(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Organic Farming

I'm staying out of it this time. This should be one of those banned topics like religion and global warming.
 
Probably depends on what you grow. Me I do 100% organic but only do hay and run my animals on the same ground as I cut the hay on so it is a full circle thing they eat the hay and pasture and then fertilize if as they graze. I also do as much as I can to organic garden
 
We do not refer to ourselves as organic - however, we are chemical free. We plant in such a way as to encourage good bugs. Chemical free also means more weeds to deal with, but we are growing for quality ie nutrional value. Same goes for our chickens and beef.
 
There are quite a few in my area. Most only do fair and last 3 or 4 years and move on. Those that do well use large green houses. I was told that it is easier to control insects and other bugs. Anything called Organic sells for at least 2 to 3 times more. Any true organic farms are supposed to be certified by the State.
If I was thinking about getting back into veggies, I would really think about running a CSA program.
As for me - I'll stick with cut flowers for nearby farm stands.
 
Realistically, unless you have a large source of "organic" fertilizer you will eventially run the soil out of nutrients. And you will probalby find that you cannot control pests, blight, and insects strictly organically. Some are willing to pay a premium for organically raised foods, but you have to have the marketing to capatilize on it.
 
Pre WW2, almost all of our food was organic. It took over 30% of the average faimly income to buy food. life expectancey was around 60. Now most of our food is GMO, fertilized and sprayed with herbicide and insecticde as needed to grow weed free bug free drops. It now takes 10% of the average faimly income to buy food, and life expectancey is now around 75. Who wants to go back? Only good thing I can say about higher % of income spent on food is, farmers did better financially , and very few fat people. Ok , start to gang up on me for my opinion.
 
I think it was the farmers who dragged down the life expectancy. All that work led to an early grave. lol
 
if it would work it would be great as I don't think most chemicals are good for the soil but the reality of it is that the people around here raising corn, soybeans and small grain have a weedy mess, one guy took the shredder to 15 acres, no one ever did figure out what was planted there, if they had a market for wild sunflower, canadian thistle, water hemp and mustard seed they would be millionaires, If I can spend $15-20 per acre to gain 50 bushels of corn it's a matter of economics
 
My opinion is its dumb question to ask on here, it's no different than gas vs diesel, Deere vs IH ect, who cares about anyone else's opinion, it depends on what you like.
 
Me too. And fresh vegetables from my nonchemicaly grown garden! And fresh eggs from my free range hens! Lol.
 
It was great, my brother fried up some Sunday night. But as you said it's not good for you, so I'm eating it in moderation! Lol
 
I think if one is concerned about the use of pesticide, insecticide, weed killer, than an organic garden is great, or beyond, whatever may or could be viable. Even reduced use-age minimizing our exposure or how many options all the way up to say "certified organi" and or enviro focused people that are on the far end of the spectrum? I think the organic dairy co-op I posted about awhile back is interesting some good stories were posted about their success with it on a small scale. Great products, I can support that, we have some local that are excellent.

Its different, would be great if large agriculture could be sustained that way, that just does not seem possible especially now that a huge population is dependent on it.

Personally, I like produce from my garden, enjoy venison and products we have made from it, local beef, pork, say done differently than commercially, higher quality, sure why not, its out there around here. So in my case I'll try to minimize my exposure to it, but it seems today this is a necessary thing, I don't think anyone likes chemicals applied to the soils and plants, what alternatives are there that would work, maybe someday ? Hard to say, and this is a Ford vs Chevy thing LOL, I'll steer clear of that discussion thank you LOL !
 
'Organic' agriculture is one of the most cynical scurges to plague modern civilization... and it's driven by people's increasing disconnect from agriculture and why things have developed the way they have... and is coddled by many people's inherent hatred of big business.
What bothers me most is that most of the 'organic' proponents I know are nothing more than a bunch of cynics who don't even believe their own cool-aid. It's nothing more than a marketing ploy to them, and an unsustainable one at that... all while they take swipes at the rest of us and drag everyone down with them.

Rod
 
Everybody's view of the subject at hand, as well as politics and religion, is based on their own experience, prospective, knowledge and wisdom. Some folks are very limited in one or all the above.
 
