Organic farming?

Question

please give me arguments for and against organic farming like pro's and con's please. x

Answer 1

I am cutting and pasting rathernotsays' argument and will rebut each point

RNS:Organic farming is simply the practice of farming without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.

OO:No organic farming is a lot more than that, essentially organic farming is all about growing healthy soil which means synthetic 'cides and chemicals cannot be used as they kill life in the soil thus killing the soil. The USDA and all other ag organizations recognize that modern chem agriculture has been very hard on the soil and we are losing it at an ever increasing rate. organic agriculture actually stops soil loss and replaces depleted soils.

RNS:There is no "better" method. Organic farming is generally better for the environment and at times even more practical for the small farmer (fertilizers and pesticides can be very expensive.) However, organic farming is a luxury afforded to well-off nations. Where else would citizens advocate a method of farming known for lower yields and higher labor costs, regardless of the health benefits?

OO: Organic farming is not dependant on petro chemicals as is chemical farming. This means it is the best way for developing nations to grow their own food. Chemical inputs and GMO seed are very expensive, not to mention the petro powered machines too often required for this kind of farming (mono cropping on large acrage) and in order for the poor farmers to farm this way they must go into deep debt that they will never get out of. Organic agriculture allows these farmers to "grow" their own fertilizers as well as seeds and use less machinery/petro. organic ag actually yeilds about as well as conventional when talking about  mono-cropping. but when you talk about human scale diversified farms(which is what the vast majority of developing nations should be doing) these farms yield up to 10x more food than conventional farming does. Labor is far cheaper in developing countries than chemicals.

RNS:Organic farming cannot feed the world. It is too labor intensive and does not have a high enough crop yield. Animal manure is simply not an efficient enough provider of nutrients for the intensive farming required for the human population of the future. Organic also holds no intrinsic benefits if it is grown in far off countries- simply shipping a crate of organic grapes from Chile to the U.S. negates any proposed environmental benefit.

OO:When poor farmers go from subsistence farming to growing crops for export in almost every case they no longer can feed and cloth themselves even though they are making income (which is taxed by the often corrupt government). So these people may be feeding the world (or rather the rich people of the world) but they no longer feed themselves or the people of their region. We must have a new paradigm that destroys the old thinking of agriculture is feeding the world (a one size fits all paradigm, if you will). We need to start thinking about sourcing most of our food from local and regional sources as soon enough it will cost way too much to import food from thousands of miles away

RNS:Results: Organic will always remain a large niche market for those who can afford it, but it is not a very practical solution to feed the world's poor. What should be advocated is the practice of eating locally- organic or not- because eating local foods benefits small farmers (who are more likely to farm organically or near organically anyway), encourages cooperatives, and dramatically reduces the carbon footprint of many foods.

OO:I disagree. Organic will become the common way of growing food world wide though not via the Green revolution model where the control of food is in the hands of very few corporations who contract with farmers to grow food to be shipped world wide for slave wages. This food is eaten by people who have absolutely no knowledge where the food came from or how it was grown.

Answer 2

It looks as if you already have the pro, here's the against (I cut and pasted from a previous answer as well):

Organic farming is simply the practice of farming without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.

There is no "better" method. Organic farming is generally better for the environment and at times even more practical for the small farmer (fertilizers and pesticides can be very expensive.) However, organic farming is a luxury afforded to well-off nations. Where else would citizens advocate a method of farming known for lower yields and higher labor costs, regardless of the health benefits?

Organic farming cannot feed the world. It is too labor intensive and does not have a high enough crop yield. Animal manure is simply not an efficient enough provider of nutrients for the intensive farming required for the human population of the future. Organic also holds no intrinsic benefits if it is grown in far off countries- simply shipping a crate of organic grapes from Chile to the U.S. negates any proposed environmental benefit.

Results: Organic will always remain a large niche market for those who can afford it, but it is not a very practical solution to feed the world's poor. What should be advocated is the practice of eating locally- organic or not- because eating local foods benefits small farmers (who are more likely to farm organically or near organically anyway), encourages cooperatives, and dramatically reduces the carbon footprint of many foods.

Answer 3

Any practice which persuades people to spend more money to get less food has to be good for agriculture. Organic certification gives us such a marketing niche. It is not merely that people will pay more for that certification, but they will pay it knowing full well that they are effectively paying to have less food grown. This is useful because we  like to make the rest of the people (those who do not buy organic) also eager to pay more money.

But, most tellingly, because organic farming does not use herbicides, it uses a lot of heavy machinery to do mechanical tillage to partially control weeds. This mechanical weed control of course may not be sustainable in an era with declining fossil fuel supplies.

Answer 4

Below is the answer I gave to a similar question. I "cut and pasted" it below.

Chemicals are labor savers but that cost causes an almost equivalent rise in food prices when compared to the additional labor required for organic and/ or sustainable agriculture. Equipment used with chemical intensive monoculture may not be suitable for organic or sustainable growing.

No matter what the chemical or the claims, those chemicals are present in the environment and affect it for a long time after use.

Labor and knowledge can make chemicals and their use of no value to agriculture and once accepted and endorsed will not cause food prices to rise and will provide jobs to many. High organic food prices are an imbalance with respect to competition and are directly related to supply and demand. One expects to pay more and does frequently for that reason.

All chemicals have links to poor health of those consuming the food and also the health of the environment. Many chemicals are present in our food from manufacturing waste and our poor waste reclamation (i.e. heavy metals).

Chemicals allow for great harvests with expensive specialized equipment and little specialized training. Not using chemicals requires not only basic agricultural training but requires considerable specialized training in concepts and strategies. Some equipment that cost a great deal would be useless and many farmers won't change for the cost/ loss.

90% of chemical pesticides are just to make a grade jump to a grade "A" so to speak. It is the difference between a couple little brown spots on your fruit as opposed to none, hardly justification in light of the problems they cause.

Answer 5

As everybody else is copying and pasting past answers here I thought I would have a go.

First I will clear up the misunderstanding of the intention of growing Organic Food. The concept was a growing method to protect the environment by reducing the number of chemical fertilizers and routine injections given to animals. The intention was not to produce more tasty or healthier products at all.

However, consumers have misunderstood this subtlety, mainly because producers have seen the massive profits that can be made from people believing that Commercially grown Organic products are better for them (as opposed to the truth, Commercial Organic farming is much better for animal welfare and the environment -stricter legislation too. AND marginally better nutritionally see below).

PLEASE NOTE The reference to Commercially grown organic foods and homegrown or local grown organic foods, a distinction I will return to later.

There had been a number of inconclusive studies done on commercially grown organic foods in the past in relation to both taste and nutritive benefits. Indeed many people have appeared on television challenging both the claimed taste and nutritive benefits, including popular chefs (Delia Smith comes to mind).

But ... there is now well supported research findings by

Dr Kirsten Brandt of Newcastle University which found that

commercially grown organic carrots, apples, peaches and potatoes had greater concentrations of vitamin C and antioxidants than conventionally grown produce.

In 400g daily allowance of fruit and vegetables you get 20% more nutrients in organic food. Other research supports these findings including American Research on Kiwi Fruits and research done on organic milk has been shown to contain 68% more omega3 fatty acids than ordinary milk in research done by the University of Liverpool. However, eating more conventional fruit and vegetables a day can also increase your nutrient intake.

There have always been strong distinctions between the welfare of commercially grown organic animals and conventional animals, enforced by stricter legislation for the commercially grown organic animals. However, these are still far from perfect (in my opinion still dubious eg in egg production, better than conventional farming methods but still awful).

Traditional farming and pesticides Versus Organic

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/acp.asp?id=...

‘‘Long-term exposure to pesticides can lead to serious disturbances to the immune system, sexual disorders, cancers, sterility, birth defects, damage to the nervous system and genetic damage’. European Commission 2006

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/pol...

There are numerous Governmental research findings which consistently show that organic farms are more biodiverse; more plants, flowers, birds, insects, bees, etc etc. Organic farming also avoids some of the of carbon hungry processes eg avoidance of soluble fertilizers and pesticides.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/ind...

Another reason why UK Governments have financial grants packages and information services to encourage UK farmers to grow organically and sustainably.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/sys...

See this video for mass deforestation caused by traditional agriculture - intensive beef and dairy industry and growing foodstuff for intensively reared livestock (such as the intensive poultry industry).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWWNLvgU4...

The intensive Beef and Dairy industry (and growing feeds for intensive livestock farming) are responsible for more deforestation than any other cause.

Why do people think organic is so good?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...

Animals have not been treated with: antibiotics, growth hormones or feed made from animal byproducts. Animals are fed organic food (for a proportion of their life). They have access to outdoor space. Organic food can not be GM. Organic food is (largely) free of synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Environmental Working Group found that even after washing, some fruits and vegetables consistently carry much higher levels of pesticide residue than others on conventionally farmed foods. They developed the concept of the dirty dozen fruit and vegetables.

http://www.foodnews.org/methodology.php

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutriti...

So far this has been about commercially grown organic produce. There are problems with this method of food production, see comments above. It is also usually a monoculture system. It is also usually more expensive to buy. Organic produce is often imported from abroad, where they do not have as strict Organic standards as the UK and there is also the issue of CO2 production from flying food half way around the world. Another criticism of organic food is that it is not as fresh as other food (when it has been flown from abroad) and it's appearance can be poor in comparison to conventionally grown produce.

However, all of these problems can be overcome, you can get fresh, seasonal, local produce, that is much higher in nutritive value than conventional food products. You can ensure that it is chemical free, you can grow biodiversly. You can increase habitat and retain the minerals we need to stay healthy and organic matter in the soils. You can build soils. How?

Grow Permaculture.

(see my profile for Youtube links and site links about Permaculture)

As this is an amended copy and paste I will sum up with Grizzbr1's answer as my summary

'Just because YOU don't benefit directly doesn't mean something isn't better. You are a small part of a big,wide world and sometimes it's better for everyone to be a little more altruistic toward Mother Nature'

Answer 6

for organic:

- good for the environment

- produce sells higher

- cash savings

- people are starting to go organic now and it would be good to follow suit in this case and find new and more convenient methods of organic farming

against organic:

- the cost of starting is way too high

- organic crops have a higher weed count

- the above also takes nutritional value away from the food the animals should be eating

- take time and practise