Talk:Organic farming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes ~~~~

Contents

[edit] Earlier discussions (need subheads)

I think the second paragragh is not NPOV. The arguments given against organic farming are highly debatable, but the objections to these arguments are not mentioned. One issue, for example, is that Roundup is alleged to increase harmful fungus in the soil.

Also, the argument concerning "organic" farms using fertilizer from non-organic-fed animals is not really an argument against organic farming, per se, but one against poorly done organic farming. It's a straw man. --Jose Ramos 14:29, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And so, it is not an argument for saying conventional agriculture is better or worse than organic one in itself, but it is an argument for saying that organic food can actually be more dangerous than conventional food. Which in itself is an interesting information. Anthère

As it turns out, the first two paragraphs present a very negative view of the subject.

quite true...hum...that is...on this article, I rather decided to take the "against" side for a change :-)


I think we should at least explain a subject before criticising it.

Agreed. Could you please ?
  • I can try...I may not be the best person to do this. I mix both conventional and organic methods in my garden...
It might be worth noting the article is about farming and not gardening :-) I also mix a lot in my life :-)

Would you agree to make the material starting with, "Some critics also point out..." a separate paragraph? I would also recommend changing the words "point out" to "claim". --Jose Ramos 16:49, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

that suits me well José :-)
  • Thank you Anthère :-)

Okay, I've chopped some but I've held off on really going to town on the "criticism" section... the arguments seem ridiculous at best to me, and they strike me more as Cargill propaganda than anything else. The use of passive voice is really egregious - does someone else (Anthere?) want to reference some of these claims, or can I start slashing away? I don't think the strength of some of these claims is enough to merit inclusion, unless there's some real studies backing them up. For example, the assertion that humans have not produced poisons to match nature is just plain old propaganda and really has no place in this article, or anywhere in Wikipedia. The fact that botulinum toxin exists does not even begin to suggest that humans have not produced scads of horrifyingly toxic chemicals and dumped them all over the planet. The rest of it seems equally bad to me - e.g., "synthetic pesticides" are improvements on "natural pesticides" designed to make them more environmentally friendly. I'm in favor of axing these two paragraphs entirely, unless someone wants to make a serious defense of them, or build them over from the ground up. Graft 00:32, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I support the deletion you made of what was added by the anom. This was absolutely unsupported.

However, I regret you remove my entire paragraph upon the argument that this article is about farming and not food (which is true, but we have no article on food, and this was the little content we could have had) and not npov. I took great care to add a link to support what I said. This is a link to a governemental driven study, made by several parties (so no entirely business driven). I personnally know the people who work on that, and I trust the results. Patuline in apple and DON in wheat are the biggest black points noticed in french organic food. It looks like very proper and backed up argument to me. I protest over its disappearance.

If the argument really is "food", let's create an article on organic food :-) So we can talk about the costs drawbacks for the consumer

If the argument really is pov, please explain better what is pov in my paragraph

"On the other hand, it can be argued that the use of manure from herbivorous animals, properly composted, is not as dangerous as claimed." is not from me.

"Organic advocates tend to ignore the fact that many synthetic pesticides are improvements on natural pesticides, with the goal of making them less dangerous to humans and more environmentally friendly." should be removed

"In addition, proponents of conventional farming argue that organic farms are less productive, requiring more land to be used (and damaged) to produce the same amount of food." (I would support keeping that except for the (and damage))

"Furthermore, some organic farming practices are claimed to do more damage than conventional practices — for instance, the practice of ploughing (see tillage) to prepare soil for planting is claimed to increase soil damage compared to using Roundup, a herbicide." If it is claimed, a link would be relevant to support it :-) It is not honest to compare the default of one technique compare to another without taking into account the default of the second. Roundup does not damage the soil structure just after the application, but may damage the soil life. As for me, the soil damage includes life damage and structure damage, since these two are highly related. Discard this

"Another argument against organic farming is that while it works acceptably at present because pests are kept under control in surrounding conventional farms and thus do not spread into organic farms, if it became universal the "islands" they operate on would disappear and pests would become a severe issue." Bah. Remove

"Furthermore, organic farms often use manure from livestock fed "non-organic" grain. This is a de facto movement of "chemical" fertilizer from non-organic farms to organic farms." He! this is true here. But not an argument against. I don't know though about the "often". Perhaps it is sometimes, perhaps most of the time...often means nothing.

Serious drawbacks

  • usually less productive (in particular compared to intensive agriculture as we do in France, perhaps less visible in other places)
  • some products are less fitting to some industrial processes (because less standardized. No big deal for direct sale)
  • more human work (this can be an advantage for a modern society, but a drawback to the producer)
  • excess of copper in soils used for wine production (because of the treatments applied)
  • One disadvange of organic farming I also know of : our legislation prevent giving synthetic amino acid to poultry and require giving at least 65% of cereal, resulting in a diet poor in proteins. Consequences : a much higher rate of cannibalism. Nothing is perfect ;-) Anthère
I'd support creating an organic food article. It's a separate topic, an important topic, and deserves to be treated in its own regard without conflating it with organic farming. I didn't read the passage too carefully, but I agree it should not be dumped.
Most of what you say above I agree with... "Less productive" I've seen disputed, when compared on a per-acre basis, especially to American "factory farming" methods. Although this was in the Ecologist....
on average, we consider the productivity is 50% lower for most cereals and fruit trees, and around 30% lower for fruits and vegetable. When compared to conventional agriculture, which is quite intensive. Anthère
I'm curious to know if we can find any references on the dangers of organic pesticides. I don't know that much, only a little about Bt, which is as far as I know harmless...


This article needs to discuss some techniques, like pest management techniques, fertilizer alternatives, soil management, and so on. Graft 01:42, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think we're making progress. I like the way the criticism section is labeled, and comes after the subject is explained.
I agree that the article should discuss techniques, as mentioned immediately above.
Right now, the link to organic food just redirects to organic farming, so we need a new article for that. --Jose Ramos 11:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Well, I will just put here, my only contribution (deleted) to this article

Some critics also point out organic food could be less safe than non-organic food : some people argue that organic food increases one's exposure to biological contaminants, with greater risk of food born diseases. In particular concerns are related to the use of manure, well known for carrying human pathogens and presence of mycotoxins from molds. In a large french study carried out by Inra, Coopagri Bretagne and ESMSA in 1999-2000, it has been shown for example that the patuline (produced by Penicillium expansum and some Aspergillus) in apples and DON in wheat had to be strongly watched for [1].

Regarding "herbicides are pesticides", I think this idea confuses the issue. Herbicides target undesirable plants, while pesticides target undesirable animals (pests). While it is possible for some herbicides to harm animals, that is not the same thing as stating that herbicides are pesticides. --Jose Ramos 22:00, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pesticides is the broad class, which includes insecticides, to kill insects; miticides (also known as acaricides,to poison mites; rodenticides (AKA rat poison, etc.), fungicides, to kill fungi or stop reproduction; and herbicides, to kill plants, at least those deemed pest weeds; and a number of others. Saying "pesticides and herbicides" is like saying "fruit and apples," because they are not in the same class. Such usage undermines the author's credibility with those who work with pesticides. For more authority on the definition, see http://epa.gov and run a search. Pollinator 23:27, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Pesticides" is the name given to plant protection chemicals in general - ie insecticides, herbicides and fungicides etc... (From a conventional farmer).Tomcrisp7 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: treating animals humanely, I'm not sure about this - as far as I know few if any definitions contain proscriptions about treatment of animals. They may frequently co-occur because of parallel marketing, but I don't think humane treatment is necessary to be organic. Graft 13:57, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Organic Standards and quality of care for animals

From the British Columbia Certified Organic Standards http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/Standards/section8.html

8.1.1. Required

  2. Continuous access to fresh drinking water.
  3. Access to grazing land at least 120 days per year for pasture animals and milking herds. Grazing land must be certified organic.
  4. Providing colostrum to calves before weaning.
Okay, but the California Organic Foods Act of 1990 [2] does not, as far as I can tell, contain any such requirements. Anyhow I'm not certain that just those few qualifications deserve the label "humane", or that that was the intent of their inclusion. Graft 21:13, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)


I think the comment about subsidies should stay, organic farming advocates do believe that they can compete on yields if the subsidies were the same - it's not infered that it comes from the study. Also, the article is making progess, so I vote for the "Neutrality disputed" comment to be removed. Greenman 22 October 2003

I am confused. Subsidies are additional money paid to bring the price of a crop up to a certain pre-set level. This has nothing to do with yield. Increasing or instituting subsidies on organic crops would increase the money that the organic famers make but it wouldn't change the yield. Unless the are fertilizing with dollar bills. Rmhermen 16:34, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)


Yes, you're right, that wasn't well put! I'm talking about only one aspect of subsidies, research funds, not the usually understood price subsidies. Here is a quote from the [Organic Farming Research Foundation]. "If USDA would increase the small proportion of its research funds currently directed toward optimizing organic farming practices, organic has the potential to produce yields fully matching or surpassing those of conventional crops. Growers who go through the 3-year transition period from conventional to organic management usually experience an initial decrease in yields, until soil microbes are re-established and nutrient cycling is in place, at which point yields return to previous levels."

Please change the article to say that. I am skeptical of any such claim myself. Rmhermen 16:56, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

The criticisms section is a problematic piece of work.

1. There's no structure, it's more of a scattershot coverage of various specific criticisms of organic farming and food. The general claims for organic are:

  • environmental benefits (sustainable ag and all that)
  • health benefits (better quality food)
  • social benefits (local economies, community culture...and all that)

So, if there's to be a separate section for criticisms (rather than simply including pros and cons where required in an explanation of organic farming), then they should be presentied in an organized, useful format way.

