U.S. Pays Farmers Billions to Save Soil, But It's Blowing Away
npr.org
npr.org
I find there are 4 main problems associated with erosion where I work (Portugal):
1) Herbicides overkill leads to the death of useful grasses that help hold soil structure. Some fungicides may kill mycorrhizae which are fundamental in soil maintenance (http://mycorrhizae.com/wp-content/uploads/Effects-of-Fungici...)
2) Tillage avoidance is recommended, and in some cases prohibited. But people do it nevertheless... The consequences are obvious.
3) Dams built with irrigation in mind often accumulate mineral salts at a rate larger than what Nature would drain towards the sea. Since water is used in places with lower rain levels, drainage in those places is low as well, which leads to salination (Sometimes it also leads to lower levels of mineral salts in river mouths, thus a decline in phytoplankton and as as consequence fish populations).
4) Global warming means tougher draughts and heavier rains, which means more erosion.
We're headed to some serious problems if we don't take these issues seriously.
For example, somebody might be selling land (because they know such issues will get worse in the future), and if farming will be prohibited, they will get a worse price for the land. Hence best to deny, or at least question the existence of soil problems.
If these entities have a lot of money, they can create their own journals and publish science that says "there is no problem with the soil". They can also bribe scientists and reviewers with high status. They can lobby politicians. And lastly, the media can be caught too, you have to frame it as a political issue so you have 50% of the media in your pocket.
Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it.
In agriculture, people tend to ignore the problem because it leads to lesser profits in the short term. The food industry, one of the major clients of agrobusiness is very competitive. The phyto pharmaceutical industry keeps pushing their products just like the pharmaceutical companies in hospitals. In fact, they're the same corporations most of the time.
In this case, lobbying happens in the Union level, i.e. the European Parliament.
The pressure is to great for small farmers to deal with.
That is also happening with the construction/concrete lobby (and I presume that sometimes the land price rises if you plan to build housing around cities in the countryside).
Construction companies build regardless of erosion or flooding problems. It's not their problem once they finish the job. That happens a lot around here. Politicians only think in the short term. "Yeah, sure there's the problem of seasonal fires, draughts and floods. We'll make use of some catastrophe fund. But you can't forget jobs in construction and tourism infrastructure!" Result: concrete all over.
It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. Either you're wrong and you're no further behind, in fact, from a trust standpoint, you're ahead because you're now in control of your food supply from the ground to your plate... and if you're right, then you win.
I'm over simplifying to be facetious, but my point stands. If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. Unfortunately 90% of the population are happy with just complaining and being armchair politicians and only make the convenient choices that don't interfere with their comfort and their status quo.
If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them, or support them as little as absolutely possible. Support your local farms and farmers. Support Mom & Pop stores in your local area. Buy from farmers markets. Learn to preserve food over the winter months when it's not available. Eat seasonal produce.
Of course, everyone's lives are nuanced and complicated. It's not as easy as it sounds for most people. But I firmly believe that if you truly believe we have a problem (which I do), then do something about it instead of just talk, complain and continue life as normal.
One problem with this is that we fall into a very suboptimal, deleterious Nash Equilibrium. Imagine you're in the 90% of farmers that can't set themselves up "high in the water catch basin" because there is limited space up there. You may be very aware of the problem, but it can only be solved if a majority of farmers in the valley adopt sustainable practices. And, if a majority are not going to do so, then you're am simply hurting myself if I incur the expense of adopting those practices yourself. There is some missing ingredient that needs to be added before people will start cooperating to ensure a long-term good state of affairs.
Another problem is that, even if you do set up high in the catch basin and use sustainable farming practices, your produce is going to be comparatively expensive and noone is going to buy it until such time that all those farmers below you finish ruining their soil/aquifer. And you have to eat in the meantime.
The problem with everyone finding problems is that they use these problems as excuses not to make any changes. That puts them in the 90% of people who complain and do nothing.
As Venture Capitalists always say - they're not interested in ideas, they're interested in people who can execute. Either you can (and do) execute, or you can't (or don't).
Not all legitimate action means moving up the catch basin and growing your own crops. There is legitimate action that can be taken in the city, in the suburbs and in low lying rural areas. You're not hurting yourself by adopting a sustainable lifestyle, you're helping yourself and the planet in the process.
This is true. But in the case of many problems around Ecology, most solutions orbit around collective action. Individual actions count, but some of them must be taken in the community/region/national level.
