Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
What Would Happen If Farmers All Switched to Organic Crops?
It's nice to see someone in the Bush administration defending science. The New York Times is running an interview with biologist Nina Federoff, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences member and science advisor to the secretary of state. Federoff strongly defends biotech crops from their anti-science detractors:
There’s almost no food that isn’t genetically modified. Genetic modification is the basis of all evolution.
Things change because our planet is subjected to a lot of radiation, which causes DNA damage, which gets repaired, but results in mutations, which create a ready mixture of plants that people can choose from to improve agriculture.
In the last century, as we learned more about genes, we were able to devise ways of accelerating evolution.
So a lot of modern plant strains were created by applying chemicals or radiation to cause mutations that improved the crop. That’s how plant breeding was done in the 20th century. The paradox is that now that we’ve invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest, some people think that’s terrible.
Federoff notes that organic farming is not sustainable:
If we put more land under cultivation to feed the world’s growing population, we’re going to pull down the remaining forests.
And if that happens, it will contribute tremendously to desertification. The more we can grow on already cultivated land, the better. Europe, North America, Australia, Japan — we’ve been extremely successful in applying science to agriculture and we can afford to say, “Let’s go natural.” But there’s collateral damage.
What kind of collateral damage? How about famine?
If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn’t support the earth’s current population — maybe half.
Whole interview here.
the innominate one|8.19.08 @ 10:48AM|#
"There's almost no food that isn't genetically modified."
True, depending on your meaning and use of the phrase "genetically
modified".
Brian|8.19.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Sounds like a bunch of hyperbole to me.
"If we put more land under cultivation to feed the world's growing
population, we're going to pull down the remaining forests."
The remaining forests? Uuhh, OK.
I think most "organic" people are concerned with herbicides and
pesticides on the food and going into the ground than with genetic
modification. At least that's why my family eats organic.
Growing vegetables in your back yard is easy enough.
BDB|8.19.08 @ 10:50AM|#
"If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn't support
the earth's current population - maybe half."
For certain greens, thats a feature not a bug.
|8.19.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Although GM crops can't, by definition, produce organic food, they could make it much easier to produce food using organic growing methods. That can only be a good thing. Given the right crops, we could feed the whole world using such practices, and that would mean a lot less energy, a lot less pesticide, a lot less herbicide...
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Growing vegetables in your back yard is easy
enough.
What if you don't have a back yard? Do you produce all the food you
need?
bubba|8.19.08 @ 10:57AM|#
True, depending on your meaning and use of the phrase
"genetically modified".
It doesn't depend on anyone's definition. It's a simple fact. Note
the fundamental difference between maize and teosinte. Those are
genetic changes. Unknown genetic changes.
I think most "organic" people are concerned with herbicides and
pesticides on the food and going into the ground than with genetic
modification.
That's not my observation. "Organic" is a lifestyle choice made by
people with a sketchy scientific education. GMO is bad. Irradiation
is bad. People are bad. The next time you buy your organic mac and
cheese, check the box. You will most likely find a giant No GMO
label.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Seems like an unsupported claim given the current state of
knowledge.
The science I have seen is equivocal on the efficiency of "organic"
methods. Some seem to be more efficient than large monocrop
methods, some seem close to equal, some seem less efficient.
So the devil is in the details.
"For certain greens, thats a feature not a bug."
Yeah, darn those lazy genocidal hippies.
They are so darn anti-life.
Bastards.
[yawn]
bubba|8.19.08 @ 10:58AM|#
What if you don't have a back yard? Do you produce all the
food you need?
What if you have squirrels that eat all the fcking blackberries and
peaches?
Fcking squirrels.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 11:02AM|#
True, depending on your meaning and use of the phrase
"genetically modified".
It doesn't depend on anyone's definition. It's a simple fact. Note
the fundamental difference between maize and teosinte. Those are
genetic changes. Unknown genetic changes.
"Modified" typically carries the implication that something was
changed for a purpose. The usage here implies instead that any
mutation is a modification, whether or not it was
intentional.
So, yes, it does depend upon what is meant by "genetically
modified."
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 11:02AM|#
What if you have squirrels that eat all the fucking
blackberries and peaches?
That's what .22s, pellet guns, and cats are for.
|8.19.08 @ 11:19AM|#
If we changed from eating cows to eating dogs, we'd be better
off. Then if we stopped eating pigs, we'd be even better off.
Overfishing must stop, we have to use corn for food instead of
fuel, and we can replace cotton with hemp for its lower water and
herbicidal usage.
Saving the planet is easy, unless you're a dog.
Brian|8.19.08 @ 11:20AM|#
What if you don't have a back yard? Do you produce all the
food you need?
If you don't have a backyard then go to the store and get organic
food.
That's not my observation.
OK, well it's the main reason my family and a few of our friends
eat mostly organic, with our sketchy science backgrounds and all.
That organic popcorn tastes like shit though.
|8.19.08 @ 11:21AM|#
I tend to choose organic food because it tastes better and supports local farmers. I guess that makes me a hippie, but so be it. I'd rather support a guy I know instead of a giant factory farm. I now return you to your regularly scheudled sucking of Archer Daniels Midland cock.
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 11:24AM|#
If you don't have a backyard then go to the store and get
organic food.
Wow, you really want me to eat organic food. How about you refrain
from telling me what to eat, and stick to yourself?
|8.19.08 @ 11:25AM|#
But... but... but...
Organic farming is clean. It's natural, it's
holistic, it's pure, it's moral, it
makes me feel good and it makes Gaea feel good.
Peace, Love and Bobby Sherman.
Brian|8.19.08 @ 11:26AM|#
How about you stop asking me what to do if I don't have a garden and mind your own business?
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 11:30AM|#
I was using the generic you, Brian. I now see where your excellent grasp of logic comes from. You go ahead and keep applying that to organic vs. non-organic.
|8.19.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Rather than "genically modified" which describes every living
thing on the planet, let's go with "genteticall engineered". That
only desrebes 95% (SWAG) of human caloric intake.
Wheat, rice, spuds, chicken, pigss, almost all produce etc.
Genetically engineered. Why get upset because we're getting better
at it?
|8.19.08 @ 11:37AM|#
I prefer genetically modified food, myself. The creepier or more surreal, the better.
tim|8.19.08 @ 11:39AM|#
I tend to choose organic food because it tastes better and
supports local farmers.
"organic" and "local" are not the same. The "organic" peaches being
sold at my local farmers market came from south america not from
bob down the road. Why? Because I live in fucking minnesota - ever
tried growing peaches in January in -10 degree weather? Also -
"Bob" owns a massive factory farm that pumps more into the local
economy that a 100 small farms. And produces more food, more
efficiently.
Also I whenever I hear someone say "taste better" I roll my eyes.
Most people can't tell the difference between organic and
non-organic produce or meat.
the innominate one|8.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#
"True, depending on your meaning and use of the phrase
"genetically modified"."
"It doesn't depend on anyone's definition. It's a simple fact. Note
the fundamental difference between maize and teosinte. Those are
genetic changes. Unknown genetic changes."
Actually, it does depend on the definition. Clearly, you're using
the phrase "genetically modified in its broad sense. Most people
using the phrase are referring only to organisms modified by
molecular biology techniques, not organisms modified by selective
breeding of crops, like corn from teosinte, or crop bananas from
wild bananas, etc. In this sense, silver queen corn: not
"genetically modified"; BT corn: "genetically modified".
Ron and his favorite quote-givers like to conflate the two senses
of the phrase.
|8.19.08 @ 11:50AM|#
From a review of Vaclav Smil's Enriching the Earth:
The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this
century is not global warming but a global conversion to 'organic'
farming - an estimated 2 billion people would perish.
Fewer than Federoff suggests, but still a substantial number. Whole
review here.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 11:54AM|#
an estimated 2 billion people would perish.
Cripes Ron, are you trying to prove you are a hack?
The little "fewer than he suggests" comment doesn't get you off the
hook for spreading hyperbole rather than information.
Brian|8.19.08 @ 11:56AM|#
I was using the generic you, Brian. I now see where your
excellent grasp of logic comes from. You go ahead and keep applying
that to organic vs. non-organic.
I was, too. Maybe you need to brush up on your comprehension skills
fucktard.
|8.19.08 @ 11:58AM|#
innominate: But why should the anti-biotechies be allowed to confuse the issue by pretending that genetic modification is some new strange occult and dangerous process? Hundreds of crop varieties genetically modified by random mutation by means of radiation and chemicals have not proven to be dangerous to either health or the environment. There is no scientific evidence that crops enhanced by means of modern molecular biology are deleterious to health or the environment. The anti-biotechies and organickers need to stop lying about the "dangers" of current biotech crops.
|8.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Most people can't tell the difference between organic and
non-organic produce or meat.
I will agree wholeheartedly with the "produce" portion of that
statement. There really are some phenomenal organic pig products,
though.
Brian|8.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#
I now see where your excellent grasp of logic comes
from.
Really? Is that because you did the same thing I did? You really
are amazing, I'll give you that.
|8.19.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Why get upset because we're getting better at it?
Because the scope of the changes and larger, and because they take
place faster, than under the traditional cross-breeding that humans
have been doing for millenia.
In theory, this could mean a much more significant unintended
consequence (for example, an anti-insect trait that kills the local
pollinators) gets distributed across the ecosystem and across the
world a lot faster.
Which would seem to militate for a reliable testing regime for new
crops, rather than a ban on the practice.
|8.19.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Neu: So you don't believe Federoff and Emsley? Got any data? Maybe a book? Alternative information about the nitrogen cycle? Talk to any ag economists? Very persuasive.
|8.19.08 @ 12:04PM|#
joe: Faster and more comprehensive changes than the hundreds of crops produced using chemical and radiation mutation cited above.
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 12:10PM|#
You really are amazing, I'll give you that.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Can you please explain how
How about you stop asking me what to do if I don't have a
garden and mind your own business?
applies to me asking what to do if someone (using the generic you)
doesn't have the space for a garden?
|8.19.08 @ 12:14PM|#
joe: Faster and more comprehensive changes than the hundreds
of crops produced using chemical and radiation mutation cited
above.
Yes, obviously. It used to take several generations to make the
leaves of certain crops a little bigger. Now, an organization like
Monsanto can introduce an anti-fungal or anti-insect gene from an
entirely different kingdom into a plant's genetic sequence and that
trait, wholly unknown within the species until then, will show up
in the next generation.
Am I supposed to be scared of the words "chemical" and "radiation?"
You've got the wrong environmentalist.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Neu: So you don't believe Federoff and Emsley? Got any data?
Maybe a book? Alternative information about the nitrogen cycle?
Talk to any ag economists? Very persuasive.
Why should I do your job for you Ron?
The point is that you are framing this as an either/or debate and
inappropriately squaring those who advocate sustainable agriculture
against those using genetic engineering to change current ag.
practices.
The hack comment comes from the fact that you have picked the side
you want to win in a competition between methods and are using
hyperbole to discredit the other side...all the while admitting
that it is hyperbole.
Why pick out the quote you did if you find his estimate to be
overly pessimistic?
My guess is because you know most people will not bother to read
the book and will simply remember the number...and the implied
message: organic farming is a very bad idea that will kill billions
of people.
Propaganda is distinct from journalism.
Like I said above, the science on this issue is equivocal. To
pretend it has been decided is ridiculous.
Unless you are advocating a partisan position that does not care
about the science.
|8.19.08 @ 12:18PM|#
If genetic changes brought about by radiation and chemicals
brought about desired traits as fast as genetic modification, and
if the changes were as substantial as those that could achieved
through that process, why would it have been invented?
Just how long do you think you'd have to dose broccoli before it
took on the anti-frost characteristics of a halibut, anyway?
Brian|8.19.08 @ 12:20PM|#
I meant back yard, which is why I added it after that. See,
here's how it went...
ME: Growing vegetables in your back yard is easy enough.
(SPECIFIC) YOU: What if you don't have a back yard? Do you produce
all the food you need?
ME: If you don't have a backyard then go to the store and get
organic food. (see, it was generic you - and where specific you
starts being a total dick)
(SPECIFIC) YOU: Wow, you really want me to eat organic food. How
about you refrain from telling me what to eat, and stick to
yourself?
ME: How about you stop asking me what to do if I don't have a
garden (...or a back yard....) and mind your own business?
I was just reciprocating the personal attack.
|8.19.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 12:28PM|#
See Ron, what the partisan hacks do is they pick something scary
to say about the other side...and repeat it over and over again,
whether or not it is true or supported by the science.
So,
"Genetic engineering will turn all our squash into inedible
plastic, and kill off all the good insects" is set up against
"organic farming will kill 2 billion people."
Both statements are unsupportable based on the science. You have
chosen to repeat one to refute the other.
That's what a hack would do.
|8.19.08 @ 12:32PM|#
One thing with Reason, it represents big corporate interests.
That means big agri-business. That's why Reason pimps mass
unskilled immigration.
"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture
research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot
of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as
well as fertilizer companies---all have been playing an important
role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to
produce food," she said.
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 12:38PM|#
(SPECIFIC) YOU: What if you don't have a back yard? Do you
produce all the food you need?
BZZZZZZT
Sorry buddy, the first you was not a specific you. It was "what if
(a person) doesn't have a back yard?" The second you was a
specific, as I was asking what you did when you didn't have enough
produce.
ME: If you don't have a backyard then go to the store and get
organic food.
Yes, a generic you as well, where you want everyone to go get
organic food--which includes me, thereby begetting my response
of
(SPECIFIC) YOU: Wow, you really want me to eat organic food.
How about you refrain from telling me what to eat, and stick to
yourself?
So your statement of
ME: How about you stop asking me what to do if I don't have a
garden (...or a back yard....) and mind your own
business?
is fully based on your inability to see that my very first "you"
was generic.
So asking you not to tell me what to eat is a personal attack? You
are both thin-skinned and unable to discern well between generic
and specific "you".
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 12:39PM|#
William R,
Thanks for posting those studies...but I must admit I don't follow
your "mass unskilled immigration comment."
How are these issues tied together at all?
Organic farms use human labor as much or more than industrial
farms. No?
|8.19.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Neu, go farm organic. With the money saved on fertilizers coupled with equal or better yields, you'll kick indy farmers and ADMs ass in no time. Just don't forget us little guys when you make it big. Please wave to us from your solar poweered limo.
robc|8.19.08 @ 12:41PM|#
I try to primarily eat organic food becuase the silicon based foods are too tough.
Brian|8.19.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Yes, a generic you as well, where you want everyone to go
get organic food--which includes me, thereby begetting my response
of
There's where you fucked up - I never said or implied everyone like
you assumed I did. So, then you (apparently) mistakenly attacked me
with How about you refrain from telling me what to eat, and
stick to yourself? when I was using the same "you" you were
using.
|8.19.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Reliance on cheap labor hurts U.S. agricultural productivity because it removes the incentive to mechanize.
Warty|8.19.08 @ 12:48PM|#
"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture
research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot
of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as
well as fertilizer companies---all have been playing an important
role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to
produce food," she said.
You quote that to support your position? Really?
Fucking corporations, sitting in their big corporation buildings,
being all corporationy...
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 12:49PM|#
JsubD,
Sorry, I have done my time on the farm.
It ain't the life for me.
And, in case you didn't notice, I said that the science was
equivocal...I have not claimed that organic farming has greater
yields...just that it has yet to be determined if it can equal
current methods.
Good to see that you have picked a side, however.
Again I see that you are on the side of centrally planned and
produced rather than distributed and diverse production.
I find that odd in a libertarian.
;^)
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 12:51PM|#
So, then you (apparently) mistakenly attacked me with How
about you refrain from telling me what to eat, and stick to
yourself? when I was using the same "you" you were
using.
It's so cute that you consider me asking you not to tell me what to
eat to be an attack. If I ask you not to punch me, did I just
commit assault on you?
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 12:54PM|#
William R,
And mechanized organic farming would be more productive than
organic farming using cheap available labor? Is that your
point?
Which would be more efficient if you calculate energy usage into
the mix? Does a large harvesting machine have a smaller
environmental footprint than a group of human harvesters? Is
mechanized farming more sustainable (the point to organic farming,
I believe)?
Just asking.
|8.19.08 @ 12:56PM|#
"All organic" vs. "all industrial" is a pointless argument
anyway.
The point of organic agriculture, as far as I'm concerned, is to
pioneer methods that are low-energy, low-pollution, and
environmentally more sustainable overall, so that they can be
adopted by the mainstream agricultural producers. If it can be
shown that potato farmers can get rid of 90% of their insecticides
through some smarter methods, and that practice gets mainstreamed,
that is an enormous force for good. If getting that last 10% out of
the system would mean clearing large amounts of woodlands, nobody's
going to demand that.
