6 ms·

Is it feasible for organic farming techniques to feed 8 billion people? In conversations about the environment like this one, pesticides and fertilizer (runoff

Is it feasible for organic farming techniques to feed 8 billion people? In conversations about the environment like this one, pesticides and fertilizer (runoff particularly) get raked over the coals for causing huge environmental disasters. But in other conversations more focused on social issues, Malthusians get mocked for not anticipating those very same technological developments that have allowed us to feed billions of people.

Centigonal 5y ago
Not sure whether organic farming techniques can feed everyone (may be possible), but there's a vast gulf between "completely organic" and "broadly toxic to the surrounding environment." Australia, Spain, the Netherands, and (increasingly) China have had a lot of success using physical exclusion with nets, greenhouses, and high-tunnels. They have their own unique problems (plastic waste, rainwater runoff), but these systems get incredible crop yields without significant synthetic pesticide or herbicide use. I really think highly automated, hydroponic, mostly non-vertical indoor farming is the future of vegetable agriculture, and represents huge potential added value (economic and otherwise) in the coming 100 years. If you're interested in seeing some of these facilities, check out these videos: 1: Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fq6PQl7fr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fq6PQl7fr8 2: Netherlands https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Qz-fzJ6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Qz-fzJ6M
carapace 5y ago
Short answer, yes. We can feed billions without destroying ecosystems. From the POV of the science of ecology agriculture (from ancient to modern times) is about the dumbest way to interact with Nature. It turns out that, once we understood more about how living systems actually work, we can design ecosystems that improve soil fertility and increase biodiversity and biomass over time while providing dense harvests (comparable to or even greater than modern destructive farming.) Look at Permaculture, "Food forests", Syntropic agriculture, regenerative farming... A good start might be "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
- OldHand2018 5y ago
  None of the states listed in the article are major agricultural producers! You’ll be glad to hear that some of what used to be “fringe” thinking is becoming mainstream. Cover crops, for example. They have been proven to dramatically reduce pesticide and herbicide needs over time (which will help pollinators greatly). Illinois, Iowa and Indiana have been piloting programs that reduce crop insurance rates for farmers that use cover crops. Once the value was proven, farmer demand exceeded the acreage the pilot programs could offer. So now, for the very first time, the USDA is putting this in place for the entire country (this fall). There is hope.
pfdietz 5y ago
Not easily, because the nitrogen has to come from somewhere. Getting it from nitrogen fixing plants would cause a huge hit to productivity.

Centigonal 5y ago

Not sure whether organic farming techniques can feed everyone (may be possible), but there's a vast gulf between "completely organic" and "broadly toxic to the surrounding environment." Australia, Spain, the Netherands, and (increasingly) China have had a lot of success using physical exclusion with nets, greenhouses, and high-tunnels. They have their own unique problems (plastic waste, rainwater runoff), but these systems get incredible crop yields without significant synthetic pesticide or herbicide use. I really think highly automated, hydroponic, mostly non-vertical indoor farming is the future of vegetable agriculture, and represents huge potential added value (economic and otherwise) in the coming 100 years. If you're interested in seeing some of these facilities, check out these videos: 1: Australia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fq6PQl7fr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fq6PQl7fr8 2: Netherlands https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Qz-fzJ6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM8Qz-fzJ6M

carapace 5y ago

Short answer, yes. We can feed billions without destroying ecosystems. From the POV of the science of ecology agriculture (from ancient to modern times) is about the dumbest way to interact with Nature. It turns out that, once we understood more about how living systems actually work, we can design ecosystems that improve soil fertility and increase biodiversity and biomass over time while providing dense harvests (comparable to or even greater than modern destructive farming.) Look at Permaculture, "Food forests", Syntropic agriculture, regenerative farming... A good start might be "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A

OldHand2018 5y ago
None of the states listed in the article are major agricultural producers! You’ll be glad to hear that some of what used to be “fringe” thinking is becoming mainstream. Cover crops, for example. They have been proven to dramatically reduce pesticide and herbicide needs over time (which will help pollinators greatly). Illinois, Iowa and Indiana have been piloting programs that reduce crop insurance rates for farmers that use cover crops. Once the value was proven, farmer demand exceeded the acreage the pilot programs could offer. So now, for the very first time, the USDA is putting this in place for the entire country (this fall). There is hope.

pfdietz 5y ago

Not easily, because the nitrogen has to come from somewhere. Getting it from nitrogen fixing plants would cause a huge hit to productivity.