organic vs chemweed

[Guest]

Chemicals destroy reefs . Farm runoff is tragic to rivers and streams . Too much organic runoff can do the same. Remember clear cutting on mountains causes lots of organic runoff enough to kill a river . So it takes a lot more than we all assume.
Chief Seattle said we would lay in our own excrement . The web of life . Fragile as a spider web. Each strand depending on the other for support . To many stands damaged resulting in collapse of the web of life. So who wants to take responsibility for the last strand ?

 

[Guest]

its just a twinkie...or is it
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/political_economy_of_twinkies.htm

Environment: Another obvious cost not reflected in the price of a Twinkie and the sugar it contains is environmental damage. Environmentally, sugar is not a benign crop. Its growth (not to mention its processing into the highly refined white, granular stuff we desire) is responsible for damage to corral reefs in Hawaii, water pollution in Buenos Aries, damage to river estuaries in Brazil, and waterways in the Philippines. Florida's sugarcane industry is situated just south of Lake Okeechobee, one of North America's largest fresh water lakes. Water that had flowed unimpeded from the lake to the Everglades now must pass through thousands of acres of sugar cane. When it reaches the Everglades it is contaminated with phosphorus-laden agricultural run-off that destroys native species and results in the growth of non-native species. As a result, almost $8 billion will be spent over the next 2 years to fix the Everglades. While some of that cost will be paid by the sugar producers, most of it will be passed on to taxpayers. Of course in countries with few or no environmental regulations, these costs will be paid largely by the poor with increased health problems and passed on to future generations.

 

[Suby]

North America and Asian countries have done the most environmental damage, one produces and the other comsumes most of the worlds manufactured goods so it's really a given.
There is no easy way to breakdown the raping and pilaging of our land, we have become over-evolved monkeys in many respects, we can do great things but still crave the wrong things in the wrong quantities.
We can't expect balance in a world grossly overpopulated and an overcomsumption of goods is the foundation of a good consumerist society.
The real problem is mass production, it creates a large impact in a defined area.
A small farm that can feed maybe a small town on it's own where livestock manures are used as ferts for produce and other organic crops rotation cycles are observed is very sustainable environmentally, small scale means local goods, means less transport and packaging and a lesser cost, this is good for everyone.
But peeps like their meat 3 times a day, they like their twinkies, they love they're slave labour T-shirts.
Sustainable agriculture is more than just using organic ferts, it's a way of farming and producing goods that are of low and temporary impact.
We consume the goods though, and we vote the people in our government, if people cared there would be more than a 30% voter turn out on election day.
Our generation and my daughters generation will be the ones to make the hard choices, maybe because we educate them to do so but moreso because they will be faced with a rather bleak future, but my mentality is one of hope, challenge "popular science", which is about as honest as the funding they get and their parties of interest, just think how much BS science has dished out about MJ while any stoner knows pot leads to muchies and not other drugs, etc...
I have a science degree and have done tons of stat classes and most everytime there is a way to make the data set work for you, almost always.
Regardless of what any "scientist" may tell me I will always know that organics are of lesser impact to the environment then chems, it just makes sense from a bilogical standpoint that respecting a natural life cycle is better.
If we had spent 1/2 as much money on organics as we did on salt fert studies and industry then we would be in a better position today.

S

 

[Guest]

unfourtantly i believe its going to take mass destruction before the powers that be see the error of our ways...

 

[Guest]

Actually......it's up to us........if we have taught ourselves a better way, with the help of each other, it is our responsibility to help educate anyone who chooses to better their decisions.

This is where it all begins. with each person.
Maybe you don't think you can make a difference just one person, but you can.

 

[mace_ecam]

where do bottled organics come from?

 

[Guest]

Well, alot of them come from private smallish companies that take consideration of the enviorment in the production of their products.

 

[Guest]

i agree but i dont think it begins with organics...much bigger issues...i like the reference someone said about sheeple...that is correct...everybody should watch the matrix..but not for the action...its the matrix....do you want the red or the blue pill...lol

Actually......it's up to us........if we have taught ourselves a better way, with the help of each other, it is our responsibility to help educate anyone who chooses to better their decisions.

This is where it all begins. with each person.
Maybe you don't think you can make a difference just one person, but you can.

 

[newbieb]

sorry didnt read the whole thing since im busy but is there a difference in potncey between organic and chem weed isnt that the most important factor

 

[Guest]

no diference in potency...it depends on who you ask on the most important factors

 

[JackTheGrower]

Interesting Flow.. Great posts.


Organic to me is a realm of life.
Chem-nutes are not the Proprietors of the Hotel Earth IMO.

But yes an Ion is an Ion..

Just how we get there is the thing.

Another thought is what are we doing to the Species? As if it can live free on the Earth anyway; Like humans it would seem.

 

[Ganico]

Chems are for girls.

 

[minds_I]

Hello all,

Chems are for girls.

That and organics are just better.

Case closed.

That is all.

minds_I

Buahahahahahaha


Neener, neener, neener....cat got your weener

 

[Ganico]

I concur.

Organics are superior.
Chems are for girls.


The End

 

[mace_ecam]

Well, alot of them come from private smallish companies that take consideration of the enviorment in the production of their products.

thanks for the laugh MedGradePurps

 

[Guest]

http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC1654.htm

 

[Guest]

There is no evidence at this time to suggest that organically produced foods are more nutritious. However, some believe that well-balanced soils grow strong healthy plants, which may taste better and contain more nutrients. But, again there is no evidence yet to say that organic foods have more nutrients than non-organic products.

http://www.unm.edu/~ehpp/ListServe11.htm

 

[Guest]

The USDA has stated explicitly that they do not mean that organic foods are better for the consumer, but that the standards imposed are simply rules for production. An analogy used: Kosher food is produced according to a set of specific rules, but it is not necessarily healthier for you.

Some people are concerned with some pesticides and chemicals allowed on non-organic products are potential carcinogens. Typical residues in non-organic produce is very low anyway and these residues are still found on organic products from the soil or other farms. With organic foods, there is an additional health concern: microbial contamination. Since manure is an allowed fertilizer for organic production is raises a concern of Salmonella and E. coli contamination, even on produce. Testing has shown that 90% of organic produce is fine; but there have been several cases of contamination of organic foods. Restaurants have difficulty using organic foods, since they haven’t met restaurant standards. At home, the best thing to do, as with any produce, is to thoroughly wash the food before eating it.

 

[Guest]

http://tastyharvest.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=THH&Category_Code=2nutrients
Organic vs. Synthetic
Do plants know the difference between a synthetic chemical fertilizer and an organic fertilizer?
All nutrients and plant foods, both synthetic and organic must be converted to a molecular form that plants can utilize. Plants do not recognize the difference between synthetic chemical or organic nutrient sources, however the soil does. Organic fertilizers are exceptional in creating long term benefits in soil. They encourage large populations of beneficial micro-organisms which facilitates nutrients to become immediately available to the plants.
Organic fertilizers help to maintain overall soil fertility by supplying vital organic matter, improving soil structure, and delivering nutrients. Organic fertilizers release gradually over time, which enables the soil to become a reservoir of stored plant foods.
Most synthetic fertilizers are formulated to be fast acting. They typically have a higher concentration of nutrient than do natural organic fertilizers, and are salt or acid based. Because plants can only absorb a certain portion of these types of fertilizers, some residue is left behind in the soil, or is leached out due to rainfall and watering. This can affect microbial populations, decrease soil fertility and contaminate ground water.

 

[Guest]

http://www.panchul.com/articles/index.htm
People buying organic food claim that organic food is tastier. According to Richard Gallagher, editor of The Scientist magazine, this is not true: "Blind tests show no difference in taste between organic and inorganic food" (The Organic Food Placebo - http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2004/oct_11_04_gallagher.htm). It is true that food from different supermarkets may taste differently. But this difference can be explained by different storage conditions and especially by using plant hormone gas ethylene for artificial ripening of green vegetables after the transportation - a practice that has nothing to do with organic vs. chemic fertilizer controversy because ethylene is not a fertilizer.