"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

Billy Rose wrote:

In article . com,
James wrote:

On Jul 14, 3:41 pm, Billy Rose wrote:
In article om,

Frank wrote:

As usual, Sherwin fails to engages brain (?) before opening mouth.
Sherwin didn't you ever write a class paper before? On Jul 14, 1:58 am,
sherwindu wrote:
This article implies that a prestigious university is backing all these
claims.

No imprimatur was implied to me,sherwindu. It could just as easily said,
"Students, Faculty members, ect., from the University of Michigan found
. . . ". 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.

Well, maybe a dissenting voice will be heard from,sherwindu. In the mean
time, what premise, what logic, what empirical studies lead you to the
conclusion that the study is flawed, divine revelation again sherwindu?
Maybe it is flawed, but you declaring it by fiat, ain't gonna make it
so. More pointedly, these ladies have PhDs, sherwindu. Since you lack
proof, or logic, what credentials do you bring to lend credibility to
your assertions? Hmmm. Lord, it would be wonderful if you could make
your knowledge accessible to us sherwindu, in a rational format.

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.

What leap of faith leads you to this conclusion? A burning bush told you
so? 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.

Evidently, anyone but you sherwindu, anyone but you. You have drawn a
bunch of conclusions. As usual, you are right and everybody else is
wrong. Carrying the mantel of such wisdom must be such a burden to you
but as far as applying the fertilizers sherwindu, they could be applied
the same as the regular crops in the fall and then disced over in the
spring.



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.

Another PhD. (Michael Pollan) pointed out in Omnivore's Dilemma, that
insects are attracted to the concentration of nitrogen in the leaves of
plants fed by chemical fertilizers.

You really should read a little more, Sherwim.

Again,
these researchers are not providing enough information about their
studies.

Sherwindu, It's a freakin' story that was adapted from a news release
issued by University of Michigan.



Sherwin D.

I agree. Not nearly enough information to come to this conclusion.
Frank

Frank, you do realize that although sherwindu "occasionally" gets his
facts right, he is socially challenged. He will slam anyone to see his
name in print.

Lastly, if anyone wants an abstract of the paper, just drop me a line at
the above address, subject: Organic Farming pdf, and I'll email a copy
to you.
--
Billyhttp://angryarab.blogspot.com/

PhD's make good researchers but not necessarily good farmers. Bear in
mind that it was PhD's that started this industrial farming business.
To the best of my information, it was Fritz Haber who came up with the
way to create nitates for Germany's WWI effort. It was American
petrochemical companies after WWII who expanded the process into
fertilizer. Yes, PhDs worked for them. What's your point? The employer
got rich, not the employee.

OTOH Uneducated farmers in China have for centuries been able to feed
her large population using organic methods of night soil and the sweat
of their brows.

Also the study does not address cost of production. Maybe some in the
developed countries can afford to pay 3 or 4 times to eat organic.
Sooner of later there just won't be enough cheap labor to replace
what's done with chemicals, g.m. crops, and modern farming. US would
probably have to import more Mexicans than there are in Mexico to tend
the farms if they were all organic. Organic farms in the west survive
today because there're enough snobs willing to pay for organic. How
would they fare if they had to sell they produce at prices that an
average African can afford?

So poor Chinese (forget the honey pots) can afford organic food but
Africans can't? What kind of farming do you think poor people use? You
think they run out and buy a 50 pound bag of ammonium nitrate when they
garden?

Organic food allows you to reduce your "Body Load" by not adding to it.
It makes the land more fertile. It reduces our dependancy on foreign
oil. Instead of investing a little over a calorie to get one calorie of
food back, you get two calories back for every calorie invested.

Look. Do you just want to **** an moan over something you haven't read
or do you want to read it and make intelligent arguments?

Lastly, if anyone wants a copy of the paper, just drop me a line at
, subject: Organic Farming pdf, and I'll send you a
copy.
the above address, subject: Organic Farming pdf, and I'll email a copy
to you.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

The Chinese may be doing 'organic farming' by using manure instead of chemicals.
However, they use a lot of human manure, which potentially can carry a lot of
harmful pathogens. If I had a choice between human manure and chemicals, I
definitely would take the chemicals.

Sherwin D.

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

On Jul 16, 1:44 am, sherwindu wrote:


The Chinese may be doing 'organic farming' by using manure instead of chemicals.
However, they use a lot of human manure, which potentially can carry a lot of
harmful pathogens. If I had a choice between human manure and chemicals, I
definitely would take the chemicals.

Sherwin D.- Hide quoted text -

Well. Their choices were eat produce grown in shit or starve. Now a
days they've become wealthy enough to use chemicals but there're still
a high percentage of really, really poor dirt farmers who think life
is wonderful if they just don't have one hungry day all year.

On Jul 16, 7:01 am, James wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:44 am, sherwindu wrote:



The Chinese may be doing 'organic farming' by using manure instead of chemicals.
However, they use a lot of human manure, which potentially can carry a lot of
harmful pathogens. If I had a choice between human manure and chemicals, I
definitely would take the chemicals.

Sherwin D.- Hide quoted text -

Well. Their choices were eat produce grown in shit or starve. Now a
days they've become wealthy enough to use chemicals but there're still
a high percentage of really, really poor dirt farmers who think life
is wonderful if they just don't have one hungry day all year.

How true, how true. China was and is still a land of the living
hell. Now, this is what I call a reality check.

On Jul 15, 10:57 pm, "George.com" wrote:
"James" wrote in message

"George.com"

Billy Rose wrote:
Frank wrote:

injudicious snip







OTOH Uneducated farmers in China have for centuries been able to feed
her large population using organic methods of night soil and the sweat
of their brows.

Also the study does not address cost of production. Maybe some in the
developed countries can afford to pay 3 or 4 times to eat organic.
Sooner of later there just won't be enough cheap labor to replace
what's done with chemicals, g.m. crops, and modern farming. US would
probably have to import more Mexicans than there are in Mexico to tend
the farms if they were all organic. Organic farms in the west survive
today because there're enough snobs willing to pay for organic. How
would they fare if they had to sell they produce at prices that an
average African can afford?

for subsistence level/small holding african/asian/american farmers I
imagine
organic principals applied to farming could easily see them right. That
is a
slightly different tack than you are taking however there is ample
evidence
on the net to show organic methods of farming does fine for small
holding in
developing countries. On a massive scale, organic farming has gone a
long
way in Cuba toward feeding the population. Not the whole way mind, the
country still imports much of its food, but a long way. That said, the
country was facing starvation when the soviets left and going organic
was
the most viable option when soviet petroleum & agri chemicals also left.
The
national food structure set up on organic lines does make up a good bulk
of
local requirements.
It's one thing to have evidence that organic methods of farming can
work but another thing for some self appointed know it alls like Bill
and Charlie to suggest that people who disagree with them are
automatically unread. Those 2 argue as if they have seen one article
and are automatically organic experts.

not exactly my point either. Point was there is evidence to show organic
techniques can benefit small holders in developing countries. Maybe not get
them first world incomes but at least feed them and their families and have
surplus left over to make a reasonable income (or even a good income) by
local standards or those of their peers. Their lifestyle may not
dramatically change, and even that statement is filled with subjectiveness
and guesswork, as they still remain substantially smallish farmers but do
appear to have gotten ahead in some respects. The experience of Cuba shows a
substantial contribution to a nations food requirements can be met
organically, there is even room for improvement in the system by the looks
of it. I am not stating this proves anything conclusively, mere that organic
principals can have a significant impact in certain times & places.

A couple of articles I have come across that illustrate certain points

Kenyan organic farmers who export fruit to developed markets. A Mr Kimani
had put his children through school and university on the profits of 3
hectares (there is the issues however of air freighting produce, that is
another argument mind)http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...jectid=1045169...

Urban agriculture in Habana, Cuba. Not perfect by a long way and
productivity improvements can be made. Yet a significant achievement all the
same.http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-85409-201-1...DO_TOPIC.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course given the right circumstances organic farming can work.
However would it work without the "organic snobs" to pay premium
prices? How far would Mr Kimani be if his only market were poor
Africans? How well would he be doing if everyone grew organic and
there is no price premium?

How much of the Cuban suscess is due to organic and how much of it is
due to "volunteer farm labor", existing inferstucture such as running
water?

Will the poor Indian farmer be able to afford using cow dung for
fertiliser instead of for fuel? In the 60's Canadian National
Railroad often transported train loads of manure. Do poor countries
have that much manure to go around? Even if they did, can they afford
the high transportation costs now gas is no longer 25 cents a
gallon?

Here's an article on Isreali organic agriculture.
http://www.organic-israel.org.il/inf...0Israel&id=976

Notice organic is not feeding the masses but upscale Europeans.

Blanket statements that say organic can feed the world is like Dan
Quayle's suggestion of growing Endive.

In article ,
"George.com" wrote:

"James" wrote in message
"George.com"
Billy Rose wrote:
Frank wrote:

injudicious snip

OTOH Uneducated farmers in China have for centuries been able to feed
her large population using organic methods of night soil and the sweat
of their brows.

Also the study does not address cost of production. Maybe some in the
developed countries can afford to pay 3 or 4 times to eat organic.
Sooner of later there just won't be enough cheap labor to replace
what's done with chemicals, g.m. crops, and modern farming. US would
probably have to import more Mexicans than there are in Mexico to tend
the farms if they were all organic. Organic farms in the west survive
today because there're enough snobs willing to pay for organic. How
would they fare if they had to sell they produce at prices that an
average African can afford?

for subsistence level/small holding african/asian/american farmers I
imagine
organic principals applied to farming could easily see them right. That
is a
slightly different tack than you are taking however there is ample
evidence
on the net to show organic methods of farming does fine for small
holding in
developing countries. On a massive scale, organic farming has gone a
long
way in Cuba toward feeding the population. Not the whole way mind, the
country still imports much of its food, but a long way. That said, the
country was facing starvation when the soviets left and going organic
was
the most viable option when soviet petroleum & agri chemicals also left.
The
national food structure set up on organic lines does make up a good bulk
of
local requirements.
It's one thing to have evidence that organic methods of farming can
work but another thing for some self appointed know it alls like Bill
and Charlie to suggest that people who disagree with them are
automatically unread. Those 2 argue as if they have seen one article
and are automatically organic experts.

not exactly my point either. Point was there is evidence to show organic
techniques can benefit small holders in developing countries. Maybe not get
them first world incomes but at least feed them and their families and have
surplus left over to make a reasonable income (or even a good income) by
local standards or those of their peers. Their lifestyle may not
dramatically change, and even that statement is filled with subjectiveness
and guesswork, as they still remain substantially smallish farmers but do
appear to have gotten ahead in some respects. The experience of Cuba shows a
substantial contribution to a nations food requirements can be met
organically, there is even room for improvement in the system by the looks
of it. I am not stating this proves anything conclusively, mere that organic
principals can have a significant impact in certain times & places.

A couple of articles I have come across that illustrate certain points

Kenyan organic farmers who export fruit to developed markets. A Mr Kimani
had put his children through school and university on the profits of 3
hectares (there is the issues however of air freighting produce, that is
another argument mind)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...451695&ref=rss

Urban agriculture in Habana, Cuba. Not perfect by a long way and
productivity improvements can be made. Yet a significant achievement all the
same.
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-85409-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31574-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Good articles George, thank you.

