i have got to ask if nc and lazy gardener are actually organic in any way-on this posting you are both cheerleaders for agri biz and factory farmers. go online and check subsidy percentages-the vast majority go to a few at the top-and anecdotal evidence is the first, last and only refuge of the intellectually deprived. kimmr what was your question?

Subsidy percentages? We're talking about people growing 500+ million tons of corn/wheat/soy/alfalfa+hay/rice, not the 10s of millions of tons of other crops combined. There's also the sugar beets issue, but if you're not catching onto this then the sugar beets issue (especially it's separate subsidy program) would really throw you for a loop.

People riot if they can't get bread...not lettuce, not tomatoes, not cucumbers... Wheat, corn, soy, and rice are storable, exportable, and highly desired commodities important for stability of populations.

It's not some grand conspiracy. Even without subsidies these crops would heavily dominate our lands. The export market, alone, begs for it.

We're trying to feed 90 million cows, 70 million pigs, and 1.5 billion chickens (meat+eggs) with this food, too...in just the United States. This is real as it gets...all these people and all these animals...and the money in your wallet spent on food. Whether you eat any of this or avoid it for some reason, there's a whole lot more people relying on this food chain.

As far as my garden practices...aside from a 1lb box of Miracle Grow plant food that's nearing 6 years old and isn't even 1/2 used, I'm organic. ...and no, I don't need to hear how I'm not "really organic" if I use this chemical fertilizer...my "technically non-organic" status is a given that I'm at peace with.

Also, you should emotionally separate yourself from the reality of farming and someone being "cheerleaders for agri biz and factory farmers" as a cop-out to dismiss what others have said. This reality exists whether you like it or not. These things happen without my input or your protests. Not liking something doesn't make this any less of a reality and if you don't like the reality then do your work to change it. Ignoring it or pretending it could be something else doesn't make a multi-hundred-billion dollar industry irrelevant.

To be quite blunt...if you know a small farmer who actually makes a living off their farm who doesn't tap subsidies then they're either doing it wrong and should go to some meetings/conferences or they've got some really tight political morals about taking the money. It's there and it's not just for a selected few people on top of the chain.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Jan 9, 15 at 13:28

In Canada, anyone that earns income from a farm business (organic/conventional, corporate/family) is entitled to deduct certain costs from said income. The problem being is that they often deduct costs that are not used for farm purposes. For example, taking the farm truck to church on Sunday burning farm fuel (reduced taxed). Other legitimate expenses such as crop insurance is often subsidized to the tune of 60% of the cost by the two levels of government.

I'm a small family farm and I qualify for some subsidies. So, ya, all farms can get subsidies.

Lloyd

The trees and shrubs that grow in the forest and the grasses and flowers that grow in the natural meadows need the same nutrients, in about the same mounts, as do crops grown for human consumption. Where do these trees and shrubs, grasses and flowers get them since no human goes out there and spreads fertilizers? It is a simple question, however if you do not know the answer admit it and do not confuse the issue with extraneous information.

Tree roots grow deep into the earth where there is very little organic matter and bring up minerals and moisture for growth. They do so in one spot for hundreds of years when left alone to do so.
Grasses also are able to cycle nutrients and their roots continue to create an ecosystem conducive to more roots of their species. Flowers find a place to grow in amongst forest and meadow and may put out a spindly, tiny unattractive flower that feeds a bee or bird briefly, then dies off.
Gardens have huge flowers and tons of produce per acre by contrast. I believe fertilizers are detrimental to trees due to excessive water shoots and weak succulent insect food, but how about wild strawberries? :)

kimmsr: You asked about the nutrient balances for forests and meadows. In these ecosystems there is efficient recycling of nutrients, as well as the additions due to wind-blown dusts and nitrogen fixing plants. The distribution of plants in these systems really is determined by what plants thrive in the specific environment; those that don't receive sufficient nutrients tend not to be present in these natural environments.

In contrast, crops that have materials removed from the fields have a net loss of nutrients. I'll give the numbers for some Illinois research since I've followed that work for years. There is plenty of other data out there, however, as this is a major area of agricultural research.

http://www.ipni.net/publication/bettercrops.nsf/0/926946F50406A54085257B18005BB7AA/$FILE/page%207.pdf has the Illinois numbers which show both the total nutrients in the crop, as well as those removed at harvest.
For corn, note that 148 lb. N, 80 lb. P2O5 and 59 lb. K2O are removed with the grain per acre harvested. These are very substantial quantities, and if not replaced will lead to poorer crops in the future. If we are looking at even a section of farm (small for these crops), we are looking at formidable quantities of organic matter needed to replace the removed amounts. The publication has data for more crops as well as other nutrients.

