Organic farming fascinates the public opinion because it refuses the use of chemicals in food production and preservation. Nevertheless I did not see scientific data proving that the productivity with organic farming is similar to conventional agriculture managed with attention to the environment.
Yes Carlos, you're right. In fact, I wasn't thinking about tropical agriculture because I don't know anything about it. Since I'm french (France is 3rd to 5th biggest world producer), I was talking about European and also north-american agriculture. I'm convinced that reducing pesticides, synthetic N/P/K and also water drastically is feasible. Of course, this means more thinking and rigorous methodology for the farmer community than simply spreading kilotons of pesticides in one go. But the sell price can also be better.
It looks difficult in present situations. It require a revolution in such researches.
I personally feel that the term organic requires a more stringent definition in terms of farming and food productivity. Also, the public awareness on what the term organic really indicates is pretty less, so there is a mad rush in the market for these products. Most processers intend cashing in on the public scenario, and hence the market is filled with bogus products too. Checking in on these aspects would help find out how exactly organic farming, on a larger scale is superior to conventional agriculture.
No doubt, organic farming with less heavy tillage may minimise production cost and increase the profit margin of farmers. However, in so far as feeding a growing population is concerned, I personally believe that it is possible. But, two points are to be taken into consideration: 1) the modern agricultural practices specially use of off-farm inputs and use of heavy machinery on farms have rendered the agricultural resource-base especially soil infertile; 2) transition from organic farming in one go is not possible as present yields cannot be compromised as they are bound to go down due to deterioration of resource-base. The process must be gradually so that natural fertility of soils is regained and their compactness applying best tillage and other practices as adding organic material in the form of crop residue and specifically raised for the purpose is added in large quantity to them. During transition period a mix of inorganic and bio-fertilisers may be used with increasing quantity of the later each subsequent year. In view of outbreak of pests and diseases and all the more because of climatic uncertainty, instead of mono-cropping, diversified and mixed-cropping are better with an emphasis on legumes.
To this is added a new dimension of climate change. Regions experience deficient rainfall and increased temperature, drought resistant HYVs of crops are to be bred, while regions experiencing increasing rainfall and temperature have to select or breed crops suitable for changing or changed climatic conditions. In this way a subsistence organic agriculture to feed a growing population can be realised only through incremental agricultural planning.
The recent UK foresight makes clear that we must increase crop productivity per unit of land if we really want to provide food for all without converting more land to agriculture. Simple.
Http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf
In animal farming such as dairy, although prices of organic milk is more than regular, the production per cow is significantly less. So without changing the current production means in organic so to increase production per unit I do not see organic as a substitute to regular farming in the near future.
The whole concept of organic farming needs to be reaffirmed or cross-checked. There are cases where organic products have been found to have unwanted residues, yet they sell at exorbitantly higher prices.
In tropics region where most of the soil are low in fertility, organic farming can not provide optimum production and impossible to feed the people in this region
UC Davis recently completed a study which compared yields of organically grown versus conventionally farmed tomatoes, soybeans, corn, and wheat. They were able to compile data from farms here in the US. Yields for those four crops were found to be nearly identical.
We had several studies by using organic input in low fertility acid soil, the good input combination to match results with 100% industrial fertilizer input are 50% organic fertilizer (compost or green manure) plus 50% inorganic fertilizer (industrial fertilizer) for food crops and horiculture crop like maize, soy bean an tomatoes. It is difficult to eliminate inorganic fertilizer in this soil type to have good production
I could not agree more with the detailed answer of Mohammad, in every point adressed. I think I've also heard about the study mentioned by Kathleen (but only in the newspaper). If I'm not mistaken, this study highlights the fact that the organic yields increase with time, as the soils recover from former intensive culture practices. Thus, Agroecological practices can result in yield comparable to intensive culture.
The produce from organic farming is no different from that grown with conventional fertilisers? Organic farming will invariablylead to lower production levels, thus not meeting the requirements of increased food production for increasing population.
Jock, do you have evidence of what you're saying ? All I see in France is that ultra-intensive culture yields have been decreasing for years and we have to pay our farmers twice: once to produce the maize (European subventions) and once to indemnize them because the maize did not grow ! This is nonsense. Kathleen has mentioned an interesting study done in North America that shows that agroecological approaches can lead to comparable yields to intensive ones.
Moreover, intensive culture rely on NPK intrants, which need much petrol to be synthesized. I don't think that this will be sustainable for long.
Yes Carlos, you're right. In fact, I wasn't thinking about tropical agriculture because I don't know anything about it. Since I'm french (France is 3rd to 5th biggest world producer), I was talking about European and also north-american agriculture. I'm convinced that reducing pesticides, synthetic N/P/K and also water drastically is feasible. Of course, this means more thinking and rigorous methodology for the farmer community than simply spreading kilotons of pesticides in one go. But the sell price can also be better.
I've worked as a scientific researcher on organic, less-intensive and conventional farms, and I think there is potential for substantial reductions in agrochemicals across the board (obviously just my own very European view). There are many 'scare' stories about loss of yields, and these may be true in the short-term and in some locations, but in my experience the yield value and economic margins can be just as good with well-managed less-intensive/organic systems (if not better in some examples). A major issue, however, is the quality of the decision-making in farm management which differs between organic and conventional farming, and it is often not appropriate to transfer intensive management practices to less-intensive systems at the local scale. Land managers and farmers are mostly trained for intensive agriculture, change this and we should see improvements to the management of all the systems at the local level.
I think that it will be impossible and innecesary.There are cropping systems based on principles of Integrated Management that are better than organics and can satisfy the increases in food needs.Don´t forget that organic crops are very risky from microbiological pathogens due to bad use of high amounts of organic matter (fresh,not composted)
Carlos, you make an excellent point about making decisions on a local level. Despite the climatic differences between Brazil and Europe, it should be possible over time to find local methods for disease control/prevention. In Europe we have the advantage of 1000s of years of agricultural development and there is still so much to learn and many mistakes have been made. When given the resources, the ingenuity and skill of local agronomists in finding relatively simple ways to prevent pathogens and their vectors is something to be admired. When local solutions are found then it seems there is only ever improved stable long-term production, less dependence on agrochemicals and a local solution to feeding an international population.
Increase in population means increase in food demand. Definitely organic cultivation alone can not deliver to meet such a huge food demand.
Selvaraj,
When the green revolution, which now has played out itself, reached to my village I was about 20. Being born in a cultivator family and initially educated and reared in a village environment, I assure you that times were difficult and crop failures were common not due to outbreaks of pests or disease but for the reason of monsoon failure. No doubt outbreaks of pests and disease were not unknown, but neither their frequency was as high as we are experiencing now a days and not they were as devastating, we always had some food to eat in the aftermath of pest and disease outbreaks, thanks to diversified and mixed cropping. However, the so-called agricultural revolution brought relief but latter and now we are realising its high environmental and health costs. High prevalence of cancer presently, cannot be attributed to only unawareness of health and crude diagnostic methods, if so why Punjab, where the green revolution was made a success, is experiencing higher cancer prevalence rate than the national average. If it has to do something with industrialisation or Pokhran tests, then why not this cancer prevalence rate obtains in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Western Uttar Pradesh and Delhi or Pakistani Punjab or Sindh, for that matter. It is one example, there are several diseases in the rural areas due to contamination of water, air and food as result of use of chemicals in the agriculture.
True, as I have pointed out that we cannot switch over to organic farming at once. The process has to be gradual, step by step. My students have found out what had already been reported in several papers published in Political and Economic Weekly in 1970s that if water was assured and less chemical fertilizers have been used, the performance of indigenous or traditional varieties of crops could have performed better than the HYVs. Do you know why our granaries are overflowing with grains in comparison to hunger in the times of traditional farming. The fact is that HYVs matures early making it possible to raise crops from the same unit of land twice or thrice. But, Organic farming does not precludes used of adaptable, pest, disease and drought resistant cross bred early maturing crops or SAFE and CHEAPLY available GM crops for that matter. Major, emphasis of organic farming is on environment and ecosystem, of which we are user as well as part, technology whereby reliance naturally available or on-farm resources is increased and reliance on humanly made available subsidies of nutrients, moisture, energy etc. is reduced. If fertility of our soil resources is restored and in latter stages this resource-base is enriched, it is quite possible that in a not too long run by raising three crops from the same unit of land, we would be able to feed a growing population a healthy food reducing not only burden of disease and replenishing precious groundwater resources. The savings from the burden of disease on the individual and national level may find ways in agricultural sectors to be used to enhance productivity by producing or purchasing organic resources or resources made available by biotechnology as new more suitable and high yielding varieties of crops, water jellies etc. and on the part of the government these savings may be diverted in R&D in agricultural sectors.
