[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden)
-
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:00:39 -0500
-
Article: 15847 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc, alt.org.earth-first, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens, alt.save.the.earth, alt.sustainable.agriculture, sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy, sci.environment, talk.environment
-
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
-
References: <542t7d$iep@rainbow.rmii.com> <32665F05.112@ilhawaii.net> <JMC.96Nov10090026@Steam.stanford.edu> <565ehv$qm9@agate.berkeley.edu> <01bbcf5b$bd8e1700$89d0d6cc@masher> <5692t9$5uf@news.telusplanet.net> <l.mcfadden-1211961031380001@dreamer-dog.pai.utexas.edu> <3288c92b.433092570@nntp.st.usm.edu>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6335 alt.org.earth-first:6432 alt.politics.economics:92287 alt.politics.greens:23286 alt.save.the.earth:25384 alt.sustainable.agriculture:15847 sci.agriculture:15729 sci.econ:60030 sci.energy:57775 sci.environment:111251 talk.environment:76535
Harold wrote:
> USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would like nothing
> more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence generator of
> programs for them to administer. Their survey found the average loss
> to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural regeneration
> runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2 tons per acre.
> Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years, the average
> farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has been farmed the
> entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for this loss.
>
Harold - "natural regeneration?" And how many conventional farmers add
anything but petroleum-derived fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to
their soil? Tell me, what do you know about farming and the pressures
conventional farmers are under to strip-mine the soil? "Fallow years?"
You're sticking your head in that denatured soil and closing your eyes to
reality.
You make assertions, present no references, state that even the press agrees
> with you (like that's a good reference!), then question the motive of
> the character of the previous poster.
You're right - other than name some publications, I couldn't be specific
about studies, stats, numbers - so I'll butt out and leave you to be
refuted by the people who've got the information at their fingertips. Of
which there are many, I see. My point about the mainstream press is that
they're generally unimaginative, unquestioning and not interested in any
new information unless they're cudgeled over the head with it - like alot
of people who prefer not to face the damage we've done to our world.
Betsy
Follow-Ups:
References: