On organic gardening/farming methods
Some ideas swirling in my head of things to write, but they probably won't be of much interest to anyone. The first has to do with people who are fundamentalist in their approach to organic gardening. It's mostly women who get caught up in a religious purity ethic, who don't know the chemistry or biology behind different gardening techniques, but make decisions based on how they *feel* about things. Organic gardening methods have a limited amount of scientific evidence backing it up, but a hell of a lot of marketing to promote it in some circles.
Why is this an issue? Well, organic gardening/farming does have some some useful things and approaches to offer. But overly enthusiastic adherents don't understand the key word of "some", they will adamantly insist on things that actually don't work at all. They'll tell you that you misapplied it, or maybe you just bought the wrong brand. But diatomaceous earth will totally scratch up the hard chitin shells of nasty bugs and totally kill them! Although we don't know how. But it has something to do with silica.
This is false. Diatoms do contain silica, but silica will only harm soft grubs. That's the whole point of chitin, it's a hard outer shell that protects the soft parts inside - you could even think of the development of the shell evolving in response to such things as diatoms. "Big Ag" knows this, that is why it is used in grain silos, where the grubs are a serious issue. So what is the problem here? The emotionally-based organic people will insist that diatomaceous earth is a cure-all for any bug with a shell, it isn't, and when it fails many people write off organic methods altogether, or get frustrated and stop gardening by saying it's too hard and they didn't really have that much time anyway. When if they'd switched over to say, boric acid plus sugar, set out temporarily, it could've actually fixed the problem. Gardening forums are full of people singing effusive praises of "DE", and they'll even tell you it worked, just like they'll tell you that marigolds totally keep the bad bugs away.*
Organic gardening is not the same thing as sustainable gardening. Organic fertilizers have an issue when it comes to nitrogen. We don't use them around here b/c it creeps both of us out to have animal bone, blood, and tissue in our soils. Gardening is messy; we're usually covered in some amount of dirt. It gets in our skin, under the nails, in cuts, hair, mouths... I'm not down with shoving my hands in dead animal parts. I don't eat animals; I'm not gonna garden in 'em. And there's not enough dead animals in the world to go around for this purpose. As soon as you mention this to the fundamentalists, they start braying about how you're obviously for Big Ag and you're an immoral unethical POS. Which is kind of weird when you think about it. But they get overly invested in strange things. Why is chilean nitrate considered okay in these circles, but nitrate from other areas isn't? It's described in the same glowing terms as the exotic sea salt craze a couple of years ago. Much of the fervor comes from the marketing, which imparts upon the user some amount of purity. The foods they grow will be undefiled and wholesome, radiant with the life-bringing energy of Mother Earth, not nasty GMO plants built of chemicals and death.
There's a weird mix of purity-marketing, use of the labor of interns, and grant money around this stuff. We see it on the local level. It's hard to talk about it without sounding insanely jealous, because who wouldn't want grant money for their community gardening projects? But around here, there are some funny things going on with some foundations and organic groups, and I'm not certain who is the lobbyist arm, and are there any nonprofit arms? You read the webpages and they have the copy of a 501c3... but they don't mention it. And members of one board are all members of other boards. You have idealistic young kids willing to be free labor. Or people needing to do community service. Grants pouring in. An urban farm claiming that they will turn a profit, when the land they are using is donated by a church and the labor is free to cheap (you know, the most expensive parts of running a farm**). But it's an organic, urban farm with a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture - you pay money upfront and get to pick up food around the season) in a formerly blighted area, so it makes everyone look good. Look progressive. But it was built on a parking area, raised beds. They'll need water. Lots of it. And they need a nice fence. And a gazebo at the entrance area. And a cooler to store things and trucks to ship them out. They'll just need a little money, maybe from some generous foundations, maybe the foundation arm (green PR) from your company is interested? This farm is a cure for the urban food desert - except it's too expensive for the poor people in the area, and sells to organic restaurants and the relatively well off. But it looks good, it makes everyone involved look good. The farmer who runs the whole thing only served in Clinton's agricultural department and is Harvard-educated. He says in interviews that he'll give away the last of his harvest when the little old ladies ask for it. Something not quite right is going on, from the donors to the organic fruit tree sale (which looks like marketing PR for for-profit entities also looking for tax breaks), to the foundations that run these things. When you try to follow the money, it's easy to get lost here.
And in the end, who is buying the products of the organic fruit tree sale? All kinds of people, but I'd bet a lot of money that someone, somewhere, will plant in land with dead animal parts and cover it with the shells of old diatoms, hoping the silica will purify their food.
*Technically, marigolds do release a chemical that bugs find unpleasant under certain conditions (plants do have their own forms of defense, after all), but it's not an effective form of pest management. Here in the South, where the bugs are big and hungry and come in big swarms, putting in a couple around your tomato plants is an aesthetic act.
**They're using human labor for industrial labor, so they don't have the huge cost of machines that can bankrupt "normal" farmers.
Why is this an issue? Well, organic gardening/farming does have some some useful things and approaches to offer. But overly enthusiastic adherents don't understand the key word of "some", they will adamantly insist on things that actually don't work at all. They'll tell you that you misapplied it, or maybe you just bought the wrong brand. But diatomaceous earth will totally scratch up the hard chitin shells of nasty bugs and totally kill them! Although we don't know how. But it has something to do with silica.
This is false. Diatoms do contain silica, but silica will only harm soft grubs. That's the whole point of chitin, it's a hard outer shell that protects the soft parts inside - you could even think of the development of the shell evolving in response to such things as diatoms. "Big Ag" knows this, that is why it is used in grain silos, where the grubs are a serious issue. So what is the problem here? The emotionally-based organic people will insist that diatomaceous earth is a cure-all for any bug with a shell, it isn't, and when it fails many people write off organic methods altogether, or get frustrated and stop gardening by saying it's too hard and they didn't really have that much time anyway. When if they'd switched over to say, boric acid plus sugar, set out temporarily, it could've actually fixed the problem. Gardening forums are full of people singing effusive praises of "DE", and they'll even tell you it worked, just like they'll tell you that marigolds totally keep the bad bugs away.*
Organic gardening is not the same thing as sustainable gardening. Organic fertilizers have an issue when it comes to nitrogen. We don't use them around here b/c it creeps both of us out to have animal bone, blood, and tissue in our soils. Gardening is messy; we're usually covered in some amount of dirt. It gets in our skin, under the nails, in cuts, hair, mouths... I'm not down with shoving my hands in dead animal parts. I don't eat animals; I'm not gonna garden in 'em. And there's not enough dead animals in the world to go around for this purpose. As soon as you mention this to the fundamentalists, they start braying about how you're obviously for Big Ag and you're an immoral unethical POS. Which is kind of weird when you think about it. But they get overly invested in strange things. Why is chilean nitrate considered okay in these circles, but nitrate from other areas isn't? It's described in the same glowing terms as the exotic sea salt craze a couple of years ago. Much of the fervor comes from the marketing, which imparts upon the user some amount of purity. The foods they grow will be undefiled and wholesome, radiant with the life-bringing energy of Mother Earth, not nasty GMO plants built of chemicals and death.
There's a weird mix of purity-marketing, use of the labor of interns, and grant money around this stuff. We see it on the local level. It's hard to talk about it without sounding insanely jealous, because who wouldn't want grant money for their community gardening projects? But around here, there are some funny things going on with some foundations and organic groups, and I'm not certain who is the lobbyist arm, and are there any nonprofit arms? You read the webpages and they have the copy of a 501c3... but they don't mention it. And members of one board are all members of other boards. You have idealistic young kids willing to be free labor. Or people needing to do community service. Grants pouring in. An urban farm claiming that they will turn a profit, when the land they are using is donated by a church and the labor is free to cheap (you know, the most expensive parts of running a farm**). But it's an organic, urban farm with a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture - you pay money upfront and get to pick up food around the season) in a formerly blighted area, so it makes everyone look good. Look progressive. But it was built on a parking area, raised beds. They'll need water. Lots of it. And they need a nice fence. And a gazebo at the entrance area. And a cooler to store things and trucks to ship them out. They'll just need a little money, maybe from some generous foundations, maybe the foundation arm (green PR) from your company is interested? This farm is a cure for the urban food desert - except it's too expensive for the poor people in the area, and sells to organic restaurants and the relatively well off. But it looks good, it makes everyone involved look good. The farmer who runs the whole thing only served in Clinton's agricultural department and is Harvard-educated. He says in interviews that he'll give away the last of his harvest when the little old ladies ask for it. Something not quite right is going on, from the donors to the organic fruit tree sale (which looks like marketing PR for for-profit entities also looking for tax breaks), to the foundations that run these things. When you try to follow the money, it's easy to get lost here.
And in the end, who is buying the products of the organic fruit tree sale? All kinds of people, but I'd bet a lot of money that someone, somewhere, will plant in land with dead animal parts and cover it with the shells of old diatoms, hoping the silica will purify their food.
*Technically, marigolds do release a chemical that bugs find unpleasant under certain conditions (plants do have their own forms of defense, after all), but it's not an effective form of pest management. Here in the South, where the bugs are big and hungry and come in big swarms, putting in a couple around your tomato plants is an aesthetic act.
**They're using human labor for industrial labor, so they don't have the huge cost of machines that can bankrupt "normal" farmers.