<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Organic farming beats genetically engineered corn as response to rising global temperatures]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by dobermanmacleod http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:34:45 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/1 Great mitigation from GM crops largely a myth

I've noticed a tendency by people that otherwise would abhor GM (genetically modified) crops, to tout them as the near solution to future higher temperatures.  News flash: you can't genetically modify a crop to withstand future predictably heat events (i.e. over 6C higher than record high temperatures), they can resist it, but unless they are heavily irrigated, they will be scorched.

The major concern I have is that most people are underestimating future heat events.  I'm not talking about average summer high temperatures, I'm referring to dramatically higher temperatures for a limited time that predictably occur once in a hundred years now.

For those not familiar with the food situation in the world now, we have only a limited capacity to withstand crop failures.  If, as Lovelock predicts, the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003, then there will be world-wide famine.  It is foolish to think we can prepare GM strains that will buffer us from that sort of dramatic rise in heat events.  It is a simple equation: non-irrigated crops will be damaged, resulting in dramatically lower yields (and the collapse of natural ecosystems that we use for food), and consequencially bring world-wide famine.

Finally, the result of this predictably future famine will be a death spiral of civilization, first within the third world countries, spreading into the second world countries, and finally into the first world countries because of the need to expend significant resources for consequence managment.  It is sometimes underestimated what will happen when chaos is introduced into a complex system.

I only am suggesting that scientists start realizing that previously very rare heat events will become MUCH more common before mid-century, and furthermore, policymakers realize the effect of famine on world-wide civilization.  Frankly, so far it has been grossly underestimated.

]]> Great mitigation from GM crops largely a myth

I've noticed a tendency by people that otherwise would abhor GM (genetically modified) crops, to tout them as the near solution to future higher temperatures.  News flash: you can't genetically modify a crop to withstand future predictably heat events (i.e. over 6C higher than record high temperatures), they can resist it, but unless they are heavily irrigated, they will be scorched.

The major concern I have is that most people are underestimating future heat events.  I'm not talking about average summer high temperatures, I'm referring to dramatically higher temperatures for a limited time that predictably occur once in a hundred years now.

For those not familiar with the food situation in the world now, we have only a limited capacity to withstand crop failures.  If, as Lovelock predicts, the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003, then there will be world-wide famine.  It is foolish to think we can prepare GM strains that will buffer us from that sort of dramatic rise in heat events.  It is a simple equation: non-irrigated crops will be damaged, resulting in dramatically lower yields (and the collapse of natural ecosystems that we use for food), and consequencially bring world-wide famine.

Finally, the result of this predictably future famine will be a death spiral of civilization, first within the third world countries, spreading into the second world countries, and finally into the first world countries because of the need to expend significant resources for consequence managment.  It is sometimes underestimated what will happen when chaos is introduced into a complex system.

I only am suggesting that scientists start realizing that previously very rare heat events will become MUCH more common before mid-century, and furthermore, policymakers realize the effect of famine on world-wide civilization.  Frankly, so far it has been grossly underestimated.

]]> Comment #2 by Zephaniah http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:30:43 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/2 Get the picture

To understand what people suffer 'when chaos is introduced into a complex system' watch documentary 'No End in Sight' about the US presence in Iraq and decide for yourself if it brought democracy or a complete breakdown of all societal systems.

]]> Get the picture

To understand what people suffer 'when chaos is introduced into a complex system' watch documentary 'No End in Sight' about the US presence in Iraq and decide for yourself if it brought democracy or a complete breakdown of all societal systems.

]]> Comment #3 by Alex280 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:22:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/3 Total organic yields were lower

I hate to burst the bandwagon bubble on organic yielding more than non-organic, but this is an important topic and facts matter.

