Sustainable Agriculture.

[Mary Fisher]

Be obtuse if you wish.

It's obtuse to say that he lives on the same Earth as you and me?

He lives in a world of privilege where he does
not do the most simple things that ordinary people do. By ordinary, I
mean practically everyone except Prince Charles.

You think you're ordinary?

Ok. He does not acknowledge people like Frank Lloyd Wright or Le
Corbusier, or the Bauhaus movement in Germany pre-war. Instead, he
wishes that architects continue to design houses and public buildings
after Palladio. He seems quite happy with Georgian, Queen Anne,
Tudor, even stuff as modern as Regency. Baroque is ok by him as well.

But Art Nouveau, Art Deco, or anything after 1900 he views with
suspicion.

You seem to have strayed from sustainable agriculture ...

That sort of attitude denies the basic human instinct of going forwards.
He wants time to stand still in a romantic England of his imagination
which is a strange mix of past architectural styles brough back to life
in a strange amalgam now. Now... With Pondbury he has built a small
town that pretends to be the culmination of centuries of organic
construction. It is not. It was built in short order to look like it
was old. How pseud, how silly a thing to attempt to do !
How very Prince of Wales. And he desires to be applauded for it.

How do you know what he wants and desires?

Whenever I think of the Prince of Wales I see him wandering around
naked.

LOL! That says quite a lot about you, far more than about him

We have a convention with our constitutional monarchy that they keep out
of government affairs. He has a record of persistent letter-writing to
government ministers, as though anyone is interested in his opinion and
what he has to say.

Some time ago you were saying that he does nothing ...

Yes, yes. It was obviously a photograph taken in Poland where that
practice does not exist, and has never. The photograph was taken on
one of his organic farms, I assure you.

I have your word for that. I have your word that the men weren't looking for
a lost fiver (a suggestion from one of my dinner guests last night, when (I
apologise on their behalf) there was a lot of hilarity about your views.

Yes, of course it is opinion. However it is an opinion that is shared
by many people apart from myself, and who like me regard The Prince of
Wales and his opinions as an archaic sad joke.

But not everyone shares that opinion, what's more other people's opinions
are just as valid as yours.

Over and out.

Mary

 

[Anthony Matonak]

Mary Fisher wrote:
....

Stubbsy, read what I say, don't put your own interpretations on it. I said,
using capital letters, that we don't NEED to eat as many eggs as that.

Want and need are very different.

....
When you get right down to it, we don't NEED to eat any eggs at all.
In fact, we don't NEED to eat any kind of animal products from meat
to milk. We also don't need to eat a lot of the fruits, vegetables,
grains and other produce found in most markets.

Are you suggesting that because we don't need it that we shouldn't
have it?

Anthony

 

[Mary Fisher]

We in the United States have the cheapest, safest, most
nutritious, and most secure food supply in the entire
history of the world,

Is that cause or effect ...

 

[mike wilcox]

Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?

Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.

Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

I believe you have answered your own question with:

"Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak".

1. The soil is depleted because it is not allowed to go fallow long
enough to recover.

2. Organisims that are responsible for the regeneration of the soil
cannot live in soils full of pesticides and herbicides.

3. Ferilizers are used to fill this gap, it's like claiming you can eat
french fries with cheeseburgers everyday because you can just pop
handfuls of vitimin pills to make up the difference.

Better yet use some common sense, does it seem safe to you eating food
from a field that can't even grow weeds? We have fields here that were
last farmed for corn three years ago, the farms sold to developers,
After all this time they only have spotty regrow of any plant material,
they look like those nuclear test zones where nothing grows.

 

[Robert Sturgeon]

Petrochemicals are syptomatic of the system, but not the direct cause.

Continued cropping of the kind of shallow rooted plants that produce the
highest profit strips the trace minerals from the top soil over time.

Are you suggesting that a more modern variety of a given
crop has a shallower root system than a less modern variety
of the same crop?

As
I have already said, agribusiness adds Nitrogen, Phoshorus, & Potash so
as to maintain the higest tonnage/acre without regard to the nutritional
value of the crop, which they dont get paid for.

I'd still like to see that unbiased research showing that
"organic" produce has more nutritional value than
conventionally grown produce.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and remember how we usta grow alfalfa
every 3rd or 4th year, partly as fodder, but also because farmers knew
how it improved the condition of the top soil. Since then studies have
shown that crops like alfalfa, which are not immediately profitable,

Alfalfa is quite profitable. Where did you get the idea
that it isn't?

do
however had deep roots that draw up micro-nutrients and trace minerals
from deep in the subsoil.

But whatever you may think, health professionals have realized that some
trace minerals like zinc, copper, and iron are essential for proper
mental development, and *they* will pay much more for food which is
grown in soil that has them. Thus the sales of greensand and other such
sources of trace minerals to organic farmers.

If they really believed that, and were rational, they'd take
a One-A-Day for a few cents instead of paying extra for
"organic" produce -- which doesn't have any more nutritional
value anyway.

It is not a specific crop, altho some like corn are 'heavy feeders', but
the *continuous* harvest year after year from such crops that maximize
the profits near term, but ignore the long term effects like this. We
have an example of the long term results of doing it right.

No, we have no such results.

(rest of non-sequitors, nonsense, and unsupported claims,
snipped)

 

[Jim Baber]

Jim wrote

Although I don't mind being called gourmand, I can not say for certain
that I have above average sense of taste.

I really think I would object to be called a gourmond, gourmet would be
OK. The word gourmand is derived from the french `gourmand`, greedy.
Typical accepted usage is:
A gourmet is one who has discriminating taste in food and wine.
A glutton signifies one who simply eats to excess, without care to
the quality of the food eaten.
A gourmand is one who enjoys good food, in great quantities. Sort of
like a greedy gluttonous gourmet.

I think food is in so many ways much more than just a source of
energy.It can be a happening, excuse for gathering those you are fond
of,a ritual,something you can look forward(tomorrow we are having
stuffed squids on grill) etc.Can you imagine holidays and family
get-togethers without a delicious meal?Good meal can turn a bad day
into livable one.Whenever I am out of home and depend on someone else
to prepare me the food (camps,hotels,ships,Army),the very first thing
I do is try to make an acquaintance with a cook.It can be a real
blessing plus I get one more person to talk with.

All this ramblings above sums to two things:
I *am* keen on good food.
I *don't* have uber sense of taste.
snipped

--
Jim Baber
Email [email protected]
1350 W Mesa Ave.
Fresno CA, 93711
(559) 435-9068
(559) 905-2204 (Verizon IN cellphone (to other Verizon IN accounts))
See 10kW grid tied solar system at "http://www.baber.org/solarpanels.jpg"
See solar system production data at "http://www.baber.org/solar_status.htm"

 

[Robert Sturgeon]

I dont characterize the arguments of others. I post the facts as I know
them, and am perfectly willing to be advised of more facts that relate
to the issue at hand.

In this thread you have posted a bunch of pure bullshit.
Your "facts" aren't facts -- they're baseless assertions
made by people with a political motivation to attack modern
agriculture. When unbiased researchers study those
assertions, they consistently debunk them. "Organic"
produce has no more nutritional value than conventionally
grown produce. Conventionally grown produce is not unsafe.
Conventional agriculture does not deplete the soil at any
faster rate than "organic" agriculture. When scientists
without any political axe to grind study these matters,
those are the conclusions they always reach. You have been
conned, taken in, fooled by a socio-political movement.

I grow cotton. I occasionally get flyers from something
called "The Sustainable Cotton Project," or some such thing.
I read the first one and immediately realized what it was,
and that it had nothing whatsoever useful to offer me. Now
I toss them without any consideration whatsoever.

I note that those who dont have any more facts resort to ad hominum and
sarcasm. But I am not here to match wits and repartee; when I limit my
comments to the facts and the logical deductions from them, I more often
see others present other facts for my consideration, for which I am
grateful.

