subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:
:
;
:Wen-King Su wrote in message
;>;>;>:>;>So you erred when you say I erred for I have shown you an example
:>:which seems to define "reluctant".
;>:>;>:
:>;>:>;
;>:>;>:>;<smile> Grasping at straws, are we?   I thought it would come to
:this.
;>;>:>;
:>:>;>:>Then you thought wrong.  It was merely a bit of amusement.
;>;>:>;
:>:>;>:
;>;>:>;So too, was I amused, did you not notice the smile?
:>:>;
;>;>:>You have used the "<smile>" previously to convey a sense of arrogance,
:>:>;>and for that reason I no longer pay attention to it.
;>;>:
:>:>;
;>;>:Then you illustrate perfectly how you may be deceived.  <smile>
:>:
;>;>So?  Did I say I was immune to any deception at all?  What I said was
:>:>my definitions are some of the things I can know beyond deception.
;
:
;>;Yes, and we have been made aware of how that is not a correct assumption.
:
;>Yes what?  That I said I was immune to any deception at all?  When did I
:>say that?  Again, what I said was my definitions are some of the things
;>I can know beyond deception.
:
;
:Yes,and we have been made aware of how yours is not a correct assumption.
;You are not immune, nor can you show one instance whre you might be.

Yes what?  That I have said I was immune to any deception at all?  When
was that?  Why didn't you answer that question?  Is your ego preventing
you from admitting you made a mistake again?  But of course I have shown
you one example where my knowledge of my definition is beyond deception:
Even if all my peceptions are forged, and my definitions are different
from what they would be if perceptions are not forged, and as a result I
have formed a definition of "flat" that contained what I defined to be a
dimple in it, I would still absolutely know my definition of "flat" to
have contained what I defined to be a dimple in it.

:>;>;>;>What I term definition is definition.  You are the one who is
;grasping
:>:>:>:>the straw by continuing to mis-represent what I said.  For example,
;>;here you said I said my definitions are of a nature that can not be
:subject
;>;>:>:>to deception, when I have repeatedly made it clear that it is my
:>:>;knowledge of my definition that is not subject to deception.
;>:>;>:
:>;>:>;Once more, let me make this clear.  You have no knowledge except that
;>:>;which is subject to deception.  Definitions are just more of the same.
:>:>;>
;>;>:>Show that to be true.  What do you mean "definitions are just more of
:the
;>:>;>same?"  Definitions are not knowledges.  What I know of my definition
:is
;>;>:>knowledge.  This is another example where continue to mis-represent
:what
;>:>;>I said.  Now, why don't you try to show that my knowledge of my
:>;definitions
;>:>:>is subject to deception.
:>;>;
;>:>:
:>;>;Really?  Definitions are not known by you?  Ahhhhh, then finally you
;come
:>:to
;>;>:agreement.  But then you attempt clarification by stating a
:contradiction
;>:to
:>;>;your previous sentence.  This is another example of how you say one
;thing
:>:>:from one side of your mouth, and a contradictory thing for the other
;side.
:>;>;Why do you not just say that your knowledge is limited thus you can no
;>:>:nothing that is not subject to deception?
:>;
;>:>Where did I say definitions are not known by me?  I said definitions are
:>;>not knowledegs, what I know of my definition is knowledge.  I pretty much
;>:>clearly said that definitions are known by me.  Here is yet another
:example
;>;>where you continue to mis-represent what I said.  Isn't what you do a
:>:>strategy more fitting of the one who is grasping for straw?  Now, again,
;>;>why don't you try to show that my knowledge of my definitions is subject
:>:>to deception.
;>;
:
;>;This is a procedure that seems to be going nowhere very slowly.  You say
:>:somehting, and unless it is parrotted back to you, you say you did not say
;>;it.  I would say this tactic is unworthy of an individual who was honestly
:>:attempting to come to the awareness he claims he seeks, and
;>;misrepresentation is clearly shown by means of your posting contrary
:>:sentences.
;
:>The problem is with you.  Where did I say in the above that the definitions
;>are not known by me?  Parrot it back to me please.  You are the one who
:>is using a tactic unworthy of an individual who was honestly attempting
;>to come to the awareness he claims he seek.
:
;
:Do not be obtuse.  You said definitions are not knowledges.  You also say
;you know your definitions.  Contradictory and illogical is one who does not
:even recognize his own failings.

Of course they are not knowledge and neither is a piece of rock -- they
are instead something to be known.  Isn't that what I said with the two
sentences: "Definitions are not knowledges.  What I know of my definition
is knowledge." Didn't I always use the construct: "what I know of my
definitons", which is like "what I know of this mountain"?  Now show me
where I say I do not know my definitions, or admit you made a mistake
again.

:>:>:>:>That it is something
;>;>;>;>that I can know beyond deception.  And I have been able to explain
:why
;>:>:>:>my knowledge of my definition is not subject to deception -- it does
:>;not convey information.
;>;>:>:
:>:>;>;Wrong, it must convey information or it is not a definition.
;>;>:>
:>:>;>No it doesn't.  You are confusing, as you always have, definition and
;>;>:>language that attempts to convey the description of a definition.
:>:>;
;>;>:
:>:>;We are confusing nothing, but you seem to have some abiguous method of
;>;>:definition that does not require perception.  We are merely attempting
:to
;>:>;get you to show us what that method is.  If you can not, then we may
:>;assume
;>:>:that your definitions, as other humans, are constructed from the base of
:>;>;perceptive stimulii.
;>:
:>;>What do you mean by "require perception?"  When did I ever said that
;>:>perception cannot be the basis for forming a definition in such a way
:>;>that even if the perception is deceived, I still have complete knowledge
;>:>of my definition thus formed.  Even if all my peceptions are forged, and
:>;>my definitions are different from what they would be if perceptions are
;>:>not forged, I still have 100% absolute knowledge of what my definitions
:>;>are.  If I have formed a definition of "flat" that contained what I
;defined
:>:>to be a dimple in it, I would still know my definition of "flat" to have
;>;>contained what I defined to be a dimple in it.  So why go through the
:>:>excercise of showing me that perception can be the basis of forming a
;>;>definition when I do not disagree with it.  What I disagree is that I can
:>:>ended up being deceived in my knowledeg of my definitions.  Are you going
;>;>to try and show me otherwise?
:>:
;>;
:>:Do not be misled by what you think is knowledge.  If your perceptions are
;in
:>;question, then anything you define by means of them will also be in
;>:question.  This is too simple and too self evident for me to expend any
:more
;>;energy in attempting to acquaint you with the facts.
:
;>Again the narrow sense of "know" is that you are said to know something
:>to be true if that thing is in fact true and that you are aware of it
;>being true.  In that narrow sense I certainly do know what my definitions
:>contains. Please show that I can't have that knowledge even if all my
;>perceptions are forged.
:
;
:No.  You show a definition not based upon perception.  Then you will show us
;all that you can have knowledge not subject to deception.

Why couldn't I instead show an example of a definition that is "based"
on perception but yet I get to have absolute knowledge of my definition:
Even if all my peceptions are forged, and my definitions are different
from what they would be if perceptions are not forged, and as a result I
have formed a definition of "flat" that contained what I defined to be a
dimple in it, that I would still know absolutely my definition of "flat"
to have contained what I defined to be a dimple in it.  That knowledge
is beyond deception because no information is conveyed, and deception is
defined to be the conveying of false information.

:>;>What do you mean by "formed from perceptions".  When did I ever said that
;>:>perception cannot be the basis for forming a definition in such a way
:>;>that even if the perception is deceived, I still have complete knowledge
;>:>of my definition thus formed.  What I do say is that the knowledge of
:>;>definition is not subject to deception.  You were merely making a claim
;>:>that it isn't so without being able to show why not so.  That doesn't
:>;>constitute a kind of limit.
;>:
:>;
;>:Here, we have but one more careless example of meandering reasoning.  You
:>;have no knowledge if the perception is incorrect by any means.  It is
;shown
:>:adequately in your refusal to recognize your own limitations in respect to
;>;what you demand from others.
:>
;>No you havn't shown that.  All you have done is to say what I claim to
:>know isn't knowledge.  Again, the narrow sense of "know" is that you are
;>said to know something to be true if that thing is in fact true and that
:>you are aware of it being true.  In that narrow sense I certainly do know
;>what my definitions contains. Please show that I can't have that knowledge
:>even if all my perceptions are forged.
;
:
;I have shown it, you have observed it, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.
:One more example of how you may be deceived.

What do you mean simply refuse to acknowledge it?  Didn't I give you
reason that your claim was invalid in every case?  Again, the narrow sense
of "know" is that you are said to know something to be true if that thing
is in fact true and that you are aware of it being true.  In that narrow
sense I certainly do know what my definitions contains. Please show that
I can't have that knowledge even if all my perceptions are forged.

:>;>;We merely want evidence of this claim.  Give us a
;>:>:definition of flat that is not based upon your perceptions and you will
:>;have
;>:>;accomplished your claim.  Your previous attempt was shown to be based
:upon
;>;>:perceptions so you must try once more.  Your reluctance to do so may
:>:>;indicate you are unable and thus quite possibly deceived over what else
;>;you
:>:>:might think you know.
;>;>
:>:>No need to do that, for even if my definition of flat is forme based on
;>;>forged perceptions, and I ended up with a definition of "flat" that
:>:>contained what I defined to be a dimple in it, I would still know my
;>;>definition of "flat" to have contained what I defined to be a dimple in
:>:>it.  Unless you can show how I can be deceived in my knowledge of my
;>;>definition in such cases, there is no point trying to give you a
:definition
;>:>of flat that is not based on perception, right?
:>;
;>:Ahhhh, once more you sidestep the real issue and proceed to insert
:>;proprietary reasoning as adequate to support your claim.  This
;conversation
:>:is without substance and your responses become redundant.
;
:>You are invite to show it to be the real issue by showing me how I can
;>be deceived in my knowledge of my definitions if all my perceptions are
:>deceived.  The reply from your side is without substance until you can
;>show it to be relevent.
:
;>Show that even if all my peceptions are forged, and my definitions
:>are different from what they would be if perceptions are not forged, that
;>I couldn't still have 100% absolute knowledge of what my definitions are.
:>Show that even if I have formed a definition of "flat" that contained
;>what I defined to be a dimple in it, that I wouldn't know my definition
:>of "flat" to have contained what I defined to be a dimple in it.
;
:
;You have been invited to define anything at all by whatever method you
:choose which adequately relays your knowledge of that definition, please,
;then stand back and watch as I will show you how you might be deceived.

