Discussion:
Why organic is better - by an organic farmer.
Add Reply
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-06 16:48:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
LOL



"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" <***@bungay.com> wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
:
: If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not the
: conversation will be about the weather.
:
: Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot; and
now
: we have too dry.
:
: My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
:
: As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get the
: current problems of the intensive modern farms.
:
: Currently our organic farm has had little rain since April and we are too
: dry; but we are not suffering with the same problems that the drought is
: bringing to the high intensity farms. I believe that farming has to be a
: sustainable enterprise and a farmer should be farming within the farm's
: means.
:
: The drought is affecting the intensive farmer as they are over-stocked
with
: livestock.
:
: In May this year the grass had grown like never before and we were able to
: harvest almost a month early. As a consequence I have livestock still able
to
: lie down in long grass this morning.
:
: We are able to do this as organic farming is not intensive.
:
: Heavy machinery has a high impact on soils, as the soil is compacted by
large
: machines during the spring, making the fields hard and unable to take in
the
: much needed rains.
:
: Manmade fertilisers also create problems as the plants' roots are relying
: on their food source to come from above and not below. With organic
farming
: the plant nutrition comes from deep within the soils. This results in the
: plants tapping into moisture reserves within the soils.
:
: It is also important to have old herbage in the meadows as these old
: varieties of grasses are able to withstand the dry seasons.
:
: Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows water
to
: get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil hold
it,
: instead of running off and taking soil with it.
:
: Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
:
: Jonathan.
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 11:15:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL

"Byker" <***@do~rag.net> wrote in message news:fu2dnXgRltXWIfXGnZ2dnUU7-***@supernews.com...
: "Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" wrote in message
: news:***@news.giganews.com...
: >
: > If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
: > conversation will be about the weather.
: >
: > Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
: > now we have too dry.
: >
: > My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
: >
: > As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
: > current problems of the intensive modern farms.
: >
: > Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
: > to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
: > hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
: >
: > Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
: > future.
:
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
:
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-07 11:37:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
conversation will be about the weather.
Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
now we have too dry.
My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
current problems of the intensive modern farms.
Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.

How can anyone know? Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.

In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 13:20:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
conversation will be about the weather.
Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
now we have too dry.
My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
current problems of the intensive modern farms.
Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know?
Well, it's quite easily calculable on the back of a envelope.

We currently can produce only enough food to feed 60% of the population,
ie 36 million or so. If we went totally organic, yields would be at
best about two-thirds of what they are currently, so we could feed
two-thirds of those 36 million, ie about 24 million.

QED.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
They don't 'get dumped'. Generally, they go to producers of processed
food, where they're turned into pies, soups etc, where the appearance is
of little concern, or as a final resort they go as animal feed.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
It's actually under 0.5% of their total UK food sales, which I consider
an excellent performance. You can't have a retail food operation that
does not have any waste at all. It just isn't possible in an industry
with variable supplies, variable sales and variable weather.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-07 13:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
conversation will be about the weather.
Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
now we have too dry.
My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
current problems of the intensive modern farms.
Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know?
Well, it's quite easily calculable on the back of a envelope.
We currently can produce only enough food to feed 60% of the population,
ie 36 million or so. If we went totally organic, yields would be at
best about two-thirds of what they are currently, so we could feed
two-thirds of those 36 million, ie about 24 million.
QED.
Liar.

You have been told the maths several times in the past, but you choose to
ignore it and peddle your BS.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
They don't 'get dumped'.
Liar

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/supermarkets-slammed-for-rejecting-wonky-fruit-and-
veg
Post by Norman Wells
Generally, they go to producers of processed
food, where they're turned into pies, soups etc,
No, that is the standard excuse peddled by the retailers. Most of the food is
rejected by the buyers before it even arrives at the supermarkets.

Do you always just parrot the big business press releases without even
bothering to check?
Post by Norman Wells
where the appearance is
of little concern, or as a final resort they go as animal feed.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
It's actually under 0.5% of their total UK food sales,
Liar

https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-food-
waste-by-category/
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 14:16:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know?
Well, it's quite easily calculable on the back of a envelope.
We currently can produce only enough food to feed 60% of the population,
ie 36 million or so. If we went totally organic, yields would be at
best about two-thirds of what they are currently, so we could feed
two-thirds of those 36 million, ie about 24 million.
QED.
Liar.
You have been told the maths several times in the past, but you choose to
ignore it and peddle your BS.
It's simple maths, relying on just two verifiable statistics.

Hardly bullshit then.

What organic farming requires is three fields for every two that are
currently cultivated, in order to give the same yield. Can you tell us
where they are please?

Other things being equal, organic farming can only support 24 million
people. The trouble is, we have over 60 million.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
They don't 'get dumped'.
Liar
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/supermarkets-slammed-for-rejecting-wonky-fruit-and-
veg
Post by Norman Wells
Generally, they go to producers of processed
food, where they're turned into pies, soups etc,
No, that is the standard excuse peddled by the retailers.
And what evidence have you that that is wrong?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most of the food is
rejected by the buyers before it even arrives at the supermarkets.
In that case, there's plenty of time to ensure that it goes where it can
be sold, like to food processors. Farmers aren't daft, but pretty
hard-nosed and canny. They don't just say 'Oh, dear' and throw their
produce away. But that's what you're implying and wanting us to believe.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Do you always just parrot the big business press releases without even
bothering to check?
Post by Norman Wells
where the appearance is
of little concern, or as a final resort they go as animal feed.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
It's actually under 0.5% of their total UK food sales,
Liar
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-food-
waste-by-category/
What on earth do you think that shows? It certainly does not prove
anything for you to rely on.

If you want the actual data, it's at:

https://www.tescoplc.com/tesco-and-society/food-waste/food-waste-data/

It shows absolutely specifically that Tesco's 'Waste as % of food sales'
was 0.47% in 2017.

You may therefore like to reconsider your 'Liar' comment and withdraw it.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-07 14:53:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically
if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know?
Well, it's quite easily calculable on the back of a envelope.
We currently can produce only enough food to feed 60% of the population,
ie 36 million or so. If we went totally organic, yields would be at
best about two-thirds of what they are currently, so we could feed
two-thirds of those 36 million, ie about 24 million.
QED.
Liar.
You have been told the maths several times in the past, but you choose to
ignore it and peddle your BS.
It's simple maths, relying on just two verifiable statistics.
Hardly bullshit then.
What organic farming requires is three fields for every two that are
currently cultivated, in order to give the same yield. Can you tell us
where they are please?
Of course I could, but then you would just ask me another question....

Then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another
- it’s so tiresome.
Post by Norman Wells
Other things being equal, organic farming can only support 24 million
people. The trouble is, we have over 60 million.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
They don't 'get dumped'.
Liar
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/supermarkets-slammed-for-rejecting-wonky-fruit-an
d-
veg
Post by Norman Wells
Generally, they go to producers of processed
food, where they're turned into pies, soups etc,
No, that is the standard excuse peddled by the retailers.
And what evidence have you that that is wrong?
Where is your evidence of the amount made into soup?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most of the food is
rejected by the buyers before it even arrives at the supermarkets.
In that case, there's plenty of time to ensure that it goes where it can
be sold, like to food processors. Farmers aren't daft, but pretty
hard-nosed and canny. They don't just say 'Oh, dear' and throw their
produce away.
Liar.

Then they claim compensation.
Post by Norman Wells
But that's what you're implying and wanting us to believe.
Liar.

I am wanting you to believe.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Do you always just parrot the big business press releases without even
bothering to check?
Post by Norman Wells
where the appearance is
of little concern, or as a final resort they go as animal feed.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
It's actually under 0.5% of their total UK food sales,
Liar
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-foo
d-
waste-by-category/
What on earth do you think that shows? It certainly does not prove
anything for you to rely on.
Ho ho.

Your argument has been holed below the waterline, as usual.

And now you are force to scrabble around trying to pull together a few
strings in order to keep you from drowning through your own ignorance.
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 15:28:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know?
Well, it's quite easily calculable on the back of a envelope.
We currently can produce only enough food to feed 60% of the population,
ie 36 million or so. If we went totally organic, yields would be at
best about two-thirds of what they are currently, so we could feed
two-thirds of those 36 million, ie about 24 million.
QED.
Liar.
You have been told the maths several times in the past, but you choose to
ignore it and peddle your BS.
It's simple maths, relying on just two verifiable statistics.
Hardly bullshit then.
What organic farming requires is three fields for every two that are
currently cultivated, in order to give the same yield. Can you tell us
where they are please?
Of course I could, but then you would just ask me another question....
Then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another
- it’s so tiresome.
It seems you can't answer even one. And it is pretty fundamental.

Anyway, why come to a discussion forum if you don't expect to have your
views questioned. That's the basis of discussion.

And I'd have thought you'd relish the opportunity to extol the virtues
of organic farming and show how great it is.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Other things being equal, organic farming can only support 24 million
people. The trouble is, we have over 60 million.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
They don't 'get dumped'.
Liar
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/supermarkets-slammed-for-rejecting-wonky-fruit-an
d-
veg
Post by Norman Wells
Generally, they go to producers of processed
food, where they're turned into pies, soups etc,
No, that is the standard excuse peddled by the retailers.
And what evidence have you that that is wrong?
Where is your evidence of the amount made into soup?
I don't have figures on the amounts. But soups and pies do get made in
considerable quantities. Out of what, do you think?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most of the food is
rejected by the buyers before it even arrives at the supermarkets.
In that case, there's plenty of time to ensure that it goes where it can
be sold, like to food processors. Farmers aren't daft, but pretty
hard-nosed and canny. They don't just say 'Oh, dear' and throw their
produce away.
Liar.
Prove it then. Your proposition is inherently unbelievable.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Then they claim compensation.
Do they? For what?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
But that's what you're implying and wanting us to believe.
Liar.
I am wanting you to believe.
Well, I don't. And for very good reasons.

Nor, I suspect, does anyone else.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Do you always just parrot the big business press releases without even
bothering to check?
Post by Norman Wells
where the appearance is
of little concern, or as a final resort they go as animal feed.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
It's actually under 0.5% of their total UK food sales,
Liar
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-foo
d-waste-by-category/
What on earth do you think that shows? It certainly does not prove
anything for you to rely on.
Ho ho.
Your argument has been holed below the waterline, as usual.
Care to explain how?

You see, I gave you the true figures, but you've just deleted them,
doubtless by accident. Let me put them back for you:

If you want the actual data, it's at:

https://www.tescoplc.com/tesco-and-society/food-waste/food-waste-data/

It shows absolutely specifically that Tesco's 'Waste as % of food sales'
was 0.47% in 2017.

You may therefore like to reconsider your 'Liar' comment and withdraw it.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-07 18:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically
if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know?
Well, it's quite easily calculable on the back of a envelope.
We currently can produce only enough food to feed 60% of the population,
ie 36 million or so. If we went totally organic, yields would be at
best about two-thirds of what they are currently, so we could feed
two-thirds of those 36 million, ie about 24 million.
QED.
Liar.
You have been told the maths several times in the past, but you choose to
ignore it and peddle your BS.
It's simple maths, relying on just two verifiable statistics.
Hardly bullshit then.
What organic farming requires is three fields for every two that are
currently cultivated, in order to give the same yield. Can you tell us
where they are please?
Of course I could, but then you would just ask me another question....
Then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another
- it’s so tiresome.
It seems you can't answer even one. And it is pretty fundamental.
Anyway, why come to a discussion forum if you don't expect to have your
views questioned. That's the basis of discussion.
And I'd have thought you'd relish the opportunity to extol the virtues
of organic farming and show how great it is.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Other things being equal, organic farming can only support 24 million
people. The trouble is, we have over 60 million.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
They don't 'get dumped'.
Liar
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/supermarkets-slammed-for-rejecting-wonky-fruit-
an
d-
veg
Post by Norman Wells
Generally, they go to producers of processed
food, where they're turned into pies, soups etc,
No, that is the standard excuse peddled by the retailers.
And what evidence have you that that is wrong?
Where is your evidence of the amount made into soup?
I don't have figures on the amounts. But soups and pies do get made in
considerable quantities. Out of what, do you think?
I think you have done people a big favour by steering them away from
supermarkets’ own label mouldy veg soup; and pies with out of date
fillings.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most of the food is
rejected by the buyers before it even arrives at the supermarkets.
In that case, there's plenty of time to ensure that it goes where it can
be sold, like to food processors. Farmers aren't daft, but pretty
hard-nosed and canny. They don't just say 'Oh, dear' and throw their
produce away.
Liar.
Prove it then. Your proposition is inherently unbelievable.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Then they claim compensation.
Do they? For what?
For lost production.It’s called insurance.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
But that's what you're implying and wanting us to believe.
Liar.
I am wanting you to believe.
Well, I don't. And for very good reasons.
Nor, I suspect, does anyone else.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Do you always just parrot the big business press releases without even
bothering to check?
Post by Norman Wells
where the appearance is
of little concern, or as a final resort they go as animal feed.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their
distribution
centres and retail stores.
It's actually under 0.5% of their total UK food sales,
Liar
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-f
oo
d-waste-by-category/
What on earth do you think that shows? It certainly does not prove
anything for you to rely on.
Ho ho.
Your argument has been holed below the waterline, as usual.
Care to explain how?
You see, I gave you the true figures, but you've just deleted them,
https://www.tescoplc.com/tesco-and-society/food-waste/food-waste-data/
It shows absolutely specifically that Tesco's 'Waste as % of food sales'
was 0.47% in 2017.
But that includes beers, wines, spirits; frozen food, dried food, canned
food, crisps and nuts and a whole host of other products with a long shelf
life which are irrelevant.

Fresh food is what we are talking about.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-food-
waste-by-category/

35% wasted at Tescos alone.
You may therefore like to reconsider your 'Liar' comment and withdraw it.
I have reconsidered, and I now realise you are not only a liar, but a cheat,
a fraud and a wholly unsavoury multinational company arselicker.
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 20:53:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know?
Well, it's quite easily calculable on the back of a envelope.
We currently can produce only enough food to feed 60% of the population,
ie 36 million or so. If we went totally organic, yields would be at
best about two-thirds of what they are currently, so we could feed
two-thirds of those 36 million, ie about 24 million.
QED.
Liar.
You have been told the maths several times in the past, but you choose to
ignore it and peddle your BS.
It's simple maths, relying on just two verifiable statistics.
Hardly bullshit then.
What organic farming requires is three fields for every two that are
currently cultivated, in order to give the same yield. Can you tell us
where they are please?
Of course I could, but then you would just ask me another question....
Then another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another
- it’s so tiresome.
It seems you can't answer even one. And it is pretty fundamental.
Anyway, why come to a discussion forum if you don't expect to have your
views questioned. That's the basis of discussion.
And I'd have thought you'd relish the opportunity to extol the virtues
of organic farming and show how great it is.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Other things being equal, organic farming can only support 24 million
people. The trouble is, we have over 60 million.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
They don't 'get dumped'.
Liar
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/supermarkets-slammed-for-rejecting-wonky-fruit-
and-veg
Post by Norman Wells
Generally, they go to producers of processed
food, where they're turned into pies, soups etc,
No, that is the standard excuse peddled by the retailers.
And what evidence have you that that is wrong?
Where is your evidence of the amount made into soup?
I don't have figures on the amounts. But soups and pies do get made in
considerable quantities. Out of what, do you think?
I think you have done people a big favour by steering them away from
supermarkets’ own label mouldy veg soup; and pies with out of date
fillings.
Now you're being very silly indeed. Wonky fruit and veg is not the same
as 'mouldy' or 'out-of-date'. Do get a grip.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Most of the food is
rejected by the buyers before it even arrives at the supermarkets.
In that case, there's plenty of time to ensure that it goes where it can
be sold, like to food processors. Farmers aren't daft, but pretty
hard-nosed and canny. They don't just say 'Oh, dear' and throw their
produce away.
Liar.
Prove it then. Your proposition is inherently unbelievable.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Then they claim compensation.
Do they? For what?
For lost production.It’s called insurance.
I doubt if they can insure against that. Since you do, however, please
provide your evidence.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
But that's what you're implying and wanting us to believe.
Liar.
I am wanting you to believe.
Well, I don't. And for very good reasons.
Nor, I suspect, does anyone else.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Do you always just parrot the big business press releases without even
bothering to check?
Post by Norman Wells
where the appearance is
of little concern, or as a final resort they go as animal feed.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their
distribution centres and retail stores.
It's actually under 0.5% of their total UK food sales,
Liar
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-f
ood-waste-by-category/
What on earth do you think that shows? It certainly does not prove
anything for you to rely on.
Ho ho.
Your argument has been holed below the waterline, as usual.
Care to explain how?
You see, I gave you the true figures, but you've just deleted them,
https://www.tescoplc.com/tesco-and-society/food-waste/food-waste-data/
It shows absolutely specifically that Tesco's 'Waste as % of food sales'
was 0.47% in 2017.
But that includes beers, wines, spirits; frozen food, dried food, canned
food, crisps and nuts and a whole host of other products with a long shelf
life which are irrelevant.
Fresh food is what we are talking about.
Is it? i don't recall anyone saying that.

It's *all* food, and a proportion of all the things you list will be
'wasted' as well as any other, so it's a very relevant comparison.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490863/tesco-group-united-kingdom-uk-food-
waste-by-category/
35% wasted at Tescos alone.
You're really not very good at understanding anything, are you? The 35%
you quote is not 35% of all food sold in Tesco, but 35% of just what is
wasted. Since what is wasted is just 0.47% of food sales, what you're
talking about is produce waste accounting for just 0.16% of all food
sales, or about one six-hundredth.

It's not a lot, is it?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
You may therefore like to reconsider your 'Liar' comment and withdraw it.
I have reconsidered, and I now realise you are not only a liar, but a cheat,
a fraud and a wholly unsavoury multinational company arselicker.
I said that food waste accounted for less than 0.5% of Tesco's food
sales. I showed that it was actually 0.47%, which is indeed less.

You are wrong. Utterly wrong.

You may therefore like to reconsider your 'Liar' comment and withdraw it.

I think too, since you're libelling me, you should try to justify your
statement that I am 'a cheat, a fraud and a wholly unsavoury
multinational company arselicker' too. What evidence do you have?

If none, is there any reason why you should not reconsider your remarks
and withdraw them too?
Ophelia
2018-08-07 19:55:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
conversation will be about the weather.
Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
now we have too dry.
My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
current problems of the intensive modern farms.
Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.

How can anyone know? Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.

In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.

==

They might not be happy to do so if veg starta to become less available.
They were saying on the news this am that the continuous hot weather could
reduce supply or they might not all be so 'perfect'.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-07 21:04:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
conversation will be about the weather.
Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
now we have too dry.
My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
current problems of the intensive modern farms.
Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know? Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
==
They might not be happy to do so if veg starta to become less available.
They were saying on the news this am that the continuous hot weather could
reduce supply or they might not all be so 'perfect'.
I think the supermarkets have begun to get the message. On our allotment, the
carrots are very small, and peas were just rubbish; although onions have done
well. We are leaving the maincrop potatoes and hoping a bit of rain over the
next few weeks will cause them to swell up.
Brian Reay
2018-08-07 21:24:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
conversation will be about the weather.
Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
now we have too dry.
My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
current problems of the intensive modern farms.
Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know? Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
==
They might not be happy to do so if veg starta to become less available.
They were saying on the news this am that the continuous hot weather could
reduce supply or they might not all be so 'perfect'.
I think the supermarkets have begun to get the message. On our allotment, the
carrots are very small, and peas were just rubbish; although onions have done
well. We are leaving the maincrop potatoes and hoping a bit of rain over the
next few weeks will cause them to swell up.
Sadly, I suspect any rain now will be two late for main crop. I've heard
of people transferring some plants to either large bags or tyre rings
and trying to keep them growing to Xmas, dragging them under cover if
possible. I've never tried it.

Onions and garlic tend to tolerate low water quite well. It also makes
storage easier.

Peas, that is a loss. Nothing quite like fresh peas. One of my 'treats'
on our French jaunts is finding fresh peas in a French Farmers' Market.
--
Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.
Ophelia
2018-08-08 17:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by BurfordTJustice
Sounds like a plan....the muslims will soon see to it...LOL
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
conversation will be about the weather.
Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
now we have too dry.
My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
current problems of the intensive modern farms.
Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water
Post by BurfordTJustice
Post by BurfordTJustice
to get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold it, instead of running off and taking soil with it.
Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That’s not surprising. This kind of right wing made up bullshit is
everywhere in the MSM.
How can anyone know? Whole lorry loads of fruit and veg are rejected by the
supermarkets because they are either under or over size, or have a few
blemishes. They are perfectly ok to eat, but get dumped because “the
consumer wants perfection”.
In 2013 28,500 tons of food was wasted just by Tesco in their distribution
centres and retail stores.
==
They might not be happy to do so if veg starta to become less available.
They were saying on the news this am that the continuous hot weather could
reduce supply or they might not all be so 'perfect'
===

I think the supermarkets have begun to get the message. On our allotment,
the
carrots are very small, and peas were just rubbish; although onions have
done
well. We are leaving the maincrop potatoes and hoping a bit of rain over the
next few weeks will cause them to swell up.

==

Good luck!!! I grow a few veg in my garden. Like yours, the peas are
rubbish:( My courgettes are looking good and the Cavalo Nero super, but I
never get any probs with that. Heh I planted dwarf beans. Half the plants
are very small (as expected) half are taller them me <g> I think the seeds
must have got mixed up:)

My fruits are good and the cabbages don't look too bad. The potatoes seem
to be coming on, but I haven't tried to dig any up yet. We are away from
home too so ... although I see we have had some rain up north.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-08-08 22:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
Good luck!!! I grow a few veg in my garden. Like yours, the peas are
rubbish:( My courgettes are looking good and the Cavalo Nero super, but
I never get any probs with that. Heh I planted dwarf beans. Half the
plants are very small (as expected) half are taller them me <g> I think
the seeds must have got mixed up:)
My fruits are good and the cabbages don't look too bad. The potatoes
seem to be coming on, but I haven't tried to dig any up yet. We are away
from home too so ... although I see we have had some rain up north.
The thing that strikes me reading your posts, is the staggering absence of
self-awareness.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'As I write, civilised human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill
me'
(George Orwell (1903 - 1950))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 12:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 13:23:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 14:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 14:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:14:16 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
Ah! I have found an interesting graph.

https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/britain_feeds.pdf

Britain's Population and Food Supply, 1700-2015 < graph

Which shows that we haven't fed ourselves since 1800.

More interestingly the change from organic to chemical farming happened
from shortly after the second world war up to the 1975 which fits in
with the UK government pushing changes in agriculture after all the
rationing and all those shit potatoes and tomatoes I had to endure
growing up.

Looks like an interesting document. I will read it later.


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 14:54:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:14:16 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
Ah! I have found an interesting graph.
https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/britain_feeds.pdf
Britain's Population and Food Supply, 1700-2015 < graph
Which shows that we haven't fed ourselves since 1800.
More interestingly the change from organic to chemical farming happened
from shortly after the second world war up to the 1975 which fits in
with the UK government pushing changes in agriculture after all the
rationing and all those shit potatoes and tomatoes I had to endure
growing up.
Looks like an interesting document. I will read it later.
I've extracted this bit, out of context of course but relevant, that you
might like to consider:

"What other evidence is there? The Global Footprint Network, whose
research is widely used by the United Nations, N.G.O.s and governments,
thinks that Britain’s ecological footprint is three times the size of
its land area, in other words the population would need to be 21 million
in order to have an equitable footprint. The historical data above
suggests that 18 million in peacetime and 23 million in wartime is the
maximum historical population fed by traditional organic farming. To sum
up, it is unfortunately very difficult, on the basis of all the
evidence, to see how British organic farming could support anything
close to the current population."
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-07 14:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:14:16 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically
if
the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
Ah! I have found an interesting graph.
https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/britain_feeds.pdf
Britain's Population and Food Supply, 1700-2015 < graph
Which shows that we haven't fed ourselves since 1800.
More interestingly the change from organic to chemical farming happened
from shortly after the second world war up to the 1975 which fits in
with the UK government pushing changes in agriculture after all the
rationing and all those shit potatoes and tomatoes
Shit tomatoes is certainly very relevant, as millions of tomato seeds
germinate in sewage farm settling tanks.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
I had to endure
growing up.
Looks like an interesting document. I will read it later.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 14:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 14:50:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.
You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?

You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.
Post by Norman Wells
The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 15:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.
You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?
No, it doesn't. Nor should it if you're considering whether organic
farming can make us self-sufficient in food, which I thought we were.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.
I didn't give that date. Nor is it actually relevant.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.
Well? Can you clarify this?
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 15:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Told ya! Mud!



"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >> wrote:
: >>
: >>> On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>>>
: >>>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>>>
: >>>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
the
: >>>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>>>
: >>>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >>>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>>>
: >>>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >>>
: >>> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >>
: >> Thank you for asking.
: >>
: >> You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: >> figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
have
: >> time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: >> results.
: >>
: >> This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: >> is kinda funny.
: >>
: >> In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: >> source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >>
: >> Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
Was
: >> that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: >> supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >>
: >> Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
the
: >> 1940's.
: >>
: >> If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: >> cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: >> statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >>
: >> The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
million
: >> is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: >> sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: >> rationale was applied.
: >>
: >> Perhaps you think different.
: >
: >I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: >
: >The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: >million people if we went totally organic.
:
: You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
: envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?
:
: You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.
:
: >The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: >wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: >interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: >Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: >1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
: >
: >I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: >food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: >weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: >organic farming anyway.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 16:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:26:03 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
Told ya! Mud!
Fall off yer 'orse cowboy? Not too sharp with yer figures ar yer.
Post by BurfordTJustice
: >>
: >>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>>>
: >>>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>>>
: >>>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>>>
: >>>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
the
: >>>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>>>
: >>>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >>>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>>>
: >>>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >>>
: >>> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >>
: >> Thank you for asking.
: >>
: >> You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: >> figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
have
: >> time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: >> results.
: >>
: >> This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: >> is kinda funny.
: >>
: >> In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: >> source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >>
: >> Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
Was
: >> that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: >> supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >>
: >> Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
the
: >> 1940's.
: >>
: >> If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: >> cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: >> statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >>
: >> The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
million
: >> is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: >> sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: >> rationale was applied.
: >>
: >> Perhaps you think different.
: >
: >I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: >
: >The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: >million people if we went totally organic.
: You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
: envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?
: You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.
: >The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: >wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: >interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: >Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: >1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
: >
: >I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: >food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: >weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: >organic farming anyway.
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 18:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:26:03 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
:
: >Told ya! Mud!
:
: Fall off yer 'orse cowboy? Not too sharp with yer figures ar yer.
:
:
:
: >"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
: >message news:***@4ax.com...
: >: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >: wrote:
: >:
: >: >On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >: >> wrote:
: >: >>
: >: >>> On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >: >>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >: >>>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >: >>>>
: >: >>>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
: >organically if
: >: >>>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >: >>>>
: >: >>>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >: >>>>
: >: >>>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
: >the
: >: >>>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >: >>>>
: >: >>>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >: >>>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >: >>>>
: >: >>>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
: >1940's.
: >: >>>
: >: >>> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >: >>
: >: >> Thank you for asking.
: >: >>
: >: >> You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: >: >> figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
: >have
: >: >> time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: >: >> results.
: >: >>
: >: >> This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to
1871
: >: >> is kinda funny.
: >: >>
: >: >> In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: >: >> source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >: >>
: >: >> Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
: >Was
: >: >> that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was
largely
: >: >> supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >: >>
: >: >> Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
: >the
: >: >> 1940's.
: >: >>
: >: >> If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: >: >> cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: >: >> statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >: >>
: >: >> The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
: >million
: >: >> is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So
it's
: >: >> sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: >: >> rationale was applied.
: >: >>
: >: >> Perhaps you think different.
: >: >
: >: >I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: >: >
: >: >The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support
24
: >: >million people if we went totally organic.
: >:
: >: You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
: >: envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?
: >:
: >: You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.
: >:
: >: >The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: >: >wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: >: >interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: >: >Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: >: >1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
: >: >
: >: >I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount
of
: >: >food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: >: >weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: >: >organic farming anyway.
: >:
: >: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
: >:
: >: --
: >: p-0.0-h the cat
: >:
: >: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: >: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
: >Boy,
: >: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: >: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
: >infâme,
: >: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
: >troll,
: >: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: >: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish
scumbag,
: >: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
: >chav,
: >: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
: >lesbian,
: >: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
: >:
: >: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
: >:
: >: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: >: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
: >:
: >: Signature integrity check
: >: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
: >:
: >: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
: >:
: >
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 15:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
poo always tries to muddy the water so as to exit stage left.



"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > wrote:
: >
: >> On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>>
: >>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>>
: >>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
: >>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>>
: >>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>>
: >>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >>
: >> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >
: > Thank you for asking.
: >
: > You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: > figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
: > time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: > results.
: >
: > This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: > is kinda funny.
: >
: > In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: > source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >
: > Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
: > that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: > supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >
: > Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
: > 1940's.
: >
: > If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: > cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: > statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >
: > The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
: > is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: > sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: > rationale was applied.
: >
: > Perhaps you think different.
:
: I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
:
: The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: million people if we went totally organic.
:
: The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: 1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
:
: I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: organic farming anyway.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 16:35:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:25:33 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
poo always tries to muddy the water so as to exit stage left.
On the contrary my little farm subsidy whore. I'm trying to ascertain
how much of this is lobbyist fiction.

Go back to filling your forms in. Heaven forbid you get off your fat
lazy arse and grow some real food.
Post by BurfordTJustice
: >
: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>>
: >>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>>
: >>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>>
: >>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
: >>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>>
: >>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>>
: >>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >>
: >> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >
: > Thank you for asking.
: >
: > You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: > figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
: > time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: > results.
: >
: > This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: > is kinda funny.
: >
: > In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: > source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >
: > Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
: > that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: > supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >
: > Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
: > 1940's.
: >
: > If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: > cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: > statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >
: > The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
: > is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: > sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: > rationale was applied.
: >
: > Perhaps you think different.
: I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: million people if we went totally organic.
: The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: 1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
: I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: organic farming anyway.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 18:57:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:25:33 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
:
: >poo always tries to muddy the water so as to exit stage left.
:
: On the contrary my little farm subsidy whore. I'm trying to ascertain
: how much of this is lobbyist fiction.
:
: Go back to filling your forms in. Heaven forbid you get off your fat
: lazy arse and grow some real food.
:
:
:
: >"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
: >news:***@mid.individual.net...
: >: On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >: > wrote:
: >: >
: >: >> On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >: >>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >: >>>
: >: >>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
: >organically if
: >: >>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >: >>>
: >: >>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >: >>>
: >: >>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
the
: >: >>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >: >>>
: >: >>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >: >>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >: >>>
: >: >>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
: >1940's.
: >: >>
: >: >> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >: >
: >: > Thank you for asking.
: >: >
: >: > You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: >: > figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
have
: >: > time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: >: > results.
: >: >
: >: > This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to
1871
: >: > is kinda funny.
: >: >
: >: > In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: >: > source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >: >
: >: > Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
Was
: >: > that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was
largely
: >: > supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >: >
: >: > Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
the
: >: > 1940's.
: >: >
: >: > If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: >: > cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: >: > statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >: >
: >: > The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
million
: >: > is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So
it's
: >: > sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: >: > rationale was applied.
: >: >
: >: > Perhaps you think different.
: >:
: >: I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: >:
: >: The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: >: million people if we went totally organic.
: >:
: >: The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: >: wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: >: interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: >: Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: >: 1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
: >:
: >: I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: >: food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: >: weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: >: organic farming anyway.
: >
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 15:54:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.
The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
Scotland.
Post by Norman Wells
I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.
The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
bullshit is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
the agrochemical food and other related industries. Because my summation
so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
don't.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 16:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.
The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
Scotland.
Add in whatever you like, it makes no difference, and it's not
important. I based no argument on it at all, just quoted some ONS
population figures in case you were interested.

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today. Just for interest, 24 million was the population of the UK
sometime before 1850.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.
The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
bullshit is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
the agrochemical food and other related industries.
What are you questioning?

We currently produce only enough food for 60% of the population. Are
you questioning that?

Organic yields are typically about two-thirds of those produced
conventionally. Are you questioning that?

If you're questioning either, tell us why,

If you're questioning neither, then by simple arithmetic it is
inescapable going totally organic would mean, all other things being
equal, that we could only produce enough food for 40% of the population,
or about 24 million.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Because my summation
so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
don't.
It's not fear, just fact.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 17:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
That doesn't seem to add up.
According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.
So, why doesn't it add up?
Thank you for asking.
You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.
This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.
In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.
If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.
Perhaps you think different.
I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.
The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
Scotland.
Add in whatever you like, it makes no difference, and it's not
important. I based no argument on it at all, just quoted some ONS
population figures in case you were interested.
The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.
See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.

Just read what you have written.

Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.

The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.

These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.

Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.
Post by Norman Wells
Just for interest, 24 million was the population of the UK
sometime before 1850.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.
The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
bullshit is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
the agrochemical food and other related industries.
What are you questioning?
We currently produce only enough food for 60% of the population. Are
you questioning that?
Organic yields are typically about two-thirds of those produced
conventionally. Are you questioning that?
If you're questioning either, tell us why,
If you're questioning neither, then by simple arithmetic it is
inescapable going totally organic would mean, all other things being
equal, that we could only produce enough food for 40% of the population,
or about 24 million.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Because my summation
so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
don't.
It's not fear, just fact.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 17:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.
See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
Just read what you have written.
Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?

Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?

Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.
Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.
No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.

Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.

We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 18:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > wrote:
:
: >> The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
: >> about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
: >> today.
: >
: > See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
: >
: > Just read what you have written.
: >
: > Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
: > that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
: > and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
: > expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
: >
: > The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
: > since 1871.
:
: I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
: contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
: totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
:
: Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
: only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
: about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
: import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
: will not be able to?
:
: Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
: from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
: fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
:
: > These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
: > the point of hysteria.
: >
: > Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
: > you.
:
: No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
:
: Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
:
: We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
: land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
: that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-07 19:09:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.
See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
Just read what you have written.
Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million.
But we waste 30%, so that could be feeding another 12 million = 48 million.

8 million acres are devoted to wheat, much of which simply goes for cattle
feed for those cattle that are not allowed to eat grass as they don’t grow
fast enough or produce enough milk (how inconsiderate), so they are kept
indoors most of the time.

8 million acres can grow you a lot of carrots, peas and beans.

An increasing amount of land is given over to producing biofuel, which we
don’t need.

More potential for organic farming.
Post by Norman Wells
It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
Certainly not.
Post by Norman Wells
Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million?
Certainly not.
Post by Norman Wells
And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?
No, because we waste enough to feed 12 million, as above.
Post by Norman Wells
Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
Certainly not. In fact it would boost our balance of payments as we would not
have to import even more fossil fuel products to turn into fertiliser.

And we would not be forced to import any of the hormone stuffed cow meat, or
chlorinated chicken from the USA as part of what is laughingly called a
“trade deal” with them.

And we could take them to the cleaners in the courts if the USA tried to
smuggle GM food into the country in already pre-processed foods (as they are
no doubt doing at the moment).
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.
Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.
No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
Lies.
Post by Norman Wells
Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
Why should anyone have to face lies portrayed as facts?
Post by Norman Wells
We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land.
Nonsense. I drive by fields every day with nothing in them, apart from
sterile, wild-flower-free grass.

Lets all plant cauliflowers and broccoli.
Post by Norman Wells
We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
Liar.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 20:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" <***@bungay.com> wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
: On 7 Aug 2018, Norman Wells wrote
: (in article <***@mid.individual.net>):
:
: > On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > > wrote:
: >
: > > > The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only
feed
: > > > about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we
have
: > > > today.
: > >
: > > See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
: > >
: > > Just read what you have written.
: > >
: > > Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60%
of
: > > that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately
misleading
: > > and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
: > > expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
: > >
: > > The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
: > > since 1871.
: >
: > I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: > production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million.
:
: But we waste 30%, so that could be feeding another 12 million = 48
million.
:
: 8 million acres are devoted to wheat, much of which simply goes for cattle
: feed for those cattle that are not allowed to eat grass as they don't grow
: fast enough or produce enough milk (how inconsiderate), so they are kept
: indoors most of the time.
:
: 8 million acres can grow you a lot of carrots, peas and beans.
:
: An increasing amount of land is given over to producing biofuel, which we
: don't need.
:
: More potential for organic farming.
:
: > It was *your*
: > contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
: > totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
:
: Certainly not.
:
: >
: >
: > Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
: > only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
: > about 24 million?
:
: Certainly not.
:
: > And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
: > import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
: > will not be able to?
:
: No, because we waste enough to feed 12 million, as above.
:
: >
: >
: > Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
: > from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
: > fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
:
: Certainly not. In fact it would boost our balance of payments as we would
not
: have to import even more fossil fuel products to turn into fertiliser.
:
: And we would not be forced to import any of the hormone stuffed cow meat,
or
: chlorinated chicken from the USA as part of what is laughingly called a
: "trade deal" with them.
:
: And we could take them to the cleaners in the courts if the USA tried to
: smuggle GM food into the country in already pre-processed foods (as they
are
: no doubt doing at the moment).
:
: >
: >
: > > These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped
to
: > > the point of hysteria.
: > >
: > > Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
: > > you.
: >
: > No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
:
: Lies.
:
: >
: >
: > Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
:
: Why should anyone have to face lies portrayed as facts?
:
: >
: >
: > We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
: > land.
:
: Nonsense. I drive by fields every day with nothing in them, apart from
: sterile, wild-flower-free grass.
:
: Lets all plant cauliflowers and broccoli.
:
: > We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
: > that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
:
: Liar.
:
:
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 22:18:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.
See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
Just read what you have written.
Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million.
But we waste 30%, so that could be feeding another 12 million = 48 million.
I don't think so. I know no-one who wastes that amount, especially of
what was once edible and has calorific value. It's a figure that has
achieved a life of its own with endless repetition but with no
established veracity.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
8 million acres are devoted to wheat, much of which simply goes for cattle
feed for those cattle that are not allowed to eat grass as they don’t grow
fast enough or produce enough milk (how inconsiderate), so they are kept
indoors most of the time.
8 million acres can grow you a lot of carrots, peas and beans.
So, you're saying we all have to go vegetarian. Good luck with
persuading people to do that.

Anyway, I remain to be convinced of your figure. What is your source?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
An increasing amount of land is given over to producing biofuel, which we
don’t need.
Very little actually.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
More potential for organic farming.
Post by Norman Wells
It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
Certainly not.
So, you think it can. Tell me then where the necessary one and a half
extra fields for every one that is currently cultivated are to be found.
Stop dodging that question and give us a sensible answer please.

If you want to increase from the 40% currently possible to 100%
self-sufficiency, that's what is neccessary.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million?
Certainly not.
No, apparently you think it can feed 100% of the current population.

Tell us how, please.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?
No, because we waste enough to feed 12 million, as above.
But we don't. It sounds ludicrous. It doesn't accord with anyone's
experience. It seems very unlikely. Tell us then how the figure arises.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
Certainly not. In fact it would boost our balance of payments as we would not
have to import even more fossil fuel products to turn into fertiliser.
We're talking about how much we can produce at present, which can feed
only 60% of the current population. You want to adopt technologies that
would only feed 40%, yet say feeding 100% is possible.

It can't be done by cutting waste. It can't be done by not growing
bio-fuels. So, tell us how it can be done.

Where is all the extra land we'd need? Where is all the additional farm
labour we would require?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.
Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.
No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
Lies.
Then prove them wrong, which you have lamentably failed to do.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
Why should anyone have to face lies portrayed as facts?
There are no lies, only truths you do not want to face.

If you think anything I have said is a lie, prove it.
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land.
Nonsense. I drive by fields every day with nothing in them, apart from
sterile, wild-flower-free grass.
So you say. But you need two and a half times as many fields as are
currently under cultivation to reach 100% self-sufficiency solely from
organic farming. There is no such land available around here, and I
suspect, if there is any at all around you, that it is poor land
suitable only for grass. Crops in it would not thrive or be productive.

Do you think farmers are daft? Do you not think they grow arable crops
where they can already?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Lets all plant cauliflowers and broccoli.
And how well will they grow on welsh mountainsides and bogs currently
grazed by sheep?
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Norman Wells
We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
Liar.
No, it's a fact. One that you don't want to face, but a fact nevertheless.

Your juvenile name-calling won't alter that.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 11:43:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 07/08/2018 20:09, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: > On 7 Aug 2018, Norman Wells wrote
: > (in article <***@mid.individual.net>):
: >
: >> On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >>> wrote:
: >>
: >>>> The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only
feed
: >>>> about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we
have
: >>>> today.
: >>>
: >>> See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
: >>>
: >>> Just read what you have written.
: >>>
: >>> Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60%
of
: >>> that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately
misleading
: >>> and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
: >>> expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
: >>>
: >>> The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
: >>> since 1871.
: >>
: >> I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: >> production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million.
: >
: > But we waste 30%, so that could be feeding another 12 million = 48
million.
:
: I don't think so. I know no-one who wastes that amount, especially of
: what was once edible and has calorific value. It's a figure that has
: achieved a life of its own with endless repetition but with no
: established veracity.
:
: > 8 million acres are devoted to wheat, much of which simply goes for
cattle
: > feed for those cattle that are not allowed to eat grass as they don't
grow
: > fast enough or produce enough milk (how inconsiderate), so they are kept
: > indoors most of the time.
: >
: > 8 million acres can grow you a lot of carrots, peas and beans.
:
: So, you're saying we all have to go vegetarian. Good luck with
: persuading people to do that.
:
: Anyway, I remain to be convinced of your figure. What is your source?
:
: > An increasing amount of land is given over to producing biofuel, which
we
: > don't need.
:
: Very little actually.
:
: > More potential for organic farming.
: >
: >> It was *your*
: >> contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
: >> totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
: >
: > Certainly not.
:
: So, you think it can. Tell me then where the necessary one and a half
: extra fields for every one that is currently cultivated are to be found.
: Stop dodging that question and give us a sensible answer please.
:
: If you want to increase from the 40% currently possible to 100%
: self-sufficiency, that's what is neccessary.
:
: >> Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production
can
: >> only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
: >> about 24 million?
: >
: > Certainly not.
:
: No, apparently you think it can feed 100% of the current population.
:
: Tell us how, please.
:
: >> And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
: >> import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
: >> will not be able to?
: >
: > No, because we waste enough to feed 12 million, as above.
:
: But we don't. It sounds ludicrous. It doesn't accord with anyone's
: experience. It seems very unlikely. Tell us then how the figure arises.
:
: >> Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
: >> from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
: >> fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
: >
: > Certainly not. In fact it would boost our balance of payments as we
would not
: > have to import even more fossil fuel products to turn into fertiliser.
:
: We're talking about how much we can produce at present, which can feed
: only 60% of the current population. You want to adopt technologies that
: would only feed 40%, yet say feeding 100% is possible.
:
: It can't be done by cutting waste. It can't be done by not growing
: bio-fuels. So, tell us how it can be done.
:
: Where is all the extra land we'd need? Where is all the additional farm
: labour we would require?
:
:
: >>> These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped
to
: >>> the point of hysteria.
: >>>
: >>> Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
: >>> you.
: >>
: >> No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
: >
: > Lies.
:
: Then prove them wrong, which you have lamentably failed to do.
:
: >> Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
: >
: > Why should anyone have to face lies portrayed as facts?
:
: There are no lies, only truths you do not want to face.
:
: If you think anything I have said is a lie, prove it.
:
: >> We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
: >> land.
: >
: > Nonsense. I drive by fields every day with nothing in them, apart from
: > sterile, wild-flower-free grass.
:
: So you say. But you need two and a half times as many fields as are
: currently under cultivation to reach 100% self-sufficiency solely from
: organic farming. There is no such land available around here, and I
: suspect, if there is any at all around you, that it is poor land
: suitable only for grass. Crops in it would not thrive or be productive.
:
: Do you think farmers are daft? Do you not think they grow arable crops
: where they can already?
:
: > Lets all plant cauliflowers and broccoli.
:
: And how well will they grow on welsh mountainsides and bogs currently
: grazed by sheep?
:
: >> We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
: >> that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
: >
: > Liar.
:
: No, it's a fact. One that you don't want to face, but a fact
nevertheless.
:
: Your juvenile name-calling won't alter that.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 19:25:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.
See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
Just read what you have written.
Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.

Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.

Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?

Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.

For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious. The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.

The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
prevail.
Post by Norman Wells
Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?
Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.
Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.
No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 19:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....



"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >> wrote:
: >
: >>> The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only
feed
: >>> about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
: >>> today.
: >>
: >> See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
: >>
: >> Just read what you have written.
: >>
: >> Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60%
of
: >> that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
: >> and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
: >> expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
: >>
: >> The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
: >> since 1871.
: >
: >I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: >production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
: >contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
: >totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
:
: Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
: going vegan would solve that.
:
: Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
: pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
: propaganda.
:
: Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
: for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
: people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
: in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
: out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
: this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
:
: Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
: organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
: why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
:
: For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
: mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
: probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
: like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
: didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
: another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
: is ingenious. The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
: come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
: village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
:
: The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
: dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
: is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
: meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
: overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
: prevail.
:
:
:
:
:
:
: >Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
: >only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
: >about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
: >import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
: >will not be able to?
: >
: >Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
: >from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
: >fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
: >
: >> These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
: >> the point of hysteria.
: >>
: >> Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
: >> you.
: >
: >No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
: >
: >Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
: >
: >We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
: >land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
: >that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 19:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:40:25 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
gong wong wayy wound wot cowpoke? Yo fat belly? I dinny speaky de linguo
de gibberish. Does welfare fill out the farm subsidy whoring forms for
yo diddums?

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 20:03:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....




"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:40:25 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
:
: >In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
:
: gong wong wayy wound wot cowpoke? Yo fat belly? I dinny speaky de linguo
: de gibberish. Does welfare fill out the farm subsidy whoring forms for
: yo diddums?
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 20:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.

Grown down the road by farmer Giles.

Not the sugar cane obviously.

Yum.
Post by BurfordTJustice
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:40:25 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
: gong wong wayy wound wot cowpoke? Yo fat belly? I dinny speaky de linguo
: de gibberish. Does welfare fill out the farm subsidy whoring forms for
: yo diddums?
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Brian Reay
2018-08-07 21:28:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.
--
Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-07 21:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.
Too radical for me.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-08 07:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Brian Reay
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.
Too radical for me.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
I gather Norman went to the doctor this morning, and was told that he was
going to have to have 35% of his hands amputated, but as he remarked to the
medics - he wasn’t worried because that was only 5% of his whole body and
4.7% if he grew some hair.
Ed Pawlowski
2018-08-07 23:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.
Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.
Brian Reay
2018-08-07 23:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black
Pepper- I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked
it.
Works on watermelon too.  Try it on a bite.
Now that I can see- possibly as I know ginger also works with
melon-water and honey dew.
--
Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-08 07:59:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by Brian Reay
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black
Pepper- I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked
it.
Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.
Now that I can see- possibly as I know ginger also works with
melon-water and honey dew.
Thanks, I might try these combinations.
Vic Smith
2018-08-08 04:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Pawlowski
Post by Brian Reay
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.
Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.
Salt works well with watermelon.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 10:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
+1




"Vic Smith" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 19:01:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <***@snet.net> wrote:
:
: >On 8/7/2018 5:28 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
: >> On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> 200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
: >>>
: >>> Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
: >>
: >>
: >> At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black
Pepper-
: >> I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.
: >>
: >>
: >Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.
:
: Salt works well with watermelon.
abelard
2018-08-08 12:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 21:53:37 -0700, Vic Smith
Post by Vic Smith
Post by Ed Pawlowski
Post by Brian Reay
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.
In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.
At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.
Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.
Salt works well with watermelon.
and pineapple
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Wells
2018-08-07 22:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.
See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
Just read what you have written.
Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.
How do you work that out?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.
There's no propaghanda, just facts.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.
Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
prevail.
I think we'll all have died of starvation before then.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?
Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.
Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.
No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-08 08:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.
See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
Just read what you have written.
Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.
How do you work that out?
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.

You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.

You can dispute the figures but common sense tells you than meat and
dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed and we are only
talking a 50% increase here.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.
There's no propaghanda, just facts.
The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care about
children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled with
sugar, salt and fat.

They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.
Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops. We
chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons, and we use arable
land to grow foodstuffs for animals and bio fuel. Worse IMO we grow way
too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.
Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.
Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and then
do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
field.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.
We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
end well.

We need to eat better and curb population growth. Not load the NHS with
the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
prevail.
I think we'll all have died of starvation before then.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?
Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.
Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.
No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-08 09:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.
How do you work that out?
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
Really? Where's your proof?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.
Really? Where's your proof?

And why were you arguing earlier that 'going organic' could feed the
nation, whereas now you're arguing it's not that at all but 'going
vegan'? They are rather different, and it's a hell of a swerve.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can dispute the figures
Give us their source first. Where do they come from, and how are they
derived?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
but common sense tells you than meat and
dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed
They're not inefficient if they make use of land that is of poor quality
and best suited to grass rather than crops. As the vast majority of
grazing land is.

Farmers are not stupid. Where they can grow arable crops, they will.
It makes no sense not to. But we do have a fair amount of poor,
unproductive land that is really best suited for grazing. You can't
grow crops up a mountainside, in a bog or on a moor.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
and we are only talking a 50% increase here.
In what?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.
There's no propaghanda, just facts.
The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care about
children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled with
sugar, salt and fat.
They are interested in selling what their customers want to buy. They're
not the moral guardians of the country. Nor do they think that everyone
wants to live off broccoli and leaves.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.
Cheap calories. It's a dream come true. Our ancestors would have given
their eye-teeth for such luxury and freedom from worry.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.
Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops.
Indeed. But that's because we produce our food in the way we do. If
you had your way, you'd have us return to a world where we don't have
surplus but shortage.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
We chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons,
Where is your proof? And what do you count as being 'wasted'? How do
you define that term?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
and we use arable land to grow foodstuffs for animals
Not directly. Sometimes crops don't turn out as well as you hope,
usually because of the weather. And it's those that go to animal feed.
It's a sensible use of them.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
and bio fuel.
Very little actually.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Worse IMO we grow way
too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.
We *need* calories. Each of us needs 2,500 of the things a day. You'd
have us struggle to get them, when we know how to obtain them far more
easily. And that's bizarre.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.
Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.
Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and then
do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
field.
Yes, it doesn't smell of manure. But then it doesn't have to. I
shouldn't think your favoured hydroponics smell of anything at all.

So, cut the old 'smell the soil, you'll see how good it is' nonsense,
please. You can't tell, and it's no indicator.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.
We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
end well.
That's not a fact. It's just your opinion. And it's a rather silly one
at that.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
We need to eat better and curb population growth.
OK. So, how do you propose curbing population growth?

Restricting their food supply by deliberately cutting food production
seems to be your only approach so far.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Not load the NHS with
the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.
Food production is hardly 'spiralling out of control' when we can only
produce enough here to feed 60% of the population.

To get the population down to the number we can sustain using all the
tools we currently have at our disposal, we'd need to cull 24 million
people. To get it down to what totally organic production can support,
we'd need to cull 36 million.

It's quite a big ask. How would you do it? And how would you decide
who should be culled?
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 10:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 08/08/2018 09:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:39:20 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > wrote:
: >> On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >>> wrote:
:
: >>>> I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: >>>> production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
: >>>> contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
: >>>> totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot
possibly?
: >>>
: >>> Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
: >>> going vegan would solve that.
: >>
: >> How do you work that out?
: >
: > You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
:
: Really? Where's your proof?
:
: > You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one meat
: > eater.
:
: Really? Where's your proof?
:
: And why were you arguing earlier that 'going organic' could feed the
: nation, whereas now you're arguing it's not that at all but 'going
: vegan'? They are rather different, and it's a hell of a swerve.
:
: > You can dispute the figures
:
: Give us their source first. Where do they come from, and how are they
: derived?
:
: > but common sense tells you than meat and
: > dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed
:
: They're not inefficient if they make use of land that is of poor quality
: and best suited to grass rather than crops. As the vast majority of
: grazing land is.
:
: Farmers are not stupid. Where they can grow arable crops, they will.
: It makes no sense not to. But we do have a fair amount of poor,
: unproductive land that is really best suited for grazing. You can't
: grow crops up a mountainside, in a bog or on a moor.
:
: > and we are only talking a 50% increase here.
:
: In what?
:
: >>> Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
: >>> pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
: >>> propaganda.
: >>
: >> There's no propaghanda, just facts.
: >
: > The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care about
: > children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled with
: > sugar, salt and fat.
:
: They are interested in selling what their customers want to buy. They're
: not the moral guardians of the country. Nor do they think that everyone
: wants to live off broccoli and leaves.
:
: > They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
: > insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
: > security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
: > gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.
:
: Cheap calories. It's a dream come true. Our ancestors would have given
: their eye-teeth for such luxury and freedom from worry.
:
: >>> Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
: >>> for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
: >>> people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
: >>> in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it
turns
: >>> out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
: >>> this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
: >>
: >> We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
: >> population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have
hasn't
: >> increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
: >> using the same methods as we did then.
: >
: > Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops.
:
: Indeed. But that's because we produce our food in the way we do. If
: you had your way, you'd have us return to a world where we don't have
: surplus but shortage.
:
: > We chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons,
:
: Where is your proof? And what do you count as being 'wasted'? How do
: you define that term?
:
: > and we use arable land to grow foodstuffs for animals
:
: Not directly. Sometimes crops don't turn out as well as you hope,
: usually because of the weather. And it's those that go to animal feed.
: It's a sensible use of them.
:
: > and bio fuel.
:
: Very little actually.
:
: > Worse IMO we grow way
: > too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
: > the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.
:
: We *need* calories. Each of us needs 2,500 of the things a day. You'd
: have us struggle to get them, when we know how to obtain them far more
: easily. And that's bizarre.
:
: >>> Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24
million
: >>> organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
: >>> why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
: >>
: >> Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
: >> We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
: >> the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
: >> chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
: >> two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
: >> Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
: >> follows as night follows day.
: >>
: >>> For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
: >>> mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
: >>> probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays
are
: >>> like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
: >>> didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
: >>> another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it.
Mankind
: >>> is ingenious.
: >>
: >> Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
: >> much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
: >> very silly rules they impose on themselves.
: >
: > Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and then
: > do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
: > field.
:
: Yes, it doesn't smell of manure. But then it doesn't have to. I
: shouldn't think your favoured hydroponics smell of anything at all.
:
: So, cut the old 'smell the soil, you'll see how good it is' nonsense,
: please. You can't tell, and it's no indicator.
:
: >>> The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
: >>> come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by
the
: >>> village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
: >>
: >> It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
: >> can't disprove them.
: >
: > We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
: > end well.
:
: That's not a fact. It's just your opinion. And it's a rather silly one
: at that.
:
: > We need to eat better and curb population growth.
:
: OK. So, how do you propose curbing population growth?
:
: Restricting their food supply by deliberately cutting food production
: seems to be your only approach so far.
:
: > Not load the NHS with
: > the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
: > spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
: > growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.
:
: Food production is hardly 'spiralling out of control' when we can only
: produce enough here to feed 60% of the population.
:
: To get the population down to the number we can sustain using all the
: tools we currently have at our disposal, we'd need to cull 24 million
: people. To get it down to what totally organic production can support,
: we'd need to cull 36 million.
:
: It's quite a big ask. How would you do it? And how would you decide
: who should be culled?
:
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-08 10:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.
How do you work that out?
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
Really? Where's your proof?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.
Really? Where's your proof?
And why were you arguing earlier that 'going organic' could feed the
nation, whereas now you're arguing it's not that at all but 'going
vegan'? They are rather different, and it's a hell of a swerve.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can dispute the figures
Give us their source first. Where do they come from, and how are they
derived?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
but common sense tells you than meat and
dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed
They're not inefficient if they make use of land that is of poor quality
Poor quality?

If other land is so much better quality, why are you in favour of adding vast
quantities of artificial fertiliser onto it?
and best suited to grass rather than crops. As the vast majority of
grazing land is.
Farmers are not stupid. Where they can grow arable crops, they will.
It would seem that they can’t unless they pour unlimited amounts of
fertilisers onto the land and spray everything other than the crop (and the
insects who pollinate them) out of existence.
It makes no sense not to.
It makes a lot of sense not to, if you are someone who has love and respect
for the environment they are growing in.
But we do have a fair amount of poor,
unproductive land that is really best suited for grazing.
We now have masses of arable land which has been rendered poor by the
application of tons of chemicals per acre.

Try to convince Michael Gove -

The UK is 30 to 40 years away from “the fundamental eradication of soil
fertility” in parts of the country, the environment secretaryMichael Gove
(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/michaelgove)has warned.

“We have encouraged a type of farming which has damaged the earth,” Gove
told the parliamentary launch of theSustainable Soils Alliance
(https://sustainablesoils.org/)(SSA). “Countries can withstand coups
d’état, wars and conflict, even leaving the EU, but no country can
withstand the loss of its soil and fertility.

“If you have heavy machines churning the soil and impacting it, if you
drench it in chemicals that improve yields but in the long term undercut the
future fertility of that soil, you can increase yields year on year but
ultimately you really are cutting the ground away from beneath your own feet.
Farmers know that.”

A giant insect ecosystem is collapsing due to humans. It's a catastrophe

Arguing that farmers needed to be incentivised to tackle both the loss of
soil fertility and the decline in biodiversity, Gove said that he hoped the
SSA, a new body formed with the mission of bringing UK soils back to health
within one generation, would hold the government to account and bring him
ideas and inspiration. “We are listening to you now and it’s critical
that we do so.”

Gove’s speech on Monday afternoon came as UK farmers anxiously wait to see
if Brexit will take them out of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, and if
so, what will take its place. Defra is currently working on a new
agricultural bill and is simultaneously drawing up a 25-year environmental
plan. Gove promised both would reflect the concerns of the SSA.

There has been a spike in awareness of the impact that intensive farming
techniques are having on the world’s soils and its biodiversity. In2014
Sheffield University researchers
(http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/only-100-harvests-left-in-uk-farm-soils-scientists-
warn.htm)said that UK farm soils only had 100 harvests left in them, and a
year later aUN spokesperson warned
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-
soil-degradation-continues/)that at current rates of degradation, the
world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years. “It feels as if soil is
now a hot topic,” said Helen Browning, head of the Soil Association.
Meanwhile a new German study has revealed thatnumbers of flying insects
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-
armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers)have fallen by up to three
quarters. Intensive farming techniques that encourage the heavy use of
fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides are believed to be major factors in
these problems.

Third of Earth's soil is acutely degraded due to agriculture

Read more

The UK has a poor record in this area. The government has not been conducting
regular soil monitoring since the last Countryside Survey in 2007, and in
2012UK ministers helped block
(https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/eu-soil-protection-
law-blocked-by-uk-france-and-germany/)a critical EU soil health directive.
Even a year ago, experts such as Peter Stevenson at Compassion in World
Farming felt there was no real appetite for reform of intensive farming.

Advertisement

But environmentalists are now increasingly hopeful that, unlike his
predecessors at Defra, Gove will take this issue seriously. In Julyhe said
that the
(https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-07-21/michael-gove-
intensive-farming-defra)UK would not move towards “US-style farming” and
would prioritise “high environmental and animal welfare standards”.
“There’s been quite a dramatic shift in understanding around what we’re
doing to our soils,” said Browning. “Everyone is quite bowled over by
some of the comments that Michael Gove is making.”
You can't
grow crops up a mountainside,
Tell that to those who have been farming terraces in South America for
thousands of years....
in a bog or on a moor.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
and we are only talking a 50% increase here.
In what?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.
There's no propaghanda, just facts.
The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care about
children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled with
sugar, salt and fat.
They are interested in selling what their customers want to buy.
Nonsense. They are interesting in selling cheap and nasty rubbish that they
can hook customers to, by the addition of fats, sugar and salt - which are
well known for developing cravings.
They're
not the moral guardians of the country. Nor do they think that everyone
wants to live off broccoli and leaves.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.
Cheap calories. It's a dream come true. Our ancestors would have given
their eye-teeth for such luxury and freedom from worry.
Give us your examples of the cheap luxury calories which are a dream come
true for the consumer.

Half a dozen examples will do for a start.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.
Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops.
Indeed. But that's because we produce our food in the way we do. If
you had your way, you'd have us return to a world where we don't have
surplus but shortage.
Surplus of organic meat and veg, shortage of cheap carb-laden crap, chlorine
washed shite and hormone filled protein.

Yes, Definitely the way forward.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
We chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons,
Where is your proof?
You hardly ever provide proof, so why should you demand it of others?
And what do you count as being 'wasted'? How do
you define that term?
Pissed off my head....
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
and we use arable land to grow foodstuffs for animals
Not directly. Sometimes crops don't turn out as well as you hope,
usually because of the weather. And it's those that go to animal feed.
It's a sensible use of them.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
and bio fuel.
Very little actually.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Worse IMO we grow way
too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.
We *need* calories. Each of us needs 2,500 of the things a day. You'd
have us struggle to get them, when we know how to obtain them far more
easily. And that's bizarre.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.
Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.
Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and then
do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
field.
Yes, it doesn't smell of manure. But then it doesn't have to. I
shouldn't think your favoured hydroponics smell of anything at all.
So, cut the old 'smell the soil, you'll see how good it is' nonsense,
please. You can't tell, and it's no indicator.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.
We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
end well.
That's not a fact. It's just your opinion. And it's a rather silly one
at that.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
We need to eat better and curb population growth.
OK. So, how do you propose curbing population growth?
Restricting their food supply by deliberately cutting food production
seems to be your only approach so far.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Not load the NHS with
the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.
Food production is hardly 'spiralling out of control' when we can only
produce enough here to feed 60% of the population.
To get the population down to the number we can sustain using all the
tools we currently have at our disposal, we'd need to cull 24 million
people. To get it down to what totally organic production can support,
we'd need to cull 36 million.
It's quite a big ask. How would you do it? And how would you decide
who should be culled?
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 11:44:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" <***@bungay.com> wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
: On 8 Aug 2018, Norman Wells wrote
: (in article <***@mid.individual.net>):
:
: > On 08/08/2018 09:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:39:20 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > > wrote:
: > > > On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > > > > wrote:
: >
: > > > > > I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: > > > > > production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
: > > > > > contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it
went
: > > > > > totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot
possibly?
: > > > >
: > > > > Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million.
Just
: > > > > going vegan would solve that.
: > > >
: > > > How do you work that out?
: > >
: > > You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.
: >
: > Really? Where's your proof?
: >
: > > You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one
meat
: > > eater.
: >
: > Really? Where's your proof?
: >
: > And why were you arguing earlier that 'going organic' could feed the
: > nation, whereas now you're arguing it's not that at all but 'going
: > vegan'? They are rather different, and it's a hell of a swerve.
: >
: > > You can dispute the figures
: >
: > Give us their source first. Where do they come from, and how are they
: > derived?
: >
: > > but common sense tells you than meat and
: > > dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed
: >
: > They're not inefficient if they make use of land that is of poor quality
:
: Poor quality?
:
: If other land is so much better quality, why are you in favour of adding
vast
: quantities of artificial fertiliser onto it?
:
: >
: > and best suited to grass rather than crops. As the vast majority of
: > grazing land is.
: >
: > Farmers are not stupid. Where they can grow arable crops, they will.
:
: It would seem that they can't unless they pour unlimited amounts of
: fertilisers onto the land and spray everything other than the crop (and
the
: insects who pollinate them) out of existence.
:
: >
: > It makes no sense not to.
:
: It makes a lot of sense not to, if you are someone who has love and
respect
: for the environment they are growing in.
:
: > But we do have a fair amount of poor,
: > unproductive land that is really best suited for grazing.
:
: We now have masses of arable land which has been rendered poor by the
: application of tons of chemicals per acre.
:
: Try to convince Michael Gove -
:
: The UK is 30 to 40 years away from "the fundamental eradication of soil
: fertility" in parts of the country, the environment secretaryMichael Gove
: (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/michaelgove)has warned.
:
: "We have encouraged a type of farming which has damaged the earth," Gove
: told the parliamentary launch of theSustainable Soils Alliance
: (https://sustainablesoils.org/)(SSA). "Countries can withstand coups
: d'état, wars and conflict, even leaving the EU, but no country can
: withstand the loss of its soil and fertility.
:
: "If you have heavy machines churning the soil and impacting it, if you
: drench it in chemicals that improve yields but in the long term undercut
the
: future fertility of that soil, you can increase yields year on year but
: ultimately you really are cutting the ground away from beneath your own
feet.
: Farmers know that."
:
: A giant insect ecosystem is collapsing due to humans. It's a catastrophe
:
: Arguing that farmers needed to be incentivised to tackle both the loss of
: soil fertility and the decline in biodiversity, Gove said that he hoped
the
: SSA, a new body formed with the mission of bringing UK soils back to
health
: within one generation, would hold the government to account and bring him
: ideas and inspiration. "We are listening to you now and it's critical
: that we do so."
:
: Gove's speech on Monday afternoon came as UK farmers anxiously wait to see
: if Brexit will take them out of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, and
if
: so, what will take its place. Defra is currently working on a new
: agricultural bill and is simultaneously drawing up a 25-year environmental
: plan. Gove promised both would reflect the concerns of the SSA.
:
: There has been a spike in awareness of the impact that intensive farming
: techniques are having on the world's soils and its biodiversity. In2014
: Sheffield University researchers
:
(http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/only-100-harvests-left-in-uk-farm-soils-scientists-
: warn.htm)said that UK farm soils only had 100 harvests left in them, and a
: year later aUN spokesperson warned
:
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-
: soil-degradation-continues/)that at current rates of degradation, the
: world's topsoil could be gone within 60 years. "It feels as if soil is
: now a hot topic," said Helen Browning, head of the Soil Association.
: Meanwhile a new German study has revealed thatnumbers of flying insects
:
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-
: armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers)have fallen by up to
three
: quarters. Intensive farming techniques that encourage the heavy use of
: fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides are believed to be major factors
in
: these problems.
:
: Third of Earth's soil is acutely degraded due to agriculture
:
: Read more
:
: The UK has a poor record in this area. The government has not been
conducting
: regular soil monitoring since the last Countryside Survey in 2007, and in
: 2012UK ministers helped block
:
(https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/eu-soil-protection-
: law-blocked-by-uk-france-and-germany/)a critical EU soil health directive.
: Even a year ago, experts such as Peter Stevenson at Compassion in World
: Farming felt there was no real appetite for reform of intensive farming.
:
: Advertisement
:
: But environmentalists are now increasingly hopeful that, unlike his
: predecessors at Defra, Gove will take this issue seriously. In Julyhe said
: that the
: (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-07-21/michael-gove-
: intensive-farming-defra)UK would not move towards "US-style farming" and
: would prioritise "high environmental and animal welfare standards".
: "There's been quite a dramatic shift in understanding around what we're
: doing to our soils," said Browning. "Everyone is quite bowled over by
: some of the comments that Michael Gove is making."
:
: > You can't
: > grow crops up a mountainside,
:
: Tell that to those who have been farming terraces in South America for
: thousands of years....
:
: > in a bog or on a moor.
: >
: > > and we are only talking a 50% increase here.
: >
: > In what?
: >
: > > > > Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was
just
: > > > > pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of
nonsense
: > > > > propaganda.
: > > >
: > > > There's no propaghanda, just facts.
: > >
: > > The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care
about
: > > children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled
with
: > > sugar, salt and fat.
: >
: > They are interested in selling what their customers want to buy.
:
: Nonsense. They are interesting in selling cheap and nasty rubbish that
they
: can hook customers to, by the addition of fats, sugar and salt - which are
: well known for developing cravings.
:
: > They're
: > not the moral guardians of the country. Nor do they think that everyone
: > wants to live off broccoli and leaves.
: >
: > > They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
: > > insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
: > > security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
: > > gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.
: >
: > Cheap calories. It's a dream come true. Our ancestors would have given
: > their eye-teeth for such luxury and freedom from worry.
:
: Give us your examples of the cheap luxury calories which are a dream come
: true for the consumer.
:
: Half a dozen examples will do for a start.
:
: >
: >
: > > > > Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow
unmanly
: > > > > for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
: > > > > people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely
changed
: > > > > in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it
turns
: > > > > out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with
all
: > > > > this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
: > > >
: > > > We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
: > > > population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have
hasn't
: > > > increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
: > > > using the same methods as we did then.
: > >
: > > Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops.
: >
: > Indeed. But that's because we produce our food in the way we do. If
: > you had your way, you'd have us return to a world where we don't have
: > surplus but shortage.
:
: Surplus of organic meat and veg, shortage of cheap carb-laden crap,
chlorine
: washed shite and hormone filled protein.
:
: Yes, Definitely the way forward.
:
: >
: >
: > > We chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons,
: >
: > Where is your proof?
:
: You hardly ever provide proof, so why should you demand it of others?
:
: > And what do you count as being 'wasted'? How do
: > you define that term?
:
: Pissed off my head....
:
: >
: >
: > > and we use arable land to grow foodstuffs for animals
: >
: > Not directly. Sometimes crops don't turn out as well as you hope,
: > usually because of the weather. And it's those that go to animal feed.
: > It's a sensible use of them.
: >
: > > and bio fuel.
: >
: > Very little actually.
: >
: > > Worse IMO we grow way
: > > too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
: > > the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.
: >
: > We *need* calories. Each of us needs 2,500 of the things a day. You'd
: > have us struggle to get them, when we know how to obtain them far more
: > easily. And that's bizarre.
: >
: > > > > Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24
million
: > > > > organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so
quite
: > > > > why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
: > > >
: > > > Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very
simple.
: > > > We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using
all
: > > > the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
: > > > chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
: > > > two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of
land.
: > > > Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
: > > > follows as night follows day.
: > > >
: > > > > For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
: > > > > mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
: > > > > probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village
nowadays are
: > > > > like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
: > > > > didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only
manage
: > > > > another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it.
Mankind
: > > > > is ingenious.
: > > >
: > > > Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds
as
: > > > much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
: > > > very silly rules they impose on themselves.
: > >
: > > Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and
then
: > > do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
: > > field.
: >
: > Yes, it doesn't smell of manure. But then it doesn't have to. I
: > shouldn't think your favoured hydroponics smell of anything at all.
: >
: > So, cut the old 'smell the soil, you'll see how good it is' nonsense,
: > please. You can't tell, and it's no indicator.
: >
: > > > > The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
: > > > > come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out
by the
: > > > > village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
: > > >
: > > > It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
: > > > can't disprove them.
: > >
: > > We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
: > > end well.
: >
: > That's not a fact. It's just your opinion. And it's a rather silly one
: > at that.
: >
: > > We need to eat better and curb population growth.
: >
: > OK. So, how do you propose curbing population growth?
: >
: > Restricting their food supply by deliberately cutting food production
: > seems to be your only approach so far.
: >
: > > Not load the NHS with
: > > the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
: > > spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
: > > growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.
: >
: > Food production is hardly 'spiralling out of control' when we can only
: > produce enough here to feed 60% of the population.
: >
: > To get the population down to the number we can sustain using all the
: > tools we currently have at our disposal, we'd need to cull 24 million
: > people. To get it down to what totally organic production can support,
: > we'd need to cull 36 million.
: >
: > It's quite a big ask. How would you do it? And how would you decide
: > who should be culled?
:
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 10:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
More duck and dodge from the mud boi.




"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:39:20 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >> wrote:
: >>> On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >>>> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>>> The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only
feed
: >>>>> about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we
have
: >>>>> today.
: >>>>
: >>>> See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
: >>>>
: >>>> Just read what you have written.
: >>>>
: >>>> Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60%
of
: >>>> that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately
misleading
: >>>> and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
: >>>> expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
: >>>>
: >>>> The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
: >>>> since 1871.
: >>>
: >>> I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: >>> production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
: >>> contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
: >>> totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot
possibly?
: >>
: >> Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
: >> going vegan would solve that.
: >
: >How do you work that out?
:
: You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
:
: You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one meat
: eater.
:
: You can dispute the figures but common sense tells you than meat and
: dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed and we are only
: talking a 50% increase here.
:
:
: >> Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
: >> pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
: >> propaganda.
: >
: >There's no propaghanda, just facts.
:
: The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care about
: children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled with
: sugar, salt and fat.
:
: They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
: insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
: security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
: gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.
:
:
: >> Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
: >> for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
: >> people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
: >> in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it
turns
: >> out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
: >> this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
: >
: >We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
: >population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
: >increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
: >using the same methods as we did then.
:
: Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops. We
: chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons, and we use arable
: land to grow foodstuffs for animals and bio fuel. Worse IMO we grow way
: too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
: the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.
:
:
: >> Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24
million
: >> organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
: >> why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
: >
: >Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
: >We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
: >the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
: >chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
: >two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
: >Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
: >follows as night follows day.
: >
: >> For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
: >> mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
: >> probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays
are
: >> like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
: >> didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
: >> another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
: >> is ingenious.
: >
: >Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
: >much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
: >very silly rules they impose on themselves.
:
: Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and then
: do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
: field.
:
:
: >> The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
: >> come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by
the
: >> village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
: >
: >It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
: >can't disprove them.
:
: We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
: end well.
:
: We need to eat better and curb population growth. Not load the NHS with
: the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
: spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
: growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.
:
:
: >> The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
: >> dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
: >> is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
: >> meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
: >> overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
: >> prevail.
: >
: >I think we'll all have died of starvation before then.
: >
: >>> Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production
can
: >>> only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population,
ie
: >>> about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
: >>> import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
: >>> will not be able to?
: >>>
: >>> Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
: >>>from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
: >>> fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
: >>>
: >>>> These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped
to
: >>>> the point of hysteria.
: >>>>
: >>>> Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why
can't
: >>>> you.
: >>>
: >>> No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
: >>>
: >>> Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
: >>>
: >>> We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra
available
: >>> land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible.
And
: >>> that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
rbowman
2018-08-08 13:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can dispute the figures but common sense tells you than meat and
dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed and we are only
talking a 50% increase here.
I grew up in dairy country with the traditional small farms. The land
was only suitable for grazing or hay production. otoh factory farming of
meat is depressing from start to finish.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-08-08 14:02:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well as
the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for two
and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is about
6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket'
(George Orwell (1903 - 1950))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-08 14:13:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well as
the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for two
and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is about
6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
Y.
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of fainting.

I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.

Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 15:31:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What a pussified loon you are.





"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" <***@bungay.com> wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
: On 8 Aug 2018, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote
: (in article <ko9r3f-***@server.com.il>):
:
: > "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"<***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote:
: >
: > > You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.
: >
: > All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well
as
: > the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for
two
: > and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
: > week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is
about
: > 6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
: >
: > Y.
:
: My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
: experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
cramps
: which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
fainting.
:
: I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: almost immediately, thank heavens.
:
: Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
:
:
Ophelia
2018-08-08 17:55:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well as
the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for two
and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is about
6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
Y.
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
fainting.

I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.

Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.

==

That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for my
husband who loves it.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-08 18:39:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well as
the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for two
and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is about
6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
Y.
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of fainting.
I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.
Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
==
That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for my
husband who loves it.
It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days, but
if anything it became worse.

Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 19:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" <***@bungay.com> wrote in message news:***@news.giganews.com...
: On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
: (in article <***@mid.individual.net>):
:
: >
: > "Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" wrote in message
: > news:***@news.giganews.com...
: >
: > On 8 Aug 2018, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote
: > (in article <ko9r3f-***@server.com.il>):
: >
: > > "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"<***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid>
wrote:
: > >
: > > > You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.
: > >
: > > All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as
well as
: > > the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for
two
: > > and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling
per
: > > week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is
: > > about
: > > 6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
: > >
: > > Y.
: >
: > My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
: > experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
cramps
: > which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: > fainting.
: >
: > I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: > almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >
: > Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >
: > ==
: >
: > That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for
my
: > husband who loves it.
:
: It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
but
: if anything it became worse.
:
: Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
:
:
Norman Wells
2018-08-08 20:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of fainting.
I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.
Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
==
That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for my
husband who loves it.
It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days, but
if anything it became worse.
Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
Of course it does.

Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 20:10:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Indeed.



"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: > On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
:
: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
an
: >> experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
cramps
: >> which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >> fainting.
: >>
: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >>
: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >>
: >> ==
: >>
: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my
: >> husband who loves it.
: >
: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
but
: > if anything it became worse.
: >
: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
:
: Of course it does.
:
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
:
:
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-08 20:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by Norman Wells
Indeed.
: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
an
: >> experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
cramps
: >> which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >> fainting.
: >>
: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >>
: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >>
: >> ==
: >>
: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my
: >> husband who loves it.
: >
: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
but
: > if anything it became worse.
: >
: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: Of course it does.
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.

Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 21:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
:
: >Indeed.
: >
: >
: >
: >"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
: >news:***@mid.individual.net...
: >: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: >: > On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
: >:
: >: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet
as
: >an
: >: >> experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: >cramps
: >: >> which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >: >> fainting.
: >: >>
: >: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to
normal
: >: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >: >>
: >: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >: >>
: >: >> ==
: >: >>
: >: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
: >for my
: >: >> husband who loves it.
: >: >
: >: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have
no
: >: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of
days,
: >but
: >: > if anything it became worse.
: >: >
: >: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green
leafy
: >: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: >:
: >: Of course it does.
: >:
: >: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: >: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
:
: Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
: and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
: it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
: yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
: easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
: ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
:
: Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
: surprise me.
:
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 21:09:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop pills.





"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
:
: >Indeed.
: >
: >
: >
: >"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
: >news:***@mid.individual.net...
: >: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: >: > On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
: >:
: >: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet
as
: >an
: >: >> experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: >cramps
: >: >> which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >: >> fainting.
: >: >>
: >: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to
normal
: >: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >: >>
: >: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >: >>
: >: >> ==
: >: >>
: >: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
: >for my
: >: >> husband who loves it.
: >: >
: >: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have
no
: >: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of
days,
: >but
: >: > if anything it became worse.
: >: >
: >: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green
leafy
: >: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: >:
: >: Of course it does.
: >:
: >: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: >: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
:
: Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
: and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
: it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
: yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
: easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
: ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
:
: Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
: surprise me.
:
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-08 21:32:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop pills.
No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
subsidy whores.

Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.

There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.

Fuck me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.
Post by BurfordTJustice
: On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >Indeed.
: >
: >
: >
: >: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet
as
: >an
: >: >> experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: >cramps
: >: >> which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >: >> fainting.
: >: >>
: >: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to
normal
: >: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >: >>
: >: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >: >>
: >: >> ==
: >: >>
: >: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
: >for my
: >: >> husband who loves it.
: >: >
: >: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have
no
: >: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of
days,
: >but
: >: > if anything it became worse.
: >: >
: >: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green
leafy
: >: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: >: Of course it does.
: >: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: >: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
: Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
: and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
: it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
: yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
: easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
: ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
: Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
: surprise me.
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-09 08:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop pills.
No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
subsidy whores.
Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.
Don't be daft. Spinach is the spawn of the devil. No proper meat=eater
would touch it with a barge-pole, let alone eat too much of the stuff.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.
There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.
If you had an adequate diet in the first place, you wouldn't ever need
the things at all.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Fuck me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.
How can one fail to be charmed by lovely vegetarians?
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-09 09:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop pills.
No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
subsidy whores.
Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.
Don't be daft. Spinach is the spawn of the devil. No proper meat=eater
would touch it with a barge-pole, let alone eat too much of the stuff.
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.
There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.
If you had an adequate diet in the first place, you wouldn't ever need
the things at all.
It appears that cows not finished on grass need supplements. If you were
a scientist you would have picked up on Yitzhak's claims in Message-ID:
<p94s3f-***@server.com.il> and investigated them.

I had a quick look and while I'm not convinced that Yitzhak is correct
claiming cows are injected with B12. I couldn't find evidence of that It
appears they are supplemented with cobalt and a whole lot more when
fattened on feed.

Perhaps you would like to conduct an investigation into this Norman as
our resident scientist. I'm a bit busy. Don't forget to look into what's
in the feed. Wasn't BSE caused by some rather odd ingredients. Anyway,
with your training you can do a through investigation I'm sure.

This is a real eye opener from Yitzhak and a huge number of questions
not just about cattle are flooding into pussy brain about the diet farm
animals are now getting and how that pans out further up the food chain.
I must stop as I have work to do but Wow! this could be just the tip of
the iceberg and might fill in some of the gaps where stuff doesn't add
up in all the blurb we get fed. Ciao.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Fuck me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.
How can one fail to be charmed by lovely vegetarians?
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-09 10:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Norman is what, you are the one making all the wild claims.




"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:22:26 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 08/08/2018 22:32, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>
: >>> So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop
pills.
: >>
: >> No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
: >> subsidy whores.
: >>
: >> Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
: >> eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.
: >
: >Don't be daft. Spinach is the spawn of the devil. No proper meat=eater
: >would touch it with a barge-pole, let alone eat too much of the stuff.
: >
: >> Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.
: >>
: >> There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.
: >
: >If you had an adequate diet in the first place, you wouldn't ever need
: >the things at all.
:
: It appears that cows not finished on grass need supplements. If you were
: a scientist you would have picked up on Yitzhak's claims in Message-ID:
: <p94s3f-***@server.com.il> and investigated them.
:
: I had a quick look and while I'm not convinced that Yitzhak is correct
: claiming cows are injected with B12. I couldn't find evidence of that It
: appears they are supplemented with cobalt and a whole lot more when
: fattened on feed.
:
: Perhaps you would like to conduct an investigation into this Norman as
: our resident scientist. I'm a bit busy. Don't forget to look into what's
: in the feed. Wasn't BSE caused by some rather odd ingredients. Anyway,
: with your training you can do a through investigation I'm sure.
:
: This is a real eye opener from Yitzhak and a huge number of questions
: not just about cattle are flooding into pussy brain about the diet farm
: animals are now getting and how that pans out further up the food chain.
: I must stop as I have work to do but Wow! this could be just the tip of
: the iceberg and might fill in some of the gaps where stuff doesn't add
: up in all the blurb we get fed. Ciao.
:
:
: >> Fuck me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.
: >
: >How can one fail to be charmed by lovely vegetarians?
: >
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-09 10:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Double Indeed!




"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 08/08/2018 22:32, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: > <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >
: >> So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop
pills.
: >
: > No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
: > subsidy whores.
: >
: > Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
: > eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.
:
: Don't be daft. Spinach is the spawn of the devil. No proper meat=eater
: would touch it with a barge-pole, let alone eat too much of the stuff.
:
: > Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.
: >
: > There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.
:
: If you had an adequate diet in the first place, you wouldn't ever need
: the things at all.
:
: > Fuck me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.
:
: How can one fail to be charmed by lovely vegetarians?
:
:
Norman Wells
2018-08-08 21:19:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
: >> an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: >> cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >> fainting.
: >>
: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >>
: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >>
: >> ==
: >>
: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my husband who loves it.
: >
: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
: > but if anything it became worse.
: >
: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: Of course it does.
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.
"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
and eggs for many reasons.

"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
oxygen-bearing red blood cells.

"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."

https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemia/anemia-risk-for-vegans-and-vegetarians.aspx

"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
naturally only in animal products."

https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet

So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
suppliers.
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
2018-08-08 21:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12
deficiency."
The B12 one always amuses me, because meat-eaters generally assume that a
deficiency is due to stopping eating meat, and then extrapolate to 'blame'
a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Unfortunately for that theory, it is a fact that in the 'first world',
cobalt deficiencies in the soil due to overfarming (as well as other metals
such as copper, chromium, zinc etc..) mean that most livestock in fact is
already B12-deficient. Cobalt is necessary for livestock to produce B12.
Most livestock destined for slaughter get their B12 from injections
provided by the farmer.

How ironic, eh ?

So in fact, the rape of the environment to satisfy the urges of the meat
eaters is responsible for the deficiency which is often blamed on
vegetarians, and to combat it, we rape the planet a little bit more.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'We are now in the 92nd year of a peace process in which the
Fakestinians are the first people in history to be offered a state
seven times, reject it seven times, and set preconditions for
discussing an eighth offer...'
(Professor Benny Morris)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Norman Wells
2018-08-09 08:07:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by Norman Wells
"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."
The B12 one always amuses me, because meat-eaters generally assume that a
deficiency is due to stopping eating meat, and then extrapolate to 'blame'
a vegetarian or vegan diet.
But it's absolutely right.

Only animals synthesise vitamin B12.

"The only organisms to produce vitamin B12 are certain bacteria, and
archaea. Some of these bacteria are found in the soil around the grasses
that ruminants eat; they are taken into the animal, proliferate, form
part of their gut flora, and continue to produce vitamin B12.

There are no naturally-occurring notable vegetable dietary sources of
the vitamin"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Unfortunately for that theory, it is a fact that in the 'first world',
cobalt deficiencies in the soil due to overfarming (as well as other metals
such as copper, chromium, zinc etc..) mean that most livestock in fact is
already B12-deficient. Cobalt is necessary for livestock to produce B12.
Most livestock destined for slaughter get their B12 from injections
provided by the farmer.
So too should vegans.
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-08 21:47:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
: >> an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: >> cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >> fainting.
: >>
: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >>
: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >>
: >> ==
: >>
: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my husband who loves it.
: >
: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
: > but if anything it became worse.
: >
: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: Of course it does.
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.
"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
and eggs for many reasons.
"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
oxygen-bearing red blood cells.
"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."
https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemia/anemia-risk-for-vegans-and-vegetarians.aspx
"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
naturally only in animal products."
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet
So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
suppliers.
You don't seem to be much of a scientist Norman. So what is your
background? I'm guessing it's not scientific at all.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
Norman Wells
2018-08-09 08:17:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
Post by Norman Wells
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
: >> an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: >> cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: >> fainting.
: >>
: >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >>
: >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >>
: >> ==
: >>
: >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my husband who loves it.
: >
: > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
: > but if anything it became worse.
: >
: > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: Of course it does.
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.
"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
and eggs for many reasons.
"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
oxygen-bearing red blood cells.
"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."
https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemia/anemia-risk-for-vegans-and-vegetarians.aspx
"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
naturally only in animal products."
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet
So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
suppliers.
You don't seem to be much of a scientist Norman.
On what basis do you say that? I've just cut and pasted from two
reputable sources. Why do you feel you have to resort to ad hom remarks
rather than address the points raised?
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
So what is your
background? I'm guessing it's not scientific at all.
What a very silly question. I could tell you anything I like and you'd
be none the wiser. You'd still believe whatever your prejudices tell you.

Now, getting back to the point, what have you got to say about
vegetarian/vegan diets and anaemia?

Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those chemical
supplements they need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-09 10:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 08/08/2018 22:47, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:19:13 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > wrote:
: >> On 08/08/2018 21:52, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>>> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
: >>>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
: >>>> : On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: >>>> : > On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
: >>>> :
: >>>> : >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general
diet as
: >>>> : >> an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including
stomach
: >>>> : >> cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor
for fear of
: >>>> : >> fainting.
: >>>> : >>
: >>>> : >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to
normal
: >>>> : >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >>>> : >>
: >>>> : >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >>>> : >>
: >>>> : >> ==
: >>>> : >>
: >>>> : >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook
plenty
: >>>> for my husband who loves it.
: >>>> : >
: >>>> : > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I
have no
: >>>> : > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple
of days,
: >>>> : > but if anything it became worse.
: >>>> : >
: >>>> : > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green
leafy
: >>>> : > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: >>>> :
: >>>> : Of course it does.
: >>>> :
: >>>> : Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements
they
: >>>> : need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
: >>>
: >>> Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you
Adam
: >>> and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
: >>> it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
: >>> yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
: >>> easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known
for
: >>> ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
: >>>
: >>> Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
: >>> surprise me.
: >>
: >> "People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
: >> and eggs for many reasons.
: >>
: >> "But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
: >> potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
: >> oxygen-bearing red blood cells.
: >>
: >> "For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
: >> deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including
dairy,
: >> eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12
deficiency."
: >>
: >>
https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemia/anemia-risk-for-vegans-and-vegetarians.aspx
: >>
: >> "A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially
vegans --
: >> need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron,
and
: >> zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
: >> vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is
found
: >> naturally only in animal products."
: >>
: >> https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet
: >>
: >> So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
: >> suppliers.
: >
: > You don't seem to be much of a scientist Norman.
:
: On what basis do you say that? I've just cut and pasted from two
: reputable sources. Why do you feel you have to resort to ad hom remarks
: rather than address the points raised?
:
: > So what is your
: > background? I'm guessing it's not scientific at all.
:
: What a very silly question. I could tell you anything I like and you'd
: be none the wiser. You'd still believe whatever your prejudices tell you.
:
: Now, getting back to the point, what have you got to say about
: vegetarian/vegan diets and anaemia?
:
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those chemical
: supplements they need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-09 10:03:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
and yours is?

LOL





"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:19:13 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 08/08/2018 21:52, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
: >>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
: >>> : On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: >>> : > On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
: >>> :
: >>> : >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general
diet as
: >>> : >> an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including
stomach
: >>> : >> cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor
for fear of
: >>> : >> fainting.
: >>> : >>
: >>> : >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to
normal
: >>> : >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >>> : >>
: >>> : >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >>> : >>
: >>> : >> ==
: >>> : >>
: >>> : >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook
plenty
: >>> for my husband who loves it.
: >>> : >
: >>> : > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I
have no
: >>> : > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of
days,
: >>> : > but if anything it became worse.
: >>> : >
: >>> : > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green
leafy
: >>> : > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: >>> :
: >>> : Of course it does.
: >>> :
: >>> : Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements
they
: >>> : need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
: >>
: >> Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you
Adam
: >> and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
: >> it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
: >> yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
: >> easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
: >> ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
: >>
: >> Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
: >> surprise me.
: >
: >"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
: >and eggs for many reasons.
: >
: >"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
: >potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
: >oxygen-bearing red blood cells.
: >
: >"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
: >deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
: >eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12
deficiency."
: >
Post by Norman Wells
https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemia/anemia-risk-for-vegans-and-vegetarians.aspx
: >
: >"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
: >need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
: >zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
: >vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
: >naturally only in animal products."
: >
: >https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet
: >
: >So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
: >suppliers.
:
: You don't seem to be much of a scientist Norman. So what is your
: background? I'm guessing it's not scientific at all.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-09 10:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 08/08/2018 21:52, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: > <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
: >> news:***@mid.individual.net...
: >> : On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: >> : > On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
: >> :
: >> : >> My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet
as
: >> : >> an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including
stomach
: >> : >> cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for
fear of
: >> : >> fainting.
: >> : >>
: >> : >> I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to
normal
: >> : >> almost immediately, thank heavens.
: >> : >>
: >> : >> Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: >> : >>
: >> : >> ==
: >> : >>
: >> : >> That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook
plenty
: >> for my husband who loves it.
: >> : >
: >> : > It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I
have no
: >> : > problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of
days,
: >> : > but if anything it became worse.
: >> : >
: >> : > Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green
leafy
: >> : > vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: >> :
: >> : Of course it does.
: >> :
: >> : Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements
they
: >> : need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
: >
: > Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
: > and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
: > it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
: > yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
: > easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
: > ages. The Popeye stuff is bullshit. Google it.
: >
: > Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
: > surprise me.
:
: "People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
: and eggs for many reasons.
:
: "But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
: potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
: oxygen-bearing red blood cells.
:
: "For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
: deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
: eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12
deficiency."
:
:
https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemia/anemia-risk-for-vegans-and-vegetarians.aspx
:
: "A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
: need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
: zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
: vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
: naturally only in animal products."
:
: https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/vegetarian-and-vegan-diet
:
: So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
: suppliers.
Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
2018-08-08 20:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of fainting.
I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.
Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
==
That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for my
husband who loves it.
It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days, but
if anything it became worse.
Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
Of course it does.
Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
I’m being stalked again.

Help!
Ophelia
2018-08-09 10:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of fainting.
I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.
Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
==
That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for my
husband who loves it.
It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days, but
if anything it became worse.
Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
Of course it does.
Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
I’m being stalked again.

Help!

==

Ackkkkkkkkkkkk you will need a big stick ...
Ophelia
2018-08-09 10:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well as
the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for two
and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is about
6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
Y.
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of fainting.
I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.
Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
==
That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for my
husband who loves it.
It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days, but
if anything it became worse.

Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.

==

Yes, red meat does.
Incubus
2018-08-09 10:25:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Fruitiest of Fruitcakes
Post by Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.
All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well as
the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for two
and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is about
6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
Y.
My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach cramps
which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of fainting.
I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
almost immediately, thank heavens.
Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
==
That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for my
husband who loves it.
It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days, but
if anything it became worse.
Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
Lots of foods are high in iron. Red meat is incredibly bad for you so it is
worth paying attention to this list:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/11-healthy-iron-rich-foods

BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 19:40:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ophelia" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
:
:
: "Fruitiest of Fruitcakes" wrote in message
: news:***@news.giganews.com...
:
: On 8 Aug 2018, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote
: (in article <ko9r3f-***@server.com.il>):
:
: > "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"<***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote:
: >
: > > You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.
: >
: > All of this is added to the obvious health benefits for humans, as well
as
: > the moral advantage of living a cruelty-free life. I've been vegan for
two
: > and a half years now, and that combined with over 300 km of cycling per
: > week, I'm now at 200 lb or around 92 kg (for 192 cm, which I think is
: > about
: > 6'3'' in your money), with a resting heart rate of 46 bpm.
: >
: > Y.
:
: My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as an
: experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
cramps
: which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: fainting.
:
: I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: almost immediately, thank heavens.
:
: Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
:
: ==
:
: That sounds horrific:(( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty for
my
: husband who loves it.
:
:
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 10:11:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > wrote:
: >> On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >>> wrote:
: >>
: >>>> The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only
feed
: >>>> about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we
have
: >>>> today.
: >>>
: >>> See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
: >>>
: >>> Just read what you have written.
: >>>
: >>> Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60%
of
: >>> that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately
misleading
: >>> and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
: >>> expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
: >>>
: >>> The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
: >>> since 1871.
: >>
: >> I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
: >> production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
: >> contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
: >> totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?
: >
: > Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
: > going vegan would solve that.
:
: How do you work that out?
:
: > Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
: > pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
: > propaganda.
:
: There's no propaghanda, just facts.
:
: > Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
: > for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
: > people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
: > in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
: > out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
: > this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?
:
: We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
: population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
: increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
: using the same methods as we did then.
:
: > Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
: > organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
: > why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.
:
: Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
: We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
: the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
: chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
: two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
: Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
: follows as night follows day.
:
: > For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
: > mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
: > probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
: > like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
: > didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
: > another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
: > is ingenious.
:
: Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
: much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
: very silly rules they impose on themselves.
:
: > The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
: > come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
: > village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.
:
: It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
: can't disprove them.
:
: > The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
: > dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
: > is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
: > meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
: > overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
: > prevail.
:
: I think we'll all have died of starvation before then.
:
: >> Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production
can
: >> only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
: >> about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
: >> import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
: >> will not be able to?
: >>
: >> Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
: >>from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
: >> fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?
: >>
: >>> These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped
to
: >>> the point of hysteria.
: >>>
: >>> Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
: >>> you.
: >>
: >> No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.
: >>
: >> Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.
: >>
: >> We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
: >> land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
: >> that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 18:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
More mud



"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 07/08/2018 16:54, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >> wrote:
: >>> On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >>>> wrote:
: >>>>> On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>>>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>>>>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>>>>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
the
: >>>>>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >>>>>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >>>>
: >>>> Thank you for asking.
: >>>>
: >>>> You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: >>>> figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
have
: >>>> time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: >>>> results.
: >>>>
: >>>> This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to
1871
: >>>> is kinda funny.
: >>>>
: >>>> In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: >>>> source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >>>>
: >>>> Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
Was
: >>>> that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was
largely
: >>>> supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >>>>
: >>>> Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
the
: >>>> 1940's.
: >>>>
: >>>> If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: >>>> cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: >>>> statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >>>>
: >>>> The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
million
: >>>> is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So
it's
: >>>> sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: >>>> rationale was applied.
: >>>>
: >>>> Perhaps you think different.
: >>>
: >>> I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: >>>
: >>> The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support
24
: >>> million people if we went totally organic.
: >>>
: >>> The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: >>> wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: >>> interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: >>> Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: >>> 1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
: >>
: >> You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain
not
: >> the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
: >> and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to
otherwise
: >> the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
: >> oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
: >> correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to
me
: >> Scotland.
: >
: >Add in whatever you like, it makes no difference, and it's not
: >important. I based no argument on it at all, just quoted some ONS
: >population figures in case you were interested.
: >
: >The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
: >about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
: >today.
:
: See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.
:
: Just read what you have written.
:
: Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
: that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
: and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
: expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.
:
: The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
: since 1871.
:
: These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
: the point of hysteria.
:
: Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
: you.
:
:
:
:
: >Just for interest, 24 million was the population of the UK
: >sometime before 1850.
: >
: >>> I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount
of
: >>> food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: >>> weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: >>> organic farming anyway.
: >>
: >> The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
: >> bullshit is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
: >> the agrochemical food and other related industries.
: >
: >What are you questioning?
: >
: >We currently produce only enough food for 60% of the population. Are
: >you questioning that?
: >
: >Organic yields are typically about two-thirds of those produced
: >conventionally. Are you questioning that?
: >
: >If you're questioning either, tell us why,
: >
: >If you're questioning neither, then by simple arithmetic it is
: >inescapable going totally organic would mean, all other things being
: >equal, that we could only produce enough food for 40% of the population,
: >or about 24 million.
: >
: >> Because my summation
: >> so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
: >> high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
: >> don't.
: >
: >It's not fear, just fact.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 18:59:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...
: On 07/08/2018 16:54, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: > wrote:
: >> On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >>> wrote:
: >>>> On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>>>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>>>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>>>>
: >>>>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
the
: >>>>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >>>>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >>>>
: >>>> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >>>
: >>> Thank you for asking.
: >>>
: >>> You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: >>> figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
have
: >>> time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: >>> results.
: >>>
: >>> This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: >>> is kinda funny.
: >>>
: >>> In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: >>> source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >>>
: >>> Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
Was
: >>> that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: >>> supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >>>
: >>> Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
the
: >>> 1940's.
: >>>
: >>> If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: >>> cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: >>> statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >>>
: >>> The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
million
: >>> is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: >>> sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: >>> rationale was applied.
: >>>
: >>> Perhaps you think different.
: >>
: >> I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: >>
: >> The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: >> million people if we went totally organic.
: >>
: >> The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: >> wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: >> interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: >> Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: >> 1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
: >
: > You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
: > the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
: > and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
: > the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
: > oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
: > correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
: > Scotland.
:
: Add in whatever you like, it makes no difference, and it's not
: important. I based no argument on it at all, just quoted some ONS
: population figures in case you were interested.
:
: The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
: about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
: today. Just for interest, 24 million was the population of the UK
: sometime before 1850.
:
: >> I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: >> food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: >> weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: >> organic farming anyway.
: >
: > The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
: > bullshit is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
: > the agrochemical food and other related industries.
:
: What are you questioning?
:
: We currently produce only enough food for 60% of the population. Are
: you questioning that?
:
: Organic yields are typically about two-thirds of those produced
: conventionally. Are you questioning that?
:
: If you're questioning either, tell us why,
:
: If you're questioning neither, then by simple arithmetic it is
: inescapable going totally organic would mean, all other things being
: equal, that we could only produce enough food for 40% of the population,
: or about 24 million.
:
: > Because my summation
: > so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
: > high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
: > don't.
:
: It's not fear, just fact.
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 18:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: >> wrote:
: >>
: >>> On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >>>> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>>>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>>>
: >>>> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>>>
: >>>> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
the
: >>>> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>>>
: >>>> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >>>> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>>>
: >>>> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >>>
: >>> So, why doesn't it add up?
: >>
: >> Thank you for asking.
: >>
: >> You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: >> figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
have
: >> time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: >> results.
: >>
: >> This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: >> is kinda funny.
: >>
: >> In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: >> source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
: >>
: >> Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
Was
: >> that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: >> supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
: >>
: >> Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
the
: >> 1940's.
: >>
: >> If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: >> cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: >> statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
: >>
: >> The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
million
: >> is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: >> sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: >> rationale was applied.
: >>
: >> Perhaps you think different.
: >
: >I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
: >
: >The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: >million people if we went totally organic.
: >
: >The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: >wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: >interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: >Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: >1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
:
: You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
: the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
: and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
: the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
: oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
: correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
: Scotland.
:
:
: >I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: >food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: >weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: >organic farming anyway.
:
: The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
: bullshit is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
: the agrochemical food and other related industries. Because my summation
: so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
: high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
: don't.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-07 15:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So another fail.



"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells <***@unseen.ac.am>
: wrote:
:
: >On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: >> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: >> <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
: >>
: >>> : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: >>> : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
: >>
: >> That doesn't seem to add up.
: >>
: >> According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
: >> 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
: >>
: >> Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: >> competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
: >>
: >> Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
: >
: >So, why doesn't it add up?
:
: Thank you for asking.
:
: You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
: time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: results.
:
: This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: is kinda funny.
:
: In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
:
: Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
: that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
:
: Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
: 1940's.
:
: If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
:
: The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
: is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: rationale was applied.
:
: Perhaps you think different.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 13:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Omega" <***@last.com> wrote in message news:pkep8d$l28$***@dont-email.me...
: On 06/08/2018 17:21, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: >
: > If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
: > conversation will be about the weather.
: >
: > Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and now
: > we have too dry.
: >
: > My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
: >
: > As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
: > current problems of the intensive modern farms.
: >
: > Currently our organic farm has had little rain since April and we are
too
: > dry; but we are not suffering with the same problems that the drought is
: > bringing to the high intensity farms. I believe that farming has to be a
: > sustainable enterprise and a farmer should be farming within the farm's
: > means.
: >
: > The drought is affecting the intensive farmer as they are over-stocked
with
: > livestock.
: >
: > In May this year the grass had grown like never before and we were able
to
: > harvest almost a month early. As a consequence I have livestock still
able to
: > lie down in long grass this morning.
: >
: > We are able to do this as organic farming is not intensive.
: >
: > Heavy machinery has a high impact on soils, as the soil is compacted by
large
: > machines during the spring, making the fields hard and unable to take in
the
: > much needed rains.
: >
: > Manmade fertilisers also create problems as the plants' roots are
relying
: > on their food source to come from above and not below. With organic
farming
: > the plant nutrition comes from deep within the soils. This results in
the
: > plants tapping into moisture reserves within the soils.
: >
: > It is also important to have old herbage in the meadows as these old
: > varieties of grasses are able to withstand the dry seasons.
: >
: > Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water to
: > get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil hold
it,
: > instead of running off and taking soil with it.
: >
: > Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
: >
: > Jonathan.
: >
:
:
: How does an 'organic' farmer treat say, mastitis or warble fly in cattle?
:
: Does he leave them in distress because he won't use anti-biotics?
:
: Would he leave a flock of sheep to die of liver fluke?
:
: Maybe your farms will be 'veggie' only?
:
: omega
:
:
:
:
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-08 13:38:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:14:14 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
: >
: > If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than not
the
: > conversation will be about the weather.
: >
: > Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
and now
: > we have too dry.
: >
: > My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this spring.
: >
: > As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
the
: > current problems of the intensive modern farms.
: >
: > Currently our organic farm has had little rain since April and we are
too
: > dry; but we are not suffering with the same problems that the drought is
: > bringing to the high intensity farms. I believe that farming has to be a
: > sustainable enterprise and a farmer should be farming within the farm's
: > means.
: >
: > The drought is affecting the intensive farmer as they are over-stocked
with
: > livestock.
: >
: > In May this year the grass had grown like never before and we were able
to
: > harvest almost a month early. As a consequence I have livestock still
able to
: > lie down in long grass this morning.
: >
: > We are able to do this as organic farming is not intensive.
: >
: > Heavy machinery has a high impact on soils, as the soil is compacted by
large
: > machines during the spring, making the fields hard and unable to take in
the
: > much needed rains.
: >
: > Manmade fertilisers also create problems as the plants' roots are
relying
: > on their food source to come from above and not below. With organic
farming
: > the plant nutrition comes from deep within the soils. This results in
the
: > plants tapping into moisture reserves within the soils.
: >
: > It is also important to have old herbage in the meadows as these old
: > varieties of grasses are able to withstand the dry seasons.
: >
: > Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
water to
: > get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil hold
it,
: > instead of running off and taking soil with it.
: >
: > Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
future.
: >
: > Jonathan.
: >
: How does an 'organic' farmer treat say, mastitis or warble fly in cattle?
http://justice4andy.com.gridhosted.co.uk/whats-to-blame/organophosphate
Post by BurfordTJustice
: Does he leave them in distress because he won't use anti-biotics?
Organic farmers are against routine use of antibiotics especially to
increase yield and enable animals to be kept in close proximity so
called 'preventative' medicine. Medicines are allowed for disease
although I believe in the case of mastitis there's a period where the
milk has to be sold as non organic until the antibiotics are flushed.
Post by BurfordTJustice
: Would he leave a flock of sheep to die of liver fluke?
: Maybe your farms will be 'veggie' only?
: omega
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 15:19:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"I believe"
so again you do not know and are just trying to muddy the water.





"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:14:14 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Omega" <***@last.com> wrote in message news:pkep8d$l28$***@dont-email.me...
: >: On 06/08/2018 17:21, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: >: >
: >: > If you have ever spoken to a farmer, you will find more often than
not
: >the
: >: > conversation will be about the weather.
: >: >
: >: > Sadly, it is either to cold, too windy, too wet, too icy, or too hot;
: >and now
: >: > we have too dry.
: >: >
: >: > My reply is always, let's not forget the 5ft of snow I had this
spring.
: >: >
: >: > As an organic farmer we still have the dry weather, but we do not get
: >the
: >: > current problems of the intensive modern farms.
: >: >
: >: > Currently our organic farm has had little rain since April and we are
: >too
: >: > dry; but we are not suffering with the same problems that the drought
is
: >: > bringing to the high intensity farms. I believe that farming has to
be a
: >: > sustainable enterprise and a farmer should be farming within the
farm's
: >: > means.
: >: >
: >: > The drought is affecting the intensive farmer as they are
over-stocked
: >with
: >: > livestock.
: >: >
: >: > In May this year the grass had grown like never before and we were
able
: >to
: >: > harvest almost a month early. As a consequence I have livestock still
: >able to
: >: > lie down in long grass this morning.
: >: >
: >: > We are able to do this as organic farming is not intensive.
: >: >
: >: > Heavy machinery has a high impact on soils, as the soil is compacted
by
: >large
: >: > machines during the spring, making the fields hard and unable to take
in
: >the
: >: > much needed rains.
: >: >
: >: > Manmade fertilisers also create problems as the plants' roots are
: >relying
: >: > on their food source to come from above and not below. With organic
: >farming
: >: > the plant nutrition comes from deep within the soils. This results in
: >the
: >: > plants tapping into moisture reserves within the soils.
: >: >
: >: > It is also important to have old herbage in the meadows as these old
: >: > varieties of grasses are able to withstand the dry seasons.
: >: >
: >: > Organic farming holds more water. It holds more nutrients. It allows
: >water to
: >: > get into the soil and go through the surface layer and let the soil
hold
: >it,
: >: > instead of running off and taking soil with it.
: >: >
: >: > Yet again I find myself looking to the past to take farming into the
: >future.
: >: >
: >: > Jonathan.
: >: >
: >:
: >:
: >: How does an 'organic' farmer treat say, mastitis or warble fly in
cattle?
:
: http://justice4andy.com.gridhosted.co.uk/whats-to-blame/organophosphate
:
:
: >: Does he leave them in distress because he won't use anti-biotics?
:
: Organic farmers are against routine use of antibiotics especially to
: increase yield and enable animals to be kept in close proximity so
: called 'preventative' medicine. Medicines are allowed for disease
: although I believe in the case of mastitis there's a period where the
: milk has to be sold as non organic until the antibiotics are flushed.
:
:
:
:
:
: >: Would he leave a flock of sheep to die of liver fluke?
: >:
: >: Maybe your farms will be 'veggie' only?
: >:
: >: omega
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-08-08 19:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:19:21 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
"I believe"
so again you do not know and are just trying to muddy the water.
: Organic farmers are against routine use of antibiotics especially to
: increase yield and enable animals to be kept in close proximity so
: called 'preventative' medicine. Medicines are allowed for disease
: although I believe in the case of mastitis there's a period where the
: milk has to be sold as non organic until the antibiotics are flushed.
You really are a lazy farm subsidy whore. It took me 30 seconds to find
this.

"11 - Reducing antibiotic use for mastitis treatment in organic dairy
production systems"

"Economic pressure on dairy farms caused by the inability to market milk
during “withdrawal periods” following antibiotic treatment and the ban
on prophylactic antibiotic treatments under organic farming standards
have also contributed to the search for alternatives."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781845690106500111

You have been pooed.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
BurfordTJustice
2018-08-08 19:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Mud


"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" <***@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> wrote in
message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:19:21 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: <burford/***@uk.MI15> wrote:
:
: >"I believe"
: >so again you do not know and are just trying to muddy the water.
:
: >: Organic farmers are against routine use of antibiotics especially to
: >: increase yield and enable animals to be kept in close proximity so
: >: called 'preventative' medicine. Medicines are allowed for disease
: >: although I believe in the case of mastitis there's a period where the
: >: milk has to be sold as non organic until the antibiotics are flushed.
:
: You really are a lazy farm subsidy whore. It took me 30 seconds to find
: this.
:
: "11 - Reducing antibiotic use for mastitis treatment in organic dairy
: production systems"
:
: "Economic pressure on dairy farms caused by the inability to market milk
: during "withdrawal periods" following antibiotic treatment and the ban
: on prophylactic antibiotic treatments under organic farming standards
: have also contributed to the search for alternatives."
:
: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781845690106500111
:
: You have been pooed.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infâme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:
Loading...