Page 3 of 16 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 15 16 >
Topic Options
#862139 - 06/05/2010 22:08 Re: Organic Foods [Re: Kev in Bello]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
A few years ago an "Organic Farmer" who grows a few vegies for a road side stall [ somewhat illegal around here but hey, he's an organic farmer! ] moved from Melbourne into an area at the foot of Mt Arapiles, a rock monkey's, Oops! , a popular rock climber's hangout, about 35 kms east of Horsham.
This was and still is a long established broad acre farming area.
Immediately this guy in the usual totally arrogant way that we often see in this type of self righteous person, DEMANDED that before any farmer in the area used herbicides or chemical sprays they HAD to notify HIM first before they were allowed to use any sprays.
The hell if it was highly inconvenient for anybody else or it destroyed a critical crop spraying program timing.

And he had just moved into an area where he knew that crop and weed herbicides were used regularly but HE was an Organic Farmer and therefore superior to all the other farmers around.
Just a totally selfish, self righteous attitude from a so called "organic farmer" and an attitude I have heard as being repeated in other farming areas.
And farmers who were second and third generation in the area who were a up to 15 kms distance away from this person's small patch were rung up and the demands were made by this "organic grower gentleman" who just forced his way in and then demanded that those long established farmers conform to HIS demands and HIS personal requirements.
Obviously there was no reciprocal rewards from this " organic grower" for anybody who catered for his demands, just abuse if you did not.

And you wonder why I posted that people of this self righteous ilk should stop forcing their ideology onto others!

Top
#862145 - 06/05/2010 22:40 Re: Organic Foods [Re: Kev in Bello]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Some fantastic reading here and interesting to read where the posters reside too.
In case you haven't worked it out, I work in the turf industry and I am well aware that it is a luxury item at best, but to bring to light Rom's issue of the need to find more farming land, I have this story: I was admiring how good the soil was on a turf sod that I was laying on a job, it was a rich, black, heavy soil with a high organic,clay type texture which had an obviously high CEC reading and it got me to wondering. I rang my turf supplier for a chat and asked about his soils and location. His farm is one of 6 or 7 farms on the low lying land on the Hawkesbury river. I commented on the quality of the soils and that he should possibly grow some vegies. His reply almost floored me... "No money in vegies, plenty in peoples backyards though" Unfortunately, this is the way Australia has become.

Top
#862183 - 07/05/2010 08:09 Re: Organic Foods [Re: Simmosturf]
majorowe Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/01/2002
Posts: 242
Loc: SE France
I only have a little time to respond.

WikiPedia - yes, everyone knows it is an editable source, this is why one needs to read the referenced articles at the bottom. As you have done ROM, it is easy to selectively quote articles to suit an agenda - there will always be studies for and against organics specifically pertaining to yield - this is why a paper comparing 273 of these studies carries I would hope more weight:

Perfecto et al., in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (2007), 22: 86108 Cambridge University Press: cited in New Scientist 13:46 12 July 2007


Farmers' grudges against chemicals (also raised by Black NNE) - this is understandable, but farmers will always follow the most cost effective and labour efficient method to get the job done even if it is not an ideal solution vis a vis to longer term problems, (just like in any other industry). If that means using chemicals then that is what it will be - it will always be a question of money. This ties in with ROM's correct claims that farmers are a endangered species, particularly in parts of Australia. The farming career choice is seen as too difficult, too risky and too unprofitable compared to the bright lights of urban regions. (Sidenote: ROM then criticises farmers in other countries that receive subsidies to conteract this, perhaps he is jealous or too proud? Why shouldn't farmers be supported with tax payer money for assuring a life critical resource, it is more than most banks do...)

So why is farming so unprofitable if we are forever being told of the current or upcoming food shortage? Should this not produce large increases in prices (such threats seem to work well in real estate)? Why is food so cheap relative to a Sir Walter lawn? How can intensive farmers claim to be feeding the world's hungry with cheap eats and then turn around and complain that they don't make any money?

When I buy my organic veggies at the market each week I am more than happy to pay extra. I figure I am paying a just price for the food that I receive given the fact that more effort has gone into producing it and I know that if I keep doing so then the bloke handing it over each week will still be there for years to come. I can't help but feel that a lot of the problems cited in previous posts could and should be tackled via economic measures rather than intensive farming.

