Blow against bio-dynamics

[Janic]

least effort of intelligent thinking

it is not my system and I am not defending it,

My eye, for someone who doesn't defend it: what would it be if you really stood up for it

I am only analyzing it, except that in the one you recommend, you still forget one thing, what feeds humans are not vegetables, but the cereals you are talking about and that without the exchanges between regions, between countries, it no longer works because of demography, the Causse granier à wheat, has exported for centuries to other regions, looks at the tradition of the 13 desserts, and their composition and looks at the desserts of the North, the South is not known for its cereal crops, so yes we can produce good cereals on small farms on condition of selling it much more expensive and therefore in short circuits by creating an economic niche

oh, the joke to donf! What feeds the agricultural and social model are two complementary aspects; the poor quality cereal industry (40% of which goes for export) and intensive or not intensive breeding, under the pretext of the evolution of the consumer society for which it is necessary to devote enormous space to breeding and the purchase of GMO corn and soybeans, an economic disaster for imports, instead of quality human food.

for me to replace a system where everything grows under infusion of synthetic fertilizers by a synthesis where everything grows under infusion of natural fertilizers, this is not revolutionary, it is to hide the face

and the guy is swollen enough to pump more than organic on Did and which breaks sugar on the back of the organic then.
Clever man explains to us, then, how agriculture has not broken its mouth alone for millennia while waiting for your big agrochemical buddies? I know you're not going to answer more than your hypocritical model bozo!

after some producers let themselves be locked away by nonsense or by fantasy of profits, it is their problems, but if I look in my town, an operator has installed 600m2 of solar panels on his barns, another is content to work as his father made, no evolution, the problem is that currently with the soaring price of cereals, the one who does better lives very well, but the one who does nothing, who does not evolve, who remains in the pure conventional and hard, live smoothly, so why change ... why would you want a guy to break his ass working more? to save the planet? let me laugh

this crazy guy wants to grow solar panels in the fields rather than potatoes or wheat and what are you eating, bozo bis?
He's stupid, really stupid to eat hay! Install only Chinese solar panels on the entire surface of France and we will no longer need nuclear power plants and we will eat only what the Chinese will produce in Africa…. At a high price as for the natives of the region. He has a serious grain the bozo bis

if everyone had an ecological conscience, trains would be crowded and roads deserted, town centers would be pedestrianized and we would only sell "bio", we would all buy our electricity 30% more expensive to turn our backs on nuclear power

It comes from my nuclear coconut or not! Still as stupid as before! How do you manage to transport people spread all over the countryside by train to go to work, do their shopping, etc ... to the neighboring town?
Except to crowd the entire population into megalopolises like in China where whole trains loaded with organic or not would stop in front of each shop to unload a few cases of products. He's sick, completely sick ...

I too would like a healthier planet, and for me 6,5% of "organic" is too little, even negligible, I would prefer 80% of reasoned, except that for the moment we want "organic", "organic" and more "organic", Janic tells us that it takes time, but do we still have time to wait after the "organic", shouldn't we finally understand better than we can do if not better, less worse by being less fundamentalist

This is also super stupid! if your friends in the petro-agrochemical industry had not done everything necessary to prevent this bio from developing for over a century, this question would not arise, all French food would already be organic and even more than organic! As for the 80% reasoned, it takes faith to believe in it as if BAC were going, there too let it be while it is also their programmed ruin otherwise! he is stupid and naive the bozo bis!

[Ahmed]

You have to replace "la Causse" by "la Beauce" and the second "synthesis" by "system" and that immediately becomes more understandable.
Basically, it is true that, up to a certain point, organic works * a bit like conventional, which should not be surprising since it faces the same competitive economic context ...

* Particularly in the idea of ​​nourishing the plant, but that is evolving, very fortunately.

[Janic]

Ahmed »08 / 09 / 21, 17: 37

Basically, it is true that, up to a certain point, organic works * a bit like conventional, which should not be surprising since it faces the same competitive economic context ...

* Particularly in the idea of ​​nourishing the plant, but that is evolving, very fortunately.

not quite! the "bio" [*] exists and persists on this planet for millennia, before the chemical industry, on sophisms, seizes the question to kill the grounds and to make the whole planet sick

[*] current organic farming is only to use modern knowledge to refine and reduce some cultural errors such as deep plowing, as well as to return to more rustic varieties less fragile in the face of plant pathologies! and as you say it evolves strongly ... fortunately!

[Moindreffor]

You have to replace "la Causse" by "la Beauce" and the second "synthesis" by "system" and that immediately becomes more understandable.
Basically, it is true that, up to a certain point, organic works * a bit like conventional, which should not be surprising since it faces the same competitive economic context ...

* Particularly in the idea of ​​nourishing the plant, but that is evolving, very fortunately.

thank you for this reading and these corrections, yes indeed, whether a plant is cultivated organically or conventionally, its needs are the same at the base, so if the yields become comparable, it is because we feed them just as much

afterwards I think that the conventional which tends towards the reasoned will also orient itself towards a restoration of the grounds the flight forward being no longer possible

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

afterwards I think that the conventional which tends towards the reasoned will also orient itself towards a restoration of the grounds the flight forward being no longer possible

<<< Without irony.

[Moindreffor]

current organic farming is only using modern knowledge to refine and reduce some cultural errors such as deep plowing,

like sustainable agriculture, or conservation, but on much larger surfaces with the support of a chemistry used intelligently, which will make the difference

as well as to return to more rustic varieties less fragile in the face of plant pathologies! and as you say it evolves strongly ... fortunately!

If you follow Didier's words on old or rustic varieties, you would know that it is a mistake, he explains it clearly, selecting new varieties is not dangerous for health, you just have to redefine the criteria. Selection

the Roma tomato was selected to be harvested by machine to make tomato sauce, we favored its mechanical strength and little juice in the fruit, to the detriment of taste, select new varieties by putting taste as the main criterion, yes, but organic, reasoned or conventional will go there, because it is always the economic aspect that motivates innovations

[Moindreffor]

afterwards I think that the conventional which tends towards the reasoned will also orient itself towards a restoration of the grounds the flight forward being no longer possible

<<< Without irony.

unfortunately, when too many things combine to oppose this evolution, the transition is slowed down when in addition the human prism is added

we are green when we have an electric car in France, because the ecological disaster of the exploitation of rare earths elsewhere is not exposed on TV
we are destructive when we raze the Amazon rainforest to cultivate sugar cane to make biofuel

whereas in the end, in both cases it is the same will which motivates, is extracted from the dependence on oil, is there in these two examples a better solution, are they both good or bad ... it will depend on each person's convictions when science should be left to decide

[Ahmed]

... in both cases it is the same will that motivates, to get out of dependence on oil

Yeah! Are you sure it comes down to this?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

we are destructive when we raze the Amazon rainforest to cultivate sugar cane to make biofuel

whereas in the end, in both cases it is the same will which motivates, is extracted from the dependence on oil, is there in these two examples a better solution, are they both good or bad ... it will depend on each person's convictions when science should be left to decide

Replacing an extraordinary biodiversity * with sugar cane to drive cars is just a monstrosity. Science has nothing to do with it ... and I don't see what it could "decide" on top of that.

* Thanks to which we can find future remedies, let's not forget: 70 to 80% of pharmaceutical molecules come from this biodiversity of which WE are also a part.

[Janic]

Moindreffor »09/09/21, 12:17

janic wrote: current organic is only using modern knowledge to refine and reduce some cultural errors like deep plowing,

like sustainable agriculture, or conservation, but on much larger surfaces with the support of a chemistry used intelligently, which will make the difference

Hey, it's like the other zozo who sees humans live up to 500 years, it's pure and hard fantasy. chemistry cannot be used intelligently, it is contradictory
Agriculture did not wait to be organic, reasoned or conservation, to exist. On the other hand, the use of chemicals is only the result of our time which believed to discover the wire to cut butter. If it took some time to realize its real toxicity (like everything new) at the present time, doubt about its toxicity is no longer possible, in reason (ouarf, ouarf!) As of conservation (keep toxic chemicals from BAC, yes!)

but on much larger surfaces

Bigger than what? than the corner garden? This, yes ! But organic farmers did not wait for your jokes to have demonstrated their ability in field crops to produce without toxic chemicals.
Instead of fantasizing about big chemistry fakesnews, which tells all this bullshit, learn more about the historical reality, at least European, of the scientific results obtained in organic.

janic wrote: just as to return to more rustic varieties less fragile in the face of plant pathologies! and as you say it evolves strongly ... fortunately!

If you follow Didier's words on old or rustic varieties, you would know that it is a mistake, he explains it clearly, selecting new varieties is not dangerous for health, you just have to redefine the criteria. Selection

Ouarf, ouarf! not dangerous for those who claim that the varieties in question are not dangerous for health. Of course, these are not deadly poisons that kill within minutes of ingestion. It is over generations that this is measured and now more and more quickly with the modern way of life. The shift in climate is pushing farmers to revise their current vision of selections of productive varieties, which are neither resistant to climate nor to climatic disasters as we see in the news: no more hurricanes, no more flooding, no more hail, more frost out of season, no more drought and before we find the rare pearl that meets criteria combining vigor and yield, we will all be dead. We are not at the time of Darwin and his vision of a better world thanks to human genius! Ouarf, ouarf!

the Roma tomato was selected to be harvested by machine to make tomato sauce, we favored its mechanical strength and little juice in the fruit, to the detriment of taste, select new varieties by putting taste as the main criterion, yes, but organic, reasoned or conventional will go there, because it is always the economic aspect that motivates innovations

It is absurd to put the industrialist before the final quality which alone keeps the generations of human animals and plants in good health. But as the all chemical has replaced the all natural, the difference is hardly measured in the current populations of the affluent countries with its increasingly sick inhabitants, and also stuffed with heaps of medicinal chemicals to also maintain its consumers dependent on BP.
what pisses you off, the promoters of pure chemistry, is that individuals want to escape it and it is not reasoned (like for the picole, in moderation) or conservation (of its chemicals too, ) which will also manufacture their so-called civilization diseases.
You are moreover the typical example of it like the other funny one and that does not even jump to you in the eyes, the obvious relation of cause and effect.
The only conservation you know is that of your ignorance (I didn't say bullshit: weird!) And a total lack of reason.
Obviously otherwise it would be to deny the treatments you are following!

whereas in the end, in both cases it is the same will which motivates, is extracted from the dependence of oil, ..... whereas it would be necessary to let science decide

what science? the one that exclusively promotes BP, whose medocs come from petroleum precisely and no longer from biodiversity

* Thanks to which we can find future remedies, let's not forget: 70 to 80% of pharmaceutical molecules come from this biodiversity of which WE are also a part.
or rather were issues since all are synthetic, unfortunately!