another comment:

"it's pretty labor intensive

and my time is valuable. And so is the object of my avovocational affection, i.e. my plants/lawn....I don't have time to manually weed all the time, make homemade bug sprays out of captured insects liquified in a designated blender, plant companion species in a limited space that don't suit my landscaping goals but would offer an organic deterent to certain pests, etc., etc, etc.

It's home landscaping...not food.

But having said that, I've planted a few vegetable gardens in my time, and I never went the organic route there, either. Fertilizer yields results. Pesticides are effective. I wash the harvest thoroughly before eating/processing, and enjoy the efficiency. As for weeds...I hoe.

Like the lady said...you have to adopt an integrated approach, unless you are in the food business and looking to service a niche market. Otherwise, Use the available products when appropriate, read the labels, know how to apply them and when, and chill out just a little bit.

If you were to be a strict organic ideologue with respect to your own health and body, you'd end up being one of those Christian Scientists, or whatever they are called, who end up with apendicitis and refuse medical treatment, only to have their apendix burst and die, and become some footnote on the local news."

these peple are so clueless...horrible

It's just a marketing gimmick being promoted by some in chemical agriculture to cash in on a portion of the lucrative market for organic produce without having to make the commitment. As long as the farm employs some responsible practices in addition to their chemical dependency, the idea is to call themselves "sustainable" and command a higher price for their produce.

This ploy is being promoted by some farm groups and certain government agencies.

To the rest of us, "sustainability" has a different meaning, that is a system of practices that is truly sustainable, not merely convenient.

Truth in advertising would demand that, at best, this scheme be called "Chemical-lite."

Wayne

it seems like they are also blind to the fact that you can achieve better plants for basically the same time/effort as with chem ferts....

Some organic methods are harmful to the environment.

Ex: Using soap on leaves to treat bugs is sometimes considered by some to be an organic fix. Using sluggo is considered organic by some. Using GMO seeds is considered organic by some.

Any of these could be harmful.

Someone on this forum mentioned that he was peeing into his wife's garden. Well, that's definitely organic, but it was killing the plants. Good chance it was harming the organisms in the soil as well.

Some people think organic produce is "healthier." Well, it's more likely to carry manure-borne pathogens. Several outbreaks of various transmissible illnesses in the US have been traced to farms that used organic methods.

I'm not advocating chemical fertilisers, or other non-natural agricultural methods, but I think that it is easy to think that organic is some sort of cure-all for all the world's problems, and it isn't true. There's a lot of evidence that agriculture period, is harmful to the planet.

Hope that doesn't make you sick - Peace bro -

Patty

pee needs to be diluted.
soap on leave to treat for bugs is a waste of time and is not smart - there are many organic solutions not involving soap

nobody said organics is a world cure, but it is the best option there is in order to do as much as possible to protect the environment...

IPM is sound.

Here is the larger picture. Many moons ago some folks got together and decided it was high time 'modern' agricultural processes got taken to school.

This idea of ferting the heck out of fields with synthetics which led to weak plants which led to the need for herbicides and pesticides in increasing amounts was going overboard.

So, some folks founded the idea of IPM. IPM isn't old or new. It kind of grew up with the modern resurgence in organics.

It was to promote understanding among agriculturalists of organic methods, but not forcefully.

It was to explain that the modern methods were causing a lot of the problems.

OK, let's fast forward. IPM teaches that if we have a pest problem it is likely that we put the wrong plant in the right place. Growing conditions aren't good for the plant.

Change it.

If growing area is suitable, then provide the right amount of nutrients and water and things will usually go OK.

When they don't go OK, use the least toxic method of getting control.

Sound bad? Of course not.

Then along came some corporations using IPM as an excuse for thier 'new' chemicals. Certain influencial organic only folks viewed IPM as a corporate schenanigan. It isn't.

To this day you will see certain organic proponents bash IPM as a corporate scam. It isn't.

IPM is sound.

Yes, some corporations try to exploit it, but you know what? "Certain" corporations have stacked the FDA and USDA with corporate ex employees. Certain corporations have tried to undermine the USDA Organic standards.

For organic folks to slam IPM as sold out is simply ignorant hypocrisy.

It is all sold out or on the verge of being sold out.

The underlying concept is sound.

Today IPM is primarily being used to bridge the gap between 'what chem do we apply for this?" and organics.

Here is a relevant link to how IPM is being used today:

linky

Of the some 8,000,000 species of insects out there, that we know of, about 8,000 are considered at times pests and the rest are beneficial so does it make sense to spray stuff that will kill off 8,000,000 to protect you crop against a potential pest? Many pesticides, even those acceptable to organic gardeners, are very broad spectrum (they kill any insect they touch) so that is why Integrated Pest Management is used, to keep from killing off the butterflies, Lady Beetles, Green Lacewings and the many others that will eat the few pests there are in one stage or another. Many insects, given the chance, will help you keep any pests that may move in to eat you plants under control, unless you spray willy nilly with some extremely potent poison which will also adversly affect you. Even pyrethrins should only be used as a very last resort by anyone, not just organic gardeners, and many of the others should not be used at all.

I agree with Wayne's summary. Isn't it funny how the ipm advocates resort to name calling?

Undiluted urine does well in the compost.

There is soap, and then there is soap, right? I use bronner's peppermint soap and water to distribute bt on potatoes.