Umbrella effect of pesticides (Black NNE) - this is a very valid point and I am glad that you brought it up. I cannot however for the moment find any articles on the subject to either support or dismiss the claim, if you have one please post it here. Organic farmers may be more tolerant of weeds and bugs but at the end of the day they have to deal with them too! Do not forget that natural alternatives to pesticides are commonly used in organic agriculture ('nettles' or 'purin d'ortie' in french comes to mind). On top of this I gather resistance could also be produced using natural solutions but I wonder whether the side effects would appear as rapidly as with synthetics???


Edited by majorowe (07/05/2010 08:13)

Top
#862186 - 07/05/2010 08:30 Re: Organic Foods [Re: majorowe]
Andy Double U Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 28/10/2006
Posts: 1829
Loc: Mundoolun, SE QLD, 129m ASL
I've tried to find an alternative source to Wiki about Herd Immunity (the umbrella effect I was describing) but sometimes it's all you have...

Herd Immunity

As for your comments about traditional / natural methods of raising crops I pose this question: Why have farming techniques progressed (or regressed as some would claim poke ) to where they are today? By this I mean, IF the old methods were superior in nearly every aspect, why did we change them?


Edited by Andy Double U (07/05/2010 08:31)
Edit Reason: Grammatical Error

Top
#862205 - 07/05/2010 10:41 Re: Organic Foods [Re: Andy Double U]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Re the claims that the collective grouping of a claimed 273 studies carries a lot of weight is called "an appeal to authority," a common technique used by the pro AGW adherents in climate science where the size of the mass of "papers and studies", not the quality, is used as the justification for the claim of the devastating outcome of a degree or two rise in global temperatures.

I use this as an example of this technique and not an attempt to start an argument on climate on this Ag forum.

What is not known when such bulk study claims are made is the quality of the studies and where those studies originated if they were actually studies and papers at all.
Or were they a few genuine studies and papers plus just a number of articles taken from organic or green orientated publications in this case and perhaps propaganda from ideological based organisations or taken from casual exchanges such as these on this forum and many other sources but all wrapped up to make it appear that there are 273 researched papers and studies backing organic farming and foods.

Not so long ago I would have not thought of asking this sort of question or challenging such claims but after the IPCC's debacle and the research that is being done on the IPCC's reports where there are innumerable cases being found that so called and claimed to be fully researched peered reviewed papers and studies are no such thing.
A very large percentage of the so called peer reviewed, researched claims in the so called definitive IPCC report on climate change on which the grounds for attempting to overturn the entire world's economy are based are nothing but propaganda and articles taken from magazines and opinion pieces in green based publications such as greenpeace , the WWF and other similar outfits.
And sometimes as in the Himalaya glaciers disappearing by 2035 IPCC claim, just lifted from a casual conversation or exchange which is reported and then given full weight because it fitted very nicely with a set in stone ideological viewpoint.

And I now know this sort of "appeal to authority" is very common and even a chosen method of coercion amongst ideologically biased groups of any and all stripes, colours and political leanings and creeds.

So now I no longer trust any claims as above that a study of 273 papers and studies support a particular viewpoint or attitude without closely scrutinising all of the claimed papers and studies.
And when I now see such all encompassing claims and "appeals to authority" my BS detector now goes into a very high state of sensitivity.

And incidentally the New scientist which I used to subscribe to without a break since about 1960 soon after it was founded but have recently cancelled because it has become so ideologically biased and no longer reports anything in science that does not have an heavy green ideological stance to it.
Even amongst scientists in the comments I have often read on various science orientated blogs and this includes a very highly regarded former, long standing chief editor of the NS, the standing of the NS is now somewhere down in the cellar when probity, impartiality and accuracy are discussed.

Sorry Majorowe, but quoting NS nowadays to the more knowledgeable will get you nowhere.


Edited by ROM (07/05/2010 10:49)

Top
#862295 - 08/05/2010 01:19 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
majorowe Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/01/2002
Posts: 242
Loc: SE France
Originally Posted By: ROM
So now I no longer trust any claims as above that a study of 273 papers and studies support a particular viewpoint or attitude without closely scrutinising all of the claimed papers and studies.


I have managed to track down the pdf of the study:

http://www.fileupyours.com/view/254593/cientifics/socioeconomic/badgely_et_al_07.pdf

The methodology employed looks reasonably solid to me. Perhaps you can go through and scrutinise the individual reports and get back to us with a summary.

