[Brandonb]

I watch the news and get sick sometimes about just how much crap is spewed from the mouths of the newscasters without any discussion or explanation. Granted, a reporter's job is to just report, not to commentate. So I figured that this would be a good place to pickup and discuss the topics where news dropped the ball.

[Brandonb]

The topic that prompted the creation of this topic is the recent tomato scare in the USA. There was recently a nationwide scare about salmonella contaminated tomatoes. However, the FDA is still reporting that they cannot figure out where or how the contamination happened. There have been several of these scares over the past few years. Various veggies being contaminated with various diseases. Last year it was spinach, also contaminated with salmonella.

I figured that it would be nice to discuss this topic out in the open, and why the FDA claims to have no idea where the problem is coming from.

When you think about it, salmonella is only found abundantly in a few places. Mainly raw animal products, and.... animal waste. So, how is this getting on our food that is coming out of the ground? Answer, we are putting it there. Not only that, but we pay more to put it there. The problem is coming from crops being fertilized with manure.

There are two main ways that crops are fertilized. The first is with manufactured chemical fertilizer, the other is with "natural" animal feces. The difference between these two is that chemical fertilizer is tested, thoroughly. Chemical fertilizer is produced mainly in 35lb bags (last I checked) with about 50 bags to a pallet. Every pallet of chemical fertilizer is tested, every single one. They are all FDA tested for diseases and chemical composition and potency. This allows for a supremely consistent and safe product. Fecal fertilizer on the other hand, is not tested. There is no FDA regulation of manure fertilizer. Even though, this animal waste could possibly contain a variety of diseases. And it's all up to the farmer as to which kind of fertilizer to use. So, like any businessman, a farmer must choose the best product for the price, and what he/she can sell it for. Well, the difference in the price is not very much. Not enough for a farmer to risk the lives of the people consuming his crop. However, on the sales end, the crops sprayed and grown with the animal raw fecal fertilizer sell for a considerably higher price. Yeah, much higher. In fact, from what I understand it's the "cool" and "in" thing to do right now.

Consumers, for some reason, are leaning away from crops sprayed with chemicals, and towards crops sprayed with disease-ridden animal waste. They most often have a specific label on them, and as stated sell for a much higher price. You may know them as "organically grown" goods. This "organic" label means a few different things. The first is that the farmer is growing the crops using unregulated and potentially lethal methods. The second is that these goods are not grown using "dangerous" (though thoroughly tested by the FDA) chemicals. And the third is that these goods are supposedly "healthier" because of this. Oh, not to mention, the price tag right below the label may be 50% or more higher than the non-organic brand.

So why is the FDA saying that they cannot find the source of the salmonella outbreak? The first is that the FDA is not testing these crops. They are not monitoring the conditions in which these crops were grown. So obviously they shouldn't point the finger at their own fallacy. The second is a little more complicated. I have consulted a few farmers on this issue, and they all agree with me. But they always bring up the same point. Which is that the FDA cannot say anything about it. Otherwise many farmers, let alone the entire "organic goods" industry, would take a severe and possibly unrecoverable beating from a public strike against them. If people knew that they were putting their lives (and wallets) at risk for a label, then people would not buy these products anymore. It's logical, and understandable, but seriously. Is there any difference between that and the tobacco industry? So yeah, I've been buying tomatoes throughout this entire scare. But always, with every crop I buy, request the non-organically grown goods, and I recommend you all do the same.

Phew, sorry to go on so long (Maybe I should have titled this topic "B's SoapBox ). I would love to hear any responses to this subject.

[Guest]

Oh yeah, I heard about that a while back, didn't really care that much to be honest(probably because I don't like tomatoes). A lot of the news recently seems like it's just trying to scare people. You do bring up some good points on the matter, though I would like to point out something. While the chemical fertilizr may be tested and safe, it's not all that good for the environment. Runoff can take the fertilizers into rivers and lake, causing serious problems on the ecosystems and killing off wildlife. I see your point, but just thought I'd bring it up, as the chemical fertilizer isn't necessarily better. Sorry about all the sciency stuff, I happened to remember this from a class I took recently. Eating-wise however, I can understand your argument, I'd rather eat tested chemicals than BS.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Frost

[Brandonb]

Oh yeah, I heard about that a while back, didn't really care that much to be honest(probably because I don't like tomatoes). A lot of the news recently seems like it's just trying to scare people. You do bring up some good points on the matter, though I would like to point out something. While the chemical fertilizr may be tested and safe, it's not all that good for the environment. Runoff can take the fertilizers into rivers and lake, causing serious problems on the ecosystems and killing off wildlife. I see your point, but just thought I'd bring it up, as the chemical fertilizer isn't necessarily better. Sorry about all the sciency stuff, I happened to remember this from a class I took recently. Eating-wise however, I can understand your argument, I'd rather eat tested chemicals than BS.

Chemical fertilizers are made of various combinations of nitrogen, sulfur, and something else I can't remember. They hardly cause problems. They contain the same thing that the "natural" fertilizer does, except it actually has less toxins. Now Pesticides are a different story. Chemical pesticides can be bad for the environment, and wreck some ecosystems. But chemical fertilizer is actually safer. It doesn't contain the diseases found in feces that can cause problems worse than the pesticides.

hahaha, I like the last line!

Edited July 18, 2008 by Brandonb

[Guest]

Chemical fertilizers are made of various combinations of nitrogen, sulfur, and something else I can't remember. They hardly cause problems. They contain the same thing that the "natural" fertilizer does, except it actually has less toxins. Now Pesticides are a different story. Chemical pesticides can be bad for the environment, and wreck some ecosystems. But chemical fertilizer is actually safer. It doesn't contain the diseases found in feces that can cause problems worse than the pesticides.

hahaha, I like the last line!

Right, I guess it was pesticides I was thinking of, though I thought nitrogen caused problems...oh well. I'm not exactly that knowledgable when it comes to news, I don't really watch it that much. I do catch a thing or two on occasion though. Would you agree that it seems like the news is just more about scaring people than informing them? It seems like every day there's some terrible thing that happened that has little effect on anyone and they call it news.

Yeah, I liked that last line too.

[unreality]

The Onion should be the only news anyone needs ;D

http://www.theonion.com/content/index

[Guest]

The Onion should be the only news anyone needs ;D

http://www.theonion.com/content/index

Hehe, yeah.

[akaslickster]

To play it safe, I suggest buying jars of really good spaghetti sauce. Substitute with ketchup whenever possible. Tomatoes are good for you, for the most part. Everything is a risk these days. However, usually when items are processed, they are tested more often. I could live without tomatoes. Your right about the media crud.

[Guest]

Frost was right about the environmental damage done by chemical fertilisers, btw. The main issue arises from the rate at which nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphate) are released and solubalised from organic or inorganic fertilisers. Inorganic/chemical fertilisers are designed to rapidly release their nutrients into the soil, but this also means they are highly soluble, and wash off easily in rain water, leading to severe damage to neighbouring aquatic systems (eutrophication). On the other hand, organic fertiliser (especially compost/manure) is not readily soluble, as it is only partially decomposed, nurtrient runoff still occurs, but at a much reduced rate. The issue of runoff is further compounded by overfertilisation, which tends to happen far more frequently with inorganic fertilisers, as they are relatively cheap (when considering the increase in crop production, it's well worth the farmers while to overfertilise, if they don't mind doing a bit of ecological damage), and are easier to apply when compared to organic fertilisers:

"The problem of over-fertilization is primarily associated with the use of artificial fertilizers, because of the massive quantities applied and the destructive nature of chemical fertilizers on soil nutrient holding structures. The high solubilities of chemical fertilizers also exacerbate their tendency to degrade ecosystems, particularly through eutrophication."

Other issues related to inorganic fertiliser use include the build up of toxic substances which cannot be removed from some sources (including arsenic, cadmium and uranium):

"Some sources of phosphate in fertilizers contain Cadmium in amounts of up to 100 mg/kg[1][2], which can lead to an increase in the concentration of Cadmium in soil (for example in New Zealand)[3]."

The final issue associated with inorganic fertilisers is their production, which in all cases is unsustainable:

"Potassium and phosphorus come from mines (or from saline lakes such as the Dead Sea in the case of potassium fertilizers) and resources are limited. Nitrogen is unlimited, but nitrogen fertilizers are presently made using fossil fuels such as natural gas. Theoretically fertilizers could be made from sea water or atmospheric nitrogen using renewable energy, but doing so would require huge investment and is not competitive with today's unsustainable methods."

