On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:14:16 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

Ah! I have found an interesting graph.

https://www.populationmatters.org/do...tain_feeds.pdf

Britain's Population and Food Supply, 1700-2015 graph

Which shows that we haven't fed ourselves since 1800.

More interestingly the change from organic to chemical farming happened
from shortly after the second world war up to the 1975 which fits in
with the UK government pushing changes in agriculture after all the
rationing and all those **** potatoes and tomatoes I had to endure
growing up.

Looks like an interesting document. I will read it later.


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?

You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 07/08/2018 15:26, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:14:16 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (coder)"
wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

Ah! I have found an interesting graph.

https://www.populationmatters.org/do...tain_feeds.pdf

Britain's Population and Food Supply, 1700-2015 graph

Which shows that we haven't fed ourselves since 1800.

More interestingly the change from organic to chemical farming happened
from shortly after the second world war up to the 1975 which fits in
with the UK government pushing changes in agriculture after all the
rationing and all those **** potatoes and tomatoes I had to endure
growing up.

Looks like an interesting document. I will read it later.

I've extracted this bit, out of context of course but relevant, that you
might like to consider:

"What other evidence is there? The Global Footprint Network, whose
research is widely used by the United Nations, N.G.O.s and governments,
thinks that Britains ecological footprint is three times the size of
its land area, in other words the population would need to be 21 million
in order to have an equitable footprint. The historical data above
suggests that 18 million in peacetime and 23 million in wartime is the
maximum historical population fed by traditional organic farming. To sum
up, it is unfortunately very difficult, on the basis of all the
evidence, to see how British organic farming could support anything
close to the current population."

On 07/08/2018 15:50, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?

No, it doesn't. Nor should it if you're considering whether organic
farming can make us self-sufficient in food, which I thought we were.

You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.

I didn't give that date. Nor is it actually relevant.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.

Well? Can you clarify this?

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
Scotland.


I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.

The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
bull**** is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
the agrochemical food and other related industries. Because my summation
so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
don't.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 07/08/2018 16:54, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
Scotland.

Add in whatever you like, it makes no difference, and it's not
important. I based no argument on it at all, just quoted some ONS
population figures in case you were interested.

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today. Just for interest, 24 million was the population of the UK
sometime before 1850.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.

The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
bull**** is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
the agrochemical food and other related industries.

What are you questioning?

We currently produce only enough food for 60% of the population. Are
you questioning that?

Organic yields are typically about two-thirds of those produced
conventionally. Are you questioning that?

If you're questioning either, tell us why,

If you're questioning neither, then by simple arithmetic it is
inescapable going totally organic would mean, all other things being
equal, that we could only produce enough food for 40% of the population,
or about 24 million.

Because my summation
so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
don't.

It's not fear, just fact.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:25:33 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

poo always tries to muddy the water so as to exit stage left.

On the contrary my little farm subsidy whore. I'm trying to ascertain
how much of this is lobbyist fiction.

Go back to filling your forms in. Heaven forbid you get off your fat
lazy arse and grow some real food.



"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
: wrote:
:
: On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: wrote:
:
: : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
:
: That doesn't seem to add up.
:
: According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
: 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
:
: Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
:
: Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
:
: So, why doesn't it add up?
:
: Thank you for asking.
:
: You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
: time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: results.
:
: This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: is kinda funny.
:
: In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
:
: Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
: that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
:
: Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
: 1940's.
:
: If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
:
: The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
: is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: rationale was applied.
:
: Perhaps you think different.
:
: I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
:
: The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: million people if we went totally organic.
:
: The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: 1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
:
: I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: organic farming anyway.


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 11:26:03 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

Told ya! Mud!

Fall off yer 'orse cowboy? Not too sharp with yer figures ar yer.



"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" wrote in
message ...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells
: wrote:
:
: On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
: wrote:
:
: On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: wrote:
:
: : I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself
organically if
: : the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...
:
: That doesn't seem to add up.
:
: According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until
the
: 1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.
:
: Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
: competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.
:
: Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the
1940's.
:
: So, why doesn't it add up?
:
: Thank you for asking.
:
: You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
: figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't
have
: time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
: results.
:
: This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
: is kinda funny.
:
: In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
: source thereof. So what are we comparing here.
:
: Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time.
Was
: that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
: supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.
:
: Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till
the
: 1940's.
:
: If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
: cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
: statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.
:
: The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22
million
: is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
: sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
: rationale was applied.
:
: Perhaps you think different.
:
: I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.
:
: The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
: million people if we went totally organic.
:
: You haven't offered any better calculation. What is this back of an
: envelope calculation based upon. Does the 24 million include imports?
:
: You aren't making yourself clear. Just like the 1871 figure.
:
: The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
: wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
: interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
: Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
: 1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.
:
: I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
: food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
: weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
: organic farming anyway.
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 16:54, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:36:59 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 15:14, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:23:30 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 13:21, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 07:15:51 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

: I read somewhere that Britain would be able to feed itself organically if
: the population was reduced to 1871 levels, about 22 million...

That doesn't seem to add up.

According to Wikipedia Nitrogen fertilizers weren't produced until the
1920's and it was 1931 before it became more economical.

Phosphate fertilizers were produced from 1871 onwards but faced
competition from bone meal and guano to the 1930's.

Large amounts of synthetic pesticides weren't produced until the 1940's.

So, why doesn't it add up?

Thank you for asking.

You'll have to forgive my preliminary findings and if you think my
figures are wildly wrong I'm sure you will correct them but I don't have
time to find authoritative sources right now. Anyway, these are my
results.

This idea that we can feed ourselves organically if we go back to 1871
is kinda funny.

In 1871 we were importing 40% of food because the empire was a cheap
source thereof. So what are we comparing here.

Strangely phosphate based fertilizers became available at that time. Was
that the reason for the date. Who knows. However, Nitrogen was largely
supplied by bone meal and guano up to the 1930's.

Weed killers and pesticides [synthetic] didn't seem to take off till the
1940's.

If you can make any sense out of that please enlighten me because I
cannot see a baseline to work from historically to justify this
statement as anything other than a bit of tittle tattle.

The figure in that statement that Britain had a population of 22 million
is wrong. The census shows 22.7 million but excludes Scotland. So it's
sloppy at the very least. In light of this I doubt a great deal of
rationale was applied.

Perhaps you think different.

I still have no idea why you think it doesn't add up.

The back of an envelope calculation shows we could currently support 24
million people if we went totally organic.

The precise date when it was last at that level is not important, and
wasn't something I suggested anyway. However, if you think it's
interesting then, according to the Office for National Statistics UK
Population Estimates 1851 to 2014, it was some time before 1851. By
1871 it had actually risen to 31.5 million.

You should learn to read Norman. The original quotation said Britain not
the UK which includes NI. If you are going to throw around calculations
and play Mr expert it's best to understand what they relate to otherwise
the conversation just descends into gibberish comparing apples and
oranges and alarm bells ring in my pussy head. So to reiterate the
correct figure is what I originally posted 22.7 M + as yet unknown to me
Scotland.

Add in whatever you like, it makes no difference, and it's not
important. I based no argument on it at all, just quoted some ONS
population figures in case you were interested.

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.

See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.

Just read what you have written.

Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.

The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.

These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.

Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.




Just for interest, 24 million was the population of the UK
sometime before 1850.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about the amount of
food we used to import, or the dates of introduction of fertilisers,
weed killers and pesticides, none of which, I assume, can be used in
organic farming anyway.

The point I have always been questioning is just how much of this
bull**** is genuine and how much is just a marketing hookah driven by
the agrochemical food and other related industries.

What are you questioning?

We currently produce only enough food for 60% of the population. Are
you questioning that?

Organic yields are typically about two-thirds of those produced
conventionally. Are you questioning that?

If you're questioning either, tell us why,

If you're questioning neither, then by simple arithmetic it is
inescapable going totally organic would mean, all other things being
equal, that we could only produce enough food for 40% of the population,
or about 24 million.

Because my summation
so far is that a great deal of this is project fear. Look around the
high street and ask yourself do we need anymore cheap calories. We
don't.

It's not fear, just fact.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.

See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.

Just read what you have written.

Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.

The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.

I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?

Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?

Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?

These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.

Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.

No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.

Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.

We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.

See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.

Just read what you have written.

Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.

The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.

I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?

Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.

Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.

Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?

Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.

For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious. The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.

The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
prevail.






Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?

Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?

These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.

Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.

No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.

Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.

We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:40:25 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

gong wong wayy wound wot cowpoke? Yo fat belly? I dinny speaky de linguo
de gibberish. Does welfare fill out the farm subsidy whoring forms for
yo diddums?

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.

Grown down the road by farmer Giles.

Not the sugar cane obviously.

Yum.



"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" wrote in
message ...
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:40:25 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: wrote:
:
: In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....
:
: gong wong wayy wound wot cowpoke? Yo fat belly? I dinny speaky de linguo
: de gibberish. Does welfare fill out the farm subsidy whoring forms for
: yo diddums?
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.


At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.


--

Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:28:59 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.


At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.

Too radical for me.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.

See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.

Just read what you have written.

Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.

The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.

I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?

Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.

How do you work that out?

Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.

There's no propaghanda, just facts.

Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?

We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.

Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.

Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.

For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.

Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.

The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.

It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.

The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
prevail.

I think we'll all have died of starvation before then.

Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?

Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?

These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.

Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.

No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.

Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.

We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.

On 8/7/2018 5:28 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.


At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.


Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.

On 8/7/18 7:01 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2018 5:28 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.


At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black
Pepper- I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked
it.


Works on watermelon too.Â* Try it on a bite.

To avoid wasting good watermelon, make it a small piece as you'll be
spitting it out ;-)

On 08/08/2018 00:01, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2018 5:28 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.


At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black
Pepper- I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked
it.


Works on watermelon too.Â* Try it on a bite.

Now that I can see- possibly as I know ginger also works with
melon-water and honey dew.



--

Remarkable Coincidences:
The Stock Market Crashes of 1929 and 2008 happened on the same
date in October. In Oct 1907, a run on the Knickerbocker Trust
Company led to the Great Depression.

On 8/7/2018 7:10 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:

At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black
Pepper- I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and
liked it.


Works on watermelon too.Â* Try it on a bite.

To avoid wasting good watermelon, make it a small piece as you'll be
spitting it out ;-)

You'll be very surprised. It really allows you to get the flavor of
good pepper too.

Next time you put peanut butter on a cracker, instead of jelly try s bit
of ketchup. Some odd sounding combos really work.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 19:01:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/7/2018 5:28 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.


At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.


Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.

Salt works well with watermelon.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:39:20 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 18:20, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

The *fact* remains that totally organic farming in the UK can only feed
about 24 million people, which is nowhere near the 60+ million we have
today.

See how sloppy your argument is and why I keep questioning it.

Just read what you have written.

Chemical farming in the UK doesn't feed 60+ million it only feeds 60% of
that, the rest is imports. Your comparisons are deliberately misleading
and why I keep questioning what they are based upon. Your *facts* Mr
expert are clearly not subject to even cursory scrutiny.

The ratio of imports to locally produced doesn't seem to have changed
since 1871.

I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?

Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.

How do you work that out?

You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.

You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.

You can dispute the figures but common sense tells you than meat and
dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed and we are only
talking a 50% increase here.


Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.

There's no propaghanda, just facts.

The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care about
children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled with
sugar, salt and fat.

They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.


Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?

We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.

Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops. We
chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons, and we use arable
land to grow foodstuffs for animals and bio fuel. Worse IMO we grow way
too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.


Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.

Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.

For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.

Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.

Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and then
do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
field.


The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.

It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.

We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
end well.

We need to eat better and curb population growth. Not load the NHS with
the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.


The costs of the present insanity of cheap calories, lots of meat and
dairy are obvious. We are fatter than the fatted calf. Jabber the Hutt
is jealous. It's nuts. Interestingly even the Yanks are eating less
meat. Perhaps it was the grass fed beef lie. Worse is the carbohydrate
overloading. Mentallismo. My dream is that one day common sense will
prevail.

I think we'll all have died of starvation before then.

Are you in fact now agreeing with me that totally organic production can
only feed about two-thirds of that number, or 40% of the population, ie
about 24 million? And that the consequence of that is we'd have to
import extra food to feed the further 12 million that organic farming
will not be able to?

Are you now agreeing with me that reducing our food-growing capacity
from where we are, when we are far from being self-sufficient, is in
fact a retrograde and rather foolish step?

These figures may show a disparity but frankly they are being ramped to
the point of hysteria.

Any idiot can see what really lies behind all this nonsense. Why can't
you.

No hysteria, not even matters of opinion. Just facts.

Facts the organic lobby may not like, but has to face.

