I've been sitting on this clip for a few days, but I can assure you that the fields look much the same now. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjlZFb58ZdA

 

So which method should growers be using to try to feed an increasingly hungry world?

 

 

Asked and answered (well, sort of).  See this thread:

http://www.fwi.co.uk/community/forums/p/13945/80041.aspx

The conventional field will produce at least 150 tons more grain than the organic one.In a hungry world,how many lives does 150 tons of grain amount to?Not all organic fields look as bad as this one,but many do.I would have to disagree with the commentator when he says the field looks pretty.If you can imagine some starving children in this field,it will then look as pretty as a field of blighted potatoes in 1830's Ireland.Organic farming costs lives.Proponents of organic farming have to decide how to control the worlds population if they cant control weeds.Or do they just wait,let nature take its course,and let famine control the worlds population?

Some education for you.

1. The purposes of this information note are to:

 

• Outline the benefits of organic farming that the Scottish Government recognise.

 

• Give information on the organic sector in Scotland.

 

• Detail sources of further information

 

2. Organic Farming: an introduction

Organic farming plays a valuable role in helping to protect and enhance the environment as well as assisting producers to meet consumer demand for organic products. Evidence has shown that there are significant biodiversity, pollution control, energy efficiency and soil protection benefits associated with organic farming.

Organic farming is based on enhancing the natural biological cycles in soil (e.g. nutrient cycling in the soil), crop (e.g. encouraging natural predators of crop pests) and livestock (e.g. development of natural immunity in young animals); on building up soil fertility through the use of nitrogen (N) fixation by legumes and enhancing soil organic matter; and on avoiding pollution. Thus the aim is to work with natural processes rather than seek to dominate them, and to minimise the use of non-renewable natural resources such as the fossil fuel used for the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides. Organic farming principles also encompass high animal welfare standards and the improvement of the environmental infrastructure of the farm.

Any farmer wishing to produce food for sale as organic must comply with EU Regulation 2092/91, which became operational in January 1993 (to be replaced on 1^st January 2009 by EU Regulation 834/2007). This regulation sets out the minimum standards of production and stipulates that organic farmers must be registered with an organic certification body which itself must be approved by Defra, the National Certifying Authority for the UK.

3. Business Prospects

In 2007, the market for organic food was worth around £1.5 (Mintel, 2007), having increased by 70% since 2002. Increased product availability and rising consumer interest in health and premium food markets have fuelled sales. It is predicted that demand will continue to grow but, at present, further expansion in retail sales is constrained by lack of supply of primary product, at least for some products such as milk, eggs, table birds, pork, beef, and a seasonal undersupply of lamb. The expansion of non-ruminant production in particular is being held back by a severe shortage of organic feed grain. Vegetables (including potatoes) are profitable with ready markets, although production costs can be high.

These shortages are to some extent a result of the relatively slow rate of conversion of farms in the last 3-4 years, after a very rapid expansion of the sector in the late 1990’s and in 2000 to 2001. At the farm gate, therefore, prices are good for most products, particularly organic grain, beef and lamb (although seasonal over supply can make marketing of lamb challenging in the autumn glut period). Premiums for organic store cattle and lambs have also been available. The two year conversion period (when yields are reduced, no full organic premiums are available, and some investment costs may be necessary, e.g. for reseeding) is the most challenging period

financially, but once the organic system has been fully established, good market prospects and generally lower input costs should result in improved business profitability.

4. Contribution to Biodiversity

Many organic units comprise mixed farming systems and several studies have shown that mixed farms, both in upland and lowland situations, have a positive impact on biodiversity because of the mixed range of habitats provided spatially and over time^[5;33;23;15]. Table 1 provides an illustration of the positive effects that organic farming can have on biodiversity in comparison to conventional arable, conventional mixed lowland, and LEAF farms ^[17].

Table 1. The impacts of farming operations in four farming systems on the biodiversity of soil organisms, plants, invertebrates, birds and mammals (the higher the score, the more beneficial the impact)^[17].

Agricultural Practice	Conventional Arable	Conventional Mixed Lowland	LEAF	Organic
Cultivation	-1.5	-1.5	-1.5	-1.5
Production	-2.0	-1.0	-1.0	+4.0
Protection	-6.0	-6.0	-6.0	-0.5
Post Cropping	+4.5	+9.5	+9.5	+11.5
OVERALL	-5.0	+1.0	+1.0	+13.5

4.1 Flora

The non use of agrochemicals is probably the key factor in increasing floral diversity on organic farms^[12]. Synthetic herbicide and pesticide use can have a dramatic negative impact on wild flora^[45]. A study of adjacent conventional and organic farms in England^[42] showed that organic farms support significantly rarer and declining plant species. In another study^[2], the diversity of threatened floral species within the field and in crop margins on organic farms was approximately double that of conventional farms. Evidence suggests that the use of agrochemicals can have a major negative impact also on faunal numbers and diversity^[45].

4.2 Birds & bats

The BTO (British Trust for Ornithology) study of 22 paired organic and conventional lowland farms in England and Wales^[9] showed that the density of all the bird species studied was greater on the organic holdings and was in proportion to the greater availability of invertebrates and other food sources. Other research into the abundance and diversity of insectivorous mammals, including bats, has also shown that the population and diversity of species is greater on organic than on conventional farms^{[4, 48]}, for similar reasons. Fuller et al. (2005)^[15] concluded that organic holdings were likely to support 5-48% more spiders, 16-62% more birds and 6-75% more bats than conventional holdings based on data collected over 89 paired farms in England, including several upland ones.

Reducing stock numbers in pastures is likely to have a range of benefits for ground-nesting birds including the creation of more complex sward structures, reduced trampling and positive effects on food resources^[14]. Stubbles can be particularly beneficial as food sources^[20,49] and the

relatively greater use of spring cropping on organic farms is likely to be beneficial in this instance^{[9, 50,51]}.

4.3 Invertebrates

A German study^[16] concluded that the population and diversity of insect-pollinated plants are greater under organic farming, compared to conventional cropping systems, presumably because invertebrate abundance and activity is greater. Organic standards prevent the routine use of prophylactic veterinary drugs and an Irish study^[24] found that organic farming was beneficial to dung beetle communities, with dung on organic farms possessing greater beetle biomass than dung on intensively managed grassland. The number of beneficial predatory invertebrates (e.g. ladybirds and ground beetles) has also been found to be higher on organic systems compared to conventional systems ^[19,41]. The practice of undersowing, common in organic systems, is known to encourage earthworms and other beneficial soil fauna activity. The greater emphasis on clover in organic compared to conventional farming systems is beneficial to butterfly and bee species, including bumblebees^[45;10].

5. Contribution to valued and attractive landscapes

A number of studies^[9;25;39;40], have shown that on average, organic farms had a more attractive landscape than either extensive or intensive conventional farms of a similar type.

6. Contribution to protection and enhancement of water and soils

Mineral N fertiliser is prohibited in organic standards. Artificial sources of P & K are prohibited although some natural products may be permitted under certain circumstances. In organic farming, N is generated by legumes (e.g. grass/clover swards) and nutrient supply to crops is maintained by efficient recycling of manures, and by optimising soil N mineralization. This organic approach of recycling or restricting P & K, will tend to lead to lower soil indexes, compared to unrestricted nutrient application,

The non-use of inorganic N fertilisers is likely to reduce leaching, particularly when comparing net losses over the whole rotation and assuming timing and husbandry operations are sympathetically undertaken^[35]. A review of European literature^[43] also concluded that nitrate leaching per hectare from organic farms was generally less than conventional farms. Reduced use of P in less soluble forms, as happens on organic farms, is also likely to reduce impacts on water and eutrophication^[25].

Soil flora and fauna are also likely to benefit from the non-use of mineral N fertilisers, as these chemicals are associated with reductions in arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) and other soil fungal populations and diversity^[34]. The beneficial effects of AM fungi including improved soil structure are liable to be stimulated in organic systems^{[6, 31]}.

On organic farms, it is often the practice to undersow cereal crops with grass/legume seed mixture. This provides soil cover which suppresses weeds, enhances crop fertility and grazing after harvest and in addition prevents nutrient leaching over winter on uncropped land. There is little evidence that storage and handling methods of slurries, manures and compost are significantly different between organic and conventional farm holdings^[13]. However, the lower stocking density predominant in organic farming systems would tend to result in lower production of livestock manures per holding and hence lower risk of N leaching. Overstocking is also known to be a major factor in soil erosion, thus the lower stocking rates in organic systems should help to minimise risk of erosion.

As for feeding the world, we can do this already.  Some people eat to much and get fat, some people dont get enough, the problem is with distribution.

Some education for you.

1. The purposes of this information note are to:

 

• Outline the benefits of organic farming that the Scottish Government recognise.

 

• Give information on the organic sector in Scotland.

 

• Detail sources of further information

 

2. Organic Farming: an introduction

Organic farming plays a valuable role in helping to protect and enhance the environment as well as assisting producers to meet consumer demand for organic products. Evidence has shown that there are significant biodiversity, pollution control, energy efficiency and soil protection benefits associated with organic farming.

Organic farming is based on enhancing the natural biological cycles in soil (e.g. nutrient cycling in the soil), crop (e.g. encouraging natural predators of crop pests) and livestock (e.g. development of natural immunity in young animals); on building up soil fertility through the use of nitrogen (N) fixation by legumes and enhancing soil organic matter; and on avoiding pollution. Thus the aim is to work with natural processes rather than seek to dominate them, and to minimise the use of non-renewable natural resources such as the fossil fuel used for the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides. Organic farming principles also encompass high animal welfare standards and the improvement of the environmental infrastructure of the farm.

Any farmer wishing to produce food for sale as organic must comply with EU Regulation 2092/91, which became operational in January 1993 (to be replaced on 1^st January 2009 by EU Regulation 834/2007). This regulation sets out the minimum standards of production and stipulates that organic farmers must be registered with an organic certification body which itself must be approved by Defra, the National Certifying Authority for the UK.

3. Business Prospects

In 2007, the market for organic food was worth around £1.5 (Mintel, 2007), having increased by 70% since 2002. Increased product availability and rising consumer interest in health and premium food markets have fuelled sales. It is predicted that demand will continue to grow but, at present, further expansion in retail sales is constrained by lack of supply of primary product, at least for some products such as milk, eggs, table birds, pork, beef, and a seasonal undersupply of lamb. The expansion of non-ruminant production in particular is being held back by a severe shortage of organic feed grain. Vegetables (including potatoes) are profitable with ready markets, although production costs can be high.

These shortages are to some extent a result of the relatively slow rate of conversion of farms in the last 3-4 years, after a very rapid expansion of the sector in the late 1990’s and in 2000 to 2001. At the farm gate, therefore, prices are good for most products, particularly organic grain, beef and lamb (although seasonal over supply can make marketing of lamb challenging in the autumn glut period). Premiums for organic store cattle and lambs have also been available. The two year conversion period (when yields are reduced, no full organic premiums are available, and some investment costs may be necessary, e.g. for reseeding) is the most challenging period

financially, but once the organic system has been fully established, good market prospects and generally lower input costs should result in improved business profitability.

4. Contribution to Biodiversity

Many organic units comprise mixed farming systems and several studies have shown that mixed farms, both in upland and lowland situations, have a positive impact on biodiversity because of the mixed range of habitats provided spatially and over time^[5;33;23;15]. Table 1 provides an illustration of the positive effects that organic farming can have on biodiversity in comparison to conventional arable, conventional mixed lowland, and LEAF farms ^[17].

Table 1. The impacts of farming operations in four farming systems on the biodiversity of soil organisms, plants, invertebrates, birds and mammals (the higher the score, the more beneficial the impact)^[17].

Agricultural Practice	Conventional Arable	Conventional Mixed Lowland	LEAF	Organic
Cultivation	-1.5	-1.5	-1.5	-1.5
Production	-2.0	-1.0	-1.0	+4.0
Protection	-6.0	-6.0	-6.0	-0.5
Post Cropping	+4.5	+9.5	+9.5	+11.5
OVERALL	-5.0	+1.0	+1.0	+13.5

4.1 Flora

The non use of agrochemicals is probably the key factor in increasing floral diversity on organic farms^[12]. Synthetic herbicide and pesticide use can have a dramatic negative impact on wild flora^[45]. A study of adjacent conventional and organic farms in England^[42] showed that organic farms support significantly rarer and declining plant species. In another study^[2], the diversity of threatened floral species within the field and in crop margins on organic farms was approximately double that of conventional farms. Evidence suggests that the use of agrochemicals can have a major negative impact also on faunal numbers and diversity^[45].

4.2 Birds & bats

The BTO (British Trust for Ornithology) study of 22 paired organic and conventional lowland farms in England and Wales^[9] showed that the density of all the bird species studied was greater on the organic holdings and was in proportion to the greater availability of invertebrates and other food sources. Other research into the abundance and diversity of insectivorous mammals, including bats, has also shown that the population and diversity of species is greater on organic than on conventional farms^{[4, 48]}, for similar reasons. Fuller et al. (2005)^[15] concluded that organic holdings were likely to support 5-48% more spiders, 16-62% more birds and 6-75% more bats than conventional holdings based on data collected over 89 paired farms in England, including several upland ones.

Reducing stock numbers in pastures is likely to have a range of benefits for ground-nesting birds including the creation of more complex sward structures, reduced trampling and positive effects on food resources^[14]. Stubbles can be particularly beneficial as food sources^[20,49] and the

relatively greater use of spring cropping on organic farms is likely to be beneficial in this instance^{[9, 50,51]}.

4.3 Invertebrates

A German study^[16] concluded that the population and diversity of insect-pollinated plants are greater under organic farming, compared to conventional cropping systems, presumably because invertebrate abundance and activity is greater. Organic standards prevent the routine use of prophylactic veterinary drugs and an Irish study^[24] found that organic farming was beneficial to dung beetle communities, with dung on organic farms possessing greater beetle biomass than dung on intensively managed grassland. The number of beneficial predatory invertebrates (e.g. ladybirds and ground beetles) has also been found to be higher on organic systems compared to conventional systems ^[19,41]. The practice of undersowing, common in organic systems, is known to encourage earthworms and other beneficial soil fauna activity. The greater emphasis on clover in organic compared to conventional farming systems is beneficial to butterfly and bee species, including bumblebees^[45;10].

5. Contribution to valued and attractive landscapes

A number of studies^[9;25;39;40], have shown that on average, organic farms had a more attractive landscape than either extensive or intensive conventional farms of a similar type.

6. Contribution to protection and enhancement of water and soils

Mineral N fertiliser is prohibited in organic standards. Artificial sources of P & K are prohibited although some natural products may be permitted under certain circumstances. In organic farming, N is generated by legumes (e.g. grass/clover swards) and nutrient supply to crops is maintained by efficient recycling of manures, and by optimising soil N mineralization. This organic approach of recycling or restricting P & K, will tend to lead to lower soil indexes, compared to unrestricted nutrient application,

The non-use of inorganic N fertilisers is likely to reduce leaching, particularly when comparing net losses over the whole rotation and assuming timing and husbandry operations are sympathetically undertaken^[35]. A review of European literature^[43] also concluded that nitrate leaching per hectare from organic farms was generally less than conventional farms. Reduced use of P in less soluble forms, as happens on organic farms, is also likely to reduce impacts on water and eutrophication^[25].

Soil flora and fauna are also likely to benefit from the non-use of mineral N fertilisers, as these chemicals are associated with reductions in arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) and other soil fungal populations and diversity^[34]. The beneficial effects of AM fungi including improved soil structure are liable to be stimulated in organic systems^{[6, 31]}.

On organic farms, it is often the practice to undersow cereal crops with grass/legume seed mixture. This provides soil cover which suppresses weeds, enhances crop fertility and grazing after harvest and in addition prevents nutrient leaching over winter on uncropped land. There is little evidence that storage and handling methods of slurries, manures and compost are significantly different between organic and conventional farm holdings^[13]. However, the lower stocking density predominant in organic farming systems would tend to result in lower production of livestock manures per holding and hence lower risk of N leaching. Overstocking is also known to be a major factor in soil erosion, thus the lower stocking rates in organic systems should help to minimise risk of erosion.

As for feeding the world, we can do this already.  Some people eat to much and get fat, some people dont get enough, the problem is with distribution.

can we have the source of this article, and a list of the references within it please?

 

Here is the link

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Rural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/HowItWorks/OnlineApplicationGuidan/NotesonOrganicFarming

I have always held the view that organic farming was for rich people with no overdraft

flutefriend:

I've been sitting on this clip for a few days, but I can assure you that the fields look much the same now. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjlZFb58ZdA

 

So which method should growers be using to try to feed an increasingly hungry world?

 

 

I came to this as the great missive from Scottish office appeared in another tread and could not work it out. had look at clip as well.

I have a solid view that agriculture is a great gift of humanity and love thinking, studying and practicing the noble art. The trouble I have with the "organic" versus conventional debate in this country is the sanctimonious view point of the organic bodies who for some reason think that they are better than the rest. Eve Balfour, Newman and other did not set themselves up as political and marketers for their club. They set out to debate agriculture but debate of agriculture is not something we do in Britain it is money and markets that rule.

Education is the big resource in this, we can all learn from each other. Yes we need to feed the world. Why, oh why does the farmer in Britain talk about being stopped in their work of feeding the world. We can't feed ourselves and it is getting worse. We are all in this together and farming is for us, all.

 The disconnect in this question concerns land, fundamental to agriculture either organic or conventional is land. The people who own the land have now to answer further political questions about bio-diversity which is nothing to do with environment it is a political topic. At present we have taken our agriculture down a line of narrow production of wheat/oil seed rape, Intensive milking, irrigated vegetables. This has all been wonderful in feeding the world. It has come at a cost social problems for farmers, environmental costs and a treadmill of economic destruction.

Education will enable a new generation to come along with new ideas, new husbandry methods and new ways of working.

There is no either or, or this verses that. Organic husbandry and farmers adopting organic techniques are the ones who are developing agricultural skills and should be encouraged. The certification bodies are the problem and barrier to wider communication. They are the ones who need certifying. Observe how organic is achieved elsewhere in the world for example Canada, US of A, NZ, Europe.

To finally give my answer feeding the world needs food to be produced in greater quantity but in a more environmentally sound fashion. Organic methods still feed many mouths around the world. Through generally production will be limited more by land fertility and water availability than use of chemical tools and machines in the near future. Science has taken us a long way in a short time now it is the turn of brains, management and philosophy to take agriculture forward.

Organic cannot feed the world. "Conventional" struggles to feed the world. Any way you look at it, there are too many people.

motley:

To finally give my answer feeding the world needs food to be produced in greater quantity but in a more environmentally sound fashion.

I would say that the solution is to just have less people. 4bn less maybe? 6bn less better.

motley:

Yes we need to feed the world.

No, we dont. I am often told that farming is a long term thing. Well, long term we run out of earth, resources etc. It just cant cope. Lets get real - oil, phosphate etc are finite resources. As is water (didnt feel like it yesterday though). There is not enough to go around, so we need fewer people.

How do we get less? Well, that sort of thing tends to sort itself out.

So TelsaColis couldn't stay away then? Re: 22nd April post.

I often wonder about the Malthusian answer, it just hasn't worked out, he is denied so often.

I believe that life is about the now/present and not this medieval concern about we are all damned long term - happy days. The oil, water and phosphate run out; so what we will learn, adapt and thrive, quite possibly with more people on the planet, who is to say. The present trouble is the continual denial that we have a problem, is it too many people, I don't think so. Life is people. No people no fun, no need for farmers then. There are too many people in this country who think that they can live by consuming excessively, however the elites in banking have changed all that, heavily supported by crash who has finally got a real job to attend too. The baby-boomer generation has spent 60 odd years on the planet destroying things, now it has finally to harvest its seeds sown in 1968. As some maybe aware it is education, that I believe to be the force for good. It will be education that enables adaptive capacity, when it is taken out of the hands of politicians.

It is elites everywhere condemned by their conservatism who will be changed. This is through their failure to identify the problem and further do nothing about it. This is demonstrated most admirably by the boy milliband whose own government offices are pumping out maximum CO2 (shame old elliot will not be there to advize him now), while he tells us to raise our game. It is Chez chez la femme. If you don't believe simply observe the world. Banks in denial, MPs in denial, farmers in denial, environmentalists in denial. Listen to the people, they say................? Are you listening? I love my fellow man and would not wish ill towards them.

Potatoes were grown organically in Ireland in 1845 - 1 million starved -  end of story really.

mr hateslugs, that is rather simplistic.

i million starved because they were catholic and were cleared from the good land in the east where corn was grown for export by imported protestants from england.

it was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale, not relevant to this argument.

as to organic farming, it cant feed the world as we know it, but then starvation is still widespread today, so conventional doesnt feed everyone either.

our govt is not interested in max food prduction, so neither am i.

Of course organic farming could feed the world just as long as people start eating less meat and more fruit and veg. Its absolutely crazy to think organic methods could not sustain the world, have you tried? No. Necessity is the mother or invention, organic farming can adapt, just as soon as more people are prepared to care about the environment and buy organic.

Sure is a lot of unworked land through out the US and Canada. Even with poor yields they could be producing using any method. Not economical right now because of cheap food policies. I've been doing my best to save idle land from reforestation because its completely uneconomical here to clear land for farming.

i have tried it , organic farming  for the last 12 yrs.

my wheat production has dropped from 2000 tons /yr to 600 tons

i have 300 acres of grass rather than cereals, with 900 ewes on it.

so meat must be consumed, as organic farming must have a grass rotation.

red meat will always be needed until humans evolve to eat grass.

 

glasshouse:

i have tried it , organic farming  for the last 12 yrs.

my wheat production has dropped from 2000 tons /yr to 600 tons

i have 300 acres of grass rather than cereals, with 900 ewes on it.

so meat must be consumed, as organic farming must have a grass rotation.

red meat will always be needed until humans evolve to eat grass.

 

Interesting way of seeing it. And i wasn't suggesting we all become vegetarians merely we all eat less meat and more cereals and veg which feeds a greater number of people than rearing animals for meat.

The animal link is important. We have all kinds of pasture that is unsuitable for mechanical harvesting or grain planting. Lots of marginal land that will support livestock.

When did food rationing finnish ? Wasn't farming organic before and during the 1950's as sprays came in the mid sixties didn't they ?. So in organic terms what has change since the 50's besides that we have newer plant breeds.

I still have my "ration book" it is dated 1953 /1954, presumably rationing finished during that period as the book has half the tokens still unused,

Around that time we had our first sprayer, it was a fourty gallon drum on a three point mounted frame and a fifteen foot booms, and a small pump carried on the PTO. we sprayed buttercup on an old turf, there was only three sprays to choose from MCPA, MCPB and 2-4D or some such code.

Father bought a lot of fish muck fertilizer for on the wheat it was in powder form and we had to coaxe it down the spouts of our new Massy combine drill  a bit of a foggy  morning and the drill  soon clogged

The first N fertilizer came in plastic lined hession sacks, basic slag was widly used usualy brought to the farm in bulk and contractor spread with the lime spreader could also get it in paper sacks,another very dirty job, and potash was purchased in sacks, very corosive

The wheat wouild be about three foot tall and we had some heavy crops that the binder would only just take. 

flutefriend:

I've been sitting on this clip for a few days, but I can assure you that the fields look much the same now. 

You would not get such a dirty field if the crop had been grown after a three or four year ley grass break, its only the build up of anual weeds in the soil from conventional farming, I can never remember us having such a disater as the clip shows, thistles and docks were spudded and pulled every year in the corn.

Organicly, you need to learn how to farm all over again, how we used to up to the 1950's. No short cut to be taken = a decent heavy crop and a ROTATION