Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

attrayant

The End Of Organic Farming Might Be Sooner Than We Thought

Recommended Posts

Well, in the USA there have been small-scale and large-scale farmers for as long as I can remember and that's 65 years. For farmers, the type of growing method depends on their targeted market. In many farming states, you can drive through the countryside and find many small farmers' markets selling locally raised fruit and vegetables. Of course most of them still use chemical fertilizers and pesticides but the produce is intensively cultivated. For industry and the large cities, large-scale farming is needed to raise the quantity of produce required. Small- and lage-scale farming has existed as far back as Roman times (300-200 BCE.) The markets and profits involved probably haven't changed much.

In Bangkok, organic produce and milk are available at higher prices. As mentioned earlier, the difference between organic and non-organic probably isn't great. I've noticed that the organic milk at Central Chidlom tastes quite good. It's probably from contented cows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the article point out risks (i.e. distribution of crop yield probabilities) and how scale allows for distribution of risk on several crops.

it's no rocket science to reckon pesticides and other helpers reduce the risk of having a bad crop, so yields of non-organic farming will be much less volatile than organic farming yields.

the only remedy is diversification, so only large scale organic farming enterprises cultivating several - ideally more than 10 - totally different crops will be reasonably safe from failings in individual crops.

intensive monoculture farms are sometimes huge - organic farms need to be even more hugerer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not all doom and gloom, in my field of cattle , I have found an organic milk company in Bangkok ,Butterfly milk .

Actually organic milk has some real benefits, although none of them are due to its organic label. Because of the greater likelihood of pathogens and spoilage agents present in organic milk, it must be ultrapasteurized. The benefit of this is a much longer shelf life, and therefore a reduced financial liability for the retailer. The higher cost of specialized milks, such as organic milk, justifies the higher-cost processing. I drink milk fast enough that I don't need to worry about that, but if were a slow milk drinker, it just might be worth it to spend the extra money for a carton of milk that could sit in the fridge for a month without going sour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of your post seems well-reasoned, but this:

I almost disregarded the post because of the ridiculous notion of the subject and superficial article it is based on.

The article quotes actual farmers who have either had an unsuccessful go at, or are having serious disillusionment with their attempts at organic farming, and their reasons are given (and seem sound enough to me, as a non-farmer).

What exactly is the superficial part of the article? It seems to go into a lot of detail and gives supporting examples. To me, that's the opposite of superficial.

If all you meant was that the title of the article was a bit alarmist or sensational, I might agree. But to be fair, the writer is looking into the future and prognosticating based on the events of today. Time will tell, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large scale corporate farming dominates the economics, as does large corporate business in any sector. Many small family farms cannot make it, organic or not.

Can you clarify this statement. In the USA, 97% of farms are family owned. How is "corporate farming" defined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the link,

Hippy females making a success of farming?

Not without men to to all the work.

Hippy guy, starting out in farming?

Seems unlikely anyone starting out in such a venture will make a success of it.

Farming is hard work, and usually done best by people whose family have spent generations working the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all farmers try to be as organic as possible with a few tweaks here and there to what suits there plans.

The three standout differences i see would be seed,chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

I googled organic farming in thailand and of the first 6 that came up with the proper organic status,none of them were sustainable farms.

The organic status was a front for the hospitality industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all farmers try to be as organic as possible with a few tweaks here and there to what suits there plans.

The three standout differences i see would be seed,chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

I googled organic farming in thailand and of the first 6 that came up with the proper organic status,none of them were sustainable farms.

The organic status was a front for the hospitality industry.

You are dismissing 'Agro-tourism' as not being a contributor to the sustainability of farms.

The EU meanwhile does not and positively promotes Agro-Tourism' across the EU community.

Where it was observed above that many organic farms fail because of bad business planning (drtreelove gives some perspective on general business failures) we can't know dismiss organic farmers for diversifying their business plan to include Agro-Tourism.

Though of course those who oppose organic farming may not like the idea of the general public being introduced to organic farming lest they start lobbying for more, or worse still start buying organic produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large scale corporate farming dominates the economics, as does large corporate business in any sector. Many small family farms cannot make it, organic or not.

Can you clarify this statement. In the USA, 97% of farms are family owned. How is "corporate farming" defined?

I have to say attrayant, that figure of 97% surprised me, but it is good news, particularly in the light of land grabbing that is going on in Thailand where over the last ten years significant numbers of small holders have 'relieved of their land'.

So thanks for posting a bit of good news.

Here's another bit of good news from the USDA http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Newsroom/2015/09_17_2015.php

From the USDA Press Release:

WASHINGTON, Sep 17, 2015 –Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) released the results of the 2014 Organic Survey, which show that 14,093 certified and exempt organic farms in the United States sold a total of $5.5 billion in organic products in 2014, up 72 percent since 2008.

It seems the forecast of the demise of organic farming might be a tad premature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly believe that 'organic farming' was an over reaction to the situation in the sixties wherein we were told to spray every week with this or that, all the way through the season. I remember the generation conflict between older farmers and their sons that had been to agricultural college. I later witnessed the next generation going through the same process, but in reverse, there was a little less conflict then, the argument that you only need to spray when you have a problem is pretty convincing (although you have to walk the fields every day and have some experience of what to look out for).