We don't have infinite land. In fact we don't have any extra available
land. We have to make what we have got as productive as possible. And
that, I'm afraid, cannot be achieved by going organic.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 08/08/2018 09:43, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:39:20 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 07/08/2018 20:25, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:51:19 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

I've always been totally open and honest about how many current
production can feed. It's 60% or about 36 million. It was *your*
contention that the UK could be self-sufficient in food if it went
totally organic. Are you now agreeing with me that it cannot possibly?

Nope. That would be incorrect. We can obviously feed 36 million. Just
going vegan would solve that.

How do you work that out?

You can feed 5 vegans on the same land required to feed one meat eater.

Really? Where's your proof?

You can feed 2.5 vegetarians on the same land required to feed one meat
eater.

Really? Where's your proof?

And why were you arguing earlier that 'going organic' could feed the
nation, whereas now you're arguing it's not that at all but 'going
vegan'? They are rather different, and it's a hell of a swerve.

You can dispute the figures

Give us their source first. Where do they come from, and how are they
derived?

but common sense tells you than meat and
dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed

They're not inefficient if they make use of land that is of poor quality
and best suited to grass rather than crops. As the vast majority of
grazing land is.

Farmers are not stupid. Where they can grow arable crops, they will.
It makes no sense not to. But we do have a fair amount of poor,
unproductive land that is really best suited for grazing. You can't
grow crops up a mountainside, in a bog or on a moor.

and we are only talking a 50% increase here.

In what?

Not that I'm suggesting that or even going totally organic. I was just
pointing out what's possible in the face of this onslaught of nonsense
propaganda.

There's no propaghanda, just facts.

The food industry is interested in profits not facts. Do they care about
children's teeth and people's health or do they supply food filled with
sugar, salt and fat.

They are interested in selling what their customers want to buy. They're
not the moral guardians of the country. Nor do they think that everyone
wants to live off broccoli and leaves.

They are being dragged kicking and screaming to reduce levels from
insane levels post war. If you look objectively at what post war food
security has delivered health wise we have gone from rationing to
gluttony. Cheap calories come at a cost.

Cheap calories. It's a dream come true. Our ancestors would have given
their eye-teeth for such luxury and freedom from worry.

Remember this all started with Bouffy claiming we are somehow unmanly
for not scratching enough dirt to feed ourselves like all the best
people who have left the island. Yet this situation has barely changed
in 200+ years. You jumped in with a load of scare mongering and it turns
out we are no worse off than we were 200 years ago. So what's with all
this project fear mumbo jumbo bro?

We are much worse off actually. In less than 150 years, the UK
population has more than doubled. But the amount of land we have hasn't
increased at all. It makes life a little difficult if you insist on
using the same methods as we did then.

Life isn't difficult and we aren't worse off. Look in the shops.

Indeed. But that's because we produce our food in the way we do. If
you had your way, you'd have us return to a world where we don't have
surplus but shortage.

We chuck tons of food away often for cosmetic reasons,

Where is your proof? And what do you count as being 'wasted'? How do
you define that term?

and we use arable land to grow foodstuffs for animals

Not directly. Sometimes crops don't turn out as well as you hope,
usually because of the weather. And it's those that go to animal feed.
It's a sensible use of them.

and bio fuel.

Very little actually.

Worse IMO we grow way
too many cereals to produce cheap calories, refined carbohydrates, and
the evidence now is it's these not fats that are making us fat.

We *need* calories. Each of us needs 2,500 of the things a day. You'd
have us struggle to get them, when we know how to obtain them far more
easily. And that's bizarre.

Anyway, let's continue, I'd like to know why we can only feed 24 million
organically. We actually fed 23 million during the war years so quite
why we can only manage another 1 million now is beyond me.

Maybe we can. But it's still only about 24 million. It's very simple.
We can only produce enough food currently to feed 36 million using all
the tools at our disposal. Take those 'non-organic' tools away, like
chemicals and artificial fertilisers, and we can only produce about
two-thirds of what we do at the moment, from the same amount of land.
Two-thirds of the 36 million we can currently feed is 24 million. It
follows as night follows day.

For instance, the graph I posted earlier shows the impact of
mechanisation back to 1750. The impact was enormous but the tech
probably wasn't. The tractors that zoom through our village nowadays are
like juggernauts. Compare those to the one's in 1939. Hydroponics,
didn't exist, and you're expecting me to believe we can only manage
another million. Sorry, I don't buy it. We can obviously do it. Mankind
is ingenious.

