ORGANIC a market like any other

[Janic]

paradise
it's almost that!

[izentrop]

it's fruits and vegetables that haven't broken the ground

Market gardening and arboriculture do not need to break down the soil, whether organic or conventional.
On the other hand, in field crops, whether in cereals or field vegetables, organic requires more tillage or more labor to manage grass cover. If not for the rest, they also use pesticides which are not necessarily less deleterious, with the active principle difficult to quantify, which can lead to overdose.

[Janic]

izmentrop » 06/12/21, 13:22
Rajqawee wrote:

it's fruits and vegetables that haven't broken the ground

Market gardening and arboriculture do not need to break down the soil, whether organic or conventional.
On the other hand, in field crops, whether in cereals or field vegetables, organic requires more tillage or more labor to manage grass cover.

so far it's almost fair!

If not for the rest, they also use pesticides which are not necessarily less harmful,

evidence!

the active principle difficult to quantify,

Proofs

, promising can lead to overdose.

anything can be overdosed regardless of the method, in plain text I you claim that agrochemicals never overdose!
All your bullshit is just a trial of intent as pointed out, just to please your bosses in agrochemicals. Does it pay well?

[Moindreffor]

In reality, people don't care if it's organic / not organic / nature and progress / tintouin and whatnot.

in fact it is the opposite, studies prove it, there is a psychological effect of the mention "Bio" it was on TV, not long ago, the same package of cereals was under noted in its version normal and nicknamed in its organic version while the compositions were almost the same

"organic" is a market and like any market, it is subject to its laws ... don't be naive

knowing what is on your plate is more personal research, go see the producer, know his practices and there yes organic or not it does not necessarily make the difference

[Moindreffor]

izmentrop » 06/12/21, 13:22
Rajqawee wrote:

it's fruits and vegetables that haven't broken the ground

Market gardening and arboriculture do not need to break down the soil, whether organic or conventional.
On the other hand, in field crops, whether in cereals or field vegetables, organic requires more tillage or more labor to manage grass cover.

so far it's almost fair!

If not for the rest, they also use pesticides which are not necessarily less harmful,

evidence! the basic premise is as it is natural it is without danger, all the defenders of the natural are on it

the active principle difficult to quantify,

Proofs the basic premise is how natural it's safe, so we can cast a wide net

, promising can lead to overdose.

anything can be overdosed regardless of the method, in plain text I you claim that agrochemicals never overdose! it is not because the overdose of agrochemicals that the overdose of organic farming is less dangerous, or does not exist,
All your bullshit is just a trial of intent as pointed out, just to please your bosses in agrochemicals. Does it pay well? we could resent this sentence, because your promotion of "organic" is based only on your personal convictions

[Janic]

Moindreffor »07/12/21, 20:36
Rajqawee wrote:

In reality, people don't care if it's organic / not organic / nature and progress / tintouin and whatnot.

in fact it is the reverse, studies prove it, [/ quocte] which source?

there is a psychological effect of the mention "Bio" it was on TV, not long ago,

the absolute reference that the living TV of the commercials of the industrialists of the agricultural chemicals

the same cereal package was under noted in its normal version and nicknamed in its organic version while the compositions were virtually the same[*]

ouarf, ouarf! still untruth, without evidence from independent labs and not only on basic components only.
Your chemistry bosses will be satisfied with your false service

"organic" is a market and like any market, it is subject to its laws ... don't be naive

Indeed, everything that is bought and sold is a market even if you sell an old pair of socks on the internet. however, do not confuse a pair of used socks and the same new one

knowing what is on your plate is more personal research, go see the producer, know his practices and there yes organic or not it does not necessarily make the difference

and here is where he wanted to come, chemical or not, it is the same thing then "buy chemical, that will make me earn, as a chemist, some money! " Thank you economical for allowing the extra bouzo to promote Big agrochemicals which has lasted for a century

[*] you sleep with your wife's sister because it's almost the same thing.

If not for the rest, they also use pesticides which are not necessarily less deleterious,

evidence!

the basic premise is as it is natural it is without danger, all the defenders of the natural are on it

this is ton postulate, invented by your chemistry buddies. Everyone knows that in nature there are products that are suitable for human consumption and others that are not, so do not try to confuse too easy that does not fool anyone.

the active principle difficult to quantify,

Proofs

the basic premise is how natural it's safe, so we can cast a wide net

in your imagination, nature can be dangerous for those who do not know it, hence the support of organic by the sophisticated means available to organic farming or not.

which can lead to overdose

. proof of your stupid speech. Organic farming is the agriculture of the future followed and advised by agricultural engineers, not by peasants spinning a few more or less valid recipes that engineers analyze and give credibility or not;

anything can be overdosed regardless of the method, in short you claim that agrochemicals never overdose!

it is not because the overdose of agrochemicals that the overdose of organic farming is less dangerous, or does not exist,

TOTALLY FAIR, but your wording suggests that this is only characteristic of organic farmers. Now if they overdose the soil cover with organic fertilizers, it's okay and it's even recommended. (See Did)

All your bullshit is just a trial of intent as pointed out, just to please your bosses in agrochemicals. Does it pay well?

we could resent this sentence, because your promotion of "organic" is based only on your personal convictions.

Lost! I always refer to the elders who have developed what is called organic today, and who have noted their experience in books to promote its dissemination. So I do not depend on personal professional interests, contrary to your assertion of being a chemist by confusing between a synthetic chemical biocide and a product coming from natural processes, apart from human intervention, an experience which farmers and breeders have precisely. and more or less inherited from their grandparents who did without all these synthetic chemicals.

[Moindreffor]

So I do not depend on personal professional interests, contrary to your assertion of being a chemist by confusing between a synthetic chemical biocide and a product coming from natural processes, apart from human intervention, an experience which farmers and breeders have precisely. and more or less inherited from their grandparents who did without all these synthetic chemicals.

so effective that we do not count the famines which almost wiped out humanity, yes indeed excellent references

the ancients developed plowing and now we are coming back and we are rediscovering the virtues of no tillage ah nostalgia for the past ... how many mistakes it will still make men make with preachers like you

[Janic]

so effective that we do not count the famines which almost wiped out humanity, yes indeed excellent references

in your fantasies once again! Famines are not generally due to cultivation methods, but to other circumstances such as climatic events, wars and epidemics. Nothing to do with agrarian fashions.

the ancients developed plowing and now we are coming back and we are rediscovering the virtues of no tillage ah nostalgia for the past ... how many mistakes it will still make men make with preachers like you

The plowing in question was not with a mouldboard, but it opened the ground after winter to then loosen it and again it is the agrobiology that called into question this deep plowing. mouldboard. to keep only superficial work such as pitches producing shallow soil scarification and permanent ground cover. Instead of telling bullshit, educate yourself in the literature of the pioneers and their immediate successors, not that lesser official "bio".

[Moindreffor]

so effective that we do not count the famines which almost wiped out humanity, yes indeed excellent references

in your fantasies once again! Famines are not generally due to cultivation methods, but to other circumstances such as climatic events, wars and epidemics. Nothing to do with agrarian fashions.

the ancients developed plowing and now we are coming back and we are rediscovering the virtues of no tillage ah nostalgia for the past ... how many mistakes it will still make men make with preachers like you

The plowing in question was not with a mouldboard, but it opened the ground after winter to then loosen it and again it is the agrobiology that called into question this deep plowing. mouldboard. to keep only superficial work such as pitches producing shallow soil scarification and permanent ground cover. Instead of telling bullshit, educate yourself in the literature of the pioneers and their immediate successors, not that lesser official "bio".

famine is when the agrarian method does not make it possible to provide sufficient reserves to prevent a climatic hazard.

if the plow has evolved, it is because we have found an advantage in it, right?
after you have already explained to us here the birth of "organic" so I am instructed by a reference in the subject "you" and therefore as you explained to us we know that "organic" was born from an ideology, and those who want to understand what that implies will know how to sort it out

more than the fact of being dishonest and abusive enough to devalue your speech
a good speaker or opponent does not need this
when you can express yourself without these unpleasant artifices, it will be possible to debate

[Janic]

lesser reflection

famine is when the agrarian method does not make it possible to provide sufficient reserves to prevent a climatic hazard.

absolutely not! Ask a history teacher! Famines cannot occur in predominantly rural societies (80/90%) used to harvesting cultivated plants, but also in savages who were not limited to current catalogs. The only ones suffering from famines being the suburbs [*] of towns
[*] banished from city centers inhabited by the bourgeoisie and traders and artisans.
then silos for cereals, for example, have existed since ancient times, but reserved for the rich who can afford them (and we do not include meats that cannot be stored) and the suburbs, too poor, generating famines effectively.

if the plow has evolved, it is because we have found an advantage in it, right?

Yes, immediate, apparent advantage, but slowly exhausting the land to the point of rendering them sterile (for example America, which has been copied under the pretext of better yields with NPK) and which is currently being criticized, with reason.

after you have already explained to us here the birth of "organic" so I am instructed by a reference in the subject "you" and therefore as you explained to us we know that "organic" was born from an ideology, and those who want to understand what that implies will know how to sort it out

no boy,
a) I am not a teacher in ORGANIC, but a defender of this one demonstrated to be effective since its beginnings almost a century ago. So to be taught, it must be done with farmers and breeders who have been teaching for decades, in real organic.
b) any change, starting from an ideology to know how to express itself and to understand new ideas
ideology
Science of ideas, concepts, in relation to signs (semantics).

Science of ideas (in the general sense of the facts of consciousness), of their nature, of their relationship with the signs that represent them, and above all of their origin (which they derive from the only sensitive experience, continuation of the sensualism of Condillac)

more than the fact of being dishonest and abusive enough to devalue your speech

same thing, to estimate such dishonest speech still it is necessary to designate clearly this one and to prove it:. Quote ?! When it comes to being insulting, you confuse, like ABCile, generalized popular language [*] (Coluche, Brassens) and the observation of an observable reality.

a good speaker or opponent does not need this

the arguments do without them, the final punctuation only accentuates this argumentative observation.

when you can express yourself without these unpleasant artifices, it will be possible to debate

debate what, what you don't know like ABCon and IZmenteur? So start by studying a subject in depth, before doing the one who knows it after having read and reproduced the old false anti-bio arguments of agrochemists. like ABCile and other funny about vaccines or "alternative" medicines.
After and only after we can discuss it without unnecessary controversy.

[*] asshole, shit, boring, damn, fuck, etc ...