An'anaviy dehqonchilik yoki sanoat qishloq xo'jaligi sifatida ham tanilgan an'anaviy dehqonchilik sintetik kimyoviy o'g'itlar , pestitsidlar , gerbitsidlar va boshqa doimiy kirishlar, genetik jihatdan o'zgartirilgan organizmlar , kontsentrlangan hayvonlarni oziqlantirish operatsiyalari], og'ir sug'orish , intensiv ishlov berish , qishloq xo'jaligi tizimlarini nazarda tutadi. yoki konsentrlangan monokulturaishlab chiqarish. Shunday qilib, an'anaviy qishloq xo'jaligi odatda juda ko'p resurslar va energiya talab qiladi, lekin ayni paytda yuqori mahsuldordir. Nomiga qaramay, an'anaviy qishloq xo'jaligi usullari faqat XIX asr oxiridan boshlab ishlab chiqilgan va 2-jahon urushidan keyingacha keng tarqalmagan (qarang: Vikipediya: Yashil inqilob .
An'anaviy dehqonchilik odatda organik dehqonchilikdan (yoki ba'zan barqaror qishloq xo'jaligi yoki permakulturadan ) farqlanadi, chunki ular resurslarning aylanishini rag'batlantiradigan, ekologik muvozanatni rag'batlantiradigan va biologik xilma-xillikni saqlaydigan madaniy, biologik va mexanik amaliyotlarni integratsiyalash orqali saytga xos sharoitlarga javob beradi. [1] Sintetik oʻgʻitlar, pestitsidlar, oʻsish regulyatorlari va chorvachilik ozuqa qoʻshimchalaridan foydalanish oʻrniga, organik dehqonchilik tizimlari almashlab ekishga, oʻgʻit sifatida hayvon va oʻsimlik goʻnglariga, baʼzi qoʻlda begona oʻtlardan tozalash va zararkunandalarga qarshi biologik kurashga tayanadi. [2] Ba'zi an'anaviy qishloq xo'jaligi operatsiyalari cheklangan polikulturani yoki zararkunandalarga qarshi integratsiyalashgan boshqaruvning ba'zi shakllarini o'z ichiga olishi mumkin.. (Qarang: sanoat organik qishloq xo'jaligi ).
Содержание
An'anaviy va organik dehqonchilik
Afzalliklari va kamchiliklari
Har qanday yangi ishlab chiqilgan texnologiya ijobiy va salbiy oqibatlarga olib keladi. Agar biz oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini ishlab chiqarishning ijobiy va salbiy tomonlarini tahlil qilsak, ehtimol biz yaxshi narsalarni yaxshilashimiz va salbiy ta'sirlarni kamaytirishimiz mumkin. An'anaviy dehqonchilik bilan tarixda har qachongidan hamkamroq yer va kamroq qo'l mehnati bilan juda ko'p miqdorda oziq-ovqat ishlab chiqarish mumkin .
Oziq-ovqat narxining oshib borayotgani va butun dunyo bo'ylab millionlab odamlar ochlikdan azob chekayotgani sababli, biz ko'p miqdorda oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini arzon narxlarda ishlab chiqarish uchun an'anaviy usullardan foydalanishga ma'naviy majburiyatimiz borga o'xshaydi . Biroq, an'anaviy dehqonchilikning ko'pgina ta'siri noma'lum bo'lgani uchun va qancha ta'sir qaytarilmas va zararli bo'lishi mumkinligi sababli, biz yuzlab yillar davomida qilgan ishimizga yopishib olish xavfsizroq bo'lishi mumkin . Pestitsidlar, nurlanish va GMO dan foydalanishni davom ettirish mas'uliyatsizlik deb hisoblanishi mumkin, agar biz haqiqatan ham yon ta'sirini bilmaymiz.
Ekologiya
Organik dehqonchilik an'anaviy dehqonchilikka qaraganda ekologik jihatdan barqarorroq degan fikr keng tarqalgan. Sanoat dehqonchilik sharoitlari natijasida bugungi kunda ortib borayotgan ekologik stresslar yanada kuchaymoqda, jumladan:
- Suvning ifloslanishi , shu jumladan o'g'it oqimi evtrofikatsiyaga olib keladi
- Kimyoviy yuvish V
Sun'iy kimyoviy moddalarni qo'llashdan tashqari, barqaror dehqonchilik amaliyoti qanchalik ko'p omillar mavjud. Masalan:
- Erning degradatsiyasi V
- Eroziya
- Tuproqning siqilishi
- Amaldagi transport - nafaqat masofa, balki transport turi.
