Is organic farming a realistic alternative when the population is so large??
Image by paulhami
Question by Annie: Is organic farming a realistic alternative when the population is so large??
I recently heard a radio interview with the head of a large farming co-operative in the mid-west who said that while there is no doubt that organic farming is better for the land, and does produce healthier consumer products, it simply is too exspensive, labor intensive and un-predicatable in the amount produced on an annual basis to ever replace the methods used in commercial farming. Basically, it could not produce a sufficient amount of food to feed the people it would need to. I am interested to hear how proponents for having the US go totally organic respond to that statement. Thanks.
Hmmm…some interesting points. I tend to agree that going totally organic would cause major problems in the lower income brackets…they simply could not afford to purchase the produce or have the space to grow it on their own. And I do agree that it is time to force commerical farmers to be more responsible in how they grow and in the end results of what they grow..this world is too big and too many families are hungry to justify throwing away any produce that is usable. Thanks for the input!
Add your own answer in the comments!
22 Responses to Is organic farming a realistic alternative when the population is so large??
Leave a Reply
Nope. That’s why it’s so expensive. The yields are too low.
Always Right
December 5, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Nah. GM crops is the way to go.
Del Piero 10
December 5, 2011 at 11:29 pm
IF ALL THE FARMERS WERE TERNING ORGANIC AND IF ALL THE PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT IS OK
TO NOT HAVE WATERMELON IN WINTER
EVERY BODY WOULD BE HEALTHIER WITH OUT BEING OBIS BECAUSE OF THE HORMONES IN THE VEGETABLE AND THE FRUITS!!!!
UNIQUE
December 5, 2011 at 11:38 pm
I can’t afford to buy organic food, but when I garden I try to go as organic as I can.
madmaxine
December 5, 2011 at 11:41 pm
It WILL be once we start farming grassahol on a large scale for our energy needs. Guess what the byproduct of the process is? Yup. Fertilizer.
Suspendor of Disbelief
December 5, 2011 at 11:48 pm
It should already be organic. It’s a shame that farmers have to try extra hard for there not to be any chemicals in it. You know we’ve messed things up when you have to search out and pay more for – just plain normal food.
Dustin S
December 6, 2011 at 12:04 am
Organic will as a rule of thumb produce yields 1/3 or so below the absolute best fertilized GM crops.
If the US were to go full organic, we would have to reduce the amount of meat in our diets, and sacrifice a little extra habitat (fewer trees). Putting in crops in more marginal lands might be necessary as well. And we would have to export far less food.
Would we be able to feed the current US population on totally organic? Yes. Easily.
Would we be able to stop farmers from using pesticides, antibiotics, fertilizers, and other such things?
Probably not.
coven-m
December 6, 2011 at 12:14 am
Nonsense. We have huge organic farms here in CA. The problem with corporate farms is that more profit has to be made each quarter. There is enough food produced in the world each year to feed EVERYONE of the earth’s 6 billion inhabitants. Remember, at one time every farm was “organic” in the U.S. Also, Corp. farms throw away tons of food every year to keep the price up rather than give it to the poor of the world. It’s important to know that corp. farms do the most damage to our water supply of any industry. The run-off of all these chemicals is pure poison. If farming doesn’t shift to organic eventually, our water will simply be undrinkable. There are many water tables in the U.S. that are already so polluted that wells have had to be shut down.
ishkabobbleindustries
December 6, 2011 at 12:45 am
I believe it should be organic, when I garden I go as organic as possible and have always had high yields. I do fertilize but try to keep the pesticides down to a minimum. I will be ordering some predator insects this year to lower the pesticides use even more or even illuminate it completely. But this would help save the environment. I have included some web sites that show the relationship between organic and chemical farming. The head of the large farming co-operative problably would lose income by going organic.
http://www.parkday.org/organic_vs_chemical_agriculture.htm
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/nsfall01/FinalArticles/Final3Organicvs.ChemicalF.html
brokendownangel64
December 6, 2011 at 1:36 am
Organic farming has never been a realistic alternative. It’s always been too expensive and risky. There is no way we could produce enough food through organic methods to feed the world. Organic farms are best when they are used on a smaller scale where they can sell locally in affluent markets where people will pay for the high quality.
Don’t kid yourself by thinking the ONLY difference between Traditional farming methods and Organic farming is the type of fertilizer. Regretfully there are no Organic methods out there that can maximize crop yields to the extent we find with traditional farming methods. While there are alternatives out there, the efficiency at which they work is still relatively low by comparison. Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all for organic farming but it just isn’t feasible as the ONLY option. I buy organic when I shop and I understand why I pay the premium but I also understand why I never got into the family business (Farming) because the risk out weighs the reward. I commend those who go Organic but it’s always going to be a limited market in the long term.
Steven G
December 6, 2011 at 2:11 am
Organic farming is not much different from regular farming,
except for the types of fertilizers.
producer_vortex
December 6, 2011 at 2:48 am
It is the ONLY logical solution to our problems…
Think about it this way –
We have a population problem. How would encouraging population growth by expanse of cities and minimization of farmlands help?
It wouldn’t.
By rewarding organic farmers and deterring urban development, you actually slow the population!
What we are doing right now, is making it easier for people to procreate in the United States… we are making cheap, unhealthy foods (McDonald’s) that allow people to live on very little money and remove the knowledge of how to harvest our own food from society.
If there is no place for a species to go… it overpopulates itself to death.
— Notice all the violence? There would not be any time for violence if people had to make their own food (or at least buy it on schedule…) —
But if you encourage that species to slow it’s development and give it a wilderness to wander… it will last much longer… and be happier.
I guess, what we’re really talking about is QUALITY of life.
While I am a proponent of “going totally organic”, I also realize that these things must be done gradually… not all at once, like your corporate advocate implies.
rabble rouser
December 6, 2011 at 3:07 am
Unfortunately no. If we did away with pesticides and preservatives, a large portion of the lower income status people would starve or pay all of their income for food.
me29876_
December 6, 2011 at 3:17 am
Not at all!
There will never be enough farming land to feed everyone. There has to be meat.
tennisacerg
December 6, 2011 at 3:48 am
Easy, mechanize the process.
The process is currently very technical and mechanized. You can still have the same level of mechanization, you just have different tools. Instead of sprayed concentrated fertilizers you might have manure(I’m guessing based on my little garden out back, I don’t know a ton about what they use specifically). All you need is a different delivery system to get it on the crops. Instead of a spray, you need something that will deliver the manure.
Basically I’m saying that because you’re organic doesn’t mean you have to give up efficiency and consistency. You can still mechanize the process, you’re just using different products. It’s not that hard really.
So it’s only labour intensive because it’s not automated, you need new machines. Less labour, less cost. The unpredictable part, well it’s all unpredictable unless you’re using a greenhouse and a totally manufactured ecosystem. But it should be no more unpredictable than regular farming.
So we have to mingle the old, being organic farming, with the new, being mechanized farming. By marrying the 2, we can have organic and cheap and efficient. We don’t have to give up one for the other, they’re not mutually self exclusive.
Lui
December 6, 2011 at 4:18 am
It’s absolutely true that yields on organic farms are lower if everything else is the same (labor inputs, etc.) That’s why organic foods are a big deal only in rich (Western) countries.
I’m rich and can afford organic foods. Also I have free time and can grow things organically in my garden.
But poor people would be the ones to suffer if we somehow magically switched to all-organic.
It’s the same thing as the GM controversy — the Europeans are rich enough to reject the whole lot, since they can afford to pay extra. But it’s outrageous when they try to prevent poor African or Indian consumers from getting better fed (by virtue of GM’s superior yields for the same labor/material inputs).
enoriverbend
December 6, 2011 at 4:22 am
well there are a few large organic farms but not enough to sustain us now or in the future, besides studies have shown that only a select few fruits or vegatables even need to be organic because the pestisides dont really hurt us & those studies that say those who eat organic live longer, that is only because they usually dont eat much unhealthy fast food
Bryce E
December 6, 2011 at 4:59 am
that must have been a report brought out by comercial farmers
with out land we can grow nothing and comercial farming is destroying the land on a global scale
organic and sustainable farming ,apart from producing food that is much healthier preserves the land to keep producing ,it is a survival measure for agriculture ,and it is more expensive because the farmer is working with tons of compost instead of kilos of chemicals ,and requires more labor and transport ,but if the farmer wants to keep on using his land with out destroying it ,he has no alternative ,
most modern farmers are beginning to understand this and are turning towards sustainable farming .only the greedy idiots stay with the big comercial chemical ways ,but they will all loose in the end .
The Inca with their terazed gardens ,and the Aztecs with their chinampas have operations that are productive and rising in quality after 1000 years ,this is called sustainable
Modern agriculture destroys the land with in 5 years,and only continued fertilization can keep up some production which declines in quality year by year
in terms of agricultural survival sustainable or organic farming is not an alternative ,it is the only reasonable option.and we are not even talking about the health aspects of the produce that is anb added bonus.
but it is more expensive and more labor intensive ,and Comercial big producers hate to hear about it ,that is why they put out these rediculous statements
we give many courses on sustainable farming and traditional farmers are coming around from their usual ways of thinking ,both in Africa ,Australia and Mexico
Check out what is the main culprit with desertification(lands lost forever to agriculture ) ,it is all comercial farming
these farmers should have the death sentence ,so much death follows in their wake
byderule
December 6, 2011 at 5:55 am
It may get to the point where we won’t farm any more,we’ll end up manufacturing foodstuffs the same way we make cars in the future.Why would it really matter by then anyways?
cokezero100
December 6, 2011 at 6:05 am
well if thats the case then it would help ease the high demand for organic produce if people who has gardens to grow their own fruits and veggies. it would be 100% organic (if no pesticide is used) and it would also be FREE. man i wish i had a garden…..
AllAboutGreen!
December 6, 2011 at 6:15 am
yes it actually is, if you use selective breeding to increase production, not to mention cows and chickens are natural producers of fertilizer, control and food ource.
You just can’t depend on making it rich on one source of income.
if you think you are going to do well only with organic corn and leaving the animals and prokaryotes out, no it isn’t a feasible idea.
jj
December 6, 2011 at 7:01 am
if more farmers go to organic farming then that will less popultion in the air and people will eat better food yes this cost money but you have to sell it so some one has to buy in and there are few organic farmers around so people will pay more for them
Bill Malchow
December 6, 2011 at 7:41 am