Inorganic agriculture?
Guest commentary by David Middleton
New study challenges beliefs about organic ag
BY MARK LYNAS
APRIL 9, 2018
Organic agriculture is not as good for the environment as commonly believed, according to a new scientific study reviewing multiple lines of evidence over more than two decades.
The study, conducted by German researchers Eva-Marie Meemken and Matin Qaim from the University of Goettingen and published in the journal Annual Review of Resource Economics, challenges many beliefs that have helped the organic food industry grow into an $82 billion global market.
However, Meemken and Qaim also make clear that the scientific evidence shows that organic is better in some specific situations, and that the best strategy overall may be to combine conventional and organic approaches.
In general, the study concludes that while organic farming is more environmentally friendly per unit of land than conventional approaches, it is not better for the environment when assessed in terms of units of output.
This is because organic farming generally has lower yields — between 19-25 percent, on average — although the picture is complicated between different crops and locations.
The lower land-use efficiency of organic systems means that “large-scale conversion to organic would likely require bringing more natural habitats into agricultural production,” with a potentially severe impact on global biodiversity due to the loss of rainforests and other currently wild areas.
Although organic farms tend to have lower nitrogen inputs and better carbon sequestration, more use of fuel and animal manures counterbalances this effect, Meemken and Qaim conclude.
“Overall, the evidence does not support the widely held notion that organic agriculture is more climate friendly than conventional agriculture,” they write.
[…]
This falls under the heading of: No Schist Sherlock. Pretty well all feel-good virtue signalling is at best irrelevant and often actually worse for the environment and less “climate friendly” (whatever the frack that means) than the conventional way of doing things. Furthermore, the concept of “climate-friendly agriculture” is as bass-ackwards as a concept could be.
The Little Ice Age was an agriculture-hostile climate. Climate is either agriculture-friendly or agriculture-hostile. Despite the recent consumption of a salad that was grown entirely in Antarctica… The continent of Antarctica has, by far, the most agriculture-hostile climate on Earth. Climate-friendly agriculture won’t make Antarctica any more amenable to agriculture than it has been for most of the past 35 million years.
Furthermorer…
What Is Organic Chemistry?
Organic chemistry is the study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation of carbon-containing compounds, which include not only hydrocarbons but also compounds with any number of other elements, including hydrogen (most compounds contain at least one carbon–hydrogen bond), nitrogen, oxygen, halogens, phosphorus, silicon, and sulfur. This branch of chemistry was originally limited to compounds produced by living organisms but has been broadened to include human-made substances such as plastics. The range of application of organic compounds is enormous and also includes, but is not limited to, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, food, explosives, paints, and cosmetics.
If there’s “at least one carbon–hydrogen bond” involved, it’s organic. If not, it’s likely to be inorganic.
What Is Inorganic Chemistry?
Inorganic chemistry is concerned with the properties and behavior of inorganic compounds, which include metals, minerals, and organometallic compounds. While organic chemistry is defined as the study of carbon-containing compounds and inorganic chemistry is the study of the remaining subset of compounds other than organic compounds, there is overlap between the two fields (such as organometallic compounds, which usually contain a metal or metalloid bonded directly to carbon).
Until humans figure out a way to subsist on salt, water and metals, all agriculture will be “organic.”
Furthermorest…
This past weekend, we went shopping at Central Market in Dallas and I just couldn’t resist taking a picture of this:
WTF is an “organic valley”?
V-shaped valleys are generally carved by rivers. U-shaped valleys are generally carved by glaciers.
|
|
|
|
Glaciers carve some of our planet’s most spectaculer scenery, but it’s not until glaciers melt that their rasping handiwork is exposed.
Glaciers and running water sculpt the land in different ways. While streams tend to cut winding curves and V-shaped valleys, glaciers carve nearly straight valleys with U-shaped cross-sections. The imposing, sheer rock walls of glacial troughs (U-shaped valleys) are among the most fundamental and distinctive features of glaciated landscapes. The U-shaped valleys left behind by valley glaciers are usually 1 kilometer (1.6 miles) or more in width and typically hundreds of meters high.
