See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Weeds Control Without Poisons
Source:
ACRES USA
URL Source: http://acresusa.com
Published: Jun 9, 2007
Author: Charles Walters
Post Date: 2007-06-09 17:59:53 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 1343
Comments: 158
Charles Walters, founder and long-time editor of ACRES USA, the monthly journal of eco-agriculture, has revised and expanded his now classic text on the secrets that weeds reveal to us about our soil. For a thorough undersanding of the conditions that produce certain weeds, you simply can't find a better source than this one -- certainly not one as entertaining, as full of anecdotes and home-spun common sense. The book is a treasury of knowledge, exploring the workings of soil eco-systems through the findings of such giants as William A. Albrecht, C.J. Fenzau and Philip S. Callahan. It contains a lifetime of collected wisdom that teaches us how to udnerstand and thereby control the growth of countless weed species, as well as why there is an absolute necessity for a more holistic, eco-centered perspective in agricultrue today. In Weeds, Control Without Poisons, Walters explains what fifty years of deadly chemicals have done to our soils and our bodies, demonstrating once and for all that the stuff simply doen't workl in any long-term, coomon-sense agricultural system. He goes on to tell us what will work, and he tells it with precision and clarity in a book as full of human warmth as sound soil science. Charles Walters is the author of dozens of books and thousands of articles on the technologies of eco-agriculture. In this book learn; What do weeds tell us about the soil? What can you do about row-crop weeds? Is there any role for herbicides in agriculture? We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Native American Proverb FOR THE RECORD The so-called conventional agricultural system of the United States is falling apart at the seams. Its intellectual advisers in the univesity hardly know what is going on in the countryside. Their advice has created extensive soil erosion, universal environmental contamination, and a degeneration of the health of almost every living species on this planet. Public outcry is growing in proportion to its awareness. Politicians are mocking their shared concern in order to sway votes. Legislation to curb or banish the current agricultrual system of toxic warfare on man and nature is becoming more plentiful. Caught in the middle of this political football is the farmer. One by one, his toxic crutches are being eliminated from the market. He is told that he must farm without these ''magic bullets'' which he has become so accustomed to using. This use has been sanctified by constant insistence of the USDA, land grant universities, and Extension personnel. Now, however, he is being told by the politicians that he cannot use these materials anymore, but is not being told by the lords of agriculture what to do or what to use in their place. The farmer feels lost and frustrated. And he is lost and frustrated until he realizes that the solution to his dilemma rests with his own intuition and common sense. Farming is not a desk job nor the work of a laboratory technician. It is a natural experience. It is an understanding and appreciation for all life on this planet. It is an attitude of living, of peaceful coexistence, not an atitude of kill or be killed or of constant conflict. The first step in builkding a system without toxic chemical war games with nature is to change your attitude. Become a farmer rather than a miner of the soil. Decide to leave the farm in a better condition when you depart than it was last year or when you started farming. Decide to accept responsibility for the health of this county, yourself, and your family. Weeds, Control Without Poisons is an original, even though it leans on the scholarship of many in the identification of weeds. It does not pretend to have all the answers, yet it has furnished a beginning in asking the right questions. Many minor weeds still have still to be evaluated, and there can be no doubt tat answers will be forthcoming. As far as the major crop weeds are concerned, this book hints, then sledgehammers the answers into place. Weed manuals since WWII have simply identified weeds, the implication or actual direction being that use of this or that poison is the only rational advice. Charles Walters questions this, and he has used most of his jounalistic career to gather in support for dealing with weeds without poisons. Hopefully, this little book will be a turning point away from our rush toward perdition. Arden Andersen, author of The Anatomy of Life and Energy in Agriculture and Science in Agriculture PREFACE Some few years ago, I tripped to Houston, Texas and environs for the purpose of visiting a rice producer who, once upon a time, knew my old mentor, William A. Albrecht, then emeritus professor, Department of Soils, University of Missouri. This rice grower had a small plane on his farm for the purpose of monitoring his crop -- and, not least, the weeds. He had a small laboratory on his farm because he had been trained to compound things like DDT, and -- also once upoin a time -- he chest-thumped this fact to the good professor Albrecht, adding that ''this stuff works.'' Albrecht responded, 'Yes, it works today and it will probably work ten years from now.' And with that Albrecht shot a finger into the rice grower's chest. 'But ten years from now you won't know where it is!' Much of the toxic genetic chemistry spilled into agriculture over the past several decades is still out there. I know where some of it is. Richard L. Penny is an Iowa scientist who spent several years at the U.S. South Pole station. He took the biopsy specimens that revealed DDT in the fatty tissue of all the examined penguins. Appartently this toxin has established itself in the migratory food chain that travels to the South Pole and back. ..... This is an excellent book, and I recommend it for everyone that has any interest in understanding food, and how it affects our lives. There can be no doubt, after you read it, that America has been on a very dangerous path for a long time, and, it is time to correct that path, RIGHT NOW! As an example of what this book shows; Redroot pigweed ... best possible laboratory analysis for phosphate availablility on a daily meal basis. ... quackgrass ... have herbal properties useful in treating urinary disorders. Decay systems are at fault when this weed appears. Excess aluminum also is a problem for the crop, albeit nor for quackgrass which can live with it. And on and on through countless different weeds, using them as a teaching tool to learn what the soil is lacking, or, has to much of. Amazing the knowledge that we should be using can be this simple..... And this book is much more than that as well. It is a look at farm life, and at OUR responsibilities, as we furnish the power behind those who grow things for us through the decisions that we make on a daily basis.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-21) not displayed.
.
.
.
#22. To: All (#20)
When I go far north I collect all the King boletes I can bring back in August.
The work has been done and the solution is in the literature. This is a matter of choices. Unfortunately, the choices have been made for us by the money power in favor of Toxic Rescue Chemistry, corporate ag, and the selling out of the American economic system for debt and war. UNFORGIVEN The American Econmic System SOLD for Debt and War Hands-On Agronomy using the methods of William A. Albrecht. The Albrecht method is compiled in four volumes. Kinsey's book above covers the basics of soil fertiity using those methods. I currently have Vol. 2 of the Albrecht Papers (a compilation of his work at the University of Missouri), Soil Fertility and Animal Health. The other three volumes are being reprinted, along with the one I have, and should be available soon from AcresUSA. The problem right now is that chemical based inputs have depleted the soils so badly that they are no longer a viable living system. Humus content in many soils is now 2% to 2-1/2% when it should be 5% to 6%. I could go into a more detailed explanation, but as I said, the work has already been done. What this hinges on this is the production of nutrious foods which the current chemical paradigm has no hope of achieving. Here also is an interesting article from the June 2007 issue of AcresUSA. http://www .acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/June07_CruelWinds.pdf Another book which is essential to seeing how minerals work in plants, animals and humans is Minerals for the Genetic Code.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Poor soil management, I'll bet. But the chemical system has made inroads everywhere, even in China, where the humus content is 1% or less and some topsoil is only one inch deep. China has recognized the problem and has brought a few soil scientists in to help Chinese farmers adopt more productive and nutritious farming practices.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Gee, it's a wonder mankind survived for many thousands of years without Dow and Monsanto and pasteurized milk...
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
Dow, Monsanto, ConAgro are not the long-term fix, they are the short-term (profitable) "solution." We CAN do better.
Makes sense. I don't think what we are doing is right but throwing it all out isn't right either. Finding a better way is always the answer.
It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
ORGANIC is NOT to blame for soil fertility depletion. There are MANY reasons. A tree may have a taproot which goes many many feet into the ground, yet it gets 95% of it's nutrition from the top 1 foot of soil. I do 100% organic, and have excellent soil fertility. There are ways to do things, and ways NOT to. Plowing under the stalks left from harvest is NOT a good way to build soil fertility. Simply laying them ON TOP of the soil and allowing them to decay there IS. Why did this country have rich fertile soil from the time it was founded up until modern agriculture practices became more commonly in use? Another mistake is one which is common for man in ALL areas - we think the Creator was a dummy who had archaic laws and rules which we need to fix! He gave us "laws" concerning farming practices - and we simply refuse to obey them (well, most folks do anyhow). Things like the Land Sabbaths - most folks would say "What the hell is the "land sabbath?"...
If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
A great potion of what farmers are doing will have to be modified to save the soils. Don't miss my comment above.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Not to mention that dandelion leaves are excellent for your liver. Just pick small leaves and toss them into your salad (use small leaves, cause the big ones get too bitter). Around here we have devils claw plants. The seed pods literally wraps around your legs when you are walking through tall grass, they are cool looking pods, but can be painful if you are not wearing tall boots. Most folks around here consider them "just another noxious weed" but the root is excellent in treating arthritis, gout and rheumatism. Many of the "weeds" people work so hard to eradicate from their property are actually healing herbs. If only people would work half that hard to remove allopathic medicine from their lives the world would be a healthier place. :oP
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
One gardeners means of deciding if a plant is a weed or a garden plant is quite simple. Pull on it, if it pulls up easily, it must have been a garden plant.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
Can you amplify that information for me?
I didn't say that. Don't twist what I say if you want me to continue to read what you post.
It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
A full mulch garden is one of the best things to do. But getting that amount of mulch to cover much more than several hundred square feet could be a problem. Spoiled hay is the best source.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Here on our little patch of dirt, we eat quite well without "Big Chem" we have three large garden plots, one is 15,000 sq ft of Blue Hopi corn that is primarily for our dairy cow (who does not get antibiotics or hormones either) the secondary use for this corn is our corn meal, but this is a very minor use as we do not eat any where near as much as the cow does. Our veggies are not as big and beautiful as the GMO/Hybrid/chemical sprayed (we grow all heirloom varieties) and they may even have a few bug bites in them. But we are able to raise more than enough for ourselves, and share a lot with others, and are even talking about selling some or our produce in the future. Our chickens do not eat big chem produced grains either, nor do they get laying mash or any other nasty junk. We have three fully mature laying hens right now and they produce more eggs than we can eat. We also have at least 50 young birds coming up as future layers and for butchering. Our goats are free range, and definitely nothing raised on chemicals. We give them some veggies every now and then, and when we are milking a handful of grain to encourage them to stand still. They provide us with meat and milk at an average cost of no more than $20 per year to keep a dozen goats. Than $20 is well offset when you can easily sell a 6 month old cut billy goat for $90. We have 8 nannies of breeding age right now, and can expect 2-4 kids from each minimum of once, but easily twice per year. I could go on and on, but the point is, anyone who starves because they will not use chemicals has not done their homework, and is not willing to sweat a bit in order to eat.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
Altogether too many of the people that promote such are nothing but shills for corporate insanity. HEAR HEAR!!! THREE CHEERS FOR COMMON SENSE!!!!!!
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
That is why you need to preserve genetic diversity in plants. This is same thing that happened with the potato famine in Ireland. Come on people, think a little bit here. What happens when a family inbreeds - children start turning up deformed. Common sense states that diversity is a requirement, not just another option. Another case of people thinking that science knows more than God. Here is a very informative video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4310450826413949175
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
LOL! That is telling it like it is!
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Outstanding! I was getting ready to do another book report for 4um on this book! It is one of the best ever written, if someone wishes to understand what happened to the America we BELIEVED we lived in!
