Organic Farming

[Blue_vision]

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?

If you have access to a literature database, I would recommend you an excellent meta-analysis on the topic, "The fruits of organic farming" by John Reganold. To sum up the findings, organic crops on average see 70-80% the yields that conventional crops do, from the data of 66 independent studies. Yes, this is a difference. But no, this is not a difference that would spell the end of the world as we know it if everyone switched to organic farming. Note that this is not even something I was advocating; I suggested that it would be best if we used our resources as efficiently as possible, using fertilizer and synthetic pesticides where needed, and management techniques developed from organic agriculture in other cases.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Organic farming is not a bad thing. I think people are just put off by the hippie stigma surrounding it, Americans seem to have something against true left wing ideas on principle.

I'm not against GM crops, they are essentially a faster way to do what we've been doing with selective breeding for centuries, that being altering a creature/plants evolutionary path to suit our needs. That heirloom tomato isn't very natural either, it probably won't even survive without human help nor is that sheep or cow.

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?

Sorry, but that's just straight up wrong. Organic agriculture makes use of pesticides as well, it just doesn't use synthetic ones. And while synthetic pesticides used to be a problem, synthetic pesticides are a lot safer and effective. And since synthetic pesticides are more effective, you need to use organic pesticides more intensively to produce anything near the same result (which doesn't happen). And many of these organic pesticides are being studied and are increasingly thought to be quite dangerous and toxic.

So, OP, let's discuss a lot of the downsides of organic farming:

A lot of organic farming is still factory farming and thus has a lot of the downsides associated with that.
Lower crop yields, meaning that organic farming cannot sustain the world's population.
Still using dangerous chemicals.
Higher chance of pathogens in the food.
It's not proven to be any healthier than the GM crops.
It's certainly not better for the environment.
GMOs can actually -be- healthier, such as high-calcium carrots and tomatoes with high amount of antioxidants, yet organic farming does not embrace these.

In short, all hail Norman Borlaug, the Man Who Saved A Billion Lives.

 

[sXeth]

So the points of this thread are kind of multiple:

1. What do you think about organic farming?
2. Why do you think there is such a large amount of antagonism towards organic farming?
3. Why does there appear to be such a large culture divide between American and European perceptions of organic farming?

1)There's a lot of varying definitions of "organic" that make that a really tenous question. Even in your supermarkets, most countries don't even have regulations before you slap organic on it. I'm not entirely against GM-ing stuff (which we've been doing since nearly the dawn of agriculture, breeding animal species into another, or cross-breeding plants for efficiency or even just aesthetics). Not to mention transplanting crops outside their normal growth regions, which has to involve some level of forced mutation. That said, there's a very questionable level of testing to some of the procedures currently being done in GM, which we'll cover in #3.

2)Basically it makes food more expensive if you grow it in less efficient way. I guess it comes down to personal preference. Some people will prefer a book to an e-book. Some people will prefer well=constructed handmade wood furniture to Walmart sawdust board held together by pegs. It's also very obvious that we can't support 9-10 billion people on Earth with organic methods, though in the same argument, the ludicrously unchecked population growth is the problem there (also causing power shortages, water shortages, pollution, rising real estate prices, unemployment, etc).

3)Carrying immediately over, America has a massively over-dense population. They literally can't feed themselves with an all organic model. They're also very concerned about maintaining a low cost of living as much of the ever-mentioned 99% are somewhat scraping buy for living costs. Also, America is home to one of the biggest (if not the biggest), and most affluential GM-crop producers in Monsanto. They're also one of the most questionable in regards to properly testing their stuff in regards to dangerous effects. Monsanto on the other hand is banned in most of Europe. In more generalized terms, any european nation is easier to win over then the full mass of America. Its a significantly smaller (and thereby more representative, and accountable) government, and a much smaller audience to inform with a message.


Bullet Points
-GMO is probably useful, and not nearly as much of a new Michael Crichton esque technological boogeyman as some would state.
-The US is terrible at regulating stuff, which has led to their GMO makers being really poor for making and releasing things that should still be in years of testing. Subsequently, half of Europes banned US GMOs, and they take huge hits in the press. Less so in US press due to interweaving corporate politics.
-Organic Farming is generally equally poorly regulated in its definition, and operating under nebulous definitions. Its also not Free-Trade or Cruelty Free in of itself.
-Both models will never sustain human population at current expansion rates. Human Population reaching critical mass is probably its own discussion that I tangented on enough already.

 

[Phantom Kat]

Not going to lie, when I first saw the title I thought it said "organ farming".

I don't really care about organic foods per se, though home-grown/free range/wild foodstuffs tend to be more flavourful in my experience. This is probably because the food is fresher (or has had a more varied diet) than what you buy in stores.

 

[Souplex]

No legitimate study has every conclusively proven any benefit to organic food/farming.
It has lower crop yields, is more expensive, and produces smaller food.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Organic is pretty much defined as not using pesticides or GM crops.

They can use pesticides but not ones made in a lab. So they end up using potentially more dangerous things on the crops.

Or ironic ones. One popular GMO corn variety produces an enzyme that originally came from a bacteria to repel caterpillars. The "organic" method simply involves spraying the corn with the same damn enzyme except now it has to constantly be reapplied.

As a chemist, I dislike "organic" because of the stigma it puts on synthetic products, GMO's, and science in general. You think buying food from an "organic" farmer's market is better? Well you're probably right. Do you think there's a difference between normal super market cornflakes and "organic" cornflakes? Probably not. All it does is cause people to waste time and energy to fill a nonexistent need and spread ignorant bullshit.