I'm with Bruce on this one... Oh, and no one is chemical free. In fact, the worst toxins on the planet are 100% organic, and would be certified as such. I have assessed several organic farms, and the amount of noxious weeds they have is astounding! And nations who would rather have their people starve than to grow GMO corn, etc. just seems unethical to me.

To each his own, I suppose...

Troy
 
My garden is pretty much Organic not that I think it's better but my corn and other things that grow do well, besides I have a Mexican to hoe the weeds.
Walt
 
While I don't trust GMO's and the chemicals they use for those crops unless most of the farmers are willing to go back to multi line farming (having livestock to produce fertilizer and enough to do all of their land) we are stuck with chemical farming. The big time grain operators and feedlot beef/confinement chicken and pork raisers are not going to sacrifice production or land to go back to the way it was. If they had to go back to cultivation row crops they couldn't find enough qualified operators to run tractors for a couple of thousand acres or more.

Plus organic is a lot of work. You really need a market that will buy in volume. It's OK for people who don't count on farm income for living most of the time to sell organic at farmer markets. Retirees looking for a little extra income and so on. It's either small time for pocket change or lots of employees to keep things under control. Plus the hassle of being organic. Looks like USDA is going to get /has gotten involved in inspecting and certs. Plus the paper work is a killer too.

As far as people living longer that prior to WWII, get a grip guys. That has more to do with modern medicine than with preservatives in foods. Back then most heart attacks were fatal and cancer certainly was. Now you got folks running around with someone else's heart in their chest.

Rick
 
Yep I figure I grow what I grow and if some one does not like it so what I do it my way and have found some times it grows well and other time it does not but then I do not control the weather and seems things are dependent on the weather. Like this summer my pepper plants have done very poorly but most years I have them running out of my ears
 

Neighbor was a good farmer for many years , then

he went organic, now he raises weeds and some

crops . He brought me a bag of sweet corn ,ears

about half size and mostly bug eaten. My farm

gets the benefit of the weeds and bugs not.

george
 
Question: If you water your garden is it organic? After all you are applying chemical compound H2O
 
Cow manure has the following chemicals in it. Phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium and trace elements of 8 other elements.
Cow or horse manure is not organic, it is not found in nature. Your grass and leaves are "organic".
You may just as well use those elements found in manure out of a bag from the garden store.
 
great way to grow weeds those seeds can lay in the ground forever and still grow when they get the chance. You need to see the crops in this area where they try it weed just take over seen some of the finest button weeds man can grow in a nearby soybean field could not even see the beans.
 
According to the CDC (Center for disease control) nearly 85% of food borne pathogens that resulted in public health issues over the last 5 years were tracked back to organic farms.

There's plenty of evidence that todays society isn't nearly as "smart" as it perceives itself to be. All you need do is watch the news if you don't believe that. That said, a faction of that society is more than willing to pay EXTRA for lower quality, relatively unsafe food based on their misguided view that "organic" means "better for you". And with that, a faction of growers are willing to jump on the organic band wagon in order to make a buck.

Myself? I'm all about the SCIENCE of growing a safer, more productive and efficient crop.
 
There's "Organic" and then there's organic. One is a label, one is a sustainable method of using your land to it's best advantage without costly or dangerous chemical inputs, or limiting them to the bare minimum. I'm sort of the latter. But I also have no issue using spot sprayed Roundup or something to stop the blight on my tomatoes and potatoes.

The other organic is a game played with words and labels and subsidies and premiums. I don't do that one.
 
A good organic farmer spends close to 5 extra hours per acre than a chemical farmer.You never have time to sit at the COOP as the weeds never stop growing until a killing frost.You dont see many overweight organic farmers as they work all the time if done correctly.We had a couple that have tried but just too much work.
 
A lot of people who talk about organic farming are really gardening. Organic farming means moldboard plowing, fitting and multiple cultivation passes. All this adds up to MUCH more fuel burned to produce at best 2/3 of a crop. If all agriculture went this route there would be people who could not afford to buy food.
 