You see a lot of asserted-compassion for poor farmers in the
developing world. News flash: your typical subsistence farmer, or
one just a little above that level, isn't going to be buying
barrels of insecticide for his crops, even if he wanted to. On the
other hand, the growing expertise of the organic-farming movement
is producing practices that such a farmer can adopt, and increase
his well-being. And oh btw, his kids and grandkids are going to
have better soil when their turn comes.
the innominate one|8.19.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Ron, I don't have a problem with GMO per se, but I dislike the semantic tactics of argumentation that conflate two fundamentally different processes.
Brian|8.19.08 @ 12:59PM|#
YOU: What if you don't have a car to get you to work?
ME: Then (you) take the bus.
YOU: Hey, don't fucking tell me what to do man!
|8.19.08 @ 1:00PM|#
robc,
I try to primarily eat organic food because the silicon based
foods are too tough.
I always knew deep down inside that you were a carbon-based
bigot.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 1:01PM|#
the innominate one,
Ron, I don't have a problem with GMO per se, but I dislike the
semantic tactics of argumentation that conflate two fundamentally
different processes.
Seconded.
|8.19.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Again I see that you are on the side of centrally planned
and produced rather than distributed and diverse
production.
You see that where? Perhaps my proposal that farmers be forced by
law to apply pesticides and fertilizers? Perhaps my support for
taxation of organic producers to "level the playing field"? Perhaps
my belief that I know soooo much more about the best way to get
improved yields than all of those people who only do it for a
fucking living?
Or perhaps you are merely vocalizing via your excretory system?
|8.19.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Ron,
Maybe you show stop posting this kind of stuff until you guys get a
handle on the sock puppet chorus. The ADM/illegal immigration
obsessed asswipe is clearly the same person under, by my count,
four different names. This site obviously came to the attention of
some internet hippie crusader cuntrag, and he thinks trolling and
insults will bring us to the light. (Until proven wrong, I will
blame The Utne Reader.)
Pointing this out will probably get me accused of being a Monsanto
employee again, but so be it. I bet a lot of photographic
archivists are secretly plants of the agribusiness
KKKonspiracy.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 1:08PM|#
More ball busting:
JsubD,
The majority of people who farm know do it this way, therefore it
must be the most efficient way to do it. If the alternative you
advocate is better then these experts will recognize its advantages
and it will win in the market place.
Try this in the political arena.
The majority supports the current non-libertarian system of
government. If the alternative you advocate is better, then society
will recognize this and it will win in the market place.
There is no need to advocate for the alternative approach. Somehow
its advantages will just emerge.
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 1:11PM|#
YOU: Hey, don't fucking tell me what to do man!
And this is an attack how? Note that I also did not use fucking,
but you felt you had to add it to ramp up the aggression you
perceive.
By the way, by arguing with you, am I bullying you by your question
= attack logic? I'm just curious.
|8.19.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Bingo, they don't seem to be too worried about organic farming
practices when it comes to hydroponic BC bud.
Hey, stranger, stop using my computer and typing about subjects I
have no personal knowledge or experience with! Stop it, I say, or I
shall thrash you soundly! What is that, Budweiser served at Boston
College?
|8.19.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Epi,
How does the over-lapping demos of "everybody should live in a
city/urban area for the environment" and "grow stuff in the
backyard like we've never heard of the division of labor concept"
reconcile themselves?
Extra-large balconies, perhaps? A complete ignorance of economies
of scale?
|8.19.08 @ 1:19PM|#
Lol, SugarFree.
I like the people who think they are being environmentalists
because they demand large lot sizes in subdivisions being
built.
That way, everybody has a twelve foot strip of trees between their
yards. You know. It preserves habitat.
Brian|8.19.08 @ 1:20PM|#
What if you don't have a back yard?
If you don't have a backyard then go to the store and get organic
food.
Wow, you really want me to eat organic food. How about you refrain
from telling me what to eat, and stick to yourself?
Sounds to me like an attack of the bi-polar sort. Maybe you were
attacking yourself? Decided you didn't want your question
answered?
|8.19.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Bingo and joe,
While not done in the lab by scaring labcoat guys with clipboards,
almost all marijuana not scraped out of ditch in Mexico is heavily
GMO'ed and not slowly over a few generations. There are a bunch of
underground techniques to mutate seeds and roll the genetic
dice.
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 1:23PM|#
NutraSweet, you (SPECIFIC YOU) use this word reconcile. Why would they need to do that? It's about how you (GENERIC YOU) feel, not about reality.
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Maybe you were attacking yourself?
I'd joke that this must be what I was doing, except that your
statement makes no sense.
You are obsessed with an imaginary attack.
|8.19.08 @ 1:28PM|#
everybody has a twelve foot strip of trees between their
yards
Hey! Those Bradford Pears are the only thing standing between the
future and total environmental devastation!
Seriously though, unless you are prepared to invest hundreds of
hours and have a large yard, you are better off economically and
sanity-wise just going to the farmer's market. The best thing to
grow in the backyard for a cost/taste/ease profit is herbs and
tomatoes.
And I have and support small lots because mowing grass is the most
pointless activity known to man.
|8.19.08 @ 1:30PM|#
While not done in the lab by scaring labcoat guys with
clipboards, almost all marijuana not scraped out of ditch in Mexico
is heavily GMO'ed and not slowly over a few generations. There are
a bunch of underground techniques to mutate seeds and roll the
genetic dice.
Fuck the bears in Montana - THIS is where federal research dollars
shou....Hey, I told you not to use the keyboard! How'd you get back
in here?!?
|8.19.08 @ 1:31PM|#
The best thing to grow in the backyard for a cost/taste/ease
profit is herbs and tomatoes.
