Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Feeding V Organics, Microbes & better Soil Management
In article ,
VickyN wrote: The cost in buying fertiliser and applying it is not always justified by even the short-term returns, that is it is applied in excess of the optimum in some cases for reasons other than being demonstrated to be cost effective. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...als/dp/0143038 583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1 (Available at a library near you, as long as they remain open.) p.45 - 46 it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer [a] farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. or http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/ A 2002 study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that, using our current system, three calories of energy were needed to create one calorie of edible food. And that was on average. Some foods take far more, for instance grain-fed beef, which requires thirty-five calories for every calorie of beef produced. x What¹s more, the John Hopkins study didn¹t include the energy used in processing and transporting food. Studies that do estimate that it takes an average of seven to ten calories of input energy to produce one calorie of food.xi OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the world's population by organic methods. http://agroeco.org/doc/organic_feed_world.pdf "Conversion to small organic farms therefore, would lead to sizeable increases of food production worldwide. Only organic methods can help small family farms survive, increase farm productivity, repair decades of environmental damage and knit communities into smaller, more sustainable distribution networks * all leading to improved food security around the world." - Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley There may be some focus on this issue over the next few decades as sources of mineral phosphorus compound become exhausted and the cost of nitrogen fixing rises with energy costs. I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. How is the cost of buying fertiliser not justified by the short term returns? I also don't understand your take on phosphorus as there is plenty sitting in soils all over the world already. http://westernfarmpress.com/manageme...al-phosphorus- shortage Experts fear critical phosphorus shortage Jim Langcuster, Auburn University Oct. 19, 2010 3:34pm ³There are estimates we have as little as 50 years left in the current phosphate mines,² says Charles Mitchell, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System agronomist and Auburn university professor of agronomy." --- Farmers may need to go back to the habit of keeping birds (pigeons, chickens) as a source for phosphorus. Manure Chicken Diary cow Horse Steer Rabbit N 1.1 .257 .70 .70 2.4 P .80 .15 .30 .30 1.4 K .50 .25 .60 .40 .60 Soils having such high levels of soil phosphorus no longer need to be fertilised with more than the amount of phosphorus removed in harvest. In fact, many agricultural soils in industrialised countries with long histories of phosphorus build-up from manure or fertilizer application have accumu*lated so much available phosphorus that little if any additional phosphorus is needed until phosphorus is drawn down to more moderate levels over a period of years. Professor Stefano Grego Surely we can either harvest it, or implement solubilising bacteria to help break down the unavailable forms of P. How can there be a P shortage, even in a few decades, when there is so much in the land already? Feeding 7 billion people, soon to be 12 billion hungry people. Land always needs rotation, especially so if you grow a monoculture. This is not limited to where chemical fertilisers have been applied. Land still needs to be rotated because of high application of fertilisers building to toxic levels... particulalry P (locks out iron). Ah, maybe rotated is the wrong word, easy to confuse with ordinary crop rotation I suppose. So let's just say land is left unusable for certain periods of time. Nitrogen input reduces organic material in soil, but micro nutrient deficiencies arrive slowly enough that amendments can be added to augment the soil. Dare you explain the connection between the state of soil bacteria and humans poisoning themselves by employing poor food handling practices? Bacteria is a very basic form of life, capable of genetic shifts that will change it from one thing into another. we eat e.coli all the time. E. coli is an enteric bacteria. That means it is present in your colon right now. IIRC natural E. coli is benign. E. coli 0157 H7 though is a killer, and comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) where grain is fed to ruminants, acidifying their stomachs. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/31/magazine/power-steer.html Escherichia coli 0157 is a relatively new strain of a common intestinal bacteria (it was first isolated in the 1980's) that is common in feedlot cattle, more than half of whom carry it in their guts. Ingesting as few as 10 of these microbes can cause a fatal infection. Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the acids in our stomachs, since they originally adapted to live in a neutral-pH environment. But the digestive tract of the modern feedlot cow is closer in acidity to our own, and in this new, manmade environment acid-resistant strains of E. coli have developed that can survive our stomach acids -- and go on to kill us. By acidifying a cow's gut with corn, we have broken down one of our food chain's barriers to infection. our stomach acids kill it usually... but something is causing to e.coli to become virulent, and it is becoming virulent with greater frequency. There are some that suggest this is down to artificial fertilisation by man. The reasoning being, I believe, that the fertilisation is killing off the friendly bacteria and fungi, the beneficials... it is killing them off because they haven't anything to do. This shift is having a knock on effect with