They are totally correct. Organic farming is the same farming earthlings used for thousands of years. It was only in the 1900s that chemical companies convinced farmers they no longer had to worry about leaving fields fallow or rotate crops. Back when chemicals were the way of the future (along with flying cars!) farmers were blown away that they no longer had to leave 1/3 of their fields fallow per season. That's literally like them getting that much extra farm "for free". Too bad they didn't realize that those practices, along with irresponsible cattle grazing, caused the midwest dust bowl. Remember the Sahara used to be lush forests, and that desert grows every year. It's the extreme, but it's proof of concept.
Zera - I think you've mistaken cost to the producer for true resource cost of production. Large agrobiz has externalized some of the costs. Conventional farming uses synthetic fertilizers, which are made by chemical reactions at high temperature. These reactions are heated by fossil fuels, the costs of which are subsidized in many ways by the government. Run-off of sprayed-on fertilizers and pesticides cause problems in nearby water tables, which local governments have to pay to purify at water treatment facilities. Yes, conventional farming is better for transporting foods long distances... partly because costs of transporting goods to market are tax deductible. So once again, taxpayers are helping foot the bill. Organic only really works when it's produced roughly near to where it will be sold. This doesn't break down strictly by organic/conventional, but farms that use corn feed lots for cattle (rather than pasture-raised) are again taking advantage of corn subsidies.The point I am trying to make is that part of the higher price of organic food is an artifact of our economic incentives. Since conventional farming introduces more pollution into the environment, perhaps we should rethink what exactly we are using OUR money to incentivize.
This chart is priceless...that anyone feels organic food is somehow less 'organic' because a large company makes money off it shows you hypocritical they are. Environmentalists are the same way, though...the green movement is less about the environment and more about sticking it to capitalism.
Yes, but those are people exposed to high doses of pesticides, specifically, people who are applying them. And even since the 90's, awareness of dangers like this have caused substantial efforts to be taken to protect those farmers and ranchers. And there's nothing to say that we won't be able to devise pesticides that don't have those drawbacks.Lajaw's link did not say that it takes 22 years to see the same results, it was merely a study that lasted 22 years. Farmers are not the bumbling rednecks that most people think they are. Farmers are very attune to new technology and new ways of boosting yields, saving cost and reducing wasted resources. I have no doubt that the results of the study lajaw linked to made it into any of the MANY farming technology magazines and it's validity debated and discussed at length. I know it's the primary topic of discussion at every family get-together of mine, where three uncles and my grandpa all discuss the latest and greatest in farming news, technology, etc.Your last paragraph you got a little confused, mixing up pesticide with herbicide. Herbicide kills plants, pesticide kills pests, bugs. But other than that, yes you are right to some extent, but if that continues, and more plants become resistant to herbicide, then the cost to continually invent new herbicide will likely make farming techniques that rely on herbicide less cost effective.And here's one example that noone likes to make about herbicides. As GE crops like "Round-Up Ready" corn and beans have become widely used, this has resulted in FAR FAR less pollution, because now you can fill a 3,000 gallon sprayer with 3,000 gallons of water, and 2, 2 gallon jugs of special round-up. Since the corn and beans are resistant, you don't need to spray very much to get the job done. Compare this with previous herbicide attempts that required many different herbicides to be mixed (for all the different plant species targeted) and to fill a 3,000 gallon sprayer it would take literally 6-12 50 GALLON DRUMS NO JOKE.For all the bad press GE crops get, this is one HUGE BENEFIT to the environment that never gets a mention. :/
but your wrong. . . the big organic food companies are not nearly as good for the environment as locally grown food is, for the most part because it doesn't have to be shipped, with oil
Great chart - coming from Europe and just having recently visited the New York I was astounded by how much organic branding goes on, when closer looks reveal that it's not that organic at all... from the country of the marketing wizards, who would expect anything else? Have found some great products there too, so it really is "the great nation" (despite the current leadership) :-)
What if you owned a small organic company that started out at the local farmers markets. Grew large enough to sell your products to all 50 states in the US. And then a huge non -organic corporation offered you 35 million to sell your company to them. What would you do?
it wouldn't be so expensive if everyone supported their local farmer. plant a small garden if able. in reality most mass produced products are just filler: corn. and when it comes to meat, poultry, dairy etc. i would love to pay a little more to support having quality food available, and to eat food that isnt full of hormones. america is obese and sick, and its because of our mass produced, low quality food. its just so much easier to pick up what they package and settle for poop.
johnpaul191Mar 14, 2008
They are totally correct. Organic farming is the same farming earthlings used for thousands of years. It was only in the 1900s that chemical companies convinced farmers they no longer had to worry about leaving fields fallow or rotate crops. Back when chemicals were the way of the future (along with flying cars!) farmers were blown away that they no longer had to leave 1/3 of their fields fallow per season. That's literally like them getting that much extra farm "for free". Too bad they didn't realize that those practices, along with irresponsible cattle grazing, caused the midwest dust bowl. Remember the Sahara used to be lush forests, and that desert grows every year. It's the extreme, but it's proof of concept.
