Solid Smackdown of Anti-GMO zealotry

[Orange_Crush]

I don't think you positioned yourself as one of those who believe Monsanto started the practice of GMO's therefore that wasn't directed at you. If you think they're the first folks to ever try this, then the statement stands.

I just said you were being a condescending jerk. Not I was the only one you were condescending.

I don't contend that manure is not a good source of fertility. The point is, that manure has to be pulled from anther source in order to not have a net negative effect. Poultry litter is a big source of fertility in the row crop industry today and farmers are snatching it up. It's coming from somewhere else with the chickens getting their nutrients from somewhere else, therefore it's strictly a positive on the row cropper's farm as far as he's concerned. If you kept a cow penned up and only fed him the vegetation that's left after harvest, nutrients would ultimately be lost through the harvested portion of the crop and what the animal keeps for himself. The manure would have a smaller concentration of nutrients than what initially went in.

Obviously. But my points were multi-faceted. Poli-culture cropping (root-mining of minerals/nutrients), manure, compost from waste materials, sheet-mulching, integration of organic matter, building sub-soil organic life, etc... The point was smaller-scale farming operations that seek to build synergistic relationships that promote fertility and building soil, as opposed to large, corporate farms that depletes soil and uses it as little more than a sponge to spray nutrients back into.

You can try to build self-supporting systems, or just sell huge inputs back to farmers.

We've already established that the current model costs 1/4 trillion tax dollars a year to prop up. You've already admitted that we're mining nutrients overseas, just to spray back onto ravaged US soils. Yet, you seem to think that people promoting more sustainable methods are morons.

Why?

Because you're smarter than us.

And because you'd be out of a job.

I'll shrink back into the corner and put on my dunce cap now.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Honestly, I didn't share a link because I don't think you are interested in truth. You seem like you are interested in holding court. Here is a great chapter about serious issues with IP using specific examples from Monsanto. This book was written by two great economic minds.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.6.m1004.pdf

I'll definitely read this when I get a chance later. Maybe making people rebuy seeds annually is crappy, but that's for those affected to decide, not the general public. I've not heard a farmer complain about this issue, that's not to say that some haven't. Given that conventional seed is still out there (especially in the cotton and soybean market) and its about 1/2 of the cost, farmers still overwhelmingly choose to go the GE route knowing the patent repercussions of not being able to replant. So it would appear it's not that big of an issue and/or the benefits outweigh the costs/negatives in their view, which is the only one that should matter.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I just said you were being a condescending jerk. Not I was the only one you were condescending.



Obviously. But my points were multi-faceted. Poli-culture cropping (root-mining of minerals/nutrients), manure, compost from waste materials, sheet-mulching, integration of organic matter, building sub-soil organic life, etc... The point was smaller-scale farming operations that seek to build synergistic relationships that promote fertility and building soil, as opposed to large, corporate farms that depletes soil and uses it as little more than a sponge to spray nutrients back into.

You can try to build self-supporting systems, or just sell huge inputs back to farmers.

We've already established that the current model costs 1/4 trillion tax dollars a year to prop up. You've already admitted that we're mining nutrients overseas, just to spray back onto ravaged US soils. Yet, you seem to think that people promoting more sustainable methods are morons.

Why?

Because you're smarter than us.

And because you'd be out of a job.

I'll shrink back into the corner and put on my dunce cap now.

Since when is Canada or FL overseas? That's where our potassium and phosphorus come from.

How can you not understand that a nutrient is a nutrient no matter where it came from? Plants have nutrients because their roots mined them out of the ground, where those nutrients occured naturally, in some state of concentration. Perhaps the potassium level of concentration is through the roof or perhaps lacking much reserve because of the chemical makeup of the soil. In Sasketchewan, Canada they have natural potassium mines so their soils are clearly overrun with potassium. As I told you, in western KY the soils are greatly lacking in potassium, that has nothing to do with "ravaging and raping the soils". The NATURAL and CHEMICAL makeup of the soils don't support potassium accumulation and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything man has done.

If that cropping system is pulling nutrients out of a low reserve system it'll eventually catch up. You can't create an element if it's not there to begin with. Just cause your goat ate some fescue and crapped you don't suddenly have "free" nutrients. Ever heard of grass tetany? It's a condition that kills livestock if they don't have enough Magnesium. Soils low in Mg to begin with, result in low Mg levels in pasture, which results in low Mg in the cattle. Since he's going to keep all the Mg he can because it's necessary for his livelihood, his manure is going to have even less Mg. So assuming your garden crops sit on a similar piece of land that's is low in Mg, that manure going back on your garden is still leaving you with an issue. Youre low to begin with and you replaced it with an amount that's less than you removed.

Weatherazation due to temperature, moisture, weather patterns all affect soil composition. The Mississippi Delta has what some say is the 2nd most fertile soil in the world. Why? Because soils of the Midwest, despite their hard farming, are more virgin in nature than the South. They're not exposed to the heat as long every season so microbial action, breakdown and weathering occurs at a slower pace. Over thousands of years this "virgin", fertile soil has been picked up by floods from the MS River and eventually deposited in the Delta when it floods. Farmers in the Midwest states along the river are fond of saying, their best soil is now in MS/AR.

Where I grew up in south FL we have some of the most weathered and infertile land around. How's that possible when the state was largely uninhabited for years and a lot of production Ag didn't start moving south from central FL until the 80's as freezes became a problem? Millions of years worth of heat, floods, rain, hurricanes all of which played a role in breaking down and shaping those soils.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Since when is Canada or FL overseas? That's where our potassium and phosphorus come from.

How can you not understand that a nutrient is a nutrient no matter where it came from? Plants have nutrients because their roots mined them out of the ground, where those nutrients occured naturally, in some state of concentration. Perhaps the potassium level of concentration is through the roof or perhaps lacking much reserve because of the chemical makeup of the soil. In Sasketchewan, Canada they have natural potassium mines so their soils are clearly overrun with potassium. As I told you, in western KY the soils are greatly lacking in potassium, that has nothing to do with "ravaging and raping the soils". The NATURAL and CHEMICAL makeup of the soils don't support potassium accumulation and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything man has done.

If that cropping system is pulling nutrients out of a low reserve system it'll eventually catch up. You can't create an element if it's not there to begin with. Just cause your goat ate some fescue and crapped you don't suddenly have "free" nutrients. Ever heard of grass tetany? It's a condition that kills livestock if they don't have enough Magnesium. Soils low in Mg to begin with, result in low Mg levels in pasture, which results in low Mg in the cattle. Since he's going to keep all the Mg he can because it's necessary for his livelihood, his manure is going to have even less Mg. So assuming your garden crops sit on a similar piece of land that's is low in Mg, that manure going back on your garden is still leaving you with an issue. Youre low to begin with and you replaced it with an amount that's less than you removed.

Weatherazation due to temperature, moisture, weather patterns all affect soil composition. The Mississippi Delta has what some say is the 2nd most fertile soil in the world. Why? Because soils of the Midwest, despite their hard farming, are more virgin in nature than the South. They're not exposed to the heat as long every season so microbial action, breakdown and weathering occurs at a slower pace. Over thousands of years this "virgin", fertile soil has been picked up by floods from the MS River and eventually deposited in the Delta when it floods. Farmers in the Midwest states along the river are fond of saying, their best soil is now in MS/AR.

Where I grew up in south FL we have some of the most weathered and infertile land around. How's that possible when the state was largely uninhabited for years and a lot of production Ag didn't start moving south from central FL until the 80's as freezes became a problem? Millions of years worth of heat, floods, rain, hurricanes all of which played a role in breaking down and shaping those soils.

bg... I do understand that a nutrient is a nutrient. And I do understand that you can't create nutrients from nothing. huffhines seems to have a very good point, in that you seem to try to create an argument for someone else, for the sake of dismantling it in minutia.

In any system, there will be a certain need to supplement. But that's not what big-ag is doing. They are stripping soil and spraying it back in, whereas smaller operations can seek to build systems that reuse outputs as inputs. They can also build systems that create iputs. Will supplementation be needed even in those systems? Perhaps, depending on the veracity of their interconnected systems.

