4 ms·

There are plenty of citations demonstrating organic practices cannot realistically replace even 50% of current production. You clearly know how to Google. This

There are plenty of citations demonstrating organic practices cannot realistically replace even 50% of current production. You clearly know how to Google. This comment reads like socialism fan-fic. How well did communal/collective farms work for the Soviet Union and or China? The only way that has been proven to not starve millions of people has been to incentive food production in a pseudo-capitialistic manner (and yes, they are usually heavily subsidized for great reasons). If you made millions doing ad tech in silicon valley and want to play farmer on your 10 acre plot, great. Agriculture and food production are scaled to the gills currently. They got this way through incredible innovation. People were doing 'organic practices' for hundreds of years. It didn't scale. Mechanization, synthetic fertilizer, and plant science _did_ scale, however and that's why our systems looks like they do. The innovations needed to accomplish this were truly mind bending from several disciplines. Instead of celebrating these achievements, the conversation has been hijacked/lost because for profits companies took advantage of murky/poor regulation and are currently rent-seeking to squeeze every last dollar out of the system. Those problems can be fixed, but nobody is focusing on that, there too busy imagine some irrational alternate that simply cannot exist with ~9 billion people, many of which will begin eating more calories and more input intensive calories (meat) as time moves forward. Embrace that scale, and innovate from there.

adityaathalye 5y ago
Hm, to clarify, I'm coming at it from a systems point of view. Available energy limits populations. Suppose the green revolution didn't happen, where would world population be? It's not possible to A/B test these things, of course. Also I did not say anything about the type of economic system. I'm just doing scenarios here. If you have credible research to back up your claims, I'll be more than happy to alter my opinion. (edit: typos)
- Retric 5y ago
  From a systems point of view the changes where dramatic. "Farmers today grow five times as much corn as they did in the 1930s – on 20 percent less land. That is 13 million acres or 20,000 square miles, twice the size of Massachusetts. The yield per acre has skyrocketed from 24 bushels in 1931 to 154 now, or a six-fold gain. And the Agriculture Department expects the average yield per acre to double in the next 25 years." https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increa... “From 1866, the first year USDA began to publish corn yield estimates, through about 1936, yields of open-pollinated corn varieties in the U.S. remained fairly stagnant and averaged about 26 bu/ac (1.6 MT/ha) throughout that 70-year period. Amazingly, the historical data indicate there was no appreciable change in productivity during that entire time period (Fig. 1), even though farmers’ seed-saving practices represented a form of plant breeding.” https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-for-the-u-s/ https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-fo... PS: Of of note in 1927 there where 2 billion people worldwide and starvation was still common. Growing from 1 billion in 1804 or doubling in 123 years the difference largely came down to an increase in the amount of farmland and a slow increase in productivity.
  - guerby 5y ago
    https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-till-soil-health-focus-boosts-yields?v=preview https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-til... "No-till practices weren’t doing enough to improve his soil resource. So Montel shifted his priorities to building soil health and it’s paying off: Montel harvested an average of 197 bushels of corn per acre across the farm last fall," https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429015300228 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901... "No-till yields matched conventional tillage yields for oilseed, cotton, and legume crop categories. Among cereals, the negative impacts of no-till were smallest for wheat (−2.6%) and largest for rice (−7.5%) and maize (−7.6%). No-till performed best under rainfed conditions in dry climates, with yields often being equal to or higher than conventional tillage practices. Yields in the first 1–2 years following no-till implementation declined for all crops except oilseeds and cotton, but matched conventional tillage yields after 3–10 years except for maize and wheat in humid climates. Overall, no-till yields were reduced by 12% without N fertilizer addition and 4% with inorganic N addition." Changing farming practices does not seem to lower the yield per acre in a significant way, so it does not mean going back to 1936 level yields.
    - Retric 5y ago
      No-till is a fairly mainstream practices and it’s upsides and downsides have been known for years. My point was this kind of research has real and very dramatic impacts making it fairly easy to verify stuff. As to yields on an individual farm or even state they very quite a bit from the national average. For example the state of Oregon averaged twice as much (241) as Montana per acre in 2020. https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yield-per-acre/ https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yi... The cost benefit needs to consider local conditions rather than simply pointing at a national average.
tastyfreeze 5y ago
Organic and regenerative are not necessarily the same thing. Organic can still rely on biocides and fertilizer input. Regenerative practices treat the farm, including the soil, as an ecosystem. Killing any part of the ecosystem by applying biocides of any type is antithetical to the practice. Once the ecosystem has been built there is enough biodiversity that pests problems are minimal. I disagree with you that regenerative farming can't feed the world. Yields are as good or better than conventional farms. Fortunately, regenerative farming is more profitable so we are going to see a shift to regenerative regardless of the naysayers.
- kickout 5y ago
  I've never said regenerative ag can't scale. Look through my comments, I _strongly_ believe regenerative ag can scale and is needed to solve alot of problems. The parent comment is talking about organic agriculture. Organic is a legally protected term (in the US). There are certain things you can/cannot do which help constrain it's ability to scale. Regenerative ag is not protected. You assumed something incorrect I'm afraid. I've _very_ pro regenerative ag.
  - tastyfreeze 5y ago
    Apologies for the assumption. Whenever these threads pop up one of the biggest issues in discussion that I see is the conflation of definitions for all these different farming practices. To the uninformed organic and regenerative are the same thing. My comment was just an attempt to clarify that regenerative ag the article is talking about and organic farming are not the same thing. Go team regenerative!
- searine 5y ago
  > Once the ecosystem has been built there is enough biodiversity that pests problems are minimal. Famous last words.

