Do any organic farms use animal carcases as fertilizer?

Question

I heard that organic farms are allowed to use animal carcases as fertilizer. Is this true? If any one knows about this, as information as possible would be very appreciated. Thank you.

Answer 1

The answer to your question is no.  Some animal bones may be ground and added to the compost pile as a source of calcium, but that would be the extent of it.

Answer 2

I WATCHED IN DISBELIEF as John Stossel, co-anchor of ABC's "20/20,"

delivered a half-hearted apology August 11 for falsifying evidence in a

report that claimed organic produce is potentially more dangerous than food

raised using toxic agrochemicals, antibiotics, added hormones, genetically

engineered seeds and massive animal-feeding factories.

In his apology, Stossel did admit that some tests he relied on to support

his conclusion had never been conducted. But he shrugged that off as a

minor oversight, maintaining that because organic farmers favor manure and

other natural fertilizers over synthetic chemicals, organic produce carries

a greater risk of E. coli infection and "could kill you."

What wasn't mentioned is that most of the manure spread on land in the

United States is, in fact, used by conventional farmers. The difference is

that organic farmers are the only ones required to farm in a way that might

minimize the risk of E. coli or other food-borne illness. Organic

certification standards require that all raw manure is applied to the

fields or orchards at least 60 days, and sometimes as many as 120 days,

before the produce is harvested -- a period that allows for ecological

processes that eliminate harmful microbes. (The pathogens become food for

other soil organisms or degrade from exposure to the elements).

Conventional growers, in contrast, can spray on raw, uncomposted manure

(even on fruits and veggies that are but days from being harvested), in

addition to human sewage sludge and slurry from industrial animal farms --

all practices that are explicitly forbidden under organic regulations.

There has been no systematic analysis of whether organic or nonorganic

foods carry a greater risk of E. coli O157 -- the particular strain that is

so deadly to humans and that we hear so much about in the news -- but the

prevailing epidemiology of this bug points to the safety of organic over

conventional farming. Nearly all cases of E. coli 0157 result from

consumption of contaminated meat, a function of the conditions of

industrial factory farms and meat processing plants. For livestock that are

used to eating mostly grass and straw, the feedlot diet of grain

concentrate encourages the proliferation of E. coli 0157 in the animal's

gut, while the highly confined and unsanitary conditions facilitate

transmission of the bugs between animals. At the same time, overuse of

antibiotics in the feedlot diet virtually ensures the potency of emerging

microbes. Meanwhile, meat packing at breakneck speed, often in close

proximity to animal carcasses and f***s, paves the way for additional

contamination.

In those cases that do occur in produce, the E. coli generally enters the

food chain at the packaging and handling stage, not the farm environment.

Here are a few other things that weren't mentioned:

ABC's false claims relied almost exclusively on testimony of Dennis Avery

of the agribusiness-funded Hudson Institute, whose thoughts on pesticides

and food-borne illness have already been widely discredited. Last year,

Avery manipulated data from the Centers for Disease Control in order to

back his claim that organic produce carries a greater risk of E. coli than

nonorganic produce. CDC officials have stated that their data do not

support Avery's claims -- a fact that might deter most journalists (even TV

journalists) from relying on Avery as a source.

The report also played down the risk of pesticide residues, claiming (with

data that did not exist) that organic produce has no fewer pesticide

residues than nonorganic produce. In truth, organic produce -- from bananas

to peppers to strawberries -- has been consistently shown to carry fewer

toxic pesticide residues than nonorganic produce. Some of the more recent

evidence includes the January 1998 issue of Consumer Reports, which tested

1,000 pounds of organic and nonorganic produce, and found that organic

produce consistently carried the lowest, and least-toxic, pesticide

residues. (The fact that even foods grown without pesticides may contain

trace pesticide residues is the unfortunate consequence of past pesticide

use which has left background pesticide levels in the soil, water supply

and even our bodies.)

Perhaps the most basic oversight of the report was the failure to mention

that organic farming -- the fastest growing sector of the food economy --

offers tremendous hope for reconciling the toll that industrial,

chemical-dependent farming has taken on rivers and streams, topsoil,

wildlife and the environment in general. By relying on a sophisticated

understanding of crop diversity, nutrient cycling, predator-prey

interactions and other ecological processes occurring in the field, instead

of chemical quick-fixes, organic farming provides a model for improving the

way we currently grow most of our food.

The fabrication of information on an ABC news report -- not to mention the

neglect of extensive evidence disputing its conclusions -- raises serious

questions of journalistic integrity. According to Brill's Content magazine,

over the last two years, Stossel has collected hundreds of thousands of

dollars in speaking fees from various industry and conservative groups,

including agribusiness interests. At the very least, this gives the

appearance of a potential conflict of interest, and with the organic food

market in this country growing by more than 20 percent a year, there is no

shortage of groups who feel threatened -- agrochemical companies, biotech

companies, and nonorganic food manufacturers and retailers.

"All we have in this business is our credibility -- your trust that we get

it right, Stossel reminds the audience in his apology. Unfortunately, for

his and ABC's reputation, this realization has come too late.

Answer 3

Yes, the USDA and all the States various agricultural departments allow and in some cases even recommend the fertilization of certain crops with ground up and dried animal and fish carcases or waste products from these animals.

Answer 4

No.

Actually they are covered in carcases but just because they are not allowed to use fertilizers, and, therefore, can't produce enough grass for them.

Answer 5

a couple of years ago I did a five-year business plan for a farm in India.  I came across an article that years ago India had a disease (to people)  that was caused by animal carcases being buried to close to water, the water which was being used to nourish the farmland, (and then of course the people would eat that food from the farmland and get sick) and it caused disease.  So I think animal carcases should not be used as or in fertilizers.

Answer 6

Do fish count? I worked on an organic tomato and vegetable farm and we used dried, ground up fish as part of the nutrients we added.

Answer 7

As was asked earlier, they do, but only after some processing. The organic farmer would purchase blood meal or bone meal, or other processed products to reduce the left over carcasses to a usable product. Most states would have laws banning the use of actual animal body parts siting disease and pollution concerns, and even the use of fish parts that in low amounts wouldn't be an issue legally would cause farmers problems with wildlife digging up their crops to find those tasty morsels (been there, done that). The products mentioned above as well as some mentioned earlier in a previous article, are reduced with heat and chemicals to a granular easy to use product. A trip to the garden center near you would show just how prevalent they are. But for your question, unless a farm has the ability to "rend" their own animal by-products, they are buying low cost granular "meal" made from waste that is recycled. As with any industry, and meat industries are no exception, if you can sell your waste other people will give you money for something it would cost you a whole lot to get rid of. Hey, look at the petroleum industry. They spent huge money to find out how to sell their waste instead of paying to dispose of it. The plastics industry.