I’m an organic dairy farmer, and this question—Is organic farming anti-science?–has been weighing on my mind recently. Said another way, many people question whether organic farming is as advanced as conventional farming. This is an issue close to my heart as I’m a former conventional farmer.
Speaking for myself, and I believe for all the organic farmers who I know, I’m constantly on the lookout to improve our operation with new or improved farming techniques, often spending time online and on social media researching different methods of agriculture and interacting with and learning from other farmers and farming organizations, and not just those that support organic farming.
For the past several months, especially since I have become more active on social media, I have read multiple posts by conventional farmers and organic farming critics that purport to show that farming organically means that scientific knowledge and research are thrown out the window. I’ve also read opinions that organic farming is not as innovative, efficient or sustainable as conventional farming, particularly those who use genetically modified seeds. In addition, I have witnessed consumers, who choose organic products ridiculed as uninformed and unrealistic for buying into the scam or “woo” put forward by “Big Organic”. This criticism has gone so far that supermarkets’ motives are questioned when they source organic produce and other foods (supposedly) sourced in a manner that organic critics say is not supported by scientific research.
Here’s just a sampling–a tiny sampling–of what has come across the Internet in recent weeks:
Now, as an organic farmer, allow me to try to explain why I believe that these assumptions are neither accurate nor warranted.
Disclaimer to start: This blog is not an in-depth look at organic versus conventional farming, but rather a short overview and analysis of how organic farming also utilizes science and technology.
When I take stock of our farm practices on our transitional organic dairy farm, I can say with emphasis that I firmly believe that organic farming is as or more science based and innovative as conventional farming, especially in these three areas: sustainability, animal welfare and technology.
Technology and scientific research
Organic farms utilize much of the same technology that conventional farmers employ. Precision cropping equipment and high tech field mapping in crops are used by conventional and organic farmers alike. Sometimes, organic farmers use different, but still advanced, technology, such as the new piece of equipment I came across recently that selectively weeds cereal crops.
When it comes to dairy, my niche, I know that robotic milkers can be found on conventional and organic operations. Organic dairy farmers utilize the same milk testing regimen as conventional dairymen, and therefore know just as much about each cow’s production, milk quality and milk components as their conventional neighbor down the road. Organic and conventional farmers have access to the same breeding technology, and use the same bull proof sheets and information when finding an appropriate sire(s) for their herd. Similarly, crops fed to cows on organic farms are tested for nutritional value and the herd’s diet is balanced by a specialized nutritionist, just as is done on conventional dairies.
On our farm, we have participated in scientific studies looking at different types of manure application methods and their impact on soil and crops. Being organic does not exempt us from trying to farm the best we possibly can by applying scientific research results to our operations. The one major difference in technology usage is the exemption of GM crops in organic farming. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not that is a positive or negative aspect of organics. :)
Sustainability
Both conventional and organic farmers try to ensure that their farms are sustainable. This can be done conventionally by using environmentally beneficial practices, such as no till cropping and cover crops. No or low till crops protect the soil from erosion and drought and also allow the farmer to grow
crops with less passes of heavy machinery that burn fossil fuels. Organic farming practices revolve around improving and feeding the soil and soil life rather than feeding the crop growing in that soil.
Organic farmers embrace the practice that healthy, balanced soil full of organic matter and nutrients grows good crops. This has proved to be true on our farm. Since we began farming organically three years ago (without the use of any pesticides), we have not noticed the slightest decrease in our crop yields. By utilizing natural fertilizers such as compost, animal manure and green manure crops, organic farming reduces its carbon footprint by not relying on synthetic chemical fertilizers, manufactured with fossil fuels.
Both organic and conventional farms in Canada, where I live, take advantage of Canada’s Environmental Farm Plan to certify that they utilize environmentally sound and beneficial practices. Also, many farms of each variety across Canada employ the use of Nutrient Management Plans, which, through soil and input tests, help a farmer make informed choices of how to best supply nutrients to their land and crops.
Animal Welfare
As a former conventional farmer, I know that conventional farmers do their best to ensure that their animals are well cared for. All farmers know that animals that are cared for well will be more profitable, but beyond this, farmers provide the best care possible for the animals under their care simply because it is the right thing to do.
In dairy, Canada’s proAction plan has an animal welfare component that has been praised as being among the best of its kind in the world. However, organic practices in livestock raising and housing go above and beyond this Code of Practice. For example, the Canadian Organic Standards have stricter animal stocking regulations and calf housing requirements. Animals on organic dairy farms must have access to the outdoors. For cows, this has been scientifically proven by animal researchers to result in better hoof health than being confined to the traditional concrete floored barns. Nutritionally, for cows, their diet is limited to a certain percentage of grain, which in turn limits the amount of milk a cow will produce, but, can, as we have noticed on our farm, result in a healthier cow with increased longevity and decreased vet visits and associated costs.
Along with conventional farms in our area, we have
participated in university studies surrounding the care and housing of dairy calves. We have responded to this research by adjusting our calf rearing habits to mirror the latest research-supported trends in dairy cattle care. Again, being organic does not mean that we ignore the scientific evidence presented by researchers that point to the best way to care for our animals, but rather that we adopt these changes, just as conventional farmers do.
Looking over the above paragraphs, it can be noticed that while some practices are different, both conventional and organic farmers have their farm’s best interest in mind. We may have slightly different goals and different methods of achieving these goals, but that does not mean that either way of farming is wrong, unscientific or less innovative. It simply means that we are different.
This is why I’ve found the recent interactions that seem to point to an “us versus them” mindset to be so troubling. There is no need for any farmer to disparage a type of farming different from their own. Instead, farmers would do well to explain their own farming practices: what you do and why you do it, instead of attacking another’s ideas and way of life. When confronted with questions about what you do and why you do it, please try to explain your reasoning without deliberately diminishing another. I am of the opinion that when we rely on hearsay to form our opinions and then allow our stance on either type of farming to harden into ideological absolutes, we run the risk of losing the opportunity for discussion, balance and learning from one another.
I personally believe that organic farming is here to stay, and I believe that we’ll see conventional farmers adopting organic principles, and vice versa. And this is a good thing: farmers working together to improve the entire agriculture industry. Together, we can achieve great things and combine forces to feed the population that relies on us for sustenance. There can scarcely be a more honorable occupation, and so, let us do our best to go about our daily lives with a willingness to support all farmers, regardless of practices employed.
(Please don’t feel that this is a rant against one specific group or individual; I’ve found this mind-set to be getting more and more common and pervasive and I have spent several weeks trying to find the words to express my feelings about this. If you follow me on social media, you’ll know that I have also spoken out about organic groups shaming conventional farmers and their practices. I think it’s only fair to do the same now that the shoe is on the other foot. Comments are always welcomed, but please be respectful.)
Julaine Treur and her husband own and operate an organic dairy farm in British Columbia. Committed to transparency in the dairy industry, she shares stories and information about their farming life on Facebook, Twitter/Instagram @creeksidedairy and on her blog Inuddernews.com.
Here in the UK, we are finding that more and more farmers are looking at organic techniques such as cover crops, use of legumes, finding out more about how to support the biota in their soils etc. and with these farmers the distance between organic and non – organic is becoming vanishingly small. However we too have others who would like to suggest that organic farming is non scientific. At the Soil Association we run a programme focussing on putting farmers in the driving seat of innovation for agri- ecological practices and work with all farmers http://www.soilassociation.org/innovativefarming/duchyfuturefarmingprogramme/fieldlabs
Organic farming will become scientific only when organic crops and livestock are tested for authenticity and safety. There is currently no field testing in the multibillion dollar organic industry, just paperwork.
Great article, Julaine! We consider ourselves conventional dairy farmers but we have a lot in common with you. We use many of the same practices :) I think we are not too terribly different! I agree, there is an “us vs them” going on right now. It makes me wonder if it is organic farmers vs conventional farmers or if the entire war is being created by marketing executives to improve their bottom line. It appears to me the ones blasting the war bugles are food companies, grocery stores, and restaurants, not farmers. Yet the farmers are the ones having to fight the battle on the field.
I have come across my fair share of extreme organic farmers who do not have a nice thing to say about conventional although it seems they are often small organic vegetable farmers who do not have much of an understanding of dairy, beef, row crop farming, or how to manage farming more than a few acres. Without a doubt the biggest culprits are the organic marketing companies causing consumer confusion and distrust.
The organic marketing companies are aided and abetted by federal regulators who fail to test organic crops to ensure they’re genuine and safe. Why write rules if the feds aren’t going to enforce them?
43% of all organic food sold in America tests positive for prohibited pesticides. In Canada the figure is 46%.
Mischa, I’m beginning to think that you are a robot.
Thanks so much Stephanie. that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said about me here on these blogs.
For some reason they can’t hear you… Try a different approach. Pissing people off will only shut them off from you… I’m looking past your rediculous comments and hearing you. You are raising awareness to something I don’t think many understand or are willing to dive into.
Exposing a $36-billion per-annum scam tends to piss people off sometimes.
It’s domestic organic farmers that we have to reach. They’re the ones being hurt.
Soil biology = science.
Monitoring of soil carbon = science.
Optimal grazing plan = science. Electric fences? science.
Proper use/combination of cover crops = science.
Optimal cropping plans = science.
