|
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. 
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 
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? 
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?
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
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.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a forum; I had to spell it out in case someone mistook it for a casual pun 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I had to
Indeed you did. Can't let anyone on the internet misunderstand anything.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Some diseases only occur in the 'developed' countries.
Yeah - but consider the increase in cancer deaths as an example, compared to simpler times. One important reason for that is people in developed areas live long enough to get it.
Influenza and Pneumonia were common causes of death until late into the 20th century.
Don't just consider 0th order claims - ask questions about what was left unsaid. Is there an agenda?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: Yeah - but consider the increase in cancer deaths as an example, compared to
simpler times. One important reason for that is people in developed areas live
long enough to get it.
I was referring to diseases that occur only in developed countries, like Crohns' disease. That is not an effect of living long.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Is there an agenda?
Multiple. Always is.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
In a way, I'll repeat the answer, that of living longer. Different context.
People are living who normally would have died early in life due to various medical advances. Instead, they are living longer and manifest two effects:
1) There is greater opportunity to diagnose the disease
2) They are more likely to live long enough to breed and thus increase susceptibility in the gene pool for said diseases.
My (non-blood) niece, in fact, has Chrohn's disease and has, in fact, bred.
Basically, the real point is that none of these things, especially in a diverse biological system such as human (more diverse in modern times do to facile interbreeding opportunities) does not lend itself to simple solutions. Nontheless, there is no shortage of people fastening simple solutions from both real and perceived enemies (environmental or otherwise). Mix in a medical profession which delights in the financial rewards of over-diagnosing.
Feed that with agenda and nurture with anecdotal evidence and you have fads, movements, and other illusory cures.
A gedanken experiment for you: consider your premise as to modern food production methods have inherent dangers and thus are costing health and even lives. Subtract from that the number of people who are living far healthier and longer do to an adequate food supply.* Do this figures come out positive or negative?
Far better foodstuffs to avoid: anything from China, Japan (since nuclear leak), and other sources. For that matter, aside from it's animal-rennet content, I've not eaten dairy from Europe since Chernobyl. I don't think people should just grin and eat whatever is dumped on the shelves - but wisely cutting ones losses from both a personal and world-view perspective is more rational choice.
- far more significant than any medical breakthroughs
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increased yield is not due to lack of insect consuming the produce. It's due to the type of fertilizer providing an abundance the necessary nutrients for the growth of the plant. Insects don't eat the plants due to the application of pesticides.
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: Increased yield is not due to lack of insect consuming the produce.
Some of it is yes.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Insects don't eat the plants due to the application of pesticides.
Which are often combined with the "fertilizers."
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
|
|
|
|
|
I wish you'd explain that to 'my' insects. They eat everything.
Do you have any sort of reference that shows that insects won't eat food grown with non-"organic" fertilizers?
I've noted in a different post that there are, indeed, trace nutrients supplied by compost, etc., but we're trying to feed a world, here, not just sport gardening.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: I wish you'd explain that to 'my' insects. They eat everything.
You must have good food then.
The best defense for any plant is a healthy plant. Plants give off toxins, oils, vibrations, etc, to protect themselves from insects. A healthy plant will defend itself from insects very well and better than any man-made product can.
W∴ Balboos wrote: but we're trying to feed a world, here, not just sport gardening.
I'm not sure who started that rumor or why it has so much life, but there is so much of this world left that natural resources is not an issue when it comes to being able to produce food for the whole world. We're no where near at capacity.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
It's true that plants have natural toxins as a defense. That's what gives us much of the flavor (particularly in spice-plants). But you may have noticed that insects often have the name of a plant attached: Potato beetle, Corn Borer, etc. That's because they've adapted to that toxin.
It's why insects are so selective - not because they want to be but because they've generally only adapted to a small variety of plants. Monarch butterfly larva dine on milkweed - it's sap is toxic. Nothing else eats it - but they do (and themselves become toxic as a beneficial side effect).
RyanDev wrote: I'm not sure who started that rumor or why it has so much life, but there is so much of this world left that natural resources is not an issue when it comes to being able to produce food for the whole world. We're no where near at capacity.
That explains your insect observation vs. mine. We just live in very different worlds - mine, you see, is wastefully consuming resources faster than they can regenerate. Destroying entire ecosystems. All kinds of mean nasty stuff that is unsustainable. Tough luck for me - and the couple or so billion others of the roughly seven billion in my world who aren't fortunate enough to eat regularly, organic or otherwise.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: unsustainable
Exactly.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
