The proponents of conventional are certainly not looking at the 'whole' picture. Our waters are increasingly polluted, our air is near saturation with pollutants and species diversity is declining.

Just looking at health of people and our livestock shows increasing malnutrition, increase in disease and increase in birth defects. There is no acceptance of the cause as simply the quality of what we grow in the soil. The 'fix' is always more chemicals, more drugs and new artificial nutrients to replace the absent natural sources.

What and how we grow determines our health. The other creatures of the food chain all have a role, removing even one creates a weak link. Plants do not provide just on NPK. Those nutrients/minerals analyzed in soil and plant samples are not the only nutrients essential to life.

Plants are the beginning of the food chain and must provide for all life. Any return to natural systems must escape the reliance on chemicals and artificials.

The proponents of "nothing but organic" for everything are certainly not looking at the 'whole' picture.

Millions of acres of farmland produce the crops that feed the people on the Earth using 'cides and synthetic fertilizers. How can human labor replace herbicides on this scale?

Take 2000 acres of corn, how many employees would it take to weed all that by hand? Also consider that with weather issues, one might not be able to weed every day so those employees are now not doing much while they wait for the weather to improve. Now factor that into the total number of acres seeded to corn in just the U.S. Now take that and factor it into all the crops grown on large scales, wheat, barley, rye, cotton, soybeans, etc. etc. Then consider that many of these fields are no where near a population center for a source of labor so transportation costs to and from the fields or housing costs near them have to be thrown in.

That is just part of the big picture.

A potatoe farmer trying to keep them pesky beetles from devouring his crops. How many employees would he need to pick them all off by hand? That's how my father did it in his garden. But 40 acres versus 40 plants, do the math.

Small scale stuff (5-10 acres plots) around a city growing a few rows of onions, peas, beans, potatoes and other garden crops, fine but look at the big picture.

I have 5 acres of fruit trees. I can control the weeds with about $1000 of herbicide applied every two years so $500 per year.

If I hire students to weed by hand (and I have) at $10/hour working 4 hour days at 5 days per week that would be $200 per week for about 16 weeks so $3200 per year.

Selling 1000 pails of fruit per season means I'd have to charge more than a $2.50/pail extra to cover just the labor. Now add in all the taxes I have to pay as an employer and those extra costs have to be added to the cost of the produce.

That is only a tiny part of the big picture.

It would be nice to be all organic, but I'm a realist, something would have to give.

Now I'm heading out to rip open bags of leaves to be used as fertilizer on a 20 acre field.

Lloyd

Compost use significantly increases crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia

Please read it carefully with an open mind. I read it three times.

Lloyd

I'm a big fan of compost and all, but it's tough to get anything of value out of that study other than "Some compost and/or fertilizer applied at some rate is better than nothing at all." There wasn't much info in that article concerning the type of compost that was used, what types of fertilizer were applied or at what rates either material was applied. So.....I did a little digging and found a more complete discussion here.

Here's the part that pulls the teeth right out of the whole thing:

The amount of compost applied ranged from the equivalent of 5 to 15 tonnes per hectare. It was assumed that farmers had applied the recommended rates of urea and DAP, i.e. 120 kg/ha.

It's tough to really get a bead on what happened because nobody really knows how much compost was applied. They can take a guess for any one spot, but they may be off by 300%.

They also say that they assume that fertilizers were applied at the recommended rates. They assume?!? How the heck can you draw any sort of conclusion when one of the most pivotal variables is, quite literally, a wild guess? Did they or didn't they? Was the fertilizer so expensive that it was actually used far too sparingly and crops yields would have been much higher if they'd used a little more? Was it provided free to the growers and they dumped it out there at a ridiculous rates based on the "more is better" principal, resulting in salinity issues? In that case using less would be likely to greatly increased yields.
What about the timing of fertilizer and compost applications? Was that done properly? That's important, but they never say?

It also looks like straw and manure were the most likely feed stocks for the compost in the study (though in a mind boggling twist, they never say whether or not that's the case). Was the compost mature? What if they didn't use enough manure and the C:N ratio was such that the compost was a nitrogen draw and a little more manure would have caused the compost yields to shoot through the roof?