Depends on the her...HEY! That's it, I'm calling the police!
|8.19.08 @ 1:31PM|#
joe,
The best way to keep him out is to push a rolled up towel up to the
crack under the door.
|8.19.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Millions Against Monsanto Campaign
Who fucking cares? Millions read their horoscope. Millions believe
the Bible is literally true. Collecting millions of dumbasses in a
world of billions just ain't that friggin' impressive.
Feel free to farm anyway you desire and feel free to eat food from
any producer you wish. I am against false advertising/labelling so
lack of access to organic food ain't my fault. If it's better, the
market will sort it out. If it's merely a niche market for aging
hippies, the market will figure that out as well.
Episiarch|8.19.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Or exhale through a drier sheet stuffed into a paper towel
tube.
That is pointed directly at your cat's ears. Cats like MJ. A
lot.
|8.19.08 @ 1:42PM|#
The majority of people who farm know do it this way,
therefore it must be the most efficient way to do it. If the
alternative you advocate is better then these experts will
recognize its advantages and it will win in the market
place.
No. If a better, more efficient method of production appears it
will eventually be adopted due to market forces. But you know how
that works. The whole capitalist economies out produce
socialist/command economies thingee. You know why that works,
too.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 1:45PM|#
JsubD,
If it's better, the market will sort it out.
What role does information, misinformation, and preconception play
in the market?
Serious question.
Do you believe that there is anything like an attractor state in
complex systems?
In other words, do systems get in ruts that work to maintain a
current local state even if there is a more efficient state that
could be reached if the system were to break out of the rut?
Does it take energy to do that?
Or will the information be distributed by some invisible mechanism
other than human dialog about the advantages and disadvantages of
doing things differently?
Does this require that the conversation include accurate
information?
Can bias or misinformation warp the market and degrade its
results?
Quincy ME|8.19.08 @ 1:49PM|#
I warned you kids of the dangers of genetically modified marijuana using colchicine back in the 1970s.
|8.19.08 @ 1:51PM|#
J sub D | August 19, 2008, 1:38pm | #
If it's merely a niche market for aging hippies, the market
will figure that out as well.
It's growing by double digits yearly. So it's not a niche market.
Bailey represents the big guys. I have no problem with that.
Organic farming is saving the family farm The people Bailey
represents want to see the family farm be a thing of the past. A
little truth in advertising would be nice!
robc|8.19.08 @ 1:55PM|#
The best thing to grow in the backyard for a cost/taste/ease
profit is herbs and tomatoes.
You left out hops.
|8.19.08 @ 1:57PM|#
robc,
As long as hops don't get your dogs shot because of a stupid
neighbor thinking you have a ill-disguised marijuana growing
operation.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 1:57PM|#
William R,
I am still interested in your reasoning regarding mechanized
farming as it relates to organic farming and immigration.
Current practices seem pretty mechanized, particularly the closer
you get to "the big guys."
robc|8.19.08 @ 2:00PM|#
NM,
In other words, do systems get in ruts that work to maintain a
current local state even if there is a more efficient state that
could be reached if the system were to break out of the
rut?
I think annealing is a better metaphor than attractors. To cross
threads (dont cross the threads), boom/bust cycles lead to economic
annealing. :) The busts break us out of ruts and allow the economy
to find a better, more efficient state.
|8.19.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Be careful NM, he'll start suggesting speech therapists are also
part of the KKKonspiracy.
By the way, you guys are cruel. If you have a lisp you can't say
the word "lisp." I'd be like me having to tell people I have
diabetes by successfully releasing sugar molecules off of my red
blood cells.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 2:04PM|#
robc,
You are referring to this idea perhaps?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SimulatedAnnealing.html
I think both attractor states in the system are a pretty good
metaphor for current practices.
We could talk about market inertia as well.
robc|8.19.08 @ 2:06PM|#
joe,
Im not growing any yet, Im considering planting some next year. The
price is getting outrageous. By the time I have some, the crisis
will be over and the price back to reasonable. But I could make
some cool harvest ales.
BTW, this is a good point as any to brag a bit: I took 2 first
places in homebrewing at the KY state fair (going on right now, at
a Louisville near you). I won the english pale ale and german
wheat/rye categories with my ESB and Hefeweizen respectively.
robc|8.19.08 @ 2:08PM|#
NM,
Without clicking on the link, yeah. Although I was referring to the
actual physical process that simulated annealing, um, err,
simulates.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 2:10PM|#
From the nature article, regarding the problem of nitrogen
problem and meat production...
This takes land out of commercial production, reducing the
overall yield of a plot over time. Although some legumes are
edible, the most efficient nitrogen-fixers, such as clover, are
not.
Cows don't eat clover?
Can't the nitrogen fixing plants also be used to feed the meat
producing animals? Isn't it all about balancing production so that
each step is counter-balanced according to benefits and
costs?
I wonder.
|8.19.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 2:18PM|#
William R,
Could that effect, perhaps, be due to the tomato being picked at
closer to peak ripeness?
Any thoughts on the mechanical organic farming question?
|8.19.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Neu: Cross posted from Gingrich blog above:
Neu: Finally, inflating organic farming versus drilling
industrial farming of GM products is a false partisan dichotomy.
Why not do both?
Way, way ahead of you. See my 2002 column in
which I argue for combining relevant organic and biotech techniques
to create a truly sustainable agriculture:
The Swiss researchers did find some true benefits from organic
farming, including greater water retention by the soil and a higher
presence of beneficial insects. Unfortunately, they did not test
their organic systems against the newest form of conventional
agriculture, no-till farming combined with genetically enhanced
crops. This uses much less energy and less pesticides than the
old-fashioned systems examined by the Swiss scientists.
Since no-till farmers don't plow, their tractors use less fuel.