the bad microbes which is why we're seeing more cases of virulent e.coli. I'm not sure i agree with this, but it does make some logical sense so I cannot discount it easily. Please provide some evidence for that claim. What are the costs of that method compared to others? How do you feed cattle or sheep hydroponically? Would that be cost effective? David I meant only in regards to crop farming. Leaving the land alone for a while would leave plenty to feed cattle or sheep. we could also still crop farm, only doing it organically, at least more intelligently. cash crops could be left to sterile hydroponic growing. Hydroponic systems may be expensive to set up but are not very expensive to maintain. If built in the right way you can have hydroponic systems that run with minimal power. All it takes to keep enough o2 in the water is the continual motion of that water. http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=7&secNum=2 As of the year 2000, about 37 percent of Earth's land area was agricultural land. About one-third of this area, or 11 percent of Earth's total land, is used for crops. The balance, roughly one-fourth of Earth's land area, is pastureland, which includes cultivated or wild forage crops for animals and open land used for grazing ----- The Fatal Harvest Reader by Andrew Kimbrell (Editor) http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Harvest-.../dp/155963944X /ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220837838&sr=1-1 (Available at a library near you, until they are closed.) pgs 19 - 23 MYTH FOUR INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE IS EFFICIENT THE TRUTH Small farms produce more agricultural output per unit. area than large farms. Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical and chemical inputs. These ever increasing inputs are devastating to the environment and make these farms far less efficient than smaller, more sustainable farms. Proponents of industrial agriculture claim trial "'bigger is better" when it comes to food production. They argue that the larger the farm, the more efficient it is. They admit that these huge corporate farms mean the loss of family farms and rural communities, but they maintain that this is simply the inevitable cost of efficient food production. And agribusiness advocates don't just promote big farms, they also push big technology. They typically ridicule small-scale farm technology as grossly inefficient, while heralding intensive use of chemicals, massive machinery, computerization, and genetic engineering ‹ whose affordability and implementation are only feasible on large farms. The marriage of huge farms with "mega-technology" is sold to the public as the basic requirement for efficient food production. Argue against size and technology ‹ the two staples of modem agriculture ‹ and, they insist, you're undermining production efficiency and endangering the world's food supply. IS BIGGER BETTER? While the "bigger is better" myth is generally accepted, it is a fallacy. Numerous reports have found that smaller farms are actually more efficient than larger "industrial" farms. These studies demonstrate that when farms get larger, the costs of production per unit often increase, because larger acreage requires more expensive machinery and more chemicals to protect crops. In particular, a 1989 study by the U.S. National Research Council assessed the efficiency of large industrial food production systems compared with alternative methods. The conclusion was exactly contrary to the "'bigger is better"'' myth: "Well-managed alternative farming systems nearly always use less synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of production than conventional farms. Reduced use of these inputs lowers production costs and lessens production costs and lessens agriculture's potential for adverse environmental and health effects without decreasing ‹ and in some cases increasing ‹ per acre crop yields and the productivity of livestock management's systems." Moreover, the large monocultures used in industrial farming undermine the genetic integrity of crops, making them more susceptible to diseases and pests. A majority of our food biodiversity has already been lost. This genetic weakening of our crops makes future food productivity using the industrial model far less predictable and undermines any future efficiency claims of modern agriculture. Moreover, as these crops become ever more, susceptible to pests, they require ever greater use of pesticides to produce equal amounts of food ‹ a classic case of the law of diminishing returns. This increasing use of chemicals and fertilizers in our food production results in serious health and environmental impacts. With all this evidence against it, how does the "bigger is better" myth survive'' In part, it survives because of a deeply flawed method of measuring farm "'productivity' which has falsely boosted the efficiency claims of industrial agriculture while discounting thee productivity advantages of small-scale agriculture. OUTPUT VERSUS YIELD Agribusiness and economists alike tend to use "yield" measurements when calculating the productivity of farms. Yield can be defined as the production per unit of a single crop. For example, a corn farm will be judged by how many metric tons of corn are produced per acre. More often than not, the highest yield of a single crop like corn can be best achieved by planting it alone on an industrial scale in the fields of corporate farms. These large "monocultures" have become endemic to modern agriculture for the simple reason that they are the easiest to manage with heavy machinery and intensive chemical use. It is the single-crop yields of these farms that are used as the basis for the "bigger is better" myth, and it is true that the highest yield of a single crop is often achieved through industrial monocultures. Smaller farms rarely can compete with this "monoculture" single-crop yield. They tend to plant crop mixtures, a method known as "intercropping.' Additionally, where single-crop monocultures have empty "weed" spaces, small farms use these spaces for crop planting. They are also more likely to rotate or combine crops and livestock, with the resulting manure performing the important function of replenishing soil fertility. These small-scale integrated farms produce far more per unit area than large farms. Though the yield per unit area of one crop ‹ corn, for example‹may be lower, the total output per unit area for small farms, often composed of more than a dozen crops and numerous animal products, is virtually always higher than that of larger farms. Clearly, if we are to compare accurately the productivity of small and large farms, we should use total agricultural output, balanced against total farm inputs and "externalities,''' rather than single-crop yield as our measurement principle. Total output is defined as the sum of everything a small farmer produces ‹ various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products ‹ and is the real benchmark of 'efficiency in farming. Moreover, productivity measurements should also take into account total input costs, including large-machinery and chemical use, which often are left out of the equation in the yield efficiency claims. Perhaps most important, however, is the inclusion of the cost of externalities such as environmental and human health impacts for which industrial scale monocultured farms allow society to pay. Continuing to measure farm efficiency through single-crop "yield" in agricultural economics represents an unacceptable bias against diversification and reflects the bizarre conviction that producing one food crop on a large scale is more important than producing many crops (and higher productivity) on a small scale. Once, the flawed yield measurement system is discarded, the "bigger is better" myth is shattered. As summarized by the food policy expert Peter Rosset, "Surveying the data, we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This is now widely recognized by agricultural economists across the political spectrum, as the "inverse relationship between farm size and output."' He notes that even the World Bank now advocates redistributing land to small farmers in the third world as a step toward increasing overall agricultural productivity. Government studies underscore this "inverse relationship.' According to a 1992 U.S. Agricultural Census report, relatively smaller farm sizes are 2 to 10 times more productive than larger ones. The smallest farms surveyed in the study, those of 27 acres or less, are more than ten times as productive (in dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000 acres or more), and extremely small farms (4 acres or less) can be over a hundred times as productive. In a last-gasp effort to save their efficiency myth, agribusinesses will claim that at least larger farms are able to make more efficient use of farm labor and modem technology than are smaller farms. Even this claim cannot be maintained. There is virtual consensus that larger farms do not make as good use of even these production factors because of management and labor problems inherent in large operations. Mid-sized and many smaller farms come far closer to peak efficiency when these factors are calculated. It is generally agreed that an efficient farming system would be immensely beneficial for society and our environment. It would use the fewest resources for the maximum sustainable food productivity. Heavily influenced by the "bigger is better" myth, we have converted to industrial agriculture in the hopes of creating a more efficient system. We have allowed transnational corporations to run a food system that eliminates livelihoods, destroys communities, poisons the earth, undermines biodiversity, and doesn't even feed the people. All in the name of efficiency. It is indisputable that this highly touted modern system of food production is actually less efficient, less productive than small-scale alternative farming. It is time to re-embrace the virtues of small farming, with its intimate knowledge of how to breed for local soils and climates; its use of generations of knowledge and techniques like intercropping, cover cropping, and seasonal rotations; its saving of seeds to preserve genetic diversity; and its better integration of farms with forest, woody shrubs, and wild plant and animal species. In other words, it is time to get efficient. -- - Billy Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria of the American political landscape. America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore /michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In regards to P depletion though, as I must take your post a piece at a time, I found this link here that claims the opposite: The Unbroken Window Blog Archive We Are All Going to Starve To Death in 38 Years Often statistics can be twisted to create panic, sell newspapers, add a little drama. I hit google and it takes a while to find something saying the opposite, funny how website after website will take the same story, well it's not funny... it turns the internet into a quagmire of mis-information. If 10 links say one thing and only one link says the other, what are you more inclined to believe? I don't know, not saying you're wrong... I'm just not sold on the idea 100%. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Feeding V Organics, Microbes & better Soil Management
In article ,
VickyN wrote: 'Billy[_10_ Wrote: ;928908']In article , VickyN wrote: -- The cost in buying fertiliser and applying it is not always justified by even the short-term returns, that is it is applied in excess of the optimum in some cases for reasons other than being demonstrated to be cost effective. -- The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan http://tinyurl.com/622qckd 583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1 (Available at a library near you, as long as they remain open.) p.45 - 46 it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer [a] farm produced more than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested. or 'Fossil Fuel and Energy Use, sustainable food - The Issues - Sustainable Table' (http://tinyurl.com/psf8le) A 2002 study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that, using our current system, three calories of energy were needed to create one calorie of edible food. And that was on average. Some foods take far more, for instance grain-fed beef, which requires thirty-five calories for every calorie of beef produced. x What¹s more, the John Hopkins study didn¹t include the energy used in processing and transporting food. Studies that do estimate that it takes an average of seven to ten calories of input energy to produce one calorie of food.xi -- OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the world's population by organic methods. -- http://tinyurl.com/5tvy5nj "Conversion to small organic farms therefore, would lead to sizeable increases of food production worldwide. Only organic methods can help small family farms survive, increase farm productivity, repair decades of environmental damage and knit communities into smaller, more sustainable distribution networks * all leading to improved food security around the world." - Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley -- There may be some focus on this issue over the next few decades as sources of mineral phosphorus compound become exhausted and the cost of nitrogen fixing rises with energy costs.- I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. How is the cost of buying fertiliser not justified by the short term returns? I also don't understand your take on phosphorus as there is plenty sitting in soils all over the world already.- http://tinyurl.com/5rq9ub5 shortage Experts fear critical phosphorus shortage Jim Langcuster, Auburn University Oct. 19, 2010 3:34pm ³There are estimates we have as little as 50 years left in the current phosphate mines,² says Charles Mitchell, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System agronomist and Auburn university professor of agronomy." - Billy This is an excellent post altogether Billy, and you've given me much to digest. thank you very much. In regards to P depletion though, as I must take your post a piece at a time, I found this link here that claims the opposite: 'The Unbroken Window Blog Archive We Are All Going to Starve To Death in 38 Years' (http://tinyurl.com/6jlr8n9) Often statistics can be twisted to create panic, sell newspapers, add a little drama. I hit google and it takes a while to find something saying the opposite, funny how website after website will take the same story, well it's not funny... it turns the internet into a quagmire of mis-information. If 10 links say one thing and only one link says the other, what are you more inclined to believe? I don't know, not saying you're wrong... I'm just not sold on the idea 100%. I was never selling the idea that we were going to starve to death for the lack of phosphates. What I reported was that there were going to be shortages when our phosphate strip mines are depleted. I also mentioned the use of birds as a source of phosphates. At present, the idea of extracting phosphate, an atom at a time from the soil seems fanciful. If you look at the "Dead Zones" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) (caused by agricultural run-off) around the world, you will see that they are quite large, and then the dying algea drifts with the currents. Mining the sea floor won't be as simple, or as rewarding as open pit extraction of phosphates. At present, the power for this extraction of phosphates comes from petroleum, which is a non-renewable resource, outside of geological time. As the price of petroleum goes up, the price of most other things do to, including phosphates. This factory approach to farming (adding chemical salts to a medium [soil for example] in which you grow crops) is killing the topsoil which is the real basis for soil fertility. Petroleum is becoming more expensive. Phosphates will be more expensive. You may be able to survive, but one sixth of the world population is living on less than $2/day. If Pakistan were to become a failed state, we would all have more to worry about than phosphorus shortages. There is a great BBC production called Farm for a Future. It comes in 5 parts. Parts 1 & 2 outline farming problems, and parts 3, 4, and 5 address the problems with permaculture farming. Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8 The subject of phosphorus is addressed in part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxsPfeSRIFo&feature=related Were it only so easy to get the blood sucking oligarchs off our backs, this could be a wonderful world. -- - Billy Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria of the American political landscape. America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore /michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Feeding V Organics, Microbes & better Soil Management
In article ,
VickyN wrote: Land still needs to be rotated because of high application of fertilisers building to toxic levels... particulalry P (locks out iron). Ah, maybe rotated is the wrong word, easy to confuse with ordinary crop rotation I suppose. So let's just say land is left unusable for certain periods of time. 'Billy[_10_ Wrote: ;928908'] Nitrogen input reduces organic material in soil, but micro nutrient deficiencies arrive slowly enough that amendments can be added to augment the soil. By this do you mean we replace the organic material directly in the top few inches of soil? Micro deficiencies arrive slowly usually because they are immobile in the first place. Very hard to correct once set in in certain cases. Nitrogen is used for making protein, which promotes an increased population of microorganisms. The more organisms there are, the more food (organic material) they need. Conversely, the more organic material you have in the soil, wood chips for example, the more nitrogen the microorganisms will need, even restricting what is available to a gardeners plants. Micronutrients, as their name implies are needed in only very small amounts. This can usually be corrected with mulching of the use of compost. http://www.indoor-gardening-guide.co...Plant-Nutrient -Primary-secondary-and-micro-nutrients.html 'Billy[_10_ Wrote: ;928908']E. coli is an enteric bacteria. That means it is present in your colon right now. IIRC natural E. coli is benign. E. coli 0157 H7 though is a killer, and comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) where grain is fed to ruminants, acidifying their stomachs. 