- Suvdan foydalanish (shu jumladan, suv sathining kamayishi W s)
- Biologik xilma- xillikning yo'qolishi [3]
Inson salomatligi
Organik oziq-ovqatlar odatda an'anaviy ishlab chiqarilgan oziq-ovqatlarga qaraganda sog'lomroq deb taxmin qilinadi. Yuzlab tadqiqotlar an'anaviy tarzda ishlab chiqarilgan oziq-ovqatlarning organik ishlab chiqarilganlardan farqli sog'liqqa ta'siri bor-yo'qligini baholashga harakat qildi. So'nggi bir necha yil ichida bir nechta meta-tadqiqotlar oldingi tadqiqotlar asosida turli xil xulosalar chiqardi. Stenfordda o'tkazilgan 237 ta tadqiqotning bir meta-tadqiqi "Agar siz kattalar bo'lsangiz va faqat sog'lig'ingizga qarab qaror qabul qilsangiz, organik va an'anaviy oziq-ovqatlar o'rtasida unchalik katta farq yo'q" degan xulosaga keldi. [4] Nyukasl universiteti tadqiqotchilari tomonidan olib borilgan yana bir meta-tadqiqot avvalgi 343 ta tadqiqotga asoslangan holda an'anaviy ekinlar 18-69% kamroq antioksidantlarni o'z ichiga olganligini aniqladi., pestitsid qoldiqlarini o'z ichiga olishi ehtimoli to'rt baravar yuqori va og'ir metallar (shu jumladan kadmiy ) organik ekinlarga qaraganda o'rtacha 48% yuqori edi. [5]
Ushbu ikkala holatda ham potentsial manfaatlar to'qnashuvi aniqlangan, chunki ushbu tadqiqotlar bilan shug'ullanuvchi muassasalar an'anaviy va organik sektorlarda qishloq xo'jaligi biznes manfaatlaridan moliyalashgan.
Organik qishloq xo'jaligining ko'plab tarafdorlari an'anaviy ishlab chiqarilgan oziq-ovqatdan ko'ra organikni tanlashda shaxsiy tajriba va e'tiqodlarga tayanadilar. "Olimlar sifatida biz odamlarning ilmiy bo'lmagan qarashlarga ta'sir qilganidan afsusda bo'lishimiz mumkin, ammo haqiqat shundaki, ularning ko'pchiligi shunday. Trewavas tomonidan taqdim etilgan dalillarga qaramay, ko'pchilik organik ishlab chiqarish tizimlari yaxshiroq oziq-ovqat ishlab chiqarishiga, parvarish qilishiga ishonishadi. hayvonlar farovonligi uchun ko'proq va atrof-muhitga mehribon ". [6]
Yo'l bering
Odatda an'anaviy dehqonchilik organikdan ko'ra ko'proq oziq-ovqat ishlab chiqarishi e'tirof etiladi. Bitta meta-tadqiqot organik hosildorlik an'anaviyga nisbatan o'rtacha 80% ni tashkil etdi, ammo "organik hosildorlikdagi farq ekin guruhlari va mintaqalar o'rtasida sezilarli darajada farq qiladi." [7] Boshqa bir meta-tahlil xulosasiga ko'ra, "organik hosildorlik odatda an'anaviy hosildorlikdan past. Lekin bu hosildorlik farqlari tizim va sayt xususiyatlariga qarab juda kontekstli bo'lib, organik hosildorlikdan 5% gacha (yomg'ir bilan oziqlanadigan dukkaklilar va ko'p yillik o'simliklar) o'zgarib turadi. zaif kislotali va zaif gidroksidi tuproqlarda), 13% past hosildorlik (eng yaxshi organik tajribalar qo'llanilganda), 34% past hosildorlik (an'anaviy va organik tizimlar bilan solishtirish mumkin bo'lgan hollarda). [8]
Zamonaviy qishloq xo'jaligi erlari 70 yil avvalgiga qaraganda 200 foizga ko'proq bug'doy ishlab chiqarishi da'vo qilinadi. Demak, organik dehqonchilikka o'tish hosilning qisqarishiga olib keladi, masalan, makkajo'xori uchun 20% ga. [9] Raqam ishonchli, lekin bizga bir nechta noma'lum raqamlar kerak. [10]
Biologik xilma-xillik
Bir qator tadqiqotlar an'anaviy va organik tizimlarning mahalliy biologik xilma -xilligini taqqosladi . Shvetsiya qishloq xo‘jaligi fanlari universitetida o‘tkazilgan meta-tadqiqot shunday xulosaga keldi:
"Organik dehqonchilik odatda turlarning boyligini oshiradi, an'anaviy dehqonchilik tizimlariga qaraganda o'rtacha 30% yuqori tur boyligiga ega. Biroq, natijalar tadqiqotlar orasida o'zgaruvchan edi va ularning 16% aslida organik dehqonchilikning turlar boyligiga salbiy ta'sirini ko'rsatdi. [... [...] Organik dehqonchilik tizimlarida organizmlar oʻrtacha 50% koʻproq boʻlgan, ammo natijalar tadqiqotlar va organizm guruhlari oʻrtasida juda oʻzgaruvchan edi.Qushlar, yirtqich hasharotlar, tuproq organizmlari va oʻsimliklari organik dehqonchilikka ijobiy javob bergan, yirtqich boʻlmagan hasharotlar va zararkunandalar esa ijobiy javob bermagan. .Organik dehqonchilikning mo'l-ko'llikka ijobiy ta'siri uchastka va dala miqyosida sezilarli bo'ldi, ammo mos landshaftlardagi fermer xo'jaliklari uchun emas.[11]