Again, all you can get out of it is "Adding something is better than adding nothing.", which is already well established.

There is no way that anyone could point to this study and say conclusively that compost works better than synthetics or vice versa. This study is just a big block of Swiss cheese.

No, but we can lessen the blow by usng organics for our own purposes IMHO.

"Take 2000 acres of corn..." You offer some unconvincing examples Lloyd. Take crops used to grow meat and to bulk up and sweeten processed/junk foods out of the equation and things start looking up.

Okay, instead of saying "2000 acres of corn", say "2000 acres of wheat" or "2000 acres of soy".
There. It works again as if by freakin' magic.

Munching on some ground-hominy spoonbread as I read this; such melodic and developing flavors.....

Why can't we put this issue to bed? To grow food for huge numbers (or small numbers, for that matter)'organically', or more importantly, 'wholistically", requires that the crops, laborers, processors and eaters all be fairly close together. It's that simple. Otherwise Lloyd's objections are valid.

Can Organic Feed the World?

Stupid question!

Whome you want to feed?
The more you feed them, the more they multiply!

Eventually, I think, you want to feed yourselves!
Is there any limit to be full up?

Looked at another way: given a 100'x2' space, and the same skills, seed, resources and strength, but no fossil fuels, I'd wager that a ten-year-old could grow themselves a staple crop of potatoes, even organic ones; or enough corn, soybeans, wheat or other grain to make roughly a tin of muffins.
Two 10 year old gardeners in a race and you'd have some reality tv I'd actually watch. :)

People stopped eating corn?!
People stopped eating meat?!
People stopped eating junk food?!

I must have missed the memo on that. :-)

Looyd

Why are you so bother about people?
Are they ALL so wonderful creatures?
Do you think so?

Americans already fed Afgan's people..

Do you want to feed them more?

Why are you so bother about people?
Are they ALL so wonderful creatures?

Well, actually yes.

Actually, yes - in prisons (where americans torture these wonderful creatures).

Which Americans Valerie, how is this torture conducted, by whom and where?

Enlighten me please.

Not being a statitician I am not going to argue the methodology but the two lines that says a lot for me are...

"A reflection of the success of this approach is that between 2003 and 2006, grain yield for the Region almost doubled from 714 to 1,354 thousand tonnes. Since 1998, there has also been a steady decrease in the use of chemical fertilizer from 13.7 to 8.2 thousand tonnes."

Yields are up, synthetic fertilizer use is down. Matches what I got on my fields this year.

Good enough for me.

Lloyd

Which Americans Valerie, how is this torture conducted, by whom and where?

Prison Guantanamo in Cuba, where afganistan's terrorists (Al Caeda) are located. Other example - Iraq.

At the risk of the pot calling the kettle black, that's getting waaaayyyy off topic folks.

You might want to take it over to the Hot Topics forum.

Lloyd

OK, Lloyd.

Sorry Lloyd, et al, couldn't resist.

Michael

Loyd -- I read the link you provided -- Compost use significantly increases crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia -- I didn't see any mention of human fertilizer used in the compost. Use of "Night Soil" is routinely accepted in most 3rd-world nations, along with the viral infections and death rates that often accompany these uses. Some mention was made in this discussion about the reasons for increased life-span in the US. Hygenic disposal of human waste surely must take its place among scientific and medical advances on the plus side. On the negative side is the ho-hum attitude of our population to preventative measures -- and that DOES include protecting the irreplaceable asset of healthy soils. The old joke about Hillbillies moving into a modern home and not knowing how to use indoor plumbing reminds me of the attitudes of far too many in postions of trust and leadership. The humorous misuses of plumbing by the Hillbillies has nothing on the misuse of the elements that make our current quality of life [including license recast as freedom] which is based upon things that most are as ignorant of as those Hillbillies. sorry for the rant. BTW did you see the story in toaday's news about the large percent of young men who are not fit for military service? [partly due to physical health, and lack of education needed plus criminal records]

Barb, The nightsoil has been used in China for thousands of years. Properly used it is as safe as any manure. I also caught your today's news item about 'not fit for military service. It is documented from about the mid-1800s of being associated with poor nutrition. We are really seeing more of the malnutrition results in this current time with the profusion of chemicals in our conventional agriculture combined with hybrid development at the cost of nutrition.

The realization of the organic matter importance leads me to believe that organic (in any name) will be forced on us. The chemicals alone are not giving us the total nutrients essential for life and health. We are exhausting our soils when there are no new soils to pillage. It is an historic cycle of working a soil until depleted and moving into virgin territory; look at past civilizations which collapsed due to agriculutral failure.

The plowing (moldboard) is a prime destroyer of soils. Turning topsoil under to 10-12" several times per year in fact buries the soil web. There is nothing left of the topsoil thus the need to fertilize and irrigate. A good topsoil replete with active and stable organic matter will lessen the need for fertilizers, retain more surface moisture and provide healthy plant less prone to disease, pests and stress. The disc harrow is much better for surface incorporation of organic matter. Weeds can be outcompeted by healthy crops and rotations. Soil with good (5-6%) organic matter will improve moisture drainage and retention allowing earlier spring access to fields.

The challenge of labour will continue to be a hurdle until the farmer gets a fair return for their labour. The movement towards farm markets and CSAs are steps in the right direction. The chain stores are another problem in that they purchase for whole chains versus the locally own stores of the not so distant past. We need the return to local economies over the national or even global market. Big business is not serving the community with all the money heading off to head offices.

The factory farms are not the answer either. They lean towards the monocropping without the fundamentals of good farm practices. The subject of Genetically Modified is best left for a separate thread.

Remember that the small to medium farm served us well before the multinationals began to step into our food chain. They are so diversified that they encomppass all branches of agriculture from the seed to the processing; not to forget the subsidiaries in the drug market. They have us blanketed with poor food and attempt to prop us up with drugs and artificial nutrients. They are only after the dollar. They are all powerful with influence into government and media that you never see the scientific reports on our path of destruction.

The farmer is an essential occupation. Without them we do not eat; we are destined to return to hunters and gatherers at the rate we are going.

The organic matter recycling is the key. Chemicals are but the habit we have bought into. The question remains, "Can we change soon enough to save our planet?"

"Turning topsoil under to 10-12" several times per year in fact buries the soil web."

Have you ever used a plow?

Lloyd

Without any links to the "not fit for service" stories so I just googled. Came up with The Washington Post article. No where did it blame the lack of fitness on the difference between 'organic' and 'conventional' farming. How one comes to that conclusion is beyond me.

I'm going to assume that compost means compost not raw manures. I could be wrong but they did use the phrase "making and using compost" which leads me to believe an active composting program of some kind was used.

Certainly the proper handling of any manures, human or otherwise, has been cited as a major contributor to the increased life expectancy.

Lloyd

Food waste has environmental impact: scientists

More food for thought. (pun intended)

Lloyd

pt03, I have seen plowing and other cultivating althought never the operator. The moldboard that plowed my last plot was an older heavy two bottom model on a tractor with poor hydraulics for height adjustment. It cut in by gravity alone to 12". The worst intrusion observed was the Baker (disc) plow digging in to 20+". In tall 2-3' grass you will only see the top 4" between passes.

One of the biggest disc harrows seem had 43" discs and was used in sandy soil by a carrot planter. Many times during travel between fields one of the tractors would be sitting aside the road waiting for assistance after a frame broke under the weight of plows/discs.

My examples are as seem in Nova Scotia with soil ranging from sand to clay. The sight of topgrowth being inverted to depth of 6-18" gives reason to fertilization. All of the topsoil is buried out of range of the seeds and any initial roots.

Perhaps not a routine scene but the Baker Plow link shows the extreme. As stated before, when the organic matter in topsoil is buried gives explanation for continuous irrigation need and repeated chemical (fertilizer and sprays) applications.

When my plot is next cultivated I shall direct that only the 10" disc harrow be employed to incorporate my winter rye. I shall want to see a profusion of litter atop the field. I shall seed and transplant into the litter knowing that the organic matter will be present to feed the plants while also better managing moisture.

Just as a hammer is a tool and was designed primarily to force nails into wood, a plow is a tool designed to work soil under certain conditions to obtain a certain result.