rossmcdMar 15, 2008
Zera - I think you've mistaken cost to the producer for true resource cost of production. Large agrobiz has externalized some of the costs. Conventional farming uses synthetic fertilizers, which are made by chemical reactions at high temperature. These reactions are heated by fossil fuels, the costs of which are subsidized in many ways by the government. Run-off of sprayed-on fertilizers and pesticides cause problems in nearby water tables, which local governments have to pay to purify at water treatment facilities. Yes, conventional farming is better for transporting foods long distances... partly because costs of transporting goods to market are tax deductible. So once again, taxpayers are helping foot the bill. Organic only really works when it's produced roughly near to where it will be sold. This doesn't break down strictly by organic/conventional, but farms that use corn feed lots for cattle (rather than pasture-raised) are again taking advantage of corn subsidies.The point I am trying to make is that part of the higher price of organic food is an artifact of our economic incentives. Since conventional farming introduces more pollution into the environment, perhaps we should rethink what exactly we are using OUR money to incentivize.
vaultMar 15, 2008
This chart is priceless...that anyone feels organic food is somehow less 'organic' because a large company makes money off it shows you hypocritical they are. Environmentalists are the same way, though...the green movement is less about the environment and more about sticking it to capitalism.
zeraMar 16, 2008
Yes, but those are people exposed to high doses of pesticides, specifically, people who are applying them. And even since the 90's, awareness of dangers like this have caused substantial efforts to be taken to protect those farmers and ranchers. And there's nothing to say that we won't be able to devise pesticides that don't have those drawbacks.Lajaw's link did not say that it takes 22 years to see the same results, it was merely a study that lasted 22 years. Farmers are not the bumbling rednecks that most people think they are. Farmers are very attune to new technology and new ways of boosting yields, saving cost and reducing wasted resources. I have no doubt that the results of the study lajaw linked to made it into any of the MANY farming technology magazines and it's validity debated and discussed at length. I know it's the primary topic of discussion at every family get-together of mine, where three uncles and my grandpa all discuss the latest and greatest in farming news, technology, etc.Your last paragraph you got a little confused, mixing up pesticide with herbicide. Herbicide kills plants, pesticide kills pests, bugs. But other than that, yes you are right to some extent, but if that continues, and more plants become resistant to herbicide, then the cost to continually invent new herbicide will likely make farming techniques that rely on herbicide less cost effective.And here's one example that noone likes to make about herbicides. As GE crops like "Round-Up Ready" corn and beans have become widely used, this has resulted in FAR FAR less pollution, because now you can fill a 3,000 gallon sprayer with 3,000 gallons of water, and 2, 2 gallon jugs of special round-up. Since the corn and beans are resistant, you don't need to spray very much to get the job done. Compare this with previous herbicide attempts that required many different herbicides to be mixed (for all the different plant species targeted) and to fill a 3,000 gallon sprayer it would take literally 6-12 50 GALLON DRUMS NO JOKE.For all the bad press GE crops get, this is one HUGE BENEFIT to the environment that never gets a mention. :/
andrew988Mar 17, 2008
but your wrong. . . the big organic food companies are not nearly as good for the environment as locally grown food is, for the most part because it doesn't have to be shipped, with oil
mingohillsApr 18, 2008
Touche
organicpicknickMay 20, 2008
Great chart - coming from Europe and just having recently visited the New York I was astounded by how much organic branding goes on, when closer looks reveal that it's not that organic at all... from the country of the marketing wizards, who would expect anything else? Have found some great products there too, so it really is "the great nation" (despite the current leadership) :-)
portos12Jun 18, 2008
We know who.<a class="user" href="http://www.recipesblog.net">http://www.recipesblog.net</a><a class="user" href="http://www.t30.info">http://www.t30.info</a>
trusonDec 5, 2008
What if you owned a small organic company that started out at the local farmers markets. Grew large enough to sell your products to all 50 states in the US. And then a huge non -organic corporation offered you 35 million to sell your company to them. What would you do?
emily111Jan 14, 2010
it wouldn't be so expensive if everyone supported their local farmer. plant a small garden if able. in reality most mass produced products are just filler: corn. and when it comes to meat, poultry, dairy etc. i would love to pay a little more to support having quality food available, and to eat food that isnt full of hormones. america is obese and sick, and its because of our mass produced, low quality food. its just so much easier to pick up what they package and settle for poop.
emily111Jan 14, 2010
Organic Valley is the Best tasting milk eva. Gotta love a happy cow : )
juliehealth1Feb 3, 2011
please watch these documentaries: Food Inc. and The future of our Food
Both are available on Netflix