Organic agriculture and feeding the hungry - studies sited

[groovedaddy]

Hanging in the balance
Fate of the globe’s poor rests with organics, which yield far more than chem-grown crops
By WAYNE ROBERTS - NOW Magazine

"Organic food, which has seemed to cater to an exclusive and affluent group in the industrialized world since 1990, is now ranked by two just-released studies as critical to feeding the world's hungry."

entire article:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2007-07-26/news_story5.php

[glowing]

1. Simply amazing that the natural way is just better in the end.

Seeds for next years harvest, cleaner environment due to less pesticides and fertilizers, and a country that doesn't have to wait for hand outs from the world.

[73montecarlo]

2. HAHAHAHAH

"Fate of the globe’s poor rests with organics, which yield far more than chem-grown crops"


Sorry that is

1) Just unadulterated BS

2) Not what the linked story says.

[NMDemDist2]

4. what article did you read??? It's the sub head of the story and exactly

what the article posits

welcome to DU and enjoy your stay

:hi:

[Oerdin]

6. right on the money.

The claims made in the OP are complete BS.

[hippywife]

8. I'm guessing you aren't around anymore.

There's really no reason to come in and act the ass, ya know?

[Tumbulu]

3. Thanks for the post

Good article and way to start the day.

I think that it could be more accurate to say that organic agriculture yields more over time and per calorie input. I have never seen one of my organic crops outyield a conventional crop on a per acre basis. But the yields are more consistent and of higher quality and the inputs lower and less polluting if polluting at all.

[Oerdin]

5. Come back to reality.

Wild claims by nonscientific partisan hack organizations aside study after study shows organic farms simply produce 10%-20% less per acre in usable food. That's just reality.

http://www.neon.cornell.edu/training/ppts/OrganicFarmYieldandProfitability.pdf

With a world facing ever higher food prices we won't be able to switch to all organic farming without spiking prices even higher resulting in a lot of people starving to death. Again reality.

Organic farming is a nice thing for rich folks and it does make farming easier on the land but there simply hasn't been any measurable difference between traditional and organic produce. The main factor which does make a difference is freshness (not organic vs traditional) and often times it's both better for you & the environment to by traditional but locally grown produce then to buy organic produce which has to be shipped in.

[hippywife]

7. Not true.

The part about not being any measurable difference. We order organic meat, produce, and dairy from our food co-op. The taste and quality are incredibly better. Very measurable.

In addition, I truly believe that's why there seem to be so many instances of cancer occurring in healthy, younger people around. There have been so many in just my own circle of friends and their next circle of friends. Pesticides and herbicides, I believe, will turn out to be the culprit.

You might want to check out "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food" both by Michael Pollan. Both very compelling reads. :hi:

[galledgoblin]

9. "nonscientific partisan hack"... I'm sure the U of Michigan and Cornell would refute that title

yes, you're right, in terms of sheer volume on level ground (well funded and supplied conventional farming v. well funded and supplied organic), organic farming cannot compete.

but the quality of the food decreases the further we take it from organic; the protein in corn has decreased as sugar amounts have increased in conventional brands.

also, as the article says, "the strongest feature of organic agriculture... is its ability to use local and natural assets – compost and animal manure, or traditional and well-adapted crops... Full-spectrum availability must also include access, which means farmers have to be able to afford new seeds and, in conventional ag, pesticides; consumers need to have enough money to buy food and be near markets where food is sold – all matters that go unexamined in standard bragging about big-is-better."

forcing developing nations to use conventional methods strips them of their independence and indebts them to us... up until farmers can no longer pay and then start starving.

...and 8 case studies? are you seriously using a college student powerpoint with 8 case studies as back-up?

[lepus]

10. a lot of the decrease in quality in conventional crops is not because of the method they are grown.

It is due to how they grown for marketing.

Tomatoes are picked green nowadays for shipping due to the inablity to get them to the store in time if they are allowed to redden on the vine. Most breeds of corn are either bred for taste, for carbs, or the ability to ship well.

I personally use conventional gardening techniques. I will use about 5 pounds of chemical fertilizer on my garden selectively applied throughout the growing season. I use analogs of insecticides found in nature to protect a lot of what growing. I also use a lot of local mulch and manure to try to replenish the soil so it does not become depleted.

My crops will taste the same as other crops from the same seed stock produced organically. Yes I understand it is heresy to say that but,,,

The big thing about organic gardening in the third world is sustainability, not efficiency.

A fifty pound bag of fertilizer and a bottle of decent insecticide does not cost all that much compared to the hours a third world small farmer is already investing in his crops. The return on the investment can be pretty huge if used properly. If conventional methods did not work so well, they would not have caught on.

[hippywife]

13. There are schools of thought,

and scientific proof that I can't put my hands on at the moment, that the more we fertilize and spray against weeds and pests, the less food crops develop their natural defenses which contain many of the nutrients that are beneficial to humans and animals who eat them.

Not to mention the problems caused by those chemicals leeching into the water table and into the reproductive systems of humans and wildlife. How do we know they aren't responsible for many of the cancers and other diseases? I'm not willing to take the chance when I have a choice? Why add to the risks?

And manure will eventually cause burnout and have the opposite effect of what is intended. It can't be used indefinitely.

[newfie11]

11. In order to grow organic

you have to build up the nutrients in the soil. This cannot be done overnight especially on ground that has for years been cropped using chemical fertilizer and pesticides.

[lepus]

12. I totally agree.

I use fertilizers and pesticides on my garden, I just do not use them to any major degree. I do not wantonly spray or fertilize all over.

The soil where I am is poor do to geography and the last owner using slash and burn for a long time. The problem with that is that it prevents organics from building up in the soil.

I plan on remedying that when I have time. Leaves from the woods and manure from where we feed the cows.

[hippywife]

14. Have you looked into

planting the various cover crops that add nutrients back into the soil?

[lepus]

15. I will look into that in the coming years.

My first need is to build up the soil first. The quickest way to do that IMHO is the rapid injection of organics into the soil to break it up and add some nutrients.