Also, since weed control is achieved using environmentally benign
herbicides instead of mechanical removal through plowing, even more
fuel is saved. Finally, no-till farmers use less insecticide, since
genetically enhanced crops can protect themselves against pests.
Against all this, organic farming's 19 percent energy advantage
would likely disappear.
No-till farming matches several other advantages of organic
agriculture as well. Both methods offer improved soil structure,
more water retention, greatly reduced soil erosion, less pesticide
and fertilizer runoff, and a higher presence of beneficial insects.
Although organic farmers refuse to see it, switching to genetically
enhanced crops would go a long way toward accomplishing their
avowed goals of restoring their land and helping the natural
environment.
One final argument often offered by organic enthusiasts is that
organic farming is more profitable. Of course, the reason organic
foods command a premium at supermarkets is that so many consumers
have been bamboozled into thinking that they are somehow superior.
If organic farming became widespread, that premium would dissipate
and take its higher profitability with it.
Now if only the organickers would stop their purely ideological
campaign against biotech.
|8.19.08 @ 2:23PM|#
William R.
If "organic" is taking the world by storm, I'm sure I'll start
seeing it dominate the shelf space at the local supermarket.
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east.
Any day now, any day now,
I shall be released.*
* From pesticide and fertilizer poisoned agricultural products.
|8.19.08 @ 2:33PM|#
While the farmer's market has some very nice produce, the
organic section of the local grocery stores and food co-op contains
some of the saddest fucking examples of "organic" food ever. The
apples look like they were shat out of a worm's ass. The lemons are
tiny and taste metallic. Yes, this is anecdotal, but it's a
marketing problem.
Also, there is a lot of convenient confusion of locovore, organic
production, and GMO foods. While they overlap, they are all not the
same. They only reason to deliberately confuse them is "food as
politics."
Do libertarians want to make local food illegal? Do libertarians
want to make "organic" production of food mandatory? Do
libertarians want to control what you eat? Food politics didn't
start with us.
|8.19.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Neu,
I recognize the long and storied history of research and education
in improving agriculteral yields. The dumbass ideas that emerged
from academia failed in the market and are discarded, forgotten.
The good ones are regularly used by the good folks that grow food.
This ain't gonna change with organic farming practices.
Take the family 5,000 acres and go organic. You'll make more, less,
or the same amount as your neighbors. They will notice and respond
accordingly. Farmers ain't stupid, nor are they 100% averse to
risk. Granted, they have poor fashion sense, but pigs and
vegetables don't seem to mind.
JT|8.19.08 @ 2:45PM|#
The paradox is that it's precisely this scientific gaming of
crop production that allowed runaway population growth to begin
with.
Attrition, here we come.
|8.19.08 @ 3:05PM|#
If I were robc, I'd plant the hope.
1. He's obviously good enough at brewing that it's worth it to get
the hops just right someday.
2. This probably will not be the last time prices rise in his
life.
|8.19.08 @ 3:18PM|#
If everyone would just plant hope in their backyards, America could be independent of foreign emotions of aspiration by 2027.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Cross posted and elaborated response to Ron's cross posted
response.
Neu Mejican | August 19, 2008, 2:25pm | #
Now if only the organickers would stop their purely ideological
campaign against biotech.
Now please go back to bashing Gingrich.
You started so well Ron, and then had to get in that little
partisan dig.
Organickers?
Really?
Dogmatic thinking should always be criticized, but you are too
quick to lump a whole movement under the flag of the zealots.
It gives your arguments a partisan sheen that detracts from their
power.
If you had posted the above idea regarding a combination of GM and
organic, or pointed out the false dichotomy inherent in your
headline, or pointed out that the interview you link to has a
series of unsupported statements, or pointed out that the current
research is equivocal on the efficiency question, you would have
looked less like a hack from the beginning.
But, the little partisan dig at the "organickers" makes me think
you can't see past the us vs. them dimension of this issue.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 3:31PM|#
JsubD,
Like I alluded to above...I have worked on farm and know farmers. I
am not sure I agree with your assessment of how quickly innovations
spread in the community.
For most farms, a wrong choice can lead to disaster, so while they
are not 100% risk aversive, they are a pretty conservative lot. Mix
that with misinformation from sources like Ron and William R and
you lower the chances that a better way to do things will be
adopted without active advocacy by more objective sources.
What is unfortunate is that dogmatists on both sides prefer to
spread misinformation rather having an honest debate.
The "market forces" you think are gonna handle all of this include
accurate information getting to the producers and consumers.
Partisan hacks degrade the efficiency of that process.
robc|8.19.08 @ 3:36PM|#
joe,
1a. There are problems with getting the hops "just right". Not
being able to analyize the hops and get the alpha acid % is a big
problem with homegrown hops. Vital knowledge for bittering.
However, its far less important for late addition aroma hops and
dry hopping, so there is that.
1b. KY's climate isnt the best for growing hops. They will grow,
but I think its too humid to really kick ass.
2. The price rise this time was mainly due to a confluence of weird
events the last few years. One, frickin ethanol. Some hop farmers
switched to corn. Also, some bad seasons in both US and Europe hop
regions. Also, also, at least 1 huge fire that destroyed a big
chunk of hops last year. Hops have gone up about 500% over the last
2 years. Makes oil seem pedestrian. And there have been shortages
in many varieties. Things are looking better though, this year
weather cooperated, no major disasters so far, and more farmers
have switched to hop farming due to the price increase -
unfortunately, it takes about 3 seasons to get the vines up to full
production.
All that said, I may plant a few rhizomes if I can figure out where
to run them.
|8.19.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Like I alluded to above...I have worked on farm and know
farmers. I am not sure I agree with your assessment of how quickly
innovations spread in the community.
