Of cabbages and chemicals (An organic farming debate)

[paperbackwriter]

Attrayant: Huh? I don’t know what this comment has to do with the question at hand. The global population is, on the other hand, directly related to how much food can be produced. Without modern farming methods, there can be no doubt that the Earth could not feed 5.8 billion people.

Originally posted by perspective
So you’d rather eat the poison than release it in the wild? How noble.

Remember, though, that not all herbicides and fertilizers are poisonous, especially once the produce is washed and gets to the table. I think it is inaccurate of you to continue to call all chemicals “poisons”.

If I told you that you could get all of nutrients from taking a multi-vitamin, would you forego a reasonable well balanced diet?

You bring up a good point, but I don’t think you can demonstrate that there’s any evidence that an ear of corn from an organic farmer’s field has any different nutrient content than any other ear of corn. The reason that health authorities prefer vitamins from food to synthetic vitamins relates more to absorption and efficacy of use. Vitamins are better absorbed and used by the body when consumed with food.

If the plants grow bigger, they are more nutritious. The amount (not percentage) of carbohydrates, fiber, proteins, etc. are all going to be higher if the ear of corn is bigger. Increase the size of the pie and all the slices are larger. That’s why we can feed more people with less land in cultivation – the land is more productive.

However, I still think the wisest approach is one that is based on long term sustainability. I think some pesticides can be used safely, but almost any can be overused.

I don’t disagree. In fact, I think anyone who is not an idealogue would agree. But this is not organic farming as the proponents of that movement define it. I think we also agree that organic farming is not going to feed the world. It seems you would like to see “almost organic” or “organic lite” become acceptable. I think some fusion of modern and organic agriculture might be feasible for some crops. I don’t see a lot of difference in those two positions, even if reached from different paths.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by perspective *
A healthy plant is more resistant to pests and also more nutritional.

I’m not sure that the second part of this statement is necessarily true; a healthy plant is more capable of looking after its own needs, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that those needs will translate into a greater nutritional benefit for the human consumer. I’m trying to think of an example and the best I can do is Chicory and Endives; these plants are deliberately rendered unhealthy (by preventing their access to sunlight) in order to make them more palatable (I’m not sure if the bitter compounds that they produce under full light are actually harmful, but perhaps you get the idea).
Tomatoes produce more flavoursome fruit if you stress them (although the total yield will be smaller), cucumbers are prevented from pollinating (which, arguably, from the point of view of the plant is not ‘healthy’) because pollination results in distorted bitter fruits.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

I don’t know what this comment has to do with the question at hand. The global population is, on the other hand, directly related to how much food can be produced. Without modern farming methods, there can be no doubt that the Earth could not feed 5.8 billion people.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The population increase was a direct result of increased food production? How do you know that it wasn’t due to (e.g.) medical advancements? People live longer then ever now, and what do you suppose is the infant mortality rate is now compared to 100+years ago? I’m just saying that

Non-organic farming is only about a hundred to a hundred fifty years old. In that time, the world’s population has increased

is making an extremely hasty conclusion.

Without modern farming methods, there can be no doubt that the Earth could not feed 5.8 billion people.

Just because there are 5.8 billion people
does not mean we are feeding all of them.

[Mangetout]

But (max)Global population is related to food production; if the food were not available, the people would not live and the population would decline (or at least not have grown); to say that X is supported by Y is not an assertion that Y causes X.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

I wasn’t suggesting that it’s totally unrelated, just that it’s sloppy to say that result Y was explicitly due from cause X. In this case, Y resulted from X along with A, B, C and D, and possibly all the way to Z.

[Mangetout]

My reading of paperbackwriter’s post doesn’t recognise it as an assertion of explicit cause.

[perspective]

*Originally posted by paperbackwriter *
Remember, though, that not all herbicides and fertilizers are poisonous, especially once the produce is washed and gets to the table. I think it is inaccurate of you to continue to call all chemicals “poisons”.

Does
insecticide sound all that more tasty than poison? The corn I was talking
about makes its own insectide which cannot be washed off.

Bt supposedly breaks down on contact with digestive acids in the human body, but we’ve made mistakes before with chemicals. Sometimes not realizing the dangers until after years of use.

