Switch to organic farming causes chaos in Sri Lanka

[Flatlander]

Farmer are and will always be political pawns that produce cheap food for voters. Organic is a novelty niche market that’s good for those who want to go that route but with the yield reduction it could never feed the world’s population. A percentage of the third world population don’t care where food comes from their main concern is if they get to eat every day. I’ve farmed in Canada for twenty years and it was far behind in agrochemicals to the extent most grain farms never used a fungicide,nitrogen rates were minimal and yields were still the same as the late sixties. Land values have changed the crop growing dynamic to the extent that a crop now must be above average to be financially viable. My yields have doubled in the last 20 years,mainly from higher fertilizer and chemical usage but also from drainage and crop residue incorporated continually I think my soils are now easier working and more fertile. posted above the comment of do we need to extract more from our land leaves me dumbfounded to think that attitude is still around. Farmer are progressive by nature and no matter how good a yield I get next year I want to do better. Not because of the money but it’s an internal drive and lust to do the best I can.

 

[Lowland1]

We grow a wide mixture of crops and it's interesting to see how they complement each other and how they make use of residues and fertility left behind from other crops. Different types of crops have different root structures which can get to the nutrients the previous crop couldn't get to being able to grow all year round helps as you get very little leaching of nutrients but you get other issues such as insects being active year round. This year we are growing wheat and it's really interesting to see how well it grows in places we previously didn't get a good crop of beans. There's no way we could go organic but the wider your rotation the more crops you grow the less you rely on chemicals but without them we'd be having a lot of crop failures and unsaleable crops. We can grow 4 crops a year because of our climate the more I grow the better my soils get however I have neighbours who the more they grow the worse their soils get . It isn't simple

 

[Vader]

in the short term, 60 harvests until we destroy our top soils, then the general public may have a problem.

That from same group who said we would run out of oil by now and be nonice caps?

 

[Vader]

Do you actually want/need to extract more from your land?


I love reading people trumpeting about their increased yields, knowing that nearly all that extra yield is either flushed out to sea or dumped in landfill and has created the situation that food is cheap enough that nobody gives a sh!t about that.

Basically it's about increasing pollution, or not, the details of inputs matter very very little to the bigger picture - the whole modern production model is built around desperate people doing desperate things: an attempt to make an unsustainably large and uncaring population appear sustainable

2 ton per acre won't pay the rent unless you get organic prices.
Organic wont feed the world.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Yes. Also in many cases because farms are not so 'mixed' these days, around here the erosion of soil down hills has stopped. Over several centuries of mixed cropping and ploughing many of my hedges are undercut on the top of the fields and have deep soil on the bottom hedges. This has been reversed during my farming career because when I do reseed, which is as spaced apart as ten to fifteen years, large tractor with long throw plough moves the soil up hill. Do that three times or more over the years and it very noticeably corrects prior generation's soil migration issues.
Plus, of course, fertility and soil is greatly increased due to buying in of feed, both in the form of fertiliser and the muck that is recycled from increased yields and bought in feed. The condition of the soil and its structure is also vastly improved over what it was here 50 years plus ago, because animals are housed over the wet Winter months rather than kept out to puddle their high ground pressure feet that created serious panning and indeed erosion due to the mudding and rainfall.

The past was by far the worst, even down to farm pollution. I remember when every farm had a dirty water discharge license with middens that drained into brooks and rivers almost universally. The old cowsheds had muck passages behind the cows which always drained directly into a watercourse. The dry muck was carted out by wheelbarrow to a midden but the liquid pish all went out of a hole at the end of the building and 'disappeared'. Nobody gave a second's thought.
I think the discharge licenses were revoked by ministry contractors going around conning farmers to sign their rights away some time in the mid 1970's. Quite rightly of course, as waterways were very grossly and permanently polluted everywhere in livestock areas. Most areas had livestock back then of course.

We have a small lean to cubicle shed next to the French barn, all concrete and slopes down to a large pipe, that runs into the stream, I was told it was used as you said, the solids were pushed to the other end at the top of the yard and the liquid ran into the steam.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

there is a lot of soil biology that creates production in an organic system, however, this soil biology does not work when chemicals ( or mainly Nitrogen) are applied, so when you suddenly stop one system, the other does not suddenly hit top gear, this I believe is why yields have hit a low point. Re booting the soil biology is not just a "stop putting on N", it is a far more involved process. And there will be a yield reduction as well, slightly. The only people who really benefit from our present agricultural system are the Spray, Fertliser companies and long term our present system is not sustainable.

I am just reading Nicole Master's book, and she talks about a stud farm near Auckland, where they tried mob grazing the horses and still didn't get improvements. The fields had been levelled with a bulldozer, so a lot of the top soil was covered by subsoil. The soil at the surface, even when grazed in a way to make it to make it really work wasn't because the biology wasn't working. She said they applied a biological stimulant to the soil, and then with the other management practices already implemented things really started to motor. She mentioned something similar in a ranch that had lost it's topsoil in the American Dust Bowl blows.

I stayed on a biodynamic farm in New Zealand, and I must admit, I did think it sounded a bit "cloud cuckoo" the applications of stuff they put on, however the share milker told me, he thought it sounded all rubbish but it did work! Maybe the biodynamic stimulants work by getting the soil biology to start working.

