there is doubt over whether organic methods can yield enough to feed an ever-growing population. Yet consumer preference continues to grow.
“[T]here is more demand than supply,” says Anna Lappé, author of “Diet for a Hot Planet.” Ms. Lappé also points out that less than 1 percent of agricultural research funding now goes toward refining proven chemical-free farming methods.
Still, there have been considerable efforts to support organic farmers. A growing number of nonprofits provide microloans. IFOAM publishes the principles of organic farming on its website for those who want to practice it but can’t yet afford certification. Countries such as Denmark and Sweden have set goals for organic agriculture. The US offers small grants and loans.
Commercial investment may gain momentum, too. Nature’s Path, an organic cereal manufacturer, recently bought 5,640 acres of farmland in Canada and northern Montana in efforts to support organic family farmers there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Progress-Watch/2015/0217/Organic-farming-continues-to-rise-across-the-globe
Friday, February 20, 2015
How changing the way we farm could reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Certain farming practices can trap a majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On a global scale, this could even lead to a net decrease in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels — or, in other words, help reverse climate change.
By Skylar Lindsay, FoodTank September 3, 2014
A recent study by the Rodale Institute documents how specific organic farming practices can trap a majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On a global scale, this could even lead to a net decrease in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels — or, in other words, help reverse climate change.
The study, “Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming,” highlights soil’s natural ability to trap carbon from the atmosphere. This process, called carbon sequestration, occurs when photosynthesis removes carbon from the air faster than other biological processes, like respiration, release it.
According to the Rodale, if half of the world’s croplands were shifted to regenerative methods, the world could reduce net annual greenhouse gas emissions from 51 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent to below 41– the threshold necessary by 2020 to limit global warming to 1.5º C.
The figures are based on 75 peer-reviewed studies and on test sites throughout the world where organic and conventional methods are compared side by side. These include Rodale’s long-running Farming Systems Trial (FST) in the United States and more recent Tropical Farming Systems Trial in Costa Rica. Rodale uses this data to calculate a rate of carbon sequestration per area of land cultivated, and then scale-up to see the impact of global adoption of each practice.
For example, if all current cropland were cultivated using methods tested in Iran and Egypt, 21 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂e), or 40 percent of global emissions, could be sequestered annually. If applied to the world’s pasture and grassland, Rodale calculates its recommendations could sequester 37 GtCO₂e, or over 70 percent of emissions. Changing the cultivation of cropland, pasture, and grassland together could lead to a net reduction in the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Rodale’s recommendations focus on soil health, biodiversity, and avoiding farming methods that contribute to a net release of carbon including the overuse and misuse of pesticides, artificial fertilizers, and unnecessary tilling. The regenerative techniques include crop rotation, cover crops, mulching and green manure, composting, and no-till practices.
Cover cropping techniques increase soil carbon via photosynthesis and better carbon retention in topsoil layers. Perennial cover crops, called living mulches, are especially effective due to large, deep root systems. Strategic crop rotations increase soil carbon levels, and coupled with on-farm composting and cover cropping, encourages soil microbes that absorb carbon. These regenerative practices also help carbon-absorbing fungi populations.
Skylar Lindsay majors in Peace & Conflict Studies at Colgate University, where he heads the organic farming initiative and leads for the Outdoor Education program.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2014/0903/How-changing-the-way-we-farm-could-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions
By Skylar Lindsay, FoodTank September 3, 2014
The study, “Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming,” highlights soil’s natural ability to trap carbon from the atmosphere. This process, called carbon sequestration, occurs when photosynthesis removes carbon from the air faster than other biological processes, like respiration, release it.
According to the Rodale, if half of the world’s croplands were shifted to regenerative methods, the world could reduce net annual greenhouse gas emissions from 51 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent to below 41– the threshold necessary by 2020 to limit global warming to 1.5º C.
The figures are based on 75 peer-reviewed studies and on test sites throughout the world where organic and conventional methods are compared side by side. These include Rodale’s long-running Farming Systems Trial (FST) in the United States and more recent Tropical Farming Systems Trial in Costa Rica. Rodale uses this data to calculate a rate of carbon sequestration per area of land cultivated, and then scale-up to see the impact of global adoption of each practice.
For example, if all current cropland were cultivated using methods tested in Iran and Egypt, 21 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂e), or 40 percent of global emissions, could be sequestered annually. If applied to the world’s pasture and grassland, Rodale calculates its recommendations could sequester 37 GtCO₂e, or over 70 percent of emissions. Changing the cultivation of cropland, pasture, and grassland together could lead to a net reduction in the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Rodale’s recommendations focus on soil health, biodiversity, and avoiding farming methods that contribute to a net release of carbon including the overuse and misuse of pesticides, artificial fertilizers, and unnecessary tilling. The regenerative techniques include crop rotation, cover crops, mulching and green manure, composting, and no-till practices.
Cover cropping techniques increase soil carbon via photosynthesis and better carbon retention in topsoil layers. Perennial cover crops, called living mulches, are especially effective due to large, deep root systems. Strategic crop rotations increase soil carbon levels, and coupled with on-farm composting and cover cropping, encourages soil microbes that absorb carbon. These regenerative practices also help carbon-absorbing fungi populations.
Skylar Lindsay majors in Peace & Conflict Studies at Colgate University, where he heads the organic farming initiative and leads for the Outdoor Education program.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2014/0903/How-changing-the-way-we-farm-could-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Little Things Matter: The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain
From the:
Canadian Environmental Health Atlas
Published November 11, 2014
We’ve
been studying the impact of toxins on children for the past 30 years
and reached the inescapable conclusion: little things matter. We’ve
discovered that extremely low levels of toxins can impact brain
development. We have also discovered that subtle shifts in the
intellectual abilities of individual children have a big impact on the
number of children in a population that are challenged or gifted. Steps
should be taken to reduce children's exposure to toxins or suspected
toxins.
Just another reason to embrace organic food and a chemical free environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6KoMAbz1Bw
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Wasps saved her gardens
Wasps saved her geraniums
10/18/2014 12:00 AM
A reader had a complaint regarding tiny green caterpillars in her geranium plants. The answer is to get rid of the white moth that lays an egg in each geranium bud. The caterpillar egg hatches out in a few days and the tiny worm eats the inside of the bud. Hence, there’s no flower or a damaged one.
The secret to my hedge rows of beautiful full-blooming geraniums is a black wasp that buzzes in and out of the bushes and leaves them thoroughly devoid of eggs and caterpillars. The wasps come to my garden uninvited. Where they come from, I do not know. They just solved a bad situation.
You are fortunate that a beneficial insect – a parasitic wasp – is limiting pests on your geraniums, said UC master gardener Lorraine Van Kekerix.
The wasps break the life cycle of a common moth that lays eggs in several common flowering plants including petunias and geraniums, one of the moth’s preferred host plants. The adult moth does not eat the plant.
The moth’s wings are about 1 1/2 inches across; the color ranges from light green to brownish with lighter colored bars across the wings. It’s not the familiar white cabbage moth but another pest, the geranium or tobacco budworm moth.
When the moth eggs hatch, geranium budworm larvae emerge. The larvae eat the plants and do the damage. Specifically, geranium budworms eat the developing flower buds so the buds do not open. Severely affected plants may not produce flowers at all.
The geranium budworms eat flower petals as well as the buds. If the infestation is particularly large, they may eat leaves as well. While this pest prefers geraniums, petunias and tobacco (including flowering tobacco), it will also attack other flowers and plants.
What you describe in your rows of geraniums is a beneficial insect, a parasitic wasp. A parasite feeds on a host organism. Most parasites are smaller than the host and often are the larval stages of an insect. Specialized flies and wasps are the most common types of parasitic insects, and there are several types of parasitic wasps that can attack geranium budworms.
Most of these wasps are tiny and do not sting people. Parasitic wasps lay eggs in or on the geranium budworm. When the wasp larvae emerge, they develop by feeding on and killing the worm. Parasitic wasps can lay hundreds of eggs a day.
A beneficial insect is part of the natural cycle of checks and balances when it destroys or reduces a rapid increase in the pest population. We benefit as we no longer need to deal with the pest. There are many ways to protect and increase the population of these naturally occurring beneficial insects in our gardens.
Start by reducing use of broad-spectrum pesticides (that kill a wide range of insects) in the garden. Broad-spectrum pesticides often kill the beneficial insects in higher proportions than the pests. Many pesticide residues persist in the garden, and those residues can reduce the reproduction of these beneficial insects or kill them long after the pesticide was originally applied.
If a pesticide is needed, spare the beneficials by choosing a less persistent pesticide or one that kills only specific pests. For example, Bacillus thuringensis affects only caterpillars including geranium budworms, hornworms and cabbage worms.
To maintain a population of beneficial insects, design your garden to provide the food and habitat they need. These insects need nectar, pollen and shelter throughout the growing season so the population is large enough to control the pests.
Gardens with a wide variety of plants that bloom at different times throughout the seasons can provide these good guys the food and shelter they need at all life stages.
For more information on beneficial insects, visit the University of California’s Integrated Pest Management website and obtain Pest Note 74140, “Biological Control and Natural Enemies.” You can find it at www.ipm.ucdavis.edu.
The IPM website also features a picture gallery of natural enemies, which includes beneficial insects.
The gallery is very useful in identifying beneficial insects. It’s likely you’ll recognize several that are already helping to control the pests in your garden.
http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/home-garden/garden-detective/article2952818.html
Friday, August 8, 2014
Hope in a Changing Climate - trailer
Hope in a Changing Climate
places the restoration of ecosystems at the centre of global discussions
on climate change, poverty and sustainable agriculture.
This documentary entitled Hope
in a Changing Climate highlights that fertile, life-sustaining
environments can come out of degraded ecosystems. It shows projects in
China, Ethiopa and Rwanda where large areas of decimated ecosystems that
were able to be restored through the efforts of local people, enabling
them to break free from poverty.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Our Bees, Ourselves - Bees and Colony Collapse
Our Bees, Ourselves
Bees and Colony Collapse
MARK WINSTON JULY 14, 2014
But in the midst of crisis can come learning. Honeybee collapse has much to teach us about how humans can avoid a similar fate, brought on by the increasingly severe environmental perturbations that challenge modern society.
Honeybee collapse has been particularly vexing because there is no one cause, but rather a thousand little cuts. The main elements include the compounding impact of pesticides applied to fields, as well as pesticides applied directly into hives to control mites; fungal, bacterial and viral pests and diseases; nutritional deficiencies caused by vast acreages of single-crop fields that lack diverse flowering plants; and, in the United States, commercial beekeeping itself, which disrupts colonies by moving most bees around the country multiple times each year to pollinate crops.
The real issue, though, is not the volume of problems, but the interactions among them. Here we find a core lesson from the bees that we ignore at our peril: the concept of synergy, where one plus one equals three, or four, or more. A typical honeybee colony contains residue from more than 120 pesticides. Alone, each represents a benign dose. But together they form a toxic soup of chemicals whose interplay can substantially reduce the effectiveness of bees’ immune systems, making them more susceptible to diseases.
These findings provide the most sophisticated data set available for any species about synergies among pesticides, and between pesticides and disease. The only human equivalent is research into pharmaceutical interactions, with many prescription drugs showing harmful or fatal side effects when used together, particularly in patients who already are disease-compromised. Pesticides have medical impacts as potent as pharmaceuticals do, yet we know virtually nothing about their synergistic impacts on our health, or their interplay with human diseases.
Observing the tumultuous demise of honeybees should alert us that our own well-being might be similarly threatened. The honeybee is a remarkably resilient species that has thrived for 40 million years, and the widespread collapse of so many colonies presents a clear message: We must demand that our regulatory authorities require studies on how exposure to low dosages of combined chemicals may affect human health before approving compounds.
Bees also provide some clues to how we may build a more collaborative relationship with the services that ecosystems can provide. Beyond honeybees, there are thousands of wild bee species that could offer some of the pollination service needed for agriculture. Yet feral bees — that is, bees not kept by beekeepers — also are threatened by factors similar to those afflicting honeybees: heavy pesticide use, destruction of nesting sites by overly intensive agriculture and a lack of diverse nectar and pollen sources thanks to highly effective weed killers, which decimate the unmanaged plants that bees depend on for nutrition.
Recently, my laboratory at Simon Fraser University conducted a study on farms that produce canola oil that illustrated the profound value of wild bees. We discovered that crop yields, and thus profits, are maximized if considerable acreages of cropland are left uncultivated to support wild pollinators.
A variety of wild plants means a healthier, more diverse bee population, which will then move to the planted fields next door in larger and more active numbers. Indeed, farmers who planted their entire field would earn about $27,000 in profit per farm, whereas those who left a third unplanted for bees to nest and forage in would earn $65,000 on a farm of similar size.
Such logic goes against conventional wisdom that fields and bees alike can be uniformly micromanaged. The current challenges faced by managed honeybees and wild bees remind us that we can manage too much. Excessive cultivation, chemical use and habitat destruction eventually destroy the very organisms that could be our partners.
And this insight goes beyond mere agricultural economics. There is a lesson in the decline of bees about how to respond to the most fundamental challenges facing contemporary human societies. We can best meet our own needs if we maintain a balance with nature — a balance that is as important to our health and prosperity as it is to the bees.
Mark Winston, a biologist and the director of the Center for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University, is the author of the forthcoming book “Bee Time: Lessons From the Hive.”
A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 15, 2014, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Our Bees, Ourselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/bees-and-colony-collapse.html
Monday, May 26, 2014
New Study Shows Plants Talk to Each Other Through the Soil
New Study Shows Plants Talk to Each Other Through the Soil
by Tafline Laylin
5/23/14
A new study conducted by Dr. David Johnson at the University of Aberdeen found that plants actually communicate with one another through the soil. The study shows that when vegetables are infected with certain diseases, they alert other nearby plants to activate genes to ward off the disease when it heads their way. The key to this communication is a soil fungus that acts as a messenger.
