denman, you put it very well. In the past we have had heated exchanges concerning Peter Andrews, but I am totally with you on this one. Regarding Peter Andrews, I recently met the man and had quite a discussion with him, posed a few questions he couldn't answer satisfactorily, and listened when he explained his theories in various field settings. Unfortunately the local landscape is totally different to the ones he has worked in and even he had difficulty showing how his principles could apply in such settings. This is the problem I had with his approach, in themselves, many of his theories are correct in a particular set of circumstances, it's that in the bigger picture there are so many other factors that have to be taken into account that means that his approach can't be applied or is overshadowed. The land here, and the people he was talking to are productive farmers, who do look after the land as it is the only asset and means of income they have. They have got it pretty well right, and I think the law of diminishing returns, meant that many of the ideas that Peter Andrews had, meant that a lot of effort or sacrifices would be needed to see little return. It would obviously be different in a degraded environment, but not around here. His ideas about not using fertiliser didn't go down too well. He had to admit that even his son wouldn't be abe to make money on his own farm without using chemical fertiliser.
