Why FARMERS do not try to make more money with ORGANIC vegetables and fruits ?

[khwaibah]

Thank you but I am bot asking if organics is good and what are the problems, I guess that I know them, I am asking why farmers don't do it.

And yes, farmers who are less stupid than others do it in Europe and even do direct sale, why Thai couldn't do it ?

Thank you to all.

Organic food costs more. OK in the rich west, but poor people in Thailand are not going to buy it.

I do wish I could buy free range eggs though.

Sorry but your off base on that comment including my wife main section of 8 rai I know of 12 more just in my area that are organic. These farms are from 8 to 20 rai. The popularity of going organic is growing by leaps and bound. My wife has attended two 1 week courses on this subject sponsored by the Thai army last course was in Roi Et.

[wolfmanjack]

Thank you but I am bot asking if organics is good and what are the problems, I guess that I know them, I am asking why farmers don't do it.

And yes, farmers who are less stupid than others do it in Europe and even do direct sale, why Thai couldn't do it ?

Thank you to all.

I think I can answer your question; For food to be certified organic the ground has to be free of chemicals etc for three years which means in short, no crops fopr three years on that ground. Chiang Mai and surrounding areas have masses of organic farms, some run by the air force!

they could grow crops using organic methods for those 3 years. They just would not be getting the certified prices but it would be better than no income at all for those 3 years.

[canopy]

Human waste is a terrific fertiliser and is in no way a vector for disease...A local night-soil collector empties these and the waste is put directly onto the fields, including those with growing plants which will later be sold.

No, no, no! Human waste is extremely dangerous and must be used with great caution! The absolute worst thing you can do is what you describe: place raw human waste in contact with produce that will be consumed by others. The fresh eggs and parasites in it will love that quick path from one person to the next. I highly recommend learning about how to compost human waste properly. The system I use is described in the Humanure Handbook and is pretty easy, but requires 1-2 years before it is safe to use.

[BSJ]

Well, selling exotic mushrooms to chefs in Bangkok sounds good....until you look at the logistics. That was one scenario Tik and I discussed. It's doable but costly. And no guarantee you will be able to sell all your product every trip....which is daily. Your up for 2 air-conditioned bodies to put on pick-up chassis + the cost of 2 pick ups. A cool room to store what has been picked each day until ready to be loaded. And your looking at 3 sheds fitted with large fans, water sprays. Your going to need 2 drivers who you can trust with money. Getting the product in perfect condition into the 4 and 5 star kitchens in Bangkok may sound easy but it is not! And are the profits worth the extra expense?

Tik operates on the principle that we will use organic friendly products if it not more costly and it is as effective as the chemi. She has chemi using mango orchards on each side so there is probably no hope of ever being certified organic anyway.

On her rice and corn land there maybe opportunities to use less chemi....but not get rid of them entirely. When the BIL spread chicken poo he did Tik's land as well, although I think he spread it way to thin! But it's organic!

So, in my view, until there is a massive shift in farmer thinking certified organic is not going to be a big industry.

[aronp1]

Ummm.... most crops are organic. khun kuan sue tii dta laat.

[LivinLOS]

You could expand the topic from organic and ask, why do Thai farmers not grow more diverse crops..

Luckily my SO's family are kinda well established with palm sugar so dont need to change whats working.. but I have watched distant family plant and fail at crops, or grow the exact same thing as everyone else in the area, so it all comes ripe at the same time and they all get terrible prices due to the glut.

I asked one male cousin, after he had a crop which barely broke even, why not do something different.. Why not start mushroom farming, or one of many many things which appear to do well and more importantly no one else is doing. His response.. Ohh I dont know how to do that.. But he can slave away at back breaking labor for months on end to not make any money, yet to learn something new, to try a new plan, even part time, he had no interest.. If the collective dont think its a good idea, the collective must be correct.

I have followed many 'oddball' or niche ideas.. Bug farming, croc farming, rabbit farming, goat (and cheese making) farming, etc etc and these projects have all done way better than 'rice' or 'cane sugar' or whatever the baseline normal is in a region.. Yet they never seem to experiment with new crops or ideas on even part of the land ??

Immediately off the top of my head fruits that command high value and can be easily grown here.

Yellow lemons

Peaches

Plums (not top money)

Oranges (western)

Many many types of gourmet mushrooms can grow easily.. Spores purchased online are simple to propagate, direct sell to high end bangkok 5 star chefs and thats a viable super simple operation that I know of no one in the country doing..

A couple of problems that I can see in growing gourmet mushrooms to sell direct to 5 star chefs in BKK is that

1 how would you (or a Thai farmer) actually get to meet the 5 star chefs in the first place, and

2 as the mushrooms are presumeably grown outside of BKK how would you get them to the chefs on time unless you pick them in the late afternoon and ship them down overnight.

Just a couple of logistical problems to solve.

Also what seems to be missing is the most important factor in farming anywhere.

How much water is necessary especially for hydroponic farming . Where we live in rural Thailand there has only been government water for 4 or 5 days since mid January. There are still many provinces in Thailand in a drought situation.

Actually the gourmet mushrooms was more a westerner centric idea that I threw in as an example of whats not being done.. Back in my younger days I had an interest in mushroom growing and the propagation or mycelium and fruiting of the 'mushroom' is something I have a tiny bit of understanding on.. I have often thought that the expensive varieties, as a specialist seller would be a simple and viable small time operation here.

But I do agree.. Buying spores online, correctly dealing with the higher end chefs, setting up a supply system for farm to retail. Would probably be above a normal Thai farmers ability. That wasnt a great example to throw in.

But my point of the herd mentality and lack of any desire to try something is strange to me.. I mean One Tambon One product !! Thats a terrible idea.. Everyone make the same thing ??? Then everyone is competing with their neighbour.. Surely one tambon 100 products is smarter.. The whole herd thinking and go with the collective is highly negative in this. Thats government promoted policy !

[pigeonjake]

You could expand the topic from organic and ask, why do Thai farmers not grow more diverse crops..

Luckily my SO's family are kinda well established with palm sugar so dont need to change whats working.. but I have watched distant family plant and fail at crops, or grow the exact same thing as everyone else in the area, so it all comes ripe at the same time and they all get terrible prices due to the glut.

I asked one male cousin, after he had a crop which barely broke even, why not do something different.. Why not start mushroom farming, or one of many many things which appear to do well and more importantly no one else is doing. His response.. Ohh I dont know how to do that.. But he can slave away at back breaking labor for months on end to not make any money, yet to learn something new, to try a new plan, even part time, he had no interest.. If the collective dont think its a good idea, the collective must be correct.

I have followed many 'oddball' or niche ideas.. Bug farming, croc farming, rabbit farming, goat (and cheese making) farming, etc etc and these projects have all done way better than 'rice' or 'cane sugar' or whatever the baseline normal is in a region.. Yet they never seem to experiment with new crops or ideas on even part of the land ??

Immediately off the top of my head fruits that command high value and can be easily grown here.

Yellow lemons

Peaches

Plums (not top money)

Oranges (western)

Many many types of gourmet mushrooms can grow easily.. Spores purchased online are simple to propagate, direct sell to high end bangkok 5 star chefs and thats a viable super simple operation that I know of no one in the country doing..

A couple of problems that I can see in growing gourmet mushrooms to sell direct to 5 star chefs in BKK is that

1 how would you (or a Thai farmer) actually get to meet the 5 star chefs in the first place, and

2 as the mushrooms are presumeably grown outside of BKK how would you get them to the chefs on time unless you pick them in the late afternoon and ship them down overnight.

Just a couple of logistical problems to solve.

Also what seems to be missing is the most important factor in farming anywhere.

How much water is necessary especially for hydroponic farming . Where we live in rural Thailand there has only been government water for 4 or 5 days since mid January. There are still many provinces in Thailand in a drought situation.

Actually the gourmet mushrooms was more a westerner centric idea that I threw in as an example of whats not being done.. Back in my younger days I had an interest in mushroom growing and the propagation or mycelium and fruiting of the 'mushroom' is something I have a tiny bit of understanding on.. I have often thought that the expensive varieties, as a specialist seller would be a simple and viable small time operation here.

But I do agree.. Buying spores online, correctly dealing with the higher end chefs, setting up a supply system for farm to retail. Would probably be above a normal Thai farmers ability. That wasnt a great example to throw in.

But my point of the herd mentality and lack of any desire to try something is strange to me.. I mean One Tambon One product !! Thats a terrible idea.. Everyone make the same thing ??? Then everyone is competing with their neighbour.. Surely one tambon 100 products is smarter.. The whole herd thinking and go with the collective is highly negative in this. Thats government promoted policy !

couldnt agree more, the herd,,lol,

evey one round here and there dogs are putting in lamyi trees, just becouse its been a good price for a couple of years,

so ive been planting more lambutine,,lol,

[attrayant]

I guess this thread has just about run its course, but I feel the need to correct a basic misunderstanding.

Growing organic veg is not more expensive than growing using chemicals, just the opposite.

A few posters seem to be laboring under the impression that there is some "chemical-free" magic that defines organic farming. Of course, the mere suggestion that anything can be "chemical-free" is silly. Perhaps it's just careless phrasing on their part.

Before synthetic pesticides came along, highly toxic urea pesticides were used, which essentially burned up whatever they touched. Farmers were just a few steps short of napalming their fields. These pesticides are still in use, albeit sparingly, by farmers who understand the importance of not relying on any one type of pesticide (which promotes resistance in the pest being targeted).

The currently approved pesticides for "organic" farming, such as rotenone, pyrethrin & nicotine sulfate are all several times more toxic (not to mention less effective, so they need to be applied in larger quantities) than their synthetic counterparts. Also, more land is required, as is more tillage of the soil. So organic is simply a joke. All it means is that pesticides were made using natural ingredients, as if they are somehow better than synthetic ones.

Some seem to think that organic means applying no pesticides at all (maybe that's what is meant by "chemical-free"), but as already mentioned, such practices are unsustainable and result in low-yields and anemic looking produce. A lot of such produce ends up in processed foods and juices because it lacks the necessary visual appeal to be placed in the produce section of a modern supermarket.

Enough with the irrational chem-phobia.

[NeverSure]

im going to put my bit in,

i live in the sticks we dont use chemicals, and the thais look at our veg,, our pigs, chickens, ducks and the eggs, we sell lots of our stuff,

but and its a big but,

they will always have to use chemicals,

1st, after every rain fall you will see people out at that night time catching frogs,( ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE STICKS WILL OF SEAN THIS) they are catching and eating the things that keep the bugs down, so they have to spray,

2nd, like some other poster said, its what there father did and what there neighbour does, so they just follow,

3rd, you cannot tell them how to look after there land, as in taking the frogs away every rain storm, its harder to collect poo and put it on the land as it has to be rotto tiled in, so that would mean more expence having to get the tractor in, as with chemicals they can just do it by hand, ive said to my wife many time they are killing the land,

my wifes cousins land borders ours, and were we have a dyke for the run off water just from 2 pig pens, his sugar cane, just the one row is miles better then the rest of his crop, becouse its feeding from our run off water,

im afraid thailand will, maybe not all, but 90% will always be chemicals,

we try and grow all we need, even pork, duck and chicken,

i had a member on here contact me from bkk asking if i could get eggs to him,, but we have a waiting list for our eggs round here, even though i could get more selling in bkk its the hassle,

im afraid this is one of them subjects that really does mean,, THIS IS THAILAND, and i really dont think we will change them,

jake,, organic farmer,,

look at our place on youtube,, thaifarmlife.com ronald jackson

Hi Jake, I just looked at all of your videos that I could find. Nice!!

Jake you also have an edge over most Thai farmers. You don't need a bank because you are the bank. What freedom!!! You have another very good source of outside income to even invest into the farm if you wish. You can take the time and energy to develop things as you want them without worrying about a rice crop failure or even rice or pig prices. If you have a setback you can ride it out until next year.

All of that is very admirable and you know I do really like you and admire you, but the average Thai isn't in your position. You're kind of like a King out there, LOL.

Congratulations on the nice videos. I hope you make more. I subscribed to your channel.

Cheers

[pigeonjake]

thanks neversure,

im thinking more of the future when im not about, hope the kids have something apart from money,

im trying to teach them that you only get in this world what you work for, and as you have seen our little farm is a family affair were every one has there jobs to do,

i could just retire and do nothing ive got the money, but why would some one just want to sit around all day every day, thats not for me,

thanks again

jake

[thaibeachlovers]

I guess this thread has just about run its course, but I feel the need to correct a basic misunderstanding.

Growing organic veg is not more expensive than growing using chemicals, just the opposite.

A few posters seem to be laboring under the impression that there is some "chemical-free" magic that defines organic farming. Of course, the mere suggestion that anything can be "chemical-free" is silly. Perhaps it's just careless phrasing on their part.

Before synthetic pesticides came along, highly toxic urea pesticides were used, which essentially burned up whatever they touched. Farmers were just a few steps short of napalming their fields. These pesticides are still in use, albeit sparingly, by farmers who understand the importance of not relying on any one type of pesticide (which promotes resistance in the pest being targeted).

The currently approved pesticides for "organic" farming, such as rotenone, pyrethrin & nicotine sulfate are all several times more toxic (not to mention less effective, so they need to be applied in larger quantities) than their synthetic counterparts. Also, more land is required, as is more tillage of the soil. So organic is simply a joke. All it means is that pesticides were made using natural ingredients, as if they are somehow better than synthetic ones.

Some seem to think that organic means applying no pesticides at all (maybe that's what is meant by "chemical-free"), but as already mentioned, such practices are unsustainable and result in low-yields and anemic looking produce. A lot of such produce ends up in processed foods and juices because it lacks the necessary visual appeal to be placed in the produce section of a modern supermarket.

Enough with the irrational chem-phobia.

If that's true, why did my vegetables always taste much better than shop bought? I used zero pesticides, so they didn't look perfect, but tasted great.

[attrayant]

Where did I say anything about taste? And in any event, there's no way for me to deconstruct a subjective experience you had. I would have to make wild guesses saying maybe this or perhaps that, which gets us precisely nowhere.

[BSJ]

The mango's that are sitting in the upstairs and downstairs fridges are as tasty as ever! They were grown using the regular factory made fertilizer and insecticide. I have no qualms about eating them. I have 2 or 3 a day plus the missus has used about 25kg to make roll-ups. She boils about 12 to 13 kg at a time over the charcoal burner to reduce them. Takes about 2 hours constantly stirring. Then pours the gooey mass over plastic sheets so they are about the size of large pan cakes and sun dries then for 2 days. Yummy!

It's necessary to use what works. Any alternative has to have some track record to get a look in. We can't afford to have a failure.....not this year or any year!

[djayz]

I've thought about the same topic for some time now and I simply assumed it's down to the fact that the MAJORITY of consumers in this and other developing countries are more concerned about making ends meet. They simply can't afford to pay premium prices for food grown "organically". Remember, this osn't the West - it's a developing country and "organic" is not on the minds of most people here.

[attento]

Plants absorb their nutrients in chemical form. What else? Plants are not able to differentiate between the origins of these chemicals, whether they are synthetic or naturally occuring.

Crop production depletes the soil of nutrients, which need to be replaced somehow if production is to continue at similar levels. This may be from naturally occuring materials or synthetic chemicals, or a combination.

Why is the the word "poison" used with the implication that there are "organic" pest control sprays that are not poisonous? They wouldn't much use if they didn't poison the pests.

Why do the "organic" enthusiasts insist that they understand agricultural biochemistry, but shy away from using precise terminology ?

Surely it's not because they want to play on customers emotions, rather than science ?

Succesful agriculture is a combination of efficient production and effective marketing. The majority of poorly educated Thai farmers have a hard enough time with production, and next to no experience of specialist marketing.

[nycjoe]

I use organic fertilizer after researching the effect of chemical fertilizer on the groundwater. Chemical fertilizers contain carcinogenic chemicals.

[nycjoe]

WASTE LANDS: THE THREAT OF TOXIC FERTILIZER

Report by

Matthew Shaffer,

Toxics Policy Advocate

CALPIRG Charitable Trust

The State PIRGs

May 3, 2001

Download the Report || Executive Summary

Press Release || U.S. PIRG

Download the Report (220 KB)

Download the complete report by clicking on the link above. This is a PDF file. The free Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed to view the file.

