I’m probably going to irritate some people with this post. I apologize in advance because that is not at all my intention. For those readers that don’t think climate change is a real problem, I respect the fact that there is uncertainty in that science, but if the majority position of climate scientists is true, the stakes in terms of human suffering among the poor are too high not to act.
For those who think Organic farming is the answer, I’m not trying to argue the whole issue here – I just want to talk about the science associated with climate change and farming. I have spent months reading the scientific literature on this topic. That science points to some very specific changes in how we need to farm. If those changes were compatible with Organic I’d be a big promoter. The short answer is “Organic farming isnot从气候变化的角度来看，这是最好的选择。”
Related Post:Climate Change Organizations
I know this sounds like heresy in the “Green Blogosphere,” but before you react, please read on. I agree in advance that the Organic/non-Organic discussion is much broader than climate change. In fairness, climate change was never something that “Organic” was designed to address either during its origins in the early 20th century or during the development of the USDA Organic rules between 1990 and 2000.
I havenodesire to get in the way of Organic growers making a living (including my good friends who grow Organic of the old school category) or get in the way of Organic customers getting what they want. I simply believe that it is critical that we, the declining subset of people who take climate change seriously, be accurately informed about this issue. If we believe we “have the answer” for farming when that answer is wrong, that keeps us from continuing to find the real answer.
Focusing on the Major Crops
Because it would be far too complex to discuss this question for all crops, I’ll only be talking about the “carbon footprint” of the major row crops (see the pie chart above) – the wheat, corn, hay, barley, oats, corn, soybeans, hay, oats, dry beans, lentils… that make up the bulk of our calorie intake, our vegetable protein intake, and our animal feeds for meat and dairy.
Those crops also make up the vast majority of farmed land, so they are what matters for climate change. Fruit and vegetable crops are extremely important for health and food enjoyment, but not much for climate change. Organic today is heavily weighted to the fruit and vegetable segment and beyond that, it is extremely small. Actually, all of Organic only represents2.6MM acres( ~0.7% of US cropland), so it has almost no effect on climate either way. This is only a discussion about the widely held opinion that Organic would help in a climate change sense.
Agriculture’s Unique Carbon Footprint
罗德尔研究所是自20世纪50年代以来一直致力于有机事业的领导团体。They released a white paper titled,“Regenerative organic farming: a solution to global warming.”In it they argued that organic methods are low in carbon emissions. They also argued that Organic farmers could sequester carbon in the soil to help reduce atmospheric CO2 to a significant degree. That all sounds great, but the problem is that in the entire 9 page report, they never mentioned the words “methane” or “nitrous oxide.” That was a major omission because the real story for Ag is all about these two particular greenhouse gasses.
农业的碳足迹是独一无二的。Farms only represent ~2% of US CO2 emissions but around a third of theanthropogenic methane(a gas which is 21-24 times as potent as a greenhouse gas) and nearly 80% of theanthropogenic nitrous oxide(295-310 times as potent as CO2). I’ll explain why these two gasses, which are huge challenges for agriculture as a whole, are particularly problematic for Organic farming.
Biological Nitrogen Fixation
In defense of Organic farming, it does produce an admirable share of its own nitrogen supply with biologically fixed nitrogen usinglegume crops and legume cover crops．(“传统农业”也种植了数百万英亩这种作物)。对于像大豆这样的豆类作物，有机农场和传统农场的“碳足迹”相似，而且相对较小;然而，“传统”农场的“碳足迹”仍然可能更低。
If the soybeans are“no-till”farmed (which is common for soy – at least 33% of US soy acres – then the No-till farmer willuse less diesel fuelbecause of the several tillage passes that are avoided. Also, when a legume cover crop, is tilled-under for planting, there is a significant burst of nitrous oxide emissions. That does not happen in a non-organic field that is“no-till”managed. I’m not saying this is true today on all “conventional” farms, but it is for far more acres than Organic.
The Climate Downside of Manures or Composted Manures Used in Organic Farming
For the non-legume crops we need (corn, wheat, barley…) an Organic grower willdefinitely need to supplementthe contributions of the legumes in the rotation with manure or composted manure. If it is manure, that manure will have been saved for some period of time (animals make it every day, farmers only need it at certain times). TheIPCC estimates即使有良好的储存方法，粪便中1-2%的碳会以甲烷的形式释放出来。当你把它和一种作物所需的肥料量结合起来时，你最终得到的“碳足迹”是用尿素等合成肥料提供等量氮的3-8倍。如果有机作物注定要被人类直接食用，那么粪便就需要堆肥来杀死人类病原体。In that process it has been documented that 2.7% of the carbon isreleased as methane．再加上种植一种作物所需的堆肥量(约4-6吨/英亩)，这种有机肥料的“碳足迹”是传统替代肥料的14倍。
Last June I posted atechnical paperabout this on SCRIBD and requested feedback. I also sent it directly for review to a dozen scientists who work in this area. The paper has now been viewed by more than 850 people. I’ve gotten quite a bit of feedback, but none pointing out flaws with the basic logic or math. One Organic farmer told me that he didn’t use compost for the nitrogen, but the rate he described (5 tons/acre) was delivering >180 lbs of N/acre when 120 lbs/acre is the average for a high nitrogen demand crop like corn. Some folks have accurately pointed out that compost emissions vary by the way the composting is done, but thestudy I usedwas based on a better than average practice. Even dropping the emissions by a factor of 2 or 4 would not address the problem. Some would like to assign that footprint to the animal producer. My answer is that the emissions occur because of the storage or composting that is required for the crop use. The very best option for manures (or any biological waste-stream) is toanaerobically digestorchar the manure将其转化为一种重要的清洁能源(“浪费动物粪便是一件可怕的事情”，如果你认为我在总体上攻击堆肥，我不是。堆肥比填埋其他废弃物要好得多，但它并不总是最好的选择，当然也不是制造肥料的好方法)。公平地说，我必须指出，传统农场使用粪肥——约占美国农田总面积的5%。我希望看到几乎所有的实践都转变为对粪便的能源利用。
Related Post:What is Organic Farming?
所以事实证明，有机食品在气候变化方面的一个主要优势几乎是被普遍认为的(没有化石能源产生氮)，实际上代表了一个巨大的碳足迹。Then, once the manure or compost is added to the field, itcontinues to release methane,and to release nitrous oxide,even at sub-zero soil temperatures．作为一个有强烈肉食倾向的人，我不得不痛苦地承认，动物蛋白比扁豆或豆腐、面包小麦或藜麦等食物的碳足迹更高。实际上，我正在尝试改变我的饮食方式(这比素食主义更可行。我女儿教了我一个炸豆腐的绝招!)有机作物，至少对行作物来说，与畜牧业联系紧密。
Nitrous Oxide – the Biggest Climate Change Challenge to All of Agriculture
For the major row crops, the largest two elements of the carbon footprint are the “embedded carbon” in the fertilizer and the nitrous oxide emissions that occur as a little bit (usually 1-2%) of the applied nitrogen is converted to nitrous oxide during periods of low oxygen availability (e.g when the soil is wet, where the soil is compressed). The Organic field has the additional issue of methane emissions from the soil. Nitrous oxide release is usually one of the largest single elements in the farm footprint because of that ~300x multiplier. A conventional grower has several tools to reduce those emission (which would ideally someday be rewarded with carbon offset income). That farmer can use “precision application” to put the fertilizer in just the right place so the plant gets more of it before it can become nitrous oxide. He/She can also use “split applications,” or “variable rate” application to give each part of a field just enough so there isn’t extra available to be converted into nitrous oxide and the overall rate reduction reduces the “embedded energy” footprint as well. The farmer can also use “Auto-steer” technology (GPS enabled) to make sure that no wheel ever rolls over most of the soil in the field. That limits compaction and thus nitrous oxide emissions. Finally, a conventional grower can use a“nitrification inhibitor”to reduce the amount of nitrous oxide produced. There are efficiency drivers that are already getting more and more growers to adopt these practices, even in the absence of greenhouse gas-related payments. Many of these nitrous oxide reduction options are impractical or are not even allowed for the Organic grower.
Carbon Sequestration
The big climate change positive that the Rodale paper claimed for Organic was net carbon sequestration because so much organic matter was added to the soil in the form of compost or manure. Building soil carbon has always been a fantastic goal of Organic farming. I’ve been on that page since hearing my Grandfather talk about it as I helped him tend his Organic garden in the early 1960s. Still, as I described, that gain in soil carbon on an Organic farm comes at the substantial carbon cost of methane and nitrous oxide emissions before and after application. There is a different way to build soil organic matter. It requires no-till cropping. There iscontroversyabout whether no-till farming by itself can really lead tonet carbon sequestration, but incombination with cover cropping, this isdefinitelypossible．传统农民在这个系统中使用的合成化学物质呢?The use-rates of modern agricultural chemicals are low enough that they end upcontributing very littleto the carbon footprint of these row crops, and in a no-till setting they don’t move into streams or lakes because erosion is so well controlled. They break down on-site.
The Better Answer
So, if Organic is not the viable, large-scale answer to Climate Friendly Farming, what is? I believe the answer is broader adoption of the most progressive methods I’ve been describing (continuous no-till, cover crops, controlled wheel traffic, precision fertilization…). Today, employment of these practices in part or as a whole varies by geography. South America and Australia are the most advanced here. These practices arealmost non-existent in Europe．我没有关于中国和印度的好信息，但利率很小。美国的普及程度很重要，但由于许多复杂的经济、社会和技术原因，还没有达到需要的水平。强大的碳市场似乎是推动这些最佳农业实践的一个很好的方式，但在这种政治环境下，我对此的希望正在减弱。可能还需要找到其他方法，我相信这是可能的。正如诺姆·博洛格(Norm Borlaug)所说:“悲观主义在行动中没有立足之地。”
You are welcome to comment on this post or you can email me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com.
I’ll tell you what I think. I think this is a crock. First of all, organic farming and a move away from corporate agriculture is not just about addressing climate change. It’s also about saving our oceans by decreasing hypoxia which comes mainly from chemical and organic fertilizers. More importantly than that, it’s about creating a safe food system — which the current system is anything but. To reduce everything to carbon footprints is useless. Let’s kill all the humans, that would reduce our carbon footprints alot wouldn’t it? But it doesn’t solve any of our larger issues. Don’t get so myopic on climate change that you don’t see the broader picture.
Great post Steve. The data on the methane emission of manure (that could be avoided if it were instead used to generate renewable energy instead) is completely new to me.
Decreasing meat consumption is a very effective way of reducing individual demands on the agricultural production. I’d make a miserable vegetarian, but as you say, cutting back is a lot easier, something I’ve been experimenting with just in the past month.
我们还可以做一些事情来提高农业碳封存系统的效率，比如免耕农业。I know some people at Iowa State are working on developingbreeds of cropsthat decay more slowly, increasing soil organic matter (which is good for agriculture in its own right) and locking up the carbon crop plants fix in the soil for longer.
James,
我同意我们可以为更高的隔离繁殖。我认为这对于改良的覆盖作物尤其正确，因为这与产量没有任何冲突。此外，有一种草可以制造自己的硝化抑制剂，这将是一个很好的特性，包括在作物或覆盖作物。
Breeding for increased carbon fixation would probably compete with yield, but if you’re instead selecting for plants that have, say higher lignin to cellulose ratios (the opposite of what breeders are trying to do for biofuel crops since lignin is so much harder to degrade), it would seem increased sequestration wouldn’t necessarily have negative effects on yield.
Hadn’t heard about the nitrification inhibiting grass, sounds intriguing, I’ll have to read up on it.
Planb247,
食用更多的有机食品实际上对死亡区更有害。耕作和延长氮素释放是有机农业的特点，将大量的硝酸盐注入地表水——有机农业没有优势，更没有办法管理它。至于“工业化农业”，我们绝大多数的中耕农场仍然是家庭农场。你可以在美国农业部的农业普查中查到。
我承认你说的有些东西我听不懂，但我生活在一个农业社区(主要是酿酒葡萄)，我越来越多地听到葡萄种植者谈论“可持续”农业，而不是“有机”农业。有机农业似乎自动排除了使用一些有助于实现控制碳/氮/甲烷排放的最终目标的方法。
Nice post, Steve
“…the stakes in terms of human suffering among the poor are too high not to act.”
小心潜意识的合理化。
Most of us relieve our anxiety about climate change by assuming the poor in third world countries will be the only ones seriously impacted, not our loved ones. I admit, this is what I tell my daughter when she worries about it.
我们会像往常一样站在一旁，坐在沙发上看着恐怖事件的发生，虽然很担心，但也保证不会发生在自己身上。
What I don’t tell her is that this is how it will unfold at first, until we hit a tipping point, which will be inevitable. It will be way too late to stop it by then. The non-linear tipping points are what should be keeping all of us parents awake at night.
我同意，悲观主义在行动中没有位置，但是悲观主义和现实之间的界限有时很难区分。
这种可能性并不大，但我们必须停止用通向死胡同的想法来欺骗自己。
As human beings, we are all masters of self-deception. That is why the scientific method was developed, to show us the truth. But even when it sits right in front of us, well, you can lead a horse to water …
Organic has it’s advantages. It is not the end of the world for organic farmers if fighting climate change is not one of them. Not everything that needs to be done needs to be done in the name of climate change.
Janet,
事实上，葡萄种植者在可持续发展方面一直是真正的领导者，并制定了一个非常详细的系统来评估他们的进展。实际上，有一个大型的国家项目来定义行作物的可持续性指标，叫做基石从农田到市场倡议，也是同样的努力。它有非常广泛的利益相关者参与，似乎正在取得真正的进展。
Russ,
Thanks. I agree, it is about all of us (or at least our kids) if the worst scenarios unfold. It could be that things will get to a point where action is absolutely needed and then human innovation power might help, but not before some people are in trouble. Organic is just fine as a niche to satisfy a market in rich countries, but it really can’t get big no matter what. Its just that most people have heard “Organic is the fastest growing segment in the food supply” and believe it. Its just that Organic advocates regularly make the climate change claim as in the case of the Rodale paper I cited.
Right.
我强调的是有机农业的经营规模——如果有机农业应用于大型企业，它将大大有助于减少排放。因此，如果规模真的很重要，那么另一种由大片土地农业排放的温室气体必须得到处理，同样，企业必须采取一些措施，比如通过种植更多的树木来采取隔离方法，或者购买CER。
iip,
Planting more trees (agroforestry) is a good thing, but my main point was that making Organic large-scale would significantly increase emissions of greenhouse gases.
I’m not following the science of all this, but I admit it worries me greatly. In India, people like Vandana Shiva are arguing that we need to take a U turn from the “Green Revolution” and go organic–basically to get back to something like the farming we did for years and years. That raises questions, but worse still if it won’t work at all!
Once energy prices rise, we are going to be in trouble; we just can’t afford enough fertilizer as it is for conventional farming, and fertilizer prices are energy sensitive, no?
One thing we are looking at is a shift away from wheat and rice and toward crops like millet which have gone out of favour hear due to government policies, but which were once used widely. They take less inputs and are more drought resistant.
Like I said, I can’t evaluate the science, but I appreciate the seriousness of this post. Food is the number one thing we need to figure out, or a lot of people are going to end up very, very hungry. Considering that to be poor in India basically means you are getting less than two meals a day–and that we already have something over 400,000,000 poor people, the margins are too thin already.
Hari
Hari,
I agree with your concerns. The solutions for small holder agriculture and developing world agriculture are not exactly the same as in a country like the US. Government policy often does not help, but to abandon the Green Revolution for Organic would be the wrong way to go. Drought tolerant, nitrogen use-efficient crops are definitely needed and some of that can be done by switching crops. Some of that can also be done by genetic engineering – the kind that is offered for free to poor farmers through groups like the Gates Foundation or the Danforth Center. High nitrogen fertilizer cost is definitely a looming issue if energy prices go back up. I wish someone would invent a reasonably efficient way to use the methane that can be generated from municipal waste to make synthetic nitrogen.
Wow, is that true about organic being worse for dead zone hypoxia than conventional farming? Does that apply across the board, or are you speaking specifically about the Gulf of Mexico? It seems hard to believe that the amount of nitrogen lost from organic production could rival the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilizer currently running off the corn fields of the midwest.
Fascinating observations here, Steve. Anyone with kids knows how critical it is to find genuine solutions to the pressing demands of climate change and food security. this post shows there is no simple answer.
Brendan,
There are many studies documenting high nitrate movement from manure fertilized fields than from fields properly fertilized with synthetic nitrogen. No matter what form a fertilizer starts (including organic sources), it is sooner or later turned into the nitrate ion which is mobile in water. Organic sources are “slow release” but that isn’t as good as it sounds. To have enough nitrate available for the period of peak crop demand, an Organic grower has to apply more total nitrogen and then when the plant isn’t taking it up anymore, the organic source is continuing to convert into nitrate that is now available to move into water. Cover crops can help with this issue, but don’t completely solve it.
The solution to the “dead zone” is a combination of no-till, controlled wheel traffic, precision fertilization and cover crops. It probably also requires some management of the outflows of drain tile systems in fields. These are all things that are possible today and I wish we had ecosystem services markets in place to help farmers afford to convert.
Brendan, I’m mainly talking about the Gulf, but the basic principal is the same for any watershed
没有被说服。
This is not an objective comparison of the two farming systems.
There are huge issues with scale and crop type and a lack of consideration for many indirect impacts.
A comprehensive lifecycle analysis will be needed.
SBG,
我同意需要一个全面的LCA，如果你这样做，有机作物种植将会非常糟糕的比一个渐进式的，甚至半渐进式的传统系统。这里不是讨论这个的地方。在分析肥料进入水环境的过程中，有机物的含量也会降低。归根结底，动物粪便是很有问题的肥料，作为燃料会更好地服务于社会。你真的无法回避这个问题。
Excellent and informative post.
I have been recently researching some of the opportunities to monetize carbon N2O sequestration or reductions and find that it is definately not an “user-friendly” enviroment. Its a shame as I think that many companies would be willing to consider changes in ag practices that are safer and better for the enviroment, but can’t justify the investment required based on the projected investment cash flows.
Thanks Tony,
我知道，如果能把这东西变现就太好了。这是一个研究笑气前沿的小组的链接。
http://www.infoag.org/presentation.php?id=29
Does you mother pack you lunch, or do you walk to school? Pure gibberish!
We can not trade organic sustainable farm practices for further ecological genocide generated by conventional farming in order to counter our out of control emissions. It’s the very definition of shortsighted. And the shameless pitch for “ modern agricultural no till chemicals” with your assurance that “they don’t move into streams or lakes, … and break down on site.” Who paid for this post?
Organics are a verified, eco-friendly form of food production which can no more be taken out of the whole system, than mankind can live without clean water, air and soil and planetary bio-diversity, which by the way we forego with conventional agriculture.
农作物已经被不断变化的极端气候所破坏，但处于食物链顶端的人们还没有切身感受到。有证据支持有机生产对不同气候事件的压力有更强的弹性，这意味着在变化的时代有更稳定的食物供应。通过有机实践保存的生物栖息地和活的土壤远服务于受到质疑的人类未来，我们可以在其他地方找到有意义的减排。
Ro Elgas,
Thanks for your response. I like to get some vigorous push-back from people who see things differently.
I’m not sure what the thing about my mother packing my lunch means.
我向你保证，没有人“为这个职位付费”。事实上，在过去的几个月里，由于花时间做这些工作，我已经严重减少了我的咨询业收入。
Organics are actually not a “verified, eco-friendly form of food production” if you delve into the scientific literature as opposed to the self-serving web information from Organic marketers and NGO’s that need to raise funds.
I’m not actually a defender of “conventional agriculture” as a whole, but I’m a promoter of actually good practices which are often not allowed under the organic rules.
I agree with you that crops are already seeing the effects of climate change. To the extent that Organic builds soil carbon it does indeed insulate it from the effects of climate change (mainly drought issues). My post just points out that this insulation comes at a high cost from a greenhouse gas point of view and there are other ways to do that.
I know that we seem to be at two extremes on this discussion. Actually, you and I actually have most of the same goals from an environmental point of view. I’m just trying to let the science tell me how to get there.
the better question is who pays Steve Savage’s bills? is it Monsanto or Cargill? or perhaps a chemical fertilizer company. I’ve never seen so much hooey. you have some facts right, but leap off in directions that are unwarranted. by that I mean that organic does not require tilling nor manure, yet you act like those are essential to organic methods. you seem to be bought and sold by some corporate interests to me… otherwise this just doesn’t make any sense.
planb247,
In fact no one pays me to do this blog and I actually lose money because I’m not working on paid projects. Organic does not absolutely require tillage or manure, but that is the way it is normally done for row crops. Vegetables and fruit could be all hand weeded but you couldn’t do that say for bread wheat in ND or soybeans in Iowa. I know that Rodale is working of a no-till system for Organic, but it isn’t very practical, at least at this stage.
The only “sense” about why I write this is that I have been frustrated by the disinformation that abounds about agriculture. It matters how we farm and I’ve spent more than 30 years working on improvements. I’d like to see some big changes in the future. I work with all sorts of different entities that share those goals, but very few people in the general public know anything about farming and how far it has come in the past decades.
I have not done project work for Monsanto for many years, but I’d be happy to work with them in the future because they are doing some very positive things for the environment and for humanity. I do work for large and small companies, for biocontrol and chemical companies, for Universities and for grower groups, but this blog isn’t for any of them.
Interesting post. But the manure is there anyway. And it has to go somewhere. I understand that the best solution is to use it to create energy, but the facilities for that are not developed enough yet. So, for the moment, isn’t it better to use manure in the fields than to take it to landfill? Not using manure in agriculture is not gonna make it disapear.
Lise,
You are right. Most farmers with animals don’t have any viable options but to spread the manure. I think it would be fantastic if someone invented small scale digesters or pyrolysis systems, but I don’t know how feasible that really is.
谢谢你的评论。
I have a few comments on your article:
Firstly, you initially seem to be assuming that the composted manure being applied to fields instead of chemical fertilizer is not otherwise being produced/rotted, and therefore not producing methane.
This is clearly not the case. No new sources of manure are going to appear to meet this need, were a sudden shift in farming practices to occur (though we might begin using municipal solid waste streams for this purpose, provided they are sufficiently clean).
So, while it is true that some (possibly substantial) amount of methane will be produced, we will still have a net-reduction, as no energy and carbon intensive chemical fertilizers will be being manufactured, AND it is likely that the manure already being produced will be more carefully composted and undergo less methanogenesis than is currently the case (and generally speaking, the methane produced is carbon neutral, in the sense that it came from biomass, not from ancient sources, and represents no net gain in carbon to the current carbon cycle, which is why it’s also attractive as an energy source).
你提出的将所有这些生物质转化为木炭(可以大大提高土壤肥力，并作为一种隔离的方法)、合成气等等的建议确实可以完全消除甲烷的生产，但我们距离解决农业废物问题的解决方案同样遥远，因为我们还没有将它们全部转化为农田使用的堆肥。
第二，我们种植的氮素最密集的作物——玉米，被种植成饲料和玉米糖浆，规模之大令人咋舌。减少肉类消费和摆脱CAFOs将会在减少甲烷排放方面给我们带来巨大好处。
Moving towards a sustainable agricultural system means more than just switching to manure. It also means changing how we eat, how many animals we raise, in what manner we raise them, and how we deal with the waste streams produced by these processes. There is enormous room for improvement on every single one of these issues, most of which also bring with them a reduction in greenhouse gases, sedimentation problems, eutrophication of water bodies, etc.
Additionally, the nitrogen runoff issue can be dealt with when using non-chemical fertilizers much the same way as with chemical fertilizers. Farmers tend to over-apply fertilizers of any type, can do so at the wrong time, and frequently don’t have any means of controlling runoff from their fields. Compost is compatible with most of the methods you’ve proposed, including no-till, cover crops, etc, and many of the same techniques for reducing NOX emissions apply to it as well.
Let me be clear that I’m not opposed to the careful application of chemical fertilizers when it’s useful. It has its place in sustainable farming practices. The main goal however, as you clearly understand by what other things you suggested, is to rebuild soil ecology and fertility, and maintain it sustainably, while controlling runoff, and where possible, greenhouse emissions.
没有一个解决方案可以，或者将会是答案。“传统”农业和“有机”农业一样都不是解决问题的办法。If a healthy soil ecology, and with it fertility, were restored and maintained on most farms, total overall need for fertilizer applications would decrease, even for relatively intense cultivation.
我认为，如果你想解决工业化世界农业系统所面临的问题，并清楚地了解并希望解决这些问题，那么，你就不能把它归结为一个反对使用堆肥的稻草人论点。
帕特森女士,
我非常同意你的观点“没有一个解决方案可以，或将是答案。”我并不是说现在的“传统”农业是好的。我想看到改变。我不想对堆肥做一个“稻草人论点”。我只是想让人们明白，它并不像他们想象的那么“环保”。The science supports that point
MS patterson,
You didn’t give me an email address so I can’t respond in greater detail as I would like. I appreciate your input. I’d like to answer your points.
Steve
认为有机农民“一定”需要用肥料补充覆盖作物和豆科作物的氮，以满足玉米、大麦、小麦等作物的氮需求的结论是不准确的。在罗德尔研究所的农业系统试验中，其中一种有机系统是不接受肥料输入的有机豆科系统。我们在小谷物收获和玉米种植之间生产的毛豌豆覆盖作物供应150-250磅。N/英亩，为随后的玉米作物提供大量的氮(特别是在伯克公司，宾夕法尼亚州，产量目标是130布/年)。此外，认为有机农民必须在豆科覆盖作物中耕作才能种植玉米的假设也不再正确。在过去的十年中，人们已经开发出一种机械的方法，通过滚动和一次性免耕的方式来终止覆盖作物，现在正在全国各地的研究站进行试验。
Alison,
The cover crop approach is excellent and I am glad to see that it is becoming a more widespread practice today. Still, I’m sure you would acknowledge that the use of manure or compost is common for Organic row crop farms.
As for the rolling crimper – the researchers I’ve talked to say it is not something very practical, at least so far.
I certainly understand that Rodale has quite a history with regard to Organic so I’ll ask you -why is it still only practiced on less than one percent of our cropland?
What next? Headlines: “Organic farming threatens future expansion of chemical industries in rural communities!” Really enough sensationalism. Has this guy been drinking an agricultural cocktail spiked with $ from the agri-chemical industry?