It's definitely the state's function to care about soil erosion, not mine.
I vote and pay taxes and expect stuff like courts, law enforcement and military to be taken care of as well.
P.S. I work in the software business too.
Additionally: Do you honestly think that given the Government's lack of guarantee to provide you with free healthcare, clean water, even clean air... given many states atrocious track record for this: Look at Flint with the lead in the water, look at Pennsylvania with oil companies fracking and polluting the drinking water meaning you can literally light the water pouring from your kitchen tap on fire. Do you really trust your Government to provide you any kind of regard when they've got lobbyists campaigning left, right and centre for the interests of people who don't give a shit about you and yours, just their shareholder profits?
I think it's naive to expect that the Government will do the right thing, even though as tax payers we should rightfully be able to expect that. They've proven too many times that they won't. The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you want different results, something's gotta change. You have no surer way of doing something different than doing it yourself.
We are not there on greenhouse gas pollution, but the EPA has done some wonderful work on particulate pollution. Also, remember that the old ozone hole is healing? That was helped by a consortium of governments.
"Gov't" can mean so many things. This meme ("the Government can and does fuck up pretty much everything you hire them to do") is inaccurate and heavily influenced by the high profile failures that lead to availability bias.
Where is the water for your well coming from?
Your plan sounds good, but the details have to be got right, and we do not know how to get the details right (though we know more now that we need in the past)
I jest... but not really.
You'd be surprised just how accessible the water table is, depending on your region. If there are trees on your property, there's a reasonably good chance you're close enough to water to dig a well and get good throughput. If you're looking to buy property, look for properties that have trees that normally require a lot of water. Just by way of example, if there's a Willow tree(s) on the property, there's a good chance you've got water... and aspirin.
If your question was related to contaminants and so forth, obviously you have to be aware of where the water is flowing from upstream. If you're downstream of a high contamination zone, your only real choice is to move, sadly.
Contaminants are a valid question too though.
Actually, that is not correct. If your neighbour uses fertilizers in excess, your well will be contaminated through drainage. Then you have to adjust your own fertilizer's NPK levels, by subtracting the NPK levels on your contaminated water. Unfortunately, this often saturates, but you still have to fertilize because ammonia/urea and their salts degrade and are easily dissolved in water thus improving acidity and draining fast.
If your neighbours use insecticide in excess, your pollination rates drop as well, and so your yields.
If your neighbours use the wrong kind of fungicide, mycorrhizae will suffer, and so will your crops if they depend on them.
> It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not.
Yes it does. If you believe that you will be the last farmer standing, you're wrong. Your yields will drop as well.
It's like a stampede: you can't stop it, you can just join everyone and run. Unless people organize and stop the madness.
Putting my money where my mouth is doesn't work because other peoples' actions count.
>If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them
I try every effin day. But it turns out everyone has to do it, otherwise it's just (collective) suicide.
>I know this, because I do it.
I didn't want to imply that there was no solution for this problem. I only stated, from my own perspective as a farmer, how hard it is.
Thanks for participating in the conversation though, it's an important conversation that I feel more people should be having and helping to find solutions for, because it's not a simple problem to solve and many hands make light work.
>Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it.
That is true, but even if there is a perception of a real problem, the short term rules. If it is not as profitable, they ignore it. It's not going to be their problem 50 years ahead.
It's just not within the realm of possibility.
Rather, everything from "best to deny..." to "...bribe scientists and reviewers" got skipped. It just didn't change anything.
Pretty much everyone knows soil erosion, desertification, and aquifer drawdown are major issues in the US Midwest. Certainly everyone with a big enough farm to have a major impact does. Cattle feedlots have been moved out of the TX/OK panhandle area because water is so scarce. Politicians are painfully aware of it.
But there's no incentive to fix it, because the fix is basically just triggering the shutdown sooner. Eventually soil and water issues will cripple midwestern farming, but avoiding that means slashing farming volume now. Better for the environment, but not for most of the people there.
So... no conspiracy, everyone knows, but the problem continues. Ironically, the conspiracy story shows too much faith in our government - it assumes they would act if they knew!
Erosion is not the result of global warming. Erosion is the largest source of CO2 on Earth. It's an order of magnitude larger than all fossil fuel combustion combined.
http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html
Not picking on you specifically. It's a common misunderstanding. The media has badly misinformed people in an effort to push an agenda.
Take permafrost, for instance. A small increase in the temperature might lead to an even bigger one. This is well documented.
Storms lead to weathering. Weathering is a carbon sink.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711...
>Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's.
Ice cream doesn't lead to hot summer days. It's the other way around. Erosion exposes further, deeper, top soil to erosion. By the time layer 1 is eroded to expose layer 2, layer 1 is already a done deal. You can pave over it if you like, but the CO2 is already gone. Close the barn! The horses escaped... too little, too late.
"Before the industrial revolution, the main source of fluctuation in atmospheric carbon was from changes in biomass and soil organic carbon. Now, fossil fuel burning is the greatest factor in atmospheric carbon fluctuations."
Lots of carbon is absorbed into the soil and lots is released as part of the normal carbon cycle, with the net effect being:
"The soil organic matter pool is currently losing about 1 to 2 gigatons of carbon per year to the atmospheric pool."
> Erosion is not the result of global warming
If global warming causes more droughts, and droughts cause soil loss, then isn't global warming contributing to erosion?
Your source and almost the entire amount of professional and informed review on this subject recognises the fossil fuels additional output is of great effect and danger to global climate.
a) Reduce erosion by 10%
b) reduce fossil fuel combustion by 100%
Soil oxidation and erosion should not be confused as the same process.
Well you probably certainly showed me. I'm glad we resolved that argument and can now continue doing nothing to solve problems like the destruction of arable soils.
It'll be interesting to see what boogeyman agribusiness can dream up after we've all switched over to solar and it can't shout about "muh fossil fuels" anymore.
It is "likely completely impossible" to reduce global soil erosion by 10% because when you consider that it includes all soil erosion globally (running off the sides of Mongolia.. Amazon.. Siberia.. etc.) -- I hope you can appreciate it is not what you took it to be at first glance.
62 gigatons of CO2 from soil erosion/oxidation
5 gigatons from fossil fuel combustion
If this were code paths and milliseconds, where would you start? I need to save 5ms, do I go for a 10% optimization in one function or do I eliminate a critical function? Hmm, would your brain really be this disconnected in that circumstance? Your conclusion is not rational.
You blame the source for your position. I know how the source arrives at fossil fuels. Soil science is in the agriculture department. You don't get far blaming the problem on farmers in a classroom full of farmers.
What I don't understand is how you manage to throw out all logic and reason on such a simple optimization problem. Your conclusions seem beyond reason. You can't look at that chart and draw your own conclusion? Did you even read the article?
"Across the country, farmers decided not to re-enroll 15.8 million acres of farmland in the CRP when those contracts expired between 2007 and 2014."
Hmm, 2007, hmmm,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01...
Brilliant idea. Let's burn the food and tear up new crop land to do it. We can actually make global starvation worse and increase atmospheric CO2 at the same time. It's like you have a vested interest in raising the price of corn at the expense of everything else. "LOL, we'll call it renewables!"
Maybe you aren't looking at solving the problem at all. Maybe you want to mislead everyone like the media does. Follow the money, as always.
The term is "organic matter oxidation/erosion", sorry ive not the time to explain at length what this term means when I already have highlighted its obvious meaning, but that is what you should revise if you wish to understand my correction to this thread. -- It is not a function which we know we have any significant control over.
Also engineering solutions to global environmental disturbance is no simple matter as shaving milliseconds here or there is. Even if the term "oxidation/erosion" meant what you took it to mean, and if we could adjust that global phenomenon as we wish we could, the effect and side effects of the adjustment are liable to further confound the aim to stabilise the system. (The system whose stability we depend on for everything, which can not be simply rolled back or upgraded)
>Maybe you want to mislead everyone like the media does.
Ive been observing media manipulation against knowledge of global warming, (and many other industrial wrongs) since the 1990s. Its an exasperating form of double-duping that after the achievement of the Copenhagen consensus, the oil funded message of denial started convincing people that it was the science which was a product of manipulation. As you are obviously thoughtful, open minded and concientious, i do hope you realise in time the true absurdity of the idea that AGW science is the product of manipulation and the oil industries are the victim of such a "green conspiracy".
-Joseph Heller, Catch-22
- David R. Montgomery, Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations
The point is ... this is indeed symptomatic of a system in which only certain things are valued with money, and everything else (the environment, the future, health, social wellbeing) is left largely unaccounted for.
