What problems does organic agriculture solve?

Winfried · May 6, 2012

Hello

As a city kid, I have zero knowledge about agriculture. To learn a bit about this, I will spend a few days on a farm at the end of the month to talk with farmers who went from "conventional" agriculture to organic.

In the meantime, I'm reading a bunch of books about agriculture, both conventional and organic, but am having a hard time finding sound, non-biased, scientific information about...

1. what problems organic agriculture is supposed to solve (too much, too strong pesticides/fertilizer? lower nutrition in food?)

2. whether these solutions really work, and if they have any drawbacks

For instance, some organic farmers refer to BS like homeopathy or biodynamics

Can you recommend good books and online articles that I should read before I go?

Thank you.

insane_alien · May 6, 2012

Basically, "Organic" farming is just growing crops without all the pesticides and chemical fertilizers used by modern day intensive farming.

This stems from people not fully understanding the role the pesticides and fertilizers have. They believe that since drinking a glass of pesticide would kill you, spraying it on crops makes the crops similarly poisonous and so on. Also that eating GM crops makes you into a mutant.

It's really hard to come to a conclusion other than, they don't actually understand the concepts involved and have reached an incorrect conclusion as a result.

Apart from this, all it does is unsolve many more serious problems agriculture has faced in the past. Namely how to prevent your crops getting eaten by pests. Lets say we were to ditch all the machinery involved in modern day farming and go back to the tools that were available in the 15th century. And we pitted a farm using modern day pesticides and fertilizers against a farm using 15th century pesticide and fertilizer technology (namely a scarecrow and manure) The farm using pesticides and such will have MUCH higher yields and crop health while the retro farm stands a non-trivial chance of losing the crop entirely.

There is a reason we started using these things on crops. They work well. And there have actually been studies done to determine their safety.

I realise this is probably biased as I really don't like wilful ignorance but I put the organic proponents on the same shelf as those who claim to have an allergy to radio waves. A little knowledge is dangerous.

hypervalent_iodine · May 6, 2012

There was a thread on this a few months back you may also find worth reading (www.scienceforums.net/topic/55223-organic-farming/page__p__592533).

Organic farming is far from being a solution to anything. In fact, it takes a few leaps backwards from where modern farming is in almost every sense. Primarily, it comes down to the fact that it can't cope with supply and demand (and any attempts to do so would require additional land) and the fact that natural alternatives are dangerous (see Horza2002's first post in the above thread).

The whole concept is basically designed for no other reason than to capitalise on the public reception to buzzwords such as, 'organic'. In truth, you're much better off buying goods derived by modern farming practices.

Winfried · May 6, 2012

Thanks for the infos + link.

mississippichem · May 6, 2012

Organic farming is far from being a solution to anything. In fact, it takes a few leaps backwards from where modern farming is in almost every sense. Primarily, it comes down to the fact that it can't cope with supply and demand (and any attempts to do so would require additional land) and the fact that natural alternatives are dangerous (see Horza2002's first post in the above thread).

Exactly. In addition, if one is a true environmentalist then they must not support organic farming as it increases the amount of land needed to farm x-amount of cops. So the intent is to be nicer to humans and the environment but it ends up having the opposite effect. It increases the chance of a human ingesting infectious pathogens and increases the amount of forest and animal habit we must destroy in order to feed ourselves.

IMO the whole premise of organic farming is based on the false notion that natural=good and synthetic=bad. This is demonstrably false, hydrogen cyanide is produced in nature and is 100% natural...it will kill you. We can make glucose in a lab, and if it is purified properly it will be harmless.

Not to mention that if every farm switched over to "organic" methods today the world hunger problem would be magnified significantly as the net weight of cops produced on the Earth per year would drop significantly and food prices would skyrocket.

For instance, some organic farmers refer to BS like homeopathy or biodynamics

Can you recommend good books and online articles that I should read before I go?

+1 for calling homeopathy BS. Welcome to SFN! You already fit in just fine.

**imatfaal** · May 6, 2012

Hello and welcome - I think one problem is solved by "organic produce" for many people, but it is more by good luck than anything else. I am a city boy like you and have noticed that whilst fresh fruit and vegetables are now available in the supermarket throughout the year and the quality is quite uniform they are also often pretty bland and watery. The way to counter this uniform blandness is to buy locally sourced - ie farmers' market etc. Many people (wrongly) assume that the difference is the "organic" nature of the growing process - whereas I think most of the difference is due to the slower less factory-orientated techniques, harvesting when ripe rather than for weeks storage and transportation, breeding for look on shelf rather than taste...

studiot · May 6, 2012

Seems to me that the answers here have been rather one sided and (no disrespect) from chemists whose interest should be declared.

The question was 'what problems does organic agriculture solve?' not 'is it the most efficient?' or what problems does it not solve?

Some problems it definitely solves or avoids are those associated with non organic techniques and practices.

Whatever the final verdict on prion diseases they have never happened on organic farms.

Whatever the benefits of organophosphorus animal dips there is a definite recorded increase in medical conditions (some very serious) amongst farmers and farmworkers who use them over organic farms where they are not allowed.

As regards to the debate on which method is better, I don't see that it need be one or the other. Surely the logically correct way is to choose what is most appropriate from both camps?

**imatfaal** · May 6, 2012

Seems to me that the answers here have been rather one sided and (no disrespect) from chemists whose interest should be declared.

The question was 'what problems does organic agriculture solve?' not 'is it the most efficient?' or what problems does it not solve?

Some problems it definitely solves or avoids are those associated with non organic techniques and practices.

Whatever the final verdict on prion diseases they have never happened on organic farms.

Whatever the benefits of organophosphorus animal dips there is a definite recorded increase in medical conditions (some very serious) amongst farmers and farmworkers who use them over organic farms where they are not allowed.

As regards to the debate on which method is better, I don't see that it need be one or the other. Surely the logically correct way is to choose what is most appropriate from both camps?

Well I am a lawyer so pretty sure I have not interest to declare one way or tother.

Slightly flippantly: I will ask on the prion diseases - are dead cows not organic? Plants have been fed on dead animals for generations - is it not a natural progression to start feeding them to animals as well. I do agree that we allowed commercial pressure to trump science and farming knowledge.

I will defer to the real chemists - but I believed that most of the problems with OP were down to misuse and mishandling; and whilst this does not excuse and should not be a reason not to strive for greater safety there is much that is dangerous if instructions are not followed carefully.

John Cuthber · May 6, 2012

I'm going to declare an interest: I'm a chemist.

Now, would someone like to explain why that means I don't have an accurate, valid and unbiased point of view about organic farming?

As far as I am aware, organic farming doesn't solve any problems (except possibly salving the consciences of some affluent westerners).

It swaps one set of problems for another set.

For example, rather than use conventional fungicides which have been selected to have low human toxicity, an organic farmer has two choices to protect his crops from fungi: he can do nothing and just hope the fungi don't get much or he can use heavy-metal based chemicals (like Bordeaux mixture) which are toxic to humans, and to the environment and which are persistent.

Of course if he just trusts to luck, there's an increased likelihood of the corps getting contaminated by fungi.

Since some of the most toxic materials known to man are fungal metabolites the choice is essentially conventional farming with chemicals used that are tested and known not to be toxic to people (in context) or organic farming where you use very toxic chemicals, or risk the production of even more toxic ones.

And, Studiot, saying "no disrespect" before tacitly calling us liars isn't acceptable.

It seems not to have occurred to you that the answers look one sided simply because that's how the evidence piles up.

mississippichem · May 6, 2012

Seems to me that the answers here have been rather one sided and (no disrespect) from chemists whose interest should be declared.

If we extend this argument to it's logical conclusion then expertise will become synonymous with corruption or bias. Does that then make someone with no science education the most qualified to conduct science?

Seems to me that the answers here have been rather one sided from chemists whose expertise should be declared.

Whatever the benefits of organophosphorus animal dips there is a definite recorded increase in medical conditions (some very serious) amongst farmers and farmworkers who use them over organic farms where they are not allowed.

Some of my recent projects at work have involved the detection of organophosphorus in aerosols by novel photochemical methods. I'm more than aware of the safety issues inherent in the handling of these reagents so I would be glad to see any further information you could provide concerning organophosphorus chemistry and agricultural workers' health.

As regards to the debate on which method is better, I don't see that it need be one or the other. Surely the logically correct way is to choose what is most appropriate from both camps?

There is nothing "wrong" with organic agriculture per se. However, I posit that upon a detailed cost benefit analysis one will find that the problems caused by organic farming methods (lack of quality control, increased ecological destruction, increased food price, decreased food availability to third world nations, unnecessary societal chemophobia, reinforcement of the broken notion of "natural") far outweigh the benefits, if any, that can be obtained from such a practice.

I also just don't see how changing our successful modern methods to something that might be recognizable to a fifteenth century subsistence farmer can be considered progress. Even if you can attribute x number of deaths a year to synthetic pesticides you can look through history and attribute xⁿ deaths to starvation, contamination of foods by microbes, and general poor nutrition that was the result of a lack of variety in diets (GM foods, pesticides, and factory farms allow us to enjoy a plethora of plant foods year round).

I think many who advocate for organic farming methods are complaining about the small inadequacies of the problem solution while neglecting the fact that without said solution, far more troublesome problems would arise.

iNow · May 6, 2012

Agree? Disagree? People who fail to see that organic farming offers limited benefits and introduces several unnecessary costs and problems are br... Erm... Never mind. Better not.

studiot · May 6, 2012

The question was 'what problems does organic agriculture solve?' not 'is it the most efficient?' or what problems does it not solve?

Since everybody seems to want to quote part of my first post in this thread I thought I would quote another part.

As regards to the defensiveness of some to my comment about chemists, I thought it a bit odd that their response was the same as our glorious politicians through most of the Salmonella, CJD, BSE, foot and mouth and other crises viz 'everything in the techno garden is lovely and the only viable economic method'

As a taxpayer who has been footing the bill for this 'economic method of beef farming by totally destroying a country's beef population' I feel I have a right to question this.

iNow · May 6, 2012

Where did anybody say you couldn't question it? Where did that come from? The challenge seems to be that you don't like the answers you've received to your questions from people who know a bit more about the subject matter than you.

mississippichem · May 6, 2012

As regards to the defensiveness of some to my comment about chemists, I thought it a bit odd that their response was the same as our glorious politicians through most of the Salmonella, CJD, BSE, foot and mouth and other crises viz 'everything in the techno garden is lovely and the only viable economic method'

How does that invalidate any statement made in this thread? The fact that a politician said it does not make it wrong.

Show how organic farming can be a viable method. Yes modern methods have had some slips with disease outbreak. How many disease outbreaks might there have ben without rigorous chemical and biological quality control?

As a taxpayer who has been footing the bill for this 'economic method of beef farming by totally destroying a country's beef population' I feel I have a right to question this.

You do have a right to question it. I'm not questioning your right to question. Please explain how any country's beef population was destroyed by modern methods.

We are only having a discussion/debate that is typical of this forum. I don't think anyone's arguments have been disingenuous so can we please continue on and debate these points.

If my argument has not been in good faith please point that out and we can reconcile.

studiot · May 6, 2012

who know a bit more about the subject matter than you.

Ad hominem remarks do not strengthen a weak argument.

When we hear from vetinary, medical and agricultural experts then I would agree they know more than I do.

At the moment I can say that those responding know many things I don't but equally I know things they perhaps don't.

hypervalent_iodine · May 6, 2012

Your entire argument against us thus far is based on ad hominem, which being a logical fallacy, is against our rules (though I will say that I am not moderating here). If you claim any one of us has vested interest, then please be specific as to why. Simply being a chemist doesn't make one's opinions bias. Now, if I were a chemist and I also owned a company that makes pesticides, you might have a point.

Regardless, we've posited valid points that don't require confirmation from a veterinarian, a medical professional or even an agricultural scientist. Having a discussion is a two-way street, so if you wish to debate the points brought up by other members, you'll need to do so with valid counter-points of your own.

studiot · May 6, 2012

I'm sorry but I found the replies exceeding biased. Particularly as they did not answer the question as I have already pointed out but instead rubbished organic methods.

Here are a few sample quotes.

Organic farming is far from being a solution to anything. In fact, it takes a few leaps backwards from where modern farming is in almost every sense.

I realise this is probably biased as I really don't like wilful ignorance but I put the organic proponents on the same shelf as those who claim to have an allergy to radio waves. A little knowledge is dangerous.

Here is a more rational response, which I will answer.

You do have a right to question it. I'm not questioning your right to question. Please explain how any country's beef population was destroyed by modern methods

missippichem from your name I guess you are in the US which has long generated a significantly larger beef production than the UK, the country to which I referred in this instance.

Intensive farming allowed a greater cattle population per acre than the land itself would sustain, with additional food being supplied from elsewhere. Cattle are herbivores but were fed on diet increasingly including animal 'residue'.

Two effects flowed from this.

Firstly BSE took hold in some of the cattle population.

Secondly a variation of the disease spread to some humans associated with these cattle who then died a horrible death.

No organic beef cattle contracted BSE and no workers on organic farms contracted CJD.

Eventually the UK government had to slaughter and burn the carcasses of pretty well every beef cow in Britain and import clean replacement yearlings.

All were slaughtered, whether they had the disease or not.

That included the cows from blameless organic farms who did not practice this method of feeding.

The taxpayer also had to compensate the owners of all these cows, many farmers nevertheless went bust.

The export and home sale of UK beef was banned for several years.

Finally new regulations were introducted outlawing these feeds.

In the USA and Argentina where they have large wide open ranges and relatively natural feeding regimes they did not experience this problem.

Now I don't fully support organic methods since they include disallowing modern vetinary treatment (drugs) of sick animals.

Edit

Let me also add that I am sorry if anyone felt personally attacked by my comment it was not meant that way. It is a shame that it was not seen for what it was - a wry observation about the similarity of the initial responses. It was meant to evoke a wry chuckle, not merit the furore that ensued. A chuckle of the sort I would give if someone said to me "engineers are all the same the tell us the project will cost £1billiion and £2billion later they still haven't finished.

go well

Edited May 6, 2012 by studiot

mississippichem · May 6, 2012

missippichem from your name I guess you are in the US which has long generated a significantly larger beef production than the UK, the country to which I referred in this instance.

Intensive farming allowed a greater cattle population per acre than the land itself would sustain, with additional food being supplied from elsewhere. Cattle are herbivores but were fed on diet increasingly including animal 'residue'.

Two effects flowed from this.

Firstly BSE took hold in some of the cattle population.

Secondly a variation of the disease spread to some humans associated with these cattle who then died a horrible death.

No organic beef cattle contracted BSE and no workers on organic farms contracted CJD.

Eventually the UK government had to slaughter and burn the carcasses of pretty well every beef cow in Britain and import clean replacement yearlings.

All were slaughtered, whether they had the disease or not.

That included the cows from blameless organic farms who did not practice this method of feeding.

The taxpayer also had to compensate the owners of all these cows, many farmers nevertheless went bust.

The export and home sale of UK beef was banned for several years.

Finally new regulations were introducted outlawing these feeds.

studiot,

Thanks for engaging me on this. This is a topic that I enjoy debating because it's a relevant societal issue where ideology will only have minimal interference and one where there is a lot of room for give and take from both sides, i.e. there is no dichotomy.

I accept your example as a demonstration of how modern farming has some shortcomings. However, I think that the answer to these is to be found in more advanced biotechnology, my reasoning being that we cannot go back to the levels of production from the past as there are simply more people in the world now. Pandora is out of the box.

In the USA and Argentina where they have large wide open ranges and relatively natural feeding regimes they did not experience this problem.

I agree that this may be evidence supporting your assertion but I disagree that the feedstock being natural has anything to do with it. The outbreak of BSE is a great example of what happens when food science is not done well or rigorously enough. Those farmers were using a food source for their cattle that came with a high contamination risk for prions. They did not carry out the necessary purification/cleansing steps (which IIRC for prion eradication calls for quite extreme conditions) and that risk was realized as an outbreak. Technology has provided solutions to almost every agricultural problem in the past, why will it not in the future?

Now I don't fully support organic methods since they include disallowing modern vetinary treatment (drugs) of sick animals.

Agreed.

Let me also add that I am sorry if anyone felt personally attacked by my comment it was not meant that way. It is a shame that it was not seen for what it was - a wry observation about the similarity of the initial responses. It was meant to evoke a wry chuckle, not merit the furore that ensued. A chuckle of the sort I would give if someone said to me "engineers are all the same the tell us the project will cost £1billiion and £2billion later they still haven't finished.

go well

Hey no problem. Sometimes gestures and intricacies of conversation are not well conveyed in text. No harm no foul. I'm just glad things worked out.

Edited May 6, 2012 by mississippichem

John Cuthber · May 6, 2012

OK, and now to spoil the show with a few facts.

For a start, once again I'm declaring that I'm a chemist.

The astute among you will realise that F+M is a viral disease, Salmonellosis is bacterial and CJD is a prion disease.

None of these has anything to do with chemistry.

BSE took off when the regulations were changed and permitted a reduction in the time/ temperature of cooking of sheep protein needed before you could legally feed it to cattle.

Neither process was organic (or, arguable both were- it depends on your point of view. certainly it's not the use of artificial chemicals that made the difference)

So it was nothing to do with organic farming. (it was a lot to do with a silly right wing government who thought that "all regulations are a bad thing").

I'd also like you to provide some evidence of some of your other claims, notably

"Secondly a variation of the disease spread to some humans associated with these cattle who then died a horrible death."

Because, as far as I recall, all the people had eaten meat

"All were slaughtered, whether they had the disease or not."

As I remember the policy was to slaughter all cattle on a farm where BSE was found. If that's right then this

"That included the cows from blameless organic farms who did not practice this method of feeding."

doesn't make sense.

In any event, the government of the time certainly made mistakes.

But they were not a lot to do with organic farming, and they were nothing to do with chemistry.

Now, could you please explain why you seem to have picked on us for a set of political cock-ups about microbiology?