Conservation agriculture

[GuyGadebois]

the last time you told us that the bio came from Steiner and his disciples

Steiner is biodynamics. In fact he did not invent anything, the farmers have always calibrated themselves according to the lunar months and the seasons empirically. Afterwards, whether rightly or wrongly is another debate.

[Moindreffor]

the last time you told us that the bio came from Steiner and his disciples

Steiner is biodynamics. In fact he did not invent anything, the farmers have always calibrated themselves according to the lunar months and the seasons empirically. Afterwards, whether rightly or wrongly is another debate.

Steiner is biodynamics, but Janic told us that it was also one of the precursors of organic, esoteric sources for organic, I don't know anything about it, I'm just quoting Janic

[Did67]

As always, what seems simple is complicated. And a question of definition. What is organic" ???

If it is the lack of use of synthetic products (fertilizers, pesticides), any form of agriculture before 1940 is roughly "organic". Biodynamics is organic. Amish are organic. My grandfather was organic.

By force of circumstances !

"Bio" is not "green": they were also big pioneers. They were draining. Gardeners were very heavy users of peat and did not care to degrade rare and precious wetlands: peatlands! This is to say if they were "green". Today, we idolize.

For my part, the "organic movement" is a reaction of some to the excesses and negative effects of "chemical" agriculture, which developed massively from the 1950s. It emerged in the public arena around the 1970s. is structured, organized (charters, associations or companies - "organic", in a certain form, was already business: see Lemaire - Bouché!).

For me, to speak of "organic" for movements before the 1950s hardly makes sense. It was at best "organic by necessity". De facto, biodynamics were ... "organic". De facto, the Amish were "organic" ... De facto, at the time, I would have been "organic" without knowing it of my own free will ... For me, to speak of "organic" in this case n does not make sense. Not the meaning of something constructed, thought out, conceptualized. It is insulting the pioneers of "organic" (as a movement challenging chemical agriculture, on a thoughtful basis, on the basis of observations and questions).

[Moindreffor]

As always, what seems simple is complicated. And a question of definition. What is organic" ???

If it is the lack of use of synthetic products (fertilizers, pesticides), any form of agriculture before 1940 is roughly "organic". Biodynamics is organic. Amish are organic. My grandfather was organic.

By force of circumstances !

"Bio" is not "green": they were also big pioneers. They were draining. Gardeners were very heavy users of peat and did not care to degrade rare and precious wetlands: peatlands! This is to say if they were "green". Today, we idolize.

For my part, the "organic movement" is a reaction of some to the excesses and negative effects of "chemical" agriculture, which developed massively from the 1950s. It emerged in the public arena around the 1970s. is structured, organized (charters, associations or companies - "organic", in a certain form, was already business: see Lemaire - Bouché!).

For me, to speak of "organic" for movements before the 1950s hardly makes sense. It was at best "organic by necessity". De facto, biodynamics were ... "organic". De facto, the Amish were "organic" ... De facto, at the time, I would have been "organic" without knowing it of my own free will ... For me, to speak of "organic" in this case n does not make sense. Not the meaning of something constructed, thought out, conceptualized. It is insulting the pioneers of "organic" (as a movement challenging chemical agriculture, on a thoughtful basis, on the basis of observations and questions).

so it's clear
why the big defenders of organic are not able to define organic so clearly? and discuss on this basis which seems very realistic
yes when Tapi bought La vie claire it was certainly not for his love of organic, since it was the sponsor of a cycling team and we know that the guys at that time did not turn to beet juice .. .

[Janic]

As always, what seems simple is complicated. And a question of definition. What is organic" ???

Ah finally !

If it is the lack of use of synthetic products (fertilizers, pesticides), any form of agriculture before 1940 is roughly "organic". Biodynamics is organic. Amish are organic. My grandfather was organic. By force of circumstances !

Indeed, organic refers to living things and everything that lives is organic.

"Bio" is not "green": they were also big pioneers. They were draining. Gardeners were very heavy users of peat and did not care to degrade rare and precious wetlands: peatlands! This is to say if they were "green". Today, we idolize.

We especially distort the meaning of words and therefore their use. Ecology is a search for the preservation of an environment which has been degraded over the last decades and which calls for better knowledge of these environments to protect them and that is not always tip top, but that is it ?

For me, to speak of "organic" in this case does not make sense.
No sense of something constructed, thought out, conceptualized. It is insulting the pioneers of "organic" (as a movement challenging chemical agriculture, on a thoughtful basis, on the basis of observations and questions).

It's quite fair !
Organic is a defense reaction as one defends oneself in the face of aggression! Then it is a question of the means used, especially when there is no existing history and you have to grope to find the right path, or even get lost from time to time, but life n is made of that!

@ least effort

why the big defenders of organic are not able to define organic so clearly?

Especially why don't those who talk about it without knowing anything about it make an effort to get information from the right sources, not on internet fakenews?

and discuss on this basis which seems very realistic.

What Did says here goes without saying, it is obvious for those who even know a little, the subject.

yes when Tapi bought La vie claire it was certainly not for his love of organic, since it was the sponsor of a cycling team and we know that the guys at that time did not turn to beet juice .. .

and crack, one more stupidity and you can't help it: Bzzz, Bzzz!
Tapie does not resume life clear by dietetic philosophy, but to redress a badly managed company, on the other hand he was committed to respecting the quality of the products. So no relation to cyclists as with any sponsor advertising.

[Moindreffor]

As always, what seems simple is complicated. And a question of definition. What is organic" ???

Ah finally !

If it is the lack of use of synthetic products (fertilizers, pesticides), any form of agriculture before 1940 is roughly "organic". Biodynamics is organic. Amish are organic. My grandfather was organic. By force of circumstances !

Indeed, organic refers to living things and everything that lives is organic.

"Bio" is not "green": they were also big pioneers. They were draining. Gardeners were very heavy users of peat and did not care to degrade rare and precious wetlands: peatlands! This is to say if they were "green". Today, we idolize.

We especially distort the meaning of words and therefore their use. Ecology is a search for the preservation of an environment which has been degraded over the last decades and which calls for better knowledge of these environments to protect them and that is not always tip top, but that is it ?

For me, to speak of "organic" in this case does not make sense.
No sense of something constructed, thought out, conceptualized. It is insulting the pioneers of "organic" (as a movement challenging chemical agriculture, on a thoughtful basis, on the basis of observations and questions).

It's quite fair !
Organic is a defense reaction as one defends oneself in the face of aggression! Then it is a question of the means used, especially when there is no existing history and you have to grope to find the right path, or even get lost from time to time, but life n is made of that!

so when you say that organic at 100 years Janic you say false, and when you say that he is 70 years old too, we agree that organic dates from the 70s as Didier says, what you just d 'approve

and that organic and ecological do not necessarily go hand in hand, we are finally moving forward ...

[Janic]

so when you say that organic at 100 years Janic you say false, and when you say that he is 70 years old too, we agree that organic dates from the 70s as Didier says, what you just d 'approve

once again, you read askance, however Did was clear in his analysis. Bio means life, not current agrobiology, but indeed philosophies like Steiner are already organic, in the sense of agrobio, in reaction to the agricultural methods of its time, so 100 years ago already. The results he obtained and which continue to test his agronomic approach.

and that organic and ecological do not necessarily go hand in hand, we are finally moving forward ...

It is obvious when it comes to the choices on the means of processing and distribution, so beyond the field of agriculture itself, such as packaging that farmers do not produce! But basically at the agricultural level, the two are intimately linked as Did also notes.

[Moindreffor]

once again, you read askance, however Did was clear in his analysis. Bio means life, not current agrobiology, but indeed philosophies like Steiner are already organic, in the sense of agrobio, in reaction to the agricultural methods of its time, so 100 years ago already. The results he obtained and which continue to test his agronomic approach.

not any reaction to the agricultural methods of his time, but a philosophical vision without any agronomic relationship, since he was a philosopher and had no agronomic training
so he was doing organic, without knowing it, it is you who in retrospect wants to see the beginnings of organic there, since as Didier specifies before the Second World War, which I also said, everyone was doing organic roughly so Steiner did like everyone else and no more than the others

it's good to want to romanticize history ...

[Janic]

not any reaction to the agricultural methods of his time, but a philosophical vision without any agronomic relationship, since he was a philosopher and had no agronomic training

as usual, the less you know the more you know! Historically there have been diseases or parasites on the vegetation and bio means the living and therefore any strengthening of the living plant is agronomy, not the crop itself which only consists in sowing and waiting for the harvest, the rest is agronomy, don't mind. Biodynamic preparations font precisely, part of this agronomy.

so he was organic, without knowing it,

Yes and no! Since even the poisoners in chemistry use living products that are seeds and therefore they can, and they did, claim that they too were doing organic.
Hence the peculiarities of agrobio that Did underlines to distinguish it!

it is you who in retrospect wants to see the beginnings of organic farming there, since, as Didier clarified before the Second World War, which I also said, everyone was making organic roughly speaking

always to mix everything and confuse! Du grosso modo does not provide any details on what distinguishes roughly and modo!
today, in order to make the distinction, agriculture (before chemistry), is called Nature inherited from parents, most often with much empiricism and transmission by successive generations. By comparison with Agrobio which is supervised by agricultural engineers and therefore with additional knowledge aided by technology.

so Steiner did like everyone else and no more than the others

always the same ignorance. Instead of getting out of this kind of nonsense, really learn about this farming method after biodynamicians and their literature which has nothing to do with your usual assumptions.

it's good to want to romanticize history ...

and there you are unbeatable!

[Moindreffor]

agronomy is a whole of sciences, Steiner a philosopher, you do not see a shift?