Slashdot Mirror

Organic farming can feed the world's population (and then some) using the current agricultural land base. Source: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm

Organic farming can feed the population of the world and more with no land increase. It turns out that undeveloped countries benefit stronger from organic farming methods than developed countries. Source: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm

Given the hyperbole in your second paragraph and your disdain for "politics" (read: the very real concerns of a lot of people) I find your arguments not very convincing.

This is especially so, given that research shows that old farming techniques and organic practices are equally or more effective, and cause no permanent damage to people or the environment. Virtually none of the artificial stuff spread on the farmlands of the world are *necessary*, even if one's sole criteria is increased yield.

Before someone shoots down your argument, wondering what research you are refering to, I thought I'd provide a link to underscore your point: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm

A study by the University of Michigan showed that organic methods are sufficient to feed the current global population and more without an increase in the landbase used for agriculture.

1. This is not a threat to the green revolution whatsoever. The green revolution is not dependent on herbicide resistant crops.

Yes, yes it is. Monocultures can't be sustained without the use of herbicides. And since the weeds are becoming resistant (you didn't RTFA, did you?) you need herbicide-resistant crops. QED...

2. The end of the green revolution would he a world wide disaster. Billions of people would starve because other methods of agriculture do not provide the yields needed to support current population levels.

Can I get a what what? (thanks he-sk)

I cannot imagine a greater disaster than a return to pre green revolution farming methods. Anyone who advocates such a thing is not at all familiar with the history or economics of food production.

But, I am. The legacy of the green revolution in India is soil toxicity. It has been said that not one person was fed in China who would have starved without the green revolution. And I think also that it is universally regarded as a failure in Africa.

So the food and agriculture industries say.

A study by the University of Cambridge comes to a different conclusion. From the abstract:

"With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base."

Link: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm

We need it to feed our billions.

Maybe we don't.

From the 2006 study:

With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

Point of fact: Our advanced society would be IMPOSSIBLE if not for the technological advances on food growing, ...

That's a myth. The truth is that the organic farming methods can feed the world and then some. The University of Michigan did a meta study and found that while in developed countries organic farming produces a slightly lower yield than conventional methods, it produces almost twice as much in developing countries. (The reason for this disparity escapes me for the moment.)

From the abstract: "With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base."

Link: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm

34000 km^2 is 10 times bigger than Rhode Island. That's a lot of area. But then again, there were 93 million acres of corn planted in the US last year. That comes out to 380000 km^2. Now if we can just turn those corn subsidies into algae subsidies...and find a massive amount of water to grow the algae in.

You are a little misinformed here. The monarch butterfly was never close to being lost. AND the crop wasn't wheat it was corn. I'm an entomologist and at Iowa State we have an entire USDA unit devoted to risk assessment of crops and the environment and the follow-up research regarding the "monarch butterfly issue" detailed that the risk of GE on monarchs was near 0. Want some more, scientifically-based reading to bone up on It might improve the value of your opinion here. ;-)

Think about this... Genetically engineered food is in response to a need to reduce the usage of chemical controls on crops. What do you suppose the LD-50 (or an LC-50 for that matter) is for even a mild insecticide like a modern pyrethroid is on a monarch butterfly? Much, much lower than a GE crop I assure you.

All in all the discussion on Slashdot regarding copyright issues and GE crops is probably closer to a real issue of concern now and for the future. However, "GE crops" is a term that applies to a vast array of GE strategies and it's possible that some GE strategies may be of more concern for the environment (take GE modified crops to produce medicine or antibiotics, for example), but those aren't the ones getting most of the media attention -- pretty butterflies and Bt genes do.

Looking at the respective budgets for the Tomato harvester and the Kill-o-bot really shows where our priorities are as a country.

Since when has killing people been more of a priotiry than say.... eating?

And what the hell does NASA have to do with tomatoes especially in this day and age?

Every bit of this article just weirds me out.

The disagreement wasn't over the patent, the disagreement was over a fact. The judge felt the defendant was lying. Again, the defendant didn't lose because of a legal technicality -- He lost because the judge thought he was lying.

"...Justice MacKay concluded that Mr. Schmeiser's arguments were implausible. "
http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2002/may/44 76.htm

First there weren't any genes jumping. The farmer raised the pharmaceutical corn last year for Prodigene. This year he planted soybeans into the field. Some of the corn seed from last year grew in the field this year as a weed. The farmers call it volunteer corn. The farmer received warnings from Prodigene's representative and the government that the volunteer corn must be eradicated. The last warning was less than a week before harvest. By the time the government checked back and learned the farmer wasn't in compliance the soybeans were at the elevator. The 500 bushels (3000 lbs) of soybeans were contaminated with 60 grams of corn stalks. Unfortunately they got mixed into a 500,000 bushel bin at the elevator. What we learned is that the government (believe it or not) actually did a good job of protecting our interests. Prodigene will buy the soybeans and they will be destroyed. Current use of biotech corn has reduced farmers use of insecticides by million of pounds. Pharmaceutical corn has the potential to greatly lower drug costs for seniors. Here's a URL from the Omaha Herald Here and another from the BIO organization Here Man Holmes