Bristol universitetida 10 ta an'anaviy va 10 ta organik qishloq xo'jaligi landshaftlarini taqqoslagan tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatdiki, organik fermer xo'jaliklarida ekinsiz yoki "yarim tabiiy" hududlar ko'proq bo'lsa-da, ularda bu joylarda yuqori biologik xilma-xillik yo'q. Biroq, organik fermalarning ekin maydonlarida biologik xilma-xillik ko'proq edi. [12]
Hosildorlik (yuqoriga qarang) va biologik xilma-xillikni bog'laydigan umumiy tashvish mavjud. Taxminlarga ko'ra, agar organik qishloq xo'jaligida hosil past bo'lsa, bu ko'proq ekin maydonlariga bo'lgan ehtiyojni oshiradi va shuning uchun mintaqa yoki butun dunyo miqyosida bioxilma-xillikka salbiy ta'sir qiladi. Ushbu taxminni sinab ko'rish uchun biron bir tadqiqot o'tkazilganmi yoki yo'qligi aniq emas.
Ijtimoiy va iqtisodiy jihatlar
Kardiff universitetida qishloq xo'jaligi bilimlarini taqsimlash bo'yicha o'tkazilgan tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatdiki, "an'anaviy oziq-ovqat zanjiri [...] ma'lumotni etkazib beruvchilarga, organik oziq-ovqat ta'minoti zanjiri [...] bilimlarni fermaga tarqatadi". ularning iqtisodiy xususiyatlaridan farq qiladi. [13]
Pestitsidlar
Pestitsidlar hasharotlar, o'simliklar va boshqa organizmlarni o'ldirish uchun ishlatiladigan, hosilga salbiy ta'sir ko'rsatadigan moddalardir . Ular xavfli, sun'iy ravishda izolyatsiya qilingan kimyoviy moddalardan, masalan, ko'plab organokloridlardan tortib, neem yog'i kabi nisbatan zararsiz o'simlikka asoslangan preparatlargacha bo'lishi mumkin . Pestitsidlar kutilmagan oqibatlarga olib kelishi mumkin, masalan, foydali, yirtqich hasharotlarni o'ldirish.
Most of the pesticides in our food, by far, are natural pesticides produced by the plants. This leaves open the question of whether the artificial chemicals are worse for us. After all, not all substances are the same, and some (such as DDT) linger in the environment for far longer. It's also true that something is harmful given to lab rats in large quantities, yet not significantly harmful in small quantities - or even beneficial, since there has been research suggesting that toxins in small doses actually benefit an organism by making it react to the mild stress.[verification needed]
Many natural chemical compounds are also toxic or carcinogenic in large quantities, but we consume them in small quantities. Everything has a toxic dose - even water, salt or any nutrient.
There is a common perception that "the poisons are killing us." So why are we living longer than ever? If there is a negative effect from these traces of chemicals, the effect is much smaller than positive changes in modern times (e.g. better medicines and medical treatments).
Note that these arguments are not saying that "pesticides are good for you" - using them inappropriately, without following directions, has the potential to be very harmful. But when used properly, they appear to not be significantly harmful, and may not be harmful at all. Worrying about them may do us more harm than the chemicals themselves.
Fertilizers
Fertilisers are substances that can be supplied to the soil so as to improve the soil quality and promote the growth of any plants grown in this soil. Fertilisers come in several types and correct application differs depending on this type. Differences on application may include: method of introducing the fertiliser into the soil, the time of the year when the fertiliser is administered, etc...
