4 ms·

These studies always bring out knee-jerk reactions in genpop, but you have to understand what herbicides and GMO crops have done to alleviate global hunger and

These studies always bring out knee-jerk reactions in genpop, but you have to understand what herbicides and GMO crops have done to alleviate global hunger and malnutrition. In the most developed countries, we spend 7-15% of our income on food. The poorer you are, the higher that percentage is. In some African countries, families will spend upwards of 70% of their income for not just food, but for bags of rice. The bare minimum. In the past 4 decades, we've increased our crop yields by 4x. This is because of intensive farming. Now, is it destructive to the environment? Yes Does it create fragility in our food systems and supply chains? Yes Should we immediately stop using herbicides and large-scale monoculture systems? Think carefully about that one. When people say, we need to implement regenerative agriculture, or organic practices, or stop eating meat, etc, they rarely have a full understanding of how our agrifood system works. I'm an advocate for improving these systems, reducing herbicide use, and implementing sustainable practices (whatever that means at this point). But please, please, please try to fully understand how our food system really works. Try to understand the magnitude of cost reduction our current system has provided. Try to understand how global life expectancy has increased by >20 years due to these practices.

Maursault 4y ago
So it has nothing to do with maximizing profits and greed? Good to know.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Maximum profit works best if you don't starve to death, and thus continue eating year after year. Even better if you decide you can afford to have a few kids (importantly feed them)
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  Who said that?
- malfist 4y ago
  That's a false dichotomy and you know it. You can seek profit AND help make food less scarce at the same time.
  - pretendscholar 4y ago
    ? The above comment never made that dichotomy. Interesting that you took it that way.
tastyfreeze 4y ago
I regularly advocate for regenerative agriculture. I have studied and practiced, on a small scale, regenerative methods. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not needed for the abundance and we would be better off not using them. However, the shift from chemical farming to regenerative practices cannot be forced or rushed. It takes about 3 years to bring the soil back to life and get it working as the plant's stomach and yields to match or beat chemical farming. Forcing a change in land management practices is a recipe for absolute disaster of famine and likely war. Due to the higher profitability of regenerative agriculture I am confident that the majority of farms will shift to regenerative in the decades to come. The only thing that can stop the transition is government intervention to try to "save" chemical farmers by subsidizing their chemical inputs. We just have to stay out of the way and let the transition happen.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  Edible calories per acre per season are one thing. Labor cost per acre are another, and that's the key element we need to figure out if we want to transition. Right now the economics don't work out.
  - metalliqaz 4y ago
    What makes the labor costs higher?
- gruez 4y ago
  >Due to the higher profitability of regenerative agriculture That might be true today, but will it hold into the future? Organic agriculture is also more profitable than conventional agriculture, even though it's less productive and has higher costs. The only reason it's more profitable is that people are willing to pay a premium for it. Obviously that's not something that's scalable. You might be able to convince a good chunk of bay area professionals to buy your organic/regenerative agriculture crops at 3x prices, but once you saturated that market you'll have much more trouble convincing the rest of the country to into paying 3x (or whatever) for their produce.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
gopher_space 4y ago
> These studies always bring out knee-jerk reactions in genpop, but you have to understand what herbicides and GMO crops have done to alleviate global hunger and malnutrition. "I am too young to remember flipper babies." To an older, educated portion of the 'genpop' your post is just carrying water for Monsanto and has zero to do with GMO as a concept. You've typed up a manifesto stating the obvious and missing the point. Ask yourself why people would "oppose GMO" if they agree with every point you make here.
wilburTheDog 4y ago
Sri Lanka is an interesting case study. President Rajapaksa suddenly banned using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. It caused significant reductions in crop yields and ended up costing the country a great deal of money. This article in Vox seems to cover it in a pretty balanced way (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23218969/sri-lanka-organic-fertilizer-pesticide-agriculture-farming https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23218969/sri-la...). I like organic farming. I use an organic approach for my home garden. But yields are lower than with conventional farming. Even the most positive studies agree on that (see https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/12/09/organic-conventional-farming-yield-gap/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/12/09/organic-conventional-fa...). It also takes more effort, which means more people would have to be farmers than currently.

Maursault 4y ago

So it has nothing to do with maximizing profits and greed? Good to know.

bluGill 4y ago
Maximum profit works best if you don't starve to death, and thus continue eating year after year. Even better if you decide you can afford to have a few kids (importantly feed them)
algoatecorn 4y ago
Who said that?
malfist 4y ago
That's a false dichotomy and you know it. You can seek profit AND help make food less scarce at the same time.
- pretendscholar 4y ago
  ? The above comment never made that dichotomy. Interesting that you took it that way.

tastyfreeze 4y ago

I regularly advocate for regenerative agriculture. I have studied and practiced, on a small scale, regenerative methods. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not needed for the abundance and we would be better off not using them. However, the shift from chemical farming to regenerative practices cannot be forced or rushed. It takes about 3 years to bring the soil back to life and get it working as the plant's stomach and yields to match or beat chemical farming. Forcing a change in land management practices is a recipe for absolute disaster of famine and likely war. Due to the higher profitability of regenerative agriculture I am confident that the majority of farms will shift to regenerative in the decades to come. The only thing that can stop the transition is government intervention to try to "save" chemical farmers by subsidizing their chemical inputs. We just have to stay out of the way and let the transition happen.

algoatecorn 4y ago
Edible calories per acre per season are one thing. Labor cost per acre are another, and that's the key element we need to figure out if we want to transition. Right now the economics don't work out.
- metalliqaz 4y ago
  What makes the labor costs higher?
gruez 4y ago
>Due to the higher profitability of regenerative agriculture That might be true today, but will it hold into the future? Organic agriculture is also more profitable than conventional agriculture, even though it's less productive and has higher costs. The only reason it's more profitable is that people are willing to pay a premium for it. Obviously that's not something that's scalable. You might be able to convince a good chunk of bay area professionals to buy your organic/regenerative agriculture crops at 3x prices, but once you saturated that market you'll have much more trouble convincing the rest of the country to into paying 3x (or whatever) for their produce.
jjoonathan 4y ago

gopher_space 4y ago

> These studies always bring out knee-jerk reactions in genpop, but you have to understand what herbicides and GMO crops have done to alleviate global hunger and malnutrition. "I am too young to remember flipper babies." To an older, educated portion of the 'genpop' your post is just carrying water for Monsanto and has zero to do with GMO as a concept. You've typed up a manifesto stating the obvious and missing the point. Ask yourself why people would "oppose GMO" if they agree with every point you make here.

wilburTheDog 4y ago

Sri Lanka is an interesting case study. President Rajapaksa suddenly banned using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. It caused significant reductions in crop yields and ended up costing the country a great deal of money. This article in Vox seems to cover it in a pretty balanced way (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23218969/sri-lanka-organic-fertilizer-pesticide-agriculture-farming https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23218969/sri-la...). I like organic farming. I use an organic approach for my home garden. But yields are lower than with conventional farming. Even the most positive studies agree on that (see https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/12/09/organic-conventional-farming-yield-gap/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/12/09/organic-conventional-fa...). It also takes more effort, which means more people would have to be farmers than currently.