Here is my published letter from Bioscience in response to the discussed article explaining precisely why the claim that organic farming yields more don't hold up. Also not mentioned in the 2005 article or my letter (space limitations) is the fact that Rodale is comparing organic to old-fashioned chisel-tillage conventional. But modern no-till and low-till farming aided by biotech herbicide-resistant crops achieves almost as much of the soil organic matter/tilth benefits of organic (and more if organic amendments are added as well), and, thus, yields more even in drought years. Why won't Rodale compare organic to no-till? They'll lose every year, including drought years and the system yield deficit of organic would be even more stark.

Letter to Editor, BioScience Oct 2005, pg 820
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document& ...(2005)055%5B0820%3AOACAR%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

In the recent paper by Pimentel and colleagues, "Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems" (BioScience 55: 573-582), two claims were made by the authors that warrant closer examination.

The authors cite data from the Institute's 22-year Farming Systems Trial (FST) showing individual crop yields were "similar to those of conventional systems." However, they presented no data on total system yields.

I was able to glean wheat yield data from another paper on Rodale's FST for the years 1986-1995, during which they averaged just less than 49 bushels per acre (Hanson et al. 1997). At these yields and assuming 60 lbs per bushel, the organic wheat would yield an average of 3,302 kg/ha of grain per crop. Combined with the corn and soy yields, this gives an average of 11,906 kg/ha of total grain produced per 3-year rotation. After fifteen years, the organic legume rotation would provide 59,530 kg of grain, whereas the conventional rotation would yield 74,253 kg over the same period. Thus, the conventional system yields 25% more grain than the organic system over time. Even with organic wheat yields of 65 bushels per acre, the organic system would produce 20% less grain than the conventional system.

Most disturbing, however, were statements that the "environmental benefits of . . . less soil erosion . . . were consistently greater in the organic systems than in the conventional systems" and "crop rotations and cover cropping typical of organic agriculture reduce soil erosion . . ." Nowhere in the paper were any data provided from the FST or any other source to substantiate these claims. In fact, ongoing work by USDA-ARS researchers has demonstrated the opposite: that soil erosion potential (as measured by soil properties) is essentially equal between organic and traditional non-organic farming systems, but that both were significantly more susceptible to erosion than a non-organic no-till farming system (Green et al., 2005). That these inaccurate and completely unsubstantiated claims were allowed to be included in this paper demonstrates a critical lack of rigor in the peer review process.

References cited

Green V, Cavigelli M, Dao T, Flanagan D. 2005. Soil Physical Properties and Aggregate Associated C, N, and P in Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems. Soil Science, in press. (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication ...)

Hanson JC, Lichtenberg E, Peters SE. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: An economic and farming system overview. Am. J. of Alternative Agriculture 12(1): 2-9.


]]> Total organic yields were lower

I hate to burst the bandwagon bubble on organic yielding more than non-organic, but this is an important topic and facts matter.

Here is my published letter from Bioscience in response to the discussed article explaining precisely why the claim that organic farming yields more don't hold up. Also not mentioned in the 2005 article or my letter (space limitations) is the fact that Rodale is comparing organic to old-fashioned chisel-tillage conventional. But modern no-till and low-till farming aided by biotech herbicide-resistant crops achieves almost as much of the soil organic matter/tilth benefits of organic (and more if organic amendments are added as well), and, thus, yields more even in drought years. Why won't Rodale compare organic to no-till? They'll lose every year, including drought years and the system yield deficit of organic would be even more stark.

Letter to Editor, BioScience Oct 2005, pg 820
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document& ...(2005)055%5B0820%3AOACAR%5D2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

In the recent paper by Pimentel and colleagues, "Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems" (BioScience 55: 573-582), two claims were made by the authors that warrant closer examination.

The authors cite data from the Institute's 22-year Farming Systems Trial (FST) showing individual crop yields were "similar to those of conventional systems." However, they presented no data on total system yields.

