'We no longer produce food.'

Farmer Ed

Possibility the wrong tread but a very alternative view on the direction dairying is taking. http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/organic-farming-ignore-hidden-agendas-and-join-the-real-green-revolution/

Buford T. Justice XIX

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Possibility the wrong tread but a very alternative view on the direction dairying is taking. http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/organic-farming-ignore-hidden-agendas-and-join-the-real-green-revolution/

Talk about a misleading article!

Two quotes stand out there...

For every study that claims organic food is healthier, another will show the opposite.

More like 10 finding no difference to one finding a miniscule difference.

allergies to dairy products are increasing at an alarming rate.

Clinical diagnosis of allergy to milk is extremely low. Unless you count lactose intolerence, which is found in populations with little exposure to milk products after weaning. There is an increase in diagnosis, not due to to an increase in allergies per se but due to better diagnosis of existing allergies. Then you have the huge Allergy Industry which takes the popular 'hot headlines' of the day and diagnose an allergy to that product while they, in reality, are not even at the level of snakeoil salesmen but tell people what they want to hear.

Agriland is really running out of anything of substance to write about now, just churn out 20+ articles a day about any sh!te, imo.

Farmer Ed

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Talk about a misleading article!

Two quotes stand out there...

For every study that claims organic food is healthier, another will show the opposite.

More like 10 finding no difference to one finding a miniscule difference.

allergies to dairy products are increasing at an alarming rate.

Clinical diagnosis of allergy to milk is extremely low. Unless you count lactose intolerence, which is found in populations with little exposure to milk products after weaning. There is an increase in diagnosis, not due to to an increase in allergies per se but due to better diagnosis of existing allergies. Then you have the huge Allergy Industry which takes the popular 'hot headlines' of the day and diagnose an allergy to that product while they, in reality, are not even at the level of snakeoil salesmen but tell people what they want to hear.

Agriland is really running out of anything of substance to write about now, just churn out 20+ articles a day about any sh!te, imo.

Still to be fair no harm in listening to a different prospective. To be fair I recon a lot of allergies or rather phobia's are down to every Tom ,Dick and Harry offering allergy tests.

kowtow

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Talk about a misleading article!

Two quotes stand out there...

For every study that claims organic food is healthier, another will show the opposite.

More like 10 finding no difference to one finding a miniscule difference.

allergies to dairy products are increasing at an alarming rate.

Clinical diagnosis of allergy to milk is extremely low. Unless you count lactose intolerence, which is found in populations with little exposure to milk products after weaning. There is an increase in diagnosis, not due to to an increase in allergies per se but due to better diagnosis of existing allergies. Then you have the huge Allergy Industry which takes the popular 'hot headlines' of the day and diagnose an allergy to that product while they, in reality, are not even at the level of snakeoil salesmen but tell people what they want to hear.

Agriland is really running out of anything of substance to write about now, just churn out 20+ articles a day about any sh!te, imo.

The problem with science is ... well, science.

Like all human foibles, we should remember to take science and scientists with a pinch of salt. At one time, burning witches and using leeches to cure illness was "scientific". In the 70's replacing butter with margarine was "scientific"... It's not so much the science itself but the know-all arrogance which accompanies it which seems to lead us down dangerous alleyways.

I'm not sure there is anything really wrong in that article, it's refreshing (if a bit evangelical). I doubt the author really wants to trade numbers of research reports for and against or claimed health benefits... if he does, he's in danger of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

My understanding of most successful organic farmers is that they do it in large part for the happy satisfaction of watching nature at work... a lot of organic produce is certainly tastier (if only because it is less processed) and there is a persuasive case to be made that healthy soil produces healthy food. It certainly seems to produce healthy farmers!

All in all it's easy to make the organic case and it's a good one - the opposite extreme, of expensive inputs for ever cheaper commodity produce, more risk and more capital for less reward, more machines, more cows, and longer hours for less quality of life ... now that would be a difficult concept to sell.

Farmer Ed

kowtow wrote: »

The problem with science is ... well, science.

Like all human foibles, we should remember to take science and scientists with a pinch of salt. At one time, burning witches and using leeches to cure illness was "scientific". In the 70's replacing butter with margarine was "scientific"... It's not so much the science itself but the know-all arrogance which accompanies it which seems to lead us down dangerous alleyways.

I'm not sure there is anything really wrong in that article, it's refreshing (if a bit evangelical). I doubt the author really wants to trade numbers of research reports for and against or claimed health benefits... if he does, he's in danger of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

My understanding of most successful organic farmers is that they do it in large part for the happy satisfaction of watching nature at work... a lot of organic produce is certainly tastier (if only because it is less processed) and there is a persuasive case to be made that healthy soil produces healthy food. It certainly seems to produce healthy farmers!

All in all it's easy to make the organic case and it's a good one - the opposite extreme, of expensive inputs for ever cheaper commodity produce, more risk and more capital for less reward, more machines, more cows, and longer hours for less quality of life ... now that would be a difficult concept to sell.

Ah now be careful. People might think your are being negative if you look at alternatives.

kowtow

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Ah now be careful. People might think your are being negative if you look at alternatives.

Ah no I doubt it.

But this thread probably isn't the place for an organic discussion, and I have to run to the creamery to fill a trailer load of CAN if I'm to spread it tonight*

*may not always practice what he preaches

Buford T. Justice XIX

kowtow wrote: »

The problem with science is ... well, science.

Like all human foibles, we should remember to take science and scientists with a pinch of salt. At one time, burning witches and using leeches to cure illness was "scientific". In the 70's replacing butter with margarine was "scientific"... It's not so much the science itself but the know-all arrogance which accompanies it which seems to lead us down dangerous alleyways.

I'm not sure there is anything really wrong in that article, it's refreshing (if a bit evangelical). I doubt the author really wants to trade numbers of research reports for and against or claimed health benefits... if he does, he's in danger of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

My understanding of most successful organic farmers is that they do it in large part for the happy satisfaction of watching nature at work... a lot of organic produce is certainly tastier (if only because it is less processed) and there is a persuasive case to be made that healthy soil produces healthy food. It certainly seems to produce healthy farmers!

All in all it's easy to make the organic case and it's a good one - the opposite extreme, of expensive inputs for ever cheaper commodity produce, more risk and more capital for less reward, more machines, more cows, and longer hours for less quality of life ... now that would be a difficult concept to sell.

Evangelical would be a description alright, even if not far enough along the line, IMO.

You've been following the twitter debate on organics yesterday and today? No debate, just fire out your beliefs and block those who don't agree with you, which is typical in my experience.

On the numbers of papers supporting the organic theory, there are a handful supportive of it and even those are misreported to unjustly increase their strength. There are however many multiples of papers showing no benefit to organics in human health, despite the organic supporters claims to the contrary. It is enlightening that their claims have now moved away from the supposed benefits to human health and onto soil benefits. I wonder what claims they will move onto next?

Farmer Ed

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Evangelical would be a description alright, even if not far enough along the line, IMO.

You've been following the twitter debate on organics yesterday and today? No debate, just fire out your beliefs and block those who don't agree with you, which is typical in my experience.



On the numbers of papers supporting the organic theory, there are a handful supportive of it and even those are misreported to unjustly increase their strength. There are however many multiples of papers showing no benefit to organics in human health, despite the organic supporters claims to the contrary. It is enlightening that their claims have now moved away from the supposed benefits to human health and onto soil benefits. I wonder what claims they will move onto next?

Well to be fair in the absence of independent research its difficult to know. The reality is if you have enough money you can get research done to prove what ever it is you are selling to farmers will give the farmer a return. Sorry but that is just the economic reality of the world we live in. Unfortunately it means there is very little money going in to organic research relatively speaking. If it can't be patented, no one is going to research it. I know of a couple of organic farmers who seem to be doing a pretty good job and don't seem to have any regrets about going down that road. The thing is there is a lot more to be known about organics then just not buying artificial fertilizers. People who know what they are at seem to manage pretty well.

kowtow

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Well to be fair in the absence of independent research its difficult to know. The reality is if you have enough money you can get research done to prove what ever it is you are selling to farmers will give the farmer a return. Sorry but that is just the economic reality of the world we live in. Unfortunately it means there is very little money going in to organic research relatively speaking. If it can't be patented, no one is going to research it. I know of a couple of organic farmers who seem to be doing a pretty good job and don't seem to have any regrets about going down that road. The thing is there is a lot more to be known about organics then just not buying artificial fertilizers. People who know what they are at seem to manage pretty well.