Using a tool for a procedure not intended or even using it incorrectly for the procedure it was intended for is not the fault of the tool but rather the operator.

I can't imagine a soil scenario where a moldboard plow is used "several times per year" over the same soil. I have certainly never seen it done.

As for some of your other statements, I've come to the realization that you are convinced of certain 'facts' and no amount of showing you different thoughts or ideas will ever move you away from those biases. So be it, you as well as anybody else are entitled to their beliefs.

Lloyd

Doing a search for the Cornucopia Project that I remember was started by Rodale I found several links ... most had dates in the '80's and I thought it was the '60s. But the gist of the project as I recall was that we consumers of agricultural products had to become educated and more proactive. Buying food locally to keep local food production healthy was a cornerstone to this project. In addition to going against the torrent of "chem-agri will feed the world happy talk" swallowed and disseminated by the media and academia, I wonder if Rodale's hard line about organic was a part of the reason for the projects failure.[?] Anyway - just a thought. Here is one of the links I found. Review of Rodale book : "The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture." https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/VanHall.html And just a note about civil disagreement. Plz lets keep discussion on point as well as on topic.

One of these days I've got to post some pictures of the organic material left on the ground this time of year from the farmers using minimum and no-till methods. Often times, in normal rotations growing milo, soybeans, wheat and corn there is 80 - 100% ground cover at least through the winter. The tillage that is done prior to planting is, well, minimal.

My point is that even in central KS where, with all the evil methods used that are killing the planet to keep all these farmers living on the edge financially, a lot of organic matter IS being returned to the soil. I just walked a corn field last Sunday hunting pheasant, the soil was definitely wet but my boots didn't get a bit of mud on them. The previous year the field was in wheat.

This last point is addressed only to those who have never seen grain fields year in and year out. Get out and look at what is going on, the internet is not always accurate, nor does it do a good job of replacing "feet in the field".

To quote some old farmer's lore, "the masters eye and foot are the best manure for the field". Words I live by.

Now it is time for dinner.

Michael

Conventional is feeding the world (or very nearly, let's say). Can't gainsay that.

For how much longer, and what to do when it fails?

There are multiple components to answering the question 'for how much longer?'. It depends a great deal upon:

o population increases,
o water availability
o how much meat rich people continue to eat, and
o how much more expensive oil will get now that it looks as if we are past peak (even the IEA sez so).

Unless something miraculous happens, there is no more Green Revolution around the corner, as that was fueled by fertilizer and drilling for water in addition to new crop varieties. Climate change is redistributing water (see Australia) and making marginal lands more marginal; in addition, we don't know how much longer people will drill for fossil water.

The economists and others looking at this call it 'hard landing' or 'soft landing'.

Dan

Dan:

RE: "how much meat rich people continue to eat". I don't recall if it is mentioned in this thread or another but, animal production as part of a pastoral farming system is essential to the organic system both for manure and soil management. Some tout it as the successful way of the good old days before the advent of "chemical" farming. If that is the case then it wouldn't be just "rich" folk as you state eating meat. BTW, please define "rich", I am curious to see if I am. My brother raises goats for meat and milk and also hunts, is he rich? My wife raises chickens for meat and eggs, we both hunt, are we rich? A friend of mine works in a factory but hunts for all his meat, is he rich?

Fresh water quality and quantity and population growth combined are probably the biggest threat IMO not organic vs conventional.

Michael

Conventional meat production uses lots of water. The larger the animal, the more water it uses. Rule of thumb: 1000kg water for 1kg meat. I understand completely the role of poop.

As people's incomes increase, they eat more meat, using more water. It doesn't matter how you quantify 'rich'. Your American friends/family rich compared to most of the world. You too.

Again, when fossil fuel runs low, we will be forced to go back to using human labor to farm. Will this be enough to feed the projected population in a water-constrained, warmer and less resilient world? We will have to get much, much better at recognizing, identifying and solving problems if so.

[Brief aside, way back as an undergrad at an ag school I had the opportunity to write a peer-reviewed paper (if I stayed another quarter) to compare conventional vs organic cropping systems wrt EROEI and caloric inputs and emergy, and project the results into the future. It would have been one of the first. I didn't stay in school that extra quarter, sometimes I wish I would have, and I would have pointed you to that paper long ago.]

Dan

What about hydrogen Dan, couldn't farm machinery be modified to run on hydrogen?

I've heard one of the stumbling blocks in passenger vehicles is the safety aspect with crashes but I would guess farm machinery wouldn't have that concern as much.

It would be way cool to have a hydrogen powered combine!

Lloyd

I can think of a lot of things tractors can run on including solar, steam, wood gas, hydrogen, vegetaqble oil, animal fat,nuclear, The list goes on if we need to farm by hand people better start buying caskets

Water doesn't go away it is always returned someway be it the cow pee or the person that eats the meat although I do agree it would be good to strech the meat supply further I'm pretty cheap so I little goes a long way

Also I think most anybody can agree that north americans are more obese than malnutritioned call a local hospital and ask them how mant people come in starvng to death with access to cheap food find a poor family and ask them if they would be getting along better if there food bill was 3 times what it is now and they had to raise there own meat and vegetables organicly from there 2 bedroom apt

Dan: I'm not being snotty but, please answer my question.

Its all relative Michael.

Take your income and shake a die over a list of countries in the world. What is the chance that your income in a randomly-shaken throw lands on a place where you would be rich? Pretty good. Relatively, compared to most of the people on the planet, your income makes you rich. You are sheltered from most of the things that makes life hard for most humans on the planet. You likely are able to obtain more calories and water than you need and likely live in a structure that shelters you. And you are typing on a computer. And likely many family members are overweight. And you transport yourself around via internal combustion. And and and.

At least, I think that was the question you wanted more specificity on...

----------

pt03:

Hydrogen is a carrier, not a source of energy. Sure we could modify. We could modify a tractor to run on cat p*ss. But why?

Dan

Global fresh water demand by 2030 will be 40 per cent higher than current supplies
Global fresh water demand by 2030 will be 40 per cent higher than current supplies and agriculture is predicted to suck up 65 per cent of all resources, said the report by the 2030 Water ResourcesGroup.

The rich can purchase water. Since 2007, twice the arable land of Germany has been purchased just for the water. I doubt few in India were among the purchasers. This is why you see Nestlé buying water rights around the US.

Organic ag solving this quandary? Conventional ag solving this? Wrong question.

Dan

Dan, you said "Again, when fossil fuel runs low, we will be forced to go back to using human labor to farm."

I asked "What about hydrogen Dan, couldn't farm machinery be modified to run on hydrogen?"

You asked "But why?"

The point being hydrogen can substitute for the fossil fuels, it's just technology.

Lloyd

P.S. I ain't holding 200 cats over the fuel tank to fill up the tractor!

Dan, even though I live in what is seemingly the land of inexhaustible rain in the last few years, I tend to agree with you that water will be a major limiting factor in food production.

I would lay it out like this: if a crop depends on fossil-water or diverted river-water to make a return on the investment, it should be abandoned. That will probably mean not using arid and most semi-arid regions for arable. In north america, I imagine that would mean losing about half of our currently productive areas, especially for produce. Very light grazing could be substituted, and/or very appropriate tree and shrub crops.

Conversely, to not use huge areas of productive lands that get plenty of precipitation seems quite perverse. In the northeast, the growing of fodder to feed pet horses consumes enough space to feed millions of people. Additionally there are millions of acres of 50-75-100 year-old bush. Clearing some of those acres would not release an undue amount of carbon, and nowadays it's very effective to chip such small stuff on-site and create compost and mulch for the first couple of years. These new fields could easily be no-till or low-till from the outset.
The northeast could be self-sufficient in fresh produce with ease, and staple grains quite easily also.

Third, I would identify areas that are likely to become less productive in the near future - such as the southeast - and move quickly to provide viable crop substitutes.

Lloyd, Hydrogen is not a substitute for fossil fuels. It takes a lot of energy to isolate hydrogen. If we're going to develop a hydrogen industry then the fuel should come from alternative energies. I see hydrogen as a good storage for excess wind or solar energy.

On the other hand if we could manage through technology to separate hydrogen more efficiently then maybe things look better.

"I see hydrogen as a good storage for excess wind or solar energy."

I guess that is what I'm thinking about. I'm not talking an entire industry to power all the automobiles and all the other internal combustion engines. I'm thinking a smaller unit run on solar/wind, generating hydrogen locally on a farm for exclusive use in the production of agricultural products.

If I am using 400 gallons of diesel fuel per year why couldn't hydrogen be used to replace that? Especially when diesel is no more.

Lloyd

Lloyd, hydrogen is not a fuel. It is a carrier of energy. You have to make the energy to crack H for H to carry energy. Like gjcore said.

I agree with the implication in pnbrown's reply, that we will be repurposing vanity land for more useful purposes, altho I see a lot of horse property that has been wrecked and the soil will need a lot of work to get it useful again. There will also be migration to places with water, and IMHO the Colo Front Range will have some depopulation (but not 100%) from lack of water.

Dan

I guess I'm not explaining myself very well. Let me put in a point form and you tell me which one is wrong.

Hydrogen can be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine just like diesel, gasoline or natural gas.

Large farm machinery require portable internal combustion engines that provide power. This portability is crucial.

Hydrogen can be stored in a vessel/tank to allow for portability.

Electricity itself will not provide enough portable power to run large farm machinery.

Solar and wind can be used to generate electricity.

Solar and wind will not power portable farm machinery.

Electricity can be used to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water.

Tell me what I'm missing.

Lloyd

Hopefully this article clearly states why H is not a fuel and is instead a carrier. If not, I don't know what to say:
But unlike oil and gas, hydrogen is not a fuel. It is a way of storing or transporting energy. You have to make it before you can use it generally by extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels, or by using electricity to split it from water.

You must use energy to crack hydrogen to make it carry energy in a fuel cell. It is not free cheap energy like upon which we have propped up our society.

Dan

Took me a while to read the whole article. You appear to be getting hung up on that one line.

Definition of fuel.

The article clearly says it can be used to power an internal combustion engine, the article says it can be manufactured using solar or wind generated electricity, the article says it can be compressed and transported in a tank/vessel.

No one, including myself, is saying it's free or cheap but it can be a replacement for fossil fuels in some aplications and I would argue especially so when there are no longer fossil fuels left as opposed to your "when fossil fuel runs low, we will be forced to go back to using human labor to farm".

Lloyd

I'm not getting hung up on one line from one article. If the EROEI isn't right, the "fuel" isn't a good replacement for the cheap energy sources that have propped up our wasteful society; this concept is imperative for future policy - not harping on the EROEI is the reason why the wasteful biofuels subsidies happened recently.

Hopefully future technology can solve the hydrogen problem and make it a viable component of fuel cells so we can have replacement energy. I'm not sure how to solve the materials problem (lack of appropriate minerals in earth's crust), thus my "when fossil fuel runs low, we will be forced to go back to using human labor to farm". Either that or we'll have to drastically reduce our birth rate in order to equalize out with the available energy sources.

Dan

It ain't going to be cheap to start with but I think it will happen eventually.

Lloyd

Dan: Precisely to the point, relative. Yes I make more dollars than others in other parts of the world but, shake that die of expenses and you will see a vast difference also. That aside, I do have shelter, calories, water and motorized transportation but those are NOT guaranteed to be here tomorrow. Living in this country allows me the opportunity to pick myself back up if things get worse. THAT is the advantage I have over many people in other countries when it comes to living. I too am living on the edge, mine is just a wider edge but not a lot.

"You are sheltered from most of the things that makes life hard for most humans on the planet."
Your best point Dan. Instead of hard, how about difficult to prosper?

Believe it or not, from young to old, none of my family (except one cousin and a sister maybe) are overweight.

I've been thinking about the whole "rich folk" eating meat notion and contrasting that with the pastoral society idea for providing manures for crops. Had an excellent idea about it in the shower last night and unfortunately have forgotten it! Hope it returns.

I am glad you started this thread, how about one entitled, how much longer can humankind feed itself?

Cool looking tractor! It's not ready for the fields yet but I guess we'll see where the technology goes. There's many hurdles yet to overcome.