I was able to glean wheat yield data from another paper on Rodale's FST for the years 1986-1995, during which they averaged just less than 49 bushels per acre (Hanson et al. 1997). At these yields and assuming 60 lbs per bushel, the organic wheat would yield an average of 3,302 kg/ha of grain per crop. Combined with the corn and soy yields, this gives an average of 11,906 kg/ha of total grain produced per 3-year rotation. After fifteen years, the organic legume rotation would provide 59,530 kg of grain, whereas the conventional rotation would yield 74,253 kg over the same period. Thus, the conventional system yields 25% more grain than the organic system over time. Even with organic wheat yields of 65 bushels per acre, the organic system would produce 20% less grain than the conventional system.

Most disturbing, however, were statements that the "environmental benefits of . . . less soil erosion . . . were consistently greater in the organic systems than in the conventional systems" and "crop rotations and cover cropping typical of organic agriculture reduce soil erosion . . ." Nowhere in the paper were any data provided from the FST or any other source to substantiate these claims. In fact, ongoing work by USDA-ARS researchers has demonstrated the opposite: that soil erosion potential (as measured by soil properties) is essentially equal between organic and traditional non-organic farming systems, but that both were significantly more susceptible to erosion than a non-organic no-till farming system (Green et al., 2005). That these inaccurate and completely unsubstantiated claims were allowed to be included in this paper demonstrates a critical lack of rigor in the peer review process.

References cited

Green V, Cavigelli M, Dao T, Flanagan D. 2005. Soil Physical Properties and Aggregate Associated C, N, and P in Organic and Conventional Cropping Systems. Soil Science, in press. (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication ...)

Hanson JC, Lichtenberg E, Peters SE. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: An economic and farming system overview. Am. J. of Alternative Agriculture 12(1): 2-9.


]]> Comment #4 by Meredith Niles http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:22:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/4 USDA already compared organic and no-till

Hi Alex280, thanks for your comments and interesting additions.  The link you sent did not work so I was not able to see the letter published online.  With regards to comparing no-till and organic, the USDA did a study on this over a 9 year time period.  It can be found at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070710.htm. It showed that organic beat conventional no-till in being able to build soil organic matter, which is crucial for retaining water and allowing plants to withstand droughts.  

Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety http://www.coolfoodscampaign.org http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

]]> USDA already compared organic and no-till

Hi Alex280, thanks for your comments and interesting additions.  The link you sent did not work so I was not able to see the letter published online.  With regards to comparing no-till and organic, the USDA did a study on this over a 9 year time period.  It can be found at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070710.htm. It showed that organic beat conventional no-till in being able to build soil organic matter, which is crucial for retaining water and allowing plants to withstand droughts.  

Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety http://www.coolfoodscampaign.org http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

]]> Comment #5 by Inoculated Mind http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:38:56 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/5 Talking past one another

Yes, but the organic system in question is still eroding the soil, organic matter, and nutrients out of the fields and into waterways and other places. That's a problem. The Pimentel study also found that runoff was equivalent between conventional (not no-till) and organic systems.

I would like to point out that the dichotomy between Organic and Genetic Engineering is an arbitrary and false one. Read Tomorrow's Table. Who says that there can't be a GE drought-resistant variety of corn grown in an organic system? If organic growing systems are going to feed the world, there needs to be an ideological change.

]]> Talking past one another

Yes, but the organic system in question is still eroding the soil, organic matter, and nutrients out of the fields and into waterways and other places. That's a problem. The Pimentel study also found that runoff was equivalent between conventional (not no-till) and organic systems.

I would like to point out that the dichotomy between Organic and Genetic Engineering is an arbitrary and false one. Read Tomorrow's Table. Who says that there can't be a GE drought-resistant variety of corn grown in an organic system? If organic growing systems are going to feed the world, there needs to be an ideological change.

