16 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAgain you spout rubbish.
Tastes better??
Can we say "placebo effect" people?
I'm in the fruit/veg business. I know that organic carrots generally taste better than inorganic ones. Maybe not due to it being organic, but probably due to the fact that organic produce has to be locally grown. I purchase inorganic oranges, which I know were picked over a year ago from their intensive plantation. How can their be much nutrients left?
D
16 May 06
I am opening a shop in Brighton next week.
www.sussexandthecity.co.uk
The unique selling point of the shop will be everything I sell will have been produced, grown or made within 50 miles of the shop. It will be like a farmers market that is open every day.
Most of my produce is organic. That is because most small producers find that organic methods suit both their market's needs and their profit margins. So whilst organic production might not produce as much quantity per acre, the extra level of mark up makes going organic more commercially viable.
As for which tastes better, there are good oragnic carrots and poor organic carrots. It is not whether or not the carrot has been grown organically that makes it good, it relies on soil, water, freshness, distance travelled etc etc. Organic farming methods is just one small variable which go to make up the taste sensation.
16 May 06
Originally posted by Ragnoraka new zealand study has shown organic dairy farming is less efficient, a 21 year swiss study has found an average of 20% lower organic farming yields, a study of 150 growing seasons across various crops showed a slightly decrease in yields for organic crops (95-100% yield of conventional).. where's the bs?
I have to call BS on that.
Organic farming isn't less efficient in terms of output. Its just less efficient in terms of labour involved. Of course that doesn't matter if you work on a s an illegal in a Californianian, or in a Latin American banana plantation. Instead of good farming practices, everything just gets doused in pesticides, including the p ...[text shortened]... an increase in food supply to a biosystem results in increased population. Everytime.
D
16 May 06
Originally posted by RagnorakTitle: Organic cucumber production in the greenhouse: A case study from Turkey
I have to call BS on that.
Organic farming isn't less efficient in terms of output. Its just less efficient in terms of labour involved. Of course that doesn't matter if you work on a s an illegal in a Californianian, or in a Latin American banana plantation. Instead of good farming practices, everything just gets doused in pesticides, including the p ...[text shortened]... an increase in food supply to a biosystem results in increased population. Everytime.
D
Author(s): Tuzel Y, Gul A, Tuncay O, Anac D, Madanlar N, Yoldas Z, Gumus M, Tuzel IH, Engindeniz S
Source: RENEWABLE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS 20 (4): 206-213 DEC 2005
"The average total yield was 13hairspkg m(-2), within an acceptable range for short-term crop production in this region, but 55% lower than a conventional substrate culture trial nearby."
Title: Maternal effects due to organic and conventional growing conditions in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare)
Author(s): Kristensen L
Source: BIOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE 21 (2): 195-208 2003
"Results showed that seeds of organic origin performed poorer than conventional counterparts with respect to yield and mean germination time, whereas samples from the organic system generally had a larger proportion of large seeds. Seed protein content was lower in samples from the organic system, but no correlations between protein content and field germination properties were observed."
"It is concluded that organic seed production should focus on other management efforts in order to compensate for the poorer germination and yield performance in seeds of organic origin."
Good yields are possible under conditions where organic fertiliser is supplied to the plants, however, this doubles the area required to produce a set amount of food.
No BS here.
16 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakYou are comparing the amount of care given post-harvest, not the mode of agriculture (and the fact that they are grown locally (which I have actively promoted in this thread)). Read Tony Trewavas' paper I cited earlier in the thread.
Again you spout rubbish.
I'm in the fruit/veg business. I know that organic carrots generally taste better than inorganic ones. Maybe not due to it being organic, but probably due to the fact that organic produce has to be locally grown. I purchase inorganic oranges, which I know were picked over a year ago from their intensive plantation. How can their be much nutrients left?
D
16 May 06
Originally posted by RagnorakNo, I'm not saying there will be no oranges, however the global population is set to double over the next hundred years; even conventional agriculture cannot keep pace with that rate of growth, let alone organic with its systemic low yields. The decreasing amount of oil available will reduce the amount of fertilisers that we have available, which is why my long term interest as a scientist is to ellucidate the reasons for plant efficiency and inefficiency so that we may breed better plants. Do I think that this will irradicate the requirement for fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides altogether? No I don't. Why? Because I've worked as an agricultural scientist for quite long enough to know that situation simply isn't tenable.
