OT: organic farming versus conventional agriculture

Sure. Sadly, getting organic farming to perform up to its potential isn't a no-brainer. University researchers monitoring every variable in sight and ingeniously making sure that every micro-nutrient is available, and finding ecologically sound ways of dealing with pests, can do very well.

When the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Au stralia (CSIRO) wanted to get farmers to apply fairly straightforward scien tific techniques to farming, they ran up against two problems.

The first was that the farmers mostly didn't understand what they were bein g told, and the second was that they didn't think that scientists knew anyt hing worth knowing about agriculture, so they weren't interested in learnin g about the science.

The solution was to concentrate on the occasional sophisticated farmer, and get his (or her) yields up to the point where the other farmers got enviou s, and motivated to learn about the new stuff.

Successful organic farming is a lot more complicated than regular farming. Those that take it up do so because twits like Jamie will pay more for thei r output, but persuading every farmer to do go to that kind of trouble woul d be difficult.

A lot of holes and unanswered questions in that so-called study. Rodale is big on laying down the cow manure both figuratively and literally. Cow oper ations are unsustainable and big GHG polluters, so what they're not telling you is their soil building cow manure came from neighboring farms raising the animals non-oranically. Then they put their crops on an 8-year versus a 2-year rotation to mitigate infestation by pests, this takes a lot of land out of production of the cash crops and requires cooperation of neighborin g producers, as well as luck. They also claim to avoid the use of pesticide s which again is not true. The organic farmers use organic pesticides which are deadly poisonous to humans despite their "natural" origins.

and ingeniously making sure that every micro-nutrient is available, and finding ecologically sound ways of dealing with pests, can do very well.

scientific techniques to farming, they ran up against two problems.

anything worth knowing about agriculture, so they weren't interested in learning about the science.

envious, and motivated to learn about the new stuff.

their output, but persuading every farmer to do go to that kind of trouble would be difficult.

Hi,

I agree with everything you say except it is backwards, often the scientists are the confused ones, who think that organic agriculture is inferior, and they are like doctors, except rather than selling prescriptions for drug companies, they are selling pesticides for agrochemical companies. Any scientist who tries to get a farmer to grow organic isn't going to have much of a research funding potential from the big dollar agricultural lobby, but as you say sometimes nationally funded organizations maintain some semblance of true science, even though the corporate agriculture influence is spread widely there too, as well as in the media.

I think most advances in organic farming have come from the farmers themselves, and organic is a very quickly expanding market, it is a grass roots "waking up" and reconnecting to nature.

Consumers fund the growth of organic, and initially people said it was less efficient, a waste of resources, not any healthier, etc, etc, all of that was said to try to keep organic farming from growing as a competitor to modern monoculture agriculture, as a side by side comparison makes people question why carcinogens are allowed to be put on food, and why modern agriculture destroys the soil while organic doesn't etc..

A related topic is labelling of GMO's. Monsanto etc have spent a lot of resources trying to keep GMO's from requiring labels, because they know that eventually most people won't want to eat them if they have a choice of what to buy between GMO's and non-GMO's.

What would be next on the hit list? Probably processed foods!

cheers, Jamie

Cow operations are unsustainable and big GHG polluters, so what they're not telling you is their soil building cow manure came from neighboring

farms raising the animals non-oranically. Then they put their crops on an 8-year versus a 2-year rotation to mitigate infestation by pests, this

takes a lot of land out of production of the cash crops and requires cooperation of neighboring producers, as well as luck. They also claim to

avoid the use of pesticides which again is not true. The organic farmers use organic pesticides which are deadly poisonous to humans despite their "natural" origins.

Hi,

Grazing animals can be sustainable with Holistic Management:

ie. see Allan Savory:

and regenerating grassland:

The different types of grazing animals actually often eat different types of grasses too, so it is good to 'overlap' different species of animals in the same grass areas, just one more variable to take into account in a complex system of grassland management, compared to the simple monoculture system feeding cows grain, which is unsustainable.

cheers, Jamie

't a > > no-brainer. University researchers monitoring every variable in si ght

new

and > > get his (or her) yields up to the point where the other farmers go t

ng. > > Those that take it up do so because twits like Jamie will pay more for

They don't. It just takes more hard work and expertise than regular agricul ture, and the advantages of organic farming can be had more cheaply by usin g some - carefully selected - fertisers, herbicides and pesticides.

Those that work for agrochemical companies could be tempted to act that way . They'd wreck their scientific reputations if they got caught, in the same why that doctors who don't declare their commercial interests tend to get fired.

Sure. But you write off all science on the basis that bits of it might be c orrupt, while swallowing gallons of organic nonsense peddled by equally sel f-interested nutters who don't seem to pay any attention to the scientific methid at all.

What you think is self-serving nonsense. Don't waste bandwidth telling us a bout your daft opinions. Find some facts.

Modern agriculture doesn't have to destroy the soil - incompetent modern ag riculture might, but incompetent organic farming can make just as much of m ess. You swallow unpasteurised milk.

Pretty much all the food we eat come from genetically modified organisms th at would not survive in the wild. We generally exploit natural genetic modi fications that arose by natural mutations, but any real objection has to be to specific genetic modifications, rather than genetic modifications in ge neral.

Primates go in genetic modification on a larger scale than most organisms

so your kids are almost certainly genetically modified organisms.

Who cares.

Twit ha?

Scuzzbag.

