I try to use as few "cides" as possible. All I have used this year is slug pellets in covered areas and copper on potatoes and tomatoes. Two things annoy me, telling me where I can get my NPK from and claiming that green manuring can put something back that isn't there in the first place.
Has anybody got a link to the recently published Newcastle University paper that has found organic food (patchily) more nutritious? I'd like to read that one properly rather than as a news story, it might convert me!
School Meals
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
-
alan refail
- KG Regular
- Posts: 7252
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
- Been thanked: 5 times
Geoff
It is presumably by Carlo Leifert of Newcstle University.
I haven't yet found a direct link, but his work is funded by QILF
Link to their last congress is rather long! It may contain some useful leads.
Alan
It is presumably by Carlo Leifert of Newcstle University.
I haven't yet found a direct link, but his work is funded by QILF
Link to their last congress is rather long! It may contain some useful leads.
Alan
-
Geoff
- KG Regular
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:33 pm
- Location: Forest of Bowland
- Been thanked: 148 times
Thanks Alan - I should have read the beeb more carefully as it says it has not yet gone through peer review for publication. Now I see more detail about who has done it the old scepticism is back.
Hi Alan and Geoff,
According to the Daily Mail it has been through the peer review but anybody who believes the Daily Mail really needs psychiatric treatment.
I just wonder what the Royal Society will have to say if it gets as far as them. The Royal Society are really good with their reviews and are very strict but scrupulously fair.
We have been through all of this before and it has always turned out to be a load of old pony. I have no doubt that there are differences but 80% better of this and 60% better of that I very much doubt.
Some time back they did happen to find that Organic milk contained more Omega 3. This was praised as the breakthrough between Organic and Conventional food but the one thing those who were cock-a-hoop about it omitted to explain, was that when the milk was processed, which most milk is, the Omega 3 was withdrawn with the fats so the milk is really no better after all.
JB.
According to the Daily Mail it has been through the peer review but anybody who believes the Daily Mail really needs psychiatric treatment.
I just wonder what the Royal Society will have to say if it gets as far as them. The Royal Society are really good with their reviews and are very strict but scrupulously fair.
We have been through all of this before and it has always turned out to be a load of old pony. I have no doubt that there are differences but 80% better of this and 60% better of that I very much doubt.
Some time back they did happen to find that Organic milk contained more Omega 3. This was praised as the breakthrough between Organic and Conventional food but the one thing those who were cock-a-hoop about it omitted to explain, was that when the milk was processed, which most milk is, the Omega 3 was withdrawn with the fats so the milk is really no better after all.
JB.