So what's the solution? We tried carbon credits, but they were apparently insufficiently profitable or liquid as an asset class to attract investment, and perhaps the issue was that if country A implemented harsh environmental laws and nobody else did, all the industries left, which resulted in watering down the environmental commitments. While most developed world governments do OK at solving or at least limiting the effect of serious environmental issues locally, the issues that exceed national jurisdiction tend to grow unchallenged.
Interesting times.
Yes, the food wouldn't be as cheap, but at least there would be a huge incentive for people to find cheaper ways (maybe finally someone will make an effort to improve hydro/aeroponics).
Of course, capitalism is greedy, not globally optimal, so it is necessary that certain restrictions are made by law. Complex issue I guess, EU is on a good path IMO.
It must be the State reclaiming ownership of those commons, making people that benefit from them pay for their maintenance.
Besides, the State doesn't have to own everything. There's a middle ground between the flexibility of private ownership and the rigorousness of public management.
In the USSR everything was controlled by the State, and the State wasn't accountable by means of democracy.
I must say that from were I come, I have some pretty good examples of good public management, like healthcare and water management.
Also, a completely free market doesn't just lead to the tragedy of the commons, but to the rape of Nature.
You give the money, they spend it on the providers of their choice, and then you tax the money back out.
You say, why would the providers accept it? Because they have to. It would only get the minimum a person needs to survive.
Or a better way with less force on producers: a single payer system like SNAP program, that mandates producers sell basic food amount for a certain price if someone comes with food stamps. Because everyone needs food. Why would proucers accept this? Because they make up for it on volume of everyone who has the food stamps (in this scenario, everyone).
Same as why doctors currently accept Medicare even though it pays less on average.
What do you mean by that? Tax producers at a higher level to remove the subsidized profits from the system? That will have the same effect as before except higher taxes and decreased supply will be the cause of the price increase instead of simply decreased supply. As prices rise more people will need that assistance, thus causing prices to increase faster and faster.
Supply side policies have greatly distorted many of our markets. What is the true price of anything any more? How are we supposed to manage stuff if all the numbers are make believe?
I support price transparency, accountability, information symmetry.
The truth is soil is likely less important than this article would have you believe. Modern farming and fertilizers have rendered it obsolete.
This can be true to some farmers, but it is not to the big ones. Sure you can apply fertilizer, but you pay for that. If you build your soil the first 7 years you will spend more money for less yields, but after 7 years your better soil will yield more than someone who tries to just apply fertilizer.
The other problem with the apply fertilizer theory is you can only apply so much. Corn needs nitrogen, but too much will kill (or stunt) the corn. Good soils will produce nitrogen every day in smaller amounts.
Of course with we are talking about potassium, that is a mineral and you need to replace what you take off the land either way. So soil health alone cannot be the answer, soil health with fertilizer is ultimately a much better answer.
Having lived around farming for a few years and known / worked with many farmers, this isn't true at all. Soil and soil health is incredibly important.
It's on a good path as in, it acknowledges the issue and is working through regulations to remove the dependence or drastically reduce the dependence.
[1]: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/so...
By the same token I could argue that all people die so medicines are suspicious or overusing vitamin C is the culprit. There is no concieveable argument except one demanding politicians be omniscient and rational policies blamed because every policy ultimately leads to death, as people die, thus markets should sort things out.
Over producing food isn't about capitalism. It's for national security.
That's not food, that's luxury. Subsidies aren't necessary if you are seeking luxury, it's a waste.
But food running out isn't the problem you are talking about. You are talking about the failure of the logistics of the supply chain to grocery stores. Those stores carry a 3 day supply for their area, and most people are 100% reliant on them. And if they fail, the towns go hungry. Therein is the single point of failure.
Our mitigation for that is to split the food supply for our family in thirds... we still buy about a third from stores, like everyone else. We grow a third ourselves, and we get a third from other farms, some local, some remote from whom we ship things in monthly.
It is completely feasible to diversify your own food supply. If everyone did it, we'd still have pains if the supply chains failed. But they would be survivable pains.
Realistically, that leaves the food you are growing yourself. 1/3 of your normal intake does sound like a struggle already, but to compound the difficulties, you have to ensure that you have the food available when you need it which is more complex than setting up a garden. Not impossible, but certainly a lost art. I'm not sure it really is feasible to expect many to follow through with this.