Why say this? Are you saying that if we go Organic, there'll be no oranges?
(Haven't read the rest of the thread, so this may be in context to something else)
D
17 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzOrganic is better.
No, I'm not saying there will be no oranges, however the global population is set to double over the next hundred years; even conventional agriculture cannot keep pace with that rate of growth, let alone organic with its systemic low yields. The decreasing amount of oil available will reduce the amount of fertilisers that we have available, which is wh ...[text shortened]... an agricultural scientist for quite long enough to know that situation simply isn't tenable.
I looked it up in the gut.
17 May 06
Originally posted by Darth Spongehehe, I agree with you there.
Organic is better.
I looked it up in the gut.
BTW, I know of an inventer who raises organic foods and uses high frequency's transmitters in his fields. He says certain weeds and diseases cannot live in certain frequency's and therefore he gets just as good as crops as conventional farms. He can control pest's and help his growth, yet still call it organic. Im not sure if it works, but he claims it does.
17 May 06
Originally posted by xcomradexDefine "efficient".
a new zealand study has shown organic dairy farming is less efficient, a 21 year swiss study has found an average of 20% lower organic farming yields, a study of 150 growing seasons across various crops showed a slightly decrease in yields for organic crops (95-100% yield of conventional).. where's the bs?
17 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOr cost to the environment, workers, etc?
Does efficiency also cover nutritional content and flavour?
Are disasters like Bhopal taken into account in these efficiency figures?
Also, SNZ, you haven't broached the fact that the more food we produce, the more the population will grow. Kind of an important point, if you ask me.
D
17 May 06
Originally posted by RagnorakI think it is true that the more food we have the more children that will survive. I'm not sure that the more food we have the more children we have. What evidence do you have for that?
Or cost to the environment, workers, etc?
Are disasters like Bhopal taken into account in these efficiency figures?
Also, SNZ, you haven't broached the fact that the more food we produce, the more the population will grow. Kind of an important point, if you ask me.
D
17 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo as a scientist, what is your aim when everytime we develop more "efficient" farming techniques, there are more people to be fed?
I think it is true that the more food we have the more children that will survive. I'm not sure that the more food we have the more children we have. What evidence do you have for that?
I did post what you are replying to in your first sentence. I did not post what you refer to in your second and third lines. That's just a position you assumed for me.
D
17 May 06
Originally posted by RagnorakMy aim is to produce crops that can yield as well or better as conventional cros, but with minimal input of fertilisers etc. Currently, whilst we are making some improvements, that technology isn't currently available.
So as a scientist, what is your aim when everytime we develop more "efficient" farming techniques, there are more people to be fed?
I did post what you are replying to in your first sentence. I did not post what you refer to in your second and third lines. That's just a position you assumed for me.
D
You were fairly unclear with your second point. I was unsure whether you meant increased birthrates, or decreased mortality. Personally, I don't think decreased mortality of children due to an increased food supply is a bad thing, do you?
There are more social problems currently than methodological ones. On my experimental plots I can boast a recovery of applied fertiliser over 90%. The major losses in the system are from senescent material. Without the use of pesticides herbicides and fungicides those losses are increased, and yield lower. This is an even bigger problem with large, efficient monocultures frequently used to mass produce cheap food. In the West we have abundant cheap food that even the poor can afford, although often scarcely so. In parts of Africa the problem is not necessarily the annual production of food most years, but the frequent drought years, and the inflow of cheap food produced overseas, especially in Europe.
There are far larger problems for us to deal with, overpopulation being one. Do I think it's okay to restrict the food supply to poor countries to resolve this problem? No, I don't. If you look at many of these families they have multiple children because of the high mortality rates. In Europe we have the quite the reverse situation, smaller families, precisely because mortality is low and labour is not required for the family farm. Can organic agiculture solve these problems? No. Can organic agiculture feed a population of 10 billion? No. So why the heck are we banging on about this when people are dying.