Dead Rabbits
Member
- Location
- 'Merica
Oh god, spare us.
You realise that several billion people are alive today only because of the Haber process and Dr Borlaug, right?
As the Duck eluded to, inputs have to have an economic advantage, or they will not be used. There is no conning involved. The results have been demonstrated worldwide. And if the stuff did not work, or provided no economic benefit to the farmer, none of it would be sold.
This heralding of the low input farmer, is nothing of the sort. The people involved in this process are largely doing it not for some kind of social altruism, or because they are eco-friendly (farming is NOT never has and never will be eco-friendly and I will argue tooth and nail against any claim that it is) but because they are forced down that route for other reasons. Reasons like:
-Lack of capital
-Lack of profitability per unit product produced
-Lack out actual output (due to geographical or regional limitations, IE rainfall)
Next you will be trying to tell me that the poorest people in the world involved in subsistence agriculture, some of whom are or were involved in slash and burn agriculture, do not use nitrogen fertiliser out of their concerns for the environment?
Very interested to hear why farming is not, nor will it ever be eco friendly? And why you feel so strongly about this.?