The need of time is a strong political will and optimism on the part of nation especially farmers or cultivator households who need boost of their moral. A cooperative effort and its success may bring in a diffusion of real green revolution in its truest sense.
Labour is a major issue in agriculture across the globe. Organic farming is labour intensive as compared to conventional. In the Caribbean all banned chemicals are sent down to us. How can we move forward as a global society when these banned chemicals are sold to the caribbean islands and latin america?
@Dear Vijayaraghavan.
It is true that bio-fertilisers are cost-effective and have advantage over chemical fertilisers in that the former release nutrients per need of crops not at once like the chemical fertilisers most or at least 50 per cent of which go waste. However, bio-fertilisers are meant a supplement, not as providing full requirements of the crops. There may be used other methods to give full nutrient dose to crops in latter stages of change from conventional to organic farming based on the first principle of the sustainability: What is taken from a natural or agroecosystem should be returned to it. An integrated system across artificial division between rural and urban sectors, the organic waste in both rural and urban areas is to be separated or segregated at home (We have to discipline ourselves in this regard) and leaves etc. shed by trees or weeds or dry grass is to be collected as in some parts is still collected as neem leaves to ward off mosquitoes or other leaves and dry organic waste to roast gram, maize etc. As one scholar has already pointed out that we have abundant labour and these people may earn a little extra from this part time activity. Hot composting produces compost in a much shorter time. It has the benefits of killing weed seeds and pathogens (diseases), and breaking down the material into very fine compost. In contrast, cold composting does not destroy seeds, so if you cold compost weeds, any weed seeds will grow when you put the compost into the field. There have also developed several ways for making quick compost to make up for supplementary bio-fertilisers.
@ Sachchidanand, thank you for your invaluable input.
Organic and traditional farming, both has its own benefits. Organic provides sustainability, but returns are less in short run.
Traditional farming is required to stay in momentum with the growing feeding mouths.
But Organic farm produce would cater to health conscious class of affluent people. I look into it from a commercial point of view. And both the methods of farming should go hand in hand so as to cater both the needs.
If productivity is less in organic farming then pricing is high enough to compensate the return on investment but it alone can't suffice the need of world population.
Let it go hand in hand with conventional farming! :-)
I appreciate Ghosh's viewpoint. The need of the hour is Sustainable Agricultural Practices (SAPs) which include both organic farming as well as traditional agricultural practices. We can never blame our farmer friends when they favor traditional approaches by organic farming. Organic include high input costs, less consumer and market preferences due to lacking linkages in both forward and backward sectors.In contrast, traditional approaches include use of chemicals and higher pest incidence leading to bigger loss. The call, hence, is a balance of both the practices through an approach where we can use FYM as well as fertilisers to the rate where no interferences with natural biological processes will be compromised. The farmers' intentions need to be safeguarded as well as it should be ensured that productivity is maximum. Moreover, the soil qualities which are adjusted to high chemical use can only slowly be brought back to natural form thro SAPs in course of time. We should create a comprehensive market linkage for the flow of farm produce as well. This could only be done thro proper procurement and storage of farm produce as well as its channelisation in existing market system. Both Goverment agricultural extension agencies as well as private farmer associations (village level) has a pivotal role to play in this.
In my humble opinion, it can not because organic farming is costlier. More over, the quantum of food through organic farming will not suffice to satisfy the ever increasing burgeoning population. Therefore, other modes of food production should also be considered
Organic farming can have an impact at the family level then move forward by small scale farming. However large scale farming only takes place for certain crops. In the caribbean and latin america cocoa is grown organically, to a certain extent . But farmers keep thinking of profit not health. So their belief is in spraying chemicals to get rid of pests. Slowly, organic farming is being employed down here. But it will take a long time for the public to reform. Aside from education farmers need to reform in their habits of spraying deleterious chemicals and their having monetary gains
There is one more opinion. One is substantial farming and the other is subsistence farming. There is a difference between the two. With the advent of fertilizer, pesticides and tonics, the farmers started using them. It went up to a plateau sooner in the developed world. However, the case is different for developing and underdeveloped world. Here the farming is used as subsistence in most of the cases. Right from the 60's the farmers have not reached up to the half of the required nutrients amount here.