Agriculture, like all other fields, constantly adjusts to new factors
and new opportunities. There are many who have done things the same way
for decades and provide challenges to new ideas. For which I am
grateful. But when I see the sarcasm, I dont see challenges. Those who
resort to unwarranted dismissiveness will provide less competition as
the changes in agriculture or other fields emerge- either slowly as the
price of petrochemicals rise or rapidly as the whole economy tanks from
the ineptitude and corruption we all know is going on.

By 'sustainable', I had in mind an agricultural model that would work
either way- be less reliant on the increasingly costly petrochemicals,
and if TSHTF, still be productive on local resources to be sold into the
local market. We wont be shipping grain to the Mid East for oil.

As anyone who knows anything about modern agriculture can
tell you, if TSHTF and we don't have enough inputs of fuel,
fertilizer, pesticides, modern seeds, etc., agricultural
production will suffer a catastrophic collapse and the
cheap, safe, nutritional, and secure food supply that we
take for granted will disappear. In such an event, the most
important thing we can do, and what we WILL do, is to
recreate as closely as possible the modern farming system,
even if we have less fuel and less other modern inputs than
we have now. For example, if we have a problem getting
diesel fuel, we are NOT going to start using mules for
power. We are going to get the refineries running again.
To think otherwise is to engage in pointless, foolish
atavism. You may do that if it suits you, but I refuse.

 

[Day Brown]

As anyone who knows anything about modern agriculture can
tell you, if TSHTF and we don't have enough inputs of fuel,
fertilizer, pesticides, modern seeds, etc., agricultural
production will suffer a catastrophic collapse and the
cheap, safe, nutritional, and secure food supply that we
take for granted will disappear. In such an event, the most
important thing we can do, and what we WILL do, is to
recreate as closely as possible the modern farming system,
even if we have less fuel and less other modern inputs than
we have now. For example, if we have a problem getting
diesel fuel, we are NOT going to start using mules for
power. We are going to get the refineries running again.
To think otherwise is to engage in pointless, foolish
atavism. You may do that if it suits you, but I refuse.

Do what you like; our dialogue is for the benefit of others. Seems
reasonable, that if you start *now* to reduce the consumption of
petrochemicals, then you'd be in a much better position to maintain
production if TSHTF. If you dont, you could starve before you get it
figured out.

Nor, have I suggested that we go back to draft animals; altho there are
certain instances where that would definately pay. I expect to have
switchgrass seed in my monday mail; I'm not going to grow that much, but
I am going to get acquainted with it so that if I want to ramp up
production next year, I'll have a fucking clue as to what I'm in for.

This fall, I'll harvest it, crush the stems, and ferment the juice; I
expect it'll be a lot like sorghum beer that I've made. I already have a
still that I use to make herbal tinctures, and I'll be able to make
alcohol fuel with it if need be.

You envision a recovery after collapse that I dont expect. After Rome
fell, peasants started using the marble of the aquiducts to build barns
with; they'll cut up the refineries for scrap in the same way. There
wont be anyone around who knows how to run them.

IF TSHTF, the most likely outcome will be a return to independent city
states, each basically dependent on local resources. Lots of areas will
be total chaos and anarchy with genocidal, and then clan, warfare going
on all the time. Those jackasses will be back in the stone age.
Afghanistan is a pretty good example. There wont be any DEA; drugs and
rum will be traded further than anything else. I expect to make rum &
herbal extracts to replace pharmaceuticals.

You do business any way you damn well please. But most farmers now are
in their sixties, and the young men just cant afford to service the debt
to buy you or any other agribusiness outfit out when you want to retire.
Which is why so many old farts are still farming; no buyers except real
estate developers. But organic farming is a way for a young man to break
into the business; he dont need nearly as much land or equipment. And if
the interest rates go up as we all expect, they wont have any other
option; there's not enough profits to pay the mortgage needed to buy out
agribusiness with tractors that cost 100K.

 

[Day Brown]

Are you suggesting that a more modern variety of a given
crop has a shallower root system than a less modern variety
of the same crop?

No; I said that the plants grown on *fallow* land were the ones which
had the roots deep enough. Tree leaves, if raked up and put on the land
would also be a good source- altho I'd worry about the effects of air
pollution in some areas. The deep rooted crops, like alfalfa are not
profitable enough near term, so agribusiness dont grow them.

I'd still like to see that unbiased research showing that
"organic" produce has more nutritional value than
conventionally grown produce.

And you are the only person who gets to decide what "unbiased" is? In
like manner, I know health professionals who have looked into this, and
they have been alarmed at the data from epidemilogical studies. Areas
that have high rates of agribusiness production, crop dusters, etc, have
much *lower* school academic performance. Health professionals
understand the similar molecular structure of organophosphate and
critical nutrients, and are aware of the catylitic effect of even
homeopathic levels of contamination.

Of course, if you have some kids to donate for scientific long term
double blind studies of the effects of agribusiness chemicals, I'm sure
the FDA would be interested; They could never find the subjects for the
kind of study we would like to see.

Alfalfa is quite profitable. Where did you get the idea
that it isn't?

Depends on where you are. Some areas cant grow it well, and make much
more money off other crops. Lespedeza is favored in my neck of Ozark
woods; more heat tolerant. But now that the price of fuel has risen so
sharply, nobody will be trucking in alfalfa, and horses have become
somewhat of a glut on the market because of all the hobby farmers.

If they really believed that, and were rational, they'd take
a One-A-Day for a few cents instead of paying extra for
"organic" produce -- which doesn't have any more nutritional
value anyway.

Many do take supplements; you see them for sale in all the health food
stores. And there is growing debate on whether it is overkill; however,
the rapid increase in the number of neurotransmitters that have been
identified (it usta be 'settled science' that there were only 7) leads
them to think that no bottle of pills will have all those needed, and
that *evolution* adapted the hominids to a wider diet of *organic* food
that we would do well to return to.

European bone middens of obscure rural villages reveals over 100 wild
plants were in the diet my ancestors ate for 10,000 years. This provided
a much wider variety of micronutrients and trace minerals than is found
in what agribusiness sells to the feed mills.

 

[H. E. Taylor]

Two possibly relevant articles.

2006/05/19: MSN:MC: Wheat Prices Climbing Amid Global Drought
<http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=AP&Date=20060519&ID=4162601>

2006/05/17: IPSPopulation: Global Food Supply Near the Breaking Point
<http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33268>

<fwiw>
-het



--
"Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them
in order to gain public acceptance." -Daniel Davies

Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/

 

[zatoichi]

Jim wrote


I really think I would object to be called a gourmond, gourmet would be
OK. The word gourmand is derived from the french `gourmand`, greedy.
Typical accepted usage is:
A gourmet is one who has discriminating taste in food and wine. A
glutton signifies one who simply eats to excess, without care to the
quality of the food eaten.
A gourmand is one who enjoys good food, in great quantities. Sort of
like a greedy gluttonous gourmet.

Thanks for the info Jim.

Little more info:
-----------------------------
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=gourmand

gourmand

1. A lover of good food.
2. A gluttonous eater.

------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gourmand

A gourmand is a gourmet, or namely an individual who has a discerning
palate, and is a connoisseur of good food.

An older usage of the word is to describe a person given to excess in
the consumption of food and drink, synonymous with "glutton".

In this latter usage, there is a parallel concern among the French
that their word for the appreciation of gourmet cuisine (gourmandise)
is historically included in the French Catholic list of the Seven
Deadly Sins. With the evolution in the meaning of gourmand (and
gourmandise) away from gluttony, towards the appreciation of good
food, French culinary proponents are advocating that the Catholic
Church update the infamous list to refer to "gloutonnerie" rather than
"gourmandis
-----------------------------

Therefore I think I'm more fond of "gourmand".
And it's closer to the truth.
Besides, "gourmand" sounds to me like it was taken from perhaps the
best,and most certainly the richest cuisine in the world.
You guess which one is that

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <[email protected]>

*Exactly*.
But even then,you'd have to be color blind too,not to see the
difference.Plus they have tougher eggshell.

You have never been to a feed compounder's mill and seen the egg colour
chart. You can have what coulour you like. Mostly battery egg producers
go for a pale or middling coulour, as if they selected the righ colour
of a hen that is not contained which can feed as it likes, the consumer
would think the colour exaggerated.

