From: psmith@alfred.carleton.ca (Peter Smith)
Subject: Re: Organic Farming: As good as they say?
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:42:45 GMT

In <1992Nov8.083605.25035@netcom.com> oleg@netcom.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes:

>In article <BxBCFJ.Fpn@cda.mrs.umn.edu> kilennj@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Nicholas J. Kilen 1621537) writes:
>>1. A lot of the chemicals used in farming are just as organic as the
>>so-called natural organic materials.  In 1827 Friedrich Wohler proved

>Organic fertilizers slowly release nutrients, providing a steady, even
>supply of nutrients.  Most artificial fertilizers flood the plants with 
>high levels of basic nutrients, easily washed out of the soil and the 
>supply maintained by frequent re-application of massive amounts of the
>fertilizer.  

>Artificial fertilizers end up in the rivers and lakes, causing elevated
>concentrations of nitrates and phosphates, which lead to die offs and 
>reduced fertility of fish and to algae blooms which choke down the water
>ways.  To get the levels of these chemiclas down to human-safe levels,
>urban water supplieers spend millions of $$ treating water polluted by agro
>run-off.  Untreated water ends up in the ocean, killing off the oyster and
>kelp beds and destroying fisheries.

Furthermore, if it weren't for Rachel Carson, Rodale, and others
leading the organic movement, we might still be pouring on the DDT.
Don't try to tell me that DDT does not have serious ecological
consequences.

>>2. An organic farm can never become a net exporter of masss produce
>>without running down soil fertility.  The only way I know of that
>>organic farms can keep there farms fertile is to get phosphate and
>>potash by importing feeds produced by fertilisers.

>Potassium and phosphorus can be (and are) obtained from mineral and 
>organic sources.  Reduced soil erosion helps delay the need for additives.

The idea of mass production is of particular interest, because while
yield comparisons are not yet conclusive, some people are willing to
concede lower yields for the sake of staying organic in order to
maintain productive soil.

There have been many cases documented in which organic-style farming
has been sustained for *centuries*, while inorganic techniques have
proven to degradate soil over time.  Therefore, if we don't start
encouraging sustainable techniques here and abroad, how long til soil
degradation leads to our demise?

>>3. Organically grown food do not protect against pests and diseases.

>Reasonable levels of genetic diversity and judicious use of organic forms of
>disease and pest control do not fully insure the absence of problems, but
>go a long way to reduce them.  

This is one of the biggest challenges for organic farmers.  However,
things like companion planting definitely help (personal experience).
And, as mentioned above, pesticides might help to eliminate
bugs/disease, but like a human, being in good health enhances one's
ability to withstand attacks of disease etc.

>>Look at history folks.  The Irish were growing potatoes organically
>>until the great potato famine.  Additionally, I have a hard time
>>believing insects like grasshoppers and locusts will leave an
>>organically grown farm untouched.

>Look at the more recent history.  Despite of the arsenal of pesticides,
>mediterranian fruit fly, gypsy moths and the white fly had caused enormous
>devastation to the agriculture.  Natural predators and parasites of these
>pests are always better solutions than broad-spectrun poisons.

>>4. Agrochemicals are not inheirently dangerous to humans.  Chemicals in
>>food have been used since the 1940's, yet life expectency has only gone
>>up since then, even though the vast majority of Americans have been
>>eating chemically grown food.

>Are we talking about the same planet and the same humans?  The *average* 
>life expectency has gone up primarily due to the decreases ion childhood
>mortality.  Mean while the incidents of cancers had multiplied and the
>incidents of cancers and various degenerative diseases plague the most
>advanced nations.   The causes can be debated, but the large numbers of
>cancer cases in agro communities is directly attributable to pesticides.

>>5. Organic farming is not better for wildlife.  A farmer would get
>>smaller yields. This would mean that more acres would have to go into
>>production leaving less land for wildlife.

But should it be up to North America and a few other countries to take
up the slack for net importers of food?  
Nations should be encouraaged to try feed themselves as much as they
can through sustainable methods.  It is basic to a country's
sovereignty.

>Organic farming produces the same yields per invested $$$.  Working
>more land is more work and there is a finite amount of land a farmer
>can work.  The assumption that a farmer who works X acres now will work
>more acres if the farm goes organic is absurd.  It's not like the amount of
>food produced in US is insufficient to feed the country.

>People buy organic produce and are willing to pay more for it for all sorts
>of intangible "feel good" reasons.  However, one of the most compelling 
>reasons is quite tangible -- it *tastes better*.  This is why the organic
>farms are becoming more numerous and the farmers' markets where most of the
>vendors are organic farmers are more and more popular.  
>-- 
>Oleg Kiselev at home			...use the header to find the path