Organic farming.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I have a question. I have been doing some research into agriculture methods, and I have come across organic farming. It seems to be growing in popularity, but I really don't understand why.

Do any of you know why it's growing in popularity?

In some of the research I have done, I have seen studies that claim that organic farming, in the long term, has greater sustainability and leads to better soil protection, but other studies said just the opposite. The studies also indicated that organic farms, although they require more land, also have use less fossil-fuels and tend to have greater ecological diversity on the actual farm land.

I just find this confusing. I learned that organic farming seemingly disavows the use of genetic engineering, and I don't see why. It seems that it could be beneficial in limiting environmental impact.




One example of a con they gave was cow production. Since organic methods produce about 10% less milk, they indicated more cows were needed to meet the same demand, which required slightly more land and cows. Wouldn't this increase methane production from increased cows? But at the same time, I don't know if that's canceled out by the supposed long-term sustainability, ecological diversity, etc.

I need to go onto my web account and get the studies, but I will try to post them tomorrow.

I mention this here because I was reading the cat thread and Alyrium mentioned organic farming, so he might have good information on it. One report I get says one thing, the other something else, and both are from trusted resources, so I don't know.

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

most of the time, when you start attaching 'organic' to things, it really means 'as god made it' or at least 'natural/the way native Americans would have done it if they weren't so busy doing things our particualr hippy movement pretends they didn't actually do'


Organic farming as in 'no chemicals but no problem with genetic engineering etc.' then yea, it's pretty cool, just watch out for the hippies

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Indeed. From what I have seen, one controversy is that organic farmers sometimes don't know what organic farming is and some of the regulations are either weakly enforced or vague.

Right now, I am perusing the USDA website, and they seem to give a lot of good information on it, in addition to the Iowa Uni. website. They seem to indicate a lot of positives, though. It's listed as a form of sustainable agriculture.

Apparently, there is a list of approved synthetic fertilizers, but much organic farming shies away from it. The rationale the USDA provides is that it limits fertilizer pollution and energy requirements. I need to look into that more. Although, using non-synthetic fertilizers I would assume could also create problems if organic farmers are nonchalant about their application, which is something also mentioned. Some farmers/consumers seem to think that if you slap the organic label on it, they can skim by and everything will be okay.

The one study on my account does a 22 year study comparing two similar parcels of land growing the same food, and the organic farm had inferior yearly production, but greater long-term production due to being farmed sustainably.


I was disappointed, though, when many of the organic organizations condemn GE.

[Spin Echo]

I have a question. I have been doing some research into agriculture methods, and I have come across organic farming. It seems to be growing in popularity, but I really don't understand why.

Do any of you know why it's growing in popularity?

I think the main reason it is growing in popularity is because people think that because it's natural, it must be better. People assume that food that is organic or free range must be healthier and safer.

However, there appears to be a derth of studies to either support or refute this belief.

[Darth Raptor]

Yeah, this is one of those rare issues that's actually an honest-to-god controversy. I don't think the guiding belief is that "natural = good" but rather "pesticides and fertilizers = bad". Either way, there's not much of a consensus among scientists and those of us without an agenda are just drowned in the deluge of conflicting information. Question. Mark.

[Turin]

Haven't we, in this very forum, discussed the problem with the destruction of topsoil by industrialized farming? One of the reasons why organic farming is more sustainable is because you're not relying on the addition of specific chemicals to the soil. When you add nitrogen, phosphorus, etc, to the soil, you're not adding any of the dozens of other micronutrients that plants rely on. Phosphorus used in fertilizers kills the fungus filaments that aerate the soil below many plants (I'm looking for an internet source for this). Soil isn't just what holds the plant in the ground, it's a microscopic environment and plants have evolved to use that environment to fullest advantage.

The pesticides and herbicides used create an evolutionary arm's race with "pest species." While the use of pesticides increases yields over the short term, when you take the long view this is disastrous. This is the same thing we see in medicine with the use of antibiotics vs bacteria. A more sustainable approach should be specific to its local environment and "give back" to the soil.

Even advocates of organic farming will tell you, switching a field to organic farming will result in a drop of productivity at first, because the soil takes years to recover from the damage done by broad spectrum use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers (I should hasten to add that synthetic fertilizers are petroleum products, so guess what happens to those when Peak Oil hits?).

The GM issue is a sticky one, and one where I mostly split with the advocates of organic farming. One very valid concern is that GM can't keep up with the evolutionary pressures on pest species that it might create. On the other side, there's the issue of dwindling genetic diversity -- while seeds of "heritage varieties" of certain vegetables are traded on a small scale, the overall genetic diversity of agricultural species is dropping (we discussed bananas in this forum earlier in the year, for example). GM could be used to either increase or decrease the genetic diversity, but with agriculture being how it is today, chances are you're looking at less diversity through GM as one or two "really good" species become the only ones planted.

(By the way, Barbara Kingsolver's Animal Vegetable Miracle, which I'm reading right now, has some excellent numbers on a lot of these issues, but I'm trying to dig up some non-smelly-hippy internet sources.)

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Thanks. I would like that. I am currently looking at the back of a book I got for the primary sources used and am perusing through the studies. I wanted to corroborate the information.

One thing I found was that organic animal farming could be a problem if demand remains the same, due to the increase in animals necessary.

Assuming we take the risk, do you think genetic modification of organically grown crops would increase the yield, but maintain the other benefits?

[Turin]

Thanks. I would like that. I am currently looking at the back of a book I got for the primary sources used and am perusing through the studies. I wanted to corroborate the information.

Getting primary sources online is proving difficult (although see below), because there are so many advocacy groups out there right now. Unfortunately these people don't put their sources up, so you see a lot of unsourced claims and have to do all the legwork.

One thing I found was that organic animal farming could be a problem if demand remains the same, due to the increase in animals necessary.

That would be an increase of land, not increase in the number of animals. If you get rid of the CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation), you by definition increase the area in which you need to farm. Now, of course, if our diets changed so that we actually ate most everything that came off the damn animals, this problem would be reduced because we could get more use out of a single cow. When's the last time you ate liver or kidneys, for example? (Yeah, not you personally, BT, as you're a vegetarian IIRC, but you know what I mean.) The economics that lead to the Post-WW2 shift in the American diet has as much to do with the introduction of the CAFO as anything else. French beef is shit (I'm told), but they get every drop of blood out of it, and have learned to cook it to match. We in the US don't even use the bones to make our own stock. They go to our pigs, or the landfill. Wasteful.

Assuming we take the risk, do you think genetic modification of organically grown crops would increase the yield, but maintain the other benefits?

Honestly, I'm just a foodie who happens to have a life-long fascination with genetics, not enough of an expert on the subject of agriculture to say for sure. The problem as I understand it good ol' thermodynamics. Increasingly yield means you have to increase the amount of energy and nutrients the plant can absorb (and has available) from its particular environment. Greater nutrient efficiency might make the plant hardier, but might make it inedible as well. If we took a good cross-section of the various heritage varieties of vegetables and modified them for greater yields (or probably more importantly, drought tolerance), you might end up ruining the plant in the process. Obviously that's a lot less of a problem if you don't rely on monocultures to begin with!

Interestingly enough, there was a recent article in Scientific American on the subject of breeding perennial versions of common food crops (because they help maintain the soil and are inherently more sustainable), most of which are currently annuals. A lot of this breeding will be using "traditional" methods, but GM will almost certainly factor in at some point.

BTW, just to follow up on the sourcing for one of the items I discussed, which was the symbiotic relationship between root fungus and plants. this paper discusses how...

Arbuscular Mycorrhiza (AM) inoculation significantly increased the crop yield more than the uninoculated treatment.

... in their experiment. These are the sorts of organisms that typical herbicides & fungicides kill, and they're being shown to be beneficial to the plants!

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Interesting. I will look at those you provided.


Edit: I should make an edit to the previous post. I shouldn't have generalised all animal farming. The specific example the book gave dealt with dairy farming of cows. The farmer in the book (The Ethics of What We Eat) said he had to increase the amount of cows used by 10% since the specific organic standards he was under reduced his productivity such per cow.

I do know that the land, in most cases, usually increases, but they said it wasn't significantly greater. I don't know how much they actually need to increase for the demand. Frankly, people should eat less, and it would probably fix some of the problem. People eat too damn much here.



Edit: I was really shocked to see just how much of the field crop land is devoted to animal feed. I never would have thought that much corn went to them. According to the Iowa uni link, it's the majority.

http://www.cias.wisc.edu/curriculum/mod ... i_seca.htm

More than half of the cropland in Iowa and Wisconsin is in field crop production. 63% of Wisconsin’s cropland and 87% of Iowa’s cropland is planted to just 3 crops: corn, alfalfa, and soybeans.

Apparently, grain and silage corn seems to be the most prevalent. The breakdown of the field crop usage is as follows as of 2002.

60% animal feed
19% exports
6% High Fructose Corn Syrup
8% Ethanol
7% Other (real specific).

They seem to indicate that a lot of the exports also go to feed livestock, but in other countries.

Other products are soy, alfalfa, etc. The latter is mostly used for feed, the former is split among human consumption and industry. This is primarily for Wisconsin and Iowa, but I wonder what the distribution is among other farming states in the area. It seems like a lot.

[Turin]

Edit: I should make an edit to the previous post. I shouldn't have generalised all animal farming. The specific example the book gave dealt with dairy farming of cows. The farmer in the book (The Ethics of What We Eat) said he had to increase the amount of cows used by 10% since the specific organic standards he was under reduced his productivity such per cow.

Ah, that makes more sense.

Edit: I was really shocked to see just how much of the field crop land is devoted to animal feed. I never would have thought that much corn went to them. According to the Iowa uni link, it's the majority.

Because of the "10%" rule of animal energy, it's always going to take more land area per calorie of animal food energy than it would per calorie of plant food energy. But there's the right way and the wrong way to go about getting that animal food energy. We don't need as much as we use. We abuse what we have. We pump what we have full of antibiotics so they don't die in the CAFO. And we use animals inefficiently on top of it. A free range dairy cow, that you eat when it's useful life as a dairy animal is over, will produce more total food calories in its lifetime than an animal you raise to kill more-or-less immediately. And the long-term benefits to the soil and health easily make up the difference (even if you don't count the animal suffering aspect of it). Substitute chickens/eggs, goats/milk, or sheep/milk & wool, as required in that example.

On corn-feed: oddly enough, cows didn't evolve to eat corn (having originated on different continents), yet we still feed it to them. You wouldn't believe the difference in taste between "free range" beef and CAFO beef (which is fed a lot of corn). It's even more dramatic in poultry. The US agricultural industry has created a Corn-In-Everything situation we're in today (HFCS, the folly of ethanol, etc.)... it even affects things that aren't supposed to have any corn in it!

More than half of the cropland in Iowa and Wisconsin is in field crop production. 63% of Wisconsin’s cropland and 87% of Iowa’s cropland is planted to just 3 crops: corn, alfalfa, and soybeans.

<snip> This is primarily for Wisconsin and Iowa, but I wonder what the distribution is among other farming states in the area. It seems like a lot.

My understanding is that's pretty widespread.

[kinnison]

Organic Farming Disadvantages:

It's more work (for example, more weeding, spreading manure is harder work than spreading fertiliser) and the yield might be lower.

Advantages:

Less energy-intensive. Even if you still use machinery, the energy used to make pesticides and/or fertiliser is not used in organic.

Higher nutrient levels in food: It is well known that the solid matter content of organic vegetables is higher than that of conventionally-farmed ones. In addition, trace minerals such as chromium and selenium are much higher. The reason for this is simple; some minerals are not needed at all by plants, so fertilisers usually don't contain them. Nitrogenous fertilisers in particular lead to higher water takeup by plants - thus "inflating" the veggies with extra water.

Better taste.

Less toxic chemicals as residue in food. (Pesticide residues, residual growth-promoting hormones in meat, etc.)

[PainRack]

Higher nutrient levels in food: It is well known that the solid matter content of organic vegetables is higher than that of conventionally-farmed ones. In addition, trace minerals such as chromium and selenium are much higher. The reason for this is simple; some minerals are not needed at all by plants, so fertilisers usually don't contain them. Nitrogenous fertilisers in particular lead to higher water takeup by plants - thus "inflating" the veggies with extra water.

