Study debunks myths on organic farming [General]
2011 Sep 30
Thanks Zy. Here is a short video about a project in Zimbabwe that shows how farmers have increased yields and profits by using conservation farming without chemical fertilizers.
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
2011 Sep 30
I'm a farmer. I know that these numbers are ridiculously wrong. There is no way that we can feed the world with old technology.
I'm old enough that I used to stook grain that was harvested with a binder. We had a thrashing machine that we did all of our neighbours grain with. The women made the most amazing meals for us!
Unless there is a big turnaround where everyone pitches in and helps with planting, weeding, and harvesting, there is no way that it can be done.
I'm old enough that I used to stook grain that was harvested with a binder. We had a thrashing machine that we did all of our neighbours grain with. The women made the most amazing meals for us!
Unless there is a big turnaround where everyone pitches in and helps with planting, weeding, and harvesting, there is no way that it can be done.
2011 Sep 30
I don't think he's saying organic farming = primitive farming, or the farming of yesterday, or going back in time. Not at all. It's about embracing science and state of the art techniques.
If his numbers are wrong, then you have to show why you think so.
In Britanny, France, most of the farms are organic, and productivity is very, very high. I think GMO foods are banned in France, and consumers simply won't buy produce not certified organic. Farmers from there, moving to Canada, say their methods are ahead of ours by decades. My brother in law has an organic apple orchard and he carefully monitors daytime and nightime temperatures by sensors feeding into his computers. After a certain pattern of day and night temperatures a certain insect caterpillar hatches. The computer tells him precisely when to spray a water mist containing a virus unto his trees. The virus specifically infects and kills the caterpillar when it hatches. It's all very precise and high tech.
Also the quality of the food in their supermarkets is very good, and a full shopping cart costs about half what we would pay here. Fruits are very tasty too, but I noticed people sampling fruit (such as cherries) before buying there, and that would be frowned upon here.
Another interesting thing I noticed in Britanny is the fields are way above the roads, maybe by two meters. The farmers have to drive up off the road with their tractors to get on to the level of their fields. I think this comes from adding waste organic matter to their fields for hundreds of years, causing the soil level to build up higher than the level of the roadways. Here the fields and the roads are at the same level.
If his numbers are wrong, then you have to show why you think so.
In Britanny, France, most of the farms are organic, and productivity is very, very high. I think GMO foods are banned in France, and consumers simply won't buy produce not certified organic. Farmers from there, moving to Canada, say their methods are ahead of ours by decades. My brother in law has an organic apple orchard and he carefully monitors daytime and nightime temperatures by sensors feeding into his computers. After a certain pattern of day and night temperatures a certain insect caterpillar hatches. The computer tells him precisely when to spray a water mist containing a virus unto his trees. The virus specifically infects and kills the caterpillar when it hatches. It's all very precise and high tech.
Also the quality of the food in their supermarkets is very good, and a full shopping cart costs about half what we would pay here. Fruits are very tasty too, but I noticed people sampling fruit (such as cherries) before buying there, and that would be frowned upon here.
Another interesting thing I noticed in Britanny is the fields are way above the roads, maybe by two meters. The farmers have to drive up off the road with their tractors to get on to the level of their fields. I think this comes from adding waste organic matter to their fields for hundreds of years, causing the soil level to build up higher than the level of the roadways. Here the fields and the roads are at the same level.
2011 Oct 1
I'm not buying Monsanto's pitch that we need to chemically enhance or GM everything to feed the world.
And organic farming is much better for biodiversity and soil health:
www.cnr.berkeley.edu
"The farms compared had a fresh market tomato production. Tomato yields were shown to be quite similar in organic and conventional farms (Drinkwater, 1995). Insect pest damage was also comparable in both cases of organic and conventional farms. However, significant differences were found in soil health indicators such as nitrogen mineralization potential and microbial abundance and diversity which were higher in the organic farms. Nitrogen mineralization potential was three times greater in organic compared to conventional fields. The organic fields also had 28% more organic carbon. The increased soil health in the organic farms resulted in considerably lower disease incidence. Severity of the most prevalent disease in the study, tomato corky root disease, was found to be significantly lower in the organic farms (Drinkwater, 1995)."
And organic farming is much better for biodiversity and soil health:
www.cnr.berkeley.edu
"The farms compared had a fresh market tomato production. Tomato yields were shown to be quite similar in organic and conventional farms (Drinkwater, 1995). Insect pest damage was also comparable in both cases of organic and conventional farms. However, significant differences were found in soil health indicators such as nitrogen mineralization potential and microbial abundance and diversity which were higher in the organic farms. Nitrogen mineralization potential was three times greater in organic compared to conventional fields. The organic fields also had 28% more organic carbon. The increased soil health in the organic farms resulted in considerably lower disease incidence. Severity of the most prevalent disease in the study, tomato corky root disease, was found to be significantly lower in the organic farms (Drinkwater, 1995)."
2011 Oct 1
KMD, I would guess that the main reason organic costs more is that people are willing to pay more for it. :-) #supply #demand
2011 Oct 1
Most food in France is organic, and it's cheaper than here (1/2 the price on average I would estimate).
FF is right about supply and demand, but also there are huge distorting subsidies on most agricultural products in North America, obtained by the big agri business lobbies. Huge subsidies on corn production (ethanol for example, which yields less energy when burned than the energy required to produce it), sugar production, milk production, etc.. Governments heavily subsidize certain agricultural practices to make them profitable, when they wouldn't otherwise be. Mainly to get money and votes I think. A rural vote counts more than an urban vote in most countries (because of population density) and politicians know it.
FF is right about supply and demand, but also there are huge distorting subsidies on most agricultural products in North America, obtained by the big agri business lobbies. Huge subsidies on corn production (ethanol for example, which yields less energy when burned than the energy required to produce it), sugar production, milk production, etc.. Governments heavily subsidize certain agricultural practices to make them profitable, when they wouldn't otherwise be. Mainly to get money and votes I think. A rural vote counts more than an urban vote in most countries (because of population density) and politicians know it.
2011 Oct 1
Francis - when I was in Europe, prices were much more expensive than NA. I'd be really shocked if it were half price or even the same. Also France is one of the biggest subsidized agriculture practices in the World. If the food is cheaper, the cost is being picked up by the government. Canada and Australia have been fighting the Europeans/US on subsidies for years, especially on grains.
2011 Oct 1
BTW - regarding profitability the article states:
"The average net return for the organic systems was $558/acre/ year versus just $190/acre/year for the conventional systems. The much higher income reflects the premium organic farmers receive and consumers pay for."
So the price is driven by demand - people with large disposable incomes in NA can afford to pay a premium, and appear to do so. Clearly if they are paying 2X the price - organic farming still could be profitable if paying the conventional rates.
The question that is not addressed in my mind regards disease. Right now a relatively small amount of farm land is organic, while the majority are GMO/pesticided etc. If there is an outbreak of pests/disease what would happen if the majority farms were organic? I've heard stories from my Dad when rust would break out and completely decimate wheat crops in the 30's/40's era. I think the organic farms are somewhat protected by the surrounding areas being protected - but thats just a theory on my part.
"The average net return for the organic systems was $558/acre/ year versus just $190/acre/year for the conventional systems. The much higher income reflects the premium organic farmers receive and consumers pay for."
So the price is driven by demand - people with large disposable incomes in NA can afford to pay a premium, and appear to do so. Clearly if they are paying 2X the price - organic farming still could be profitable if paying the conventional rates.
The question that is not addressed in my mind regards disease. Right now a relatively small amount of farm land is organic, while the majority are GMO/pesticided etc. If there is an outbreak of pests/disease what would happen if the majority farms were organic? I've heard stories from my Dad when rust would break out and completely decimate wheat crops in the 30's/40's era. I think the organic farms are somewhat protected by the surrounding areas being protected - but thats just a theory on my part.
2011 Oct 1
I also find it hard to believe that food prices are half of what they are here. The farmers there must be massively subsidized.
There may be subsidies on corn in the US. There are no subsidies here in Canada. I grow it because it's the most cost efficient crop for this area. Some of my neighbours grow sweet corn and pumpkins, but they use offshore labourers to harvest their crops. Canadians don't want to work so hard. :/
There may be subsidies on corn in the US. There are no subsidies here in Canada. I grow it because it's the most cost efficient crop for this area. Some of my neighbours grow sweet corn and pumpkins, but they use offshore labourers to harvest their crops. Canadians don't want to work so hard. :/
2011 Oct 1
Well I am happy to see that consumer demand has meant that organic produce is now more widely available in Ottawa. When they renovated my neighbourhood grocery store, they tripled the size of the organic produce section. And often there is little or no difference in price between some items. Bananas are often exactly the same price, so why buy non organic? If we as consumers continue to demand produce that is local and/or organic it can only get better.
2011 Oct 3
Not sure if supply/demand is always responsible for the higher cost of organic food production, I think its often higher because it requires more man power. Sorry, people power. It's generally more labour intensive as there tends to be more actual hands on work depending on the crop or livestock being raised.
I think convention farms produce more 'volume' of food compared to organic ones. Looking around our area, all the conventional farms are fence-line to fence-line soy or corn. No trees, hedgerows, or hay in the crop rotation. I see farmers removing trees and anything else that gets in the way of their ability to grow more crop. Organic farms strive maintain natural areas as they help the crops and land function better. If there are field crops being grown organically, hay is often added into the rotation to rest the land and restore it. Last I checked, farmers make more selling crops compared to hay. That will affect the crop prices when organic farmers sell.
Now, more and more farms are converting to organic agriculture. It's often a 3-year conversion. So for three years, higher expense of growing organic, possible lower yields until the soil is built up, but the food they produce is sold at conventional prices.
I also think that you get way more bang for your buck with organic when it comes to nutrients. People often tell me they feel more full after an organic meal, I know I do, and I see this with my kids too. Chemical agriculture is geared towards yeild, not nutrition.
As well, it's hard to factor in the cost of water, air, and soil pollution that can result from conventional farming. If we added on the extra costs that result from these things, I think the conventional foods would be far more expensive than organic foods.
And as my favorite farmer Joel Salatin says: If you think organic food is expensive, have you priced cancer lately? ;-)
Edit: When they say in the article that organic farmers net more income, I wonder how that factors out when you look at their hourly wage compared to conventional farming wages.
I think convention farms produce more 'volume' of food compared to organic ones. Looking around our area, all the conventional farms are fence-line to fence-line soy or corn. No trees, hedgerows, or hay in the crop rotation. I see farmers removing trees and anything else that gets in the way of their ability to grow more crop. Organic farms strive maintain natural areas as they help the crops and land function better. If there are field crops being grown organically, hay is often added into the rotation to rest the land and restore it. Last I checked, farmers make more selling crops compared to hay. That will affect the crop prices when organic farmers sell.
Now, more and more farms are converting to organic agriculture. It's often a 3-year conversion. So for three years, higher expense of growing organic, possible lower yields until the soil is built up, but the food they produce is sold at conventional prices.
I also think that you get way more bang for your buck with organic when it comes to nutrients. People often tell me they feel more full after an organic meal, I know I do, and I see this with my kids too. Chemical agriculture is geared towards yeild, not nutrition.
As well, it's hard to factor in the cost of water, air, and soil pollution that can result from conventional farming. If we added on the extra costs that result from these things, I think the conventional foods would be far more expensive than organic foods.
And as my favorite farmer Joel Salatin says: If you think organic food is expensive, have you priced cancer lately? ;-)
Edit: When they say in the article that organic farmers net more income, I wonder how that factors out when you look at their hourly wage compared to conventional farming wages.
2011 Oct 7
Good article on GMO crops. www.atimes.com
Excerpts:
According to the US Department of Agriculture, 88% of American corn fields are planted with GM corn. Whether or not this is a good thing generates a lot of debate and it is by no means clear that GM corn has accounted for increased yields.
Since the 1930s, corn yields have improved at a remarkably steady rate of 1.6 bushels/acre/per year in the United States. There has been no marked acceleration since the 1990s, when GM corn was first introduced.
An important factor is, perhaps, the fact that the genetic modifications implemented to date in corn (and, for that matter, cotton and soybeans, the other two major markets) do not increase the yield potential of the seed.
-----------
GM corn does not increase yield potential. It is a tool to protect yield potential through weed and insect control. Nor is it the sole measure available to control weeds and insects. It's supposed to be an easier, more effective way. But GM corn use brings with it the inherent risk of development of resistance. When that happens, its benefits go out the window.
Farmers find themselves going backwards, not forward.
As the New York Times quoted one farmer struggling with Roundup-resistant pigweed:
Mr Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.
"We're back to where we were 20 years ago," said Mr Anderson, who will plough about one-third of his 3,000 acres [1,214 hectares] of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. "We're trying to find out what works." [5]
Bear in mind that GM corn seed sells for about $10/acre more than conventional hybrids. Ostensibly, this price level is necessary to recoup the vast research and development expenditures related to genetic modification.
However, Monsanto was booking profits of up to $2 billion a year on Roundup and a significant portion of these profits probably got plowed into the work of developing herbicide-resistant GM seeds that would sell more Roundup.
Over the past 20 years since biotech corn came on the market, the price of GM seed has increased 139%, while conventional hybrid corn increased 49%. The increase in conventional hybrid seed prices is roughly parallel with improvements in yield - which appear to be largely attributable to traditional enhancements in plant genetics, not gene modification techniques - an indication that the price/value relationship is steady.
An increase of 139% in the price of GM seeds is perhaps an indicator that cost-benefit equation may be out of whack. That also increases the anxiety of poorer countries that their farmers will be forced to purchase ever-more expensive seed after they get hooked on GM products (and the farm practices that sustain it).
-------------------------
The good news for Pioneer was erased by an editor's afterword. It declared that it had received reports of abnormalities in areas where a lot of XY335 was grown and consumed. It sent back its reporter for a second look, and tentatively stated:
The population of rats decreased, sows miscarried ... various kinds of animal abnormalities caused one to be uneasy and bewildered. Increase in natural predators, moldy corn, ecological pollution ... these various possibilities were refuted one by one. The only remaining factor that tied all these animal abnormality clues together was the feed that these animals had consumed: XY 335. [7]
It also reported allegations that XY335 was a genetically modified organism, and that the reported animal abnormalities were caused by genetic modifications.
These concerns mirrored some studies in Europe and North America concerning the potential dangers of introducing new plant genetics into the food chain. Despite government assurances that Bt is only toxic to caterpillars, people worry about new sliced-and-diced bacteria sloshing around in their food supply - and their own innards.
The fact that some genetic modifications actually reduce yields - instead of increasing or sustaining them - in unexplained ways also gives many people the willies.
There are billions of dollars of sales - and millions of dollars of industry-supported research - at stake, and the international seed producers have not been shy in protecting their interests, and critics of GM foods are the targets of systematic rebuttals.
Excerpts:
According to the US Department of Agriculture, 88% of American corn fields are planted with GM corn. Whether or not this is a good thing generates a lot of debate and it is by no means clear that GM corn has accounted for increased yields.
Since the 1930s, corn yields have improved at a remarkably steady rate of 1.6 bushels/acre/per year in the United States. There has been no marked acceleration since the 1990s, when GM corn was first introduced.
An important factor is, perhaps, the fact that the genetic modifications implemented to date in corn (and, for that matter, cotton and soybeans, the other two major markets) do not increase the yield potential of the seed.
-----------
GM corn does not increase yield potential. It is a tool to protect yield potential through weed and insect control. Nor is it the sole measure available to control weeds and insects. It's supposed to be an easier, more effective way. But GM corn use brings with it the inherent risk of development of resistance. When that happens, its benefits go out the window.
Farmers find themselves going backwards, not forward.
As the New York Times quoted one farmer struggling with Roundup-resistant pigweed:
Mr Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.
"We're back to where we were 20 years ago," said Mr Anderson, who will plough about one-third of his 3,000 acres [1,214 hectares] of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. "We're trying to find out what works." [5]
Bear in mind that GM corn seed sells for about $10/acre more than conventional hybrids. Ostensibly, this price level is necessary to recoup the vast research and development expenditures related to genetic modification.
However, Monsanto was booking profits of up to $2 billion a year on Roundup and a significant portion of these profits probably got plowed into the work of developing herbicide-resistant GM seeds that would sell more Roundup.
Over the past 20 years since biotech corn came on the market, the price of GM seed has increased 139%, while conventional hybrid corn increased 49%. The increase in conventional hybrid seed prices is roughly parallel with improvements in yield - which appear to be largely attributable to traditional enhancements in plant genetics, not gene modification techniques - an indication that the price/value relationship is steady.
An increase of 139% in the price of GM seeds is perhaps an indicator that cost-benefit equation may be out of whack. That also increases the anxiety of poorer countries that their farmers will be forced to purchase ever-more expensive seed after they get hooked on GM products (and the farm practices that sustain it).
-------------------------
The good news for Pioneer was erased by an editor's afterword. It declared that it had received reports of abnormalities in areas where a lot of XY335 was grown and consumed. It sent back its reporter for a second look, and tentatively stated:
The population of rats decreased, sows miscarried ... various kinds of animal abnormalities caused one to be uneasy and bewildered. Increase in natural predators, moldy corn, ecological pollution ... these various possibilities were refuted one by one. The only remaining factor that tied all these animal abnormality clues together was the feed that these animals had consumed: XY 335. [7]
It also reported allegations that XY335 was a genetically modified organism, and that the reported animal abnormalities were caused by genetic modifications.
These concerns mirrored some studies in Europe and North America concerning the potential dangers of introducing new plant genetics into the food chain. Despite government assurances that Bt is only toxic to caterpillars, people worry about new sliced-and-diced bacteria sloshing around in their food supply - and their own innards.
The fact that some genetic modifications actually reduce yields - instead of increasing or sustaining them - in unexplained ways also gives many people the willies.
There are billions of dollars of sales - and millions of dollars of industry-supported research - at stake, and the international seed producers have not been shy in protecting their interests, and critics of GM foods are the targets of systematic rebuttals.
2011 Nov 16
I wonder if I should drop my agri-business mutual fund (now that I made a tidy profit). Bail before the rhetoric and reality reconcile.
See from Ottawa Foodies almost 2 years ago: goo.gl/Iq0pt
See from Ottawa Foodies almost 2 years ago: goo.gl/Iq0pt
zymurgist
www.thestarphoenix.com