Thank you so much for this, Tom. I for one do not want a splinter
group. That would defeat the whole purpose of this thread, imo. And
I have seen at least as much participation on this thread as on
prions or the molecular structure of a given pesticide. There will
always be some thread that doesn't interest me or is over my head,
or, imo, has been covered ad nauseum, but I promise you I won't
interject the suggestion that all those interested in X go form their
own group and leave the rest of us out of it. The "physical" posts
to this list (what cover crop to plant, whether a field of hay should
be bailed and sold or left for mulch) seems to me have never been the
bulk of the posts anyway (surly someone out their will want to
challenge this and do a count!), so I don't think that the comment
"this is a list for physical ag posts only" (as Lon Rombough argued)
is valid. So what constitutes politically correct non-"physical"
posts may have more to do with convention and paradigm than anything
else. Is it outside the scope of this list to talk about the
economic rationals behind agriculture? Is it outside the scope to
discuss animal welfare issues (very hot in the organic National Rules
discussion)? If there's no money in CRP, why should farmers conserve
soil if crop prices are high and they can make money by planting on
marginal lands? I can't see *this* going anywhere but to a "non
physical" discussion.
I don't need to write about the spiritual aspects of agriculture
everyday or every post. But I would like to defend a corner of this
list for such issues. Anita
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail