Lunacy of the Left

[VIBC]

I doubt if ANY food is actually GOOD for the environment, it all takes nourishment out of the soil, either directly or indirectly.

Revisiting that, I'm guessing you're thinking of modern farming's tendency to leave the soil 'exhausted' with diminished nutrients and poor tilth. I see that as a consequence of (what I think of as) overpopulation, combined with our pampered love of luxury and excess; in food supply and consumption as in everything else.

(Walter flagged this as 'bad')

 

[VIBC]

Can someone explain that one?

Pure chance?

There was the philosophy prof who came into the class and said "On my way in I saw a car with the number RKG201. What are the chances of that?"

 

[Walter]

Revisiting that, I'm guessing you're thinking of modern farming's tendency to leave the soil 'exhausted' with diminished nutrients and poor tilth. I see that as a consequence of (what I think of as) overpopulation, combined with our pampered love of luxury and excess; in food supply and consumption as in everything else.

Modern farming methods leave us with more soil and nutrition on and in the ground than older methods did.

 

[JLM]

Pure chance?

There was the philosophy prof who came into the class and said "On my way in I saw a car with the number RKG201. What are the chances of that?"

I agree, sometimes after I come across a new word I've never heard before sure as hell within a day or two you see or hear it again. Funny how that works.

 

[VIBC]

Modern farming methods leave us with more soil and nutrition on and in the ground than older methods did.

Oh, yeah, right; sorry!

 

[VIBC]

Farmers thousands of years ago could never produce the yields current farmers do.

And didn't have to

 

[VIBC]

Could you tell the difference?

Between supermarket vegetables and garden produce? You have to be joking.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Revisiting that, I'm guessing you're thinking of modern farming's tendency to leave the soil 'exhausted' with diminished nutrients and poor tilth. I see that as a consequence of (what I think of as) overpopulation, combined with our pampered love of luxury and excess; in food supply and consumption as in everything else.

(Walter flagged this as 'bad')

Actually, our farmers have gotten far better at keeping the soil in good condition otherwise they'd be killing the "golden goose". They rotate their crops in a very scientific manner because if they didn't how could they possibly get any kind of crop in subsequent years?
The farmers I know are very meticulous in not only how they plant their crops but how they treat and care for their animals. They'd go out of business if they didn't and it's already a precarious occupation without taking care of what you can control because the one thing they have to rely on they cannot control and that's the weather!

 

[VIBC]

"The salts and minerals to grow (identical) plants are identical....."

But the naturally occurring nutrients and conditions in which a (not identical) plant is grown, affect its nutritional value, flavour, vitality and even its survival. It may not be possible or economically viable, in an 'artificial' way, to reproduce the best 'natural' results.

"A tomato is a tomato".

Yes it is, but some tomatoes are poor, tasteless specimens. Grocery store scam-tomatoes; maybe labeled organic, maybe not. 'Real' tomatoes are much different.

 

[JLM]

Food isnt going to up or lower your chances.

Only in extreme cases - I had a bro in law who died at age 54 after years on a diet mainly consisting of pop, potato chips (salted) and beer.

 

[petros]

Revisiting that, I'm guessing you're thinking of modern farming's tendency to leave the soil 'exhausted' with diminished nutrients and poor tilth. I see that as a consequence of (what I think of as) overpopulation, combined with our pampered love of luxury and excess; in food supply and consumption as in everything else.
(Walter flagged this as 'bad')

The soil is just fine.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Another non-agricultural person presenting oneself as an expert in farming practises and procedures. If a person takes vitamins to improve their health and vitality why wouldn't you do the same for mother nature? Is it better to grow a crop in depleted unhealthy soil with no enhanced enrichment than planting into healthy soil fully enriched?

 

[petros]

"The salts and minerals to grow (identical) plants are identical....."

But the naturally occurring nutrients and conditions in which a (not identical) plant is grown, affect its nutritional value, flavour, vitality and even its survival. It may not be possible or economically viable, in an 'artificial' way, to reproduce the best 'natural' results.
"A tomato is a tomato".
Yes it is, but some tomatoes are poor, tasteless specimens. Grocery store scam-tomatoes; maybe labeled organic, maybe not. 'Real' tomatoes are much different.

Grow food using fish or shit, it'll taste like fish or shit. Why do that when all you needed was the salts from the fish or shit?

Salts are salts no matter the source.

 

[Walter]

Grow food using fish or shit, it'll taste like fish or shit. Why do that when all you needed was the salts from the fish or shit?

Salts are salts no matter the source.

Food does not taste like the soil it is grown in.

 

[VIBC]

Another non-agricultural person presenting oneself as an expert in farming practises and procedures.

If you're talking about me you're wrong - I don't, and I don't intend to, 'present myself as an expert.' Are you, yourself presenting yourself as an expert?

Maybe you could quote exactly the post and statements you're objecting to?

 

[VIBC]

Grow food using fish or shit, it'll taste like fish or shit. Why do that when all you needed was the salts from the fish or shit?

Salts are salts no matter the source.

Write horseshit or bullshit and it reads like horse or bullshit. Shit is shit whatever the arsehole.

 

[petros]

Food does not taste like the soil it is grown in.

Wanna bet?

 

[Walter]

Wanna bet?

The veggies and herbs I grow in my gardens taste nothing like dirt.

 

[VIBC]

Another non-agricultural person presenting oneself as an expert in farming practises and procedures.

Actually I was responding to a post by JLM, asking about, or suggesting, what was meant by it. Your butting-in reaction is totally inappropriate.

 

[Twin_Moose]

I doubt if ANY food is actually GOOD for the environment, it all takes nourishment out of the soil, either directly or indirectly.

So which part of the soil>plant>animal>death>decomposition>soil cycle is NOT the environment?

None! But that has nothing to do with my post.

It does for me. It suggested that food could be bad for 'the environment' by taking nourishment out of the soil; whereas food is really a component of the environment and the nourishment ends up back in the soil, air or water as part of a natural cycle.
Sorry, it's just my nit-picky habit around words (plus I make compost, and use it growing veggies ).

Revisiting that, I'm guessing you're thinking of modern farming's tendency to leave the soil 'exhausted' with diminished nutrients and poor tilth. I see that as a consequence of (what I think of as) overpopulation, combined with our pampered love of luxury and excess; in food supply and consumption as in everything else.
(Walter flagged this as 'bad')

Modern farming methods leave us with more soil and nutrition on and in the ground than older methods did.

Oh, yeah, right; sorry!

Actually, our farmers have gotten far better at keeping the soil in good condition otherwise they'd be killing the "golden goose". They rotate their crops in a very scientific manner because if they didn't how could they possibly get any kind of crop in subsequent years?
The farmers I know are very meticulous in not only how they plant their crops but how they treat and care for their animals. They'd go out of business if they didn't and it's already a precarious occupation without taking care of what you can control because the one thing they have to rely on they cannot control and that's the weather!

"The salts and minerals to grow (identical) plants are identical....."

But the naturally occurring nutrients and conditions in which a (not identical) plant is grown, affect its nutritional value, flavour, vitality and even its survival. It may not be possible or economically viable, in an 'artificial' way, to reproduce the best 'natural' results.
"A tomato is a tomato".
Yes it is, but some tomatoes are poor, tasteless specimens. Grocery store scam-tomatoes; maybe labeled organic, maybe not. 'Real' tomatoes are much different.

The soil is just fine.

Another non-agricultural person presenting oneself as an expert in farming practises and procedures. If a person takes vitamins to improve their health and vitality why wouldn't you do the same for mother nature? Is it better to grow a crop in depleted unhealthy soil with no enhanced enrichment than planting into healthy soil fully enriched?

If you're talking about me you're wrong - I don't, and I don't intend to, 'present myself as an expert.' Are you, yourself presenting yourself as an expert?
Maybe you could quote exactly the post and statements you're objecting to?

You were saying?

Actually I was responding to a post by JLM, asking about, or suggesting, what was meant by it. Your butting-in reaction is totally inappropriate.

I'm no expert, you do what works, I do have a mixed farm and use what ever practice that both enhances profits without over spending, and reduces stress on the land like every other farmer. We went from summer fallow rotation to continuous cropping rotation only difference with cattle is you rotate in your alfalfa fields every 5 years as well.