
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Waxman-Markey Passes Through House After Allowing &#8220;Big&#8221; Ag Amendments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sustainabletable.org/2009/06/waxman-markey-passes-house-after-allowing-big-ag-amendments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sustainabletable.org/2009/06/waxman-markey-passes-house-after-allowing-big-ag-amendments/</link>
	<description>Sustainable Table</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:02:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Bush</title>
		<link>http://www.sustainabletable.org/2009/06/waxman-markey-passes-house-after-allowing-big-ag-amendments/#comment-276578</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Bush</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sustainabletable.org/?p=3360#comment-276578</guid>
		<description>I really appreciated this article and thought it was very informative.  I have one specific problem with your statement about no-till and chemical no-till in the last paragraph.  There is almost no dispute within the scientific community that no-till methods sequester carbon. It has even been shown that no-till sequesters more carbon than it releases nitrogen, reducing climate forcing even when you account for the fact that nitous oxide is a more potent gas.  I agree that organic practices are important and valuable in mitigating climate change the benefits of simply converting conventional farms to no-till should not be underplayed as a practical option.  

A 2008 study in Agrochimica by Lagomarsino even showed that no till practices are more important than going organic when it comes to sequestration alone.  Organic practices do emit less carbon in the management practices.  Feel free to contact me if you want my sources or are interested in discussing the matter.  

-Jeffrey Bush</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really appreciated this article and thought it was very informative.  I have one specific problem with your statement about no-till and chemical no-till in the last paragraph.  There is almost no dispute within the scientific community that no-till methods sequester carbon. It has even been shown that no-till sequesters more carbon than it releases nitrogen, reducing climate forcing even when you account for the fact that nitous oxide is a more potent gas.  I agree that organic practices are important and valuable in mitigating climate change the benefits of simply converting conventional farms to no-till should not be underplayed as a practical option.  </p>
<p>A 2008 study in Agrochimica by Lagomarsino even showed that no till practices are more important than going organic when it comes to sequestration alone.  Organic practices do emit less carbon in the management practices.  Feel free to contact me if you want my sources or are interested in discussing the matter.  </p>
<p>-Jeffrey Bush</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

