Organic farming, carefully done, can be efficient

[bemildred]

Organic agriculture generally comes at a cost of smaller harvests compared with conventional agriculture, but that gap can be narrowed with careful selection of crop type, growing conditions and management techniques, according a new study.

Organic farming has been touted by supporters as a more environmentally sustainable method of farming that's better for consumers because crops contain fewer man-made chemicals. But without the high-nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides often employed in conventional agriculture, it's also less efficient.

"The organic-versus-conventional debate is very emotional, very heated, and it's not really informed sufficiently by scientific evidence," said Verena Seufert, a geographer at McGill University in Montreal and lead author of the study published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

To take a hard look at the data, Seufert and her colleagues collected 66 published papers comparing organic and conventional yields for 34 crop species, including wheat, tomatoes and soybeans. They focused on studies that tested growing systems that were truly organic — meaning they rotated crops to allow the soil's nutrients to be replenished, used organic fertilizers and employed insects instead of chemicals to keep pests in check. Altogether, the analysis included 316 head-to-head comparisons.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-organic-farming-20120426,0,896912.story

[unblock]

1. i suspect the problem is simply that high-yield organic farming is in its infancy

at least compared to high-yield gmo/chemical-laden farming.

[yellowcanine]

3. Organic farming has been around a long time. A lot longer than GMOs.

Modern organic farming has been around since the early 1970s. GMO crops didn't become commercially available before the mid 1990s. GMO crops, for the most part, are not higher yielding than non GMO crops, the technology mostly affects the way pests are managed, particularly weeds (Roundup Ready), and in some cases insects (Bt crops).

"Chemical laden" is not really proper terminology - organic farming uses chemicals also, just different chemicals. A better term is conventional farming.

[unblock]

5. organic farming of course has been around for a long time. but not large scale high yield

that's what i meant. point is, i don't think we've reached the point where anyone can say we're at or even near the limit of what an acre can produce using organic farming techniques, whereas we may well be very close to that point for conventional farming.

and yes, "chemical-laden" was meant as a pejorative, not a technical term.

[yellowcanine]

6. And I am saying as a pejorative it is factually incorrect.

There are many misconceptions about organic farming. One being that no "chemicals" are used.

Another being that it is magically better for the soil than conventional farming.

A third being that "large scale high yield" organic farming somehow is better than other forms of large scale high yield farming. Guess what, it is those large scale high yield organic farmers who are driving the small organic farmers out of business, not the conventional farmers. And also giving organic a bad name by selling e coli contaminated spinach.

My point being that you can't just look for the "organic" label and automatically assume that the food has been produced in a way which is any more sustainable, earth friendly or even safer than conventionally produced food.

[Trillo]

7. 1970s?

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

I was in K-12 school at the time. There was absolutely zero interest in teaching organic agriculture. For that matter, any agriculture at all. I think they had us sprout a potato in a glass of water in early grade schools, once. I no longer recall the asserted purpose of the lesson.

All the shops where consumer information for city folks about agriculture could be found sold bags of synthetic chemicals. Ask about organics, and they'd mostly remain silent with a glazed look in their eyes.

The history of organics goes way back to the beginning of civilization. The power of corporations to alter compulsory school educations, and to actually begin practicing (according to you) what they didn't want taught, is mind scrambling.

If there's one thing that schools should be teaching everyone (including the dropouts, in fact the dropouts particularly), it is how to be self reliant instead of codependent on corporations.

[yellowcanine]

8. "(according to you)"???? I don't follow the reference.

As for your experience in K-12, a big so what? What might have been taught in schools at the time has little to do with what farmers might have been doing or starting to do. I don't follow the "what THEY didn't want taught" either, who is THEY?

In fact the modern revival of interest in organics began to gain steam in the 1970s, partly in response to Rachel Carson, the environmental movement, etc. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements was formed in 1972, for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_Organic_Agriculture_Movements. The decline in organic production with the rise of modern agriculture wasn't some grand conspiracy, it was simply how the industry developed based on what worked in terms of controlling pests and high yields while reducing production costs on a per acre basis.

When organic production began to gain some popularity in the 1980s and 90s it was initially mostly small producers. But then the "big boys" moved in and now a lot of organic production and distribution is controlled by very large companies (think Whole Foods and Horizon Dairy). This is not necessarily a bad thing but the presence of large companies in the organic food production business does tend to hold down prices and make it harder for small producers to compete.

[Trillo]

9. How can you not follow the reference, when you wrote what was being referenced?

All of your history is curious, but it didn't seem to be what was happening on the streets of southern California. In the 1970s-80s, the only places where organics were mentioned that I could find were some "alternative" news weeklies. "Hippie" kinds of stuff.

Regarding the schools, it's not surprising that a system that evolved as a response to corporate's need for obedient workers after the industrial era migrations to cities would not teach agriculture.

I've had discussions with people lilke yourself on the old DU, and I will predict you will write some more personal slurs regarding "individual" experiences, and no amount of evidence would ever change your mind, so continuing the discussion would be fruitless (perhaps such as an inability to understand ones own words). But I am curious. Does yellowcanine, your alias, have anything to do with good vibes regarding corporatism?

[yellowcanine]

10. "I've had discussions with people lilke yourself on the old DU" Nice.

You are correct. Continuing this discussion is fruitless so you will just have to remain curious about what my alias might mean.

[WingDinger]

2. Considering that inorganic harms soil, in time, organic will allow more land to produce crops.

We also need to have tax breaks for organic farming, and community gardens.

[yellowcanine]

4. Most university trained agronomists would disagree.

Organic methods usually require more tillage than conventional farming. Tillage burns up organic matter in soil and can disturb communities of soil invertebrates and microbes. Tillage also exposes soil to increased erosion. It is not impossible to maintain soil quality in organic systems, but it requires a higher level of management and over time yields are still likely to be significantly lower than conventional agriculture because of less effective management of pests. It is extremely unlikely that we will ever be able to produce enough food to feed the world strictly using organic methodology, at least as it is currently defined.