5 ms·

In Sri Lanka, Organic Farming Went Catastrophically Wrong

31 points by mrleinad 5y ago

Ambolia 5y ago
Grand plans usually go wrong. This probably has more to do with hubris and thinking that you can plan things top-down without paying enough attention to letting things develop organically than to organic farming.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 5y ago
  You might be right, but as an anecdotal data point, I can confirm that every single farmer I've discussed this topic with, has claimed organic farming has smaller yields compared to organic farming, and that organic farming simply isn't sustainable if we expect food yields to increase to compensate for growing populations. Once we're past the population peak and the population starts declining, on the other hand...
  - antattack 5y ago
    Of course organic farming has smaller yields. Otherwise everyone would be doing it. The point is that synthetic pesticides are bad for the consumer and the farmer.
    - spupe 5y ago
      Did you not read the article? The lack of pesticides led to a disastrous collapse of yields for the farmers. It's also unclear how bad synthetic pesticides are, at least those scrutinized and commonly used in the EU for example.
      - dbingham 5y ago
        The article wasn't accounting for other possible effects, it just jumped straight to concluding organic farming was the culprit. During the same time period covered by the policy, agricultural yields in the US dropped significantly as well, primarily due to pandemic and climate impacts. The article mentioned that the pandemic hit months after the policy was implemented and that devastated tourism, which was one of the backbones of Sri Lanka's economy. In earlier sentences, the article implies that the organic farming policy is solely responsible for the economic problems. In short, this is a biased and unreliable assessment of the policy's impacts.
        spupe 5y ago
        Your statement about US agricultural output appears to be incorrect; at least, it hit record export rates in 2021 [1]. And what you are saying about tourism is irrelevant, as the article clearly states that rice production fell by 20%, and tea production recorded a loss of 450 million USD. Farmers themselves are demanding that they be allowed to import fertilizers again. While it's true that we cannot know whether the organic switch was the sole cause of this disaster, it is both logical and plausible that it was a major factor. Can you point to a single country that switched to organic farming and had increased agricultural output (ie, "better for farmers" as the comment above implies)? [1] https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/08/american-agricultural-exports-shattered-records-2021 https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/08/america...
        unmole 5y ago
        During the same policy period, South India produced record rice harvests. It has nothing to do with climate.
      - himinlomax 5y ago
        The article talks about a ban on synthetic fertilizers. Fertilizers are not pesticides.
- zeroimpl 5y ago
  To me the mistake here sounds like the fact that they rolled it out all at once. I’d have expected to see this implemented by slowly ramping up tariffs on non-organic fertilizers/pesticides over a number of years (like 5-10). It probably takes a few years for a farmer to effectively adapt to such a transition.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spupe 5y ago
What a mess. Reminds me of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. There is a lot of garbage science in the organic movement, this just shows the incredible trade-offs this ideology can have.
antattack 5y ago
'Organic' does not mean no pesticides and no fertilizer. This article is mostly FUD.
- mrleinad 5y ago
  At no point the article mentions no use of fertilizers at all. Their goal was to replace synthetic with natural ones, which apparently have lower yields.
frafra 5y ago
Previous discussion (6 months ago, 221 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443798
akmittal 5y ago
Sri lanka also sent back large Chinese fertilizer order, which spoilt their relationship. Because of Sri lankas closeness with China, India declined to help financially.
mardifoufs 5y ago
https://archive.ph/kI6k2 https://archive.ph/kI6k2
reactspa 5y ago
Coming soon to India: "PM Modi urges farmers to go organic, says 'use cow dung, cow urine instead of chemical fertilisers'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckVhz7gWLd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckVhz7gWLd0 That wonderful Indian cure-all: cow dung and cow urine.
boxed 5y ago
Evil=(how wrong you are) * (how sure you are) * (how much power you have) The two last factors together= (how fast you implement changes) We should have learnt this lesson from Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao. But here we are, doing the same thing again.

31 points by mrleinad 5y ago

Grand plans usually go wrong. This probably has more to do with hubris and thinking that you can plan things top-down without paying enough attention to letting things develop organically than to organic farming.

2000UltraDeluxe 5y ago
You might be right, but as an anecdotal data point, I can confirm that every single farmer I've discussed this topic with, has claimed organic farming has smaller yields compared to organic farming, and that organic farming simply isn't sustainable if we expect food yields to increase to compensate for growing populations. Once we're past the population peak and the population starts declining, on the other hand...
- antattack 5y ago
  Of course organic farming has smaller yields. Otherwise everyone would be doing it. The point is that synthetic pesticides are bad for the consumer and the farmer.
  - spupe 5y ago
    Did you not read the article? The lack of pesticides led to a disastrous collapse of yields for the farmers. It's also unclear how bad synthetic pesticides are, at least those scrutinized and commonly used in the EU for example.
    - dbingham 5y ago
      The article wasn't accounting for other possible effects, it just jumped straight to concluding organic farming was the culprit. During the same time period covered by the policy, agricultural yields in the US dropped significantly as well, primarily due to pandemic and climate impacts. The article mentioned that the pandemic hit months after the policy was implemented and that devastated tourism, which was one of the backbones of Sri Lanka's economy. In earlier sentences, the article implies that the organic farming policy is solely responsible for the economic problems. In short, this is a biased and unreliable assessment of the policy's impacts.
      - spupe 5y ago
        Your statement about US agricultural output appears to be incorrect; at least, it hit record export rates in 2021 [1]. And what you are saying about tourism is irrelevant, as the article clearly states that rice production fell by 20%, and tea production recorded a loss of 450 million USD. Farmers themselves are demanding that they be allowed to import fertilizers again. While it's true that we cannot know whether the organic switch was the sole cause of this disaster, it is both logical and plausible that it was a major factor. Can you point to a single country that switched to organic farming and had increased agricultural output (ie, "better for farmers" as the comment above implies)? [1] https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/08/american-agricultural-exports-shattered-records-2021 https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/08/america...
      - unmole 5y ago
        During the same policy period, South India produced record rice harvests. It has nothing to do with climate.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      The article talks about a ban on synthetic fertilizers. Fertilizers are not pesticides.
zeroimpl 5y ago
To me the mistake here sounds like the fact that they rolled it out all at once. I’d have expected to see this implemented by slowly ramping up tariffs on non-organic fertilizers/pesticides over a number of years (like 5-10). It probably takes a few years for a farmer to effectively adapt to such a transition.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spupe 5y ago

What a mess. Reminds me of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. There is a lot of garbage science in the organic movement, this just shows the incredible trade-offs this ideology can have.

antattack 5y ago

'Organic' does not mean no pesticides and no fertilizer. This article is mostly FUD.

mrleinad 5y ago
At no point the article mentions no use of fertilizers at all. Their goal was to replace synthetic with natural ones, which apparently have lower yields.

frafra 5y ago

Previous discussion (6 months ago, 221 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443798

akmittal 5y ago

Sri lanka also sent back large Chinese fertilizer order, which spoilt their relationship. Because of Sri lankas closeness with China, India declined to help financially.

mardifoufs 5y ago

https://archive.ph/kI6k2 https://archive.ph/kI6k2

reactspa 5y ago

Coming soon to India: "PM Modi urges farmers to go organic, says 'use cow dung, cow urine instead of chemical fertilisers'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckVhz7gWLd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckVhz7gWLd0 That wonderful Indian cure-all: cow dung and cow urine.

boxed 5y ago

Evil=(how wrong you are) * (how sure you are) * (how much power you have) The two last factors together= (how fast you implement changes) We should have learnt this lesson from Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao. But here we are, doing the same thing again.