All the quotes are taken from wikipedia (search for articles 'Fertilizer' and 'Cadmium Poisoning'), and where used to illustrate points i've seen made numerous times during my studies.

EDIT: As for which you choose to buy, I will always pay extra for organic produce. This isn't for any possible health benifit or for the 'feel good' or 'in thing' factors. It is simply becuase I know about the damages done in various areas to the environment by artificial fertilizers (and other arguments in respect to 'organic' livestock, but that's a different topic). Another argument raised here is that we're being robbed of our money, again I disagree as (in this country anyway, the UK) farmers are often paid well below the odds for their produce, and small scale farmers are being driven out of business by larger farmers and supermarkets, supporting small scale, local, organic farms is a tangible way of saving a traditional way of life.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Wreath

[Guest]

For some reason I can't edit again...

Note that I am not saying Brandon is wrong about the source of the disease outbreaks, it seems like a logical enough way for them to start, although there may be other possibilities. My view is also slightly skewed by not being in the US, there haven't (to my knowledge) been any such outbreaks here, possibly becuase sampling is stricter (of the final produce, not the manure) enabling any outbreaks to be traced and stopped before they become a problem (I don't know the system over there, but any produce here should be tracable back to it's orginal farm if necessary).

I'm simply stating that there are many other arguments in the organic vs. inorganic arguments, and neither should be dismissed off-hand (the main anit-organic arguments had already been made, so I argued the opposite case, although I admit i'm biased in favour of organic).

[grey cells]

Firstly , I agree with the reporters not making a much detailed report on news . And we shouldn't blame them . It's the management of the various news agencies which are responsible for this . Isn't news now more a form of entertainment , rather then getting the facts absolutely straight . Take out the boring bits which are not visible to the gullible public and you have a motion picture which is damn interesting . It's the general public demand and the news agencies are running a business and they go in the general direction of making profit without distorting every fact . So we can't blame the reporters , who must work only according to the rules laid out before them . I have read that some of the orthodox reporters , eventhough quite excited about future prospects are worried about the extent to which the stories can be twisted .

Now about FDA . Eventhough I am not living in the US , the political scanario though a bit more robust there , is quite similar to the conditions here . The only difference is the way in which the politicians look to gain higher offices . In US they go in a more elegant fashion than in India , to put it mildly . Now why I am pointing out this fact is , besides the scientific factors mentioned , there must be a political ingredient in this . The FDA may not be revealing the source and reasons for the salmonella contamination in tomatoes , maybe because there are some undesirable political outcomes . As I understand , US is in the midst of a presidental election and this may have been the reason for the FDA not coming clean . Pulling a strings here and there in the FDA , though may sound improbable to us , could very well be one of the reasons for the FDA's discretion .

Eventhough , this does not affect me directly , it may have an effect on the Indian political scenario . Btw , the nuclear treaty matter with US is one of the hottest topics here .

[Brandonb]

Very good points. Chemical fertilizers do wash off much easier. I remember that being a bad problem when I worked at a farm supply store one highschool summer. Farmers bought tons of the stuff, and they were saying that they wanted rain. But then it rained too much so they had to come back and buy more to refertilize, which I am sure is another method for how the overfertilizations occur. Organic fertilizers don't have that problem as badly (though it still happens) because they naturally contain oily water resistant bodily fluids from the animal that they come from.

I see what you mean about the eutrophication problem. Eutrophication is when the plant life in the water begins to rapidly grow as a result of contact with the fertilizer. The plants then begin to suffocate eachother, and when they die, the decaying plants deplete the oxygen in the water than the non-plant life needs to survive. So if the runoff goes to a stagnant body of water (pond) then it can be a big problem. But it seems to me that for any moving body of water this would not be a problem. (Note that this problem also occurs with organic fertilizers, but the chemical fertilizers get the majority of the coverage).

