3 ms·

I just recalled the overarching situation - there is no 'hybrid approach' there is your nations mandatory standards and your regions Organic standards. There ar

I just recalled the overarching situation - there is no 'hybrid approach' there is your nations mandatory standards and your regions Organic standards. There are no other accessible alternatives which we can practically select between as consumers of agriculture. You can support organic standards and production, or focus on research critical of it. That research I referenced covered bythe phys.org article is a substantial metareview published last year. You responded with a small study published in 2012 and a list of links too diverse to use. your argument is very general "hybrid would be best" -- Recognise the wood amongst the trees.

exclusiv 9y ago
> There are no other accessible alternatives which we can practically select between as consumers of agriculture. I'm not talking about consumers of agriculture. The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. I'm talking about best practices for farming as it relates to yield and environmental impact. If the truly best practice happens to be a hybrid method and that becomes the standard, well then consumers will be forced to support that best practice and won't have to think anymore. > your argument is very general "hybrid would be best" I never said that. I said it's quite possible that it is since there's research to suggest this and you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield. If organic had the lowest environmental impact on an area but yielded way less produce, thereby requiring more land to be used, which had a larger overall environmental impact - that's sensible to question and study. Do you not agree? We have a lot of farms already using some organic best practices alongside conventional methods. There's examples in the podcast I posted that use a hybrid approach. > You can support organic standards and production, or focus on research critical of it. Or, you could throw your agenda aside and support finding out the optimal way to farm these days and treat it as an ongoing process just like we usually do with technology. Bottom line: there's nothing preventing the new best practice from being a hybrid approach which includes organic and conventional methods.
- strainer 9y ago
  >The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. That is a dismissive position on the potential of consumers of organic agriculture to affect the whole system. Its not a spectator sport - proponents of organic agriculture consume it. >you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield. The substantial 2016 meta review which I linked is actually a professional peer reviewed consideration of all relevant factors including yields. I dont enjoy arguing at length against common dismissal of organic farming, which is why I just dropped a very relevant quote and link to a good study in this thread. I think it could serve your interests to examine that study fully rather than brush over it.
  - exclusiv 9y ago
    It's not a dismissive position - that's how capitalism works. Consumers as a whole don't believe the extra cost is justified. In fact, they don't even think the taste is better in some cases [1] or only a 5% preference in another [2]. Anyway, did your article talk about doing conventional and organic together? No it didn't. That's all I'm talking about. You see it as binary. I don't and neither do a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil. Why is it so hard to believe that combining the best of both methods could be ideal? I mean - look at the chart at the top of your link. Imagine you decided you wanted to create a better combined system with a hybrid approach which would get you better yield and a lot of the benefits of organic. Logic and alternative research appears to be escaping you because you see it as binary and likely biased for some reason. Did they also talk about waste of organic food versus conventional? No. Organic spoils faster. Since you like discussion from the consumer perspective - that's not good. Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest because it suggests everyone should go organic and charge the consumer more; as if forcing an industry to do it one way, charge more, and have consumers be able to afford it is possible. That would likely just push them away from produce and onto more crap than they are already eating. Higher prices do not necessarily mean higher profit and organic requires a lot more investment. If I'm a farmer and have a ton of acreage and go all organic, but cannot sell it - how do I make more profit? Or if I sell it to a market/store and it doesn't sell there - they'll order less or ask for a cheaper alternative. If it was so simple as the author suggests, everyone would be organic. But it's not that simple of course. It costs more. Even if you remove some of the cost of the certification. You can only sell so much organic produce at the higher cost required to have a sustainable business with those methods. > The review paper describes cases where organic yields can be higher than conventional farming methods. In severe drought conditions only. > Reganold and Wachter suggest that no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what's needed is a balance of systems, "a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock and still undiscovered systems." Right there it backs up my claim that there might not be a one true way. Note: "other innovative farming systems" and "still undiscovered systems too" [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food-less-tasty-than-normal-watchdog-says.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399000221 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399...

exclusiv 9y ago

> There are no other accessible alternatives which we can practically select between as consumers of agriculture. I'm not talking about consumers of agriculture. The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. I'm talking about best practices for farming as it relates to yield and environmental impact. If the truly best practice happens to be a hybrid method and that becomes the standard, well then consumers will be forced to support that best practice and won't have to think anymore. > your argument is very general "hybrid would be best" I never said that. I said it's quite possible that it is since there's research to suggest this and you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield. If organic had the lowest environmental impact on an area but yielded way less produce, thereby requiring more land to be used, which had a larger overall environmental impact - that's sensible to question and study. Do you not agree? We have a lot of farms already using some organic best practices alongside conventional methods. There's examples in the podcast I posted that use a hybrid approach. > You can support organic standards and production, or focus on research critical of it. Or, you could throw your agenda aside and support finding out the optimal way to farm these days and treat it as an ongoing process just like we usually do with technology. Bottom line: there's nothing preventing the new best practice from being a hybrid approach which includes organic and conventional methods.

strainer 9y ago
>The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. That is a dismissive position on the potential of consumers of organic agriculture to affect the whole system. Its not a spectator sport - proponents of organic agriculture consume it. >you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield. The substantial 2016 meta review which I linked is actually a professional peer reviewed consideration of all relevant factors including yields. I dont enjoy arguing at length against common dismissal of organic farming, which is why I just dropped a very relevant quote and link to a good study in this thread. I think it could serve your interests to examine that study fully rather than brush over it.
- exclusiv 9y ago
  It's not a dismissive position - that's how capitalism works. Consumers as a whole don't believe the extra cost is justified. In fact, they don't even think the taste is better in some cases [1] or only a 5% preference in another [2]. Anyway, did your article talk about doing conventional and organic together? No it didn't. That's all I'm talking about. You see it as binary. I don't and neither do a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great product and have great soil. Why is it so hard to believe that combining the best of both methods could be ideal? I mean - look at the chart at the top of your link. Imagine you decided you wanted to create a better combined system with a hybrid approach which would get you better yield and a lot of the benefits of organic. Logic and alternative research appears to be escaping you because you see it as binary and likely biased for some reason. Did they also talk about waste of organic food versus conventional? No. Organic spoils faster. Since you like discussion from the consumer perspective - that's not good. Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest because it suggests everyone should go organic and charge the consumer more; as if forcing an industry to do it one way, charge more, and have consumers be able to afford it is possible. That would likely just push them away from produce and onto more crap than they are already eating. Higher prices do not necessarily mean higher profit and organic requires a lot more investment. If I'm a farmer and have a ton of acreage and go all organic, but cannot sell it - how do I make more profit? Or if I sell it to a market/store and it doesn't sell there - they'll order less or ask for a cheaper alternative. If it was so simple as the author suggests, everyone would be organic. But it's not that simple of course. It costs more. Even if you remove some of the cost of the certification. You can only sell so much organic produce at the higher cost required to have a sustainable business with those methods. > The review paper describes cases where organic yields can be higher than conventional farming methods. In severe drought conditions only. > Reganold and Wachter suggest that no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what's needed is a balance of systems, "a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock and still undiscovered systems." Right there it backs up my claim that there might not be a one true way. Note: "other innovative farming systems" and "still undiscovered systems too" [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food-less-tasty-than-normal-watchdog-says.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399000221 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399...