A new University of Michigan study indicates that organic farming is more productive than chemical and energy intensive industrial agriculture.Photos: River Severn taken a month ago
In fact it shows that organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming in developing countries, and holds its own against standard methods in rich countries.
This report adds weight to what we already know - indeed reports years ago were saying the very same as this....Researchers in this study note 293 examples in previous studies that corroborate the fact that organic farming is better than conventional, but pointed out that biased studies funded by chemical producers have clouded the public's understanding of the issue. They said their findings contradict arguments that organic farming - which excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides - is not as efficient as conventional techniques.Corporate agribusiness has spent decades repeating the mantra that chemical intensive agriculture is necessary to feed the world. But according to the new report, "Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base."
Ivette Perfecto, a professor at the University of Michigan, said of the study, "My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can't produce enough food through organic agriculture."
Read more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5996.cfm
All this came out when I read that the National Academy of Sciences had dropped a bombshell on the agri-toxics lobby in June when it published a study indicating that pesticides are actually decreasing crop yields by one-third. Specifically, pesticides are killing important bacteria in the soil that naturally produce a useable form of nitrogen for plants, a necessary fertilizer. As the use of chemical pesticides has increased in the U.S., soil bacteria have been dramatically reduced, thereby creating an insatiable demand for petroleum-based fertilizers. In contrast, organic farming promotes a healthy living soil with increased crop yields.
see more here.
2 comments:
I have seen miles of rice paddies in Bhadrak (Orissa, India) wiped out OVERNIGHT by Spodoptera. Ditto for rust on groundnut in Bhavnagar (Gujarat, India). Helminthosporium claimed more than 2 million lives in 2 Bengal famines of the last century. Organic farming works most of the time, but we have to be prepared for chemical intervention as well.
Thanks for post - Peak oil is a key issue - see other posts on this but especially the report by Caroline Lucas here:
http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1662&Itemid=106
I also would not rule out the use of certain chemicals but the vast majority of chemical farming is unnecessary and damaging. Clearly there are many factors relating to famine - see discussion here on teh Bengal famine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Plus organic farming means increasing biodiversity - and the types of crops so when hit by diseases then not all crops are lost - but of course it is also a question of access to land - hey but we all know there are many factors - heres another bit from the Wiki site on famine:
"Beginning in the 20th century, nitrogen fertilizers, new pesticides, desert farming, and other agricultural technologies began to be used as weapons against famine. These temporarily increased crop yields, but there are signs as early as 1995 that not only are these technologies reaching their peak of assistance, but they may now be contributing to the decline of arable land (e.g. persistence of pesticides leading to soil contamination and decline of acreage available for farming. Developed nations have shared these technologies with developing nations with a famine problem, but there are ethical limits to pushing such technologies on lesser developed countries. This is often attributed to an association of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides with a lack of sustainability. In any case, these technological advances might not be influential in those famines which are the result of war. Similarly so, increased yield may not be helpful with certain distribution problems, especially those arising from political intervention."
Post a Comment