Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

About chemicals, allow me to qualify that; I believe that if we can raise
yield with chemicals at all, then we have deficient soil to begin with. I
don't believe chemicals can improve on the healthiest, humus-rich soil. I
also maintain - with many others - that with best practices the highest,
healthiest annual production can be achieved at the lowest cost. Not a
zero-sum game. I literally gag when I read on various websites that organic
yields are lower. Done right, organic intensive in permanent no-till beds
can be the highest possible annual production. I'm not making this up.
There's loads of documentation available. It's a slam dunk. 

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 3/11/2007 at 6:08 PM E. E. Mitchamore Jr wrote:

>I don't think the "profit" spoken of here is the same as corporate
>agribusiness.  What Paul is referring to is the ratio of output to input. 
>You can certainly raise "yield" by the use of chemical fertilizers, but
>the long-term cost is too high.  By keeping costs very low, a lower yield
>can make very good sense for the long term.
>
>E. E. "Mitch" Mitchamore
>www.hillcountrynatives.biz
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Mark Nagel 
>  To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing 
>  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:22 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Yield vs output/ was nutrition
>
>
>  I'm not looking to UP (or to "raise") the ante, but shouldn't it really
>be driven by moral obligation to feed people?  That is, shouldn't it be
>stated that we should strive to produce what would be the greatest value
>to others?
>
>  It's picking nits, but the pure "profit" angle will, at least in the
>short-run (which may have substantial consequences of the long-run), drive
>farmers to produce biofuels :-(
>
>
>  -Mark Nagel
>  Everett, WA