Do we need chemical based agriculture to support our world population?

Question

I am doing a project and can't find any websites that say we do need chemical based agriculture, which I am debating the yes side to, where we need chemical based agriculture. Any help or websites would be greatly appreciated.

Answer 1

First  agriculture cultivation has become a mechanised ones and due to global warming many researchers fogotten the insects population vs the eliminations and natural manure availability and the % depletion etc., By chemical base made produce faster and the insects population are killed but many are alive which are not seen by our naked eyes but combined with chemials made the need for medical and drug researchers to rescue from the human diseases and one way -silent killers by chemical agriculture experts- that is human kills human,  not directly like animals but indirectly so that humans are not caught as killers and easily getting escaped from legal aspects. Every body in the whole world have forgotten that the natural agriproduction what our ancesstors had and lived for many years where the world running in jet speed try to accomodate the need and found easy solutions. Now few countries insists that the agri production what they buy should be free from chemical and they  pay a very high price resulting dryingout fund. It is one of the subject what you love to do the project but you will find lot of retrictions/reservations but you will be successful but the efforts what you have analysed and published may be useful for feeding white ants

Answer 2

Here is a good web site to get you started giving the pros and cons of each. I think the problem you are having is using the words chemical based agriculture. I know what you mean, but everything is chemical based, even yourself. Try using conventional farming instead. I think you will find plenty of information.

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/organic...

Answer 3

A very large part of our global food production is  not based on chemical fertilizer. Yet removal of that chemical fertilizer from the part of the world's agriculture that is using it would bring us very close to shortfall.

We certainly would not want to have a growing world population and no chemical agriculture.

But then we observe that even many parts of agriculture that are not using chemical fertilizer do get a lot of the nitrogen fertilizer they need from such sources as  bacteria that grow on the roots of some plants like legumes, and blue-green algae.  For most rice growing, nitrogen fertilizer is provided exclusively from blue-green algae.

We have used the inoculants to make sure that our alfalfa or beans stay richly green all season long, but having an almost open ended supply of nitrogen then forces us to supplement with phosphate and potassium to maintain balance.

Some soils are naturally well endowed with one or both of phosphates and potassium, so that for those soils we might expect to be able to get along without supplementation.

It is too easy to conclude from ones own experience that everyone else should be able to do likewise. But when one visits many different areas, one will find very different situations.

I would expect that our world population would barely make it without some phosphates and some potassium,but could generate all its nitrates non-chemically.

One of the more difficult things to get along with, to maintain production to feed the world might be pesticides and particularly herbicides. We would have to use a lot of hand labour to control weeds as well as herbicides do. Or we could use a lot of tractor power.

I guess if we have to use a lot of hand labour to feed a lot of hands, it is a fair trade off.

I feel we would have to get rid of cities, and have people returning their night soil as well as their labour to the soil... can't do that very readily if you are deep inside a big city.

Essentially if all the plant nutrients that go to produce the food we eat can find its way back to feed the next crop of  our food, we could keep on eating forever. But if we discard those plant nutrients into the water, down into the seas, we would need to replace it chemically.

The question may be almost moot if we are not able to provide the chemicals for want of energy. But fortunately we can switch from the high-energy fertilizers like ammonia, ammonium nitrate and urea to organic nitrates, and keep our energy for transporting mined phosphates, mined potassium.

To be able to go on eating, then, it may be essential that we conserve energy to allow us to provide that chemical supplementation. We also should be as economical as possible, recovering from our sewers essentially all of our plant nutrients, (and hopefully no industrial garbage).

It might be most practical to avoid diluting our manure with a lot of water and industrial waste so that we can safely reclaim the plant nutrients.