My first reaction is that like the school system, people are trying to
fix everything via one approach, in this case, the designation "organic".
It also makes me wonder if the government really has any role beyond
requiring product information on food. If a local farmers group wants to
attach an easy to identify sticker that addresses several qualities of
the product, that would seem reasonable. I would also like the country
of origin displayed, especially after these product problems with China.
OTOH I would be favorably inclined toward beef from Argentina. At this
stage, I would just like the information so that I can make my own
decisions. Wrinkles in the logic, like tulips from Kenya being more
eco-friendly than those from Belgium is important but at this point I
don't see a need for regulatory in-put beyond information. When I think
of organic, my core concerns are "body burden"
http://www.oztoxics.org/cmwg/body%20burden/load.html , and non-polluting
and sustainable agriculture,
http://www.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph/phil-o...-Intensive%20H
ome%20gardening.pdf , that they reduce petroleum in-puts is a wonderful
bonus.

It isn't just the Central African Farmer who is on the cusp of
bankruptcy. The same can be said for the majority of American farmers as
well http://farm.ewg.org/farm/whatstheplan.php .

As usual, we are being gamed by Washington and their corporate masters.
This ain't gonna change until we have "public campaign financing". In
the mean time it is "we" the sheep who are being farmed, sheared, and
slaughtered.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

In article .com,
James wrote:

Will the poor Indian farmer be able to afford using cow dung for
fertiliser instead of for fuel? In the 60's Canadian National
Railroad often transported train loads of manure. Do poor countries
have that much manure to go around?

Read the article nitwit. They are talking about green manure. If they
need more BS we can send you.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

On Jul 16, 1:10 pm, Billy Rose wrote:
In article .com,

James wrote:
Will the poor Indian farmer be able to afford using cow dung for
fertiliser instead of for fuel? In the 60's Canadian National
Railroad often transported train loads of manure. Do poor countries
have that much manure to go around?

Read the article nitwit. They are talking about green manure. If they
need more BS we can send you.
--
Billyhttp://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Have you stop beating your mother for beer money?

If you actually believe green manure between crops can triple
production than you probably are a proud owner of cold fusion
companies. Yup those cold fusion people had PhD's too.

Those two PhD's in non ag science fields are probably just as smart as
you when it comes to organic farming. They like you have probably
even actually harvested AN tomato.

Why don't you and Charlie show that you can actually use organic to
grow enough just to feed yourselves. You can have all the organic
seeds you can carry but no running water and no gasoline tiller.

You are just an inpotent old fart. Bittered by being rejected by you
mother and every other female in your life.

On Jul 16, 2:15 pm, Charlie wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 05:42:47 -0700, James
wrote:

It's one thing to have evidence that organic methods of farming can
work but another thing for some self appointed know it alls like Bill
and Charlie to suggest that people who disagree with them are
automatically unread. Those 2 argue as if they have seen one article
and are automatically organic experts. What kind of scholar goes
around saying if you didn't read my article you're unread?

They remind me of Chairman Mao who having read about intensive farming
had the whole nation plant everything too densely. Result?
Starvation.

Uhhh......James. What you state is not what Billy said.

BTW, there are people starving in Mexico because the U$ is planting
intensively to corn, and buying much of the world's crop of corn.
Interesting, isn't it?

It goes a bit like this, James.

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that
we are powerful beyond measure.
Your playing small doesn't save the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won't feel
insecure around you.
And as we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others."
~~~Nelson Mandela~~~

There are some of us, who will no longer play small, for your benefit.

There is too much at stake.

Charlie

I doubt Billy appreciates you defend him. He might think you too feel
he's too stupid to defend himself.

On Jul 16, 6:20 pm, Charlie wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:58:11 -0700, James
wrote:





On Jul 16, 2:15 pm, Charlie wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 05:42:47 -0700, James
wrote:

It's one thing to have evidence that organic methods of farming can
work but another thing for some self appointed know it alls like Bill
and Charlie to suggest that people who disagree with them are
automatically unread. Those 2 argue as if they have seen one article
and are automatically organic experts. What kind of scholar goes
around saying if you didn't read my article you're unread?

They remind me of Chairman Mao who having read about intensive farming
had the whole nation plant everything too densely. Result?
Starvation.

Uhhh......James. What you state is not what Billy said.

BTW, there are people starving in Mexico because the U$ is planting
intensively to corn, and buying much of the world's crop of corn.
Interesting, isn't it?

It goes a bit like this, James.

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that
we are powerful beyond measure.
Your playing small doesn't save the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won't feel
insecure around you.
And as we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people
permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others."
~~~Nelson Mandela~~~

There are some of us, who will no longer play small, for your benefit.

There is too much at stake.

Charlie

I doubt Billy appreciates you defend him. He might think you too feel
he's too stupid to defend himself.

Billy certainly doesn't need this pig-ignorant old fart to defend him.

Particularly against the likes of you.

I really doubt you know what Billy thinks. You, like totally, missed
his original clear point that ****ed you off.... dude.

BTW, if you read your own post, to which I replied, you will find that
you mentioned *me* in that post. Perhaps I am replying in "defense" of
myself, ignorant old impotent fart that *I* am.

Peace
Charlie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So are you claiming YOU personally CAN feed yourself using just
organic techniques?

It's not his point that ****ed me off unless you meant his point of
being rude. What point is it that you think ****ed me off? Of course
it's easy to miss a point reading crap from you guys since every one
of your posts includes insults and put downs. You mean you guy
actually have a point remotely related to the thread title? I assumed
you guy just like to be in a farting contest.

Time for you guys to go back to basics and brush up on debating team
rules. You really can't expect people to take you seriously. Even if
you had any gems of wisdom people will probably skip you posts because
the very hi % of shit they have to shift though to get to anything
worthwhile.

In article . com,
James wrote:

On Jul 16, 1:10 pm, Billy Rose wrote:
In article .com,

James wrote:
Will the poor Indian farmer be able to afford using cow dung for
fertiliser instead of for fuel? In the 60's Canadian National
Railroad often transported train loads of manure. Do poor countries
have that much manure to go around?

Read the article nitwit. They are talking about green manure. If they
need more BS we can send you.
--
Billyhttp://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Have you stop beating your mother for beer money?

Oh, sorry James, I thought I heard a dog barking out here. It's you. How
ya doin' boy? How you doin' fella?

If you actually believe green manure between crops can triple
production than you probably are a proud owner of cold fusion
I wish I was. I'd sell that sucker and be out of here for the south of
France quicker than you could say,"Bob's your uncle".
You actually want to talk about the subject thread on its' merits? Well
for the sake of discussion I can produce 2 PhDs that say 3 times as much
and 1 who will tell you that farmers used to get 2 calories out for
every calorie invested as opposed to a calorie out for a little over
every calorie invested with chem ferts. Time marches on boy. Now who do
you got, sayin' what? Oh yeah, don't for get that (japanese was it?)
guy who said he could clone human beans too. I think he was a PhD.
companies. Yup those cold fusion people had PhD's too.
I'd like to think that the next time you get sick, you will avoid anyone
with an alphabet after their name. Just go down to the street corner
(you got a street corner right?) and I'm sure somebody there will be
able to hook you right up.

Those two PhD's in non ag science fields are probably just as smart as
you when it comes to organic farming.
If you had ever gone to school you would know that the ability to
shuffle papers is as important as subject area knowledge. Publish or
perish baby, publish or perish.
They like you have probably even actually harvested AN tomato.
You don't write too good English do you boy?

Why don't you and Charlie show that you can actually use organic to
grow enough just to feed yourselves. You can have all the organic
seeds you can carry but no running water and no gasoline tiller.
Never used no tiller, never will. They do wonders with treadle pumps now
ya know. Treadle pumps and drip irrigation, that's the wave of the
future. I'm a little shy on land. Got any land James? Got any land?

You are just an inpotent old fart. Bittered by being rejected by you
mother and every other female in your life.
Uh, cutting edge sarcasm really works better when you can spell better
than you do James. The word is IMPOTENT and I wouldn't say that. I like
take the old prostate out for a spin on the occasion. On the occasion.

James-
You see I can act just as stupid as you in an "intellectual"
discussion.

Poster-
You're far too modest.
You acted waaaaaay "more stupid".

James-
Thank you. Thank you very much.

I fear your wandering away again James. Becareful out there. Don't run
into anything and hurt yourself.

What can you do? Every village has one. Even virtual villages
apparently.Maybe one of these days James will get a nasty knock to the
head, and let that nice, congenial fellow inside him out.

Naaah.

--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

On Jul 16, 7:43 pm, Charlie wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:14:52 -0700, James
wrote:

So are you claiming YOU personally CAN feed yourself using just
organic techniques?

Yes. Not only myself, but my entire family. And I (anyone) could do
it on much less ground than you can possibly imagine.



It's not his point that ****ed me off unless you meant his point of
being rude. What point is it that you think ****ed me off? Of course
it's easy to miss a point reading crap from you guys since every one
of your posts includes insults and put downs. You mean you guy
actually have a point remotely related to the thread title? I assumed
you guy just like to be in a farting contest.

I didn't feel he was rude.......just matter of fact.

Obviously you do not read "every one" of our posts. Many of them are
quite polite, informative, and, on occasion, humourous.

The thread title was about Organic Farming.......that is what we are
discussing, no? With a side dish of manners.



Time for you guys to go back to basics and brush up on debating team
rules. You really can't expect people to take you seriously. Even if
you had any gems of wisdom people will probably skip you posts because
the very hi % of shit they have to shift though to get to anything
worthwhile.

Whether or not I am taken seriously depends upon one's mindset, and
perhaps one's intent. On issues that matter, I am deadly serious, and
this is one of them.

I never was on a debating team. Our small town school barely had
enough funds for a bathroom, let alone a debate team. That is why I am
just a pig-ignorant old auto-didactic, farting about in the ether of
The Usenet. A friend of mine referred me to Chaos Theory....butterfly
wings and all that......check it out. We do what we must.

If folks skip my posts, it is their loss, not mine. Voices crying in
the wilderness, you know. I am duty bound to point out ignorance, evil,
propaganda, lies, hate, bad food, bad music, poisoning of babies, and
all that funky stuff, no matter where I find it. Plus have a little
fun in the process.....poke about with sticks and turn over rocks, you
know, just to see what develops. Hell, even a blind pig can sometimes
find and acorn.

What I am finding is that the Usenet is spiraling towards the least
common denominator. Some of us take exception to that.

Stick around, we'll continue, if you desire
Charlie

Why don't you just tell us how little land you use to feed how many
people. My definition of feeding means everything including grain.
If you claim to feed yourself, I'm interpreting it to mean everything
from soup to nuts. I'll allow you to include in your calculations the
trade of your produce for cooking oil, fruits, and meat, eggs, butter,
etc. if you don't raise livestock. I allow that because your climate
might now support all plants used in our diet and it would be too
involved to press your own oil. I'll even allow you using the high
prices charged at your local farmer's market in your calculations.
Now can you still claim you feed yourselves. My hat off to you if you
can.

Of course some gardeners think they can feed many people just because
they are up to their ass in zuccini.

As for being rude. Take my word. You both are.

In article . com,
James wrote:

On Jul 16, 7:43 pm, Charlie wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:14:52 -0700, James
wrote:

So are you claiming YOU personally CAN feed yourself using just
organic techniques?

Yes. Not only myself, but my entire family. And I (anyone) could do
it on much less ground than you can possibly imagine.