Soil fungus and certain plants have a symbiotic relationship, according to the research team, who shared their findings with The Economist. The plants deliver food and the fungus delivers minerals. But now it turns out the fungal hyphae, which creates a network in the soil that connects the various plants, plays another essential role as a messenger.
Related: Glowing Bioluminescent Plants for Lighting Nature’s Way
In 2010, a team of Chinese researchers found that when a tomato plant became infected with a leaf blight, it was able to somehow alert nearby tomato plants, which then prepared their defense. Dr. David Johnson and his team sought to find out by which mechanism the plants were able to communicate this information with Broad Bean plants.
To prove that the plants were communicating through the soil, the team set up a series of “mesocosms” of five bean stalks each. Beans are often attacked by aphids. When this happens, they release a chemical that attracts wasps that then come around and annihilate the aphids.
Related: 3 Houseplants to Feng Shui Your Home
“Five weeks after the experiment began, all the plants were covered by bags that allowed carbon dioxide, oxygen and water vapour in and out, but stopped the passage of larger molecules, of the sort a beanstalk might use for signalling. Then, four days from the end, one of the 40-micron meshes in each mesocosm was rotated to sever any hyphae that had penetrated it, and the central plant was then infested with aphids.”
You can read more about the experiment at The Economist, but the controls demonstrated that indeed the bean plants communicated to each other through the soil when it was found that one of them had been attacked by aphids!
Via The Economist
http://inhabitat.com/plants-talk-to-each-other-through-a-messenger-in-the-soil/
by Tafline Laylin
5/23/14
 |
| Image via Shutterstock |
A new study conducted by Dr. David Johnson at the University of Aberdeen found that plants actually communicate with one another through the soil. The study shows that when vegetables are infected with certain diseases, they alert other nearby plants to activate genes to ward off the disease when it heads their way. The key to this communication is a soil fungus that acts as a messenger.
 |
| Image via Shutterstock |
Soil fungus and certain plants have a symbiotic relationship, according to the research team, who shared their findings with The Economist. The plants deliver food and the fungus delivers minerals. But now it turns out the fungal hyphae, which creates a network in the soil that connects the various plants, plays another essential role as a messenger.
Related: Glowing Bioluminescent Plants for Lighting Nature’s Way
In 2010, a team of Chinese researchers found that when a tomato plant became infected with a leaf blight, it was able to somehow alert nearby tomato plants, which then prepared their defense. Dr. David Johnson and his team sought to find out by which mechanism the plants were able to communicate this information with Broad Bean plants.
To prove that the plants were communicating through the soil, the team set up a series of “mesocosms” of five bean stalks each. Beans are often attacked by aphids. When this happens, they release a chemical that attracts wasps that then come around and annihilate the aphids.
Related: 3 Houseplants to Feng Shui Your Home
“Five weeks after the experiment began, all the plants were covered by bags that allowed carbon dioxide, oxygen and water vapour in and out, but stopped the passage of larger molecules, of the sort a beanstalk might use for signalling. Then, four days from the end, one of the 40-micron meshes in each mesocosm was rotated to sever any hyphae that had penetrated it, and the central plant was then infested with aphids.”
You can read more about the experiment at The Economist, but the controls demonstrated that indeed the bean plants communicated to each other through the soil when it was found that one of them had been attacked by aphids!
Via The Economist
http://inhabitat.com/plants-talk-to-each-other-through-a-messenger-in-the-soil/
Thursday, April 24, 2014
No-till farming's Johnny Appleseed
No-till farming’s Johnny Appleseed — in a grimy Prius
17 Apr 2014
Let’s start with Jeff Mitchell’s car. From the outside, it looks like a regular, if slightly dinged-up, white Prius. But inside it’s so messy that it’s hard for me to describe it without sounding like I’m exaggerating.
When I say the back seat is packed solidly with papers, I mean that literally: It’s as if Mitchell had pulled up alongside a set of filing cabinets and transferred everything that could fit into the back, carefully filling the leg space until it was high enough to be incorporated into the stack on the seats. The papers are wedged solidly together, three-quarters of the way up to the headrests.
There’s some PVC pipe back there too, some metal tools, a power cord, and some luggage. But that’s just what I could see on the surface. On the front dash there’s another layer of files, and a layer of dirt. And again, when I say dirt, I’m not overstating it. It’s not just a patina of dust; there are big clots of mud clinging to the face of the radio.
“What can I say?” Mitchell said when I asked about the state of his vehicle. “I’m embarrassed. People say I could just scatter seeds in here and they’d grow.”
I was never able to get a straight answer out of Mitchell as to why his car was so squalid, but it’s easy enough to guess. He has spent years driving up and down California’s long Central Valley, from one field to another, asking farmers to sign up to try new conservation techniques. He estimates that the car has driven 600,000 miles, though he can’t say for sure: The odometer stopped at 299,999. The car really does have to function as a high-speed file cabinet, as well as a mobile tool shed and soil-sample transporter.
“So, is this basically your life?” I asked, after about an hour driving down highway 99. I was expecting a good-natured gripe about him becoming permanently welded to the driver’s seat. But instead he said:
“You know, I’ve been truly fortunate. I’ve been doing this long enough that wherever I go I’ll look out and see a field and think, ‘That’s where we did that one trial, how’s that coming along?’ And there have been some big changes. It’s gratifying. There’s a soil scientist at Berkeley, Garrison Sposito, who says it may be just once or twice in a century that agriculture has an opportunity to re-create itself in a revolutionary way. Now, it may sound way over the top, but I think that’s what’s happening with conservation agriculture. It’s energizing for me to wake up to that every day.”
His official title is Associate Extension Vegetable Crops Specialist, but since the early 1990s Mitchell has really been a Johnny Appleseed for conservation, leading an ever-growing band of farmers toward sustainability. The idea driving Mitchell’s work is to develop farm systems that are closer to proven natural systems. That main idea breaks down into four tenets: Don’t disturb the soil; maximize the diversity of plants, insects, fungi, and microbiota; keep living roots in the soil; and keep the ground covered with plant residues. Since 1999, a team working with Mitchell has been demonstrating that it’s possible to do all that profitably.
After another hour on the road we reached the University of California West Side Extension and Research Center. Behind a handful of one-story buildings lay a collection of plots that workers have farmed continuously with conservation techniques. Mitchell took me to a field where they had been experimenting with a tomato-and-cotton rotation since 1999: “These beds have not moved, they have not been worked, in 15 years.” This 15-year study suggests that there are real, sustained benefits to the methods that the UC researchers have pioneered.
Mitchell waded into the shoulder-high cover crops of one bed. There’s a bed nearby of cleanly plowed soil. The contrast couldn’t be more different. Mitchell knelt in the cover crop, pushing aside the plants. The earth was covered in a layer of duff (dead leaves and twigs). It looked a lot like — well, like any bit of ground that humans haven’t recently scraped.
