The general approach in organic agriculture to deal with the causes of a problem rather than treating the symptoms also applies for pest and diseases. Elaboration is requested from RG members on this hot topic.
Organic agriculture is an ecological approch which is based on the perception that tomorrow's ecology is more important than today's economy. Its basic aim is to reduce degradation of resources and make natural balance. But the major issue related to organic production is that the conversation from inorganic to total organic could not compensate the food demands of increasing population, because of unavilabilty of the organic sources which replaces the chemical and sustain the present production and also full fill the future demands. So rather than total organic it needs to integration of all sources towords the sustainability.
Organic Agriculture is the integrated apparoach in pest and disease mangement in agri-horticulture production, which means minimal usage of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In orgnanic agriculture, maximum application of farm yard manure and biopesticides by the farmers.
When you ask about the prospects for organic agriculture these have many different levels. First the use of organic agriculture can transform our environment by rejecting the dependency of pesticides fertilizers and the like. At another level the certified organic agriculture can give a value added recommended in the marketplace giving opportunity for higher producer prices favoring economic results. Beyond the environmental and economic results the favorable effect of the agricultural system can improve animal and human health greatly increasing their productivity and reducing the huge costs of sickness. Finally but not necessarily least is the ability of the organic systems to not only reduce agriculture carbon footprint but mitigate over enrichment of the atmosphere in greenhouse gases by recharging what I call the carbon battery which increases soil vibrancy by bringing the excess carbon in the atmosphere into the soil where it improves crop and animal production and lessen environmental stresses. As we educate ourselves and explore these profound opportunities the use of organic concepts will be truly revolutionary bringing our future generations a happier and healthier future.
Organic amendments are traditionally used to improve soil health and plant nutrition but, there are numerous reports that their addition can also lead to control of pathogens Aphanomyces spp., Fusarium spp., Rhizoctania solani, Phytopthora spp, Streptomyces spp. Verticillium spp.etc. Most pathogens are inactivated during the heating phase of composting (Bollen et al. 1989). Fungicidal effect of neem oil on soil borne pathogens are reported by many scientist. Neem seed and kernel powder in aqueous found very effective in controlling many pests. Neem cake also reported to be controlled soil borne pest, diseases and nematodes. Neem oil is very effectively use as insect repellents. Organic farming , in general, also plays an important role in reducing the population of pathogenic plant nematodes.
Actually the biggest problem of organic farming is that there was not enough organic available to replace chemical fertilizers to sustain present level of crop production. There are competitive uses of organic materials such as dung cakes for domestic cooking fuel and sugercane bagasse as fuel in suger factories and villages. Most of the crop residues are disposed off by burning. Effective exploitation of biofertilizers is constrained mainly because of quality of the inoculates, lack of knowledge about inoculation technology for the extension personnel and the farmers, as well as the ineffective inoculant delivery system. We have to do lot of work on these aspects to make sustainable organic agriculture.
Organic agriculture is an ecological approch which is based on the perception that tomorrow's ecology is more important than today's economy. Its basic aim is to reduce degradation of resources and make natural balance. But the major issue related to organic production is that the conversation from inorganic to total organic could not compensate the food demands of increasing population, because of unavilabilty of the organic sources which replaces the chemical and sustain the present production and also full fill the future demands. So rather than total organic it needs to integration of all sources towords the sustainability.
The manufacture of fertilizers and pesticides, the two major inputs of Green Revolution (GR) technologies, needs fossil fuels and/or expensive energy, and these are associated with serious environmental and health issues. The harmful effects of green revolution technology have encouraged the farmers to shift towards organic farming. Organic farming follows the principles of nature, which are self-sustained development systems. Organic agriculture is developing rapidly and today at least 170 countries produce organic food commercially. There were 43.1 million hectares of organic agricultural land in 2013, including in conversion areas and with 2 million producers. Thirty six percent of the world’s organic producers are in Asia, followed by Africa (29%) and Europe (17%). The key issues emerging in organic farming from literature review include yield reduction in conversion to organic farm, soil fertility enhancement, integration of livestock, certification, ecology, marketing and policy support. organic farming is productive and sustainable. Adoption of organic farming practices has positive implications for soil fertility management, pest management and for withstanding risk of climate changes in dry land regions. It is very clear from farmers’ perception that organic farming has improved soil health, human health and livestock health. Very strong support for livestock development is essential for better results in organic farming. There is a need for strong policy support to organic farming in the form of subsidies, agricultural extension services and research which will not only provide livelihood to millions of people but also protects the environment.
Org Ag is non-sustainable from different perspective. One aspect that is never in the Org Ag discussion is the fact that it requires the relocation of nutrients from one area to another. Case in point, dung cakes or Stover from other crops (i.e., maize) if removed from the areas where livestock and maize are being produce to serve as organic nutrient sources in another areas where practicing Org Ag, all we are doing is nutrient mining the first area where livestock and maize are produced for relocation, and at some point we will need to replenish the nutrients mined if we want to continue producing in those areas or simple let the soil degrade and become unproductive. The latter is not an option, considering the limited crop land available in the World (1.87 billion hectares of croplands or 15 to 20 percent of total land mass) and considering the fact that we are already pushing the agricultural frontiers.
The mining and relocation of nutrients have environmental and economic consequences. It is more expensive to relocate such sources of nutrients given the low nutrients concentration per unit of measure (say per metric ton), and we would be inducing environmental damage by mining the soil, killing soil micro-organisms and reducing bio-diversity while the solid becomes unproductive/dead. Perhaps the only way to maintain the soil fertile is by translocating from other areas more organic materials which would double the expense and cause a domino effect, or by adding inorganic fertilizer to maintain the soil fertility.
At the end of the day, it is our choice on what to do and such decision is normally driven by economic factors, more specific, the output price premium factor for org produce. If we can get higher profits from Org Ag, we would be doing it at the expense of causing environmental damage in other areas. In other words, we would be mining and extracting rent from the environment which is what I consider Org Ag to be all about at the end of the day, despite the argument that Org Ag is more environmentally friendly.
Comments to my comments are welcome.
I think organic agriculture will always be limited, a small public n market. Agriculture crop yields less in organic than conventional systems (30-50% less), and it is more expensive. Sure, organic production causes less environmental damage. But how could you feed 9 billion of people (in 2050) using organic agriculture only. Probably, organic and conventional system will coexist side by side.
I agree with Persio, OA cannot solely feed the world. It is limited due to its inputs. It is important we think of it as a minute complement to conventional (use of synthetic inputs) agriculture. I think OA is redifined, it will continue to remain a very tiny fraction of the total agricultural sector in many many years to come.
In one word, the answer is GREAT !!!
Scope of organic agriculture is for the entire humanity, flora, fauna and environment (soil, air and water). Perils spread by chemical agriculture can only be rectified by adopting Organic Agriculture. Our traditional agriculture was "uncertified organic " and that is how over thousands of years we and our environment could be sustained. Our forefathers handed over the planet earth as they received from their ancestors. If we want to handover this planet earth to our grand-children in the same way, then organic agriculture is the only way out. Thus scope is great.
over 60% of the African population lives in the rural areas and susistence farming is the main means of thier livelyhood . They have little or no income to afford for pesticides or industrial fertilizers and often culturally and or religously resistant to genetically modified seeds (GMO) and by default their agricultural products are organic. this is also true in many other developing countries, largely in Asia. The growing concern of environmental pollution from agricultural chemicals and the awarness of thier health hazards in the developed countries and the hightened awareness of agroecological sustainability of food security organizations seems to push the scales higher in favour of prospective organic agriculture.
I agree that Org Ag should and must co-exist with traditional ag perhaps as a tool to reduce environmental contamination, but it is not a panacea. The issue is to determine whether the net gains from Org Ag are positive since as we know it has some environmental benefits as well as damages if not managed properly, as I tried to explain before. The same can be said about traditional ag. In fact that is the main issue with traditional ag system: It has never been managed properly but the use of productive enhancing technologies have been abused under the belief and fallacy that the more we use it the more we produce surely leading to environmental contamination.
In addition, we need to stop living in Utopia thinking that we can continue producing enough using the same technologies as our great grandfathers and/or that we can inherit the land the same as it was inherited to us. When that happened, this planet did not have 7.5 Billion people and was not projected to have more than 10 Billion in the next 25 to 30 years (just around the corner). If we want to preserve the environment and produce enough to feed an ever growing population, we will need to adopt technologies that will help us make efficient use of that limited resource called soil, which in many developing countries is being depleted as we write. There is a reason why the highest levels of malnutrition and famines occurs in developing countries many of which are in SSA and in Asia.