I don't believe I ever contended that it's a rapid process. Rather
that in a free market, it's an inevitable one. I may have contended
that governmental interference would be counterproductive to
increasing crop yields though. The argument, which AFAIK you
haven't made, this time they'll get it right, sways me not
at all.
What is unfortunate is that dogmatists on both sides prefer to
spread misinformation rather having an honest debate.
I'm a rational environmentalist who gives a rat's ass about the
poverty stricken underdeveeloped world. Preacher, choir, you
know.
|8.19.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Why can't you have GMO organic crops, again? I thought organic
had mostly to do with how you grow (what fertilizers/techniques you
use), rather than what you grow.
Absent, of course, an arbitrary definition that only randomly
mutated organisms can be deemed "organic."
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 4:48PM|#
JsubD,
Environmental harms, like economic harms, burden the poor more than
the wealthy. Solutions for environmental problems benefit the poor
more than the wealthy.
Environmental harms, interestingly, on balance, result more from
the the activities of the wealthy than the poor. And, as a result,
costs for environmental solutions will need to be born more by the
wealthy than by the poor.
But...solutions to environmental harms exist that end up benefiting
both the wealthy and the poor. Economically and otherwise.
But, I forget, you know THE TRUTH about environmentalists and their
hate for the poor.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 4:54PM|#
I may have contended that governmental interference would be
counterproductive to increasing crop yields though. The argument,
which AFAIK you haven't made, this time they'll get it right, sways
me not at all.
As far as I know current government policy on farming pushes the
status quo and according to recent statements made by the
government's representative on the issue (and quoted by Ron Bailey
of Reason magazine), changes to that status quo will result in
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE STARVING.
I wonder who has a largely lobby pushing their agenda, industrial
farming, GM crop developers, or the organic foods industry.
Really.
I wonder.
|8.19.08 @ 6:33PM|#
One thing with Reason, it represents big corporate
interests. That means big agri-business. That's why Reason pimps
mass unskilled immigration.
You forgot about the gun industry. Anyway, can I get drink out of
this?
Invisible Finger|8.19.08 @ 7:16PM|#
Now, an organization like Monsanto can introduce an
anti-fungal or anti-insect gene from an entirely different kingdom
into a plant's genetic sequence and that trait, wholly unknown
within the species until then, will show up in the next
generation.
To be fair, and organization like Harvard or Texas A&M can do
the same.
Singling out Monsanto makes the argument smack of "evil
corporations!" rather than a scientific one.
Russ 2000|8.19.08 @ 8:00PM|#
News flash: your typical subsistence farmer, or one just a
little above that level, isn't going to be buying barrels of
insecticide for his crops, even if he wanted to.
No shit. It's not about pesticides and fertilizers, it's about GE
crops that need much less of that stuff.
But the GE crops are protected by IP royalties, so it basically
comes down to which way the farmer wants to get ass-fucked - lower
yields, fertilizer-and-pesticide bills, or IP royalty payments.
Neu Mejican|8.19.08 @ 8:52PM|#
Russ2000,
Which is why organic farming methods make the most sense in the
developing world, imho. They can get higher yields than traditional
farming methods, don't need the fertilizer, and don't involve IP
royalty payments.
The estimates that I have seen for Africa would be a tripling of
agricultural production by adopting organic farming methods
appropriate to each region. Even if this is a lower yield than GM
crops, the investment in organic farming is an investment of labor
and knowledge rather than capital investments for chemicals or
high-tech seed purchases.
Now, of course, I see no problem using organic methods with GM
crops, but when GM crops are designed as part of a pesticide/seed
pair, then they cannot be grown "organic" and they come with
additional costs not associated with traditional seeds.
Lefiti|8.19.08 @ 9:06PM|#
In a country where a sizable majority of adults believe in God and astrology, the skepticism about genetically modified foods is hardly surprising. Americans are scientifically illiterate fat fucks living on borrowed money and nationalist fantasies.
Paul|8.20.08 @ 12:43AM|#
Growing vegetables in your back yard is easy
enough.
As long as you have one. And as long as the one you have is big
enough. And live in a climate conducive to such activity. And have
the time and patience to do it.
Paul|8.20.08 @ 12:44AM|#
I think most "organic" people are concerned with herbicides
and pesticides on the food and going into the ground than with
genetic modification.
Funny, so are pro-GM folks. You know, making resistant crops and
stuff. Just a passing thought.
Paul|8.20.08 @ 12:53AM|#
I now return you to your regularly scheudled sucking of
Archer Daniels Midland cock.
Bah, that's the
domain of Democrats
and Republicans.
Since the 2000 election cycle, ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions: $1.2 million to Democrats and $1.85 million to Republicans. These donations may have helped sustain a multitude of government subsidies to ADM, including ethanol tax credits, tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors, and federally mandated ethanol additive standards.
Kevin Carson|8.20.08 @ 12:50PM|#
"If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn't support
the earth's current population - maybe half."
I've seen such statements many times, and invariably they turn out
to be snap generalizations made, on little reflection, by people
with little concrete knowledge of organic techniques. It's one of
those things the people in the agribusiness/USDA/research complex
like to repeat that "just ain't so." I've heard such bald
assertions from, among others, an agribusiness professor and an
agricultural extension agent. In response, I asked "Are you
seriously saying the world couldn't feed itself on the same amount
of land using intensive raised-bed techniques, careful rainwater
conservation, composting and green manuring?" The answer: "Oh, you
mean like in Japan? Well, I guess the world might not starve if
that kind of thing was widely adopted."
Such party line statements typically assume a continuation of the
same kind of inefficient and land-wasteful row-cropping used by
conventional large-scale, mechanized, chemical farming--just
without the chemicals.
In fact, soil-intensive cultivation on small plots (IOW, adoption
of the kind of technique that's specifically suited to organic
farming) is actually more productive per acre than large-scale row
cropping on the American pattern. It produces less per unit of
*labor*, but a labor shortage really isn't the problem in the Third
World; in fact the slums of the Third World are filled with former
peasant subsistence farmers who were evicted from the land against
their will. People who would have been better off being allowed to
produce *any* food on their own land are now unable to buy the food
produced by cash crop agribusiness at *any* price, because they're
living in tin-roof shantytowns with no source of income. Any form
of farming that produces more per acre and puts them back on the
land is a net plus.
The kinds of blanket assertions Federoff makes are based on an
intellectually dishonest comparison that assumes organic farmers
*don't* adopt the best available techniques. In fact there are
avaiable techniques for increasing organic output far beyond the
prevailing model of traditional peasant farming. The techniques
developed by Rodale and Bromfield in the mid-20th century were a
radical improvement on the typical pre-chemical techniques of fifty
years before; and the intensive raised bed farming of John Jeavons
is a quantum increase on that. Jeavons, using double-digging in
raised beds, composts all agricultural and human waste, and used
leguminous cover crops to increase soil fertility, can produce a
subsistence diet for one person on 4000 sq. ft.--one tenth of an
acre. I see no evidence whatever that
So there are actually two *alternative* models for increasing food
output beyond the present techniques prevailing among peasant
subsistence farmers. One of them, the path not taken, leaves
peasants on their land and involves increasing productivity through
careful conservation of soil and rainwater. The second, which
involves mass peasant evictions and the large-scale use of
chemicals affordable only by rich agribusiness interests and
subsidized irrigation inputs provided preferentially by the state
to big operators, has crowded out the first.
|8.20.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Russ and Neu, Since when do organic crops not need fertilizer? I
don't know if it was mentioned above, but there simply isn't enough
poop in the world to fertilize enough organic crops to feed 8-10b
people, let alone enough land to do it.
The Michigan study is non-composted BS. The lead author is an
anthropologist, not an agronomist. And the entire study is based on
modeling. REAL experience over the last 50 years says that organic
yields are 40-50% lower than conventional ag. End of story.
"the investment in organic farming is an investment of labor..."
And you think this is a good thing?! Remember the next time you buy
a bag of organic lettuce that the growers in CA got an exemption on
the hand weeding ban. Of course, hand weeding is ergonomically
disastrous for farm workers. Perhaps you owe them a pat on their
sore backs;(
oleg|8.20.08 @ 4:25PM|#
"There's almost no food that isn't genetically modified."
I'm trying not to lose faith in science, but it's getting
increasingly harder, when you hear that brilliant maverick
biologist in the Bush administration pours out a kind of the shit
quoted.
Strangely enough, Ron buys it... Or it's just his agenda.
Neu Mejican|8.20.08 @ 6:36PM|#
LorenE,
Since when do organic crops not need fertilizer?
They don't need chemical fertilizers.
Sorry if I gave you the impression I believed otherwise. (Let's
avoid a discussion of what "chemical" means in that
sentence).
The Michigan study is non-composted BS. The lead author is an
anthropologist, not an agronomist. And the entire study is based on
modeling. REAL experience over the last 50 years says that organic
yields are 40-50% lower than conventional ag. End of
story.
Sorry, I already distrust your judgment/objectivity on this
subject.
People who see things as black and white are not to be
trusted...
END OF STORY
And you think this is a good thing?! Remember the next time you
buy a bag of organic lettuce that the growers in CA got an
exemption on the hand weeding ban. Of course, hand weeding is
ergonomically disastrous for farm workers. Perhaps you owe them a
pat on their sore backs;(
Yes, I think that a poor farmer being able to profit from his labor
without significant up front capital investment is a good
thing.
Ergonomically disastrous though it may be.
Neu Mejican|8.20.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I don't know if it was mentioned above, but there simply
isn't enough poop in the world to fertilize enough organic crops to
feed 8-10b people, let alone enough land to do it.
[citation needed]
Neu Mejican|8.20.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Kevin Carson,
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
You are gonna make some heads explode around here.
So there are actually two *alternative* models for increasing
food output beyond the present techniques prevailing among peasant
subsistence farmers. One of them, the path not taken, leaves
peasants on their land and involves increasing productivity through
careful conservation of soil and rainwater. The second, which
involves mass peasant evictions and the large-scale use of
chemicals affordable only by rich agribusiness interests and
subsidized irrigation inputs provided preferentially by the state
to big operators, has crowded out the first.
You said that way better than I did.
I do think, however, that there is much work to do to demonstrate
the effectiveness of this claim.
Kevin Carson|8.20.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Thanks, Neu Mejican. And *of course* organic crops need fertiliser. But there's this thing called "nitrogen fixing bacteria"....
|8.21.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Oh, where to begin,
"The Michigan study is non-composted BS..."
"Sorry, I already distrust your judgment/objectivity on this
subject."
I'm sure you do. Of course this study has been thoroughly debunked.
What they claimed were organic yields weren't...quite...well,
organic. So the data was, shall we say, skewed in your favor. But
you BELIEVE it, right. Stacked up against the lower yields we
continue to see in the real world, your conclusion doesn't exactly
come off as objective.
"People who see things as black and white are not to be trusted..."
OK let's see. GM is bad, "chemical" fertilizer is bad, fungicides
are bad, insecticides (man-made) are bad, herbicides are bad and
multi-national companies that make money are devils incarnate. And
I'M seeing the world in black and white?
Check out the Center for Global Food Issues for more about the
worldwide manure shortage. I'm sure you'll love these guys!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245