Originally Posted By: ROM
Sorry Majorowe, but quoting NS nowadays to the more knowledgeable will get you nowhere.


You should know that New Scientist is not a peer reviewed journal, just like Wikipedia. I was rather quoting the peer reviewed article that was perhaps picked up by NS for content in their magazine so I don't think you should dismiss it so easily.


Edited by majorowe (08/05/2010 01:20)

Top
#862297 - 08/05/2010 01:53 Re: Organic Foods [Re: Andy Double U]
majorowe Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/01/2002
Posts: 242
Loc: SE France
Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
I've tried to find an alternative source to Wiki about Herd Immunity (the umbrella effect I was describing) but sometimes it's all you have...

Herd Immunity


Thanks for that Andy W. It would be interesting to see something more specific to agriculture. As I said, organic farmers still take steps to reduce the influence of weeds and bugs when appropriate using more natural methods, otherwise they wouldn't make a living.

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
As for your comments about traditional / natural methods of raising crops I pose this question: Why have farming techniques progressed (or regressed as some would claim poke ) to where they are today? By this I mean, IF the old methods were superior in nearly every aspect, why did we change them?


Traditional methods were abandonned because chemicals provided a sudden jump in yields, a drop in labour and hence (most importantly) an increase in profits. Little thought was given to any long term environmental effects or ethical conflicts - hell, that was 60 odd years ago and we still can't adequately deal with such problems today. Some of these problems take decades to manifest themselves, maybe even longer, and the symptoms may not always be very clear. Only recently have people starting to question the importance of how the food that they eat is produced with respect to long term sustainability and health - it may be well worth paying more and working harder to achieve these goals in the long run.

Also, I think you need to consider the fact that organic agriculture is not something out of the middle ages - it evolves just as conventional agriculture does despite the fact that it may resemble an antiquated art, what with the hoes and all. There is nothing to stop and oragnic farmer inventing a robot that runs around the farm manually pulling out thistles.

In the long run, I dare say a more even mix of organic and conventional agriculture will become implanted across the globe if no other determining factors arise (famine, plague, volcano etc.), somewhat of a stalemate.

Top
#862312 - 08/05/2010 08:41 Re: Organic Foods [Re: majorowe]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
But the fact is pretty simple, if ya don't like or trust your food source, grow ya bloody own!!!

Top
#862325 - 08/05/2010 10:29 Re: Organic Foods [Re: Simmosturf]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Quite a astonishing accusations you make there, Majorowe!
Apparently farmers are not allowed to try and make some money or increase their profits by using chemicals and new technologies on their farms.
Apparently they should have just stuck to the old "pure organic " way of growing crops and food as they might bugger up the countryside or something else in a few decades by using these "synthetic" farming technologies.

Of course there are no problems with vast areas of Australia's Alpine areas being destroyed and highly modified over the last fifty years so that well off skiers can indulge in their pastime or vast areas of so called National and State parks get highly modified and altered so that the "public" can enjoy the "pristine wilderness" [ ?? ] and of course everybody involved like tourist operators, ski lodge owners, service providers and etc of every stripe and colour are doing this out of love and with no thought of profit nor of course are there any very long term and serious problems in these areas likely to arise from these activities and huge "developments" .
And then we can totally exclude the profit motive of all those developers who are setting up ugly soul destroying housing estates right along some 1500 kms of Australia's formerly pristine east coast areas and doing so right against the shore line for all those "environmentally aware" citizens who want to build their houses right against the sea.
Of course the fact that the "pristine sea approaches" are destroyed by all the artificiality is of no consequence and by their very silence on all of this, approved by the normally highly vocal environmental outfits.
After all some of them are right into this development and nobody wants to upset the chance of some good profits.
And they have no problems in taking on the long time resident locals who want to keep as much as possible of the natural setting, and do so in the courts.
No profit motive there of course either for the developers and others who get a very nice position with a view to selling for a better price later.
And no long term problems created by all of this will appear at all in any time into the future will they.
I seem to recall a recent example of the above on suing the local council to force them to maintain a sea wall so that their house wouldn't be washed away due to it's location right on the beach.
Yeh! Riiight!

Double standards that demand that somebody has to conform to another's ideologies while those same standards are completely disregarded by the those supposedly holding to that ideology just don't impress me at all.
That is called "hypocrisy" and of the first order.

Farmers apparently are not supposed to pursue extra income or a better lifestyle by using chemicals or other "synthetic" technologies which improve yields and enable a bit better profit from the low priced food products they produce as it might have a long term damaging effect on something or other in a few decades time!
But it is quite OK for any and all other sections of the society to do just that, pursue profits and if the natural way of things is seriously damaged so what the hell! We all get to make a lot of money don't we!

And working harder?? I can see that you have never ever had much to do with farming nor are you at all familiar with the high number of suicides in the Australian farming industry sector over the last few years or the current high levels of severe depression found in those in farming industries.

I'll stop before I get threatened with banning again.



Edited by ROM (08/05/2010 10:38)

Top
#862332 - 08/05/2010 11:12 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
And Simmo has got it dead right!

Top
#862345 - 08/05/2010 14:23 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
Alexia Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 14/12/2002
Posts: 564
Loc: Corryong
I don't know about managing weeds.We have organic dairy farms around here and one of the first farmers farm fences is now a maze of 2-3 mtr high blackberry bushes.Originally one of the best farms here great river flats.I am sure if there was a way to control he would.Not the way I would like to farm. And robots I think we already have them US.

Top
#862372 - 08/05/2010 19:03 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
davidg Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/06/2008
Posts: 2204
Loc: Glenbrook/Penrith
I think ROM majorowe was perhaps suggesting that government agencies and the wider farming community might actually benefit from a reduction in chemical usage and it may well be in ther interests to be a little more open minded when it comes to organic farming. Im sure there are quite a number of techniques or processes that if researched and developed could provide similar levels of yeild without resorting to harmful chemicals or fertilisers. Clearly some pest problems are unmanagable through purely organic methods but striking a balance may be something to strive towards.

Im unsure as to the point of your previous post but i cant see how any of it is relevant? I agree, its terrible that such environmentally degrading construction projects are allowed to go ahead. I dont think anyone said otherwise. I dont see though, how that can justify further impacting on the environment through unsustainable farming practises. Surely this simply adds to the problem. If your issue is to do with farmers not getting a fair go, i suggest you start a thread on it. Lets simply discuss the pros and cons of organic farming and how it does/does not impact on the environment/crops quality and yeild.

Your knowledge of farming is extensive and you input valuable but posts as above simply kill the thread and the line of discussion. I do however agree with you when you say farmers are not compensated properly for the work they put in, maybe if they were they would be more likely to pursue such "organic" practises as mentioned previously.

Top
#862385 - 08/05/2010 21:15 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
majorowe Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/01/2002
Posts: 242
Loc: SE France
Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
But the fact is pretty simple, if ya don't like or trust your food source, grow ya bloody own!!!


Of course, but I can't grow apples on my 2x2m balcony. The best I can do is a few cherry tomatoes and some herbs and strawberries.

Originally Posted By: ROM
Apparently farmers are not allowed to try and make some money or increase their profits by using chemicals and new technologies on their farms.
Apparently they should have just stuck to the old "pure organic " way of growing crops and food as they might bugger up the countryside or something else in a few decades by using these "synthetic" farming technologies.


Of course they can, as you said it is a free country. Whether or not they should is what is being debated here. If it endangers the environment or health then no, they probably shouldn't. After all, what is more important, farmers increasing profits or people having sustainably produced and safe food to eat? Of course farmers deserve to be justly rewarded for their toil but not at the expense of the latter. If that means paying more for food or using taxpayers money to encourage farmers to move towards more sustainable methods of agriculture then I am all for it. We would be much better doing this then building school halls and installing insulation.

I can't blame farmers for doing what they did in the past. I surely would have done the same, but to evolve one must be able to continuously question oneself and every now and then look up and see if the goal posts have shifted.

Finally, money can still be made in organic farming if you produce the goods so to speak.

Originally Posted By: ROM
Of course there are no problems...


Yes, the world is a strange place, full of contradictions and hypocrites. Some people would flat outright refuse to buy slightly higher priced vegetables for their own consumption but have no problem shelling out a few extra dollars to put high octane fuel in their cars.

Originally Posted By: ROM
Farmers apparently are not supposed to pursue extra income or a better lifestyle by using chemicals or other "synthetic" technologies which improve yields and enable a bit better profit from the low priced food products they produce as it might have a long term damaging effect on something or other in a few decades time!


Engineers shouldn't cut corners when building or maintaining bridges either.

Originally Posted By: ROM
And working harder?? I can see that you have never ever had much to do with farming nor are you at all familiar with the high number of suicides in the Australian farming industry sector over the last few years or the current high levels of severe depression found in those in farming industries.


I'm well aware of this, but I'd day say that depression in rural communities is more to do with isolation, debt, lack of moral support and dwindling communities. Three of these problems could be mitigated with more governement funding directed towards country regions and farmers. Unfortunately Australia is a highly and increasingly urbanised country - most voters believe that water comes from a tap and steaks from the freezer at Woolworths. I'll stop here before this thread turns philosophical or worse, political.

Top
#862404 - 08/05/2010 23:43 Re: Organic Foods [Re: majorowe]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Sigh!
How often do we have to repeat that we, as farmers DO NOT want to use chemicals if we can avoid it.
How often do we have to say that chemicals of any sort are a massive and unneeded, unwanted cost in our operations.
Will some of you ever get it or actually even understand that all your proposed dreamy alternative organic cures for food production have been tried many, many times and for decades past and they just don't work at the scale and required intensity of production that is needed to fill the needs of the numbers of the human race on this planet and on the limited area of suitable for agricultural land that exists on this planet.

And the naivete and ignorance shown here is extraordinary as if the farmers and agricultural researchers at every level in every country and of every type of crop never ever look at growing food using less chemicals, less fuel , less inputs of all and any types and other methods both old and new while still maintaining and increasing yields and quality and disease and insect resistance and doing it all for less and less income and profit to the food producers.

And when the researchers do produce plants that don't require chemicals as the resistance to insects and disease are incorporated into the plants then the same environmental whackos that want organically grown, chemical free food start screaming that the food is frankenstein food because it has been genetically modified or changed using natural occurring organisms to control diseases and insects to get rid of requirement to use those "nasty" chemicals.

As was said by another poster and in the research paper in my post of a day or so ago, organic farmers ride on the backs of conventional farmers who create the clean separation weed free barriers and the disease free barriers that allow organic farmers to actually survive without being wiped out by a sea of weeds and a plague of plant diseases transmitted amongst themselves .


And the human race in all it's numbers can survive and live happily on organically grown food.
You may even be right.
Mankind can feed him / herself by using organic farming methods.
First you will have to force around 70% or 80% of the human race out of the big cities, towns , villages and small settlements and back to the rural areas
Thats about 5 billion people.
[ Over one half of all humans now live in cities of over 100, 000 plus inhabitants. ]
Those 5 billions will have to obviously be required to volunteer to to go back to small plots of land to make a living and grow food for themselves and their families all done using their own hand labour.
That shouldn't be a problem to get those 5 billion volunteers if the benefits of growing organic food on the environment instead of using chemicals is explained!

No chemicals will be needed.
No need for any transport or much fuel as they won't produce enough to sell outside of their own requirements so not much need for any modern appliances .
No electricity as it will be so dispersed and expensive to supply and in any case the new subsistence agriculture system won't pay enough to afford electricity or fuel or even decent medical systems nor will governments collect much money in taxes for all those now defunct and unnecessary social support systems.

Yep, I reckon it just might work and the whole world will once again be fed only on organically produced food and all those big city experts who know exactly how food should be grown and produced and who try to legislate for their expert knowledge on way food should be grown will be able to put all their high flown expertise into growing food exactly as they believe it should be grown.
And they will be able to wander up and down their little patch of land in the stinking hot sun or the pouring rain or in the freezing cold every day pulling caterpillars and bugs from their plants and finding nettles to wipe on the leaves to stop multiple races of fungal rusts and plant diseases.

And we will all know just how well those 17th century poverty stricken subsistence peasant families lived on their organically grown food and we can use all those old well tried and proven organic farming technologies from those times like scythes and sickles and forks and carrying 50 kg loads for ten kilometres on our backs to market.
And our health will be excellent except for the occasional plague and the odd bout of food poisoning and a bit of hunger and the numbers occasionally getting get thinned out by a bit of starvation when the crops get wiped out by a new disease or rust or insects but the global environment will undoubtedly be so clean and so pristine.

