Susan Monroe wrote:
The health of America declined with the advent of chemical farming.
you do have to return what you take away, or the soil WILL become depleted.
I, for one, sincerely doubt that growing your carrots next to your oak trees
"Magic Permaculture Polycultures" will solve everything.
passing nutrients or other magical substances
I do happen to understand that there can be many advantages to growing in rows for a small scale operation and I am certainly not going to abandon this strategy. I initially hoped to learn from you what your ideas about Polyculture were. I have also shared some very specific information about growing crops in rows for purposes of efficiency, etc. in other threads on this forum.
I like the "laboratory" of discovery that a garden can be...
paul wheaton wrote:
If this is crazy talk, I would sure like somebody to help me understand why.
I have come across both anecdotal information and a couple scientific studies here and there that aromatic plants will increase the volatile chemicals of other aromatic plants they grow near--as long as they aren't antagonistic. But does that make them more helpful to us apes? Depends on that they are.
The big problem with this idea is that most plants we eat have been developed specifically to grow in full sun, to grow in cultivated/disturbed land, and to grow in groups. We are working against what we have bred into these plants by planting them otherwise. I should add that this year my experiment is to do precisely that--to grow plants developed for sun in shade and in competition with tree roots and see what happens.
The big problem with this idea is that most plants we eat have been developed specifically to grow in full sun, to grow in cultivated/disturbed land, and to grow in groups.
If I knew of a cheap diet that would cure cancer, I would publish it in every scientific journal out there.
And if it costs the pharma industry billions of dollars in lost revenue because they can't sell their cancer drugs, 99% of physicians and scientists wouldn't care. There would be a huge incentive for a physician or scientist to publish a cheap and easy cure for cancer because the primary motivator for these people is 1. FAME and 2. PERSONAL SATISFACTION knowing that you made a difference. Can you imagine the amount of fame a physician or scientist who found such a cure would have? It would be unreal. He or she would be giving talks all over the world and would be on every single news and talk show you could imagine.
So rest assured, there is no evil conspiracy to keep a known cancer cure out of your hands.
Emerson White wrote:
There are lots of people who claim to have cancer cures, they all have one thing in common, they refuse to follow their patients to see how many die. The guy selling cottage cheese and flax oil, or the people selling Essiac tea, or the people who want you to breathe air. People have a huge incentive to say that they are curing cancer (even a psychological incentive).
because lets say that there was a discovery at a company and they told their scientist, if you don't suppress this, you are fired. if he published it, he would may so much more money from his speaking fees than that company could ever pay him.
Eating cancer-fighting foods
We cannot change unless we survive, but we will not survive unless we change. Evolving tiny ad:
Switching from electric heat to a rocket mass heater reduces your carbon footprint as much as parking 7 carshttp://woodheat.net