As for the toxins, you have that problem with organic fertilizers also. Though the main problem with the organic is the diseases salmonella, E-coli (was actually what the spinach was about), and a few others. Other problems involving the use of animal waste is the problem that if the animals had taken hormones (obviously this is not a problem with organic livestock, though organic crops are not necessarily fertilized by the waste of organic livestock) and other drugs, then these toxins are actually passed into the food that is grown and is consumed by the person eating it. Whichever method of fertilizer being used, there are going to be toxins put into the ground. However, only the organic one spreads disease.

There is also the hazard of large manure piles spontaneously combusting and polluting the air with a burning sh*t storm of fowl smoke. (Manure generates heat, and in large storage piles for fertilization it can generate enough heat to catch on fire).

One more problem is the complete antithesis of the chemical run-off problem ruining small ecosystems. Which is the problem of organic runoff contaminating rivers and other sources of human drinking water. There have been plenty of recalls in the past involving bottled water companies that distributed water containing the exact same diseases found in the contaminated produce.

It seems to me that if there was regulation for the testing of animal waste intended to be used as fertilizer. And if that fertilizer was used only around closed water sources that could not spread disease or be used as drinking water. And if chemical fertilizers were only used around running water sources. Then there could be a cutback on all the problems that occur.

Edit: BTW, good argument Wreath, and FYI the editing feature only works for the first 10min after posting.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Brandonb

[Brandonb]

Firstly , I agree with the reporters not making a much detailed report on news . And we shouldn't blame them . It's the management of the various news agencies which are responsible for this . Isn't news now more a form of entertainment , rather then getting the facts absolutely straight . Take out the boring bits which are not visible to the gullible public and you have a motion picture which is damn interesting . It's the general public demand and the news agencies are running a business and they go in the general direction of making profit without distorting every fact . So we can't blame the reporters , who must work only according to the rules laid out before them . I have read that some of the orthodox reporters , eventhough quite excited about future prospects are worried about the extent to which the stories can be twisted .

Now about FDA . Eventhough I am not living in the US , the political scanario though a bit more robust there , is quite similar to the conditions here . The only difference is the way in which the politicians look to gain higher offices . In US they go in a more elegant fashion than in India , to put it mildly . Now why I am pointing out this fact is , besides the scientific factors mentioned , there must be a political ingredient in this . The FDA may not be revealing the source and reasons for the salmonella contamination in tomatoes , maybe because there are some undesirable political outcomes . As I understand , US is in the midst of a presidental election and this may have been the reason for the FDA not coming clean . Pulling a strings here and there in the FDA , though may sound improbable to us , could very well be one of the reasons for the FDA's discretion .

Eventhough , this does not affect me directly , it may have an effect on the Indian political scenario . Btw , the nuclear treaty matter with US is one of the hottest topics here .

You know what's sick? The nuclear treaty matter is hardly even covered here. It gets a 2min spot, then its on to something with a higher entertainment value for the next 10mins. Or one of those "could ______ be killing you and your children and liquefying your kidneys?" Then after ten minutes of reporting they finally come to some lame conclusion that if you drink pure bleach it could kill you. That's how liberal media gets their viewers. They don't cover boring, though incredibly important life-altering topics. They just cover the ones that they believe can bring in viewers and provide entertainment. Fox news on the other hand, uses heated debate comparable to verbal head butting and groin punches to create entertainment value. They cover real news more in depth, but the topics can sometimes bounce around like a tennis ball. BTW, did you know that Fox News has more self-proclaimed liberal commentators than every other major news program in the US? and it's still called conservative....

Anyways, on to the other point. I have to agree with you GC. The Dems control both houses, and we are in a election year. So it's no surprise that strings are getting pulled to suppress a problem that is mainly associated with liberalism. I could believe it, though I think it has more to do with the FDA not wanting to destroy an industry while at the same time they do not want to display their massive shortcomings in protecting the public.

[Guest]

Thanks, and I agree with most of the points above, except one. Run off into fast moving water does not cause eutrophication, but it still does a great deal of damage. The issue here is more applicable to the US than it is here, and it is of the nutrient rich water flowing into freshwater lakes, where the buildup does similair damage as in a smaller pool/pond (the main concern is the transition from a macrophyte dominated to a phytoplankton dominated ecosystem, but I could write several essays on that, which I don't intend to do here). While you'd think a water body that large would be unaffected, a large waterbody also has a huge drainage area (watershed/catchment, i'm not sure what it's called in the US), and if thats intensively farmed the impact can be catastrophic.

A similair problem is caused by untreated or semi-treated sewage (there are three stages of sewage treatment, primary/secondary/tertiary, which iirc are physical/biological/chemical (the method of treatment, not whats being targetted), even the best developed countries rarely use tertiary becuase of the cost, so all sewage can cause some damage). I'm stating this as sewage can basically be considered human derived manure (although there are many other things which contribute), which means that manure has the same potential to do damage. The key difference between organic and inorganic fertilisers is not in the potential to do damage, but the ability to reach that potential: the organic ones are less soluble, so that any damage done is reduced and slowed down (slowing makes a big difference, as all ecosystems are able to tolerate a certain level of pollution/stress, and the rate of input is critical). When sewage enters a water-body, the requirement for runoff has been removed, and the potential damage is no longer potential, it's been done.

Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about the disease potential of organic fertiliser, although everything being said makes perfect sense. On the other hand I study Marine Biology, so theres a lot more I know about the causes and effects of eutrophication.

As for reducing the problem at hand (diseased food), greater care in checking the fertilizer is one option. I don't know the system in the US, but as I stated before all food in the UK is tracable back to it's original farm, allowing any outbreak to be contained more easily, is this the same over there?

I imagine checking fertilizer for disease is rather impractical, as it would require culturing samples from every bag/pallete/shipment of fertilizer (unless there is some simpler method for specific diseases, of which i am unaware), also, not all infections will be passed up the food chain. The best way to prevent infections from diseases such as salmonella and e-coli (which are both present commonly in food such as chicken meat/eggs) is proper cooking, the only reason it's a problem here is that tomato's are often eaten uncooked.

EDIT: as for goverment cover-up (that sounds a little too much like a conspiracy theory, but nvm...), I wouldn't put it past them, something similair happened here recently when BSE (mad cow's... or it could've been foot & mouth, can't remember) infected fields around a goverment research lab. The same site also had a private research lab, and both labs handled the strain which escaped. There was a lot of political fall-out as a result, although the eventual blame i think was laid on a broken pipe in the commercial lab.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Wreath

[Guest]

So, how is this getting on our food that is coming out of the ground? Answer, we are putting it there.

Erm, not necessarily. Animal manure fertilizer is not the only place that salmonella bacteria come from: they are also spread by food handlers who themselves are suffering from salmonellosis. They have the bacteria on their hands, they touch the peppers or tomatoes, the bacteria get on the veg, and the customer gets the bacteria. No animal manure fertilizer is required.

Cite.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/com.../fact_sheet.htm

There are two main ways that crops are fertilized. The first is with manufactured chemical fertilizer, the other is with "natural" animal feces. The difference between these two is that chemical fertilizer is tested, thoroughly.

Another difference is that animal feces are a renewable resource of practically unlimited supply, whereas chemical fertilizers are mostly . . . petroleum-based. We'll have to learn to do without the latter before too long.

.( snip) Fecal fertilizer on the other hand, is not tested.

Consumers, for some reason, are leaning away from crops sprayed with chemicals, and towards crops sprayed with disease-ridden animal waste.

(snip)

I'm not a farmer but am a gardener surrounded by farmers. Manure is typically applied to earth in early spring or late fall and winter. Excess can be a compost feedstock.

Never heard of spraying with raw manure, disease-ridden or no. In fact that's counter to everything I know of agriculture in the U.S.A. Spraying growing plants with raw manure likely leads to crop failure and inhibits pollination.

I'd be happy to read some data supporting your claim.

The USA uses gamma ray irradiation for food sterilization.

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html

Extensive overview here.

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

[Brandonb]

Erm, not necessarily. Animal manure fertilizer is not the only place that salmonella bacteria come from: they are also spread by food handlers who themselves are suffering from salmonellosis. They have the bacteria on their hands, they touch the peppers or tomatoes, the bacteria get on the veg, and the customer gets the bacteria. No animal manure fertilizer is required.

So the nationwide scare is being caused by thousands of diseased farmhands? There is certainly not one facility (Let alone hundreds of them) that employs a fully diseased staff causing the spread of this problem. This theory could hold true to a few veggies for one day, before the food handler gets too sick and begins vomiting on the produce he is handling.... (sorry if too graphic) But it's not feasible for this example to cause a widespread problem beyond a local community's farmers market. The small amount of product would be caught and handled before distribution.