For me, watching single presentation by Ray Archuleta is enough to convince me :D
Julaine,
I understand and appreciate that you and lots of organic farmers do good and innovative things and share a great deal of the same motivations and even methods of non-organic growers. I’ve spent a significant proportion of my career working on biological controls that might be helpful for any kind of farmer. Actually, in the plant agriculture sector, a great many of the organic farmers are also conventional farmers. I just wish it was people like you and they who had control over the positioning of the organic super brand. Unfortunately, lots of that gets driven by marketing entities such as Stonyfield Farm or by a certain subset of activist groups. In my mind, people like you embody the ideals of organic I first learned about 50 years ago from my organic gardening grandpa. I wish you were the dominant voices
Thanks, Steve. I feel similarly, and I, along with Rob Wallbridge, who has also contributed here on the GLP and a few other like minded organic farmers, have spoken out against the advertising and positioning of organic super brands, such as the recent “New MacDonald” stunt. Unfortunately, our small voices tend to be lost in the mix of anti-conventional farming chatter. It’s really unfortunate that more organic farmers don’t speak up against those types of marketing techniques.
Deceptive marketing techniques are one thing Julaine. But when will organic farmers like you and Mr. Wallbridge stand up to the leadership of the organic industry and demand across-the-board organic field testing?
Consumers assume organic crops and livestock are tested. Logic dictates this is what the term “certified” means. But here we are filling out paperwork, with no field testing, and almost HALF of all organic food sold in Canada and the United States tests positive for prohibited pesticides.
This hurts honest organic farmers like you and Wallbridge. So why not insist on improving the situation? Or, do you actually prefer paperwork?
I’m quite certain that if a discrepancy should arise in a farmer’s paperwork or on their farm/in their crop yields, etc, their organic certifying body is authorized to demand testing. As a conventional farmer, our crops fed to our dairy cows were never tested, and as a dairy farmer, I’m not familiar with what sorts of testing conventional vegetables and crops for human consumption must undergo. But now that we must keep such exhaustive records, I’m not sure why that would suddenly mean that residue tests are necessary.
Of course your conventional crops were never tested. They weren’t claimed to be pesticide free. Geez…
So you’re really telling me that record-keeping is enough to keep all organic farmers honest? Then how do you explain the fact that almost HALF of all organic food sold in the United States and Canada tests positive for prohibited pesticides?
So you’re saying that conventional crops are never tested for pesticides residues to ensure that they don’t exceed the maximum allowable levels for human consumption or to ensure that minimum withdrawal times before harvesting are met? If that’s true, then you’re saying that paperwork is all that keeps conventional farmers honest as well.
Sorry. I never said that. But since you raise the issue, it so happens conventional crops ARE tested. Organic crops are not.
46% of all organic food sold in Canada tests positive for prohibited pesticides. No one, least of all an honest organic farmer like you, should be the least-bit surprised that fraud is rampant when there’s no organic field testing.
As I have stated many times, I can only comment to our own operations. We have no need of pesticides, have never needed pesticides beyond herbicides for weed control while we farmed conventionally. I’m afraid I have no experience with other pesticides. Obviously you feel very strongly about this issue, and I’d suggest that you take your concerns to an organic farmer that does use pesticides. Thanks!
Right… I’ll go ask an organic farmer who’s committing fraud to support organic field testing. You’re joking, right?
You’re the one sticking your neck out here Julaine. Either you’re the real-McCoy, and you have nothing to hide, or you’re part of the problem that results in almost HALF of all organic food testing positive for prohibited pesticides.
If you can’t take a stand one way or another on organic field testing, maybe you shouldn’t write columns anymore.
I’m sorry, I should have been more clear: ask an organic farmer who uses organic approved pesticides. I have no experience whatsoever with either, and it would be foolish of me to comment on something I really know very little about.
But it’s not approved pesticides that’s the issue. According to the CBC, 46% of all organic food sold in Canada tests positive for PROHIBITED, SYNTHETIC PESTICIDE RESIDUE.
I submit to you that this hurts your reputation as an honest organic farmer. Only organic field testing can protect you from this, to say nothing of the consumer of organic products who’s being duped right now, half the time.
Mischa, again, your comments are coming across rude and you are embarrassing yourself. You don’t win arguments by screaming louder and repeating yourself. please show some composure.
It is inevitable that a small percentage of every entity may do wrongdoing. If a few individuals of a certain race do harm, would you consider the entire race harmful. Ofcourse not. But a racist would think otherwise.
Right… the guy who thinks it’s perfectly fine to find prohibited pesticide residue in organic food is telling me my comments are rude and embarrassing.
46% ain’t a small percentage ma’ friend.
Well based on what I read your saying that 46% of organic produce tested positive of prohibited pestecides which were all imports?
Also I am an infant to this knowledge. What companies do you send your test produce to? What type of equipment do they use? Can you give precise information?
The labs I used include Anresco, Bodycote, Caro, E.M.A., Intertek and Synergistic.
There’s no way of know what percentage of the positive samples were imported. Neither the USDA nor CFIA would provide a breakdown. But one thing is known: that over three-quarters of all “organic” food sold in the United States and Canada is imported from countries like China.
o wow… I may have asked you already. Do you know where or who is importing these produce?
Since this isn’t a criminal case, it’s safe to assume every single broker/trader, processors, wholesaler and retailer is complicit in this scam. If one of these players is not directly involved in importing cheap-and-often-phony certified-organic products and ingredients from countries like China, they’re still guilty of not speaking out. Shame on them all.
I have a “pesticide free” backyard, and every year the insect pests do better and better. I could not possibly make a living gardening this way. Lots of birds and other critters visit my yard, and some live here, which has been my intent… If I lived anywhere close to a farm, I’m sure my “organic” patch would be frowned upon for good reason… It would no longer be a hobby garden if I had to keep on top of the insect/disease problems involved in the growing things. Soap spraying the plants just doesn’t cut it. For these reasons, I have often wondered about the realities of organic farming.
You should be commended for having the courage to speak out Rebecca. Most people just lie the same way they do about their sex-life when it comes to talking about the vagaries of managing a true organic garden.
My hats off to you!
Thank you. As one of my science teachers stated, “Biology is mostly about the study of reproduction – sex.”… Organic gardening falls into the reproduction – sex category… So, all the lying about organic gardening and personal lives kind of fits together!
What?
Are organic farmers using these pesticides themselves or is contamination coming from farms nearby? Would GMO labeling prevent cross-contamination of these pesticides? Would really like to know your opinion!
Just to make sure you understand Stephanie, organic crops are not being contaminated with GMOs, rather by prohibited pesticides. And yes, the level of contamination indicates quite clearly that fraud is the explanation.
Hi Mischa,
Would you please provide a verifiable, journal published source for this info?
Thanks
See for yourself:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pesticide-residue-found-on-nearly-half-of-organic-produce-1.2487712
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5101234
While the CBC News article seems worrying, the USDA pilot study clearly states:
Do you have any other studies or publications which you continue to base your argument on?
When I was a USDA-contract organic inspector, I tested organic farms and found no traces of prohibited pesticide residue. This was before the majority of organic food started to be imported from countries like China.
In any case, you seem to be saying a bit of prohibited pesticides in organic food is acceptable. And that’s a bit shocking.
Pesticide drift is an unavoidable reality.
I don’t buy organic produce due to the limited availability in my region, however considering 96 out of 100 samples tested by the USDA met organic regulations, I’d be happy to play the odds.
Cheers
Pesticide drift disipates logarithmically. That’s why the CBC agrees with what I’ve been saying since I performed my last organic inspection in 2003: that the results indicate fraud.
Mischa, you are throwing facts around that aren’t true. You were asked to provide a source for your statemen
“…almost HALF of all organic food sold in Canada and the United States tests positive for prohibited pesticides.”
The article provided said only 4% tested for pesticide residue.
If you are going to join the discusion please tell the truth. Your reputation has now been tarnished.
46% of samples in Canada tested positive, and this was so astonishing that officials at the CFIA tried to suppress the results.
The 4% figure you’re referring to is the percentage of samples that were above the American threshold level, but all of the positive samples indicate fraud… unless, of course, you believe it’s okay if organic food contains prohibited pesticides.
Thank you for your comment on the New McDonald clip. I hadn’t read this until after I made my earlier comment.
Just wondering: since the common aim of conventional and organic farmers is to get the best from the land, since there is this common convergence towards minimising environmental impact, using no/low-till techniques, emphasis on soil health, etc., and since umpteen studies have concluded that there are neither significant health nor ecological issues with current GMOS, why does organic certification (such as the Soil Association, cf. Liz’s comment below) continue to reject them?
It seems that there is movement on the conventional side to embrace organic-linked techniques to maintain soil quality, improve biodiversity, etc., but no sign of compromise on the organic side, even in areas where the best studies of the technology conclude that it is a win-win deal. Extreme positions are rarely optima, and by setting rules that completely veto use of potentially beneficial technologies it seems that the conventional, non-organic-certified farmers are the only ones who are allowed to find that optimal middle ground. Although they don’t have the benefit of an “organic” label to justify jacked-up prices.
I must say that this dogmatism on the part of organic certifiers (or at least that’s how it appears) and the regular misrepresentations of GMO and pesticide risks by NGOs like the Soil Association do put me off buying organic. And I see a *lot* more demonising of conventional farming and organic proselytising in mainstream media than anti-organic sentiment: I guess those quotes were found on pro-biotech Facebook pages etc.?
From the organic side I see an awful lot of baseless, anti-conventional nonsense — not least from my local organic, Soil Association certified farm shop who issue leaflets claiming that organic food is free of saturated fats. Your farm may be pro-science to some extent but plenty are not.
PS. You say you don’t use pesticides… does that mean “no synthetic pesticides” or “no pesticides at all, including organic-certified ones”? Just to be clear. If none at all, very impressive that your yields have remained unchanged! But still anecdote, vs wide-ranging studies showing substantially lower organic yields on average :-P
Excellent points, Andy. I certainly appreciated Ms. Treur’s article, and would like to read her response to your comment.
I’m not equipped to answer why GM crops are not permitted in organic farming, that’s up to the Canadian Organic regime. I can only reply to what I know to be true on our farm. This is not the result of naiveté on my part, but mainly because we farm in an area with very low pressures from pests other than weeds, and we haven’t had to consider different types of GM crops. We grow corn and grass and so the only GM crop that is used in our area is RoundUp Ready corn (which we planted before our transition to organic).
Yes, I am aware that the media is peppered with anti-conventional ag sentiments, and I am appalled at the lack of respect and disregard for scientific evidence that can be put forward by organic farmers, farming organizations and even mainstream media. When I come across these types of comments, articles or advertising stunts (such as the New MacDonald video) I am sure to speak out against them. The comments I posted weren’t from pro-biotech Facebook pages per se, but from comments on pages and articles written by fellow farmers. I absolutely agree that many types of organic advertising unnecessarily demonizes conventional ag, and so it appalls me to see conventional farmers applying the same techniques that they claim to abhor. That’s why I felt the need to speak out.
As to your postscript: We don’t use any pesiticides whatsoever, not even organic approved pesticides. Like I stated above, we have very little pressures from pests (besides wire worm, and we mitigate crop damage from these pests by planting our corn a full month later than conventional farmers, once the soil has warmed and the wire worms have moved deeper into the soil. So far this has worked well for us.) And yes, I’m aware that our yields are indeed anecdotal, but I used that example to refute the sweeping claims that organic yields are at best 20% lower than conventional yields.
As my own poscript: Do you mind me asking your opinion on the Rodale Institute study that claims that organic yields are at least equal to, if not greater, than conventional? I’m curious what your thoughts are. I found the study to be interesting because it mirrors what we have found to be true on our farm, and I am curious if it has been peer reviewed and what a conventional farmer would make of the data. http://foodtank.com/news/2015/04/organic-trumps-conventional-across-the-board
Julaine
I looked at the report form Rodale. It is not complete enough for me to see how much if any of the report is valid. It reads more like a commercial than a true unbiased report. They mention that both systems were grown no-till and conventional tillage, but I don’t see the data comparisons. Then they show a picture of organic and conventional in a drought with the conventional suffering more so. I could get this same picture with conventional grown with tillage and without tillage.
There is a lot of missing information and data. What exactly were the fertilizer and manure rates used?
Without more information I guess I would believe this report about as much as I would the results of variety trials conducted by a seed company.
In response to your question about fertilizer and manure rates Keith, it takes 5,000 lb. of compost to yield 200 lb. per acre of usable Nitrogen. To obtain 5,000 lb. of compost you need to begin with 10,000 to 15,000 lb. of manure and dry matter.
This is enough to fill 10 to 15 half-ton trucks. The pile has to be turned at least 3 times with a front-end loader (preferably 5 times) and then hauled out to the field and incorporated into the soil.
This is always left out of Rodale’s analysis.
Interesting take on it from Keith. Indeed all the data and detailed references are missing, and I also got the feeling that the conclusions were totally predetermined and that they were looking to cherry-pick angles that would make organic “win”. Look at the GMO section under Yields:
*a cherry-picked single study on economics (you can bet there are others with the opposite conclusion);
* comparison of numbers of varieties via transgenics vs. “traditional” (probably including mutagenesis) without meaningfully comparing the volumes, associated investment, or quantifying the levels of investment;
* a canard about herbicide resistance “linked directly back to GM”
* explosion in herbicide use, without considering the vast reduction in toxicity associated with glyphosate replacing other herbicides.
From a quick read of the other sections (I didn’t mean to focus on the GMO one, but it seems most directly relevant for GLP readers) they are just as bad. It indeed reads as a pro-organic lobbying booklet, without references, rather than a “report”. But maybe there is a proper document with data and decent peer review that goes with it?
In the (cheerleading) article you linked, summarising the report’s Economics [age, it says that organic is more profitable than conventional, despite needing to employ 30% more people, and at least equals conventional profitability even when organic price premiums are subtracted… it doesn’t really sound plausible. And if organic is just as efficient, and more profitable than conventional, then *why* should there be a price premium on it? ;-) Sadly there’s no detail to back this up.
But despite my scepticism, thanks for highlighting this report — I’d really like to see someone really expert go through it point-by-point: future GLP article, maybe?
All valid points Andy.
The point to take away from the Rodale study – and indeed pretty much all anti-GMO, pro-organic studies – is that organic stakeholders recognize the unprecedented potential that GMO crops have to not only increase production, but to also reduce the use of fossil fuel, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.
Most organic livestock operations don’t use pesticides, even approved ones. Cattle are still the best weeding tool ever invented.
Organic stakeholders rejected President Clinton’s offer of accepting GMOs on a case-by-case basis in 1997 because they recognized that the fledgling science of genetic engineering offered solutions to each and every problem they had with conventional agriculture. Rather than embrace this science and help it advance, they chose to reject it, and to ultimately see it banned.
Thank you for your thoughtful post, Julaine, and welcome to the discussion. Your perspective provides some needed balance in an often rancorous topic. My main issue with Organic is with the rigidity of the standards and the governing bodies (and their added costs due to certification inspection) that don’t allow the established science to ever overrule the in-place dogma. Having the freedom to pick and choose from ALL the available tools seems to allow for the the best outcomes for the farmer, society and the planet.
I am glad to see an embrace of science by anyone in the Organic camp. The tendency has been for the Organic crowd to noisily and conspicuously wall off options due to sanctimonious / misguided / romantic notions (or worse, blatantly dishonest and manipulative profit driven marketing/propaganda) that Organic = purity, planet-saving healthful goodness vs. the always-evil GMO / Big Ag / Monsanto shill bogeyman.
Its funny because no farmer actually calls themselves any “type” of famer. We just farm. Labels are used by people who want to apply a cookie cutter definition to a broader group. My family farm is a hybrid of organic (which we decertified from 3 years ago), biotech and conventional. For the sakes of those who like labels, we call it “synergistic” because we take the best practices of all 3 systems to be sustainable. No one system has “everything” a farm needs, nor should we be hobbled to meet a criteria that doesn’t work efficiently or sustainably. All farm types and sizes have a place in the food supply chain and since we represent such a small % of the population, we’d be best building each other up, like you said, not throwing each other under the bus. Thanks!
Juliane,
I think a lot of what you are reading that is negative towards organic farming is in response to organic organizations and companies supporting anti-biotech organizations that provide misleading information to the public, and advertising campaigns where places like Chipolte demonize conventional agriculture. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Keith, well-said. I think organic farmers such as Juliane and her husband need to work at creating a better organization to represent them. While I don’t personally buy organic, I would be quite comfortable supporting an organization that more accurately represented organic foods and farmers.
That’s like saying shopkeepers in a neighborhood ruled by the Mafia need to work at creating a better organization to “protect” them.
Wow – you really like hyperbole, don’t you? Forget about the “slippery slope,” you just jump straight to the worst-case scenario, eh?
I wasn’t talking about a new regulatory body – that should properly be a government function, and that’s not what is being discussed here. We’re talking about a public-facing organization to better represent a segment of the farming industry than the looney-tunes ones that currently exist and that are a huge part of the problem in the anti-science, inflammatory debate.
The “looney-tunes” organizations that currently represent the organic industry control the regulatory bodies. As such, the anti-science, inflammatory debate is being perpetuated by the government… at taxpayer expense no less.
Do you know what “user fees” are?
Mischa….you’re getting a bit edgy these days. I know you are an expert on the current fallacy of “organic” agriculture, and your sentiments are in the right place; but to vehemently attack someone such as the author of this article who has tried to build a bridge between the producers of “organic” and “conventional” food supplies is counterproductive. If someday the author finds that she can’t compete as an organic farmer, she is always free to revert to the conventional side. That’s up to nature and the marketplace to sort out. Meanwhile, this blog site is (or should be) focused upon genetic literacy. The main theme should be getting the mindless “organic” faction to study up on their science, and to learn something about agriculture in the meanwhile, so that they can authentically contribute to the sustainability of human existence, i.e. minimize detrimental impacts on the environment while we live here. I think that the author conveys the same sentiments.
Don’t build bridges with anyone who fails to see the severe shortcomings of her own position.
Any organic farmer who realizes she can’t compete currently has the option of turning to fraud. Organic field testing will not only prevent rampant fraud in the multibillion dollar organic sector (46% of the time), it will also encourage ALL organic farmers to “build a bridge” as you say. Instead of just pretending organic is superior, they’ll be forced to prove it is.
I’m terribly sorry if my opposition to fraud seems “a bit edgy,” but I know too many honest organic farmer to just stand idly by without speaking out.
It’s refreshing to hear from someone that farms organically but respects, “conventional” farming.
I have to ask, though, how do you obtain your crop nutrients on an ongoing basis?
For instance, when I rotate from soybeans to corn, I figure that I get about 30 lb. residual N per acre from the beans. That’s great, that 30 lb. of N saves me about $17 per acre toward the corn crop. But when I plant corn into that soybean field, I have a pretty good idea how much N, P & K I need, along with micronutrients to deliver my desired yield. And that’s because I do a lot of soil sampling, plant tissue sampling, thermal imaging and NDVI.
What kind of testing program do you have to support your crop nutrition needs, if you don’t mind me asking?
If you’re growing corn, whether it be for silage or grain, and you see that you have a N deficiency, how do you do a rescue treatment? If I woof on my N plan for my corn, I can side-dress UAN 32 up to about V12 or VT or maybe R1. What do you do in that case?
Thanks for considering my questions.
Hi Joe. We have recently completed a Nutrient Management Plan for our farm, complete with soil and input samples. We address nutrient deficiencies with composted chicken and cow manure and liquid cow manure from our dairy operation. Although using chemical fertilizers does result in a more precise application of the necessary nutrients, the combination of these two manures/composts, incorporating cover crop residue into the soil, crop rotation and planting nitrogen fixers such as red clover have allowed us to continue to produce the same yields as we were able to achieve while farming conventionally. As in all types of farming, this is of course anecdotal, and what works for us in our very temperate climate may not be suitable for other organic farms.
Thanks for the info. I’m curious to know what kind of contribution your red clover makes per year (lbs. N).
I’ve been experimenting with cover crops here (central IA) for 5 years and haven’t had much luck at all with nitrogen-fixers like crimson clover, hairy vetch, etc. You have a temperate climate, we get harsh winters here. Getting a legume cover crop established here is iffy at best – the seed cost and aerial application cost exceeds the N contribution in my experience..
How do you terminate your red clover (we call it crimson clover here) since you don’t use herbicides?
We overseed or seed our pastures with 3-5 lbs/acre of crimson/red clover. Not sure exactly how much nitrogen that fixes, but we also appreciate the deeper roots that increase organic matter and help to aerate the soil. Red clover overwinters well here. Because it is a part of our forage we don’t need to terminate it. We plow it under when we rotate the grass to corn.
Thanks for the info.
One of my gripes about organics is the need for lots of tillage. Your land, your choice, you do what’s right for you, though.
In my operation, in my climate, it makes a lot more sense for me to get my N from synthetic sources. And being able to improve my soil by not tilling/min tilling because herbicides aren’t off the table for philosophical reasons in organic production.
Like I said, I’ve been working with cover crops for 5 years, it will be year 6 this fall. Short growing season here makes it hard to establish many cover crops. I have to pay usually between $8.50 and $13.00/ac. for aerial application, plus cost of seed. If you have the luxury of harvesting whatever your crop is, then drilling in your cover crop, that’s good for you, but not an option for me.
Btw, I’m glad you’re not being intimidated by idealogues like Mischa. You must really be a farm girl, the farm girls I know are pretty tough.
Actually, here in the Fraser Valley, deep tillage is the way to go. We get a lot of rain, no or low till doesn’t work here (we’ve tried actually – not a success ;) ). But yes, I understand why conventional farmers feel that this is a drawback of organic farming. I have seen some info online about organic farmers trying low till methods, seems to be working for some.
I understand that what works here doesn’t work everywhere. I really do think that we’re fortunate to farm in an area that seems to be conducive to the way we farm.
haha, thanks :) Farm girls are built tough, they say! (I deal with animal rights activists on a regular basis, so a little bit of intimidation doesn’t really phase me.)
What kind of soils do you have that can withstand deep tillage and a lot of rain?
Not sure how Canada defines soil types, but our USDA NRCS has definitions. Maybe some common terms?
Our issues here are preventing loss of topsoil, minimizing nitrogen losses to waterways and minimizing phosphorus losses to waterways. Which leads us to no-till and min-till practices being the preferred solution..
Sandy loam, generally, usually over a base of river gravel, so good drainage. 2+ meters of rain a year, most of which falls from October to March, compacts the soil. Drive around now, farmers, both conventional and organic, are turning the fields over everywhere you look (we only grow silage corn and grass here, that’s all that works in our climate) One conventional farmer friend recently said plowing is nearly mandatory here in the spring to air out and dry out the soil as well as help to control the weeds that grow through winter because it is generally so mild.
Sandy loam soil usually means low CEC.
What kind of CEC do you see based on your testing? Base saturation?
We tested for TEC this spring, ranged between 10 and 12 meq/100 g. Not sure if the measurements are the same in the US with imperial system? Base Saturations range between 74% and 90%. The Nutrient Management Plan is new to us this year, we’re hoping it will prove to be a useful tool! We’re also curious to see how the numbers will change over the years. We’ve been farming here for just over 4 years. Previously, the land was planted in corn for silage, no cover crops, for about 15 years, then the year before we bought the farm, Brussels sprouts were grown and sprayed heavily & often with pesticides. We noticed a huge increase in soil life even after the first year of farming organically.
Your TEC term I think is the same as our CEC.
Since you’re between 10 and 12, you’re limited on how much N your soil can hold. Rule of thumb is 10 lbs. N per unit of CEC. So, 12 CEC soil can hold about 120 lb. N per acre.
The practical ramification of that is if your corn needs let’s say 170 lb./ac., you’re going to have to do a split application of N. How do you guys do that? Do you actually side-dress raw liquid manure?
Our NMP recommends 147 lbs for the corn. We apply composted chicken manure over the entire corn field, composted cow manure in the sandier areas, and raw liquid manure on the rest. This is applied after our cover crop of winter wheat and annual rye grass is harvested for silage and then after the application, it is plowed under, and the soil is cultivated to planting consistency. I’m not sure if we entirely reach the recommended N requirements with these manure applications (the NMP shows that with our current applications we apply 133 lbs N/acre), but our corn yields have been outstanding: 22 tons/acre of silage, comparable to or better than conventional farms in our area. We’re definitely happy with that!
I think the truer yield per acre must take into account the acreage used to produce the manure to grow the silage. Likewise, for conventional farming, the acreage used to produce the synthetic fertilizers have to be taken into account (size of plant an its share of acreage taken up by however the needed hydrogen is produced)
Unlike a straight corn farmer, you feed-back some of your nitrogen that you use to the fields in the form of your cows’ manure, so, in effect, your nitrogen harvest is only the milk and meat you sell, not the silage itself. This, i think, is true for any dairy farmer, conventional or organic, who uses the resulting manure on his own fields.
I like how you’re thinking mass balance.
Dairy farmers are recycling waste from their herds, however, any livestock are not very efficient at recycling nitrogen.
And composting is not, “free”. Steve Savage wrote a blog post a year or two ago about the environmental aspects of composting. A really good read.
Thanks! It’s the engineer in me. :)
Julaine, I hate to be the only asshole in the discussion room, but I call Bullshit on most of your claims.
If you are using cover crops in Canada you are not getting the same yield. 100% bullshit, unless you totally sucked as a conventional farmer.
At least you were kind enough to acknowledge how you’re behaving before you launched your personal attack on the author’s credibility and farming skills without a shred of your own evidence.
I regularly talk with organic farmers here in Canada who match their neighbours’ yields on forages and field crops; it’s not magic or rocket science, it’s good management and good agronomy.
If you can’t bring something constructive to the discussion, go troll somewhere else.
And what about the fact that a whopping 46% of all organic food sold in Canada tests positive for prohibited pesticides?
Rob, I know that you are a reasonable guy, and both you and I know that Organic and conventional may have comparable yields sometimes, but the vast majority of cases and years Organic is significantly lower.
Rob, in my opinion, the organic activists will win this battle only when they drop their opposition to biotechnical modification of crops, i.e. accept GMOs as perfectly legitimate components of “organic” agriculture. If you really want to be a leader on this topic you should be campaigning among your cohort for adoption of pro-GMO organics.
Organic stakeholders were given the opportunity to accept GMOs on a case-by-case basis by President Clinton in 1997. But they rejected the offer because they had already decided to switch from being anti-pesticide to anti-GMO.
If Rob was to so much as suggest accepting GMOs, he would most-certainly lose his organic certification.
Some people think I’m too hard on Rob. But the truth is I feel sorry for him.
I believe they’ll have to drop their prohibition against synthetic fertilizers as well.
http://www.biofortified.org/2013/12/organic-farming-reliant-on-synthetic-nitrogen/
By conservation of matter, i propose:
d(Nitrogen Uptake by crop)/dt = -d(Nitrogen Level in soil)/dt – d(Nitrogen Loss from runoff, weeds,etc)/dt + d(Nitrogen applied)/dt
I.e, the rate of nitrogen update by a crop is equal to the rate nitrogen is pulled from the soil, minus the rate of nitrogen lost via runoff, weeds, etc, plus the rate that nitrogen is applied.
In your “applied” factor, don’t forget that human application is not the only input of N. Account for the portion that is fixed from atmospheric N, i.e. by Rhizobium nodulated legumes & other N fixing microorganisms.
As for the so-called “organic” guys opposing synthetic fertilizers, that’s a dead end. Try as they might, they can’t come up with enough manure all on their own.
Nitrogen applied does represent all sources summed together, as you point out it must. The equation is equally applicable to any nutrient, like iron.
The only way Julaine might get comparable yields is if she’s performing perfect manure management. But, even if she’s piling the manure and turning it at the required intervals, and delivering it to the field at the optimum time, the question then becomes, does she have enough manure to keep all of her fields properly fertilized?
I’ll bite. We farm in the mild and temperate Fraser Valley. Our mild winters allow our cover crop to grow to waist height by late April, when we harvest the winter wheat/annual rye grass as silage for dairy cattle feed. The crop residue is incorporated into the soil before we plant our corn. We’ve been farming organically for three years, but besides no longer using chemical fertilizers and RR-ready corn that was sprayed to control weeds, nothing else has changed in how we manage our crops. We formerly grew cover crops, just as nearly all farmers in our area do. We have matched their yields and our yields before transitioning each year. I’ve been very transparent in my writing on my blog and Facebook page, you’re welcome to check them out to see for yourself. And if you don’t believe me, really, I don’t care.
but besides no longer using chemical fertilizers and RR-ready corn that was sprayed to control weeds, nothing else has changed in how we manage our crops.
So, nothing else changed but these two things? Yet you get the same yield, I am calling 100% bullshit again.
Wanna come visit to see for yourself? :) I’m not sure how I can convince you, and I really don’t feel that that’s necessary. You’re very welcome to your opinion. Have a good day.
Where in the fraser valley would I find this magic farm, where nitrogen and phosphorous fall from the sky, where green manure grows without any land use, and where weeds just die on their own? My good friend, has a farm near Yarrow, he would be very interested seeing the magic at work.
Dairy cow and chicken manure/compost, my friend, are our very helpful allies in this. And shallow cultivation for weeds in our corn field works very well also.
Dairy cow and chicken manure/compost
Ah, but you said that the only thing you changed was dropping the chemical fertilizers and GMO corn… Now you apply 50 times more natural fertilizer.. So really, you are just using processed N and P (through a chicken) from conventional farmers, and using far more tillage. How is this more environmentally sustainable?
Before we transitioned to organic, we used both manures/compost as fertilizer as well. Only cow manure and chemical fertilizer on our grass, and cow & chicken manure and chemical fertilizer on our corn. Our cow manure usage has stayed stable since transition, and we have begun using chicken manure on our grass as well as the corn. We occasionally did not use chicken manure on our corn while conventional, just cow manure and chemical fertilizer, and those yields were actually lower than our yields now while farming organically. As per the organic standards, we must try to source organic chicken manure, but if it is unavailable, conventional manure is permitted, provided it is from uncaged birds. Once organic chicken farming becomes more common I think the standards will likely require organic manures only. We only use cow manure and compost from our own herd.
We typically need two passes of shallow tillage in the corn to control weeds after it is planted. But we have noticed that this tillage also aids corn growth by eliminating compaction. So really, we only have one more pass through the field than while we were conventional: instead of spraying once, we till twice. Compared to farmers who side dress with fertilizer, we make exactly the same amount of passes through the field.
And where does your feed come from? Is it all on-farm? Or is some imported?
See my response to Charles above. We source organic grain from Alberta.
Then you stand above the crowd. How do you feel about the fact that most organic dairies in North America import their feed from overseas?
That does solve part of the missing nitrogen question. You are getting some nitrogen from the fields where those grains are grown. Those fields must also be getting their nitrogen from natural fixing and/or manure from animals fed grains from elsewhere, and so on.
When computing your yield of milk/beef per acre, i’m of the opinion that you must include the acreage that those grains needed to grow on.
Do you also directly purchase manure?
[Edit] I.e. are you raising your own chickens or the manure comes from off your farm?
That’s an interesting question. I don’t think we’ve ever computed milk/acre. Milk/cow, yes, always, but not milk per acre.
We purchase the chicken manure that we then compost and use to fertilize our crops. However, the cow manure and compost is from our own herd.
I guess back in the really old days, when it was difficult for farmers to get stuff shipped to them, a diary farmer who wanted to increase his/her milk production would have needed to know how many cows per acre his land would support. Then, from there, it was an easy calculation to come with a gallons/acre yield.
Milk/cow, yes, always, but not milk per acre.
And Organic cows produce the same amount of milk as conventional cows?
It depends. Our cows before transition were not extremely high producers. We cross breed our herd for strength, health and longevity, not extreme milk production. For a conventional farmer that feeds a high producing, confined herd an excess of 40% concentrate, yes, milk production would fall if transitioned to organic due to the regulations on the amount of grain that can be fed as well as pasture requirements. But we have not noticed a decrease in milk production since transitioning on our farm.
Ah, so we finally get to the truth. You were not a very good conventional dairy operation so to improve profits you switched to organic so you could sell the same milk for 2x more money. Good Job. No wonder organic quotas are so expensive.
I take offense to that. We measure dairy farming success by healthy cows living productively into their teens, not cows that are spent and shipped to slaughter at four years of age. Our financials were in fine shape before transitioning to organic, better than others in our area, according to our banker. Also organic quota costs just as much as conventional quota here.
I take offense to that. How come selling the same milk for 2x more money is offencive? I sell lots of forage product for more than 2x more money, if people find value in it, all the power to you.
We measure dairy farming success by healthy cows living productively into their teens, not cows that are spent and shipped to slaughter at four years of age.
Saying that we switched to organic farming because we weren’t good conventional farmers is offensive, and, quite frankly, entirely untrue. Our profit margins met or surpassed other farms in our area: healthy cows with fewer health, hoof and reproductive issues, along with a low herd turnover because of increased longevity more than make up for extra income from high producing cows (who must be fed large quantities of costly grain to sustain that high production.) The fact that, come November when our herd is fully certified, we will be paid 40% more for our efforts is nice, I won’t deny that. But it’s not the only reason we decided to seek organic certification.
healthy cows living productively into their teens, not cows that are spent and shipped to slaughter at four years of age.
Hmmm, what? Half the dairy cattle are sold as veal at about 8 months of age.
So you are not about dairy production you are about beef production?
Bull calves in our area are sold to be raised as beef, not veal, and are slaughtered at two years of age. But I’m referring to the statistics that the average dairy cow only lasts two lactations (4 years of age) before being culled.
But I’m referring to the statistics that the average dairy cow only lasts two lactations (4 years of age) before being culled.
Well the stats that I read from the Canadian Dairy Commissioner state that 68% of dairy cattle are still producing at 8 years of age, just slightly lower than the “dairy superpower” New Zealand.
hmmm…I read an article in a dairy magazine just this week written by a vet decrying the fact that North American dairy cows last an average of 2.4 lactations, so that’s a little more than four years of age. He was calling for changes to the way people farm to increase this number.
Julaine, in a high production dairy, the “rule of thumb” is that we cull about 20% per year of each age. These are not “spent” or “used up,” but are simply the lowest producing cows. Some of our culls have spent many years being a great milk cow for an individual. The best lactations are the 2nd-5th lactation, and there are fewer cows culled through these lactations. Reproduction issues are a common culling metric. Once we’ve completed the first lactation, we are far more likely to make the 2nd-5th lactations. “Averages” don’t really tell the whole story.
How many lbs of components do you produce a day, and what is the selling price in your area?
We have been working with crossbreds also, and have found the longevity better. Some say there is too much inbreeding in the Holstein line. We’ve been focusing more on the closeup herd, even moving them around, ie: an exercise program. It seems to be producing results with more healthy births.
I’ve been interested in your comments, and I appreciate how you’re tackling this.
One parting thought–try to promote the organic product without bashing our conventional product. I think the “New McDonald” clip is a lying piece of trash that does not fairly portray modern agriculture. Exposure like that will result in some backlash.
Our financials were in fine shape before transitioning to organic
well they must be awesome now that you are selling the same milk for 2x more money.
Actually, our dairy herd won’t be certified until November, so we haven’t received any extra income as of yet. And the extra amounts to about 40% extra, not 2x the conventional income.
Also organic quota costs just as much as conventional quota here.
Far tougher to get them though, Right???
Looked it up on the BC milk marketing board site.
BTW, the milk marketing boards are doing a horrible job, milk consumption is way down, even though the population is up.
No. The marketing board is asking for more conventional farmers to become organic, as the current organic producers can’t keep up with demand. All that is necessary is organic certification, but most farmers are unwilling to commit to that. Actually, all farmers in BC, conventional and organic, have received an extra 8% of free quota in the last year just to keep up with increased demand. All of the provinces have received extra quota, actually, not just BC. While fluid milk consumption certainly is down, demand for other dairy products such as butter, cheese and yogurt is constantly rising, triggering the increased demand for milk from dairy producers. Not sure where you’re getting your information from, but it’s not accurate!
Also organic quota costs just as much as conventional quota here.
Yep, $44,000.00/Kg per day.
Expensive to get into the dairy business.
Hmmm, I wonder what the carbon footprint is on that?
If the standards do change to require only organic manure, that will choke off a large nitrogen input into organic farming. Only so much nitrogen can be fixed per acre through purely natural means (legumes, lightning, etc). It is estimated that fully half of the nitrogen in all the people alive today came from the Haber-Bosch process.
It was the rejection of the Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis process that gave rise to the organic movement in the first place. So it’s ideologically impossible that it will ever be allowed in organic production even though all Nitrogen comes from the earth’s atmosphere no matter how it’s fixed.
Hey cool fact, where did you find that one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#cite_note-Howarth_2008-19 This one mentions 80%
This is why honest organic stakeholders used to stress that mixed organic farms are the only way to guarantee long-term sustainability. Without at least 10,000 lb. of manure available per-acre, you simply can’t continuously farm organically, even with cover crops (green manure plow downs).
“Organic farming practices revolve around improving and feeding the soil and soil life rather than feeding the crop growing in that soil.” – sorry, but this hardly makes sense. It implies you are putting more into the soil than you are taking off in your crops, yet you say that yields have not decreased. It doesn’t compute.
Likewise, animal manure and compost does not provide a good balance of N, P and K. So how do you keep mineral balance in your soil? Long term consequences?
If your cows get ill, do you use antibiotics? I understand that, if you do, you must remove the cows from any organic system and sell them to conventional farmers. Therefore, do you wait too long to treat a bacterial infection in your cows and cause undue suffering? Or do you treat with homeopathic products (i.e., water) and hope that the cow understands the placebo effect.
I have no idea why organic farmers do not use GE plants given the overwhelming safety evidence plus the fact that they can help the environment. And why organic farming at all given that the food produced is no better than that of conventional farming? I believe the reason is that you are doing it for marketing reasons and pandering to the rich middle class in BC.
Hi William. I responded to a comment above about how we supply nutrients to our land/crops by utilizing the combination of soil and input testing as offered by our Nutrient Management Plan team.
As for antibiotic use in dairy cattle, I’d like to inform you that the Canadian Organic Standards have different requirements than in the US: a dairy cow is permitted to have two treatments of antibiotics or parasiticides per year. If she requires more treatments than this she must undergo a one year transition before her milk is again considered organic. Of course, she can never be sold for organic slaughter after she has received even one treatment. And the milk withdrawal time is one month, or two times longer than the conventional milk withdrawal period, whichever is longer. Our cows are treated if they become ill. Period.
I know that testing has shown that milk from cows on pasture has been proven to contain beneficial fatty acids. As organic farmers, we are required to pasture our cows during the grazing season – April to October here in BC. Additionally, many consumers choose organic milk products because of the assurance that dairy cows are not confined to barns. We transitioned to organic in the first place because we realized that the organic way of farming fit with our own ideals and many of the practices we already employed were required under organic practices.
Hi Julaine. Thanks. Read your nutrient management details above – in spite of all that, I would be surprised if your soil had the same balance of N/P/K in 10 years time and had the same capacity for grass production. But time will tell.
OK, good to hear re the antibiotics/parasiticides in Canada (where I live now – originally from Ireland).
Yes, obviously the diet (grass vs. grain vs. brewers grains, etc.) has an effect on milk composition but IMO not on quality and certainly not on safety. Also, 90% of the dairy farmers I know in Canada and Europe keep their cows on grass (supplemented with silage/haylage/grains, etc. as required for land quality, climate).
Reading your blog and some of the comments here, I still wonder why we have a need for organic farming/food (which I agree has been totally hijacked by marketing people spinning lies and fear-mongering to the uneducated). IMO we need to avoid the extremes and used the best technology and knowledge to have conventional farming that is simply better attuned to the environment and sustainable production. Yes, yields might suffer just a tad but we would also not have to contend with all the extremist organic stuff (like homeopathy, not being allowed to use antibiotics as required, GMOs, etc.) and also not have to contend with the “factory farming” label. There is a middle ground, especially in dairying IMO.
I give a a thumbs up for an informative post. But, i’m curious about a couple of things.
1) Why is the withdrawal period always set to 2X that of conventional? (if > 1 month) If tomorrow, the conventional period is doubled, does the cows’ biology suddenly changed? If one area requires a longer period than another for the conventional, do the cows in that area really do take longer to metabolize the antibiotic?
2) Why would the withdrawal period be lengthened to one year from 1 month just because the cow went from 2 to 3 courses of treatment? Again, does the cow’s biology change after the 2nd treatment that slows the rate of antibiotic metabolizing?
3) Why, even after one needed antibiotic treatment, the cow can never be used for organic meat when the milk shows that there are no more antibiotics left in the animal?
You’re asking the right questions First Officer. The truth is that organic activists have never been able to explain their on-again, off-again relationship with antibiotics. So all of these rules are really arbitrary.
I know that after the conventional withdrawal time has passed there is the possibility of some antibiotic residue being present in the milk, but as long as it falls under a certain threshold it is not deemed a problem. So I’m under the impression that the longer withdrawal period would minimize the risk of residues being present in organic milk that fall under that threshold.
I’m not quite sure how to address your other questions. These regulations are required under organic certification. We have yet to treat a cow for the third time in one year, so have only thought about this in theory, not in practice. Rob Wallbridge also addressed these issues below. I know also that there is a lot of debate about this as well, considering that the US and Canadian regulations differ.
My problem isn’t with the organic farmers. They are as hard working and caring as any other. My problem is with the industry. Only Organic can make attack ads at conventional farmers, but when we defend conventional farming we are called bullies.
While it’s certainly good to hear that organic dairy farmers do the same testing that conventional dairy farmers do, what about testing to ensure feed is genuinely organic (pesticide free for instance), and that your herd is hormone and antibiotic free?
These basic tests would cost less than one-tenth what you currently pay to be certified. Where do you stand on this Julaine? Why is there no field testing for compliance and safety in the organic industry?
I replied to your comment about crop testing above. Artificial hormones that increase milk production are forbidden on all Canadian dairies, not just organic dairies. And our milk is tested for antibiotic residues both on farm and at the processing plant.
Of course your milk is tested for antibiotics. Isn’t all milk tested that way?
What I’m asking is whether your cows are tested for antibiotics.
More to the point, are your crops tested to ensure they’re pesticide free?
Why should we believe your records if there’s no field testing?
I responded to your field testing about. Antibiotics are excreted in milk – ie any cow that is treated with antibiotics will have antibiotic residues in her milk. That’s why the milk is tested. The organic dairy antibiotic withdrawal period is one month or twice as long as the conventional withdrawal period, whichever is longer.
When an animal is claimed to be antibiotic and hormone-free, why not conduct an occasional test to prove it?
When crops are claimed to be free of synthetic pesticides, why not test them to prove it?
Organic field testing would cost less than one-tenth what the current certification system costs, and save you hours of time filling out paperwork. Why not support it?
Does this mean it is OK to treat a sick animal with antibiotics in organic farming and, after a month from the last dose, the animal can be used in organic production again?
Under Canadian Organic Standards, there are provisions for treating dairy animals with antibiotics, when necessary and under veterinary supervision; milk from a treated animal cannot be sold as organic for 30 days, or twice the label requirement, as Julaine stated. Once the withholding period has passed, the milk from that cow can go back into the organic supply.
This is different from the USDA NOP, which states that any animal treated with antibiotics (and therefore any of their products) loses organic status permanently.
These dairy provisions continue to be the subject of a lot of debate in both countries – perhaps a good topic for a future blog post!
In both Canada and the U.S., meat from animals treated with antibiotics at any point in their life cannot be marketed as organic.
What is the rational for prohibiting meat and milk from animals that have received an antibiotic only when needed and sufficient time had passed for the antibiotic to clear the animal’s system? Are Sulfa drugs allowed?
Since the organic industry on both side of the border recognizes that livestock MUST be treated with antibiotics when the animal’s life is in danger, why is the meat of an organic animal rejected for organic slaughter just because the animal received antibiotics at some point in its life?
Isn’t the whole point to ensure that we’re not consuming antibiotics when we eat organic meat? As long as the antibiotics have metabolized, why not allow the animal to go for organic slaughter?
why not allow the animal to go for organic slaughter?
Marketing…
Quite right. And marketing is also the reason organic activists remain dead-set opposed to GMOS.
Thank you for the info.
In both Canada and the U.S., meat from animals treated with antibiotics at any point in their life cannot be marketed as organic.
So you can sell the milk as Organic in Canada but not the beef? That makes no sense at all.
People who don’t vaccinate their kids always point out that their kids are healthy. But they fail to see that diseases are prevented from even reaching their kids due to the high rate of vaccination in the population at large. This is called herd immunity.
Without pest control by neighboring conventional farmers, organic farmers would suffer unimaginable losses, right up-to-and-including total crop failure.
I can’t agree. Our farm borders mountainside and river on three sides and a large organic pasture on the other. We have no neighbourly pest control to rely on!
Surely you recognize that the majority of organic farmers across North America do not find themselves in such fortunate position. We can’t very well tuck all the nation’s organic farms away in the mountains.
Certainly. But I don’t pretend to be an expert on other farming operations, I only know what happens on our farm. And our farm does not rely on our neighbour’s pest control to succeed. And while my experience is certainly anecdotal, it shows that your argument above is not accurate.
Let’s face it, you didn’t write this article just to defend your organic farm. You wrote it to defend ALL organic farms.
You’re willing to generalize in responding to the many criticisms of organic farming. But then you pretend you’re just talking about your own organic experience when a bit of criticism comes your way.
As an organic farmer, you must explain why 46% of all organic food tests positive for prohibited pesticides.
I wrote it to defend organic farming in general by explaining what I know to be true on our farm and on other organic farms that I am familiar with. I’m not going to defend my work by discussing something I know nothing about. Have a good day!
Yes, I know you wrote to defend organic farming in general. So defend it. Stop pretending your situation is emblematic of the organic industry as a whole.
Do 46% of your crops test positive for prohibited pesticides? Of course not. Why not do something about this? Avoiding the issue won’t make it go away.
First you wrote:
“Without pest control by neighboring conventional farmers, organic farmers would suffer unimaginable losses, right up-to-and-including total crop failure.”
Then you wrote:
“Surely you recognize that the majority of organic farmers across North America do not find themselves in such fortunate position. We can’t very well tuck all the nation’s organic farms away in the mountains.”
So organic farmers rely completely on their neighbours pest control, yet if they don’t have neighbours they are in a fortunate position? Am I missing the logic here?
A hermit living in a cave doesn’t need to be vaccinated.
So yes, you missed the point.
The hermit is isolated from the pathogen, whereas the farm is always exposed to pests that occur naturally in the surrounding habitat. Ecological forces dictate population levels of all species. If a farm creates habitat that is favourable to a certain pest it will proliferate there.
Julaine says her farm is isolated and that it was relatively easy for her to convert to organic production. Her farm is like a hermit.
Your farm is embedded amongst conventional farms, the opposite of a hermit. And while you assume you’re a proficient organic farmer because you don’t have pest pressure, you’re actually benefiting from all the pest control carried out by your neighbors.
I worked at a farm that was bordered on 3 sides by conventional farms. We transitioned 100% out of using insecticides (for cost and health reasons) over a course of 2 years and never went back. Its was interesting how the neighbours continue to deal with increasing pesticide resistance and using more and more applications while our crops were only about 10 metres away. It seems like the pests prefered the crops that were sprayed. :)
As someone who grew up on an organic grain farm and worked for 5 years as an organic inspector, I am very familiar with such theories. But if there was any truth to what you say, why hasn’t anyone proven it yet? Like Rodale or the Soil Association?
I’m not sure what the benefit would be in proving it. We were happy with the results and the reduced costs. We even would have been happy to share the methods with anyone who asked. But they were too intent on waiting for scientific proof. Sucks for them. Its a competitive world.
So you see no benefit in proving things?
I have to admit sometimes I’m satisfied with nothing but my unproven theory. However if I try to sell the idea or gain from convincing others I would feel obligated to have some solid scientific proof . Could you direct me to the research proving how “without pest control by neighboring conventional farmers, organic farmers would suffer unimaginable losses, right up-to-and-including total crop failure”?
You’ve really never heard of herd immunity?
If you read some of my comments here you will find out why thats irrelevant.
Yes. I grew up on an organic farm and am well-acquainted with the theory that healthy soil leads to healthy plants that are naturally resistant to pests. But it’s a theory that’s never been proven.
Also, as Bruce Ames shows, the means by which such so-called “healthy” plants naturally protect themselves from pests is by producing natural toxins when they’re stressed, and most of these toxins are harmful to humans.
In fact, 99% of carcinogens are natural. I’m not sure if you knew that. This is why the theory you’re relying upon is no longer talked about at the highest levels in the organic industry.
You must appreciate that what you’re expressing is an opinion my friend.
An interesting thought. A study recently came out suggesting that bees might actually prefer low levels of neonics. If it is the case that the insecticides used attracted the pests to their doom then, you did enjoy both the passive herd immunity of your neighbors killing the pests and an active form whereby they attracted pests out of your fields onto their own.
You could be right. I didn’t actually monitor any bug movements over the farm borders since these mites are hard to follow. My theory was that they didn’t like the wide variety of predatory insects that we encouraged on our farm. We simply intercropped with as many different species as we could to attract a wide variety of any insects that were interested in balancing out the ecosystem. We still did find plenty of mites on our plants but there wasn’t enough to cause any problems. Then we used strategic irrigation to dampen their reproductive success during hot, dry periods when they generally have a population explosion. Actually your theory doesn’t seem to make sense because when we had only stopped spraying there was no reduction in pest pressure. It was only the combination of planned biodiversity, intercropping, less cultivation and strategic watering that gave the results.
Why would pest pressure go down, instead of up when spraying was stopped?
I don’t know if the insecticides used actually attract pests. But, if they did, a field sprayed with them would attract pests out of untreated bordering fields, to some extent.
Even if everything you say is true, it only works on small-scale farms where your management skills can be brought to bear.
In this case our farm was 100 acres and the neighbours were about 50 and 80. Management skills are not exclusive to small farms.
Good point.
Larger farms are better able to afford full time managers that have time to learn the latest best practices.
I have enough acreage to pay a decent income. A lot of farms have at least one person working a full time job in town, which leaves less time for reading research, attending workshops and conferences, etc.
50, 80, 100 acres… those are small farms.
Sorry, I’m calling B.S.
What kind of insecticides were you using before you stopped using them?
The insecticides we used were Lagon (dimethoate) and Avid (abamectin) for control of two spotted spider mites in ornamental cedar trees.
Your farm was growing ornamental cedar trees?
Were your farm neighbors growing ornamental cedar trees, too?
Mite populations are highly dependent on weather and wind conditions. What makes you really think that discontinuing insecticides caused your mite population to decrease?
Yes and yes. Weather and wind are equal for both. I don’t think discontinued pesticides caused mite populations to decrease. My theory is that it was the increase in natural predators and a more balanced ecosystem (which were in part caused by discontinuing pesticides)
OK, now this is starting to make more sense.
Dimethoate is an old-school organophosphate, which would tend to kill every bug, good or bad. So it does make a certain amount of sense that discontinuing a kill-all insecticide might be a good thing.
Hi Julaine – thank you so much for a really well-written article, and I’m glad you took the chance to come write on GLP. I started following your farm on FB not too long ago and have enjoyed learning more about the organic side of farming. I really appreciate your thoughtful discussion.
I am particularly curious about 2 questions:
1) May I ask why you made the decision to move from conventional to organic farming? I’ve read a couple articles from people who moved the other way, but haven’t come across one yet like you.
2) Does organic farming cost more at your end? One of the common issues that people have with organic is that they products cost more. Not always, but most of the time, and most of the time by quite a bit. Is that due to higher costs on the farm, or is it more on the side of the companies that sell organic products to the consumers?
I hope you’ll write more articles her on GLP in the future, too. :-)
And while I did write an article recently on which I no longer purchase organic food, it truly is not because I’m “anti-organic.” It was more because I realized that I no longer saw a need to be “anti-GMO/conventional.” And while some organic products are less expensive, most of the time they aren’t, so I like saving money, you know?
Thanks so much for being part of a nuanced, thoughtful discussion. :-)
Hello Charles, and thank you :)
1) I wrote an article on my blog last fall about our reasons for switching to organic farming. We already employed so many organic practices that the transition was a logical step. But I won’t pretend that the organic premium didn’t play a part in our decision as well. However, we have had many discussions since beginning transition, and both my husband and I are adamant that even if we were not held to the certification rules, we would continue to farm exactly as we are now. We’ve noticed excellent results from farming organically, and while this of course only relates to our farm and circumstances, there really is little we would change if we could.
2) Farming our land organically has had no impact whatsoever on cost, and perhaps is very slightly less than farming conventionally. The money we save on fertilizer mitigates the extra cost of seeds (certified organic seeds are slightly more expensive, especially grass and cover crop seed) and the slightly increased fuel usage for tillage. However, the cost of grain for feeding our cows is significantly higher. We farm in a climate that is not really grain-friendly (although it has been done and is definitely something we will try in the future if we can somehow get our hands on some extra land that can then be transitioned to organic), so we need to source our grain from other organic farmers. Currently, we feed ground barley grown in Alberta, which is about 35% more costly than the grain we fed to our cows while conventional. Organic milk costs more in the store because the farmer has increased costs, as well as the processor. Each part of the milk supply chain expects a premium for their troubles, so the result is that the consumer pays a much higher price than the premium paid to the farmer.
I really did appreciate the article you wrote about why you choose to not buy organic products. I felt you presented a fair and unbiased view. I’m glad you’re interested in our reasons for farming organically, and appreciate the time you take to ask questions.
Thank you for the response! While I have a couple other articles in draft mode to finish first, I’m planning a follow-up article and will definitely turn to you (and Rob) for more information when I get there, maybe June or so. And I’ll look for the article on your blog about the switch rather than asking you to write it all again. :-)
Make sure to ask Rob and Julaine what they think about testing organic crops to ensure they’re safe and genuine.
Mischa, I think you’ve done more than enough of that already, there’s no need for me to do it. I have also read her responses, and quite frankly, I think she’s done a good job of answering your insistent questioning.
So you think it’s fine to certify food as organic without bothering to test for prohibited substances?
You could get a job in Major League Baseball, or maybe help Lance Armstrong make a comeback.
Mischa, I’m impressed – 2 sentences, 2 logical fallacies. You’re batting 1.000! Straw man and ad hominem. That was pretty lame. First you twist my words into something that I did not say, and then you insult me. Why don’t you try a real argument instead and I’ll see if it’s worth replying to you again?
Are you for or against organic field testing? Because right now there’s none, and you and I are forced to subsidize this madness.
CFIA and USDA-certified-organic products are imported from countries like China 80% of the time, testing positive for prohibited pesticides a whopping 43% of the time.
If you plan to write about the organic industry and you fail to mention these facts, you may rest assured that I will be waiting to respond.
You two should get a room.
And you need to learn some manners. If I write an article on organics and you come arguing with such rudeness on my blog, you will be blocked quite quickly. I am certainly open to a reasonable discussion – your comments don’t even come close to qualifying.
Sorry. Where was I rude?
If you really can’t tell that, maybe that’s part of the problem.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean he’s rude.
Provide an example.
Ummm…how about this?
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/04/27/is-organic-farming-anti-science-organic-dairy-farmers-appeal-for-co-existence/#comment-1995157189
If I made a post about you and Dr. Miller sharing a hotel room at a conservative political event, would it upset you?
I don’t know. What gender is this Dr. Miller?
Does it matter? Why would I care what you do behind closed doors?
It seems to me that you’ve gone to a lot of effort to derail some pretty good discussions on this thread.
Being single-minded can be useful, but sometimes it’s not. I make some pretty unfriendly posts, but I don’t try to derail productive conversations.
It was a joke. Just like the organic industry that fails half the time.
Come on Joe, no one here will directly rebut or answer Mr. Popoff about testing organic fields for synthetic pesticides. Get a grip Mr. Payet, this is a relatively mild conversation, save the complaints until some real insults appear.
Stop being rude Mischa. If you are going to let you emotions get the best of you, go make YouTube comments. Thank you in advance
I’m going to give Julaine the benefit of the doubt here and assume she grows most – if not all – of the feed her cows require. But what are we to make of the fact that the overwhelming majority of organic dairy-feed is being imported from countries like China and Romania? How exactly is this sustainable, and how does it help domestic organic farmers?
Really great article. I think it is an unfortunate fallacy that organic and conventional are mutually exclusive and competing versions of farming. All farms deal with growing season stresses and have the same resource stewardship challenges. There is in fact a lot of overlap in practices employed by both organic and conventional, both actually occurring and potential. It is interesting that typically conventional and organic farmers are not themselves locked into a fight to the death, but it is their non-farm, ideological champions whose agendas are served by creating a false dichotomy and assigning ethical superiority to one or the other who create the controversy. To me, the question is not which is right and which is wrong, the better question is what are tradeoffs.
I appreciate your point that organic is not the rejection of science, it is actually very adept at making practical agronomic application of our understandings of the physical world as informed by science. I do believe that non-farmer adcocates often have a pollyanyish, idealistic understanding of farming without the aid of chemicals, but there is much about the organic philosophy that can be universally useful. I continue to defend the availability of technological tools to farming, that doesn’t mean I support imposing technology but I do think it is in society’s interest that we not deny the availability of technology out of ideological dogma.
As far as individual farmers are concerned, organic and conventional farming are most-certainly not mutually exclusive.
It’s the tax-funded, activist leadership of the organic movement that has driven a wedge between the two, creating competing versions of farming to suit their ideological ends.
Proof of this is the fact that organic stakeholders where given the opportunity to accept GMOs on a case-by-case basis by President Clinton in 1997. They rejected the offer because they knew GMO technology could very well provide solutions to all the problems they had with modern farming.
