Return to modern farming, please - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #1 10-23-2012, 12:51 PM

IT’S becoming clear that we can grow all the food we need, and profitably, with far fewer chemicals. And I’m not talking about imposing some utopian vision of small organic farms on the world. Conventional agriculture can shed much of its chemical use — if it wants to.

This was hammered home once again in what may be the most important agricultural study this year, although it has been largely ignored by the media, two of the leading science journals and even one of the study’s sponsors, the often hapless Department of Agriculture.

The study was done on land owned by Iowa State University called the Marsden Farm. On 22 acres of it, beginning in 2003, researchers set up three plots: one replicated the typical Midwestern cycle of planting corn one year and then soybeans the next, along with its routine mix of chemicals. On another, they planted a three-year cycle that included oats; the third plot added a four-year cycle and alfalfa. The longer rotations also integrated the raising of livestock, whose manure was used as fertilizer.

The results were stunning: The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.

Much more at: A Simple Fix for Farming - NYTimes.com

Chad300tdt · #2 10-23-2012, 12:57 PM

What about the profit losses the fertilizer and herbicide companies will endure?

It's like asking doctors to treat without pills.

Stretch · #3 10-23-2012, 12:59 PM

If you're into that ^^^ you might like this

Fertilisers for use in organic systems : Soil Association

Botnst · #4 10-23-2012, 12:59 PM

What about the buggy whip manufacturers? Automobiles put them out of work. They should've had a union with connections in DC.

JamesDean · #5 10-23-2012, 01:01 PM

Monsanto will not like a return to modern farming.

JamesDean · #6 10-23-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What about the buggy whip manufacturers? Automobiles put them out of work. They should've had a union with connections in DC.

That is the primary problem with new technologies. They will eliminate jobs.

Imagine if someone invented a device like the transporter from Star Trek or the Portal gun from Portal. It would never see the light of day.

Chad300tdt · #7 10-23-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What about the buggy whip manufacturers? Automobiles put them out of work. They should've had a union with connections in DC.

LOL!! I'm all for organic farming. It just seems that the food chain is controlled by some pretty big companies.

I try to grow my own food as I'm able and buy organic and locally farmed foods that are available.

kerry · #8 10-23-2012, 01:14 PM

Very interesting. I spent a fair bit of time recently in Upstate NY where there a lot of Amish who farm with traditional methods. I became very curious about their successes but so far have not found any data or had a chance to talk to them about their practices. I don't know if they use chemical fertilizers. I doubt that they do. They work their farms without tractors.

Benzasaurus · #9 10-23-2012, 01:21 PM

Love the link! Thanks.

I think worst case scenario is nothing changes. Best case scenario... how would things change, in your opinion? I'd love to see more people growing their own even when it makes the neighbourhood "ugly". Especially if people had enough land to do something substantial. Probably a fair bit of job creation in that too.

kerry · #10 10-23-2012, 01:27 PM

Here's some info on Amish farms. It doesn't mention chemical fertilizers but I've never seen a liquid fertilizer/pesticide applicator pulled behind a horse.

Horse and Human Labor Estimates for Amish Farms

MTI · #11 10-23-2012, 01:30 PM

Largely ignored by the media . . . but it's in the NY Times?

kerry · #12 10-23-2012, 01:32 PM

And another:

Farm

This piece appears to state that they do use chemicals in the kind of way suggested in the NYT piece.

elchivito · #13 10-23-2012, 01:46 PM

More proof that there's little truth in the "sustainable = lower yields" rationale. Chemicals have their place at times, whether it's fertilizer, pest control or medicinal use on livestock. I don't believe the rational use of chemicals has caused the problems we're facing, rather the irrational dependence on them by so much of corporate ag. Great link, thanks!

SwampYankee · #14 10-23-2012, 02:43 PM

Better yet, plant your own!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesDean

Monsanto will not like a return to modern farming.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of Monsanto in the coming years. Once Roundup came off patent and generics drove the price of glyphosate down, their only solution was to come up with different formulations of Roundup. Dry formulations, higher concentrates, different surfactants, etc. Different colored lipstick on the same pig, at a much lower price.

Several of their Roundup-Ready genes are now nearing the end of the patent. I'm not quite sure how they plan to sustain (ironic!) themselves. Scott's RR bentgrass for golf course use was in the works but that's come to a screeching halt.

t walgamuth · #15 10-23-2012, 02:51 PM

I am really pleased that B posted this information. I have always suspected it was possible. I had always heard that the Amish do it with only natural fertalizer though.