So organic farming should be used comparatively. Means it is well fit for those who already have reached self sufficiency. They can talk about quality, healthy food. But in other areas the matter is food- more food.
Are you have any data or result of organic farm research from any country...?
The term organic needs to be clearly defined, Sadly it varies from person to person, but in my opinion, unless Integrated Farm Approaches are used it may not be possible to sustain production.
Yes, Vital we have data from south american countries-Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Paraguay that we are processing and to be published soon. We found interesting results regarding yields, costs and economic results but there are interesting differences among type of products and farm size.
No, it can not.Organic farming is more expensive to practise and this is not the technology needed by the developing countries in combating food security.
Claim: "Organic farming is more expensive"
Fundamental to biodynamic and low-input organic farm husbandry is the aim to maximize the resource cycles of one's farm/neighborhood, apportioning livestock and cropping and forestry to those given resources. This minimizes expenses, as studies show.
The question may rather be whether we can feed the world industrially, WITHOUT investing in more labor and more farmers. And certainly, signs are that our general health is suffering our attempts to do so. Lastly, there is the question of sustaining externalized costs and subsidized fossil fuel inputs.
" In your opinion can organic farm satisfy the need of food of the increasing world population? ..... " The answer to this is NO......only organic farming will not be able to satisfy the need of the global population. We have to adopt, maintain and make intensive agriculture sustainable...also popularize and support organic farming....both approaches to agriculture are needed for horizontal and vertical expansion. It is true food quality improves with organic farming........but quantity is also important.
Answer is NO. Population is increasing day by day and our resources are shrinking. Only organic produce will not sufficient to feed the population. But we should stress on minimum use of agrochemicals and side by side the farmers community should be teach to use safer chemicals .
An Organic farm , can satisfy only the needs of yourself and only that. In nowdays, there are not organic farms in any country all over the world.
Answer is NO. And few hard facts make prove it that way. First, many of the fully organically managed farms have failed to keep up the productivity both in the short and medium term. Majority of the arable land under tropical and semi-arid climates , especially in Africa and South Asia are poor in fertility. Therefore, it is near impossible to improve productivity using only limited availbale organic sources. 'They need chemical fertilizers. Third, in any case, we are not producing enough organic sources to meet crop demand at global scale. The competing demands for crop residues and crop byproducts make it hard to apply organic sources to field. Where does all the cattle population go if we diverted all the crop residues and other green manure sources to field? Moreover, recent studies in UK and USA have shown that organically produced products do not carry any additional nutritional benefits compared with those produced under conventional systems! However, having said that, organic farming works well for small vegetable farms, backyard gardens, limitd multi-tier farming etc.. Moreover, it is a goof husbandry if one takes it up as a 'hobby' on a small field or house backyard as it keeps one busy all the time, but not for large scale food grain production. I personally think, it is a dilusion that we keep on sending the wrong message that Organic Farming would solve all our environmental problems and help meet global food demand. I think, what we need is a judicious and efficient use of chemical inputs in combination with organic sources to contain adverse impact on environment and reduce cost while keeping up the productivity. In any case, we are already producing enough food, but there is a huge purchasing power disparity between rich and poor. While we have close to a billion people hungry / starving, we also have close to 1.5 billion classified as ''obese" who suffer from over-eating and wasting food. Estimates suggest that if this 1.5 billion lot change their diet meeting their calory requirement, the saved food is enough to feed all the starving people on earth! Latest study from California states that US alone wastes little over 40% of the total food that it produces! It literally goes as waste after expiry date. Therefore, global food crisis is not a 'problem of less food', but a problem of 'distribution, acessability and purchasing power'.
Having said that, when I take retirement from job, I would certainly take up organic farming on a small piece of land to keep myself busy and feel good for being close to nature!
Answer is Yes. The Organic way of Agriculture does yield good results than the advanced agriculture, in which we use chemical fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides.
This is said by personal experience in field. Around 25 years back, the sugarcane crop which we took yielded around 60 tonnes per acre. This time there was no use of Chemical fertilizers and many of diseases were supressed by plants own defence mechanism (Hence no use of insecticides and pesticides). The trend of Chemical fertilizer came, the yield increased to about 100 tonnes per acre. but this lasted for say 8-10 years. the soil started detoriating. The water quality also detoriated. the yield came slowly down to upto around 30 tonnes per acre in next 10 years. The water quality has worsen like anything. The soil salinity has increased, which acts as an stress element to the crop. The plant defence is at its lowest point. Hence the quantity and intensity of chemical insecticides are at higher levels. The average yield is half than what we would get by organic. Hence, atleast we should get the 60 tonnes per acre yield, we switched over to the organic way. The results have started coming. The chemical fertilisers have been reduced to 25 %. Organic matter has increased in soil. The present yield we get is 45-50 tonnes per acre. We have targeted next year for 60 tonnes per acre. If proper managment is done the crop should yield around 80 tonnes per acre. The chemical fertilizers induce salinity to soil in long run and also the water quality gets worse. These two are very important for the health of crop. The soil and water act as the major stress to plants and reduce yield. As a researcher i think that, the organic way is the better way of agriculture. The use of advanced chemicals should be limited. The advancment of agriculture is needed in developing good hybrids, watering techniques and proper harvest and its storage. This will actually solve the problem of ever increasing population. The yield of several crops is around double than what is required by the population of world. However, the losses of crop produce in the field and after harvest are around 30-60 % in different countries. That is were control is needed. If we succeed in stopping the losses of crop produce, I am damn sure in present yielding system, we can fetch atleast double the population which we have on earth today. Proper storing capacity, transportation, crop managment techniques needs to be developed.
No, it is not possible to support the increasing world population in a sustainable way by organic farming. Farming in many areas is undertaken on land that is nutrient poor and where water is limiting. In these areas organic farming is simply unsustainable and will never be more than a niche activity. Caring for the land is even more important in such marginal areas, and this needs the best application of knowledge, science and technology to achieve. It is much better to achieve the best yields possible on currently cropped land than to have to invade more marginal lands, where much of the remaining biodiversity is found.
Definitely not. There real challenges associated with it. In fact we have tried to promote it in Ghana and farmers are not adopting because its expensive, outcomes are not immediate and even not comparable to available options.
We have to feed people.
I think we can explore options of a combination of both organic and inorganic stuff.
That is being promoted partly under Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).
Certainly organic farming is not the answer to green revolution and thus the need for a combined approach
Perhaps we should look at a different paradigm. Ecological agriculture may be the better way to go with this some use of chemicals and organic farming
Organic alone will not do the trick. In deed environmental scientist can study to identify optimal combinations. At the rate of population explosion we cannot afford this.
Creo que la gran mayoría de los cultivos que se industrializan son susceptibles de ser atacados por enfermedades en la alteración del equilibrio de su ecosistema.
I think only organic farming will not be able to satisfy the need of food of the increasing world population, which is going to be 9 billion within few years. However, I am not advocating in favor of chemicals that are using indiscriminately. In my opinion holistic agricultural approach is the solution.
No, it is not possible to support the increasing world population in a sustainable way by organic farming.
Yes, it is possible sir, but it will be a huge task to aware the people of the world. Organic farming is good but awaerness and channels are not good.
One way to enable organic farming to be more widely adopted is by embracing the best technologies, and that very much includes the best conventional agricultural practices and GM approaches. In many cases, for example in developing genetic crop plant resistance to pests and diseases, GM crops have eactly the same aims as is espoused by organic supporters - that is a reduced need for chemical control. Idealogical or passionate anti GM views are usually unscientific, and its about time that organic supporters were a bit more flexible in recognising best scientific practices. In the end what we need is to ensure that the growing world population has enough food of good quality, produced in a sustainable manner, which safeguards the environment and biodiversity for future generations. This will only be acheived by applying the best science and technology, and not through idealogical conviction that one approach, be it organic or GM, will provide all the solutions.
Considr también que la agricultura debe ser la aplicación de una política de estado, por que si los vecinos utilizan la agricultura convencional, el cultivo orgánico va a estar muy vulnerable a los químicós que usen a su alrededor.
I think I may have to give a opposite opinion to the answers above me: Only organic farm may be can not satisfy the need of food in China since we have to many people but to few land for planting. However, organic agriculture is developing fast in China in recent years, and of cause the production is very welcome although the price is higher than that from traditional agricuture. I believe, the organic farm will keep on developing in China as well as worldwide, since the production should be more safe and nutritious.
With increasing world population, organic farming alone cannot satisfy the needs of the people unless every one all over the world adopts cultivation of crops and rearing of animals in the organic way. Inorganic farming has overtaken the trend of events in organic farming.
There is absolutely no firm evidence that organic produce is more safe or nutritious than conventional food. This is a myth, and current evidence suggets that if anything, it is less safe. One reason is that if fungal pathogens are not controlled produce is likley to have higher levels of mycotoxins, and these are in general more harmful than pesticide residues.
No increasing population, so not possible to produce food material in population in organic farming . Without fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and other many activities our crop production is nill, in this reason organic forming process is not good increasing population. Organic farming only success to kitchen gardening or personal far house cultivation
Dear Michael,
I don't agree with you. I eat organic food and I'm quite healthy and I don't know any people who died or were intoxicated because they ate organic food. There is a few problems with mycotoxin, but this is rare. There are much more problems with pesticides. For example, many pesticides are endocrine disruptors. These are thought to be responsible for the reduction of male fertility by half worldwide (not mentioning developmental malformations, cancers, alzheimer, parkinson... of which some are more seen in farmers than in other people categories). Does organic food produce any of these effects ?
Hello, i want to focus the attention in 2 concepts precisions:
First, we should be clear that organic agriculture is not synonymous of sustainable agriculture. Despite 100% sustainable agroecosystems may not be 100% possible organic agriculture is just an agriculture style which claims to be sustainable.
Secondly, the point about production. If the question is: is it possible to reach yields comparable to the yields of conventional agriculture? The answer is yes! But, if we do that, is it sustainable? In my opinion the answer is no! Why? Because for reaching such yields we must use much inputs. "Organic-ly" acceptable but used at an impressive rate to reach that goal.
And from these 2 precisions, there is a new question: who said that high inputs, high yields, and in general high intensity agriculture is the way to feed the world? Currently much food is lost at the time that much million people is starving. So i imagine that the main problem is not technical, not organic, not conventional, but a more complicated social, trading and political one. Personally i address to organic farming, or at least as organic as possible, that means, no pesticides at least. But no production system can solve the hunger in world.
India had severe famines 50 years ago, cyclical with Monsoon failures, Definitely the Agriculture then was organic, but it lead to a Ship to mouth existence, Now we advise balanced cultivation, which also protects the sustainability of the production , but it just is not fair to stop fertilizer application on a well tended farm and claim that organic is better, The plants do need nutrients which need to be supplied either from the soil or from outside.
People should have a choice. Creating a bio conceptions about food is a way to produce of small farmers, because the bigest armers do not produce bio.
what is a synthetic compound, the plants absorb Nitrogen, do they care whether it is organic or not, can a farmer apply 500 kg of green leaf manure for a single tree or 20 truck loads of Farm yard manure for a field. Further if no food is available it can never be distributed, See a locust swarm eat up all green leaves, and then talk of the utility of pesticides.
By now, the debate is almost over. The fantacy of organic farming can't 't support food security for an ever expanding population -- in terms o quantity as well as nutritional quality. Period.
I think because that now days the organic agriculture cannot provide population with food by quantify should not be cause for rejection of it.
Of course, organic farming requires a lot of human resources and productivity levels are not high, but there are ways to solve this problem in a way that does not harm the bioproduct quality.
Research should be conducted in a search for ways of development, which provides an increase in the production of organic products and healthy living and sustainable use of natural resources.
I think the more organic products will be produced the more people would healthy.
Organic farming definitely satisfy the food needs for growing population when everyone in the world following it intensively. Some hybrid and short duration food grains have to be developed and will be cultivated through organic farming. Cattle rearing should be improved further. This will lead to provide adequate manure for the organic farming. Avoid or reduce conventional pesticides and use eco friendly pesticides. Traditional system of farming practice should be intensified.
