Sustainable Agriculture.

[Mary Fisher]

The biggest problem with organic agriculture is that it's still not
playing with a full deck. The concept is right, but its still a rough mix
of fact and fiction.

You mean your interpretation of fact and fiction. Why should that be more
reliable than other people's?

Until science sorts out the myths from the reality, it shouldn't be
codified in law, or even adopted on a large scale, until the real risks
and benefits are known.

Ah, law. The great arbiter of Truth!

 

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:09:50 +0200, zatoichi

(snips)

You are one angry farmer,ain't you Robert?

Only about the grade A, 100% organic bullshit I see posted
on usenet. Otherwise, I'm quite happy and contented.

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <eXZag.23663$Fl1.23442@edtnps89>

I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than
quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

Quite. Farming methods are dictated by the consumer who wants food for
as little money as possible, never mind the quality. This is caused by
the supermarkets' massive buying power.

Truck farms have dissappeared in the UK as the supermarkets source
vegetables largely in southern Europe now, principally in Murcia and
Alicante where massive areas of land are under plastic. This in a
country where there is already a chronic water shortage which is fast
getting acute as a result of the market gardening operations there. So
long as the British consumer pays small money for the food, everything
is ok.

Meanwhile in the UK where in normal years we have more than enough water
for crops to be naturally irrigated, land is going to fallow, paid by
subsidy to do nothing. It's nuts.

Meanwhile we are flying in flowers and out of season vegetables from
places like Chile and Kenya.

 

[Robert Sturgeon]

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and plants
need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride, but we
need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy. Farmers
generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and occasionally
a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes with yield.
Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been mined out of the
soil long ago.

I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

The alternative is to keep using supplements, which few of us
know how to do properly, nor often enough. The other disadvantage is that
it costs far more to supplement our food with minerals and vitamins than to
have them naturally occurring.

Even if "organic" food had more vitamins and minerals than
conventionally grown food, which it doesn't, it would be far
cheaper to take a One-A-Day than to pay 3 or 4 times as much
for "organic" food.

Besides that, the food tastes better when
they're naturally occurring..

No, FRESH food tastes better. It doesn't make the slightest
difference whether it's "organic" or not.

I had a chat earlier this year with Dr. Ross Welch from Cornell University,
who pioneered the research that showed that serious nutrient deficiencies
are common in our population due to improper nutrition. It's nothing short
of a national crisis, if his research is to be believed.

There may very well be a nutritional lack, due to poor
eating habits. I doubt that he, or any reputable scientist,
would claim it's because of conventionally grown food
instead of "organic" food.

Other countries, such as Finland have instituted higher standards for food
nutrition years ago, mandating things like minimum levels of selenium in
wheat, and the decline of some diseases like cancer since that time has been
nothing less then startling.

"Organic" food isn't going to have any more selenium in it
than conventionally grown food, unless selenium is added to
soil which is deficient in selenium, which is hardly an
"organic" process. Adding selenium to soil, in order to get
it into the food supply, is a lot more expensive than just
taking a typical vitamin/mineral supplement.

 

[zatoichi]

Nevertheless, I don't enjoy eating things that come from the final sewer,
the ocean, much less any creature you can catch from there.

Ayay,then you don't know what you're missing.Now,call me weirdo or
,but I noticed that topics about food,recipes and such amass to 30% of
all the conversation between me and my best buddy.Women go and watch
Oprah or something,we sit on the sunny porch,drinking wine,commenting
food and simply enjoying the moment.I certainly don't think of
anything that comes from sea as a "creature".If I did I would have
problem killing it.When I think creature I think deer or wild boar or
bunny.
It seems that I forgot to mention that sea is 1st class (few spots
with 2nd,none 3rd class) in my part of neighborhood.I am passionate
scuba diver,hence my fascination with sea.Or is it another way round?
I'd wish if I was a better farmer,but sadly I am hopeless in that
area. :-(

We wouldn't want to eat just any living thing that crawls, flies
or grows on land, so why do we do that with the ocean?

Sure,if it works for you.
Just one tiny-incy-bincy note:
Maybe,just maybe you'd like some of it if you try

 

[zatoichi]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:09:50 +0200, zatoichi

(snips)


Only about the grade A, 100% organic bullshit I see posted
on usenet. Otherwise, I'm quite happy and contented.

I was thinking to that when I said "angry farmer"
We wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <Sa5bg.25537$fV1.883@edtnps82>

We simply don't like to eat night crawlers, rats, grasshoppers, crows,
stray
cats and slugs. If the same attitude applied to life on land, all those
things would be in the supermarket alongside crabs, mussels and sardines
That's all.

You are making a little joke, aren't you ? You don't really believe
that there is something wrong with sardines, crabs and mussels, do you
? You are going to tell me next that you have never eaten eel,
octopus, squid or cuttlefish.

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <[email protected]>

No, FRESH food tastes better. It doesn't make the slightest
difference whether it's "organic" or not.

I would agree, but there is a great difference in taste between
varieties, however grown.

"Organic" food isn't going to have any more selenium in it
than conventionally grown food, unless selenium is added to
soil which is deficient in selenium, which is hardly an
"organic" process. Adding selenium to soil, in order to get
it into the food supply, is a lot more expensive than just
taking a typical vitamin/mineral supplement.

In my neck of the woods, where the light land is very deficient in
boron, the element is added to artificial fertilisers when one is
growing Swede turnips. Without the addition of boron the turnips grow
hollow and deformed. Swede turnips are food for everything here and an
important agricultural crop.

How would the organic boys introduce boron into the light land every
year?, which land leaches quickly: boron is a chemical but it is not a
poison, so what is wrong with putting it into land that lacks it ?

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <[email protected]>

First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone.

First I note that you have started a controversal thread and then taken
no further part in the discussion that you have precipitated, and are
thus not a person to be taken seriously.

It is worth noting that in Britain, where 'organic' agriculture had
pertained for thousands of years, soil fertility had steadily fallen
over the centuries, and it is only in the last fifty years that
fertility has recovered.

The wonderful Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and
Lord of the Isles, who lives on his own particularly small planet that
is inhabited by himself and a few sycophants firmly believes in what he
calls organic agriculture.

He has men crawling on all-fours weeding his crops. Fine, if he can
afford it, which he can. But in the real world a farm of 250 acres now
employs one or two men if it is arable. The days when that farm
supported 25 men were over after the First World War.

Our delightfully mad Prince feels that it can still be done, ingnoring
the fact that most people feed themselves out of the supermarkets,
which organisations force producers to cut costs to the bone.

Growing stuff without pesticides and fungicides and artificial
fertilisers is great.
That is what Mrs. Stubbs and I do for our food. But we are very lucky
in that we have some land which we can devote to supplying the kitchen
with food.

Most people live in cities and have to get their food from the store,
and they want the stuff cheap. It cannot be done organically now. The
manpower simply is not there. There are not enough Wetbacks or Eastern
Europeans.

 

[Day Brown]

There are people who are now following the Athenian model, invested in
farmland while living in the city, and taking trips out there to help
with the harvest or whatever, their presence assuring them that food is
grown in a way they think is good for their kids.

I dont see that the farmers doing this are any closer to bankruptcy; I
do see that the stock of the banks, the petrochemicals, the GM seed
producers, the fuel dealers, the grain mills, etc, is all up, while the
stock of their customers, the farmers, is all down. Why are farmers
listening to those people?

I grant you Robert, that there is a lot of "eco-propaganda" but they
aint the only ones producing propaganda. A lot of what is recommended
for 'organic farming' is bullschit, just as the 'agricultural policy'
set by a buncha lawyers in Washington is. Either way, the farmer will be
scrod. (pluperfect subjunctive)...

Nobody eats cotton, so I think 'organic cotton' is overdone. Some mite
sell in healthfood stores to people who are allergic to everthing.The
trace minerals agribusiness tests for relates to the tonnage of the
crop, not the nutrition of the product. YMMV; you havta start with a
soil test, not only of the surface, but with a post hole digger, down
below the hardpan to see if planting deep rooted crops like alfalfa will
pay off, or whether it'd be gonzo simpler to add greensand or some other
trace mineral mix.