For forage crops, see http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forages/publications/ay9-32.htm#Table 12. This Purdue publication goes into good detail on a variety of important crops. Note also that the data shows that N replenishment by fixing in the soil by legumes is not sufficient to even support a N balance with a variety of crops in rotation. Legumes, can, however, help in this equation.

The issue of nutrient removal from the farm was an important focus of some of the early Rodale work, and they still try to address this problem. New Farm sometimes used to deal with this issue from the point of view of organic cultivation. I haven't read New Farm in a while, so I don't know their current focus. The Pennsylvania Rodale research farms did a lot to try to import the needed nutrients in what they considered the most appropriate organic way. With energy costs lower during much of this early work, they were less concerned about the embedded energy costs of transporting large quantities of organic matter than we would be today. Frankly, much of their early efforts would be dismissed by today's farmers as also being too labor intensive. Both fuel and labor have really increased in cost.

Even in forest operations where there is harvesting there are nutrient additions. A prime example is pulp wood forestry where trees are harvested every 10-15 years. The forest owners carefully maintain a good nutrient supply to help these fast maturing trees thrive.

Note that none of this research says that the nutrients need to be synthetic, just that nutrients do need to be added to the cropping fields. Organic nutrients could be used, but might very well be fuel and labor cost prohibitive. Each grower needs to decide for themselves where to spend their efforts.
Renais

Here is a link that might be useful: Nutrient removal with crop

"The trees and shrubs that grow in the forest and the grasses and flowers that grow in the natural meadows need the same nutrients, in about the same mounts, as do crops grown for human consumption."

This is far from true.

Crops we grow for human consumption are mostly genetic freaks that are so far from natural, undisturbed, development that they don't survive well in the wild and/or develop really crappy output because they can't get enough nutrients.

In fact, many can be out-competed by weeds out "in the wild."

Weeds are generally ecosystem establishing plants. They show up after grand disturbances to land and generally need very little nutrients as they build the groundwork for future plants with heavier nutrient need. This groundwork generally leads toward canopy covering shrubs and trees. In areas with really high stress where weeds fail to establish a good meadow you tend to see more legume type shrubs and tress set up...in areas where this is not an issue you generally see a quick succession of legume/pine-type trees and shrubs followed by hardwoods.

There's a reason you'll see a weedy amaranth growing a few feet tall in a meadow and it'll grow the size of corn (or more) in a nutrient-filled cropping system. Weeds tend to be very robust under limiting or harsh conditions...they're "mother nature's" way of fixing what was disturbed as a plant life 1st step.

I gave the nutrient withdrawls for a crop of corn above. How could these withdrawls be replaced with a manure? Since N is the largest requirement, I'll do the numbers for it on a section of land. 148 lb N/acre lost is 95000 lb/section. Most corn farmers are doing well more than a section, but this puts some numbers in perspective.

95000 pounds of N is supplied by 1187 TONS of 2% N manure per section. There are not many farmers who would want to go to the trouble to spread that much manure, and there are far fewer people who would want the environmental consequences with hauling and distributing such an amount of manure on a field. These quantities, by the way, are below what dairy farms in our area are allowed to spread on their fields.

Let's assume that you are doing some very effective legume rotations and cover crops, and that you can reduce the manure required in half. 500 Tons is still a huge amount. One or two tons per acre does not seem too bad, but when these same amounts are put in terms of working farms at a larger scale, they can easily be more work than the worth provided. Is the farmer going to want to expend the fuel, labor and trouble?
Renais

This post was edited by Renais1 on Sat, Jan 10, 15 at 12:37

Renais, I can see that depending on manure for nutrient replacement would entail a lot of manure production...let alone the objections of neighbors to manure application...let alone all that hauling of manure...let alone the objections by vegans and eco people that too much meat is being raised.

That being said, I only know 3 ways to replenishing nutrients on a large scale. [1 is by returning all human and crop wastes to the soil. [2 raising tremendous amounts of green and cover crops that are very deeply rooted to bring up minerals, and that would only supply part of the load. [3 bringing in minerals from outside sources...and that may not be feasible on an organic scale.

Renais, I can see that depending on manure for nutrient replacement would entail a lot of manure production...let alone the objections of neighbors to manure application...let alone all that hauling of manure...let alone the objections by vegans and eco people that too much meat is being raised.

That being said, I only know 3 ways to replenishing nutrients on a large scale. [1 is by returning all human and crop wastes to the soil. [2 raising tremendous amounts of green and cover crops that are very deeply rooted to bring up minerals, and that would only supply part of the load. [3 bringing in minerals from outside sources...and that may not be feasible on an organic scale.

i have got to ask if nc and lazy gardener are actually organic in any way

Last I looked, except for the fillings in my teeth and some surgical steel staples in an old surgery ... 100% organic! :) Carbon-based life form, that's me!

I'm more of a IPM and minimal impact sort of gardener and landscaper.

I compost almost every scrap and shred from my kitchen and yard, then use it as mulch or top dressing.

I last used an insecticide in the garden about 5 years ago because a fire ant nest was in a very annoying spot (AMDRO, precisely according to directions). Aside from that, the wasps take care of the caterpillars, the lacewings and ladybugs take care of the aphids and the birds get most of the rest. I'll tolerate some bug damage.

I replaced the water-guzzling Bermuda grass lawn with buffalo grass which needs way less water, way less mowing and prefers to be lightly fertilized, if at all. I did give it a light dose of ammonium sulfate and a lot of sulfur (produced within 100 miles of me) last spring, its first feeding since it was installed. it's good for another 5 years. I hand-pull the few weeds that manage to sprout in it.

The landscape is all natives and low water use, except for the veggie raising areas. There are areas that have not been watered in a decade.

I do use glyphosate for weed knockdown if it's needed - or the new toy, the weed-flamer, elsewhere. Or the scuffle hoe or hand pulling. It depends on how many and where they are.

the grasses and flowers that grow in the natural meadows need the same nutrients, in about the same mounts, as do crops grown for human consumption. Where do these trees and shrubs, grasses and flowers get them

Elk poop! Seriously, every meadow in the high country around here is FULL of elk poop!

Those that did make an attempt to answer a simple question walked around the answer, and one indicated a complete lack of knowledge about what plants need to grow. This from people that come here and attempt to offer advice to those that wish to grow plants using organic methods.

So then we need to hear the truth and the reality of botany from you , kimmsr. I hope you are not trying to bash others to make your point.

Please Kim...fill everyone in...especially since the comments are coming with insults now. People actually did answer your question, multiple people, with really good (imo) answers.

This is getting as good as the "All about organic growing" thread you started where a guy who's operation depends on wall-to-wall plastic (literally) is an organic grower by your definition and in the "Can plasticulture be organic?" thread started by someone else where you said those things can't be used by an organic grower.

The fact you make up these definitions on your own, outside of legal and certification rules, and then apply them randomly that makes it hard for people to figure out what you're trying to do.

Speaking from experience (I can provide links if necessary), it's not worth the effort trying to correct the mistakes and misconceptions. Everyone who knows much about gardening/agriculture recognizes the problem.

My advice is to walk away from this one.

Lloyd

Lloyd,
Thanks for the advice. I will leave with two pieces of info for those reading this thread in the future who might be curious.

First, there has been some great research on the development of the soils at Mt. St. Helens following the eruption. I've visited the area, and been truly amazed at how quickly the forest redeveloped. See http://www.mshslc.org/tag/soil/ for some good research papers.

Second, there are lots of papers dealing with soil evolution that discuss the original mineral composition source, and the development of a nitrogen component as time goes on. You will find lots of good info on humus formation, the impact of soil disturbance, and other organic additions. I've linked a paper on this topic which is used in some soil courses.

Finally, remember that the compositions of forest and undisturbed meadow soils will change pretty dramatically as they are cultivated. Unless one continues to maintain the soil, yields are going to drop, there can be erosion and wind dusting, and the land becomes useless. Organic matter additions are very useful; just keep in mind the significant logistic constraints on such additions when doing commercial scale farming.
Renais

This post was edited by Renais1 on Sun, Jan 11, 15 at 16:32

The same question was posed to some 4th graders and they were able to answer that question with no trouble or walking all around it. It is a simple, clear question. Where do trees and shrubs growing in forests and grasses and flowers growing in natural meadows get the nutrients they need to grow. The question does not ask anything about feeding the world or what agribusiness needs to poison the earth.

...and Lloyd proves how right he is.

See, this forum does have good advice.

The trees and shrubs in a forest and the grasses and flowers growing in native meadows get the nutrients they need from the soil they grow in and the sun, just as all plants evolved doing. Plants are the first solar energy users and are far more efficient at that then anything we have developed to date.
All plants provide the materials the Soil Food Web, those wee critters that live in soil and convert organic matter into nutrients plant can use, with what they need. Working with the Soil Food Web plants uptake the needed nutrients and in combination with the sun they make the food that help them grow.
Some 40 years ago studies indicated that 1/3 of what was going into landfills, places our waste goes to be hidden from view, was yard waste so many states passed laws banning yard waste from those landfills. If all of the vegetative waste was recycled, and all of the animal manure produced today was properly reused there would be enough to cover most all of the crop land with a minimum of 1/2 inch of compost annually, and about 4/5 less material would go into those landfills.

Most places I'm familiar with the landfills are closed and capped, materials are sorted, and what does not go into the re-manufacturing stream gets incinerated for energy.

Just how useless is the 4th grade answer.

When I was in the 4th grade I explained to the class that the legendary fish the Indians taught us to use when planting maze, had to rot in order to release nutrients for the garden.

Sun and soil provides nutrients.
Who, what , when, where, why, and how?
Magic I guess.

The fish story - if true - is a telling indication of how thoroughly the people had hunted out the areas they were using to grow crops. If you tried that now the skunks, raccoons, crows, etc would dig up the fish or fish offal displacing the seed or seedlings in the process.

Landfills are alive and well and growing into mountains and some places the owners are talking of converting them into ski resorts when they can no longer grow in size. Some of the trash incinerators have been shut down because they cannot met the air pollution requirements of today. Some places are experimenting with bio generators, using the trash generated by the people to produce electricity in the same way some factory "farms" are using those bio generators to produce electricity, and heating gas, from the manure generated from the cattle they raise.

Perhaps, maplebirch, if you spent some time with the Soil Biology Primer you might have some answers to the "Who, what , when, where, why, and how?" you ask. It is not magic.

Here is a link that might be useful: Soil Biology Primer

It is hard to imagine that there were no racoons, skunks and other scavengers around at the time the Indians were showing the Pilgrims the value of fish in the gardens.
Today's urbanites really shouldn't explain to the Indians that lived in the forest 200 years ago, that their gardens would not work because all the vermin would have to be killed, first.
Those who ask questions on this forum while looking for 4th grade answers should not think so highly of themselves as to be condescending.

I'm not an urbanite, it I'm who you are talking to and about. And, just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean that people had not extirpated pests and game from large areas. I can imagine it easily, and it makes sense.

Finally, trying to understand history (and actually reading about it and comparing with one's own experiences) is not "explaining" anything to people, who are, after all, long gone.

As to the OP, this forum, like others wanders off topic severely, it is unfortunate. As for this forum, I guess the wandering is caused by 2 things 1) there doesn't appear to be any etched in stone definitions for what is and is not organic. 2). Many claim to have stone etchings that at times conflict with other's etchings. It seems with what's organic, it gets down to the axiom - opinions are like you know what's, everybody's got one. Too bad, Big Brother, where are you when we need you?

Prior to the 1950s just about everyone was an "organic" gardener.

I have a book written at the height of Victory Gardens...1944...and it advocates using powdered lead to kill insects!

Ah yes Donna, good old lead arsenate, apply once and it's in the soil forever.

Take note of where the advi8ce to use powdered lead as an insecticide came from. Not from any organic gardening person, but from the USDA and FDA and other practitioners of what is today "conventional" gardening, the same people that today advocate using quite harmful poisons.
While many people did practice organic gardening prior to the 1950's not everyone did. Synthetic fertilizers and some very toxic insecticides (DDT for one) were available and used. Our next door neighbor was not an organic grower by any stretch of anyone's imagination in the 1950's.