 

[manhill]

Organic is a niche market, that needs a substantial premium. Nothing more, nothing less.

Almost a religion!

 

[No wot]

That's not just a third world problem.

Can't get the barley to ripen because your growing it in an area that's less than marginal-get the Roundup on!

Round Up everything seems the norm , it must say so in the operators manual of these's large capacity New combines Lexions ect , theres not an acre nr here that doesn't get " sunshine in the can " in order to cover theses vast acerages each combine has to eat , don't think it , been a marginal area has lot to do with it anymore, timeliness and ease of operation is the priority

 

[Exfarmer]

Yes. Also in many cases because farms are not so 'mixed' these days, around here the erosion of soil down hills has stopped. Over several centuries of mixed cropping and ploughing many of my hedges are undercut on the top of the fields and have deep soil on the bottom hedges. This has been reversed during my farming career because when I do reseed, which is as spaced apart as ten to fifteen years, large tractor with long throw plough moves the soil up hill. Do that three times or more over the years and it very noticeably corrects prior generation's soil migration issues.
Plus, of course, fertility and soil is greatly increased due to buying in of feed, both in the form of fertiliser and the muck that is recycled from increased yields and bought in feed. The condition of the soil and its structure is also vastly improved over what it was here 50 years plus ago, because animals are housed over the wet Winter months rather than kept out to puddle their high ground pressure feet that created serious panning and indeed erosion due to the mudding and rainfall.

The past was by far the worst, even down to farm pollution. I remember when every farm had a dirty water discharge license with middens that drained into brooks and rivers almost universally. The old cowsheds had muck passages behind the cows which always drained directly into a watercourse. The dry muck was carted out by wheelbarrow to a midden but the liquid pish all went out of a hole at the end of the building and 'disappeared'. Nobody gave a second's thought.
I think the discharge licenses were revoked by ministry contractors going around conning farmers to sign their rights away some time in the mid 1970's. Quite rightly of course, as waterways were very grossly and permanently polluted everywhere in livestock areas. Most areas had livestock back then of course.

I started my farming on my fathers farm in North Bucks on the banks of the Great Ouse.
As you say all the drainings from the dairy and midden went into the stream as did all the local cess pits overflows and the local sewer works also connected into one of our ditches and that ran black.
We had to regularly clean the ditch as the sediment built up so much.
Father used to welcome the regular winter flooding as he was certain it bought down fertility from the nearby Newport Pagnell sewage works and wee certainly never used any P or K on those meadows..
At that time the Ouse was regularly dredged every ten years and the spoil grew huge cross of grass where it was spread.
This must have been a total environmental disaster except it was not. The local river was a renowned fishery and keenly sought after and regularly held top class matches.
of course there were few if on local heavy industries except of course the tanneries, which certainly did chuck some interesting chemicals in the river, regularly changing the colour of it depending on the dyes used that day.
Now I am told since the tanneries have gone and the sewage works have all been cleaned up and farms have been forced top stop all their discharges, that this same river now is just a shadow of its former self from a fishing viewpoint

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Thats just nonsense. And I'm a soil conservation person!

Alot of topsoil made on farms around the planet!

 

[Kiwi Pete]

2 ton per acre won't pay the rent unless you get organic prices.
Organic wont feed the world.

Organic "farming" can't feed the world

 

[Henarar]

Do they have Elephants in sri lanka, no matter I bet they are to blame

 

[Henarar]

Organic "farming" can't feed the world

what does the world eat ?

 

[Sid]

2 ton per acre won't pay the rent unless you get organic prices.
Organic wont feed the world.

Empty calories, pollution and excessive energy use won't either.

There is more than enough calories in the world , the distribution is not correct.

Pile it high sell it cheap isn't working.

 

[Sid]

Almost a religion!

So is hooking up the sprayer and fert spinner! It's has to be done.

 

[7610 super q]

Almost a religion!

It attracted 2 types usually, those just interested in the subs,and those that insisted everyone should be organic ( remember the 20% by the year 2000 campaign ? ). Both types led to over production, and the collapse of some sectors of organic farming........
IT IS A NICHE MARKET.

 

[Highland Mule]

what does the world eat ?

There are five times as many people alive today as were 100 years ago when the world found the benefits of artifical fertiliser. So I guess the answer to your question is "a lot more than they used to".

Sure, excess consumption and empty calories doesn't help, but even @Sid can't ignore the effects of a ballooning population.

 

[JohnGalway]

IMV, one of the hardest pushed fallacies in the modern world is farmers must feed the world, or other references to 9-10bn people. I see my job as helping to provide to raise my family and leaving what I have now in better position when my time is up. I see a lot of "suits" pushing this 9bn bulls**t. Yet, a group of suits I mentioned in my first post in this thread set the system so that people prefer 1k smart phones, new cars, and foreign holidays (when they were a thing).

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

what does the world eat ?

Each other, eventually. The days of starving a billion people are long behind us, now we can starve 5 or 6 billion instead. Easy really, just turn off the oil

 

[Henarar]

There are five times as many people alive today as were 100 years ago when the world found the benefits of artifical fertiliser. So I guess the answer to your question is "a lot more than they used to".

Sure, excess consumption and empty calories doesn't help, but even @Sid can't ignore the effects of a ballooning population

no the world, what does it need for sustenance ? not us that's for sure, not really sure its bothered about organic either.