And undertaking will be growth business to get into!

Top
#862422 - 09/05/2010 08:43 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
majorowe Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 27/01/2002
Posts: 242
Loc: SE France
Originally Posted By: ROM
How often do we have to repeat that we, as farmers DO NOT want to use chemicals if we can avoid it. How often do we have to say that chemicals of any sort are a massive and unneeded, unwanted cost in our operations.


Those that actually follow through with the idea are called organic farmers. They accept that extra work will be needed and their yield may be down a little, but they are OK with this because they can sell their food for more, which generally covers that extra work. They can even pay someone to help them to do this work, thus providing employment in small towns and rural areas, helping keep families together on farms and generally maintaining the social tapestry of the region, all the while ensuring that their land is conserved for future farming.

Those that don't are more concerned about their bottom line and/or don't believe what they are doing is wrong (that's OK, you have the right) and/or don't want to undertake the extra work. Maybe some help from governement would help alleviate their concerns.

Originally Posted By: ROM
Will some of you ever get it or actually even understand that all your proposed dreamy alternative organic cures for food production have been tried many, many times and for decades past and they just don't work at the scale and required intensity of production that is needed to fill the needs of the numbers of the human race on this planet and on the limited area of suitable for agricultural land that exists on this planet.


I am still waiting for your summary on the faults in the pdf article that disputes this claim posted earlier.

Originally Posted By: ROM
And the naivete and ignorance shown here is extraordinary as if the farmers and agricultural researchers at every level in every country and of every type of crop never ever look at growing food using less chermicals, less fuel , less inputs of all and any types and other methods both old and new while still maintaining and increasing yields and quality and disease and insect resistance and doing it all for less and less income and profit to the food producers.


Your last sentence is the key (albeit confused) - the goal of this particular research is to maximise yields and profits, anything else is just a side-effect. Any efforts to decrease environmental fallout will not be adopted if it compromises yield or profits.

Originally Posted By: ROM
And when the researchers do produce plants that don't require chemicals as the resistance to insects and disease are incorporated into the plants then the same environmental whackos that want organically grown, chemical free food start screaming that the food is frankenstein food because it has been genetically modified or changed using natural occurring organisms to control diseases and insects to get rid of requirement to use those "nasty" chemicals.


A whole other can of worms I won't go into, but last time I checked Monsanto RU resistant crops actually increased chemical use.

Quote:
As was said by another poster and in the research paper in my post of a day or so ago, organic farmers ride on the backs of conventional farmers who create the clean separation weed free barriers and the disease free barriers that allow organic farmers to actually survive without being wiped out by a sea of weeds and a plague of plant diseases transmitted amongst themselves .


There is no mention of this in your "research paper". I requested info on the so called "herd effect" applied to agriculture and pests as I can't find any.

Originally Posted By: ROM

And the human race in all it's numbers can survive and live happily on organically grown food.
...
First you will have to force around 70% or 80% of the human race out of the big cities, towns , villages and small settlements and back to the rural areas
...
Those 5 billions will have to obviously be required to volunteer to to go back to small plots of land to make a living and grow food for themselves and their families all done using their own hand labour.
That shouldn't be a problem to get those 5 billion volunteers if the benefits of growing organic food on the environment instead of using chemicals is explained!
...
rant
....


What? How are you calculating this figures? Hand labour? 17th century practices? Carting sacks on shoulders? Where are you pulling all of this from? When will you accept that organic farming is not agriculture from the 17th century?

Binning organic wheat:
http://www.farine-bio-valdor.fr/attachments/Image/DSC02373.JPG

Organic champagne:
http://www.biochampagneardenne.org/diaporamas/24.jpg

An example of recent research and application of natural pest reduction in corn fields of Kenya (in french):
http://www.ird.fr/la-mediatheque/videos-...aux-pays-du-sud


Edited by majorowe (09/05/2010 08:45)

Top
#862429 - 09/05/2010 09:24 Re: Organic Foods [Re: majorowe]
Farmer Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 11/06/2004
Posts: 556
Majorowe, I gather from your profile that you live and farm in France, is this correct?
If so then I would also assume that you get heavily subsidised from the French government.
If this is the case then there is no way you can compare Australian farming with farming in France.
There is no way that any of us broadacre farmers here can make a living from going totally organic, wether it be grain or livestock.
Why do people like yourself have to assume and demand that your way is the only way that farming should be done?
It might be OK for the Niche market but not for the rest of us.
Come out here to Australia and try it and see how long you last.


