The Lounge - CodeProject

Don't worry, it's perfectly safe otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. The only possible drawback may be the highly improbable possibility that a coworker of my parents can read English AND is involved in programming some way AND is a memeber of CP AND can link my nickname to my identity AND from my identity understand who are my parents - in such a highly improbable situation a few of them may not buy honey from us.

Legally in Italy is all fine Smile | :)

Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}

If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver

den2k88 wrote:
Legally in Italy is all fine

I am spanish, nothing to explain about Poke tongue | ;-P

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

I like "organic" when it no artificial fertilizers (I prefer the kind naturally produced by livestock) and "organic" meaning someone had to hunt it.

That's all well and good, but manure is no better than "artificial" fertilizers. The vegetables, etc have the same nutrients in the same quantities. And as far as negative aspects of artificial pesticides they're no more "dangerous" than the so-called "organic, natural" pesticides.

So, to charge more for it is unconscionable and simply not worth it.

Tim Carmichael wrote:
someone had to hunt it

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
but manure is no better than "artificial" fertilizers

Not even close to true.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
And as far as negative aspects of artificial pesticides they're no more "dangerous" than the so-called "organic, natural" pesticides.

Artificial pesticides are bad. They kill all insects, not just the bad ones. They also neutralize and kill the nutrients in the ground.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

The report and science disagree. As do I.

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
science disagree.

Not at all. Do an experiment. Grow 2 tomato plants, one with natural fertilizers (mulch, grass clippings, banana peels, etc) and one with artificial fertilizers. Then you'll know.

And science is not on your side because you found one article on the internet that supports your beliefs. Sniff | :^)

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

modified 1-Sep-15 15:20pm.

RyanDev wrote:
supports your beliefs

My belief is simply about the cost not being worth it.

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
My belief is simply about the cost not being worth it.

It's hard to put a price on your health until you've lost it.

The big problem with "organic" is that the US definition is too loose and therefore almost anything can pass as organic but won't be as healthy as actual organic.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

I think that organic definition problem was pointed out by the article.

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

Circles.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Here I am agreeing with you in some way and you call it "circles". **sigh**

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

You ignore the points. That's why.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

OK, if you say so...

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
My belief is simply about the cost not being worth it.

Your original statements are more than this: you're stating "organic" farming is no healthier than non-organic. This is different than a statement about relative value.

cheers
Chris Maunder

True, that is part of it. The cost of organic foods (with it's alleged better nutritive value) is not worth it, simply because the extra nutritive value is not that great.

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

Glass clippings? Do you have a special glass clipper?

On a serious note, I fear that the experiment you propose will almost certainly prove the exact opposite of what you intend. Banana peel, for example, will attract a swarm of flies, is over abundant in phosphor, and will actually prevent water from reaching the roots of the plant. Natural fertiliser should only ever be used in the form of well rotted compost from a variety of sources, which, when done properly, will be sterile having literally cooked itself!

And science is indeed on his side. This is only one of a number of reports released across the world this year and last saying that the difference in taste and nutritional value is in most cases negligible and that the so called soil improvement of organic methods is often illusory. Increasingly the most planet friendly approach to cultivation appears to be hydroponics, a thoroughly 'artificial' method!

Member 9082365 wrote:
I fear that the experiment you propose will almost certainly prove the exact opposite of what you intend.

Then try it out.

Member 9082365 wrote:
Banana peel, for example, will attract a swarm of flies, is over abundant in phosphor, and will actually prevent water from reaching the roots of the plant.

So, put the peel in the soil. D'Oh! | :doh:

Member 9082365 wrote:
This is only one of a number of reports released across the world this year and last saying that the difference in taste and nutritional value is in most cases negligible and that the so called soil improvement of organic methods is often illusory.

And there are also reports that it's not true. Which is why I said to try it for yourself, the best proof you can get. Or, you can just believe what you read on the internet. Your choice.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Tried out in many different ways over many years of growing vegetables and flowers. I know whereof I speak or I would speak it not.

Member 9082365 wrote:
Tried out in many different ways over many years of growing vegetables and flowers. I know whereof I speak or I would speak it not.

As do I and many others. So?

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

RyanDev wrote:
Not even close to true.

Prolly depends on your definition of "better".

You can get a higher yield using artificial fertilizer. The difference is enough to prefer to pay for artificial fertilizer over dung, even if you get paid to take the latter. Dung has also the added risks of disease and other contaminations.

In the town where I grew up they used marl-stone for building, but it may also be used as a kind of fertilizer. I have no idea how some soft stone would work as dung, but I do know that we produce dung every day, and new marl-stone is hardly 'produced'.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You can get a higher yield using artificial fertilizer.

Exactly. That's because the insects leave the food alone. If they won't eat it, why would we? $Shucks | :-\$

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

RyanDev wrote:
If they won't eat it, why would we? $Shucks | :-\$

We don't really get a say in this, economics says that the poorest will be depending on the cheapest food available, without having the luxury to consider quality.

Lots of those things that go into the ground, and plants, might be tested as 'safe' for humans in a certain dose, but that does not guarantee that those things do not interact in inpredictable ways.

Some diseases only occur in the 'developed' countries. So, what is 'better' would mostly depend on your parameters for claiming success.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

I know. I was simply pointing out that if the insects won't eat it, we should think twice before thinking it's perfectly safe.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Welcome to the Lounge