Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Arable Farming
Cropping
What is the Oxford Real Farming Conference?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Barleycorn" data-source="post: 283744" data-attributes="member: 143"><p>I think that there are two sides, husbandry and politics, and agree with both of the replies to Will.</p><p></p><p>Husbandry wise it is obvious that conventional farmers are taking on more practices promoted by organic farmers, with good results. But when did 'organic' start? Rudolf Steiner ran an organic course in 1924, and the soil association was formed in 1946. Probably a better question would be when did organic stop? I.e. when artificial fertilisers started to be used, probably early in the 20th century with the Haber Bosch process.</p><p></p><p>One of the perceived benefits of early chemical farming was the ease of use. It was a lot easier to chuck on a couple of cwt ammonium nitrate than spread tons of dung or compost. Happily now we have the machinery to make either course feasible.</p><p></p><p>But the early organic pioneers never had the grasp of the organisms in the soil, and I think that this is the most exiting part that will benifit both organic and conventional farmers in the future. Some of the preparations that Mike Harrington and Robert Plumb are coming out with look fantastic.</p><p></p><p>As for politics as an organic farmer I am uneasy using food as a fashion statement, but 'you pays your money and takes your choice'</p><p></p><p>As stated about the PFLA, the welfare standards of organic attract a lot of people, as does the fact that it is GMO free.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Barleycorn, post: 283744, member: 143"] I think that there are two sides, husbandry and politics, and agree with both of the replies to Will. Husbandry wise it is obvious that conventional farmers are taking on more practices promoted by organic farmers, with good results. But when did 'organic' start? Rudolf Steiner ran an organic course in 1924, and the soil association was formed in 1946. Probably a better question would be when did organic stop? I.e. when artificial fertilisers started to be used, probably early in the 20th century with the Haber Bosch process. One of the perceived benefits of early chemical farming was the ease of use. It was a lot easier to chuck on a couple of cwt ammonium nitrate than spread tons of dung or compost. Happily now we have the machinery to make either course feasible. But the early organic pioneers never had the grasp of the organisms in the soil, and I think that this is the most exiting part that will benifit both organic and conventional farmers in the future. Some of the preparations that Mike Harrington and Robert Plumb are coming out with look fantastic. As for politics as an organic farmer I am uneasy using food as a fashion statement, but 'you pays your money and takes your choice' As stated about the PFLA, the welfare standards of organic attract a lot of people, as does the fact that it is GMO free. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Arable Farming
Cropping
What is the Oxford Real Farming Conference?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top