What problems does organic agriculture solve?

[jeskill]

" They gave no safety training to the farmworkers because, quite frankly, the new owner doesn't care about them." So why didn't you report then to the relevantlegal authority?

 

Report them? Seriously? Have you ever been to Mexico? The police don't get paid a living wage -- they survive off of bribes. Besides which, the workers in the coffee farms are Guatemalan (many ofthem illegal immigrants). We wouldn't be doing them a favour.

 

The fact is that it's not just off-topic. You said it in reply to a question I asked and it doesn't actually answer the question. Nicotine is used as a pesticide on some"organic" farms and it's enormously toxic. This isn't a difference between organic and non organic farming- it's just prejudice.

As stated previously, the definition of organic that I'm using (and you have to be specific because there are many definitions, as you well know) is a set of farming techniques that rely on crop rotation, green manure,compost and biological pest control. That means avoiding biocides, if possible. So no, it's not prejudice. This particular farm didn't use ANY biocides when it was "organic". It used ecosystem services created by the shade trees to limit pest and weed outbreaks.

 

"I'd like to point out that the switch from organic to conventionalcaused a decrease in yields" No, you have shown that a change to bad farming practice reduces yields. So, he followed obvious bad advice. That's nothing to do with it being non- organic. If he had stuck with organic farming, but still needed a loan, would the stipulation have been different?

 

Yes, he followed bad advice. Funny that these bad farming practices happen to be the conventional wisdom of industrial coffee production. I was told that he told the loan providers the farm would continue to be organic. When he started using biocides, the farm was still considered "organic".

 

OK, so now imagine that they go back to traditional pesticides based on arsenic, copper or nicotine. Do you actually believe that the death toll would be lower?

 

No, I don't. But I'm not advocating switching one pesticide for another. As stated previously,"organic agriculture" to me, means using the least amount of capital inputs (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) and the most amount of ecological knowledge. If you want, we can use the term "ecological agriculture", which is perhaps more appropriate.

 

"According to the crop dusting company, the pilot was experienced andfollowed regulations." OK, so that wasn't in the UK, but here are the rules they didn't follow. http://www.pesticide...plete20Code.pdf If your country has bad regulationsthat's not because of conventional farming: it's because of bad government.

 

If the health of the farm workers were the only issue on the table here, I might be inclined to agree with you that this would be the ideal fix. But it isn't the only issue. There are also the ecological, economic impacts and overall long-term sustainability to consider.

 

"Yes, because the areas with highly mechanized /industrialized farming can afford to subsidize the cost of fertilizers, biocides, and hybrid seeds. The places that lack industrialized farming can't afford to subsidize these capital inputs. Hence why many are now turning to agroecological farming techniques,which rely on ecological knowledge and labour moreso than expensive inputs." may well be true, but unless you can assure me that their people are not hungrythen it's not relevant.

 

1) Evidence of improvements in yields due toagroecological practices (which improve caloric intake):

 

...agroecology is also a reliable way to control the outbreak of pests. For instance, in East Africa the push/pull polyculture system is veryeffective for control of Lepidopteran stem borers. It uses other plants in the borders of maize fields, which act as trap crops attracting stem borer colonization away from maize (the pull) and other plantsintercropped with maize that repel the stemborers (the push).Participating farmers in Kenya are reporting 37% to 129% percent increase in maize yield, without chemical pesticides(Khan etal.,2008)

 

2) Improvements in caloric and protein uptake due to agroecological practices:

 

Education on the soil benefits of improved residue management and participatory methods of knowledge sharing were associated with enhanced labour investment; 72 % of farmers reported burying legume residues in2005 compared to 15 % in 2000. Households reported feeding significantly more edible legumes to their children compared with control households.

 

3)Improvements in yields due to agroecological practices:

 

Since the mid-1980s, the private voluntaryorganisation World Neighbours has sponsored an agricultural development and trainingprogramme in Honduras to control erosion and restore the fertility of degradedsoils. Soil conservation practices were introduced -- such as drainage andcontour ditches, grass barriers, and rock walls -- and organic fertilisationmethods were emphasised, such as chicken manure and intercropping with legumes.Programme yields tripled or quadrupled from 400 kilograms per hectare to1,200-1,600 kilograms, depending on the farmer. This tripling in per-hectaregrain production has ensured that the 1,200 families participating in theprogramme have ample grain supplies for the ensuing year. Subsequently COSECHA,a local NGO promoting farmer-to-farmer methodologies on soil conservation andagroecology, helped some 300 farmers experiment with terracing, cover crops andother new techniques. Half of them have already tripled their corn and beanyields; 35 have gone beyond staple production and are growing carrots, lettuceand other vegetables to sell in local markets.

 

4. Improvements in food production and household food security due to sustainable agricultural practices:

 

In the45 [sustainable agriculture] projects/initiatives spread across 17 countriesthat are investigated, some 730,000 households have substantially improved foodproduction and household food security. In 95% of the projects where yieldincreases were the aim, cereal yields have improved by 50–100%. Total farm foodproduction has increased in all. The additional positive impacts on natural,social and human capital are also helping to build the assets base so as tosustain these improvements in the future.

 

"introduced potatoes, which can grow in substandard soil." "In other words, they didn't change the technology because of increasedyields. "

But that's exactly what you just said they did. They grew potatoes because,(given the poor soil left to them by a bunch of total shits) that gave them the best yield.

 

There were other mitigating factors, of course. There's an excellent article on the Irish Potato Famine here that discusses all the economic and ecological factors that combined to cause the Irish Potato Famine. And in fact, yield wasn't really a determinate factor. The Irish were working on farms to grow other things, but all the food except potatoes was being exported to England to foster industrialization.

 

OK, so what did the Mexican farmers actually do?Would it have helped if theysuddenly went strictly organic or strictly conventional? No ofcourse not- they were undercut anyway. Why was the US able to do this?Becausetheir conventional non-organic farms enabled them to produce a hell of a lot ofmaize.Their yields were better. Whether that's due to spending money onfertilisers and pesticides isn't the point. Those were never going to be freeof charge. Non organic farming burns through cash, oil and chemicals butit does grow a hell of a lot of crops. If it didn't, then nobody would spendthe money on the oil would they?

 

Do you really think it's a smart idea to subsidize the over-production of a product that costs a lot in non-renewables, just to flood other international with free (i.e. USAID) or cheap corn, thus destroying their agricultural systems, while at the same time creating an obesity epidemic with said product?

 

Cheap in the short-term means nothing if it's not sustainable over the long term. Clinton destroyed long-term sustainable farms in Mexico for short-term profit.

 

Perhaps not, but at least the Mexicans can now get cheap corn. Since plenty ofthem are still poor it's hard to see them objecting to cheaper food. (thoughthey may have preferred the farming jobs- but that's a matter of international politics not organic farming)

 

So you think that international politics can be separated from agricultural policy?

 

The (un)sustainability of conventional farming is a valid point, but organic farming couldn't cope with the demand.

 

According to the United Nations, you are wrong.

 

The hold out for many of those that cling to conventional farming has often been that it will be impossible for organic farming to feed the world. It's more expensive and the crops aren't as strong, right? Wrong. This is far from the truth according to a new UN study reported on Civil Eats.

 

According to the report, Agro-ecology and the Right to Food,organic and sustainable small scale farming could double food production in the parts of the world where hunger is the biggest issue. Within five to 10 yearswe could see a big jump in crop cultivation.

 

"We won't solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations," Olivier De Schutter, UN SpecialRapporteur on the right to food and author of the report, said in a pres srelease. "The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers' knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development."

 

And Jeskil

re. "Soon, unless you believe that oil and phosphate rock magicallyappears from the ground, we will not be able to grow using industrialagricultural techniques anyways. " Where do you think petroleum and phosphate rock docome from?

 

Ha ha. The important word was "magical". I should have probably used a synonym of "unlimited", but it's hard to use that as an adjective. "Oil and phosphate rock unlimitedly appears from the ground"? Naaah, doesn't flow. Probably could have written that better, but assumed you would get the point. In case you didn't, the point is that both are non-renewable, and both are at peak output, if not close to it.

[GJB]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

I am not sure about the US, but Argentina vaccinated all their cattle.

That is what the whole riot was about.

 

There were 2 choices

 

1) Destroy and burn the entire livestock.

2) Vaccinate

 

The governements int the EU chose to destroy and burn the cattle, their argumant being that once cattle was vaccinated it was impossible to detect the presence of the BSE bacteria, so they could not guarantee the public health. (anyway it was some sort of reasoning like that)

 

I first thought that the argument had at least some merit.

 

Until I later learned that they happily imported vaccinated Argentinian beef

 

 

An other thing is that people associate Natural=Pure=Good=Healthy

 

Nature is a tremendous producer of all kinds of harmful and poisonous substances e.g. mushrooms (make sure you pick the right ones or die)

 

On a positiv note discussions like these are good as a wake up call, what with more and more people sharing this planet.

 

Cheers

 

"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.

 

 

All the cattle on the farms in the vincinity were destroyed to, whether that was "organic" or not

 

And I'm pretty sure ddt is banned world wide.

 

[edit] For agricultural use that is [/edit]

 

DDT is banned, malaria Rulez

[studiot]

It's too late to vaccinate.

 

(((perhaps this should be a new pop song for Eurovision?)))

 

After the disease has taken hold.

 

But yes I think we are too slow to vaccinate animals in the UK.

Edited June 4, 2012 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

For a start, if GJB thinks that

BSE is caused by a bacterium or

That that there's a vaccine for it,

then he's mistaken.

At best, he has it muddled up with foot and mouth (which is actually a viral infection but...)

 

 

I still think that, for a start the Irish famine is a red herring here.

They went from organic farming of wheat to organic farming of potatoes. Some bastards stole their crops. They suffered.

This was in the days before mechanised farming, before most pesticides and when "fertiliser" still pretty much meant manure.

 

While there are clearly problems with our current farming practice (in common with much of our other life) because it's unsustainable, there is no real evidence that organic farming would help.

Mechanised industrial farming using fertilisers and pesticides was widely adopted by farmers because it raised net yield. The corollary of this is that organic farming has worse yields.

There are studies that show that small organic farms are supported by adjacent non-organic ones. The surrounding farms kill the pests and provide nutrients.

 

There are a whole lot of other problems too. Food subsidy is one, but it's political and has little directly to do with the organic/ non organic debate.

I'm always amused when the US talks about free markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

[Arete]

It's too late to vaccinate...After the disease has taken hold.

 

Huh?

 

I'm sure glad that they developed vaccines to measles, rubella, typhoid, polio, yellow fever, hepatitis, tetanus, HPV, etc and so despite the high prevalence of these diseases...

 

Current prevalence does not negate future efficacy of a vaccine. If you can establish herd immunity you can eradicate, or at least severely reduce the impact of widespread infectious agents

Edited June 4, 2012 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

On an almost entirely unrelated topic, the EU will not accept imports of livestock which have been vaccinated against foot and mouth disease because they use a test for the presence of antibodies in the animal's blood as evidence of infection. This is bloody stupid.

A bit late in the day, during the last outbreak they decided to undertake "ring vaccination" round cases of inaction. This actually contained then eradicated the problem.

 

There's lots about it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak

and the last couple of big outbreak was in 1967 when, lets face it, most farms were a lot more organic than they are now, or were in 2001.

There was an outbreak in 2007 due to poor management at a research lab: again, nothing to do with organic vs non organic farming.

[studiot]

I'm sure glad that they developed ........................

 

Yes so am I.

 

However we don't go round eating sufferers from those conditions (I hope).

Neither will a vaccine cure the disease once a suffer has contracted it.

 

Please read the whole of my post next time.

 

The last one concluded

 

But yes I think we are too slow to vaccinate animals in the UK.

 

Which puts a different perspective on my statement from your partial quotation.

 

 

John Cutherbert

Why should there not be a vaccine for a disease because it is of non bacterial origin?

 

Perhaps you think the smallpox vaccine does not work either?

 

It is ironic that the original smallpox vaccine came from cows.

Edited June 4, 2012 by studiot

[Arete]

Please read the whole of my post next time.

 

I did.

 

It's too late to vaccinate...After the disease has taken hold.

