And then read what you wrote, carefully - specifically, the part about "experimenting " with "organic." Mankind was practicing organic, pesticide free farming/ranching for several millennia - would you explain how well it worked? If we try no-till farming, how do we control weeds w/o herbicides;…
And then read what you wrote, carefully - specifically, the part about "experimenting " with "organic." Mankind was practicing organic, pesticide free farming/ranching for several millennia - would you explain how well it worked? If we try no-till farming, how do we control weeds w/o herbicides; what happens to crop yields in, say, the Midwest grain fields w/o pesticides; ergot is becoming a problem, again, and scientists are looking for ways to control it - in the mean time tons (tonnes?) of rye is destroyed because of ergot contamination. How do we achieve the crop yields that feed the world w/o fertilizer?
I’m not organic but I do try to limit what I expose my garden and myself to. One example, 🤔 two, would be controlling potato bugs and asparagus beetles. For years I would examine potato leaves for the yellow patches and squish’s by hand, likewise picking off asparagus beetles by hand and squishing them ( 🤨 you’re not gonna report me to PETA are you): the result being nether of those pests are much of a pest for me now. Would you explain to me where the labor will come from to do the same for 100s, 1,000s of acres.
I am not a farmer or gardener or an expert on high-volume agriculture.
But I know there are people out there trying to apply no-chemical techniques to higher-volume farming. That does not necessarily mean no chemical fertilizers; those are not usually considered to be toxic sources.
No-till is supported by the USDA, though I don't know the details of how it would work on a large farm. It seems like it would work better in orchards or in fields of perennial crops (like berries). And I think we should look at adapting to foods that are easier to grown using less destructive techniques.
I simply see no reason to assume that we NEED toxic chemicals to grow the volume and quality of food needed by the people of Earth. I don't see any reason why someone would assert this categorically.
Don’t know if your abuse of my comment was intentional or just how you (un)intentionally read what I said, but let me reiterate that I said "feed the world," not the "entire" world. Feeding the ENTIRE world would be immoral in that it would create an unconscionable dependency, feeding the world would just be a reflection of the great gift we’ve been given. While there may be a fine line between creating a dependency and benevolence, I, and many others, believe that from those whom much has been given, from them (much) should be given.
Larry, please read what I wrote, carefully.
And then read what you wrote, carefully - specifically, the part about "experimenting " with "organic." Mankind was practicing organic, pesticide free farming/ranching for several millennia - would you explain how well it worked? If we try no-till farming, how do we control weeds w/o herbicides; what happens to crop yields in, say, the Midwest grain fields w/o pesticides; ergot is becoming a problem, again, and scientists are looking for ways to control it - in the mean time tons (tonnes?) of rye is destroyed because of ergot contamination. How do we achieve the crop yields that feed the world w/o fertilizer?
I’m not organic but I do try to limit what I expose my garden and myself to. One example, 🤔 two, would be controlling potato bugs and asparagus beetles. For years I would examine potato leaves for the yellow patches and squish’s by hand, likewise picking off asparagus beetles by hand and squishing them ( 🤨 you’re not gonna report me to PETA are you): the result being nether of those pests are much of a pest for me now. Would you explain to me where the labor will come from to do the same for 100s, 1,000s of acres.
How would YOU control wireworms?
I am not a farmer or gardener or an expert on high-volume agriculture.
But I know there are people out there trying to apply no-chemical techniques to higher-volume farming. That does not necessarily mean no chemical fertilizers; those are not usually considered to be toxic sources.
No-till is supported by the USDA, though I don't know the details of how it would work on a large farm. It seems like it would work better in orchards or in fields of perennial crops (like berries). And I think we should look at adapting to foods that are easier to grown using less destructive techniques.
I simply see no reason to assume that we NEED toxic chemicals to grow the volume and quality of food needed by the people of Earth. I don't see any reason why someone would assert this categorically.
Who says we have to feed the entire world, anyway?
Don’t know if your abuse of my comment was intentional or just how you (un)intentionally read what I said, but let me reiterate that I said "feed the world," not the "entire" world. Feeding the ENTIRE world would be immoral in that it would create an unconscionable dependency, feeding the world would just be a reflection of the great gift we’ve been given. While there may be a fine line between creating a dependency and benevolence, I, and many others, believe that from those whom much has been given, from them (much) should be given.