Couple of articles I came across:
California farm communities pay price for decades of fertilizer use https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/califo ... 34497.html
"A pollutant that has leached into California aquifers since farmers first began using synthetic fertilizer continues to accumulate and would not be removed from groundwater even if the state’s agriculture businesses abruptly quit using nitrogen-based materials to boost the productivity of their crops.
That’s one of the themes of a new study from the UC Davis Agriculture Sustainability Institute that assesses the scale and sources of [nitrogen pollution] ...
Tomich’s study found that California generates about 1.8 million tons of nitrogen every year. More than half of it comes from agricultural sources, which rely on nitrogen as a key component in fertilizers.
Of that, about 419,000 tons leach into groundwater, where it becomes a salt known as nitrate. Overexposure to nitrates in drinking water can hurt an infant’s ability to move oxygen in the bloodstream. It’s a condition known as “blue baby syndrome.”
Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone? https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... rld-hunger
"We found that although organic farming systems produce yields that average 10-20% less than conventional agriculture, they are more profitable and environmentally friendly. ... In addition, organic farming delivers equally or more nutritious foods that contain less or no pesticide residues, and provide greater social benefits than their conventional counterparts. With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater. ...
Overall, organic farms tend to have better soil quality and reduce soil erosion compared to their conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture generally creates less soil and water pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions, and is more energy efficient" etc
-
rainbowgardener
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: TN/GA 7b
Leaching has been a problem. Michigan's lake is so polluted with nitrogen and phosphorus runoff that no phosphorus fertilizers are recommended. However, organic farms can also be a source of leaching which is why large animal farms that concentrate their animals in a small area like feed lots and piggeries are required to spread the manure around so that it does not concentrate and runoff or contaminate groundwater.
Organic culture is better for the soil and the soil health is better if plants are grown organically. But if organic culture were efficient it should not cost as much as it does. Using less pesticides is always going to be bettter for the consumers and for the environment. However, many people are believe that organic farms don't use pesticides which is not true. Organic farms still use pesticides and they probably use them more often because they are limited in what they are allowed to use. Organic produce still requires testing as much as conventional produce as organic produce has at times exceeded the NOP allowed standards. Convential produce is also tested regularly and most are well below the ceiling allowed.
https://depts.washington.edu/ceeh/downl ... icides.pdf
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/heal ... /index.htm
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/ ... tStudy.pdf
Nutrition wise, other than the lower incidence of pesticide residues, there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally raised produce. It is more important to eat a balanced diet than for that diet to be organic. However, organic produce always tests lower in pesticide residues. (Note organic produce is generally not tested for organic pesticide residues, but for the same pesticide residues as conventional produce. Most of the positive results has been from handling, and labeling issues.) However, there are some categories of fruits and vegetables which have a relatively higher risk for residues and the organic produce would be a better choice.
The real risk of pesticide residues are environmental and risks to workers who are repeatedly exposed to the chemicals.
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap ... ocal+token
https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
Organic culture is better for the soil and the soil health is better if plants are grown organically. But if organic culture were efficient it should not cost as much as it does. Using less pesticides is always going to be bettter for the consumers and for the environment. However, many people are believe that organic farms don't use pesticides which is not true. Organic farms still use pesticides and they probably use them more often because they are limited in what they are allowed to use. Organic produce still requires testing as much as conventional produce as organic produce has at times exceeded the NOP allowed standards. Convential produce is also tested regularly and most are well below the ceiling allowed.
https://depts.washington.edu/ceeh/downl ... icides.pdf
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/heal ... /index.htm
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/ ... tStudy.pdf
Nutrition wise, other than the lower incidence of pesticide residues, there is no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally raised produce. It is more important to eat a balanced diet than for that diet to be organic. However, organic produce always tests lower in pesticide residues. (Note organic produce is generally not tested for organic pesticide residues, but for the same pesticide residues as conventional produce. Most of the positive results has been from handling, and labeling issues.) However, there are some categories of fruits and vegetables which have a relatively higher risk for residues and the organic produce would be a better choice.
The real risk of pesticide residues are environmental and risks to workers who are repeatedly exposed to the chemicals.
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap ... ocal+token
https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary.php
-
rainbowgardener
- Super Green Thumb
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
- Location: TN/GA 7b
Here's one more:
UN Report Says Small Scale Organic Farming Only Way to Feed the World
https://www.technologywater.com/post/699 ... rming-only
" the United Nations is once against sounding the alarm about the urgent need to return to (and develop) a more sustainable, natural and organic system. ... essentially said organic and small-scale farming is the answer for “feeding the world,” not GMOs and monocultures. ..Diversity of farms, reducing the use of fertilizer and other changes are desperately needed according to the report"
UN Report Says Small Scale Organic Farming Only Way to Feed the World
https://www.technologywater.com/post/699 ... rming-only
" the United Nations is once against sounding the alarm about the urgent need to return to (and develop) a more sustainable, natural and organic system. ... essentially said organic and small-scale farming is the answer for “feeding the world,” not GMOs and monocultures. ..Diversity of farms, reducing the use of fertilizer and other changes are desperately needed according to the report"
I agree about monoculture upsetting the balance for sure as well as over use of fertilizer. Diversity is a better way to promote a healthier ecosystem. But so it setting aside areas for natural habitat. The problem with commercial farms of any kind is that farms grow a lot of acreage of the same thing because they are geared to market one or only a few products. They still use a lot of fertilizer and pesticides because of the repeat planting of the same crops in the same area. Animals concentrated in a small area will produce a lot of manure that needs to be managed or it can also runoff and contaminate water systems and properties downstream. Better farm management is needed for sure. Smaller farms though have a harder time marketing and unless they are in a co-op they have a harder time keeping costs down since they do not have economies of scale making their products more expensive and less affordable especially to the poor. Small farms probably use more fertilizer than they should since they do less testing and fine tuning of their fertilizer regimen. Even on a smaller farm, they do not rotate products so that increases pest pressure and uses nutrients unevenly. That requires them to use more pesticides and fertilizer to keep yields up. Few small farms can afford to allow parts of their fields to go fallow to rest them, plant green manures, or nectaries for beneficial insects.
I do have to disagree about GMO's because without GMO papaya seeds, the industry would have been destroyed in Puna, and the small farmers would have lost thier livelihoods due to the devastating effects of papaya ringspot virus. The GMO papaya has been around since the sixties and it looks and tastes like any other papaya. About 10% of the local papaya are non gmo. They can only be grown in areas that do not have the virus or vectors and cannot be interplanted with squash. Organic farms must rogue out any volunteers brought by birds and certify the source of their seeds. There is a test available now to determine if a tree is non-gmo. Sellers are required to separate GMO from non-gmo papaya but both are sold side by side in markets. Most people, even the ones against GMO do not even know the difference. The varieties are labeled at the markets here because people prefer certain cultivars or types like solo papaya and yellow-fleshed fruit.
I like the Malaysian papaya and I had five really good trees. I tried to plant more but they got papaya ringspot virus ( from a neighbor's infected tree) so I can't plant those anymore. I planted Waimanalo low bearing and it did fine until my neighbor's tree got the virus and infected mine.
At the community garden, only GMO papaya survive to fruit. Pest control in the tropics is very difficult. There is no off season when literally millions of plants are cultivated year round, it is difficult to keep diseases confined. The best options to prevent spread of devastating viruses today is through transgenic research and not through selective breeding which has been tried as well. Eradication of insect vectors is almost impossible and it is difficult to get people to cut down their sick fruit bearing trees.
I do believe however that people should be able to choose what they want to eat. I am for better labeling of foods. If you buy certified organic, it should be by definition non-gmo. On the other hand, if people knowingly choose to grow and consume GMO fruit, they should be allowed to do that too without interference. The fruit has been well tested and is widely embraced by growers (mostly small farmers), and consumers. It looks and tastes like any other good papaya. Papaya is an excellent source of vitamin C, and available at a reasonable price to all. Seeds are available to consumers, but they need to take an educational session first. GMO seeds are not sold to the general public on purpose and people buying the seeds know what they are getting. Papaya is a popular backyard fruit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409016/
I do have to disagree about GMO's because without GMO papaya seeds, the industry would have been destroyed in Puna, and the small farmers would have lost thier livelihoods due to the devastating effects of papaya ringspot virus. The GMO papaya has been around since the sixties and it looks and tastes like any other papaya. About 10% of the local papaya are non gmo. They can only be grown in areas that do not have the virus or vectors and cannot be interplanted with squash. Organic farms must rogue out any volunteers brought by birds and certify the source of their seeds. There is a test available now to determine if a tree is non-gmo. Sellers are required to separate GMO from non-gmo papaya but both are sold side by side in markets. Most people, even the ones against GMO do not even know the difference. The varieties are labeled at the markets here because people prefer certain cultivars or types like solo papaya and yellow-fleshed fruit.
I like the Malaysian papaya and I had five really good trees. I tried to plant more but they got papaya ringspot virus ( from a neighbor's infected tree) so I can't plant those anymore. I planted Waimanalo low bearing and it did fine until my neighbor's tree got the virus and infected mine.
At the community garden, only GMO papaya survive to fruit. Pest control in the tropics is very difficult. There is no off season when literally millions of plants are cultivated year round, it is difficult to keep diseases confined. The best options to prevent spread of devastating viruses today is through transgenic research and not through selective breeding which has been tried as well. Eradication of insect vectors is almost impossible and it is difficult to get people to cut down their sick fruit bearing trees.
I do believe however that people should be able to choose what they want to eat. I am for better labeling of foods. If you buy certified organic, it should be by definition non-gmo. On the other hand, if people knowingly choose to grow and consume GMO fruit, they should be allowed to do that too without interference. The fruit has been well tested and is widely embraced by growers (mostly small farmers), and consumers. It looks and tastes like any other good papaya. Papaya is an excellent source of vitamin C, and available at a reasonable price to all. Seeds are available to consumers, but they need to take an educational session first. GMO seeds are not sold to the general public on purpose and people buying the seeds know what they are getting. Papaya is a popular backyard fruit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409016/