 

Which is false - a vaccine/herd immunity works fine even if applied/evolved after a disease is at high prevalence.

 

But yes I think we are too slow to vaccinate animals in the UK.

 

The fact that a vaccine could prevent disease caused damage if applied in a timely manner does not make it "too late" to use it later. It simply means that damage will occur in the period before immunity is established. "it's too late to use the vaccine" is significantly different to a reality of "we could have prevented a lot of stock losses/ contaminated meat if used to vaccine in a preventative manner before all this happened." The vaccine is still effective in conferring immunity and worth applying once a disease has taken hold, contrary to the statement you made in your post.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

 

 

However we don't go round eating sufferers from those conditions (I hope).

Neither will a vaccine cure the disease once a suffer has contracted it.

 

 

 

John Cutherbert

Why should there not be a vaccine for a disease because it is of non bacterial origin?

 

Perhaps you think the smallpox vaccine does not work either?

 

It is ironic that the original smallpox vaccine came from cows.

Exactly where did you get the idea that I said that you can't vaccinate against a disease of non-bacterial origin?

 

They use the rabies vaccine retrospectively- so it does afford a cure (if you are lucky) even after the infection.

Oh, incidentally, I don't think the smallpox vaccine works any more. As far as I'm aware it hasn't prevented a single infection since about 1980.

It's not actually derived from cattle (have a look at WIKI which says " During the 19th century, the cowpox virus used for smallpox vaccination was replaced by vaccinia virus. Vaccinia is in the same family as cowpox and variola but is genetically distinct from both. "

and, like rabies, it's active after an infection (agin, from WIKI,

"Treatment

 

Smallpox vaccination within three days of exposure will prevent or significantly lessen the severity of smallpox symptoms in the vast majority of people. Vaccination four to seven days after exposure can offer some protection from disease or may modify the severity of disease.")

 

BTW, people suffering from viral diseases are fit to east as long as you cook them properly. There are other issues, but viral transmission might not be one of them.

Edited June 4, 2012 by John Cuthber

[studiot]

Arete,

 

If you 'vaccinate' the non infected part of a herd, how long before you can guarantee that none of the animals have any infective material?

 

John Cuthbert

 

 

This extract gave me that impression on first reading.

 

For a start, if GJB thinks that

BSE is caused by a bacterium or

That that there's a vaccine for it,

then he's mistaken.

At best, he has it muddled up with foot and mouth (which is actually a viral infection but...)

 

I am sorry if I misunderstood it but that was my first impression so others may also have made that assumption.

 

BTW do you have any good recipes you'd like to share?

Edited June 4, 2012 by studiot

[Arete]

If you 'vaccinate' the non infected part of a herd, how long before you can guarantee that none of the animals have any infective material?

 

Usually never - vaccines work on the basis of herd immunity. http://en.wikipedia....i/Herd_immunity

 

No vaccine ever confers 100% immunity in 100% of individuals. They work on the principle that by increasing the overall immunity of the herd, you lower the prevalence of the disease. BY lowering the prevalence of the disease, you lower the probability of coming into contact with it, which lowers the rate of transmission, which lowers the probability of encountering the disease - etc.

 

The reduction of transmission/disease prevalence will accumulate in a probabilistic manner. Vaccines in themselves don't eliminate diseases, but the accumulation of immunity in the herd and subsequent reduction of cases could theoretically drop the abundance of the pathogen below the critical threshold required for persistence of it in a population and ultimately result in it becoming extinct in the given population of hosts. Usually this would be inferred from the non-detection of the disease for a prolonged period, but you're up against trying to prove a positive outcome with a lack of evidence... and the re-emergence of controlled diseases in the wake of lapsed herd immunity has been observed.

http://nationalhogfa...ion_lapses_lead

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10228076

http://www.humanillnesses.com/Infectious-Diseases-He-My/Measles-Rubeola.html

 

Edited June 4, 2012 by Arete

[studiot]

and the re-emergence of controlled diseases in the wake of lapsed herd immunity has been observed.

 

Surely this is by definition?

[Arete]

Surely this is by definition?

 

Surely this is by definition?