adityaathalye 5y ago

Hm, to clarify, I'm coming at it from a systems point of view. Available energy limits populations. Suppose the green revolution didn't happen, where would world population be? It's not possible to A/B test these things, of course. Also I did not say anything about the type of economic system. I'm just doing scenarios here. If you have credible research to back up your claims, I'll be more than happy to alter my opinion. (edit: typos)

Retric 5y ago
From a systems point of view the changes where dramatic. "Farmers today grow five times as much corn as they did in the 1930s – on 20 percent less land. That is 13 million acres or 20,000 square miles, twice the size of Massachusetts. The yield per acre has skyrocketed from 24 bushels in 1931 to 154 now, or a six-fold gain. And the Agriculture Department expects the average yield per acre to double in the next 25 years." https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increased-6x-since.html https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/corn-yields-have-increa... “From 1866, the first year USDA began to publish corn yield estimates, through about 1936, yields of open-pollinated corn varieties in the U.S. remained fairly stagnant and averaged about 26 bu/ac (1.6 MT/ha) throughout that 70-year period. Amazingly, the historical data indicate there was no appreciable change in productivity during that entire time period (Fig. 1), even though farmers’ seed-saving practices represented a form of plant breeding.” https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-for-the-u-s/ https://agfax.com/2017/05/25/corn-historical-grain-yields-fo... PS: Of of note in 1927 there where 2 billion people worldwide and starvation was still common. Growing from 1 billion in 1804 or doubling in 123 years the difference largely came down to an increase in the amount of farmland and a slow increase in productivity.
- guerby 5y ago
  https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-till-soil-health-focus-boosts-yields?v=preview https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/8651-long-term-no-til... "No-till practices weren’t doing enough to improve his soil resource. So Montel shifted his priorities to building soil health and it’s paying off: Montel harvested an average of 197 bushels of corn per acre across the farm last fall," https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429015300228 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901... "No-till yields matched conventional tillage yields for oilseed, cotton, and legume crop categories. Among cereals, the negative impacts of no-till were smallest for wheat (−2.6%) and largest for rice (−7.5%) and maize (−7.6%). No-till performed best under rainfed conditions in dry climates, with yields often being equal to or higher than conventional tillage practices. Yields in the first 1–2 years following no-till implementation declined for all crops except oilseeds and cotton, but matched conventional tillage yields after 3–10 years except for maize and wheat in humid climates. Overall, no-till yields were reduced by 12% without N fertilizer addition and 4% with inorganic N addition." Changing farming practices does not seem to lower the yield per acre in a significant way, so it does not mean going back to 1936 level yields.
  - Retric 5y ago
    No-till is a fairly mainstream practices and it’s upsides and downsides have been known for years. My point was this kind of research has real and very dramatic impacts making it fairly easy to verify stuff. As to yields on an individual farm or even state they very quite a bit from the national average. For example the state of Oregon averaged twice as much (241) as Montana per acre in 2020. https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yield-per-acre/ https://www.cropprophet.com/historical-average-state-corn-yi... The cost benefit needs to consider local conditions rather than simply pointing at a national average.

tastyfreeze 5y ago

Organic and regenerative are not necessarily the same thing. Organic can still rely on biocides and fertilizer input. Regenerative practices treat the farm, including the soil, as an ecosystem. Killing any part of the ecosystem by applying biocides of any type is antithetical to the practice. Once the ecosystem has been built there is enough biodiversity that pests problems are minimal. I disagree with you that regenerative farming can't feed the world. Yields are as good or better than conventional farms. Fortunately, regenerative farming is more profitable so we are going to see a shift to regenerative regardless of the naysayers.

kickout 5y ago
I've never said regenerative ag can't scale. Look through my comments, I _strongly_ believe regenerative ag can scale and is needed to solve alot of problems. The parent comment is talking about organic agriculture. Organic is a legally protected term (in the US). There are certain things you can/cannot do which help constrain it's ability to scale. Regenerative ag is not protected. You assumed something incorrect I'm afraid. I've _very_ pro regenerative ag.
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  Apologies for the assumption. Whenever these threads pop up one of the biggest issues in discussion that I see is the conflation of definitions for all these different farming practices. To the uninformed organic and regenerative are the same thing. My comment was just an attempt to clarify that regenerative ag the article is talking about and organic farming are not the same thing. Go team regenerative!
searine 5y ago
> Once the ecosystem has been built there is enough biodiversity that pests problems are minimal. Famous last words.