Relay?  As in posting in words a description of my definition?  Is that
what you asked for now?  You have once said you do not want to hear
one of that, but putting the description of a definition in words is
how I relay my definitions.  Are you asking for it now?


author: Roach

subject: Green Energy truly viable?

text:
Is green energy actually viable? For example i have read polar-opposite
claims citing on one side that wind energy in canada -- even at 100% of it's
potential -- would only yield under 10% of the energy needs. From other
sources (greenpeace), i've read that green energy combined (solar, wind,
etc) could easily and reliably supply the nation's energy needs.

So what is true?

Where can i find accurate information nowadays?

mike


author: LL

subject: Re: Green Energy truly viable?

text:
The truth is that people are selfish and don't want green energy. Wind power
is viable, but it is ugly and makes a lot of noise - according to some. On
the other hands SUV's do the same thing. In the Netherlands windmills have
been a wonderful part of the landscape for centuries. People like the sound
of a windmill. Not in the USA, though. People object.

It is the same type of mentality that fines a home owner $1000 for hanging
clothes out to dry naturally and forces them to use an electric dryer! Green
energy takes green thinking, and an environmentally sound lifestyle takes a
few sacrifices!

You want cheap green energy, then a windmill is not as bad as watching
missiles kill innocent people overseas for the sake of oil!

(Also, Mr. Real Roach, roaches are animals that have been here for several
million years longer than human beings and they will be here for several
million years after we kill ourselves. An animal we should have more respect
for! They manage to live quite well in our worst cities too)

"Roach" <[email]> wrote in message
news:<ThXnb.105595$[email]>...

it's

"Roach" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ThXnb.105595$[email]...
it's


author: Douglas Otis

subject: Re: Green Energy truly viable?

text:
"Roach" <[email]> wrote:

Check with the DOE and Sandia National Labs.

Here is a quick dump of some highlights:

Solar thermal is by far the most promising alternative. To provide 100
quadrillion BTU of the entire US energy demand, with an efficiency of
11%, an area 246 miles on a side would be required. This area would
represent 2.1% of the lower 48 states. To generate the entire US
demand for electrical energy, an area 64 miles on a side would
suffice. Efficiency of solar thermal is remarkable when compared to
green plants with 0.5% conversion efficiency measured in calories and
is nearly double that of the best photo voltaic strategies.


author: Bobster .

subject: Re: Green Energy truly viable?

text:
Green energy is truly viable, but it isn't going to be cheap.

I think we need to get over thinking in terms of big utilities
furnishing our power,and begin looking to ourselves.  I have done much
research on the coming Hydrogen Economy and believe it will be the way
to go, but only if we look to distributed power.  I think that when
there are enough people making their own power and fuel, we will finally
begin to get off the grids that are such a problem right now.

Centralized power generation, while it has served us well in the past,
is an old concept, and it hasn't kept up with new developments and
population growth. The grids are old,and bringing them all up to date
would be very expensive, and whether we like it or not, everyone
patronizing the grids is going to pay for their updating.

I would much prefer to install my own green system,solar or wind, or
both, and generate my own fuel by hydrolyzing plain old tap water to
make hydrogen.  To the novice, this may sound too complex, but with the
afvances being made in solar cells, and the new hydrolyzers coming out
very soon, I think that our thinking is going to change.


subject: Re: Green Energy truly viable?

text:
Perhaps it is your enthusiasm for Solar-Thermal that is causing you
to be blind to all the advances being made toward the Hydrogen Economy.
For example,there are several systems for storing hydrogen now that make
it completly safe for us as a motor fuel, or for storage at home. Even
if punctured, the hydrogen won't be released.  The system of "solid
storage" as being used in the new project to provide hydrogen for the
Armys off road vehicles, is just one of them. The Army surely isn't
going to go for anything that could blow up if penetrated by a bullet
!!!
     On the subject of efficiency, the new organic solar cells
will only develop an efficiency of 10% , but they will only cost a tenth
of what current silicon cells cost, making them very affordable.
      You also seem to be somewhat oblivious to the desire
of many to be free of the power grid, no matter what it is powered by.
As you note, the Bechtel offer to set up a plant was denied by the
politicians , and it is just such politics that the utilities are using
to maintain their grip on the power business. It is this grip that the
Hydrogen Economy will break. At first,people will probably buy power
from the grid to electrolyze their hydrogen from tap water,but as soon
as they learn that they can rather cheaply set up enough solar
cells,they will be cutting free of the grid. The politicians will
probably try to come up with ways to tax the public on their home-made
power and fuel, but I see this as somewhat difficult.
       As you mentioned, solar-thermal as a means of
generating power virtually has to be a very large project in order to
compete,but to those who want to be free of the politicians and their
big utilities, will have no such limitations.
       You may not know this, but there are over 300 solar
homes being built right now in San Diego, all by one contractor, Shea
Homes. It won't take much more solar capacity to be added, and these
people could be generating their own hydrogen, and cutting themselves
free of the grid, and their batteries.. After all,hydrogen is just
another way of storing energy for use at night,and on cloudy days, plus
it will double as their fuel for the family car.
         Plus, you seem to be unaware of the recent
pact signed between the State of Calif.and Canada,in which the "Hydrogen
Highway" will be constructed, wherein hydrogen re-fueling stations will
be installed at 20 mile intervals  up and down the Alcan Highway, and
extending all the way to the Mexican border.
        So, I guess we will just have to wait and see
whether the Hydrogen Economy or the Solar Thermal economy happens first.
I'm betting on the Hydrogen Ecinomy, because most of it can be done by
private businesses and private citizens, and they are already moving on
it, and because the solar-thermal economy will require the cooperation
of politicians, which I don't see as very likely anytime soon. By the
time they get it figured out who is going to get the business of setting
it up, the Hydrogen Economy will probably be in place. Keep your eye on
Stuart Energy.


author: Dave K

subject: Re: Spiritual Materialism Strikes on the roof of the mouth

text:
On Aug 14, 10:14 am, "buddhapest" <[email]> wrote:

Well my current ritual involves shoving spoonfuls of peanut butter
into my mouth, placing the jar back up on the altar and reciting:

afavokitesfawa bothisafa doong deef prafnafaramifa ceery faw empineff
off aw da fife condissons cleewy reewefing miss futon and pen ah
fariputta foam dove not diffa foam empineff empineff doef nod diffa
foam foam etc.

Then I meditate on the nonduality of creamy and chunky.

-Ajahn Nuttybutta Inthejaro


author: Robert Epstein

text:
Dave K wrote:

wow................you are NUTS!   :)

robert

- - - - - -


author: buddhapest

text:
"Dave K" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

you new age death star satanists
seem to have all the fun


author: scaton

text:
Dave K wrote:

Will the Ven. Inthejaro further explicate PBJ? I've been working on it
but can't quite get the gist of that.


text:
<scaton> wrote in message news:[email]...

jelly can be smeared on a scrying
mirror but not a crystal ball


text:
buddhapest wrote:

Oh no. I'd heard of this! Not the dreaded jelly koan....


text:
<scaton> wrote in message news:[email]...

it's much more efficacious
than the ice cream koan


author: Doc Smartass

subject: Re: 'Star Wars' game makers catering to homos

text:
J <[email]> wrote in news:[email]:

When they cater to goat-blowers, will you finally shut up?

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

There are several tax-free, government-free places in this world...
They're called "failed states."


author: Paul David Wright

text:
Doc Smartass wrote:

Nah, he'll just get louder... To cover the sounds of the goat.

PDW


text:
On 2012-Mar-09 22:45, Doc Smartass wrote:

Have you seen this?

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/taliban.gif

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"In the Dark Ages, the people were led by religion, just as in the dark
of night a blind man is our best guide; he knows the ins and outs better
than those who can see.  But it is foolish to go on using that same old
blind man as a guide once the daylight has come."
    -- Heine


text:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<[email]> wrote in news:JZC6r.5367$[email]:

Nice!

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

There are several tax-free, government-free places in this world...
They're called "failed states."


author: Phil Stovell

text:
The war on drugs: preventing sick people getting medicine.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=442410

Court told of cannabis couple's cottage industry

Published on 05/12/2006

A COUPLE ran a cottage industry producing bars of chocolate containing
cannabis for multiple sclerosis sufferers, a jury heard today.

Mark and Lezley Gibson distributed about 22,000 bars from their home in
Alston, Cumbria over a six-year period before their arrest last January.

They were helped by Marcus Davies an old school pal of Mark Gibson who
operated a Post Office Box address.

The Gibsons, both 42, and Davies, 36, are on trial at Carlisle Crown Court
where all deny two counts of conspiring to supply cannabis in 2004 and
2005.

Davies lives in Cambridgeshire.

Prosecutor Jeremy Grout-Smith told the jury that police took action after
receiving a complaint that 33 packets of Canna-biz chocolate had been
discovered at the Royal Mail sorting office in Carlisle on January 25 last
year.

A few days later officers entered the home of the Gibsons and discovered
items including cannabis, chocolate bars, labels, mailing details and a
coffee grinder.

A few months later Cambridgeshire police went to the home of Davies and
discovered he was cultivating cannabis plants in two sheds. He was also
running a PO Box number and had contact with the Gibsons.

Mr Grout-Smith said the Gibsons were in effect running a cottage industry
making chocolate bars impregnated with cannabis. It was advertised as
being for medical purposes.

They were not conventional drug dealers but believed their actions would
be helping people alleviate the pain of a debilitating illness, however
that was no defence to these charges.

He said: “To supply cannabis, even if you believe it is doing good, is
not a defence.”

He said Mark Gibson, during his police interview, had admitted sending
about 22,000 bars to addresses around the world. They had always sought
proof that the recipients were MS sufferers.

The jury heard this morning that Lezley Gibson was herself an MS sufferer
and that the other two defendants had stood in the past as candidates of
the Legalise Cannabis Alliance.

A juror made it know to Judge John Phillips this morning that they had a
relative who suffered from MS. The judge made it clear that was no bar to
them sitting on the case.

The trial continues.


author: PeteM

subject: Re: Court told of cannabis couple's cottage industry

text:
Harry McCulla <[email]> posted

Where exactly does it say that the police cannot ignore an offence once
a complaint is made? Around here they do it all the time.


author: [redacted]

text:
Phil Stovell wrote:

That was a very positive sign. Hopefully the judge and jury will be
sympathetic and reasonable and a Not Guilty verdict will be returned.

As for the insane scumbuckets who prosecute this kind of case, they are
sub human vermin of the lowest order.

Clough


author: bobbie sellers

text:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:30:21 +0000,Phil Stovell,  wrote

    This UK Judge is in oppostion of course to USA practices of
Federal Judges which refuses to allow the words Medical Marijuana
to be mentioned by the defense in similar cases.

    It is too late for California to apply for membership in the
Commonwealth is it not? ;^)

    later
    bliss -- C  O C O A  Powered... (at california dot com)


text:
Terry wrote:

That piece of vomit probably thinks he's an upstanding, law abiding
model citizen. Rather like the upstanding, law abiding model citizens
who did their duty and reported Jews in hiding to the Gestapo. They
really are self righteous lumps of filth.

Clough


author: NH

text:
Terry wrote:

Wait until people are locked up for inciting cannabis use.


text:
Anton Gijsen wrote:

Maybe the scumbucket who informed will be a witness in court and be
named in the press.

Clough


author: Jethro

text:
PeteM wrote:

depend who made the complaint I guess ...

If Mrs Miggins from down the road complains she is being plagued with
yobbos damaging her property the of course the police can ignore it.

If T.Blair, or GW Pharma, or GSK complain, they will get every courtesy
the police can extend.


text:
Phil Stovell wrote:

you might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.

I have an ambivalence towards GW, as it seems they are quite happy to
smash the rungs off any ladder of genuine sympathy in the authories
they have used to get where they are by not helping advocate the case
for medical MJ.

I bet there are a few MPs "blind trusts" which have quietly get shares
in GW


subject: Cannabis chocolate 'was helpful'

text:
I expect Mr Miller will get a visit from the drugs squad, as he's just
admitted, from his wheelchair, that he's a dangerous criminal.

<http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=444192>

Cannabis chocolate 'was helpful'

Published on 08/12/2006

A 36-YEAR-old man in a wheelchair who suffers from multiple sclerosis told
a jury at Carlisle Crown Court today that cannabis chocolate sent to him
by a Cumbrian couple had been helpful.

Wayne Miller was giving evidence in the trial of 42-year-old Lesley
Gibson, her husband Mark, also 42, and an old school friend of his, Marcus
Davies, 38, from Cambridgeshire.

All three have pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiring to supply
cannabis in 2004 and 2005.

Mr Miller said he was diagnosed with MS 45 years ago and suffered
particular problems with walking. He first learned about cannabis
chocolate through the MS Society's Pathways magazine.

Asked about his contact with the Gibsons, he said he had written to the
couple, who live at Front Street, Alston, and asked them to send him som
of the cannabis chocolate.

"They wrote back and said they needed a doctor's note to prove that I had
MS," said Mr Miller. Asked if the chocolate had given him any benefit, he
replied: "It was very helpful."

The trial continues.


author: arclight

subject: Re: Cannabis chocolate 'was helpful'

text:
Clough wrote:

actually you might want to try, detectable for over 4 months, if the
person previously used large quantities on a daily basis.
I know this, because I was being drug tested and still wasn't
completely free of detectable metabolites after 4 months of drug
testing. Before I started being tested I had been smoking about 1 to 1
1/2 ounces of good hash a week.


author: King Amdo

text:
[email] wrote:

really? I think BNP scitzo's are probably worse....

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/1ab74bc231198174/a0daff0db422fae0?hl=en#a0daff0db422fae0


author: banjo

text:
"PeteM" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

anyone  got a proper link for this ?


text:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:01:31 -0800, Jethro wrote:

Conspiracy?


author: Clough

subject: Re: Cannabis chocolate 'was helpful'

text:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:28:13 +0000, Phil Stovell <[email]>
wrote:

The metabolites of cannabis are detectable in the blood for up to a
month after abusing the drug.

A blood test will reveal if this man is a drug addict. This, together
with his confession, would enough to prove his guilt.

He should be charged not only with posessing cannabis, but also with
aiding and abetting criminals. A very stiff custodial sentence is
called for.

Clough


author: clough

text:
On 27 Dec 2006 11:02:03 -0800, "King Amdo" <[email]>
wrote:

They will be if they ever gain any political power.

Clough


author: xofpi

subject: Cheney In Unsecure, Disclosed Location Till Thursday. It's Okay. He's Just Pheasant Hunting.

text:
So I guess it's fair to conlcude he's armed. Terrorists and pheasants, watch
your tail feathers.

http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V8727.AP-Cheney-Hunting.html

Vice President Cheney Goes Hunting

WASHINGTON (AP)--Vice President Dick Cheney is spending a long weekend at a
pheasant-hunting preserve in South Dakota, aides said Monday.

Cheney visited his home in Jackson Hole, Wyo., last week and arrived in Pierre,
S.D., on Sunday for what adviser Mary Matalin said was an annual hunting trip
planned with friends before he took the oath of office in January.

He participated in the White House national security and intelligence briefings
via videoconference Monday morning, and planned to speak later in the day with
Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who was visiting President Bush,
Matalin said.

She declined to say when the vice president is returning to Washington, citing
security concerns, but said he will have departed South Dakota by Thursday, when
President Bush leaves the nation's capital for an address on domestic security.

Cheney had no political appearances or meetings planned while he was in South
Dakota, Matalin said.

The vice president has sporadically been working at a secure, undisclosed
location away from the White House. The administration has said that is to
preserve the line of presidential succession.

AP-NY-11-05-01 1504EST

Copyright 2001, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online
news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior
written authority of The Associated Press.


author: Old G

subject: Re: Cheney In Unsecure, Disclosed Location Till Thursday. It's Okay. He's Just Pheasant Hunting.

text:
xofpi<[email]> wrote in message news:<gcEF7.13757$[email]>...
     I hope that this was written in order to alert people to the fact
that there is a SECURITY PROBLEM with giving out information on the
location of the Vice President, while we are in war time. Considering
the fact that treats have already been made against the President.


text:
In article <[email]>, Old G says...

"Treats" against the "president?" You mean on Halloween, when he went as a
legitimately elected President and a forceful Commander-in-Chief?

Actually, I posted this to make fun of Cheney the chickenhawk's cowering in his
bunker when he isn't making the world safe from the threat of pheasants.


author: Glen Heiman

subject:
Re: Cheney In Unsecure, Disclosed Location Till Thursday. It's Okay.
 He's Just Pheasant Hunting.

text:
xofpi wrote:

If you haven't hunted pheasants in the fall in South Dakota--------don't
knock it.


text:
xofpi<[email]> wrote in message news:<VKfG7.16379$[email]>...

 Whatever your view I was attacking the Article for giving out the info not you.


author: Chive Mynde

text:
Studies Show Organic & Sustainable Farms Can Best Feed the World

"In 2000 Nature magazine reported that a team of Chinese
scientists had tested the key principle of modern rice-growing
(planting a single, hi-tech variety across hundreds of hectares)
against a much older technique (planting several breeds in one field
They found, to the astonishment of the farmers who had been drilled for
years in the benefits of "monoculture", that reverting to the old
method resulted in spectacular increases in yield. Rice blast - a
devastating fungus which normally requires repeated applications of
poison to control - decreased by 94%. The farmers planting a
mixture of strains were able to stop applying their poisons
altogether, while producing 18% more rice per acre than they were
growing before.

Another paper, published in Nature two years ago, showed that
yields of organic maize are identical to yields of maize grown
with fertilisers and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic
fields dramatically improves. In trials in Hertfordshire, wheat
grown with manure has produced higher yields for the past 150
years than wheat grown with artificial nutrients.

Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University has shown how farmers in
India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or
tripled their yields by switching to organic or semi-organic
techniques.

A study in the US reveals that small farms growing a wide range of
plants can produce 10 times as much money per acre as big farms
growing single crops. Cuba, forced into organic farming by the
economic blockade, has now adopted this as policy, having
discovered that it improves both the productivity and the
quality of its crops.

Hi-tech farming, by contrast, is sowing ever graver problems. This
year, food production in Punjab and Haryana, the Indian states long
celebrated as the great success stories of modern, intensive
cultivation, has all but collapsed.

The new crops the farmers there have been encouraged to grow demand
farmore water and nutrients than the old ones, with the result that, in
many places, both the ground water and the soil have been
exhausted.

We have, in other words, been deceived. Traditional farming has
been stamped out all over the world not because it is less
productive than monoculture, but because it is, in some respects, more
productive. Organic cultivation has been characterised as an enemy of
progress for the simple reason that it cannot be monopolised: it can be
adopted by any farmer anywhere, without the help of
multinational companies.

Though it is more productive to grow  several species or several
varieties of crops in one field, the biotech companies must
reduce diversity in order to make money, leaving farmers with no choice
but to purchase their most profitable seeds. This is why
they have spent the last 10 years buying up seed breeding institutes
and lobbying governments to do what ours has done: banning the sale of
any seed which has not been officially - and expensively -
registered and approved.

All this requires an unrelenting propaganda war against the tried and
tested techniques of traditional farming, as the big companies and
their scientists dismiss them as unproductive, unsophisticated and
unsafe. The truth, so effectively suppressed that it is now
almost impossible to believe, is that organic farming is the key to
feeding the world."

"If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world," Steve Smith,
a director of the world's biggest biotechnology
company, Novartis, insisted, "tell them that it is not...
To feed the world takes political and financial will - it's
not about production and distribution."

"The reason 800 million people go hungry today is not that
there isn't enough food in the world, but that they can't
afford to buy it.  It is not lack of resources that makes
people poor today, Sagoff argues. It's bad government. He
points to Angola, a resource- rich country too wracked by
civil war to exploit its wealth, and Russia, comparable to
the United States in natural resources and intellectual
capital but impoverished by the legacy of communism."

------------------------------------------------------------

When you take away all the "modern" chemical agricultural methods, and
mechanize the organic production process, there
will be more than enough food for everyone on the planet and
the food will be safer, the farm workers will be healthier, the
consumer will be protected from pesticide poisoning, and the
environment will be protected from industiral chemical polluters.

Organic hydroponics offer a better alternative to chemical
nutrient mixes.

1.  Chemical fertilizers, especially when heavily applied, tend
to strip soils of beneficial organisms, from earthworms to
bacteria.  Organic fertilizers not only feed the plant roots,
but also the community of organisms in which they live.  Organic
methods generally improve soil texture, long-term fertility and
water retention characteristics.

2.  Water run off from chemically fertilized fields is
increasingly recognized as presenting an environmental danger
(eutrophication) to surface and ground water supplies and to
downstream ecosystems.  The buildup of toxic salts in some soils is
another potential drawback to chemical cultivation.

3.  The non-availability and increasing cost of inorganic salts
and compounds make organics, at least as a supplemental measure, an
attractive option for some applications.  This is especially
true of lesser developed regions where the choice is often made
between expensive chemical fertilizers, and cheap or free
indigenous substitutes.  (What was that BS Minatti was spouting
about organics and mass starvation?  It's the other way around!)

The closed nature of most hydroponic systems and the ability to
efficiently deliver plant nutrients can drastically reduce the
cost of fertilizer inputs per unit of production, while at the
same time protecting rivers and streams.

Other reasons to go organic include:

a.  Flavor and appearance
b.  More nutritious
c.  Superior produce fetches higher price in season or out
d.  The future of organic hydroponics is bright

In a 1985 supplement to his book "Advanced Guide to
Hydroponics," James Sholto Douglas notes that organic
hydroponics systems have been producing successful crops in
several Third World countries for decades.

This evidence directly contradicts Gordon Couger's unsubstantiated
claims.

On the Indian subcontinent where inexpensive labor and cheap
natural fertilizers make the practice profitable, organic
hydroponics approaches an art.  Through an advocate of chemical
hydroculture, Douglas admits that the (organic) systems allow
the people of these areas to reap many of the benefits of
hydroponics - the efficient use of resources, especially land
and water - without expending precious capital on imported
chemicals.

Compiled from a longer article by Don Parker.

CORPORATE AGRIBUSINESS INDEX

Acoording to USDA figures compiled by Daniel Wood, Christian Science
Monitor:

*Nearly 20% of the world's food now comes from city-based farms,
averaging anywhere from one to 20 acres.
* The average distance between food in the field and the dining room
where it is eaten is 1,500 miles.
* Refrigerating, transporting, and storing this food causes an
expenditure of energy eight times greater than the value of the food
itself.
* In terms of calories, it takes eight calories of energy to produce
and deliver one calorie of food 1,500 miles.
* Spinach and other green leafy vegetables can lose as much as 50% of
their nutrients in five days.

* * *

According to Business Week's annual survey:

* U.S. executive pay in 1999 continued to grow at an out-of-this-world
rate, the average CEO of a major corporation made $12.4 million in
1999, up 17% from the previous year or 475 times more than an average
blue-collar worker and six times the average CEO paycheck in 1990. *
American companies are paying CEOs better than anywhere else in the
world, not 10% or 20% more, but 1,000 percent more and then some. *
According to Towers Perrin's 1999 Worldwide Total Remuneration report,
German CEOs make 13 times what the average manufacturing employee makes
and in Japan, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is just 11-to-1.

- Chive

"I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study
and discussion with as many people as I could meet, that all religions
were true, and also, that all had some error in them; and whilst I hold
by my own, I should hold others as dear...." -- Mahatma Gandhi


author: Dr H

subject: Re: Organic & Sustainable Farms Can Best Feed the World

text:
On 3 Mar 2001, Chive Mynde wrote:

}Studies Show Organic & Sustainable Farms Can Best Feed the World

Perhaps they could:  with the aid of genetic engineering.

Dr H


author: George Baxter

text:
Chive Mynde wrote:

That reference is false. The research instute us the Rothemsted Instute
in Harpenden. It is true that they have researched for 150 years. I
visited them on their open day is 1999. During that open day, they
stated clearly that the in no differnce in yeild from oraganic
fertiliser compared to manufactured ones.

Cite evidence of the doubling and tripling of yields.

Cite the evidence for the 10 fold increase

Cite the evidence for the collapse.

Cite the evidence for the need for more water.

False. Blind tests have never shown that it tastes better. The Soil
Association were unable to produce any evidence of it

False. The Soil Association were unable to produce any evidence of it


author: Ute Bohnsack

text:
George Baxter wrote:
[snip - lots of controversy]

Weibel, F. et al. (2001): Bioï¿½pfel - besser und gesï¿½nder? Eine Vergleichsstudie
mit Standard- und Alternativmethoden der Qualitï¿½tserfassung. In: ï¿½kologie und
Landbau 117, 1/2001, Bad Dï¿½rkheim, Germany
and
Weibel, F. et al (1998): Are Organically Grown Apples Tastier and Healthier? A
Comparative Field Study using Conventional and Alternative Methods to Measure
Fruit Quality. Proceedings of the XXV Int. Horticultural Congress: Bruxelles,
Belgium, 2-7 August 1998. Part 7: Quality of Hroticultural Products, M.
Herregods (ed.), Acta Horticultura 157, 417-427

In short the answer is. Yes, organically produced apples are healthier and they
taste better.

Ute


author: Torsten Brinch

text:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 12:47:22 +0000, George Baxter
<[email]> wrote:

Then you must have misunderstood them. The data from the
famous 150 years Rothamstead  continuous wheat experiment
(Broadbalk) show that manured plots give   higher yields than
NPK plots.

Quite generally all long term agricultural experiments have
demonstrated that organic fertiliser is superior to artificial
fertiliser.

Best regards

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


text:
Ute Bohnsack wrote:

By how much are they healthier? The number 0.999999999999999 is bigger
than 0.999999999999998
But I would not describe that as significant difference, and certainly
not enough to persaude me it is worth paying up to 50% more. How much
healthier are they? You do not say.

Also the Soil Association were found guilty of misleading the public on
that very point. They were unable to find any scientific evidence that
organic did actully taste better, or was healthier. They are the
official certifying body in the UK and were given two years to produce
the evidence. They failed to find any. Have a look at www.asa.org.uk and
look at the adjudications. July 2000


author: John Riley

text:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:13:22 GMT, [email] (Torsten
Brinch) wrote:

Well, is this not the bleeding obvious?

All things being equal, the manure has organic matter which will
improve the function of the soil.
The trouble is that in the real world, all things aren't equal.

Manure is often an unknown quantity in regard to nutrients - if it has
been leached in the weather for any time, it may be quite low in
nutrients.

And, of course, my usual question, where did it come from?
Why is it not being recycled where it was grazed?

Regards       John Riley        West Oz


text:
Torsten Brinch wrote:

I will check that, but that was contrary to what was said. Can you give
examples of how much higher is higher. As I cited in another post
number 0.9999999999999999 is higher than 0.9999999999999998 but not
significant. Are the yields significantly higher.

What about the production of organic manure? That generally comes from
animals. Animals are essentially an inefficient way of producing manure
as they need to graze in large amounts of land. If they are penned, to
make manure collection easy that is not organic. Then of course there is
the collection and distribution of manure.

I know last year it made news the claim that organic farming could
produce higher yields. But when investigated, it was discovered that
five times the normal amount of manure was needed to achieve this.

If you take an area of land, you might in a normal year match the
organic and conventional yields. But in the long term, when you consider
the fallow years, and the other years where the crops grown to
regenerate the soil and are not for consumptionm, then the yeilds from
organic would be significantly lower.


text:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 12:31:02 +0000, George Baxter
<[email]> wrote:

(may I use this opportunity to remind you that I have asked you
to post a copy of the informally resolved complaint you have made to
ASA, and which you  made reference to in a previous debate.
As you know, the ASA server does not hold it)

As rgards the health benefits of organic food, Dr. Joan Gussow,
Professor Emeritus of Nutrition and Education at Columbia Teachers
College, conducted an extensive review of this topic. In her
assessment of the varied scientific research conducted to date, she
concludes:
"Lacking such careful studies, there is enough cumulative evidence to
indicate to those who wish to be convinced that organic foods have a
variety of qualities that should over the long term make them more
healthful including lower levels of pesticide residue, lower levels of
nitrate-nitrogen, greater density, better flavor if they are properly
handled, etc. But the available studies are conflicting enough to
convince anyone who isnï¿½t a fan of organic, that any differences that
can be demonstrated are not worth writing home about, and are
certainly not a reason to promote organic food."

(Gussow, Joan Dye. 1996. Is organic food more nutritious? OFRF
Information Bulletin. Fall, Number 3. p. 1 and 10. )

Another reviewer examined  1230 (!) scientific studies comparing the
nutirtional value of organic vs conventional food. This reviewer
found that 56 % of these studies had found that organic is  better,
37 % that conventional is better, and 7 % of the studies found
no difference.

Anecdotally, my very old father rang me yesterday, weirdly just as I
was happily munching an organic apple, thinking how deliciously tasty
it was, to tell me that -he- had just thrown a conventionally grown
apple away in disgust because he had found that it tasted horribly
of "chemicals". He told me that he had asked my mother -never-
to buy that kind of apples again.

Best regards

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


author: Boulder Belt Organics

text:
George Baxter wrote:
Of course one cannot test for taste as taste is very subjective-what is
ambrosia to one could be tasteless to another.

Lucy Goodman-Owsley
Boulder Belt Organics
New Paris, OH
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa


text:
George Baxter wrote:
ok, last night was simply too late, so here goes (from first study cited - the
German language one which is same ongoing study as the English language
version):
*  31.9% higher in phosphorus in fruit flesh (appears to be strongly correlated
with fruit quality)
*  14.1% firmer flesh (12% at the end of the storage period)
*  14.7% higher index of 'technical qualities' (10.5% higher at the end of the
storage period) - index of sugar content, firmness, acidity
*  8.5% higher fibre content
*  18.6% more phenolic compounds, particularly flavanol (+22%) - these secondary
plant compounds belong to the antioxidants
*  15.4% higher values for sensoric quality
*  65.7% higher index for vital qualities (132% at the end of the storage
period) measured using wholistic methods such as 'Sensitive Crystallization
Method' (after Pfeiffer), 'capillary dynamolysis', 'circular chromatographic
method' - don't ask me about these, I don't know enough about them.
* no significant differences for Vitamin C and E, and Selenium

A good collection of comparative research references can be found at
http://www.soel.de/inhalte/publikationen/oel117_alfoeldi_lit.pdf

Ute


author: Dick McDermott

text:
"John Riley" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
I heard a presentation about the maize experiment and part of it was done
with green manure from plowed down cover crops and part was done with animal
manure. Both gave competetive yields
Which points to one feature, some might say weakness of organic agriculture.
One will probably get into big trouble trying to grow continuous indian corn
organically with or with out animal manure. Organicly grown corn  can yield
competetively  in a rotation with legume covers and mineral supplements and
no animal manure. The yied over time is lower  unless the cover crops are
worth as much as the corn.
    Getting manure samples tested is about the same as getting a soil test,
same bag, same lab.
    The organic farmers dirty little secrets may be ,. lower costs and lower
risks. Plant saved seed, fertilize with a few kilos of clover seed planted
every third year. If you have a crop failure you could be out  relatively
little in cash for ersatz race-horse inputs.
If organic sometimes yields less, it may be made up for by lower risks.


text:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:12:25 +0000, George Baxter
<[email]> wrote:

The difference between organic and artificial fertiliser in yield
terms in the Broadbalk experiment are not by any means big,
in other terms they are quite significant.

For a short introduction to the issue, see David Tilman,
"The greening of the green revolution"
Nature, v 396, p 311-312
http://www.biotech-info.net/greenrev.pdf

For a more comprehensive article by David Tilman,
see "Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion:
The need for sustainable and efficient practices"
PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 11, 5995-6000, May 25, 1999
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/11/5995

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Reference, please.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Best regards

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


text:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:13:33 GMT, [email] (Torsten
Brinch) wrote:

Yep, the general public a almost as brainwashed here.
Of course, put a blindfold on, and all opinions go out the window.
For example, ask six people to give an opinion of the taste of some
green raspberry jam, and then try the same with six other people who
are blindfolded. Can get some interesting results.
Blindfold folks and stick a peg on their nose and see if they can
reliably distinguish between an onion and an apple.

Regards        John Riley     West Oz


text:
Torsten Brinch wrote:

I have twice emailed you at the return address you use to post to this
forum. I did so on 23rd Feb and again on 1st Feb. The email did not
bounce so I presume that you received them.

Can you send me your postal address to [email] . I do not
think putting private details on a forum like this is wise.

So the gist is that there is no real evidence that organic food is
significantly better or worse.

1230 scientific studies comparing the merits of conventional and
organic. My guess would be that it is actually a lot of reports from
people/groups on both sides, with vested  interest. Would you care cite
them so we can see how scientific they are.

Really? What chemicals could he be tasting? Certainly not the chemicals
used to render it non-organic. Perhaps he has been working on the
garden, creosoting a fence.


author: gcouger

text:
"Torsten Brinch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
: On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 12:31:02 +0000, George Baxter
: <[email]> wrote:
:
: >Ute Bohnsack wrote:
: >
: >>
: >> Weibel, F. et al. (2001): Bioï¿½pfel - besser und gesï¿½nder? Eine
Vergleichsstudie
: >> mit Standard- und Alternativmethoden der Qualitï¿½tserfassung. In:
ï¿½kologie und
: >> Landbau 117, 1/2001, Bad Dï¿½rkheim, Germany
: >> and
: >> Weibel, F. et al (1998): Are Organically Grown Apples Tastier and
Healthier? A
: >> Comparative Field Study using Conventional and Alternative Methods to
Measure
: >> Fruit Quality. Proceedings of the XXV Int. Horticultural Congress:
Bruxelles,
: >> Belgium, 2-7 August 1998. Part 7: Quality of Hroticultural Products,
M.
: >> Herregods (ed.), Acta Horticultura 157, 417-427
: >>
: >> In short the answer is. Yes, organically produced apples are
healthier and they
: >> taste better.
: >>
: >> Ute
: >
: >By how much are they healthier? The number 0.999999999999999 is bigger
: >than 0.999999999999998
: >But I would not describe that as significant difference, and certainly
: >not enough to persaude me it is worth paying up to 50% more. How much
: >healthier are they? You do not say.
: >
: >Also the Soil Association were found guilty of misleading the public on
: >that very point. They were unable to find any scientific evidence that
: >organic did actully taste better, or was healthier. They are the
: >official certifying body in the UK and were given two years to produce
: >the evidence. They failed to find any. Have a look at www.asa.org.uk
and
: >look at the adjudications. July 2000
:
: (may I use this opportunity to remind you that I have asked you
: to post a copy of the informally resolved complaint you have made to
: ASA, and which you  made reference to in a previous debate.
: As you know, the ASA server does not hold it)
:
: As rgards the health benefits of organic food, Dr. Joan Gussow,
: Professor Emeritus of Nutrition and Education at Columbia Teachers
: College, conducted an extensive review of this topic. In her
: assessment of the varied scientific research conducted to date, she
: concludes:
: "Lacking such careful studies, there is enough cumulative evidence to
: indicate to those who wish to be convinced that organic foods have a
: variety of qualities that should over the long term make them more
: healthful including lower levels of pesticide residue, lower levels of
: nitrate-nitrogen, greater density, better flavor if they are properly
: handled, etc. But the available studies are conflicting enough to
: convince anyone who isnï¿½t a fan of organic, that any differences that
: can be demonstrated are not worth writing home about, and are
: certainly not a reason to promote organic food."
:
: (Gussow, Joan Dye. 1996. Is organic food more nutritious? OFRF
: Information Bulletin. Fall, Number 3. p. 1 and 10. )
:
: Another reviewer examined  1230 (!) scientific studies comparing the
: nutirtional value of organic vs conventional food. This reviewer
: found that 56 % of these studies had found that organic is  better,
: 37 % that conventional is better, and 7 % of the studies found
: no difference.
:
: Anecdotally, my very old father rang me yesterday, weirdly just as I
: was happily munching an organic apple, thinking how deliciously tasty
: it was, to tell me that -he- had just thrown a conventionally grown
: apple away in disgust because he had found that it tasted horribly
: of "chemicals". He told me that he had asked my mother -never-
: to buy that kind of apples again.

I will try organic apples if I ever get a chance. Apples as most fruit
here are like cardboard. It is not so much from what they are but from
where I am. I am at the very end of the world for produce as far as one
can get from produce raising areas. I have tried organic and regular
produce and can tell no difference other than the fresher one is better.
Usually the organic produce is not in as good a shape as the regular
stuff. That is a shipping problem. But all our produce problems are
shipping problems.

When traveling in fruit producing areas the regular fruit is very good. I
think that were there is a good organic market the extra attention in
picking, handling and shipping gives a much better product as well as the
farmer choosing a tastier variety then the regular producer that picks a
more harvestable variety.

Gordon

Gordon


author: J K Cason

text:
"Boulder Belt Organics" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3aa6801b$0$70816$[email]...

<snip>

If someone claims to taste a difference between two samples, it is a
simple matter to determine whether that ability is real.  The triangle
test is recognized worldwide.

http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/PAGES/E1885.htm

Test Method E1885-97 Standard Test Method for Sensory
Analysis-Triangle Test

Copyright 2001 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS,
West Conshohocken, PA. All rights reserved.

1. Scope
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for determining whether a
perceptible sensory difference exists between samples of two products.

2. Referenced Documents
E1871 Practice for Serving Protocol for Sensory Evaluation of Foods
and Beverages
E253 Termninology Relating to Sensory Evaluation of Materials and
Products
E456 Termninology for Statistical Methods
ISO 4120 Sensory Analysis - Methodology - Triangular Test


text:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:39:02 -0500, Boulder Belt Organics
<[email]> wrote:

So why do organic folks claim that organic food tastes better?

Regards      John Riley       West Oz


text:
"Boulder Belt Organics" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3aa6801b$0$70816$[email]...
: George Baxter wrote:
: >
: > Ute Bohnsack wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > Weibel, F. et al. (2001): Bioï¿½pfel - besser und gesï¿½nder? Eine
Vergleichsstudie
: > > mit Standard- und Alternativmethoden der Qualitï¿½tserfassung. In:
ï¿½kologie und
: > > Landbau 117, 1/2001, Bad Dï¿½rkheim, Germany
: > > and
: > > Weibel, F. et al (1998): Are Organically Grown Apples Tastier and
Healthier? A
: > > Comparative Field Study using Conventional and Alternative Methods
to Measure
: > > Fruit Quality. Proceedings of the XXV Int. Horticultural Congress:
Bruxelles,
: > > Belgium, 2-7 August 1998. Part 7: Quality of Hroticultural Products,
M.
: > > Herregods (ed.), Acta Horticultura 157, 417-427
: > >
: > > In short the answer is. Yes, organically produced apples are
healthier and they
: > > taste better.
: > >
: > > Ute
: >
: > By how much are they healthier? The number 0.999999999999999 is bigger
: > than 0.999999999999998
: > But I would not describe that as significant difference, and certainly
: > not enough to persaude me it is worth paying up to 50% more. How much
: > healthier are they? You do not say.
: >
: > Also the Soil Association were found guilty of misleading the public
on
: > that very point. They were unable to find any scientific evidence that
: > organic did actully taste better, or was healthier. They are the
: > official certifying body in the UK and were given two years to produce
: > the evidence. They failed to find any. Have a look at www.asa.org.uk
and
: > look at the adjudications. July 2000
: >
: Of course one cannot test for taste as taste is very subjective-what is
: ambrosia to one could be tasteless to another.
:
The failure of using taste testing in variety selection is the reason we
have fruit that tastes like cardboard. Taste testing can be done it is
just expensive and troublesome.

Gordon


text:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 21:26:11 +0000, Ute Bohnsack <[email]>
wrote:

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear!!!

Sounds like Rudolph Steiner  :(

Regards      John Riley      West Oz


text:
Torsten Brinch wrote:

To get enough manure for agriculture, you must collect it. How do you
collect the manure?

The cows and pigs as I recall produce as and when they need to, not in
some special lavatory or receptacle. So it will be dropped all over the
fields. So it needs to be collected pretty rapidly otherwise wind and
rain and insects will remove it.