True, but at the same time the EU piles on an endless stream of regulations on the farmers, forcing them to invest in heavy machinery, and undergo rigorous inspections to be able to sell their produce.
If you removed the trade barriers that prevent the developing countries from competing in agriculture, that would change rather quickly. They'd have a better shot at actually becoming "developed," too.
- access to capital. A modern family farm has several million dollars worth of land and several million dollars worth of machinery. Farmers don't buy $500,000 combine harvesters for no reason -- in the long run they're cheaper than the alternatives.
- security. A modern farmer just leaves millions of dollars worth of machinery in his yard, usually unlocked.
- information. In developed chemicals the government & universities put out lots of information about techniques, seed varieties, chemicals, machinery, timing, weather forecasting, et cetera
I can't speak to the state of information and knowledge of agriculture in the various countries we'd consider "developing," and how it compares to universities and government here, but I bet it varies quite widely. That's a good point, though - it matters a lot.
But as you sort of alluded to, in a free market some areas could put downward price pressure on corn even if they're not as efficient as Iowa. If they've got land that isn't very well suited for anything else, and it's a choice between making a little money on corn and little or no money at all with their arable land, they'll probably go for it...
His specific example is a river flowing tan from soil erosion; people who haven't been involved in farming don't necessarily know that the farming is the source of the erosion. I think it's also implied that as fewer people are involved in farming, vastly fewer have been exposed to farming methods that don't cause so much erosion.
Lest you think that Berry puts the "good old days" on a pedestal, he does not. He acknowledges the existence of wise and foolish farming practices dating back to when his parents were farming. He argues, however, that mechanization and the externalization of the costs of foolish practices have led to their increasing adoption.
His bibliography is extensive; if you're looking for a good intro to his work, I'd recommend Our Only World.
Could be that Iowa soil is so good already that our eroded clay hillsides are better than other states' best soil. I guess. But I'm thinking no.
If you have fertilizer, you don't need good soil. But it's better to have good soil and not need fertilizer. For one, good soil doesn't leak into waterways and destroy fish habitats the way nitrogen fertilizers do.
[1] I don't know of a link to watch it, but this blog post explains it well enough: https://permaculturenews.org/2014/10/11/discovering-oasis-am...
Bill's work often gets overlooked because it's "low tech," but that's a feature, not a bug.
Expensive tomatoes are preferable to desertification of the continent (which is what the deforestation, soil loss, and overgrazing due to agriculture cause). What do you think shutting down North America's water cycle will do to the GDP? Compared to paying more for groceries (a tiny sliver of GDP), it's an economic no-brainer.
As far as seeding without a tilth, that's very common practice over here in Canada. For example: https://www.deere.com/en_US/products/equipment/planting_and_...
We are talking about farming, not gardening.
Easements mean that the US taxpayers are further subsidizing farmers by paying farmers to literally do nothing.
The government needs to actually buy the land and make it into parks / preserves. This way it stays a natural resource, and can be sold (for a profit) later if it's no longer needed.
Water is tightly conserved, the main loss is through plant respiration, but even that could be reduced in a greenhouse. Then the main water loss would be either the occasional emergency flushing, when a tank of fish get sick, or through exporting the product itself.
Nutrients are greatly simplified by the fish and insect side of the system. Many of the vegetable byproducts can be converted into feed pellets, or used to grow grubs as feed. Some input may still be needed, beyond atmospheric CO2, in the form of supplemental fish feed.
Automation in aquaponics is unheard of, but it should be much cheaper, because the plants are not embedded in soil. The presence of healthy, voracious predators (fish, frogs, geckos) reduces the insect-related problems. A tolerance for insects reduces fungus problems. There is little or no need to spray the crops.
Are we not scaling up because of a lack of research? Are there just too many unknowns for anyone to invest in the $100M range? Have there already been large scale failures where we were unable to analyze the root cause, due to the biological complexity of the system? This all looks so good on a small scale.
I'd also be concerned that the produce would lack micro nutrients because the system is artificial.
That said, I think aquaponics will be part of the solution.
Basically, yeah, artificialness is a liability, and it should be minimized intelligently. Not by imitating a jungle, that is impossible, but by being highly aware of the local microbiomes and gently supporting beneficial negative feedback loops.
Make friends with a biologist.
As for the micro nutrients, this is what the fish and insect side of the system takes care of. If there is a deficiency, try to make it up through fish feed, not by directly feeding the plants. Fish hate concentrated fertilizers. Maintaining a barrel of "compost tea" is also an option, but it should be filtered through lots of grow media before the fish get it.
If you are really really brave, you might choose to experiment with a graywater system, but there is huge potential for problems like parasites and bacterial (i.e. E-coli) explosions.
Plant nutrition isn't that complex. Plant nutrition deficiencies are easy to diagnose and easy to treat. It only takes a few drops of say, molybdenum to give an entire field all micro-nutrient it needs.
There is no vital essence to micro-nutrients that are lost in a potted plant or aquaponics. It is simply a formula for nutrition, where a plant needs quantities fulfilled to be healthy.
In fact, it's gotten better. So much better that now obesity is the problem, not malnutrition.
Fish get sick and die when kept in big groups. It's a huge problem in fish farming, and they have a billion gallons of water at their disposal.
There simply isn't the water/infrastructure to provide the fish what then need at the scale they need it out in the middle of Iowa while also trying to profit from it.
>But why are there not legions of startups farming in the desert
No water, and permaculture methods to reverse desertification take decades with little monetary payoff.
The shear cost of building a pipeline to the desert would trounce any profit. That is if you could find a place to take the water from, which is unlikely.
>Nutrients are greatly simplified by the fish and insect side of the system
When it's working.
How do you troubleshoot a fish? How do you ask an insect to please move over a field?
These methods are great for an acre but collapse at scale. The advantage of synthetic and mined fertilizers is precision and quantity.
>Automation in aquaponics is unheard of, but it should be much cheaper
The number one rule in farming tech should be "you can't beat the economics of dirt and sun".
In aquaponics you are taking on a tremendous technical burden for little benefit. All of the variables that are naturally regulated within healthy soil are now on part of your farming overhead. It can be done, but it eats into your margins.
A lot of aquaponics food is sold as luxury items because of the care and cleanliness that goes into their growth. Luxury however, doesn't scale.
>This all looks so good on a small scale.
Famous last words.
Remember that anything an organic farmer can do a conventional farmer can do as well, and probably is.
Different incentives exist. The organic certification process of soil is very expensive (in terms of time, not cash), which creates a big incentive for organic farmers to protect it from erosion. Organic practices involve a lot more living matter being put into the soil that helps to retain water, a lot more mulching to protect it from erosion.
Conventional farmers, with access to cheaper fertilizers and the like, lack the extra incentive to protect their existing soil.
I expect as global warming shifts incentives (like the need for carbon-neutral fertilizers, drought-tolerant soil, etc) organic farming practices for soil management will get adopted by conventional farmers. Proving these techniques out will be how organic farmers are remembered, not the nonsense about GMOs.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-02-agriculture-key-world-sustaina...
"The results show that organic farming practices generally have positive impacts on the environment per unit of area, but not necessarily per product unit. Organic farms tend to have higher soil organic matter content and lower nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia emissions) per unit of field area. However, ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems" [1]
"In order to reduce the environmental impacts of farming in Europe, research efforts and policies should be targeted to developing farming systems that produce high yields with low negative environmental impacts drawing on techniques from both organic and conventional systems." [1]
This research was included in Science Vs Organic podcast [2] which was a pretty good episode and discusses the hybrid approach at the end which is apparently more common than people realize. Most debate on the topic seems to flare as if we must be either completely organic or just go conventional as if a balanced, combined approach is not an option.
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712...
To be dismissive of the biggest organised effort in the world to improve agricultural practice, and argue past it is really to miss out on the biggest opportunity to do so.
You just made an incredibly generalized statement which tries to shut down any criticism while conveniently ignoring research and data.
I proposed valid research that says that per unit, organic farms leach more ammonia, nitrogen and oxide per product unit. That's a problem because you need to produce X units and your waterways could get disrupted and contaminated more than if you used a hybrid or straight conventional system. However, research shows a lot of good things from organic methods.
It's certainly possible a hybrid approach is best. I don't know why you're so dismissive of research that suggests this.
That research I referenced covered bythe phys.org article is a substantial metareview published last year. You responded with a small study published in 2012 and a list of links too diverse to use. your argument is very general "hybrid would be best" -- Recognise the wood amongst the trees.
I'm not talking about consumers of agriculture. The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. I'm talking about best practices for farming as it relates to yield and environmental impact. If the truly best practice happens to be a hybrid method and that becomes the standard, well then consumers will be forced to support that best practice and won't have to think anymore.
> your argument is very general "hybrid would be best"
I never said that. I said it's quite possible that it is since there's research to suggest this and you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield. If organic had the lowest environmental impact on an area but yielded way less produce, thereby requiring more land to be used, which had a larger overall environmental impact - that's sensible to question and study. Do you not agree?
We have a lot of farms already using some organic best practices alongside conventional methods. There's examples in the podcast I posted that use a hybrid approach.
> You can support organic standards and production, or focus on research critical of it.
Or, you could throw your agenda aside and support finding out the optimal way to farm these days and treat it as an ongoing process just like we usually do with technology.
Bottom line: there's nothing preventing the new best practice from being a hybrid approach which includes organic and conventional methods.
That is a dismissive position on the potential of consumers of organic agriculture to affect the whole system. Its not a spectator sport - proponents of organic agriculture consume it.
>you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield.
The substantial 2016 meta review which I linked is actually a professional peer reviewed consideration of all relevant factors including yields.
I dont enjoy arguing at length against common dismissal of organic farming, which is why I just dropped a very relevant quote and link to a good study in this thread. I think it could serve your interests to examine that study fully rather than brush over it.
Anyway, did your article talk about doing conventional and organic together? No it didn't. That's all I'm talking about. You see it as binary. I don't and neither do a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil.
Why is it so hard to believe that combining the best of both methods could be ideal? I mean - look at the chart at the top of your link. Imagine you decided you wanted to create a better combined system with a hybrid approach which would get you better yield and a lot of the benefits of organic. Logic and alternative research appears to be escaping you because you see it as binary and likely biased for some reason.
Did they also talk about waste of organic food versus conventional? No. Organic spoils faster. Since you like discussion from the consumer perspective - that's not good.
Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too.
Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more"
That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest because it suggests everyone should go organic and charge the consumer more; as if forcing an industry to do it one way, charge more, and have consumers be able to afford it is possible. That would likely just push them away from produce and onto more crap than they are already eating.
Higher prices do not necessarily mean higher profit and organic requires a lot more investment. If I'm a farmer and have a ton of acreage and go all organic, but cannot sell it - how do I make more profit? Or if I sell it to a market/store and it doesn't sell there - they'll order less or ask for a cheaper alternative.
If it was so simple as the author suggests, everyone would be organic. But it's not that simple of course. It costs more. Even if you remove some of the cost of the certification. You can only sell so much organic produce at the higher cost required to have a sustainable business with those methods.
> The review paper describes cases where organic yields can be higher than conventional farming methods.
In severe drought conditions only.
> Reganold and Wachter suggest that no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what's needed is a balance of systems, "a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock and still undiscovered systems."
Right there it backs up my claim that there might not be a one true way. Note: "other innovative farming systems" and "still undiscovered systems too"
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food...
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399...
Not true, the organic market is growing fast even in USA. Organic agriculture has grown by being bought and consumed, not by being recommended or mandated, or just theorised as an ideal - people have to buy it.
>a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil.
I dont think you have any actual data for that idea - it sounds very indistinct and anecdotal.
If you think there is some clearly superior selection of organic and non-organic practices, why do you think the agricultural scientists in charge of constantly developing and reviewing the organic standards are ignorant of such insight? Since its not actually your job,livelihood,passion to improve a system of agriculture, (or the job of "science vs ...." podcasters), who is most likely to be aware of the worst and best issues??
>Organic spoils faster
Just quoting this as an example you could appreciate of wild overgeneralised criticism. Very little organic produce actually spoils faster than conventional.
>Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest....
Not absurd in the slightest! That situation is securely documented in the actual study which the article is introducing for you. The study analyses the prices and profits of organic produce. Who do you think works at WSU to publish 'absurd claims' ?
I put one substantial, recent, peer reviewed, scientific and accessible reference on organic agriculture in this thread, the least you could have done is read it before trying to dismiss it with podcast hearsay and random links about tomatoe growing in 1999 and such.
However as I've said repeatedly, the best farming practice isn't the same even on the scale of one field. When you go to a larger scale it gets worse. (in a field the right practice is at least similar, as you move to the next field it often is very different)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-gra...
2) Implement key line design to improve water holding and infiltration