songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
They may conceivable be right but I don't see this type of
presentation making too many converts. The faithful will of course
love it but that won't influence those who ought to take notice;
farmers, business leaders and legislators. Which is all rather sad.

well like i said, the two pictures were worth
thousands of words.

The comparison pics show something was different. But what exactly? They
don't say. Soil building is admirable but just because you can build soil
doesn't mean all the other requirements of a sustainable food production
system are met. Unless, like them, you carefully define sustainability in
terms of soil building.

I have the same problem with a local community-based horticultural trial.
They are getting good results but so far have not produced enough analysis
to show what the full costs are. If you put enough inputs (including hard
work) into a trial you can do wonders in almost any situation but can you do
it efficiently, can you keep it going on a large scale if you have to pay
full price for your labour, manures etc and can you compete, or at least get
close to it, regarding selling price with conventional systems?


i agree with you though, that i'd like to see
the information behind the Rodale study.


I will have a look at the material Billy was sent.

D