Some may argue that there is currently enough food production in the world to go around, argument which may be true. However the highest production is taking place in developed nations who have been using those productive enhancing technologies for years, while developing ones are facing deficits in production and therefore food shortages leading to famines and/or malnutrition. So far the food produced in developed countries have reached the developing ones by means of food donations, which is mighty expensive. Don't we think that it is much cheaper to produce it locally than depend on expensive donations or even buy it at an un-fordable cost? The alternative is to attempt continue living in our ancestral times while the rest of the World is moving forward.
If we do not accept the benefits of productive enhancing technologies and adopt them, we will end up in a "Soylent Green" society...
There is a great potential for organic agriculture given that the we focused on soil problems. The organic soil should be decomposed properly to avoid harmful bacteria and fungi (E. coli and mycotoxins) that would contaminate the target crops we want to cultivate. Another we should select varieties of crops that is less susceptible to pests and diseases and high yielding ( meaning we should still use GE crops). Proper crop rotation, synchronization of planting and soil conservation techniques should be employed to lessen the use of harmful pesticides and insecticides and to conserve the soil moisture. Use of mechanical weeders could replace the use of herbicides since we have now small equipment for weeding. Lastly, crop management strategies should be employed: proper planting space, bordering the crops with mint crops as a way of replacing pesticides since mint crops could contribute in the driving away insects. In the long run, because of organic way of farming, our drinking water and irrigation canals would not be contaminated with chemicals anymore that come from the use of chemical inputs from our farming communities.
Yes I agree with Marilyn. Potential of organic farming is great and governments are trying now. Even in India Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojna (PKVY) is organic agriculture programme launched and fully funded by the government of India. Most states are implementing it.
thank u all for valuable insight on prospect of Organic Agriculture.this will surely go a long way in future application for safe and sustainable agriculture productivity.
Dr Roy, one thing I strongly believe that if you really want to establish organic agriculture then you have to give more emphasis on biofertilizer industry, bio-inoculants, AM fungi, plant growth promoting substances,, organic matter recycling, organic based traditional practices, bio-control agents for disease, pest and nematode management, eco-friendly tillage option. In fact total dependence on organic farming inputs under the present scenario is not possible for the farmer.,
I agree with J C Tarafdar. Of course they have diversified option to sustain the system. They have choice of depency as well!
Yes, Dr. Aktar, the sustainable agriculture has to be based on site-specific, balanced and adequate fertilization, and an integrated plant nutrient supply system involving organic, inorganic and biofertilizers. The inherent problem of organic agriculture is it is bulky and supply less nutrient. Their main values lies in their content of micronutrients, promote microbial activities, and improve physical, biological and chemical properties of soils.,
Organic Agriculture is a dynamic and dynamic method. It is not stagnant and survives on the basis of new and innovative in terms of internal and external needs. As a result, the current technology may be dropped or sophisticated and if necessary, new technologies will be taken. Now the time has come to determine the means of feeding food and agriculture in this method.
It must be conducted in a biological way in the sense of truth. To ensure food security for the current and future generations as well as to solve the crisis faced by agriculture and farmers of this country, to build a sustainable agricultural system. There is a great deal of suspicion among many of the country's policy makers, whether it is possible for biological agriculture to provide food for the growing population of a populated country like Bangladesh.
The experts' approach to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in an international conference is relevant in this regard. It has been said that organic agriculture is able to ensure the food security of every person around the world
Scientists have recently given a theoretical model. It has been shown that it is possible to provide 2 thousand 640 to 4,380 kilocalories of food for every person in the world through organic farming without increasing the quantity and yield of the total cultivable land based on the efficiency of this model.
Dr. Salma, at the present moment you cannot rely completely on organic farming to feed the people of your country. You have to develop high tech organic technology with strict quality control. Niches of organic farming need to be identified. Post harvest residues should be utilized to the fullest extent. Feasible technologies are needed for in-situ recycling/ rapid composting of on-farm residues and wastes, in edition to extension efforts to change the mindset of the farmers. Possibilities of using non-traditional organic sources for example, slaughter house waste, should be exploited to partly supplement plant nutrient needs of the organic farming systems. Inclusion of legumes in intensive cereal-cereal production systems as short duration grain or forage crops, as substitute to one of the cereals or as break crops needs to be promoted. Finally, all other suggestions given earlier by different experts on this line should also be considered.
