4 ms·

Ukraine Crisis Reveals the Folly of Organic Farming

19 points by lxm 5y ago

t-3 5y ago
Pure FUD. Of course convrntional ag minus fertilizer and herb/pesticides is less productive, but who is advocating for that?
- formerkrogemp 5y ago
  I think they're just attacking the idea of regenerative agriculture more generally.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    I couldn't get past the paywall, but it seems like a broad dismissal of "them damn hippies". I'm going to guess that they ignore the externalized cost of over-ferritization that goes downstream and destroys those habitats. Also ignoring the cost of supporting the petro-economy to deliver that cheap fertilizer. It also probably ignores the cost of loss of topsoil and other environmental factors as well...
- jfjfkfmfjr 5y ago
- unmole 5y ago
  Switching to organic agricultural will result in reduced yeilds. There's nothing even remotely controversial about that.
  - jvanderbot 5y ago
    Yes. Organic is meant to sacrifice some production for much less environmental impact. Another interpretation of the situation is that if we aren't growing enough food to allow for a single missed harvest in one conflict zone, then we aren't planning well, particulars aside. A perfectly reasonable response to that problem is to expand farming to more areas but to use organic practices to ensure the expansion has minimal impact. That would be in line with TFA and still include organic farms. Much like the comment about a rapid switch to solar, TFA intentionally misses the point to take an opportunity to swipe at a broad class of people rather than practices.
    - SemanticStrengh 5y ago
    - unmole 5y ago
      > sacrifice some production Quantify some. TFA claims a reduction of 29-44% and a doubling of food prices. And looking at what happened in Sri Lanka, I have no trouble believing it. > much less environmental impact. Quantify less and define environmental impact. > expand farming to more areas So, does increasing the amount of land used for agriculture count as having less or more environmental impact? > a single missed harvest in one conflict zone Which part of TFA talks about a missed harvest?
      - xyzzy123 5y ago
        What happened in Sri Lanka was that the government ran out of foreign exchange and was desperate for something to cut. So they basically pissed in the air and told everyone it was raining ("great news: you're all organic farmers now"). It was a desperate move, backed by magical thinking - a failed attempt at reality distortion. This is not really the way any sane government would organise a transition to organic farming practices. You'd do studies, start small, give people time to adapt. Not announce out of the blue that you've banned all chemical fertiliser and pesticide imports. Seem to be a lot of pundits out there trying to make what happened in Sri Lanka a story about organic farming - eh maybe, maybe not. It seems more like a story about poor governance and predatory international lending.
        unmole 5y ago
        The government of Sri Lanka banned the import of fertilizer and pesticides to deal with a deepening current account deficit. This was because the government listened to people like Vandana Shiva and decided that a switch to organic agriculture will work out. The result is out there for everyone to see. Rice, the staple food crop and tea the primary cash crop have seen yields plummet and deepened the crisis. Plenty of countries around the world that have had worse governance than Sri Lanka. Plenty of countries have a higher debt burden. What makes Sri Lanka's government unique is that they decided to listen to the nonsense peddled by the organic activists.
ROTMetro 5y ago
Isn't organic at this point just substituting synthetic chemicals for ones that happen to be more naturally sourced (and possibly less suitable/targeted and/or more toxic)? It's industrial organic and basically the opposite of the original intent. I know my son who is all in on sustainable farming get super set off when I asked if their farm was organic, saying the organic chemicals used are worse, and complaining of the cartel like barrier to entry in the certification process and the associated certification fees. That said, I'm glad we don't use human waste on our fields. OMG did that smell bad in when I was in China.
- moistly 5y ago
  > That said, I'm glad we don't use human waste on our fields. Up here in my part of British Columbia, we do. Post-digester, but yah, black water becomes grey water becomes ranch land and golf course water.
mark_l_watson 5y ago
Wall Street Journal is the journal of record for the ruling economic elite who make money in industrial farming. If less meat was consumed, organic farming could feed everyone. That said, I believe in a hopefully (mostly) fair market, and people should choose with their wallets and perhaps their meat addictions, what they want to buy. Also, subsidizing things like virtually free water for meat production is arguably bad for society. I like to eat meat several times a month, and I along with everyone else should pay the externalities costs like harm to the environment, much greater energy and water use, etc. Personal freedom, while curtailing government welfare payouts to corporations.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  If less meat was eaten, i would prefer for areas to go back to wilderness, while the rest is used with traditional fertilizer && robots to whack weeds. I dont want to use the same area, i want to reduce the footprint to give the wilderness space.
hlieberman 5y ago
The author of this unsourced hit piece explains where the skew comes from: Bjørn Lomborg has engaged in poor science at best, if not whole cloth scientific misconduct[1], suppressed dissent about his works as head of a government institution[2], and works for the right-wing Hoover Institute which has published such... high-quality works as "The Pseudoscience of Global Warming"[3]. Clearly, the author of this op-ed is more than willing to bend their scientific thought to suit their political goals. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343527.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.g... [2]: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory15.htm http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory15.htm [3]: https://www.hoover.org/research/pseudoscience-global-warming https://www.hoover.org/research/pseudoscience-global-warming
SemanticStrengh 5y ago

19 points by lxm 5y ago

t-3 5y ago

Pure FUD. Of course convrntional ag minus fertilizer and herb/pesticides is less productive, but who is advocating for that?

formerkrogemp 5y ago
I think they're just attacking the idea of regenerative agriculture more generally.
- pstuart 5y ago
  I couldn't get past the paywall, but it seems like a broad dismissal of "them damn hippies". I'm going to guess that they ignore the externalized cost of over-ferritization that goes downstream and destroys those habitats. Also ignoring the cost of supporting the petro-economy to deliver that cheap fertilizer. It also probably ignores the cost of loss of topsoil and other environmental factors as well...
jfjfkfmfjr 5y ago
unmole 5y ago
Switching to organic agricultural will result in reduced yeilds. There's nothing even remotely controversial about that.
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  Yes. Organic is meant to sacrifice some production for much less environmental impact. Another interpretation of the situation is that if we aren't growing enough food to allow for a single missed harvest in one conflict zone, then we aren't planning well, particulars aside. A perfectly reasonable response to that problem is to expand farming to more areas but to use organic practices to ensure the expansion has minimal impact. That would be in line with TFA and still include organic farms. Much like the comment about a rapid switch to solar, TFA intentionally misses the point to take an opportunity to swipe at a broad class of people rather than practices.
  - SemanticStrengh 5y ago
  - unmole 5y ago
    > sacrifice some production Quantify some. TFA claims a reduction of 29-44% and a doubling of food prices. And looking at what happened in Sri Lanka, I have no trouble believing it. > much less environmental impact. Quantify less and define environmental impact. > expand farming to more areas So, does increasing the amount of land used for agriculture count as having less or more environmental impact? > a single missed harvest in one conflict zone Which part of TFA talks about a missed harvest?
    - xyzzy123 5y ago
      What happened in Sri Lanka was that the government ran out of foreign exchange and was desperate for something to cut. So they basically pissed in the air and told everyone it was raining ("great news: you're all organic farmers now"). It was a desperate move, backed by magical thinking - a failed attempt at reality distortion. This is not really the way any sane government would organise a transition to organic farming practices. You'd do studies, start small, give people time to adapt. Not announce out of the blue that you've banned all chemical fertiliser and pesticide imports. Seem to be a lot of pundits out there trying to make what happened in Sri Lanka a story about organic farming - eh maybe, maybe not. It seems more like a story about poor governance and predatory international lending.
      - unmole 5y ago
        The government of Sri Lanka banned the import of fertilizer and pesticides to deal with a deepening current account deficit. This was because the government listened to people like Vandana Shiva and decided that a switch to organic agriculture will work out. The result is out there for everyone to see. Rice, the staple food crop and tea the primary cash crop have seen yields plummet and deepened the crisis. Plenty of countries around the world that have had worse governance than Sri Lanka. Plenty of countries have a higher debt burden. What makes Sri Lanka's government unique is that they decided to listen to the nonsense peddled by the organic activists.

ROTMetro 5y ago

Isn't organic at this point just substituting synthetic chemicals for ones that happen to be more naturally sourced (and possibly less suitable/targeted and/or more toxic)? It's industrial organic and basically the opposite of the original intent. I know my son who is all in on sustainable farming get super set off when I asked if their farm was organic, saying the organic chemicals used are worse, and complaining of the cartel like barrier to entry in the certification process and the associated certification fees. That said, I'm glad we don't use human waste on our fields. OMG did that smell bad in when I was in China.

moistly 5y ago
> That said, I'm glad we don't use human waste on our fields. Up here in my part of British Columbia, we do. Post-digester, but yah, black water becomes grey water becomes ranch land and golf course water.

mark_l_watson 5y ago

Wall Street Journal is the journal of record for the ruling economic elite who make money in industrial farming. If less meat was consumed, organic farming could feed everyone. That said, I believe in a hopefully (mostly) fair market, and people should choose with their wallets and perhaps their meat addictions, what they want to buy. Also, subsidizing things like virtually free water for meat production is arguably bad for society. I like to eat meat several times a month, and I along with everyone else should pay the externalities costs like harm to the environment, much greater energy and water use, etc. Personal freedom, while curtailing government welfare payouts to corporations.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
If less meat was eaten, i would prefer for areas to go back to wilderness, while the rest is used with traditional fertilizer && robots to whack weeds. I dont want to use the same area, i want to reduce the footprint to give the wilderness space.

hlieberman 5y ago

The author of this unsourced hit piece explains where the skew comes from: Bjørn Lomborg has engaged in poor science at best, if not whole cloth scientific misconduct[1], suppressed dissent about his works as head of a government institution[2], and works for the right-wing Hoover Institute which has published such... high-quality works as "The Pseudoscience of Global Warming"[3]. Clearly, the author of this op-ed is more than willing to bend their scientific thought to suit their political goals. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343527.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.g... [2]: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory15.htm http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/lomborgstory15.htm [3]: https://www.hoover.org/research/pseudoscience-global-warming https://www.hoover.org/research/pseudoscience-global-warming

SemanticStrengh 5y ago