And while you may regard it as eco-propaganda, I know nurses and health
professionals who have picked up on the epidemiological data from
regions that have various kinds of pollution, the rat studies on mental
development as a function of trace minerals, the effect of high fructose
corn syrup on the glycemic level of the blood, and the way that that
drives kids and their parents up the wall and reach for Ritalin. I wont
argue with you on whether these professionals are correct or not, but I
think it is clear to even you that their impact will create demand for
'organic' food far in excess of the market seen so far.

The 22% protein for wheat was reported by Jared Diamond in "Collapse" as
coming from lab work done 50 years ago. He too argues that nutritional
deficits have led to societal collapse. Repeatedly we see where farmers
went for the fast buck and reduced the variety of what they grew. This
is most obvious with the shift to corn; Diamond notes that agribusiness
globally today uses 80% of the land to grow just 5 crops. Cotton, rice,
wheat, soybeans, & corn. I spoze you are aware of the danger of disease
that comes from this kind of lack of diversity. too many eggs in too few
baskets, with the result that you havta shell out ever more to chemical
producers to cope with it. You got a good price in cotton cause others
werent able to afford the remedies you used, and they didnt have any of
the heritage varieties to see if they had resistance.

But back to wheat; I was born on a farm in Minnesota, and as a kid I
often wondered what it was that convinced people to live in such a gawd
awful cold place. Then in High school I saw the 19th century reports to
farmers out east and in Europe that convinced them to come. I dunno what
it is like now with global warming. But in the old days, I saw it get
down to 45deg F below zero and stay there a week, dropping down to 61
below one morning. The result is that the ground froze 5 ft deep.

Not many bugs can handle it. Moreover, all bacterial activity stops, and
even when it starts up in summer, the ground temp was only 36deg F. Your
dirt is so warm that biological activity goes on all year round, turning
the humus into soluble compounds that wash out of the soil. So- you've a
hard time maintaining the fertility. I remember digging the outhouse,
down 3 foot or more thru the blackest richest dirt you ever saw. humus
and dead roots linger in that soil for decades, storing moisture to take
a crop thru a dry spell.

Then too, there is the solar cycle; We usta plant corn May 10; the sun
wasnt as high as down south, but it was in the sky for 14 hours already.
And up for 16 hours in June on into July. Schitt grows really fast with
that much sunlight, and wheat just loved the **** out of it. And of
course, with the world's best wheat, you'd expect entrepreneurs to be
there to take advantage of it. Thus: Pillsbury, General Mills, and Gold
Medal flour, among others were all founded in Minneapolis. Barley kinda
likes it too, which is why the beer is made there and Milwalkee.

Something you mite wanna look into, is that farmers are trucking their
tractors and equipment up to the Yukon. The melted permafrost is about
as "organic" as soil ever gets. So- rather than letting equipment sit
idle in the south between planting and harvest, take it up there, and in
60-75 days have a harvest that results from even longer daylength.

I use "organic" methods when they are appropriate. For
example, I use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer. It
has a better mix of nutrients for the money it costs than
synthetic fertilizer. But sometimes synthetic fertilizers
make more sense, and I use them. But totally "organic"
methods would be disastrous. Bugs, weeds, and various other
problems would make reliable yields a pipedream. I'd have
to get 2 or 3 times the price to justify the added risks.

Well, yes, but you *would* get 2-3 times the price. Talk to Ozark Whole
Food Coop in Fayetteville AR. They send trucks around to all the health
food stores in AR, MO, OK, NB, LA every week; if you have something they
are interested in, they'd be happy not to deadhead the truck back to the
warehouse. And yes, I've used chicken litter, and even a little trip 19
or 10-20-10. But I dont put so much on the land that the microbial life
and earthworms in it cant handle it.

Regarding weeds; have you looked into switchgrass? I expect seed in my
mailbox any day, but surfing suggests you could tool up for a small
amount of money and make a *killing*. I was disappointed looking at

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache..."alcohol+production"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Sorry about the long link, another clue to a givernment idiot. His
numbers are all metric, but what it boils down to is 800 gallons of
ethanol/acre of switchgrass... the way they know how to extract it.
Totally ignoring the value of the remaining mash as stock feed. And
unaware of new processes and microbes that would raise it to 1200+
gallons/acre. Or http://www.butanol.com which is a process to splice two
molecules of ethanol into a fuel that has the same energy as gasoline,
runs on egzactly the same engines... only cleaner.

Essi seems to think you are growing wheat. But switchgrass is a native
American tall grass prairy perennial, and you dont need herbicides cause
it crowds out and shades everything else, getting 6ft+ tall. In fact,
your problem is going to be getting rid of it a few years down the line
when you want to rotate crops. Mow it for hay, and disc it during a dry
spell seems reasonable.

There's just no know how in what they know. Alcohol boils at 171F. You
dont need to cook it with gas, you can make a *solar* still. And if you
ferment the mash, it'll keep just like silage, letting you boil it off
in your furnace heating the house next winter. These ag experts are all
slaves of the transnationals and just cant figure out how to do anything
with paying and paying... the people who fund their studies. At the time
this study was made, you lost money making alcohol; but that was before
the price of gas went thru the roof.

And- converting a motor to run on alcohol is not rocket science; bore
out the carb ports on a mopar 318 from .030 to .062 or even .090 if you
want max power. Just crank out the main jet on a Briggs a turn or 2.

I'm sure there is a rational middle ground- between the eco nuts and the
slaves to the transnationals- that would pay farmers much better and at
the same time deliver food that is much healthier. MOREOVER: if inept
mismanagement, corruption, and greed ruin the economy, we- and farmers-
will all be dependent on *local* resources, which will, of necessity, be
mostly 'organic'. I daresay, that if we cut back 1/3 of beef consumption
and used that land to grow ethanol & butanol, we'd have the fuel we need
to kiss the jackasses in OPEC good bye.

 

[JoeSP]

I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch 2002 human nutr.pdf

 

[JoeSP]

You mean your interpretation of fact and fiction. Why should that be more
reliable than other people's?

Microwave ovens were invented in the 50s, but they weren't adopted until the
'80s, because it took that long for all the myths to be replaced by fact.

Myths, lies and disinfomation seem to spread like wildfire, but the truth
seems to move slower than molasses in January.

A century ago, most people rejected the new ice cubes that were made with
electricity. They believed they would make the milk go bad and make men
sterile if they had them in the house. They preferred instead to pay more
for ice cut from the lakes and rivers in the winter, which were the sewers
of the time, rife with disease. Nowadays, I doubt the staunchest
enviromental zealot would give a thought to using ice cubes made with
electricity.

Every time I hear the non-science or the pseudoscience surrounding organic
food production, I think of the ice cubes. People who choose the myths over
the facts for their own gratification are often revealed as fools who are
eventually proven wrong.

 

[Day Brown]

I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

This shortsightedness will, agreed, continue. Greed being what it is.
This is one of the reasons I sub to misc.survivalism and
alt.energy.homepower, to pick up on clues to *local* solutions, there no
longer being any national ones with the electorate so irrational.

I have the data dish, and the TV dish, and watch the postings and
Bloomerg to see what Wall Street thinks. Even they dont do it very well,
and they are motivated by enormous amounts of money. I am relieved to
see the precious metals prices stabilized... they may yet get a handle
on it.

Part of my alarm came from PBS's 'FRONTLINE', the "Yaqui Valley study",
in which they show the dramatic rise in autism among the kids that live
in the valley that agribusines now uses to grow veggies for Safeway. An
oxymoron. The biochemistry is that plants exposed to agribusiness
petrochemicals dont just lie there and take it, but produce much more
phyto-estrogens in their tissues. The FDA was unconcerned, knowing that
it didnt cause cancer. Its what is in the birth control pill.

There are a lot of other plants that naturally have high levels of
phytoestrogen; its a defense mechanism against herbivores. It make
females infertile and/or causes abortions. Hence, there's a *REASON*
that "Bachelor Button" is so named, or why "Blessed Thistle" is blessed.
Witches in Europe have been using these herbs for millennia.

[FWIW: the abortion debate is over. Modern witches have rediscovered
this, and are back in the 'family planning' business for which the
Christian Bishops first started burning them.]