The idea of sustainable, low input agriculture do not pertain to the "organic" concept.
Unfortunately "organic" agriculture is more an ideology than a practice; it's an extremist way of thinking. The dogmatic rejection of genetic engineering is a typical example. Genetic engineering was and still is developed to minimize the use of pesticides; the "organic" technology has never been able to reach this objective, it still use copper based fungicides, and "natural" but potentially toxic insecticides (neem, pyrethrin, ...). The use of manure and animal bones or blood instead of mineral fertilizers is locally feasible but not applicable on a large scale. Crop rotation is already a standard (non organic) practice. No till agriculture which is a important progress in soil preservation is not really applicable in the the frame of "organic" methods.
The future of agriculture need intelligence and open-mindedness; there is no place for a dogmatic approach and therefore for the "organic" credo.
"Genetic engineering was and still is developed to minimize the use of pesticides"
To my opinion, this remains to be proven. Does the evolution of the use of pesticides worldwide over the two last decades support this assumption ? In addition, many crop GMOs are designed to resist against pesticide effects. If GMO resists better, the farmer is logically tempted to put more pesticide in his crop. And anyway, I don't see how this type of GMOs could reduce the use of pesticides. Has anyone an explanation ?
Organic agriculture system may not able to fulfil the food demand of entire population immediately but definately ensure enhanced soil fertility, requirement of less inputs and more economic. To make it sustainable it is advisable to adopt integrated approach which involves less chemicals, more organic and biofertilizers. Biofertilizers viz. Azotobacter and AM fungi are well known to improve supply of nutrients to plants and reduce the ill effects of heavy metals and other toxic chemicals. Integrated approach is a need for maintaing sustainability of agricultural systems.
May be the new equation for future agriculture can be:
Organic agriculture - dogmatic approach + integrated nutrient management = a more sustainable agriculture
Where integrated nutrient management include organic fertilizers and chemical fertilizers otherwise no animal bones and blood will be enough.
I tend to agree with Amanullah, Jr; the under-developrd countries can't rely on organic farming alone -- because of fast increasing population. Seema's advocacy for integrated nutrient management is supported, but. unfortunately, we lack field-scale data demonstrating beneficial role of biofertilizers in agro-climatic conditions as are in Pakistan. Thus, still is à fantacy.
Organic agriculture may not satisfy the need of food, however, there is another issue wich is important to analyze is our consumption habits, because something wich is true is that now we have we have exceeded the planet biocapacity, and in long term it could cause to endanger not just food supply, the quality of the food and as a consequence human health, it seems that this question should be analyzed in terms of time too, because we are thinking of food supply now, but what about future generations?
Too many questions are asked concerning future feeding of the world. Its obvious that with 20 bilion inhabitans there will never be sufficient food. It means to control the natural increase. The food needs, to be produced, a lot of water. There are no sources enough of it. So, the world reached its dead end.
No, researches are working to find solutions.
A clever solution can be found in the "Star of India" from Aug. 2nd, under the promissed title: "Israeli create super plants resist draught". And "Israeli researchers develop longer lasting draught resistance super plants". (Google) Both of them, deal with the same innovation. If you fail to find it, please look at Prof. Gepshtein in Kineret center in Israel. (Google)
Now, this will answer many of the questions that are often asked in RG.
I hope that after evaluating these 2 articles, the issue of over population or population explosion, in the world, will be discussed differently.
In friendship
Amir
Please see the parallel discussion on ResearchGate, at:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_organic_agriculture_fulfill_the_growing_needs_of_the_people_and_feed_the_world
In your opinion can organic farm satisfy the need of food of the increasing world population? In a word - no. A recent in depth survey of every crop in every US State by the USDA showed that organic yields were 20-50% lower than for non- organic crops, which translates to a need to dramatically increase the land area under cultivation if organic practices were more widely used. This would be a disaster or biodversity. What we need is the best science and technology disseminated as widely as possible, to increase production on currently cropped land, and sensible laws and regulations to enable this. In any case there are exciting new developments in horticultural production, such as producing vegetables from seawater and sunlight in otherwise arid areas, urban vertical farming and smart agriculture etc.
My god, help me. All are missing the point here, right now I don;t have time to try and justify my argument, just find all this very frustrating.
CG
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science