Organic food has huge demand in the country and production is also being done. But there are
some misconceptions about organic food-- less productive, more expensive, and do not know. Who does not want safe food or who does not need? People of all parts of the country know that organic food is safe it is scientifically established. In the country, pesticides and chemical fertilizers application are given importance. As well as biological production is ignored or discouraged. There has been no research done in the last 60 years. The present system is established on the basis of ‘give more materials, produce more'. It has caused extensive damage to soil and environment and to human health. Supporters of the current system are also saying this. But what is the alternative? The alternative is not coming like that. Some people say the point of organic agriculture, but silently. The present system has failed, organic agriculture is the solution. However, the introduction of organic agriculture throughout the country is not an acceptable solution. This requires preparation. As a result, we have to take strategic initiatives.
Dr Salma, you are absolutely right that we have to take strategic initiative to promote organic agriculture. I think, we should start immediately to give more emphasis on bio-fertilizer industry, residue management and composting, bio-inoculants in crop production, tree litters, AM fungi, organic amendments as bio-control agents, neem based products, ley farming etc depends on our condition, if we really want to shift totally on organic agriculture.
very good discussions on pros and cons in OG. I think only OG is not practicable and will not option to feed large population both in cost and number wise. Yes as said earlier we give emphasis to traditional farming with improved seeds which by default a organic in many hill areas, forest regions where we deliberately for the sake of increasing production used inorganic agriculture. second to start reducing the use of excessive inorganic for fertilizer and pesticides and same time develop good bioinoculants for the same. I think effective utilization of organic wastes with rich bioinoculants and rational technologies even 25 % land comes under organic in decade will be major achievement.
Actually if you look at on organic agriculture you will find the organic agriculture system is solely depends on the use of on-farm and off-farm crop residues and organic wastes, animal manures, crop rotation incorporating legumes, and biological pest control to maintain soil productivity. Although recently bio-inoculates and PGPR has been introduced. But in organic agriculture, the philosophy is to feed the soil rather than the crops to maintain soil health and it is a means of giving back to nature what has been taken from it. Therefore, to positive increase in the crop production we need to combine organic with inorganic fertilizer in appropriate level where organic input may take care more on soil health and inorganic input may take more responsibility on increase in crop production.
De acuerdo con el Dr Tarafat. Lo mejor es combinar la agricultura orgánica con la convesional que utilizan fertilizantes y pesticidas en cantidades adecuadas mediante cálculos científicos
well, organic in indian context may be replacing all area otherwise under subsistence farming.This is very easy and affordable as farmers practicing in these areas hardly use any chemicals and are resorting to very old traditional varietes.However, for rest of the agrarian area,huge population reaching to nearly 1,354,051,854 i.e 17.74 % of global population in year 2018 and thereafter poses greatest cahllenge to better prospects of organic farming at least in India.
Organic agriculture offers the world a feasible opportunity to secure food production and quality. The challenges of feeding an increasing human population remain significant and intimidating if we look at the rate of population increase and the rate of land degradation occurring in the world.
The chemical paradigm that has allowed the expansion of farming systems 150 years ago is losing traction in terms of efficacy. Genetic engineering technologies in the 1990s were heralded as the breakthroughs in agriculture however, they did not contribute to conserve soil, water and public health. The "addiction" to chemicals use increased with GE technologies and this trend cannot insure an achievement of a sustainable agriculture. Organic agriculture offers this opportunity instead and if research institutes and agricultural universities had been allocated the funds that typically are invested in the development of new GMOs, or chemicals we would have a more resilient and biologically productive food system. The challenge at present consists in providing opportunities for conventional growers to restore the health of their farms through a process that will lead to organic systems. This process entails a slow replacement of modern, high-tech inputs with similar inputs that are more ecologically friendly. An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach could be the temporary transition phase to detox conventional farms in their journey of conversion to becoming ecological and organic.
Our ancestors have been farming for thousands of years and only in the last 200 years chemicals like synthetic fertilizers and pesticides have entered the agriculture arena. Agricultural knowledge has been directed by Agricultural Universities teaching and research to continue searching to develop more effective products of synthesis. Thus, Chemical agriculture has quickly altered the culture of doing agriculture and agricultural research. If a more equitable distribution of research money would have occurred, I think that organic agriculture could have proved to be even more successful that conventional farming, while fulfilling the increasing needs for food and, most importantly, while preserving our declining resource base (soil, water, germplasm, agrobiodiversity).
Cuban agriculture has been demonstrating that a successful conversion to organic food production is feasible. What I liked the most in learning about the transition process to organic agriculture in Cuba is the valuing of traditional farming knowledge and the massive education effort in which food production became a subject of study across generations (from young children to professionals, grandparents) and more.
@Bruno
It is interesting to note that Cuban agriculture has been demonstrating successful conversion to organic food production is feasible.Let us hope success stories of Organic agriculture will be generated from Cuba for others to follow the suit.thanks for educative input.
ajit
Organic agriculture cannot produce enough food that the world's population need to survive. This could lead to starvation in countries that produce enough food today. Moreover, organic foods are expensive because farmers do not get as much out of their lands as conventional farmers do. Organic foods may cost up to 40% more. Thus common people cannot afford it.
@Arving
True,presently organic food is costlier but with commercialisation and large scale production the cost factor may be minimised. Most importantly from health point of view,there is no substitute.
ajit
This idea that agriculture has to "feed the world" is paternalistic and obsolete! What about giving the right to the world to feed itself? Every human culture has its own history and knowledge of plants and animal species that provide food, medicine and fiber. This knowledge however is being extirpated and lost by the greed of the western agroindustrial complex, which is predicated on a philosophy of extraction and unlimited economic growth for few multinational companies and governmental stakeholder who gave in to the illusion of "developing agriculture" in the 21st century and beyond. Conventional agriculture relies excessively to non renewable energy and thus will not be able to withstand time at these rates of oil consumption and depletion of soil and water, to continue producing food. Another point to consider is also food distribution, price for consumers and food waste. These are tangible socio economic issues that should be considered before thinking about developing more oil-based technologies to increase crop yields. I think that after 200 years of chemical agriculture we have sufficient evidence to conclude that despite increasing yields (that were possible also because of improved seed and animal breeds, mechanization, irrigation systems, etc.), the environmental costs of food production are not sustainable. Therefore, we are at a crossroad. We can begin a detoxification process in agriculture and slowly convert to organic farming (if we plan for the next 1,000 years and more), or continue the "party" acting as if more modern technologies will be the solution to resolve the problems of agriculture. I wish for the first option.
Dr Bruno
Let us not be pessimistic. Work has already initiated.Hopefully, a solution will come out.thanks.
ajit
I include a rough history on the increase of US organic agriculture and the key motivators. The changes in policy can lead to greater research and development in this key area. Research and policy changes have been a follower of the popular movement for a transformed agriculture and food system and not necessarily the initiator of the change. In fact the increasing concern about the effects of conventional agriculture including side effects of lack of diversity, chemical attack on the overall environment and the concern of altered genetics is part and parcel of the motivating factors. As researchers we like to think research drives transformation but this is not the case of organic farming.
The debate will continue, and you may not be able to arrive at a consensus!
However, I must stress that productivity is an important issue for the acceptance of organic agriculture.
The carrying capacity of organic agriculture is estimated at 3 to 4 billion people, well below the present world population of 7.6 billion, or 8.6 billion by 2030, or 9.8 billion projected for 2050. These estimates are based on the performance of organic agriculture systems as practiced before the widespread use of inorganic fertilizers and when the world population was around 1 billion only by the beginning of 1800.
Enlightened consumers and even farmers are aware of the ills of "Chemical farming". They know the havocs caused by chemical farming on human health, soil, water and air. Thus there is keenness on both the praties to adopt Organic Farming and use organically produced foods. The fears created by Chemical companies that yields will fall due to Organic farming has also been refuted loud and clear. Another reason for the phenomenal growth in Organic farming is the support of Government of India through its Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojna (PKVY).
You should approach the issue of organic farming objectively and cautiously. Romanticism alone will not feed the world.
I will highlight the population issue once again. When humans started agriculture, some 10000 years ago, the world population was just 5 million. World population rose to 30 million in AD 1. In 1804, world population became 1 billion. This rose to 2.5 billion in 1950 and 5 billion on 1987 July 11 just within a period of 37 years (remember July 11 is world population day). The present world population is 7.6 billion, which is expected to reach 8.6 billion by 2030, and 9.8 billion by 2050. When somebody claims that carrying capacity of organic agriculture is high enough to feed the burgeoning population, you must produce empirical evidences; hearsay or popular beliefs are not enough.
