In message , ned
writes
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.

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.

Since each individual in a developed country consumes much more than a
person in a developing country the first step should be to introduce
population control in the US, UK...

I can just see that getting onto western agendas.

--
dave @ stejonda

In message , martin
writes
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

there may still be hope when economic development comes to Yorkshire -

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N23F12895

--
dave @ stejonda

On 14 Aug 2003 23:10:19 GMT, Major Ursa
wrote:

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.

It's EU policy to encourage farms to close down. Where do you think
all the farm houses bought for residential purposes in UK are coming
from?

Some of
them switch to organic methods;

better than injecting on average 2.5 cm of pig shit into the land per
annum, as was done recently in the Netherlands.

The trend in the Bollenstreek is to cover farm land with concrete and
housing estates.

their production levels are almost the
same as before (slightly less because of switchover problems).

I very much doubt it. Certainly UK organic farming does not produce
the same levels. If it did then organic food should be cheaper as
there should be a significant saving on chemicals used.


There is no reason why organic farming would produce less than conventinal
methods.

yes there is.

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 fact that there is no water available to make the whole of the
Sahara green is also a factor.


--
Martin

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:23:58 +0100, "ned" wrote:

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.

a good place to start would be the Netherlands.

--
Martin

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:04:48 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

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.

why is pyrethrum not allowed Alan?
--
Martin

"Major Ursa" wrote in message
. ..
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

They produce far too much for local consumption at a cost which is far too
high to enable it to be marketed in those countries in the world in which
there is a chronic food shortage.

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.

Unless I am mistaken, one of the aims (sometimes unspoken) of organic
farming is to produce less food per unit area in order not to deplete the
soil faster than it can recover. The reason is that the compost you put on
the soil does not provide a fully complete menu. Some of the nutrients have
to be dissolved out oif the almost insoluble rock. That takes time.

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.

That is the problem, in a nutshell.

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.

Franz

"ned" wrote in message ...
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.

There is already enough food to feed the whole world: the problem is
simply one of money to buy it. Even during its most notorious famine,
Ethiopia was exporting agricultural produce; when at one stage many
Indians were suffering malnutrition, India was still exporting rice
and cotton. "Famine" is often misunderstood: it has rarely if ever
meant that a whole country was short of food, but usually that weather
conditions or war have pushed food prices beyond the reach of poorer
people. The same was true even in the notorious Irish potato famine,
which, I may say, was followed by a similar blight event in England.

Population control happens naturally when a certain level of security
is reached, and people no longer need large families. Some parts of
Africa are actually underpopulated in terms of farm work-forces.

Mike

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Rodger Whitlock" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:39 +0100 (BST), Steve Harris wrote:

In article ,
(Alan Gould) wrote:

A few fag ends infused in water overnight would make a very
effective insecticide, but it caused a lot of health and safety
problems.

But surely this insecticide is pretty organic? :-)

Please dismiss the word "organic" from your vocabulary as regards
both gardening (and farming) and chemical identity.

Technically speaking, any chemical compound that contains at
least one carbon atom is "organic". The category embraces
everything from carbon dioxide and sugar (both lethal in large
enough doses) to virulent poisons of which small doses can kill
you in a few seconds.

Nicotine, the active insecticidal compound found in tobacco, has
a very high level of toxicity for mammals. You are a mammal. It
is much less safe for you than the usual non-organic (sensu
confusu) insecticides.

The fact that it is derived directly from a natural source in no
way makes a solution of cigarette butts a safe insecticide.

To replace "organic" in reference to horticulture goings on, use
the phrase "free of petrochemical derivatives not occurring in
nature" and you will be more accurate and focussed in your
objections -- which, I might add, I am in reasonable agreement
with.

At last someone has said it straight out in this ng. Folk should realise
that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in the
contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture. The
more sensible dichotomy is between *beneficient* and *deleterious*
substances. Both "organic" and "inorganic" substances in use in
horticulture have examples in both camps.

If a chemical does a lot of good and a minimum of harm, I will gladly use
it, whether it is correctly or incorrectly classified as "organic" or
"inorganic".

Well, that's perfectly sensible. But if you have a problem with the
way the various words are used and abused, the Soil Association is a
rich source of information.

I'm not a member, but I know the Association has for decades been
working on all the problems this thread has been nibbling at, and has
answers to most of them.

It isn't silly to use "organic": it just happens to be the nearest we
can get to a single word covering a particular system. The word has a
large number of meanings (nearly 20, I think: see Oxford Dictionary if
necessary) many of which are completely unrelated; this meaning (which
is nothing to do with organic chemistry) is as good as any of the
others. We may safely ignore anybody who thinks it should have only
one meaning: he hasn't done his homework, and shall go to the bottom
of the class.

Mike.

On 15 Aug 2003 02:29:18 -0700, (Mike Lyle)
wrote:

It isn't silly to use "organic": it just happens to be the nearest we
can get to a single word covering a particular system. The word has a
large number of meanings (nearly 20, I think: see Oxford Dictionary if
necessary) many of which are completely unrelated; this meaning (which
is nothing to do with organic chemistry) is as good as any of the
others. We may safely ignore anybody who thinks it should have only
one meaning: he hasn't done his homework, and shall go to the bottom
of the class.

Thanks Mike.
What is important, is what consumers think they are buying in
supermarkets when they buy organic. Perhaps a bit of publicity is
needed to clarify this for the woman with the shopping trolley.
--
Martin

ubject: Banned Herbicides & Pesticides
From: "Franz Heymann"
Date: 14/08/2003 15:11 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Laurie Moseley" wrote in message
...
This is the problem. It's the usual trap of trying to make "I understand
it in
this way" mean "Everyone understands it in this way". That is one of the
reasons why communication is often so poor.

Could this be the basis for many divorces ?
(Insert Smiley)

How on earth are we supposed to know what you are talking about, when you
have stripped off all headers and every vestige of context?

Franz










Fair point. A slip of the finger - I intended to reply to the sender, not to
the group. My apologies.

Laurie
Laurie (Laurence) Moseley

Plus Ultra

Expert Systems, Decision-Making, Argentinian Tango & Golf

In article ,
Michael Berridge wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Harris) writes:
| In article ,
| (Alan Gould) wrote:
|
| A few fag ends infused in water overnight would make a very
| effective insecticide, but it caused a lot of health and safety
| problems.
|
| But surely this insecticide is pretty organic? :-)

Organic, biodegradable and generally ecologically good. Not so
safe for humans, though ....

Nicotine in itself is not that harmful, otherwise you wouldn't get
nicotine patches to help you kick the smoking habit. It is the by
products of setting light to it, and all the other chemicals that have
been added, that cause the problems.

Er, no. Nicotine is extremely poisonous, and it is very easy to take
a fatal overdose if you extract it from tobacco.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , martin
writes

why is pyrethrum not allowed Alan?

It becomes unsuitable when it is processed from plants in the
chrysanthemum family into pyrethrins [esters] for herbicidal or
insecticidal use. In the botanical form, the same plants can have
beneficial uses, e.g. as in the use of Feverfew for aches and pains etc.
I use an infusion of that admirable plant as a nerve tonic and pick-me-
up -- often after a session in urg! :-(
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , martin
writes

What is important, is what consumers think they are buying in
supermarkets when they buy organic. Perhaps a bit of publicity is
needed to clarify this for the woman with the shopping trolley.

The woman and the man buying organic produce are protected by laws which
ensure that they are sold food of the approved organic standards. That
is of course organic as applied to food production, strictly regulated
and monitored. I agree that more publicity for it would be welcome.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:18:55 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

In article , martin
writes

why is pyrethrum not allowed Alan?

It becomes unsuitable when it is processed from plants in the
chrysanthemum family into pyrethrins [esters] for herbicidal or
insecticidal use. In the botanical form, the same plants can have
beneficial uses, e.g. as in the use of Feverfew for aches and pains etc.

I don't understand.

I use an infusion of that admirable plant as a nerve tonic and pick-me-
up -- often after a session in urg! :-(

LOL the poison chalice or hemlock?
--
Martin

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:18:55 +0100, Alan Gould
wrote:

In article , martin
writes

why is pyrethrum not allowed Alan?

It becomes unsuitable when it is processed from plants in the
chrysanthemum family into pyrethrins [esters] for herbicidal or
insecticidal use. In the botanical form, the same plants can have
beneficial uses, e.g. as in the use of Feverfew for aches and pains etc.

I don't understand.

I use an infusion of that admirable plant as a nerve tonic and pick-me-
up -- often after a session in urg! :-(

LOL the poison chalice or hemlock?
--
Martin