Caesar, thanks for that. That is awesome and I couldn't have put it any better. We're all family on this great Earth, let's take care of her like she is our Mom! She's given us everything we have, she's fed us and we wouldn't be here without her. Let's treat her with some respect and dignity and in turn she will take care of us.
Simon
Thanks Simon. No Earth, no us, so we gotta take care of it for as long as we have it.
Havnt there been ecoli deaths linked to organic farming though?
Traditional eaters may not mind eating organic(besides the possible ecoli of course) but we definitly would mind the higher prices that a blanket ban on certain methods would bring. So it may bring the price of organic produce down but the average price would probably rise!
Im also not completly convinced that purely organic methods can feed the growing population. Even in my own country many people are starving and want food no matter what the methods?
E. coli is an enteric bacteria. I would imagine that the contaminated farms were dealing with a lot of manure. Even composted manure might not be fully safe, as the pile doesn't always generate enough heat to kill off the harmful bacteria. Heat-treated manure would be a safe alternative, if it were a viable option. Also, there's "green manures", fertilizer trees and other Chop 'n' Drop systems.
I don't know much about market economics, so you got me there. What I can say is that organic prices are high currently because of competition with cheap traditional product, the cost of Organic Registration, and greater efforts for equal or lesser yields. Why? Most commercial organic farms aren't as organic as they could be. The term was taken and turned into a buzzword, systematized with only a few criteria: no harsh chemicals from a given list. So, as long as you avoid those chemicals you can be labeled organic. This means quite a few people have continued growing with otherwise industrial methods, attaining the Organic registration by merely changing or eliminating chemicals. The yields are lesser because most industrial techniques (like monocultures) don't play well with organic; they're just as susceptible to pests, but now that they don't use chemicals they have no strong way to deal with them. To be effectively organic, functional and productive, you gotta find the right combination of techniques to maximize production while minimizing loss and environmental impact. Cover crops help suppress weeds and retain soil fertility. Chop 'n' Drop builds soil quality. Polycultures reduce the impact of pests with techniques like trap crops, predatory insect attractors and aromatic insect repellents (among others), minimizing the need for whatever pesticide (organic?) you do use. Plus, you hedge your bets with extra crops (in case one should fail). The yield per crop is diminished in some polycultures, but the total land yield is increased; that sounds profitable to me. Build a strong system, and you'll get good results. Weakly organic systems (like those that give up harsh chemicals without compensating with cultural techniques) are gonna have greater losses, and prices will be higher for their troubles.
I believe that
properly implemented organic farming is capable of matching (if not outright exceeding) the productive capacity of industrial farming. If the people are starving, you feed them however you must. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of transitioning to organic after an industrial start. You go with what works, but the benefit of organic techniques (I guess I'm talking more permaculture now, which I believe is what organic
should be) are that they're designed to work in a broad range of circumstances, from the tropics to the cooler regions, forest, desert and everything in between. And it's productive when done right. Does it take longer to establish? Perhaps. Then start industrial and make the transition after the establishment period is over.
Also, I never suggested a ban. Simply having more organic farmers and less industrial farmers might have a positive impact.
As a final point, I can't offer a perfect system. There's no such thing. Every system you could think of has drawbacks. The question is whether the drawbacks of the proposed solution are equal or greater in impact or scope than the system it seeks to supplant. If not, then the solution is worth pursuing, defects and all. I believe that the drawbacks of organic agriculture are lesser than the ones from industrial agriculture (which is itself unsustainable). If properly implemented and managed, organic agriculture can meet the needs of any community just as well as industrial agriculture, with far less environmental impact.
What I would like to see is someone who thinks its completely safe put a few drops in a glass of water and drink it.
Hi Spaugh. Have seen it many years ago with a sales rep drinking some as part of the sales pitch. Seriously! Was working for a City Park and Rec. dept. when he demoed it.
Where it can be nasty is using it on/in water to control pests such as hyacinth.
Glyphosate works via the amino acid process, shuts the plant material down......... so labs have designed GMO's that are resistant to that hit. Doesn't have anything to do with human health.
That's the mechanism of how it operates on plant cells. It's biochemical effects on animal cells might operate via different mechanisms.