In article . com>,
"Neil" > wrote:

> The point about fertilizer run-off is completely immaterial; manure
> run-off is as harmful to water quality and wildlife as synthetic
> fertilizer run-off is; the question is, which can be applied most
> efficiently, with less waste.

Huh? Phosphorus bloom is such a problem around here that you can no
longer buy a fertilizer with phosphorus. How much phosphorus is in
your typical sample of manure? Not to mention that animals were
creating manure runoff for centuries before man showed up, plow in
hand. And your "question" about what can be applied efficiently with
less waste is a red herring itself. Lesser amounts of something that
is more poisonous/worse for the environment (or for people) may be
more efficient than larger amounts of something more benign, but it
certainly isn't a good thing.

> And if you think farm workers are being
> poisoned by pesticide residues, you have remedies under MSPA and OSHA
> and our country's famously punative tort system to prove it under.

You're still ignoring the effects of pesticides on other living
creatures. Just because humans have some legal recourse doesn't make
it OK to keep doing it.

> You
> don't mention the environmental expense which the creators of organic
> fertilizers incur; it takes pasture and fodder to raise a cow.

The cow is fertilizing the pasture as it eats. A cow also has a
limit to how much it can eat (and, FTM, excrete) in a given period.
Synthetic fertilizers have no such restrictions.

sd