Fascinating responses(as per below) to a rather complex question...Organic vs Conventional Agriculture. Many seem to understand the reasons for the movement toward sustainable, low inputs and organic farming practices, while others, by their responses seem threatened. I know long term organic dairy farmers, long term organic crop farmers and organic hobbyists. You often must look behind labels to discover that "organic" folks have a different value system. They may not be any more religious, but they appear to be more spiritual and philosophical about life in general and take the admonishment "of being stewards of the earth", somewhat to very seriously. Ask yourself why there is an opposition to organic farming practices, generally orchestrated by other than actual farmers..and who have succeeded in attaching "Organic" to a political ideology, for somewhat sinister reasons. Special interests are circling their wagons... and fear is their "driver".
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6d7JKS53w

My appolgies for the language, and I hope this doesnt get this post poofed, but Ive actually seen this happen!!
 
The reason that people in mainstream agriculture are starting to fight back is because they're sick and tired of having their living threatened by lies and misinformation.
For most of my life I didn't care what anyone else did or how they farmed. If they wanted to farm 'organically' that was fine by me... but now it's gotten to the point where most of 'them' are openly admonishing 'conventional' agriculture in every way they can for their personal gain. The fact that we're starting to fight back is simple reality... we're going to defend our corner.
I got into a row with a guy a month ago when he was spreading crap online about the use of a coccidiastat in chicken feed. He grand theory was that this was a ploy by the big drug companies to cause cancer as one of the components in the drug was arsenate... a known carcinogen. While there may be some linkage there today between that product and cancer (or there may not as I haven't looked at the research)... the point is that 45 years ago when the product was introduced... it was about preventing dead chicken... which is what happens when you get widespread coccidia. He then proceeded to explain to me how that was only a problem in confinement operations.... which it is not. I've seen it be a problem with only a handful of animals in some very 'organic' type systems like his...
So... simply put, some of us have reached the saturation point where we simply won't stand by any longer and listen to people spread misinformation, half truths and bald faced lies that effect OUR livelihoods. I also believe we have a responsibility to debunk their lies any time we witness them because John Q. Public most often doesn't know the difference... but when the truth IS presented, most are smart enough to see the reason why something is done the way it is done.

Rod
 
Wow....I see SOMEONE went to the coolaid festival! I'm not "afraid" of organic farming. Quite the contrary. I simply AVOID it like I would any other unsafe, inefficient, low quality, over priced, misguided fad.

"Stewards of the earth"? Come on now....Laying it on thicker'n the E coli laden manure your food is covered with with that bit of propaganda. Organic farming spreading disease like we were 200 years ago ISN'T stewardship. It's irresponsibility in action.

There's where the part I mentioned about "organics" thinking they're "smarter" than they really are. Just because you fell for a misguided scam, doesn't make it OK...It's still misguided.

I'll bet my Doctorate in crop science you don't have the background to disseminate the false and misleading information you based your opinion upon.
 
We have a few organic farmers in our area. Several smaller ones that when you drive by their place you cannot tell the difference other than there are a few weeds in their fence lines where the neighbors don't have any fences or weeds. There is one large organic farming operation. They farm about 1500-2000 acres, have filed bankruptcy several times and take advantage of any government handout they can get their hands on. By mid July you cannot tell what crop they have planted. You cant take a check from them but they always have new John Deere tractors and combines.

I have the small business mentality. When meat or vegetables from the local farms tastes better its not weather or not its organic its the fact the vegetables are fresh and the meat was processed at the local locker.

We spray our crops but also run the cultivator once between the rows. Id rather do that that than spray up to four times a year like my neighbor does. We raise a few steers, chickens and pigs. They get pasture, ground ear corn, oats and alfalfa along with some minerals. They get any needed medicine but nothing extra. Im happy with quality over quantity and nothing over necessity. That's my opinion, we all have them and it takes all kind to make the world go round. With all this separation of groups of people Im blending in any crowd.
 
Have made milk both ways.
I never had so many 3 or 2 titters in the herd as when I milked organic. Oregano oil does not work as well as a round of Today despite what the holistic know-it-alls tell you.
The feel I got from the folks I knew was that organic was an elitist food, they were in it for the money, there was no spiritual quality about them at all.

I've seen organic farmers mine the soil worse than any bad dream an organic guru could have about conventional farming.
I've seen some pretty rank cows.
Was not impressed with the organic way...
 
(quoted from post at 14:47:29 10/16/13) WELL SAID let them try feeding the world with out RoundUp.
Click to expand...

jm,
I'm not for or against GMO's and all the chemicals. We haven't been consuming it long enough to know for sure. This stuff may be fine and in 20 years kids may be born with 4 arms and no legs. Only time will tell.

Who's feeding the world? Certainly not the American farmer. Not when America is importing meat (beef) from Canada by the truck load, milk from South America by the boat load and other foods. When the US stops importing milk and beef, exports all excess foods grown, and no other country on earth grows anything that can be grown in the US, then and only then can the American farmer claim to feed the world. Until that happens the claim to feed the world is an out right lie.

It's also a lie that only using GMO's and chemicals makes it possible to feed the current us population. Just how many acres that were farmed years ago set idle right now? I can think of 515 acres now in CRP within a mile of where I sit writing this. If all that land, currently in CRP, nation wide were put back into production using hybrids and cultivation we would have a surplus of food yet again. Stop turning food into fuel and we could feed even more.

Rick
 
Modern farming is allowing us to "feed the world" How do you think we are able to support the set asides and CRP ground.
The nation is losing farmland at the rate of 2 acres a minute to urban sprawl.
So there won't be room to mess around with antiquated methods that were left behind because they didn't produce efficiently.

As for your other concerns, maybe you need to do some research about markets demand and how they play into the supply of commodities.
We import beef that's true but we also export quite a bit. We export stuff that sells well in other countries and we import stuff that the American consumer prefers, which is mostly hamburger and steak. Price is also a big factor in the amount of imports, McD's likes to get the cheapest stuff it can.
Same for milk. We import a bit but we also export a lot. Demand for certain products plays a part in that.

Quit turning food into fuels and we'd have more? There is still a decent carryover expected in the corn market, noticed corn is flirting with $4.
 
(quoted from post at 14:22:14 10/17/13) Modern farming is allowing us to "feed the world" How do you think we are able to support the set asides and CRP ground.
The nation is losing farmland at the rate of 2 acres a minute to urban sprawl.
So there won't be room to mess around with antiquated methods that were left behind because they didn't produce efficiently.

As for your other concerns, maybe you need to do some research about markets demand and how they play into the supply of commodities.
We import beef that's true but we also export quite a bit. We export stuff that sells well in other countries and we import stuff that the American consumer prefers, which is mostly hamburger and steak. Price is also a big factor in the amount of imports, McD's likes to get the cheapest stuff it can.
Same for milk. We import a bit but we also export a lot. Demand for certain products plays a part in that.

Quit turning food into fuels and we'd have more? There is still a decent carryover expected in the corn market, noticed corn is flirting with $4.
Click to expand...

Guess what? We ixport just about as much milk/milk products and we import so that kinda balances at a big fat whopping ZERO. WE import far more beef than we export. So that leaves the US beer farmer in the minus range.

We actually consume more beef than we raise. That's why we allow the import of beef and milk. That started after the farm melt down in the 80's when farmers started to specialize and just produce one thing.

The point I was making of turning food stuffs into fuel is that we can in fact go back to none chemical farming and still produce enough food with the current land being farmed if we stop turning corn into ethanol. Current prices on corn is plain greed and stupidity. Most guys with corn ground planted every acre they could into corn this year because of prices last year, trying to chase that buck. It's happened before and will again. Guy has to think to stay ahead. If a certain crop in high this year you can bet that everyone will be planting that crop next year if their soil and growing area will support it. Now I'm not saying we should. I'm just stating that we could. There are several large problems with going back. The biggest would be enough people who know how to operate a tractor that would be willing to do just seasonal work or who want to learn how to farm. You really don't want some kid right out of high school who's never been on a 100,000 dollar tractor trying to cultivate corn or beans.

Just because something has been done the same way for years doesn't mean we need to change how we do it if it works. You have certain people out there that would change how we make babies, now what fun would that be? Been making babies the same way sense man first walked on the earth. We can do it other ways but are you going to jump on that way of doing it because it's more modern/productive?

Don't bite my head off for stating the truth. American farmers DO NOT FEED THE WORLD. They never have. They could. If American farmers fed the world no other country would have farmers raising anything that could be grown in the US. Yet every country in the world has some type of farming going on. And the foods they raise are consumed in their countries and may be exported too. That's not saying they don't import some foods.

Rick
 
I find it funny that the same people that claim we need to "feed the world" don't even want to feed fellow hungry Americans. It's hypocritical to get your undies in a wad over Organics not feeding the world and then stating that we should cut food stamps and let Americans starve...

The world can feed itself. There's tens of thousands of acres sitting idle in Russia and Africa as we speak. If you're so concerned about feeding the world, load up your 9n and head to Africa.
 
(quoted from post at 17:43:10 10/17/13) I find it funny that the same people that claim we need to "feed the world" don't even want to feed fellow hungry Americans. It's hypocritical to get your undies in a wad over Organics not feeding the world and then stating that we should cut food stamps and let Americans starve...

The world can feed itself. There's tens of thousands of acres sitting idle in Russia and Africa as we speak. If you're so concerned about feeding the world, load up your 9n and head to Africa.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with feeding the world. It just bothers me that people try spreading the lie about American farmers feeding the world when they don't, not even close.

As a tax payer I'm not against some cutbacks on food stamps. They need help that's fine. They don't need steak, chips and pop.

A group tried that in Africa with N series. Taught em how to use em and maintain them, then left. The "natives" had no infrastructure for parts or fuel. But that's their problem, not mine.

Rick
 
Guess what...you're wrong. We exported 4x what we imported in milk last. yr. We have been net exporters for a few years. now.
As of July. we have exported 42 million more. pounds of beef than we imported.
 
Since. the original point of contention was about Roundup it would be better to look at grain markets anyway and we are considered the world's breadbasket due to being such a large exporter of grains.
 
(quoted from post at 21:33:14 10/17/13) Since. the original point of contention was about Roundup it would be better to look at grain markets anyway and we are considered the world's breadbasket due to being such a large exporter of grains.
Click to expand...

LOL "considered" isn't the same thing as truly being it. The Black Sea States export wheat too. The US isn't the only wheat exporters in the world. Nor are we the only country exporting corn.

Look at it this way. If you buy a new farm truck and the salesman tells you it's made in America you would call him a liar because you know that some of the components, like the parts of the electrical system came from for an off shore source. Well, if we import beef and milk and other foods then we are not feeding ourselves, much less the world.

It amuses me that the GMO guys start making claims that are not true trying to defend what they claim as safe and if you don't believe it they resort to name calling. Now the really funny part is that they are taking the word of the chemical and seed companies that this stuff is safe when they have a very poor track record if you bother to look back just the last 30 years or so. Lots of other stuff that they claimed as being safe that is now banned. I don't trust them. I don't want a study done by a university that also got a huge donation from the chemical company that produced the product being tested. Or a study done by someone being paid by the company to do the study. On the former the school is not going to kill that goose that laid that gold egg (heck look at the cheating they do keep player eligible to play, there are no ethics in education), on the paid study all the company has to do is cancel and the result belong to them, they never have to release the findings. That's why I'm not for or against them. Both sides studies are suspect. And with the way things are right now it will only be time that really tells.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 17:43:10 10/17/13) I find it funny that the same people that claim we need to "feed the world" don't even want to feed fellow hungry Americans. It's hypocritical to get your undies in a wad over Organics not feeding the world and then stating that we should cut food stamps and let Americans starve...
Click to expand...

Find me some starving Americans. Our poor have a major obesity problem, not the working poor, but our welfare class. You twist the idea of personal responsibility into "let them starve". That's intellectually dishonest to start with.
 
Find me some starving Americans. Our poor have a major obesity problem, not the working poor, but our welfare class. You twist the idea of personal responsibility into "let them starve". That's intellectually dishonest to start with.
Click to expand...

They may be fat, but they're nutritionally deficient. The garbage pumped out by major food manufacturers isn't fit for pigs. The poor have no access to "real" food in many areas of the cities and have to buy from fast food restaurants or convenience stores.

Don't get me wrong, the problem lays with the people unwilling to better themselves. My point was that you can't cast the "feed the world" stone at Organics, but then want to let food stamps go away. That's hypocritical.

Fact is, something like 40% of the food in this country is wasted somewhere between harvest and the table. Next time you're out at a restaurant, look at all the food left on plates at empty tables. Take a peek into the dumpsters behind the restaurant and the supermarket. Organics are not standing in the way of feeding the world.
 
(quoted from post at 04:56:01 10/18/13)

They may be fat, but they're nutritionally deficient. The garbage pumped out by major food manufacturers isn't fit for pigs. The poor have no access to "real" food in many areas of the cities and have to buy from fast food restaurants or convenience stores.
Click to expand...

OK, that's interesting, last time I looked the poor, using food stamps, EBT (MN calls em EBT cards) or what ever they want to call it today, can't use them to buy prepared foods. So there isn't any fast food and many convenience store that no longer accept those cards. Why do you think the "take and bake" pizzas have gotten so popular? They can put those on food stamps right along with chips and pop in many states. Take and bake isn't considered "prepared".

Rick
 
If you removed all GMO technology from the table, all pesticides, all chemical fertilizer... especially fertilizer... you can bet your bottom dollar that there wouldn't be enough food to go around, even if ethanol was removed from the equation. You'd be talking about taking agricultural production back to 1940's levels when the planet could barely feed itself then with two and a half billion people. We're at 7 today and projected for 9 billion in 40 more years time... and we're still paving over our best farm land everywhere you look. Something has to give...

Even if there was technically enough food to feed everyone.... the cost of that food would make it unavailable to some and that some would undoubtedly be a larger number than it is today.

I also challenge the notion outright that 'organic' is more sustainable. You're trading a system most often of reduced/minimum/no tillage and a couple of passes with a sprayer for a system of conventional tillage, multiple cultivations and significantly reduced yields. If you were looking at the energy equation of petroleum inputs per tonne of crop yield I suspect it would be a good deal lower for 'conventional' agriculture vs 'organic' agriculture. When one of the stated goals of organic is consuming less non renewable resources... I think it fails flatly in that regard.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 06:23:28 10/18/13) If you removed all GMO technology from the table, all pesticides, all chemical fertilizer... especially fertilizer... you can bet your bottom dollar that there wouldn't be enough food to go around, even if ethanol was removed from the equation. You'd be talking about taking agricultural production back to 1940's levels when the planet could barely feed itself then with two and a half billion people. We're at 7 today and projected for 9 billion in 40 more years time... and we're still paving over our best farm land everywhere you look. Something has to give...

Even if there was technically enough food to feed everyone.... the cost of that food would make it unavailable to some and that some would undoubtedly be a larger number than it is today.

I also challenge the notion outright that 'organic' is more sustainable. You're trading a system most often of reduced/minimum/no tillage and a couple of passes with a sprayer for a system of conventional tillage, multiple cultivations and significantly reduced yields. If you were looking at the energy equation of petroleum inputs per tonne of crop yield I suspect it would be a good deal lower for 'conventional' agriculture vs 'organic' agriculture. When one of the stated goals of organic is consuming less non renewable resources... I think it fails flatly in that regard.

Rod
Click to expand...

Rod, OK, I'm not organic and don't want to be. But the chemical farming of today isn't long term sustainable. Those chemicals and sprays have to be made out of something and some of those things are a finite resource. Plus the soil needs more than just dry chemical fertilizer in the long run. It needs something put back in it that hold the nutrients in the soil. Manure, green crops plowed back in but something.

Back when conventional farming was the norm, which really isn't that long ago, up through the 70's, before GMO's, the government was buying up surplus and destroying it. So lets not alter history. But CRP wasn't the norm in the early 70's and very few acres were tied up in it. From my farm, one mile in any direction, there is currently over 600 acres in CRP today. There is currently about 32 million acres enrolled in CRP. A lot of other land sits idle. About 1/5 of American land is currently farmed or just over 400 million acres.

Back in the 70's they were breaking 200 BPA corn with hybrids.

I'm trying to look at this from all sides, not just from my billfold.

Rick
 
I'm sure that most herbicides are made from some form of finite resource... but if you're using 1L per acre and 1/10 L per acre of fuel to apply it you're still using up far less resources than a single cultivation...
I'm not saying that there are not downsides to modern agriculture... but I believe there's far fewer downsides than the alternative... which is why the present system exists.
As far as fertilizer goes... the way I look at it you have to replace the NPK that you remove one way or another. Even in a forage rotation where you have livestock and use the manure... you're still losing all three and N is the only one you can recover and fix through legumes... so you still need to find the P and K.
While I don't doubt some were getting 200 bpa yields in the 60's or 70's they most likely were not getting those crops before the advent of chemical fertilizer....
Our civilization at present is sustained on the usage of petroleum and natural gas. That I'm sure of... but I don't think it's sustainable any other way at current population levels.

Rod
 
Plus the soil needs more than just dry chemical fertilizer in the long run.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to make us believe that only organic farmers use manure?
How many millions of bushels of chicken manure are applied to conventional farms every year, what about the billions of gallons of pig and cow manure? What about the conventional guys that throw some alfalfa in the rotation?
 
(quoted from post at 04:56:01 10/18/13)
Find me some starving Americans. Our poor have a major obesity problem, not the working poor, but our welfare class. You twist the idea of personal responsibility into "let them starve". That's intellectually dishonest to start with.
Click to expand...

They may be fat, but they're nutritionally deficient. The garbage pumped out by major food manufacturers isn't fit for pigs. The poor have no access to "real" food in many areas of the cities and have to buy from fast food restaurants or convenience stores.

Don't get me wrong, the problem lays with the people unwilling to better themselves. My point was that you can't cast the "feed the world" stone at Organics, but then want to let food stamps go away. That's hypocritical.

Fact is, something like 40% of the food in this country is wasted somewhere between harvest and the table. Next time you're out at a restaurant, look at all the food left on plates at empty tables. Take a peek into the dumpsters behind the restaurant and the supermarket. Organics are not standing in the way of feeding the world.
Click to expand...

Go stand in line at the stores around me. The people with the EBT (Welfare) cards are buying steak, chops, marinated chickens, etc. while I'm standing there with my package of hot dogs and mac and cheese- store brand, not Kraft. You're confusing 2 or 3 widely divergent issues and trying to wrap some sort of guilt trip into an interest in long term sustainability, which is what I consider more important than "organic". This idea "the poor" have no access to "real" food is simply bogus. People eat what appeals to them and for probably 95% of the people that means highly processed food that takes little work to prepare. Even better is buying out where there's no prep and little clean up. This idea that "the poor" would prefer to have access to basic materials so they can whip up a Donna Reed style pot roast dinner, all home made, is just a farce.

If you want to talk waste, or responsibility or anything else, fine. But tying food stamps and organic/sustainable farming practices in together is just a flawed premise from the start. That's a political talking point espoused by Moochelle, the lady who wouldn't go out and take care of that garden that was so important during the shutdown, that tells us little people not to eat certain stuff then gets photographed sucking down a mega grease burger and fries. Separate the issues and then we can have a discussion.
 
I'll say this on the "organic" vs conventional (heavy chem use) farming- I'm like Tanker, I'm not organic and don't really want to be. But it's got to be absolutely apparent to anyone that looks that mono cropping, heavy chemical use, bare earth cultivation practices and such aren't really long term sustainable methods. I'd put dumping ridiculous amounts of liquid manure into that mix too. That stuff is loaded with a lot more than manure around me.

Wouldn't the better, more sustainable solution be to do as has been mentioned and stop paving over the good farm lands, start rotating crops, get livestock back onto pasture, use less fuels and chemicals if we can? I suppose if you believe the soils only purpose is to hold up a plant you wouldn't see it this way. For me, it's just too expensive to use chemicals for everything. Even lime is getting crazy expensive now. And then there are the numbers involved- yeah, it would take more farm land to produce the same volume with out so much chemicals, but wouldn't more farms and farmers be better in the long run?

It seems simple to me.
 
(quoted from post at 02:06:36 10/19/13)
Plus the soil needs more than just dry chemical fertilizer in the long run.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to make us believe that only organic farmers use manure?
How many millions of bushels of chicken manure are applied to conventional farms every year, what about the billions of gallons of pig and cow manure? What about the conventional guys that throw some alfalfa in the rotation?
Click to expand...


Sammy, even here where there are a lot of livestock we have guys just doing grains and they have no livestock, so no manure. I know a couple of local BTO's that haven't spread manure on anything in more that 10 years. I think in the long run it's going to bite them in the butt. Might not be them, it may be the next generation that has to deal with that problem but long term, it's going to bite them.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Square Eye
Want input on choosing a new ute
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
544hydro
544hydro
T
Sowing my oats
Replies
4
Views
700
TomA in CA
T
J
Plant and harvest BOTH with 2.7 Million Dollar "Tractor"
Replies
8
Views
660
Mule Meat
Mule Meat
M
Best Grease
Replies
19
Views
694
Greenfrog
G
waugh621
FB group sugestions
Replies
9
Views
676
Mike(NEOhio)
M
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top