Executive Summary

The recycling of hazardous industrial wastes into fertilizers introduces several dozen toxic metals and chemicals into the nation's farm, lawn and garden soils, including such well-known toxic substances as lead and mercury. Many crops and plants extract these toxic metals from the soil, increasing the chance of impacts on human health as crops and plants enter the food supply chain. This report documents the highly toxic substances found by testing fertilizers, as well as the strict regulations needed to protect humans and the environment from these toxic hazards.

Between 1990 and 1995, 600 companies from 44 different states sent 270 million pounds of toxic waste to farms and fertilizer companies across the country. 1 The steel industry provided 30% of this waste. Used for its high levels of zinc, which is an essential nutrient for plant growth, steel industry wastes can include lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel and dioxin, among other toxic substances. Although the industrial facilities that generate these toxic wastes report the amount of chemicals they transfer off-site to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency�s (U.S. EPA) Toxics Release Inventory every year, they only report the total amount of a given chemical contained in wastes transferred over the course of a year, making it difficult to determine the chemical make-up of a given waste shipment.

With little monitoring of the toxics contained in fertilizers and fertilizer labels that do not list toxic substances, our food supply and our health are at risk.

TESTED FERTILIZERS CONTAIN HARMFUL TOXIC METALS

California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Charitable Trust and Washington�s Safe Food and Fertilizer tested 29 fertilizers from 12 states 2 for 22 toxic metals. This report documents the results of these fertilizer samples, demonstrates that the problem of toxic fertilizers is widespread, and details concerns with proposed regulations for the practice.

Twenty-nine tested fertilizers contained twenty-two toxic heavy metals. These metals are linked to either ecological or human health hazards. Most noticeable is the wide array of toxic metals that exist in fertilizers.

Metal Tested

Number of Fertilizers Containing the Metal

Aluminum (Al)

29

Antimony (Sb)

29

Arsenic (As)

29

Barium (Ba)

29

Berylium (Be)

29

Boron (

29

Cadmium (Cd)

29

Chromium (Cr)

29

Cobalt (Co)

29

Copper (Cu)

29

Iron (Fe)

29

Lead (Pb)

29

Manganese (Mn)

29

Mercury (Hg)

29

Molybdenum (Mo)

29

Nickel (Ni)

29

Selenium (Se)

29

Silver (Ag)

29

Thallium (Tl)

29

Vanadium (V)

29

Uranium (U)

29

Zinc (Zn)

29

All commercial fertilizers made from recycled materials such as hazardous wastes, and produced for the general public�s use are subject to the federal Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). 3 Land disposal restriction standards, which are levels of concern that are limits for keeping hazardous wastes from leaching from a lined landfill, exist for thirteen of the twenty-two metals for which we tested. 4 Land disposal standards do not protect human health and the environment. While exceeding these levels of concern is not an indication that a fertilizer has violated the law, such exceedences indicate that some tested fertilizers have the potential to violate federal regulations.

Twenty fertilizers tested higher than levels of concern. One fertilizer, The Andersons 0-0-0, 36% Zinc (from Michigan) exceeded six levels of concern. It also contained the highest levels of antimony, cadmium, chromium, nickel, silver and lead of any fertilizer we tested and the second highest levels of beryllium, selenium and mercury. In all, the twenty fertilizers exceed levels of concern for nine toxic heavy metals. The most frequently exceeded levels of concern were for cadmium, chromium and vanadium.

These results indicate that fertilizers often contain high levels of harmful toxic metals that exceed levels of concern and could violate federal law.

Labeling is inadequate. Because fertilizer labeling laws only require beneficial nutrients, like zinc or phosphate, to be listed, fertilizers are sold directly to the public and farmers without warnings or information that informs consumers about the presence and quantity of toxic metals. Also, there is no indication on fertilizer labels as to whether or not the fertilizers we tested have been further treated to meet federal land disposal standards.

Inadequate labeling requirements mean consumers do not have the necessary information to make informed decisions about products at the time that they are purchased to best protect the health of their families.

Each of these metals is suspected or known to be toxic to humans and the environment by the U.S. EPA. Nine metals, like arsenic and lead, are known or suspected to cause cancer and ten metals, like mercury, are linked to developmental effects. Three of the tested metals � lead, cadmium and mercury � are also persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs). PBTs persist for long periods of time in the environment � some indefinitely � and they can accumulate in the tissues of humans and wildlife, increasing the long-term health risks at even low levels of exposure. These three metals cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive problems. 5

TOXIC FERTILIZERS THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH

The toxic substances found in the tested fertilizers have been linked to adverse human health impacts. The metals found in these fertilizers are known or suspected carcinogens, reproductive and developmental, liver, and blood toxicants. For example, beryllium is a suspected carcinogen, chromium and arsenic are known to cause cancer and barium can cause kidney and lung damage.

Children are most susceptible to the toxic effects of most metals, especially lead, which has been the subject of intense government efforts to reduce lead exposure to children. Products like fertilizer are of great concern as children spend more time on or near the ground and are often exposed to ground level substances through hand-to-mouth behavior.

TOXIC FERTILIZERS THREATEN AGRICULTURAL SOILS, FOOD SAFETY AND WATERWAYS

As demonstrated in this report, the tested fertilizers contain toxic substances at high levels. These substances can accumulate in agricultural soils, become available for plant uptake, and run off into waterways.

AGRICULTURAL SOIL QUALITY

Farming, especially single-crop farming, requires consistent and dependable soil conditions. The introduction to farm soils of toxic substances like lead and cadmium can adversely affect growing conditions and result in increased toxic accumulation as these metals are highly persistent in soils. This can negatively affect critical growing requirements, such as soil acidity or the solubility of beneficial metals like zinc in the soils.

PLANT UPTAKE

Some crops are more likely than others to absorb non-nutrient toxic substances from soils. For example, fruits and grains can absorb lead, and lettuce, corn and wheat can absorb cadmium from soils. 6 This means that our food supply is at risk of contamination by toxic substances that could threaten human health.

WATER QUALITY

The overall health of the nation�s waterways has declined dramatically over the last quarter-century. Forty percent of our rivers, lakes, and estuaries are still too polluted for safe fishing or swimming 7 . Agricultural runoff is a common cause of waterway pollution. A 1998 U.S. EPA report found that metals are the second most common pollutants found in lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and estuaries. In fact, agriculture is the industry most responsible for lake pollution. 8 The introduction of toxic substances from fertilizers to agricultural environments will only add to their concentrations in waterways that state and federal agencies are working to make safe for fishing and swimming.

MISGUIDED POLICIES AND TOXIC LOOPHOLES

Labeling is inadequate. Fertilizer labeling laws do not require listing toxic metals like lead, cadmium and chromium that are not essential to plant and crop growth. Without listing all the ingredients present in fertilizers, consumers cannot make decisions that will protect their soils, crops and plants, or their health.

Existing standards for toxic metals in fertilizers are inadequate for protecting our soils, crops, plants, water, air and health. All commercial fertilizers made from recycled materials, such as hazardous wastes, and produced for the general public�s use are subject to the federal Land Disposal Restrictions. 9 10 The U.S. EPA�s federal Land Disposal Restrictions, which are applied to zinc fertilizers 11 that contain toxic waste, are intended to ensure that toxic substances are properly treated before the waste is disposed of in heavily regulated, lined landfills. Land Disposal Restriction standards are technology-based standards, which means that they are designed to predict the ability of a hazardous waste to leach from these landfills.

These standards are not risk- or health-based standards. Using these standards for fertilizers can result in unacceptable health risks because of unanticipated uptake by plants, migration of toxic substances to groundwater more easily than would occur from a lined landfill, generation of airborne dusts, or exposure to humans, including children and farmworkers. Land Disposal Restrictions are inadequate for regulating the application of hazardous wastes, via fertilizers, to farms, lawns and gardens or for use as animal feed.