“There’s more organic material going into the soil, more carbon and more nitrogen. There’s more capture of water, and the shade and residue reduces soil water evaporation.”
These kind of innovations might seem obvious, but the journey to no-till cotton has been exasperatingly hard. Cotton requires coddling: It has a large seed, but it’s not a vigorous seedling, so often a farmer will knock off a layer of dry soil, drop the seeds onto moist earth, then cover it up. All this requires tilling the field. So Mitchell’s team decided to fine tune a planter to bury the seeds at just the right depth: Too close to the surface and they’d dry out, too deep and they’d never make it up. But when they ran the planter over the field it bounced over dry tomato stalks and dropped seeds higgledy-piggledy.
That first year the crop came up patchy. So they started trying residue managers, to push debris out of the way of each seed line, then brush it back into place. Mitchell went to Georgia to see what they were using there. They tried different timing and amounts of irrigation. If they tried to plant while the field was too wet the tractor would turn everything into a muddy mess. If they waited until it dried, the seed wouldn’t get enough moisture. If they irrigated after planting, the soil might form a hard crust that the seed couldn’t penetrate. They made pass after pass, making minute adjustments to the equipment until tempers frayed.
“I’m not an argumentative guy, but some of the things have been so trying,” Mitchell remembered. At the end of one of those days, one of Mitchell’s collaborators threw up his hands and said, “This will never work!” But then, in 2004, after years of disappointments, they finally hit on just the right combination of techniques — specific levels of irrigation, fine-tuned equipment, special disk and finger attachments for the planter — and got a beautiful cotton crop.
When all the pieces came together, the cotton began producing reliably. And Mitchell also noticed an added benefit: As the years passed, the soil improved, and all this got easier. Instead of the farm equipment needing to break up clots of compacted soil, the researchers found they were planting into soft, fine-grained earth, continuously tilled by worms and roots and microorganisms.
Mitchell’s work looks like a clear winner on paper: The yields are now the same as in the plowed beds, and the no-till beds take less work, sequester more carbon, suck up less water, and require less tractor fuel. And yet few farmers have taken up these methods.
“When I had the results showing that you can save 16 percent of irrigation water with residues and no till, I thought it would really change things in the Valley,” Mitchell mused. “But it hasn’t seemed to be that relevant.”
There are farmers successfully using these methods, but the percentage is still very low. And Mitchell can understand why people are skeptical. The cost savings — for fuel and labor (water prices are too variable to estimate) — are just $70 an acre, which isn’t terribly significant for a cotton farmer. And, as Mitchell knows, there are lots of things that can go wrong when a farmer starts trying new things.
That reluctance to change doesn’t slow Mitchell down for long. He knows that surmounting the technological challenges is less than half the battle. The bulk of the work is in teaching people how to do the same thing, and — even more importantly — convincing them that it’s worth their time.
And so he gets in the dirty Prius again, year in and year out, adding mile after uncounted mile, and carrying his Johnny Appleseed act across California.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Worms Produce Another Kind of Gold for Growers
SCIENCE
Worms Produce Another Kind of Gold for Growers
By JIM ROBBINS
Published: December 31, 2012
SONOMA, Calif. — Under rows of old chicken sheds, Jack Chambers has built an empire of huge metal boxes filled with cattle manure and millions of wriggling red worms.
“My buddies all had planes and boats,” said Mr. Chambers,
60, a former airline pilot. “I have a worm farm.”
Mr. Chambers’s two decades of investment in what he calls an
“underground movement” may be paying off. New research suggests that the
product whose manufacture he helped pioneer, a worm-created soil additive
called vermicompost, offers an array of benefits for plants — helping them grow
with more vigor, and making them more resistant to disease and insects, than
those grown with other types of composts and fertilizers.
The earthworm’s digestive process, it turns out, “is a
really nice incubator for microorganisms,” said Norman Q. Arancon, an assistant
professor of horticulture at the University of Hawaii at Hilo.
And these microbes, which multiply rapidly when they are
excreted, alter the ecosystem of the soil. Some make nitrogen more available to
plant roots, accounting for the increased growth. The high diversity and
numbers of microbes outperform those in the soil that cause disease.
By contrast, Dr. Arancon said, soil that has been heavily
exposed to synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides lacks microbial
richness and diversity, qualities that can be restored naturally by adding the
microbes from worms.
Some experts and entrepreneurs hope earthworms can also help
with another problem: the growing piles of animal waste from dairy farms and
other agricultural operations.
Worm Power, a company in Avon, N.Y., transforms 10 million
pounds of manure from a single dairy herd each year — about 40 percent of the
cattle’s output — into 2.5 million pounds of vermicompost. Tom Herlihy, a
former municipal waste engineer who founded the company in 2003, says it has
raised more than $6 million in venture capital and $2 million in grants for
research, much of it at Cornell University.
Here in Northern California, Mr. Chambers’s Sonoma Valley
Worm Farm produces about half a million pounds of similar compost, an amount he
plans to increase in the spring. He loads a long metal bin with cow manure and
300,000 to 400,000 Eisenia fetida, or red wigglers — weighing 300 to 400
pounds. In their wake, the worms leave cattle waste that has been processed
into rich and crumbly castings that look like fine peat moss.
It takes six months for a vermicompost bed to become fully
mature, by which time a million worms roam the manure. Mr. Chambers continues
to add two yards of manure and harvest one yard of worm compost weekly. The
finished product is shaved, an inch at a time, off the bottom of the bin. An
established bed can go on this way for years.
Both operations pre-compost their manure before they fork it
over to the worms. That means piling it up and allowing it to get naturally hot
enough to kill unwanted seeds and pathogens like E. coli.
The properties of worm compost are different from fertilizer
or manure. “It’s interesting and complicated,” said Rhonda Sherman, an
extension specialist at North Carolina State University who has taught
vermicomposting around the world for more than 30 years and who holds an annual
conference on the subject.
“Certain plants might react well to vermicompost from dairy
manure,” she said, “and other plants might react better to food-waste
vermicompost.” That has led to “boutique composting,” with different blends for
different kinds of plants.
A West Coast company, California Soils, uses worms to break
down cardboard waste fibers that are too short to be recycled. The glue used to
bind the paper serves as an important source of nitrogen for the worms. “It’s a
really good product for nut farmers and stone fruit farmers,” Mitch Davis, a
company spokesman, said of the compost, adding that it also helps control
nutgall, a fungal disease that afflicts walnut trees.
Worms were said to be Darwin’s favorite organism, and for
good reason: it seems they can break down most anything. Studies have shown
they can detoxify soil with cadmium, lead and other heavy metals.
Another product made from worm waste is a concentrate,
sometimes called tea, that Mr. Chambers extracts using an aerator. Dr. Arancon
said even a 1 percent solution of the extract had the same properties as vermicompost.
At Cornell, Eric Nelson, a plant pathologist, is studying
how compost suppresses disease. Worm Power’s product, he says, does a better
job than traditional compost, perhaps because the worm compost is highly
uniform. “The key is understanding why these microbes do what they do,” Dr.
Nelson said. Then, perhaps, the mechanism can be enhanced, he said.
The worm compost is considered valuable enough to fetch
almost 10 times the price of other composts.
Still, the industry suffers from image problems. “It’s hard
to bring it out of the ‘It’s cute to have a worm box in my backyard’ approach
and put it on par with other strategies for waste management,” said Allison
Jack, who earned her doctorate by studying vermicompost at Cornell and is now
teaching at Prescott College in Arizona.
The quality of products varies widely, and because there are
no industry standards, anyone can call a product vermicompost.
For a time, the worm business was a haven for swindlers.
Companies would sell worms to growers, who were told they could raise more
worms and produce vermicompost, which they could then sell back. Some of these
offers turned out to be Ponzi schemes.
Still, the properties of vermicompost have long been
recognized by growers. Jeff Dawson, the curator of gardens at the Round Pond
Estate winery in the Napa Valley, swears by Mr. Chambers’s castings, which he has
used for more than a decade.
“A cup or half a cup in the hole as we plant each vine
increases the vine’s ability to establish itself at a much faster pace,” Mr.
Dawson said. “And it creates a healthier plant.”
This being California, some of Mr. Chambers’s customers are
medical marijuana growers, and he likes the way growers do business. “They hand
you cash,” he said.
A version of this article appeared in print on January 1, 2013, on page D4 of the New York edition with the headline: Worms Produce Another Kind of Gold for Growers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/science/worms-produce-another-kind-of-gold-for-farmers.html
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
CAN PLANTS THINK?
This is a very creative, informative and cute video. This short video shares information about how plants problem solve, communicate with other plant life, and work together in groups to survive. Hope you enjoy it!
Thursday, February 13, 2014
CARING FOR MATURE TREES DURING A DROUGHT
CARING FOR MATURE TREES DURING A DROUGHT
A mature tree is defined as a tree with trunk whose diameter measures more than 16 inches around at the height of your chest.
HOW MUCH WATER DOES MY LARGE TREE NEED?
Mature trees vary widely in their need for water, depending on size, age, species, and if there is irrigated lawn around it. Mature trees that are accustomed to regular lawn watering will continue to require some water during this time of drought.
Check the moisture of the soil (6 - 8 inches down) around the tree's dripline (area under the outermost leaves of the tree - see diagram). If the soil is dry and crumbly, apply water slowly so it seeps deeply into the soil.
HOW SHOULD I WATER MY MATURE TREE?
Watering slowly is important. An easy way to cut back on watering, but still ensure your tree is getting enough, is to place an inch high can (tuna fish or cat food can) beneath your tree, turn on your sprinklers and then turn off the water when the can is filled. Quitting tree watering “cold turkey” will be hard on your tree.
Don't rely on a clock or a calendar, water the tree when the soil moisture is low.
WHAT IF MY CITY HAS BANNED OUTDOOR IRRIGATION?
The best way to be proactive and conserve water is to position a soaker hose in a spiral pattern starting a few feet away from the trunk and moving out to the dripline. (If possible remove the grass in this area and cover the hose with mulch.) Monitor the hose for run off and keep track of how long it takes to the water to penetrate 6 - 8 inches down so that you can repeat this technique when the soil becomes dry.
WHAT IF I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE HEALTH OF MY MATURE TREE?
Hire a Certified Arborist who is knowledgeable about the needs of trees and educated and equipped to provide proper diagnostic and treatment services. Follow our guidelines to find and hire an ISA Certified Arborist.
(Great tip sheet from Sacramento Tree Foundation)
A mature tree is defined as a tree with trunk whose diameter measures more than 16 inches around at the height of your chest.
HOW MUCH WATER DOES MY LARGE TREE NEED?
Mature trees vary widely in their need for water, depending on size, age, species, and if there is irrigated lawn around it. Mature trees that are accustomed to regular lawn watering will continue to require some water during this time of drought.
Check the moisture of the soil (6 - 8 inches down) around the tree's dripline (area under the outermost leaves of the tree - see diagram). If the soil is dry and crumbly, apply water slowly so it seeps deeply into the soil.
HOW SHOULD I WATER MY MATURE TREE?
Watering slowly is important. An easy way to cut back on watering, but still ensure your tree is getting enough, is to place an inch high can (tuna fish or cat food can) beneath your tree, turn on your sprinklers and then turn off the water when the can is filled. Quitting tree watering “cold turkey” will be hard on your tree.
Don't rely on a clock or a calendar, water the tree when the soil moisture is low.
WHAT IF MY CITY HAS BANNED OUTDOOR IRRIGATION?
The best way to be proactive and conserve water is to position a soaker hose in a spiral pattern starting a few feet away from the trunk and moving out to the dripline. (If possible remove the grass in this area and cover the hose with mulch.) Monitor the hose for run off and keep track of how long it takes to the water to penetrate 6 - 8 inches down so that you can repeat this technique when the soil becomes dry.
WHAT IF I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE HEALTH OF MY MATURE TREE?
Hire a Certified Arborist who is knowledgeable about the needs of trees and educated and equipped to provide proper diagnostic and treatment services. Follow our guidelines to find and hire an ISA Certified Arborist.
(Great tip sheet from Sacramento Tree Foundation)
Saturday, July 6, 2013
A Farm for the Future
“All of the debts for society’s century-long
industrial fiesta are coming due at the same time. We have no choice but
to transition to a world no longer dependent on fossil fuels, a world
made up of communities and economies that function within ecological
bounds. How we manage this transition is the most important question of
our time.”
~ Richard Heinberg
~ Richard Heinberg
A
Farm for the Future is a video about changing the way we
garden/farm - it is made in the UK, but so much applies here in the U.S. and throughout the world.
This video starts off examining animal farming, but develops into a holistic examination of growing and providing food in the future. The scope of this video and
what changes need to be made in the future are eye-opening and
thought provoking. We are all in this together, so it is encouraging to see some successful examples of farms for the future.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Maine House Gives First Nod to GMO Labeling Bill in Landslide Vote
By Steve Mistler Portland Press Herald, June 11, 2013
AUGUSTA — Maine is on track to join several other states attempting to require food producers to label food containing genetically modified ingredients, following a landslide vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
AUGUSTA — Maine is on track to join several other states attempting to require food producers to label food containing genetically modified ingredients, following a landslide vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
The House
voted to support L.D. 718, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lance Harvell,
R-Farmington, sets the stage for a legal entanglement between the state and
agribusiness and biotech industry giant Monsanto, which has already threatened
to sue states that pass similar labeling laws. The political battle between
industry interests and the well-organized supporters of L.D. 718 has raged
behind the scenes for several months at the State House, as the biotech
industry fights to blunt a popular movement that has taken the GMO fight to at
least 18 other state legislatures following failed attempts to pass labeling
legislation in Congress.
The House
voted 141-4 in favor of a amendment that would trigger the labeling requirement
once four other contiguous states, including Maine, pass similar labeling
legislation.