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
There was a post done on 4um yesterday (?) titled Stop the Aid! And it was speaking of Africa, more or less in line with what you were saying. But it was written by a native of africa with excellent points.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
In short, innnieway is talking about mulch, God's natural fertilizer. To begin with, one needs to understand the difference between soil and dirt. Dirt consists of sand, broken rock, and other inorganic debris, while soil may have dirt in it, it is composed chiefly of decomposed (composted) organic materials. Before man started plowing, grasses, forests and vegetation grew up, some was either harvested by man or eaten by animals, then at the end of the season the plants either died down or defoliated, littering the ground with organic debris that then protected the soil from sun and wind for the following season while the buried debris decomposed to form more soil. When this organic material is removed or plowed under, it is placed out of the reach of the plants roots, rendering it useless. When the ground is tilled, plowed, or ripped more than 6 inches deep the natural capillary action of the soil is disrupted and will take more than a season to rebuild, meaning that this patch of ground then needs to be irrigated. On the other hand, if one decides to tear the ground as little as possible, and place as much organic debris ON TOP of the ground you are holding water in the soil where it can be utilized and allowing the natural decomposition of the plants to rebuild the soil. It is really quite simple if you think of the natural chain of events. When a plant grows, it takes nutrition from the soil, so then that nutrition is then stored in the plant, so if you allow dead plants to remain on top of the soil it allows the plant to decompose where next years plants can retrieve the nutrition. There is a great book on the matter called Plowman's Folly, you can read it for free at the following website. "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
Gotta watch all of this at least starting at 3:50 mark. <..>
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Other economic sources include grass clippings (a bagging mower makes this easy) and chopped corn stalks.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
Thanks, that's the info I was lookin' for.
Leaves in the fall also if you are near trees.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
If you will pardon me, I need to expand on this, please. For instance; Not really !! This is not correct, but what you posted is true, but you must take that in the context of how the aid to Africa was distributed; always through the hands of those who could help the multi-nationals steal the natural resources of the nation. I.e., the government, or those who would shortly be the government. I hope we are in agreement on this, because there have been books written and films made on the subject. The Green Revolution I wonder..... do you understand the Green Revolution? Let me explain.... You take good farm land, productive, and dump toxic chemicals on it. This causes a spurt of production. This was the Green Revolution in a nutshell, BUT, when you do something like that, all you have done is steal production from the future. Because the ground will only produce so much. (And the other side to this is when you take marginally productive land and do the same thing with toxic chemicals; they produce for a short time, and then are virtually dead after wards.) So the Green Revelution lasted about 10-15 years, and then the farmers started to learn about 'more inputs.' The chemicals were sold to the farmers, in the beginning, cheaply. That ended about the same time they learned about needing to put more and more chemicals on the ground 'in order to maintain production.' By then, the farmers (many, many of them) had bought lots of new equipment, more land, more buildings, and more more more debt. They were locked in, and are still today... those who are left: America has lost 25 million family farms since toxic chemicals came into use. Now, not all of this can be blamed on the chemicals, but surely some of it can. Most of the blame rests on a government that set off to put food production into a few strong hands. However, if you ever get serious about studying this, you will find that you were arguing against yourself; The Green Revolution shipped food into a land that was supposed to hold 20 nomads. What, pray tell, is the difference between America, and Africa? When you increase production, and hold down price, is not the same scenario in play, no matter where you talk of? If not, then please explain the Green Revolution to me against a backdrop of a nation, America, which can no longer feed itself, and which is a net importer, in a big way, of food?
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
There probably isn't a solution other than Malthusian. While Malthus' "predictions" may have been somewhat "ugly", and the time frame he gave apparently off, it still falls in line with Scripture. In fact, he likely understated the outcome... Isaiah 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, [so] their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 6:11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and [there be] a great forsaking in the midst of the land. 13 But yet in it [shall be] a tenth, HMMMM.... 90% population reduction. Isn't that what the globalists are calling for? I think they're gonna succeed - and God Almighty Himself is gonna help them out! BUT, this thread isn't about Scripture or population reduction; it's about FOOD and WEEDS and such... SO, I tell ya what, I'll make you a deal: If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
You are very welcome.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
Here in this area of TX we don't have many trees, but have a wood chipper and use it to chip wood and corn stalks. Also I use a bagging lawnmower. The grass clippings placed on top of burlap are an excellent barrier against weeds. What I do is place where I want my rows in the garden, mulch heavily between the rows with any organic material I can get my hands on, and then only dig where the plants actually grow each ensuing year. Any organic material can make great mulch, and for the sake of renewing soil using a wide variety is best, that way you will renew the largest array of nutrients back into the soil. Most people think that mulching is expensive. It can be if you purchase your mulch, yet most people have several sources of mulches available that they throw away. Even if you do not have enough mulch for it to be thick enough to double as a weed deterant, ANY amount of ANY kind of mulch will help in renewing your soil.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"
Look at the population... and for your information, the leading cause of death in the South 1865 until WWII was due to malnutrition. Mankind? Life expectancy somewhere between 19 and 45 years for most of its history.
Neither does the Sahel where they are calling for "more topsoil". Most people could use a good solid cource in Environmental science; systems and math based.
I don't doubt that one bit. ALL disease is the result of only 2 things: Common, "short-lived" diseases (like colds, flu, and ear infections) are the result of malnutrition - the body isn't getting all the nourishment it needs to support a 100% healthy functioning immune system, which would destroy the "offending organism" before symptoms even occur. The long-term debilitating diseases (like cancer, Alzheimer's, and autism) which are becoming more and more prevalent in today's society are the result of toxins. You could probably ingest one drop of arsenic today and it wouldn't kill you. In fact, you could probably get away with ingesting 1 drop daily for years. BUT, if you did that, eventually it WOULD kill you - though the arsenic itself may not get the BLAME for it (he died of cancer)... Just a few years ago, the government released an optimistic report stating that the rate of cancer was leveling off or declining. In 2002, the National Cancer Institute disclosed that the data used to prepare this report was seriously flawed. According to the National Cancer Institute, the incidences for some of the most deadly cancers are sharply increasing. The American Cancer Association responded to these stunning statistics by urging that more research be devoted to ascertain why prevention programs are failing. What has become strikingly apparent is that the most respected cancer institutions are "clueless" to explain why more Americans than ever before are contracting cancer. "Cancer results from the accumulation of mutations in genes that regulate cellular proliferation." Quoted from The New England Journal of Medicine, November 23, 2000, "Roads Leading to Breast Cancer." Genes regulate cell proliferation. When genes become mutated, normal cell regulatory processes are disrupted. If too many genes involved in regulating cell proliferation become mutated, the cells lose control over their own growth rate. Cancer is a disease characterized by rapidly propagating cells that expand locally by invasion and systemically by metastasis. According to this site, the most prevalent cause of environmental genetic mutation is the food we eat everyday...Unfortunately, the list of gene-mutating foods keeps growing, as scientists expose the fact that processed foods (designed for taste and convenience) are incredibly dangerous. Again, no argument here... But that "life expectancy" rating IS somewhat misleading. In the last 100 years infant mortality has decreased dramatically! The life expectancy rating takes into account the ages of all deaths, and averages it out - thus with a much lower infant mortality, naturally there will be a much higher "average"... I'm in my upper 40's and don't even have a "family doctor". I haven't been to a doctor for illness in years (in fact, I couldn't even begin to pinpoint the last time). Yet I see many folks younger than me that are going to the doctor several times a year - and I can literally "work circles" around many of today's youth. BUT I was raised by folks who did things "by the old school". You see, I was adopted when I was 6 days old by parents who were 60 YEARS OLD at the time!!! That's right, my dad was born in 1901 (Talk about healthy, you'd have to figure yourself to be in damn good health to be willing to undertake a task like that at that age, feeling confident you'd be around to see the child grown and on his own)... I was raised on RAW milk and butter, and fruits and vegetables out of the garden which were NOT "chemically tainted" (and which a lot of time was spent on in canning and freezing to last until the next year). We raised and butchered our own meats, and ground our own flour from the wheat we grew. (And although I "abandoned" those practices for some time while I was "out in the world on my own", I have now returned to doing ALL of them - or will be up to and including grinding my own flour and cornmeal beginning this year). BTW, my "food practices" also include following the "food laws" given by the Creator in Scripture. I won't eat pork, rabbit, catfish, or shrimp for example. Coming from the "old school" I also learned that when daddy says "shut up and do as you're told" that's what you did - the "reward" for disobedience is not pleasant. Could it be that the Creator actually did/does know what is best for us??? After all, the laws He gave us were intended for OUR benefit, not HIS. If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man. Albert Einstein
You're saying that dioxin was negligently included in Agent Orange? Then pray tell, what was the primary ingredient intended to defoliate Southeast Asia?
Do you really believe that? I have heard the same thing said about America prior to 'whenever,' however, if you bother to read much of the info that has been published and which came directly from the jounals and records made by the people who settled America up to the time of the Civil War, you get a completely different picture. Daniel Boone is a good example; he lived to 89. In fact, if you subtract out those who died from such mundane things as arrows, bullet and knife wounds etc., they had a life expectency not much different from ours. Let us take it a step further; since 1900 (and the studies have been done), if you remove from the equation the gaines made in infant mortality rates, a man who reaches the age of 50 LIVES ON AVERAGE 6 MONTHS LONGER, TODAY, THAN THAT MAN'S GREAT-GRANDFATHER WOULD HAVE LIVED IF HE REACHED THE AGE OF 50 IN 1900. That is the entire gain from toxic chemical farming and toxic chemical doctoring, which, of course, go hand in hand.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Jeeeeeeezzzz! There you go again, telling it like it is! shame on you! I was raised on RAW milk and butter, and fruits and vegetables out of the garden which were NOT "chemically tainted" (and which a lot of time was spent on in canning and freezing to last until the next year). We raised and butchered our own meats, and ground our own flour from the wheat we grew. We was lucky, was we not? Except we never ground our own flour. And, just like you, I knew better; that, dad, is why they have food for sale in the stores! But we all learn and move on, hopefully. And of everything you said, this is THE KEY; But, like I said in another reply, I fully support your (or anyone's) right to consume your nutrition in any fashion you see fit. I only ask that we remove and quit making new "laws" which PREVENT me (well not ME necessarily, but the vast majority of folks) from consuming MY/their nutrition as I/they see fit (for example the near impossibility to purchase RAW MILK; or NOT having labeling which indicates that an ingredient is genetically modified for example). When laws are passed which are intended to benefit one part of a society, i.e., the corporate farmers in this case, protecting them from competition, then nothing that is contained in the laws that are passed can be judged to be in the interests of the people of the nation. This brings into question everything that went before the passage of such laws and which lead up to the passage of such laws. This includes toxic/chemical farming. If such was, indeed, better and more healthful than the alternatives, NO LAWS WOULD BE NECESSARY AS THE TRUTH WOULD BE ON THEIR SIDE. It is never necessary to pass laws in such cases except to hide lies and deceive people.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
This includes toxic/chemical farming. If such was, indeed, better and more healthful than the alternatives, NO LAWS WOULD BE NECESSARY AS THE TRUTH WOULD BE ON THEIR SIDE. It is never necessary to pass laws in such cases except to hide lies and deceive people. Man's laws generally suck. God gave us ten. Christ cut it down to two. This session alone, the lege here in TX passed just under 1500 new "laws." Do we have a problem, Houston?
Then pray tell, what was the primary ingredient intended to defoliate Southeast Asia? HOUNDDAWG Negligent? Yes, in that they did not give a single thought to the harm inflicted by inclusion of pure dioxin... and no... the company in Turin, Italy did it on purpose ( used partially filled, used and returned etc dioxin barrels ) to increase their profits from the contract and admitted as much. and my "recently at least" un-researched inclination is paraquat.
Apples and oranges The maximum life span of man has not increased one day in the past 10,000, or more years. It is fixed at somewhere approaching 100 ( +/-10 ) years and is based on the cell division capability, i.e. hard-wired in. The average life expectancy is now somewhere between 50 and 76 depending largely on infant mortality (subtract the zeros and the average zooms)but also death at childbirth and a man " wearing out" by 45 or 50. The median life span of humans from say 1400 backwards ( and some 'natural Rousseauian noble savage' areas now) is somewhere between 40 and 60 years. Three completely different concepts and three valid concepts to be used in evaluating current benefits and trends.
IMNSHO... over and above some personal taboo... the " 'food laws ' given by the Creator in Scripture" ... are malarky as a health-related paradigm, with no substantive origin or value whatsoever, except what you choose to ascribe to them. The smartest rabbi I have ever known, and one reputed to be the sole expert on extremely esoteric and ancient burial rites on the East Coast... told me one afternoon sitting in his home... after we had planted flowers from 7 AM-2 PM in 103 degree weather for the neighborhood so his tyrant of a wife would look good to the Gardening Committee.... " the 'food laws' were formulated for the uninformed masses as a tangible, felt and omnipresent physical means of eliciting daily discipline and control through taboo and proscription." ...and that's all I got to say 'bout that... F. G.
