Organic farming is worse for climate change

[headrush]

I would like to add that I am not in general a proponent of organic agriculture. I'm not vegan, veggie or any other quasi-religeous follower. But I don't like the common practice of using the environment as an unimportant dumping ground for things we humans don't want any more. Especially things that harm us and other animal life. So I always feel bound to support the concept that seeks to minimise that impact.

[Jens]

I would like to add that I am not in general a proponent of organic agriculture. I'm not vegan, veggie or any other quasi-religeous follower. But I don't like the common practice of using the environment as an unimportant dumping ground for things we humans don't want any more. Especially things that harm us and other animal life. So I always feel bound to support the concept that seeks to minimise that impact.

Just to be clear, I would describe myself exactly the same way.

[headrush]

Some other interesting aspects to the percentage of food supply. While the UK appears to import 50% of its food, it actually produces more than 50% of its nutritional requirements. The difference is found in exports. Also a variety of foods imported are things not native or possible to be cultivated here. Some things are perfectly suited to growing here but globalisation makes them cheaper to import. Perhaps the price of food also has an impact of where it may be grown. How much profit is demanded will also affect the equation.

So the definition of necessary agriculture is highly dependent on what the population want to eat rather than what is edible.
While I don't expect everyone to eat turnips, the practice of importing exotic foods by air may be something that has to have an impact on the climate.

These considerations will not be easily reconciled, except perhaps under a wartime environment. I believe the British population were actually healthier under rationing, but that like most things could be apocryphal.

[Noclevername]

I would like to add that I am not in general a proponent of organic agriculture.

Which variety?

[headrush]

Which variety?

Any variety. I meant that I do not follow fads, fashion or the crowd in most things.
There are many definitions of organic which exclude or allow different modifications. For example a basic form of organic might just exclude manmade fertiliser. Another form might exclude anything manmade. My statement was simply saying I do not push "organic" as a method in any form. But that doesn't mean I exclude any possible benefits. There is a difference between cheerleading and taking things on merit.

[Noclevername]

So many different processes fall under the rubric of "organic" that it makes the casual term of little practical use in determining hard facts. The study in question fails to define which specific methods it actually compared, so I don't see much value in its blanket claim that "organic" farming would result in any specific degree of land use.

There are many methods considered organic yet some reportedly have high yields compared to conventional methods; intensive raised bed, bio-intensive, perennial food forest, square foot, etc etc. Some of these methods cannot be easily scaled up to industrial sizes, as many were specifically designed for family garden use and are often labor intensive.

[Jens]

So many different processes fall under the rubric of "organic" that it makes the casual term of little practical use in determining hard facts. The study in question fails to define which specific methods it actually compared, so I don't see much value in its blanket claim that "organic" farming would result in any specific degree of land use.

My understanding from reading the paper is that they are comparing conventional and organic farming as currently practiced in the UK, so they are not considering advances in either conventional or organic practices, which I think is fine since they are not trying to predict the future, but rather to understand the way things are now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noclevername]

My understanding from reading the paper is that they are comparing conventional and organic farming as currently practiced in the UK, so they are not considering advances in either conventional or organic practices, which I think is fine since they are not trying to predict the future, but rather to understand the way things are now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if that were the case, then why not define which organic methods are currently in use? By not providing specifics, they leave their methodology up to guesswork.

[Jens]

But if that were the case, then why not define which organic methods are currently in use? By not providing specifics, they leave their methodology up to guesswork.

They don’t define which conventional methods they use as well, and I assume there is just as much variety in conventional methods as in organic methods. I assume they are taking the average of what is called conventional versus what is called organic. And you insist that it is nonsense unless they are able to compare all the shades, so fine, if it’s not up to your standards then don’t bother with it. I personally find it interesting, even with the imperfections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noclevername]

They don’t define which conventional methods they use as well, and I assume there is just as much variety in conventional methods as in organic methods. I assume they are taking the average of what is called conventional versus what is called organic. And you insist that it is nonsense unless they are able to compare all the shades, so fine, if it’s not up to your standards then don’t bother with it. I personally find it interesting, even with the imperfections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting and scientifically useful are both things to be valued. But so be it.