You bring up a good point, but I don’t think you can demonstrate that there’s any evidence that an ear of corn from an organic farmer’s field has any different nutrient content than any other ear of corn…If the plants grow bigger, they are more nutritious. The amount (not percentage) of carbohydrates, fiber, proteins, etc. are all going to be higher if the ear of corn is bigger. Increase the size of the pie and all the slices are larger. That’s why we can feed more people with less land in cultivation – the land is more productive.

The mere fact that you didn’t use synthetic fertilizers will not guarantee a more nutritious ear of corn. However, organic farming practices typically provide a very healthy topsoil with a high concentration of trace minerals that are not necessary to grow a larger ear of corn.

The reason that health authorities prefer vitamins from food to synthetic vitamins relates more to absorption and efficacy of use. Vitamins are better absorbed and used by the body when consumed with food.

Well yes, but what if you consumed your vitamins with corn chips and soda? Most doctors would probably reccomend getting your vitamins from natural sources. If you have a deficiency, they might reccomend supplements for a while, but ulimately if you can get what you need from actual food you’re probably better off. The analogue is, if we throw nitrogen in poor soil we might get a larger plant, but not necessarily all of the minerals we need.

I think we also agree that organic farming is not going to feed the world.

I wouldn’t say that, I just don’t have the evidence to back up the assertion that it can. If someone can present conclusive evidence that it won’t I’d like to see it too.

Interestingly enough, third world people who produce their own food in what is already a labor intensive fashion, and cannot always afford synthetic products, could actually benefit from advances in organic farming. So in short, I don’t think it’s just for yuppies.

Feeding the world is a much more difficult question. China for instance, might be hard pressed to rely entirely on organic agriculture, due to it’s high population density.

I’m interested in having an adequate food supply for the world, but not just for today, I want something that is sustainable and reliably safe. This may involve synthetic technology, but if we don’t need it, I’d like to do without it.

[partly_warmer]

The original focus of the OP was not about “adulteration”, because corn grown on a farm using nitrogen fertilizers is the same as corn grown on a farm using manure. It’s not adulterated in any way. Although your post brings up one of the points of my original question, the point that “organic” produce is inherently “purer” on some level. I think this is true only on an emotional or psychological level. And if by “wild things” you are referring to fertilizers or long-in-use pesticides, I think that we are sure of those results. If you mean new classes of pesticides, I might agree.

This definition comes from

http://www.gks.com/library/transition.html. As the page notes, this is the more legally-binding sense of the definition:

“An organic product is that which is raised, grown, stored, and/or processed without the use of synthetically-produced chemicals or fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, or any other pesticides, growth hormones or growth regulators.”

I don’t want to wrangle too much about this, but my issue with this definition lies in the word “synthetically”. To my mind any chemicals man puts together which do not occur in nature are synthetic. That means for example the processes of smoking or curing with salt are synthetic.

That’s why I felt at the heart of the intent of “organic” farming is to avoid doing “wild things”, and stick with tried and true methods.

MGibson, its quite correct that farmers would like to eliminate the cost of pesticides. I have a balance sheet to hand that I have to review showing the cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer, Topnotch, Crop Oil, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Mixed Fertilizer as taking (roughly) 20% of the profit. Fan of eating unadulterated food that I am, I can’t figure out any way to stop them from putting (some of) this garbage on. I know the farm manager, he’s an experienced, honest businessman, and he wouldn’t do this if it didn’t improve the profit.

But perspective’s right when he says that a bigger plant isn’t necessarily more nutritious. The first thing that comes to mind is additional water content. If a bigger plant just has more water, it makes no nutritional difference. No doubt there are other ways a plant could be “bulked” without increasing its food value.

[partly_warmer]

The original focus of the OP was not about “adulteration”, because corn grown on a farm using nitrogen fertilizers is the same as corn grown on a farm using manure. It’s not adulterated in any way. Although your post brings up one of the points of my original question, the point that “organic” produce is inherently “purer” on some level. I think this is true only on an emotional or psychological level. And if by “wild things” you are referring to fertilizers or long-in-use pesticides, I think that we are sure of those results. If you mean new classes of pesticides, I might agree.

This definition comes from

http://www.gks.com/library/transition.html. As the page notes, this is the more legally-binding sense of the definition:

“An organic product is that which is raised, grown, stored, and/or processed without the use of synthetically-produced chemicals or fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, or any other pesticides, growth hormones or growth regulators.”

