Image: Tom Twigg for GristThere are those who would like us to believe that industrialized farming is the only way to feed the earth’s growing population. Disinformation comes daily from powerful industrial agricultural companies whose profits depend entirely on the sale of chemicals, genetically modified (GM) seeds, and food processing. Furthermore, they maintain that massive-scale farming methods are key to adapting to climate change.
This is just not so.
Contrary to what the propaganda tells us, yields from industrial crops do not consistently produce more food. It’s an industry-generated myth that ecologically-safe organic agriculture yields less than conventional agriculture. In fact, a comprehensive study comparing 293 crops from industrial and organic growers demonstrates that organic farm yields are roughly comparable to industrial farms in developed countries; and result in much higher yields in the developing world.
Numerous studies unequivocally state that our survival depends on resilient and biodiverse farm systems that are free of fossil fuel and chemical dependencies. The 2008 World Bank and United Nations International Assessment on Knowledge, Science and Technology concluded that a fundamental overhaul of the current food and farming system is needed to get us out of both the food and fuel crises. The report’s findings indicated that small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods are the way forward.
This assessment dovetails with a 2002 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report, which found that organic farming enables ecosystems to better adjust to the effects of climate change and has major potential for reducing agricultural GHG emissions. The FAO report also found that organic agriculture performs better than conventional agriculture in terms of both direct energy consumption (fuel and oil) and indirect consumption (synthetic fertilizers and pesticides).
Large-scale agriculture-dependent upon commercial seeds (including GM seeds), chemical sprays, and petroleum-based fertilizers-can only reliably feed one thing: company profits. These profits come at the expense of our climate as well as farmers who become wholly dependent upon these companies for their livelihood.
And it’s farmers who are realizing through hard experience that this system doesn’t work. Monsanto, a major proponent of GM seeds, agro-chemicals and industrialized methods, this week reports a massive $283 billion loss in the third quarter-quite a hit.
Monsanto and others in the industry are scrambling for a foothold in developing nations to save a failed agricultural and business model in the U.S. They’re trying to convince foundations, aid agencies, and foreign governments that they hold the only key to staving off starvation. And, the way to do this is by smearing organic farming - which is the only truly dependable way to feed the world - and by ignoring climate change.
They’re putting their shareholders’ bottom line before a sick and hungry planet. It’s time we held them to the truth.
Don't eat the hype
Ecological farms: the only real way to feed an increasingly hungry world 11
-
20 Nov 2009 9:42 AM
by Debbie Barker -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Debbie Barker served as the co-director of the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), a think tank that analyzes and critiques forms of economic globalization, from 1996 to 2008. She is the author of The Predictable Rise and Fall of Global Industrial Agriculture, co-author of The Manifesto on Climate Change and the Future of Food Security (2008), and served on the international committee of authors for the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).
Related Stories
The organic movement is a civic process, not a set of standards [corrected]
The dark side of nitrogen
With climate legislation flat on its back, Collin Peterson goes in for the kill
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Bobbie2 Posted 5:32 pm
20 Nov 2009
It made my 87 year old bones just jump for joy.
Robert Coulombe
Permalink
janetex Posted 8:10 pm
20 Nov 2009
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:15 pm
21 Nov 2009
Permalink
Catmoves Posted 5:28 pm
22 Nov 2009
If Monsanto, or any other agricultural or food supply giant starts crying poor mouth, we might tell Mr. Obama that "No, sir, they do not really need a federal government bailout. They're just jealous of the car makers good luck."
I have been wondering for some years now why our government (you know, those people we overpay to protect us) has not ordered an investigation into "Disinformation (that) comes daily from powerful industrial agricultural companies whose profits depend entirely on the sale of chemicals, genetically modified (GM) seeds, and food processing."
With the surprising medical information piling up slowly but surely, why haven't we been protected by our government mounting an investigation? Is it possible the extremely large increases in people coming up with things like diabetes, RLS, heart conditions, lung problems, flus and so many more physical problems, causing anyone in our government to wonder why?
Glib answers like automotive exhausts, fast food, sugar. etc., etc., don't pass muster. Tell us, oh, great wise ones, what's going on with our food?
Permalink
brownie Posted 11:01 pm
23 Nov 2009
In a 3-year study following the 9-year system comparison, Teasdale grew corn with conventional no-till practices on all plots to see which ones had the most productive soils.
Those turned out to be the organic plots. They had more carbon and nitrogen and yielded 18 percent more corn than the other plots did.
“It takes time for organic matter to build up, so we wouldn’t have seen these surprising results had we only looked after a few years,” Teasdale says.
Despite organic farming’s enrichment of the soil, weed problems during the 9-year study were enough to lower corn and soybean—but not wheat—yields below those of no-till crops.
They also learned that nature doesn't like monoculture.
