Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Organics Can't Match Conventional Farm Yields

Posted by timothy on from the that's-what-they-want-you-to-think dept.

scibri writes "A comprehensive analysis published in Nature (abstract) suggests that organic farming could supply needs in some circumstances. But yields are lower than in conventional farming, so producing the bulk of the globe's diet will still require chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The meta-analysis reviewed 66 studies comparing the yields of 34 different crop species in organic and conventional farming systems. The researchers included only studies that assessed the total land area used, allowing them to compare crop yields per unit area. Many previous studies that have showed large yields for organic farming ignore the size of the area planted — which is often bigger than in conventional farming. Crop yields from organic farming are as much as 34% lower than those from comparable conventional farming practices, though in some cases, notably with strawberries and soybeans, the gap is as small as 3%."

5 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Ummm. by Cosgrach · · Score: 5, Funny

    No shit.

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    1. Re:Ummm. by msobkow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually shit would be organic fertilizer... :P

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Ummm. by doston · · Score: 1, Funny

      You know what's absurd? It's common place to call industrialised farming "conventional". Spraying crops with tons of pesticides that produce "edible" goods. Instead of producing a product that actually helps the environment, they use Government money (subsidizing) to lower the price of the "conventional" and industrialized methods. Calling them cheaper, rather than realizing the total cost includes the money given to the corporations by the government itself. Even if the company is not given money directly, it uses cheap foodstock (corn) which itself is given money. It's been shown time and time again that these pesticides produce health issues in animals and people. For example Round-up, the scientific research finds that the pesticide "additives" primarily cause the issue rather than the pesticide itself. Because the pesticide in-itself doesn't cause issues, they simply formulate a new chemicle makeup to circumvent the regulations. Which in turn often comes up as toxic. So Monsanto can simply sidestep an environmental issue by changing the formula without producing positive evidence that the new product is safe. Monsanto makes billions while environmental concerns are simply thrown away.

      You're absolutely right. I always forget about the hidden costs.

  2. Oh really? by stevenfuzz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was under the assumption that organic farms yielded more crops, and that we use pesticides / non-organic grown methods because they are just more fun.

  3. Synthetics by oGMo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Proving once again that organics will be outclassed by synthetics? What, wrong game?

    (The label "organics" always amused me.)

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage