I like fried okra and with the tomatoes sounds good but you lost me with the tripe had that, but not again.
Why Organic?
- Thread starter Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay
- Start date
Quote:
Lol... raised with it. I only like it fried crisp and definately an aquired taste. I have had it in Menudo and while I can get it down its not my fav.
Lol... raised with it. I only like it fried crisp and definately an aquired taste. I have had it in Menudo and while I can get it down its not my fav.
Whether or not you believe the studies is up to you. I am just posting the information.
As for the fats issue and margarine vs butter, etc... There is actually a long interesting story behind it. Lets just say the whole "saturated fat is bad" idea came from one guy (Ancel Keys) who fudged his data. That is why it is not enough to read a study, but you should question who did the study and what methods were used.
As for the fats issue and margarine vs butter, etc... There is actually a long interesting story behind it. Lets just say the whole "saturated fat is bad" idea came from one guy (Ancel Keys) who fudged his data. That is why it is not enough to read a study, but you should question who did the study and what methods were used.
Yes, how "prone" one is to cancer is a combination of genes and environment. If you have more "steps" toward cancer in your genes, then it takes fewer "steps" from the environment to get there. That's why the labs use inbred strains of mice/rats -- to eliminate individual genetic variation. In essence, the mice are virtually clones. So if there are identical rearing conditions except for that which is being studied, any effect can be pretty certain to have been as a result of the manipulation and not individual genetic variation. Now, if something has been shown to have caused an increased rate of cancer in lab animals, I would want to know what the dosage per animal weight was given, if that dosage translates to the amount people would receive, if all other conditions were held constant, etc. That stuff usually doesn't make it to the mass media. If all that is good, then yes, it is true that what was found won't necessarily cause cancer in all people. However, knowing that it can in at least one organism and at that dosage means it can reasonably be assumed to be a "risk factor" in cancer development in people. How many individual "risk factors" are needed to initiate cancer? I don't know. But what I do know is that to reduce my chances of getting it, I want to reduce my total number of risk factors.
Quote:
If the only independent variable in a controlled study was GMO versus non-GMO (as in, if one group was fed a diet high in GMO soy, the other must be fed an otherwise identical diet high in non-GMO soy), and there were significant cancer rate differences between the two groups, it wouldn't matter if the mice/rats were prone to cancer in the first place. The study would show an increased risk of one over the other, using a more sensitive measure. It's like trying to figure out the wind direction. Our heavy bodies are less affected by the wind, so we choose a more sensitive measure -- pull up some grass or something else that's light in weight, let it fall to the ground from head-height, and watch how it falls.
I've read through lots of published studies (on completely "other" things, for school) and it's hard to really discuss what a study found when learning of it second- or third-hand. I'd prefer to see what was actually done than offer an opinion on a study that was written about by a journalist with little more than a passing interest in the science behind it, which was then read by a member here, and summarized and written about again. No offense to anyone, but it's hard to critique something that's gone through all that "filtering."
But, back to the OP, for me it's about the philosophy of how the food is produced. While someone can be non-organic and still be very conscious of pollution and animal welfare and whatever, there is a less strict set of guidelines saying they HAVE to than with organic farming. When I see a "certified organic" stamp on a food product, a great number of questions (but not all) about how that food was produced are answered immediately. But that's just me.
ETA -- oh, and actually, was the mouse/rat line used particularly prone to cancer? That's another reason I'd have to read the study. Yes, most rodent studies use inbred lines, but not all inbred lines are prone to cancer. I'd have to see what the name of the line was that they used in the study to find out for sure. And, once again, that's a detail that gets left out when a study gets published in the mass media.
Quote:
If the only independent variable in a controlled study was GMO versus non-GMO (as in, if one group was fed a diet high in GMO soy, the other must be fed an otherwise identical diet high in non-GMO soy), and there were significant cancer rate differences between the two groups, it wouldn't matter if the mice/rats were prone to cancer in the first place. The study would show an increased risk of one over the other, using a more sensitive measure. It's like trying to figure out the wind direction. Our heavy bodies are less affected by the wind, so we choose a more sensitive measure -- pull up some grass or something else that's light in weight, let it fall to the ground from head-height, and watch how it falls.
I've read through lots of published studies (on completely "other" things, for school) and it's hard to really discuss what a study found when learning of it second- or third-hand. I'd prefer to see what was actually done than offer an opinion on a study that was written about by a journalist with little more than a passing interest in the science behind it, which was then read by a member here, and summarized and written about again. No offense to anyone, but it's hard to critique something that's gone through all that "filtering."
But, back to the OP, for me it's about the philosophy of how the food is produced. While someone can be non-organic and still be very conscious of pollution and animal welfare and whatever, there is a less strict set of guidelines saying they HAVE to than with organic farming. When I see a "certified organic" stamp on a food product, a great number of questions (but not all) about how that food was produced are answered immediately. But that's just me.
ETA -- oh, and actually, was the mouse/rat line used particularly prone to cancer? That's another reason I'd have to read the study. Yes, most rodent studies use inbred lines, but not all inbred lines are prone to cancer. I'd have to see what the name of the line was that they used in the study to find out for sure. And, once again, that's a detail that gets left out when a study gets published in the mass media.
Well said!!!!
Quote:
Don't need the giggles. We get annual soil testing done across the property. All part of environmental farm plan status.
So do you have a stationary pen that you've used for chickens, hogs or (in your case goats) over a number of years--as most backyard people have? On chickens it will be at contamination levels for most people. You say you take samples across the property, do you send in samples seperate from the chicken pens? Or do you do grid sampling?
I agree that there are good farmers on organic vs. conventional farmers. I wish there was another term besides organic as in Indiana the organic people buy most of their corn products are feeding non-organic corn. It's the old "don't ask, don't tell" mind set.
You mean they don't have to provide verifiable receipts and records of feed purchases? Our producers are checked on a regular basis on both the buyer and seller end of the equation.
ALL pen areas have to be tested under this plan, plus field samples, well monitoring, and any ditches bordering us. The whole idea is to ensure you maintain property in a such a manner as to avoid the issues you keep referring to. Your MOST BACKYARD PEOPLE is once again a blanket statement and one that may apply where you live but with farming practices that have evolved in other regions and their overall history it does not apply as you stated.
Case and point: If you want to see a mess created by a historical regional practice in farming look at Lake Winnipeg. Yet the same problems have not occurred in many other regions where agriculture has existed just as long beside a major body of water and its tributaries. Same crops and animal demographic in many regions but different historical practice and attitude has made a huge difference. This is something still very much evident in all forms of agriculture today.
BTW We have far more than just goats on site.
Don't need the giggles. We get annual soil testing done across the property. All part of environmental farm plan status.
So do you have a stationary pen that you've used for chickens, hogs or (in your case goats) over a number of years--as most backyard people have? On chickens it will be at contamination levels for most people. You say you take samples across the property, do you send in samples seperate from the chicken pens? Or do you do grid sampling?
I agree that there are good farmers on organic vs. conventional farmers. I wish there was another term besides organic as in Indiana the organic people buy most of their corn products are feeding non-organic corn. It's the old "don't ask, don't tell" mind set.
You mean they don't have to provide verifiable receipts and records of feed purchases? Our producers are checked on a regular basis on both the buyer and seller end of the equation.
ALL pen areas have to be tested under this plan, plus field samples, well monitoring, and any ditches bordering us. The whole idea is to ensure you maintain property in a such a manner as to avoid the issues you keep referring to. Your MOST BACKYARD PEOPLE is once again a blanket statement and one that may apply where you live but with farming practices that have evolved in other regions and their overall history it does not apply as you stated.
Case and point: If you want to see a mess created by a historical regional practice in farming look at Lake Winnipeg. Yet the same problems have not occurred in many other regions where agriculture has existed just as long beside a major body of water and its tributaries. Same crops and animal demographic in many regions but different historical practice and attitude has made a huge difference. This is something still very much evident in all forms of agriculture today.
BTW We have far more than just goats on site.
I wish there was another term besides organic as in Indiana the organic people buy most of their corn products are feeding non-organic corn. It's the old "don't ask, don't tell" mind set.
Things like this give farmers a bad name and if they are organic it gives the other side of the equation something to dig into and it works the other way also.
Drives me nuts when I read about a farmer getting busted for smuggling herbicides, medications, hormones etc... It gives farmers a bad name and we all get tarred and feathered by the media in these situations. They where banned here for good reason and in my opinion if you use them to cheat the system and potentially cause harm because of it you shouldn't be farming.
I find it funny that Modern AG seems to promote our farming ancestors as uneducated and generally unaware of there actions like the manure example that came up here. Common sense and observation showed them crops grew better and the hay was greener when manure was applied to fields. Add too much and it was detrimental. You can find these references in farm journals going back over 100 years. They didn't have the testing we have today but they where far from unaware or stupid.
Yes, there is a run off issue but intensive stocking density was not the practice at that time so manure builds in a field where not the issue they are with many of the practices used today.
You are correct in stating that manure injection is a better alternative, but even with this there is a limit to the volume per acre before it becomes an issue and leeching into waterways, run off and aquifers becomes an issue. There are a number of operations I have seen that do not own enough property for this type of management system, so this is not a viable option with their practices of stocking way past the limits of the property.
Things like this give farmers a bad name and if they are organic it gives the other side of the equation something to dig into and it works the other way also.
Drives me nuts when I read about a farmer getting busted for smuggling herbicides, medications, hormones etc... It gives farmers a bad name and we all get tarred and feathered by the media in these situations. They where banned here for good reason and in my opinion if you use them to cheat the system and potentially cause harm because of it you shouldn't be farming.
I find it funny that Modern AG seems to promote our farming ancestors as uneducated and generally unaware of there actions like the manure example that came up here. Common sense and observation showed them crops grew better and the hay was greener when manure was applied to fields. Add too much and it was detrimental. You can find these references in farm journals going back over 100 years. They didn't have the testing we have today but they where far from unaware or stupid.
Yes, there is a run off issue but intensive stocking density was not the practice at that time so manure builds in a field where not the issue they are with many of the practices used today.
You are correct in stating that manure injection is a better alternative, but even with this there is a limit to the volume per acre before it becomes an issue and leeching into waterways, run off and aquifers becomes an issue. There are a number of operations I have seen that do not own enough property for this type of management system, so this is not a viable option with their practices of stocking way past the limits of the property.
Quote:
Things like this give farmers a bad name and if they are organic it gives the other side of the equation something to dig into and it works the other way also.
Drives me nuts when I read about a farmer getting busted for smuggling herbicides, medications, hormones etc... It gives farmers a bad name and we all get tarred and feathered by the media in these situations. They where banned here for good reason and in my opinion if you use them to cheat the system and potentially cause harm because of it you shouldn't be farming.
I find it funny that Modern AG seems to promote our farming ancestors as uneducated and generally unaware of there actions like the manure example that came up here. Common sense and observation showed them crops grew better and the hay was greener when manure was applied to fields. Add too much and it was detrimental. You can find these references in farm journals going back over 100 years. They didn't have the testing we have today but they where far from unaware or stupid.
Yes, there is a run off issue but intensive stocking density was not the practice at that time so manure builds in a field where not the issue they are with many of the practices used today.
You are correct in stating that manure injection is a better alternative, but even with this there is a limit to the volume per acre before it becomes an issue and leeching into waterways, run off and aquifers becomes an issue. There are a number of operations I have seen that do not own enough property for this type of management system, so this is not a viable option with their practices of stocking way past the limits of the property.
The feed comes from a "certified" mill that buys it from "certified" growers. Amazing how certified corn fields average in the 1,000's bushels per acres. Especially when there are more weeds than corn plants. Guess everyone is missing out how organic weeds and a little manure makes tremendous corn.
Yes, there are limits, that is why I stated that they are injected according to soil tests.
To my knowledge, Commercial Ag does not consider organic farmers as uneducated-as a whole. Without doing a poll to be accurate, I think, most would say it's a life choice. For a few, it's a very good business. They way we farmed 40-50 years ago, we didn't understand what we do now. Compared to what we will know in 10 years, you could say we're uneducated now? From what I've read, you do take soil samples in the pens, most do not. The practice in the past was to spread the manure in the fields closest to the farm. If you wait to see if the manure is hurting a hay crop, the damage is already done and soil test will only confirm that the P/K levels are off the charts. As all know there are a differences in types of manure w/chicken/hogs being much hotter than cattle.
If you stock the area w/more animals than it can support, you have 2 options. De-populate (may be only option if you've overstocked for generations) or make land agreements w/non-livestock producers to use their ground for placement of manure (In Indiana, manure is sold based on nutrient levels).
Things like this give farmers a bad name and if they are organic it gives the other side of the equation something to dig into and it works the other way also.
Drives me nuts when I read about a farmer getting busted for smuggling herbicides, medications, hormones etc... It gives farmers a bad name and we all get tarred and feathered by the media in these situations. They where banned here for good reason and in my opinion if you use them to cheat the system and potentially cause harm because of it you shouldn't be farming.
I find it funny that Modern AG seems to promote our farming ancestors as uneducated and generally unaware of there actions like the manure example that came up here. Common sense and observation showed them crops grew better and the hay was greener when manure was applied to fields. Add too much and it was detrimental. You can find these references in farm journals going back over 100 years. They didn't have the testing we have today but they where far from unaware or stupid.
Yes, there is a run off issue but intensive stocking density was not the practice at that time so manure builds in a field where not the issue they are with many of the practices used today.
You are correct in stating that manure injection is a better alternative, but even with this there is a limit to the volume per acre before it becomes an issue and leeching into waterways, run off and aquifers becomes an issue. There are a number of operations I have seen that do not own enough property for this type of management system, so this is not a viable option with their practices of stocking way past the limits of the property.
The feed comes from a "certified" mill that buys it from "certified" growers. Amazing how certified corn fields average in the 1,000's bushels per acres. Especially when there are more weeds than corn plants. Guess everyone is missing out how organic weeds and a little manure makes tremendous corn.
Yes, there are limits, that is why I stated that they are injected according to soil tests.
To my knowledge, Commercial Ag does not consider organic farmers as uneducated-as a whole. Without doing a poll to be accurate, I think, most would say it's a life choice. For a few, it's a very good business. They way we farmed 40-50 years ago, we didn't understand what we do now. Compared to what we will know in 10 years, you could say we're uneducated now? From what I've read, you do take soil samples in the pens, most do not. The practice in the past was to spread the manure in the fields closest to the farm. If you wait to see if the manure is hurting a hay crop, the damage is already done and soil test will only confirm that the P/K levels are off the charts. As all know there are a differences in types of manure w/chicken/hogs being much hotter than cattle.
If you stock the area w/more animals than it can support, you have 2 options. De-populate (may be only option if you've overstocked for generations) or make land agreements w/non-livestock producers to use their ground for placement of manure (In Indiana, manure is sold based on nutrient levels).
I think the difference that is the most contentious is when one side claims their way is better. The organic crowd say they are environmentally friendlier and the commercial ag say they are more efficient for example. The facts are there are good well intentioned farmers and there are bad farmers. It is not in the best interest of big ag to destroy their land. How many organic farmers on their little 5 acre farm leave a field fallow? or rotate crops? this is a basic farm practice used by big ag on a frequent basis. There are pros and cons all the way around. The organics claim stuff as gospel with no proof alot. If big ag does that they are sued beings they are a big target with insurance. Without big ag the farmers could not meet the worlds demands for food and that is undeniable there just isn't that much farm ground left if farmed with organic yields. This old Earth can handle itself given time, it has taken alot of use and I really don't believe God is up there wringing his hands worrying whether or not the Earth is going to last.
perchie.girl :
Quote:
Yum...wish I had some fresh okra to fry in bacon fat right now!
Pork fat rules....
Sad to say the only kind I can find here is frozen and chopped. Same goes for Blakeyed Peas.... When ever I find them fresh I buy a whole lug. So I had to resort to some crafty Blakeyed pea reconstruction.... Frozen peas and frozen baby greanbeans. Because we normally just snap the peas and cook em pods an all. Nice ham hock or Salt pork.... If I were to do a garden it would be Black Eyed peas first. Sigh.
Dont know how.
Quote:
Yum...wish I had some fresh okra to fry in bacon fat right now!
Pork fat rules....
Sad to say the only kind I can find here is frozen and chopped. Same goes for Blakeyed Peas.... When ever I find them fresh I buy a whole lug. So I had to resort to some crafty Blakeyed pea reconstruction.... Frozen peas and frozen baby greanbeans. Because we normally just snap the peas and cook em pods an all. Nice ham hock or Salt pork.... If I were to do a garden it would be Black Eyed peas first. Sigh.
I raised cow peas in the garden last year, they are like black eyed peas except the eye is purple. They where so easy I just planted 7 seeds and got almost a full quart size bag out of those 7 plants because as soon as you pick a pod it grows another one. I just left them on the plant till dried picked them let them dry a little more in a bowl then opened put beans in a bag good to go. I have 3 different type of beans planted in my raised garden beds this year black, dragon tongue, pinto and going to plant some more cow peas also. Until last year I had never grew a garden it was so fun and this year I am planting new things. My DD is going to try a few things in pots to see if they grow I can't grow things in a pot I will kill them so DD can and is working on her garden in planters. We live in town so we use space different. I can't wait till we can get a farm and have a huge garden. Back on topic, I am trying to eat healthy and buy the best I can for the money but it is hard to afford all the organic so I am now figuring out where is the best places to spend the extra money here milk is 2.65 a gallon at braums organic milk is 3.99 a half gallon I can't afford that much of a difference. I do like braum's milk.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest posts
-
4 week old Australorp pullet… with HUGE legs??- Latest: Australorpfamily
-
-
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Chicken sick/head injury?
- Started by corinth294
- Replies: 1
-
-
Goose eggs day 29 been chirping for a day. When do I need to intervene ?
- Started by ivy_huan
- Replies: 1
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
Checking-In On Peeps - Post Here To Say Hello!- Started by Nifty-Chicken
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
-
Can I get some help from someone with careless neighbours who own dogs.- Started by RiDaGeckoGuy
- Replies: 103
-
