Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
Hi All,
Since many of us have found that we do best with with fresh, and preferably organic foods, I though this article might be of interest. Tex, I will be especially interested in your comments as our resident farmer extraordinaire here.
Organic Farming Wins in 30-Year Study
Long, rigorous trial finds organic farming comparable or superior to conventional methods in every respect
by Craig Weatherby
(Article from Vital Choices Newsletter (http://newsletter.vitalchoice.com/e_art ... ?x=b11,0,w) October 10, 2011)
The Farming Systems Trial (FST) at Rodale Institute is America’s longest running, side-by-side comparison of organic and chemical agriculture.
Started in 1981 to study what happens during the transition from chemical to organic agriculture, the FST surprised a farming community skeptical of the practicality of organic practices.
After an initial decline in yields during the first few years of transition, the organic system began to match or surpass the conventional system.
Organic farming outperformed conventional, chemical farming when it came to crop yields, sustainability and profit.
Over three decades, the study has yielded eye-opening results for conventional farmers:
An organic farmer can expect to earn double (on less land) than a chemical farmer, whose money goes mostly into the pocket of the chemical companies upon which he or she is dependent.
GM crop farmers typically ended up using more herbicides, making it more expensive to go GM than if they had stayed with heritage crops.
Organic and conventional crop yields were equivalent throughout the trial … except that organic corn yields were 31 percent higher than conventional in years of drought. And the GM “drought-tolerant” corn only increased 7 percent to 13 percent over its conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties.
Organic farming uses 45 percent less energy than conventional systems, while conventional systems produce 40 percent more greenhouse gases. The largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions on conventional systems are nitrogen fertilizer production and fuel use. Organic systems that build soil quality are more efficient to manage, leading to less fuel use.
The study examined large-scale grain growers and included three crops: corn, soybean and wheat. As of 2008, genetically modified corn and soybean were introduced into the study to better assess the landscape of American agriculture.
The goal was to assess high-acreage crops, and unlike many organic and conventional farming comparison studies, the Farming Systems Trial is scientifically rigorous to ensure an accurate representation of farming practices.
The study was repeated using the same methods but with different researchers for each of the four different management systems. And the study's conventional plots are immediately adjacent to the organic plots, so both experienced the same soil types and weather patterns:
Organic Manure
This system represents an organic dairy or beef operation. It features a long rotation including both annual feed grain crops and perennial forage crops. The system’s fertility is provided by leguminous cover crops and periodic applications of manure or composted manure. This diverse rotation is also the primary line of defense against pests.
Organic Legume
This system represents an organic cash grain system. It features a mid-length rotation consisting of annual grain crops and cover crops. The system’s sole source of fertility is leguminous cover crops and the rotation provides the primary line of defense against pests.
Conventional Synthetic
This system represents the majority of grain farms in the U.S. It relies on synthetic nitrogen for fertility, and weeds are controlled by synthetic herbicides selected by and applied at rates recommended by Penn State University Cooperative Extension. In 2008, genetically modified (GM) corn and soybeans were added to this system.
No-Till Systems
Each of the three major systems was divided into two in 2008 to compare traditional tillage with no-till practices. The organic systems utilize an innovative no-till roller/crimper, and the no-till conventional system relies on current, widespread practices of herbicide applications and no-till specific equipment.
The crop rotations in the organic systems are more diverse than in the conventional systems, including up to seven crops in eight years (compared to two conventional crops in two years). While this means that conventional systems produce more corn or soybeans because they occur more often in the rotation, organic systems produce a more diverse array of food and nutrients and are better positioned to produce yields, even in adverse conditions.
Also, the now-organic plots began as conventional and have been remediated over time. To dispel any organic bias, the study oversight committee contains members who are strongly entrenched in chemical agriculture.
While the results of this rigorous trial may not shift the mindset of those already invested in conventional and GM methods, we can hope that it will influence many farmers’ choices, and change consumers’ minds.
By “voting” with their dollars, consumers can simultaneously reward farmers for using organic methods, and help push American agriculture in a more sustainable and profitable direction.
Polly
Organic Farming
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Organic Farming
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
Please forgive me for being a skeptic, but while I very much believe in the benefits of organic farming, I find it very difficult to believe their claims about outproducing conventional methods, and/or producing commodities more economically, on a sustainable basis. Yes, it can be done, on small experimental farms, but in order to produce such high yields, requires fertilizer rates that wouldn't be available at a sustainable rate on a widespread basis. The Rodale operation is a 333 acre experimental farm, and on such a small scale, one can do wonders, if money and labor are available. I'm sure if one analyzed their labor schedule, it would be apparent that trying to apply that to a large-scale operation would necessitate going back to the 1940's and 50's, when agriculture still consumed a large percentage of the labor force. Today, that labor is simply not available on a wholesale basis - not enough people are willing to work from sunup to sundown doing backbreaking work, in the hot sun, for minimum wages - not after they try it for a few days, anyway.