2. All of the citings are pretty arbitrary, and should probably be deleted. There are studies that contradict everything in there, and lots of blanket quotes from research scientists saying, "We really don't know that much about any of this stuff." So, once the citing starts, there's no end to it. What's there is certainly not balanced.

3. A discussion of organic food is certainly the place for a good deal of this article. Organic farminng as a general method of "natural" farming isn't that esoteric or hard to describe. The value of the product of organic farming is really quite separate from the farming practices.

TS 21-Dec-2003

Rather true. Which is why I guess, the little boilerplate appeared at the top of the article. We already tried to work out the topic; but it is clearly not enough to be satisfying. Do not hesitate to bring your piece.

However, do not duplicate articles. I support the existence of two articles to separate the farming from the food issue. But right, organic food is hardly more than a duplication from the organic farming. This is not very good.

Well, I think "organic food" starts out where organic farming ends, so the initial definition or description or whatever are, at least initially, gonna be quite similar - this right now mainly applies to fresh produce. It gets complicated demand grows for PROCESSED organic food. For example, the US' NOP, last I looked, specifies three color-coded levels of "organic" (I think, 75%/85%/95%, will doublecheck). And processed is where the big companies make their real money, not in fresh food (ie: not in the direct product of organic farming). So you see where that goes: tweaking the "legal" definition of "organic" additives, processes, etc; marketing to support various "legally organic" products; and so on. What would you make of, say, "USDA certified organic frozen beef lasagna" - what's that really gonna contain and mean? It won't much matter IF organic food is not much "better" than non-organic (referring to the "naturally grown" sense, of course, not the legal def). So, it's likely gonna be a mess that needs...clarifying. Dealing with organic farming - fresh produce, livestock, dairy - will be simple to explain, by comparison...it's "just farming", after all (pre-WWII-style). IMHO!
hum. On top both organic farming and processus are defined differently depending on the country. So, it won't simplify. Please clarify what you can on the articles.
Yeah, the regional bit is a problem. But The Media (including the Net) also flattens that to a degree. The term "organic farming" is definitely in flux. I don't know how it's developed in the European countries that have had the EU laws since the 1990s. I suspect in the US, however, "organic", suddenly a legal word, is going to mutate. Some smaller indie US organic farmers have opted out of the certification process for a while, and with it made federal law last year, this seems to be a bigger movement. The paperwork and general cost is more than some/many organic farmers want to deal with, besides new philosophical issues. There is a "naturally grown" pledge that farmers can take (includes fair trade type labor standards!), and also some sort of farmer-to-farmer certification system, that won't use the word organic. Meanwhile, if there's no big public/media outcry against "corporate organic", and demand for organic continues, the bigger companies will no doubt pile on the marketing for "made with organic ingredients" and all sorts of other legal permutations, on Organic Rice Krispies and the like. So, organic could easily become a pejorative in some farming and consumer circles. And then, who'll want to use the term "organic farming"?
Maybe organic agriculture. ;-) Well, really, organic farming right now, in the US and Canada at least, I THINK popularly represents "old-style, 'sensible' farming, without tons of chemicals and having to wear biohazard suits". As a collection of standards and practices, organic would apply to a 5,000 acre organic tomato farm, or whatever. But that wouldn't really fit in with the idea of an "organic farm" as my def above. So, organic ag as the technical practice, and organic farming as the overall lifestyle practice... Guess it's a chicken or egg thing with this one...! :-)
This Talk thread itself could use a good refactoring. It's useful!

Be weary also in deleting the citation part of the work. It was added to try to give more balance to the article, and to avoid blanket statements. It is likely not to be entirely appreciated.

The citing of sources is the really weak part. You can just Google any one and find credible-sounding studies countering them. There's one study published in the Journal of Nutrition (?!) that finds an average of around 60% more of several specific minerals in organic produce over supermarket produce... But, it was based on purchased samples. As another article on the topic pointed out, (before certification), some vendors would sell regular produce as organic, for the premium. But this comment was made to question the studies that showed NOT diffs between organic vs. conventional. Same argument would call into question the pro organic study just mentioned. So, the research area is a mess. I think it's safe to say that "generally accepted scientific proof" of value doesn't exists right now, but citing specific cases is arbitrary and probably misleading.
At least for the case I cited, it was not barely a google hit by chance, but a national official study upon which the country relied for a couple of important decisions. Some specific cases are scientifically proved in my country, and hardly artitrary. If they mislead something, it was laws taken on the matter. That might be important. Anyway, just go ahead :-)

I forgot :-) Thanks a lot for your additions to the various articles :-)

Another note: The term conventional farming (or ag) really loads the discussion. If it were called chemical-based farming, or plain, chemical farming, it is more descriptively accurate, and perception changes: organic vs. conventional VS organic vs chemical. Conventional also strongly implies a long-standing tradition, making "organic" sound new, and therefore in need of criticism and proving, as "new" things...traditionally are. The opposite is, of course, the reality. Can organic farming be described without reference to conventional/chemical farming? Tsavage 02:45, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

RE: The cited French study carried out by Inra, Coopagri Bretagne and ESMSA in 1999-2000: The summary conclusion was that there was NO RISK to consumers in any of the products surveyed, with the exception of apples, and it was noted that the negative apple result was questionable due to the sampling methodology. Given the MANY conflicting studies related to organic and non-organic food, when citing specific support, I think it would be "fair" to refer to at least three or four studies of any one aspect (here, potential contamination risks). Otherwise, claims and counterclaims should probably be stated in general terms, without specific supporting references, since there is nothing "definitive" on either side? Tsavage 21:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any objections to removing the NPOV statement at the beginning? The article has come a long way since then... Greenman 6 Jan 2004

this article is now looking much better. Thank you :-) User:anthere

I removed the NPOV dispute notice. The article still needs a lot of work, but I think it's in a reasonably balanced state. The original NPOV was apparently installed because it was anti-organic - I don't think that's the case any longer. Tsavage 03:27, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Noticed the 30K long page warning after the last addition. It is getting kinda long. It can be cut down by about 20-30% with some fairly extensive copyediting. I intend to do that at some point if no-one else does, but I'm still busy adding stuff and figuring out how to deal with the Issues section without doubling the size again! ;> Meanwhile, any suggestions/opinions on breaking out separate related topics, like history of organic farming, organic pesticides, etc, to make it all more manageable? Tsavage 20:12, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other stuff to clean up...

I've cleaned up a bunch of pro-organic propaganda, but this article still carries with it the POV assumption that small, family-run organic farming is socially desirable . This is just a note to remind myself (or somebody else) to attribute that IMO dubious assumption. --Robert Merkel 23:51, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the end-sections of this article: The comments about the precarious position of independent farmers notwithstanding, I believe someone with the knowledge should put something in about how large the organic-food marketplace has become in the Western world. I know that it has grown a lot since 1970 in the U.S. and Canada, but I don't have the figures. (I'm an organic gardener -- I did some market gardening in the late 1970s, but not in the years since.)

If you have the info, please weave it into the article.

[edit] TotallyDisputed

This article is ridiculously skewed and filled with nonsense. I'll elaborate later when I get the energy. I'd suggest working on the Issues section first. The article also takes the position that there is no such thing as high-yield farming, only "conventional, chemical, agribusiness" farming. It also takes the position that the same farming techniques can be used in all areas of the world (or, more simply, it ignores undeveloped parts of the world). -- BRIAN0918  15:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do elaborate further. Until then, don't come blasting in and calling everything nonsense. Feel free to add refinements regarding high-yield farming, as well about techniques relevant to different areas of the world. Constructive contributions will be welcomed. Greenman 10:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Growth of the Organic Food Market

I put in a sentence saying that in Deborah Koons Garcia's film "The Future of Food," it is stated that the American market for organically grown food amounted to $1 billion in 1994, and $3 billion in 2003.

Some kind of quantifying info on the growth of the market was needed. Previously, the Wiki article only said the market is growing - but this was extremely vague, and lacked any tangibility.

Please add detail. I'm not sure where the "Future of Food" film got its stats on the dollar value of the market for organic. It would be great to expand this info plus identify the source.

I'm adding the bit about Cuba's urban organic growing program under the 21st century category since I think its becoming an influence on organic growers' culture around the world. Wirtheim 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baby food

I just added a baby food paragraph to the food quality part. I'm not sure how to or if it needs citing. You more wisened masters may just want to type in "study baby food organic" into google to find a proper source. It's real I promise.

[edit] Article tone/focus: intro/overview edits Sep 2005

I edited the last major reedit of the lead section (with related edits elsewhere) of the article for two reasons: 1. There seemed to be focus on IFOAM as the defining agency for "organic farming"; 2. overall, the previous lead seemed to obscure a simple summary of organic farming by referring to one formal framework as the primary definition.

My view is that, in the simplest, most direct and blunt terms, organic farming is a recent (last 80-90 years) reaction to what is now known as conventional farming, i.e. large-scale, industrialized, chemical-based agriculture. From that it follows that the most basic definition must simply explain that "organic farming" is any farming that chooses in some organized fashion not to farm the "conventional" way, which primarily means by not using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (and their counterparts for livestock). Traditional farming simply didn't have these technological options available, so most agriculture through history was "organic farming". All the rest, IFOAM, certification, modern scientifc contributions to organic approaches, etc, stem from that, a point which should not be obscured. Tsavage 14:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed certification additions 19 Nov 2005

I removed this recent addition to the Overview section:

This system of legaly enforceable third-party certification is designed let the consumer know for sure that products marked "Organic" have been produced according to these standards, and thus differentiate organic products from others. Many consumers are willing to pay a slightly higher price for organic products, creating a strong incentive for farmers and companies to produce food organically.
Many farmers and consumors make a distinction between "certified organic" and "movement organic," the first term refering to simply meeting the standards and using the organic lable as a marketing tool, and the second refering to a movement for change toward sustainable, nontoxic, and just food systems.