]]> Comment #6 by Avelhingst http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:10:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/6 Perenniality

  On another tack, the Land Institute has another potential solution: developing perennial grain crops to better take up nutrients, like water, and to preserve or increase soil organic matter/soil particle retention.  Many people, including some agronomists, reject this as some kind of 'pie-in-the-sky' notion.  However, it has definite potential advantages and merits far more research dollars - the researchers are already there, crying out for adequate funding.  Here http://www.landinstitute.org/pages/Bioscience_PerennialGr ... is a brief, but general, overview of some of the research and potentials published in 2006.  For interested parties, more information can be had at http://www.landinstitute.org

]]> Perenniality

  On another tack, the Land Institute has another potential solution: developing perennial grain crops to better take up nutrients, like water, and to preserve or increase soil organic matter/soil particle retention.  Many people, including some agronomists, reject this as some kind of 'pie-in-the-sky' notion.  However, it has definite potential advantages and merits far more research dollars - the researchers are already there, crying out for adequate funding.  Here http://www.landinstitute.org/pages/Bioscience_PerennialGr ... is a brief, but general, overview of some of the research and potentials published in 2006.  For interested parties, more information can be had at http://www.landinstitute.org

]]> Comment #7 by Greg Bowman http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:35:04 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/7 Rodale data, updated: organic matters

Thanks, Meredith, for linking terrestrial carbon sequestration to the fight to mitigate global warming. Here's some news...

Old news, corrected: Alex(Avery)280 knows that authors of the Bioscience article, in a letter published with his, laid out how the FST organic treatments profoundly changed soils in the trial: the practices of cover crops and complex crop rotation enhanced organic matter and soil aggregation which, in turn, improved water percolation (water goes into the soil rather than flowing off it, with the aggregation holding more particles in place). Rebuttal from Pimentel and colleagues.  

(Note: The Rodale FST was not set up to gather erosion data, per se, but anyone who comes here can see the results of long-term organic management.) Key points from the FST team, citing soil and water dynamics which continue to improve sustainability, said: "Data showed that in the organic systems, percolation was enhanced and water runoff decreased. In addition, organic matter increased in the organic systems, whereas no increase occurred in the conventional systems, further confirming reduced erosion in the former."

And it's not true, Inoculated Mind, that the Bioscience 2005 paper proper said there was no difference in runoff between the conventional and organic systems. It said, rather: "Over a 12-year period, water volumes percolating through each system (collected in lysimeters) were 15% and 20% higher in the organic legume and organic animal systems, respectively, than in the conventional system. This indicated an increased groundwater recharge and reduced runoff in the organic systems compared with the conventional system."

Update for Alex280: Rodale Institute announced in June that we had added conventional no-till and genetically modified corn to the Farming Systems Trial. We did this to directly compare these technologies on the same basis as the other trial subplots. We also added organic no-till, which uses our typical organic regime (no synthetic chemical fertilizer, no insecticides, no herbicides) and no-till planting, with our no-till roller-crimper. Some Institute supporters objected, but we explained the addition of GM corn as a critical step in obtaining the strongest possible scientific comparison for our organic system with these heavily promoted non-organic technologies. Useful data comparisons take a while to develop, so it will be at least three years (through crop season 2010) before we an make initial interpretations.

Soil carbon is the best indicator of sustainable management, and farming practices matter--a lot. No-till carbon sequestration is averaged 428 (±116) pounds of carbon per acre per year (lb/C/a/yr) in a study by (West and Post 2002), from analysis of 67 long-term experiments including 267 paired treatments. That study's highest results, 803 lb/C/a/yr, came from converting full-till corn and soybean land to no-till. By comparison, our FST organic plots with occasional tillage sequester 500 lb/C/a/yr (legume) and 875 lb/C/a/yr, while organic plots in a 10-year compost trial sequestered about 2,000 lb/C/a/yr. (Hepperly, et al, 2009, in press) Data from California organic fields showed more than 1,000 lb/C/a/yr (Veenstra 2006).