So now, what happens if little boys are exposed to phyto-estrogen? PBS
Frontline showed it resulted in autism, ADD, ADHD, etc. I noted in the
video that the valley boys were too disorganized to play a game of
soccer, which Latin American kids do all the time. I also noted, there
on the sidelines, which their narrator did not comment on, eight year
old girls with tits. What else would you expect but precocious puberty
in girls? How about a generation of faggots?

Posted recently is biochemical brain data showing the diff between
Lesbian and normal women. I expect we'll see the effect in lab results
for men shortly.

And this is just the tip of the ice burg. Besides the diganosed effects
mentioned above, are the declines in reasoning power which has a lot to
do with the declines in academic performance. Dr. Freud noted that
neurotics have an intolerance of ambiguity. Thus we see the dramatic
increase in religious fundamentalism with its binary good/evil view of
the world which is in reality too complex for them to cope with. We see
lots of posts by people who cant follow simple logic, who resort to ad
hominum when their rants are challenged.

So while society *would* benefit from more organic production, it wont
because of the insane and inept leadership. At best, all you can do is
get the **** outta Dodge to some rural community which still raises
their kids on home gardens with little access to junkfood. There you
will see the school performance is well above average, and the drama
level among adults well below average.

Most of the small towns now have DSL, so lots of professionals are
moving in and telecommuting. This is driving up the local economy in
towns that still have low real estate prices. too far from any metro
area for traffic and commuters. With no contamination of the ground
water from mining. No lead, mercury, or industrial pollutants upwind.
No agribusiness spraying organophosphates in the air that drifts into
town. West of the Mississippi to avoid acid rain.

Lots of family farms in the area results in towns that have lots of
healthy vegetable stands rather than fast food outlets.

 

[Day Brown]

Lowering fuel consumption is vital to making the economy
sustainable. A good way to use less fuel would be to have
suburbanites move back in to the cities, so they wouldn't
have to drive so much.
The inner city poor would have to be relocated to make room.
First, we would have to legalize drugs to take away the black
market jobs. Then, we would need to offer them jobs and
housing on farms and factories outside the cities. That way,
more food and goods could be produced locally, for additional
fuel savings.
But if the population keeps increasing, all bets are off. No,
we have to freeze, and eventually decrease the population, too.
A good starting point would be to stop suppressing influenza.
To those who would object, I point out that we're living much
better today than even royalty did centuries ago. There should
be no complaints about having limits to longevity. There are
other creatures and future generations to think about here too.
Sustainability is all about justice, not "just us."

Good points, but I dont see the democratic process implementing.
I see another option in my neck of Ozark woods, similar to what Jared
Dimond noted in his Bitterroot Valley of Montana. That is the rich are
moving in and putting up starter castles. As Diamond noted, this is
bringing in lots more money into the local economy than the traditional
cattle business ever did.

We may not like the rich, but *they* dont like their trout streams
damaged with agribusiness pollution or clearcuts. Their taxes support
better schools. Their investments may pollute and exploit other places,
but I cant stop that, only benefit from the trickle down as they hire
constuction workers, have the roads improved, and support healthier food
sources like gourmet cafes and organic produce and food stores. Leslie
AR, for instance, dont have any fast food outlets, but it *does* have an
organic brick oven bakery. The Hoi Poloi antique stores and whatnot dont
pollute, but do create jobs and offer entrepreneurial opportunity.

The worse the cities get, the more the rich move out here. The pastures
they create so they can play cowboy with real horses- can be quickly
converted to grow crops on land that hasnt been heavily dosed with
petrochemicals. The rich created income opportunities for the rest of us
now, and if the proverbial schitt hits the fan, provide the rich targets
that will keep the thugs busy while the rest of us work out a mutual
defense militia to deal with it after the gangs get done looting.

 

[Day Brown]

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch 2002 human nutr.pdf

Kharma being what it is, Robert prolly wont see this. But thanx anyway.
Altho, I hate .pdf; an html link would be gonzo easier to deal with.

The other thing to consider is that while I am not a gourmet, I know
those who are, who tell me that they *can* taste the diff in organic
produce. But even so, I know from personal experience, that my own straw
berries taste gonzo better than what's for sale at Safeway. Granted that
they are smaller, but a quart is still a quart.