Overall, I think this stuff belongs in organic certification or organic food. IMO, organic farming is primarily a particular approach to farming, independent of certification. A farm is not more or less "organic" in its methods whether it is certified or not; if I run a certified farm, then drop certification without changing my methods, it is still the same "organic farming" operation. This article should mainly be about what that method is. --Tsavage 02:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take on this question: Certification provides a standard whereby the consumer can have some confidence that the produce sold is truly "organic". In parts of the world where farmers have avoided certification requirements but use terms like "natural" or "organic" you can have a variety of practices employed, some of which may be questionable as to whether they are actually organic.
Now, as to what to keep in the article, let me just say that an article on organic farming would not be complete without discussion of the certification process. The debates about organic certification should be contained in the article on that subject. Sunray 11:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
As of this my comment here, the lead has been substantially changed. However, as it was in relation to the above, the article did explain certification, very briefly and clearly. My point is, in navigating this tricky area while trying to maintain NPOV, over-emphasis of certification is a kind of red herring, and that's what I believe the above quotes did. For example, just a few weeks ago, the US legislatively modified certification regulations to allow dozens of synthetic additives to be used within "certified" guidelines. The reasoning behind that is way beyond what "organic farming" sets out to do. Another example: certain types of waste sludge were approved in some regions as organic inputs, however, some organic farmers and gardeners would not use this material because of its origins, regardless of whether it was approved by certain regulations. It is therefore not NPOV to unduly stress the value of certification as a consumer guideline to ensure that a product is "organic", if in fact certification regulations are not consistent with an objective description of organic farming. --Tsavage 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of merge tag

On November 10, Jwanders placed a tag on the article stating that it should be merged with organic gardening; referring the reader to the discussion page. To date neither Jwanders nor anyone else has discussed this. While the two subjects have considerable overlap, there is no doubt that the scale, methods and marketing related to organic farming are altogether different than organic gardening. If this article doesn't reflect that, it should, IMO. Therefore, I am removing the tag, unless and until there is discussion and consensus on this. Sunray 12:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. There is a bit of discussion, myself and one other person, both against a merge, with some reasons (much as you have noted above), on the organic gardening page. Whoever placed the tag should've provided the reasoning behind it (organic gardening as it is now is not very good, most of what's there is here). And there's an obvious problem with the tag itself: the "discuss" link should go to the same place from both proposed merge articles, not to their respective own talk pages... --Tsavage 13:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased changes by few people

I added made many changes to the organic farming section to reflect the global and democratic perspective of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Although I have little time to continously monitor changes being made to the definitions of and reference to organic farming on Wikipedia, I believe Tsavage and one or two others are perverting the history, definitions and every conceiveable aspect of organic agriculture and farming on this site. In an effort to rectify this situation, I will direct the entire organic movement to make changes and additions to this currently very slanted perspective.

Nsorensen 16:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I you're going to charge me with "perverting the history" of organic farming, please back that up with specifics. I seem to be one of the few people who regularly drops in to work on this article, and I did spend a fair bit of time here a year or two back when things were in a general state of NPOV battling. Things have calmed down since then. The article is rather unwieldy in length, and the writing (including my own) is uneven. Still, the article is, I believe, neutral and reasonably complete. So, like most of Wikipedia, it's a work in progress. I'm not clear, however, on how you find that I'm trying to pervert anything?
You mention IFOAM. I do recall making some changes a while back to one or more IFOAM-related additions-see Article tone/focus: intro/overview edits Sep 2005. If that's what you're referring to, lemme know. I do recall that I adjusted statements that seemed to overly emphasize IFOAM's role. In the same vein, I notice a statement has recently been added to the lead: Organic farming usually subscribes to the Principles of Organic Agriculture. This is perhaps correct, but I'm not sure of that (a citation would be helpful). IFOAM may be a great organization, and it may represent many, even the majority of, organic farmers worldwide, but it is not synonymous with "organic farming". "Principles of Organic Agriculture" (as an IFOAM formulation) is not synonymous with "principles of organic agriculture" (as a collection widely used of methods and practices). "Organic farming" is NOT a function of IFOAM, and to create that impression is not a neutral POV. --Tsavage 22:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if it would help to treat the goals of organic farming separately from discussion of the extent to which those goals are (currently) achieved. Most organic farmers certainly TRY to reduce dependence on nonrenewables, produce a healthier product, etc., so a statement of those aspirations should be fairly immune to editing. Then separately discuss the extent to which we currently meet those goals. There could be lots of argument about these details -- how many organic farmers really use guano from bulldozed bird's nests (San Jose Mercury News 27June1999)? -- but that's OK, because even if some of the criticism is true today it doesn't mean organic farmers and researchers won't solve the problem in the future. 160.94.97.243 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Ford Denison
I suppose there are many divisions that could be made, separate articles, or whatever. One thing that it looks like it's time for is a new article called Methods of organic agriculture ("principles of..." is "taken") or something similar, which would allow organic farming and organic gardening to concentrate more on other "farming" and "gardening" aspects, without becoming top-heavy on the cultural practices part. That seems to make sense (to me...).
Separating the goals from the realization of those goals sounds like something else entirely, and a lot less concrete. For one, I'm not sure that common, universal goals really exist. There are some formally stated principles from different groups, like IFOAM's Principles of Organic Agriculture, but these would all be to some degree political, in that always there will be some who disagree with parts of any one definition. And there are the various government organic regulations, but they vary too much by country. And there is the organic movement article to work on... In any case, what would you suggest? --Tsavage 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Principles of Organic Agriculture" shouldn't be in the introduction

The sentence "Organic farming usually subscribes to the Principles of Organic Agriculture." shouldn't be in the introduction, because it is incorrect. I've been meaning to change it since it was added, but haven't had the time to follow through any subsequent debate (maybe discussing it first would be...easier.)

IFOAM's formulation is by no means universal. In a sense, it is a proprietary definition, so to suggest that even most of "organic farming" subscribes to it is not so, since IFOAM does not in any direct sense represent the vast majority of organic farmers. The best one could say, and it would still be speculation, is that many organic farmers would be in general agreement with those Principles taken in the broadest sense, and that should be stated by referencing those principles directly, not through IFOAM's (2005) document.

Also, the name is misleading: "principles of organic agriculture" suggests farming methods, whereas "Principles of Organic Agriculture" goes further, for example, with the concept of "fairness", which is beyond a basic definiton of organic agriculture.

Basically, that sentence adds a political slant, by ascribing an ideology to a diverse group where it does not apply, and by giving undue weight to one organization's definition. --Tsavage 03:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good points. I think that it is better to re-word the lead, or remove that sentence and only include the Principles in the Standards section. Sunray 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Principles of Organic Agriculture are a universal formulation. The Principles were formulated in a an open and democratic process over a two-year period. IFOAM does indeed in a direct sense represent the vast majority of organic farmers. I have to reiterate that Tsavage has far too much influence on this page. IFOAM attempts to define the Principles and every other aspect of organic agriculture in an open and democratic way, and Tsavage uses every opportunity to pervert the definitions and scope of the discussion to his/her personal slant. I like Wikiweb, but this fact would be its most significant downfall.

[edit] Problems with "Standards" section

The Standards section, if not handled properly, can become problematic by tending to confuse the purpose of the article, which is to describe "organic farming". This opinion is based on two assumptions:

1. "Organic farming" at its most basic definition is farming without synthetic inputs, as contrasted with conventional, chemical-based agriculture. It is not necessarily defined by formal standards, it exists apart from such.
2. Organic standards take many forms. Legislated production standards focus on methods and inputs. Standards established by various organic associations generally include methods and other concerns, such as fair trade and broader principles of stewardship and environmental care. This whole area more properly falls under organic certification.

Organic farming and organic certification are not synonymous, and should be kept as separate as possible. The "Standards" section should mainly serve to make clear the difference, and point to resources for the certification topic (like, the organic certification article).

Perhaps an easy test of this distinction is to imagine that all countries agreed to a uniform organic farming standard, and that standard included a definition that "no more than 50% of nitrogen input can come from synthetic sources." Would we then amend this article to include that as a basic description of organic farming? --Tsavage 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following you here. I agree that organic farming and organic certification are not synonymous. However, certification is the process of verifying that organic standards have been met. Increasingly, the word organic will cease to be used for practices that are not certified. This is the inevitable result of the exponential growth of organic production and the need for the consumer to have guarantees that products that claim to be organic are, in fact, organic. Sunray 07:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Increasingly, the word organic will cease to be used for practices that are not certified. Yes, you are following me, but you didn't go all the way with my point.
The question to me is, is "organic farming" a distinct type of agriculture, or does it only exist as a term representing formal standards created by X or Y party (USDA, IFOAM, whomever). It seems clear that, in current and historical usage, the broadest meaning is that it is the former, a distinct type of ag, based on a few basic, scientifically non-controversial principles. For example, organic farming relies on biological processes in the soil to maintain fertility, to the exclusion of using imported synthetic inputs to provide soil fertilty (or direct plant nutrition). An organic standard can modify that defintion, to include "some synthetic inputs", but that would not change the basic principle. So should this article progressively (as we seem to agree the trend is to increasing regulation) reflect the changing arbitrary definitons? I don't think so. That should be treated in its proper right, as a standards and certification issue, which means great care should be taken on how standards are covered in this article, so as not to confuse.
Put another way, if I am farming organically with full certification today, and the rules are modified as of tomorrow, so that one practice I was using legally is suddenly prohibited and puts me out of formal compliance, am I similarly no longer practicing "organic farming"? If not, what then am I doing? Is there no common name for it?
If you look at the details of standards compliance (which, perhaps, you have :), the difference is more stark and confusing. For example, I can use liquid seaweed extract as a micronutrient, but only from an approved brand. If I use non-approved brand A, I am technically out of compliance. Even if I get independent lab analysis showing that product A is chemically identical to approved product B, I am still out of compliance (i.e. not practicing "organic farming") according to the standards. So if I continue using Brand A, am I no longer farming organically?
Therefore, it is critically important to make the distinction between organic ag principles, and evolving standards, very clear, especially in light of increasing (and increasingly "fine print") regulation. People who want to know what "organic farming" is about, shouldn't be led by this article into confusing standards with basic principles. Standards defining organic ag have to be treated carefully to maintain, ultimately, NPOV. WDYT? --Tsavage 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I get your point. You're saying that the standards don't drive organic farming practice. While I agree in principle, I think that the IFOAM meta standards and local certification standards evolve over time with the findings of science. Of course this "evolution" tends to confirm what societies that have been farming in place for generations intuitively understand. Nevertheless, a standards body has to adapt to changing conditions (e.g., better understandiing of the realities of genetic engineering). The good ones do that democratically, minimizing problems. However, politics do sometimes (often?) intervene.
The quandry you pose is an interesting one. If the standards change and the farmer does not, is s/he still farming "organically?" It is like the question: "If a tree falls..." You need verification to know that it has. It is the same with organic farming.
The article handles this in a satisfactory way, IMO not overblowing the standards. It is just one section, among several, after all. Sunray 21:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
We are in agreement at this point. The article as it now stands I agree seems adequately balanced in this respect.
For the the sake of...argument, though, I'd like to reply to your "tree falling" analogy. If you'd permit an example:
Let's say I am a certified organic farmer in the US, with a CSA of 100 shareholders. For philosophical reasons (let's say, I don't agree with the recent rushed USDA NOP amendments allowing dozens of synthetic inputs in organic processing), I decide not to renew my certification. I hold a meeting with my 100 members. I explain that, "While I will continue to farm strictly organically as I have been, I will no longer be able to officially call our produce 'organic'. Even in our newsletter, which may be seen as advertising material, I won't be able to use the word 'organic' to describe our products or our farming method. I will even have to remove the word 'organic' from the name of our farm." The members agree and I carry on. At that point, am I really no longer "farming organically"? What is what I am doing then called?
To take it one step further, a kid in one of the member families attending the meeting wonders, "What the hell is this guy talking about? Is he BSing or what? How can it be organic, but not organic?" So he goes to WP, and looks up organic farming. What will that article tell him? Of course, the info is all there to work out, and the distinctions are (still) quite clear between conventional and standards-based organic farming. But that situation is changing steadily and rather rapidly. IFOAM and organic activists will have to make concessions if the trend of Big Ag in organics continues, with its high-level pressure to make incremental adjustments to the regulations. Already, some argue that, for example, the NOP standards right now are at odds with the "real" practice of organic farming, to the point of taking the USDA to court... That's my point... WDYT? --Tsavage 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a real problem. I've often wondered how some of those large-scale operations can be truly organic. (Of course, I know some small-scale organic farmers that aren't exactly "growing soil" either). The point you make about political clout is a tough one, though. How can we develop organic certification bodies that are above political machinations? The USDA is highly suspect these days. IFOAM's democratic structure seems to be a pretty good model. However, food policy is highly manipulable (as seen in the dramatic under pricing of foods generally with the spin-off effect of relentlessly putting small-scale farmers out of business). But don't get me started. Sunray 02:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for "organic methods"?

Partly in light of the above few discussions, and also to address the rather cumbersome length of this article, maybe we need a new article, covering "organic farming methods". My first choice for the title would be "Principles of organic agriculture", but that would now be confusing with the IFOAM statement of the same name. In any case, separating the basic cultural concepts would perhaps be helpful in making the distinction between methods and standards.

The rough set of related "organic" articles with their primary focus would then be:

  • organic farming methods - the basic physical principles of soil health, crop rotation, pest management, etc
  • organic farming - the various types of organic operation, from small-scale market garden to large-scale; different cultural practices used, more stats...an overview of the actual business activity... (would include most of current article, except Methods section would be a summarized and pointed to the new article); the current redirect from organic agriculture seems fine, but maybe should be at some point reversed to better include all types of organic ag (e.g. organic cotton, etc)...
  • history of organic farming
  • organic gardening - the specifics related to recreational gardening stuff (see that page's Talk for a summary of organic farming vs organic gardening); this article refers to new Methods article for details of cultural principles
  • organic certification - standards and certification
  • organic food - describing and overviewing issues with food, with focus on processed products which aren't covered in farming.
  • organic movement - the social aspect of organics; larger issues like environmental care and social justice

Did I leave anything out...? WDYT? --Tsavage 21:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a new article for organic farming methods makes sense to me. I too am concerned about the length of the article as I think it will tend to make people's eyes glaze over. So if we can move some of the material to a new article that would be great. I also think that the article would benefit from a good edit. For example the "history" section should either be drastically reduced or moved to another new article, e.g., History of organic farming. In either case, judicious editing would be a good idea. Sunray 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. I agree with both. I think history of organic farming is good (with a redirect from history of organic agriculture. The editing is much needed (the article is kind of a pieced together deal from various negotiations a while back, I dunno if you were there or checked). As for the methods, what do you think is a good title? If nothing better comes up I'll then start the article as organic farming methods... --Tsavage 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Started new "sub"-articles

Per the above, I started two new articles, history of organic farming and organic farming methods, with text taken from the respective sections here. --Tsavage 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The new articles look great. I will have a go at writing summaries for the sections in the Organic farming article. That should go a long way to reducing the size of the article. Sunray 02:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duelling edits :)

Sunray: Sorry, I didn't realize you were editing at the same time. I'll leave this for now so you can do whatever you're gonna do! --Tsavage 05:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Our edits seem to have been complementary  :-) Sunray 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns of bias

I have major problems with the slant towards favouring organic methods in some of the sections of this article. The "productivity" section is particularly problematic as some reads like apologetics. It certainly does not follow sound economics. The cost of fuel, fertilizers, infrastructure is known in conventional agriculture because it is paid for. It isn't hard to calculate, the market has done it for us. Indeed organic farming is hardly sans infrastructure and transport costs. 70% of the UK's organic produce is foreign imports. True, the environmental costs of any of these processes are probably undervalued but that is a seperate point and certainly not the focus of the paragraph. It is equally probable that the environmental costs are over-valued in organic farming. The paragraph of course does not properly mention means of more accurately including these externalities without recourse to organic methods.

Furthermore, the fact that grain is mainly used to feed animals is not something that influences organic vs conventional yields. The comparison is between the ability to produce, not the purpose of the product. If I grow 10tonnes of grain and you 2tonnes, I've grown more even if 9tonnes go to animals.

The farmer's money argument is a dubious one at best. Whilst I can sympathise with them wanting a bigger slice of the pie, it should be remembered that in almost any industry there are more consumers than producers so giving the producers more money, if it comes at the expense of consumers, is not wealth-creating. Check your basic protectionist literature. Proposals for regional markets can easily suffer the pitfalls of the "localism" of anti-globalizationists.

Check this in the next section:

"If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as crucial a topic as renewable energy and pollution control"

The phrase "sustainable organic farming" implicitly suggests conventional methods are unsustainable. Secondly, it makes no mention of the fact that sustainable has two interpretations: the eco-lobby's no long-term environmental impact approach and the humanist's concern for feeding a growing population. I have heard no one ever suggest the latter form of sustainability is possible by organic forming and I have severe doubts about the first (and even it being a viable measure of true sustainability).

I feel this article should read more like a what is believed and how things are done rather than a defence (which it is at present) or critique (which it would be if I wrote it). I'd save the arguing for the organic food page instead. Panlane --82.38.227.22 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general on all points. I wrote some of what you're concerned with as an expedient way of sketching in areas quite a while ago, when the article was in poorer shape. It was definitely a makeshift approach. You could adjust accordingly; references would be good, but IMO even if you just add the balancing views to what's there, as another step towards a proper rewrite, that'd help. I'll try to even out some stuff as well... --Tsavage 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias in 'the environment' section

The section on the environment, and to a lesser extent some other sections, seem clearly biased against organic farming. There are some absurd and unsubstantiated claims, such as "there are a variety of factors that may actually create a negative net environmental benefit for organic farming". Even the worst corporate organic farms have a lower environmental impact than conventional agriculture. Contrary to the claim that "organic farming relies heavily on the nitrogen rich manures of large livestock", many organic farms do not rely heavily on animal manure and some do not use any. Even when farms import manure, it is much more efficient than using synthetic fertilizer, because it is a byproduct of raising animals that would otherwise go to waste, and was not created through the use of fossil fuels. Furthermore animals can be grazed on land not suitable for agriculture, because of poor soil or slope that would lead to erosion. Talk of pollution from animal manure is really ludicrous, since it is large 'conventional' factory farms that produce massive amounts of waste with well documented negative effects, while small scale grazing on organic farms avoids this problem. There is a section saying that for organic agriculture to be used in a developing nation, land would need to be cleared for grazing as well as farming, and implying that conventional farming would be more practical. First of all, this argument is not very relevant when comparing conventional vs. organic agricultur in the U.S. and other developed nations, and this is misleading at best, since the cost of all the chemicals, machinery, GMO seed varieties, etc, is much greater than the tools needed for organic agriculture, which on a small scale requires only simple hand tools and labor. Since poor nations generally have an abundance of labor and a lack of funds and infrastructure, small organic farms would make much greater sense. There is much talk about what is necessary for organic agriculture to be done on the same scale as modern industrial farms, but that is missing the point entirely- organic farming should be done on a small scale, with many small farms supplying local communities, instead of giant farms shipping food all over the world.

