Healthy soil and sustainable growing

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

Again, my position is that maximizing output versus input (I mean "money" -
the green stuff left after growing expenses) is better achieved with good
growing and marketing methods, and raising biofuels can't come close even
with massive subsidies. I don't care if the playing field is level or
slanted or upside down. It's being done, not a theory. 

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

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

On 3/11/2007 at 6:59 PM Mark Nagel wrote:

>I'm pretty sure that I understood what Paul meant and that I agree with
>the underlying aims.  I am just cautioning that we've got to be careful
>about using abusable terms. Again, if we talk of maximizing outputs in the
>way of money earned, then one might as well get on the biofuels wagon
>(which is highly subsidized): if we could kill all the subsidizes and
>flatten the playing field then I wouldn't have a problem using the
>definition given by Paul (and the term "profit").
>
>One need only see how the term/word "organic" has been abused/hijacked by
>big corporations and how it's starting to derail (confuse) the real intent
>to understand the perils.
>
>
>-Mark Nagel
>Everett, WA
>
>
>=====================
>From: "E. E. Mitchamore Jr" <emitch@att.net>
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland