Oct 29 2012: Climate change isn't about the world getting warmer than it's every been before in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history. It's about it getting warmer on average, faster than it ever has before. There have been periods in Earth's history when there has been no ice caps at all. It's not about that. It's also about the frequency of extreme's as far as temperature and weather occurances happen.
Just saying, obviously the Earth is in constant change, as it always has been. The fear most scientists have is us speeding it up so quickly that life on Earth is shocked and cannot adapt fast enough.
By the way, I agree with you on everything you say about Gore... it's all just politics for him and manipulation. Much of the data used is ridiculous - he even presebts a graph with no Y-axis. What a joke.
Mar 9 2012: Sorry I think I misled you with the Economist study (actually they didn't do the study, they just referenced it).
It wasn't a study on the "natural" growth of cereal crops. I meant to say that they had different treatement plots including a conventional plot using the newest technologies (including fertilizers and pesticides), certified organic (using "certified organic" processes, fertilizer sources and pest controls) and then a control plot where fertilizer and crop protection was not used... it was left to grow without any 'help'... although it was still a field plot and not technically 'natural'. I just used that term for lack of a better one. Sorry about that!
Might I ask how big of an operation your farm is? Is it how you make a living? A farmer who depends on his annual crop could not afford to plant seeds and wait to see if they will grow and then replant them.
I'd say that "conventional agriculture" has been around since there has been a need to differentiate between two or more systems of agriculture. And as far as growers making money - it depends on their crop. Apple growers here aren't making anything nowadays, but cherry growers are. Fifteen years ago it was reversed. As far as people not wanting to become growers - that's a big issue we will be facing... it's been noted that there is barely a new generation of farmers coming once this one isn't around. Big problem. And that will lead to more large farms owned by few people who do want to be involved with agriculture.
A lot of people have a huge disconnect about where their food comes from... they think it comes from the store and that's it. No second thought is given to the people that actually grew it.
Mar 9 2012: I pretty much agree with everything you've said here... and while I support a conventional strategy, it's out of limited options. While weighing pros and cons, I personally came to this conclusion. I don't expect everyone in the world to come to the same one... obviously anything that requires gas machinary or anything can't be sustained forever! But as far as technology that exists, I support this system - obviously it will HAVE to change as time goes on... no doubt about it
I want to start out by saying I have nothing against organic commercial production and am not an opponent of supporting it, it's just my personal decision that I support and buy conventional. So I am not trying to sway people away from supporting organic - it is their choice and that is fine with me. It would not be good for the world to rely on one system of anything.
The only thing I would have to say in response to the article is that he clearly states that the report he refers to is for developing countries, who may at this point not have access to the same knowledge and technologies that places such as Europe, Canada and the US do. But then again, I could be completely wrong on that. I've read one article (which was referenced in a report on agriculture and the food crisis in a report published in the Economist) which clearly states yields from organic cereal crops were far below conventional, and 'natural' (nothing done to them, just planted and left to grow) were at about 50% yields - and this was from the UK where this quote is sourced from.
I know one of my friends went to Gambia as a part of an agricultural teaching program for 6 months, and when he got there he was appalled. Not only did they not know how to use the *illegally imported* pesticides and fertilizers on their crops... but it wasn't rare that the pesticides would be used as shampoo to kill lice on their children. This, obviously, is not healthy. But what I am trying to say is that the knowledge or lack of knowledge can be extremely beneficial or extremely detrimental. It's all in how you use a tool. So yes, maybe organic production is better in those areas - which is great. Maybe there are other factors though, such as knowledge of proper use, that come in to play.
I also have never dismissed 'sustainable' agriculture. But I believe the practices that make a system sustainable will vary substantially from region to region - what works in one will not in another.
Mar 5 2012: David - I thought you might be interested in this news article that I was shown on greenhouse growing which fits in perfectly with your mention of building 'greenhouse skyscrapers'
Mar 3 2012: IPM does use individual plants strengths, such as cold hardiness or disease resistance, but that is generally already practiced in agriculture in general. It is more about using mechanical, physical, cultural (this includes the plant's inherited characteristics), biological, and other control methods (such as phermones, or sterile insect release) all together in an effort to reduce or eliminate pesticide use. It's about having a 'toolbox' of control methods to choose from, with chemical control being a last resort. It's about using pest behaviour and life cycle to maximize efficancy, minimize cost, and minimize damage to your crops. I suppose the end goal is to completely eliminate chemical controls, however that is something that will not likely happen soon. I suppose what you are talking about is more 'naturalistic,' if you don't mind me suggesting that?
Would you consider something that allows residue into your body, but after which your body flushes it out as conventional still? Just a question, I'm rather curious by your response. Do you buy locally from farms such as Daniel (whom I've been conversing with in this thread), where you know they don't use any chemical controls? Or do you have acces to a store that supplies garunteed no-pesticide use foods?
