Thread: Norman Borlaug on Organic Farming

I prefer tasty cucumber to extra people on Earth.

Millions of hungry illiterates are of little concern to me.

Some further thoughts about this article. To a certain extent, it attacks a strawman, in that few people seriously advocate going totally organic, and fewer advocate doing it instantaneously, and without further development of farming practices to allow for greater productivity and efficiency.

At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There’s a lot of nonsense going on here.

This assumes that all 80 million tons are actually utilized by plants, which is certainly not true. I would guess that a majority of that 80 million tons is dissipated through leaching, runoff, and other means. Organic farming allows for much more efficient use of nutrients, because the large amounts of organic matter added to the soil. This helps prevent leaching, promotes the growth of soil organisms that free up nutrients, and acts as a pH buffer, keeping pH at optimal levels.

If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it’s up to them to make that foolish decision. But there’s absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can’t tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it’s better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It’s a free society. But don’t tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That’s when this misinformation becomes destructive…

He's probably mostly right about that. However, nutrition is a tricky issue. We still don't know everything about what bodies need. Of course, the macronutrients are easy enough, but when it comes to micronutrients, well, we're still learning. Case in point, selenium.

I would also point out that there are definite ecological problems with heavy chemical use. Not just the obvious ones with pesticides. Heavy use of fertilizers is very hard on soil organisms. It greatly reduces numbers and species diversity. We know very little about soil ecology, but from what we have learned, it looks like there is a lot of important stuff going on down there that it would behoove us to learn about and try not not to disturb. There is also the problem of fertilizer runoff, leading to algal blooms and fish kills, to mention just a couple of problems.

As I said above, there is a bit of a strawman argumentation in this article. It raises some valid points, but ignores a large portion of the issues surrounding organic farming. I don't think we'll stop using synthetic fertilizers or pesticides any time soon, but there are strong scientific arguments for reducing such usage wherever possible, and making our use more targeted.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I don't disagree that organic farming offers both choice and innovation in food growing methods, but the subsidies are the main factor in the movement from pasture-based farming to feedlots. The subsidies don't exist in cattle feedlots, they exist in the corn growing which supplies that feed. It's more economical to grow corn than cattle/chickens on the land because of the subsidies and more economical to grow animals in feedlots because the feed is so cheep. The antibiotics are of course necessary due to the extremely poor conditions of the feedlots the animal are raised in.
By cutting the massive subsidies, you make efficient land based agriculture viable once again.

Another thought on subsidies... perhaps they're one of the culprits of the obesity epidemic in OECD nations. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Another thought on subsidies... perhaps they're one of the culprits of the obesity epidemic in OECD nations. Just a thought.

More than just a thought, there are direct links which unfortunately don't get much air-time
http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/04/...food-industry/