Just a few remarks,
I see just about everybody taking it for granted that organic farmers make
more money/profit. What is happening around me however does not point this
How many eggs does a battery hen produce in a day with a two hours light /
two hours dark cycle + chemical stimulation? 5 or more on average? Against
less than one for mine.
An industrial broiler reaches slaughter weight 41 days after atching. In my
system it takes at least 8 times as long to reach the same weight.
Forced lambs of less than three months old and weighing 50 kg+ are making
very good money in our local sales today. By the time that my organic lamb
reaches slaughter weight in another four months or so, prices typically drop
The mark up for my organic product is perhaps 10 to 15 %.
So I don't have to be organic for the money in it. One of my compensations
lay in the fact that the chemical farming revolution made the farming
profession one of the most dangerous on earth. Chemical farmers have a
typical life expectancy at least ten years below average. And they tend to
poison their children as well. And with all that most of them hardly make a
decent living either.
So I do not think that it is just a matter of not caring about chemical
trespass. I think the poison users hate the organic man with a vengeance.
They probably know that he leads a healthier life and they think that he is
making more money at it. Human nature being what it is, they probably enjoy
inflicting a bit of chemical trespass.
Imo it would be a very good thing if the myth of high returns in organic
farming came to an end.
it would also be great if some of the cheer-leaders for the chemical lobby
got of their back sides in their institutes and started doing a bit of
practical work. It might just give them what they richly deserve.
---- Original Message -----
From: sal <email@example.com>
To: sanet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 5:29 PM
Subject: Fw: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1760
> they don't know the meaning of chemical traspass. they don't care and
> check out an organic farmers homepage
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TONY NELSON-SMITH" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 8:21 AM
> Subject: Re: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1760
> > Just to remind you that, here in Britain, the situation is
> > that beekeepers who find a GM crop which would provide pollen or nectar
> > their bees, thus contaminating their honey (which could no longer
> > labelled as "pure honey" - how come the authorities have been insisting
> > there's nothing wrong with GM foods ?) are expected to remove their
> > a site at least six miles away, with no prospect of compensation. It
> > that they are even expected to sus out where the GM crops are to be
> > planted - no-one will tell them.
> > This seems so unreasonable that my Member of Parliament and my Welsh
> > Assembly Member are both checking with their respective Agriculture
> > Departments for me. At least they'll know that someone has twigged
> > little game and is bitching about it; at best, it will turn out to be a
> > mistake in someone's reporting (but don't hold your breath !)
> > Tony N-S
> To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:13 EDT