[font=courier]Yes, you are what you eat, what you eat is what the plants eat. Hence the plant nutrition is reflected on human health or vice versa, human health indicates state of plant nutrition.[/font]
[font=courier]Abiding by nature is only possible, replicating nature by artificial means is impossible; since I don't want to disappoint you I'd say, all the best, try your best![/font]
[font=courier]Ever wondered why we needed to take vitamin supplements in the first place? It is only because they are lacking in our regular chemical grown food. This is the Nir-Guna ( lack of Guna) I was referring to.[/font]
[font=courier]Regarding the water examples -I referring to Murali’s opinion that irrespective of where the elements come from (from nature or artificial) once they confirm to a chemical formula they are all the same.
What I was implying was that despite the same formula they do different characteristics and varied potential. Once, was associated with a team studying the effect of microbes on plant growth. Naturally, while studying microbes we were also looking at the different mediums that microbes performed well in. We had experimented with water. Any water that was vortex –energised, when was used as base for microbial culture, exhibited superior qualities compared to water from the same source that was not energized. The microbial multiplication was higher, they lasted longer too. This was not just for one microbe but almost all the growth promoting ones. Samples of the water were collected before and after the vortex charging . They did not show any change in chemical composition. These were the anyasis results on no fewer than 30 trials done in one of best lab-research facility in South India. Are you saying that these readings and analysis are false?[/font]
[font=courier]Rain water in its natural state is good, an please don’t forget the ‘acid’ part in acid rain is the contribution from artificial interferences of man.[/font]
[font=courier]If you rate merit/effectiveness based only norms, then applying the same
yardstick how would you rate hydroponics that’s also not the norm?[/font]
[font=courier]Do you dispute this 50% stronger concrete also?
It is not something I assumed, or projected to be achieved. It is the result of tests conducted by Lafarge Concrete Company, Canada, while trying to
make the strongest possible concrete for sealing highly toxic waste.[/font]
[font=courier]Please explain why[/font]
[font=courier]Your lines are contradictory. On one end you say ‘Soil grown crops giving the highest
quality is false’. Then you claim soil grown crops have set the standards for comparison.[/font]
[font=courier]I am amused at how you have arrived at the above numbers[/font]
[font=courier]In your estimation, if a nation turns to Organic or natural farming, what percentage of the population will die of starvation, 50% or 25%?[/font]
You mention labour as one the scarce, difficult to get factor of agricultural production.
There is another factor involved that is even scarcer and dearer, it is energy.
Till this point, productivity in quantity was the sole criteria based on which efficiency of agriculture was measured. This was because energy costs weren’t high or were subsidized. Now with the energy costs having gone up and energy availability having gone down ,the energy equation assumes greater importance.
This is simply the no: units of energy spent (invested) and the no: units of energy got in return (returned).
The energy equations as deduced by the industry is as follows
Natural farming – For 1 calorie of energy invested you get back 2 calories.
Chemical Farming – For 2 calories of energy spent you get back 1 calorie of energy.
For Hydroponics the energy spent must be considerably higher than the energy returned.
With the earth depleting in fossil fuels and running short of energy ideas, how long can we afford to waste energy? With the planet staring at the peak-oil crisis, and still not having alternate-energy sources to depend on, it sounds anything but resourceful and efficient.