Supporters
of L.D. 718, a bill co-sponsored by 120 lawmakers, including Democrats,
independents and Republicans, relished the looming fight with Monsanto, the
litigious international company widely vilified by supporters of the organic
food movement. Harvell blasted the company, saying lawmakers should not give
the industry "veto power" over a bill that tells people what's in their
food.
"In
this body alone we have routinely taken on the federal government, which is
supposedly the most powerful government in the world," Harvell said.
"And yet, if a corporation threatens us, we fear them more? Are we going
to give these people veto power over this body and the people of the state of
Maine? Do we really live in a world where they have more power than our federal
government? It's a question that we should ask."
A lawsuit
likely may await Maine if the labeling bill goes into effect.
Attorney
General Janet Mills, who was asked to review the constitutionality of the bill,
told lawmakers on the Agriculture Committee that it is "almost
certain" to face a legal challenge from the industry. Mills did not
guarantee that her office would be able to defend its constitutionality.
Proponents of the bill, including the Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association, said it is up to states to take on industry to ensure that it discloses whether food is bio-engineered — its DNA has been spliced with that of an unrelated plant, animal, bacterium or virus — because Congress has failed to enact federal legislation.
Proponents of the bill, including the Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association, said it is up to states to take on industry to ensure that it discloses whether food is bio-engineered — its DNA has been spliced with that of an unrelated plant, animal, bacterium or virus — because Congress has failed to enact federal legislation.
No state has passed such a labeling law. At least 18 states are considering them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Connecticut recently passed a GMO labeling law that is nearly identical to amended version of L.D. 718. Vermont is on the verge of doing the same. A similar bill is under consideration by the New Hampshire Legislature.
Lance Dutson, a spokesman for the business and industry coalition that's opposing the bill, told the Portland Press Herald in May that Mills' review of the bill essentially reaffirmed the proposal has "serious constitutional concerns."
The constitutional issue centers on free speech, specifically compelling food manufacturers and retailers to disclose ingredients that don't pose a known public health risk. The Maine State Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Farm Bureau and the Grocery Manufacturers Association say the bill would stigmatize genetically modified foods despite a dearth of scientific research proving that such products are any less healthful than those that are grown conventionally.
Maine law now allows retailers to label products voluntarily as certified organic or "GMO-free."
Harvell's bill would prohibit retailers from labeling a product "natural" if it contained GMOs, genetically modified organisms.
Advocates of new regulations say scientific evidence is emerging that genetically modified foods can increase health risks and food allergies. They say federal regulators have left testing up to the industry that is producing and profiting from genetically modified products.
Labeling supporters argue that independent testing on GMO foods hasn't happened because industry patents prohibit it.
"If it's so unique that it requires a patent, then I say that it's time that it requires a label," Harvell said.
Harvell, during a rousing floor speech, said Tuesday that if GMO foods are so unique that they require a patent, the public can't be sure that it's safe to eat.
The Food and Drug Administration regulates genetically modified foods but does not approve them. The agency assumes the foods are safe until confronted with evidence that they're not. Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, has worked on labeling legislation in Congress. He told lawmakers during a public hearing on Maine's bill that federal regulators have ceded review of genetically modified products to ensure that the industry — not the government — is legally liable if health problems surface.
Opponents say a labeling law would be costly to farmers and sellers, who would have to review affidavits to determine whether the food they're selling contains genetically modified ingredients.
The Legislature previously has rejected four GMO-labeling bills, but supporters say there is growing support for a law.
The proposal endorsed by the House differs from the original bill. It would not take effect until five other contiguous states pass similar legislation.
Some lawmakers worried that the amended version would doom the labeling effort because one state could derail the effort if it doesn't pass labeling legislation. Rep. Brian Jones, D-Freedom, said the altered bill effectively would grant New Hampshire veto power over Maine's effort if Granite State lawmakers don't pass a labeling law.
Rep. Amy Volk, R-Scarborough said the amended bill would help defray some of the anticipated legal costs and "send a message to the federal government."
The bill now moves to the Senate for a vote. The bill may face a steeper climb among Republican state senators. Sen. Andre Cushing, R-Hampden, on Monday described the bill as a Democrat-led effort on a conservative website.
The LePage administration testified against the bill during the public hearing. Adrienne Bennett, the governor's spokeswoman, said Tuesday that the governor had not yet taken a position on the amended bill.
In May the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would give states the power to require genetically modified food to be labeled as such. U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, voted for the amendment. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against it.
Steve Mistler — 620-7016 smistler@pressherald.com
Advocates of new regulations say scientific evidence is emerging that genetically modified foods can increase health risks and food allergies. They say federal regulators have left testing up to the industry that is producing and profiting from genetically modified products.
Labeling supporters argue that independent testing on GMO foods hasn't happened because industry patents prohibit it.
"If it's so unique that it requires a patent, then I say that it's time that it requires a label," Harvell said.
Harvell, during a rousing floor speech, said Tuesday that if GMO foods are so unique that they require a patent, the public can't be sure that it's safe to eat.
The Food and Drug Administration regulates genetically modified foods but does not approve them. The agency assumes the foods are safe until confronted with evidence that they're not. Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, has worked on labeling legislation in Congress. He told lawmakers during a public hearing on Maine's bill that federal regulators have ceded review of genetically modified products to ensure that the industry — not the government — is legally liable if health problems surface.
Opponents say a labeling law would be costly to farmers and sellers, who would have to review affidavits to determine whether the food they're selling contains genetically modified ingredients.
The Legislature previously has rejected four GMO-labeling bills, but supporters say there is growing support for a law.
The proposal endorsed by the House differs from the original bill. It would not take effect until five other contiguous states pass similar legislation.
Some lawmakers worried that the amended version would doom the labeling effort because one state could derail the effort if it doesn't pass labeling legislation. Rep. Brian Jones, D-Freedom, said the altered bill effectively would grant New Hampshire veto power over Maine's effort if Granite State lawmakers don't pass a labeling law.
Rep. Amy Volk, R-Scarborough said the amended bill would help defray some of the anticipated legal costs and "send a message to the federal government."
The bill now moves to the Senate for a vote. The bill may face a steeper climb among Republican state senators. Sen. Andre Cushing, R-Hampden, on Monday described the bill as a Democrat-led effort on a conservative website.
The LePage administration testified against the bill during the public hearing. Adrienne Bennett, the governor's spokeswoman, said Tuesday that the governor had not yet taken a position on the amended bill.
In May the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would give states the power to require genetically modified food to be labeled as such. U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, voted for the amendment. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted against it.
Steve Mistler — 620-7016 smistler@pressherald.com
For
related articles and more information, please visit Organic Consumers Association - OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page and Politics and Democracy page.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Connecticut First In The Nation To Pass GMO Labeling Bill
by Jacqueline Wattles | Jun 3, 2013 6:32pm
Tara Cook-Littman, an advocate who pushed for the bill celebrates her victory
A bill that would mandate labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients passed the House Monday, making Connecticut the first state in the nation to pass this type of legislation.
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are crops that have been manually altered using modern technology in order to be resistant to herbicides and pesticides or take on other characteristics such as a longer shelf-life. Connecticut’s legislation came in response to a national campaign to mandate labels on foods that contain GMOs.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy joined activists and House and Senate leadership to celebrate the bill’s passage, assuring them that the bill’s last step before enactment - his signature - would not be an issue.
“This is important stuff. . . and I think the rest of the world is starting to understand that,” Malloy said. “I know a lot of you are surprised. I’m not. I saw it coming. It’s an appropriate thing to do.”
Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said the bill would make a “critical difference.”
“We have made history in the state of Connecticut, and this issue is so important in terms of the safety of our food supply and the health of the men, women, and children in this country,” Williams said. “We know these GMO foods are tied directly to increased use of herbicides and pesticides that are wreaking havoc in our environment.”
The bill’s passage came after a different version of the bill was shuffled between the House and Senate for weeks before leadership in both chambers came to a compromise.
The issue was whether to allow the law to go into effect automatically, or tack on a “trigger” that would require neighboring states to pass similar legislation before Connecticut’s law would become effective. The idea behind the trigger, as House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said, is to ensure that Connecticut won’t “stand alone” with the bill and cause undesirable economic consequences.
But the House and Senate resolved their differences last week when compromise legislation was passed by the Senate. The new version requires that four other states pass similar legislation in order to “trigger” Connecticut’s labeling requirement. One of the states must share a border with Connecticut and their combined population must equal at least 20 million people.
If the trigger is met, sellers or distributors who sell products containing GMOs that are not labeled would be subject to a daily $1,000 fine per product and the Department of Consumer Protection would be able to embargo the products.
Sharkey said he was pleased with the compromise.
“We were able to come together and compromise to protect consumers and the economy in the state of Connecticut,” he said. “I think it’s a tremendous achievement.”
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney said the reason the bill came back after hitting so many legislative roadblocks was because of the grassroots activism that was louder than ever this session.
“Everyone was committed to making sure we got something passed,” he said. “Sitting down, doing the hard work, listening to the advocates, and getting the bill passed…[the advocates] are the reason.”
The bill received bipartisan support, passing the Senate unanimously and winning a 134-3 vote in the House.
Though the compromise weakens the Senate’s original bill, which would have gone into effect in 2016 regardless of whether other states were on board, the advocates that pressed the legislators for action said they support it.
Tara Cook-Littman, the face of the Right to Know GMO campaign in Connecticut, has spent the past two years lobbying for GMO-labeling legislation. She said was “thrilled” about the legislation and is not concerned about the trigger clause.
“This is a very strong bill . . . it represents the highest standard developed by GMO-labeling leaders throughout the country,” Cook-Litmann said. “To all those concerned about the trigger clause, we have nothing to fear.”
Rep. Diana Urban, one of the bill’s main proponents, said Maine, New Jersey, and New York are “well on their way to passing similar legislation.”
“This is history,” Urban said. “It’s a doable trigger, and I am just thrilled. Sixty-two other countries either ban [GMOs] or label them, and we’re the first in the nation to stand up and do this.”
Sharkey added that passing this bill is instrumental in getting other states to follow suit.
“The hardest thing that we can ever do is get that very first state to say to the country that this is the way we as a people want to see our country go, and Connecticut is going to lead the way,” he said.
Activists that lead GMO-labeling advocacy groups in Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all traveled to Hartford to celebrate with the Connecticut advocates. and said they are hopeful Connecticut’s bill will help push proposed legislation in their own states through.
Jim Garrison, a potato farmer and a member of Maine’s Right to Know GMO coalition, said the Maine House of Representatives may vote on a GMO-labeling bill as early as Friday and the bill has 123 co-sponsors.
Martin Dagoberto, a member of the Massachusetts Right to Know GMO coalition, said he felt Connecticut’s action would pressure other states to follow suit.
“This win for Connecticut is a win for all of us,” Dagoberto said. “It feeds our collective momentum, and we will not be stopped. The trigger clause is nothing more than a way to encourage other states to share the burden of defending the integrity of our democracy and our food supply because powerful corporate interests want to keep us in the dark.”
GMO-labeling legislation has also been proposed in the lower house of the New York State Legislature, a state Urban said is instrumental in getting on board because of its big economy, but no votes have been taken yet.
CT First In The Nation To Pass GMO Labeling Bill
Tara Cook-Littman, an advocate who pushed for the bill celebrates her victory
A bill that would mandate labels on foods that contain genetically modified ingredients passed the House Monday, making Connecticut the first state in the nation to pass this type of legislation.
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are crops that have been manually altered using modern technology in order to be resistant to herbicides and pesticides or take on other characteristics such as a longer shelf-life. Connecticut’s legislation came in response to a national campaign to mandate labels on foods that contain GMOs.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy joined activists and House and Senate leadership to celebrate the bill’s passage, assuring them that the bill’s last step before enactment - his signature - would not be an issue.
“This is important stuff. . . and I think the rest of the world is starting to understand that,” Malloy said. “I know a lot of you are surprised. I’m not. I saw it coming. It’s an appropriate thing to do.”
Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said the bill would make a “critical difference.”
“We have made history in the state of Connecticut, and this issue is so important in terms of the safety of our food supply and the health of the men, women, and children in this country,” Williams said. “We know these GMO foods are tied directly to increased use of herbicides and pesticides that are wreaking havoc in our environment.”
The bill’s passage came after a different version of the bill was shuffled between the House and Senate for weeks before leadership in both chambers came to a compromise.
The issue was whether to allow the law to go into effect automatically, or tack on a “trigger” that would require neighboring states to pass similar legislation before Connecticut’s law would become effective. The idea behind the trigger, as House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said, is to ensure that Connecticut won’t “stand alone” with the bill and cause undesirable economic consequences.
But the House and Senate resolved their differences last week when compromise legislation was passed by the Senate. The new version requires that four other states pass similar legislation in order to “trigger” Connecticut’s labeling requirement. One of the states must share a border with Connecticut and their combined population must equal at least 20 million people.
If the trigger is met, sellers or distributors who sell products containing GMOs that are not labeled would be subject to a daily $1,000 fine per product and the Department of Consumer Protection would be able to embargo the products.
Sharkey said he was pleased with the compromise.
“We were able to come together and compromise to protect consumers and the economy in the state of Connecticut,” he said. “I think it’s a tremendous achievement.”
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney said the reason the bill came back after hitting so many legislative roadblocks was because of the grassroots activism that was louder than ever this session.
“Everyone was committed to making sure we got something passed,” he said. “Sitting down, doing the hard work, listening to the advocates, and getting the bill passed…[the advocates] are the reason.”
The bill received bipartisan support, passing the Senate unanimously and winning a 134-3 vote in the House.
Though the compromise weakens the Senate’s original bill, which would have gone into effect in 2016 regardless of whether other states were on board, the advocates that pressed the legislators for action said they support it.
Tara Cook-Littman, the face of the Right to Know GMO campaign in Connecticut, has spent the past two years lobbying for GMO-labeling legislation. She said was “thrilled” about the legislation and is not concerned about the trigger clause.
“This is a very strong bill . . . it represents the highest standard developed by GMO-labeling leaders throughout the country,” Cook-Litmann said. “To all those concerned about the trigger clause, we have nothing to fear.”
Rep. Diana Urban, one of the bill’s main proponents, said Maine, New Jersey, and New York are “well on their way to passing similar legislation.”
“This is history,” Urban said. “It’s a doable trigger, and I am just thrilled. Sixty-two other countries either ban [GMOs] or label them, and we’re the first in the nation to stand up and do this.”
Sharkey added that passing this bill is instrumental in getting other states to follow suit.
“The hardest thing that we can ever do is get that very first state to say to the country that this is the way we as a people want to see our country go, and Connecticut is going to lead the way,” he said.
Activists that lead GMO-labeling advocacy groups in Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all traveled to Hartford to celebrate with the Connecticut advocates. and said they are hopeful Connecticut’s bill will help push proposed legislation in their own states through.
Jim Garrison, a potato farmer and a member of Maine’s Right to Know GMO coalition, said the Maine House of Representatives may vote on a GMO-labeling bill as early as Friday and the bill has 123 co-sponsors.
Martin Dagoberto, a member of the Massachusetts Right to Know GMO coalition, said he felt Connecticut’s action would pressure other states to follow suit.
“This win for Connecticut is a win for all of us,” Dagoberto said. “It feeds our collective momentum, and we will not be stopped. The trigger clause is nothing more than a way to encourage other states to share the burden of defending the integrity of our democracy and our food supply because powerful corporate interests want to keep us in the dark.”
GMO-labeling legislation has also been proposed in the lower house of the New York State Legislature, a state Urban said is instrumental in getting on board because of its big economy, but no votes have been taken yet.
CT First In The Nation To Pass GMO Labeling Bill
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Why Organic Produce May Be Worth The Money
Nature's way of balancing pest management and why organic produce is the mightier choice for you.
Researchers concluded that the additional “stress” of an organic farming operation makes the plants boost their production of phytochemicals. In other words, the plants must cope with greater challenges from natural insect predators and disease so they respond with a higher output of defensive compounds, which can benefit people, too.
From: Organic Consumers Association
Why organic produce may be worth the money
By Paul Taylor
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Feb. 21, 2013
Organic fruits and vegetables may not be as big and beautiful as regular
produce, but appearances can be deceiving. A study of organic tomatoes
found they are packed with a much higher concentration of healthy
compounds than the conventionally grown variety. And that suggests being
smaller and less attractive can sometimes be better for you – at least
when it comes to the food supply.
For the study, the researchers selected tomatoes from an organic farm and a conventional operation located 1.5 kilometres apart in northeastern Brazil. So the plants were raised in roughly the same weather and soil conditions.
The organic farm used animal manure for fertilizer and a naturally based fungicide, while the conventional farm relied on a chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
From outward appearances the organic tomatoes did not do so well – they were roughly 40 per cent smaller than those grown conventionally. But a detailed analysis, published in the online journal Plos One, revealed the organic variety contained elevated concentrations of vitamin C and other phenolic compounds.
“The contents in phenolic compounds and in vitamin C were 139 per cent and 55 per cent higher, respectively. That is quite a lot,” one of the researchers, Laurent Urban of the University of Avignon in France, said in an e-mail interview.
The researchers, led by Raquel Miranda of the Federal University of Ceara in Brazil, concluded that the additional “stress” of an organic farming operation makes the plants boost their production of phytochemicals.
In other words, the plants must cope with greater challenges from natural insect predators and disease so they respond with a higher output of defensive compounds, which can benefit people, too.
For instance, vitamin C and phenolic compounds act as antioxidants, neutralizing free radicals that can cause cell damage. Previous studies have shown that a plant-rich diet is associated with a lower risk of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.
The researchers noted that the agricultural sector has been primarily focused on increasing crop yields.
“This might be all right for staple food, but as far as fruits and vegetables are concerned, it may be argued that gustative and micro-nutrient quality matter more than energy supply,” they write in their study.
“Our observations suggest that, at least for fruits and vegetable production, growers should not systematically try to reduce stress to maximize yield and fruit size, but should accept a certain level of stress as that imposed by organic farming with the objective of improving certain aspects of product quality.”
In the meantime, Urban pointed out that many people don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables to reap their potential benefits. Those grown organically at least contain more nutrients per mouthful. What’s more, this type of agriculture isn’t associated with the same level of pesticide residues found in some conventionally grown crops, he added.
http://
Researchers concluded that the additional “stress” of an organic farming operation makes the plants boost their production of phytochemicals. In other words, the plants must cope with greater challenges from natural insect predators and disease so they respond with a higher output of defensive compounds, which can benefit people, too.
From: Organic Consumers Association
Why organic produce may be worth the money
By Paul Taylor
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Feb. 21, 2013
Organic fruits and vegetables may not be as big and beautiful as regular
produce, but appearances can be deceiving. A study of organic tomatoes
found they are packed with a much higher concentration of healthy
compounds than the conventionally grown variety. And that suggests being
smaller and less attractive can sometimes be better for you – at least
when it comes to the food supply.For the study, the researchers selected tomatoes from an organic farm and a conventional operation located 1.5 kilometres apart in northeastern Brazil. So the plants were raised in roughly the same weather and soil conditions.
The organic farm used animal manure for fertilizer and a naturally based fungicide, while the conventional farm relied on a chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
From outward appearances the organic tomatoes did not do so well – they were roughly 40 per cent smaller than those grown conventionally. But a detailed analysis, published in the online journal Plos One, revealed the organic variety contained elevated concentrations of vitamin C and other phenolic compounds.
“The contents in phenolic compounds and in vitamin C were 139 per cent and 55 per cent higher, respectively. That is quite a lot,” one of the researchers, Laurent Urban of the University of Avignon in France, said in an e-mail interview.
The researchers, led by Raquel Miranda of the Federal University of Ceara in Brazil, concluded that the additional “stress” of an organic farming operation makes the plants boost their production of phytochemicals.
In other words, the plants must cope with greater challenges from natural insect predators and disease so they respond with a higher output of defensive compounds, which can benefit people, too.
For instance, vitamin C and phenolic compounds act as antioxidants, neutralizing free radicals that can cause cell damage. Previous studies have shown that a plant-rich diet is associated with a lower risk of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.
The researchers noted that the agricultural sector has been primarily focused on increasing crop yields.
“This might be all right for staple food, but as far as fruits and vegetables are concerned, it may be argued that gustative and micro-nutrient quality matter more than energy supply,” they write in their study.
“Our observations suggest that, at least for fruits and vegetable production, growers should not systematically try to reduce stress to maximize yield and fruit size, but should accept a certain level of stress as that imposed by organic farming with the objective of improving certain aspects of product quality.”
In the meantime, Urban pointed out that many people don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables to reap their potential benefits. Those grown organically at least contain more nutrients per mouthful. What’s more, this type of agriculture isn’t associated with the same level of pesticide residues found in some conventionally grown crops, he added.
http://
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
