Organic Farming Studies Are Being Carried Out In The Northeast

[Aitit]

New topic, or leave it here?

GE papaya in the dock in Thailand court case

01 June 2006

Greenpeace Thai activists seal off the GE papaya at the Khon Kaen agricultural research station of the Department of Agriculture.

Bangkok, Thailand —

The trial of two Greenpeace activists at the Bangkok Criminal Court closed today with the activists facing three criminal counts and up to five years jail time if convicted. Their alleged crime? Exposing the role of the Thai Department of Agriculture (DOA) in the illegal sale and distribution of GE papaya.

In 2004, Greenpeace revealed the DOA GE papaya field trials in their Khon Khan research station was the source of widespread genetic contamination and that the department had illegally distributed GE contaminated seeds to 2,669 farmers in 37 provinces.

The DOA refused to act and clean up the GE contamination so the activists decontaminated one of the sites themselves, the very job that the DOA should have been doing.

Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ne...-papaya-010606#

The DOA-no-action fits so much in the no care for the people, and what is after policy of the

TRT goverment.

I'm sure DOA officals involved get a nice 'provision' from the agro-chemical industry

Totally contrary to HM the Kings work, lokks like they have no respect.

How to support Greanpeace Thailamd to keep our food GE free?

[chownah]

hi chownah

all those chinese cabbages and thai green leaves of various sorts did really really well with the manure (and we didnt wait those amount of days before eating, they went from field to pot or animal yard very quickly )

the mak naam (those long gourds aith the gigantic leaves) do really really well if watered every day (a big no no but we do it anyhow, they double in use as a roof cover for the aviaries and provide shade, and later, food) and the dried manure seems to work wonders since the thing grows like a monster plant from that little shop on the corner

our sugar cane didnt do too well (not tasty, maybe not enough water?)or too much manure?

the thai veggies that did well were from seeds taken from plants that grew here one season (the originals were seeds brought from thailand); the packaged seeds given to me had a higher failure rate - but maybe it was the brand that was purchased

bina,

Thai seeds are highly variable in quality. I have purchased seeds that were not outdated according to their labels but had zero percent germination....I have purchased other seeds that were almost 100% germination.....some brands are better than others overall....the cheap seeds in the small cans seem to be suspect....one can of cucumber seeds produced three distinct types of cucumbers. This is not so bad but for cucumbers the virus for wilt can come right with the seeds and if they are so lax with their production it makes me think that they are probably lax about wilt too.....all of the plant got wilt but I have no way of knowing if the seeds brought it or not....wilt is really common here anyway.

I don't know about the sugar cane. Does anyone grow it locally there and is their crop tastier? I plan on growing a bit of it in the future just for fun...maybe get a juice press and let the kids start a juice stand out on the road.

Chownah

Edited June 13, 2006 by chownah

[bina]

yep it was tinned seeds and im assuming cheap since the friend that bought them has no no bahts really; he would never buy seeds if it wasnt for me as a present

[Korat Correct]

"Organic Food not all it's cut out to be" ---"Postbag" Bangkok Post 14/06/06.

There for all to see! Not just ThaiVisa Issan Forum.

[chownah]

"Organic Food not all it's cut out to be" ---"Postbag" Bangkok Post 14/06/06.

There for all to see! Not just ThaiVisa Issan Forum.

Korat Correct,

Thanks for the heads up on the article about organic food. I've thrashed around on the internet for awhile and haven't been able to find it.....can you provide a link to it? Since I'm an organic farmer I'm always interested in finding out how I'm misrepresenting my product. There might even be some misinformation that I don't know about and I can incorporate it into my devious sales spiel. "Anything for Money"....that's my organic farming motto.

Chownah

[teletiger]

"Organic Food not all it's cut out to be" ---"Postbag" Bangkok Post 14/06/06.

There for all to see! Not just ThaiVisa Issan Forum.

Korat Correct,

Thanks for the heads up on the article about organic food. I've thrashed around on the internet for awhile and haven't been able to find it.....can you provide a link to it? Since I'm an organic farmer I'm always interested in finding out how I'm misrepresenting my product. There might even be some misinformation that I don't know about and I can incorporate it into my devious sales spiel. "Anything for Money"....that's my organic farming motto.

Chownah

Very catchy Chownah Here's the letter

JACK IN HUAY KHWANG

Organic food not all it's cut out to be

So much hype is being made supporting Organic Food that the alternative view must be told. Organic Farming is pure decadence. It is immoral and its produce is bought by people whose only satisfaction must be to take the pleasure of having paid more in the belief it will be better for them and the environment.

I do not like to see people being conned, and here is why: The perception is that organic is more healthy, but this is not the case. There is little evidence to suggest that organic fruit and vegetables are any healthier than conventional produce. In fact, some forms of organic farming may introduce natural toxins into consumers' food. Blind tests show that most can't tell the difference between organic and conventionally grown food, though people say that organic tastes better. Yes, that may be true if it is fresh, or from your own garden. Furthermore, 70% of organic food is imported and is not fresh.

Less than 2% of European farming is organic and it is not going to be a panacea for the future of food production. Organic farming is a billion-pound industry, promoted by a company that makes profit out of promoting it.

The United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency, set up to safeguard our welfare, refuses to endorse the claims made for it. It says, "On the basis of current evidence, organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".To question claims made by the organic lobby is not just akin to doubting the virtues of motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the fate of the planet. Their argument is based on the belief that nature knows best and science is dangerous. Our health is threatened not by chemicals and genetically modified crops, but by the eco-fundamentalists and their crusade against intensive farming.

Of course, by definition, organic farming is meaningless as all food is organic.

Thailand's politicians should take serious note that the organic route spells disaster for their farmers, who need crop diversification, farm co-ops and guaranteed prices. In many places the only way inefficient organic farmers can feed an expanding population is by cutting down more tropical forests. The most telling indictment of organic farming is its inefficiency, its high cost and wasteful use of land. The facts cannot be seriously disputed: yields of most crops from organic farms are about 20-50% lower than from conventional farming. That is why it costs more! It is claimed that organic food is more natural and its reliance on natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about natural chemicals like ricin, aflatoxin or botulinum. There is little danger about synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides that cure TB, or the painkiller Paracetamol. We are told that pesticide residues harm us. As the Food Standard Agency has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and the facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer probably account for more than 100,000 deaths a year, and food poisoning for between 50-300.

There are no known deaths from pesticide residues or GM foods. Fact: a cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least one year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet. Tests showed that synthetic and natural chemical residues, such as organic pesticides, produced roughly equal amounts of carcinogens.

If you are really concerned by the effects of pesticide in farming, on wildlife or human health, then you should be promoting pesticide-resistant GM crops which reduce their use. Incidentally, the shirt on your back is almost certainly produced from GM-produced cotton.

It is said that organic farming benefits wildlife. True, many people become organic farmers for environmental reasons and achieve their aim. However, studies show, and from personal experience as a farmer, that environmental effects depend on the style of management, not the farming system. An integrated farm management system achieves the best results and has been sustaining modern agriculture for centuries.

What most benefits birds and wildlife is low-till farming, and permanent grass as opposed to ploughing regularly. Organic farming depends on the plough, which disturbs the soil's ecology, releases more carbon dioxide, uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds. Indian biologist C J Prakash says organic farming's only contribution to sustainable agriculture will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition. Thailand should enter the organic movement with extreme caution and know where it will lead.

GILES WYNNE

Retired Farmer

regards

[plachon]

"Organic Food not all it's cut out to be" ---"Postbag" Bangkok Post 14/06/06.

There for all to see! Not just ThaiVisa Issan Forum.

Korat Correct,

Thanks for the heads up on the article about organic food. I've thrashed around on the internet for awhile and haven't been able to find it.....can you provide a link to it? Since I'm an organic farmer I'm always interested in finding out how I'm misrepresenting my product. There might even be some misinformation that I don't know about and I can incorporate it into my devious sales spiel. "Anything for Money"....that's my organic farming motto.

Chownah

Very catchy Chownah Here's the letter

JACK IN HUAY KHWANG

Organic food not all it's cut out to be

So much hype is being made supporting Organic Food that the alternative view must be told. Organic Farming is pure decadence. It is immoral and its produce is bought by people whose only satisfaction must be to take the pleasure of having paid more in the belief it will be better for them and the environment.

I do not like to see people being conned, and here is why: The perception is that organic is more healthy, but this is not the case. There is little evidence to suggest that organic fruit and vegetables are any healthier than conventional produce. In fact, some forms of organic farming may introduce natural toxins into consumers' food. Blind tests show that most can't tell the difference between organic and conventionally grown food, though people say that organic tastes better. Yes, that may be true if it is fresh, or from your own garden. Furthermore, 70% of organic food is imported and is not fresh.

Less than 2% of European farming is organic and it is not going to be a panacea for the future of food production. Organic farming is a billion-pound industry, promoted by a company that makes profit out of promoting it.

The United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency, set up to safeguard our welfare, refuses to endorse the claims made for it. It says, "On the basis of current evidence, organic food is not significantly different in terms of food safety and nutrition from food produced conventionally".To question claims made by the organic lobby is not just akin to doubting the virtues of motherhood, but to reveal indifference to the poisoning of the nation and the fate of the planet. Their argument is based on the belief that nature knows best and science is dangerous. Our health is threatened not by chemicals and genetically modified crops, but by the eco-fundamentalists and their crusade against intensive farming.

Of course, by definition, organic farming is meaningless as all food is organic.

Thailand's politicians should take serious note that the organic route spells disaster for their farmers, who need crop diversification, farm co-ops and guaranteed prices. In many places the only way inefficient organic farmers can feed an expanding population is by cutting down more tropical forests. The most telling indictment of organic farming is its inefficiency, its high cost and wasteful use of land. The facts cannot be seriously disputed: yields of most crops from organic farms are about 20-50% lower than from conventional farming. That is why it costs more! It is claimed that organic food is more natural and its reliance on natural chemicals makes it safer than food grown with the help of synthetic ones. This is nonsense. There is nothing wholesome about natural chemicals like ricin, aflatoxin or botulinum. There is little danger about synthetic chemicals like the sulphonamides that cure TB, or the painkiller Paracetamol. We are told that pesticide residues harm us. As the Food Standard Agency has pointed out, there is a disparity between public fears and the facts. Dietary contributions to cardiovascular disease and cancer probably account for more than 100,000 deaths a year, and food poisoning for between 50-300.

There are no known deaths from pesticide residues or GM foods. Fact: a cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least one year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet. Tests showed that synthetic and natural chemical residues, such as organic pesticides, produced roughly equal amounts of carcinogens.

If you are really concerned by the effects of pesticide in farming, on wildlife or human health, then you should be promoting pesticide-resistant GM crops which reduce their use. Incidentally, the shirt on your back is almost certainly produced from GM-produced cotton.

It is said that organic farming benefits wildlife. True, many people become organic farmers for environmental reasons and achieve their aim. However, studies show, and from personal experience as a farmer, that environmental effects depend on the style of management, not the farming system. An integrated farm management system achieves the best results and has been sustaining modern agriculture for centuries.

What most benefits birds and wildlife is low-till farming, and permanent grass as opposed to ploughing regularly. Organic farming depends on the plough, which disturbs the soil's ecology, releases more carbon dioxide, uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds. Indian biologist C J Prakash says organic farming's only contribution to sustainable agriculture will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition. Thailand should enter the organic movement with extreme caution and know where it will lead.

GILES WYNNE

Retired Farmer

regards

Ah, Farmer Giles has gone public in the Post with his "Organic Farming is pure decadence" diatribe and thinks he's some kind of sage of Thai farming now. Honestly, Giles, you could have been a bit more original than spouting the same points you made on this TV thread. For somebody who claims to have given evidence to the Commons Select Committee on farming (or whatever it was), you're not a very reliable witness now are you? And so, bitter and reactionary to boot. I mean, as well as calling organic farming "decadent", you follow up with other slurs to the practice such as "immoral", "meaningless" and "spelling disaster for Thai farmers". Wow, people like Chownah, who farms organically, and myself, who prefers to eat organic food, if given the choice, really are evil and dense consumers and producers to have fallen for the devilish delights of organic farming!!!!

My, it's just as well we've got Korat Correct, aka Farmer Giles (Rtd) to set us on the road to morality and enlightenment, whilst saving the poor Thai farmer from falling out of the benign grip of Monsanto and CP into the evil hands of Fairtrade and The Soil Association. Phew, close call!

But pray, Farmer Giles, do tell us about this theory you have that "organic farming depends on the plough"? I'll have to tell my Thai aquaintances who use Fukuoka's no-till farming methods for growing rice that they must start ploughing to be considered "organic farmers". I'll also tell farmer friends, that they should be getting into growing pesticide-resistant GM cotton and Round-up Ready GM maize to save the local wildlife from extinction. Thanks for warning us KC!

[RamdomChances]

Can you grow GM crops organicaly ? I've never really understood the problem with GM food, but apparently if you have an organic farm it has to be GM free. Are'nt virtually all crops GM due to selective breeding ect over the years ?

[chownah]

Creating varieties by selective breeding and hybridizing is not considered to be GM (genetically modified). GM means that a biochemist isolates one particular gene from the DNA of one plant and then inserts this gene into the DNA of another plant. For instance, natural soybeans are sensitive to all/most herbicides....but....if you find a plant that is not affected by a particular herbicide and if you can isolate the gene that makes it resistent then you can clip the gene out of this plant and put it into the DNA of a soybean. In this way you have created a soybean that will be resistant to the herbicide. They have already done this for soybeans and in the US these GM soybeans are grown extensively...the advantage is that you can spray to kill the weeds which can't be done with natural varieties.

The problem with GM in general is that often a particular gene does more than one thing for a plant. Sometimes/usually/often no one knows for sure what all a gene does so when you put it into another plant you're never 100% sure exactly what it will do for the new plant....it might induce the plant to start making some chemical that causes cancer for instance...or it might be poisonous to honey bees...or god knows what it might do. This is not so far fetched as you might think. I believe that there is some GM corn grown in the US whose pollen is poisonous to butterflies and it was killing off monarch butterflies etc. I guess this is known as the "law of unintended consequences".

I guess people feel that by selective breeding and hybridizing you are using a natural way to mix genes and since nature has been doing this for millions of years then it's safe and ok...don't know if they are right or not but humans have been selectively breeding for a long time now and there doesn't seem to be any major problems associated with it yet...maybe the same will be said for GM after enough time passes...or maybe it will become a nightmare....isn't life an adventure!!!

Chownah

P.S. I hope that the soybean and corn examples above are correct. I don't follow this very closely and I'm putting this down from memory which may have twisted the facts somewhat.

Chownah

Edited June 18, 2006 by chownah

[bina]

selectively breeding for a long time now and there doesn't seem to be any major problems associated with it yet

of course there are problems; just ask anyone who owns an animal that has been selectively bred for a specific trait... its true, most of the sufferers are the animals themselves but still:

chickens bred specifically for egg production or breast meat, and lacking ability to fight diseases w/o additives in their food which in turn gives us too much hormone, antibiotic etc in food, bla bla bla which in turn creates stronger/resistant (selectively bred!) bacterias etc etc....

for an alternative that is not organic but reduces amounts of additives etc : we (the kibbutz) are now raising one chicken coop (thousands of chickens) for 'natural' (not organic according to the reg. codes) food markets i.e. antibiotics etc NOT added in food, BUT if illness hits, will be given meds with followup-- new thing on market in israel, the price for the chicken of course is double...but the chickens have to be hardier, and are probably smaller etc... dont think they are GM and this is supposed to be a step in the right direction

most dogs that are selectively bred suffer from health problems (boxers, bulldogs, etc w/cancers etc)... 'natural' prototype breeds seem to be hardier in the long run; and in selective breeding u lose out on some genes along the way and most breeders will re introduce from somewhere else that neccessary trait (breeding for a colour often means that u get the colour along w/a tendency to blindness or deafness for instance); may not affect us, but then again , it might, especially if it a a food source that suddenly can disappear

and of course if everyone plants the same type of tomatoe for long market life, and that tomatoe gets a virus, then all the tomatoes get sick, and then the price of tomatoes goes up etc etc...

isnt htat why vintage varieties etc are making a comeback? and diversified farming??

stream of concious answers....

[Korat Correct]

Plachon

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit".

However if I have hurt your feelings I apologise

but you do have every right to reply.

Just as the Bangkok Post have every right to print or not to print.

[chownah]

Organic farming studies are being carried out in the Northeast

The Agricultural Economics Office (AEO) is gathering data on organic farm products and their production costs in 5 northeastern provinces.

AEO director Udom Sitthidej (อุดม สิทธิเดช) said the studies interview 250 farmers now growing organic rice and vegetables in Nakhon Ratchasima, Surin, Buri Ram, Si Sa Ket and Ubon Ratchathani.

Mr. Udom said the objectives are to compare the production costs of organic and chemical farming and survey the people’s attitude toward organic products.

The cabinet has declared the promotion of organic farming a national agenda.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 May 2006

Not wanting to interfere in the fun of the quibble but actually being interested in the real topic of this thread, I'm wondering if anyone knows anything else about this study...like...is it finished yet .....or when will it be finished....or....how can I find out the results of the study?

Chownah

[plachon]

Plachon

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit".

However if I have hurt your feelings I apologise

but you do have every right to reply.

Just as the Bangkok Post have every right to print or not to print.

No need to apologise KC, as no one's feelings have been hurt, apart from maybe yours? It's called debate, which is what TV is here for, and I'm afraid sarcasm is written all over this board, if you care to look. So, don't get dispirited, but I would sincerely suggest you revise your somewhat archaic and out-of-touch views of what organic farming is, is not and why it is steadily becoming more popular and necessary worldwide, not just in UK, but Thailand too. It is bound to meet resistance from those whose interests are threatened or just plain ignorance, which is inevitably widespread amongst the GP. So your comments seem very tame, lame and tired in comparison to what I've seen in the past, although your continual reference to "decadence" is intriguing. Surely, you don't mean that if farmers in Thailand reduce their dependence on chemical fertilisers and pesticides, to produce food for a growing market in organic produce, they are to be considered "decadent"? I'd really like to hear what you mean by this "decadent" label?

By the way did you catch the reply to your letter in the Pigeon Post? The writer makes some reasonable points in a rather long-winded fashion, and is quite right about HM the King's interest in and promotion of chemical -free farming in some of his projects. Similarly, there are many NGO and civil society networks in Thailand striving to do the same thing. If one thing categorises them, beyond their interest in organic farming, is their desire for self-sufficient rural communities in-line with the King's principles. Hardly what I would call a decadent lot or desire, but you seem to know better?

[plachon]

Organic farming studies are being carried out in the Northeast

The Agricultural Economics Office (AEO) is gathering data on organic farm products and their production costs in 5 northeastern provinces.

AEO director Udom Sitthidej (อุดม สิทธิเดช) said the studies interview 250 farmers now growing organic rice and vegetables in Nakhon Ratchasima, Surin, Buri Ram, Si Sa Ket and Ubon Ratchathani.

Mr. Udom said the objectives are to compare the production costs of organic and chemical farming and survey the people’s attitude toward organic products.

The cabinet has declared the promotion of organic farming a national agenda.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 May 2006

Not wanting to interfere in the fun of the quibble but actually being interested in the real topic of this thread, I'm wondering if anyone knows anything else about this study...like...is it finished yet .....or when will it be finished....or....how can I find out the results of the study?

Chownah

Sanuk maak maak Chownah. Don't hold your breath on the resuts of this study being ready any time soon. However, when it is and if it's perceived as worthy for public onsumption, no doubt the AEO will put it on their website, which is easily findable with a quick google search. AEO do quite a few surveys I believe, but msotly based on rather long-winded questionnaire forms which might not elicit the best or most honest responses amongst farmers in Isaan, who mostly want either to agree with the interviewer or will take a non-committal view. Aslo have to bear in mind the likelihood that the survey is conducted in Central Thai and will have been designed by non-field workers in a central Bangkok office.

Anyway, while I'm pleased to read that "The cabinet has declared the promotion of organic farming a national agenda", it's quite hard to tally with the reality at ground level and the efforts of certain deputy Ag Minsisters to press at every opportunity to push the GM and agribusness agenda.

[nickupton]

This is an interesting debate in which I think both sides have made some relevent points. Farmers such as KC have been encouraged by government policy to farm to produce food and lots of it, and in this they have been very successful; I guess they are experts in this field. Saying that it is irresponsible not to produce as much food as possible ignores the fact that most of the world's food problems are nothing to do with lack of production and more to do with distributional limitations caused by things like war. On the other hand it is probably very difficult for small scale farmers in Thailand to practice things like crop rotation and organic farming and still make money. They should probably be encouraged to use less artificial fertilisers and biocides for economic and health reasons and at the same time be encouraged to farm in a way that enables them to do this (and rotating crops is an ideal way of doing this). Going totally organic is probably not practical for small scale farmers in Thailand due to not having enough land to rotate or land that is only suitable for one crop etc. Large scale farms could probably operate in an organic fashion profitably and indeed increase revenue by producing organic food for export and getting a better price than for "non-organic products".

As for the benefits to wildlife it is true that crop rotation benefits wildlife as it reduces the need for fertilisers which inevitably are leached into surrounding watercourses. I have visited organic farms in the UK to conduct bird surveys and have been surprised to find that some organic farms are surprisingly poor in species. On the other hand I've visited non-organic farms which are full of wildlife. However, a good organic farm is always better than a good non-organic farm in terms of birdlife and by association other wildlife.

What most benefits birds and wildlife is low-til farming,and permanent grass as opposed to ploughing regularly. Organic farming depends on the plough which disturbs the soil ecology,releases more carbon dioxide,uses more fossil fuel and drives out nesting birds.

This seems to me to be a fairly poorly informed statement. Permanent grass is okay for some species dependent on what sort of grass it is. If this is improved pasture, which is what most farmers mean by permanent grass, then it is very poor for plant species, in turn there are few invertebrates adapted for life on this low number of plant species and consequently there is a reduced food source for birds to feed their chicks on: fewer birds. If the grass is unimproved pasture then there should be a lot of plant species and invertebrates, but often this doesn't provide the nesting habitat that many birds need, not to mention the amount of trampling of nests that ensues due to livestock in the fields. Ploughing on the other hand produces the habitat needed by species such as Corn Bunting and Skylark in Europe to nest in (Oriental skylark in Thailand) as long as crops are undersown (one of KC's ideas) or sown in spring. If ploughed land is unharvested until after young birds have fledged then nests needn't be destroyed. If the crops are harvested beforehand then birds are massacred. This is true of both organic and non-organic farms. In this respect I agree with KC in that land management is more important than whether chemicals are used or not, but completely disagree with what he says about ploughing. Indeed the principles of land management that KC advocates are integral parts of organic farming!

In Thailand one of the areas with the best population of farmland birds is near Petchaburi, where rice stubble is left over winter. I do not know if this is organically produced, probably not, but what is important is the land management which provides a lot of over winter food in the form of spilt grain for small seed-eating birds and in the form of rodents (feeding on the grain) for raptors. Again, yes land management is important but ploughing being bad??????

How KC can say that organic farming uses more fossil fuel leaves me confused. Artificial fertilisers are produced by the Harber-Bosch (spelling?) process which is totally reliant on the input of large amounts of fossil fuels on an industrial scale, in effect turning oil into soil fertility. What happens when the oil runs out or global warming has become irreversible due to carbon emissions (another debate entirely)? I guess it will have to be back to organic farming or the use of guano as fertiliser, except there won't be any birds to produce it because their numbers have been so reduced.

I think that old-fashioned farmers like KC need to recognise that organic farming has its place and conservationists/healthy food campaigners need to realise that farmers need to make a profit and feed the population so that sometimes chemicals are needed.

Most of what has been written in this thread pertains to farming in Europe and/or North America and obviously farming in a tropical climate is different. If farmers in Thailand are to farm for the benefit of food production, profit, health and wildlife (and they are all related) then "experts" probably need to examine ways of applying the principals they have learned to this situation instead of thinking they know it all already. Pilot schemes to investigate the possibilities of various farming systems should be tried and if KC has indeed been involved in these he is to be commended, even if he does advocate using chemicals. I would love to hear from anyone who has been involved in pilot schemes to promote organic and/or agri-environment schemes in Thailand.