Another difference is that animal feces are a renewable resource of practically unlimited supply, whereas chemical fertilizers are mostly . . . petroleum-based. We'll have to learn to do without the latter before too long.

Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but I don't think they use petroleum in many fertilizers, let alone base the components in it. Because just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that combination makes a great napalm. Let that tractor backfire one time.... Not to mention, if they were petroleum based, then the fertilizer would be incredibly water resistant and possibly more resistant to runoff than organic fertilizer.

Never heard of spraying with raw manure, disease-ridden or no. In fact that's counter to everything I know of agriculture in the U.S.A. Spraying growing plants with raw manure likely leads to crop failure and inhibits pollination.

Raw manure is fertilizer, it does not lead to crop failure, it leads to crop enhancement. Though farmers will sometimes spray a chemical fertilizer mixed or along with with pesticides on growing crops, I don't know if they do that with manure also. So I'll admit that I may have exaggerated the "spraying crops" line, but still the problem is the same. The soil is treated with diseased manure right before plantation. The warm moist ground incubates the bacteria as the crops grow in it. The crops grow up and out and coated with a tasty little present. Obviously slinging clumps of manure onto buds could inhibit pollination for physical reasons, but the presence of the disease does not effect pollination if the disease does not effect the insect population.

The USA uses gamma ray irradiation for food sterilization.

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html

Extensive overview here.

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

The irradiation topic is irrelevant. If the infected crops were being irradiated, then there would not be a salmonella problem. So I think it is safe to assume that this process has not been used, or has at least not been effective, on the diseased produce. Though I certainly support its use, hopefully it becomes a requirement in all produce someday soon.

[Guest]

So the nationwide scare is being caused by thousands of diseased farmhands? There is certainly not one facility (Let alone hundreds of them) that employs a fully diseased staff causing the spread of this problem. This theory could hold true to a few veggies for one day, before the food handler gets too sick and begins vomiting on the produce he is handling.... (sorry if too graphic) But it's not feasible for this example to cause a widespread problem beyond a local community's farmers market. The small amount of product would be caught and handled before distribution.

It only takes one sick farm worker spending 8 hours in a single day picking produce all day, which amounts to hundreds of pieces of veg ( if not thousands in the case of small fruits) touched by his (or her) germ-laden hands.

Which are then shipped all across the United States, making it very difficult to pin down exactly where the sick guy was.

And some produce is grown and picked in Mexico and other Latin American countries, making it even harder to figure out where the veg got contaminated. If you remember, the problem with spinach was traced back to one field. (And it was not a manure issue.) The issue here is that there is not traceability for tomatoes, so they can't tell where the problem tomatoes came from.

And it only takes one case of salmonella to make a media scare.

Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but I don't think they use petroleum in many fertilizers, let alone base the components in it. Because just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that combination makes a great napalm. Let that tractor backfire one time.... Not to mention, if they were petroleum based, then the fertilizer would be incredibly water resistant and possibly more resistant to runoff than organic fertilizer.

You're probably thinking of ANFO, or Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil. It's a tertiary explosive, which means you need both a detonator (primary) and a booster (secondary) explosive for a reliable detonation. It's also not going to have much brisance (think acceleration) if it's not confined. Napalm, on the other hand, gets its name from "coprecipated aluminum salts of NAphthenic and PALMitic acids". Naphthenic acid comes from crude oil. It's also not an explosive, and doesn't even deflegrate. It's used because it both burns and sticks.

Just because it's derived from petroleum doesn't mean the product can't be water soluble.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ammonium nitrate is one of the most common fertilizers used on large farms.

Chemical fertilizer is made by the Haber Process.

Modern synthetic fertilizer are directly tied to petrochem. Costs have doubled for urea from last year at this time.

Animal dung is not a good fertilizer in developed Nitrogen per acre by weight or volume applied compared to the synthetics.The Haber process is much of the reason that crop yields have essentially doubled in one generation. Dung is a soil amendment, but I know of no one who plants into fresh manure.

Do you have any cites for your claims of " The warm moist ground incubates the bacteria as the crops grow in it. The crops grow up and out and coated with a tasty little present."?