Cross-post in response to George's letter.
Keith
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 19:58:19 +0530
From: Maple Organics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Low input vs. high input organic systems
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Keith,
I really enjoyed going through the letter which
The major misconception with organic farming is what the chemical
companies have to say about how it works overseas... you watch these
promotion videos for Monsanto and they show how poor the crops grow
in Nepal or Central Africa and they say how foolish they are for not
using the most modern
]
- Original Message -
From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
- Original Message -
From: steve spence
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15
Subject: Re
Steve
I firmly believe that all GM's should be regarded as potentially
dangerous in the regard towards cross breeding and also in the fact that
the target of their modification my become immune to their modification.
This requires education and management on the farmers part. I can
expand
: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15
Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge.
What
irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent
farmers,
when the gm stuff starts cross
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 11:59:04AM -0600, George Lola Wesel wrote:
I as a farmer do not like to use chemicals. I consider them to be
dangerous but necessary. They are also very expensive and I don't like
the idea that they have the potential to hurt the environment. I live
here too
I would say that is a very fair question. If it was possible I would.
I know several organic farmer and they don't laugh all the way to the
bank. That is just an image they would like everybody to believe. In
order to reach the production goals required by today financial needs,
organic don't
Seems like there was a post here just awhile back on a study done which
showed big farms (and they weren't
talking about organic) just weren't able to make it as well as smaller farms,
and IIRC, it was around the 200
acre point where things started going down. So sell some land, buy some
george please look at www.acresusa.com. It is a monthly paper on alternitive
farming of all sizes. This is a first time post for me (had to do it). Acres
helped us in the community gardens in detroit and a 300 acre farm in the
thumb of Michigan. Regards John Hyde
Hi George
Before some list-cop starts yelling Off-topic, I believe it's
on-topic enough. Is this a way to dispense with all the huge
petroleum inputs in food and ag commodity production in the US (and
other industrialised countries) that Dana's just been talking about,
and that skew the
Wait, George, don't sell that land, I've got a better idea. Take maybe 250
acres of it and go to a
diversified organic farm, as I said. Take the other 750 and plant it all to
switchgrass, big and little
bluestem, side-oats gamma, compass plant and prairie dock, coneflower, and all
the other
Harmon
If I could get out of the taxes this would generate, I would have done that a
long time ago. Just a dream now. Remember that vicious circle I wrote about.
Their is more than one, not only have to keep getting bigger, but the bigger I
get the more it will cost to quit.
Good idea
Hello Keith
I don't disagree as much as you would think. This is definitly on topic
because agriculture will power the green revolution. Biofuels are our future
and I hope your right about organic farming being their as well.
I have one very big problem with small organic farms feeding the
Hello J Hyde
I will! If you have something to say just get in their and say it. Do try to
understand this is a big world and all of us have our own opinions.
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
george please look at www.acresusa.com. It is a monthly paper on alternitive
farming of all sizes.
Harmon
I have always believed that studies show the politics of the payee. In my
world anyways, small farmers are at a very large disadvange. Many years ago I
was a dairy farmer. I started out with 20 cows. Went good for a few years,
then had to buy 10 more cows, then 10 more and then 10
Hi george, john again. Do not believe every thing that Monsato says. Monanto
said in the 60s-70s that agent orarnge was safe, but aloute of my freinds are
sike or dead from sickness cought in the nam. Most of them either handled or
got sprayed with agent orange. Monsanto lied then, so we can
Hello again George
Hello Keith
I don't disagree as much as you would think.
Oh, good, that makes a change! - I'm kind of used to being disagreed
with about this. But I know what I'm saying, I've studied it very
widely for a long time, not at all just on paper, I've done it myself
in several
Cross-post in response to George's letter.
Keith
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:55:06 -0600
From: RDH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Low input vs. high input organic systems
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keith,
I can add some insight on a couple of points.
One is that
1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Steve
I've seen China and the Soviet Union do this many, many times. It is
their way of getting something from us. This is just politics. Nothing
to it at all, in 6 months or so they will cough up what they want, if we
- Original Message -
From: steve spence
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15
Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge.
What
irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent
- Original Message -
From: steve spence
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 19:15
Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
I have nothing against gm crops, per se, based on my limited knowledge.
What
irks me is when the inventors of such crops go after innocent
There is also apparently some very legitimate concern
regarding (unknown) health aspect of human consumption
of GM soybeans since China tends to directly consume
soy protein rather than running it through livestock
first as we do in the US. Even the Chinese leadership
must have some strong
Hello Dana
There is also apparently some very legitimate concern
regarding (unknown) health aspect of human consumption
of GM soybeans since China tends to directly consume
soy protein rather than running it through livestock
first as we do in the US. Even the Chinese leadership
must have some
Keith and Dana
I agree that I wouldn't want anything that isn't safe. Being feed to me
or to any animal I was going to eat. But I have a real hard time
believing this is completely about safety.
In Europe it's called Liberty Link in the US it's called Roundup
Ready. For all practical
://journeytoforever.org/
- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 10:03 PM
Subject: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
http://www.quicken.com/investments/news
3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Keith:
Not a word from Bush this morning (Feb. 25th) about biodiesl in his
energy
policy speech! He is all for fuel cells.
Comment.
- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED
: Re: [biofuel] $7.5 Million Feedstock Subsidy for SSPC
Keith:
Not a word from Bush this morning (Feb. 25th) about biodiesl in his
energy
policy speech! He is all for fuel cells.
Comment.
- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED
27 matches
Mail list logo
