Just a short rant this month (it is spring despite the weather – 8 calves this week)

Those of you with a debating background or a good grounding in critical thinking will know the meaning of “red herring” – it’s essentially an argument that is thrown out there to distract you from the real argument. There have been so many red herrings thrown into the conventional versus organic agriculture debate I bet I could have a lifetime supply of pickled herring if I gathered them all up.

Today I’m going to focus on one – the debate about whether organic or conventional production methods are better suited to feeding a global population that is increasing geometrically. Conventional ag claimed the high ground that higher yields equated to fewer people starving. Organic took the bait and several studies have now demonstrated that the path to feeding the world lies through smallholdings using sustainable organic methods in most of the world. Here’s an excellent article summing up the research. If you want the long version, here is the United Nations report from Dec 2010 which makes similar arguments and conclusions.

But there’s a more fundamental argument that shows this to be a red herring – conventional agriculture consumes oil, natural gas (to synthesize nitrogen fertilizers which are available free if you manage your rotation correctly), phosphorus and soil faster than organic and sustainable methods. How many will conventional agriculture feed once the oil, natural gas, phosphorus and soil are consumed? Don’t worry about that, we’ll all be dead by then – one way or the other.

I’ll leave you with a few quotes from Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro:

“The commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture today to feed the world… are not inherently sustainable,” Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro told the Greenpeace Business Conference in 1999. “They have not worked well to promote either self-sufficiency or food security in developing countries.” Feeding the world sustainably “is out of the question with current agricultural practice,” Shapiro told the Society of Environmental Journalists in 1995. “Loss of topsoil, of salinity of soil as a result of irrigation, and ultimate reliance on petrochemicals … are, obviously, not renewable. That clearly isn’t sustainable.”

- Extracted from the first article referenced above.

He was arguing that society needed to layer bio-technology on top of conventional agriculture to save the world. His arguments are valid even if his conclusion is wildly misguided.

Jus’ sayin’…

1. Wen Scott (http://riotthill NULL.com)
   1:06 pm on September 6th, 2011

   I’m reading books written by Masanobu Fukuoka, who proposed natural farming without tillage, weeding, or chemicals and has achieved crop yields comparable to conventional agribusiness. He also grazed cattle, chickens, pigs and goats in natural orchards. Very hopeful for returning to traditional healthy farming.