That really depends on the definition of organic farming. Purely organic farming(no use of pesticide/fertiliser whatsoever) may actually result in foods with less nutrient content, due to the plants being less healthy as a result of insect infestion and unsuitable soil/growth conditions.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Some people tell me it tastes better, but honestly, I can't tell the difference in the slightest. The taste factor is subjective. What I am trying to do research on currently is the difference in impact between the two when factoring in the added land required at a level of demand.

Few sources I have found actually delve into that. They seem to compare the two in a vacuum, assuming the same land area only.

[Turin]

That really depends on the definition of organic farming. Purely organic farming(no use of pesticide/fertiliser whatsoever) may actually result in foods with less nutrient content, due to the plants being less healthy as a result of insect infestion and unsuitable soil/growth conditions.

That's an apples to oranges comparison.

Organic farming done correctly won't especially have those problems, and in fact they should be lessened when compared to typical industrial farming methods. Of course you're going to see less healthy plants when you compare "organic farming done half-assed" to "well-established industrial methods."

[His Divine Shadow]

My parents use "organic" farming methods in the greenhouse. No pesticides of chemicals. If there are issues with mold or other pests there are biological solutions you can buy.

Like a common problem in the cucumber growing house is infestation by some weird small spiders, we then place out these small small creatures which live of them, they eat them all up and then die of starvationon their own.

So that way they get rid of the crap and no chemicals are involved.

[Twoyboy]

I'd just like to point out that you can be organic and still use pesticides, so long as your pesticides are produced organically.

http://www.dowagro.com/turf/prod/spinosad.htm

Also, there's a great report on organic farming in the latest COSMOS magazine (issue 16) for anyone in Oz, or who can get hold of it elsewhere. (Unfortunately, I'm only half way through it so far.)

[PainRack]

That's an apples to oranges comparison.

Organic farming done correctly won't especially have those problems, and in fact they should be lessened when compared to typical industrial farming methods. Of course you're going to see less healthy plants when you compare "organic farming done half-assed" to "well-established industrial methods."

How is it "half-assed" if you're growing your crops in non-optimal conditions,just like the majority of the world agricultural farmland?

The problem is that some people define organic as not using any form of pest control or fertilisers other than animal shit.

[Turin]

That's an apples to oranges comparison.

Organic farming done correctly won't especially have those problems, and in fact they should be lessened when compared to typical industrial farming methods. Of course you're going to see less healthy plants when you compare "organic farming done half-assed" to "well-established industrial methods."

How is it "half-assed" if you're growing your crops in non-optimal conditions,just like the majority of the world agricultural farmland?

The whole point of sustainable agriculture is to create better conditions in which to grow crops. Do you honestly think organic farming advocates think that you can just stick a bunch of plants in the ground, pour pigshit on the earth, and maybe talk nicely to your plants, and expect to see results? It requires more labor and lower-tech fertilizers and pest control methods... and surprise surprise, these are the very elements that are cheaply available in the non-optimal agricultural regions of the Third World.

The problem is that some people define organic as not using any form of pest control or fertilisers other than animal shit.

Ah, the "some people" argument. Brilliant. Like who? Care to explain to me who these idiots are? Some people define morality as "that which God says is good." That doesn't make them right.

Yes, "organic farming" is explicitly defined by what it is not, but that doesn't mean it also includes throwing out thousands-year-old good sustainable agricultural methods in the process. That's a ridiculous strawman and you know it.

[Stormin]

My parents use "organic" farming methods in the greenhouse. No pesticides of chemicals. If there are issues with mold or other pests there are biological solutions you can buy.

Like a common problem in the cucumber growing house is infestation by some weird small spiders, we then place out these small small creatures which live of them, they eat them all up and then die of starvationon their own.

So that way they get rid of the crap and no chemicals are involved.

We use biological controls where I work too (medium sized cucumber greenhouse complex). The upside is that if one greenhouse is having problem areas we can just move predator mites around to the infestation spot, meaning we don't have to pay for a spraying in every instance.
Letting the bugs starve is a bad idea because it means you have to buy more next time you have a problem.

[Lisa]

my uncle's ranch is organic, range fed. the cattle do not get hormones and are given only vaccines (which wouldn't surprise me if they were required by law) and medicine as required when sick