..... and the demonizing of DDT goes on and on. DDT actually has less impact on the environment and animals (including humans) than many of the biological insecticides that have replaced it. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring created an emotional knee-jerk reaction that defied all reason. Her book and the "studies" she based it on have been thoroughly discredited. Since the ban on DDT, millions of people, worldwide, who otherwise would not have died from malaria alone, are dead as a result of the ban.

Interesting how someone who thinks DDT was/is the scourge of the earth would include synthetic fertilizers in the same sentence.

Al

Here is a link that might be useful: About DDT

tapla's reference about DDT is dated 1998. I suggest that he try to update his view with Google Scholar using the "sort by date" option:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,36&q=ddt&scisbd=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One can even start with the first reference found, published by scientists from the Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Akron, Akron, OH, 44325-3905, USA in a Springer journal which requires that the article be approved by the editor and the reviewers. In addition to the abstract this journal allows one to look at the first several pages of the full paper. (Click the "look inside" button.) Please look at what the authors, reviewers and the editor approved concerning the health aspects of DDT.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for DDT search with Google Scholar

Again, this forum should be where those promoting pesticides would be asked to leave that hat at the door. There are other places to discuss your beloved pesticides but here they should be off topic discussion and discouraged.

DDT. The US once had as many as 500,000 bald eagles but due to DDT (and other more limited factors like hunting) down to under 500 pairs in lower 48 due to sterility and soft shells directly attributed to the chemical. Other birds of prey had this near extinction. Easy to forget, and dream of the past as the good old days.
Millions of lives would not be saved by continued DDT application in Africa. That is chem company Propaganda. Mosquitos were developing resistance early on, as they do with most (all?) pesticides.
And bio accumulation is a b****.

Speaking of propaganda, the guy who never posts here is back to tell us who should be discouraged from speaking on a board that he's telling the world it's not worth listening to anyway.

If it upsets you so much, join the rest of us helping others with their gardening questions and try to refrain from starting or participating in threads like this.

When people aren't making posts like this...
...or posts about chemical pesticides/herbicides
...or posts about the "political" side of things rather than the "sticking plants in the ground" side of things
...well, maybe we won't have to deal with opinions some don't want to hear or facts people don't want to deal with about these subjects.

I don't have any interest in rolling up on an organic forum to start a thread to talk about glyphosate or whatever. I'm not going to excuse myself from a discussion as long as others are bringing it up, though...I'm sure others feel the same way.

I stand by my comments.
This has been taken over by anti organic conventional types, who see no issue recommending roundup on an organic board.

Unlike those conventionalists, I'm kind of busy to try and stay ahead of it all.

Yeah, this board hasn't been "taken over by anti organic" types.

You see a couple people mention something you don't like in a thread with 100+ other recommendations/comments and you suddenly seem to think that thread had a singular theme? That is your problem if you care more about what a couple people shared rather than the dozens of those that gave you what you're looking for.

Most of us out in the real world can look past an unwanted issue in a thread and get the wanted information rather than discarding 90%+ of a thread in order to focus on something to get mad about.

Not, however if it's the most frequent posters who are also the ones dedicated in their effort to derail this forum.

I am NOT a frequent poster...and have to say....the knee jerk reaction of most people is to cure a problem with chemicals..if it is insects, fungal, or bacterial. My personal philosophy on this...and I do NOT impose it on anyone...is that there are alternative ways. If it is an insect..many times just simply netting a crop for a few weeks cures that...or attracting other insects that will kill the bad insects...bacterial and fungal..rotating crops, planting resistant varieties..or simply not planting that crop for a few years...there are many, many ways to cure a problem...but synthetic things linger in your soil for years...do you really want to eat them?

Donna, you might want to be careful about using the word, "synthetic" as so many things considered organic are synthesized like compost, Bt and Spinosad in addition to liquid kelp and fish emulsion. Just cover your backside by being specific like, chemically synthesized. Just a thought.

Is this site only for purebred 'organic' people or is it a learning site? I find that much posting is 'preaching to the choir'. I may not be a certified organic gardener...and am not a purist...I do use some faster fertilizer AND kill Canada Thistles along the ditch and such things. [Perhaps it is still an old state law to not let them ripen seed].

Still I feel I have some experience to offer concerning insects, organic matter soil building, and growing techniques. I have too many years under my belt to be easily smacked down.

