Get our free book (in Spanish or English) on rainwater now - To Catch the Rain.

Difference between revisions of "Conventional farming"

From Appropedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by 89.207.208.2 (talk) to last revision by Chriswaterguy)
(small additions)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
Note that there are many factors in how sustainable farming practices are, besides use of chemicals. E.g.:
 
Note that there are many factors in how sustainable farming practices are, besides use of chemicals. E.g.:
* Erosion
+
* [[Erosion]]
* Transport used - not just distance, but the type of transport.
+
* [[Transport]] used - not just distance, but the type of transport.
 +
* [[Water conservation|Water usage]]
 +
* [[Water pollution]], including fertilizer runoff causing [[eutrophication]]
  
 
== Why do farmers use chemicals? ==
 
== Why do farmers use chemicals? ==
  
[[Green revolution]]:{{w|green revolution}} Modern farmland is claimed to produce 200 percent more wheat than the same area did 70 years ago, and switching to organic farming today is likely to mean a reduction in output, e.g. by 20% for corn.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15158675 Exposing the organic myth],  ''BusinessWeek.com (msnbc.com)''. (The claim about the 200% increase for wheat is made on [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15158675/ns/business-businessweekcom/page/2/ page 2]).</ref> The figure is plausible, but we need more than one unattributed figure.<ref name="Borlaug interview">[http://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html Billions Served: Norman Borlaug interviewed by Ronald Bailey], April 2000, on Reason.org - this is a consistently skeptical and conservative site, so it needs to be checked for bias and selective reporting; however Borlaug{{w|Norman Borlaug}} is a Nobel laureate and an influential scientist, so his interview is certainly notable.</ref>
+
[[Green revolution]]:{{w|green revolution}} Modern farmland is claimed to produce 200 percent more wheat than the same area did 70 years ago, and switching to organic farming today is likely to mean a reduction in output, e.g. by 20% for corn.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15158675 Exposing the organic myth],  ''BusinessWeek.com (msnbc.com)''. (The claim about the 200% increase for wheat is made on [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15158675/ns/business-businessweekcom/page/2/ page 2]).</ref> The figure is plausible, but we need more than one unattributed figure.<ref name="Borlaug interview">[http://www.reason.com/news/show/27665.html 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 Borlaug{{w|Norman Borlaug}} is a Nobel laureate and an influential scientist, so his interview is certainly notable.</ref>
  
 
== Pesticides and health ==
 
== Pesticides and health ==
Line 15: Line 17:
 
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.  
 
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 (e.g. better medicines and medical treatments).
+
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.
 
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.
Line 27: Line 29:
 
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.{{fact}} 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.{{expand}}
 
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.{{fact}} 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.{{expand}}
  
=== Nitrogen - where does it come from? ===
+
=== Nitrogen sources ===
  
 
Borlaug said:<ref name="Borlaug interview" />
 
Borlaug said:<ref name="Borlaug interview" />
Line 34: Line 36:
 
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. </blockquote>
 
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. </blockquote>
  
This appears to not consider the impact of [[nitrogen fixation]],{{w|Nitrogen fixation}} 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.
+
This appears to not consider the impact of [[nitrogen fixation]],{{w|Nitrogen fixation}} 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 is not suitable for many food crops, especially where the food is close to the ground.
 
Currently enormous amounts of nutrients are thrown away in our [[sewage]]. Through [[humanure]] this can be salvaged, but is not suitable for many food crops, especially where the food is close to the ground.

Revision as of 12:02, 23 March 2011

There is a common perception that organic farming will save the environment. Is this true?

Note that there are many factors in how sustainable farming practices are, besides use of chemicals. E.g.:

Why do farmers use chemicals?

Green revolution:W Modern farmland is claimed to produce 200 percent more wheat than the same area did 70 years ago, and switching to organic farming today is likely to mean a reduction in output, e.g. by 20% for corn.[1] The figure is plausible, but we need more than one unattributed figure.[2]

Pesticides and health

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

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.please expand

Nitrogen sources

Borlaug said:[2]

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 is not suitable for many food crops, especially where the food is close to the ground.

Notes

  1. Exposing the organic myth, BusinessWeek.com (msnbc.com). (The claim about the 200% increase for wheat is made on page 2).
  2. 2.0 2.1 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.