You want to kill the population by poising environment (soil, water, air, food) or let them survive for ever through organic farming? Economists have always been wrong like Malthus, Padok and so many... are you one of them ? Leave you computer and computer generated data and see what mother earth can generate..
It is not sustainable, but it is promising for dietary and luxury consumption.
thank u so much for recommending my question@
- C.P. Rahangdale
- Arvind Singh
- Carine Temegne Nono
There will not be any end to this type of discussions. The issue is compounded when you mix science and pseudo-science. You have to confront post-modernists, deep ecologists, eco-feminists, and the like too who are dead against reductionism! Anyway, in course of time, one school of thought must win or something else should emerge.
If you go through human history, you could find several recorded and unrecorded famines and food scarcities. You can imagine what kind of agriculture our ancestors were practicing. Great famines, poverty, and contagious diseases were common during the medieval period. After studying the pattern of population growth and food production, in 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus came up with his theory on population .He believed that it would be physically impossible for food production to increase faster than population. However, Malthus was proved wrong! He could not have foreseen a century of technological advances, which took place in all spheres of human activity including agriculture.
Big advances in science and technology during the industrial revolution period (late 18th to early 19th centuries) had their effects on farming and poverty. The invention of the internal combustion engine ushered in the era of farm mechanization. Research in plant breeding led to the commercialization of high yielding cultivars. Fertilizers and pesticides began to be used in a big way. Thus, the era of modern farming began.
The two World Wars brought drastic changes in the world agricultural scenario. The change was most spectacular after the end of World War II. After the war, food availability in developing nations became a big issue.
In the 1960s, many experts predicted imminent global famines in which millions would die, especially in third world countries. For example, William Paddock and Paul Paddock (the Paddock brothers), the authors of “Famine 1975!America’s Decision: Who Will Survive” predicted that by 1975 at least half of Indians would die because of famine and starvation, and suggested that the world turn its attention away from this hopeless land (Paddock and Paddock, 1967)! In 1968, another expert, Paul Ehrlich published “The Population Bomb”, warning that the growth of human population threatened the viability of all life-support systems of the world.
You may wonder how these prophets of doom were proved wrong, because millions did not die in massive famines as they predicted! The dramatic increases in food grain yields in third world countries beginning in the late 1960s averted the great catastrophe as they predicted. We call this phenomenal increase in food grain production as “Green Revolution”. I need not elaborate on green revolution because it is history.
When Malthus started discussion on population, world population was just 1 billion only. After 260 years, in 1960, just before the green revolution era, the population reached 3 billion, and within a period of 39 years, in 1999, it doubled to 6 billion (These are not computer generated data, but obtained from Census studies). Still now nothing of the sort predicted by the prophets of doom happened! You can find answers in the power of science, especially advances made in modern agriculture and modern medicine.
Dear RG members
Your valuable answers are really praiseworthy.I am sure these have added value of our knowledge.
ajit
I hope you may be interested to go through this report on Sikkim's organic farming. Sikkim, an Indian state is often glorified as a wondrous model of completely organic state. S. Ganesan and Archana Nair from the Sunday Guardian argues that "over the years, Sikkim the 100 % organic state, has come to heavily depend on other states to feed her people and tourists" . According to them, "Sikkim's organic agriculture suffers from a fatal combination of narcissism and politically propagated delusions". Please go through the report written by the duo at:
https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-sunday-guardian/20180624/281685435573443
Thanks for recommending my question.@
- C.P. Rahangdale
- Arvind Singh
- Carine Temegne Nono
Dr. Thomas, there are some drawbacks of organic farming, one should look into it while going complete organic farming.
1. Most organic manures are not nutrient specific so you need to work on it.
2. Ample labour is required; otherwise the land goes a waste
3. Regular vigilance is required. in the case of chemical farming, the pesticides once sprayed last for certain duration since organic farming requires the complete discard of pesticides, a regular inspection of land is absolutely necessary.
4. For intensive farming system you need to have market purchased chemical inputs with farm grown biological inputs for sustainable production.
I hope the following review may be interesting to you. It is available in ResearchGate for download. Thank you in advance.
Conference Paper Food for all: Alternatives to organic farming
It will be sustainable if worked into since it is environmentally friendly.
Brilliant answers added to the knowledge on the subject,Thanks RG members for valuable answers,
ajit
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture