In article ,
songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:

i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.

http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...FSTbookletFINA
L.pdf

I'm sure that Monsanto's response will be bigger, glossier, and praise
GM products to the heavens. Supporters of the Guardians Of Privilege
will see this as tampering with the free market. So, why are you
spitting into the wind, bird? ;O)


because it blows
big baby chunks
it blows


ok, having read through the report i was struck by
two things. as pictures are worth a thousand words.
the picture of the conventional soil next to the
organic soil and the other picture of the organic
field next to the conventional field during a time of
drought.

the only unfortunate thing in the report was the
misuse of the word prostrate it should have been
spelled prostate.


songbird

The "Green Revolution" is more than a delivery system for commodified,
industrial toxin$, and patented seeds (be they GMO, or hybrid). The
"Green Revolution" was the breeding of improved varieties, by NGOs,
combined with the expanded use of fertilizers, irrigation, and other
chemical inputs ( insecticides). Now one of the three legs of the
"Green Revolution" (Agricultural Chemicals) threatens to undo the
benefits of the other two.

The first leg of the "Green Revolution" was the development of high
yielding varieties of rice, wheat, sorghum, millet, maize, cassava, and
beans. This was done without genetic engineering, and can still be done,
but it requires biodiversity to supply unique traits.

The second leg of the "Green Revolution" is irrigation, and having the
clean water to make it feasible. The easily accessed water is drying up,
and AgChemicals are responsible for the lack of organic matter in the
soil which can hold moisture. Soil with more organic material also
absorbs water more easily, resulting in less erosion of topsoil. At the
same time CAFOs are hard pressed to get rid of all the nitrogen
compounds that they produce. Putting the animals on the land would also
reduce the need for giving them antibiotics (recombinant bovine growth
hormone (rBGH), a synthetic cow hormone that spurs milk production when
injected into dairy cows is a different problem). The other alternative
is to double crop, or crop rotation with soybeans, which will add
organic nitrogen to the soil.

Our problems seem to come from the third leg of the "Green Revolution".
the chemical inputs. At first chemical fertilizers seemed amazing,
because they allowed farmers to skip crop rotation, or cover crops, but
the benefit is now seen as illusionary. Chemical fertilizers have
allowed the organic, water trapping content of the soil to fall.
Moreover, they have poisoned our drinking water, and destroyed large
swaths of rich fishing areas at the mouths of rivers, called "dead
zones".

Also, we are chronically exposed to low levels of industrial pesticides.
As the FST pdf pointed out, a diverse crop rotation is the primary line
of defense against pests.

Globalization of food, makes food supply dependent on politics, and
business cycles. If you grow broccoli for the world market, and the
demand drops, it will be impossible to get your investment back. Small
farms, that sell quality produce to the local area can charge more, pay
a decent wage, and be sustainable.

Food for thought.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-food-idUKTRE7272FN20110308

In any event, there are still the Mongongo nuts.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg