It's official. Organic farming beats corporate

[hoodat]

In a 30 year study which was run in such a way that it is hard to refute organic farming was found superior to chemical farming in both production and costs.

http://www.imakenews.com/eletra/mod...F&issue_id=000548955&lid=bk6V2Bw&uid=b5gGl7bQ

 

[sparkles2307]

Printed for DH, thank you Hoody!

 

[hoodat]

Unfortunately there is a two year window when switching from chemical to organic practices will actually lower the yield. This is because so many of the natural soil organisms have been killed off in that soil. After the soil organisms begin to repopulate the yeild will slowly increase till it equals or surpasses chemically farmed soil. The kicker is all the money that is saved by not buying all those fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Organic farming also depends on skills that used to be passed down generation to generation and have been almost lost. You'll have to reach out to grandpa to pick them up. Chances are daddy only knows how to farm chemically.
Organic farming, with or without permaculture, is an ongoing process. You can't shift back and forth or your results will be poor indeed.

 

[seedcorn]

By voting with their dollars, consumers can simultaneously reward farmers for using organic methods, and help push American agriculture in a more sustainable and profitable direction.

duh.........that has never been the debate. Pay more for organic and they will prosper. If organic was more efficient and cheaper, America and the rest of the world would still be using those practices.

An organic publication saying conventional ag is not competitive with them is like Monsanto saying organic won't work. Credibility about the same.

 

[hoodat]

By voting with their dollars, consumers can simultaneously reward farmers for using organic methods, and help push American agriculture in a more sustainable and profitable direction.

duh.........that has never been the debate. Pay more for organic and they will prosper. If organic was more efficient and cheaper, America and the rest of the world would still be using those practices.

An organic publication saying conventional ag is not competitive with them is like Monsanto saying organic won't work. Credibility about the same.

It isn't about opinions. They have a 30 year study to back them up. If you read that study you will see that they gave both sides a fair trial. They were very creful about protocols since they knew big Ag would be looking them over with a magnifying glass for anything to discredit them.

 

[seedcorn]

By voting with their dollars, consumers can simultaneously reward farmers for using organic methods, and help push American agriculture in a more sustainable and profitable direction.

duh.........that has never been the debate. Pay more for organic and they will prosper. If organic was more efficient and cheaper, America and the rest of the world would still be using those practices.

An organic publication saying conventional ag is not competitive with them is like Monsanto saying organic won't work. Credibility about the same.

It isn't about opinions. They have a 30 year study to back them up. If you read that study you will see that they gave both sides a fair trial. They were very creful about protocols since they knew big Ag would be looking them over with a magnifying glass for anything to discredit them.

That is all that article is about, I'm good with that. Pay more for organic, the organic farmers will be successful, never disagreed w/that.

Just for giggles, there is no "drought gene" corn. Most of farmers income does not go to chemicals or to seed, this is a very small part. Where is the study? I'd love to see how they did it. Did they use east/west coast prices on their organic products while using local prices on corn/beans? Noticed wheat, alfalfa were not in rotation for conventional farmer, why not as they are important ingredients in Pennsylvania. Why did organic famer have livestock to suppliment his income while conventional farmer didn't? With expensive ground in PA, it would be tough to cash flow a strictly grain operation. In Indiana, there is no organic market to take advantage of that amounts to anything so that's not even a viable option.

 

[hoodat]

Of course many organic farmers have livestock but that income was not considered in the final tally; only the incomes from crops in the various systems was considered. Here is the study. Guess where I found it? right at the bottom of the article I quoted. If you have further questions this time check the references list.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf

 

[seedcorn]

sorry Hoodat, that is not the study but their opinions. A study will have # of acres, total costs (with what inputs they used) under each, value of crops, etc, broke down year by year . From picture of conventional farmed soybeans, no one grows soybeans in 40" rows. Try 15" or 7.5" rows on soybeans.

No one says organic won't work, just has to have higher priced products. Conventional farming has over 70 years of proving it's better in efficiency than organic. In 1935 all crops were grown organically with self pollinated corn, average corn yields were 50 bu./acre. In 2010, conventional ag averaged 163 bu./acre. These are facts from unbiased people.

 

[vfem]

Of course many organic farmers have livestock but that income was not considered in the final tally; only the incomes from crops in the various systems was considered. Here is the study. Guess where I found it? right at the bottom of the article I quoted. If you have further questions this time check the references list.
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf

You are trying to drill for oil in a rock with a fountain pen... you won't get far.