Blow against bio-dynamics

[Janic]

Otherwise, yes, we eat live oysters but also all the raw vegetables, it seems to me. Insectivorous animals eat only living things.

the inevitable cry of the carrot that is slaughtered! and you're right on top of that! What raises the question, for example, scenes of violence on animals prohibited for children on the media, but not those of violence on plants to the same children, if there is equivalence? Or why the same child kills a fruit with delight and refuses to kill an animal (say a small animal) to devour it raw? Behind it must be something which induces such behavior and which does not stem from any culture.

[Victor Niquel]

http://www.changeonsdagriculture.fr/les-rendements-de-l-agriculture-biologique-un-quiproquo-tenace-a117529756

Interesting arguments, but a little too dogmatic.
The title of the article is meaningless since it does not prove it in the rest of the text.
15 times the word "chemistry" while organic farming also uses it ... Pffff

Michel Deb / Izentrop applies the scientific method here: you should take seed of it! (no bad pun)
Indeed, there is no difference between a product of industrial synthesis, and the maceration of a plant whose totum is the result of the environment. That the latter accepts this maceration better than an industrial synthesis input has never been proven by quality double-blind and peer-reviewed studies.

It is not an agriculture with ethical limits that will require, but advanced techniques to produce quality food without fossil fuels, without harming biodiversity.

Michel forgive me, but there is no evidence that conventional agriculture is harmful to biodiversity. No serious study goes in this direction. Perhaps you have developed certain biases, by attending this forum who seems to me peopled with anti-science gamers seeing agrochemical plots everywhere?
If in doubt, I suggest that you consult all the AFIS articles again, from forum-phyto and the UIPP on this issue. The expertise of André Heitz or Gil-Rivière Wekstein can help you return to the path of reason.

"Organic market gardening can obtain considerable returns (Photo Bec Hellouin)" quite questionable, because the study does not take into account all the inputs and other subtleties ...

And the dreamers do not take into account the fact that the Bec Hellouin looks more like a sect, than a serious agricultural exploitation ...

[Janic]

Michel forgive me, but there is no evidence that conventional agriculture is harmful to biodiversity. No serious study goes in this direction. Perhaps you have developed certain biases, by attending this forum who seems to me peopled with anti-science gamers seeing agrochemical plots everywhere?
If in doubt, I suggest that you consult all the AFIS articles again, from forum-phyto and the UIPP on this issue.

it is certain that when serious studies are commissioned by the agrochemical industries, it is not even conceivable that they self discredit whether it comes from the AFIS sect or its ilk.

[Ahmed]

The Political Commissioner ofIzentrop Does he offer her a self-criticism session?
Obviously followed by a reconditioning course ...

[sen-no-sen]

Michel forgive me, but there is no evidence that conventional agriculture is harmful to biodiversity. No serious study goes in this direction.

Hello and welcome to the forum!

Insofar as conventional agriculture is deployed within the framework of an economic model based on exponential growth, is it not wrong to assert that this does not harm biodiversity?

[Victor Niquel]

it is certain that when serious studies are commissioned by the agrochemical industries, it is not even conceivable that they self discredit whether it comes from the AFIS sect or its ilk.

Typical reaction of conspiratorial thinking: industries would be dishonest AND control bodies too

Insofar as conventional agriculture is deployed within the framework of an economic model based on exponential growth, is it not wrong to assert that this does not harm biodiversity?

If you have studies proving it, I'm interested, and the whole skeptical community too!
(I'm obviously talking about double-blind, peer-reviewed studies)

[sen-no-sen]

If you have studies proving it, I'm interested, and the whole skeptical community too!
(I'm obviously talking about double-blind, peer-reviewed studies)

It is a fishtail not an answer ... must we still prove the relationship between the thermodynamic explosion since the industrial revolution and the ecological consequences which result from it?
It is very easy to make a study say something when you extract it from a general framework.
Asserting that conventional agriculture does not lead to a decrease in biodiversity it may be true in a laboratory on a limited chronological sequence, but it is much less accurate if we take into account the global factors that underlie it tend.
Candid mode on: One would have to explain to me why the government seems engaged in a policy of lowering chemical inputs and why on the front page of certain magazine we are told about soil depletion?

[sicetaitsimple]

It is very easy to make a study say something when you extract it from a general framework.

I think it is even easier to drown the results of a targeted study in a jumble of general considerations ...

[sen-no-sen]

It is very easy to make a study say something when you extract it from a general framework.

I think it is even easier to drown the results of a targeted study in a jumble of general considerations ...

In this case, it is necessary to abandon the notion of ecology, and in particular ecology with regard to the contemporary phase.

[sicetaitsimple]

It is very easy to make a study say something when you extract it from a general framework.

I think it is even easier to drown the results of a targeted study in a jumble of general considerations ...

In this case, it is necessary to abandon the notion of ecology, and in particular ecology with regard to the contemporary phase.

You have just given a very good example of a very general consideration from which, assuming we understand it, we do not do anything!