Then too, there are changes in the palette. 40 years ago, I had a friend
who was a biochemist for Pillsbury. She would *not* eat what came in a
Pillsbury box. I myself used to work summers in the canning factories in
the Valley of the Jolly Green Giant, and you do *not* want to know what
gets into a can of corn. My family grew a lot of their corn, but nobody
eats it. I also quit buying Wonder bread, aware that it wasnt at all
like what I ate down home on the farm.

Corporations were setup to avoid the moral reponsiblity for what gets
done by the people doing it. The family farmer is different; if his kids
eat it, I know my kids can. I'm not some kind of enviro idealist; some
hog waste or chicken litter on a field, mixed in with crop residue and
other onsite farm sources is going to biodegrade to safe levels the next
year for a healthy crop. All I do is look at the dirt; if there's earth
worms in it, I dont worry about the plants that grow in it.

100% organic may not be economically feasible, but we can do better by
people and their kids in an economically sustainable way.

 

[Mary Fisher]

The message <Sa5bg.25537$fV1.883@edtnps82>


You are making a little joke, aren't you ? You don't really believe
that there is something wrong with sardines, crabs and mussels, do you
? You are going to tell me next that you have never eaten eel,
octopus, squid or cuttlefish.

I think eel's over-rated. I've never eated the three others. Can you smoke
them?

Mary

 

[Mary Fisher]

Ayay,then you don't know what you're missing.Now,call me weirdo or ,but I
noticed that topics about food,recipes and such amass to 30% of all the
conversation between me and my best buddy.Women go and watch Oprah or
something,we sit on the sunny porch,drinking wine,commenting food and
simply enjoying the moment.I certainly don't think of anything that comes
from sea as a "creature".If I did I would have problem killing it.When I
think creature I think deer or wild boar or bunny.

You mean you 'd have a problem eating venison, boar or rabbit?

Or that you're too squeamish to kill them so others have to do it for you?

Mary

 

[Mary Fisher]

Quite. Farming methods are dictated by the consumer who wants food for
as little money as possible, never mind the quality. This is caused by
the supermarkets' massive buying power.

Truck farms have dissappeared in the UK as the supermarkets

Not all supermarkets, Stubbsy, and not all of us shop at supermarkets. There
are still some of us who believe that food is the last thing to economise on
and want the best.

Meanwhile we are flying in flowers and out of season vegetables from
places like Chile and Kenya.

It's a disgrace. But, like battery farming, customers agree that it's a
disgrace.

Yet still buy the stuff :-(

Mary

 

[Mary Fisher]

Microwave ovens were invented in the 50s, but they weren't adopted until
the '80s, because it took that long for all the myths to be replaced by
fact.
Evidence?

Myths, lies and disinfomation seem to spread like wildfire, but the truth
seems to move slower than molasses in January.

A century ago, most people rejected the new ice cubes that were made with
electricity. They believed they would make the milk go bad and make men
sterile if they had them in the house.
Evidence?

They preferred instead to pay more for ice cut from the lakes and rivers
in the winter, which were the sewers of the time, rife with disease.
Nowadays, I doubt the staunchest enviromental zealot would give a thought
to using ice cubes made with electricity.

Ice cubes aren't necessary, I don't use them.

Every time I hear the non-science or the pseudoscience surrounding organic
food production, I think of the ice cubes. People who choose the myths
over the facts for their own gratification are often revealed as fools who
are eventually proven wrong.

And what you believe aren't myths, of course ...

 

[Mary Fisher]

The message <[email protected]>


I would agree, but there is a great difference in taste between
varieties, however grown.


In my neck of the woods, where the light land is very deficient in
boron, the element is added to artificial fertilisers when one is
growing Swede turnips. Without the addition of boron the turnips grow
hollow and deformed. Swede turnips are food for everything here and an
important agricultural crop.

How would the organic boys introduce boron into the light land every
year?, which land leaches quickly: boron is a chemical but it is not a
poison, so what is wrong with putting it into land that lacks it ?

Nothing - but why grow turnips (swedes?) on land which doesn't do it very
well?

Mary