Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (85009)	5/1/2002 5:47:31 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116759

If organic farming were done by hydroponics it would require decidedly less land as the yield is many times per acre. Done indoors it can be done year round. In fact the yield of non-hydroponic organic farms that do not used insecticide or herbicide is, by government test since 1934, 96% of the yield of non-organic farms. The 4% loss is not significant. The scare story of having to cut down the forests of the world ignores that most of the world's agriculture does not use herbecide or pesticide in the 3rd world as they cannot afford it! Further it is just not true. It mixes non-herbecide, non-pesticide agriculture with non-fertilizer agriculture. Organic farming may use fertilizer if it wishes and remain largely organic. The opinion also misses the point that mono-culture, fertilizer and plowing kills soils over a long term more rapidly than simple rotational, fallow methods preferred by organic farmers and misses that soils of non organic would have to be fallowed eventually anyway to return to woodland. That and the soild eventually poison with herbecides and pesticides and eventually cannot be used at all. More to the point if a way were found to do away with slash and burn agriculture in lateritic tropical areas, then forest depradation and greenhouse gases would be vastly reduced. The technique of in-situ hydroponics or bentonite plowing-in would allow using lateritic soils for long periods of time. We have seen this kind of pseudo science before from the boys with grad degrees and white lab coats who told us that DDT and freon were harmless. Or aerodynamics would not save fuel in vehicles. All of it was non-scientific posturing or worse, the opinions of people whose salaries were paid by manufacturers of the chemicals in question. The same types called Rachel Carson a quack 50 years ago. Well, Rachel was right and the Dupont PhD's were not. So quack on, you environmentalists. We have to duck these killer scientificists somehow. The environmentalists are not always right, but we need the adversary approach or we could be ruined by bad science that whose ultimate aim is commercial success. EC<:-}