There's actually little doubt that fertilizers harm ecosystems. But is this inevitable, and what are the alternatives? Limited use and precise application reduce the effect of eutrophication on waterways. More recent discoveries, e.g. the role of soil fungi, the impact of compost teas, and terra preta, show that there may be much greener ways to create abundance in food production.[verification needed] However, this knowledge is still in its early years - the knowledge is still being developed, and the valuable knowledge that already exists has not yet spread widely.
Nitrogen sources
Borlaug said:[10]
Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people (and) you would have to increase cropland area dramatically...
At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure.
This appears to not consider the impact of nitrogen fixation,W for example by legume crops. (This is another argument for vegetarianism and veganism being greener - less methane-producing cows, and more legume crops to replace them, which will also produce nitrogen.)
Currently, enormous amounts of nutrients are thrown away in our sewage. Through humanure this can be salvaged, but may not be suitable for many food crops, especially where the food is close to the ground.
GMOs
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Genetic engineering essentially involves incorporation of gene(s) from an different species - even across Kingdom - into the host genome. Thus, genes from animals and bacteria may be inserted into a plant genome, to create a novel transgenic plant. Transgenic breeding is thus different from the traditional selective breeding, and therefore novel gene products (like proteins) from the GMO may have some unexpected environmental effects.
Several antibodies and medicines have already been commercially produced by using genetic engineering. For example, mammalian insulin is being produced by recombinant DNA in bacteria. This make the hormone much cheaper than natural insulin derived from conventional biosynthesis. However, when genetic engineering is applied in agriculture for production of crops, there are many uncertainties and risks.
Unlike insulin or other GM drugs and hormones manufactured in the laboratory, GM crops cannot be controlled or revoked, once they are released in nature.[14] In addition to the possible harmful effects on ecosystems (including agro-ecosystems), introduction of the GMOs into the human food chain poses an unprecedented risk to public health.
Genetically modified food has caused considerable controversy since the early 1990s, when it was first introduced. However, this controversy only relates to GM organisms that have been created using the transgenesis method. Cisgenesis has been proven equally safe as regular plant breeding by the EFSA[15]
Conventional food production often utilizes GMO's which are different from plants and animals that have been selectively bred. There are environmental drawbacks of using GMOs. One is that it is difficult to control the reproduction of plants, especially when they are growing in an open environment, and not contained within a structure such as a greenhouse. When there is a farm with GMOs nearby another farm, there can be a problem with crossbreeding between the two varieties of plant. This can result in genetic drift which can have negative impacts on farms that produce heirloom varieties. When this effect is coupled with the terminator gene (a gene inserted in plants by companies that produce GMO's, which prevents their seeds from producing viable offspring) this can have devastating effects on heirloom varieties, and for farmers who have been keeping their variety for generations.
References
- ↑ Definition according to the USDA
- ↑ "Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?", Christine Williams Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2002
- ↑ Brown, Lester R. Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. W.W. Norton, 2009.
- ↑ http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/09/little-evidence-of-health-benefits-from-organic-foods-study-finds.html
- ↑ http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF/crops/page.php?page=1
- ↑ "Organic movement reveals a shift in the social position of science" Annette Mørkeberg & John R. Porter Nature Number 412, page 677, August 2001
- ↑ Tomek de Ponti, Bert Rijk, Martin K. van Ittersum, "The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture" in Agricultural Systems 108 (2012) 1–9
- ↑ Verena Seufert , Navin Ramankutty, Jonathan A. Foley, "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," in Nature 485 (10 May 2012) 229-234
- ↑ Exposing the organic myth, BusinessWeek.com (msnbc.com). (The claim about the 200% increase for wheat is made on page 2).
- ↑ Перейти обратно: 10.0 10.1 Billions Served: Norman Borlaug interviewed by Ronald Bailey, April 2000, on Reason.org - this is a consistently skeptical and conservative site, including against mainstream science, so it needs to be checked for bias and selective reporting; however BorlaugW is a Nobel laureate and an influential scientist, so his interview is certainly notable."
- ↑ Janne Bengtsson, Johan Ahnström, Ann-Christin Weibull, "The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis" in Journal of Applied Ecology 42 (2005) 261–269
- ↑ R.H. Gibson, S. Pearce, R.J. Morris, W.O.C. Symondson, J. Memmott, "Plant diversity and land use under organic and conventional agriculture: a whole-farm approach" in Journal of Applied Ecology 44 (2007) 792–803
- ↑ Kevin Morgan, Jonathan Murdoch, "Organic vs. conventional agriculture: knowledge, power and innovation in the food chain," in Geoforum 31 (2000) 159-173
- ↑ Paull, John (2018) Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species, Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development. 4 (3): 31–37.
- ↑ Kijk magazine 10/2012