In message , Franz Heymann
writes
Mike Lyle wrote,

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials
mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in
the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use
of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the
required chemicals directly into the soil?

So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques
which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather
than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an
energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility
in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances
which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying
approach.

--
dave @ stejonda

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:32:41 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , Franz Heymann
writes
Mike Lyle wrote,

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials
mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in
the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use
of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the
required chemicals directly into the soil?

So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques
which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather
than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an
energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility
in the long term in a sustainable way.

I hope that to be consistent you plough with a horse and only use
wooden implements.
--
Martin

In message , Franz Heymann
writes
Mike Lyle wrote,

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials
mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in
the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use
of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the
required chemicals directly into the soil?

So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques
which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather
than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an
energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility
in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances
which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying
approach.

--
dave @ stejonda

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:32:41 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , Franz Heymann
writes
Mike Lyle wrote,

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials
mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in
the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use
of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the
required chemicals directly into the soil?

So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques
which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather
than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an
energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility
in the long term in a sustainable way.

I hope that to be consistent you plough with a horse and only use
wooden implements.
--
Martin

"dave @ stejonda" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes
Mike Lyle wrote,

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials
mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in
the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use
of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the
required chemicals directly into the soil?

So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques
which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather
than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an
energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility
in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances
which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying
approach.

That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to
feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were
applied globally.

Franz

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to
feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were
applied globally.

or even Yorkshire
--
Martin

"dave @ stejonda" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes
Mike Lyle wrote,

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials
mentioned in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in
the soil into simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use
of them. What, then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the
required chemicals directly into the soil?

So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques
which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather
than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an
energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility
in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances
which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying
approach.

That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to
feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were
applied globally.

Franz

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough food to
feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming principles were
applied globally.

or even Yorkshire
--
Martin

martin wrote in
:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough
food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming
principles were applied globally.

or even Yorkshire

I don't get it; our farmers produce way too much and to prevent prices
from dropping below living-standards they are kept at artificial levels
and (in Holland at least) farmers are encouraged to close down. Some of
them switch to organic methods; their production levels are almost the
same as before (slightly less because of switchover problems).

There is no reason why organic farming would produce less than conventinal
methods. Agreed, if one could get political agreement to make a worldwide
cooperative effort to turn the Sahara desert into a large plantation that
would feed 1/4 of the third world, it might be best to start out with the
high-tech conventional intensive methods, just to make a quick start. But
because of the same protectionate measures that keep our prices high and
keep low-priced products outside our borders, this utopic green sahara
will not happen. The same ppl that tell us that we will not be able to
feed the world with organic methods are the ones that keep the third world
from dveloping competitive agriculture. We will not be able to incorporate
them in a free-trade-world without leveling down our own prices and
production; and that will never happen.

Imho, it will never be so that these new technologies will benefit the ppl
who most need it, so that argument is non-valid.

I think, in the long run it would be more cheaper, safer and less
complicated to use slower methods and develop food-farms in natural ways,
more in balance with local environments. Even modern conventional farmers
can tell you that using more and more chemicals and hormones is a road
with no end and can only be sustained by keeping on growing and growing.
It's not a stable system and it will implode when it reaches its critical
mass. This is not the way.

Ursa..



--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

martin wrote in
:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough
food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming
principles were applied globally.

or even Yorkshire

I don't get it; our farmers produce way too much and to prevent prices
from dropping below living-standards they are kept at artificial levels
and (in Holland at least) farmers are encouraged to close down. Some of
them switch to organic methods; their production levels are almost the
same as before (slightly less because of switchover problems).

There is no reason why organic farming would produce less than conventinal
methods. Agreed, if one could get political agreement to make a worldwide
cooperative effort to turn the Sahara desert into a large plantation that
would feed 1/4 of the third world, it might be best to start out with the
high-tech conventional intensive methods, just to make a quick start. But
because of the same protectionate measures that keep our prices high and
keep low-priced products outside our borders, this utopic green sahara
will not happen. The same ppl that tell us that we will not be able to
feed the world with organic methods are the ones that keep the third world
from dveloping competitive agriculture. We will not be able to incorporate
them in a free-trade-world without leveling down our own prices and
production; and that will never happen.

Imho, it will never be so that these new technologies will benefit the ppl
who most need it, so that argument is non-valid.

I think, in the long run it would be more cheaper, safer and less
complicated to use slower methods and develop food-farms in natural ways,
more in balance with local environments. Even modern conventional farmers
can tell you that using more and more chemicals and hormones is a road
with no end and can only be sustained by keeping on growing and growing.
It's not a stable system and it will implode when it reaches its critical
mass. This is not the way.

Ursa..



--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

Franz Heymann wrote:
snip
....... but my worry is that I doubt if enough
food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming
principles were applied globally.

Franz

There will never be enough food to feed the whole world. Your concern
is about an unsolvable problem.
First priority should be to curb the population then apply a neat
'environmentally clean' solution to the food production.

--
ned

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

(a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"?
Nicotine is a dangerous poison not permitted for use by commercial
growers of organic produce and not recommended for use by recreational
gardeners wishing to follow organic methods. The fact that nicotine and
many other banned substances originate from plant or animal material
does not make them suitable for use in organic growing.
(b) How is pyrethrum classified?
(c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux
mixture was classified as organic.
Both Pyrethrum and Bordeaux Mixture are listed as not suitable for use
in organic horticulture. Along with other substances, they are listed as
permissible to be used by growers in the conversion period to organic
growing. Produce grown with their use cannot be sold as organic.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

(a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"?
Nicotine is a dangerous poison not permitted for use by commercial
growers of organic produce and not recommended for use by recreational
gardeners wishing to follow organic methods. The fact that nicotine and
many other banned substances originate from plant or animal material
does not make them suitable for use in organic growing.
(b) How is pyrethrum classified?
(c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux
mixture was classified as organic.
Both Pyrethrum and Bordeaux Mixture are listed as not suitable for use
in organic horticulture. Along with other substances, they are listed as
permissible to be used by growers in the conversion period to organic
growing. Produce grown with their use cannot be sold as organic.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

(a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"?
Nicotine is a dangerous poison not permitted for use by commercial
growers of organic produce and not recommended for use by recreational
gardeners wishing to follow organic methods. The fact that nicotine and
many other banned substances originate from plant or animal material
does not make them suitable for use in organic growing.
(b) How is pyrethrum classified?
(c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux
mixture was classified as organic.
Both Pyrethrum and Bordeaux Mixture are listed as not suitable for use
in organic horticulture. Along with other substances, they are listed as
permissible to be used by growers in the conversion period to organic
growing. Produce grown with their use cannot be sold as organic.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In message , Franz Heymann
writes
So-called organic husbandry is, by my understanding, a set of techniques
which aim to increase the levels of the 'agents' you mention. Rather
than relying on factories to produce concentrated chemical feeds in an
energy intensive fashion the aim is to increase the soils own fertility
in the long term in a sustainable way. All talk of specific substances
which can be applied to the soil or not is subsidiary to the underlying
approach.

That is a laudable attitude, but my worry is that I doubt if enough
food to feed the whole world would be produced if organic farming
principles were applied globally.

There's plenty of food-producing capacity. It's the inequalities in
distribution and consumption that create an apparent shortage. Developed
countries (particularly the US) need to reduce their over-consumption
and stop leeching resources from the developing world.

--
dave @ stejonda