I think I will delete the following paragraph, because it is misleading, biased, and much of it is simply false. To leave the points and add counterarguments would just confuse people and turn it into a debate. It is one thing to show different viewpoints, but these are not valid arguments: "Despite the appearances of decreased environmental impact there are a variety of factors that may actually create a negative net environmental benefit for organic farming. For one, organic farming relies heavily on the nitrogen rich manures of large livestock. The maintenance of large livestock requires vast tracts of grazing land and potable water. While organic farms may be initially less taxing on the areas directly inhabited by the farm, the negative environmental effects of maintaining herds of livestock are well documented. To support an organic field in a “developing nation”, not only would land have to be cleared for the farm, land would also have to be cleared for the livestock to support the farm. This greatly reduces land use efficiency and would contribute to the destruction of areas of wilderness that otherwise would have been unharmed. Obviously one must consider the implications of the manure requirement here as well, while one cow may be suitable to fertilize a small garden organically, the requirements for a farm of a size suitable to provide sustenance to a farm would require significantly more cows, all of which would require grazing land, and potable water in nations where water itself, not to mention grazing land, is often in short supply. Meat is widely recognized to be the least efficient method of cultivating protein, so the effectiveness of eating the livestock would also be questionable and at the very least extremely inefficient. Also, while chemicals can rightly be condemned for damaging ground water quality, so too can animal manure when improperly disposed or distributed."

As a final note, my comments probably seem biased, and I admit I am biased on this issue, but my statements are based on fact. Outdoorvegan 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I made the point in a more unbiased fashion. It's true that organic farming poses threats to the environment over conventional farming. Proper management can reduce those threats, but that generally doesn't happen; people take the easy way out. Also, I'm sorry, but your thought that organic farming should be small and local is just wishful thinking. It's already not happening. Corporations see the profit to be made from organic farming just as well as small-scale farmers. Jav43 00:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is ecological?

All agriculture is biologic because alive beings take part, ecological since this in an ecosystem, and I incline but by organic, since it is preferred to use average with artisan and less industrales substances of this type obtained by, that they reduce the contamination with toxic reciduos, and the lost one of the nutricional value of foods.I also attemped to call it natural, but we know that agriculture is by artificial definition, we will always be able to do something so that but it is integrated and less aggressive with the natural surroundings, for example:

1 to maintain volumenes of production congruenttes with the type of ecosystem.

2 to distribute such in sercanas regions, favoring a armonic recycling of reciduos and selfsuficence food of the region.

3 to prefer the native and/or endememic species to the exotics, increasing the divercity, and collaborating with his concervation.

DO organic farmers use feral beats, caught in the wild, do they use wild grasses found in a meadow, no they use genetic freaks, bizarre creatures called 'sheeps' or 'cows', grasses genetically modified beyond belief! this article is a sham, we've been genetically modifying for more then 8 thousands years, the "organic" article also refers to fertilizers as importing energy, this is a disgrace, fertilizers are most commonly NPK mixs that are used to replace nitrates and other key minerals needed by plants to make proteins, leaf pigments etc. I say this article needs to be rewritten81.159.44.128 22:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the point, but organic is simply a term of art, and, as such not confusing or misleading. Paleorthid 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This is an article about organic farming, not a debate on how it stacks up against other methods

This article sounds more like a sales pitch for organic agriculture than something that provides sound information. Compare the format of this article to the "conventional agriculture" article and you will see what I mean. Both articles read like a "conventional vs organic" debate and obviously were written by supporters of organic agriculture. This article at least needs be marked as biased if not rewritten completely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.40.139 (talk • contribs).

As organic farming is a reaction against convential farming, it is hardly surprising that much of the article would be devoted to discussing the relative pros and cons. Still, there is a significant proportion which does not discuss convential agriculture, especially if you consider the sub-articles on History of organic farming, Organic farming methods and Organic certification. If you have specific problems with bias please say so or fix the article. —Pengo 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole article takes a "theres no way this can be wrong" approach. It doesn't mention ANY criticisms of organic agriculture without offereing a supposition argument of why those claims are certainly false. Here are some quotes...

"Advances in biochemistry, (nitrogen fertilizer) and engineering (the internal combustion engine) in the early 20th century led to profound changes in farming. Research in plant breeding produced hybrid seeds. Fields grew in size and cropping became specialized to make efficient use of machinery and reap the benefits of the so-called “green revolution.”" 2nd paragraph, history section.

The use of "so-called" in any description is haughty and is thinly veiled contempt. In this case, the contempt is poorly defined. That's biased language.

"Organic farming involves fostering natural processes, often over extended periods of time, and a holistic approach. Chemical-based farming focuses on immediate, isolated effects and reductionist strategies, often based primarily on the desire for profits. In large commercial operations, technology is used to regulate local conditions—hybrid seed, synthetic chemicals, high-volume irrigation—while sophisticated machinery does most of the work, and operators' feet may seldom touch the ground. Beyond the strictly technical aspects, the philosophy, day-to-day activities and required skill sets are quite different." First paragraph, Methods section.

This paragraph makes a lot of claims and never sources them. I have grown up my whole life around chemical based agriculture and saying its based on immediate, isolated effects needs sourcing because its not something any chemical-based farmer will agree with. Thats biased by using opinion based on unverified information.

"Differing approaches to pest control are equally notable. In chemical farming, a specific insecticide may be applied to quickly kill off a particular insect pest. Chemical controls can dramatically reduce pest populations for the short term, yet by unavoidably killing (or starving) natural predator insects and animals, cause an ultimate increase in the pest population. Repeated use of insecticides and herbicides and other pesticides also encourages natural selection of resistant insects, plants and other organisms, leading to increased use, or new, more powerful, controls." Third paragraph, Methods section..

A claim like this needs sourcing. I know for a fact many herbicides and pesticides have been used for a long time wihtout any decrease in performance. Roundup and Tordon immediately come to mind. This is a judgement without proof! Thats unfair. That's bias.

Now lets look at the productivity section....

"The hidden costs of conventional agriculture are seldom addressed in productivity calculations. Conventional agriculture is based on importing energy, particularly in the form of fertilizer and other agrichemicals, machinery and fuel, and long-distance transport. The full cost of these inputs are not included. For example, maintenance of the airports and highways that allow easy transport are not factored into food costs. If airports were shut down, or highway systems compromised, however, there would be an immediate affect on the cost of food."

Thanks for including your slippery slope argument against convential agricultures reliance on domestic infrastructure in an article that is supposed to be unbiased... This is a weak argument based on supposition to attempt to bridge the gap in production costs between organic agriculture and convential agriculture. It really has no place there. The purpose of this excerpt is to try to justify organic agricultures higher production costs vs convential agricultures lower produciton costs. Even if you COULD source it, its very premise is biased.

"More indirectly, it is argued that the cost of the side effects of chemical agriculture, like health care and environmental clean up, should be included in the cost of agribusiness. Instead, these hidden costs are paid by the public in other ways, such as through taxation to fund services like pollution control measures, and increased health care costs. Of course, many of these hidden cost factors are disputed, and they are difficult to investigate."

Do I even need to explain why this is biased? If you can't prove it, then why would you use it? This is a site that people use as a serious source of information, it's insulting to them to put something like this here...

"Related to this is the amount of money that actually reaches the farmer. Currently, large-scale farms receive around 10-20% of the supermarket retail price. The other 80-90% is absorbed by the food distribution system for processing, transport, packaging and marketing. The organic argument holds that more efficient distribution, through decentralization of production (e.g. family farm vs. factory farm), and development of local and regional markets, would put more money in the hands of farmers, allowing for increased productivity."

This is biased, but only because its vauge. If you could actually source this, then that would be a good comparison to make!! Unfortunately, this appears to be the worst written paragraph in the whole article. This is a much stronger "argument" to make in the comparison, if it is true; rather than saying that if the infrastructure collapses, organic agriculture will be cheaper or that the price gets made up in Doctor bills.

Whoever wrote the issues section deserves a high-five. For the most part, there is no bias, however, I would like to add some directions to take research...

In the environment secion of issues, perhaps adding something about the new techiniques using GPS to use chemical controls and fertilizers more efficiently would be a good idea. It's a leading technology in newer, more-environmentally friendly conventional techniques.

The soil conservation section of issues needs to be a little more acurate. In the midwest, amongst conventional agriculture it is pretty much defacto to rotate between a legumous plant and a non-legumous plant. No-till agriculture is used to create a strong hardpan on the soil so that erosion doesn't carry away the top soil. Field borders in conjunction with no-till agriculture have proven to provide a moderate amount of pest control AND improve a variety of indicators of soil health! (Soil Biology and Biochemistry [SOIL BIOL. BIOCHEM.]. Vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 595-599. 1990.) No-till agriculture is pretty much another defacto standard of agriculture in the midwest that was ignored here and a good example of how conventional agriculture uses to technology to provide new degrees of sustainability. It is common practice, once fields have began growing to cultivate the weeds under the soil. This was also ignored. In fact the whole section says matter-of-factly things that just just aren't true in many cases.

In the last paragraph..

"Increased consumer awareness of food safety issues and environmental concerns has contributed to the growth in organic farming over the last few years."

While it may be customer awareness of these things, its impossible to prove that organic agriculture provides any benefit in these areas so this is bias by associating these issues with whatever reasons the consumer may have for believing that organic agriculture is safter and not on any provable fact. The consumer could be purchasing organic agriculture because of ignorance provided by progressive propaganda and not because of any tangible benefits to their health or the environment.

Over all the article just acts like it has something to prove instead of saying "this is what organic agriculture is." It has to try to say "heres why organic agriculture is better." This is a reference site. You owe it to the people who would use this as a source for their research to be unbiased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.236.183 (talk • contribs).

Claims should definitely be backed up with references, I agree. Luckily, a lot of work has been done over at Organic food to build an article with good references - and with plenty of valid comparisons between organic and conventional given in the Organic food#Benefits of organic foods section. See below for a link to my suggestion for a merging of sections. JabberWok 15:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Organic food

Discuss at Talk:Organic food#Merging with Organic farming so that the discusion is all in one place.


[edit] deleted misleading claims in overview

The contrast is as much economic as it is between methods of production. Until the last decade, organic farming has been typically small business, often based in local economies, whereas conventional farming is big business (often called agribusiness, or, negatively, corporate farming) that is closely integrated with all aspects of the global food industry. However, the situation is changing rapidly as consumer demand encourages large-scale organic production. i deleted this passage, there are more conventional family farms then organic family farms. i am sure there is big bussiness in conventional farming but that is not all there is. --trueblood 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias

this criticism has been made before but i am gonna be insistent. i think the whole introduction has to be rewritten. this might be a description of permaculture but not of organic farming. don't get me wrong i am a organic grower myself. organic farming is about using neither artificial fertilizer nor most kinds of pestizides, no antibiotics, no gmos and that just about sums it up. there are certain tendencies like enhancing biodiversity and soil quality but you cannot generalize. this article paints a relatively cheesy and sentimental picture that does not have a lot to do with the reality.--trueblood 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subsidies

Whoever wrote this section doesn't understand the purpose of agricultural subsidies. This shouldn't have anything to do with organic agriculture.


i agree, i put a [citation needed], but am gonna delete the section if no further explanation or quotation is added.--trueblood 05:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gmo and us organic standards

i am unclear about the situation in the us, can food that was produced using gmo be called organic or not according to national standards. so far i understood that organic does not mean 'gmo free', but that just means there is no guarantee that there was no contamination. does someone know a got site about the current situation/discussion in the us. --trueblood 12:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


The article contains the following passage...

"...at least two-thirds of conventional corn, soybeans and canola in the US contain traces of genetic material from GM varieties."

backed up by the source...

http://www.ucsusa.org/general/404.html

I object to the claim and the source, on the grounds that this is a biased, subversive and objectionable organisation which presents scare stories based on fake science in order to further its economically destructive views.

See http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/145

Tomcrisp7 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ActivistCash.com is a web site affiliated with the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash about activistcash.com trueblood 13:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] changed intro

Organic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on ecosystem management and attempts to reduce or eliminate external agricultural inputs, especially synthetic ones. It is a holistic production management system that promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. In preference to the use of off-farm inputs, organic farming emphasizes management practices, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. Utilizing both traditional and scientific knowledge, organic agricultural systems rely on agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods (these may require external inputs of nonrenewable resources, like tractor fuel), as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfill any specific function within the system. Organic farming is also associated with support for principles beyond cultural practices, such as fair trade and environmental stewardship, although this does not apply to all organic farms and farmers.

i somewhat boldly changed the intro because it mostly contained rather lofty permaculture talk (ecosystem management, agro-ecosystem health, holistic production managment system) and misleading claims (eliminating external inputs might be true for some farms but not for many). i think the intro now gives a clearer and more down to earth idea of what organic farming is. i added the ifoam quote because health (for consumers and the environement) is the leitmotif of organics and was already for the pioneers like steiner and albert howard. trueblood 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history section

i considerably shortened the history section, mostly because there already exist a main article and because this article is very long. it could probably still be shortened. also the intro about industrialisation of agriculture needs to be tidied up further (for example the green revolution did not happen in the beginning of the century but rather after wwII). trueblood 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] productivity

i deleted this passage from the section:

The hidden costs of conventional agriculture are seldom addressed in productivity calculations. Conventional agriculture is based on importing energy, particularly in the form of fertilizer and other agrichemicals, machinery and fuel, and long-distance transport. The full cost of these inputs are not included. For example, maintenance of the airports and highways that allow easy transport are not factored into food costs. If airports were shut down, or highway systems compromised, however, there would be an immediate effect on the cost of food. More indirectly, it is argued that the cost of the side effects of chemical agriculture, like health care and environmental clean up, should be included in the cost of agribusiness. Instead, these hidden costs are paid by the public in other ways, such as through taxation to fund services like pollution control measures, and increased health care costs. Of course, many of these hidden cost factors are disputed, and they are difficult to investigate.

Related to this is the amount of money that actually reaches the farmer. Currently, large-scale farms receive around 10-20% of the supermarket retail price. The other 80-90% is absorbed by the food distribution system for processing, transport, packaging and marketing. The organic argument holds that more efficient distribution, through decentralization of production (e.g. family farm vs. factory farm), and development of local and regional markets, would put more money in the hands of farmers, allowing for increased productivity.

Interestingly, in many less developed countries farmers do not suffer high productivity losses (as many Western farmers do) when they convert their farms to organic. This is due to on average lower usage of fertilizers and more extensive methods applied in conventional agriculture - the soil experiences hardly any shock. E.g. in Poland, an average productivity of such products as strawberries, apples or potatoes is even higher in organic than in conventional farms. [3]


it is unsourced , not really related to the issue and clearly pushing an pro organics point of view. maybe some of the arguments could be used in another section. trueblood 10:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] overview

i deleted this It is important to make the distinction between organic farming and organic food. Farming is concerned with producing fresh products—vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy, eggs—for immediate consumption, or for use as ingredients in processed food. The manufacture of most commercially processed food is well beyond the scope of farming.

It is also important to note that organic farming is a reaction against the large-scale, chemical-based farming practices that have become the norm in food production over the last 80 years. The differences between organic farming and modern conventional farming account for most of the controversy and claims surrounding organic agriculture and organic food.

The development of modern organic farming techniques is also a function of economics. Most of the agricultural research over the last century has concentrated on chemical-based methods— little funding and effort have been put into using current scientific tools to understand and advance organic agricultural approaches.

Principles of plant cultivation, in many situations identical to those of organic farming, are applied—usually, though not necessarily, at a smaller scale—in the practice of organic horticulture.

why:

  • why do we have to make a distinction between farming and food. isn't that obvious. do we also have to make a distinction between farming and volleyball?
  • i think that any sentence that begins with it is important to note should be deleted
  • please no more apologetic talk on why organics hasn't yet taken over.
  • just mention organic horticulture under see also

trueblood 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleted passage in issues

i deleted this passage. it contain only opinion and is unreferenced:

In recent decades, food production has moved out of the public eye. In developed nations, where most of the world's wealth, consumption, and agricultural policy-making are centered, many are unaware of how their food is produced, or even that food, like energy, is not unlimited. If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as crucial a topic as renewable energy and pollution control. This proposition is at the center of most organic farming issues.

It is useful to make a distinction between organic farming and organic food. Whether organic food is tastier, safer or more nutritious has little to do with the effects of chemical agriculture on the environment. In any case, most food dollars are spent on processed food products, the manufacture of which is beyond the scope of farming. There are separate food and farming issues and lumping the two together only confuses the discussion.

The distinction between organic farming and organic certification is also important. Defining organic farming with checklists of acceptable and prohibited inputs and practices elicits similar criticisms as those leveled at chemical farming. With rules come exceptions, whether well-intentioned or purely profit-oriented, and critics hold that this can only undermine organic principles. What is "more-or-less organic"? Certification also allows agribusiness to lobby for favorable definitions—anything that can be approved becomes "organic".

Of course, the issues, particularly the social ones, will shift if agribusiness fully adapts to and dominates organic farming, and (in early 2005) this is the current trend. Then, large-scale, certified organic farms would probably operate much more like conventional farms do today. Environmental benefits may accrue from a change in types of pesticides and fertilizer used, more crop diversity, and the like, but if the overall agribusiness philosophy remains essentially unchanged, "organic farming" could become the norm, without any great environmental or social improvements.

trueblood 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claims are unlikely to be borne out, for the simple fact that no one can feed a growing world population with organic unless you plough up all the wildlife habitats and drain all the wetlands. You cannot choose nature over humans, but with high-yield modern agriculture this choice becomes unnecessary.