In regards to your last comment about stewardship and profit, what do you think about the statement that farmers, regardless of size of farm, still believe in stewardship, even if it is because that would mean profit in the future? In my experience, growers are very good stewards of their land, and care deeply for it. It is their life. It is in their best interests to be good stewards.
Feb 29 2012: I agree - and I don't want to give off the impression all conventional are against organic either. It is a personal choice for sure. Haha, and yeah I know what you mean about living on a farm. I love it, and I miss it right now because I'll be away from mine for quite a while.
[Edit] I don't want to say I am against organic either, just given the two options I, personally, would support conventional - it's not that I am 'against' organic. Don't mean to come off that way. I am more pro-farm than anything.
TEDCred score: +0.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Al Gore: Averting the climate crisis
Just saying, obviously the Earth is in constant change, as it always has been. The fear most scientists have is us speeding it up so quickly that life on Earth is shocked and cannot adapt fast enough.
By the way, I agree with you on everything you say about Gore... it's all just politics for him and manipulation. Much of the data used is ridiculous - he even presebts a graph with no Y-axis. What a joke.
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
It wasn't a study on the "natural" growth of cereal crops. I meant to say that they had different treatement plots including a conventional plot using the newest technologies (including fertilizers and pesticides), certified organic (using "certified organic" processes, fertilizer sources and pest controls) and then a control plot where fertilizer and crop protection was not used... it was left to grow without any 'help'... although it was still a field plot and not technically 'natural'. I just used that term for lack of a better one. Sorry about that!
Might I ask how big of an operation your farm is? Is it how you make a living? A farmer who depends on his annual crop could not afford to plant seeds and wait to see if they will grow and then replant them.
I'd say that "conventional agriculture" has been around since there has been a need to differentiate between two or more systems of agriculture. And as far as growers making money - it depends on their crop. Apple growers here aren't making anything nowadays, but cherry growers are. Fifteen years ago it was reversed. As far as people not wanting to become growers - that's a big issue we will be facing... it's been noted that there is barely a new generation of farmers coming once this one isn't around. Big problem. And that will lead to more large farms owned by few people who do want to be involved with agriculture.
A lot of people have a huge disconnect about where their food comes from... they think it comes from the store and that's it. No second thought is given to the people that actually grew it.
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
I want to start out by saying I have nothing against organic commercial production and am not an opponent of supporting it, it's just my personal decision that I support and buy conventional. So I am not trying to sway people away from supporting organic - it is their choice and that is fine with me. It would not be good for the world to rely on one system of anything.
The only thing I would have to say in response to the article is that he clearly states that the report he refers to is for developing countries, who may at this point not have access to the same knowledge and technologies that places such as Europe, Canada and the US do. But then again, I could be completely wrong on that. I've read one article (which was referenced in a report on agriculture and the food crisis in a report published in the Economist) which clearly states yields from organic cereal crops were far below conventional, and 'natural' (nothing done to them, just planted and left to grow) were at about 50% yields - and this was from the UK where this quote is sourced from.
I know one of my friends went to Gambia as a part of an agricultural teaching program for 6 months, and when he got there he was appalled. Not only did they not know how to use the *illegally imported* pesticides and fertilizers on their crops... but it wasn't rare that the pesticides would be used as shampoo to kill lice on their children. This, obviously, is not healthy. But what I am trying to say is that the knowledge or lack of knowledge can be extremely beneficial or extremely detrimental. It's all in how you use a tool. So yes, maybe organic production is better in those areas - which is great. Maybe there are other factors though, such as knowledge of proper use, that come in to play.
I also have never dismissed 'sustainable' agriculture. But I believe the practices that make a system sustainable will vary substantially from region to region - what works in one will not in another.
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/02/pink-leds-grow-future-food-with-90-less-water/
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
Would you consider something that allows residue into your body, but after which your body flushes it out as conventional still? Just a question, I'm rather curious by your response. Do you buy locally from farms such as Daniel (whom I've been conversing with in this thread), where you know they don't use any chemical controls? Or do you have acces to a store that supplies garunteed no-pesticide use foods?
In regards to your last comment about stewardship and profit, what do you think about the statement that farmers, regardless of size of farm, still believe in stewardship, even if it is because that would mean profit in the future? In my experience, growers are very good stewards of their land, and care deeply for it. It is their life. It is in their best interests to be good stewards.
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
A reply on Conversation: Organic Farming vs. Conventional Farming: Why do you favour one over the other?
[Edit] I don't want to say I am against organic either, just given the two options I, personally, would support conventional - it's not that I am 'against' organic. Don't mean to come off that way. I am more pro-farm than anything.