I don’t want to wrangle too much about this, but my issue with this definition lies in the word “synthetically”. To my mind any chemicals man puts together which do not occur in nature are synthetic. That means for example the processes of smoking or curing with salt are synthetic.

That’s why I felt at the heart of the intent of “organic” farming is to avoid doing “wild things”, and stick with tried and true methods.

MGibson, its quite correct that farmers would like to eliminate the cost of pesticides. I have a balance sheet to hand that I have to review showing the cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer, Topnotch, Crop Oil, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Mixed Fertilizer as taking (roughly) 20% of the profit. Fan of eating unadulterated food that I am, I can’t figure out any way to stop them from putting (some of) this garbage on. I know the farm manager, he’s an experienced, honest businessman, and he wouldn’t do this if it didn’t improve the profit.

But perspective’s right when he says that a bigger plant isn’t necessarily more nutritious. The first thing that comes to mind is additional water content. If a bigger plant just has more water, it makes no nutritional difference. No doubt there are other ways a plant could be “bulked” without increasing its food value.

[paperbackwriter]

Whew, a lot to reply to. Feel at something of a connection speed disadvantage.

Attrayant, if you follow some of the links I have posted in my previous arguments, I think you will find that they support my position. I acknowledged the current famines by posting a link to the UN World Food Program, but more importantly my first link will lead to support for the proposition that nitrogen fertilizers are one of the most important advances of the “agricultural revolution,” and that authorities generally accept that Haber’s advances allowed the world population to increase. As Mangetout points out ([sub]thanks[/sub]), I did not mean to imply that the sole reason for increased global population is increased food supplies, but it is an important one. And it is also a reinforcing factor in other reasons for increased population. For instance, increasing maternal nutrition results in higher birth-weight babies, which gives the children a greater chance of reaching adulthood and thereby having more children of their own. Not a direct cause, but a contributory factor.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by perspective *
**
Bt supposedly breaks down on contact with digestive acids in the human body, but we’ve made mistakes before with chemicals. Sometimes not realizing the dangers until after years of use.

**

I see no reason to be paralyzed with fear because mistakes have been made in the past.

**
I wouldn’t say that, I just don’t have the evidence to back up the assertion that it can. If someone can present conclusive evidence that it won’t I’d like to see it too.

**

There is no conclusive evidence that it won’t. Organic farming is just more labor intensive, requires more land for the same amount of crop, and ultimately cost more.

Farming isn’t as easy as people think it is and crop conditions can vary greatly from county to county let alone from state to state. For example they’ve been catching bollweevils in my fields like they’re going out of style. So to protect my crops from being eaten I have to spray insecticide. Sometimes we look at a field and decide that while it has weeds it wouldn’t be cost effective to spray this year. There are a lot of decisions that go into how to handle the crops and it can change from year to year depending on conditions.

**
Interestingly enough, third world people who produce their own food in what is already a labor intensive fashion, and cannot always afford synthetic products, could actually benefit from advances in organic farming. So in short, I don’t think it’s just for yuppies.

**

GM crops are slowly making their way into 3rd world nations. Currently about 2% of the population of the United States is directly engaged in farming. I don’t want to condemn 3rd world nations to intensive laboring for food otherwise they’ll never have the opportunity to really improve things.

**
Feeding the world is a much more difficult question. China for instance, might be hard pressed to rely entirely on organic agriculture, due to it’s high population density.

**

Feeding the world these days is largely a matter of distribution rather then actual growing ability.

**
I’m interested in having an adequate food supply for the world, but not just for today, I want something that is sustainable and reliably safe. This may involve synthetic technology, but if we don’t need it, I’d like to do without it. **

Hence we have organic filling a niche market for people who prefer it. I can’t make a profit most years on soybeans or cotton organically.

Marc

[Odesio]

Sorry I haven’t been around more for the discussion. I’m currently moving and most of my farm reports are packed away in some mysterious box.

Marc

[perspective]

*Originally posted by MGibson *
I see no reason to be paralyzed with fear because mistakes have been made in the past.

There is a difference between being paralyzed and always looking for chemicals to solve our problems. A slower more careful approach could be much more beneficial in the long run.