Maybe he is, but organic farmers still only produce about two-thirds as
much from the same amount of land. They're hobbled, you see, by the
very silly rules they impose on themselves.

Take some time to feel and smell what well manured land is like and then
do the same on a year in year out heavily cropped chemically fed wheat
field.

Yes, it doesn't smell of manure. But then it doesn't have to. I
shouldn't think your favoured hydroponics smell of anything at all.

So, cut the old 'smell the soil, you'll see how good it is' nonsense,
please. You can't tell, and it's no indicator.

The farmers, food producers and agrochemical boys should
come up with a more credible storyline before they get called out by the
village idiot and 'is mate down the allotment.

It's just facts that perhaps you don't want to face. You certainly
can't disprove them.

We should face the facts. We are heading down the wrong road. It can't
end well.

That's not a fact. It's just your opinion. And it's a rather silly one
at that.

We need to eat better and curb population growth.

OK. So, how do you propose curbing population growth?

Restricting their food supply by deliberately cutting food production
seems to be your only approach so far.

Not load the NHS with
the cost of food related problems and create a society caught on a
spiraling out of control food production / consumption / population
growth self perpetuating route to armageddon.

Food production is hardly 'spiralling out of control' when we can only
produce enough here to feed 60% of the population.

To get the population down to the number we can sustain using all the
tools we currently have at our disposal, we'd need to cull 24 million
people. To get it down to what totally organic production can support,
we'd need to cull 36 million.

It's quite a big ask. How would you do it? And how would you decide
who should be culled?

On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 21:53:37 -0700, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 19:01:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/7/2018 5:28 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 07/08/2018 21:10, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:03:43 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

200 years and no progress, yep that is something to brag about.


In a mere 250 years the yanks have gone way around the UK....

Organic strawberries with a light sprinkle of organic raw cane sugar.


At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black Pepper-
I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and liked it.


Works on watermelon too. Try it on a bite.

Salt works well with watermelon.

and pineapple

--
www.abelard.org

On 08/08/2018 02:43 AM, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
You can dispute the figures but common sense tells you than meat and
dairy production is inefficient especially non grass fed and we are only
talking a 50% increase here.


I grew up in dairy country with the traditional small farms. The land
was only suitable for grazing or hay production. otoh factory farming of
meat is depressing from start to finish.

On 8/7/18 8:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/7/2018 7:10 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:

At lunch the other day, someone recommended freshly ground Black
Pepper- I kid you not. I didn't try it myself but others did and
liked it.


Works on watermelon too.Â* Try it on a bite.

To avoid wasting good watermelon, make it a small piece as you'll be
spitting it out ;-)

You'll be very surprised.Â* It really allows you to get the flavor of
good pepper too.

Next time you put peanut butter on a cracker, instead of jelly try s bit
of ketchup.Â* Some odd sounding combos really work.

My ex-brother-in-law often ate peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwiches.
Don't miss him, don't miss his sister...

--
The taxpayers are sending congressmen on expensive trips overseas. It
might be worth it, except they keep coming back.
- Will Rogers

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

Indeed.



"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
:
: My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
an
: experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
cramps
: which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: fainting.
:
: I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: almost immediately, thank heavens.
:
: Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
:
: ==
:
: That sounds horrific( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my
: husband who loves it.
:
: It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
but
: if anything it became worse.
:
: Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
:
: Of course it does.
:
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.

Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bull****. Google it.

Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 08/08/2018 21:52, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
:
: My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
: an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: fainting.
:
: I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: almost immediately, thank heavens.
:
: Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
:
: ==
:
: That sounds horrific( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my husband who loves it.
:
: It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
: but if anything it became worse.
:
: Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
:
: Of course it does.
:
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.

Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bull****. Google it.

Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.

"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
and eggs for many reasons.

"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
oxygen-bearing red blood cells.

"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."

https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemi...getarians.aspx

"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
naturally only in animal products."

https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/g...and-vegan-diet

So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
suppliers.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop pills.

No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
subsidy whores.

Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.

There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.

**** me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.


"p-0''0-h the cat (coder)" wrote in
message ...
: On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
: wrote:
:
: Indeed.
:
:
:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
: : On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: : On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
: :
: : My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet
as
: an
: : experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: cramps
: : which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: : fainting.
: :
: : I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to
normal
: : almost immediately, thank heavens.
: :
: : Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
: :
: : ==
: :
: : That sounds horrific( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
: for my
: : husband who loves it.
: :
: : It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have
no
: : problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of
days,
: but
: : if anything it became worse.
: :
: : Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green
leafy
: : vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
: :
: : Of course it does.
: :
: : Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: : need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.
:
: Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
: and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
: it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
: yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
: easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
: ages. The Popeye stuff is bull****. Google it.
:
: Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
: surprise me.
:
:
: Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
:
: --
: p-0.0-h the cat
:
: Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
: Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey
Boy,
: Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
: the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll
infme,
: the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife
troll,
: shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
: smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
: liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up
chav,
: punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal
lesbian,
: the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.
:
: NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist
:
: Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
: By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.
:
: Signature integrity check
: md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
:
: I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
:


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:19:13 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 08/08/2018 21:52, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
:
: My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
: an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: fainting.
:
: I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: almost immediately, thank heavens.
:
: Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
:
: ==
:
: That sounds horrific( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my husband who loves it.
:
: It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
: but if anything it became worse.
:
: Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
:
: Of course it does.
:
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.

Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bull****. Google it.

Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.

"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
and eggs for many reasons.

"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
oxygen-bearing red blood cells.

"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."

https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemi...getarians.aspx

"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
naturally only in animal products."

https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/g...and-vegan-diet

So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
suppliers.

You don't seem to be much of a scientist Norman. So what is your
background? I'm guessing it's not scientific at all.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 4:19:17 PM UTC-5, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/08/2018 21:52, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
:
: My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
: an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: fainting.
:
: I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: almost immediately, thank heavens.
:
: Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
:
: ==
:
: That sounds horrific( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my husband who loves it.
:
: It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
: but if anything it became worse.
:
: Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
:
: Of course it does.
:
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.

Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bull****. Google it.

Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.

"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
and eggs for many reasons.

"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
oxygen-bearing red blood cells.

"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."

https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemi...getarians.aspx

"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
naturally only in animal products."

https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/g...and-vegan-diet

So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
suppliers.

Anemia put me in the hospital. It wasn't my diet, it was bleeding ulcers. So I imagine the same thing could happen to someone who lacked sufficient iron in their diet. Severe anemia is no joke because it can kill you. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Bleeding Monster

On 08/08/2018 22:35, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12
deficiency."

The B12 one always amuses me, because meat-eaters generally assume that a
deficiency is due to stopping eating meat, and then extrapolate to 'blame'
a vegetarian or vegan diet.

But it's absolutely right.

Only animals synthesise vitamin B12.

"The only organisms to produce vitamin B12 are certain bacteria, and
archaea. Some of these bacteria are found in the soil around the grasses
that ruminants eat; they are taken into the animal, proliferate, form
part of their gut flora, and continue to produce vitamin B12.

There are no naturally-occurring notable vegetable dietary sources of
the vitamin"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12

Unfortunately for that theory, it is a fact that in the 'first world',
cobalt deficiencies in the soil due to overfarming (as well as other metals
such as copper, chromium, zinc etc..) mean that most livestock in fact is
already B12-deficient. Cobalt is necessary for livestock to produce B12.
Most livestock destined for slaughter get their B12 from injections
provided by the farmer.

So too should vegans.

On 08/08/2018 22:47, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 22:19:13 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 08/08/2018 21:52, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 16:10:57 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: On 08/08/2018 19:39, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
: On 8 Aug 2018, Ophelia wrote
:
: My eldest daughter is vegetarian and I have tried her general diet as
: an experiment; but shat myself silly for about 5 days including stomach
: cramps which were so severe I had to lie on the bathroom floor for fear of
: fainting.
:
: I went back to eating meat, and my digestive system went back to normal
: almost immediately, thank heavens.
:
: Therefore, I doubt that I will be giving a vegan diet a try.
:
: ==
:
: That sounds horrific( I eat very little meat, but I do cook plenty
for my husband who loves it.
:
: It is quite strange really, because if I eat veg with the meat I have no
: problems. I thought my constitution would adjust after a couple of days,
: but if anything it became worse.
:
: Daughter suffers a lot from anaemia despite eating lots of green leafy
: vegetables, so I gather meat must have a lot of iron in it.
:
: Of course it does.
:
: Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those supplements they
: need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.

Anaemia can be caused by eating too much spinach or kale. Would you Adam
and Eve it. There was a scientific study but I can't be arsed to find
it. It's a common problem. I would have thought a scientist such as
yourself would have known that. Vegetarians are better off taking it
easy on the leafy stuff and taking supplements. This has been known for
ages. The Popeye stuff is bull****. Google it.

Amazingly the NHS doesn't seem to know this either. Which doesn't
surprise me.

"People give up eating meat and animal products such as milk, cheese,
and eggs for many reasons.

"But doing so may increase the risk of iron deficiency anemia, a
potentially serious condition in which the body does not make enough
oxygen-bearing red blood cells.

"For vegetarians who eliminate meat, anemia can be due to an iron
deficiency. For vegans, who give up all animal products including dairy,
eggs, and even honey, anemia can also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency."

https://www.everydayhealth.com/anemi...getarians.aspx

"A meatless diet can be healthy, but vegetarians -- especially vegans --
need to make sure they're getting enough vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and
zinc. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics warns of the risk of
vitamin B12 deficiencies in vegetarians and vegans. Vitamin B12 is found
naturally only in animal products."

https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/g...and-vegan-diet

So, best get down sharpish to Holland and Barrett, your local chemical
suppliers.

You don't seem to be much of a scientist Norman.

On what basis do you say that? I've just cut and pasted from two
reputable sources. Why do you feel you have to resort to ad hom remarks
rather than address the points raised?

So what is your
background? I'm guessing it's not scientific at all.

What a very silly question. I could tell you anything I like and you'd
be none the wiser. You'd still believe whatever your prejudices tell you.

Now, getting back to the point, what have you got to say about
vegetarian/vegan diets and anaemia?

Vegetarian diets have a lot to answer for. All those chemical
supplements they need are what keep Holland and Barrett rolling in it.

On 08/08/2018 22:32, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop pills.

No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
subsidy whores.

Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.

Don't be daft. Spinach is the spawn of the devil. No proper meat=eater
would touch it with a barge-pole, let alone eat too much of the stuff.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.

There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.

If you had an adequate diet in the first place, you wouldn't ever need
the things at all.

**** me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.

How can one fail to be charmed by lovely vegetarians?

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:22:26 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:

On 08/08/2018 22:32, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:09:37 -0400, "BurfordTJustice"
wrote:

So you can't find it and certainly not organic if you have to pop pills.

No, I could find it but I've got better stuff to do than wet nurse farm
subsidy whores.

Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.

Don't be daft. Spinach is the spawn of the devil. No proper meat=eater
would touch it with a barge-pole, let alone eat too much of the stuff.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.

There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.

If you had an adequate diet in the first place, you wouldn't ever need
the things at all.

It appears that cows not finished on grass need supplements. If you were
a scientist you would have picked up on Yitzhak's claims in Message-ID:
and investigated them.

I had a quick look and while I'm not convinced that Yitzhak is correct
claiming cows are injected with B12. I couldn't find evidence of that It
appears they are supplemented with cobalt and a whole lot more when
fattened on feed.

Perhaps you would like to conduct an investigation into this Norman as
our resident scientist. I'm a bit busy. Don't forget to look into what's
in the feed. Wasn't BSE caused by some rather odd ingredients. Anyway,
with your training you can do a through investigation I'm sure.

This is a real eye opener from Yitzhak and a huge number of questions
not just about cattle are flooding into pussy brain about the diet farm
animals are now getting and how that pans out further up the food chain.
I must stop as I have work to do but Wow! this could be just the tip of
the iceberg and might fill in some of the gaps where stuff doesn't add
up in all the blurb we get fed. Ciao.


**** me, yes you can. Just Google it you lazy c**t.

How can one fail to be charmed by lovely vegetarians?


Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
punk ass dole whore troll, religious maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 09/08/2018 10:26, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:22:26 +0100, Norman Wells
wrote:
On 08/08/2018 22:32, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

Secondly, this isn't just a problem with vegetarian diets. Even meat
eaters who eat too much spinach can experience this.

Don't be daft. Spinach is the spawn of the devil. No proper meat=eater
would touch it with a barge-pole, let alone eat too much of the stuff.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you can buy vegetarian iron supplements.

There may even be organic vegetarian iron supplements.

If you had an adequate diet in the first place, you wouldn't ever need
the things at all.

It appears that cows not finished on grass need supplements.

Pretty much like any vegetarian then.

It's what keeps Holland and Barrett going.