Live data from Hacker News

Yes, organic farming will kill us all

shift.newco.co

181–190 of 260 posts

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#181
post #110

> we should be TERRIFIED that fewer than 1 in 100 Americans actually knows how to grow enough food to feed a family or more Am I the only one that found this to be high, and comforting? I looked up how many software engineers there are in the US, it's also around 1% (3.6m) [1] About 0.5% of us are lawyers [2] Double-checking the farmers stat, it seems there are 2.1m farms [3], each must be manned by at least several…

In addition to that, it's rather easy to learn how to feed a family, if your goal is not to be cost efficient or have a very balanced diet. I guess most people could learn rather quickly how to grow enough potatoes to feed several people. You won't reach the same yield as a professional farmer, but if you had to, you could probably survive without extensive training (if you have the seed to start with).

> if you have the seed to start with

Seed would not be the limiting factor. Land would.

I feel fortunate to live on a bit more than one acre of suburban land that would be relatively appropriate for farming. But if you plow up the entire lawn, cut down the trees, and discount the drain field, house, and driveway, and don't purchase feed for livestock, that's just not enough area to feed my family.

And most people in my area don't have an acre. Sure, some local farmers have hundreds or thousands of acres - but there are a lot more people who only have a second-story apartment or a small city lot.

It's a simple problem of economies of scale. If you have a tractor, it's much, much easier to go from 10 acres to 100 acres than it is to go from 0 acres to 1 acre.

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#182
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics. You're not 'geon, so this may not apply to you, but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. It's not going to encourage reflection (as they're vague and emotive). The goal is civil and substantive discussion. You might sincerely spec…

>but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. Because the intent of the comment was not to further that particular conversation, but instead to critique your rhetoric. It was not simply a pedantic comment saying "actually you're wrong because water is a chemical" it was a suggestion to use a different term.

It's not a constructive critique. If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. Further comments by 'geon make this clear: there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument, even if it's one you might not agree with.

Edit to add: Rapoport's rules are really helpful, particularly when discussing contentious topics.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

This is too far off-topic now, and at best we're talking past each other, so I'll take any answer off the air.

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#183
post #135
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats kind of the point, they are bad to pests that try to eat the crop And pesticides are also bad for other insects that don't eat the crops, and are necessary for our ecosystem to function. And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too.

Well in the case of BT (bacillus thurigensis) cotton and corn, for example, the GM plant produces the Cry toxin which is bad for the insects that eat the crop, so better than spraying it (Also BT is used in organic agriculture via spraying btw). Herbicides like roundup affect a certain pathway in plants, not humans in animals. "And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too." Not at the concentr…

Not at the concentrations that are used. The amount of residue is minuscule and modern pesticides have far less toxicity than older ones that have been phased out.

So now you give some qualifications to your earlier statement.

Do note that modern pesticides are not in widespread use all over the world (cost). Modern pesticides applied by a well educated professional can have a relatively low impact on the environment. But there are a lot of poorly educated farmers out there (most of them, really), and that doesn't begin to address the abuse of pesticides by lawn care companies and homeowners.

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#184
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cadmium is a chemical (I just worked with some watercolors, that's why it comes to mind). Do you want that in your water table just because 'it's a chemical, like water'? How about lead?

Cadmium is also in tattoo ink and completely harmless because it's not bioavailable. Your exact example proves the parents point: be specific about what you're talking about because it matters .

But the EPA says it'll cause kidney damage in the water table, which is what I specifically said. The WHO specifies that contamination with cadmium causes osteomalacia with various grades of osteoporosis accompanied by severe renal tubular disease. I also mentioned lead, which you've glossed right over. I said nothing about tattoo ink.

Your example underscores my point. Why should I trust you when you whip out an unrelated example to try and ad hominem your way to all-chemical farming, in the service of the idea 'organic farming will kill us all'?

How exactly does your example of 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' make the larger concern irrelevant? From where I'm sitting (admittedly, it's Vermont, where we like organic farming a lot) you represent a prevalent class of agriculture arguers, who are insisting on full-tilt-bozo unnatural farming to the Nth degree, claiming it is the only thing that can save the world.

And yet, the arguments are as manipulative as 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' when it's NOT considered harmless in the water table, and you may have known that full well.

Your example suggests (does not prove) my underlying concern: individual chemical compounds may well be trusted, but I do not trust the people selling them. It's far too profitable to be dishonest about this, and that's not going to get any better (indeed, as this way of farming wrecks the environment, it will get even more profitable to lie and mislead about it)

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#185
This article is a reasonable rebuttal to the usual chicken little statements by people pushing industrial farming of GMO crops as the only way to "feed the world", but there are a couple of things this response misses.

1. If we stop eating so much beef, we really, really don't need to grow so much corn. Cattle feed accounts for an astronomical percentage of the need to grow so much acreage. Dropping the ethanol boondoggle (it is not a real solution to our problems with oil, it is not scalable or efficient) would make a lesser but still significant impact in freeing up existing farm acreage for edible crops.

2. These people tend to compare farms that are making no real attempts at maximizing for profitability against industrial farms that are totally maximized for profitability (in both cases here profitability can be considered a synonym for efficiency.) Making money is of course on the list of priorities for local farms, but it's not their primary goal. Most of the people I know who are running local farms in my area either inherited the farm from their family or left lucrative careers in other areas to become farmers. Money is not the primary driver of their actions as it is with an industrial farm. So of course they don't compete on that level. They are not trying to.

3. I don't buy local because I believe it is "more nutritious". I buy local for a few reasons. First, the food tastes better. Garlic is a great example. Store garlic that often comes from Mexico is very dry and the individual cloves are usually very small. They grow varietals that are maximized for number of cloves. My local garlic has larger bulbs and it is fresher because it hasn't taken a long voyage from Mexico. Because it has fewer individual bulbs, the volume of the head is more usable garlic and less paper. This applies to most produce I get from local sources. Tomatoes are another prime example. Mass produced tomatoes are picked before they are ripe and gassed to give them their color. Local tomatoes are red all the way through and taste way, way better.

4. Animal welfare isn't even mentioned in the article that I saw. But it is a big reason I try to buy my meat and dairy locally. I've seen what happens at industrial farms, and I've visited my local farms. It's night and day. I am comfortable with how the animals are cared for and live their lives at my local farms. I think anyone with a heart has a hard time watching footage of industrial farms and knowing we contribute to that horror.

5. Lastly it presupposes an all or nothing world. This is the biggest piece of bullshit that the "We have to pursue industrial farming at all costs!" folks push. Their argument imagines only a world where we are 100% local organic farms that care nothing for efficiency or only 100% industrial farms that are super efficient (but care nothing for animal welfare and quality of the end produce.) This of course is ridiculous. It's never going to be all or nothing. The future will be some version of what we have now; a mixture.

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#186
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't ask about poisons. You asked about the corn. It does what corn does.

If the corn produces pesticides, which are poisons, it's a reasonable question to ask "what happens when you eat the corn" - are the ears/kernels covered with it as well, or could they even contain it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Ins...

Short answer: it's not a pesticide which affects humans.

Discussions about poisons fundamentally have to include a discussion about mechanism of action, because plenty of poisonous things to one species are completely harmless to another - i.e. chocolate is toxic to dogs, but harmless to humans in fairly massive quantities.

Debate over GMOs is in no way helped by attempts to broad-brush, and in fact reveals some rather startling and unfounded biases - i.e. the idea that "natural" is healthy is completely absurd - the vast majority of plants, and animal meats, are toxic for humans to eat. If you ever go ocean fishing, you'd be incredibly stupid to eat a fish you couldn't identify.

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#187
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't ask about poisons. You asked about the corn. It does what corn does.

If the corn produces pesticides, which are poisons, it's a reasonable question to ask "what happens when you eat the corn" - are the ears/kernels covered with it as well, or could they even contain it?

Very many things are poisons, but not all poisons are equally harmful to different organisms. A substance that is extremely harmful to insects, for instance (pyrethrin), is not very harmful to mammals, particularly humans. Even within mammals, there are differences: chocolate is toxic to dogs and cats, but considered a delicacy by humans and the main adverse effect is excess energy content.

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criticisms of conventional farming are valid, but that doesn't mean that organic farming is any better. I believe that organic farming is much more likely to cause soil degradation and environmental harm than conventional farming for several different reasons: - organic farming's main tool to combat weeds and regrowth is tillage, which causes immense amounts of damage to the soil directly and allowing the soil to…

> organic farming's main tool to combat weeds and regrowth is tillage No - mulching, no and no til are very common > For example, some organic farmers literally salt their soil Certainly in the UK you wouldn't get organic certification for doing that. The certified pesticides over here are genderally safer for the environment, if more labour intensive. > Conventional farmers care far more about the value of their lan…

But you can put copper compounds on your organic crops under certain circumstances in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_pesticide

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#189

The thing with conventional farming is that a lot of the costs (in terms of environmental damage which needs to be repaired) are currently externalized, i.e. payed for by the society, which indeed makes industrial farming more cost-effective than organic farming, at least for the farmer (though in many countries you can charge a good premium for organic food, which will often outweigh your additional cost). The same…

The criticisms of conventional farming are valid, but that doesn't mean that organic farming is any better. I believe that organic farming is much more likely to cause soil degradation and environmental harm than conventional farming for several different reasons: - organic farming's main tool to combat weeds and regrowth is tillage, which causes immense amounts of damage to the soil directly and allowing the soil to…

From http://infohub.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/page/files/misc...

Referring to pesticides: "Organic standards-setting bodies are responsive to new data on toxicity of natural substances and precautionary measured are applied while alternatives are being sought."

"most natural pesticides have a very small persistence in the environment and are, therefore, unlikely to be leave residues in food. Rotenone, for instance, breaks down when exposed to sunlight and has a short lifespan (a week or less) in the environment."

"Research is being undertaken to find alternatives to copper and, meanwhile, organic standards include restrictions on the quantity of copper salt applied to fields."

Re: Yes, organic farming will kill us all

#190
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Organic farming is however still far from being enough to make us live. What I have seen says otherwise. There's a thing about chemical agriculture: when you first implement it, you get incredible yields. Then the soil starts dying (no more acari, no more fungi, compressed soil…), and the yields slowly go back to roughly the previous levels, only this time you need all the chemicals to sustain it. If you suddenly s…

"With a good (or properly resuscitated) soil, it appears organic agriculture have higher yields per unit of surface than chemical agriculture. However, it requires more labour. It would seem the yield per man-month may actually be lower." Even leaving aside what 'organic agriculture' means, there is no evidence that yield are higher than conventional farming. Yield could be enough to sustain enough people with the sa…

> super-yield claims are unsubstantiated.

I have one example of 2 japanese farmers growing rice next to each other. One is going organic (few chemicals, if at all), the other is going full conventional (machines, spray, and all).

I don't claim to understand the reason, but the organic farmer's rice plants (and number of grains) was bigger by half. So, visibly higher yield on the rice alone. But that's not all: on the same land, the organic farmer also grow fishes and ducks. The fishes feed the duck and the soil, so he can sell the ducks as well as the rice.

I was astonished by this, but if one can shoulder the heavier workload, the super-yield by surface unit does seem to hold, at least in some cases.

There are other examples where the yield per specie is lower, but because you grow multiple species on the same piece of land, the overall yield does approach this unbelievable super-yield. Again though, less automation, more labour.

> And there are no scalable techniques for growing food in mixed ecosystems,

I know of one. It's called "more farmers". A way to get them is to recruit the victims of technological unemployment —drivers come to mind. It's not miraculous, or even insightful, but it is possible.

> 'sure we need 50 people to harvest what would otherwise be done by one guy

I wouldn't know, but I expect the multiplier to be between 1.5 and 3. I'd be surprised if it were more than 5.

Post reply on HN