Does the organic/free-range farm trend make "sustainable" sense?

[nobodyknows]

If everone is raising one strain of wheat and a fungus or viral infection pops up that that wheat strain is susceptible to then, bam ,food shortage.
If everyone is raising different strains then its just a minor irritation.

Everyone is raising the strains that yeild the best and have the best milling qualities. If we werre still palnting the same wheat strains we did 30 years ago our yeilds would be half, maybe even less.

That said it's omly a matter of time until something happens, like the Irish potato famine. That is why so much money is poured into ag research. Of course the big city boys like to cry about ag subsidies every chance they get but if something bad did happen they'd be the first to go hungry.

 

[Vic]

Everyone is raising the strains that yeild the best and have the best milling qualities. If we werre still palnting the same wheat strains we did 30 years ago our yeilds would be half, maybe even less.

That said it's omly a matter of time until something happens, like the Irish potato famine. That is why so much money is poured into ag research. Of course the big city boys like to cry about ag subsidies every chance they get but if something bad did happen they'd be the first to go hungry.

I think you don't quite understand. The reason we pour so much money into ag research, etc is because we have such monocultures, i.e. evolutionarily-stopped strains that are inherently vulnerable.

And while your argument regarding yields of selected strains has merit, OTOH yield is far from the only criteria for the strains we choose to grow almost exclusively. Sometimes, we choose to grow a variety almost exclusively just because that variety makes the best french fries. Or because it looks best in the store after it's endured being shipped to market.
And quite frankly, given the relative abundance of food in this country, I don't like pure yield is necessarily the best argument.

Keep in mind, I didn't start this off by using black and whites, I just said there is some validity to the arguments on both sides of this discussion. Because there is. I'm the first to agree that most 'organic' in the grocery stores is mostly BS. But at the same time, monoculture factory farming is not the best way to preserve the heritage of the very few crops that are actually capable of sustaining human life (as I'm sure you agree with your nod to the Irish famine).

 

[piasabird]

We raise more than one strain of wheat. You may not know that.

 

[Vic]

We raise more than one strain of wheat. You may not know that.

I never said we didn't.

 

[nobodyknows]

I think you don't quite understand. The reason we pour so much money into ag research, etc is because we have such monocultures, i.e. evolutionarily-stopped strains that are inherently vulnerable.

And while your argument regarding yields of selected strains has merit, OTOH yield is far from the only criteria for the strains we choose to grow almost exclusively. Sometimes, we choose to grow a variety almost exclusively just because that variety makes the best french fries. Or because it looks best in the store after it's endured being shipped to market.
And quite frankly, given the relative abundance of food in this country, I don't like pure yield is necessarily the best argument.

Keep in mind, I didn't start this off by using black and whites, I just said there is some validity to the arguments on both sides of this discussion. Because there is. I'm the first to agree that most 'organic' in the grocery stores is mostly BS. But at the same time, monoculture factory farming is not the best way to preserve the heritage of the very few crops that are actually capable of sustaining human life (as I'm sure you agree with your nod to the Irish famine).

I don't think the vast majority of people are ready to pay double or triple the prices that they are now paying for their food.

 

[Vic]

I don't think the vast majority of people are ready to pay double or triple the prices that they are now paying for their food.

Why would anything I said lead to that kind of scenario? If anything, raising monocultures increases food prices, as they typically require more pesticides, etc. While your argument that best yield is the sole criteria for which strains farmers choose to raise goes beyond bullshit and straight to dipshit.

 

[Vic]

Let me be direct.

Everyone is raising the strains that yeild the best and have the best milling qualities.

This is wrong.

If we werre still palnting the same wheat strains we did 30 years ago our yeilds would be half, maybe even less.

This is correct.

That said it's omly a matter of time until something happens, like the Irish potato famine. That is why so much money is poured into ag research.

This is why I'm arguing that raising monocultures don't keep food prices down. Farmers put us in a situation that inherently creates an Irish potato famine -like danger, force us to spend tons of money into ag research to alleviate (but never actually address) the problem, and then tell us this keeps food prices down. I call that bullshit.

Of course the big city boys like to cry about ag subsidies every chance they get but if something bad did happen they'd be the first to go hungry.

It's because us big city boys would be the first to go hungry that we question farmers' methods that cost us money while keeping us vulnerable.

Do you get it yet? Or are you just going to keep dishonestly portraying me as some kind of organic food elitist when my argument in this thread has been nothing of the sort.

 

[nobodyknows]

Let me be direct.


This is wrong.

This is correct.

This is why I'm arguing that raising monocultures don't keep food prices down. Farmers put us in a situation that inherently creates an Irish potato famine -like danger, force us to spend tons of money into ag research to alleviate (but never actually address) the problem, and then tell us this keeps food prices down. I call that bullshit.

It's because us big city boys would be the first to go hungry that we question farmers' methods that cost us money while keeping us vulnerable.

Do you get it yet? Or are you just going to keep dishonestly portraying me as some kind of organic food elitist when my argument in this thread has been nothing of the sort.

You are uninformed to say the least or perhaps intellectually dishonest is a more fitting description? You may fool the other "big city" boys who wants to believe the BS you're spreading but you can't fool anybody with experience.

If you're so enlightened in how to farm then I suggest you quit your banking job and show the farmers how it's done instead of playing armchair quaterback and word games.

 

[DrPizza]

Re: GM crops being illegal in Africa. There's a very important point about GM crops that's often overlooked. The companies that have designed the seeds have designed them so that the offspring are not fertile. i.e. at present time, the Africans can grow a crop of, say, corn. Suppose they put away 3% of the corn to seed the next year's crop.

If they switch to GM seeds, then EVERY year, they have to buy new seeds from Monsanto. i.e. They lose the ability to be self-sufficient. After a number of years of growing GM crops, they would lose most of their ability to store seeds for future crops. In other words, they realize that 10 years down the road, they're 100% reliant on Monsanto to keep their nations from starvation. They'd have to pay whatever price was being asked, else starve to death.

 

[werepossum]

Re: GM crops being illegal in Africa. There's a very important point about GM crops that's often overlooked. The companies that have designed the seeds have designed them so that the offspring are not fertile. i.e. at present time, the Africans can grow a crop of, say, corn. Suppose they put away 3% of the corn to seed the next year's crop.

If they switch to GM seeds, then EVERY year, they have to buy new seeds from Monsanto. i.e. They lose the ability to be self-sufficient. After a number of years of growing GM crops, they would lose most of their ability to store seeds for future crops. In other words, they realize that 10 years down the road, they're 100% reliant on Monsanto to keep their nations from starvation. They'd have to pay whatever price was being asked, else starve to death.

Heh, I was going to post that myself. Crops genetically modified for drought or pest resistance or even for yield would make great sense for Africa, but Monsanto and similar large agribusinesses only sell GM crops that are bred and/or treated to be viable for one year only, and they tend to be highly dominant as well. Thus even farmers not using those seeds, but adjacent to those who are, tend to find the GM crops taking over their fields with the corresponding severe drop in yield after the first year. In that situation GM foods represent a grave danger to Africa. As it is, even if they are holding back at early medieval levels (25 - 33% for seed) they don't need credit or hard cash to plant next year's crop.

 

[nobodyknows]

The depth of ignorance in this thread is astounding to say the least.