Edited by Farmer (09/05/2010 09:25)
Edit Reason: Typo
_________________________
-----------Near Sutton, NSW

Top
#862440 - 09/05/2010 11:00 Re: Organic Foods [Re: Farmer]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Majorowe, Instead of yapping on and on and telling us how to farm and how organic farming is so successful and so profitable, why aren't you out here in Australia buying a few tens of thousands of acres of farmland, a lot of it is for sale by some very depressed and heavily indebted farmers you know, and showing and demonstrating to all of us thousands of ignorant conventional farmers and thousands of agricultural researchers world wide just how farming should be done and just how much money can be made by following your expert and undoubted knowledge on farming using your extremely productive and extremely profitable organic systems?

Top
#862444 - 09/05/2010 11:34 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
davidg Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/06/2008
Posts: 2204
Loc: Glenbrook/Penrith
I think you need one of these ROM.



Why such opposition to someone who clearly has experience in the area and has seen how organic farming CAN work? You claim everybody else is trying to "ram their veiws down our throats" but as far as i can tell anyone who dissagrees with you is suddenly a moronic, cult following, greeny idiot, who wants only to seek out and destroy you and your way of life. Stop trying to ram YOUR veiws down OUR throats. Its becoming tiresome.

Top
#862453 - 09/05/2010 12:52 Re: Organic Foods [Re: davidg]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
I tried to explain a lot of things way back in this thread in, I hope a reasonable fashion as seen from a farming viewpoint about the way in which modern agriculture has developed and the way and why it works that way.

I said a number of times early in this thread, if you want to grow organic food, if you want to eat organic food only then that is your right and your privilege as it is hopefully still a free country for you to do so but apparently that was not enough.
I had to kowtow to the organic food lobby and make obeisance to it.

It seems that there are minds and attitudes displayed on here that have a fixed and unrelenting attitude as to the way THEY believe ALL food should be produced and they don't seem to have any real idea or practical knowledge on the pressures, stresses and complexities of trying to make a living that is a bit better than the dole when dealing with a harsh and unforgiving Nature on a daily basis.

Anyway if it's tiresome why are you still reading it?

Top
#862454 - 09/05/2010 13:07 Re: Organic Foods [Re: ROM]
davidg Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/06/2008
Posts: 2204
Loc: Glenbrook/Penrith
Thats my point exactly. You assume that someone who may be interested in organic farming suddenly has a " fixed and unrelenting attitude as to the way THEY believe ALL food should be produced ". I dont see anywhere in this thread that attitude displayed, only in your posts. As i said before and i quote from my previous comment, "Your knowledge of farming is extensive and you input valuable" but posting such inflammatory remarks, as in your previous 2 or 3 posts, does little other than to shut down the conversation. It then becomes a slinging match and polarises the discussion.

Your whole argument against organic practises is that farmers and ag communities cannot take on the added burden of developing and trialling these methods. That it is unfair to expect communities already struggling to make ends meet, to possibly reduce their output all for the good of the environment etc etc. Thats fine and i agree with you, i fail to see how that means we should chuck it in the too hard bin and be done with it as you suggest. So much time and money is now largely spent researching new chemicals and synthetic fertilisers because this is what makes the big bucks for the checmical producers. Maybe this could be better spent researching ways to reduce dependance on sprays and chemicals as, ultimately, this is to the benefit of all parties involved. No one is telling you to stop using chemicals and fertilisers tomorrow, but if the community calls for it, a more balanced approach to pest control and land management could be struck. Similar "revolutions" have taken place throughout history in almost every generation of farmers so i fail to see why you think i shouldnt happen again.

Top
Page 3 of 16 < 1 2 3 4 5 ... 15 16 >


Who's Online
13 registered (Timbuck, Foehn Correspondent, J Pabo, A sunshower, ozone doug, Befour, Sidney, grayarea, SteveB93, joesk, Steve777, Wave Rider, red earth), 350 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Andrew_C, Bindon, Leasy, Nikko, rainthisway, sutek, Tropicana
Forum Stats
29368 Members
32 Forums
23684 Topics
1462124 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image