Charlie wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:58:18 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:

This article implies that a prestigious university is backing all these claims.
I think
it is the opinion of a certain group of researchers at U of M, and that there
may be
an equal number of them who disagree with these findings.

Assuming that the amount of organic fertilizer is equaivalent to the chemical
fertilizers,
there is no reason to believe that this is adequate to feed the crops. There
are issues
as to the availability of such organic fertilizers and the possible difficulties
of applying
them. This article does not go into enough detail for anyone to draw
conclusions.

The more difficult aspect of organic farming is fighting the insects and
fungus. In certain parts of the world like Africa, insects (usually locusts)
can wipe out entire
crops. I'm not sure organic materials can prevent or minimize such attacks.
Again,
these researchers are not providing enough information about their studies.

Sherwin D.

debnchas wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0711134523.htm

Oh fer cryin' out loud Sherwin. Do you *ever* bother to read beyond a
label or a press release? Do you always trust "them"?

The article didn't present hard science.....it was a friggin' overview.
It is supposed that maybe you would do a little thought and research on
your own, youngster.

BIlly offered you an abstract..did you request it? Did you read it?
Have you read any of John Jeavon's work that states and supports the
same? Heard of Alan Chadwick? Many others. People get tired of
doing your homework.

Have you given consideration to peak oil and the implications upon food
production? You think taking cropland out of food production to fiil
your fuel tank is helping the situation? What is going to fuel the
equipment that produces this food? Where are the organophospates and
fertilizers and poisons going to come from, necessary to keep our
present system of food production intact and continually expanding to
feed an evergrowing population?

You are really quick to jump on and denigrate the organic food
movement. Why is this? I am curious, young man. Why?

Who's your Daddy?

Charlie

First of all, you assume I am a youngster because I do not resort to the garbage
language and insults you and your friend Billy use. I happen to be a senior who
has been gardening for over 20 years.

I did check out that article from U. of M., and others too. I did not find it
any more
enlightening. I am not against the organic idea. I practice it whenever I can
in my
garden and home orchard. However, I have tried to go pure organic and found that

I was losing too much fruit. I now use a mix of organic and chemicals to achieve
the
results I am looking for. The problem with the organic movement is summed up in

in one word, exploitation. People are using the 'organic' label to squeeze money
out
of the consumer. The benefits of organic food are overexagerated. I don't even
trust
the food labeled organic to be exactly that. I am for the intelligent use of
chemicals.
At least the chemicals are regulated in this country. There are no regulations
on organic
produced food from the government. Again, I don't trust it. These studies are
again
an effort of acamdemicians to justisfy their salaries and grants. They promise
the world,
but are way short on the practicalities.

Sherwin