Re: any hydro peeps here?
Rusty Trombone
> I spend some time today to review these links again and still find you can't
> fault the
> conclusions. You will, like so many of your belief have already, whine and
> cry foul, but the proof is pretty soild. So stop teabagging and read it.
>
> The UK's FSA independent study completed this summer( 2009) states :
> "Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the
> selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of
> nutritional superiority."
> >>
> >> 1st review
> >> http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
> >> Who are these people, and when where these studies made?
>
> you didn't read the link, did you?
> >>
> >> 2nd review
> >> http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf
> > Who are these people, and when where these studies made?
>
> Again, you didn't read the link, did you?
> >
> >> peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
> >> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.28041v1
> "In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies,
> conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of
> nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher
> content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a
> difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient
> categories analyzed."
>
> >>So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
> making them a target for noxious insects.
>
> You messed this one up also. Is this a quote from the link above it? No, so
> separate the two and give a reference to your lead-in of your absurd
> hypothesis; "chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
> making them a target for noxious insects"
>
> > Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple
> > of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about.
> > Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding wanker.
>
> I can see now you are really confused, mostly because you haven't read or
> have you? Stop with the pseudo-intellectual BS and READ.
>
> I did note that you screwed this last part up as much as you did the
> first bit of jumbled crap you refer to as "citations". Suffice it to say
> that the statement; " chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the
> plants, making them a target for noxious insects" is a complete misstatement
> of fact in whatever you are attempting . Pure supposition. No one said
> "leaves", no one said "noxious insects", except you. We were also
> discussing hydroponics, so to assume that excess nitrogen in a plant invites
> pests in hydroponic food is a bit out there. I asked you for information on
> your absurd claim and you dare to compare conventional and organic produce
> with your jumbled up mess including Pollan quotes and links to UC-Davis.
> Your links as usual, showed inconsistencies and half-truths. I gave you
> the latest information conducted by FSA that included such information as
> you hold to prove your point. The conclusion is the same as Dr. Barrett,
> UC-Davis, echoed earlier; Any claim that organic produce is somehow
> nutritionally superior is inconclusive.
>
> Again, I also said I wasn't going to do your work for you. You must
> actually read the studies to know what they say. Only then can you attempt
> to refute them. You haven't done that so far. Only when you do can you
> forward your faulty premises. Right now you are just cherry picking your
> facts and mostly using quotes out of context, as usual. You need to quote
> your so called "facts" correctly.
>
> How funny your use of " bleeding wanker" ? Is this your faux pas attempt at
> being British? Worldly, perhaps? Yet, how apropos as you will see, or
> perhaps as you already did?
>
> Good to see you using the basic interrogatives as I recommended, but you
> wouldn't have had to if you would have actually READ the links. At the
> minimum, everything you ask is on the first pages as well as the who, what,
> why,when, where and how the study was conducted. If in a hurry, just read
> the executive summaries or abstracts as you usually do.
>
> But this one time I gave you the entire study in PDF form, as well as the
> second review and the American peer review so you can't pretend it is of no
> significance. The complete protocol to include the fact that " relevant
> subject experts and external bodies were alerted to the review process and
> the availability of the review protocol." and that "A draft of the final
> report was reviewed and approved by the independent review panel". So
> either you can't read or you won't read? which is it? Your comprehension
> will be another issue.
>
> Personally, I believe it was too kind in that the protocol was
> overly broad. One thing the organic comparisons do not do is give a base
> soil analysis to include pH. and then explain what nutrients they have
> available for use in their soil bank. There is a big difference in chicken
> manure, cow manure, alfalfa etc. What inorganic materials did they use? in
> what amounts, and how frequently. I do find fault with the control (or lack
> of) in most of "experiments" and studies so far. Your "research", thus the
> facts used to confirm your beliefs are mostly flawed and vastly over stated.
> You have no standard protocol to make comparisons as this show.
>
> I am sure you can see the disparity that can be. So lets see an equal side
> by side where all things are the same as possible, then give realistic
> explainations for the varients. Hasn't been done to date as Br Barrett
> indicates.
>
> I realize balanced scientific papers are not on the Fringe Organic Industry
> Insider's recommended reading list, but this FSA study is going to cause
> you considerable consternation if you continue to claim such superiority.
> Go review the study design, search strategy, pub selection, etc. 50 years!
>
> The concept of sustainable agriculture using organic materials is a good and
> noble one, but it not the panacea you have so falsely claimed and badger
> people about. You continue to preach apples, all the while showing oranges
> as this latest study shows.
>
> Dr. Barrett, UC-Davis ( again, the one in some of YOUR references) has said
> many times there is no conclusive proof that organic is superior.
> So you want to quit now and move on because you nor your fan club can
> adequately address this one.
>
> -- Again, your trademark BS political commentaries are snipped
WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?
gunner
"Rusty Trombone" <rustytr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45219689-ca96-4447...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> gunner wrote:
>
> WTF has this flame war got to do with growing marijuana?
Nothing son, not a damn thing and unless you are a MM patient in one of the
14 states allowing MM and EATING it, your post doesn't have a damn thing to
do with Rec.Gardens.Edible either. Nor does your inclusion of this thread
in alt.quit.smoking.support. So while it may not be PC to stereotype folks,
son, is it sooooo apropos here or, as my close-minded nemesis says, "your
a wanker". Which is it? Just don't pretend like your some injured party,
Ok?
You have posed this subject here twice now AND you have been told at least
once where you might get your questions answered. Don't care the reason why
your so tenacious, I am not going to entertain your vague questions on
potentially illegal topics based on abbreviated BS. Usually your type
question is couched under the pretense of " I want to grow """tomatoes""
hydroponically" or at the very least, pretend like you are a MM patient.
Personally, I don't believe you cannot find information leads on your
subjects, nor that you don't have at least some capacity to separate most
fact from
fiction.
Read experts in the field such as Dr. Howard M. Resh's book on Hydroponic
Food Production, there are plenty of others such as Dr. Lynnette Morgan....
find old copies of Growers Edge Mag or the new one Urban Garden (which seems
to vaguely target your interest group). Then, after you READ up on the
subject and you still have specific questions on the subject of
Hydroponics.... I will try to answer those questions. BTW read it sober ok?
If you don't like reading, well..... just type in 420 and trust in the
Internet, but you knew that right?
As a side note: you might like to know this: Hot off the wire this AM:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/10/eye_opener_oct_19_2009.html
Gunner