I am no proponent of organic farming. I think it is for loonies frankly. But the argument that manure is worse than the tonage of petroleum based fertilizers in addition to the pesticides and herbicides that are used in conventional farming? You must be joking. They all have run-off issues as well. Thats just part of farming. And you know, if you eat meat, meat producing animals have to take a dump, it creates manure, where you gonna put it? Bury it in the mountains in Utah with the nuclear waste? The idea that manure is less healthy than conventional farming is rediculous. There are already instance of ellevated levels of pesticides in some water supplies from the run-off of conventional farming. Any issues with manure polluting the water supply would come from huge animal feed lots. Not from spreading it on the fields for manure on organic farms. And by the way, plenty of conventional farmers who have livestock spread their manure on their fields as well. Again, it has to go somewhere. Where do you think it went for the past millenias on this planet?

And with respect to land usage, we are talking needle in a haystack here. There is hardly any land being used to grow food organically. Its a drop in the bucket and makes no difference what so ever.

Deep Tillage? Huh? I grew up on a conventional farm. We till the heck out of the soil. Yes there are some no till farms but most are sufficiently tilled. Ever heard of a DMI ripper. What do you think that does. It has teeth on it that are 5 feet long. It takes a 300 horse power 4-wheel drive to pull one that has only 7 teeth on it. It tills so deep that it rips rocks out of the ground that are nearly as big as a car. I know, I have used them.

Sorry but your arguments are just bogus. Organic farming is still for nuts, but it is not even remotely close to dangerous to the environment. The biggest problem they have is seeding the country side with weeds because they can't used any herbicides.

I'm talking about no-till vs. Organic. I should have made that clear. I'm not saying manure is all bad - but when it gets spread on fields near waterways there can be problems (Dairy farmers in New York have been implicated in Chesapeake bay water quality problems).

Why the heck would anyone need to till 5' deep? I am guessing this is for landclearing and would not be used on a regular basis.

Organic farmers cannot take responsibility for feeding the world - they can't guarantee production like a no-till farmer can.

What's even worse are the anti GM (geneticially modified) luddites who condemn a chunk of the world to hunger since they are 'uncomfortable' with technology and progress.

Anyway - thanks for the feedback :)
-fg

The 5 foot teeth do not all go in the ground. They are used for leverage. Typically the depth is tilled between 10-18 inches with them. It is not used for land clearing. It is used very commonly by many conventional farmers. And sure No-till saves on erosion but that is still the minority of conventional farmers.

And yes there can be run-off problems with manure but as I was trying to state conventional farmers have run-off problems from fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. And I think most people are more concerned about the chemicals than they are about manure run-off, although I am sure you can find pockets where a manure run-off problems are concerning.

Look, I agree with your premise that organic farming is a joke and no solution to any problems. I just don't agree with the reasons you were trying to make.

The better arguments are along the line of the fact that you can't raise enough food with organic and that if you did actually try to go totally organic then in fact land would become a problem. Basically the arguments you made in your last two paragraphs of the comment. Not the arguments in the original post.

I buy organic meat, eggs and milk year around. I'm aware there are no studies showing the synthetic compounds used in conventional agriculture are dangerous. But who does most of the studies? They are often funded by industry money, or USDA money that is beholden to industry. They said DDT wasn't dangerous either. Heck, there are still people out there who wish they could still use it.

I don't buy organic to save the world, make no claims that it will feed the world etc. I buy because I don't want to contribute to factory farming. I live in Iowa. Large hog lots are a big problem. They pollute the air and water and make life miserable for their neighbors. As do large poultry operations. I've driven by large beef feedlots that smell so bad my eyes water. Modern livestock farming may be efficient, but it shows very little respect for the animals. That's not the way it used to be.

To me it's intuitive that growth hormones and antibiotics given to animals will wind up in their milk, eggs and meat. I don't want to consume it. That's my choice as a consumer.

It's one thing to cross breed plants or even splice genes from one species of plant to another to achieve some desired characteristic. Inserting mice genes into a potato plant just isn't natural. There are some places we just shouldn't go.

And to make myself clear, I hunt and fish regularly. I'm not a vegetarian. I have nothing against killing animals for food. But I don't think we have a right to treat living things with virtually no respect. Chickens bread to have large breasts that can't stand on their own isn't very respectful IMHO. Hogs that never see the light of day or touch the actual earth beneath their feet deserve a better fate. The whole process devalues the animals and debases what it means to be a human being.

dear fg, do you have small children at home? What would you prefer to feed them - hormone and antibiotic laden milk, eggs and meat, or organically produced milk, eggs and meat?

Organic farming doesn't claim to save the world, but they do claim to produce healthier food which IMHO it does.

The argument that organic farming cannot produce enough food is a spurious one because food production is not the problem, control of the food supply is. In today's world there is abundant food production but millions go hungry because food supply is controlled by a few corporations such as Cargill and Monsanto and which doesn't help the poor starving millions very much.

Organic can be factory farmed the same way other food is (some of the bigger producers do this). Some folks go one step farther and look for biodynamic organic food.

The healthiest thing is probably just to eat way less. Caloric restriction has been shown to prolong life in every animal model (including primates) in which it has been tested.

-fg

Food supply is controlled by cargill and monsanto? HA HA HA HA HA. Thats hillarious. Monsanto is the one who has developed all the new technology that allows corn and soybeans to be round-up resitant and to have technology in it that makes them resitant to certain insects. Nearly all conventional farmers (millions of them) are using these new hybrids and producing far more food than they did decades ago. But somehow in your mind this is monsanto controlling the food supply. Without this the food supply would be in short supply.

Don't confuse food supply with distribution to the poor.

If all the land in this country was farmed by organic farmers there would not be enough food to go around and gas prices would look extremely cheap compared to the new food prices. I have small children and I feed them 100% hormone and antibiotic laden milk, eggs, and meat.

Thanks for proving my point above about the nuts tom.

I disagree strongly with what you wrote, fg, and I see lots of signs of ignorance. When dealing with manure, the primary issue of water quality is that of nitrates being released as runoff into the water. Nitrates, as a organic nutrient, help suck up available dissolved oxygen(DO) in the water more quickly than oxygen can dissolve into water from the atmosphere, creating a deficit. The drawbacks to water quality are significant, but to humans, nitrates won't kill, although it can cause blue baby syndrome in infants. On the other hand, pestisides DEVASTATE the environment. First of all, it's nonsustainable. Pestiside resistance will occur sooner or later, which means that stronger pestisides will be necessary. Manure on the other hand, won't kill bugs, but it won't lead to ever increasing toxicity to humans and bugs. If you wish to learn about toxicity, learn about the herbicide atrazine and the research done by Tyrone Hayes at UC Berkeley about deformities in frogs. Considering that frogs aren't as simple organisms as simple bugs, and aren't completely unrelated to humans as plants are, I can't imagine how some people can be so indifferent. Lack of research into the harmful effects doesn't mean they don't exist: it means no one is paying for the research, as companies won't pay for research that shows their money maker is harmful to living organisms. Another example is that of monosodium methylarsenate, MSMA, which is frequently used for golf courses. While it's not food, the idea of the harmful herbicide holds true here as well: MSMA will degrade into more harmful organoarsenates as it decomposes, potentially leaching into shallow groundwater tables. It's not just a matter of food, as you correctly pointed out: it's the soil, the water, the air, and people's health.

On the topic of cost, I'm sure you know that people nicknamed Whole Foods as Whole Paycheck. This is from the people who you dismiss as people who cling to fantasy: people who shop organic know when food is expensive: whole foods is not the only place to get organic. Again, it seems to be that you're highly ignorant of cheaper options for getting organic food, or you deliberately seize upon the most expensive seller of organic food as a very misleading example of its cost. Have you gone to Trader Joes? They are much more reasonable, and farmers' markests are even cheaper. CSA efforts are also affordable as well.

As for your statement, "What's even worse are the anti GM (geneticially modified) luddites who condemn a chunk of the world to hunger since they are 'uncomfortable' with technology and progress.", as an environmental engineer, I wish to say: What's even worse are the pro GM individuals who do not attempt to understand the siginificant drawbacks of GM food since they are not aware of the importance of biological diversity. I wish to add that what you hear is not always the truth. I would hope you would understand, again, that research that is done is research that is paid for. Companies will never pay for things that show their money maker in a bad light. Prof. Hayes was told by a Berkeley administrator that he wasn't worthy of doing science at Berkeley, because he kept on even when his sponsor stopped funding his research.

I am really, really disappointed, fg, that you posted an article that was so poorly written. It was not so much your stance that GMO is better, which I can respect but disagree with, but your shoddy research and indictment of people who shop organic without even considering their arguments fully, that makes me feel very provoked. I would hope that you give what you wrote more serious thought, and deeply consider both sides of the issue. I am emailing a copy of this to the the owner of pfblog network, whose writing has been highly educational for me, pointing out that maybe your writing isn't as up to par as should be to be in the network. It seems to me that the best sign of of a well written article is when both sides are discussed well, not just one viewpoint, and one very biased at that.

I agree with Andrew. Although, I don't go so far as to say fg shouldn't post things. The comment section is an excellent way to correct inaccuracies or simply to debate the merits of a position.

But I do appreciate Andrew's support of "nut cases" and Luddites such as myself who feel we should treat our earth and our fellow animal travelers with a whole lot more respect.

wow, i am really surprised at this article. i don't agree with you and i can't even come to understand your point of view because your argument is so poorly thought out.

i have lots of allergies and i fear all the GM's which are getting into all of the food supplies (it can't be fully controlled). i have to rotate my food in my diet but when other genes are used in food that was previously perfect and fine, i am afraid this may lead to not only an increase in my illnesses, but they will surely pop up in others who had no problems before.

how about the people who are allergic to certain foods because of the strong pesticides used on them? (for example: strawberries, grapes, etc.) i know people personally who have tried a particular food they were allergic to that was organic and then had no problem enjoying it. often times, and i am not alone in finding this, organic produce even TASTES better than conventional. btw, we don't even have a whole foods nearby, yet there are plenty of places to get organic produce, regular supermarkets & farmer's markets included.

isn't it interesting that studies show american children raised on dairy products full of hormones are reaching puberty far sooner than european children (specifically female children)? (european dairy typically is free of hormones)

(in new england, the forests are 'back' b/c more and more land is used for housing, etc. and people save trees and put up more trees. over a century ago, it was clear cut for many crops that today don't exist anymore due to development.)

there is so much i could write and cite, but i don't feel it's worth it. i will now be removing this site from my favorites as well.... good bye and good luck.