Since then organic activists have sought to ban GMOs, and you can’t get any more competitive or mutually exclusive than that.
I still don’t see how you get around the conservation of matter law when it comes to eschewing synthetic fertilizers. Is all the manure you use come from your own cattle and does most of what they eat grown on your farm?
Exactly.
I don’t think organic is any more “sustainable” than a fertilizer plant using natural gas as feedstock. But the natural gas plant is a whole helluva lot more efficient.
To believe that organic production is “sustainable” requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Along with a pretty good case of agricultural ignorance.
One of the things that some who are against synthetic fertilizers like to point out is that natural gas (fossil fuel) use, and that is all presently true. But, it turns out. the natural gas is used mainly as a hydrogen source for the making of NH3. Any hydrogen source would do, such as from water. Hence, we could use solar//wind/nuclear/(future fusion) to produce hydrogen from water for the Haber-Bosch process.
True, however to get the hydrogen in useful form, the methane in the natural gas (CH4) is really important.
In the absence of natural gas, it would take a whole lot more energy to get that hydrogen, i.e. electrolysis of water.
Yes, it would take more energy. But most definitely possible and still a great bargain compared to not making it at all. I.e. end of oil, etc, is not, by any means, the end of synthetic fertilizers.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_production.html
Agree completely.
i.e. electrolysis of water.
Would it then be 100% organic fertilizer, is that basically what lightning does?
:) Not really. Lightning directly forms nitrate.
I’ve never seen a study, but based on my observations of lightning strikes, I’d suspect that a significant part of the N is immediately volitilized.
Oh, the humanity….. Non Organic fertilizer raining down from the sky contaminating all the Organic farmers fields….
Speaking of raining down from the sky…
My grandpa and grandma retired to west-central Arkansas (Texarkana area) in the early 1970s. There was a spring supercell thunderstorm that caught a bunch of migrating ducks in the updraft. The poor ducks got pulled up, died of hypoxia and came crashing to the ground. All the Arkansas Baptists thought is was some kind of biblical thing.
Well of course, God was telling them something….What no one knows.. Religions are funny, it is like they are stuck in the 1600s.
No kidding.
My better half grew up in a strict Southern Baptist environment. She has an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, but she’ll take your money in a poker game.
What is a baptist? Are there Northern baptists?
I grew up in an Nothern Ethanol fueled family, don’t know squat about the bible, but I can name all the different whisky varieties.
One of my favorite jokes as an agnostic:
Jews don’t recognize Jesus
Catholics don’t recognize birth control
Baptists don’t recognize each other at the liquor store.
LOL
I’d hate to second-guess that bunch.
Give a heifer or a steer antibiotics, no longer organic.
Give a heifer or a steer a GMO vaccine, still organic.
Feed the heifers and steers GMO grain, the manure is organic. As long as it’s not their heifers and steers.
It’s like the Mormons. They can re-write their big book to suit them.
The rules are batshit crazy, Like the Canadian rule for Organic Dairy cows, give them antibiotics and wait a few weeks, milk is now 100% organic, but the cow itself cannot be sold as Organic meat.
How the heck does that Magic work? Is the antibiotic hiding in the meat, along side of Joseph Smiths, mysterious Golden bible?
Dude!
You need to go to Adam-Ondi-Ahman in Daviess County, Missouri. Then go to the RLDS Temple in Independence, Missouri. Missouri is where the big Mormon split happened, some went to Utah, some stayed in Missouri
It won’t explain anything, but you’ll see some cool country and architecture.
It’s almost as convoluted as organic ag rules, but more interesting.
I have no problem with religious people, they are at least honest about their beliefs. But I do have a problem with people like the organic farmer that wrote this article, they are religious, but don’t know it. Look at how many times she uses the “I believe” phrase, it is like a religious sermon. Farming should not be practiced by believers, ideology has no place in farming.
Fair enough. Julaine’s responses to me have been somewhat less than convincing, but I’m trying not to be judgemental.
IMO, she’s more convincing than Rob Wallbridge, who I think is a sniveling something or another.
But Mischa Popoff is like the Rush Limbaugh of the anti-organic world.
Everyone has an agenda, I guess.
Rob always gives up and doesn’t respond when you pose a tough question.
And I agree Misha is over the top.
“Rob always gives up and doesn’t respond when you pose a tough question.”
Which is why someone else is writing the articles now. Not that I think that Julaine is Rob’s niece or little sister, but like I said, I’m somewhat less than convinced by her answers to my questions. Which is still better than Rob, who like you said, just disappears when you take him to taks.
“And I agree Misha is over the top.”
Yep, Mischa is almost as ridiculous as Christina Sarich.
I have been doing some research on the Canadian Dairy industry, it is so expensive to get into it in the first place, You have to buy quotas and they cost huge cash, 44,000 per quart/liter per day. No wonder milk is so expensive here.
I’ll take your word for it. From what I understand U.S. dairy programs are pretty different, Randall would know better than me.
The greatest sign of “respect” organic farmers can show to their conventional neighbors is to demand organic field testing.
Why should anyone believe organic farmers are following the rules unless a once-annual test is performed on crop and livestock?
Remember, record-keeping and record-checking failed to keep Bernie Madoff in check.
Yeah, I get that you’re all about organic crop testing.
Any chance of you being able to expand the discussion? You keep saying the same thing over and over and over. Kind of like “Cletus DeBunkerman” and his “GMO pesticide industry” schtick.
Sure. Happy to do so.
What would you like to expand this discussion about?
You can see a sampling of other discussions I have had here: http://www.isitorganic.ca/news
Ya, that’s what I really want to experience, even more dogma than you’ve barfed all over this thread…
So how long until you start writing op-eds about the potential Presidential candidate field?
Is there a Jeb Bush-Stonyfield connection, or is it Hillary? I can hardly wait…
Silly me. I was taking you seriously.
Fortunately, I wasn’t taking you seriously.
What does Ted Cruz think about organics and GMOs? What about Marco Rubio? Or Rick Santorum? Or Bernie Sanders?
The Iowa Straw Poll is only 5 short months away. Better get your poop in a group there, champ!
As I say, silly me.
But thanks for calling me a champ!
Mischa. i do get your points but i’m also learning some things here from Rob and Juliane, particularly the nuts and bolts of an operation. Please don’t chase them away.
I’m sure Lance Armstrong could teach you a lot about bicycling too. But there’s a greater issue at stake here: integrity.
I’m not so sure that the double counting in the nutrient accounting is all that deliberate here. In the case of Juliane’s farm, some of it appears to be a few degrees removed. I.e. she buys organic grain to feed the cows. That grain may gotten its nitrogen from organic manure from cows fed, again from organic grain that was, finally, fertilized with conventional manure. She also buys chicken manure (i assume that is organic too and may be a couple degrees removed too).
Also, her output to the world is not the corn crop but milk/meat. Hence a fair amount of her nitrogen use is cycled back, through her cows’ manure. Her cows need to fed a certain amount of Nitrogen regardless of what you may do with their milk and meat after the fact (Lets call that amount F). But she feed backs a fair amount of that to her fields in the form of their manure (Lets call that amount K). The difference between F and K is what is sold as milk/meat plus what is lost through runoff, etc. So, the amount she needs to replace, via whatever means, is F- K, which we can call I, for input, and, is also equal to the output (Milk/meat + losses)
Compare that to a farmer whose output to the world is the corn crop. That farmer’s K factor may be much smaller as a large part is not being left behind as manure. This, farmer’s F-K > Juliane’s F-K.
It is enough to confuse even the honest brokers in the game.
Your points on nutrient accounting are bang on First Officer. But as an organic inspector I’m more concerned with outright fraud: i.e. the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.
Unless Julaine supports organic field testing, she is complicit in the fraudulent use of prohibited substances that results in almost HALF of all organic food testing positive for synthetic pesticides. It’s time for her to pick sides.
Speaking of serious, how come none of your interweb screeds get linked on GLP any more?
Jon Entine dropped me because I disagree with anthropogenic global-warming theory.
It’s because we are all about the testing part of what’s actually occurring in our produce. Y’all are focused on farming practices, what works for your land, and profit margins. When we come in spewing scientific propaganda yall really don’t have a clue about the testing and microbiology. Just like farting in the wind. It stinks at first but blows away with the wind. We are sitting here yelling at you farmers but really need to be yelling at the people doing the testing and the scientists who understand what we are talking about. I think I might have it finally figured out… I have yet to find places where we can blog with scientists, biotech scientists, and government certification testing industries… It is all held behind closed doors very well. I have found many government sites that link to these conventional products but no where to comment or even read. It’s all hidden and UN reachable…
“It’s because we are all about the testing part of what’s actually occurring in our produce.”
Who is. “we”? Do you think you speak for someone in addition to your addle-minded self? If so, please disclose!
“Y’all are focused on farming practices, what works for your land, and profit margins.”
Ya, because farming is a business, and we need to be profitable to survive. But think about this, genius. What is the biggest asset on any farm’s balance sheet? That would be the land. Why would I or any other farmer risk the value of the underlying asset to make a quick buck using someone’s chemical or seed?
We wouldn’t. Which is why city-dwellers like you are so pathetic. You know nothing about farming.
Derr… That’s why you know nothing about microbiology and the gut microbiome. You keep farming and us “city slickers” will let you know what’s safe for us and the environment. Just wait and see.
You’re about the last person ever that should try to play the, “derr” card, sport.
You want to science, bring it on.
LOL, so funny.
But he at least makes a good point, Organic should be tested, to remove the rampant cheating. If Ben Johnson had his paperwork in order, he would be able to keep his gold medal.
I like the point that organic farmers add nutrients to the soil and soil life and that conventional farmers focus just on the crop growing. She claimed that the yields were the same. To me it makes sense to have a healthy soil for the long term.