I am in total agreement with you all here.
Houston, we have a problem......
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
I am truly sorry that you are so poorly informed. " the 'food laws' were formulated for the uninformed masses as a tangible, felt and omnipresent physical means of eliciting daily discipline and control through taboo and proscription." And if you truly believe this, then I am doubly sorry for you. BUT, that being said, you should try reading some of the diet books, such as Eat Right 4 Your Type, which clearly explains that pork, as a for instance, can not be eaten by anyone benefically. Or soda pop drank. There are other non-religious books which bring out such subjects as well. Here in 4um there have been numerous discussions about the food laws and such things as pork, and the info is rather amazing when you break it all down. That being said, I doubt that the facts have changed many minds, here or elsewhere for that matter, cause in these subjects, facts do not count for much. This is an individual choice, but that being said, this I will guarentee to you; IF you do the studies necessary to learn, you will find that EVERY food law contained in the Bible is correct, scientifically. I certainly do not expect you to accept that, but perhaps it will give you something to think about as you continue to learn with us. Or not, as the case may be, but you will find supporting evidence in other areas of your life as well; I know this for a fact. Why? Because once you begin to touch on this subject, the info just keeps flowing, and, to avoid it, YOU must make a decision to ignore and stop learning. Your choice, my friend. Make a wise one.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Comments (63 - 158) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#23. To: JCHarris, lodwick, innieway (#4)
(Edited)
Take your pick and provide a solution other than Malthusian.
#24. To: farmfriend (#5)
(Edited)
and they are starving.
#25. To: JCHarris (#4)
You would be very hungry were it not for Big Chem
#26. To: BTP Holdings. concerned people here (#24)
#27. To: BTP Holdings (#24)
has brought a few soil scientists in to help Chinese farmers adopt more productive and nutritious farming practices.
#28. To: farmfriend (#5)
Her point was that Africa has been using organic agriculture since man first walked upright and they are starving.
#29. To: farmfriend (#27)
I don't think what we are doing is right but throwing it all out isn't right either. Finding a better way is always the answer.
#30. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
The parts can be used for herbs, wine, and salads. I wouldn't call that a weed.
#31. To: JCHarris (#3)
That's the definition of a weed.
#32. To: innieway (#28)
Plowing under the stalks left from harvest is NOT a good way to build soil fertility. Simply laying them ON TOP of the soil and allowing them to decay there IS.
#33. To: innieway (#28)
ORGANIC is NOT to blame for soil fertility depletion.
#34. To: Esso (#32)
Can you amplify that information for me?
#35. To: JCHarris (#4)
You would be very hungry were it not for Big Chem
#36. To: richard9151 (#8)
And I do not care who anyone meets or talks with. It does not make sense to continue to promote toxic solutions to problems that do not exist. And, I am speaking of weeds and the so-called control thereof.
#37. To: farmfriend (#11)
Her main thrust was the sweet potato root that is a staple in her country. It is being attacked by a virus.
An appropriate use of GMOs if you ask me.
Good Grief
#38. To: innieway, JCHarris, all (#25)
Gee, it's a wonder mankind survived for many thousands of years without Dow and Monsanto and pasteurized milk...
#39. To: BTP Holdings, JCHarris, lodwick, innieway, all (#23)
UNFORGIVEN The American Econmic System SOLD for Debt and War
#40. To: JCHarris (#15)
This scenario exists today. I am not so sure aid to Africa is not cruel.
#41. To: Esso (#32)
Can you amplify that information for me?
#42. To: JCHarris (#15)
I am not so sure aid to Africa is not cruel.
#43. To: BTP Holdings (#34)
Spoiled hay is the best source.
#44. To: ladybug (#41)
#45. To: ladybug (#43)
#46. To: JCHarris, farmfriend, lady bug, lodwick, all (#15)
This scenario exists today. I am not so sure aid to Africa is not cruel.
#47. To: JCHarris (#4)
Take your pick and provide a solution other than Malthusian.
I'll staunchly DEFEND your right to consume all the genetically modified stuff you want, along with anything that's been sprayed with anything, and all the pasteurized dairy products your heart desires IF you'll defend MY right to know what's in the store-bought food I eat through comprehensive labels which include whether it's GMO or not, and things like RAW MILK.... Deal?
#48. To: Esso (#44)
Thanks, that's the info I was lookin' for.
#49. To: BTP Holdings (#45)
Leaves in the fall also if you are near trees.
#50. To: innieway (#25)
Gee, it's a wonder mankind survived for many thousands of years without Dow and Monsanto and pasteurized milk...
#51. To: ladybug (#49)
Here in this area of TX we don't have many trees,
#52. To: JCHarris (#50)
(Edited)
the leading cause of death in the South 1865 until WWII was due to malnutrition.
1. Malnutrition
2. Toxicity
The sad fact is that statistics show that 1 in 3 people will contract some form of cancer in their lifetime. Compare that with the 1 in 30 rate observed in 1900... Mankind? Life expectancy somewhere between 19 and 45 years for most of its history.
Here's another interesting little "unadvertised morsel" to chew on:
Even though "life expectancy" is now over 70, if you were born in 1900 and lived to the age of 20 you had a better chance of seeing 70 than if you were born in 1980.
So I don't know - you tell me. Is there a connection between my very good health and my "food practices" as opposed to the plethora of health problems practically everyone around me faces and their "food practices"? I'm convinced there is.
But, like I said in another reply, I fully support your (or anyone's) right to consume your nutrition in any fashion you see fit. I only ask that we remove and quit making new "laws" which PREVENT me (well not ME necessarily, but the vast majority of folks) from consuming MY/their nutrition as I/they see fit (for example the near impossibility to purchase RAW MILK; or NOT having labeling which indicates that an ingredient is genetically modified for example).
NAH, people know better - His laws are archaic, impossible to follow, and mistake-riddled; and we need to fix His mistakes...
#53. To: JCHarris (#17)
#54. To: JCHarris, innieway (#50)
Mankind? Life expectancy somewhere between 19 and 45 years for most of its history.
#55. To: innieway, JCHarris, farmfriend, lodwick, all (#52)
BTW, my "food practices" also include following the "food laws" given by the Creator in Scripture. I won't eat pork, rabbit, catfish, or shrimp for example. Coming from the "old school" I also learned that when daddy says "shut up and do as you're told" that's what you did - the "reward" for disobedience is not pleasant. Could it be that the Creator actually did/does know what is best for us??? After all, the laws He gave us were intended for OUR benefit, not HIS. NAH, people know better - His laws are archaic, impossible to follow, and mistake-riddled; and we need to fix His mistakes...
#56. To: richard9151. farm friends here, cinnamon (#55)
When laws are passed which are intended to benefit one part of a society, i.e., the corporate farmers in this case, protecting them from competition, then nothing that is contained in the laws that are passed can be judged to be in the interests of the people of the nation. This brings into question everything that went before the passage of such laws and which lead up to the passage of such laws.
#57. To: HOUNDDAWG (#53)
You're saying that dioxin was negligently included in Agent Orange?
#58. To: richard9151 (#54)
Daniel Boone is a good example; he lived to 89
#59. To: innieway, richard9151, farmfriend, lodwick, all (#55)
"food laws" given by the Creator in Scripture. I won't eat pork, rabbit, catfish, or shrimp for example
#60. To: richard9151, innieway, , farmfriend, lodwick, all (#55)
quit making new "laws" which PREVENT me (well not ME necessarily, but the vast majority of folks) from consuming MY/their nutrition as I/they see fit (for example the near impossibility to purchase RAW MILK; or NOT having labeling which indicates that an ingredient is genetically modified for example).
#61. To: lodwick (#56)
Do we have a problem, Houston?
#62. To: JCHarris, innieway, farmfriend, lodwick (#59)
are malarky as a health-related paradigm, with no substantive origin or value whatsoever, except what you choose to ascribe to them.
.
.
.