On Mar 10, 7:46*am, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
> >> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> >> former means more food AND more wildlife.
>
> >> --
> >> Oz
> >> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
> > 'Dust Bowl Writ Large?
>
> yep, the original dust bowl was caused by arable agriculture replacing
> grazing. If the Americans had just been happy to eat the meat and not insist
> on growing crops, they would have been fine.
> Ironically modern No-till systems which do reduce this erosian if you are
> forced into arable, are so much better with GM crops (indeed it is one of
> the reasons they were developmed)

Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests
that GM crops have yet to yield any real benefits. Mind you I
live in a country where the vast majority of people, including
journalists
seem somewhat prejudiced against them. It's a shame because
the technology has the potential to be highly beneficial.

> Or of course, organic agriculture, where you integrate ploughing and grazing
> to replemish the nutrients also works
> The paper you quote actually backs up everything we have been trying to tell
> you
>
> Jim Webster