The Poo discussion

[SchizoFilly]

While I can see your point, I disagree about the food supply. In any biological system, when you increase the food supply you increase the population. Do we really want to increase the population of the world further? Or would we rather move hungry people to areas where there is an abundance of food (like here in the USA)?

Why am I getting Roots flashbacks when I read that? I know it's wrong, but I blame it on deathweed's picture above.

Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to send a cargo ship loaded with grain than to transport people? Cruises and airline tickets are expensive.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

Why am I getting Roots flashbacks when I read that? I know it's wrong, but I blame it on deathweed's picture above.

Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to send a cargo ship loaded with grain than to transport people? Cruises and airline tickets are expensive.

I know, off topic...but if there are people in an area that cannot support them, should we keep sending food, or move the people? There is an abundance of food in the world...it's just in the wrong places. Or in the case of the USA, consumed needlessly by people eating 3-4 times the needed caloric intake.

 

[TwoHeadsBrewing]

Back on topic...where do you guys find your cow manure? I'd like to add some to my hops and other veggies in the garden, but I don't of any place to get it.

 

[Neunelfer]

if your definition of "organic" is that strict, then absolutely nothing you consume is organic. EVERYTHING you eat has been "genetically modified." Cows have been bread to be bigger, produce more meat, produce more milk... Corn originally was NOTHING like what you imagine it now to be, Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, collard greens, brussel sprouts, wild mustard are all THE SAME SPECIES that have been genetically modified to have different properties. Do you think chickens originally were as large as they are now or produce eggs as large or as consistently? No, and that is why this whole "organic" concept is a bunch of BS.

However, if you consider "organic" to be considered as free of additives, drugs, or chemicals added with the intent to promote growth or production, then feeding anything would still render a product as "non-organic" since isn't all food and water composed of chemicals fed purely for the intent of increasing growth and production? (proteins, carbohydrates, fats, starches, trace minerals, etc.)

"Organic" is a hype that if we know any better we will let die out. Most modern agricultural practices are inert to you the consumer, and are in place to increase production so that you, the consumer may eat without having to devote 50% or more of your income to food. Sure the situation here in the US is so affluent even in this "crisis recession" that we can still pay hand over fist for food that is produced by inefficient methods because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. However, this trend is putting huge stress on the US agriculture to scale back on production, to face this trend, which is decreasing an already existent world-wide food shortage.

So next time you think about paying an extra $2 a lb of "organic chicken," instead of wondering if its poo is "organic" for your "organic" hops, think of the people that are starving because we are decreasing our ability to produce food so that you may feel better about what you eat.

View attachment 10955

[/rant]

The 3rd world starvation has nothing to do with our food production. It has to do with their mismanagement of government, their raping of the lands by developing countries and many other outside factors, none of which have to do with our food production.

Chemicals isn't the word you are looking for. Pollutants and poisons are the words you are looking for. Water is a chemical. Methoxychlor is a poison. The big objection isn't the use of "chemicals", but of pollutants to the environment, poisons to our bodies and growth hormones that we aren't really sure what effect that have on us. These insecticides are not evaluated by the FDA and in acute exposure have found to be highly toxic, the jury is still out on the damage caused by chronic exposure... many insecticides used throughout our history that were thought to be "inert" turned out to be quite damaging, many of which are still being used in the 3rd world.

 

[slnies]

Back on topic...where do you guys find your cow manure? I'd like to add some to my hops and other veggies in the garden, but I don't of any place to get it.

Menards sells it by the bag.

 

[SchizoFilly]

many insecticides used throughout our history that were thought to be "inert" turned out to be quite damaging, many of which are still being used in the 3rd world.

Hey farmer farmer put away the DDT now....


but to get to the rest of your comment....call them chemicals, pollutants, toxins or whatever you want, it still renders the same end result of a product that has in some way been altered from its natural state.

 

[Neunelfer]

Hey farmer farmer put away the DDT now....


but to get to the rest of your comment....call them chemicals, pollutants, toxins or whatever you want, it still renders the same end result of a product that has in some way been altered from its natural state.

DDT is a great example of a pesticide that we thought was safe... oops.

(and that is still being used around the globe by developing countries to help them farm more "efficiently".)

 

[SchizoFilly]

this leads me to a question, purely speculative of course.....if you could take out all the "pollutants", but you still irrigated the field on which the crop was being grown, would that be organic? While you might not be genetically altering the crop you are altering the landscape and possibly having a bigger impact by re-routing a river than you do from chemically poisoning a few beetles.

 

[Boondoggie]

Well, there are those that argue that honey can NEVER be organic, since one cannot control where the bees gather their pollen....

Given the presence of bees on a virgin perfect field, they're still likely cross pollenating your crop with eeevil modified plants...

 

[Neunelfer]

Well, there are those that argue that honey can NEVER be organic, since one cannot control where the bees gather their pollen....

Given the presence of bees on a virgin perfect field, they're still likely cross pollenating your crop with eeevil modified plants...

And then the company who made the modified plants will sue you when they appear in your fields accidentally much like Monsanto has done.

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SchizoFilly]

I think the bees are the responsible party.

 

[Clayton]

DDT is a great example of a pesticide that we thought was safe... oops.

(and that is still being used around the globe by developing countries to help them farm more "efficiently".)

DDT is safe! it was miss used and anything miss used can be harmfull
ddt has saved hundereds of millions of lives if not billions
the problem came when some dumb asses tryed to use it to kill mamals (ie soke a dead cafe in it to kill coyotes) it really sucks at that, and you have to use 1000s of times a higher does and thay did becase it was super cheep to make and buy and that had it on hand.. And it should not be used in agriculture.
, but insted for the control of blood sucking parsites


there is a big push to bring it back to combat malaria and tick infestations

 

[Neunelfer]

DDT is safe! it was miss used and anything miss used can be harmfull
ddt has saved hundereds of millions of lives if not billions
the problem came when some dumb asses tryed to use it to kill mamals (ie soke a dead cafe in it to kill coyotes) and agriculture it should not be used in agriculture , but insted for the control of blood sucking parsites
it really sucks at that, and you have to use 1000s of times a higher does
and that did becase it was super cheep to make and buy and that had it on hand.

there is a big push to bring it back to combat malaria and tick infestations

Absolutely not. DDT should not be used for anything that could ever come in contact with humans. Not to mention mosquitoes are already quickly becoming immune to it.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

The 3rd world starvation has nothing to do with our food production. It has to do with their mismanagement of government, their raping of the lands by developing countries and many other outside factors, none of which have to do with our food production.

Chemicals isn't the word you are looking for. Pollutants and poisons are the words you are looking for. Water is a chemical. Methoxychlor is a poison. The big objection isn't the use of "chemicals", but of pollutants to the environment, poisons to our bodies and growth hormones that we aren't really sure what effect that have on us. These insecticides are not evaluated by the FDA and in acute exposure have found to be highly toxic, the jury is still out on the damage caused by chronic exposure... many insecticides used throughout our history that were thought to be "inert" turned out to be quite damaging, many of which are still being used in the 3rd world.

Yes, I understand the majority of the 3rd world starvation issue is corruption and mismanagement, but at this time where do you think the majority of the food that is shipped over there comes from? Yep, its the waste food that Americans won't eat. Dark meat chicken, beef from older or thin cows, crops that just aren't up to our high standards... Perfectly good food that we are just too picky to eat.

I understand the difference between "chemical" and "pollutant", I was making a jab at "organic" production where they are for all intents and purposes considered synonymous. As far as not regulated by the FDA, they are highly regulated by the EPA which DOES require toxicity testing and environmental persistence data.

And I am glad that someone brought up the whole "growth hormone" debacle, another case of misconstrued fear of the unknown. I will bold this for emphasis: Growth hormone is not interchangeable between species. Yes, it is species specific. Now, as far as production enhancing hormones, the one most commonly used in beef production are androgenic hormones- estrogen analogs. Now before you start blaming early puberty in women on beef, lets look at the estrogen levels in other food products:


I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Absolutely not. DDT should not be used for anything that could ever come in contact with humans. Not to mention mosquitoes are already quickly becoming immune to it.

IIRC, there was an increase in malaria related deaths of nearly 3000% the year DDT was banned in the US (I will find a source on that later) Grant DDT is not exactly "non-toxic" its misuse, and the fact that it is EXTREMELY lipid soluble (meaning that it is hard to eliminate it from the fat stores in the body), led to an increased bio-prevalence which corresponded with other environmental problems, many of which were never proven to be associated.

Now I will not sit here and condone the use of DDT, or champion bringing it back since we have much better and safer insecticides now, but because we had some bad examples from poorly understood products in the past is no reason to write off modern agriculture as a horrible process.

Back on topic...where do you guys find your cow manure?

Typically behind the cow

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

Oh, here is some more data on DDT toxicity. Note that the exposure levels are quite high. IIRC, when doing toxicity studies in humans they fed this to prisoners on a daily basis and did not really find any toxic effects at low exposure levels (say walking through a sprayed field every day...) If intrested, I will try to search for that paper as well, although it is a bit off topic from poo....

Acute toxicityDDT is moderately to slightly toxic to mammals. The acute oral LD50 ranges from 113-118 mg/kg in rats; 150-300 mg/kg in mice; 300 mg/kg in rabbits; 500-750 mg/kg in dogs; and >1,000 mg/kg in sheep and goats. DDT is less toxic to test animals exposed via the skin. The acute dermal LD50 for female rats is 2,510 mg/kg(10). DDT is categorised by the World Health Organisation as Class II "moderately hazardous"(11).
It mainly affects the central and peripheral nervous systems, and the liver. Acute effects in humans exposed to low to moderate levels may include nausea, diarrhoea, increased liver enzyme activity, irritation of the eyes, nose and/or throat. At higher doses, tremors and convulsions are possible(12). Deaths from exposure to DDT are rare. Even in developing countries there have been few reported cases, especially when compared with organophosphate insecticides (see PN34 pp20-21). In 1994, one fatal poisoning was reported in the US involving a child who ingested one ounce (28g) of a 5% DDT and kerosene solution(13).
Chronic effectsDDT has caused chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and immune systems in experimental animals. Dose levels at which effects were observed are at very much higher levels than those which may be typically encountered in humans(14). However they may be at, or even below, levels found in body fat (see below).
Reproductive effectsDDT causes adverse reproductive effects in test animals. In one rat study, oral doses of 7.5 mg/kg/day for 36 weeks resulted in sterility. In rabbits, doses of 1 mg/kg/day administered on gestation days 4-7 resulted in decreased foetal weights. In mice, doses of 1.67 mg/kg/day resulted in decreased embryo implantation and irregularities in the oestrus cycle over 28 weeks(15). Many of these observations may be the result of disruptions to the endocrine (hormonal) system.
Available epidemiological studies involving exposure to DDT have not confirmed adverse effects in humans. One study did report a significant association between maternal DDT blood levels and miscarriage, but the presence of other organochlorines in maternal blood, make it difficult to attribute the effect solely to DDT(16).
Teratogenic effects (birth defects)Again there is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals. In mice, maternal doses of 26 mg/kg/day DDT from gestation through to lactation resulted in impaired learning in maze tests(17). Epidemiological studies involving humans are unavailable(18).
CancerThe evidence relating to DDT and carcinogenicity provides uncertain conclusions. It has increased tumour production, mainly in the liver and lungs, in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters in some studies, but not in others. In rats, liver tumours were induced in three studies at doses of 12.5 mg/kg/day over periods of 78 weeks to life, and thyroid tumours were induced at doses of 85 mg/kg/day over 78 weeks. Tests have shown laboratory mice were more sensitive to DDT. Life time doses of 0.4 mg/kg/day resulted in lung tumours in the second generation and leukaemia in the third generation, and liver tumours were induced at oral doses of 0.26 mg/kg/day in two separate studies over several generations(19).
The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that 'DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen'. DHHS has not classified DDE and DDD, but the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that they are probable human carcinogens(20).
Work carried out by the US National Cancer Institute correlates breast cancer in women with increased levels of DDE in blood serum. From 14,290 women monitored in the New York University Women's Health Study, researchers selected 58 women who had developed breast cancer and 171 matched controls without cancer. After adjusting for participants' childbearing and breast feeding histories, and for family history of breast cancer, researchers found a four-fold increase in relative risk of breast cancer for women with elevated levels of DDE in the blood(21).

 

[StoutFan]

I have used 1/2 and 1/2 manure and top soil for my gardens. Works great, grows awesome food. And it's "organic" enough for me. I get it for dirt (haha) cheap at a local farm. I also have used BC Booster Organic Bloom formula on peppers, man did they get huge!

 

[slnies]

I think what Deathweed is saying here is that "Raid" is more toxic than DDT. This is true. The main active ingredients in most "raid" products, our military has used in the fields of war as a nerve agents. In Poo this might be bad, very bad.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

I think what deathweed is saying here is that "Raid" is more toxic than DDT. This is true. The main active ingredients in most "raid" products, our military has used in the fields of war as a nerve agents. In Poo this might be bad, very bad.

Fixed that for ya

Yeah, it is bad in poo, last time I pooed raid.....

Plus, in that instance I would agree that my poo WAS NOT organic

 

[SchizoFilly]

raid POO....wow that's just awesome.....kill roaches and cleanse your bowels in one motion.....

ok I can't make the long chained together thread twisting comments.....I'm drinking now....finally got that beer....btw Boulevard Brewing Wheat is ****

 

[slnies]

Fixed that for ya

Yeah, it is bad in poo, last time I pooed raid.....

Plus, in that instance I would agree that my poo WAS NOT organic

Sorry about that Deathweed. I don't think I had the recommended amount of beer for that operation yet. Spelling Deathweed as opposed to Deathbrewer is at least a 3 beer minimum.

 

[slnies]

raid POO....wow that's just awesome.....kill roaches and cleanse your bowels in one motion.....

ok I can't make the long chained together thread twisting comments.....I'm drinking now....finally got that beer....btw Boulevard Brewing Wheat is ****

Ya, I don't do Boulevard wheat either. I do like Bell's Oberon though. Either way both make rather fertile poo.....

 

[slnies]

Pure mostly!

 

[StoutFan]

Oh, you mean pseudo-organic.........

 

[SchizoFilly]

yes, quasi-naturale

 

[slnies]

Oh, you mean pseudo-organic.........

No! Not organic at all. Just more pure. I think it should only be used as a reference to the use of carcinogenic chemicals on our foods or not. Of course I think it could go away completely too. Maybe we should use genetically altered super poo, manufactured at Dupont, so we could reap the beni's of both worlds. Oh, could we still call it organic?

 

[SchizoFilly]

Organic synthetic Super-Poo! I'm no NASCAR fan, but what color would they have to paint Jeff Gordon's car?

 

[slnies]

Organic synthetic Super-Poo! I'm no NASCAR fan, but what color would they have to paint Jeff Gordon's car?

Brown..........

 

[SchizoFilly]

would it run off ethanol and have pieces of corn painted on it?

 

[slnies]

As long as it is genetically modified corn that they are painting a rendition of. Maybe some pink strips for the GLBT crowd. Politically correct NASCAR! There's a thought for ya. They might start flinging Poo though, so maybe not such a good idea.

 

[SchizoFilly]

Is there a GLBT fan base in NASCAR? If so, WTF happened to the mullet rockin', beer drinkin', copenhagen dippin', wife beatin', sweat pants wearin', sister humpin', Dukes of Hazzard pretendin' good ol' days?

 

[DeathBrewer]

All this talk is crazy. Since when does making something with artificial means make it not organic? I thought organic simply meant that certain chemicals were not involved. Why couldn't genetically modified foods be organic?

 

[slnies]

Is there a GLBT fan base in NASCAR? If so, WTF happened to the mullet rockin', beer drinkin', copenhagen dippin', wife beatin', sweat pants wearin', sister humpin', Dukes of Hazzard pretendin' good ol' days?

NASCAR is like anything else these days. God forbid, don't piss off the GLBT crowd. They're whores dude, they will sell tickets to anyone buying. Isn't capitalism great?

 

[SchizoFilly]

All this talk is crazy. Since when does making something with artificial means make it not organic? I thought organic simply meant that certain chemicals were not involved. Why couldn't genetically modified foods be organic?

Somebody took us back to serious land......

The argument was that in order to be considered organic it could not have been modified or have come into direct or indirect contact with anything that had been modified, thus rendering nothing organic.

 

[slnies]

All this talk is crazy. Since when does making something with artificial means make it not organic? I thought organic simply meant that certain chemicals were not involved. Why couldn't genetically modified foods be organic?

Schizo has the jist, It all started over an argument with the neighbor. He thought I was being organic, when I decided to use POO on my hops. I however am not. The argument being that the poo coming from Menards was in fact not Organic in the liberal sense of the word, as the POO most likely contain genetically modified grain wast and was most likely processed by a genetically modified cow. Thus not organic.

 

[DeathBrewer]

Why? Why is modified non-organic? Is there a link I missed?

 

[slnies]

Why? Why is modified non-organic? Is there a link I missed?

Well you see, I agree with you. Organic is a term that chemists use to describe Carbon based compounds. That said the chemicals that a regular farmer uses to fertilize, weed and control pests are organic also making regular food organic by nature. The tree huggers disagree. So I say they are deluding themselves. They should call it "pure mostly" thus no more confusion.

 

[DeathBrewer]

"Genetically modified" is not as crazy as it sounds, anyway. They're not splicing rats with celery. They mostly use splicing and crossbreeding and create new plants. It's not like frankenstein's monster or anything. That's the way I understand it.

Organic, however, can have some importance. Only certain chemicals can be used and care is taken with the product to grow in it's natural environment without environmentally or otherwise harmful chemicals.

I would say, however, that if a cow ate NON-ORGANIC food, then she would be non-organic. If she was genetically modified, she could still be organic, as long as the food she consumed was organic.

Whatever, I'll eat her anyway.

 

[slnies]

"Genetically modified" is not as crazy as it sounds, anyway. They're not splicing rats with celery. They mostly use splicing and crossbreeding and create new plants. It's not like frankenstein's monster or anything. That's the way I understand it.

Organic, however, can have some importance. Only certain chemicals can be used and care is taken with the product to grow in it's natural environment without environmentally or otherwise harmful chemicals.

I would say, however, that if a cow ate NON-ORGANIC food, then she would be non-organic. If she was genetically modified, she could still be organic, as long as the food she consumed was organic.

Whatever, I'll eat her anyway.

Awh, Se now, there is the rub. A cow is organic by definition whether it is genetically modified or not. If by organic you are meaning more pure in the sense of less chemical etc... Then we should call it that. Organic is not a method or a set of practices. The word is used to describe a method and practice, but it would be more accurate to call it traditional or pure mostly.

 

[SchizoFilly]

"Genetically modified" is not as crazy as it sounds, anyway. They're not splicing rats with celery.

That's such a relief....I was worried that soon rats would lose all their flavor.

I would say, however, that if a cow ate NON-ORGANIC food, then she would be non-organic

At what point in the circle of life would this become organic again? If I eat the non-organic cow, am I then non-organic? Is the dung beetle (purely hypothetical) that eats my excrement then non organic? What about the bird that eats the dung beetle? What about the excrement from said bird that falls on an "organic" crop? Does that then make the crop non-organic?

 

[Neunelfer]

The discussion of "organic" or not isn't just simply if it is a carbon based molecule. They are two terms used separately.