"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
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.
-------------
Exactly, the potential is being highly beneficial which is why pretty well
everywhere outside Europe is using it.
There aren't as many benefits for Europe. Firstly because the work done has
benefited the no-till systems which are so important for moisture retention
(Pearl flagged up the no-till but I cannot remember whether she mentioned
the importance of water) and secondly, because Europe doesn't allow them, no
one produces them for European conditions

Jim Webster