truly organic

[Essay]

....just wants to find a place without pollution.

The pollutions produced by industries are more serious than the trails of the plane.

...do you suppose some people confuse ordinary "contrails" with this notion of "chemtrails?"

 

Whatever comes from the sky, I would expect that industrialized (conventional?) agricultural is polluting more land and water. Semantics aside, I think the idea of "organic" --integrated, promoting biodiversity-- is a goal to be fostered, and industrial-scale monocultural and over-specialized biomes should not become our sole, or even primary, resource.

 

There are ways to increase food production AND reverse environmental degradation. That ethic should become more valued.

 

http://opinionator.b...=me&ref=general

Mark Bittman October 19, 2012

 

A Simple Fix for Farming

"IT'S becoming clear that we can grow all the food we need, and profitably, with far fewer chemicals. And I'm not talking about imposing some utopian vision of small organic farms on the world. Conventional agriculture can shed much of its chemical use — if it wants to."

 

"So this is a matter of paying people for their knowledge and smart work instead of paying chemical companies for poisons."

===

 

...NYTimes article based upon this recent source:

 

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0047149

 

Increasing Cropping System Diversity Balances Productivity, Profitability and Environmental Health

 

Abstract:

Balancing productivity, profitability, and environmental health is a key challenge for agricultural sustainability. Most crop production systems in the United States are characterized by low species and management diversity, high use of fossil energy and agrichemicals, and large negative impacts on the environment. We hypothesized that cropping system diversification would promote ecosystem services that would supplement, and eventually displace, synthetic external inputs used to maintain crop productivity. To test this, we conducted a field study from 2003–2011 in Iowa that included three contrasting systems varying in length of crop sequence and inputs. We compared a conventionally managed 2-yr rotation (maize-soybean) that received fertilizers and herbicides at rates comparable to those used on nearby farms with two more diverse cropping systems: a 3-yr rotation (maize-soybean-small grain + red clover) and a 4-yr rotation (maize-soybean-small grain + alfalfa-alfalfa) managed with lower synthetic N fertilizer and herbicide inputs and periodic applications of cattle manure. Grain yields, mass of harvested products, and profit in the more diverse systems were similar to, or greater than, those in the conventional system, despite reductions of agrichemical inputs. Weeds were suppressed effectively in all systems, but freshwater toxicity of the more diverse systems was two orders of magnitude lower than in the conventional system. Results of our study indicate that more diverse cropping systems can use small amounts of synthetic agrichemical inputs as powerful tools with which to tune, rather than drive, agroecosystem performance, while meeting or exceeding the performance of less diverse systems.

 

There is workable ground between "truly organic" and "conventional" it seems.

~

[Ziven]

...do you suppose some people confuse ordinary "contrails" with this notion of "chemtrails?"

................

 

There is workable ground between "truly organic" and "conventional" it seems.

~

 

So the need of "yes" or "no" for seaker to confirm what she really means, since the differences between chemtrails and contrails had been clearly make in this thread.

I think the paper you provided is very good. This work proofed that the diverse systems can replace the conventional chemical fertilizers and herbicides system. It is very useful for the developing countries, such as Thailand, Vietnam and so on.

The N fertilizers and herbicides are widely used in Asian countries. The result is that the crops can grow more faster recently. However, the future of those countries is darkness.

[John Cuthber]

You are not very helpful john cuthber. If you read my post I clearly stated it is to reflect radiation. But I am not at all even sure if that is why. m brobably in the dark as to the why, I only know they are doing it. I want to find out geographic locations that have been affected the least or possibly not affected at all. Can you help me with that? If not, a reply is of no use to me.

I may be unhelpful and even unclear, but I'm not an idiot.

So when I asked "Why do you think " the government is and has been spraying chemicals into the atmosphere, ?". " I was asking why you hold that opinion (a question you can answer) rather than "to what end are the government doing this" (a question which you already said you didn't know the answer to).

 

So, here's the clearer version for the hard-of-thinking.

Why do you suffer from the delusion that the government is and has been spraying chemicals into the atmosphere?

Do you have, for example, any evidence (and I will point out that crackpot web sites are not evidence)?

Do you have a viable explanation why they would do so?

Can you show us a plausible mechanism by which they could do this?

 

Incidentally, a "chemical free plant" is just silly. It shows that you don't know what the word chemical means.

Wouldn't it be better to learn about the subject before writing me off as "unhelpful" or tell us to "Do research before you buy into the government and media."

 

It wouldn't take much effort on your part to realise that plants contain water, cellulose and chlorophyll which are chemicals.

You might even work out that every single thing that a plant (or animal or rock or book or computer) is made from, is made entirely of chemicals.

Edited November 8, 2012 by John Cuthber