Organic Farming

[Blue_vision]

Pesticides aren't one of them.

Even if that were true, there's plenty of other shit they put in your food, which shouldn't be there if the food is organic.

Except that the use of pesticides and other management techniques reduces the presence of fungi and bacteria which can cause people to get sick. Not even just increasing yields; the use of pesticides has actually decreased the amount of toxins present in food (I've seen studies which back this up). And you're still conveniently ignoring that organic farmers also use a ton of pesticides, many of which are more dangerous than synthetic pesticides.

Well, using "Organic farming" couldn't feed the entire world's population. At all. It could at best feed a fraction. I can't remember the actual number of people that it could feed, but it's very small. So, look around at all the people you know and decide who you would like to starve to death.

This is also false. It's true, all other things held constant, organic farming would produce less food. But there are many organic farms that see very similar yields (within an order of magnitude) as that of conventional farms. Add in the fact that the world is currently doing fine in terms of food production (it's more of a distribution issue), and that there's about an order of magnitude of food production increases that can come out of less developed countries, it's not nearly as much of a problem as some would like to make you think. The problem I have is that strictly organic food is expensive, and that by using better management techniques, we could use even less land in the process (and allow for ecological restoration).

 

[Albino Boo]

Well, using "Organic farming" couldn't feed the entire world's population. At all. It could at best feed a fraction. I can't remember the actual number of people that it could feed, but it's very small. So, look around at all the people you know and decide who you would like to starve to death.

This is also false. It's true, all other things held constant, organic farming would produce less food. But there are many organic farms that see very similar yields (within an order of magnitude) as that of conventional farms. Add in the fact that the world is currently doing fine in terms of food production (it's more of a distribution issue), and that there's about an order of magnitude of food production increases that can come out of less developed countries, it's not nearly as much of a problem as some would like to make you think. The problem I have is that strictly organic food is expensive, and that by using better management techniques, we could use even less land in the process (and allow for ecological restoration).

Thats just factually incorrect. Farming in the UK between 1939-1945 did not produce enough food to feed the country using organic methods, modern industrial farming means that the UK is a net exporter of food. If organic farming was capable of producing the same amount food was the UK down to 2 weeks of food left in 1942? If organic yields were as high you claim why was rationing introduced? Yield per acre from organic farming is lower, the real world has shown it to be so.

 

[Esotera]

Personally, I'm all for organic farming (I'm also from the UK). I don't think all farms should be organic, but I think a substantial minority need to be. Organic food tastes better, or rather it has more taste because of the methods used as I understand it. It also gives people something they can feel mildly superior over when they talk about it, stimulating debate.

Organic is pretty much defined as not using pesticides or GM crops. These things improve yields by a lot, so organic farming is an inefficient way of using farmland - it should only be used if you're growing stuff in your own garden.

I disagree. There is a demand for it so people will supply it.

In Europe the zeitgeist is that organic food is somehow nutritionally better than GM foods when there is no evidence to support this (although it might be a less intensive method of farming). A lot of this can be attributed to press coverage in the 90's on "Frankenfoods" which I think didn't happen in the US? The media have a lot to answer for as GM crops will be essential to sustain 9bn humans by 2050.

I don't think that shows a need for more food. I think that shows a need to drastically curb the production of people to prevent massive overcrowding, famine and ecosystem destruction.

Overcrowding isn't really an issue apart from in very small European countries, even then it's more an issue of designing settlements well. And in developed countries the birth rate is stabilising due to education & access to birth-control, which is all made indirectly possible by a stable food supply. You simply can't feed all people currently on earth if you use pre-Green revolution technology, so we need to be as efficient as possible, or at least encourage people to buy efficient crops. Trying to avoid the use of GM crops & pesticide will lead to more ecosystem destruction as you need a greater amount of farmland for the same yield.

 

[Blue_vision]

Thats just factually incorrect. Farming in the UK between 1939-1945 did not produce enough food to feed the country using organic methods, modern industrial farming means that the UK is a net exporter of food. If organic farming was capable of producing the same amount food was the UK down to 2 weeks of food left in 1942? If organic yields were as high you claim why was rationing introduced? Yield per acre from organic farming is lower, the real world has shown it to be so.

Take note of what I said. I said that everything else held constant, organic farming will produce an appreciable decrease in yields. But in reality, that difference can be quite small. In general, we have enough food to feed ourselves on earth as it is (in fact, enough to turn a bunch of it into meat and fuel), and we can easily make up the difference of food consumption through efficiency gains in other places. Many places in Africa, Eastern Europe, and India are producing under 20% (in some cases 10%) of what modern farms are able to produce. Raising the efficiency of that land will net considerable increases, and improving distribution can also have a huge impact on these countries.

And in your argument, do you not see any other possible explanations for why food production might drop? Perhaps because a significant percentage of the workforce became unproductive (enlisted as soldiers or worked in factories), or because investment in farm equipment was diverted to the war effort? Or because they had to support higher calorie requirements for soldiers, or because large amounts of food were turned into fuel for the military? Yeah, one example is totally a perfect explanation for how the world works /sarcasm.

And if you read what I posted, you'd see I'm against organic farming on principle! The reality is that we could get extremely similar yields with more directed use of fertilizers and pesticides, and good GM crops, compared to the huge wastes that occur now. Organic farming is stupid by completely banning the use of these tools. Conventional farming is stupid because it doesn't take into account any of the negatives such as eutrophication from fertilizer use or the huge cost in greenhouse gasses that is still not accounted for in the cost of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

 

[TehCookie]

I'm less concered by plants than I am animals, to be more specific growth hormones. With it being a more recent invention there is less info of how it affects humans growth. With how many prostitots there are it makes me wonder if it's related to early puberty. Ignoring fashion, girls should not have boobs and peroids in the 5th grade.

As for why people hate organic, I'd say it also has a lot of classism or pretentiousness in it rather than just debating the health risks/benefits.

 

[Eeeee0000]

I always assumed people hating on organic farming and how it will be bad for world food supplies are just justifying not buying organic... You know that organic meat and dairy is better for animals, but you can't or don't want to spend the money on it, so you argue that fact with saying that it's not as good as it seems.

How on earth is organic better or worse for animal welfare? Surely you mean free-range, and avoiding battery/intensive farming methods? I always buy free-range where I can, but that doesn't always go hand in hand with organic.

Might have my terms confused here, 'organic' isn't a term usually used in the Netherlands. We use 'biological' to describe things that have been produced like that (just as bullshit as a term as organic...), and this applies to crops without pesticided and stuff but also to free-range meat from animals that don't get antibiotics and such. For example, you can buy 'scharreleieren' (battery eggs are prohibited, these are from chickens that live with about 9 of them per square meter), 'free range eggs' (9 chickens per square metre inside, but also 4 square metres per chicken of outside space) and biological eggs, which are free range but also can't get their beaks cut of and stuff like that. That's what I meant.

(going to read the rest now)

 

[Eamar]

snip

Ah, I wondered if it might be a language thing - had me confused for a moment. Thanks for clarifying

 

[Albino Boo]

Thats just factually incorrect. Farming in the UK between 1939-1945 did not produce enough food to feed the country using organic methods, modern industrial farming means that the UK is a net exporter of food. If organic farming was capable of producing the same amount food was the UK down to 2 weeks of food left in 1942? If organic yields were as high you claim why was rationing introduced? Yield per acre from organic farming is lower, the real world has shown it to be so.

Take note of what I said. I said that everything else held constant, organic farming will produce an appreciable decrease in yields. But in reality, that difference can be quite small. In general, we have enough food to feed ourselves on earth as it is (in fact, enough to turn a bunch of it into meat and fuel), and we can easily make up the difference of food consumption through efficiency gains in other places. Many places in Africa, Eastern Europe, and India are producing under 20% (in some cases 10%) of what modern farms are able to produce. Raising the efficiency of that land will net considerable increases, and improving distribution can also have a huge impact on these countries.

And in your argument, do you not see any other possible explanations for why food production might drop? Perhaps because a significant percentage of the workforce became unproductive (enlisted as soldiers or worked in factories), or because investment in farm equipment was diverted to the war effort? Or because they had to support higher calorie requirements for soldiers, or because large amounts of food were turned into fuel for the military? Yeah, one example is totally a perfect explanation for how the world works /sarcasm.

