Can organics save us??

[Guest guest]

I just re-read "10 reasons why organic can feed the world" and article published in the UK magazine The Ecologist several years ago.This is a very good article and well worth the read. But it leaves out some major ramifications while making its points.While pointing out that there would likely be large yield gains in the developing world, if organic techniques were applied, the same could be said for the application of industrial agriculture methods to low production systems. I am not advocating those systems, just pointing out that an increase in the use of Nitrogen fertilizer where none or little has been used in the past is likely to increase yields, dramatically at first. For everyone familiar with the "Fertilizer Response curves" the best and most

efficient use of any fertilizer nutrient is on land that is low in that nutrient. That is where we get the biggest bang for the buck.Also this curve follows the law of diminishing returns and we are quickly chasing marginal yield increases with ever increasing amounts of scarce resources.In 1988 Harper's Index showed that in 1953 13.4 tons of grain were produced for every ton of Nitrogen fertilizer used. By 1985 that ratio was down to 4.6 tons of grain for each ton of fertilizer. What that means is that we purchased our food with oil. Much has been said about"Food Miles" . Frequently, the transportation of foodstuffs across the country and around the world means that the energy to transport that food was a larger part than the energy to produce it. That supports local food, not just organics.Another point is that in order to go organic we would likely have to reduce our consumption of animal protein and total calories. While that

might be a good idea for health reasons, it is not likely to happen because the first thing people do when their economic conditions improve is to switch to superior goods. Look at the increase in meat consumption in China. Here in North Carolina, there are entire farms that send their entire pork production to China. One near my home exports 260,000 hogs per year. That is over 16 million servings of Mushu pork. And they are not the only one. The rising middle class in developing countries is demanding more animal protein, not less. I do not think the residents of North and South America or Europe are going to reduce their protein consumption.Now for today's lesson in Agronomy. There are 17 documented elements essential for life. There may be others that are needed in minute levels because they affect chemical reactions in the soil, in plants and in the bodies of animals, but are not use themselves. (See any good organic chemistry reaction sheet

with listed substrates)They are the three that are free: C, O, H; The Queen: Ca; the Prince: Mg, the big 3: N, P, K; the minors/ micros: Cu, Zn, Fe, Mo, Cl, B, Mn, Na, Co. Others may include Si, Se, Ni, and V, due to their effects on microbial activity. And there may be effects that are as yet undocumented. We have seen a decrease in the nutrient content of our food in the last 60-70 years, particularly the mineral content. But we have more total calories available per person and more total food per person than ever. But the distribution is not equitable, and most hunger and malnourishment is political and economic, not production. Since the government got involved, I do not trust organics. I do believe in a whole farm production approach and am working toward that end on my own farm. It is taking time. Yields have gone down as I have abandoned industrial inputs. The quality of what I do raise is increasing. Call me back

in 10 years.Thanks,Bill Dunlap