As hazardous wastes continue to burden regulatory agencies, municipalities, and the industries that generate them, regulators are under increasing pressure to find ways to treat, handle, and dispose of wastes. U.S. EPA encourages the reuse and recycling of industrial wastes, including hazardous wastes, as a way of handling increasing waste quantities, when such wastes can be used as substitutes for virgin, raw materials. 12

Unfortunately, the recycling of hazardous wastes into fertilizer products does not always include the process of treatment or cleaning of hazardous waste, but rather dilution of the waste. Dilution involves adding substances to a waste to reduce the concentration of toxic substances that are present in the waste. Dilution does not reduce the toxicity of the hazardous constituents. 13 Federal law specifically prohibits dilution as a form of treatment. 14

RECOMMENDATIONS

No uniform law for regulating the toxicity or labeling of the nation�s fertilizers exists. Rather, myriad hazardous waste laws and regulatory bodies are responsible for various aspects of the practice of recycling industrial waste into fertilizers, often with little enforcement or oversight. As a result, the fertilizers we use on our farms and gardens contain high levels of toxic metals that are also not listed on the label. We encourage state and federal agencies to:

1) Ban the use of hazardous wastes for manufacturing fertilizers. The presence and quantity of toxic substances in fertilizers vary widely but occur at high levels. These substances are not essential to crop and plant growth and can negatively affect soil and food quality and human health. Current regulatory strategies have been inadequate for protecting farmers and growers, home-use consumers and specialty users from the accumulation of toxic substances from fertilizers in our farms, lawns and gardens.

2) Adopt expanded right-to-know provisions for all hazardous wastes going into fertilizer. Consumers should be made aware of the presence and quantity of all ingredients in fertilizers at the point-of-purchase on the product label. Such information is necessary to allow consumers to make informed choices about protecting soil, crop and plant quality and their own health.

3) Stop exempting hazardous wastes being made into fertilizers from important treatment, storage and disposal tracking requirements. The generation, treatment, storage, transport, disposal and receipt of hazardous wastes is tracked, or manifested by authorized state agencies. As soon as the waste becomes a recycled product, like a fertilizer, the tracking requirements end. The tracking of industrial wastes from �cradle to grave� and maintaining stringent handling requirements are significant components to ensuring protection of public and environmental health. Any exemptions in these areas put the public at risk.

1 "Factory Farming: Toxic Waste and Fertilizer in the United States, 1990-1995," Environmental Working Group, 1998.

2 In addition to California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington states, the tested fertilizers (See Appendix are available in many other states. This is especially true for home and garden fertilizers like Scotts.

3 40 CFR 266.20, 40 CFR 268.40 (i)

4 Zinc fertilizers are subject to less stringent Phase III Land Disposal Restrictions, which do not include beryllium and vanadium. Zinc fertilizers made from electric arc furnace dust (K061) are not subject to standards. 40 CFR Part 268, [FRL-6153-2], RIN 2050-AE05, EPA, 1998.

5 "Visualizing Zero: Eliminating Persistent Pollution in Washington State." Washington Toxics Coalition, 2000.

6 Wilson, D., "Fear in the Fields," The Seattle Times, July 3, 1997, citing Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, EPA.

7 www.pirg.org /enviro/index.htm

8 National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress (EPA841-R-00-001)

9 40 CFR 266.20 and 40 CFR 268.40 (i)

10 The exception is K061 (the waste code for electric arc furnace dust produced by steel mills) which are not sunject to regulation.

11 Non-zinc fertilizers are subject to Universal Treatment Standards, 40 CFR 268.48

12 http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/fertiliz/index.htm

13 Environmental Protection Agency, EPA530-F-99-043, December 1999.

14 40 CCR �268.3,: "Dilution prohibited as a substitute for treatment." In addition, 40 CFR 268.2 (k) states, "Any deliberate mixing of prohibited hazardous waste with soil that changes its treatment classification (i.e., from waste to contaminated soil) is not allowed under the dilution prohibition in section 268.3"

Download the Report || Executive Summary

[attrayant]

I use organic fertilizer after researching the effect of chemical fertilizer on the groundwater. Chemical fertilizers contain carcinogenic chemicals.

And what do you think is in "organic fertilizer" if not chemicals?

[nycjoe]

Actually I use cow manure, chicken manure and bat guano, If you want to use chemical fertilisers as they say on soi 6 up to you. I prefer to use more natural materials it is wholly a matter of choice, Part of my insecticide is cheap thai whiskey, so I give the bugs a bit of a thrill before they bite the dust.

But why are you so adamant about chemical fertilisers anyway?

[attrayant]

I'm taking issue with your imprecise use of the word "chemical". "Chemical fertilizer" is a meaningless term, as all fertilizers, including the benign synthetic ones and the more toxic "organic" ones are all made of chemicals. You've taken a perfectly neutral word and demonized it.