And if you read what I posted, you'd see I'm against organic farming on principle! The reality is that we could get extremely similar yields with more directed use of fertilizers and pesticides, and good GM crops, compared to the huge wastes that occur now. Organic farming is stupid by completely banning the use of these tools. Conventional farming is stupid because it doesn't take into account any of the negatives such as eutrophication from fertilizer use or the huge cost in greenhouse gasses that is still not accounted for in the cost of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand that the UK hasn't increased in land area and has in fact reduced the area under cultivation and yet is now a net exporter of food despite having 20 million more people living in the country. Industrial farming must be producing far higher yields per acre than previous organic methods, what other explanation is there. I also suggest that you look land girls, women that were sent to work on farms to replace missing labour. It would also be instructive to read about the dig for victory campaign. Last point the UK hadn't been self sufficient in food from the 1840s onwards. The yields per acre from the UK farmland by organic methods cant support more than about 10-15 million people and there is a century of food imports to prove it.

 

[Eeeee0000]

Between 1939 and 1945 isn't a good example to compare with other periods, that was during the bloody war! Nobody had any food. Lots of people starved to death in the winter of 1945 in my country, and that wasn't because of organic farming, there was a war going on.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Organic food is bullshit, see the embedded video above (conveniently from P&T's Bullshit). It's inefficient, more expensive, not better for the environment and most people can't tell the difference in a blind taste taste. If someone wants to spend more on their food that's fine, but they shouldn't push it on other people and they shouldn't preach about how much better it is for the world when it isn't.

 

[Blue_vision]

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand that the UK hasn't increased in land area and has in fact reduced the area under cultivation and yet is now a net exporter of food despite having 20 million more people living in the country. Industrial farming must be producing far higher yields per acre than previous organic methods, what other explanation is there. I also suggest that you look land girls, women that were sent to work on farms to replace missing labour. It would also be instructive to read about the dig for victory campaign. Last point the UK hadn't been self sufficient in food from the 1840s onwards. The yields per acre from the UK farmland by organic methods cant support more than about 10-15 million people and there is a century of food imports to prove it.

There was a decrease in other inputs. A smaller workforce more dedicated to industrial production meant there was less labour to go into agriculture. Combine this with a decrease in resources to improve and maintain agricultural machines such as tractors, and you're obviously going to see a decrease in output. In addition, British agriculture was extremely inefficient during the early 1900s, as it was more cost-effective for Britain to be importing grain. In general, it's silly to try to make the comparison between British agriculture (or really any agriculture) in World War 2 with modern agriculture.

 

[Albino Boo]

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand that the UK hasn't increased in land area and has in fact reduced the area under cultivation and yet is now a net exporter of food despite having 20 million more people living in the country. Industrial farming must be producing far higher yields per acre than previous organic methods, what other explanation is there. I also suggest that you look land girls, women that were sent to work on farms to replace missing labour. It would also be instructive to read about the dig for victory campaign. Last point the UK hadn't been self sufficient in food from the 1840s onwards. The yields per acre from the UK farmland by organic methods cant support more than about 10-15 million people and there is a century of food imports to prove it.

There was a decrease in other inputs. A smaller workforce more dedicated to industrial production meant there was less labour to go into agriculture. Combine this with a decrease in resources to improve and maintain agricultural machines such as tractors, and you're obviously going to see a decrease in output. In addition, British agriculture was extremely inefficient during the early 1900s, as it was more cost-effective for Britain to be importing grain. In general, it's silly to try to make the comparison between British agriculture (or really any agriculture) in World War 2 with modern agriculture.

The recorded yielded per acre in from 1700 to today remains the same using organic farming. Large agricultural estates that use organic farming now used the organic farming in the past and there centuries of records on file. The manpower requirement has fallen because of greater mechanisation but the yields have not increased. The UK were the world leaders in farming mechanization from the 1850s onwards. Steam powered threshing machines came into use in the 1830s and the steam plough came into use in the 1850s. Where do you think the people moving to cities to work in factories came from?

 

[Hagi]

Don't see the point of it.

I see it like the difference between Medicine and Natural Medicine. The former being actually scientifically tested and the latter being the leftovers we used to think worked but know better now. The same for Food and Organic Food.

That's not to say Food is perfect as it is, especially in the animal welfare department there's a lot of room for improvement. But those improvement I think should happen from inside with stricter regulations and better research in how to keep animals in ways that are both good for us and them.

 

[EternallyBored]

The main problem with organic food is that the standards by which something is called organic are kind of all over the place at the moment, proven by the people in this thread seeming to have a variety of ideas about what constitutes organic food, it's not the people's fault, standards mean you can slap the organic label on just about anything in some places.

Organic does have certain benefits depending upon how you go about getting it. A lot of it comes from more local farms, especially in the U.S. and Europe, so it's much easier to track where the food is coming from if you have a particular inclination to support local growers, or want to avoid the exploitation involved in many products grown in third world countries that rely on things like child labor, or environmentally unsustainable slash and burn tactics.

People who have moral objections to pen or factory style farming may also be willing to bite the price increase to get meat that hasn't kept in a small cage its whole life and injected with hormones to make it grotesquely large. Organic also allows you to get meat cheaper if you live near such a ranch and get the meat directly, you can get prime cuts right off the butcher, you can't really do that with factory farming.

Limiting pesticide use can also help with people with certain allergies, I personally am allergic to something that is sprayed on many fruits and vegetables, it's not life threatening, but it does ruin a meal if an apple or green beans cause my mouth to itch badly for a good thirty minutes or so after eating. My only options here have been to either cook the vegetables before eating, to buy organic equivalents that don't use that particular brand of pesticide, or to grow my own. I am willing to pay a higher price to ensure that I can freely eat apples again.

The argument that organic farming somehow wastes food and land is an inherently silly one, the lack of food is not why people starve around the world, it is a lack of distribution and financial incentive that drives starvation in today's world. The U.S. alone allows about 20% of all the food it produces to rot, either by being thrown out as leftovers, or rotting before consumption. The U.S. government also pays subsidies to farmers to not grow or slaughter food, in order to regulate food prices and prevent them from dropping too low to be economically viable to grow by a private business. Even more of our food and farm land goes to feed energy inefficient luxury goods like cattle or ducks. We've got a long way to go before organic farms actually start to have any sort of appreciable effect on the world food supply, private business and economics do far more to limit the distribution and efficient consumption of food.

That said, organic is a wide open term, and it often gets wrapped up in the overblown fears against GM foods. Organic isn't some superfood that will cure illnesses and stick it to big corporations, many of the foods touted as organic are grown by the same large companies that grow the other stuff as well. Most of the benefits surrounding organic food are intangible, so it's impossible to quantify how much the benefit of it is actually worth. In the end, it's like any gourmet item you have to decide whether the cost is worth it to you, not all organic food is the same, and you can slap an organic label on almost anything in some places, so what you're buying as organic may just be the same thing you get normally.

 

[ultrabiome]

The U.S. government also pays subsidies to farmers to not grow or slaughter food, in order to regulate food prices and prevent them from dropping too low to be economically viable to grow by a private business.

it is also done because of "The Dust Bowl" of the 1920s. it screwed up a lot of the farm production then because farmers stripped away everything using 'conventional' farming. you're not wrong though either about the current reasons.

 

[omega 616]

"Organic" is made up word that makes produce more expensive. Want to make milk more expensive? Call it organic milk and increase the cost to the customer, BAM, instant profit increase!

Seriously though, I hate the stereotypical organic eater than actual organic stuff. They are like veggies, they think they are somehow better people 'cos they eat organic stuff. Of course that is not every organic eater but there is a definite arrogance in some people.

 

[ultrabiome]

The 'organic' debate in the United States is such a clusterfuck, but I think it is generally a good idea.

I started to buy more organic since meeting my wife, and she is quite concerned with the quality of our food, which she is physically sensitive to, as well. I am well aware it can be used as a marketing ploy, but I feel like the quality of the food we tend to get organic is generally better for me, even if it doesn't stay fresh as long and less consistent taste (sometimes amazing, sometimes bland).

You see, I grew up poor, so I ate a lot of processed foods. But at the same time, my parents had a garden, grew a lot of vegetables, canned most of it for the rest of the year. They despised the taste of many grocery store vegetables, as they are often chemically sprayed or otherwise altered so they will be fresh longer (look ripe before they actually are ripe is what it amounts to). I know what a good fresh tomato tastes like and most of the time, the ones I get anywhere outside of a farmer's market are a pale shadow. some foods are worse than others, but I think we should be concerned about the food we are consuming. I AM concerned about the pesticides (poisons) that are put on my fruits and vegetables, the bleach used to clean chickens and our meat, the health of the animals we raise to eat, the preservatives we use to keep food from spoiling, etc.

Other related issues for the 'organic' debate that all come into play: pesticide use and runoff, fertilizer use and runoff, susceptibility of farmable plants to disease (the number of species of farmed plants has dropped 5 fold or better in the past 100 years and that means it is more likely a disease will hurt our food supply), the control of our food supply by big corporations (see Monsanto), the waste of transporting foods across the country when you could buy regionally, the potential for unintended consequences by direct genetic modifications (breeding isn't the same thing - that actually requires fertile plants), the fact that many of our plantable foods no longer fertile, and water use,

I mean, I'm happy to have food to eat, but I know our food quality affects us in ways that most of the population doesn't pay attention to. But guess what, the 'organic' movement has already changed the ingredients of many foods, even ones that aren't organic or pretend to be. The reduction of high fructose corn syrup, trans-fats, and I've noticed a decrease in the use of preservatives and 'natural ingredients' (which usually refer to chemically-made naturally-occurring flavorings) in many foods, and it probably helps that our storage and sealing technology has improved as well. What is in our food becomes a part of us. Keep that in mind.

 

[legend of duty]

it's easier to modify crops than telling people to stop fucking

 

[Spiridion]

The problem with organic farming is that if you want it to stay local/sustainable then it's very limited in what it can produce. This makes it very difficult, if possible at all, to feed a regional population while maintaining sustainable farming practices (although this is partly to do with skewed expectations regarding what constitutes a full meal, at least in America). But once you start farming organically on a larger scale you have to implement a lot of the same practices of non-organic farming, to the point where they're nearly indistinguishable, particularly when you start raising organic/free-range meat animals on a large scale. And whether you're eating local organic or industrial organic, you're going to be looking at a price increase.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I am heavily against the use of pesticides though. So you're saying that poison (which is all pesticides really are)you throw on your field isn't gonna kill me or the environment?

I will be majorly concerned if you ever get a tape worm. The doctor will want you to poison the tapeworm inside you by taking a substance toxic to tape worms but not to you. I'm sure you will respond "So youre saying that this poison which KILLS the tape worm wont kill me? Bullshit".

Most pesticides work by destroying extremely specific enzymes in the insects intestinal tract. Unless you have the same intestine as an aphid I'm confident pesticides (Some of them at any rate) probably wont cause you an issue. Not to say they shouldnt be EXTREMELY well tested though. The highest of testing must be done.

Anyway I've helped create some GM crops for England to expand British farming I helped breed and study rhizobia which would are bacteria that naturally bind atmospheric nitrogen into soil nitrates which can act as naturally forming replenishing plant fertilizer if grown alongside legumes. This means farmers wouldnt need to dump nitrates artificially into fields and instead can grow food constantly by incorporating legumes into their crop rotation and adding the modified bacteria (Which originate in france but survive poorly in British soil). By making the rhizobia able to survive British soils the aim was to save farmers money on fertilizer, reduce stress on industrial nitrate production and remove the issues of nitrate run off into the ecosystem when farmers add artificial nitrate.

If we ignore the PR THIS is true organic farming despite it being GM. Using biology to solve problems in a cleaner way is way more organic than wasting time and money dumping nitrates that may harm the environment onto fields.

Also my personal hero. The greatest man to ever live in my opinion. In fact by a few objective standards he IS the greatest man to ever live, having saved more lives than any other person ever (Maybe penicillin comes close).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

I only buy free range eggs and meat. But i dont give a shit if its "organic". I want it to be efficient and clever! I want the GREATEST minds of a generation behind my food to make it the most delicious, affordable and cruelty free food it can be. By any scientific means necessary.