Just to clarify, I'm talking almost exclusively about plants. I won't argue about hormones in livestock and the conditions in which they're raised. That kind of stuff needs to be improved. But that's probably not what the angry masses on the Internet are thinking about when they hear the term "organic"

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

My bit to the GM debate are two points:
When we cross two breeds of a plant, in theory its genetic manipulation. Thats right.
But now we put bacterial genes into plants to make them resistant to pesticides! That has nothing to do with natural cross-breeding! We have no idea what that may do to the environment in the long run!

You can still make a pretty good guess. "Oh noes! This strawberry now has fish genes! Soon there'll be fish strawberry mutants!" Unfortunately, reality doesn't follow comic book logic. Its only one single gene being added to a plant, in my example its a gene found in deep sea fish that produces a protein that acts as an anti-freeze and allows strawberries to be grown in cold environments. It will contain nothing but that. Whats the worst that could happen? Canada suddenly becomes overrun with strawberry fields?

Also, the company who makes the pesticide-resistant plant also makes the pesticide. And they have a copyright! on the plant! There are cases of farmers who got sued because the wind blew over some seeds to their fields!

Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser]: The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest.
........................................................................................................................

The case was frequently connected with that of the so-called Harvard mouse, where in 2002 the Supreme Court had rejected a patent for a special breed of mouse developed for research by Harvard University. It was a precedent-setting case in the right to own higher lifeforms, where the Canadian ruling went against findings in the US and Europe, where the patent was upheld. This angle on Monsanto v. Schmeiser was misleading, as the Supreme Court eventually took pains to point out, as the case focused strictly on the application of existing patent law, and did not break new ground in biotechnology areas.

Also most of these breeds are infertile. That means none of the harvest can be used to resow the fields! Every year you have to pay the company for the seeds!

Which would matter if most farmers reused seeds. Its usually too time consuming and the seeds need to be stored somewhere over the winter and you have to cross your fingers that they don't succumb to mold. Its cheaper to buy them again every season. Or you could get natural crops if it mattered so much

So patents on genes and the corporate power of modern agricultural giants like monsanto, who destroy whole ecosystems just to make more profit, thats the real danger with GM-Foods!

I'm gonna need a citation on that because it sounds like a pretty big assumption

 

[UBERfionn]

Organic is pretty much defined as not using pesticides or GM crops.

They can use pesticides but not ones made in a lab. So they end up using potentially more dangerous things on the crops.

Or ironic ones. One popular GMO corn variety produces an enzyme that originally came from a bacteria to repel caterpillars. The "organic" method simply involves spraying the corn with the same damn enzyme except now it has to constantly be reapplied.

As a chemist, I dislike "organic" because of the stigma it puts on synthetic products, GMO's, and science in general. You think buying food from an "organic" farmer's market is better? Well you're probably right. Do you think there's a difference between normal super market cornflakes and "organic" cornflakes? Probably not. All it does is cause people to waste time and energy to fill a nonexistent need and spread ignorant bullshit.

Just to clarify, I'm talking almost exclusively about plants. I won't argue about hormones in livestock and the conditions in which they're raised. That kind of stuff needs to be improved. But that's probably not what the angry masses on the Internet are thinking about when they hear the term "organic"

The worst thing is that, as far as I could tell, there is no compelling evidence to say that the meat from cows given hormones is any different than the organic kind. They all have hormones in them anyway and by the time they get to your plate there kinda the same. Although I'll admit that the conditions that some animals live in isn't nice.

The negative labels that get put on GM foods make me laugh sometimes because all farmed food is genetically modified anyway were just doing it quicker and in a lab nowadays. People aren't splicing fish DNA into food and giving it to people to eat.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Just to clarify, I'm talking almost exclusively about plants. I won't argue about hormones in livestock and the conditions in which they're raised. That kind of stuff needs to be improved. But that's probably not what the angry masses on the Internet are thinking about when they hear the term "organic"

The worst thing is that, as far as I could tell, there is no compelling evidence to say that the meat from cows given hormones is any different than the organic kind. They all have hormones in them anyway and by the time they get to your plate there kinda the same. Although I'll admit that the conditions that some animals live in isn't nice.

Interesting. Maybe hormones aren't so bad then but most of the antibiotics used in America are on farm animals. Overuse of antibiotics leads to antibiotic resistant diseases. When it comes to the treatment of the animals we eat, I just sort of assume its bad. I guess I can feel a little better about eating meat hormone filled animals now

The negative labels that get put on GM foods make me laugh sometimes because all farmed food is genetically modified anyway were just doing it quicker and in a lab nowadays. People aren't splicing fish DNA into food and giving it to people to eat.

Actually, they are. I mentioned it in my other post about gene found in deep sea fish that creates a protein that acts as an anti-freeze getting put into strawberries so they could be grown in the cold. Thing is, fish DNA is a scary sounding misnomer. Its just one gene that leads to the production of one protein and nothing more. It won't cause plants to grow gills and what not. I'm not sure if this plant was ever put on the market though. But you're right. Its funny how people don't realize that all our foods were heavily modified centuries ago. Corn originally came from a plant that looked a lot like wheat. Wheat itself was heavily modified by a biologist in the 70's to grow in harsher conditions which has prevented famine across the world. I remember Movie Bob pointed out the irony in the term Frankenfood considering Frankenstein was a misunderstood and people feared him because they didn't understand him