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <mH_bg.75$%[email protected]>

1. The soil is depleted because it is not allowed to go fallow long
enough to recover.

Please explain to me the mechanism whereby soil regains fertility when
left fallow.

2. Organisims that are responsible for the regeneration of the soil
cannot live in soils full of pesticides and herbicides.

What do you mean by regeneration ? Are you trying to assert that the
organisms of which you speak manufacture NPand K, and also manufacture
elements ?

3. Ferilizers are used to fill this gap, it's like claiming you can eat
french fries with cheeseburgers everyday because you can just pop
handfuls of vitimin pills to make up the difference.

You are confused in what you state. If you take fertility out of the
soil in crops and animals one grows on, then you must replace that
fertility somehow or the land will be depleted. Letting it lie fallow
does not do this to any great extent unless one drills nitrogen fixing
lays such as clover, but that only gives a nitrogen fix. Fertiliser of
some sort has to be applied to the land to make up for losses.

Better yet use some common sense, does it seem safe to you eating food
from a field that can't even grow weeds? We have fields here that were
last farmed for corn three years ago, the farms sold to developers,
After all this time they only have spotty regrow of any plant material,
they look like those nuclear test zones where nothing grows.

I can't comment on fields where you live. In the UK if a field goes
into setaside it immediately starts growing a green cover of weeds. I
suspect that the fields you speak of have been sprayed off with
glyphosphate, which kills everything. It is a very safe herbicide.
The fluid it is dissolved in is more toxic than the chemical, which
immediately biodegrades on contact with the soil.

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <[email protected]>

Stubbsy, read what I say, don't put your own interpretations on it. I said,
using capital letters, that we don't NEED to eat as many eggs as that.
Want and need are very different.

You do repeat yourself, don't you ? What you are saying is that it is
alright
for you to have your few chooks which live a happy life, so that you can eat
the eggs that you do not need, but want. On the other hand you are saying
that people who want eggs for breakfast and whose only source of supply is
the supermarket battery egg should not have them for they do not need them.

 

[Gerald L R Stubbs]

The message <[email protected]>

You seem to have strayed from sustainable agriculture ...

It is all part of his view of the world. He is on record as regretting
the loss of the
British Empire, when most people are apologising for it. Being the son
of a monarch it must be irritating that he cannot flounce around a third
of the world and have people fall at his feet wherever he goes. During
the hand-over of Hong Kong he was outrageously rude to the Chinese. He
is a total anachronism in the age in which we live.

How do you know what he wants and desires?

For heaven's sakes, Mary ! He is getting up on his back legs at every
opportunity that presents itself or which he can create and bores everyone
rigid with his views, what he would like to see, how he would like
every one
to behave...

LOL! That says quite a lot about you, far more than about him

Naughty, you snipped the bit that explains why is see him naked. The
Emperor without clothes.

Some time ago you were saying that he does nothing ...

I will correct that. He bores everyone to death with his archaic views.

I have your word for that. I have your word that the men weren't
looking for
a lost fiver (a suggestion from one of my dinner guests last night, when (I
apologise on their behalf) there was a lot of hilarity about your views.

Don't you have more interesting things to discuss with friends than what
goes on in newsgroups you suscribe to ? If they thought my views hilarious
they must be apologist for the usless twerp that is the Prince of Wales.

But not everyone shares that opinion, what's more other people's opinions
are just as valid as yours.

You also state the obvious. However, I do not see why the opinions of
a man who is fairly uneducated should be more important than the views
of the professional architectural establisment, for example, or why
someone who supplies a niche market with food should criticize the much
larger body of farmers who feed the population, and not just a few
middle-class clients who can afford his over-priced produce.

Over and out.

You have run out of arguments ?

 

[mike wilcox]

The message <mH_bg.75$%[email protected]>



Please explain to me the mechanism whereby soil regains fertility when
left fallow.

Grass, weeds, plants that grow in the place of crops die off and
compost. That's why the Canadian prairie had some of the richest soil in
the world, 10,000 years of compost and animal droppings

What do you mean by regeneration ? Are you trying to assert that the
organisms of which you speak manufacture NPand K, and also manufacture
elements ?