 

I'm not sure what you mean - by definition? If you're inferring that a lack/reduction of herd immunity, by definition results in increased disease prevalence then no -it's not by definition. E.g. bubonic plague - prevalence of the black death is severely reduced compared to historical outbreaks, herd immunity remains at similar levels. Prevention is due to vector control http://rarediseases.about.com/cs/bubonicplague/a/111602.htm Changes in herd immunity to Yersina pestis will have limited effects on transmission and prevalence in the absence of competent vectors - evolutionary theory would suggest that reduced exposure to the pathogen would render human populations more susceptible to plague now than in times where contact with the disease was more likely, yet we don't generally see outbreaks.

Lapsed vaccination doesn't lead to disease outbreaks unless a) the vaccine is the primary basis for acquired immunity and b) the disease remains persistent at low levels in the population or a nearby source population.

[studiot]

Its pretty obvious that the herd immunity must have lapsed or the disease would not have re-emerged.

 

Did you mean innoculation not immunity?

[Arete]

Its pretty obvious that the herd immunity must have lapsed or the disease would not have re-emerged.

 

Reduction in herd immunity is not the only plausible cause of re-emergence - e.g.

adaptation of a pathogen to a new vector/host can increase chances of contact with it http://www.stri.si.e...20SysBio04.pdf;

Vaccine breakthrough of pathogens due to novel mutations can render the acquired immunity from a vaccine ineffective http://www.labnews.c...e-breakthrough/

Environmental change favoring pathogens/vectors/source populations can increase contact and thus the chance of transmission http://www.who.int/b...%289%291136.pdf

Etc.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Arete

[studiot]

Oh, come on.

 

By the definition of 'immune' there can be no occurrence of the infection within the herd.

 

If there is an occurrence the herd is, by definition, not immune.

[Arete]

Oh, come on.

 

By the definition of 'immune' there can be no occurrence of the infection within the herd.

 

If there is an occurrence the herd is, by definition, not immune.

 

Almost all immunity is imperfect. NOt sure what definition you are using to suggest that immunity means that an individual is completely impervious to the disease in question.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21034823

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22561998

Edited June 4, 2012 by Arete

[studiot]

Unless the beef buying public can be guaranteed that there is zero BSE in the beef, why should they buy it?

 

What politician would offer otherwise?

 

Clearly there is none in clean replacement animals after total destruction of infected ones and disinfection of living space.

[John Cuthber]

Arete,

 

If you 'vaccinate' the non infected part of a herd, how long before you can guarantee that none of the animals have any infective material?

 

John Cuthbert

 

 

This extract gave me that impression on first reading.

 

 

 

I am sorry if I misunderstood it but that was my first impression so others may also have made that assumption.

 

BTW do you have any good recipes you'd like to share?

When I wrote

"For a start, if GJB thinks that

BSE is caused by a bacterium or

That that there's a vaccine for it,

then he's mistaken.

At best, he has it muddled up with foot and mouth (which is actually a viral infection but...)"

I expected people to understand that

1 BSE is not cause by a bacterium and that

2 there is no vaccine for it and that

3 he might be muddling it with FMD.

 

There is strictly speaking not any guarantee that there is no BSE in beef but we buy it anyway. I'm not sure if they even test for it.

Anyway, since there is no vaccine for BSE the rest of the discussion about it and vaccination is a bit odd, but, just for the record, there's a reservoir of the infectious agent in sheep so the possibility of transfer across the species barrier again still exists.

 

Herd immunity does not mean that the whole herd is immune.

It means that the number of susceptible individuals within the herd is small enough that any infection will die out, rather than spreading.

[Arete]

Unless the beef buying public can be guaranteed that there is zero BSE in the beef, why should they buy it?

 

If someone expects that a vaccination program can allow you to guarantee 100% of individuals are 100% free from infection, they have a very misguided concept of what vaccinations are able to do.

[studiot]

If someone expects that a vaccination program can allow you to guarantee 100% of individuals are 100% free from infection, they have a very misguided concept of what vaccinations are able to do.

 

I don't.

 

However neither do I see the point of verbal sparring with someone determined to avoid the issue.

 

So I will confine myself to asking John Cuthber again for those recipes he tantalising dangled in front of us.

Edited June 4, 2012 by studiot

[Arete]

However neither do I see the point of verbal sparring with someone determined to avoid the issue.

 

I answered each of your questions directly, with supporting evidence - I just maintain a position in disagreement with yours

 

No vaccine or vaccination program results in guaranteed non-infection. This is why we have testing for diseases as well as vaccination and treatment.

[John Cuthber]

No vaccine or vaccination program results in guaranteed non-infection. This is why we have testing for diseases as well as vaccination and treatment.

Smallpox.

 

Anyway, can someone remind me what on earth this has to do with the topic?

As far as I can see it was sparked off again by someone misunderstanding FMD.

FMD was with us before we had any sort of farming but organic, and it's still here now.

It has been kicked out of the UK by slaughter and quarantine. I'm not sure if that counts as "organic" or not.

Edited June 4, 2012 by John Cuthber

[jeskill]

I still think that, for a start the Irish famine is a red herring here.

They went from organic farming of wheat to organic farming of potatoes. Some bastards stole their crops. They suffered.

 

This is the problem with the word "organic", and why I think "sustainable agriculture", or "ecological agriculture" are better terms for the ideal that people who study this issue are going for. The Irish went from a complex polyculture with organic fertilizer inputs (that included seaweed!) to a simple monoculture. IOW, they went from sustainable ecological agriculture to the "industrial agriculture" model, just lacking the capital inputs. This trend -- transitioning from a complex sustainable polyculture to an unsustainable simple monoculture that cannot grow crops due to a lack of subsidies for capital inputs -- is what we've seen throughout "developing" nations (i.e. The Global South) in the past century, and it's very much related to the current debate concerning how we should be growing our food.

 

This was in the days before mechanised farming, before most pesticides and when "fertiliser" still pretty much meant manure.

While there are clearly problems with our current farming practice (in common with much of our other life) because it's unsustainable, there is no real evidence that organic farming would help. Mechanised industrial farming using fertilisers and pesticides was widely adopted by farmers because it raised net yield. The corollary of this is that organic farming has worse yields.

 

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I gave you plenty of evidence that supports the notion that organic farming does improve yield in this (albeit ridiculously long post): http://www.sciencefo...post__p__678309

 

 

There are studies that show that small organic farms are supported by adjacent non-organic ones. The surrounding farms kill the pests and provide nutrients.

 

Links please? I'd love to read these.

 

Evolutionary theory would also suggest that the small organic farms, by continuing to be a refuge for "pests", actually benefit the non-organic farms by reducing the selection pressure on said pests and reducing the probability of pesticide-resistance evolving.

 

There are a whole lot of other problems too. Food subsidy is one, but it's political and has little directly to do with the organic/ non organic debate.

 

This is total b.s. Sorry, but if we're going to have any hope of solving the current issues surrounding agriculture, then we can't just focus on "yield", which is the main focus of populationists and proponents of corn subsidies. The past century has shown us that clearly, focusing on yield DOES NOT stop hunger (If it did, then no one would be hungry right now. The world currently grows enough food for all people in the world, if it were distributed equitably). If we're going to solve any issues concerning hunger and agriculture, then we need to consider the whole picture, which includes economic sustainability, ecological sustainability, politics, and social impact.

 

Apologies for inserting myself into an interesting vaccine conversation, but I couldn't help myself.

[John Cuthber]

Oh good, we seem to be back at the topic.

 

Unless we grow enough food we can not feed the people.

If you look at figures like these

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_cer_yie_kg_per_hec-cereal-yield-kg-per-hectare

you can see that intensive farming (with all it's problems) generates a lot of food. There are exceptions of course, Canada doesn't look good on this scale.

If all production yields were as low as some of those then we would starve.

I agree that there are massive problems with distribution and other issues (they are probably a large part of why Zimbabwe is at the bottom of the list.)

However you cannot simply dismiss yield as important.

 

If you think that organic farming raises yields why do you think farmers generally don't adopt it (especially as "organic" food now sells at a premium) and why did they drop it in the first place?

In effect you are arguing against the farmers and their understanding of their work.

 

 

I read the bit about the effect of large scale conventional farming on small scale organic farming somewhere, most probably New Scientist. I will try to track down the article.