Farmers found out a long time ago that critical feeding (feeding excessive amounts of 'synthetic' fertiliser) results in bumper yields. So who can blame them, when the world is run by the dollar, when they do exactly that year after excruciating year. Counting the dollars whilst the land behind them pays a devastating cost.

The full cost we can only guess at... but for starters much of the land now needs to be rotated, with some of it barely farm-able at all. Lots of locked out P and K, making land deficient in iron and other micros, nitrates almost literally poured into the water supply.

Dare I even mention soil bacteria and the recent e.coli outbreaks?

Are we really upsetting the balance and need to add back what we have taken away in an attempt to re-address it? Or, do we carry on as usual, chasing the dollar and slaughtering the bio-diversity?

Hydroponics has shown us that sterile growing and artificial fertilisation in the form of synthetic nutrients will result in amazing harvests. Maybe we should just get out of soil altogether?

I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you here... thank you for reading.

VickyN wrote:
Farmers found out a long time ago that critical feeding (feeding
excessive amounts of 'synthetic' fertiliser) results in bumper yields.
So who can blame them, when the world is run by the dollar, when they
do exactly that year after excruciating year. Counting the dollars
whilst the land behind them pays a devastating cost.


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. OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the world's
population by organic methods. 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.


The full cost we can only guess at... but for starters much of the
land now needs to be rotated, with some of it barely farm-able at
all. Lots of locked out P and K, making land deficient in iron and
other micros, nitrates almost literally poured into the water supply.


Land always needs rotation, especially so if you grow a monoculture. This
is not limited to where chemical fertilisers have been applied.

Dare I even mention soil bacteria and the recent e.coli outbreaks?


Dare you explain the connection between the state of soil bacteria and
humans poisoning themselves by employing poor food handling practices?


Are we really upsetting the balance and need to add back what we have
taken away in an attempt to re-address it? Or, do we carry on as
usual, chasing the dollar and slaughtering the bio-diversity?


This question cannot be addressed until our collective decision making
processes adequately take into account long term effects. Many current
problems in the developed world with resource management, agribusiness and
the balance between development and the environment are tied to what the PR
companies can crank out before the next election, not what may happen in a
generation.

Hydroponics has shown us that sterile growing and artificial
fertilisation in the form of synthetic nutrients will result in
amazing harvests. Maybe we should just get out of soil altogether?


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

Derald wrote:
VickyN wrote:

I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you here...
thank you for reading.
I'm wondering what your socio-political proselytizing has to do with
gardening and what happened, and when, to transform topical discussion forums
into soapboxes from which legions of insecure, ignorant, slogan-quoting
koolaid-drinking, jerkoff with an Internet connection relentlessly predict
apocalypse day-after-tomorrow.

Every field and every subject on the planet Earth has it's politics. Learn
to accept it and be happy. Take what you want and ignore the rest. In my
view when one starts the name calling, one has already lost the discussion
because of their inability to use reason.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
VickyN wrote:
Farmers found out a long time ago that critical feeding (feeding
excessive amounts of 'synthetic' fertiliser) results in bumper yields.
So who can blame them, when the world is run by the dollar, when they
do exactly that year after excruciating year. Counting the dollars
whilst the land behind them pays a devastating cost.


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. OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the
world's population by organic methods.

I saw something just recently that said it could be done. I was surprised
by the comment and meant to follow up on it, but didn't. I'll have to try
to figure out where I saw the comment and let you know. I do remember
thinking that the source wasn't silly so it was worth following up on.

Hydroponics has shown us that sterile growing and artificial
fertilisation in the form of synthetic nutrients will result in
amazing harvests. Maybe we should just get out of soil altogether?


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?

It ain't, so we'd all have to be vegetarians/vegans and I'm a confirmed
carnivore.

I know there is one cattle feeding hydroponicy gizmo out there as a
neighbour bought one. He's one of those dopes who buys every possible thing
that could ever be needed on a farm including a 150K John Deere Tractor (for
a cattle farm!!!). Even he found the hydroponic unit was too expensive to
run to feed his cattle from it.

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
VickyN wrote:
Farmers found out a long time ago that critical feeding (feeding
excessive amounts of 'synthetic' fertiliser) results in bumper yields.
So who can blame them, when the world is run by the dollar, when they
do exactly that year after excruciating year. Counting the dollars
whilst the land behind them pays a devastating cost.


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. OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the
world's population by organic methods.

I saw something just recently that said it could be done. I was surprised
by the comment and meant to follow up on it, but didn't. I'll have to try
to figure out where I saw the comment and let you know. I do remember
thinking that the source wasn't silly so it was worth following up on.

Hydroponics has shown us that sterile growing and artificial
fertilisation in the form of synthetic nutrients will result in
amazing harvests. Maybe we should just get out of soil altogether?


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?

It ain't, so we'd all have to be vegetarians/vegans and I'm a confirmed
carnivore.

I know there is one cattle feeding hydroponicy gizmo out there as a
neighbour bought one. He's one of those dopes who buys every possible thing
that could ever be needed on a farm including a 150K John Deere Tractor (for
a cattle farm!!!). Even he found the hydroponic unit was too expensive to
run to feed his cattle from it.

Hmmm... How about laboratory meat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Could be perfected someday. Who needs nature? See the movie "Silent
Running"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

I know, I know, I have been reading too much science fiction, way too much
science fiction

The future is a hard one to predict.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

Nad R wrote:
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
VickyN wrote:
Farmers found out a long time ago that critical feeding (feeding
excessive amounts of 'synthetic' fertiliser) results in bumper
yields. So who can blame them, when the world is run by the
dollar, when they do exactly that year after excruciating year.
Counting the dollars whilst the land behind them pays a
devastating cost.


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. OTOH I know of no analysis that
shows we could feed the world's population by organic methods.

I saw something just recently that said it could be done. I was
surprised by the comment and meant to follow up on it, but didn't.
I'll have to try to figure out where I saw the comment and let you
know. I do remember thinking that the source wasn't silly so it was
worth following up on.

Hydroponics has shown us that sterile growing and artificial
fertilisation in the form of synthetic nutrients will result in
amazing harvests. Maybe we should just get out of soil altogether?


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?

It ain't, so we'd all have to be vegetarians/vegans and I'm a
confirmed carnivore.

I know there is one cattle feeding hydroponicy gizmo out there as a
neighbour bought one. He's one of those dopes who buys every
possible thing that could ever be needed on a farm including a 150K
John Deere Tractor (for a cattle farm!!!). Even he found the
hydroponic unit was too expensive to run to feed his cattle from it.

Hmmm... How about laboratory meat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Could be perfected someday. Who needs nature? See the movie "Silent
Running"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

I know, I know, I have been reading too much science fiction, way too
much science fiction

The future is a hard one to predict.

Any laboratory grown meat has to have an energy source to build the tissue.
Theoretically it could come from come atomic reactors but would that be more
efficient than taking it from the sun? Farmers spend their lives bottling
sunshine. We need to learn how to do it sustainably.

D

Derald wrote:
VickyN wrote:

I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you here...
thank you for reading.
I'm wondering what your socio-political proselytizing has to do with
gardening and what happened, and when, to transform topical
discussion forums into soapboxes from which legions of insecure,
ignorant, slogan-quoting koolaid-drinking, jerkoff with an Internet
connection relentlessly predict apocalypse day-after-tomorrow.

So better soil managment is off topic?

D

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.

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?

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.


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. 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.



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.

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-/

On Jul 1, 5:33*pm, Derald wrote:
VickyN wrote:
I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you here...
thank you for reading.

* * * * I'm wondering what your socio-political proselytizing has to do with
gardening and what happened, and when, to transform topical discussion forums
into soapboxes from which legions of insecure, ignorant, slogan-quoting
koolaid-drinking, jerkoff with an Internet connection relentlessly predict
apocalypse day-after-tomorrow.

Lost in admiration of your command of epithets, as well as your tunnel
vision; your politically-induced blindness to the realities of what
was once a democracy, but which is now rapidly careening toward
plutocracy.

HB

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jul 1, 5:33*pm, Derald wrote:
VickyN wrote:
I'd be very interested in hearing the thoughts of some of you here...
thank you for reading.

* * * * I'm wondering what your socio-political proselytizing has to do
with
gardening and what happened, and when, to transform topical discussion
forums
into soapboxes from which legions of insecure, ignorant, slogan-quoting
koolaid-drinking, jerkoff with an Internet connection relentlessly predict
apocalypse day-after-tomorrow.

Lost in admiration of your command of epithets, as well as your tunnel
vision; your politically-induced blindness to the realities of what
was once a democracy, but which is now rapidly careening toward
plutocracy.

HB

Pretty much my take, but I would have thrown in some Anglo-Saxon
invectives.
--
- 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-/

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. OTOH I know of no analysis that shows we could feed the
world's
population by organic methods. 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.


Decisions about applying fertiliser are not always made considering
cost-benefit analysis but on other considerations such as the fertiliser
salesman told me so, or Grandpa always did it, or I want to get a better
yield than my neighbour. Fertilisers have been subsidised in the past
corrupting the market.

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.


Millions of tons of superphosphate has been applied to the soils of
Australia but still they apply more.

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?


The fertiliser companies will tell you it ain't so. Add more, and more.
Quick!


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.


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. 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.


An open question then.



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.

Why is hydroponics only done now for high value cash crops if it is so
cheap? Will the nutrient fluids remain cheap? Where will the cheap energy
come from to make your N components? Where will the P components come from
if all the cheap phosphate rock is exhausted?

D

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

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%.

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.


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?

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-/