Are you saying that a small farm, recycling nutrients in a planned, interconnected system, is less sustainable than big-agro practices where you sell them the fertilization and minerals they need as a collection of huge net inputs to their system. Just answer that and we can continue. Restated, are you claiming that the grand net inputs that you sell are more sustainable than permaculture concepts of interconnected reuse?

 

[DC_Vol]

bg... I do understand that a nutrient is a nutrient. And I do understand that you can't create nutrients from nothing. huffhines seems to have a very good point, in that you seem to try to create an argument for someone else, for the sake of dismantling it in minutia.

In any system, there will be a certain need to supplement. But that's not what big-ag is doing. They are stripping soil and spraying it back in, whereas smaller operations can seek to build systems that reuse outputs as inputs. They can also build systems that create iputs. Will supplementation be needed even in those systems? Perhaps, depending on the veracity of their interconnected systems.

Are you saying that a small farm, recycling nutrients in a planned, interconnected system, is less sustainable than big-agro practices where you sell them the fertilization and minerals they need as a collection of huge net inputs to their system. Just answer that and we can continue. Restated, are you claiming that the grand net inputs that you sell are more sustainable than permaculture concepts of interconnected reuse?

Shouldn't your beef be with the farmer instead of Monsanto?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Shouldn't your beef be with the farmer instead of Monsanto?

This is a rabbit trail. Not about Monsanto.

And my beef really isn't with the farmer. It is what it is. I had responded to BG's comment that organics can't solve the world food problems. I stated that, with societal changes, it could, and it could do so more sustainably.

I referenced a family in California, 15 min from LA and a block from the freeway that lives on 1/4 acre and gardens 1/10 acre, complete with goats and chickens. They produce 7000 lbs of food organically, with no spray insecticides, or produced fertilizers. Their property is over a foot higher because of the topsoil they BUILT while gardening. (Note that this is in the middle of water restrictions.)

And an orchard that went permaculture and increased yield and diversity without insecticides or input fertilizers.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'll definitely read this when I get a chance later. Maybe making people rebuy seeds annually is crappy, but that's for those affected to decide, not the general public. I've not heard a farmer complain about this issue, that's not to say that some haven't. Given that conventional seed is still out there (especially in the cotton and soybean market) and its about 1/2 of the cost, farmers still overwhelmingly choose to go the GE route knowing the patent repercussions of not being able to replant. So it would appear it's not that big of an issue and/or the benefits outweigh the costs/negatives in their view, which is the only one that should matter.

You've made really good points in this thread and i've learned a lot. I think you get so caught up in defending what's wrongly misconstrued about Monsanto (like GMOs) that you accidentally find yourself defending everything about them (i did the same thing with wal mart for a while, before i realized it). It's not black and white. Monsanto operates in some gray areas.

Although you may be right that starvation numbers are inflated by external factors, it's an economic certainty that marginal increases in agricultural prices result in 3rd world hunger and that's what their patents accomplish.

 

[n_huffhines]

And let me just say i recognize the good tha monsanto has done. They are in large part responsible for our ability to feed 7 billion people.

That being said, it drives me crazy that the law can be manipulated to prevent some of the 7 billion from being fed.

I hate IP law in general.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

bg... I do understand that a nutrient is a nutrient. And I do understand that you can't create nutrients from nothing. huffhines seems to have a very good point, in that you seem to try to create an argument for someone else, for the sake of dismantling it in minutia.

In any system, there will be a certain need to supplement. But that's not what big-ag is doing. They are stripping soil and spraying it back in, whereas smaller operations can seek to build systems that reuse outputs as inputs. They can also build systems that create iputs. Will supplementation be needed even in those systems? Perhaps, depending on the veracity of their interconnected systems.

Are you saying that a small farm, recycling nutrients in a planned, interconnected system, is less sustainable than big-agro practices where you sell them the fertilization and minerals they need as a collection of huge net inputs to their system. Just answer that and we can continue. Restated, are you claiming that the grand net inputs that you sell are more sustainable than permaculture concepts of interconnected reuse?

Where organic very likely has an advantage is through the addition of organic matter. Organic matter will hold more nutrients per it's chemical characteristics than a purely clay, silt or sand soil. It's a bastion of nitrogen supply meaning less nitrogen applied and potential for less nitrate runoff/leaching. I agree it's more SELF-sustainable in the sense these farmers aren't necessarily relying on outside inputs. Nitrogen fixing crops that use atmospheric nitrogen, like soybeans, peanuts, alfalfa, clover etc are a huge benefit because it cuts down on the amount of nitrogen that needs to be added to the following crop.

The biggest issue with some of the commercial grade fertilizers is the salt and by-products that are sometimes in them and the effect that has on soil biology. What we refer to as potash (0-0-60) is potassium chloride, the chloride portion has the unwanted effect of sterilizing the microbes, that breakdown minerals from an unusable and unavailable form to a useable form. The product line I sell is pharmaceutical grade nutrients and the products don't have the salts of conventional fertilizers. So I believe what I'm selling is more sustainable than a blanket application of conventional fertilizer because not only are we replacing crop removal we're sustaining the microbial life in that soil.

I don't believe organic is sustainable for generations upon generations because you're ultimately not replacing your crop removal value. If you're collecting leaves from your trees for compost, pulling manure off your pasture to bring to your garden and using peat moss procured grime elsewhere and utilizing a cover crop that's not harvested then yes it could be sustainable. Because you're supplementing that piece of land with nutrition that wasn't directly derived from there.

A lot of "big-agro" farmers recognize this and utilize cover crops for those reasons. They utilize clover or the like to fixate nitrogen and kill it off so everything goes back to the soil. They're utilizing radishes for natural tillage to break up hard pans in the soil and when they kill that radish off it provides organic matter and nutrients. Point being, if you don't remove everything then yes you're making it sustainable. If you're harvesting everything that's planted and then trying to rely on what's leftover, manure included, then along the way you're not ultimately replacing everything. It may never show up in our lifetime though.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where organic very likely has an advantage is through the addition of organic matter. Organic matter will hold more nutrients per it's chemical characteristics than a purely clay, silt or sand soil. It's a bastion of nitrogen supply meaning less nitrogen applied and potential for less nitrate runoff/leaching. I agree it's more SELF-sustainable in the sense these farmers aren't necessarily relying on outside inputs. Nitrogen fixing crops that use atmospheric nitrogen, like soybeans, peanuts, alfalfa, clover etc are a huge benefit because it cuts down on the amount of nitrogen that needs to be added to the following crop.

The biggest issue with some of the commercial grade fertilizers is the salt and by-products that are sometimes in them and the effect that has on soil biology. What we refer to as potash (0-0-60) is potassium chloride, the chloride portion has the unwanted effect of sterilizing the microbes, that breakdown minerals from an unusable and unavailable form to a useable form. The product line I sell is pharmaceutical grade nutrients and the products don't have the salts of conventional fertilizers. So I believe what I'm selling is more sustainable than a blanket application of conventional fertilizer because not only are we replacing crop removal we're sustaining the microbial life in that soil.

I don't believe organic is sustainable for generations upon generations because you're ultimately not replacing your crop removal value. If you're collecting leaves from your trees for compost, pulling manure off your pasture to bring to your garden and using peat moss procured grime elsewhere and utilizing a cover crop that's not harvested then yes it could be sustainable. Because you're supplementing that piece of land with nutrition that wasn't directly derived from there.

A lot of "big-agro" farmers recognize this and utilize cover crops for those reasons. They utilize clover or the like to fixate nitrogen and kill it off so everything goes back to the soil. They're utilizing radishes for natural tillage to break up hard pans in the soil and when they kill that radish off it provides organic matter and nutrients. Point being, if you don't remove everything then yes you're making it sustainable. If you're harvesting everything that's planted and then trying to rely on what's leftover, manure included, then along the way you're not ultimately replacing everything. It may never show up in our lifetime though.

So...

... are you claiming that the grand net inputs that you sell are more sustainable than permaculture concepts of interconnected reuse?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

You've made really good points in this thread and i've learned a lot. I think you get so caught up in defending what's wrongly misconstrued about Monsanto (like GMOs) that you accidentally find yourself defending everything about them (i did the same thing with wal mart for a while, before i realized it). It's not black and white. Monsanto operates in some gray areas.

Although you may be right that starvation numbers are inflated by external factors, it's an economic certainty that marginal increases in agricultural prices result in 3rd world hunger and that's what their patents accomplish.

Is your last paragraph not perhaps a result of these countries inability to feed themselves due to antiquated production practices though? Monsanto says India doubled their cotton production using Bt cotton (Monsanto patent). Ok lets throw that number out because Monsanto has a bias. Cal Berkley (of all institutions) says yields were 80% greater than non-GMO cotton yields. Per the other information I posted regarding sub-Saharan Africa, these farmers have gone generations without utilizing fertility so they're stuck avg 30 bu corn while the U.S. is avg 163 bu. What's needed is education and training so these countries adopt the latest technology and practices to provide for themselves. If they're always relying on imports then it'll always be a more expensive purchase.

I have a co-worker who served in Afghanistan and part of his role over there (when not fighting) was educating and helping local farmers adopt advanced and sustainable farming practices. He said its astonishing to see how far behind they are. Another co-worker of mine, formally of Monsanto, just resigned in order to move to Thailand to work on a research project for the next 10 months in an effort to raise corn and rice yields over there. Their lack of knowledge in these areas is as big a detriment to their livelihood as patents are.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm not sure if I'll ever understand the fright of "genetically modified foods".

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

So...

Yes, because we're replacing the crop removal value. Failing to put back more or equal to than what you took off is not sustainable long term. What's "long term" is a whole other debate that I don't know an answer to. Hence, I said we may never see the detriments in our time.

 

[FLVOL69]

Is your last paragraph not perhaps a result of these countries inability to feed themselves due to antiquated production practices though? Monsanto says India doubled their cotton production using Bt cotton (Monsanto patent). Ok lets throw that number out because Monsanto has a bias. Cal Berkley (of all institutions) says yields were 80% greater than non-GMO cotton yields. Per the other information I posted regarding sub-Saharan Africa, these farmers have gone generations without utilizing fertility so they're stuck avg 30 bu corn while the U.S. is avg 163 bu. What's needed is education and training so these countries adopt the latest technology and practices to provide for themselves. If they're always relying on imports then it'll always be a more expensive purchase.

I have a co-worker who served in Afghanistan and part of his role over there (when not fighting) was educating and helping local farmers adopt advanced and sustainable farming practices. He said its astonishing to see how far behind they are. Another co-worker of mine, formally of Monsanto, just resigned in order to move to Thailand to work on a research project for the next 10 months in an effort to raise corn and rice yields over there. Their lack of knowledge in these areas is as big a detriment to their livelihood as parents are.

This is a little off topic but is organic cotton worth the money? I'm looking at some new sheets and they want like 300.00 bucks for a king set. I'll hang up and listen thanks 😎

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, because we're replacing the crop removal value. Failing to put back more or equal to than what you took off is not sustainable long term. What's "long term" is a whole other debate that I don't know an answer to.

So, 1/4 billion tax dollars a year and petro-reliance in harvest, production and shipping of such nutrients, is more sustainable than interrelated local systems that use system outputs as system inputs (and use supplemental nutrient additions if needed).

Interesting perspective you have there. And I'm the moron.

ETA:

To be clear, I don't think you're a moron. I think you're a fertilizer salesman.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

This is a little off topic but is organic cotton worth the money? I'm looking at some new sheets and they want like 300.00 bucks for a king set. I'll hang up and listen thanks 😎

Haha. My rule of thumb is nothing above the necessities is worth it. A $7 Moe's burrito satisfies me the same as a $9 organic one from Chipotle.

Speaking of that, there's a Moe's billboard in Dothan, AL that shows a 4 year old with a beard and says if you don't mind hormones in your food come to Moe's. Awesome shot fired at Chipotle.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

And let me just say i recognize the good tha monsanto has done. They are in large part responsible for our ability to feed 7 billion people.

That being said, it drives me crazy that the law can be manipulated to prevent some of the 7 billion from being fed.

I hate IP law in general.

Aren't you a libertarian? Preventing businesses/innovators from having the ability to protect themselves and rather allow those who didn't work for it to still share in the benefits seems rather socialistic. If you want to share in it that's fine but you'll cost share in it. Which is what Monsanto does by licensing their traits to other seed companies.

Just read an article today that in this industry, seed companies are working on projects 15 years out. Monsanto likes to brag about spending $2.3 mil per day on R&D. That puts them $14B in the hole before they sell a seed or drop of chemical. I'd damn sure find anyway I could to recoup that investment too.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

So, 1/4 billion tax dollars a year and petro-reliance in harvest, production and shipping of such nutrients, is more sustainable than interrelated local systems that use system outputs as system inputs (and use supplemental nutrient additions if needed).

Interesting perspective you have there. And I'm the moron.

ETA:

To be clear, I don't think you're a moron. I think you're a fertilizer salesman.

I was answering from the perspective of the soil being able to keep providing a productive growing medium between the 2. In order for this system to work everyone would have to grow all of their own needs or find someone who does so they're not running all over LA from organic farm to organic farm, burning fuel (unless we're all riding bikes then).

Are these organic operations also harvesting, cleaning and processing all their own meat to provide for them and their neighborhood? Or is a truck going around to 10 blocks every time rounding up the cattle and hogs for slaughter, burning more fuel than a bulk load with one starting and ending point?

You don't take into account climates and seasons and its affect on variety in this theory. One market provides you strawberries in early winter; FL because it's the only state that affords the opportunity at that time of year. So what is someone in Illinois going to do if they want berries in February and their neighborhood farm can't provide it? Or orange juice which comes from exactly one state in the Union?

None of this is to say it can't be done, but it would be taking a major step back from what the developed world is used to. If folks are willing to only eat what they can grow, in terms of variety, then they're better than me. I'd get tired of the same stuff.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I was answering from the perspective of the soil being able to keep providing a productive growing medium between the 2. In order for this system to work everyone would have to grow all of their own needs or find someone who does so they're not running all over LA from organic farm to organic farm, burning fuel (unless we're all riding bikes then).

Are these organic operations also harvesting, cleaning and processing all their own meat to provide for them and their neighborhood? Or is a truck going around to 10 blocks every time rounding up the cattle and hogs for slaughter, burning more fuel than a bulk load with one starting and ending point?

You don't take into account climates and seasons and its affect on variety in this theory. One market provides you strawberries in early winter; FL because it's the only state that affords the opportunity at that time of year. So what is someone in Illinois going to do if they want berries in February and their neighborhood farm can't provide it? Or orange juice which comes from exactly one state in the Union?

None of this is to say it can't be done, but it would be taking a major step back from what the developed world is used to. If folks are willing to only eat what they can grow, in terms of variety, then they're better than me. I'd get tired of the same stuff.

It's interesting that you flipped the conversation from production to distribution. There could be common distribution points. I grew up in ag country too.

Now, since both big-ag and small farms will need to ship food, let's talk production.

So, 1/4 billion tax dollars a year and petro-reliance in harvest, production and shipping of such nutrients, is more sustainable than interrelated local systems that use system outputs as system inputs (and use supplemental nutrient additions if needed).

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

It's interesting that you flipped the conversation from production to distribution. There could be common distribution points. I grew up in ag country too.

Now, since both big-ag and small farms will need to ship food, let's talk production.

Well I think distribution or lack of is part of supplying the world's food needs. We've both jumped around so much (me more so &#128523 I can't keep it all straight. Plus we like to write novels and I'm sure I've missed stuff you've said. But I thought your initial point was it could produce enough food to feed everyone and I believe that's only true with variety. Unless it's back to the self sufficient family farming days, like the Amish and Mennonites I deal with. But even they can be found in a grocery store.

Even with distribution points, FL citrus farming operations for example would have to be massive in nature to provide OJ to everyone, which is not viable organically, I think even by your own admissions. Once again, unless a multitude of FL residents had small operations on their land that they could farm organically. Then we run into an issue of land and time, given these people likely have other jobs, as a few trees won't support them and the world and citrus production is basically only viable in 1/3 of the state due to frost.

Thanks to our spoiled nature as Americans I think we've made it very hard to rely on organic operations alone.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well I think distribution or lack of is part of supplying the world's food needs. We've both jumped around so much (me more so &#128523 I can't keep it all straight. Plus we like to write novels and I'm sure I've missed stuff you've said. But I thought your initial point was it could produce enough food to feed everyone and I believe that's only true with variety. Unless it's back to the self sufficient family farming days, like the Amish and Mennonites I deal with. But even they can be found in a grocery store.

Even with distribution points, FL citrus farming operations for example would have to be massive in nature to provide OJ to everyone, which is not viable organically, I think even by your own admissions. Once again, unless a multitude of FL residents had small operations on their land that they could farm organically. Then we run into an issue of land and time, given these people likely have other jobs, as a few trees won't support them and the world and citrus production is basically only viable in 1/3 of the state due to frost.

Thanks to our spoiled nature as Americans I think we've made it very hard to rely on organic operations alone.

Oh I absolutely believe oj could be produced and distributed organically, and at a smaller scale, multiplied out. like I mentioned the mid sized orchard that switched to organic and saw a net increase in production. Orchards are actually easier to switch to organic.

I think we both agree that this will probably not happen due to the societal shifts that would need to happen, but organic/permaculture concepts would produce for the world in a more sustainable way. (Note, permaculture concept extrapolate out to larger than the backyard garden or small homestead.)

As far as distribution, there would still need to be distro for many products, but we need distribution in big-agro as well. But if you have more people growing, there are fewer people purchasing, so less distro. And if you have more people buying local whenever possible (with more produced locally), there is less distro. Just like with soil nutrients. You may still have to import some nutrients, but you're importing less. You may have to distribute some food, but you're distributing less.

Less is more sustainable.

 

[Mike1967]

I'm still scared to eat that s***. I've heard and read stories about GMO corn made the intestines of cattle look like cooked beef or something similar to Crohn's Disease in humans.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Oh I absolutely believe oj could be produced and distributed organically, and at a smaller scale, multiplied out. like I mentioned the mid sized orchard that switched to organic and saw a net increase in production. Orchards are actually easier to switch to organic.

I think we both agree that this will probably not happen due to the societal shifts that would need to happen, but organic/permaculture concepts would produce for the world in a more sustainable way. (Note, permaculture concept extrapolate out to larger than the backyard garden or small homestead.)

As far as distribution, there would still need to be distro for many products, but we need distribution in big-agro as well. But if you have more people growing, there are fewer people purchasing, so less distro. And if you have more people buying local whenever possible (with more produced locally), there is less distro. Just like with soil nutrients. You may still have to import some nutrients, but you're importing less. You may have to distribute some food, but you're distributing less.

Less is more sustainable.

.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Oh I absolutely believe oj could be produced and distributed organically, and at a smaller scale, multiplied out. like I mentioned the mid sized orchard that switched to organic and saw a net increase in production. Orchards are actually easier to switch to organic.

I think we both agree that this will probably not happen due to the societal shifts that would need to happen, but organic/permaculture concepts would produce for the world in a more sustainable way. (Note, permaculture concept extrapolate out to larger than the backyard garden or small homestead.)

As far as distribution, there would still need to be distro for many products, but we need distribution in big-agro as well. But if you have more people growing, there are fewer people purchasing, so less distro. And if you have more people buying local whenever possible (with more produced locally), there is less distro. Just like with soil nutrients. You may still have to import some nutrients, but you're importing less. You may have to distribute some food, but you're distributing less.

Less is more sustainable.

But that orchard video example is predominantly providing locals I imagine. OJ comes from predominantly 2 locations in the world; Brazil and FL. It's such a niche environment product same with sugarcane. 4 counties in FL supply the country with over 50% of the sugar and we still import a 1/5 of our consumption needs.

Extrapolating organic over a larger scale becomes pretty costly because of the hand labor involved. The hands it takes to tend to 17 acres like the Canadian farmer has, is far less than what it takes to tend several hundred acres. Whereas a conventional farmer can knock out weed control in a 100 acre field in a matter of less than an hour with an 80ft boom sprayer and a guy making $12/he an organic guy has a hoeing crew out there making that same wage and accomplishing things much slower.

This article from USA Today talks about the associated costs for TN organic farmers, in generic terms.

Tenn.'s 'Barefoot Farmer' shutting down organic farm

 

[golfballs]

Two types of posters in this thread:

-idealogues
-someone who actually knows what they're talking about

You'd think some people would know when to give up