Switch to organic farming causes chaos in Sri Lanka

[Henarar]

25% reduction in output by farming organically using zero oil based chemicals

How do you go about that ?
Just dog and stick ?

 

[Sid]

How do you go about that ?
Just dog and stick ?

Bio diesel

 

[Highland Mule]

Bio diesel

Does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?

My own impression of organic is that the yield is lower per acre and the fossil fuel (or perhaps biodiesel and fossil fuel) use is far higher per acre and even more so when you take into account the reduced yield. Is that fair? Certainly the organic carrot growers seem to use a load more fuel when weeding - including a lot of very unsustainable propane to physically burn off the weeds.

 

[glasshouse]

Organic farming could feed the world, but there rould be no fatties about

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Tea is biggest export from Sri Lanka is tea, not exactly a staple food item?

it is for me! I don't know if you have read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy you will know it was what Arthur Dent wanted to drink because "it makes me happy!"

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?

My own impression of organic is that the yield is lower per acre and the fossil fuel (or perhaps biodiesel and fossil fuel) use is far higher per acre and even more so when you take into account the reduced yield. Is that fair? Certainly the organic carrot growers seem to use a load more fuel when weeding - including a lot of very unsustainable propane to physically burn off the weeds.

I think, either with our wanting to change or being forced to by climate instability, there are going to be great changes in this century, possibly relying on a diet that has grains as it's basis will have to change, as this diet is the basis of our obesity crisis. If we reduce the grain base of our diet, and eat more meat and with regen ag, precision farming techniques (robot weeding etc) and more emphasis on preventing soil loss and carbon sequestration in the soil, I think farming will be completely different in the future and arguments like organic or conventional is best will be obsolete. The biggest hurdle to these changes I believe are the multinational companies that make fertliser, herbicides/sprays etc, manufacture ultra processed food, process sugar and patent life (patenting genes, stopping heritage seeds etc).

 

[N.Yorks.]

I think, either with our wanting to change or being forced to by climate instability, there are going to be great changes in this century, possibly relying on a diet that has grains as it's basis will have to change, as this diet is the basis of our obesity crisis. If we reduce the grain base of our diet, and eat more meat and with regen ag, precision farming techniques (robot weeding etc) and more emphasis on preventing soil loss and carbon sequestration in the soil, I think farming will be completely different in the future and arguments like organic or conventional is best will be obsolete. The biggest hurdle to these changes I believe are the multinational companies that make fertliser, herbicides/sprays etc, manufacture ultra processed food, process sugar and patent life (patenting genes, stopping heritage seeds etc).

Think that's a fair comment!

 

[Sid]

Does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?

My own impression of organic is that the yield is lower per acre and the fossil fuel (or perhaps biodiesel and fossil fuel) use is far higher per acre and even more so when you take into account the reduced yield. Is that fair? Certainly the organic carrot growers seem to use a load more fuel when weeding - including a lot of very unsustainable propane to physically burn off the weeds.

That's only the fuel that you see on farm.

Look at the supply chain for synthetic chemicals, fertilisers, etc.

The hidden cost is significant.

 

[Highland Mule]

That's only the fuel that you see on farm.

What is? My post mentions at least three different things.

Look at the supply chain for synthetic chemicals, fertilisers, etc.

The hidden cost is significant.

Fertiliser, I agree - but there will be plenty non organic who use minimal or no fertiliser. Syntheyic chemicals (I presume you mean pesticides) - less so. Looking at the bigger picture you need to consider quantities as well as types - hence me asking the question you declined to answer. Is it more responsible from an energy use perspective to use a small quantity of weedkiller on a 24m pass or ten times the diesel and twenty times the workers (who all need fed, housed, clothed in synthetic fabrics, transported to the field etc.) doing it manually ?

Again, does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?

And as a follow up, is it your impression that organic has a lower or higher overall carbon footprint when considering all factors of inputs including the higher staffing rates and fuel use than non organic?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Ever since the first farmer dropped a seed or tamed a dinosaur to milk more has been better. If you farm you should understand that. Only by striving to attain more from our chosen farming venture will the worlds population continue to be fed. Enough kids go to bed hungry every night now without a tree hugging butterfly chasing twits telling the farmers of the world to cut production so they can sleep better. Seems only yesterday farmers were praised for working all hours to put food on the tables of the furloughed millions ignoring their own possible exposure to COVID.
I wonder if the general public would pay double for food so we could cut production and still feed our families???

Our government has decreed that food production is not 'a public good'.

 

[Sid]

What is? My post mentions at least three different things.


Fertiliser, I agree - but there will be plenty non organic who use minimal or no fertiliser. Syntheyic chemicals (I presume you mean pesticides) - less so. Looking at the bigger picture you need to consider quantities as well as types - hence me asking the question you declined to answer. Is it more responsible from an energy use perspective to use a small quantity of weedkiller on a 24m pass or ten times the diesel and twenty times the workers (who all need fed, housed, clothed in synthetic fabrics, transported to the field etc.) doing it manually ?

Again, does your 25% reduction include all the land that would be need to grow the biodiesel, or is that allowed to be non-organic?

And as a follow up, is it your impression that organic has a lower or higher overall carbon footprint when considering all factors of inputs including the higher staffing rates and fuel use than non organic?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

The energy (fuel) cost of delivering these fertilisers and synthetic chemicals is significant in terms of manufacture and transportation.
It's not just about carbon footprint you have to look at the complex complete picture including the pollution caused by these processes.

Nuclear looks fantastic until you factor in the clean up costs for 100's and even 1000'sof years.

Out of sight out of mind.

 

[Sid]

Looking at the bigger picture you need to consider quantities as well as types - hence me asking the question you declined to answer. Is it more responsible from an energy use perspective to use a small quantity of weedkiller on a 24m pass or ten times the diesel and twenty times the workers (who all need fed, housed, clothed in synthetic fabrics, transported to the field etc.) doing it manually ?

Of course no one is employed in the global oil and gas industry?
Dragging black "gold" from more and more remote fragile eco systems to satisfy humans need for energy.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Whilst we worry about calculating our carbon footprint, people are getting everything [including their 'take-aways'] delivered, taking their pets out in the car for walks and cycling nowhere in their front rooms while pretending to be friends with a remote instructor.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Cowabunga]

We would become an agrarian society. Every agrarian society is stricken with rural poverty, almost without exception, unless they have control of and utilise mineral wealth for the good of the population, which is extremely rare.
As such, every agrarian society either has or is trying to industrialise their agriculture and country so that fewer people produce food and more produce actual wealth. To that end they all strive to move away from organic agriculture and manual labour towards more generally efficient production methods which include using modest amounts of fertiliser, to balance deficiencies, and chemicals and/or GM crops to counter weeds, pests and diseases, along with other management improvements. The result is less labour required, higher incomes for farmers and hopefully a higher standard of living for all.

I'm a great fan of the late Hans Rosling who was a world renowned statistician who could present things in simple terms. This video shows how the proportion of people living under the poverty line in their respective countries has declined. The graph follows almost exactly the decline of agrarian economies as they transform to industrial. Do you think China would be as it is today, one of the very wealthiest countries in the World if they had continued low input and high labour intensive agriculture? No. Apart from having periods of starvation they also would be universally poor as church mice. Sri Lanka is regressing rather quickly and will continue to regress unless they once more give farmers the freedom to farm for yields and profit using modern scientific production methods. If they continue on their current course they will regress to great universal poverty within a couple of years at most. Cambodia may well be an extreme comparison but social order can never be guaranteed when people's lives and livelihoods are disrupted in this way.

 

[Highland Mule]

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

You still aren't, and I can't decide if that's deliberate or not. Do I need to ask the questions again? We all know the various factors which have an effect.

 

[Highland Mule]

Of course no one is employed in the global oil and gas industry?
Dragging black "gold" from more and more remote fragile eco systems to satisfy humans need for energy.

So why do you advocate a form of food production that uses more oil over one that doesn't?

 

[Sid]

So why do you advocate a form of food production that uses more oil over one that doesn't?

As I said your only counting the oil burnt on farm not for inputs such as fertiliser.

You need a complete chain energy calculation.

Why do you advocate a form of food production that is in parts destroying the planet ?

 

[Cowabunga]

As I said your only counting the oil burnt on farm not for inputs such as fertiliser.

You need a complete chain energy calculation.

Why do you advocate a form of food production that is in parts destroying the planet ?

Except that it is patently not [destroying the planet]. What an absurd claim to make.

 

[Highland Mule]

As I said your only counting the oil burnt on farm not for inputs such as fertiliser.

No, I'm not. I wasn't including fertiliser because there are plenty of non-organic farms that don't use it.

You need a complete chain energy calculation.

Agreed, and something I have advocated for a while. Focussing on pesticides (trivial energy for production compared to manual picking or burning of weeds) seemed an easy way of differentiating between the two.

Why do you advocate a form of food production that is in parts destroying the planet ?

I haven't advocated any such thing. My own farm is carbon negative, including the effects of external factors and complete chain energy.

 

[Sid]

Except that it is patently not [destroying the planet]. What an absurd claim to make.

Palm oil
Soya
Almonds

To name but 3 that are having massive impacts on finite resources.