Bugs & bacteria breakdown dead plant material and soil compounds.

You are confused in what you state. If you take fertility out of the
soil in crops and animals one grows on, then you must replace that
fertility somehow or the land will be depleted. Letting it lie fallow
does not do this to any great extent unless one drills nitrogen fixing
lays such as clover, but that only gives a nitrogen fix. Fertiliser of
some sort has to be applied to the land to make up for losses.

What do you think we have been talking about in this thread? Nobody said
don't put anything back in, just the way we are doing it is strip mining
the soil.

I can't comment on fields where you live. In the UK if a field goes
into setaside it immediately starts growing a green cover of weeds. I
suspect that the fields you speak of have been sprayed off with
glyphosphate, which kills everything. It is a very safe herbicide.
The fluid it is dissolved in is more toxic than the chemical, which
immediately biodegrades on contact with the soil.

I'm not sure what they use, but the soil is dusty and dead looking, no
bugs,birds and only spotty growth. Nothing like the black soil in my
gardens.

 

[Gunner]

I believe you have answered your own question with:

"Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak".

1. The soil is depleted because it is not allowed to go fallow long
enough to recover.

2. Organisims that are responsible for the regeneration of the soil
cannot live in soils full of pesticides and herbicides.

3. Ferilizers are used to fill this gap, it's like claiming you can eat
french fries with cheeseburgers everyday because you can just pop
handfuls of vitimin pills to make up the difference.

Better yet use some common sense, does it seem safe to you eating food
from a field that can't even grow weeds? We have fields here that were
last farmed for corn three years ago, the farms sold to developers,
After all this time they only have spotty regrow of any plant material,
they look like those nuclear test zones where nothing grows.

Oddly enough..I note a goal post change on your part. Wasnt it you
that spewed that the herbacides were removing all the trace elements?

Now you blather on about over planting and so forth like you think you
know something on the subject. Which btw..you dont.

I live in one of the heaviest farmed areas in the world. Californias
Central Valley. I see herbacides being applied with great regularity,
as well as crop rotation being employed. No shortage of food being
grown here, as well as other cash crops such as cotton, which Mr.
Sturgeon grows in some quantity.

Come back after you have either gotten a degree in farming, or have
spent a few days with your local USDA guy.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

 

[Robert Sturgeon]

No; I said that the plants grown on *fallow* land were the ones which
had the roots deep enough.

You keep coming up with these bizarre claims. There is
nothing about fallow ground which would cause a plant to
have deeper roots.

Tree leaves, if raked up and put on the land
would also be a good source- altho I'd worry about the effects of air
pollution in some areas. The deep rooted crops, like alfalfa are not
profitable enough near term, so agribusiness dont grow them.

What crazy nonsense. California is both heavily into
agribusiness AND alfalfa. Alfalfa is a profitable crop,
which is why it's so commonly grown here. Farm corporations
(the only difference between most farm corporations and
other forms of farm operation ownership is that -- the form
of ownership -- some large operations are not run by
corporations, and some quite small ones, like mine, are)
grow a lot of alfalfa. It is the main feed for dairies
here, and it both brings good prices and is beneficial to
the soil. As for deep-rooted crops, just how deep do you
think an almond tree's roots go? There are a LOT of almond
trees nowadays in California -- not because they have deep
roots, but because they are profitable.

And you are the only person who gets to decide what "unbiased" is?

I'll take the word of the major research universities, the
USDA, any source with some credibility -- not some "health
food" activist.

In
like manner, I know health professionals who have looked into this, and
they have been alarmed at the data from epidemilogical studies. Areas
that have high rates of agribusiness production, crop dusters, etc, have
much *lower* school academic performance. Health professionals
understand the similar molecular structure of organophosphate and
critical nutrients, and are aware of the catylitic effect of even
homeopathic levels of contamination.

Homeopathic? Do you know what that means? From
wikipedia.org:

"Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from
the Greek words hómoios (similar) and páthos (suffering), is
a system of alternative medicine that treats "like with
like", using remedies that it is claimed would, in healthy
individuals, produce similar symptoms to those it would
treat in an ill patient. Practitioners believe that the
potency of a remedy can be increased by systematically
diluting the dosage, along with succussion or shaking, to a
point where the original ingredient is not present."

I guess I'm not too surprised that you would give any
credibility to such a theory of medicine.

Of course, if you have some kids to donate for scientific long term
double blind studies of the effects of agribusiness chemicals, I'm sure
the FDA would be interested; They could never find the subjects for the
kind of study we would like to see.

You don't think the FDA studies this stuff???

Depends on where you are. Some areas cant grow it well, and make much
more money off other crops.

But you expect them to grow alfalfa anyway, and take a loss?

Lespedeza is favored in my neck of Ozark
woods; more heat tolerant. But now that the price of fuel has risen so
sharply, nobody will be trucking in alfalfa, and horses have become
somewhat of a glut on the market because of all the hobby farmers.

Many do take supplements; you see them for sale in all the health food
stores. And there is growing debate on whether it is overkill; however,
the rapid increase in the number of neurotransmitters that have been
identified (it usta be 'settled science' that there were only 7) leads
them to think that no bottle of pills will have all those needed, and
that *evolution* adapted the hominids to a wider diet of *organic* food
that we would do well to return to.

European bone middens of obscure rural villages reveals over 100 wild
plants were in the diet my ancestors ate for 10,000 years. This provided
a much wider variety of micronutrients and trace minerals than is found
in what agribusiness sells to the feed mills.

You are wandering all around on this thread. You say we're
suffering from a lack of micro nutrients in our food. And
you say using "sustainable" agriculture, or "organic"
agriculture, would put more micro nutrients back into our
food. How? By putting manure on the ground? Where do you
suppose that manure would come from? It would come from
animals fed crops grown on the same hopelessly depleted
soils you're worried about. So where would the micro
nutrients come from? Magic? No, if there really is a lack
of micro nutrients in the food, and we need to add more
trace minerals to the soil, that will certainly not come
from "sustainable" or "organic" farming methods, since
neither of them call for any such soil additives. Back to
nature, and all that, you know...

If there develops a market for produce with more micro
nutrients, and farmers get paid more for such produce,
they'll be happy to make those soil amendments. There is no
market for that now -- probably because there really is no
such lack, and maybe because people understand that a
One-A-Day will take care of any such problem if it does
exist, at a far lower cost and with much more certainty than
they'd get from seeking out produce that's been tested for
levels of micro nutrients -- which in itself would add to
the cost of produce.

 

[Robert Sturgeon]

Seems reasonable, that if you start *now* to reduce the consumption of
petrochemicals, then you'd be in a much better position to maintain
production if TSHTF. If you dont, you could starve before you get it
figured out.

No, if we reduce inputs now, we will have a reduction in
farm production now. I know some people who reduced their
inputs. They all have found work elsewhere.

Nor, have I suggested that we go back to draft animals; altho there are
certain instances where that would definately pay.

Oh, brother...

(rest snipped)

 

[Day Brown]

It's all so easy, isn't it?

There's lotsa money being made by the petroleum industry paying media to
convince farmers they cant do it. The givernment would also have a
helluva time controlling ethanol so it dont get used as booze. They want
the taxes, and dont care what you havta pay for gasoline.

Let me call my furnace man and my insurance agent and see what they
say. By the way, is alcohol flamable?

yes; and so is the gas that feeds the furnace; that's why they feed it
in a steel pipe. You dont havta condense it in the house; and you are
right, it is flammable. Engines run real well on it.

Everyone making fule on their home furnace? Hi!

Does everyone have the land to grow the crops to ferment for alcohol?

I'm reminded of China trying to get their iron production up. Turned
everyone into backyard iron workers, which precipitated mass
starvation.

Yeh, it's not rocket science.

China's problem was driven from the *top down*. Farm alcohol production
is competition to the top down petroleum industry from the bottom up. If
a farmer is organized enough to select the right crop for his land and
ecosystem, and can figure out how to setup the fermentation tanks, he's
smart enough to setup a still to produce alcohol production that runs
100 gallons/acre or more.