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

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

On Jul 14, 1:58 am, 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.

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

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

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.

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?

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/

On Jul 14, 6:53 pm, 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.

--
Billyhttp://angryarab.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My point IS PhD's and people like you THINK they have the answers.
Until you can ACTUALLY feed Africa with organic agriculture, you're
just farting. Everyone knows how to tell other what to do yet
Africans still starve.

In your case your are probably better at insulting than arguing
intelligently.

In article .com,
James wrote:

On Jul 14, 6:53 pm, 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.

--
Billyhttp://angryarab.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My point IS PhD's and people like you THINK they have the answers.
Until you can ACTUALLY feed Africa with organic agriculture, you're
just farting. Everyone knows how to tell other what to do yet
Africans still starve.

In your case your are probably better at insulting than arguing
intelligently.

Burn any good books lately?

How can you argue against something you don't want to know? Yeah, that
makes me pretty tricky.

And so it goes, James howling at the moon.

The anti-lectuals have returned. Can the "brown shirts" be far behind?

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

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?

Oh, oh, we are back to name calling again.


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?

Never said it was flawed. Just not enough information to draw any conclusions.



Maybe it is flawed, but you declaring it by fiat, ain't gonna make it
so. More pointedly, these ladies have PhDs

You don't need a PhD to be on the faculty of U of M.

, 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.

Your format is to throw out wacko articles making all sorts of unsubstanciated
claims. The great thing about our academic system is that everyone has their
own opinions on various subjects. You tend to present only the side that
pleases
you. Why don't you look at the following web site to see the other side:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Is-Org...-Is?&id=532724



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.

One conclusion is that the department that did this study is an Enviromental
Research one, not a Department of Agriculture, Botany Department, Horticultural
Department, etc. I think this enviromental department has their own axe to
grind.
Making rash statements like this gets them a lot of publicity, but can they back
it up?

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.

Ever see a bunch of flies around a pile of manure? The maggots love it too.
Don't forget that manure contains nitrogen.



You really should read a little more, Sherwim.

Yes, and learn to spell my name correctly Billy boy.



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.

Ok, going on the personal attack again. You think you can win arguements
with your 3rd grade mentality.

He will slam anyone to see his
name in print.

I think you outdo me with your postings, which are mostly drivel about things
mostly unrelated to gardening.



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

"James" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

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.

rob

On Jul 15, 5:23 am, "George.com" wrote:
"James" wrote in message

ups.com...





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.

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.

rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

On Jul 15, 12:53 am, Billy Rose wrote:
In article .com,





James wrote:
On Jul 14, 6:53 pm, 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.

--
Billyhttp://angryarab.blogspot.com/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My point IS PhD's and people like you THINK they have the answers.
Until you can ACTUALLY feed Africa with organic agriculture, you're
just farting. Everyone knows how to tell other what to do yet
Africans still starve.

In your case your are probably better at insulting than arguing
intelligently.

Burn any good books lately?

How can you argue against something you don't want to know? Yeah, that
makes me pretty tricky.

And so it goes, James howling at the moon.

The anti-lectuals have returned. Can the "brown shirts" be far behind?

Heil stupidity.
--
Billyhttp://angryarab.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're no intellectual just another penny. The only thing you know
about organic farming is "email me for this article". You who start
insulting immediately probably don't have an argument.

Next thing you'll start arguing Muslims aren't Christians because they
didn't want to read the bible. Yup. Next thing Crazy Billy is going
to be found standing on a soapbox in Times Square shouting "the bible
is the answer". Chuckle.

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

On Jul 14, 3:15 pm, 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.

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.

Uneducated farmers in China have for centuries been working and
living like animals and died of starvation, disease, hard work, and
barely got by. They have a dozen babies hoping one would surrive to
take care of them during old age.



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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 15, 9:49 am, Steve wrote:


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

Thank you. Thank you very much.

"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