The alternative is to keep them in pens and make it easy for collect.
But doing that is not organic.

With pleasure. Go to www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk , and look in the
Archives for Sept/Oct. and search for Monbiot

By the way, I misread the small typeface, it is three times the required
amount, not five times as I stated. Even three times is excessive.

I think you do but you are being obtuse. Consider the yield of an area
of land  over a ten year period. Conventional farming will produce X in
a year. So in 10 years it produces 10X.

If the farm is organic, we shall assume it produces X in the growing
years, but there must be fallow years, say 3 per decade. Then
intervening years, other crops of lesser human nutritional value are
grown so the yield might be 0.5X. So in 10 years you get 4X + 3 x 0.5X
giving a total yield of 5.5X. So about half of the conventional farm.

In essense, in the long term, organic crops such as wheat cannot match
the yields of conventional.


text:
"John Riley" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
: On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:13:33 GMT, [email] (Torsten
: Brinch) wrote:
:
:
: >Anecdotally, my very old father rang me yesterday, weirdly just as I
: >was happily munching an organic apple, thinking how deliciously tasty
: >it was, to tell me that -he- had just thrown a conventionally grown
: >apple away in disgust because he had found that it tasted horribly
: >of "chemicals". He told me that he had asked my mother -never-
: >to buy that kind of apples again.
:
:
: Yep, the general public a almost as brainwashed here.
: Of course, put a blindfold on, and all opinions go out the window.
: For example, ask six people to give an opinion of the taste of some
: green raspberry jam, and then try the same with six other people who
: are blindfolded. Can get some interesting results.
: Blindfold folks and stick a peg on their nose and see if they can
: reliably distinguish between an onion and an apple.
:
If you really want to try something interesting take the same food and dye
some red, blue and green and let them rate it for taste with out a blind
fold.

Gordon


text:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:37:02 +0000, George Baxter
<[email]> wrote:

You should not take a count of studies for more than what it is. It
just goes to show that there has been a considerable interest in the
topic.   If you want to review these massive amounts  of studies you
are free  to do so. Perhaps you  can hire a  student to do  a
literature search  for you.

Hardly. He is nearly eight years old and chronically and  irreparably
very ill.  He also told me  about a TV broadcast he had been lying in
his bed watching,  it was about the vegetable and fruit growing region
in Andalusia where the chemical soaked apple he had thrown away in
disgust originated from.  He told a furious tale of plastic sheets and
containers thrashed everywhere on open landfills, excessive use of
pesticides and shameless exploitation of the land. My father has happy
memories from his youth from that area and was horrified of what he
saw in the broadcast, that it  had  turned into.

Best regards

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


text:
John Riley wrote:

John where did you get the idea that organic food tastes better out of
that statement. What it says its different people have different
abilities to taste.

I must ask why opponents of organic foods who never eat the food claim
they do not taste better-how would they know if they do not consume them?

Lucy Goodman-Owsley
Boulder Belt Organics
New Paris, OH
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa


text:
John Riley wrote:

No matter what you make of these methods, Rudolf Steiner, anthrosophy, or
biodynamic methods - it doesn't discredit the other scientific methods used in
the trials or the results.

Regards,
Ute


text:
George Baxter wrote:

I'm not sure about most other parts of the world, but in much of Europe
livestock is on pasture in the summer and housed in the winter. This is the
period to collect manure, either as farmyard manure (mixed with bedding) or in
the form of slurry, which is recycled to grazing/hay/silage ground or to tillage
ground.

Excuse me but how do insects remove cowpads? I know... dungbeetles... but they
bury the stuff in situ.

Only permanent housing is banned. It is normal practice here (and I presume in
any temperate region) to house stock during the winter - see above.

Oops. Doesn't the URL say it all?

The authors do not say "three times the required amount". Such a statement is
meaningless.
They say
"An annual application of 35 tonnes per hectare of animal manure
is required to match the yields of wheat (about 7 tonnes per
hectare) achieved by annual applications of 144kg per hectare of
 "artificial" inorganic nitrogen. This rate of manure application is
about three times what would be considered sensible for
practical agriculture and is unachievable on any scale. To
produce this much animal manure requires 5.5 cattle for every
hectare of wheat cultivated (hardly a practical prospect either
here or in the developing world)."

What do the authors mean when they speak of animal manure? Is this farmyard
manure or slurry?
One dairy cow produces c. 85 kg N per year. So we are talking 1.7 dairy cows,
not 5.5 to get 144 kgN, or 2.2 suckler cows. However, there are losses during
storage. To produce 35 tonnes of farmyard manure (containing 157 kg N) takes on
average 2 cows per year, not 5.5. All these figures are based on Dept. of
Agriculture (Ireland) figures. Two cows per hectare is a very normal stocking
rate on any reasonable land. Farmyard manure applications are generally made at
20 tonnes/hectare, but much depends on crop type, previous crop etc. and
applications can be as high as 60 tonnes per hectare for certain root crops.
Also the comparison cite above neglects the fact that organic tillage farmers do
not solely rely on animal manures for their nitrogen but also make use of green
manures, and particularly of legumes for nitrogen fixation.

You are forgetting that organic farming normally produces its own 'inputs' i.e.
organic fertilisers in the form of animal manure, green manure from
nitrogen-fixing legumes etc. Chemical fertilizers have to be bought in (and
pesticides). They are being produced at substantial environmental cost
elsewhere. So the environmental costs of conventional farming are being
externalized. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge your statement is
correct. As a rule of thumb organic yields tend to be about 20% lower than
conventional ones. However, here in Europe that is seen as a blessing, not a
problem since we are producing way too much food, and harming the environment in
the process.
Back to your calculation. I have yet to see an organic farm that fallows land
for the purposes of regeneration. That's medieval pratice, not 20th/21st century
organics. A good example for crop rotation is:
Yr 1 Grass
Yr 2 Grass
Yr 3 Grass
Yr 4 Grass
Yr 5 Grass
Yr 6 spring wheat
Yr 7 swedes
Yr 8 spring oats
... start over
So the farm produces livestock on grass, wheat for sale, swedes for fodder, and
oats for fodder every year. Manure from winter housed animals is spread on
tillage fields, swede tops and stubble with undersown herbal ley is also grazed
by sheep, and tillage crops are undersown with legumes for extra nitrogen.

To quote a well-known Irish newspaper: Before you make up your mind - open it.

Ute Bohnsack


text:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 17:43:33 +0000, George Baxter
<[email]> wrote:

I am stunned. Have you never been on a farm?

George, what struck me as weird was the figure 'five times the
normal'. OK, so you got carried way, but '3 times the normal'  is
still pretty striking. However, I can now see what has gone  wrong.
You  have simply  been misinformed by an article  from the Guardian,
the one you  refer me to.

This article is talking about 35 tons of manure per hectare
and that can really not be characterized as   excessive  for
a field experiment which is now at a 7 tonnes wheat/hectare yield
level.  You must also remember, this manure  treatment is being
held up against artificial fertilizer  with at a rate of  144 kg
N/hectare. 35 tons manure would seem to me to be
just about right, in order to give a comparable amount of N.

OK, so that is your image of a conventional field. Continous wheat.
That is just like my neighbour does on most of his land, to produce
feed for his  pigs, you know.

I am beginning to understand at least some of your reasoning.
But what goes on in this organic field in what you call 'fallow
years'? And what goes on in the field in  the 2 remaining years of
your calculation?

Best regards

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


text:
"Torsten Brinch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
: On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:37:02 +0000, George Baxter
: <[email]> wrote:
:
: >Torsten Brinch wrote:
:
: >> Another reviewer examined  1230 (!) scientific studies comparing the
: >> nutirtional value of organic vs conventional food. This reviewer
: >> found that 56 % of these studies had found that organic is  better,
: >> 37 % that conventional is better, and 7 % of the studies found
: >> no difference.
:
: >1230 scientific studies comparing the merits of conventional and
: >organic. My guess would be that it is actually a lot of reports from
: >people/groups on both sides, with vested  interest. Would you care cite
: >them so we can see how scientific they are.
:
: You should not take a count of studies for more than what it is. It
: just goes to show that there has been a considerable interest in the
: topic.   If you want to review these massive amounts  of studies you
: are free  to do so. Perhaps you  can hire a  student to do  a
: literature search  for you.
:
: >> Anecdotally, my very old father rang me yesterday, weirdly just as I
: >> was happily munching an organic apple, thinking how deliciously tasty
: >> it was, to tell me that -he- had just thrown a conventionally grown
: >> apple away in disgust because he had found that it tasted horribly
: >> of "chemicals". He told me that he had asked my mother -never-
: >> to buy that kind of apples again.
:
: >Really? What chemicals could he be tasting? Certainly not the chemicals
: >used to render it non-organic. Perhaps he has been working on the
: >garden, creosoting a fence.
:
: Hardly. He is nearly eight years old and chronically and  irreparably
: very ill.  He also told me  about a TV broadcast he had been lying in
: his bed watching,  it was about the vegetable and fruit growing region
: in Andalusia where the chemical soaked apple he had thrown away in
: disgust originated from.  He told a furious tale of plastic sheets and
: containers thrashed everywhere on open landfills, excessive use of
: pesticides and shameless exploitation of the land. My father has happy
: memories from his youth from that area and was horrified of what he
: saw in the broadcast, that it  had  turned into.
:
Here are a collecton of studies I came accross on AgBioView that compairs
low medium and high imput agriculture with references.

Date:  Mar 06 2001 20:18:59 EST
From:  Roger Morton <[email]>
Subject:  Alternative Ag Research, yields and profits

Critics of biotechnology call for more research into alternative forms of
agriculture. Critics of biotechnology claim that organic forms of
production can yield as high as conventional agriculture. Is this true?
Well we have the American Journal of Alternative Agriculture in our
library. This journal is dedicated to research into alternative
agricultural production systems. I recently perused the last few years of
the journal picking out papers that compared the yields of crops grown
under conventional agriculture with crops
grown under alternative agricultural systems of production. The latter
forms of production were sometimes the systems of production prescribed by
organic certification bodies and other times were low-input systems
where the farmer/researcher is free to choose his inputs from any allowed
agricultural chemical or fertilizer. I have included edited highlights
from the abstracts and bodies of these papers below.

Read them for yourself but I think you will note that farms run under the
systems prescribed by organic certification bodies are never the highest
yielding farms. They may be the most profitable system because of the
premium they can pay the farmer for the produce but they are never the
highest yielding.  The implication  they can never be the solution to
hunger in a growing world population. What may be a solution is the use of
low input farming of which GM crops could be an integral part. You can
not get any more low input than a crop that makes its own insecticide.

The American Journal of Alternative Agriculture must be one of the prime
places where the organic production system could show case its claims to
yields comparable to farms using synthetics. A simple browsing of this
journal shows how far off these claims are. If a journal dedicated to the
research on alternative agriculture can not present cases supporting the
claims of comparable yields then what journal will?
-----------------
Munn et al., 1998
Cash seed/grain yields, quality and profitability were compared under two
management systems, low-input practices and conventional practices. The
crop sequence was maize, soyabeans, and wheat intercropped with medium red
clover (Trifolium pratense) green manure. Low-input practices included
crop rotation, manure, and mechanical weed control. Conventional practices
used starter
fertilizer, side-dress N for maize, early spring top-dress N for wheat and
herbicides in addition to practices used in the low-input system. The
conventional inputs increased yields in each of the five growing seasons,
1992-96.

Fertilizer and herbicides did pay with corn and soybean, but not with
wheat under the conditions of this study.
----
Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 1998

Organic farmers apparently release beneficial insects through "mass
production and releases in the field" and "can be used when the natural
enemy is not present or cannot respond quickly enough to the pest
pressure". "for many organic growers, the ultimate goal of these
"augmentative" techniques may be to establish a permanent population of
the beneficial organisms that keeps crop pests in balance"

I wonder what environmental studies are done by the organic farmers before
they do this? What are the long term effects of this sort of thing? Can
they transport insects from overseas to do this?
----
King, 1994
In a long-term field trial initiated in 1985 in the Piedmont of North
Carolina, the following practices were studied as ways to improve crop
yields in reduced chemical systems: (1) conventional tillage (chisel
ploughing and discing), inorganic N at 70 or 140 kg/ha, and either
cultivation or herbicides for weed control; (2) early versus late
ploughing of clover (Trifolium incarnatum) green
manures; (3) supplemental inorganic N fertilizer on maize and wheat in
rotations relying on clover green manures for N; and (4) nicosulfuron
herbicide banded on maize. Yield of soyabeans in the rotations was not
affected by any of these practices. With herbicides and fertilizer N at
140 kg/ha, continuous maize yields with no-tillage and conventional
tillage were equal in 1990 and 1992, but no-tillage yield was 30% higher
in 1991. When cultivation was used for weed control in the conventional
tillage treatment, maize yield was
similar to that of no-tillage with herbicide in the one year when rain was
plentiful (yield 6000 kg/ha). However, in 2 of 4 dry years, yields (2600
kg/ha) were higher with no-tillage. Clover biomass consistently increased
by between 700 and 3500 kg/ha when ploughing was delayed from mid-Apr. to
early or mid-May (13 to 26 days). However, biomass N content increased
significantly (by between 35
and 90 kg/ha) in only 2 of 5 years. Maize yields were affected in only 2
of 12 possible comparisons. In these cases, delaying ploughing-in of
clover reduced yield by about 50%. Supplementing maize with 45 kg N/ha and
banding nicosulfuron increased yields, but only to between 62 and 84% of
yields with recommended practices.  Supplementing wheat with 45 kg N/ha
increased yields by
half, but only to between 40 and 60% of the yields with 90 kg N/ha
-----------
King and Buchanan, 1993

Two management systems, current management practices (CMP) and reduced
chemical inputs (RCI), were evaluated in North Carolina, USA, for four
crop sequences from 1985 to 1992: continuous grain sorghum; continuous
maize; a 2-yr rotation of maize and double-cropped winter wheat and
soyabean; a 4-yr rotation of maize, winter wheat/soyabean, maize and red
clover hay (changed in 1989 to a 3-yr rotation of maize, red clover hay
and wheat/soyabean). No-till planting
and recommended rates of fertilizer and pesticides were used in the CMP
system.
In the RCI system, N was supplied by a crimson clover green manure crop or
the red clover in the rotation. Weed control was by chisel ploughing,
discing, and cultivation. Crimson clover topgrowth accumulated from 70 to
180 kg N/ha, red clover from 77 to 130 kg N/ha. Rotating crops increased
maize yields with CMP but not with RCI. In dry years, maize yields were
low, maize did not respond to
fertilizer N, and yields were generally higher with CMP than with RCI.
With adequate rain, yields of all RCI treatments were the same as yields
in CMP continuous maize receiving no fertilizer N. Johnsongrass
competition was the main reason for low yields in the RCI treatments.
Soyabean yields were higher with CMP in 4 years and higher with RCI in one
year. Wheat and grain sorghum yields were higher with CMP than with RCI. A
marked decline in Johnsongrass in
sorghum was noted in 1989, and several plots remained relatively free of
Johnsongrass through 1992
--------
Teasdale et al., 2000
A long-term cropping systems comparison was established at Beltsville,
Maryland, on a site with 2 to 15% slope to evaluate the efficacy of
sustainable strategies compatible with reduced-tillage systems.

Treatments included (1) no-tillage system with recommended fertilizer and
herbicide inputs, (2) crown vetch (Coronilla varia) living mulch system
with similar inputs to the no-tillage system, (3) cover crop system
including a hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) cover crop before maize and a
wheat cover crop before soyabean with reduced fertilizer and herbicide
inputs, and (4) manure system including crimson clover (Trifolium
incarnatum) green manure plus cattle manure for nutrient sources, chisel
plough/disc for incorporating manure, and rotary hoe plus cultivation for
weed control.

The manure system usually had lower yields than the highest yielding
systems, partly because of competition from uncontrolled weeds. Several
measures of the efficiency of grain production were evaluated. The
no-tillage system produced the most grain per total vegetative biomass
throughout the rotation. The cover crop system produced the most grain per
unit of external nitrogen input and,
along with the no-tillage system, had the highest maize water-use
efficiency. The cover crop system also recycled the most vegetative
residues and nutrients of all systems. No single system performed best
according to all measures of comparison, suggesting that trade-offs will
be required when choosing production systems

The manure system had the lowest grain to total vegetation ratio in both
years. The no-tillage system had the highest grain to total vegatation
biomass ratio, producing over 40% of biomass as grain.

King and Hoag, 1998

The profitability of alternative cropping systems was evaluated during a
10-year period (1986-95) of an experiment in the Piedmont of North
Carolina, USA, comparing rotations and levels of purchased inputs.
Continuous maize or sorghum, maize/wheat-soyabean (2-year), and
maize/wheat-soyabean/maize/clover hay (4-year) were managed with
recommended fertilizer and pesticide rates and no-till planting (C) or
with N from legumes, conventional tillage, and cultivation for weed
control (L). Medium input management (M: medium rate of N
and banded herbicides) was included during years 5 through 10. Generally,
maize was the least profitable crop, regardless of input level or type of
rotation. Rotating crops improved profit more than did adding inputs to
continuous maize. With L, average annual profit was: continuous maize,
-$64/ha; 2-year rotation, $135/ha; and 4-year rotation, $158/ha. With C,
the 2-year rotation increased profit to $165/ha from -$119/ha with
continuous maize. The increased profit
with rotations was due to greater profits from wheat, soyabean, and hay
offsetting low or negative profit from maize. Sorghum (grown only in
monoculture) was more profitable with L ($34/ha) than with C (-$20/ha).
During the 6 years when all input levels were compared, the order of
average profit was MLC with continuous maize. Generally, profit was not
increased by M compared with L in the 2-and 4-year rotations. With L, the
cost of weed control was 20% of that for C with maize and 44% with
soyabean. Cost of N from fertilizer was $0.66/kg, but cost of N from
crimson clover (seed and planting
costs) averaged $0.92/kg when clover was drilled, $1.27/kg when aerially
seeded, and $0.16/kg when naturally reseeded

Stevenson et al., 2000

Data were collected from 14 sites in Saskatchewan, Canada, to investigate
the influence of weed control method (cultural versus herbicides) and N
and P fertilizers on crop yield of autumn rye, spring wheat, and barley,
and the presence and number of weed species.

Straw and grain yields of all cereal crops were higher in fertilized
compared with unfertilized plots.

Producers making drastic reductions in fertilizer inputs may experience
reductions in crop yields because of limited nutrient levels. However, the
results indicate that herbicide inputs could be reduced or eliminated
periodically with no short-term yield loss in cereal cropping systems
Carpenter-Boggs et al., 1999

Crop yield, crop quality and soil fertility were similar in plots treated
with mineral NPK fertilizers, biodynamic compost, or non-biodynamic
compost.

In general soils and crops treated with biodynamic preparations showed
few differences from those not treated. Application of composts with or
without the preparations produced similar crop yields with lower weed
pressure, compared with equal nutrients supplied by mineral fertiliser,
but any additional short-term benefits from biodynamic preparations remain
questionable.

Clark et al., 1999

Crop yields and economic performance of organic, low-input, and
conventional farming systems were compared over the period 1989-96, based
on research from the Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems (SAFS)
Project in California's Sacramento Valley, USA. The four farming system
treatments included four-year rotations under conventional (conv-4),
low-input, and organic management,
and a conventionally-managed, two-year rotation (conv-2). The four-year
rotations included processing tomato, safflower, maize, and beans and a
winter grain and/or legume double-cropped with beans. The conv-2 treatment
was a tomato and wheat rotation.

Conv inputs: synthetic Fertilizers and synthetic pesticides at recommended
amounts Low-input  inputs: cover crops, synthetic fertilizers (reduced
amounts), synthetic pesticides (reduced amounts)
Organic Inputs: cover crops, composted animal manure, California Certified
orgainic farmers approved pesticides and fertilizers.

All crops, except safflower, demonstrated significant yield differences
across farming systems in at least some years of the experiment. Nitrogen
availability and/or weed competition appeared to account for lower crop
yields in the organic and low-input systems in some years. The economics
of all farming systems depended mainly on the costs and profits associated
with tomato production. The most profitable system was the conv-2 system
due to the greater
frequency of tomato in that system. Among the four-year rotations, the
organic system was the most profitable. However, this system's dependence
on price premiums leads to some concern over its long-term economic
viability. Among the low-input cropping systems, maize demonstrated clear
agronomic and economic advantages over conventional production methods.

