12-02-2007, 11:16 PM
|
#18 (permalink)
|
Banned
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
No, not at all.
He links a story that doesn't support what he is saying. Its a common theme with him. <h3> What is says is that another supplement BESIDES the usual corn/soy flower mix works just as well.</h3>
Maybe he just doesn't understand the science, I obviously don't do this for every post, I do have a life, this one just happened to be mercifully short on links.
At any rate, no one promotes only one type of food/crop in agriculture, as that will lead to some issues. Rice, corn, wheat, whatever, isn't enough by it [self. It also has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Sure it would be nice to have local crops with survive the best, provide all the nutrients you could ever want, and they could sell for some cash. Then again we have an extremely high yield type of corp, designed by directly and indirectly for 1000's of years, which can be stored almost indefinitely if properly treated in corn.
Places like Africa which have been prematurely introduced to western medicine need western levels of production to avoid starvation, and it can and has been done in places. Africa's enemy is its corrupt politics more than drought.
Edit:Oh and the main issue with the OP isn't that giving away fertilizer at a lower than market price can increase crop yield. Its that its not currently a sustainable system. It makes the system reliant on outside cash. So either they start 'taxing' by taking some surplus corn to pay for the system, or they rely on someone else paying for it. Otherwise what happens if that coupon, which they apparently don't have enough of, is taken away? The logical thing is you still want to develop the local fertilizer market, the problem is of course a system like this will normally destroy it.
Edit:Edit: I have been poking around that site about the maze in their related links. Ironically several are promoting the use of locally grown corn to fight malnutrition, and what type of corn works best. Interesting stuff.
|
You didn't read the excerpt, or you didn't grasp that the alternative treatment for malnutrition was more beneficial to the children who consumed it than the maize/soy supplement was:
Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...indexed=google
.......METHODS: Sixty-one underweight, stunted children 42 to 60 months of age were recruited in rural Malawi, in southeastern Africa. They received either RTUF or maize and soy flour for 12 weeks. Both supplements provided 2 MJ (500Kcal) of energy daily but had different energy and nutrient densities. Outcome variables were weight and height gain and dietary intake. RESULTS: Before intervention, the mean dietary intake and weight and height gain were similar in the two groups. During the supplementation phase, the consumption of staple food fell among children receiving maize and soy flour <h3>but not among those receiving RTUF. There was thus higher intake of energy, fat, iron, and zinc in the RTUF group. Both supplements resulted in modest weight gain, but the effect lasted longer after RTUF supplementation.</h3> Height gain was not affected in either group. Periodic 24-hour dietary recalls suggested that the children received only 30% and 43%, respectively, of the supplementary RTUF and maize and soy flour provided..........
|
Last edited by host; 12-02-2007 at 11:18 PM..
|
|
|