Organic Farming Yields Far Better Crop Resistance and Resiliance

[Luminous Animal]

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090922/organic-farming-yields-far-better-crop-resistance-and-resiliance

For farms, it means a transition to agro-ecological farming methods, ways of farming that harmonize with natural processes rather than relying on external, artificial-or-chemical inputs, or genetic engineering, to increase yields.

That transition will have many benefits.

The first is that it will actually prevent climate change. Organic farming — one way of carrying out agro-ecological farming — has been shown to increase carbon sequestration in soil relative to non-organic methods. Furthermore, extensive research, most recently by agronomist David Pimentel of Cornell, has shown that transitioning to organic and local farming could cut energy inputs into the U.S. food system by 50 percent.

"United States agriculture is driven almost entirely by these non-renewable energy sources. Each person in the country on a per capita consumption basis requires approximately 2,000 liters per year in oil equivalents to supply his/her total food, which accounts for about 19 percent of the total national energy use," Pimentel said.

In addition to cutting fossil fuel use and decreasing carbon emissions, a shift to organic farming and the resultant increases in carbon sequestration will make agriculture more resilient and more resistant to onrushing anthropogenic climate change.

[Trillo]

1. Thanks.

Organic agriculture is cool. Too bad corporate is diluting the term. Maybe it can still be saved.

I recently learned a new organic technique, at least I believe it's organic. Sugar. Shhhh.

[Confusious]

2. I highly doubt that organic farming can feed all the people on the planet

While I do not like genetic and pesticide foods, I don't think there is enough compost in the world to run all the farm land we have now.

As a side note, Europe used "organic" farming up to the mid-19th century. They were worrying about the fact that the crop yields of the time were staying the same, while the population kept rising. Just in time, the first man-made ( artificial is a crappy word. Ammonia is Ammonia, NH3, whether it comes from the Haber process or compost ) fertilizers were created.

[SpiralHawk]

3. Actually, despite corporate propaganda, it can

Do not bend over and swallow the corporate-Republicon propaganda on this. It's much like the health care debate. The Republicon propaganda line wants people to support massive corporate profits in health care, and also in ag-food -- while people get sicker and sicker from the mutant, chemical-encrusted, sugar-laden processed food facsimile crapola in the bright, shiny wrappings.

A mounting pile of studies shows corporate industrial ag is trashing the environment and people's health, while organic sustainable ag can indeed feed the world.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html

[RC]

5. That's because we have too many people on this planet.

We increase the food supply, more people will survive, reproduce, to starve or be malnourished, straining already limited resources. The solution is less people. Way less.

[we can do it]

9. Why Not?- Compost Does Not TAke Long To Make

and there is plenty of organic material thrown into landfills from trees, shrubs and the plants we get vegetables from- while using chemical shit only degrades the soil and requires yet more chemical shit to feed the plants - just like any drug habit

[quaker bill]

11. Actually

Looked at globally, most growers produce with practices that are near organic. Agrichemicals and fertilizers are expensive. Most markets would not support their heavy use profitably. Organic farming is far more than compost.

In Peru for instance, friends who are agricultural scientists rediscovered traditional farming where farm runoff is captured in ponds where algae is grown. The algae captures the primary nutrients in the runoff which is then harvested and plowed back into the fields. End result, less soil loss, more nutrient retention on the land, and less polluted streams.

It takes a little more thought and a bit of effort, but green farming is real.

[LWolf]

15. That's not a farming issue.

That's a population management issue.

What human population is sustainable, without damaging the environment or putting other species at risk?

Whatever that number is, humanity should be responsible for reaching and maintaining it.

[era veteran]

4. YOU LIE Agri-chem

I believe the U.S.A. 's main export in the centuries to come will be food. the organic method not only works but yearly improves the soil. Chemical fertilizers in combination with a mono-culture mindset make the soil worse yearly: less humus,good nematodes and soil compaction. Could the organic method equal the chemical way ? I think not at first but over time as the soils regenerate the difference would be less yearly. Lot's of fallow land because it dose not meet the needs of agri-chem but could and has supported families. There is so much free nitrogen in the Mississippi that a lot of the Gulf of Mexico is a dead zone. In the Amazon basin, which have poor soils, the Pre-Columbians terra-formed great plots of land with organic methods that created terra praeta, the black earth, that regenerates itself. There is a lot of research on this phenomena now with hope that it could save Sub-Saharan Africa from starvation. Sure chemical agriculture works but what will result from this 200 years from now? Agri-chem has a lot of lobbyist to scare people about the organic way. The German conglomerates that invented these chemicals invented others that killed man, just quicker...... One other thing, the 'Lawn Companies' that spray nitrogen and pesticides should be put out of business now. If your vain about your lawn do fix it slowly over time. Not the quick fix. Rodale was right!

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Good collection of articles on the benefits and future possibilities

of organic agriculture here:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/susag.php

Here are some snips from a couple of the articles.