I'd be sorry if it turned out that well grown organic food wasn't better eating than the artificially grown, processed opposite... because (IMO) there is just too much circumstantial evidence that the overall health of the population has declined, and obesity has increased drastically, in an era in which we moved away from our kitchens and on to processed food. To me, the healthy soil => healthy food argument is persuasive, without being conclusive, but maybe much more important is the mindfulness implicit in a choice of organic foods.

As a farmer, I *need* the consumer to really know and care about what he or she is buying - rather than passively accepting something they are sold. Why? Because that's the only edge I have if I want a healthy living from a farm as opposed to a marginal income stream linked to the commodities which can be extracted from the farm and repackaged by a processor. There really are no two ways about it - if we are to have a future in family farming we have to connect with the customer and that means the customer has to care.

Now it is - of course - possible for the customer to make an "informed choice" and choose foods labelled by industry schemes like bord bia, or red tractor - which is all well and good - but like all industry badges those tend to be meaningless PR, construed to ensure the economic health and welfare of the supply chain over and above that of the farmer and his animals.

Perhaps because they come from left field, organic farmers - the good ones at least - seem to have been able to develop real relationships with customers to the satisfaction of both parties. No doubt as organic becomes mainstream this will also come under pressure.

yosemitesam1

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Well to be fair in the absence of independent research its difficult to know. The reality is if you have enough money you can get research done to prove what ever it is you are selling to farmers will give the farmer a return. Sorry but that is just the economic reality of the world we live in. Unfortunately it means there is very little money going in to organic research relatively speaking. If it can't be patented, no one is going to research it. I know of a couple of organic farmers who seem to be doing a pretty good job and don't seem to have any regrets about going down that road. The thing is there is a lot more to be known about organics then just not buying artificial fertilizers. People who know what they are at seem to manage pretty well.

I think it all comes down to healthy soil, being organic doesn't guarantee that the soil will be any healthier, it's really only a tick a box exercise.

Farmer Ed

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

I think it all comes down to healthy soil, being organic doesn't guarantee that the soil will be any healthier, it's really only a tick a box exercise.

One of the main problems with soil that any soil scientist will tell you is that it is not actually that well understood. Different scientists have different ideas about it. But there are study's that show soil organic matter is depleting. Especially on tillage land. Just look at the greening payment we already get. There is a reason for that and like it our not it would seem that is the direction things are moving. There is a huge void in what you will be thought about soil by a Teagasc soil scientist as in comparison to what you might hear form the likes of Dr Elaine Ingham or any of the more organic leading scientists. Who is right? No harm keeping an open mind I would think. If Ingham is right? We have all been taken for fools and we could be making a lot more money by being organic. Who knows? But it is a very interesting topic and something even the experts readily admit they are still learning.

Water John

Very interesting was the guy from UCD on taking micro organisms from wild barley and transferring onto commercial varieties. Was able to produce the same yields with half the fertiliser application.
Tech can be used on other crops.
This is the type of research that's invaluable.

On the final night of Big Week on the Farm.

Farmer Ed

Water John wrote: »

Very interesting was the guy from UCD on taking micro organisms from wild barley and transferring onto commercial varieties. Was able to produce the same yields with half the fertiliser application.
Tech can be used on other crops.
This is the type of research that's invaluable.

On the final night of Big Week on the Farm.

The problem is most research is funded by companies who are trying to sell stuff. The likes of the research you have just mentioned is lacking and where it is taking place the scientist ultimately can't very well produce a result that will effect the overall funding for the research institution. Dr Ingham that I have already mentioned lost her job in one university after herself and her husband found that a GM organism that was about to be released caused soil Bactria the make alcohol. Apparently as exciting a prospect that might sound. It could have been a total disaster had they been released. She didn't lose her job for making the discovery but rather for speaking about it at a UN conference. Monsanto was one of the main source of funds for that university.

Waffletraktor

Sounds more like muck and magic someone wants to sell like innoculating seed dressings and such. Organic tillage can only work as a mixed farming enterprise and is projects it's self in the same vein as veganism despite it cause much higher levels of om and soil loss due to more cultivations which in turn releases more co2 and nox.

Water John

don't want to derail this thread. But the person you are talking about is Dr Paul Murphy,Environment and Sustainable Resource Management, Dept of Ag and Science, UCD.
What are your qualifications, Waffle?

Waffletraktor

Water John wrote: »

don't want to derail this thread. But the person you are talking about is Dr Paul Murphy,Environment and Sustainable Resource Management, Dept of Ag and Science, UCD.
What are your qualifications, Waffle?