Running water gradually cuts a deeper V-shape. The end result is a typical meandering, V-shaped stream valley. 
What on Earth could carve an “organic valley”? Vegans with organic shovels? An organic glacier? A river of organic water?
Note: Furthermorer and furthermorest are not typos. They are words I made up for this post… A sort of homage to organic agriculture, organic valleys and climate-friendly agriculture. Well, maybe not an homage.
Interesting, I just sent an email where I used the word newesterer…
“The U-shaped valleys left behind by valley glaciers are usually 1 kilometer (1.6 miles) or more in width and typically hundreds of meters high.”
Organics have funny math. I the real world 1 km=0.62 miles.
That is funny…
Dot.Gov math…
https://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/glacier/uvalley.html
AKA in the words of smalldeadanimals.com = organic is latin for grown in pig shit!
My favorite:
Vegetarian is an native American word for bad hunter.
As I drove by a barren snow-covered corn field this fine Spring morning, it occurred to me that in our greed, we have clear cut the fields. Slashed and flattened! Everywhere I look, ugly barren fields of stubble! Are we driving the corn to extinction? I worry about this!
No wonder we have Climate Change (TM). We may never have corn again, organic or otherwise. Oh the humanity!
I like to mill my own flour and bake my own bread so I’m always shopping for wheat berries. The organic wheat is about 3x the price of ‘just plain ol’ wheat’. Maybe there is something to organic. The problem is I’ve lived so long just eating regular stuff that switching now wouldn’t have much positive impact on my longevity whereas the price of organic would be instantly fatal to my bank balance. See, I’m on what they call a ‘fixed income’ which doesn’t make much sense because I’m ‘broke’ most of the time.
I grew up on a farm in NW Nebraska where we spread manure on the fields, cultivated and ditched the corn, beans, and sugar beets. Irrigation was by siphon tubes. My father farmed this 130 acre farm with his labor and hired help or kids (there were 9 of us). That same farm is now irrigated with pivot irrigation systems, the fields are planted, sprayed, then harvested (if frosts or hail don’t destroy the crops) as part of close to 800 acres with 2 men doing all the work. Where we made several passes through the fields, they make two or three. To return this to organic would require lots more man-hours and lots more fuel. Of the 110 family farms in this area, there are perhaps 8 to 10 families doing all the farming today. They have no time for the other chores we had (caring for pigs, chickens, cattle). They cannot afford to go organic.
Organic vegetables may taste better (I grow vegetables in a garden that is surrounded by woods, so I have little to no need to use pesticides, as the pests have not been a problem for the last 25 years), but that depends more on the variety than just about anything else. Large mechanized farms use the best vegetable varieties that mature close to simultaneously, can be handled by machines without bruising, and can be shipped without spoiling quickly – taste is not one of the attributes that they worry about.
Citation most definitely needed.
A link to the paper is in the quoted passage from the article.
I can tell you, the bitterness of Organic Chemists runs a lot deeper than most glacial valleys. The article’s subject is a topic upon which we often feel the need to either say nothing, or everything, which rarely works out well. Thanks for including the ACS definitions.
I wasn’t going to say anything, but decided I should. I read part of Mr. Middleton’s post and then got to wtf. This did not seem to add anything to the explanation. I stopped reading as I will whenever I encounter that expression.
WTF?
Actually, now that I think about it, C60 and related Fullerenes are all-carbon compounds, no C-H bonds at all, and are strictly part of Organic Chemistry.
Organic Chemistry got its name, by the way, because it originally concerned the chemicals derived from living things. This was back in the late 18th, early 19th centuries. It was thought that the chemicals of life were in some vital way different from the inorganic chemicals of non-living things, such as rocks.
“Vital” was defining difference. Life was special, its chemicals were special and could not be made anywhere but in living beings. Hence they were organic chemicals, and “Vitalism” was the theory that inhered that idea.