International panel dispels aggressive corporate propaganda

A fundamental change in farming practice is needed to counteract soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. Genetically modified (GM) crops are highly controversial and will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenges of climate change, loss of biodiversity, hunger and poverty. Instead, small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods are the way forward; with indigenous and local knowledge playing as important a role as formal science. Furthermore, the rush to grow crops for biofuels could exacerbate food shortages and price rises.

These are the conclusions to the most thorough examination of global agriculture, on a scale comparable to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Its final report, The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), was formally launched at a plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa on 15 April 2008 <1-3> and simultaneously released in London, Washington, Delhi, Paris, Nairobi and a number of other cities around the world.

The IAASTD is a unique collaboration initiated by the World Bank in partnership with a multi-stakeholder group of organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environmental Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives of governments, civil society, private sector and scientific institutions from around the world <2>. The actual report runs to 2 500 pages, and has taken more than 400 scientists 4 years to complete.

In one mighty stroke, it has swept aside years of corporate propaganda that served as a major diversion from urgent task of implementing sustainable food production for the world. As UK’s Daily Mail editorial commented <4>: “For years, biotech companies have answered critics by insisting genetically modified crops are essential to bringing down food prices and feeding the world's hungry. Well, now we know they’re not.”

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMFreeOrganicAgriculture.php

Br. Paul's Organic Cotton and Vegetable Farm

Jesuit brother breaks all the rules he learned in agricultural college, and shows how to bring food security to the world

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Organic cotton is possible and highly profitable

Brother Paul Desmarais of the Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre of Lusaka in Zambia is a happy man. He has just demonstrated that cotton can be grown organically, and furthermore, at yields up to more than twice the national average. That is quite an achievement as cotton is notorious for consuming the most agrochemicals of any crop, some 21 percent of that consumed worldwide; and most people have been led to believe that cotton cannot be grown without chemical sprays.

“I am confident that anyone can grow cotton organically in Zambia”, says Br. Paul, beaming from ear to ear. You need to do only two things: increase the fertility of the soil with organic matter, and put extra local plant species into the cotton fields to control insect pests.”

Plants that are sick or doing poorly will be the first to succumb to insect pests; so keeping a crop healthy with fertile soil reduces insect attacks.

SNIP

“We are told that hybrid maize seeds will yield three times as much as the OPVs.” Br. Paul says, “But one member of staff at Kasisi last year planted an OPV maize variety using compost and manure teas as fertiliser. Well he has been able to sell his surplus maize to his neighbour who planted hybrid maize seed and used fertiliser. Who has food security?”

“Some farmers do even better. Another family went into organic production since 1998, and has been able to buy a donkey, a bicycle, roofing sheets, a colour TV, a maize grinding mill, and pay for the university fees of a daughter.” Br. Paul continues, “They were able to feed themselves when they farmed conventionally, but never had any money left over. They produced food for the house and managed to repay the fertilizer loan, but after going into organic production, they have much more money at their disposal.”

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BrPaulsOrganicFarm.php

[Trillo]

8. Why do many of the good sites either have broken feeds,

or no feeds at all?

non-live link

validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-sis.org.uk%2Ffeed.xml

Sorry

This feed does not validate.

snip

I'd LOVE to put that site in my feedreader, but since it's "strict" with respect to standards compliance, not one item is retrieved.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. K&R

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Article doesn't say what you suggest it says.

They found that in farms on steep slopes, mixed crops could help prevent erosion during rains.

Nothing to do with organic vs. non-organic.

[Luminous Animal]

12. It said more than that...

"Similarly, a survey of organic-agricultural programs in East Africa showed that organic agricultural systems reduced soil erosion, increased soil-moisture retention, and enabled better flood-control, lengthening the growing season and increasing resilience to natural fluctuations in the temperature—fluctuations that will increase in magnitude as climate change accelerates."

[JohnyCanuck]

13. The Two Sides of An Organic vs. Chemical Story

by Gene Logsdon



The photo of stunted corn (above) tells why grain farmers don’t like trees in their fence rows. Don’t like fence rows at all, in fact. The trees suck the moisture away from crops, as you can see.



But what’s going on here? The corn in the other photo, just across the fence, growing the same distance from the same trees, is tall and healthy. Why aren’t the trees robbing moisture from this corn?

I can’t recall any time when two pictures tell a better story of what’s happening in farming. I took both photos on July 15, as I write this. I wish I could have gotten into a helicopter above the tree line and shot the picture to get both corn fields in the same photo so readers would know for sure this is a true story.

The field with stunted corn next to the trees has been farmed with chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and modern tillage equipment for many years. It has been cash-cropped to corn and soybeans following each other most of that time, with an occasional crop of wheat in the rotation.

The field with vigorous, healthy corn next to the trees is mine. The rotation here has been five years of pasture and one year of corn for the past eighteen years I have owned the land. I put no fertilizer on the corn at all, except for the green manure from plowing under the sod, and the manure droppings put on it by the sheep. I weeded it mechanically three times.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/49665

[era veteran]

14. Love your corn

Great comparison

[Aragorn]

16. don't forget water

the main co-factor! In general organic approaches conserve water, industrial approaches waste it. Yes, we need to achieve zero population growth, or less - but let's not do it with wars or plagues! Water is the bigger shortage already so that needs to be a focus.

[csziggy]

17. Amazon "Dark Earth" proves this point

Terra Preta - Basic Information
"Terra Preta de Indio" (Amazonian Dark Earths; earlier also called "Terra Preta do Indio" or Indian Black Earth) is the local name for certain dark earths in the Brazilian Amazon region. These dark earths occur, however, in several countries in South America and probably beyond. They were most likely created by pre-Columbian Indians from 500 to 2500 years B.P. and abandoned after the invasion of Europeans (Smith, 1980; Woods et al., 2000). However, many questions are still unanswered with respect to their origin, distribution, and properties.

<SNIP>

Amazonian Dark Earths and the global climate
<SNIP>
Soil organic carbon is an important pool of carbon in the global biogeochemical cycle. The total amount of organic carbon in soils is estimated to be 2011 Gt C, which constitutes about 82% of the global organic carbon in terrestrial ecosystems (Watson et al., 2000).
Amazonian Dark Earths have high carbon contents of up to 150 g C/kg soil in comparison to the surrounding soils with 20-30 g C/kg soil (Sombroek, 1966; Smith, 1980; Kern and Kämpf, 1989; Sombroek et al., 1993; Woods and McCann, 1999; Glaser et al., 2000). Additionally, the horizons which are enriched in organic matter, are not only 10-20cm deep as in surrounding soils, but may be as deep as 1-2m (average values probably around 40-50cm)! Therefore, the total carbon stored in these soils can be one order of magnitude higher than in adjacent soils.
<SNIP>

Amazonian Dark Earths: Implications for soil fertility and land use
In addition to their high soil organic matter contents as mentioned above, Amazonian Dark Earths are characterized by high P contents reaching 200-400 mg P/kg, and higher cation exchange capacity, pH and base saturation than surrounding soils (Sombroek, 1966; Smith, 1980; Kern and Kämpf, 1989; Sombroek et al., 1993; Glaser et al., 2000; Lehmann et al., 2003; Liang et al., 2006). These soils are therefore highly fertile (Lehmann et al., 2003). Fallows on the Amazonian Dark Earths can be as short as 6 months, whereas fallow periods on Oxisols are usually 8 to 10 years long (German and Cravo, 1999). Only short fallows are presumed to be necessary for restoring fertility on the dark earths. However, precise information is not available, since farmers frequently fallow the land due to an overwhelming weed infestation and not due to declining soil fertility. Continuous cropping for longer periods of time appears to be possible from a soil fertility point of view. How long a field can be continuously cropped and what can be done to prolong this period is not yet clear. Petersen et al. (2001) reported that Amazonian Dark Earths in Açutuba were under continuous cultivation without fertilization for over 40 years.
Recent efforts stimulated by Terra Preta research included the investigation of biochar (biomass-derived black carbon or charcoal) as a soil amendment to enhance nutrient availability and retention. Charcoal amendments were shown to significantly decrease nutrient leaching and increase crop growth (Lehmann et al., 2003), and the tests of slash-and-char systems were suggested as an alternative to slash-and-burn (Lehmann et al., 2002).

More: http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/research/terra%20preta/terrapretamain.html

Cornell biogeochemist shows how reproducing the Amazon's black soil could increase fertility and reduce global warming
By Susan S. Lang

ST. LOUIS -- The search for El Dorado in the Amazonian rainforest might not have yielded pots of gold, but it has led to unearthing a different type of gold mine: some of the globe's richest soil that can transform poor soil into highly fertile ground. That's not all. Scientists have a method to reproduce this soil -- known as terra preta, or Amazonian dark earths -- and say it can pull substantial amounts of carbon out of the increasing carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, helping to prevent global warming. That's because terra preta is loaded with so-called bio-char -- similar to charcoal.

"The knowledge that we can gain from studying the Amazonian dark earths, found throughout the Amazon River region, not only teaches us how to restore degraded soils, triple crop yields and support a wide array of crops in regions with agriculturally poor soils, but also can lead to technologies to sequester carbon in soil and prevent critical changes in world climate," said Johannes Lehmann, assistant professor of biogeochemistry in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Cornell University, speaking today (Feb. 18) at the 2006 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Lehmann, who studies bio-char and is the first author of the 2003 book "Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management," the first comprehensive overview of the black soil, said that the super-fertile soil was produced thousands of years ago by indigenous populations using slash-and-char methods instead of slash-and-burn. Terra preta was studied for the first time in 1874 by Cornell Professor Charles Hartt.

Whereas slash-and-burn methods use open fires to reduce biomass to ash, slash-and-char uses low-intensity smoldering fires covered with dirt and straw, for example, which partially exclude oxygen. Slash-and-burn, which is commonly used in many parts of the world to prepare fields for crops, releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Slash-and-char, on the other hand, actually reduces greenhouse gases, Lehmann said, by sequestering huge amounts of carbon for thousands of years and substantially reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from soils.

More: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb06/AAAS.terra.preta.ssl.html