RichardDR’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Interesting study

  Meredith:

  Thanks for the additional information.  Just to be clear, I did not just assume that yields in organic agriculture are lower.  That was actually the conclusion of the study I cited that showed organic milk requires 80% more land, organic wheat requires 100% more land, and organic potatoes require 150% more land than non organic.  

  This is a link to the the actual Rodale Institute study you gave as an example.  Interesting report.  I looked to see if there might be an explanation for why the studies reported different results, vis-à-vis yields in organic v non-organic.   I wonder if part of the answer wasn't in this piece on page 15:

  However, the organic grain rotation required a legume cover crop before the corn. This was established after the wheat harvest. Thus, corn was grown 60% of the time in the conventional rotation, but only 33% of the time with the organic rotation. Stated in another way, the yields per ha between organic and conventional corn for grain may be similar within a given year; however, overall production of organic corn is diminished over a multiple-year period because it is grown less frequently. On the other hand, the reduced amount of corn grown in the organic rotation is partly compensated for with the additional crop of wheat.

  Or again on page 28:

  
  Depending on the crop, soil, and weather conditions, organically managed crop yields on a per hectare basis can equal those from conventional agriculture, but it is likely that organic cash crops cannot be grown as frequently over time because of the dependence on cultural practices to supply nutrients and control pests.
  

   - This is what I have sometimes seen before with these types of studies.  In the methodology though, I couldn't tell exactly how they had allowed for this in their calculations.  It did appear that they were talking about actual yields overall (ie including the zero yields during the increased down time for the organic fields), but that's inconsistent with the two paragraphs I quoted above.  

  I think the relative yields actually obtainable for organic v conventional are crucial to know.  While organic may require less energy input, if significantly more land is needed for organic then any benefits in reduced energy inputs may be overtaken by the increased carbon losses (not to mention loss of wild lands) that result from the larger area of land being farmed.  With these differing studies, I'm not convinced we know the answer.

  I'd be interested in any other studies you have read on this subject though.  If you have any links to actual studies.

  John:

  I don't know where you're getting your data from, so I can't comment, but I got mine from the USDA:

  it is estimated that 50% of a 1- to 3-year-old child's RDA for vitamin A (300 ug) could be met with 72 grams of dry rice (a child¿s typical portion is 60 grams of rice, and this amount is usually eaten more than once a day)

  That's 144g a day or 5oz.  My 4oz conversion was done in my head and was a bit off - apologies.  Way short of "a truckload", anyway.
  On Industry report touts potential for biotech crops to combat climate change posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not so

  Meredith Wrote:
  

  
  

  The report notes that because of biotech crops and reduced tillage, more than 14.8 million tons of CO2 have been removed from the air. Suddenly this report didn't seem so unbiased anymore.

  
  

  Alternatively, you're demonstrating your own biases.

  
  

  I note you don't link to the study you talk about, so we can't determine for ourselves if it really says what you said it says, or if you cherry picked anything.  But I will link to a study:

  
  

  Environmental impacts of food production and consumption (funded by DEFRA), reports for example that organic milk requires 80% more land, organic wheat requires 100% more land, and organic potatoes require 150% more land than non organic.  Admittedly they also say organic required fewer carbon inputs. there is a bit of a trade off.   Even so, your statement "Even the best conventional agriculture can't beat organic" is plainly absurd.  You write earlier:

  
  

  
  

  converting grasslands to agriculture is a huge source of carbon dioxide emissions

  
  

  .... and yet, where do you think the extra land for growing organic is going to come from?

  
  

  turanga leela wrote:

  
  

  
  

  ...is a good source on the political strong-arming with a friendly face that Monsanto has been known for over the past 10+ years. The whole Golden Rice thing stands out as a shining example of this. You would have to eat about a truckload a day of Golden Rice to prevent blindness from Vitamin A deficiency

  
  

  Two problems:

  
  
  
  
  1. A "truckload" is a ridiculous exageration.  And that's being polite.
     
  2. You're about three years out of date.  (Just over 4oz a day = the RDA.  And the RDA is much more than you need to avoid blindness.)
  
  

  Oh, and they're planning to give it away.

  
  

  You know, I could take opponents of GM more seriously if they were more honest.

  
  

   

  On Industry report touts potential for biotech crops to combat climate change posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses