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/

"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 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 -

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/

Organic foods can reduce your "body burden"without it. It makes the land more fertile. It reduces our dependence on foreign Oil. Rather than investing a little more calories to get a Food and come back, you get two calories per return investment.

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

"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

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

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 think you have a problem with short term memory. It happens to lot's of seniors.
Go back and read your own posts, or is that too painful.



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.

I only pounce when outlandish claims are made for organic farming and produce.
The original article was obviously a pitch by people pushing their names into the
public limelight. I don't care if they were from a university. There are a lot of
kooky
courses offered at some of our most respected institutions.



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.

It isn't capitalism, it's just plain greedy folks trying to fleece the public.



If you trust the gummint to provide standards and oversight you are
nuts.

This government saves your ass on a daily basis. It's not perfect, but we
enjoy one of the most protective systems in the world. Our food and drugs
are tested before acceptance, not like other countries who put out all kinds
of experimental junk that winds up killing people. Our government is not
the bad guys. Sure we all hate to pay taxes, but in most cases we get our
money's worth.

Which you must not be, since you don't trust them to provide
standards and oversight.

Sure I trust them, but agencies like the FDA and FTC are subject to laws
from our legislature and executive branches, who in turn are getting payola
to keep certain things unregulated.

You are perhaps simply being contentious? Or
what?

Like I said, what are we going to do when the chemicals are gone,

Won't happen in the near future, or possibly never.

or
too expensive to justify their use.

The real danger is the costs of these organic foods getting too expensive and
forcing less affluent people to scramble for affordable food. I can't buy bulk
lettuce in some of my stores because it is filled with pre-packaged, expensive,
organically grown lettuce that appeals nicely to the yuppies and health nuts no
matter what the price.

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.

Food prices are going up because of fuel prices, but organic foods are forcing
out the more reasonably priced foods making the problem worse.



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

Nobody's paying me to do an exhaustive study of this problem. I am just
pointing out some disturbing trends.



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

Oh, another plea for one upsmanship. In this case, I don't think an extra
30 years make much of difference. You are probably still making the same
mistakes you did 50 years ago.



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

If you think organic methods are going to feed the world, there's no
hope for you. I think organic growing is admirable and should be
encouraged, but expecting it to perform miracles, I don't think so.
Misuse of chemicals are harmful to the environment, but overstating
the abilities of organics can equally be disturbing.

Sherwin



Think globally, act locally
Charlie

sherwindu expounded:

Food prices are going up because of fuel prices, but organic foods are forcing
out the more reasonably priced foods making the problem worse.

Organic prices are actually going down, but don't let the facts stand
in the way of your ardent defense of all things agribusiness.
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked