daugen
Epic Contributor
plastic deer netting... might get exciting.
You certainly have every right to suspect, question and even accuse.
1940 farming technology will not feed the population of today's world, plain & simple.
If you were born and lived your entire life in the USA and think food is expensive, you don't have a clue. We spend a fraction of our income on food as compared to the world as a whole, and have essentially throughout our country's history. There are millions here and abroad who can't buy enough food to keep hunger pains away.
It is all good & well to pontificate about all that is evil and dangerous in our world. We can sit at our keyboards & beat our chests trying to make each other believe whatever is on our minds (and in our hearts). But workable solutions are needed, and there are precious few of those in these 14 pages.
Affirming your right to complain without offering anything more is a waste of time.
I can't believe I am still following this thread, much less participating in it.
I don't know why you are still here either if it upsets you so much.
You self-appointed the USA as being responsible for feeding the world. Why? Isn't that just like enabling endless welfare? If we are responsible for feeding the world, what happens when there are 2.5 billion more people than there are today? Do we owe the world a declining environmental and human health quality here, so they may reproduce irresponsibly, fight their civil wars, and practice their corruption? I think not. We need to back away from that concept, humanely, but away.
Note that I did not say 1940's farming technology will feed the world. I said we threw the baby out with the bathwater, there are methods we have foregone that we shouldn't have. In combination, livestock, pasture and grain has a natural strength, it all works together and has for thousands of years. Forage produces meat and dairy, manure is fertilizer, grains and forage for swine and poultry.
Now we finish cattle on grains that make them sick. So, we pump them full of antibiotics to compensate. 80% of our antibiotics in the US are consumed in farming operations. That alone should tell you we are on the wrong path. We convert oil to fertilizer rather than use the manures that would be present if farms were more multifaceted. At the same time, mega-dairies try to dispose of their manure in some ecologically safe way. Adding artificial fertilizers to soils does not build rich and healthy soils. The best garden you could ever have is the one that was next to the barn on an old farmstead. We are working against nature and not with it.
I believe we have to stop treating food production as if it were some corporate entity that has to produce quarterly results. Does an agricultural land investment trust really care about the land, or would you rather have it in the hands of families who know they have to cherish it and pass it on to future generations? Food and land are long-term endeavors if we don't want to starve or eat test tube glop.
Do you think the nutritional value or taste quality of our food has improved as farming has been corporatized? Many people believe it has deteriorated in that time, not to mention they actually fear the safety of the food. So, how do you measure the success of corporate farming? By Monsanto's profits or the quality of the food?
The funders of the CropLife Foundation are the same people we don't trust. The disclaimer at the end is IMO laughable.
CropLife Foundation is funded by the following agricultural research and production companies:
AMVAC
Arysta LifeSciences
BASF
Bayer CropScience
Cheminova
Chemtura
Coastal AgroBusiness
Crop Production Services
Dow AgroSciences
Drexel Chemical
Dupont Crop Protection
FMC
Growmark
ISK Biosciences
Makhteshim Agan
MGK
Monsanto
Nichino
Nufarm
PBI Gordon
Spicam Advan
Syngenta Crop Protection
Valent
Winfield Solutions
Our funders have no role in study topics, data collection or preparation of our published materials.
You would like me to go away because I didn't join your rant?
I't's OK for you to be passionate about your views but I can't be? Are you for real?
I'm not defending anything or anyone, or making unsubstantiated claims.
It would be interesting to know what group of farmers are knowingly making their animals (who they depend on) sick, as you claim.
I just want to know who is going to get to decide who eats and who doesn't when there isn't enough to go around.
And why we need to rush to that point.
Ok I will. Fluoride is measured to be more toxic than lead and a bit less toxic than arsenic. We ban lead yet flouride abounds. Continental Europe has banned fluoride and so your contention is what? that it is perfectly ok for the government to mass medicate the populace with something more toxic than lead? Secondly, if indeed there is a benefit to fluoride in prevention of dental caries, I'd prefer it was up to me to choose to partake just like it is up to me to get a flu shot. How would you like it if you were forced or had no choice in getting this flu compound administered to your body? And now one last way. Just because a chemical compound is shown to be beneficial in small amounts for one malady that effects our population, it does not mean in the slightest that it does not effect us negatively in other ways. Have a nuclear stress test. You have a bit of radioactive material injected into your body. Certainly you would not want this radioactive compound spread all over the place. Do not forget: The tobacco industry fought tooth and nail that cigarettes did not cause lung cancer just like depending on the study you read, cell phones are perfectly fine for your brain. And finally, if you happen to swallow any toothpaste with fluoride more than used for brushing, why are you then instructed on the tube to contact your local poison control? You want fluoride? then go right ahead and buy it. Because you want it and think it perfectly safe, why should I have it if I think otherwise and yet that is the case.
My last question is: If you think anybody attached to big government really cared for your well being, why did they allow all the other stuff that causes tooth decay? What is the statistic? we each consume 32 lbs of sugar each year? I'll answer my own question: it has to do with "economics". Just like why fluoride is put into our water.
I applaud organic farmers for their fortitude. Even in a year with proper weed management and perfect growing conditions their crops can be a complete bust. Blights, Fruit rots, spores, molds, fungi and insects if not readily managed can wipe out a crop. I agree manure is a great fertilizer probably the best stuff mother nature can offer (next to those darn asian carp) but is not without risks. Chicken litter which is way better than cow manure is prone to having salmonella bacteria and cattle manure is prone to having E. Coli. If either of these are found in a vegetable/fruit from a farm the complete operation is shut down and the fruit is quarantined. This can be alleviated by 6mo-1 yr composting but most of the time farmers aren't putting manure piles in 6 month individual piles. While free range poultry/eggs have a way less lower % of salmonella organic farming using litter/manure have a much higher % especially of particular plants such as lettuce, strawberries and tomatoes.
Manure's biggest beneficial factor are by increasing organic matter back to the soil which no till farmers using herbicides are trying to preserve by not constantly rolling and tilling the soil.
You know less than I do about animal feeding, and that's not much. .