3 ms·

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

by t-3 5y ago

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.

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

by 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.