"sherwindu" wrote in message
...


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.

indeed, exploitation is nicely tied up in the organic debate isn't it.
Consumerism throws around the terms organic and 'green' and sustainable very
loosely. We get marketed at, we get sold to. A very sophisticated marketing
ploy being build around 'green' consumerism. The other side of the organic
term I see is overcoming exploitation, of our environment and even
developing countries. Fair trade is very often tied up in the notion of
organic. The term organic them by extension includes fair prices and fair
treatment as well as fair usage of resources. The rise of organics in many
way is tied up in sustainability/permaculture & social justice, not just
whether chemicals are used or not. It is not only how food is grown but how
resources are used/valued & how people are used/valued. I personally do not
attach much to the term 'organic' unless I know about resource usage &
social justice matters. That is, being told something is organic holds no
great appeal unless I know what part of a wider whole it represents.

rob