It is currently Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:08 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:30 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Dalhart, Texas
In regard to the Soy, "Soy Plus Exercise Relieves Hot Flashes Better" (May 7 2004, Hmm. I guess they're wrong according to the Price Foundation. With all the myths, one can conclude soy is unhealthy even if processed and eaten correctly. Interesting foundation website. I'm gonna try to get some of that full fat milk.

If you move away from large-scale farming, where the cost of the equipment and inputs are spread over thousands of acres and inputs are relative to the size of the farm. This quote is applicable for both small and large scale farmers. In regard to equipment, why would I use a 50-acres per day corn harvester (has a 8 row header) for 6,000 acres of corn? I would have to use International Case's monster harvester which I have heard can handle a 18 row corn header quite well (which I think is appx 120-acres per day) or pay for more labor to use 2 combines. If I did use one 50-acre harvester, nature has a better chance of destroying your harvest. Also overkill on equipment can hurt a farm if the farm is already in debt due to a previous investment such as a land acquisition or a bad harvest the previous years due to extensive hail (without insurance) or drought or even both. Nature is the main reason why farming has to be very timely otherwise a farmer can lose the farm. In regard to inputs, large scale farmers have expenses that small scale farmers have a hard time to afford such as a personal agronomist and a personal irrigation engineer. The reason why small farmers can do this kind of stuff (irrigation repair and agronomist stuff) them self is because small farms requires little management as opposed to a larger farm. My father tells me this kind of stuff all the time. He farmed a small section and now farms 6,100 acres as a single owner.

Many organic controls are not well-suited to easy marketing.

So lets leave farmers high and dry where commercial organic resellers are not readily accessible. We can still do business with them if we paid for the freight, but after including the cost of freight, dealing with a reseller so far away isn't economical.

Organic farming is not simply spraying something besides Roundup.

I understand. I know my father isn't mentally organized (he hates computers) well enough to handle the extra work involved because he stresses way too much when he is just managing what we have.

It's not easy, and it's not something farmers are taught anymore. And who's going to fund the agricultural schools to teach it?

This is unfortunate since organic farming sounds like the next best thing.

Sorry, this was off topic for this thread. If you want to continue this post, check out (How Practical is Organic Farming?)

 Post subject: Re: organic vs
PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:46 am 

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:53 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Allen,TX
Robert D Bard wrote:
The good guys - that would be use common
folk - won two big rounds this week. ...
Robert D Bard

It is the leftist nonsense that appears all too often on this site and associated forums that turns me off concerning the organic/natural side of the issues.

As to the Vioxx situation, it appears that all sides lose--those that can't get relief from 'natural' means and those that got relief but suffer from side effects of the 'unnatural' drugs. I have never been able to figure out what is 'natural' about taking 5 pounds of herbs and 'distilling them into a few capsules so that RICH people can afford 'natural' solutions. Natural solutions often cost much, much more than the 'disadvantaged' can afford. In addition, many 'natural' solutions have side effects that proponents want to ignore.

Also, the anti-capitalistic leftist cBS (as in CBS BS--made up stories to suit its ideological purposes) that appears in the 'organic-natural' forums makes me want to go out and buy all the shares of Eli Lilly and Merck that I can afford and to buy my first gallon of Round-Up in over eight years (although I will not return to using it--vinegar works quite well). Give me the facts, not your leftist opinions. You know very little about those that work in the drug industry. I have a friend that works in that industry. I am taking a partial quote from his quote from another post:

"I used to work for a pharmaceutical company. I can testify to the fact that yes, they are earning their money. They are not "milking" our economy, they are doing exactly what the consumer expects ... developing new medication for the consumer. I have a degree in medicinal chemistry and I can also tell you that the cost of medical breakthroughs increases exponentially each year. For those drugs that come from plants, we have researched 99% of all the plants on the earth ... if we are to discover a new plant-based medicine, we have to find plants which have never been studied before. That was easy when 75% of the Amazon rain forest was unexplored, now we have to dig a mile below the anarctic ice cap to find something new. As for drugs which are designed in a lab, there are two ways to do that ... start with something you have and tweak it a bit, or try to create something totally different. Again, we have done the first to most all the drugs we currently know ... as for the second, that is a very LOOOOOOONNNNGGGG road to actually come up with a useful compound. Add to all this the fact that it costs over $100M to come up with a new medicine, and patents are only good for 17 years. It can take 7 to 10 years to come up with a new medicine, and you have to patent it at the BEGINNING of the road, you can't wait until the end. So now you may only be left with 7 years to recover $150M of research. That is over $20M/year."

Bard also stated: "Vioxx and celebrix and that family of drugs kills 100,000 of us each year and the FDA does nothing as their job is to protect the drug companies profits - not our lives." What utter nonsense! What tripe! You have NO FACTS to back up the assertion that these drugs DIRECTLY kill people. It is a fact of life that our bodies deteriorate due to many, many causes. When things were more 'natural,' people died at a much earlier age. Do we go back to those 'natural' methods?

I could go on, but I won't. I come here for information on how to grow plants and trees using natural methods. I share those methods with my family and friends to convince them that they don't need to use chemicals. I don't want to come here to put up with politico-socio nonsense. As a moderator, if you can't make your case without such stuff, you need to re-examine your political ideals.

 Post subject: GM crops
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:08 am 

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
I don't think ethanol vehicles will ever happen in this country. Fuel cells will be the future. There was a fuel cell car on Fox 4 in Dallas this am. They are going to start doing this on UPS trucks soon.
I think that if an investation was done they would find that there is more imported energy to grow crops to make ethanol than is produced by Ag companies. I suspect that ethanol is just another rip off of the US people by ADM and other large Ag companies that also produce unhealthy food for us to consume at our favorite grocery store.
Just my opinion.
Robert D Bard

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by eWeblife