In another long-term experiment begun in 1996, Teasdale learned that adding more kinds of crops to the organic rotation helped control weeds.
“Weeds tend to adapt to crops whose growth timetable creates conditions favorable to weed growth,” Teasdale says.
Planting the same summer annual crop year after year allows weeds suited to that growth cycle to keep maturing and adding their seeds to the soil. In organic systems, Teasdale showed that rotating diverse crops markedly lowers the numbers of weed seeds lying dormant in soil.
In an ongoing experiment called the “Farming Systems Project,” Teasdale and ARS soil scientist Michel Cavigelli showed that after 10 years, corn yields were higher in diverse organic rotations that included a perennial legume.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:53 pm
23 Nov 2009
As I suspected all along, organic soil produces more food. But weeds are the fly in the ointment? Superweeds, pigweed that has evolved around herbicides are ravaging chemical ag right now. Agri-chem mad scientists say they will have a new superweed killer in 2015.
Chem-free organic ag can be industrial, that's the oft-overlooked point. And the superweed problem inspires the answer. Cultivation on tractors used to be the treatment for weeds, some farmers stricken by the superweed epidemic are going back to it. That has a lot of drawbacks, labor costs, rows have to be further apart (reducing yields) to acomadate tractors and expensive fuel has to be burned. Not to mention the tractors themselves, equipment loans, the main overhead besides chemicals for most farmers.
How to remove weeds and water and organically fertilize crops without lots of tractoring and mega water wasting irrigation? With pinpoint weed removal, soil testing, watering, and fertilizing via solar powered robots that go up and down the rows 24/7.
Harvesting of corn, grain, and bean crops could still be done with combines (maybe plugin hybrid combines?), but everything from planting right up to the harvest could use robots. Furthermore robots could grow/harvest nitrogen fixing legume forage crops like alfalfa between rows.
Imagine this if you will, as a sort of organic ag robot art installation. Picture this: A prairie plot restored by robots randomly replanting the full biodiversity of nature. Robots then randomly insert different (heirloom) corn and grain plants in amongst the prairie plants, wheat, corn, soybeans, then harvest them all separately leaving the original prairie plants.
It would look pretty interesting in time lapse. Zero impact organic farming? Is it possible? Maybe not practical, but an interesting art project to illustrate organic robotic ag.
Permalink
jnewton Posted 8:53 am
25 Nov 2009
The report of the ‘International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge Science and Technology for Development’, approved by 57 governments in Johannesburg in 2008, is a sobering account of the failure of industrial farming. It calls for a fundamental change in the way we do farming, to better address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. It too recommends widespread adoption of organic and sustainable methods of farming.
There were three abstentions from signing off on the findings of this body. Guess who? The United States, Canada, and Australia, the three nations of the world most coimmitted to Big Farm solutions - and genetic engineeering
Permalink
brownie Posted 11:58 am
25 Nov 2009
Results indicate that organic grain crop production can outperform conventional systems in the mid-Atlantic region when organic price premiums are received and can be competitive with conventional systems when hay is incorporated into the rotation when no premiums are received.
Next no one ever compares quality versus quantity. The nutritional value of organic produce is invariably better than conventional. One of the reasons for this is the GMO super corns for example don't promote larger root systems. So the corn has a bottleneck with the uptake of nutrients. We are getting into heavy use of mycorrhizal supplements to the soil to build better root systems. Under conventional practices the herbicides and pesticides used kill these off.
Until the robots are built we will keep using geese, goats and sheep for weed control as well as companion planting and free range chickens as our primary insecticide. I am unaware of any weed or bug that is resistant to being eaten. Buckwheat is great at shading out summer weeds, is a great forage and makes a nice flour. A lot of Teasdale et al research supports common sense that nature does not like monoculture and companion planting and timing can knock out weeds.
With the corn we grow pole beans and squash. Indians had figured out a long time ago that squash leaves not only keep down the weeds but deer don't like to walk on them. The beans add nitrogen and hold up the corn.
Next year we have some land to grow heirloom wheats and grains, 20 acres. We will cut it with a sickle bar on a tractor. Rake it and feed it through what I call a third world thresher. The savings over getting a custom contractor or buying a used combine can buy alot of goats, sheep and poultry. Machines break down - animals while working add fertilizer and produce meat, wool, and milk.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:25 pm
26 Nov 2009
http://www.ars.usda.gov/pandp/people/people.htm?personid=5573
Great info thanks again. Let me know how your wheat crop turns out.
Permalink
SierraSu Posted 10:33 pm
26 Nov 2009
FYI, there is an organization called The Land Institute in Salina Kansas that is developing perennial crops (cross breeding prairie perennials with crop annuals) that can be gown on the prairie. It's a no-till, no chem. alternative that is getting a lot of funding and support. Check it out at http://www.landinstitute.org.
Permalink
janetex Posted 12:55 pm
27 Nov 2009
Permalink