"Agribusiness" is a perceived label often used by eco-zealots. The vast majority of agriculture is performed by family farms, many of them operating below what would be considered a viable income level. Would you volontarily propose to your boss that you be demoted to a lower salary level ? This is what the environmentalist movement would oblige large farmers to do. Farmers are like any other people, they want to achieve a better life for themselves and their families. There are realistically only two types of small farmer - those that want to get bigger and those that want to retire.Tomcrisp7 10:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

are you talking to me, the above are not my words, i deleted it from the article, because i thought unbalanced and unreferenced, because i don't like the term 'agribusiness' either. i put it here because some of it might be used but in a more neutral wording.trueblood 10:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I wasn't talking to you particularly, just an observation:-)Tomcrisp7 11:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well any farm anywhere can always be called a "family farm", as no farms are fully run by robots/machines yet, and all humans have families yes?!...when people talk of family farms though we tend to mean smaller farms where the family actually does most of the work and can handle most everything with little resort to outside labor except at a couple busy times of year. Agribusiness is a valid word, and is used to categorize large agribusiness firms mainly that sell products to farmers, yet also might be used for those farmers who operate more as businesspeople and do little of the actual work, and typically have very very large farms with no possibility for a single family to handle it all anyways...but agribusiness usually refers to the agribusiness firms (big-agro firms) and actually it isnt necessarily derogatory...83.78.187.33 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

anyways the environmental movement dosent oblige large farmers to do anything, they mainly ask them to use fewer chemical products, yet yall americans are so pumped up on FOX news & rush limbaugh and all that you dont even really have the first clue as to what ecologically minded people have to say...yall dont have the first clue...its just all stereotypes these days, perhaps america will leave that phase at some point, and opposing sides will talk rationally to oneanother...anyways from looking at the figures, the yields only reduce by perhaps 25% to 33% at most, reductions in farm costs could vastly outweigh that, and the good organic farmers even can get increased yields over chemical agriculture, the real issue isnt whether organic farming is better for the farmers, if they all went to organic farming they would all be richer, you cant get around that fact, the price for their commodities would increase and their costs would decrease! thats just simple supply and demand and basic economics, since there is no true "farmers union" though, they were easily conquered individually by agribusiness firms that grasped a huge share of their profits, (with the various goods and bads that resulted from that)...no, the real issue is about whether its worth it for society to switch that way en masse, just how close to 100% yield could organic farming average after a couple hundred years of ever improving technique? and do we have the play to have a reduction in yields of even the smallest sort? also organic farming may take more mechanical cultivation and more labor. on one hand you could point to vast international unemployment, vast food waste, vast stockpiles and food stores, and vast obesity rates

the hidden cost of higher yields?
the hidden cost of higher yields?

(i might point out with about 25%-33% too many calories on average matching that 25%-33% reduction in yield) or too much "land-consuming-animal-products" and say of course we could go all organic, (a vegetarian might tell you that it takes 1/10 the land to feed him/her) on the other hand you could point to the fact that most people wont change their ways and consumption patterns and that things will even get worse, (the developing nations all too frequently even want to emulate the worst wastefulnesses of those on top) & the ever increasing reliance on farming for things other than food, such as medicines, new "greener" fuel technologies, new "greener" chemical manufacturing, etc...more and more demand will be placed on farmers as we inevitably transition out of a petro-economy for our fuels and chemical & product manufacturing processes...yet there are answers, as genetic engineering compatible with organic standards is possible for instance, its mainly just not yet applied, and instead you have Monsanto with their "round-up ready" GE tech that just may even increase chemical dependency and that really irks many people and ruins the name of GE tech for entire nations that oppose any form of GE now... anyways there are all sorts of ways actually for agriculture to vastly increase in both productivity and also sustainability, vastly 83.78.187.33 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Food Quality

The article thus labeled contains the following claim :

Preliminary data from a UN study based in the UK shows that although organic dairy may have higher somatic cell counts, conventional dairy may have antibiotic levels higher than organic dairy.

This is backed up by reference 7, an FAO documant called "An approach to the Study of Mastitis Control in Organic Dairy Herds."

This reference in NO WAY concludes that conventional dairy may have higher antibiotic levels than organic.

In fact some might be interested to know that apparently, 0.45 antibiotic tubes were used per organic cow per year !

The fact that it says : "milk withdrawal periods on organic farms were significantly longer after antibiotic use than on conventional farms" in no way suggests conventional milk contains more antibiotic residues. Milk withdrawal delay is clearly labeled on products and vigorously enforced. All milk arriving at dairies must be tested by law and ANY positive antibiotic test results in the shipment being rejected. The offending farm is then tracked down from samples taken at loading and severe penalties are applied, which often result in the offending farm paying the disposal costs for up to 20,000 litres of contaminated milk plus severe fines. Repeated offences result in the farm being delisted by the dairy.

If withdrawal was longer on organic farms it suggests to me they were simply taking longer to cure the mastitis. Logical, as most cases are treated by homeopathic junkscience so they were only treating very severe cases.

How come no one mentions the extra suffering of these organic cows with mastitis that isn't being cured ? Can't have a balanced argument if it begins to undermine our very philosophy eh ?

By all means promote organic, its a free world. But DON'T slag off conventional in order to do so! Tomcrisp7 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

just take it easy, maybe hundreds of people have contributed to this article. but they don't necessarily agree on everything. if i see something that i don't if it is true or not i just leave it. if you see something that is obviously untrue point it out or just change it yourself. not everybody here is out there to trash conventional farming, although admittedly some people are.trueblood 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

homeopathic junkscience?...i think u dont understand organic farming, very few organic farmers use homeopathic methods on their farm, homeopathy is a totally different issue, its pros and cons are for its own article, & biodynamic farmers (a small subset of organic farmers) would be the most likely to use homeopathy yet even they wouldnt necessarily do so... are you by chance a vegetarian or something? and you dont even eat cows so you are upset even that they might be sick a couple days more? are you some sort of hardcore Vegan even yet that is pro-chemical agriculture?, thats either a new one or your just being silly and dont truly care about whether cows are sick a couple days more...where exactly are you coming from?...yet to respond to that i could say this, antibiotics are good for severe issues, yet can be overused, the need to use them for cows on a continueing basis is questionable, and humans constantly eating and drinking cow products with antibiotic contamination is questionable. I myself would rather take a day or two extra to get better than use strong chemical products to get better, as long as my illness is not severe enough to demand the use of chemical products like antibiotics & i can indeed get better without them. Antibiotics were some of the most wonderful things humans have discovered, yet even a good thing can be overused and has its place, and they arent perfect you know, they kill off most of your beneficial bacteria too, they are for severe serious issues, your own immune system works good too most times, and actually needs some challenges to improve itself and develop, and if ur a big boy you might try the bicycle, you dont always need to hop on the tricycle you know, (or the tetracyclin) 83.78.187.33 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

also i think you will find if you meet some organic dairymen, that they are highly concerned about their cows welfare and living conditions, instead of cages they want open pasture for instance, and that if a life or death situation does arise that can be prevented with antibiotics, they will indeed use the antibios, they arent going to lose the animal, its for minor infections that can likely resolve themselves where they hold back resorting to the anti-bios...83.78.187.33 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time an organic farmer can lose his organic farming certification for even having antibiotics on the premises. Jav43 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, you will find if you meet ANY dairymen, that they ALL are highly concerned about their cows' welfare and living conditions. Happy, healthy cows give more milk. Jav43 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all an organic farmer can call up a vet and get antibiotics if they need in no time flat, they dont need jars of them sitting in the cupboard, they just rarely or never make those calls, as situations requiring antibios to save a cows life are rare indeed. As to all dairymen being concerned about their cows, i never said they werent, I was responding to a user somehow suggesting organic dairymen somehow mistreat their cows and are "animal abusers" by not giving them daily antibiotics, which is rubbish...83.79.137.123 02:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising this contributor doesn't dare publish his profile. What a complete load of rambling old bollocks. Am I a vegetarian or hardcore vegan that doesn't care about cow welfare because I don't eat them ? Well for your information 83.78.187.33 I am a dairy farmer who has forgotten more about cows than you'll ever know. As regards antibiotics and homeopathy my knowledge comes from the cutting edge. Farmers know what they are talking about, city people don't. I find this argument offensive and patronizing to the love and respect of cattle that I have developed over the years.Tomcrisp7 01:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you going off about? Its you who put out a patronizing condescending argument towards organic farmers tomcrisp. You blanket labelled them as all following "homeopathic junkscience" for starters, I'm making no comment about the goods or bads of homeopathy, but the majority of organic farmers dont use homeopathy on their farms anyways! You then tried to suggest they somehow treat their cows poorly and cause them suffering or that they arent concerned about them. Now you are going off on everybody that lives in the city! And no where in this discussion has it been suggested that all conventional farmers treat their cows cruely or cause them intentional suffering, or that they arent concerned about the welfare of their cows, and no where has anyone accused you personally of such behaviors...83.79.183.169 03:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias issues from a Conventional Farmer

- As a conventional farmer I was expecting to find this article skewed with environmentalist bias as many such articles are. However I was very surprised to find such a good job of work. I am not anti-organic as such but I cannot accept the no-holds-barred criticism of conventional from organic strongly-held-belief-culture in the sense that no particular technical knowledge appears to be necessary in most cases. - - Although I have added some [citation needed] notes, most unsubstantiated claims could be upgraded simply by adding phrases such as "some believe that..." or "it is claimed by proponents..." in the absence of actual facts. - - I have no problem with people having beliefs different to my own, in fact I often buy organic as so many foods are ruined by uneccessary processing and additives. I believe this to be the real reason for a swing to organic by many people and not per se because of agricultural pesticides although this is percieved to be the problem (lack of knowledge, easy targets etc.). I believe pragmatically that organic is more of a lifestyle choice than a scientific technical one (and why not?). Unfortunately the movement gets itself into trouble by criticising unduly and by proposing ignorant statements due to a lack of a proper scientific base (pseudoscience, holistic etc.).Tomcrisp7 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

please point to the article changes that have been made since 15 November that you have been unhappy with or disagree with...83.78.128.62 05:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just compared Nov 4 2006 with current article...in fact there are very few differences, mostly all minor, and in fact most of them are your additions and your citations needed tags, and several changes that been to the disadvantage of the organic farming proponents. The main change I see was a removal of a discussion about manure used by organic farmers and this being tough to gauge exact nutrient additions etc etc...yet it is certainly true that many farmers of all types use manure, and it is also true that we do indeed have a good idea of the nutrient components of the various types of animals manures anyways...yet please bring up any changes you are unhappy with and discuss, I only spent so much time looking through the two, yet they did seem rather similar...83.78.128.62 05:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add?

http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/cu130705.txt - Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds ChristopherMannMcKay 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labor

This article needs attention from an expert on the issue of labor costs for organic farms. Organic farming is more work-intensive than using industrial processes, and this fact to the still-slow growth of the industry. Such a major issue deserves its own section. Bumhoolery 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] livestock

from the article: "Organic farms that raise livestock and poultry, for meat, dairy and eggs, provide animals with "natural" living conditions and feed[citation needed]. Ample, free-range outdoor access, for grazing and exercise, is a distinctive feature, and crowding is avoided[citation needed]. Feed is also organically grown, and the addition of drugs, including antibiotics, is prohibited by organic standards."

we need to find a more neutral and referenced description of organic livestock standards than just 'natural living conditions' any ideas trueblood 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

well indeed one of the whole points to organic livestock raising is to mimic natural conditions as best as possible instead of more factory-farmed type conditions...yet there is something here, this word natural is of course technically a vague word, and one could of course argue that anyway that humans raise livestock is somehow still technically "natural" even if you beat them with a stick everyday and put them in a concrete cell they dont even fit in, that would still be able to be called "natural"...and there is this whole marketting thing i have seen while travelling in the states selling products as "natural" trying to coopt the organic foods market share, yet it frequently is misleading advertising when one looks at the labels...here in switzerland we have bio quality animal products ("bio" is what we call "organic" in europe), then we have the next step down in meat for instance, where the feed given the animal isnt always organic, yet there are higher conditions and standards for the animals care and living conditions and we label this "naturaplan" or "engagement", then we have the lowest category with no special label (yet this can frequently be very high quality too from small family farmers that just dont have special labeling) and besides all this we have voted in a certain level of standards for the animals (higher than in the states) no matter what the labels 83.78.187.33 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"one of the whole points to organic livestock raising is to mimic natural conditions as best as possible instead of more factory-farmed type condition", that's exactly what i meant, don't just make sweeping statements, but give concrete examples, where organic standarts ask for more space per animal etc and reference it.trueblood 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

well here is a look at an american dairy that practices organic methods[[4]]. They may have some standards higher than many other organic farms, however. Really what i would say, is that for people consuming foodstuffs long term in their area, to do a little research into the farms they are buying their products from. Maybe even go meet the farmers and take the kids to say hello one weekend (best to take the kids to the farms that dont use chemicals, or just rarely and not on that weekend). (If your going to be buying food for the next 50 years it really isnt much to spend a few hours researching and asking questions) And of course it is entirely possible to find a farm not listed as organic that has equally high standards or even higher. Some farms are beginning to be disappointed that organic standards are being weakened and have opted out of the "organic" label to pursue even higher standards. Here in switzerland, we do have farmers that are not registered as "bio" quality, yet which are from very small family farms in the mountains practicing the highest level of quality for hundreds of years, most though will take the time & effort to register as "bio" unless they are very very small operations or just disconnected from such things or not concerned about them...anyways i can say its just somewhat different over here in europe, people take food more seriously, people take the farmers more seriously and with more respect for what they provide, people want to meet the farmers, and a common thing to do on a nice summer weekend is indeed bring the kids to a small family farm and meet the farmers and animals, people will even take several weeks just wandering through the mountains from small farm to farm, enjoying the products, meeting the farmers, and even staying the night for a reasonable fee depending on whether your sleeping in the straw, or a high class chalet-farmhouse suite, or something in between, in the states there are some efforts to try and bring the farmers and consumers closer together 83.78.160.112 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful case studies are in this encyclopedic setting. Jav43 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the comment about Syngenta in the definition of what organic farming is. It said that Syngenta is a big biotech company, and that yields for organic are lower, which was obviously put up by someone from Syngenta, and is in any case entirely inappropriate. 217.91.43.223 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

well we can move it out of the intro, yet i think it does deserve some mention if average yields are said to be somewhat lower, the syngenta article did in fact say there was variation from that 68% for grains & 73% for potatoes, they even said some get 100% yield, and in fact we know some organic farmers get even over 100% the yield of conventional farms, yet to have some figures on what organic farmers currently average is nice to see, perhaps you have some other statistic on averages than syngentas?...And really I think many people out there somehow believe average yields for organic farms are far far lower than what syngenta stated!...and if that is a big agro's estimates, then we could state that that is a base figure surely?! organics gets on average at least 2/3 to 3/4 of conventional yields...some figures i think are appropriate for some various crops. Plus the issue of reduced mechanical cultivation by using herbicides i think needs some mention, they do have a point that this could benefit the soil and prevent erosion, while there are of course many problems with herbicides, that is an advantage...83.78.181.214 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways people keep taking out the statistics on yield for grains and potatoes provided by a big-agro. Look people!...I am pro-organic, I have bought almost exclusively organic/bio food for over 10 years, yet it is valuable to see the organic-oppositions statements on yields on this page, Monsanto provides nothing it seems on organic yields, they are pretty hush hush on the subject of organics it seems on their official site, syngenta does address the issue for two types of crops, potatoes and grains in a specific year...we know companies selling products that compete against organics have no interest in good statistics for organics, so it is nice as a low end estimate on yields 83.79.137.123 02:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supply demand issues & FOX

It certainly seems the demand for organic milk in the states is more than the supply, the price for bio-milk in the states was shooting up last i was there, it can be twice the price of bio-milk here in switzerland! That may have 2 effects, its surely helping out the organic dairy farmers in the states, yet also may be turning people off from organic milk because it is getting too expensive...83.79.137.123 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

and here is a nice FOX article for y'all[5]. I'm actually going to write Murdoch to tell him I'll come on FOX, for free even!, and I'll slam organic foods and organic milk. I'm going to come on and especially tell the FOX audience to make sure to feed their babies non-organic foods whatever they do and that organic is all a scam! You see, I'm a bit of a righty myself sometimes, and the many extra birth defects, earlier cancers, its going to hit these people hard, its going to bring out a bunch of cash from the FOX news base too as they deal with it all! I won't be especially pleased doing it, yet sometimes you just have to make sacrifices i guess, if y'all watch FOX! watchout! uve been warned!, as some of us have switched strategies to let these people who are so foolish be hit hard by their stupidity, some of we organic-foods people have switched now hard right!, if your too stupid to realize that chemicals may harm your children in a sensitive developing state, well then its time to let these people feel the full effects of that and stop throwing them life-preservers and information! We need to start putting our own experts on FOX to tell these people to use more harsh chemicals at home, only buy food grown with chemicals, its no big deal to live next to the chemical factories, etc etc., FOX is doing it themselves, yet we should get some people to push these viewers even further off the edge, I am putting out a personal plea for the FOX news staff to do more stories like this organic milk one they just did. Its really good, as we know pollutants bio-accumulate up the food chain, being higher in animal products, all that really questionable milk is a double whammy on the FOX viewers!!! as you know what people! y'all lefties have been too soft and forgiving, you cant compete against the

Porter Goss, former head of CIA and avid organic farmer when not spying!
Porter Goss, former head of CIA and avid organic farmer when not spying!

ruthless righties, so y'all need some ruthless hard right people on ur side! ... 83.79.137.123 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll welcome you on FOX NEWS. As a hot air fan!Tomcrisp7 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

After all FOX news fans!, even the last head of the CIA was indeed an avid organic farmer! Yale grad too![6] Republican and appointed by Bush even!...(he did though complain he was having a hard time with the bugs).[7] Organic farming...the intelligent choice...83.78.128.62 04:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] from talk page

Australia has the largest share of this at near 12 million hectares, Argentina is next with over 3 million hectares.[8] By percentage of arable land in the country the alpine nations lead, with Austria at over 14% of the land farmed organically, and Switzerland at over 10%.[9] The United States is around 0.5% (half of one percent) of the land farmed organically, but has been experiencing substantial growth in organic farming seeing near a half million hectares going organic in the last 10 years.[10]

this might be helpful somewhere in the article but please, let's keep the intro concise, maybe we can establish a section about different countries.trueblood 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstien

its been a hard couple days for little Liechtenstein, first we Swiss accidentally invade!!! (well a 150 person company during training crossed 2 km into their territory during a storm the other day)..and then trueblood removes them from the pages of organic farming fame!...i agree they are very small, i think i mentioned it didnt I?, but i do think that even though they are small, that they deserve mention as by far having the greatest share of land farmed organically...i mentioned both greatest acreages like australia & Argentina and also greatest share like the alpine countries so to give some background and did say they were little, (which people should know anyways if they know their geography) 83.78.144.13 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rv of edits by 74.193.218.168

Much as a hate to rv, I just did so to the edits by 74.193.218.168 because most of the edit just repeated the already clear text in the section. Another part claimed that, " All of the animal manure that would be needed to support a couintry wide organic farming method would raise the methane gas level so high the envirment would be even worse." It would be fine to include this text if it had a reference and was in an appropriate section. I (much like 74.193.218.168 apparently) don't feel like looking for either of these. Pdbailey 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spam links

I've removed spam external links added by User:76.173.113.247 and requested they add content, rather than external links to articles. They should discuss the issue here prior to re-adding the link. MidgleyDJ 00:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Added link to DMOZ. MidgleyDJ 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/g/Talk%7EOrganic_farming_fab1.html"