[What is the pest resistance implication of using pesticides at lower than
recommended doses?]

Eswaran, Beinroth, et al. 1999
This paper makes an assessment of global population-supporting capacity
based on land area stratified by productive potential. The study suggests
a level of food production that will sustain twice the current global
population. However, lack of political will, insufficient investments in
modern agriculture, and a general apathy to the tenets of sustainable land
management threaten food
security in developing countries, and in some, contribute to poverty and
famine. From a global land-productivity point of view, the spectre of
Malthusian scenarios seems unwarranted. However, local and regional food
shortages are likely to continue to occur unless mechanisms for equitable
food distribution, effective technical assistance, and infusions of
capital for infrastructure development are implemented in some developing
countries

Classifies land on the earth into a number of categories based on quality
for agriculture.
Class I - prime land - few management constraints, Class II and III - good
soils - must be careful to prevent degradation
Class IV - VI should not be used for grain production if you can help it.
Must
use good conservation management
Class VII low resilience easily prone to degradation. Should not be used
for
crops

Then goes through and suggests how much of these lands should be retained
for forestry and as wilderness and how much could be used for agriculture.
eg Class I: 70% for Agriculture, 20% for forestry and 5% for wilderness.
Class VI: 30% for agriculture, 50% forestry and 15% for wilderness.

Then calculates how many people the lands can support based on low input,
medium input and high input farming.

The answer if we use lands only in Class I to Class VI under low input -
6.2 billion people, medium input 8.7 billion, high-input 19.8 billion

Reference List

Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J. P., and Kennedy, A. C. Biodynamic
preperations: short-term effects on crops, soils and weed populations.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , 110. 1999.

Clark,S., Klonsky,K., Livingston,P., and Temple,S. (1999). Crop-yield and
economic comparisons of organic, low-input, and conventional farming
systems in California's Sacramento Valley. American Journal of Alternative

Agriculture 14, 109-121.

Fernandez-Cornejo,J., Greene,C., Penn,R., and Newton,D. (1998). Organic
vegetable production in the U.S.: Certified growers and their practices.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 13, 69-78.

King,L.D. (1994). Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the
southeastern United States. II. Effects of moderate rates of N fertilizer
and herbicides, tillage, and delayed cover plow-down on crop yields.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9, 162-170.

King,L.D. and Buchanan,M. (1993). Reduced chemical input cropping systems
in the southeastern United States. I. Effect of rotations, green manure
crops and nitrogen fertilizer on crop yields. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture
8, 58-77.

King,L.D. and Hoag,D.L. (1998). Reduced chemical input cropping systems in
the Southeastern United States: III. Economic analysis. American Journal
of Alternative Agriculture 13, 12-27.

Munn,D.A., Coffing,G., and Sautter,G. (1998). Response of corn, soybean
and wheat crops to fertilizer and herbicides in Ohio compared with
low-input production practices. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture 13, 181-189.

Stevenson,F.C., Johnston,A.M., Brandt,S.A., and Townley-Smith,L. (2000).
An assessment of reduced herbicide and fertilizer inputs on cereal grain
yield and weed growth. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 15,
60-67.

Teasdale,J.R., Rosecrance,R.C., Coffman,C.B., Starr,J.L., Paltineanu,I.C.,
Lu,Y.C., and Watkins,B.K. (2000). Performance of reduced-tillage cropping
systems for sustainable grain production in Maryland. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture 15, 79-87.

Gordon


author: ant

text:
"Boulder Belt Organics" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3aa79b15$0$46007$[email]...
most of the organic food i eat i grow myself so that automatically improves
the taste, i cant really say i can tel the difference between organic and
conventional wheat when used in breakfast products and flour<still chose it
in preference to ocnventional what product where i can> the flour does seem
to keep slightly better, that could just mean it spends less time sitting in
wharehouses as demand is high and supply is not huge. like unsalted butter
being fresher then salted because of its shorter shelf life and premium
status.

organic vine ripened tomatoes on the other hand are clearly better tasteing,
as are organic leaf vegetables, better mineral uptake and concentration, the
smaller leaf has more flavour then the big force fed ones.

ant


text:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:46:11 -0500, Boulder Belt Organics
<[email]> wrote:

I didn't. Are you disputing my general observation that "organic folks
claim that organic food tastes better"?
Have I not seen you say that?

Well I read it as "one cannot test for taste" which begged the
question, "how do organic folks know their produce tastes better?"

Well I've tasted organic foods many times, and sometimes it's a bit
better than other I've tasted and sometimes it tastes a bit worse, but
could that be how hungry I am, or what I have just consumed - it
really is irrelevant what a human with a bias reckons something tastes
like. You've just got Torsten's father claiming that his apple tasted
of chemicals after seeing a TV broadcast about applying ag chemicals.
If he had believed his apple was organic and he had just seen a silvan
nature program in an apple orchard, would his apple have tasted
differently? Maybe it was just an "off" apple?

Regards        John Riley       West Oz


author: John McCarthy

text:
Boulder Belt Organics <[email]> writes:

I never encourage superstition by buying organic food.  However, when
it is served to me I eat it.  I don't notice that it tastes different.
My supermarket and many others have both organic and non-organic
berries of various kinds.  Would anyone like to organize a blind
tasting test?


text:
Boulder Belt Organics wrote:

I eat oganic food occassionally. Not through choice but if it happens to
be on special offer and so costs the same, or less, than conventional
food. But refuse to pay up to 50% more for something that is essentially
on different.

Recently in the Times ( of London ), they conducted their own blind
tests of organic food. In all cases except one, there was not real
difference between them. The single exception could have been to the
significantly different quality of the purchased items rather than any
real difference in the true quality of the food. Conventional foods, as
organic, are available in a wide range of quality anyway.


text:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:31:44 +0000, Ute Bohnsack <[email]>
wrote:

Sorry, from what I've read and managed to understand of Steiner, I
regard him as a total fuckwit! NTPTFAPOI :)

If you seriously quote any Biodynamic Method garbage in a post with
anything else, I can't help but dismiss the lot.  Sorry, it must be
the ideologism exuding from my pores  :)

Regards        John Riley         West Oz


text:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 21:39:58 +0000, Ute Bohnsack <[email]>
wrote:

So where is all this manure coming from to grow all your sellin'
crops?  The totals just don't add up IMO.

Ain't they pragmatic, now?  :)
Housing stock is not normal in temperate Oz, AFAIK.

If you are prejudiced and can't tell the biased from the unbiased.

I still don't follow where all this disposable animal manure is
supposed to come from.
AFAIK, a beast eats X nutrients from the land, produces Y nutrients in
the saleable exported produce, and shits Z nutrients wherever.

If you return the manure to the land that it came from, you still have
to replace the nutrients from the lost produce. If you export the
manure too, you have to replace the whole X nutrients that the beast
consumed.

I would have thgought that returning the manure to the land that bore
it was the most efficient thing to do, but what would I know, I'm not
a farmer - I just do arithmetic  :)


text:
Ute Bohnsack wrote:

Racists make judgements on superficial and irration bases.

You appear to make judgements on the same basis.

You should judge things on the basis on whether they are true or not.


text:
"Torsten Brinch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
manure
is
consider

i note that george has ducked for cover again, after making untenable and
irrational statements that at best are misleading he has decided to drop the
thread, perhaps seeing me replying here where he should have will goad him
into posting. been saveing some of these more pertinant posts for an
upcoming "george makes missleading statements" thread i am planning of
posting, as george got so antsy and started all those new threads with my
name in the subject line its time to return the "favour" with a nice little
compilation of missleading and some may find deceptive statements he has
made in the past month or so. there have been a few very notable ones that
really stand out, and when taken together they paint a picture of someone
not willing to learn with a clear ideologically driven agenda. one could
almost say that he is obsessive, espeically his use of the same tired old
sources to support his case, i have posted a thread asking for links, cites
and so on to the peer reviewed and published data supporting the many
assertions made for the safety, and benefit of transgenic foods made in this
aond other newsgroups, web pages the press and so on.

it should be the perfect thread for the proponents of the technology to put
their case and provide their data and supporting evidence. i have cross
posted it rather widely so that none of the "important"<IMO> people miss it,
i would hate to have anyone miss the post.

we shall see what it turns up this time.

ant


text:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:15:24 -0600, "gcouger"
<[email]> wrote:

Dunno. What is the man asking?

Best regards

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


text:
People should be aware that Ant in an individual who has explicitly lied
on this forum. People should treat any statements he makes with extreme
caution.

He has claimed that www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk is a Monsanto site. It is
not a Monsanto, nor has it ever been. It explicitly states so on the
site.

He has claimed it is funded by Monsanto. I have repeatly asked him for
proof of this but has failed to do so.

Instead of being honest and admitting that he is wrong, he then posted
extra falsehoods. He claimed to have seen a Monsanto banner on the site.
That too is false. I have been using the site virtually daily for the
last year and there never has been a banner from any biotech company.

He also claimed that "most" of the posting were from Monsanto. It is
true that Monsanto is sometimes quoted as source of information, but it
is not, nor has ever been, the primary source. You can verify this
yourself. Log onto the site and look at the archives. The vast majority
of the article are not Monsanto

I have repeatedly asked him to acknowledge that he has as lied, and he
has repeated and add more the lies.

This message will be attached to every posting he makes, and
peroidically as a new posting, until he either acknowledges that lied or
is there is no evidence to support his view .


author: Ian St. John

text:
"John Riley" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
is

I once worked a day on a farm.

After some hard work, I noticed that the food ( payment ) was expecially
tasty...

I concluded that appetite is a factor in the 'taste test'.

Later, I was invited over for a meal, without working. I noticed that the
meal was especially tasty..

I concluded that the 'freshness' of the cream, and eggs was an even bigger
factor than appetite. Or maybe she was an especially good cook?

I suspect that the comparison of organic ( grow your own, therefore fresh )
vs 'store bought' processed, packaged, picked unripe and artificially
'ripened', weeks on the road, etc. is real, but not entirely due to the
'organic' nature.

OTOH, try 'vine ripened' tomatoes vs hothouse. Fast growth does not allow
time for mineral extraction and buildup of flavor. Slower growth does make a
difference, both in taste and economics.