However, in 1838 Wöhler ruined it all by synthesizing urea — an unambiguously organic chemical — from ammonia and cyanate, both unambiguously inorganic. Another theory exploded.
Vitalism found new life when proteins were discovered, and especially enzymes and metalloproteins. They were all thought to exhibit a chemistry that was non-reproducible outside of living things.
But protein crystal structures removed that element of Vitalism, when the enzyme activity was understood in terms of protein structure.
And in the metalloprotein part of Vitalism was wrecked when Dick Holm synthesized the iron-sulfur clusters of Ferredoxin and Rubredoxin — the latter involving a cube of Fe4S4 — previously thought to be viable only within their protein environment.
So, really, the Vitalism idea wasn’t finally disproved until around 1972, long after most of us would have expected it to have been abandoned.
And Organic Chemistry has been redefined as the chemistry of carbon (except, with a nod to David M, in its oxides) since Wöhler was so rude to the Humanities faculty as to ruin the basis for their transcendental philosophies.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the definition of organic chemistry is almost as arbitrary as the pop culture usage of the word “organic”… 😉
I don’t know where this is going to end up, but it is a reply to Mr Middleton’s reply to my comment re wtf. Mr. Middleton said “ WTF is an ‘Organic Valley’”. Again, what does that add to “What is an organic valley”? Decorum please.
It adds a sense of incredulity in the most obnoxious manner I could manage without using the actual “F” word
So you mean WT, because we all have to read and say it.
Maybe it’s just me but I find this offensive. As a teenager I used to use the f word but I knew it wasn’t to be used in public, now that doesn’t seem to be a restriction.
No. I mean WTF?! Phrases like “organic valley” don’t merit polite enquiries.
The use of WTF or Whiskey Tango Foxtrot rather than “what the ****?!” is a restriction.
Do you find SNAFU to be offensive? How about SOL?
Hey Bob… Google this:
wtf site:wattsupwiththat.com
Lots of returns… I didn’t author all of them.
[??? .mod]
This may help…
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wtf
Did you notice that it is considered vulgar slang?
Yes… That’s why I use it.
Have you just wandered into this blog for the first time in your life this evening?
March 2012…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/gravity-is-climate-wtf/
No , I have been following for some time. Just because Anthony used WTF doesn’t make it right, You should be aware that some people will be turned off by this.
Anthony and about 10,000 other authors and commentators.
So Bob… Did this one sail right over your head?
So there is a 97% concensus on that ?
On the acceptance of WTF on WUWT? Probably pretty close to 97%.
In Australia, the national broadcaster, the ABC, has been relentlessly pushing organic gardening as the preferred method for a decade now. It started with a star presenter who had been indoctrinated and it spread through the whole organisation. I have tried formal, written protest, but the usual answer about lack of balance is along the lines of “Sorry, you ignoramus, you do not understand” despite my having spent a decade in research into plant nutrition and soil science, hands on.
All my study has shown that there is no real place in the world for the quaintness of organic farming, however defined. It is a cost:benefit disaster.
Here is a clip of part of one method. “Known as cow horn manure, preparation 500 is basically fermented cow dung. It is the basis for soil fertility, and the renewal of degraded soils. It is usually the first preparation used during the change over to the organic/biodynamic system. Preparation 500 is made by filling a cow’s horn with cow dung, and burying it in the soil during the cooler months – November through February. The cow horns usually come from a slaughter house where the buyer has to compete with the artisans who use cow horns for various crafts. The price has risen since the horns are known to have a value in agriculture”.
This goes on and on with more and more cowsh** involved.
https://biodynamics.in/BD500.htm
Geoff.
and abc are a bunch of idiots
it isnt cowshit but the abomasum contents of the gut used to breed the good bacteria up that then massively diluted are applied to the soils to boost it. it would appear to work rather well if you look at some of treated bs untreated plots.
So you would use it when talking to your mom, or your children, or in a fformal scientific paper ?
This is online, in a casual discussion. So obvious euphemisms are the norm. Advocating for some sort of online Comstock act is silly-@ur momisugly$$
It’s fracking moronic… 😉
WTF? Yes. What the ****? Probably not.
For the same reason I would use SNAFU, rather than “situation normal, all f***ed up.”
One time when I was preparing a POE for a well in the Gulf of Mexico, I listed the main objective as the Miocene NFI Sand. We were drilling an amplitude anomaly that was deeper than any well control that I could tie into. So, I literally had No Fracking Idea what the objective was, beyond being a seismic anomaly consistent with a gas sand.
Well, I guess if 97% agree it must be right. I am trying to figure out climate change, but this is probably not the site for me.
frankly i use it to anyone anytime. sometimes/often i dont use the abbreviated form
and if theyre a snowflake about it? then stiff sh*t get over it;-)
ps Im an older female and I see far more in life to worry n bother about than WTF
My wife actually cusses more than I do… And much more colorfully than I do… LOL!
Two further comments: “organic valley” is a product name. In Canada, “Mac and cheese” is sold as “kraft dinner”, even tho we do not eat it for dinner. We don,t get upset about product names. Okay too much wine, I don’t remember the second point.
Google “sarcasm.”
Second comment: I forgot this is a brave new world we live in, everybody has rights but me.
You don’t have the right to dictate how other people choose to express themselves.
Pedantic and silly come to mind, closed mindedness is not a good feature on an open science blog.
Look listen and learn,Bob.
Hmm the article is missing the point of many organic efforts. The stated decrease in yield is generally a known and cherished feature and not some secret bug. In any case, for pollution, exhaustion and potential climate worries alike, the cause lies within the massive population-footprint dynamic. Only changing the economy to a more human scale, human centric approach, in the West as well developing countries will ever be able to address it. We don’t need the massive numbers any more. It’s not smart and creates only social problems, pollution, migration waves and anxieties. That’s the only climate revolution needed: not any population “control” but people who take control of their own lives and minds. Which has always the same effect on the larger scale: decrease in population to more sane numbers.
So… People just need to eat 19-25% less food now… And then plan on further reducing their caloric intake by an additional 30% as the human population climbs from 7 to 10 billion?
well if the present obese and working on obese mobs DID reduce their intake;-) thered be more for others ..of course supply and control of supply same as now is the REAL issue on food poverty.
i looked at their site
curiously a advisor is a donor and also has ties to the bluemountain mob sponsoring more funds etc
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/team/ian-gazard/
and mrs n goofy gates are the big bucks as well..and hes got how many monsanto and other GMO etc shares he wants to to keep paying him?
didnt bother with the rest, its just another big aggro sh*tpiece.
and btw and wtf;-) gazards also a long time nature conservacy bot.
real cognitive dissonanace on that cos hes got ties to big banksters etc
but then they use the word sustainable a bit so that makes it sweet
I’d like to see robots weeding and zapping insect larvae so we could use less chemicals and possibly farm more intensively on less land.
One reason i’m skeptical about AI/robotics hype is that no one has tried or succeeded in such efforts as far as I know.
Of course agricultural robots would require cheap and reliable electricity…
{Farmers across the globe are struggling with the devastating impacts of climate change: disrupted rainfall patterns, drought, extreme weather events, pest infestations, plant diseases, crop losses, and hunger. Better seeds developed through genetic engineering offer hope. But regulatory delays are preventing millions of farmers from accessing this life-saving technology}
so??? as I chuckle…how is expensive gmo patented seed going to help when a different bug to the specifics its “supposed” to stop pops up for a feed. ie locusts will ruin the Bt corn same as the non Bt sort in the same time
but the farmers up for massive price difference, and the poor sod cant save seed and save money cos of patents..oh and hybrid muck that if it does regrow is an utter waste of space usually.
arent ANY of you waking up to the fact monsanto n the others are pushing the warmist hype/sustainability scam to sell more chem n monopolised controlled seed/limited gene pool variety that WIIL end up making global food at higher risk than open pollinated heritage reliable breed true and adapted/resistant strains that are 1,00s of growing yrs proven?
Svaalbard is a goldmine for them to grab natural genetically sound seed n then screw it over and patent it..their drought resistant corn was sourced from an aussie bush farm crop that did well in heat n low water, they took the seed and then fiddled to patent it.
some might manage some crop gains but its more the chem fertiliser and the enforcement of spray regimes pushing that, without it those crops fail. old ones produce less maybe but they cost a lot less to plant too as well as maintain.
one years rock dust gives 3 to 5yrs gains slow release, well composted manures applied to soil not sprayed feed soil biota that break it down for the plants to assimilate,
chem fertiliser KILLS soil biota and worms etc
manures alone dont carry tetanus its a SOIL borne bug, soil without manure can carry it.
any deep anaerobic wound can breed tetanus- think rose thorn thats never been touched with poop! rusty metal etc
the whole hooha re gluten issues? think about roundup sprayed to spraytop near harvest plants cos the new headers catch fire with plant matter blocking their screens, the now dry roundup is on the hulls and some is uptaken into seed and its NOT washed off at all- its dust is in the mills and now IN your flour.
just more chemical crud that has NO place being eaten daily in your food supply you dont even know or think about.
Beautiful description of the economics of farming. I’d forgotten about that.
But what happens with major climate change?
In the U.S. Southwest, there are many ruins from cliff dwellers. Not all of them were cliff dwellers, some were out on the open ground. They flourished in the 1200s – 1300s, then were abandoned. Can anyone say “medieval warm period, followed by the little ice age”?
In the U.S. Southwest, there are two rainy seasons. The winter one, forget it, crops won’t grow. Too cold. The summer rainy season is tropical, that comes up north with the season. But with global cooling, will the tropical pattern come as far north, and last as long? My guess is “No”.
Take for example Tucson, Arizona. “Normal” years can expect a rainy season to last from June 15 – Sept. 15. Last summer the summer rains lasted one month, July only. If my guess is correct, with global cooling a shortened growing season due to dryness will become the new norm.
My understanding is that the Indians who populated those dwellings grew mostly long season crops, like corn (maize) and beans. When the growing season contracted, they needed to switch to crops that could be harvested in 45 days or less, but they didn’t have them. So when their crops dried up, they either starved, moved on, or maybe both.
Ozspeaksup brings up many memories of farming practices from around the world. Often the lower cost associated with legacy seeds more than makes up the difference in income for the farmer generated by high yield seeds. But even there, they depend on a fairly predictable climate, and if that changes to the negative, can they count on even legacy seeds to give crops?
“Pretty well all feel-good virtue signalling is at best irrelevant and often actually worse for the environment and less “climate friendly””
If, as it appears, your comment above is meant to suggest that eating organic food is a “feel-good” activity (in the virtual sense), then it seems to me that you’re setting up and beating a straw man.
For many years now I’ve been eating “organic” whenever availability and my budget allows. And it’s to feel “well”, not good. And my impression from the many people I’ve spoken too who buy organic food is that they also do it primarily for personal health reasons. And, like me, they avoid eating foods that are described as especially toxified, such as lettuce, strawberries, apples, and peppers, to name some of the ‘top ten” , altogether when they can’t find or afford organic versions.
I get my “feel-good” (in addition to well-feeling) when I’m able to harvest deer in the woods instead of buying it from the slaughter house, even though they’re not “organic:. But I eat only “organic” eggs, three a day, and although they’re “free range”, I pay the hefty premium for health reasons.
Should we all be eating food laden with hormones, antibiotics and/or pesticides so that we can squeeze a few more billions onto the planet?
As for your gripe with the new, limited, meaning of the word “organic”, I certainly sympathize. And if you have a magic trick to replace it with something less confusing, please do. Or you could use the word “Bio” as the francophones do.
Are you somehow under the impression that “organic” food gets no pesticides?
that IS the idea and intent. very diluted coppersulphate applied only when absolutely vital is pretty much going to be at soil amendment levels, and while milk works for downy mildew its a bit expensive . a dust of derris , again only pretty much under duress.and should only need one time use. Id rather absorb a tiny bit more copper which most of us are short of, especially since we swapped to plastic plumbing, than a systemic poison or organophosphate personally.
the point being IF the soils were in good nick the plants wouldnt need treating, theyd produce their own repellants. notice how some plants dont get attacked and some do? same plant but ones stronger. The monocropping close planting enforced by “presently accepted” advisors is a recipie for spreading moulds n pests, and a huge nutrient drain on soils , all using the same minerals. wheres a mixed crop even just using alternating rows changes the soil drawdown and also the targeting by bugglies.
my comment on the chem kiling the biota isnt a wild claim, i was doing soil biota testing some yrs ago and the farm soils i tested were damned near lifeless and inert. trying to find anything took multiple slides and a lot of time most often in stubble retention newstyle paddocks i sure saw a lot of mould n rusts.
a sample i took from my no chem for 30yr sandy sad soil? was teeming with life, i even managed to film an amoeba munching a sliver of matter;-)
an american called Albrecht wrote and studied soil science and crops for farming broadscale waaay back from the 30s onwards
his books are the best money anyone farming can spend. The Albrecht papers a series of books reprinted and around 50$Au each be cheaper for you lot up there i bet;-)
as for seeds and needs , yes we need to get our act together w out svaalbard and be starting to breed up cold tolerant short season options. Aussie quarantine etc makes it hard for us to do so;-( good intent but might bite us too. damned if we do -or dont- i guess
“The US organic industry has approved over 3000 toxic pesticides for use in organic farming, many of which are neurotoxins or with a toxic profile requiring “Danger” labels.”
https://risk-monger.com/2016/04/13/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/
Like Obama’s mega-scandals, the fakestream press doesn’t want to talk to about potentially very dangerous organic pesticides.
“Bio” is even more ridiculous than “organic.” As for a better descriptive, I would choose “massively inefficient” to describe what is currently referred to as “organic.”
on what actual experience David? some tiny yards produce massive amounts per sq foot and its no less juicy and attractive looking than something sprayed up to 20 times in 3 months ie lettuce, but frankly Id say its a whole lot better to be eating overall. Russians survived and still do on small allotments and so did many pommies in war yrs. hell even you guys had victory gardens or you went without.
most of that would have been “organic” because until the war(2nd especially) was over and they needed to find a use for the toxic chem theyd used to kill n maim humans, and tested it on bugs n crops none of it was used and all our grandparents grew up eating organic by default.
consider if organic…is such a dirty word? then why are all the large corporations buying them up? and looking to market such heavily.
i dont agree with the inflated prices seeing as the input cost is less myself, same price as regular would be fair. but scarcity always raises the cost of anything doesnt it.
“massively inefficient” is still incomplete: “costly, oil consuming, neurotoxines spilling, mortal for bees products using, heavy metals pouring, ground polluting, erosion accelerating agriculture” would be better.
I am SO tired of the “organic = hydrocarbon chemistry therefore all food is organic” joke. “Organic” also means relating in an inherent way, as in “the dancers performed as an organic whole” meaning that even though they may have had different moves, they conveyed a single work; or “the topic arose organically out of our previous conversation”, meaning no one artificially announced that hey we’re all now going to talk about X.
dictionary.com gives,
“7. characterized by the systematic arrangement of parts; organized; systematic:
[as in] elements fitting together into a unified, organic whole.”
Granted it’s only def. number 7, but it’s still there. In this sense, “organic” food is food that has been grown using, say, fertilizer that is the stuff the critters co-evolved with, rather than the imposition of a brain trying to out-think 4 billion years of evolution.
It’s not just Lefties who get their kicks sneering via selective interpretation.
Furthermorer, the headline claims that organic practices are “worse” for “the environment”, and it turns out only that the article conflates “the environment” with “the climate”. Woop! Woop! Big news! Organic practices are no better than “conventional” practices at relieving a problem that doesn’t even exist! The fact that organic practices fail to poison the environment is mentioned — in the source article — only in passing, and in this posting not at all. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Middleton.