"You call me rude because I call you on your ignorance? You want
smartass, rudeness and sarcasm? I have a whole truckload."

Not only are you 2 rude but also arrogant. You think you call me on
ignorance but you 2 are just showing yours. You might have read a
book and even used organic principles but by refusing discussion
you're only showing your narrowmindness. I'll grant you guys are
better at rudeness and sarcasm than winning people over to organic.

"You ever milk a cow, by hand? Make butter yourself? Raise chickens,
both for eggs and meat? We have. You ever heard of quinoa?
Amaranth?" And what make you think I haven't? Have you raise rabbit
for fur and meat? Do you tan the hides of what you hunt? Not
everyone is as stupid as you to think that Amaranth is a big
discovery. You might have known about it longer if you did have you
head stuck up you ass. I don't know why you're so proud of having had
your hands on some old cows' teats. Guess when you can't get a woman
you go to old Betsy.

Boy you 2 assume a lot. You don't have to be old to have worked on a
farm for fished and hunted. All you 2 have proved are that you're old
and can spell. You do have to be really, really old how ever to have
bagged a large deer or had a big fish get away. You guys are so smart
you probably brag about all the snipes you bagged too

Try this link.

http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...c05fe2f918880a

If that doesn't work, web goggle Catherine Bagley Yvette Perfecto Jim
Hendrix. It's the first article.

If you believe anything from Homeland Security you're probably a
little crazy too.

You know just when I thought you were going to be civil you acted up
again. You must be an old Ford V8.

In article . com,
James wrote:

"You call me rude because I call you on your ignorance? You want
smartass, rudeness and sarcasm? I have a whole truckload."

Not only are you 2 rude but also arrogant. You think you call me on
ignorance but you 2 are just showing yours. You might have read a
book and even used organic principles but by refusing discussion
you're only showing your narrowmindness. I'll grant you guys are
better at rudeness and sarcasm than winning people over to organic.

"You ever milk a cow, by hand? Make butter yourself? Raise chickens,
both for eggs and meat? We have. You ever heard of quinoa?
Amaranth?" And what make you think I haven't? Have you raise rabbit
for fur and meat? Do you tan the hides of what you hunt? Not
everyone is as stupid as you to think that Amaranth is a big
discovery. You might have known about it longer if you did have you
head stuck up you ass. I don't know why you're so proud of having had
your hands on some old cows' teats. Guess when you can't get a woman
you go to old Betsy.

Boy you 2 assume a lot. You don't have to be old to have worked on a
farm for fished and hunted. All you 2 have proved are that you're old
and can spell. You do have to be really, really old how ever to have
bagged a large deer or had a big fish get away. You guys are so smart
you probably brag about all the snipes you bagged too

Try this link.

http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...2%2FS174217050
7001986a.pdf&code=063bf3f1f9098af26dc05fe2f918880a

If that doesn't work, web goggle Catherine Bagley Yvette Perfecto Jim
Hendrix. It's the first article.

If you believe anything from Homeland Security you're probably a
little crazy too.

You know just when I thought you were going to be civil you acted up
again. You must be an old Ford V8.

At least your dependable.

"File not available. [S1742170507001986a.pdf]."

James-
You see I can act just as stupid as you in an "intellectual"
discussion.

Poster-
You're far too modest.
You acted waaaaaay "more stupid".

James-
Thank you. Thank you very much.

What is so hard about quoting sources so that we don't think that you
are just making this up as you go along. Your looking silly out here
James. It's really very, very, very simple. State your conclusion and
list your sources of information. You can do it.

I worry your going to wander away again James. Be careful out there.
Don't run into anything and hurt yourself.

Do you really want to be the village idiot? Suck it up.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Since I can't get the links to work, here's the text.

Preface
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems is a multidisciplinary
journal which focuses on the science that
underpins economically environmentally and socially
sustainable approaches to agriculture and food production.
The journal publishes original research and review articles
on the economic, ecological and environmental impacts
of agriculture; the effective use of renewable resources
and biodiversity in agro-ecosystems; and the technological
and sociological implications of sustainable food systems.
It also contains an open discussion Forum, which
presents lively discussions on new and provocative
topics. However, the opinions of the Forum and responses
are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
or Cambridge University Press.
John W. Doran
Editor-in-Chief, RAFS
Can organic agriculture feed the world?
Catherine Badgley and Ivette Perfecto
Forum
The prospect that organic agriculture has the potential to
feed the world is welcome news in light of the contradictions
of modern agriculture1. These include the massive
productivity of green-revolution agriculture yet the stubborn
persistence of hunger and malnutrition, the loss of
small farms even though they are more productive and
contribute more to local economies than do large farms2,
and the pervasive environmental destruction by agricultural
biocides and synthetic fertilizers even as more and more
ecological services of agricultural landscapes are being
recognized3. Organic agriculture per se cannot resolve all
of these contradictions, but its potential to provide enough
food to feed the entire world opens the door to the creation
of a new kind of food system based on agroecological
production principles. We (Badgley et al. in this issue) have
demonstrated two critical points. The first is that the
relative yields of organic versus non-organic methods
(green-revolution methods in the developed world, lowintensive
methods in the developing world) suffice to
provide enough calories to support the whole human
population eating as it does today. This conclusion is based
on a global dataset of 293 yield ratios for plant and animal
production. The second point concerns nitrogen fertility.
Data from 77 published studies suggest that nitrogen-fixing
legumes used as green manures can provide enough
biologically fixed nitrogen to replace the entire amount of
synthetic nitrogen fertilizer currently in use. Thus, the
principal arguments from critics of organic agriculture are
invalid. These results are controversial, partly from
prejudice and vested interests in the current agricultural
system and partly from disputed aspects of the analysis.
While this study claims that organic yields and nitrogen
fertility methods could feed the world, it does not forecast
yields for any particular crop or region, nor does it claim
that a global organic food system would necessarily
increase food security anywhere. Food security depends
on policies and prices as much as on yields.
Our study is not the only one to reach this conclusion.
In 1990, Stanhill4 came to a similar conclusion about
organic production based on a compilation of data from
North America and Europe (his average yield ratio was the
same as ours for the developed world). More recently,
Halberg et al.5 modeled scenarios of conversion to organic
agriculture in Europe, North America and sub-Saharan
Africa, using a globalized market model. They concluded
that large-scale conversion to organic agriculture would
not severely diminish either the global food supply or
food security in developing regions. They noted that food
policies favoring local food availability, rather than export
crops, would enhance the impact of conversion to organic
farming and increase food security in sub-Saharan Africa.
Reviewers raised issues that merit dialogue beyond the
context of the article. The first issue concerns the
differences in crop-rotation patterns between organic and
conventional grain agriculture. The second concerns the
reliability of different kinds of sources (i.e. peer-reviewed
versus gray literature) for agronomic data.
Rotation effect. Organic grain production frequently
uses a different rotation cycle than conventional production.
This difference complicates the comparison of yields
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: 22(2); 80-85 doi:10.1017/
S1742170507001871
# 2007 Cambridge University Press
between organic and conventional systems without some
kind of time adjustment for grain that must be grown in a
longer rotation cycle by organic methods. Corn, wheat
and rice, the world's staple grains, are grown in approximately
equal quantities (in megagrams) on a global
basis6,7. In the US, corn and wheat are usually grown in
rotation8. Corn is typically grown in a longer rotation
under organic than conventional methods. For wheat, it is
not clear that organic and conventional rotations differ in
length. Most rice is grown in irrigated fields so tailored to
rice production that other plant crops are not usually
included (although green manures and animals can be
included); organic and conventional methods for rice do
not require different rotations.
Thus, corn is the main crop for which the rotation effect
is an issue. A survey of corn/other crop rotations from the
sources of yield data cited in Badgley et al.1 (this issue)
reveals that conventional corn was grown 25-60% of the
time in rotations of 2-6 years, and organic corn was grown
25-50% of the time in rotations of 2-4 years. For the sake
of a quantitative example, we can determine the yield
adjustment for two widely used rotations of corn-a 2-year
rotation of corn-soybeans under conventional management
and a 3-year rotation of corn-soybeans-wheat + cover crop
under organic management. All other things being equal,
the organic system would produce only 67% as much
corn as the 2-year conventional system would. If we
multiply all of the individual yield ratios for corn in our
dataset for the developed world by 0.67 and then
recalculate the average yield ratio for grains, the result is
0.84 instead of 0.93. The reduction in caloric output from
the lower average yield ratio for grains in the developed
world results in a change from 2641 to 2523 total kcal
person - 1day - 1 in Model 1 (based on yield ratios from
developed countries) and from 4381 to 4358 total kcal
person - 1day - 1 in Model 2 (based on yield ratios from
developed and developing countries). Even with this timeadjusted
correction for corn, both models generate enough
calories (i.e. 2500 kcal person - 1 day - 1) to feed the
current population. These calculations are conservative
since many conventional rotations feature corn less than
50% of the time. Organic rotations are capable of sustained
production of grains rotated with other crops, as demonstrated
by the Rodale Farm Systems Trial9. A more
thorough evaluation of rotation effects requires quantitative
comparison of the plot-to-plot yield differences between
organic and conventional production and the rate of change
in both organic and conventional production methods as a
function of the rotation sequence.
Thus, the necessity for different rotation schedules
would decrease the production of corn. But since overproduction
of corn has depressed the price of corn for
many years, this change could actually benefit farmers
economically.
Gray literature. A reviewer raised the concern that
our quantitative results were suspect because a number of
our yield ratios come from the gray literature. Actually,
74% of the studies included in our analysis are from
peer-reviewed journals. For a study of this sort, which
makes a global-scale analysis, it is important to include
as many studies as possible from as many regions as possible.
We included studies of three kinds: controlled
experiments of two or more management methods,
paired-farm comparisons in regions with the same soils
and climate and comparisons on the same farm before
and after a change in management practices. All three
kinds of studies could be found in both peer-reviewed
and gray-literature sources. It is worth noting that some
gray-literature sources are quite reliable, such as the technical
reports of respected agricultural experiment stations
(the Henry Wallace Experiment Station, Maryland; Kellogg
Biological Station's Long-Term Ecological Research
Site, Michigan; the Organic Farming Research Foundation,
California). Three published works that we consulted
for data also cited a mixture of peer-reviewed
publications, gray literature and personal communications.
Stanhill's4 compilation is largely supportive of organic
farming, while McDonald et al.10 (which focuses just on
the system of rice intensification) was skeptical. The third
source was the book by Lampkin and Padel11, which cites
a similar range of sources for yield information. The
point is that our compilation is not unusual in the kinds
of sources used for analysis.
The most problematic source from the reviewer's
standpoint was the report by Pretty and Hine12 based on
survey data from 52 developing countries. Yields were
compared before and after farmers adopted specific
agroecological practices. An analysis based on data from
this report was subsequently published in Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment13. The main reason for
including many of the quantitative comparisons in this
report is that relatively few published studies are available
from farms in the developing world. In order to evaluate
whether the survey data biased our results for the
developing world, we performed a significance test on the
survey data compared to data from experiments and paired
farms. The test failed to reject the null hypothesis that the
means in yield ratios do not differ significantly. (This test is
explained in detail in Appendix 1 of Badgley et al.1.) We
concluded that the use of survey data from the report of
Pretty and Hine12 did not unduly bias our results for the
developing world. We note, however, the need for more
quantitative, experimental comparisons in developing
countries.
One controversial management practice is the system of
rice intensification (SRI) in developing countries. Its
proponents claim that it boosts yields substantially, while
its critics argue that best-management conventional practices
perform just as well. A reviewer commented that our
cited publications on SRI did not provide the minimum
information about soil and environmental conditions for the
sites where the studies were performed. This criticism
applied to some of the studies cited on both sides of the
debate. We tried to avoid bias by using data from both
Forum 81
proponents and critics in the debate. Furthermore, global
estimates by definition involve generalities. Detailed
information about soils, climatic conditions and specific
management practices was not given for all the studies,
regardless of publication source. In principle, these
unmeasured variables would favor yields in the conventional
system in some instances, while in others they would
favor the organic system. There is no reason to think that
the lack of information about these variables would bias our
study in any particular direction.
In general, we recognize that the high yield ratios from
developing countries likely result from the fact that many
existing farming practices do not involve optimal amounts
of synthetic fertilizer, and may not be managed optimally in
numerous other ways. The adoption of organic methods in
these settings is a huge improvement. However, our aim is
not to demonstrate the superiority of organic farming over
conventional agriculture. Our aim is simply to investigate
whether organic agriculture can produce enough food to
feed the world's population-ours is a sufficiency argument.
It is appropriate to use yields from suboptimal
existing systems in developing countries, because these
systems are representative of much of the developing world
and most of the world's farmers.
Going forward. Readers of this journal are well aware
of the achievements of alternative agricultural systems
both agronomically and economically. These achievements
would multiply with additional research on locally
suitable cropping systems, fertility methods and pest management
for different agricultural regions. Changes in
agricultural policy are essential and could foster changes
in farming and marketing practices within a few years.
As an example, the Cuban food system underwent massive
reorganization of farming and marketing methods
after the fall of the Soviet Union in 199014. After a few
years of crisis, exacerbated by the US economic blockade,
Cuba now has one of the most progressive food systems
in the world. A global food system based on agroecological
principles is possible and there are urgent reasons to
move in this direction.
References
1 Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E.,
Chappell, M.J., Aviles-Vazquez, K., Samulon, A., and Perfecto,
I. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2):86-108.
2 Rosset, P. 1999. The multiple functions and benefits of smallfarm
agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations.
Food First Policy Brief No. 4.
3 Daily, G.C., Alexander, S.E., Ehrlich, P.R., Goulder, L.H.,
Lubchenco, J., Matson, P.A., Mooney, H.A., Postel, S.,
Schneider, S.H., Tilman, D., and Woodwell, G.M. 1997.
Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by
natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 2:1-18.
4 Stanhill, G. 1990. The comparative productivity of organic
agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
30:1-26.
5 Halberg, N., Alrøe, H.F., Knudsen, M.T., and Kristensen, E.S.
(eds) 2005. Global Development of Organic Agricultu
Challenges and Promises. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
6 Clay, J. 2004. World Agriculture and the Environment. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
7 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
2003. FAO Statistical Database. Available at http://faostat.
fao.org/
8 Vesterby, M. and Krupa, K.S. 1997. Major land uses in the
United States. Economic Research Service, US Department of
Agriculture Statistical Bulletin No. 973.
9 Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel,
R. 2005. Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons
of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience
55:573-582.
10 McDonald, A.J., Hobbs, P.R., and Riha, S.J. 2005. Does the
system of rice intensification outperform conventional best
management? A synopsis of the empirical record. Field Crops
Research 96:31-36.
11 Lampkin, N.H. and Padel, S. (eds) 1994. The Economics of
Organic Farming: An International Perspective. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK.
12 Pretty, J. and Hine, R. 2001. Reducing Food Poverty with
Sustainable Agricultu A Summary of New Evidence.
Final report from the 'SAFE World' Research Project,
University of Essex. Available at http://www2.essex.ac.uk/
ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm
(accessed 22 February 2007).
13 Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I.L., and Hine, R.E. 2003. Reducing
food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in
developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
95:217-234.
14 World Resources Institute. 2000. World Resources 2000-
2001. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Catherine Badgley is a research scientist with the
Department of Geological Sciences and the Museum of
Paleontology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ivette Perfecto is a Professor in the School of Natural
Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Note: Catherine Badgley and Ivette Perfecto have not had
an opportunity to respond to the following comments by
Kenneth Cassman and Jim Hendrix.
82 Forum
Editorial response by Kenneth Cassman: can organic agriculture feed
the
world-science to the rescue?
During the past 30 years there has been a steady decrease in
funding allocated to agricultural research in both developed
and developing countries because of the widespread view
that food insecurity is primarily caused by poverty and a
lack of purchasing power rather than the inability to
produce enough food1. However, these views are being
challenged by three global mega-trends: (1) a steady
decrease in arable land area suitable for intensive food
crop production as a result of farmland conversion to urban,
industrial and recreational uses, (2) a steady reduction in
the relative rate of yield gain for the major cereal crops-
yield gains that are falling below the projected rate of
increase in cereal demand2, and (3) a recent acceleration in
the expansion of biofuel production from cereal, sugar and
oilseed crops that will divert significant amounts of these
crops from the human food supply3.
Given these trends, the question of whether organic
agriculture can meet current and future food demand at
national and global levels is serious business-especially if
the answer influences funding priorities for agricultural
research4,5. Unfortunately, the paper by Badgley et al.6 and
the associated forum paper by Badgley and Perfecto, both
in this issue of RAFS (Vol. 22, No. 2), do not answer this
question because their analyses do not meet the minimum
scientific requirements for comparing food production
capacity in different crop production systems.
Scientific progress depends on published research in
peer-reviewed journals-journals that require detailed
specification of materials and methods used in the study
to allow other scientists to challenge the conclusions and, if
necessary, repeat the experiments. For comparisons of
cropping systems with different management strategies, the
following specifications and data are required:
1. Definition of the systems to be compared. For example,
is the goal to compare organic and conventional systems
when both utilize the best available technologies and
crop rotations for a given field and region? In this case,
researchers must strive to identify best management
practices that optimize performance of each system
separately with regard to input levels and timing of all
crop and soil management operations for the specific
soil and climatic conditions at the research site. In
contrast, most comparisons of organic and conventional
systems utilize a relatively customized set of practices
for the organic system and standard 'recommended'
practices for the conventional system, or practices
thought to represent 'average' practices used by
conventional crop producers in the region. The problem
is that most conventional crop producers also customize
crop and soil management practices to their production
environment, which can vary substantially from field to
field. Hence, a bias exists unless both systems receive
the same degree of concern for optimization of all crop
and soil management practices, for a given site, within
the general guidelines of practices allowed for organic
versus conventional systems.
2. Specification of performance parameters as the basis of
comparison. The most relevant parameter to address the
question of food security is food output per unit areatime.
The time dimension is critical because organic
systems often require rotations that include non-food
crops, such as legume cover crops or lower-yielding
legume crops, to provide nitrogen input from symbiotic
nitrogen fixation. While yield of the same crop species
grown in organic and conventional systems may be
similar, total food output of the cropping system may
differ depending on the rotation. Further specification of
human edible calorie and/or protein yield per unit areatime
is also helpful.
3. Quantifying nutrient input levels and equalizing them as
required. Organic systems typically rely on manure or
compost to satisfy crop nutrient demand and to maintain
soil fertility. But release of organically bound nitrogen
(N), phosphorus (P) and sulfur (S) in manure depends on
biological processes controlled by temperature, moisture
and microbial activity. In fact, only a portion of the
applied nutrients contained in manure are released
during the growing season in which the manure was
applied. Likewise, the total amount of nutrients applied
in manure is usually much greater than total nutrients
applied in conventional systems receiving recommended
rates of commercial fertilizer. Over time, the indigenous
soil nutrient supply in organic systems often increases
compared to that of conventional systems receiving
recommended fertilizer rates. Moreover, manure contains
all essential plant nutrients in addition to N, P and
K-which are the primary nutrients applied in conventional
systems. As a result, researchers comparing
conventional and organic systems must carefully
monitor crop nutrient status to ensure that the conventional
system is not deficient in one or more essential
nutrient because these deficiencies are easily corrected
by application of the appropriate commercial fertilizer.
Such measurements are especially important when
organic versus conventional comparisons are conducted
on soils that do not have high indigenous fertility levels.
4. Appropriate experimental design and treatment replication.
Modern statistical methods were initially developed
in the first half of the 20th century by agricultural
scientists who recognized the challenge of making
scientifically sound conclusions based on results from
field experiments. Spatial and temporal variation in soil
properties and climate require use of statistical theory in
experimental design, treatment layout, and replication.
Results from field studies that do not adhere to accepted
statistical norms are not reliable.
The above specifications and data represent a minimum
standard for making reliable comparisons of different
Forum 83
cropping systems. In my opinion, many of the studies cited
by Badgley et al.6 fail to meet these standards. Therefore, it
is not possible to make sweeping conclusions about the
potential for organic systems to feed the world by simply
comparing yields between organic and conventional
systems. Likewise, even more stringent and comprehensive
specifications and data would be required for valid
comparisons of the environmental impact of organic versus
conventional systems-including the impact on soil
quality, water quality as affected by nutrient losses, and
greenhouse gas emissions. One cannot simply assume that
organic systems are more environmentally sound because
they do not use commercial fertilizers and pesticides.
In fairness to those who conducted most of the studies
cited by Badgley et al.6, the conduct of scientific studies of
publishable quality does not appear to be their primary
goal. Many seem to be demonstrations and informal trials.
While such trials may have educational value, they are not
an appropriate basis for scientific inquiry. In conclusion, the
question of whether organic systems can feed the world
remains unanswered.
Given the need to produce 60% more food by 2050 to
meet demand from growth in both population and income,
and to do so with less land and water for irrigation, there is
an urgent need for a process of 'ecological intensification'
of crop production systems7. A focus on existing conventional
and emerging organic systems limits the possibilities.
Instead, the emphasis should be on developing cropping
systems that best contribute to a set of well-defined
performance parameters that ensure adequate food supply,
farm family income, and protection of environmental
quality and natural resources. If a system meets these
criteria, it should not matter whether it complies with rules
prescribed for organic production systems, or any other
arbitrary set of prescriptions for crop and soil management.
The trend of decreasing funds for agricultural research in
the public sector dictates a more efficient approach; one
that focuses on outputs (broad sense-including environmental
impact) from agricultural systems rather than on the
type or source of inputs.
References
1 Dre`ze, J. and Sen, A. (eds) 1989. Hunger and Public Action.
Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
2 Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A.D., and Walters, D.T. 2002.
Agroecosystems, N-use efficiency, and N management.
AMBIO 31:132-140.
3 Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST).
2006. Convergence of Agriculture and Energy: Implications for
Research and Policy. CAST Commentary QTA 2006-3. CAST,
Ames, IA.
4 Cassman, K.G. 2001. Crop science research to assure food
security. In J. No¨sberger, H.H. Geiger and R.C. Struik (eds).
Crop Science: Progress and Prospects. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK. p. 33-51.
5 Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and
Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive
production practices. Nature 418:671-677.
6 Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell,
M.J., Aviles-Vazquez, K., Samulon, A., and Perfecto, I. 2007.
Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2):86-108.
7 Cassman, K.G. 1999. Ecological intensification of cereal
production systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision
agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
USA 96:5952-5959.
Kenneth G. Cassman is the Director of the Nebraska Center
for Energy Sciences Research and the B. Keith and Norma
F. Heuermann Professor of Agronomy at the University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA.
Editorial response by Jim Hendrix
'Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil
and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.' Dwight
D. Eisenhower
When Eisenhower made the above observation in 1954,
our nation was one to two generations removed from
the realities of farming. In the intervening 53 years,
certain segments of our society have come to idealize
agriculture with a desire to connect to small-scale organic,
family-operated farms and to demonize large-scale commercial
farms. 'Organic agriculture and the global food
supply', by Badgley et al., exemplifies the perspective of
some scientists in the academic world who favor organic
practices without having a grounded knowledge of the
economics and drivers of food production.
I am a large-scale crop producer in the high plains region
of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Texas. We utilize
center pivot irrigation on coarse sands, practice integrated
pest management, and are early and consistent adaptors of
technology to substitute capital for labor. We operate
several farms utilizing conventional inorganic fertilizers,
pesticides, crop rotation and minimal tillage to produce
corn, edible beans and alfalfa. I am also involved with a
large-scale organic farm and dairy-feeding operation in
which we grow grain and alfalfa to produce organic milk.
This combination of production practices, employing both
organic and inorganic farming techniques, gives me insight
into production costs and problems associated with both
systems.
The Badgley et al. article misses the mark in several
critical areas. In production agriculture, farmers respond to
market signals and nitrogen is just one consideration.
Organic fertilizer benefits are measured based upon N
content and, in some cases, the content of other nutrients.
84 Forum
However, these nutrient additions are worth only the sum of
their parts; organic nutrients convey no 'magical' properties.
Because economics drive production, all sources of
nitrogen will be used in the production of food, and
combinations of organic and inorganic nitrogen are often
used on the same farm. Likewise, the decision to include
legumes in a crop rotation is made to maximize economic
return and is based upon long-term fertility, current
profitability, availability of labor and management, marketing
opportunities and a host of other factors.
I question the validity of the statement that production
per unit area is greater on small farms than on large farms.
'Large' farms generally maximize land, labor, machinery
and management to lower the unit cost of the commodity
being produced. Over time, commodities always trade at
the average cost of production, leaving little room for
producers who are high cost due to low volume.
It is elitist to condemn people to the drudgery of hand
labor required on small organic farms; only those who have
never done such work believe it is an employment solution.
Throughout history, farm producers have sought productivity
gains by substituting animal for human labor,
designing and employing simple machines and, most
recently, using information technology, remote monitoring
and sophisticated machinery. It is unreasonable to believe
that agriculture will return to hand labor to reduce
unemployment or underemployment.
The final fallacy in the Badgley et al. article is the
insinuation that organic farming is an advanced method of
crop production that always leads to better soil tilth, less
erosion and superior nutrition. In our experience, organic
corn requires soil tillage prior to planting and cultivation
during the growing season to control emerging seedling
weeds. These operations destroy organic matter, reduce
the water-holding capacity of our light sands and increase
soil susceptibility to wind erosion. In contrast, our
transgenic corn is planted into winter cover crops which
are killed with herbicides after planting. Later, developing
weeds are controlled with additional herbicides instead
of mechanical cultivation. These conventional farming
practices allow us to maintain a protective residue
cover on the soil surface and increase soil organic matter
inputs.
As a large-scale producer of organic and conventional
food products, I would like to share a few insights into the
crops that we produce. Generally speaking, as we move into
more specialized crops and end products, organic farming
becomes more difficult and expensive. For example, there
is little difference in the cost of production or yield between
organic and inorganic alfalfa. Insect and weed pressures are
generally controlled with an early harvest, although this
may change with new transgenic alfalfas that offer a longer
stand life. On the other hand, dry edible beans are difficult
to grow organically. They do not compete well with weeds
and are subject to bacterial, fungal and rust infections and
insect infestations which can cause considerable loss in
both quantity and quality. Furthermore, organic bean yields
are typically less than half of those for conventionally
grown beans. The primary consumers of dry edible beans
are generally unwilling to pay for the higher cost of organic
production.
Production issues for organic corn fall somewhere
between those for alfalfa and dry edible beans. Producers
can access the highest yielding non-transgenic hybrids. In
organic corn production, our limiting factor has not been
nitrogen or other crop nutrients, even though total fertility
costs are about 40% higher when compared to inorganic
forms of fertilizers. Rather, soil insect pressure during stand
establishment and the effective control of insects during the
growing season have reduced organic corn yields to 80-
85% of conventional. Overall, our cost per unit of
production has been approximately 30% higher for organic
compared to conventional corn.
In our operations, the economic driver for organic corn
has been the production of a feed source for organic milk.
Additional costs associated with organic production have
been borne, to date, by the marketplace where wholesale
organic milk is currently over twice the price of conventional.
Consumers of organic milk believe there is
economic and nutritional value in their purchase. Yet,
using the latest advances in laboratory testing, we have
been unable to demonstrate any difference in the nutrient
content between our organic and conventionally produced
milk. By purchasing organic milk and other organic
products, I also believe that consumers feel they are
supporting the idealized image of a small-scale organic,
family-operated business. This is rarely the case.
Although economics will dictate how long we produce
organic milk, we question the morality and sustainability of
organic production. Given its inherently higher cost, are
families purchasing less milk to the detriment of young
children? Would these children be better served with larger
quantities of nutritionally equivalent conventional milk?
The same questions can be asked with regard to organic
fruits and vegetables.
In the developed world of agriculture, producers
respond to market incentives. Given sufficient net returns
to attract adequate capital and management, producers will
industrialize the production of organic food. We are not
driven by ideological concepts, political correctness or
environmental persuasions; we are driven by the marketplace.
Farmers always respond to incentives in the market
and will produce sufficient food using combinations of
conventional and organic methods to maximize their
individual net returns.
Jim Hendrix is a farmer and President of Progressive Ag
Management, Inc., Wray, CO, USA.
Forum 85

Charlie wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:58:19 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:

Oh fer cryin' out loud Sherwin. Do you *ever* bother to read beyond a
label or a press release? Do you always trust "them"?

The article didn't present hard science.....it was a friggin' overview.
It is supposed that maybe you would do a little thought and research on
your own, youngster.

BIlly offered you an abstract..did you request it? Did you read it?
Have you read any of John Jeavon's work that states and supports the
same? Heard of Alan Chadwick? Many others. People get tired of
doing your homework.

Have you given consideration to peak oil and the implications upon food
production? You think taking cropland out of food production to fiil
your fuel tank is helping the situation? What is going to fuel the
equipment that produces this food? Where are the organophospates and
fertilizers and poisons going to come from, necessary to keep our
present system of food production intact and continually expanding to
feed an evergrowing population?

You are really quick to jump on and denigrate the organic food
movement. Why is this? I am curious, young man. Why?

Who's your Daddy?

Charlie

First of all, you assume I am a youngster because I do not resort to the garbage
language and insults you and your friend Billy use. I happen to be a senior who
has been gardening for over 20 years.

What garbage language? Please provide a reference to "garbage
language". This is not the first time you have cried foul when there
was no foulness.

I think you have a problem with short term memory. It happens to lot's of seniors.
Go back and read your own posts, or is that too painful.



I did check out that article from U. of M., and others too. I did not find it
any more
enlightening. I am not against the organic idea. I practice it whenever I can
in my
garden and home orchard. However, I have tried to go pure organic and found that

I was losing too much fruit. I now use a mix of organic and chemicals to achieve
the
results I am looking for. The problem with the organic movement is summed up in

in one word, exploitation. People are using the 'organic' label to squeeze money
out
of the consumer. The benefits of organic food are overexagerated. I don't even
trust
the food labeled organic to be exactly that. I am for the intelligent use of
chemicals.
At least the chemicals are regulated in this country. There are no regulations
on organic
produced food from the government. Again, I don't trust it. These studies are
again
an effort of acamdemicians to justisfy their salaries and grants. They promise
the world,
but are way short on the practicalities.

Sherwin


We are not on the same page...again. Or is this yet another strawman
approach. Often when "organic" shows up, you pounce.

I only pounce when outlandish claims are made for organic farming and produce.
The original article was obviously a pitch by people pushing their names into the
public limelight. I don't care if they were from a university. There are a lot of
kooky
courses offered at some of our most respected institutions.



The problem with capitalism is that so many plagiarize and
misapproprate the term organic, thus doing evil to the ideals and
principles of pure food and organic growing.

It isn't capitalism, it's just plain greedy folks trying to fleece the public.



If you trust the gummint to provide standards and oversight you are
nuts.

This government saves your ass on a daily basis. It's not perfect, but we
enjoy one of the most protective systems in the world. Our food and drugs
are tested before acceptance, not like other countries who put out all kinds
of experimental junk that winds up killing people. Our government is not
the bad guys. Sure we all hate to pay taxes, but in most cases we get our
money's worth.

Which you must not be, since you don't trust them to provide
standards and oversight.

Sure I trust them, but agencies like the FDA and FTC are subject to laws
from our legislature and executive branches, who in turn are getting payola
to keep certain things unregulated.

You are perhaps simply being contentious? Or
what?

Like I said, what are we going to do when the chemicals are gone,

Won't happen in the near future, or possibly never.

or
too expensive to justify their use.

The real danger is the costs of these organic foods getting too expensive and
forcing less affluent people to scramble for affordable food. I can't buy bulk
lettuce in some of my stores because it is filled with pre-packaged, expensive,
organically grown lettuce that appeals nicely to the yuppies and health nuts no
matter what the price.

Have you checked what food prices
are doing, as we speak? And do you wonder what they are going to
continue to do? Seems to me, in my unscientific observations, that
"regular" food prices, are creeping closer to "organic" food prices.

Food prices are going up because of fuel prices, but organic foods are forcing
out the more reasonably priced foods making the problem worse.



Of course, you have to research which producers are on the up and up.
You did do that didn't you, Sherwin?

Nobody's paying me to do an exhaustive study of this problem. I am just
pointing out some disturbing trends.



BTW.....I have been involved in gardening for over fifty years....makes
you a youngster, youngster.

Oh, another plea for one upsmanship. In this case, I don't think an extra
30 years make much of difference. You are probably still making the same
mistakes you did 50 years ago.



Your unwillingness to see the dire straits we are in, globally, food
production-wise, makes you........what.

If you think organic methods are going to feed the world, there's no
hope for you. I think organic growing is admirable and should be
encouraged, but expecting it to perform miracles, I don't think so.
Misuse of chemicals are harmful to the environment, but overstating
the abilities of organics can equally be disturbing.

Sherwin



Think globally, act locally
Charlie

Guess thing don't work when there are typos.

It's search the web with google using Catherine Badgley Ivette
Perfecto Jim hendrix

The first hit should be it.

Billy Rose expounded:

Do you really want to be the village idiot? Suck it up.

Too late! ;-
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked

sherwindu expounded:

Food prices are going up because of fuel prices, but organic foods are forcing
out the more reasonably priced foods making the problem worse.

Organic prices are actually going down, but don't let the facts stand
in the way of your ardent defense of all things agribusiness.
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked

In article om,
James wrote:

Editorial response by Jim Hendrix
'Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil
and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.' Dwight
D. Eisenhower
When Eisenhower made the above observation in 1954,
our nation was one to two generations removed from
the realities of farming. In the intervening 53 years,
certain segments of our society have come to idealize
agriculture with a desire to connect to small-scale organic,
family-operated farms and to demonize large-scale commercial
farms. 'Organic agriculture and the global food
supply', by Badgley et al., exemplifies the perspective of
some scientists in the academic world who favor organic
practices without having a grounded knowledge of the
economics and drivers of food production.
I am a large-scale crop producer in the high plains region
of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Texas. We utilize
center pivot irrigation on coarse sands, practice integrated
pest management, and are early and consistent adaptors of
technology to substitute capital for labor. We operate
several farms utilizing conventional inorganic fertilizers,
pesticides, crop rotation and minimal tillage to produce
corn, edible beans and alfalfa. I am also involved with a
large-scale organic farm and dairy-feeding operation in
which we grow grain and alfalfa to produce organic milk.
This combination of production practices, employing both
organic and inorganic farming techniques, gives me insight
into production costs and problems associated with both
systems.
The Badgley et al. article misses the mark in several
critical areas. In production agriculture, farmers respond to
market signals and nitrogen is just one consideration.
Organic fertilizer benefits are measured based upon N
content and, in some cases, the content of other nutrients.
84 Forum
However, these nutrient additions are worth only the sum of
their parts; organic nutrients convey no 'magical' properties.
Because economics drive production, all sources of
nitrogen will be used in the production of food, and
combinations of organic and inorganic nitrogen are often
used on the same farm. Likewise, the decision to include
legumes in a crop rotation is made to maximize economic
return and is based upon long-term fertility, current
profitability, availability of labor and management, marketing
opportunities and a host of other factors.
I question the validity of the statement that production
per unit area is greater on small farms than on large farms.
'Large' farms generally maximize land, labor, machinery
and management to lower the unit cost of the commodity
being produced. Over time, commodities always trade at
the average cost of production, leaving little room for
producers who are high cost due to low volume.
It is elitist to condemn people to the drudgery of hand
labor required on small organic farms; only those who have
never done such work believe it is an employment solution.
Throughout history, farm producers have sought productivity
gains by substituting animal for human labor,
designing and employing simple machines and, most
recently, using information technology, remote monitoring
and sophisticated machinery. It is unreasonable to believe
that agriculture will return to hand labor to reduce
unemployment or underemployment.
The final fallacy in the Badgley et al. article is the
insinuation that organic farming is an advanced method of
crop production that always leads to better soil tilth, less
erosion and superior nutrition. In our experience, organic
corn requires soil tillage prior to planting and cultivation
during the growing season to control emerging seedling
weeds. These operations destroy organic matter, reduce
the water-holding capacity of our light sands and increase
soil susceptibility to wind erosion. In contrast, our
transgenic corn is planted into winter cover crops which
are killed with herbicides after planting. Later, developing
weeds are controlled with additional herbicides instead
of mechanical cultivation. These conventional farming
practices allow us to maintain a protective residue
cover on the soil surface and increase soil organic matter
inputs.
As a large-scale producer of organic and conventional
food products, I would like to share a few insights into the
crops that we produce. Generally speaking, as we move into
more specialized crops and end products, organic farming
becomes more difficult and expensive. For example, there
is little difference in the cost of production or yield between
organic and inorganic alfalfa. Insect and weed pressures are
generally controlled with an early harvest, although this
may change with new transgenic alfalfas that offer a longer
stand life. On the other hand, dry edible beans are difficult
to grow organically. They do not compete well with weeds
and are subject to bacterial, fungal and rust infections and
insect infestations which can cause considerable loss in
both quantity and quality. Furthermore, organic bean yields
are typically less than half of those for conventionally
grown beans. The primary consumers of dry edible beans
are generally unwilling to pay for the higher cost of organic
production.
Production issues for organic corn fall somewhere
between those for alfalfa and dry edible beans. Producers
can access the highest yielding non-transgenic hybrids. In
organic corn production, our limiting factor has not been
nitrogen or other crop nutrients, even though total fertility
costs are about 40% higher when compared to inorganic
forms of fertilizers. Rather, soil insect pressure during stand
establishment and the effective control of insects during the
growing season have reduced organic corn yields to 80-
85% of conventional. Overall, our cost per unit of
production has been approximately 30% higher for organic
compared to conventional corn.
In our operations, the economic driver for organic corn
has been the production of a feed source for organic milk.
Additional costs associated with organic production have
been borne, to date, by the marketplace where wholesale
organic milk is currently over twice the price of conventional.
Consumers of organic milk believe there is
economic and nutritional value in their purchase. Yet,
using the latest advances in laboratory testing, we have
been unable to demonstrate any difference in the nutrient
content between our organic and conventionally produced
milk. By purchasing organic milk and other organic
products, I also believe that consumers feel they are
supporting the idealized image of a small-scale organic,
family-operated business. This is rarely the case.
Although economics will dictate how long we produce
organic milk, we question the morality and sustainability of
organic production. Given its inherently higher cost, are
families purchasing less milk to the detriment of young
children? Would these children be better served with larger
quantities of nutritionally equivalent conventional milk?
The same questions can be asked with regard to organic
fruits and vegetables.
In the developed world of agriculture, producers
respond to market incentives. Given sufficient net returns
to attract adequate capital and management, producers will
industrialize the production of organic food. We are not
driven by ideological concepts, political correctness or
environmental persuasions; we are driven by the marketplace.
Farmers always respond to incentives in the market
and will produce sufficient food using combinations of
conventional and organic methods to maximize their
individual net returns.
Jim Hendrix is a farmer and President of Progressive Ag
Management, Inc., Wray, CO, USA.
Forum 85

Good post. I'll get back to it.

Thanks,
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

In article , Charlie wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:30:07 -0700, James
wrote:

Jim Hendrix is a farmer and President of Progressive Ag
Management, Inc., Wray, CO, USA.
Forum 85

http://www.jacksbean.com/staffExec.html

A Colorado Republican Party President huh. Sage Brush Rebellion, James
Watt, Adolph Coors and all that crap. Oy vey. Too nice a day to go back
down into that sewer. Today I smell flowers.
--
Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:

Food prices are going up because of fuel prices, but organic foods are forcing
out the more reasonably priced foods making the problem worse.

Organic prices are actually going down, but don't let the facts stand
in the way of your ardent defense of all things agribusiness.

Not in the Chicago area where I shop. If they are going down at all from their
already inflated level, it is because people are beginning to catch on that much
of this organic thing is just a way to scam them.

Sherwin


--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked

Charlie wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:12:43 GMT, "debnchas"
wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0711134523.htm

BTW, and belatedly.......thanks for the article. 'Twas a goodun, it
prompted the resident ortho-rep and his side-kick to start squawking
and drop trou, eh?

Care
Charlie

I don't think so.

Sherwin

sherwindu expounded:

Not in the Chicago area where I shop. If they are going down at all from their
already inflated level, it is because people are beginning to catch on that much
of this organic thing is just a way to scam them.

Only in your mind, Sherwin. You see the word Organic and lose all
logical sense. Whatever are you going to do when the organic method
is the norm? You'd better stockpile your beloved chemicals before
they stop selling them due to lack of demand.
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:

Not in the Chicago area where I shop. If they are going down at all from their
already inflated level, it is because people are beginning to catch on that much
of this organic thing is just a way to scam them.

Only in your mind, Sherwin. You see the word Organic and lose all
logical sense.

It's not the label organic that turns me off, it's the price.

Whatever are you going to do when the organic method
is the norm? You'd better stockpile your beloved chemicals before
they stop selling them due to lack of demand.

Right now, organic produce is somewhat of a novelty. If the prices
continue to stay high, nobody is going to jump on the bandwagon.

Sherwin


--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked

sherwindu expounded:

Right now, organic produce is somewhat of a novelty. If the prices
continue to stay high, nobody is going to jump on the bandwagon.

Sherwin, what area of the country are you in? Because I can assure
you organic produce is no novelty around here. You are truly
beginning to sound completely out of touch, and a bit paranoid.
Whether you like it or not, organics are here to stay, and will
continue to grow, as more and more people become educated as to just
exactly how manipulated our food supply is and how bad your beloved
chemicals are for them. Thankfully!
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:

Right now, organic produce is somewhat of a novelty. If the prices
continue to stay high, nobody is going to jump on the bandwagon.

Sherwin, what area of the country are you in? Because I can assure
you organic produce is no novelty around here. You are truly
beginning to sound completely out of touch, and a bit paranoid.

I live in a northern suburb of Chicago where many stores like
Whole Foods are pushing the organic thing. By novelty, I am
refering to history over the past decade. I know organic growing
has been around for a long time, but we are only seeing it in any
great numbers over the past few years in our supermarkets and
produce stores.


Whether you like it or not, organics are here to stay, and will
continue to grow, as more and more people become educated as to just
exactly how manipulated our food supply is and how bad your beloved
chemicals are for them.

I never said organics is going away. I'm just waiting for the prices to come

down to a level where I can afford to buy them. I grow my own fruit and
vegetables in our growing season, but in the winter I rely on store bought
produce. Until the US government comes out with actual standards on
organic foods, I can't trust something that is just labeled organic. Too
many
slick people jumping in here to make big profits. In the meantime, I will
take
my chances with non-organic food, but take necessary precautions to wash,
peel, etc. anything that I think may be harmful.

Sherwin

Thankfully!
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked