The BIO is dead ... Long live the HVE!

[to be chafoin]

(...) fashion is organic (...) which in large crops causes more soil erosion (mechanical weed control)

Do you have comparative sources on this specific point?

[to be chafoin]

HVE has had little success so far but it seems to me that it is changing right now. By chatting with those who are on the subject around me, the number of requests for training / certification in HVE is almost multiplied by 10 in 2019. (...)
At the phyto level, it is clear that the requirement is not of the same nature as organic. HVE mainly takes the IFT entry key. By cons it can be more severe on other parameters (fertilization, ZNT, social standards etc etc).

1) What is IFT?
2) The Wikipedia article seems to say the opposite on social constraints:

Certification will relate only to environmental aspects (and not to sustainable development which integrates social requirements).

3) Since you have information from the field: do the certification, evaluation, control, of the HVE seem reliable to you?

[izentrop]

(...) fashion is organic (...) which in large crops causes more soil erosion (mechanical weed control)

Do you have comparative sources on this specific point?

A2 - AB and tillage operations

The elimination of synthetic phytosanitary products in AB requires weed control
by mechanical control, that is to say via tillage operations to destroy the shoots
weeds or to bury their seeds. Depending on the tools used, as well as the frequencies of
passages, these practices can nevertheless degrade the physical and biological properties of certain
sols.
Thus, deep plowing operations, frequently encountered in AB, can have impacts
negative on soil properties and on certain organisms (Mazzoncini et al., 2010; Stolze et al., 2000).
In addition, the risks of erosion and runoff can be amplified by a strong disturbance of the
structure. The intensification of production methods in AB can therefore lead to degrading the quality of
some soils.
David et al. (2005) studied the evolution of soil properties in specialized cropping systems and
irrigated (short rotations including high proportions of corn and soybeans) in AB in the south of the region
Rhone Alps. In these poorly diversified farming systems, frequent interventions for the control
weeds sometimes required work on soil that was not sufficiently dry, which
translated by compaction phenomena. The most highly compacted soils exhibited
rooting problems and water and mineral supply. http://inra-dam-front-resources-cdn.bra ... ume-1.html

It is not a general rule either, but the ban on the use of herbicides means that they have to manage weeds through more tillage. Besides, it seems to me that KS talked about it in the video.

[perseus]

Hello,

HVE has had little success so far but it seems to me that it is changing right now. By chatting with those who are on the subject around me, the number of requests for training / certification in HVE is almost multiplied by 10 in 2019. (...)
At the phyto level, it is clear that the requirement is not of the same nature as organic. HVE mainly takes the IFT entry key. By cons it can be more severe on other parameters (fertilization, ZNT, social standards etc etc).

1) What is IFT?

Treatment frequency indicator. To simplify, if the index is at an average of X over the region, the applicant will have to go below this average. A bio will probably find it easy, but for others, it may make them weird.

2) The Wikipedia article seems to say the opposite on social constraints:
Certification will relate only to environmental aspects (and not to sustainable development which integrates social requirements).

You're absolutely right, I mixed the brushes with other CSR and other standards. As much for me.

3) Since you have information from the field: do the certification, evaluation, control, of the HVE seem reliable to you?

Please note that I am far from being specifically on this subject but good.
Reliable or not, I think it depends on what you expect from this type of certification. There are still interesting ideas: encourage lowering of treatments (use of biocontrol, dose management, weed control, maintenance of cutlery, etc.), favor biodiversity approaches, encourage us to ask questions about the overall functioning of the farm, on fertilization ...
Certification requires at least one training, it can be supplemented by a kind of personalized audit in operation. The certification is valid for 3 years, I believe that there is an initial control, an intermediary and of course in the event of renewal. If this certification progresses a lot, I imagine that the structures will be able to "keep up with the increase". Then, it will be necessary to see the evolution of the requirements within the certification.
Even first level HVE incorporates, I believe, CAP conditionality, which is in terms of documentary monitoring, especially cumbersome and procedural.


You will find a presentation there:
http://www.vignevin.com/fileadmin/users/ifv/2015_New_Site/AE4_Territoire/Fichiers/Guide_HVE/IFV-guide-HVE-16_DEF1.pdf

Note also the possibility of collective certification.
In the end, my opinion is that the operators who are "on top" or in advance, will consider this as easy to see insufficient but for those who are in the average, there will still be progress to be made. so in this sense it can be positive. Those who are far from it, cannot or do not want to take the plunge, risk, I think, gradually losing their access to the market. Note the date, it is likely that we will find an agricultural version of a Yellow Vest crisis in 3-5 years.
Then there is also the aspect of standardization. Hell is paved with good intentions, the accumulation of standards, rules, documentary checks and others always tends (it is my opinion) to favor the big ones at the expense of more artisanal approaches ...

@+

[Did67]

... I am not a farmer, only they can answer it, contact them!

a) I know many ... including their practices. That is to say, what they do.

b) There are above all specifications.

c) Recently, copper has been debated.

We have INRA analyzes, which reveal, in viticulture, copper contents in soils up to 500 ppm.

We know that from 150 ppm, there are hardly any anecic worms.

We know above all that the organizations of "organic producers" have lobbied like big boys to defend the use of copper up to smooth quantities over 5 years of 4 kg of copper metal (pure therefore), per ha and per year ... This is quite simply enormous, for a product proven to be toxic for the soil (not for consumers; for humans, copper is a "trace element", and the traces that can be found in products do not pose no problem).