Tapla stated: "Rachel Carson's Silent Spring created an emotional knee-jerk reaction that defied all reason. Her book and the "studies" she based it on have been thoroughly discredited."
----------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what Tapla's interpretation is of the following:
"In 2006, Silent Spring was named one of the 25 greatest science books of all time by the editors of Discover Magazine.[74]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

Here is a link that might be useful: link for wikipedia article

I think Forbe's magazine offers another overview sans the political correctness.

What WAS the reaction to her work if not emotional and knee-jerk?

Al

Tapla, I am not questioning the part of your original post concerning: "What WAS the reaction to her work if not emotional and knee-jerk?"

I suggested that you update your comments utilizing what is being studied by scientists concerning the health effects of DDT today.

This link will take you to a very recent (2015) full reviewed scientific paper titled:
"Effects of the Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical DDT on Self-Renewal and Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells"

Please read the Introduction section for what is now know about the effects of DDT.

The conclusion section states:
"Conclusion: Human MSCs provide a powerful biological system to investigate and identify the molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of environmental agents on stem cells and human health. MSCs exposed to DDT demonstrated profound alterations in self-renewal, proliferation, differentiation, and gene expression, which may partially explain the homeostatic imbalance and increased cancer incidence among those exposed to long-term EDCs."

Please note: "This work was supported by the Tulane University School of Medicine (Research Enhancement Program to M.E.B. and B.A.B.), the Office of Naval Research (N00014-11-1-0177 to J.A.M. and M.E.B.), and the National Institutes of Health [National Cancer Institute U54 CA113001-07 to K.P.N., National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases R01AI101046 and R01AI106676 to E.K.F., National Institute of General Medical Sciences P20GM103518 to Prescott Deininger (E.K.F.), and a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award from the National Cancer Institute F30CA177267 to M.J.S.]."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286277/

Here is a link that might be useful: link to above

DDT. The US once had as many as 500,000 bald eagles but due to DDT (and other more limited factors like hunting) down to under 500 pairs in lower 48 due to sterility and soft shells directly attributed to the chemical.

Are you trying to convey the impression that the US is currently down to 500 or less nesting pairs as the result of DDT? If so, you are very far off on your data. As of 2007, that number exceeded 11,000. And DDT was only one of several issues attributed to their decline, the primary one being loss of habitat as well as being shot/killed because they were assumed to be a threat to livestock......much like wolves were pushed to the brink of extinction for the very same reasons.

let me get this straight-there were 500,000 and now there are 11,000 and that is just swell- maybe it's time for you and al to go some place cool and have a nice glass of ddt.

No Gardengal, the numbers I posted are directly from wikipedia's ddt page, from what had happened to the eagles prior to it being banned. Not the current number which I will assume you quoted correctly.

The whole DDT can save the planet is actually political propaganda (and clearly it's working!) of right wing and libertarian origins.

Why must environmental issues be right or left wing? Let's wait for the right wing chemical pushing gardeners responses!
We are waiting!

Of course, if you don't like it, it has to be a right wing conspiracy. Lol

From the link I left above ~ American Council on Science and Health: "Additionally, the evidence regarding the effect of DDT on eggshell thinning among wild birds is contradictory at best. The environmentalist literature claims that the birds threatened directly by the insecticide were laying eggs with thin shells. These shells, say the environmentalists, would eventually become so fragile that the eggs would break, causing a decline in bird populations, particularly among raptors (birds of prey).

In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure.9 Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content.10

In actuality, however, declines in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occurred years after DDT’s use. A comparison of the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts between 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after DDT’s use had waned) reveals that at least 26 different kinds of birds became more numerous during those decades, the period of greatest DDT usage. The Audubon counts document an overall increase in birds seen per observer from 1941 to 1960, and statistical analyses of the Audubon data confirm the perceived increases. For example, only 197 bald eagles were documented in 194111; the number had increased to 891 in 1960.12

At Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, teams of ornithologists made daily counts of migrating raptors for over 40 years. The counts��"published annually by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association��"reveal great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years. The osprey counts increased as follows: in 1946, 191; in 1956, 288; in 1967, 457; and in 1972, 630.13 In 1942 Dr. Joseph Hickey��"who in 1968 would blame DDT for bird population decline��"reported that 70 per-cent of the eastern osprey population had been killed by pole traps around fish hatcheries.14 That same year, before DDT came into use, Hickey noted a decline in the population of peregrine falcons.15

Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment.16,17 In Canada peregrines were observed to be “reproducing normally” in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical.18 And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that “There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.”19

In addition, later research refuted the original studies that had pointed to DDT as a cause for eggshell thinning. After reassessing their findings using more modern methodology, Drs. Hickey and Anderson admitted that the egg extracts they had studied contained little or no DDT and said they were now pursuing PCBs, chemicals used as capacitor insulators, as the culprit.20

When carefully reviewed, Dr. Bitman’s study revealed that the quail in the study were fed a diet with a calcium content of only 0.56 percent (a normal quail diet consists of 2.7 percent calcium). Calcium deficiency is a known cause of thin eggshells.21��"23 After much criticism, Bitman repeated the test, this time with sufficient calcium levels. The birds produced eggs without thinned shells.24

After many years of carefully controlled feeding experiments, Dr. M. L. Scott and associates of the Department of Poultry Science at Cornell University “found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where ‘catastrophic’ decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed.”23 In fact, thinning eggshells can have many causes, including season of the year, nutrition (in particular insufficient calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and manganese), temperature rise, type of soil, and breeding conditions (e.g., sunlight and crowding)."

Al

why is a flack for ddt posting on an organic website? if that isn't trolling, what is?

As I stated on January 19th David, this forum has a habit of veering off course, blame it on trolls if you wish, there are other reasons.

Tapa quoted the American Council on Science and Health. The link below gives what Wikipedia has to say about this organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

Notice that a Board Member is (or has been) Henry Miller.

This is the same Henry I. Miller who Tapla cited in a Forbes article about DDT. If the reader is not familiar with Henry I. Miller's "activities/writings" I suggest a Google search (which will include articles critical of his papers) or, (if you want to form your own opinion) the simple listing of his publications is at:

https://cei.org/publications/people/48439

Since this is an organic forum, you may be particularly interested in his papers concerning organic farming.

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=%22Henry+I.+Miller%22+organic

And since this is an Organic Forum you may also be interested in what "Mother Jones" has to say about him:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/gmo-climate-change-science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning whether DDT causes chick mortality due to eggshell problems.

This very recent reviewed published scientific paper reports that the main effect of DDT on chick survival for the studied species was due to a decrease in porosity of the eggshell (not eggshell thinning).

"Furthermore, a decrease in caiman survival with decreased pore density was observed (Pearson r= 0.73, p= 0.04). Our findings highlight another potential negative impact of current and past use of OCCs on wildlife species."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651313003667

----------------------------------------------------
It is very useful when reviewed published scientific papers are available in full to the public. Here is one recent (2013) one:

http://www.aoucospubs.org/doi/full/10.1525/cond.2013.110150

Hopefully you will find this section of interest:

"The Southern California Bight has experienced the world's highest level of coastal DDE/DDT contamination. The National Mussel Watch Program (Goldberg et al. 1978, Farrington et al. 1983) determined that contamination of the Southern California Bight by EDDTs in the 1970s exceeded by an order of magnitude or more that of any other coastal environment in the USA; a review of the global literature indicated that this comparison applied also to the rest of the world (RWR, unpubl. data). The contamination was first documented in 1965 when high concentrations of EDDTs were recorded in northern anchovies (Engraulis mordax) from Los Angeles Harbor (Risebrough et al. 1966, Risebrough 1969). In 1969, the arithmetic mean concentration of DDE in 65 crushed and broken eggs of Brown Pelicans on Anacapa Island was 1176 ppm lipid weight and the average reduction in shell thickness was 44% (Risebrough et al. 1971, Risebrough 1972). In the absence of any evidence that the DDT contamination resulted from domestic, public health, or agricultural uses, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts searched for a source among the industries discharging into their wastewater-treatment system and tracked the contamination to the Montrose Chemical Corporation, then the world's largest manufacturer of DDT. Complying with a directive issued by the sanitation districts in 1970, the Montrose Corporation began measures to end the discharges, which terminated in 1971 (Carry and Redner 1970, Redner and Payne 1971). DDE contamination of the local marine environment began to decline immediately. By the mid-1970s the average shell thickness of Brown Pelican eggs had increased and thicker-shelled eggs were hatching (Anderson et al. 1975)."

Here is a link that might be useful: link to wikipedia article about American Council on Science and Health