I agree with what several posters have stated. By no means do I believe that any one production model works best in all scenarios and that some biological antagonists/agonists may be the most effective option in some instances. I've seen bindweed mites be effective at control.
But the amount of propaganda out there just gets my blood to boiling. People that have no clue what they are talking about (and some that are just purposeful) start making regulations and misinforming the public. I hate inefficiency and waste no matter where it is. I believe in being a good steward of the land and what has been given to me. I want to see abundance and for others to benefit from this as well. Some good farming techniques are just good farming techniques.
My concern is for efficiency, and honesty. Whatever is the most effective method in the realm of safe, is the best. We don't need a bunch of made up safety concerns that aren't legitimate. And I believe the majority of the material promoted by "organic" groups is just that, manufactured.
There was a big to do several years back about using radiation to sterilize food. The radiation doesn't stay in the food, it passes through but has an effect on the organisms. It is very effective, but so many people were up in arms because they were mis-informed. Now we have x-ray machines in every airport with no regulations or monitoring- and here is the important aspect- we (ourselves) are being scanned. The radiation again passes through us, but it has a dose dependent effect on our cells. Now is the time to be upset, but all we hear are crickets.....
What I don't need is some blow hard to try to force their imaginary crisis on me so that they can regulate something that is not theirs in the first place. If I run myself out of business, then you can be the first in line to buy the place show me how to make a profit by reducing my average yield.
1wlimo wrote:The goal of any and every farmer should be to produce a product that is safe to eat, and to be able to do this year in year out.
I would say that the way much of he world is farmed the year in year out sustainability is in serious doubt. Soil degradation, loss of chemicals, being the main causes of these woes.
The organic principles are in the main to address these issues by building the soil, and use of rotation, and cultural control measures. In the main an established organic system can achieve these aims. Yields will generally be lower, how ever should be more stable.
Personally I prefer Integrated Crop Management (ICM) or Integrated Pest Management (IPM), where you use the main organic principle's with the intelligent use of commercial fertilizer and chemical controls. This way you can provide the nutrients for better yields, and have asses to chemical controls when required.
Following a chemically based system, with a mono culture, or two crop rotation is not and never will be sustainable. It leads to soil degradation, resistance in pest populations, and a bad public image. It is also a system where you are simply following the chemical companies and filling their profits.
I agree safety is important, but that is why research is performed. We have the safest food supply of any civilization ever in the history of man. If you need to prove this to yourself, you can do your own research. But out of curiosity, did you hear about the organically grown spinach recall infected with E.Coli 0157? Probably not. I was looking for documentation on it and found the following article that sums up a lot of my thoughts. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7569/
You know, we have a few farms that my great grandfather farmed. It is funny that after all these years, they still produce at record rates compared to most countries in the world. Oh, and it has been in either wheat or rye for the past 40 years for sure. I sure wish someone would have told me before now.
I will ask you to state what techniques are you referring to being compared. Farming practices have changed over time and what is conventional now is not what was performed 100 years ago. We don't have an issue with soil loss. We even allow some growth on our agriculture land for summer grazing and then spray it mid way through the summer. We leave dead foliage on top and have great success.
building the soil...
There is information out of Africa that showed new soil was improved significantly more and significantly quicker by using inorganic fertilizer, because it supported more biomass from the ground. This in turn, held more water and supplied/held nutrients.
esplain somthing to me Lucy... if I purchase something for x dollars and it gives me back x + 20% profit, how is that a bad investment? Those big bad "chemical" companies just provided me income and produced more available food for the world population. How is that bad? Just because they also made a profit while performing a service?
Okay, I get it. Food for the hungry is morally bad.
Bad public image? Your still lost on that one. The only thing bad is that you are going to change your practices and attempt to demand that others do as well because of mis-information. I never really worried about what others thought of me and have made it a heck of a lot farther than many of those that did. 50% of the world is below average intelligence. It is comforting to know that you are so concerned about their opinion and willing to bet your financial future on that.
Uh... and how do you justify the fact that you just admitted to having lower yields in general (even though stable? How many years do you have results to prove this stability? And you have yet to convince me, my yields are not stable). Anyway, for you to produce as much as I, you admit it will require you use more acreage. Isn't that more harmful to the environment in your world?
Sorry I'm just a
Food for thought. The Earth is tougher than you and will be here long after you are not. Whether you believe the earth is several thousands of years, millions, billions, or even trillions- it had to be created/developed at some point. Unless you believe it just appeared out of nothing and automatically had trees, grasses, animals, fish, etc....
During the creation/development, there was a point that the Earth somehow existed without a liberal to save it. It even developed into what it is now. It appears to have an amazing capability of regeneration and return to its natural order. You hear constantly how civilization is killing the earth. But what I find amazing is how the Earth destroys civilization. There is little to no evidence of some of the greatest ancient civilizations that occurred. And the evidence- it isn't just laying around. You have to dig deep in the ground. Metal rusts, wood rots, concrete becomes brittle and it all gets covered up and swallowed. Rain washes, dissolves and dilutes. I grew up near a little ghost town that was busy when my dad was young. The only evidence now is some partial slabs of concrete that is barely visible. Most of the slabs are busted up with trees and weeds growing through them. Someone forgot to tell them that they couldn't grow there, that people ruined it. The builders probably even used materials from some evil corporations. Maybe you can persuade the plants to stop returning to natural order by telling them it is bad for the public image.