I am not criticizing them: without completely changing the system, it is indeed difficult to control mildew without copper. I can put a tunnel over my tomato plants and "attack" downy mildew with its only reliable point: the need for water droplets. An "organic" wine grower or arborist cannot ...

So I defend them. But let's just be honest: although natural copper is neither harmless nor "good". And it is poured in considerable quantities in organic ... To "kill" the soil, in some crops ...

I would rather look for "labile" synthetic molecules (which do not last), having the same effects, but which biodegrade. But go explain that to bigots "bios"!

By genetic manipulation, BASF had succeeded in developing a "GMO" pdt with all the resistance genes identified in wild potatoes. Of course, organic bigots call it GMOs. And the project is stillborn. So we will continue to "sulphate" intensive "organic" potatoes. What is the risk when these genes are "natural genes" which are widely found in nature in wild potato varieties ???? GM techniques were used just because in classical breeding by hybridization, it will take centuries and it will take a lot of luck to bring the full panoply of these genes together in a new variety. However, when there are only two or three resistance genes, downy mildew very quickly bypasses this resistance. The GMO had, by memory, 7!

In short, the "organic" bigots will be against it. And will sulphate!

These are facts.

But I leave you in your naive beliefs.

I will not answer. I know it is useless.

[Janic]

I know you don't need my agreement, but I still agree with almost everything you just wrote. But then again, you shouldn't mix what has become, only part and by necessity to preserve a harvest or by opportunism, the official organic agriculture and what it must be and that some respect them (nature and Progress for example or Biodynamics) Clearly and to be believed, it is not not because some people prostitute themselves that all people are whores.

[Bardal]

... I am not a farmer, only they can answer it, contact them!

a) I know many ... including their practices. That is to say, what they do.

b) There are above all specifications.

c) Recently, copper has been debated.

We have INRA analyzes, which reveal, in viticulture, copper contents in soils up to 500 ppm.

We know that from 150 ppm, there are hardly any anecic worms.

We know above all that the organizations of "organic producers" have lobbied like big boys to defend the use of copper up to smooth quantities over 5 years of 4 kg of copper metal (pure therefore), per ha and per year ... This is quite simply enormous, for a product proven to be toxic for the soil (not for consumers; for humans, copper is a "trace element", and the traces that can be found in products do not pose no problem).

I am not criticizing them: without completely changing the system, it is indeed difficult to control mildew without copper. I can put a tunnel over my tomato plants and "attack" downy mildew with its only reliable point: the need for water droplets. An "organic" wine grower or arborist cannot ...

So I defend them. But let's just be honest: although natural copper is neither harmless nor "good". And it is poured in considerable quantities in organic ... To "kill" the soil, in some crops ...

I would rather look for "labile" synthetic molecules (which do not last), having the same effects, but which biodegrade. But go explain that to bigots "bios"!

By genetic manipulation, BASF had succeeded in developing a "GMO" pdt with all the resistance genes identified in wild potatoes. Of course, organic bigots call it GMOs. And the project is stillborn. So we will continue to "sulphate" intensive "organic" potatoes. What is the risk when these genes are "natural genes" which are widely found in nature in wild potato varieties ???? GM techniques were used just because in classical breeding by hybridization, it will take centuries and it will take a lot of luck to bring the full panoply of these genes together in a new variety. However, when there are only two or three resistance genes, downy mildew very quickly bypasses this resistance. The GMO had, by memory, 7!

In short, the "organic" bigots will be against it. And will sulphate!

These are facts.

But I leave you in your naive beliefs.

I will not answer. I know it is useless.

Ah ... Here is a speech that interests me frankly ... A rejection of dogmas, in favor of a rational approach, weighed, supported by experience, and moreover courageous on this forum...

Thank you Did ...

[Did67]

All you have to do is take a little interest in the "Potager du Laesseux", which, despite its apparent mess that makes it look like "I don't care, baba cool" is a concentrate of applied agronomic sciences ... therefore, it is "more than organic" (I impose more severe restrictions on myself than what the "organic" specifications allow - other producers do too).

70 videos on Youtube

1 pages here, on the main thread ...: agriculture / the-garden-of-lazy-garden-more-than-bio-without-fatigue-t13846-13190.html

[Bardal]

Not quite, no.
Not that the Lazy Vegetable Garden is uninteresting, but quite simply because it is not a generalizable model for mass agricultural production ...

[Did67]

It's very clear ! My lectures always start - if I'm not distracted! - by specifying that this only applies to "family gardens" (which excludes market gardening - although a certain number of elements are transferable - and of course, agriculture in the broad sense).

The fact remains that I apply fairly banal mechanisms. Simply, the limitation of surfaces and the absence of commercial constraints allow me to "push the plug much further"! Exactly, my source of inspiration is in the latest technical developments in agriculture: TCS, "zero plowing", "strip tilling", organic farming too (even if I perceive certain limits). And not at all, as many believe, "permaculture" (in the technical sense of gardening) or other movements ...

What I wanted to say: what I wrote there and which you quoted appears in long and in broad on the thread devoted to the vegetable garden of the Sloth, here on econology, elsewhere on Youtube (it is explicit in my conferences). And therefore nothing surprising for those who know me ... And it is very respected on the forum econology!