Answer 4

Allow me this short preamble (ramble) as reasoning as to why you are not finding the information you seek to the situation that is quite hotly debated still after a great many years. If you attempt to identify problems with agriculture, look for reasons one form is used as opposed to another, and want to justify one form of production as to "need" it over another, the problem you may be encountering is that you will get nowhere if you assume chemical intensive agriculture needs to justify itself. It will not and does not need to simply because it provides for the greatest percentage of the world human population. If it were, in truth, an actual entity it might have to defend it's integrity as it is defamed for it's short sightedness and indifference with respect to the lone term environmental issues. It is asking the guilty to admit it when playing dumb serves them well. In truth, it allows the population to eat but at an unseen cost. The details are below in the sources and with them, additional links and info, enough for you to make a project and form your own opinion. When you look at the tenants of both organic agriculture and sustainable agriculture you will notice immediately that they have a need to justify themselves, being the lesser of the producers (currently). If they were on the witness stand as entities they would have reason to speak out; they are not guilty and wish you, the jury, to know it. They exist to address the issues. When looking up their statistics you will see how and why they compare themselves to chemically intensive means of food production. Organic agriculture wants you to see that the rules of engagement in food production consider those chemicals so widely used, produced, and under development to be poor choices with respect to your health and also the health of the environment. Sustainable agriculture wants you to be aware that there are a great many activities and products and processes that drain our natural resources and ruin the land and the environment that must sustain us forever. Through this we see that even some simple tools and concepts, trusted for a millennium are, in fact, causing a cycle of destruction that needs to be addressed immediately. The truth, though, is really somewhere in between. Modern agriculture brings a lot of fresh tools, new color to our pallet. Farmers have a great many choices to make and disciplines to follow. One might choose to embrace the best of all those disciplines. Organic ways don't always stress the long term results and sustainable agriculture is not as strict in it's organic interpretation where it's scope is in the long range abilities. Chemical agriculture and industrial strength monoculture address huge production maximums for the teaming millions and billions. The long and the short of it, we can not keep our planet sound, and our bodies healthy with the big business chemically intensive approach to feeding all the people. We can not feed all the people and keep the environment stable and fertile with good intentions. What we are doing is going in the right direction but we really need more effort on the part of all people to get direction and develop resources. In the end it seems all will have to roll up their sleeves and do more in actuality and less in good intentions. A final question, Have you started gardening yet? If you haven't, why not? All people need to ask that question.

Answer 5

Wow - those are some really long answers above.  I didn't take the time to read them.

One thing to consider is that as the world population grows, we need either more land or better ag techniques to feed them.  More land is not a possibility as almost all of the high quality ag land is being used.  Additionally, as urban sprawl increases, more and more land is taken out of ag production (Chicago is a good example).  So the only alternative is to increase the efficiency of ag production - which means herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and hormones (for livestock).

Answer 6

If there is to be enough food for the world then chemicals such as herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides as well as fertilizers need to be used. There is simply no other way. Organic production absolutely cannot supply enough food for the billions of people on the Earth.

Now that is not to say we can't be better at using chemicals only when needed. Agronomists such as myself use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to help us to decide when to use pesticides. All you need to do is a web search for Integrated Pest Management and you will find much more info. IPM use insect populations with economic thresholds to determine when control is needed. This prevents applying pesticides when not needed and it helps protect natural enemies to pests such as ladybird beetles and lacewings.

For fertilizer management we use Best Management Practices (which also includes IPM). This involves applying only the amount of fertilizer that is needed for a profitable crop based on fertilizer cost and crop price. Soil and water samples as well as past crop history and manure applications are used to determine the proper amount of fertilizer needed for the crop. This is where the law of diminishing returns applies. More is not always better and, in fact, may cause you a crop loss or a reduction in profits. Again, a simple internet search (Fertilizer Best Management Practices) will give you some info.

Organic production really is hard to define. True organic production should involve NO man made chemicals from any source or artificial methods of pest control. Organic should be "all natural." Today that is very difficult. For years organic producers used a toxin from the bacterium Bacillius thuringensis (check spelling) to control insects from the order lepodropta such as the European Corn Borer. However, there is a process needed to extract the toxin from the bacteria and that introduces man made chemicals and is an artificial control method. True organic production cannot use Bt toxins because the bacteria is found naturally in the ground! Thus, the use of Bt is stretching the rules quite a bit. Crops which are genetically modified with the Bt gene do not qualify for organic production because it is not natural. Bt sprays are not natural either, but they qualify! A different rule that is bent is the use of manure from feedlots. Cattle from feedlots are fed antibiotics, growth stimulators, and many other feed enhancements that are found in the manure. Thus, this should break the rule about man made chemicals placed on the soil. However, this is often not considered as a broken rule. Pesticide drift also should break the organic rule. If an organic farm is right across the fence or across the road from a non-organic farm it should not be considered organic because there is no way to stop 100% of pesticide drift. It is impossible. Yet many organic fields are planted right up to conventional fields.

Conventional production is really not a bad thing. With biotechnology such as Bt corn many millions of pounds of ai (active ingredient) are not applied to soils which has a profound positive effect on the environment. Seed companies are also working on nitrogen efficient corn which may reduce the amount of fertilizer applied.

Organic food is not safer than conventional food.

Organic food does not taste better than conventional food.

Organic food is a stupid fad that makes people feel good about themselves.

If we are forced into 100% organic production millions of people will die from hunger.

Answer 7

yes, to meet the high demands of today