> IPM stratigies have been in play since pesticides were invented.

IPM existed long before farmers thought to use pesticides.  Use of
pesticides is at the top of the IPM pyramid--farmers long used the
techniques at the base before anyone invented usable pesticides.

>telling me about the newest trend in farming,  biological amendments.  The
depth of knowledge in their craft these days would impress anyone who
actually took time to learn about it.

I read several California ag newspapers and magazines weekly.  California
is on the cutting edge of agriculture, and the sort of discussions that
Charlie mentions come up in every issue.  Farming is rapidly evolving, and
successful farmers are not stupid. The future of farming in California is
headed in a more sustainable and eco-friendly direction.  Over the past
decade, I've watched the tone in these publications go from kneejerk
anti-change reaction towards rapid embracement of novel of methods and
technologies developed by innovators, organic growers, and the universities
(esp. UC Davis).

>   Consumer desire as you put it,  is a complete misnomer and hopelessly
optimistic!

Actually, you put it that way--not me.  The consumer of which I was
speaking were the large companies that buy the majority of commodity
crops.  Those companies have serious sustainability models in place, and
impose restrictions all the way down the chain to how individual farmers
grow their crops.

And they do pay attention to housewife demand.  A good example is how the
tiny proportion of consumers who purchase coffee at Starbucks, as a result
of their tiny demand, shifted the entire California dairy industry away
from using RBST in less than a year.

Oddly, the demands of the large purchasers sometimes works against
ecological progress--in a recent survey, California growers who produce
organically-certified products were more likely to have removed ponds and
wildlife habitat from their property (due to demands from high up the
supply chain) than were conventional farmers.  This problem is currently
being discussed and addressed.

>One prominent person loves to rail against "vast monocultures"

Vast monocultures create vast pest problems, and require continual
evolution to keep up with the evolution of pests.  The larger the
monoculture, the greater the unavoidable problems it creates.  Vast
monocultures are efficient mechanically, but are biological disasters just
waiting to happen.

I say all the above without putting judgment values on them; I'm simply
stating facts.  I feel that the best way to encourage positive change is to
be "pro" something better, than to simply be "anti" every perceived problem.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html