It's not his point that ****ed me off unless you meant his point of
being rude. What point is it that you think ****ed me off? Of course
it's easy to miss a point reading crap from you guys since every one
of your posts includes insults and put downs. You mean you guy
actually have a point remotely related to the thread title? I assumed
you guy just like to be in a farting contest.

I didn't feel he was rude.......just matter of fact.

Obviously you do not read "every one" of our posts. Many of them are
quite polite, informative, and, on occasion, humourous.

The thread title was about Organic Farming.......that is what we are
discussing, no? With a side dish of manners.



Time for you guys to go back to basics and brush up on debating team
rules. You really can't expect people to take you seriously. Even if
you had any gems of wisdom people will probably skip you posts because
the very hi % of shit they have to shift though to get to anything
worthwhile.

Whether or not I am taken seriously depends upon one's mindset, and
perhaps one's intent. On issues that matter, I am deadly serious, and
this is one of them.

I never was on a debating team. Our small town school barely had
enough funds for a bathroom, let alone a debate team. That is why I am
just a pig-ignorant old auto-didactic, farting about in the ether of
The Usenet. A friend of mine referred me to Chaos Theory....butterfly
wings and all that......check it out. We do what we must.

If folks skip my posts, it is their loss, not mine. Voices crying in
the wilderness, you know. I am duty bound to point out ignorance, evil,
propaganda, lies, hate, bad food, bad music, poisoning of babies, and
all that funky stuff, no matter where I find it. Plus have a little
fun in the process.....poke about with sticks and turn over rocks, you
know, just to see what develops. Hell, even a blind pig can sometimes
find and acorn.

What I am finding is that the Usenet is spiraling towards the least
common denominator. Some of us take exception to that.

Stick around, we'll continue, if you desire
Charlie

Why don't you just tell us how little land you use to feed how many
people. My definition of feeding means everything including grain.
If you claim to feed yourself, I'm interpreting it to mean everything
from soup to nuts. I'll allow you to include in your calculations the
trade of your produce for cooking oil, fruits, and meat, eggs, butter,
etc. if you don't raise livestock. I allow that because your climate
might now support all plants used in our diet and it would be too
involved to press your own oil. I'll even allow you using the high
prices charged at your local farmer's market in your calculations.
Now can you still claim you feed yourselves. My hat off to you if you
can.

Of course some gardeners think they can feed many people just because
they are up to their ass in zuccini.

As for being rude. Take my word. You both are.
Actually we we talking about growing three time as much with organic
techniques as is grown with chem ferts, oh great decider. That's the
thread.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

On Jul 16, 7:23 pm, Charlie wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:58:19 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:





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.

What garbage language? Please provide a reference to "garbage
language". This is not the first time you have cried foul when there
was no foulness.







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

We are not on the same page...again. Or is this yet another strawman
approach. Often when "organic" shows up, you pounce.

The problem with capitalism is that so many plagiarize and
misapproprate the term organic, thus doing evil to the ideals and
principles of pure food and organic growing.

If you trust the gummint to provide standards and oversight you are
nuts. Which you must not be, since you don't trust them to provide
standards and oversight. You are perhaps simply being contentious? Or
what?

Like I said, what are we going to do when the chemicals are gone, or
too expensive to justify their use. Have you checked what food prices
are doing, as we speak? And do you wonder what they are going to
continue to do? Seems to me, in my unscientific observations, that
"regular" food prices, are creeping closer to "organic" food prices.

Of course, you have to research which producers are on the up and up.
You did do that didn't you, Sherwin?

BTW.....I have been involved in gardening for over fifty years....makes
you a youngster, youngster.

Your unwillingness to see the dire straits we are in, globally, food
production-wise, makes you........what.

Think globally, act locally
Charlie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Read why some think the study and conclusions by the PhD's are not
valid. The following gives you the basics of the study done by PhD
pencil pushers and a couple of responses from people who actually deal
with crops.

http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...98f403f4d38dc7