My feeling is that if a plant is getting trashed, then something is out of whack and so one's labor was mis-placed to start with. I try to learn something from it for the next time, though it is often hard to know what exactly one has learned. For intance, I noticed that potatoes growing in very impoverished soil suffered a massive infestation of cpb; next year I made sure they had a bit more fertility and the infestation was dramatically reduced even though the location was very near. But even in that simple example there are many other factors that could have been in play......

undiluted urine kills off microbes in the compost

there is no excuse for using non-organic pesticides, EVER, username 5. im not sure why you're siding with the chemfert freaks. i have no tolerance for "IPM" if it is non-organic

It might, but the increased nitrogen more than compensates with the increased growth of the micro-herd. And worms love fresh poo. I produce both, and I'm not scared of either.

- there is no excuse for using non-organic pesticides, EVER, username 5. im not sure why you're siding with the chemfert freaks. -

I am not *siding* with anyone. I was trying to present some balance on a topic that often goes nuts. I am not advocating pesticides in any way.

IPM is good. IPM doesn't require the use of pesticides. IPM tries to educate people how to avoid having to use them.

Folks like ATTRA discuss it, I recommend reading up there. They are a great site on organics, IPM and sustainable agriculture. http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/ipm.html

What I have seen is that there is a segment of the organic world with a deep suspicion of IPM. I am not refering to anyone on this board, I am talking about organizations. That IPM has been used as an excuse by chem companies to continue pushing chemicals is no more a fault of IPM than organics is at fault because there are some snake oil peddlers pushing nonsense at extravagant prices.

IPM and organics are 2 peas in the same pod. A chem user as well as an organic user can both grab a broad spectrum pesticide and 'nuke' their environment with it unnecessarily. IPM has something to teach both pesticide users regardless of whether they are using chems or organics.

Keep in mind that the folks at ATTRA, while much of what they do is good, are not necesarily organic. They are sustainable and there is a difference. ATTRA would not hesitate to use carbaryl to keep a crop saleable while no good organic farmer/gardener would ever use it.

IPM is a sound practice whether you garden organically or are willing to use synthetics. I practice IPM and I garden organically. I know other people who do not garden organically, but still practice IPM. Why are you making this an either or proposition? Bashing IPM is foolish. I can't imagine gardening organically without it, and the chem users use less when they use an IPM approach.

I think the intent might have been to "bash" the idea as quoted that using chemicals is somehow "sustainable" and is an acceptable substitute for organic since the person he quotes apparently is a very busy person.

"..my time is valuable.... Fertilizer yields results. Pesticides are effective. I wash the harvest thoroughly before eating/processing, and enjoy the efficiency...'

And this:

"If you were to be a strict organic ideologue with respect to your own health and body, you'd end up being one of those Christian Scientists, or whatever they are called, who end up with apendicitis and refuse medical treatment, only to have their apendix burst and die, and become some footnote on the local news."

It's manure-laden pomposity.

Wayne

I prefer the term BMP (best management practices) borrowed from the greenhouse trade which is usually corellated to controlling fertilizer run-off and perhaps can be applied to crop rotation,covercrops ,and so forth....(for a couple of examples)... I like the aspect of scouting from(IPM) and working with specialists to help identify diseases;suggestions of naturally bred cultivar alternatives resistant to specific disease per the localized high densities of these specific diseases; alerts by angencies to let me now what is incoming... I don't like a certain aspect of IPM : that is the same year to year preventative measures >spraying

Another thing that is curious is how the ipmers rationalize calling continued dependence on a non-renewable resource, (synthetic chems) sustainable.

IPM isn't sustainable agriculture.

There is organics, IPM and sustainability. They are all different:seperate, but compatible.

One can be all 3 without violating any tenets of the others.

The use of "sustainable" by some segments of the chemical agriculture business is akin to an alcoholic calling himself "recovered" because he's cut down to only a few beers a day. His attempt is a positive step but he is not recovered and a farm that employs some admirable practices yet maintains its own chemical dependency is not 'recovered' either. Rewarding this behavior with premium prices for their crops is little more than being the alcoholic's 'enabler."

Sustainability is not a set of practices that a farmer feels he is financially capable of maintaining. It is a set of practices that agriculture across the planet can maintain without depleting the soil and resources required to feed our population. The term "sustainable" as we've come to know it through the writings of people like John Jeavons and others is cheapened and perverted by those who have co-opted it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick to mask the "chemical-lite" reality of their operation.

>There is organics, IPM and sustainability. They are all >different:seperate, but compatible.
>one can be all 3 without violating any tenets of the >others.

Truly sustainable agriculture is compatible with organic agriculture. In fact, it is a large part or what organic agriculture is all about. The co-opted version of "sustainable," which clearly permits and/or encourages the use of chemicals, will never be compatible with organic farming.

Wayne

-- The use of "sustainable" by some segments of the chemical agriculture business --

-- Truly sustainable agriculture is compatible with organic agriculture --

That's what I am talking about. IPM and sustainable agriculture have been misused by some, but that doesn't say anything about the value of the idea/concept.

Big Ag perpetually tries to influence the NOSB to get them to ease up on the organic standards as well. Should they succeed it wouldn't make organic principles any less sound.

I defend IPM because the body of ideas and concepts it includes are sound. The article I liked to at the ATTRA site does a good job of highlighting the way IPM has been misused by big Ag.

It would be helpful, I think, if we as forum members were more specific in our critique of things. Lots of lurkers and passers by to any forum. Don't wish to give people the wrong idea. IPM=good, misuse of the term by big Ag=bad.