Finally: anti-organic crusaders: Chill out. Even in 2005 (Bioscience, again) we welcomed any farmer to edge toward greater sustainability in whatever increments were possible: "Conventional agriculture can be made more sustainable and ecologically sound by adopting some traditional organic farming technologies." More practices result in more benefits to soil, carbon sequestration, biodiversity under- and above ground, improved water management and productive resilience--without buying N fertilizer and GM seeds with outrageous technology fees and legal encumbrances.

It's not a battle. It's the way forward.




]]> Rodale data, updated: organic matters

Thanks, Meredith, for linking terrestrial carbon sequestration to the fight to mitigate global warming. Here's some news...

Old news, corrected: Alex(Avery)280 knows that authors of the Bioscience article, in a letter published with his, laid out how the FST organic treatments profoundly changed soils in the trial: the practices of cover crops and complex crop rotation enhanced organic matter and soil aggregation which, in turn, improved water percolation (water goes into the soil rather than flowing off it, with the aggregation holding more particles in place). Rebuttal from Pimentel and colleagues.  

(Note: The Rodale FST was not set up to gather erosion data, per se, but anyone who comes here can see the results of long-term organic management.) Key points from the FST team, citing soil and water dynamics which continue to improve sustainability, said: "Data showed that in the organic systems, percolation was enhanced and water runoff decreased. In addition, organic matter increased in the organic systems, whereas no increase occurred in the conventional systems, further confirming reduced erosion in the former."

And it's not true, Inoculated Mind, that the Bioscience 2005 paper proper said there was no difference in runoff between the conventional and organic systems. It said, rather: "Over a 12-year period, water volumes percolating through each system (collected in lysimeters) were 15% and 20% higher in the organic legume and organic animal systems, respectively, than in the conventional system. This indicated an increased groundwater recharge and reduced runoff in the organic systems compared with the conventional system."

Update for Alex280: Rodale Institute announced in June that we had added conventional no-till and genetically modified corn to the Farming Systems Trial. We did this to directly compare these technologies on the same basis as the other trial subplots. We also added organic no-till, which uses our typical organic regime (no synthetic chemical fertilizer, no insecticides, no herbicides) and no-till planting, with our no-till roller-crimper. Some Institute supporters objected, but we explained the addition of GM corn as a critical step in obtaining the strongest possible scientific comparison for our organic system with these heavily promoted non-organic technologies. Useful data comparisons take a while to develop, so it will be at least three years (through crop season 2010) before we an make initial interpretations.

Soil carbon is the best indicator of sustainable management, and farming practices matter--a lot. No-till carbon sequestration is averaged 428 (±116) pounds of carbon per acre per year (lb/C/a/yr) in a study by (West and Post 2002), from analysis of 67 long-term experiments including 267 paired treatments. That study's highest results, 803 lb/C/a/yr, came from converting full-till corn and soybean land to no-till. By comparison, our FST organic plots with occasional tillage sequester 500 lb/C/a/yr (legume) and 875 lb/C/a/yr, while organic plots in a 10-year compost trial sequestered about 2,000 lb/C/a/yr. (Hepperly, et al, 2009, in press) Data from California organic fields showed more than 1,000 lb/C/a/yr (Veenstra 2006).

Finally: anti-organic crusaders: Chill out. Even in 2005 (Bioscience, again) we welcomed any farmer to edge toward greater sustainability in whatever increments were possible: "Conventional agriculture can be made more sustainable and ecologically sound by adopting some traditional organic farming technologies." More practices result in more benefits to soil, carbon sequestration, biodiversity under- and above ground, improved water management and productive resilience--without buying N fertilizer and GM seeds with outrageous technology fees and legal encumbrances.

It's not a battle. It's the way forward.




]]> Comment #8 by Kong http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/ Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:19:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/Food-security-and-global-warming-Monsanto-versus-organic/8 I do support organic crops, but don't agree with GMO projects. It seems to me that we, as humans, should not ever interfere with god creation.

Kong from social bookmarking

]]> I do support organic crops, but don't agree with GMO projects. It seems to me that we, as humans, should not ever interfere with god creation.

Kong from social bookmarking

]]>