Real cogent thought is what is needed when approaching all our challenges. Livestock manure (nitrogen and now methane) has often gotten a bad rap by the “environmental movement and the conventional agricultural advocates”. But, wait what if the farms livestock grazed on grass on pastures as nature intended? Their manures would be rapidly recycled by birds, insects and other animals in a balanced ecological farm system. Fact number one: we need a diversified Agriculture incorporating both plant crops and livestock as was the healthy model for a few hundred years in Europe and in Americas first 150 to 200 years. A Biodynamic farm sometimes referred as a “farm organism” does consider the wider cycling of the farms elements. Biodynamic preparation 500 cow-horn-manure and biodynamic composting used correctly will encourage humus development. Humus is the key factor and the missing link in conventional agriculture systems and on many industrial organic farms as well. Without a discussion of humus their is no real point in talking about carbon footprint. Make humus materials out of livestock waste ( and manure is not waste only in a wasteful conventional agricultural system) to create sustainability. Humus can hold and incorporate all the potentially harmful organic farm substances. Organic mater so often referred to in organic farming is only the first step to sustainability. Organic matter on organic farms needs to be turned into humus at every opportunity. Why has the author omitted the carbon foot print of conventional feed lot farming systems which feed most Americans? The organic farms are never the problem when compared to the destructive impact of all of convention farming’s practices, which must include the use of industrial and sewage sludge waste (used as fertilizers), pesticides, the herbicides and fungicides, GMO”s, irradiation of conventional food and all the hidden costs and impact on human health and the ecosystem. Humus can incorporate and make stable most organic compounds. Allen Savory with the Holistic Resource Management has also addressed the wider environmental issues with rotational grazing management and the Sierra Club, the State of Utah and many others have endorsed this system which by increasing livestock can improve the environment in many ways. The wheel showing crop production is an incorrect and false premise in agriculture to start with be it in organic or conventional production. We should not be growing the unnecessary quantities of federally subsidized corn and soy commodity crops in the first place.
And, yes we need bio-digesters many of them ASAP used at every large dairy operation and feed lot.
Usingred wormsfor composting manures would go a long way in addressing this issue of methane from manure compost piles. There is no question that we must find a different way than the past of big-agriculture. Using vermi-compost and worm castings is certainly one answer. Locally grown is a must.
When it comes right down to it, if we focus on growing food that is healthier for us with methods that cause the least harm to the plant, it’s just common sense. And not that complicated
引用史蒂夫……”其中一些还可以通过基因工程来实现——这种通过盖茨基金会或丹佛斯中心等组织免费提供给贫困农民的基因工程”......................................说实话，你们什么时候才能让我们休息一下??如果我们为你提供一些来自非洲一位目光短浅的慈善家的未经试验和测试的潜在危险的“科学”呢?............也是免费的!!.....................你会低头说谢谢，因为害怕看起来不感激吗??
我们不想要免费的赠品。我们不需要免费的施舍，我们并不像你们认为的那样愚蠢和天真。
Since when did America hold all the solutions, if it did you would not have the problems you do with obesity due to poor food quality………you have gone beyond ‘common sense’. When food is industrialised to the degree that value addition is resulting in value depletion and a sick population you need to stop and figure out your own problems before even attempting to ‘help’ us for free!! There is no such thing as free.
Bush opened our eyes to this when he said NO Anti retrovirals unless we adopt GMO’S …………………. can you imagine an African leader ever saying this to the peoples of America?
传统农业根本没有整体性可言。它是生产线农业的极端，结果在你今天的脸和破坏地球。有机食品可能不能解决所有问题，但传统食品肯定是一场灾难。再加上转基因食品?你自己算算。
Whilst learning alot of new angles to the ongoing debate, Steve you lost my respect with that one liner about ‘Gmo offered for free to the poor farmers ……………..’ With an attitude like this Monsanto should be proud and would do well to employ you.