You also seem to be under the impression that just because something is natural, it's somehow safer or more healthful, which is not necessarily true.

I prefer to use more natural materials

[nycjoe]

From Scientific American:

Dear EarthTalk: What effects do fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on residential lawns or on farms have on nearby water bodies like rivers, streams—or even the ocean for those of us who live near the shore?

-- Linda Reddington, Manahawkin, NJ

With the advent of the so-called Green Revolution in the second half of the 20th century—when farmers began to use technological advances to boost yields—synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides became commonplace around the world not only on farms, but in backyard gardens and on front lawns as well.

These chemicals, many of which were developed in the lab and are petroleum-based, have allowed farmers and gardeners of every stripe to exercise greater control over the plants they want to grow by enriching the immediate environment and warding off pests. But such benefits haven’t come without environmental costs—namely the wholesale pollution of most of our streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and even coastal areas, as these synthetic chemicals run-off into the nearby waterways.

When the excess nutrients from all the fertilizer we use runs off into our waterways, they cause algae blooms sometimes big enough to make waterways impassable. When the algae die, they sink to the bottom and decompose in a process that removes oxygen from the water. Fish and other aquatic species can’t survive in these so-called “dead zones” and so they die or move on to greener underwater pastures.

A related issue is the poisoning of aquatic life. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Americans alone churn through 75 million pounds of pesticides each year to keep the bugs off their peapods and petunias. When those chemicals get into waterways, fish ingest them and become diseased. Humans who eat diseased fish can themselves become ill, completing the circle wrought by pollution.

A 2007 study of pollution in rivers around Portland, Oregon found that wild salmon there are swimming around with dozens of synthetic chemicals in their systems. Another recent study from Indiana found that a variety of corn genetically engineered to produce the insecticide Bt is having toxic effects on non-target aquatic insects, including caddis flies, a major food source for fish and frogs.

The solution, of course, is to go organic, both at home and on the farm. According to the Organic Trade Association, organic farmers and gardeners use composted manure and other natural materials, as well as crop rotation, to help improve soil fertility, rather than synthetic fertilizers that can result in an overabundance of nutrients. As a result, these practices protect ground water supplies and avoid runoff of chemicals that can cause dead zones and poisoned aquatic life.

There is now a large variety of organic fertilizer available commercially, as well as many ways to keep pests at bay without resorting to harsh synthetic chemicals. A wealth of information on growing greener can be found online: Check out OrganicGardeningGuru.com and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Alternative Farming System Information Center, for starters. Those interested in face-to-face advice should consult with a master gardener at a local nursery that specializes in organic gardening.

[attrayant]

That actually comes from an E-Mag called Earth Talk, which is syndicated to other sites like SA to fill dead space.

http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk-archive/week-of-7-5-09

I'm not saying that some of its points don't have merit, but representing it as SA as if it were some sort of objective study is a bit misleading. Yes, farms generate decomposition runoff whether they use synthetic reagents or not. If farmers let their animals graze too close to streams, you'll get high levels of waste runoff into the streams. And as natural as that is, it's not good.

Care to bring your train of thought back to the thread topic? (Why don't farmers embrace the currently "organic" methods as a means of increasing their revenue?)

[farmerjo]

Sort of not appropriate to here but as an idea.

My brothers FIL used to grow certifed organic wheat.

Bury cow horns at zenith stuff.

He now no longer owns his farm.

What he was trying to do in his own mind was right,but mr and mrs Smith wasn't prepared to pay the difference for quality v lack of yield.

He now muddles on a smaller plot growing organic chicken eggs having a series of old caravans hooked together he moves around the paddocks,still surviving but not by any means making a killing.

So guess it can work for certain things but not all..

[nycjoe]

Veggies on steroids. Yeehaa

[nycjoe]

It is difficult to find a following here in Chiang Mai. A friend had an organic delivery service and he had to stop recently. Not enough interest. I have to say I am a gentleman farmer. I can easily live from my pension and I am not depending on my farm to make a living. It is just my preference and my concern for the potable water in the aquifer. I had it tested and it is OK. I want to keep it that way and not buy my water from coca cola or nestle.