Bagrsci from ucd
Msc in ipm from harper adams
Facts and Basis qualified and member of aicc
Contributing member and a monitor farm to Niab-Tag
Host farm for Hgca monitor farm trials and crop protection trials.

Care to mention your own credentials there Johnny, you reckoned to have worked in psychotherapy before....

Water John

Well then, I expect you respect science and scientific research.

Farmer Ed

Waffletraktor wrote: »

Sounds more like muck and magic someone wants to sell like innoculating seed dressings and such. Organic tillage can only work as a mixed farming enterprise and is projects it's self in the same vein as veganism despite it cause much higher levels of om and soil loss due to more cultivations which in turn releases more co2 and nox.

Actually Dr Ingham is very pro min till. But as you have studied pest management and in particular root feeding nematodes at harper Adams. What are your views in how they should be controlled? What role do predatory nematodes and fungi play in the natural control of root feeding nematodes? What effects do fungicides and round up and high doses phosphates have on soil fungi in particular? But also on the soil enzymes that natural access soil phosphorous from the labile pool? Or the protozoa and predatory nematodes that naturally graze soil Bactria and root feeding nem and excrete free nitrogen?

Just wondering cos apparently a lot of stuff we are doing to soil is effecting it in ways that not even all scientist's are in agreement with? Personally I agree with Mark Twains theory. What we don't know is not the problem, but rather what we think we know.

alps

kowtow wrote: »

I'd be sorry if it turned out that well grown organic food wasn't better eating than the artificially grown, processed opposite... because (IMO) there is just too much circumstantial evidence that the overall health of the population has declined, and obesity has increased drastically, in an era in which we moved away from our kitchens and on to processed food. To me, the healthy soil => healthy food argument is persuasive, without being conclusive, but maybe much more important is the mindfulness implicit in a choice of organic foods.

As a farmer, I *need* the consumer to really know and care about what he or she is buying - rather than passively accepting something they are sold. Why? Because that's the only edge I have if I want a healthy living from a farm as opposed to a marginal income stream linked to the commodities which can be extracted from the farm and repackaged by a processor. There really are no two ways about it - if we are to have a future in family farming we have to connect with the customer and that means the customer has to care.

Now it is - of course - possible for the customer to make an "informed choice" and choose foods labelled by industry schemes like bord bia, or red tractor - which is all well and good - but like all industry badges those tend to be meaningless PR, construed to ensure the economic health and welfare of the supply chain over and above that of the farmer and his animals.

Perhaps because they come from left field, organic farmers - the good ones at least - seem to have been able to develop real relationships with customers to the satisfaction of both parties. No doubt as organic becomes mainstream this will also come under pressure.

+1000

We have a daughter doing food marketing, and unfortunately I can tell you that 3rd level is now certain that food comes from a factory....

The only concern for food marketeers is how to package nuitrition, in a format acceptable to a consumer that now cannot extend its culinary skills, and attention span beyond reading how many minutes it should be heated at 800W...

We cannot rely on industry to sell our product. Industry sells it's own product, and we are only one of many raw material suppliers to it

We no longer produce food.

Buford T. Justice XIX

We had better start a new thread on this subject and let this one back to milk prices before the mods get cross:-0

I'll separate out the posts in the morning if someone suggests a thread title for it?

freedominacup

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

We had better start a new thread on this subject and let this one back to milk prices before the mods get cross:-0

I'll separate out the posts in the morning if someone suggests a thread title for it?

The last line of alps last post. There's your threat title.

yosemitesam1

Farmer Ed wrote: »

One of the main problems with soil that any soil scientist will tell you is that it is not actually that well understood. Different scientists have different ideas about it. But there are study's that show soil organic matter is depleting. Especially on tillage land. Just look at the greening payment we already get. There is a reason for that and like it our not it would seem that is the direction things are moving. There is a huge void in what you will be thought about soil by a Teagasc soil scientist as in comparison to what you might hear form the likes of Dr Elaine Ingham or any of the more organic leading scientists. Who is right? No harm keeping an open mind I would think. If Ingham is right? We have all been taken for fools and we could be making a lot more money by being organic. Who knows? But it is a very interesting topic and something even the experts readily admit they are still learning.

It's easy enough to understand the fundamentals of sustainable soil management, in columellas book on agriculture written 2000 years ago he gives an account of why soils grow old which still holds today.
It all comes down to returning enough back to the soil through roots and microbes, plant diversity and forcing plants to have to interact with soil microbes (instead of relying on artificially high fertility levels) are the only ways to give the soil back what it needs.

Farmer Ed

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It's easy enough to understand the fundamentals of sustainable soil management, in columellas book on agriculture written 2000 years ago he gives an account of why soils grow old which still holds today.
It all comes down to returning enough back to the soil through roots and microbes, plant diversity and forcing plants to have to interact with soil microbes (instead of relying on artificially high fertility levels) are the only ways to give the soil back what it needs.

It would appear so. But yet most of the research in the past 2000years have promoted farming practices that may not always protect those very same soil microbes. The original agriland article that sparked this conversation asked the question? Had chemical trials compared the use if chemicals against properly managed organic soils? Would the difference be so great? Rodale claim to be achieving higher yields from organic than conventional plots. No doubt food for thought?

Farmer Ed

https://rodaleinstitute.org/crop-performance-in-farming-systems-trial/

Buford T. Justice XIX

I brought this thread over from Milk Price as it was off topic and justified a thread of its own.

Buford T. Justice.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Farmer Ed wrote: »

https://rodaleinstitute.org/crop-performance-in-farming-systems-trial/

Soil Organic Matter has been researched for years so its importance was known before that trial. Its absolute importance was glossed over with the increasing yields being brought about by improvements in plant breeding and management but it is rightly back in the spotlight again.

One funny part of that article, which harks back to my point about misleading points being drawn from articles, was the two pictures of conventional maize showing phosphorous deficiency being given closeup photos to show the physiological effects on the conventional grown plants but a distant shot being given showing what looks to be a greener plants on the tilled organic system.

Now, maybe I am getting cynical in my old age, but I wonder why there wasn't an equivalent closeup picture given of the organic system? Maybe because there may not be much of a difference in appearance but, imo, it would cause me to question the findings from any group that appears to massage their results like that.

Do their results stand up on their own or not?

yosemitesam1

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Soil Organic Matter has been researched for years so its importance was known before that trial. Its absolute importance was glossed over with the increasing yields being brought about by improvements in plant breeding and management but it is rightly back in the spotlight again.

One funny part of that article, which harks back to my point about misleading points being drawn from articles, was the two pictures of conventional maize showing phosphorous deficiency being given closeup photos to show the physiological effects on the conventional grown plants but a distant shot being given showing what looks to be a greener plants on the tilled organic system.

Now, maybe I am getting cynical in my old age, but I wonder why there wasn't an equivalent closeup picture given of the organic system? Maybe because there may not be much of a difference in appearance but, imo, it would cause me to question the findings from any group that appears to massage their results like that.

Do their results stand up on their own or not?

If there was a p deficiency in the conventional maybe what they're showing is a well ran organic system is better than a poorly ran conventional system...

Farmer Ed

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Soil Organic Matter has been researched for years so its importance was known before that trial. Its absolute importance was glossed over with the increasing yields being brought about by improvements in plant breeding and management but it is rightly back in the spotlight again.

One funny part of that article, which harks back to my point about misleading points being drawn from articles, was the two pictures of conventional maize showing phosphorous deficiency being given closeup photos to show the physiological effects on the conventional grown plants but a distant shot being given showing what looks to be a greener plants on the tilled organic system.

Now, maybe I am getting cynical in my old age, but I wonder why there wasn't an equivalent closeup picture given of the organic system? Maybe because there may not be much of a difference in appearance but, imo, it would cause me to question the findings from any group that appears to massage their results like that.

Do their results stand up on their own or not?

Being cynical I would consider as a good thing. Possibly it was a poorly managed conventional crop vs a well managed organic crop? Who knows. On the other hand as the Agriland article asked? Are some if the chemical company trials comparing poorly managed organic with well managed conventional?
As far as I understand the main reason being given for the better performance of organic in Rodale is the better root structure being more drought tolerant. In theory better root mass should also help with P deficiency as P is not mobile in soil and has to be accessed by the plant roots.

Victor

alps wrote: »

The only concern for food marketeers is how to package nuitrition, in a format acceptable to a consumer that now cannot extend its culinary skills, and attention span beyond reading how many minutes it should be heated at 800W...

Can they make the text bigger?

Farmer Ed

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/sunday-special-price-milk-our-love-affair-dairy-farming-over worth a watch