I can't remember much about farming in the 1940's, (I was pretty young), but I can clearly remember what it was like in the 1050's, when we still used exactly the methods that the Rodale Institute promotes. There were never enough hours in the day to do all the work that needed to be done, without the benefit of chemicals, and yields were miserable, because there was never enough manure available to fertilize more than a handful of acres each year. Only dairy farms, or huge poultry or swine production facilities produce enough manure to provide a sustainable manure supply, and we already know that milk is not all that it's cracked up to be. Poultry and hog factories are not all that appealing, either, from an environmental standpoint, but at least they provide a better source of food than dairy farms.
The Rodale Institute is an experimental farm, with plenty of money to work with, and no risk of losing everything, if they lose money on their production, year after year. They have all the manure they need, to obtain optimal plant growth, and that makes all the difference in the world, in their production rates.
Growing legumes was a regular part of our rotation, just as they recommend, but the problem with that, was that we had no income from those acres that year, (though we still had the expenses of farming those acres), and the following year, we had to fight the volunteer clover that came up in our crops. That required a lot of extra hand labor, of course. And the benefits of the fertilizer provided by a legume crop fade very quickly, after the first year or two back in production.
The obvious point is, the methods they promote, were exactly what production agriculture was using, 60 years ago. Farmers, as a group, are early innovators, and they are very conscientious about the cost of production and efficiency. They have to be, because their livelihood is on the line every year, and they can only survive if they use efficient methods. 60 years ago, if the methods that had been in use for decades worked so well, why did farmers embrace the new innovations offered by chemicals and seed hybridization, and abandon organic farming? The answer is, they had to, if they wanted to survive, (and many of them didn't). Between the 1960's and the 1990's, the combination of the influences of a global economy, and the government's "cheap food" policy, created several tough decades for agriculture that changed the industry forever.
Production agriculture had no choice, because the economic restrictions and government programs forced farmers to either get big, or get out, and the labor required to operate large farms in the same labor-intensive way that had been used on all the small farms for decades, was simply not available. And, of course, it's even less available, these days. Because of that problem, I don't see the type of farming promoted by the Rodale Institute ever gaining widespread use in production agriculture. Sure, it will continue to be an option for small farming operations, which pursue specialty markets, but there is no way that this country could ever provide a labor force capable of handling half the production acres in this country, if they were converted to the farming methods advocated by the Rodale Institute. Even if they opened the gates at the border, and placed a complete moratorium on the prosecution of illegal immigrants, they couldn't come close to supplying the amount of labor needed, because it would require tens of millions of additional workers. And where would they get all the manure needed, to replace the commercial fertilizer? It simply is not available - everything available is already being used.
So while I applaud their accomplishments, and I believe that there is definitely a place for operations of that type, as specialty producers, I don't see any way that the concept could even approach sustainability, on a national scale, in production agriculture. That would be like going back to the 1950's. The average corn production today, is at least 3 to 4 times what it was back in the 1950's, and other crops follow a similar pattern. How many people would have to starve, if we went back to that level of production, today? Yes, I realize that the Rodale Institute's data suggests that production levels using their techniques might be higher than conventional production, but where are we going to get all that manure? There's no surplus available. Without manure or commercial fertilizer, and without hybrid or GMO seeds, production rates would fall back to what they were in the 1950's. We've already proven that, nationwide, in the 1950's.
That said, if this country were to stop trying to eat itself to death on grains, and replace most or all of those grains with meat, fruits, and veggies, then yes, I believe that the concepts promoted by the Rodale Institute might be sustainable on a widespread production basis. That would obviously require some drastic changes in the way that everyone thinks about food, though.
At least that's the way I see it.
Love,
Tex
Please forgive me for being a skeptic, but while I very much believe in the benefits of organic farming, I find it very difficult to believe their claims about outproducing conventional methods, and/or producing commodities more economically, on a sustainable basis. Yes, it can be done, on small experimental farms, but in order to produce such high yields, requires fertilizer rates that wouldn't be available at a sustainable rate on a widespread basis. The Rodale operation is a 333 acre experimental farm, and on such a small scale, one can do wonders, if money and labor are available. I'm sure if one analyzed their labor schedule, it would be apparent that trying to apply that to a large-scale operation would necessitate going back to the 1940's and 50's, when agriculture still consumed a large percentage of the labor force. Today, that labor is simply not available on a wholesale basis - not enough people are willing to work from sunup to sundown doing backbreaking work, in the hot sun, for minimum wages - not after they try it for a few days, anyway.
I can't remember much about farming in the 1940's, (I was pretty young), but I can clearly remember what it was like in the 1050's, when we still used exactly the methods that the Rodale Institute promotes. There were never enough hours in the day to do all the work that needed to be done, without the benefit of chemicals, and yields were miserable, because there was never enough manure available to fertilize more than a handful of acres each year. Only dairy farms, or huge poultry or swine production facilities produce enough manure to provide a sustainable manure supply, and we already know that milk is not all that it's cracked up to be. Poultry and hog factories are not all that appealing, either, from an environmental standpoint, but at least they provide a better source of food than dairy farms.
The Rodale Institute is an experimental farm, with plenty of money to work with, and no risk of losing everything, if they lose money on their production, year after year. They have all the manure they need, to obtain optimal plant growth, and that makes all the difference in the world, in their production rates.
Growing legumes was a regular part of our rotation, just as they recommend, but the problem with that, was that we had no income from those acres that year, (though we still had the expenses of farming those acres), and the following year, we had to fight the volunteer clover that came up in our crops. That required a lot of extra hand labor, of course. And the benefits of the fertilizer provided by a legume crop fade very quickly, after the first year or two back in production.
The obvious point is, the methods they promote, were exactly what production agriculture was using, 60 years ago. Farmers, as a group, are early innovators, and they are very conscientious about the cost of production and efficiency. They have to be, because their livelihood is on the line every year, and they can only survive if they use efficient methods. 60 years ago, if the methods that had been in use for decades worked so well, why did farmers embrace the new innovations offered by chemicals and seed hybridization, and abandon organic farming? The answer is, they had to, if they wanted to survive, (and many of them didn't). Between the 1960's and the 1990's, the combination of the influences of a global economy, and the government's "cheap food" policy, created several tough decades for agriculture that changed the industry forever.
Production agriculture had no choice, because the economic restrictions and government programs forced farmers to either get big, or get out, and the labor required to operate large farms in the same labor-intensive way that had been used on all the small farms for decades, was simply not available. And, of course, it's even less available, these days. Because of that problem, I don't see the type of farming promoted by the Rodale Institute ever gaining widespread use in production agriculture. Sure, it will continue to be an option for small farming operations, which pursue specialty markets, but there is no way that this country could ever provide a labor force capable of handling half the production acres in this country, if they were converted to the farming methods advocated by the Rodale Institute. Even if they opened the gates at the border, and placed a complete moratorium on the prosecution of illegal immigrants, they couldn't come close to supplying the amount of labor needed, because it would require tens of millions of additional workers. And where would they get all the manure needed, to replace the commercial fertilizer? It simply is not available - everything available is already being used.
So while I applaud their accomplishments, and I believe that there is definitely a place for operations of that type, as specialty producers, I don't see any way that the concept could even approach sustainability, on a national scale, in production agriculture. That would be like going back to the 1950's. The average corn production today, is at least 3 to 4 times what it was back in the 1950's, and other crops follow a similar pattern. How many people would have to starve, if we went back to that level of production, today? Yes, I realize that the Rodale Institute's data suggests that production levels using their techniques might be higher than conventional production, but where are we going to get all that manure? There's no surplus available. Without manure or commercial fertilizer, and without hybrid or GMO seeds, production rates would fall back to what they were in the 1950's. We've already proven that, nationwide, in the 1950's.
That said, if this country were to stop trying to eat itself to death on grains, and replace most or all of those grains with meat, fruits, and veggies, then yes, I believe that the concepts promoted by the Rodale Institute might be sustainable on a widespread production basis. That would obviously require some drastic changes in the way that everyone thinks about food, though.
At least that's the way I see it.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
Joefnh
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 2478
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:25 pm
- Location: Southern New Hampshire
Great and informative response Tex. I can say I know next to nothing about farming and barely anything about gardening. I do recall as a kid talking with my grandfather about his rather large garden and I suggested using 'regular' fertilizers and pesticides and I got not only an impromptu lesson in 'colorful' language LOL but also a pretty good talk about the benefits of the traditional farming techniques... In the end I do know this, the fruits and veggies out of his garden tasted much better than anything from the store.
Joe
Joe
Joe
The article at the link below, published yesterday, includes some good examples of the real world problems faced by organic growers these days. Obviously this sharply contrasts with the rosy picture painted by the Rodale Institute:
Tex
"I could not make this grove produce as much as it should," Nearon said of his decision to abandon organic growing.
"The cost of production (caretaking) is way too high," he added. "Additionally the (farm) price doesn't make up for it."
The reasons Nearon cited in abandoning organic highlight the struggles organic producers nationwide are facing, said Denise Ryan, a director with the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz, Calif.
http://www.theledger.com/article/201110 ... c-Growers-"We see that in organic milk — when the (conventional) farm price increases, the number of organic dairies decreases," said Jane Sooby, grants director at the Organic Farming Research Foundation, who works with organic farmers nationwide, including Florida. "I can see it happening in citrus."
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.