'Power Steer - NYTimes.com' (http://tinyurl.com/5u3abk2) Escherichia coli 0157 is a relatively new strain of a common intestinal bacteria (it was first isolated in the 1980's) that is common in feedlot cattle, more than half of whom carry it in their guts. Ingesting as few as 10 of these microbes can cause a fatal infection. Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the acids in our stomachs, since they originally adapted to live in a neutral-pH environment. But the digestive tract of the modern feedlot cow is closer in acidity to our own, and in this new, manmade environment acid-resistant strains of E. coli have developed that can survive our stomach acids -- and go on to kill us. By acidifying a cow's gut with corn, we have broken down one of our food chain's barriers to infection. Thank you for the information... and as e.coli lives in soil and soils are becoming more acidic, couldn't this too contribute to mutant strains of e.coli? No. Escherichia coli, lives only in intestines. Outside of the gut, Escherichia coli may last 3 months, which is the minimum suggested time to let fresh manure age before it is used in the garden. Escherichia coli won't propagate in the soil. Escherichia coli is an enteric bacteria. Escherichia coli is an indicator of feces, and the government has set limits on how much feces may be present in the foods that we eat. -- - Billy Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria of the American political landscape. America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore /michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Feeding V Organics, Microbes & better Soil Management
In article
, Billy wrote: In article , VickyN wrote: Land still needs to be rotated because of high application of fertilisers building to toxic levels... particulalry P (locks out iron). Ah, maybe rotated is the wrong word, easy to confuse with ordinary crop rotation I suppose. So let's just say land is left unusable for certain periods of time. 'Billy[_10_ Wrote: ;928908'] Nitrogen input reduces organic material in soil, but micro nutrient deficiencies arrive slowly enough that amendments can be added to augment the soil. By this do you mean we replace the organic material directly in the top few inches of soil? Micro deficiencies arrive slowly usually because they are immobile in the first place. Very hard to correct once set in in certain cases. Nitrogen is used for making protein, which promotes an increased population of microorganisms. The more organisms there are, the more food (organic material) they need. Conversely, the more organic material you have in the soil, wood chips for example, the more nitrogen the microorganisms will need, even restricting what is available to a gardeners plants. Micronutrients, as their name implies are needed in only very small amounts. This can usually be corrected with mulching of the use of compost. That should have been: "This can usually be corrected with mulching, and the use of compost." http://www.indoor-gardening-guide.co...Plant-Nutrient -Primary-secondary-and-micro-nutrients.html 'Billy[_10_ Wrote: ;928908']E. coli is an enteric bacteria. That means it is present in your colon right now. IIRC natural E. coli is benign. E. coli 0157 H7 though is a killer, and comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) where grain is fed to ruminants, acidifying their stomachs. 'Power Steer - NYTimes.com' (http://tinyurl.com/5u3abk2) Escherichia coli 0157 is a relatively new strain of a common intestinal bacteria (it was first isolated in the 1980's) that is common in feedlot cattle, more than half of whom carry it in their guts. Ingesting as few as 10 of these microbes can cause a fatal infection. Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the acids in our stomachs, since they originally adapted to live in a neutral-pH environment. But the digestive tract of the modern feedlot cow is closer in acidity to our own, and in this new, manmade environment acid-resistant strains of E. coli have developed that can survive our stomach acids -- and go on to kill us. By acidifying a cow's gut with corn, we have broken down one of our food chain's barriers to infection. Thank you for the information... and as e.coli lives in soil and soils are becoming more acidic, couldn't this too contribute to mutant strains of e.coli? No. Escherichia coli, lives only in intestines. Outside of the gut, Escherichia coli may last 3 months, which is the minimum suggested time to let fresh manure age before it is used in the garden. Escherichia coli won't propagate in the soil. Escherichia coli is an enteric bacteria. Escherichia coli is an indicator of feces, and the government has set limits on how much feces may be present in the foods that we eat. -- - Billy Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria of the American political landscape. America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/.../michael-moore /michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
5 TIPS FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF HOME BUSINESS...5 TIPS FOR BETTERMANAGEMENT OF HOME BUSINESS...5 TIPS FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF HOMEBUSINESS... | United Kingdom | |||
Teaming with Microbes | Gardening | |||
Soil Bacteria and Microbes Suppliers | Gardening | |||
Microbes an autoclave won't kill | Orchids | |||
Testing new theories of logging and forest management, known as Adaptive Management Areas??????????? | alt.forestry |