Why we have to go from one extreme to another is beyond me. There is little evidence that organic farm produce is healthier although the factors concerning water pollution, decreasing bio diversity and so on are not to be neglected.

I lost a (voluntary) job after I refused to spray Roundup along a water course.

I might compare the polemic with the women's lib movement that also addressed an unpleasant situation in the sixties with a completely over the top reaction, just to make a point.

I might, but I won't.

Why does everything have to be reduced to the 'is weed killer good or bad?' level, I got away from the black or white view of human behaviour long long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly believe that 'organic farming' was an over reaction to the situation in the sixties wherein we were told to spray every week with this or that, all the way through the season. I remember the generation conflict between older farmers and their sons that had been to agricultural college. I later witnessed the next generation going through the same process, but in reverse, there was a little less conflict then, the argument that you only need to spray when you have a problem is pretty convincing (although you have to walk the fields every day and have some experience of what to look out for).

Why we have to go from one extreme to another is beyond me. There is little evidence that organic farm produce is healthier although the factors concerning water pollution, decreasing bio diversity and so on are not to be neglected.

I lost a (voluntary) job after I refused to spray Roundup along a water course.

I might compare the polemic with the women's lib movement that also addressed an unpleasant situation in the sixties with a completely over the top reaction, just to make a point.

I might, but I won't.

Why does everything have to be reduced to the 'is weed killer good or bad?' level, I got away from the black or white view of human behaviour long long ago.

If I might correct something you've said.

Organic farming is not an over-reaction to anything, it is a return to the methods of farming that have sustained humanity for millennia.

The industrial and agrochemical farming practices that came in during the 20th century are the departure from historical farming practice.

Though I am at a loss to understand why so many regard Organic farming with disdain - its as if they can't stand the idea of an alternative point of view or an alternative means of measuring success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to find up to date material on organic in thailand.

It seems to be successful up in Northern Thailand after they stopped the farmers clearing land,using it till there was no goodness left in the soil and moving on to clear the next plot starting again.

It seems now with a better understanding of how to keep organic matter in the soil,many private companies giving training and certification and pockets of agro-tourism it certainly isn't dead yet.On prices i could only find its 47 percent more expensive to buy than commercial food however i do wonder how much of that goes back to the labour intensive producer.

My personal feeling on it all is if chemicals(which is organic peoples worry)are used correctly within label rates and withholding periods adhered to it;s not bad.There is certification available for these farmers as well for export purposes and domestic.I know in my operation the second biggest capital expenses was on spraying equipment which enables me to be accurate to within + or - 5 percent

I wish organic farmers well and hope we never get the day an outbreak of virus and disease sweep through agriculture in thailand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large scale corporate farming dominates the economics, as does large corporate business in any sector. Many small family farms cannot make it, organic or not.

Can you clarify this statement. In the USA, 97% of farms are family owned. How is "corporate farming" defined?

Definition: Corporate farming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
240px-Broiler_house.jpg
The US poultry industry is often used as an example of corporate farming due to the influence of large integrators like Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms.

Corporate farming is a term used to describe companies that own or influence farms and agricultural practices on a large scale. This includes not only corporate ownership of farms and selling of agricultural products, but also the roles of these companies in influencing agricultural education, research, and public policy through funding initiatives and lobbying efforts.

The definition and effects of corporate farming on agriculture are widely debated, though most sources that describe large businesses in agriculture as "corporate farms" portray their role in a negative light.[1]

Have you seen the movie: Food, Inc. ?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/Corporations-Control-Our-Food/

http://realtruth.org/articles/100607-006-family.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Greenpeace is a good example considering they talk a lot but are not the do-ers when it comes to producing the product.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of Greenpeace's actions have been downright criminal, verging on terroristic. But that's off topic for this discussion so I won't get into it.

I wasn't impressed by Food, Inc even though it points out some of what's wrong with the system, it offered no better solution. Yes some of the things that happen in the machinery of "Big Food" can be stomach-turning, but there are too many carnivorous people who want to keep that machinery in place. I know if I had to slaughter my own animals, I'd probably become a vegetarian pretty fast.

Just as a reminder, there are a lot of people in this world that need to be fed. The machinery that accomplishes that goal is necessarily going to have a somewhat dark underbelly. Now getting away from animals and back to produce farming - there is no way organic plots are going to feed the world - not without a whole lot of people being forced back into the agriculture sector.

I hesitate clicking on that third link, because therein lies an implication that there's the truth, and then there's the REAL truth. That sets off my conspiracy theorist alarms. If there's a point to be made, go ahead and make it.

I'm still at a loss to know why "corporate farming" is intrinsically a bad thing. As said, almost all farms are family owned and as they grow in size, some will choose to incorporate purely for business or legal reasons. The fact that large corporations (Tyson, Purdue, etc.) are the customers of such farms or are farms themselves only points to the successes of their business ventures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...