What is an Organic fertilizer?

Discussion in 'Conversations Forum' started by cowboy, Dec 5, 2008.

  1. scottg

    scottg Active Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    White Rock, BC - coastal
    I get the kelp meal from the local feed store, It is a mineral suppliment for horses or possibly cattle. This is where I get the seed meal as well. The kelp meal is rather expensive but if you buy it by the sack, it is not too bad ($50-60 I think). Because it is only a 1/4 part to the mixture the sack should last a couple / few years for sure. The seed meal goes quick but that is dirt cheap. Whatever you do dont buy the small boxes of any of this from a garden supply store, you will spend way too much. If you cant afford or find kelp meal, leave it out. It is realy just a luxury to add all these wonderfull trace minerals & nutrients to your family's diet. I am certainly not an expert but this is what I have been reading.

    I also make and use lots of compost but only to add organic material to my soil or to add some nice light loamy material to spread over some newly planted seeds. I dont believe that the requirements my garden needs would be remotely satisfied by what my or any compost could deliver..
     
  2. scottg

    scottg Active Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    White Rock, BC - coastal
    Bob2,

    I use that mixture all the time, I broadcast it when preparing beds, I add it in larger amounts directly under where seeds are being sown or when transplanting then I side dress at appropriate times throughout the growing season. I mix it up in a garbage can and am not shy about using it. When it is side dressed, a couple / few days later it is gone. The micro-organisims and moisture will have hauled it down to the roots where it is needed. I understand that it is pretty hard to over do it, I only stop if the vegitation no longer seems to respond to the feeding..

    I wouldnt adjust the mixture for different soils, I would amend the soil with whatever is missing first and leave the fertilizer mixture as is.
     
  3. Millet

    Millet Well-Known Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Denver,Colorado USA
    The statement below by Bev, is most certanly false:

    ......"if you're an organic advocate, that automatically sets you up in opposition to the pro-chemical advocates"..........

    Bev might promulgate it, but many, many, many millions of people,-- by far the vast majority of people, -- use some of both methods, organic and conventional, with much success and satisfaction. According to the USDA organic land area as a percent of the total land area in the United States is only 0.22 (2 tenths of 1 percent)

    Millet (1,442-)
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  4. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    Thanks for the info Scott. I'm not familair with the Kelp additive.
    Time to make a trip down to the feed store and get up to speed.

    Bob
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  5. greengarden bev

    greengarden bev Active Member

    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SW Ontario, Canada
    Millet, you and I are just going to keep splitting hairs, aren't we. Again I say: Ya gotta read my post.

    I said "organic advocate". Not "organic user" or "typical gardener who happens to use some organic methods".

    An advocate is someone who argues for a cause-- a supporter or defender. Someone who argues for the cause of organic agriculture is inevitably going to find him or herself in opposition to those who argue for the cause of conventional agriculture.

    If you still don't see the distinction and you want to hear it from the experts, read the first sentence of the following abstract:
    http://www.organicagcentre.ca/ResearchDatabase/res_organic_values.asp

    As for the claim that:
    "...many, many millions of people,-- by far the vast majority of people, -- use some of both methods, organic and conventional, with much success and satisfaction. According to the USDA organic land area as a percent of the total land area in the United States is only 0.22 (2 tenths of 1 percent)"

    I'm sure you realize the logical problems with your argument here. Numbers of people vs. numbers of hectares. Apples and oranges. Also, comparing organic land use to ALL land is irrelevant. A better measure would be to compare organic vs. non-organic land, and then you would also need to distinguish among cultivated, pasture, etc. As well, giving data for the USA is misleading. Of course the USA will have conventional agriculture ahead of the pack. World data would be more relevant. What do you mean by "people"? Farmers? Gardeners? The millions of people worldwide who survive through subsistence (thus "non conventional") agriculture and probably don't meet any researchers definition of "farmer"? The myopia (and lack of historical perspective) that many of us in the West have about what happens in the rest of world really astounds me. "Conventional" agriculture is really quite unconventional. Chemical ag. has been on the scene only since the 1950s. A blip on the graph when you consider that agriculture has been happening for several thousand years.

    And finally, Millet, I'd like to know how you measured the "success and satisfaction" of the "millions" of people who use a combination of organic and non-organic methods. It must have been a heck of a survey. I guess you didn't interview the 17,107 Indian farmers who committed suicide in 2003, as a direct result of the debt and despair brought about mainly by the adoption of chemical and industrial methods: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/asia/19india.html
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  6. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    Looks like your question never did get answered directly as the thread took some heavy hits along the way. <vbg>

    I found this description which seems relatively straight forward.

    Hope this helps

    Bob
     
  7. cowboy

    cowboy Active Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Bob,

    Thank you for your concern. I was able to find an answer - see posting #11 on page 1 of this thread. My need was for some "official" list, which the IFOAM seems to be.

    I am not an official organic gardener although I use what is considered organic materials - compost, gypsum, bone meal, kelp meal, humate. If there is some 16-20-0 on sale, I will certainly buy it and appy it.

    My query arose after I had applied an organic mix to a friend's garden plot. When I listed the ingredients, which included bone meal, there was concern that bone meal was not vegetarian. This person's interpretation of organic implied vegetarian materials.
     
  8. cowboy

    cowboy Active Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Thank you for the link. I contacted them and got a reply.
     
  9. Warrior 101

    Warrior 101 Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary AB Canada
    Just stumbled across this thread. I found this story shocking and yet I am grateful you brought this to light. Cruel. Very cruel
     
  10. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    I think it is safe to say that there are too many humans on the planet right now and more comming.
    The stress placed on our current agricultural systems is enormous and at the breaking point.
    Even with scientific processes and GMO's we are currently unable to stem the threat of massive starvation around the world.

    The problem I have with "Strict organic proponents" is that they tend to overlook this emminent problem in lieu of devastingly simplistic solutions.

    P.s. in order to read this message somebody , somewhere, is burning "coal" to generate electicity to run your computer, lights and theromstat.


    Bob
     
  11. Millet

    Millet Well-Known Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Denver,Colorado USA
    ......"I think it is safe to say that there are too many humans on the planet right now "..........

    I certainly do not think so. However, if Bob-2 believes this, he can start solving his perceived "problem" by removing himself. Lastly, here in the States, the USDA is paying farmers NOT TO FARM.

    Millet (1,426-)
     
  12. Warrior 101

    Warrior 101 Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary AB Canada
    This thread is beyond my 'normal scope' of thought Bob but your comment is interesting. Most days I do not think about "too many humans" except perhaps when I look at the sprawl of treeless,naked suburbia across the hills. I do wonder "Where do they all come from?" and "Who is looking after the family farms?" "Will there be much longer something which could even be considered a 'family farm'?"

    In the context of this thread about "organic fertilizer" and where it led to thoughts about genetically engineered (tampered) seeds. I am at times given to think we have found a set of keys which unlock secrets to life and disease and we fumble about with them not being aware enough of the consequences of the changes we bring about. I do not say we should not try only that when constraints of money dictate the breadth of the application before we have enough information.... Responsible and small scale would seem the more advisable road to take.

    When you speak of too many humans" it seems to me that even there we prolong our lives, strive to eliminate disease (all good and worthwhile persuits) and the consequences follow. I could be wrong but it seems to me that 'Nature' adapts to our efforts to thwart it's cycles. Too many people or whatever and along comes some event, disease... which dramatically 'thins' things out restoring the balance.
    Take it all with 'a grain of salt'. Merely my musings and may not necessarily have a valid connect to reality.
     
  13. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    Not often I disagree with you Millet but this time your parochial assumptions are wrong.

    Bob
     
  14. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    When I was a small boy on this planet there were approximately 2 billion humaniods.
    Currently there are 6.7 billion heading for 10 billion around 2050.
    Part of the impact can be seen on the arable land used for food production but by far the largest impact will be seen on the resources needed to support an infrastructure for this many bodies.
    Water, trees, fish, transportation,heating , cooling, material conversion etc.
    I am not arguing what the world can support but rather what the current technology can support in a sustainable manner.

    Bob
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  15. Warrior 101

    Warrior 101 Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary AB Canada
    I agree Bob, it is boggling to the mind and when you develop the thought further by mentioning the stress on resources.
    It seems these thoughts are perhaps not so far from my mind as I thought. I do wonder about all the large dumpsters of waste I see about me and the 'plastic' and 'cardboard' construction of our homes. Not many are the people who can afford real wood and if they can how much longer will it be before even a wheelbarrow of cash won't get you a resource that is not easily available
    No argument on my part that it all becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. I think where people might 'get their dander up' is when they take the view you are implying there is a "surplus population" (Great line from Ebenzer Scrooge in Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol")
    So, what is the solution or the road to a solution? I realize that is a large question but even 'nibbling' at it might be a beginning
     
  16. Warrior 101

    Warrior 101 Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary AB Canada
    OUCH! You and Bob-2 must be friends Your touch of humour is well placed though
     
  17. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    Millet likes to jerk your chain with some half facts and partial truths when he gets a chance.
    I'm afriad this is just another of them.

    In truth the USDA is paying farmers not to plant but not for the reasons you might conclude from Millet.

    Actually they have recognized that the farming is impacting the wildlife and water quality in a negative manner.

    "This year, instead of crops, 34 million acres of American farmland will produce tall grass, pheasants and ducks. That's thanks to the Conservation Reserve Program, a USDA program to protect soil, streams and wildlife habitat on farms that accounts for about 8 percent of all farm subsidies"

    You can read more about it above if your are interested.

    Bob
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  18. Millet

    Millet Well-Known Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Denver,Colorado USA
    I farm in Colorado 25 miles east of Denver. Personally, every farm that I know of are family farms. In eastern Colorado I do not know of a single farm that is not a family farm. In the CRP link that Bob-2 provided it states....."The USDA gives priority to land where halting cultivation offers environmental benefits: Less erosion of soil, runoff into streams, or valuable habitat for wildlife"......... Like so many other government programs the above is a bunch of bunk. In the county that I farm in (Adams County), there is not enough erodible land, nor wildlife, except for rabbits, and a few antelope, so in order to fill the counties CRP quota, the USDA will take any land, even the very best farm land. Yet just another USDA give away program. There is so much food produced by the American farmer, that evidently the government, does not think twice about removing production land. Heck, a major portion of American corn goes for foolish ethanol. Lastly, Bob-2 can still use his opt-out option to help lower his perceived "problem". Fly from Ottawa to BC, look down and tell me what you see --- pretty much nothing. - Millet (1,426-)
     
  19. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    Well, I guess for a guy with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. <g>
    According to your reference (CRP) the objective is to try to restore the watershed/vegetation /migratory animal balance to prevent Colorado etc. from turning into a dust bowl like back in the 30's.

    It's a rather too little, too late attempt to balance the ecology in the U.S.
    To me it looks like a direct subsidy to the farmers where they get money to rent their scrub land back to the state and the poor buggars in the city get to pick up the tab.

    It seems to have little to do with "farming".

    So unless you guys around Colorado are farming houses, eduction, heating, lumber, tractors, seeders and the hundreds of other support systems required to sustain life on this planet your "contributions" are graciously accepted but too little and too late.

    We need to balance the population with the requirements of humanity.
    Food is only one small factor today.

    Opt out?
    Why not the small family farm opting out?

    You are just in the way of progress now.

    Bob
     
  20. Millet

    Millet Well-Known Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Denver,Colorado USA
    ..........."To me it looks like a direct subsidy to the farmers where they get money to rent their scrub land back to the state and the poor buggars in the city get to pick up the tab"...................

    Bob, your statement above is not far all that far from the truth. There really is not many small farms in eastern Colorado. The average farm size runs from about 640 acres up to 200,000 acres. Take care. - Millet (1,426-)
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  21. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    I understand that the U.S. govt has a $2.00/gallon import tax on corn alcohol to protect its farmers and stimulate internal production of same?
    Meanwhile the rain forest is comming down at an alarming rate to provide arable land for growing corn /alcohol.
    The point is that none of this "food" production" is going into the world food bank.

    Only mechanized farming equipment can produce the quantities required and the price of same is out of reach for the parts of the world making the most babies.

    So the family farm gets swallowed up to power the auto industry in the western world.
    ... and people starve.
    Makes perfect sense to me.


    Bob
     
  22. Warrior 101

    Warrior 101 Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary AB Canada
    You provide good information for viewing developments in governments and policies. My personal view point from no position of authority is that they are trading something of immense value (rainforest) when it is properly understood, for something of fleeting value (corn/alchol production)
    Our lifestyles have been developed around the automobile (suburbia, shopping centres...), yet I would gladly give it up. I grew up without an automobile at a time when every other family had at least one and lived in Central America also for a couple of years without one. It is not the end of the world that families would do without one.
    One of those scenarios I do not envision happening, but imagine that trucks, buses, trains... still rolled but families did not own cars. OR perhaps only 1 vechicle permit per household
    Imagine, families walking, biking, fewer big bellies, fewer obesity related health problems, more social interaction, no more driving about on a couch strapped to a ton of rolling metal....
    No idea where our current movement as a civilization is taking us but wouldn't it be good if we could make some abrupt changes before they are forced upon us.................
     
  23. greengarden bev

    greengarden bev Active Member

    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SW Ontario, Canada
    I see Millet has been back in his airplane looking over the vast amount of "nothing" that constitutes what is left of the ecosystems in North America. (Sigh) Ideologues and religious fundies just won't stop crowing about how our species should exploit every square inch that we haven't already paved or plowed.

    Millet, why don't you go celebrate the perfection of this world by taking your head out of the sand, climbing a mountain somewhere, and staying there? Just kidding, Millet-man. You can go wherever you want, so long as its vast and empty.

    The idea that farmers should be paid to take marginal land out of production goes to the heart of industrial society: CAPITALISM. The beloved, defended and indulged system that has plundered the planet so efficiently. Before the Righteous Right pounces on me for that, let me say that the same would have happened under any other system other than primitive hunting and gathering. Only more slowly.

    Getting back to alternative land use... Unless landowners are paid to take land out of production, why would they do it? The idea is that the social benefits we want more of (clean air, biodiversity, wildlife corridors, carbon sinks, wetlands for clean water) are things that have value. And when our society values something, a price tag goes on it.

    The idea that farmland in North America produces food, and too much of it, really misses the point. Since the 1970s farmers have been conned and prodded into a state of serfdom. They serve agribusiness and federal administrations that deliberately dismantled forty years of programs designed to prevent overproduction in favour of cheap food that keeps them poor. Farmers were urged to plow "fencerow to fencerow" to increase production and yields (not profits!) to increase supply and keep prices low. Ironically, since production costs are fixed, the only thing a farmer can do when prices drop is grow more. Its absurd, but that's what they do. Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or google "Earl Butz" to learn more.

    The corn and soy monocultures that make up most of North America's "food" production goes into the crap sold at McDonalds, the industrial chemicals used in factory food (read about high fructose corn syrup), and ethanol for the cars we can't stop loving. Farmers don't produce food. They produce industrial products for a global market that doesn't give a flying patootie about whether people eat well. Or eat at all.

    re: Warrior's comment that we should continue to "nibble" at solutions, even though the problem of feeding an exponentially growing population seems overwhelming. I think this gets close to the moral center of issues around the inseparable problems of food security, overpopulation, pollution, topsoil loss, species loss, and climate change. In one sense it's like the hyppocratic oath: first, do no harm. Or at least, minimize the harm that I, as an individual, do. The effect of these relatively few individual attempts to make things better (through organic farming, reducing one's carbon footprint, etc) may have no cumulative affect at all. The ship's wheel needs a sharp yank not a gentle nudge. But if the motive is not the expectation of global turnaround but rather heeding one's conscience, then maybe we can at least sleep at night and not have to apologize to our children for wrecking the planet on them.

    The descent to a low-energy world with a stable (reduced) population and a zero-growth, sustainable economy can be managed and orderly, or it can be chaotic and catastrophic. The sheeple who are not zombied out on American Idol and who actually realize there is a problem are saying: Don't overreact-- markets, technology or God will rescue us-- there is money to be made in saving the planet--- just be patient.

    But we're running out of time. Scarcity means bigs profits, and the Captains of Industry will wring every last dollar out of every remaining "resource" until nothing is left. Laissez-faire equals collapse.

    Whichever route humankind takes, orderly or chaotic, the end result will be "organic" farming. Food production will involve many more people than it currently does, and it will be intensely local. Read Richard Heinberg's "Fifty Million Farmers" to see what I'm getting at: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/22584

    Organic is inevitable.
     
  24. bob 2

    bob 2 Active Member

    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    edmonton
    Bev:

    I can find no credible credentials for this Richard Heinberg.
    He was a prof at a now defunct College of California but I cannot see where he has spent any time whatsoever in front of a desk or off a campus.
    He does have along list of speaking engagements but, seemingly, he speaks from the heart and not from his head.

    What's up with that for a reference?

    Bob
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2009
  25. Millet

    Millet Well-Known Member 10 Years

    Messages:
    1,698
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Denver,Colorado USA
    Bev, you should try getting your points across without using a million words every time. BTW, I don't know many poor farmers, I think you have been reading the wrong books.
    Best regards, Millet (1,436-)
     

Share This Page