"Ivan McDonagh" wrote in message

....snip...
Mr Hopkins emphasises to a very great extent the need for large amounts
of organic matter in the soil but is also convincing in his argument
that the amounts of humus that are required to provide sufficient
nutrients for the high density planting that both home and commercial
growers favour is difficult for the home grower and expensive to the
point of impossibility in the case of the commercial grower to obtain.

I wonder if anyone else has read this book and can comment on the
validity of the arguments put forward by Mr Hopkins.



I haven't read the book but I adopt the philosophy of "ideology grows no
potatoes"

By all means take the long view and care for the soil, air and water, and
animals and ourselves. Let's do this using the best information at hand.
Accept that the resources of the earth are limited and need to be managed
carefully.

There is very good evidence that maintaining organic matter in the soil is
important, that broadacre monoculture using synthetics has drawbacks and for
many other ideas espoused by organic grower.

Consider the converse too: I recently listened to a great heap of claptrap
about why "natural" pyrethrins should be used to kill insects instead of
synthetic. These people were discussing the issue most seriously.

If you are going to kill insects then be aware of the consequences of
killing them and make a good decision whether it is worth it or not. Don't
waste time on the ideological question of whether the poison came out of a
test tube; it's still poison. It is more useful to debate how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin.

It would be similarly stupid to think that you can get sustainable good
results with only "chemical" fertilisers and just as stupid to never use
them under any conditions.


David