Pesiticides in GMO Sweet Corn

cincybearcat

What's the deal with the amount of land needed for organic farming versus conventional farming? I know at one point I heard the amount of space needed for organic was so much we wouldn't be able to do so and feed the entire country (this was US based). But I don't remember what the source was and my quick google search didn't help me out much.

So, what's the truth?

Shawshank

cincybearcat wrote:

What's the deal with the amount of land needed for organic farming versus conventional farming? I know at one point I heard the amount of space needed for organic was so much we wouldn't be able to do so and feed the entire country (this was US based). But I don't remember what the source was and my quick google search didn't help me out much.

So, what's the truth?

Well it depends on how you want to spin it and how the organic farmer is fertilizing. The underlying premise for organic farming requiring more land, is that organic farmers user manure as their fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizers. So if you are using manure, people automatically assume cattle as the source of manure, so in turn you need more land for the cattle. I guess people don't think about the fact that you don't have to use cow manure, you can compost chicken manure, rabbit manure, coffee grounds, old vegetation, establish earthworm beds, and a myriad of other items to produce a very good soil/fertilizer. Anything that provides nitrogen and nutrients that isn't too acidic will work well. You can liquify a combination of waste products and manure into a type of "tea" that can be used as a liquid fertilizer.

Again, it doesn't have to be cow manure, so the theory that it uses more land, well it just depends on what animals you want to use to fertilize with and how you are utilizing them. Even if you use cattle, if you rotationally graze them, you can typically get 5 times the production per acre, because you concentrate the cattle in somewhat smaller areas and each day they move to a fresh patch of pasture. You aren't cruely restricting them, you're just ensuring they eat all their veggies. Cows are like kids, if you let your kid run wild on a buffet it's likely they would get all the yummy food first and skip the brussell sprouts. Cows do the same thing when they are grazing. However if you concentrate their numbers, then it flips a competitive switch in them and they each whatever is in front of them so the cow next to them doesn't get it. Then each day, or every other day, you move them to a new patch. So you have more cattle concentrated on smaller areas of land, eating more of what they should be eating, and each cow is going to be leaving you 50lbs of fertilizer everyday. Then if your system is a really well oiled machine, you bring your pastured poultry in right after you move the cows. They scratch and sift through the manure eating little larvae and bugs out of it, as well as spreading it with their feet to help aerate it. You can either leave it or harvest it for use as fertilizer after that.

cincybearcat

Shawshank wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

What's the deal with the amount of land needed for organic farming versus conventional farming? I know at one point I heard the amount of space needed for organic was so much we wouldn't be able to do so and feed the entire country (this was US based). But I don't remember what the source was and my quick google search didn't help me out much.

So, what's the truth?

Well it depends on how you want to spin it and how the organic farmer is fertilizing. The underlying premise for organic farming requiring more land, is that organic farmers user manure as their fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizers. So if you are using manure, people automatically assume cattle as the source of manure, so in turn you need more land for the cattle. I guess people don't think about the fact that you don't have to use cow manure, you can compost chicken manure, rabbit manure, coffee grounds, old vegetation, establish earthworm beds, and a myriad of other items to produce a very good soil/fertilizer. Anything that provides nitrogen and nutrients that isn't too acidic will work well. You can liquify a combination of waste products and manure into a type of "tea" that can be used as a liquid fertilizer.

Again, it doesn't have to be cow manure, so the theory that it uses more land, well it just depends on what animals you want to use to fertilize with and how you are utilizing them. Even if you use cattle, if you rotationally graze them, you can typically get 5 times the production per acre, because you concentrate the cattle in somewhat smaller areas and each day they move to a fresh patch of pasture. You aren't cruely restricting them, you're just ensuring they eat all their veggies. Cows are like kids, if you let your kid run wild on a buffet it's likely they would get all the yummy food first and skip the brussell sprouts. Cows do the same thing when they are grazing. However if you concentrate their numbers, then it flips a competitive switch in them and they each whatever is in front of them so the cow next to them doesn't get it. Then each day, or every other day, you move them to a new patch. So you have more cattle concentrated on smaller areas of land, eating more of what they should be eating, and each cow is going to be leaving you 50lbs of fertilizer everyday. Then if your system is a really well oiled machine, you bring your pastured poultry in right after you move the cows. They scratch and sift through the manure eating little larvae and bugs out of it, as well as spreading it with their feet to help aerate it. You can either leave it or harvest it for use as fertilizer after that.

Thanks for the answer. Interesting.

brianlux

cincybearcat wrote:

What's the deal with the amount of land needed for organic farming versus conventional farming? I know at one point I heard the amount of space needed for organic was so much we wouldn't be able to do so and feed the entire country (this was US based). But I don't remember what the source was and my quick google search didn't help me out much.

So, what's the truth?

The land is there, cincybearcat, although I would argue we could use more gardens and view starter castles. Bio-intensive, double digging, complementary planting, crop rotation, nitrogen fixing planting and a host of other organic gardening methods make much better use of the land, yield higher crops and produce healthier food. Again, I don't have time to list references right now- I'll try to do so later.

Meanwhile, thank you polaris_x and Shawshank for providing some references already! More to follow... phew- busy days!

he still stands

actually the yield losses are due mostly to not using herbicides, insecticides and fungicides... not the differences in fertilizer.

But, from what I've read the yield loss (from most crops) can be recaptured by year 5 or year 6. The cost of production rises significantly as well because the growing process switches from being capital intensive to being labor intensive. From personal experience, however, yield losses in corn and soybeans are massive.

This might all seem very confusing but I think you have to remember a very simple fact of life; farmers are growing food "conventionally" because it is more profitable. I think if you guys want to do something about this, you should lobby local/national government to either incent farmers to grow food organically or dissuade them from growing crops conventionally.

And like I keep saying... vote with your pocket book. If demand rises enough the profit potential will be there for farmers to make the switch.

brianlux

he still stands wrote:

actually the yield losses are due mostly to not using herbicides, insecticides and fungicides... not the differences in fertilizer.

But, from what I've read the yield loss (from most crops) can be recaptured by year 5 or year 6. The cost of production rises significantly as well because the growing process switches from being capital intensive to being labor intensive. From personal experience, however, yield losses in corn and soybeans are massive.

This might all seem very confusing but I think you have to remember a very simple fact of life; farmers are growing food "conventionally" because it is more profitable. I think if you guys want to do something about this, you should lobby local/national government to either incent farmers to grow food organically or dissuade them from growing crops conventionally.

And like I keep saying... vote with your pocket book. If demand rises enough the profit potential will be there for farmers to make the switch.

Yeah, some of that incentive comes from demand, for sure. My brother manages a small farming operation in the North West. They realized a few years back that the demand for organics was growing and saw the wisdom of switching much of the operation over to organics (I'm guessing that meant leasing different parcels of land or letting the old ones lay fallow for a certain period of time).

"Vote with your pocket book"-- Yes!

brianlux

Here's an excellent starting place for info on GMO's. Since a few here have expressed uncertainty about the reliablility on non-science related sources,I'm posting a link to a science-based group of articles compiled by The Union of Concerned Scientists.*

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricult ... gineering/

UCSUSA desdcribes themselves thusly: "The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices."

And for those of you who are interested in further reading on this (and other related ) issue:

Richard Manning: Against the Grain
Bill McKibben: Enough and Eaarth

Also the quarterly "OnEarth" from the Natural Resources Defense Council:

http://www.onearth.org/

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

What's the deal with the amount of land needed for organic farming versus conventional farming? I know at one point I heard the amount of space needed for organic was so much we wouldn't be able to do so and feed the entire country (this was US based). But I don't remember what the source was and my quick google search didn't help me out much.

So, what's the truth?

on top of what others have said ... you have to look at the entire picture ... similar to my discussions with he still stands ... often the industrialized food system focuses strictly on yields ... but traditional farming is way more sustainable for a myriad of reasons including:

* less use of resources
* less toxic waste generated
* more healthier soil thus requiring less fertilizer
* more nutrient rich and better tasting food (obviously there will be debates about this but just go buy a heirloom tomato from the farmers market and compare it to your store bought variety)

then there is the human side of things ... farmers that are working for the industrialized food system are beholden to biotech companies like monsanto in so many ways ...

and the biggest myth perpetrated by the industrialized food system is that we need to grow it this way to feed the world ... we can easily grow enough food for people - the issue has always been about distribution and the control of that distribution ... some 40% of food that is grown is wasted and never even gets the opportunity to go into someone's dinner table ... also, with the industrialized system ... what you get are countries are forced to grow a certain crop like bananas but don't end up growing food to feed the populace ... because all that bananas are exported out to the world and the profits in the hands of the multi-nationals ...

Shawshank

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on feeding the world. It's such a lofty goal, that it almost seems unattainable. It's like saying, I go out hiking a couple of miles every week...I think I'm going to tackle Mt. Everest. Now if you back that down and say...feed my neighbors, or feed my community...that is a little more realistic and not nearly as daunting. That's where it starts.

I have a dream....and please don't laugh....but I have had this dream for a while now to try and start an organization that would fund a farm to grow enough crops of a diverse variety, along with grass-fed beef, poultry, pork etc. to sustain a homeless shelter. My wife works at one every week, so she bakes and cooks alot for that, but they are so lacking on their budget that the food a lot of times is just nasty. How amazing would it be to provide them with an abundance of fresh food? Eventually work up to where a farm is big enough and funded well enough to start it's own store that supplies nothing but basic grocery items, fruits, veggies, meat at extremely cheap prices. I've never really sat down to put pen to paper, but I've been thinking more and more about this, and how it could work.

polaris_x

Shawshank wrote:

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on feeding the world. It's such a lofty goal, that it almost seems unattainable. It's like saying, I go out hiking a couple of miles every week...I think I'm going to tackle Mt. Everest. Now if you back that down and say...feed my neighbors, or feed my community...that is a little more realistic and not nearly as daunting. That's where it starts.

I have a dream....and please don't laugh....but I have had this dream for a while now to try and start an organization that would fund a farm to grow enough crops of a diverse variety, along with grass-fed beef, poultry, pork etc. to sustain a homeless shelter. My wife works at one every week, so she bakes and cooks alot for that, but they are so lacking on their budget that the food a lot of times is just nasty. How amazing would it be to provide them with an abundance of fresh food? Eventually work up to where a farm is big enough and funded well enough to start it's own store that supplies nothing but basic grocery items, fruits, veggies, meat at extremely cheap prices. I've never really sat down to put pen to paper, but I've been thinking more and more about this, and how it could work.

why would anyone laugh!?

not only is this very realistic and plausible - it goes back to what truly is important to our survival ... sustainability and food ... if people have the opportunity to eat well, everything springs from that ... they will be healthier thus allowing them to spend their energy being productive ...

my advice:

run a csa and farm stand to help offset the costs of feeding the homeless ... have restaurants buy your produce and meats ... have it volunteer run ...