There may be some merit to that theory but you'll never find out what it is by reading that horseshit article.

sn't a > > no-brainer. University researchers monitoring every variable in sight

nd

ll.

in

rd

knew

in

r, and > > get his (or her) yields up to the point where the other farmers got

ming. > > Those that take it up do so because twits like Jamie will pay mor e for

ulture, and the advantages of organic farming can be had more cheaply by us ing some - carefully selected - fertisers, herbicides and pesticides.

ay. They'd wreck their scientific reputations if they got caught, in the sa me why that doctors who don't declare their commercial interests tend to ge t fired.

corrupt, while swallowing gallons of organic nonsense peddled by equally s elf-interested nutters who don't seem to pay any attention to the scientifi c methid at all.

about your daft opinions. Find some facts.

agriculture might, but incompetent organic farming can make just as much of mess. You swallow unpasteurised milk.

that would not survive in the wild. We generally exploit natural genetic mo difications that arose by natural mutations, but any real objection has to be to specific genetic modifications, rather than genetic modifications in general.

Last statistic I read is that organic yield runs about 30% of modern aricul tural practices, and that's just not workable on a large scale. Organic is okay for small subsistence operations and there it is all a single able bod ied man can do to farm two acres, working himself half to death. The compan ion planting techniques are unsuitable for mechanical harvesting and their technique of introducing beneficial insects to ward of the destructive ones is about as effective as hanging a feng shui trinket on a pole in the fiel d. Monoculture is just plain unnatural so expect unnatural stuff to happen. Once the wrong bug finds your field, that dammed thing will multiply into HUGE numbers so fast and eat every last scrap of edibles so fast, your head will spin. Monoculture requires industrial grade intervention to succeed.

In other words, it's too expensive.

The "organic" veggies at Safeway or Whole Foods [1] cost about 3x the price of the "conventional" ones.

I don't think it will require a law to get GMO labeling. I am finding GMO-free labeling on a number of common products now which means it is driven by a perceived level of consumer interest.

So how much longer before it becomes a mainstream advertising feature like "trans-fat free", or "reduced salt" or any of the million other alleged health claims used to market products? The only issue will be to define the term legally so it can't be misused.

"Organic" is just a price-multiplier coefficient >:-} ...Jim Thompson

That has to be a nonsense statistic. There are many, many products that are sold at prices not far from the non-organic equivalents. I don't think that would be possible if the yields were that low.

Wow. I am no greenie, but you really don't have a clue about the facts. Organic farming is growing and becoming a huge market. Obviously this is just a fad and will topple over from the sheer cost of raising organic crops according to you.

I'm sure some feel that way about it. It may not be as strong a statement as some would like, but there is a defined standard and in the US the term can't be used legally without meeting those standards. You can have any opinion about the utility of meeting that standard just as many have different feelings about other standards.

GMO-free, on the other hand, is not defined legally, much like "natural". So until it is defined in a legal context use of the label has little meaning and therefore little value. You can still have your own opinion about the usefulness of the label, but at least you will know what your opinion applies to.

As an example, my breakfast today was a cereal labeled, "Not made with GMO ingredients*". What does that mean exactly? They are trying to exclude complaints due to some minute amount of cross contamination from GMO products handled in the same factory. I expect you know the extremely small quantities that can be detected using DNA analysis.

I seem to recall reading that many manufacturers are saying away from GMO labeling *because* there is no standard. It would be embarrassing to sell a product as GMO free only to have to pull that label because a standard was passed which their product now failed to meet.

Wow. That must be the area where you live. Around here organic only raises the price by 50% if that.

One should never confuse the price of something with the cost. The cost is usually rather fixed while the price will vary a great deal based on demand.

Anybody who reads much of your output knows you are a twit.

Because you are a twit, you think it worth the effort to try and pin that l abel on me. My attitude to you is "stuck-up" but only because you are a dep ressingly inferior person. There are plenty of people who post here whom I treat with more respect - pretty much all of them except krw, and even he i sn't as stupid as you are, though so incapable of logical thought that it c omes out much the same.

You are a twot...

You don't even know which Jamie you're posting to ...

Most of your information you spew here is just as mixed up, so it shouldn't be shocking.

Jamie

a no-brainer. University researchers monitoring every variable in sight an d ingeniously making sure that every micro-nutrient is available, and findi ng ecologically sound ways of dealing with pests, can do very well.

Australia (CSIRO) wanted to get farmers to apply fairly straightforward sci entific techniques to farming, they ran up against two problems.

ing told, and the second was that they didn't think that scientists knew an ything worth knowing about agriculture, so they weren't interested in learn ing about the science.

In the US, there's a solution: agricultural agents (supplied by land-grant colleges, in a complicated deal) are available to give advice. And, if you want cro p insurance, (another complicated deal, federal money involved), you more or less have t o follow the advice of the local agent. Similarly, if you want tax exemptions granted to tree farms, you have to show that your management of the forest is in accordance with recommended practices.

Sometimes, it works. Science, however, is not proof against short-sighted policies or even fads. One possible 'fad' that has problems is the massive monocult ure of huge fields with only one crop, where recent indications are that mixed crop plantings (a row of this, a row of that) work better. Most herb gardeners knew that ages ago.

't a no-brainer. University researchers monitoring every variable in sight and ingeniously making sure that every micro-nutrient is available, and fin ding ecologically sound ways of dealing with pests, can do very well.

n Australia (CSIRO) wanted to get farmers to apply fairly straightforward s cientific techniques to farming, they ran up against two problems.

being told, and the second was that they didn't think that scientists knew anything worth knowing about agriculture, so they weren't interested in lea rning about the science.

t colleges,

rop insurance,

to follow the

d to tree

ce

ed policies

lture

d crop

s knew

All you need is an attachment for your combine, one that picks tomatoes, corn, and spinach every third row.

Cheers, James Arthur

Farmers are pretty smart people, because only smart people can farm for long. They seem to know what they're doing.