
U.S. Pays Farmers Billions to Save Soil, But It's Blowing Away - happy-go-lucky
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/07/531894461/u-s-pays-farmers-billions-to-save-the-soil-but-its-blowing-away
======
chicob
This is happening not only in the US but around the globe. I struggle with it
myself.

I find there are 4 main problems associated with erosion where I work
(Portugal):

1) Herbicides overkill leads to the death of useful grasses that help hold
soil structure. Some fungicides may kill mycorrhizae which are fundamental in
soil maintenance ([http://mycorrhizae.com/wp-content/uploads/Effects-of-
Fungici...](http://mycorrhizae.com/wp-content/uploads/Effects-of-Fungicides-
on-Mycorrhizal-Fungi-PDF.pdf))

2) Tillage avoidance is recommended, and in some cases prohibited. But people
do it nevertheless... The consequences are obvious.

3) Dams built with irrigation in mind often accumulate mineral salts at a rate
larger than what Nature would drain towards the sea. Since water is used in
places with lower rain levels, drainage in those places is low as well, which
leads to salination (Sometimes it also leads to lower levels of mineral salts
in river mouths, thus a decline in phytoplankton and as as consequence fish
populations).

4) Global warming means tougher draughts and heavier rains, which means more
erosion.

We're headed to some serious problems if we don't take these issues seriously.

~~~
Gravityloss
Let's play a game. First, assume you're correct and these soil issues really
exist. I'm sure there are entities who have a short or long term interest to
not do anything about it.

For example, somebody might be selling land (because they know such issues
will get worse in the future), and if farming will be prohibited, they will
get a worse price for the land. Hence best to deny, or at least question the
existence of soil problems.

If these entities have a lot of money, they can create their own journals and
publish science that says "there is no problem with the soil". They can also
bribe scientists and reviewers with high status. They can lobby politicians.
And lastly, the media can be caught too, you have to frame it as a political
issue so you have 50% of the media in your pocket.

Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal
that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend
resources on it.

~~~
chicob
Ok.

In agriculture, people tend to ignore the problem because it leads to lesser
profits in the short term. The food industry, one of the major clients of
agrobusiness is very competitive. The phyto pharmaceutical industry keeps
pushing their products just like the pharmaceutical companies in hospitals. In
fact, they're the same corporations most of the time.

In this case, lobbying happens in the Union level, i.e. the European
Parliament.

The pressure is to great for small farmers to deal with.

That is also happening with the construction/concrete lobby (and I presume
that sometimes the land price rises if you plan to build housing around cities
in the countryside).

Construction companies build regardless of erosion or flooding problems. It's
not their problem once they finish the job. That happens a lot around here.
Politicians only think in the short term. "Yeah, sure there's the problem of
seasonal fires, draughts and floods. We'll make use of some catastrophe fund.
But you can't forget jobs in construction and tourism infrastructure!" Result:
concrete all over.

~~~
balabaster
So you buy farmland high in the water catch basin where you're not subject to
salination and as few upstream pollution problems. Dig yourself a well, grow
your own food using as few herbicides, fungicides and pesticides as possible.
Build your own ecosystem and let the rest of society go to hell. Eventually,
if you do it properly, you'll be the only one left with farmable land, you'll
be bought out for a handsome price and you take your newfound riches and fuck
off to somewhere that doesn't have this problem yet and do it all again.

It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. Either you're wrong and
you're no further behind, in fact, from a trust standpoint, you're ahead
because you're now in control of your food supply from the ground to your
plate... and if you're right, then you win.

I'm over simplifying to be facetious, but my point stands. If everyone put not
only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure
their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd
suffer from half of the problems we do. Unfortunately 90% of the population
are happy with just complaining and being armchair politicians and only make
the convenient choices that don't interfere with their comfort and their
status quo.

If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable
way to not support them, or support them as _little_ as absolutely possible.
Support your local farms and farmers. Support Mom & Pop stores in your local
area. Buy from farmers markets. Learn to preserve food over the winter months
when it's not available. Eat seasonal produce.

Of course, everyone's lives are nuanced and complicated. It's not as easy as
it sounds for most people. But I firmly believe that if you truly believe we
have a problem (which I do), then do something about it instead of just talk,
complain and continue life as normal.

~~~
mac01021
> If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took
> legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their
> belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do.

One problem with this is that we fall into a very suboptimal, deleterious Nash
Equilibrium. Imagine you're in the 90% of farmers that can't set themselves up
"high in the water catch basin" because there is limited space up there. You
may be very aware of the problem, but it can only be solved if a majority of
farmers in the valley adopt sustainable practices. And, if a majority are not
going to do so, then you're am simply hurting myself if I incur the expense of
adopting those practices yourself. There is some missing ingredient that needs
to be added before people will start cooperating to ensure a long-term good
state of affairs.

Another problem is that, even if you do set up high in the catch basin and use
sustainable farming practices, your produce is going to be comparatively
expensive and noone is going to buy it until such time that all those farmers
below you finish ruining their soil/aquifer. And you have to eat in the
meantime.

~~~
balabaster
The purpose of growing your own crops is to eat your own crops, you just sell
the excess. There always seems to be plenty enough people to buy your excess
to subsidize the remainder of things you need.

The problem with everyone finding problems is that they use these problems as
excuses not to make any changes. That puts them in the 90% of people who
complain and do nothing.

As Venture Capitalists always say - they're not interested in ideas, they're
interested in people who can execute. Either you can (and do) execute, or you
can't (or don't).

Not all legitimate action means moving up the catch basin and growing your own
crops. There is legitimate action that can be taken in the city, in the
suburbs and in low lying rural areas. You're not hurting yourself by adopting
a sustainable lifestyle, you're helping yourself and the planet in the
process.

~~~
chicob
>The problem with everyone finding problems is that they use these problems as
excuses not to make any changes.

This is true. But in the case of many problems around Ecology, most solutions
orbit around collective action. Individual actions count, but some of them
must be taken in the community/region/national level.

~~~
balabaster
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the actions that _are_
within your power and ability.

------
desdiv
>His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any.
The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The
more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he
spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa
he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing
alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness,
and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain
that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not
growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbours sought him
out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore
wise. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap," he counselled one and all, and everyone
said "Amen."

-Joseph Heller, Catch-22

~~~
canadian_voter
> Many currently profitable conventional farming methods would become
> uneconomical if their true costs were incorporated into market pricing.
> Direct financial subsidies, and failure to include costs of depleting soil
> fertility and exporting pollutants, continue to encourage practices that
> degrade the land.

\- David R. Montgomery, _Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations_

~~~
contingencies
_Predatory capitalism is based on the privatisation of profit and the
externalisation of cost. It is an extension of the fencing of the commons, of
enclosures, along with the criminalisation of prior common customs and rights.
What we need is a system that fully accounts for all costs. Whether we call
that capitalism or not is irrelevant to me. But doing so would fundamentally
transform the dynamic of present day capitalism, by making capital open
source._ \- Robert David Steele, The Guardian, 2014-06-19

The point is ... this is indeed symptomatic of a system in which only certain
things are valued with money, and everything else (the environment, the
future, health, social wellbeing) is left largely unaccounted for.

So what's the solution? We tried carbon credits, but they were apparently
insufficiently profitable or liquid as an asset class to attract investment,
and perhaps the issue was that if country A implemented harsh environmental
laws and nobody else did, all the industries left, which resulted in watering
down the environmental commitments. While most developed world governments do
OK at solving or at least limiting the effect of serious environmental issues
locally, the issues that exceed national jurisdiction tend to grow
unchallenged.

Interesting times.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Random idea: we need to work on more efficient governance and even faster
transportation. Both of that to enable a global government to form, so that
when an industry doesn't like environmental regulation, the only place it can
move to is Mars.

------
projectorlochsa
Too much subsidies in farming business. No true capitalism. When I see how
much of EU money goes to farmers, it's ridiculous. It funds the destruction of
rainforests all around the world, ecosystems, oceans etc.

Yes, the food wouldn't be as cheap, but at least there would be a huge
incentive for people to find cheaper ways (maybe finally someone will make an
effort to improve hydro/aeroponics).

Of course, capitalism is greedy, not globally optimal, so it is necessary that
certain restrictions are made by law. Complex issue I guess, EU is on a good
path IMO.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
On the other hand subsidies can be used to enforce ecologically sound
practices. A completely free market just leads to the tragedy of the commons.

~~~
_yosefk
What's wrong with regulating farming practices and, if food prices rise, give
the poorer consumers more money (as in negative income tax, basic income,
whatever) so they can choose to spend on food or anything else? How does
subsidizing producers help regulate their practices?

~~~
KekDemaga
The cost of food goes up, so we give say 40% of the population money to spend
on food. This increases the demand so the cost of food goes up again, so we
increase the benefit. This goes on forever, take a look at student loans in
the US before federal intervention and now.

~~~
EGreg
What if you tax it back?

You give the money, they spend it on the providers of their choice, and then
you tax the money back out.

You say, why would the providers accept it? Because they have to. It would
only get the minimum a person needs to survive.

Or a better way with less force on producers: a single payer system like SNAP
program, that mandates producers sell basic food amount for a certain price if
someone comes with food stamps. Because everyone needs food. Why would
proucers accept this? Because they make up for it on volume of everyone who
has the food stamps (in this scenario, everyone).

Same as why doctors currently accept Medicare even though it pays less on
average.

~~~
KekDemaga
> and then you tax the money back out.

What do you mean by that? Tax producers at a higher level to remove the
subsidized profits from the system? That will have the same effect as before
except higher taxes and decreased supply will be the cause of the price
increase instead of simply decreased supply. As prices rise more people will
need that assistance, thus causing prices to increase faster and faster.

------
mauvehaus
Wendell Berry writes extensively on the subject of soil conservation, among
other things. One observation he makes is that as fewer people are involved in
farming, fewer people are knowledgeable enough to identify the signs of bad
farming.

His specific example is a river flowing tan from soil erosion; people who
haven't been involved in farming don't necessarily know that the farming is
the source of the erosion. I think it's also implied that as fewer people are
involved in farming, vastly fewer have been exposed to farming methods that
don't cause so much erosion.

Lest you think that Berry puts the "good old days" on a pedestal, he does not.
He acknowledges the existence of wise and foolish farming practices dating
back to when his parents were farming. He argues, however, that mechanization
and the externalization of the costs of foolish practices have led to their
increasing adoption.

His bibliography is extensive; if you're looking for a good intro to his work,
I'd recommend Our Only World.

~~~
JBReefer
Your point holds, but some rivers are also just naturally muddy - like the
Missouri, which is shallow and wide and travels through that exquisite
Midwestern soil.

------
JoeAltmaier
My Dad used to say soil is overrated. Once nitrogen fertilizer was invented,
soil largely quit mattering. He got the best yields on eroded clay hillsides.
See, they were well-drained which matters more than all the 'soil structure'
talk.

Could be that Iowa soil is so good already that our eroded clay hillsides are
better than other states' best soil. I guess. But I'm thinking no.

~~~
freehunter
Dirt itself is overrated, sure. Soil has a little different connotation. It's
not the sand or clay or any kind of dirt in particular, but rather the
nutrients that are in it. If you have great soil, you won't need to add those
nutrients. If you don't have great soil, you need to add them in.

If you have fertilizer, you don't need good soil. But it's better to have good
soil and not need fertilizer. For one, good soil doesn't leak into waterways
and destroy fish habitats the way nitrogen fertilizers do.

~~~
bluGill
good soil creates nitrogen on its own that leaks into waterways and destroys
fish habitats. The first settlers in Iowa (European - I don't know about the
natives before them) learned the hard way that water in Iowa is high enough in
nitrates to kill babies.

------
spraak
There's an episode [1] of Bill Mollison's Global Gardener series that
addresses this well.

[1] I don't know of a link to watch it, but this blog post explains it well
enough: [https://permaculturenews.org/2014/10/11/discovering-oasis-
am...](https://permaculturenews.org/2014/10/11/discovering-oasis-american-
desert/)

~~~
schiffern
Came here to post this. [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xx078x_global-
gardener-2-ar...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xx078x_global-
gardener-2-arid-lands_lifestyle)

Bill's work often gets overlooked because it's "low tech," but that's a
feature, not a bug.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
Because you can't feed NY or SF with 'hippy-feel-good-low-tech'.

~~~
schiffern
The problem is, _conventional_ agriculture can't feed NY or SF in the long
term. It is a system in the process of destroying itself (which is all that
the word "unsustainable" means, after all).

Expensive tomatoes are preferable to desertification of the continent (which
is what the deforestation, soil loss, and overgrazing due to agriculture
cause). What do you think shutting down North America's water cycle will do to
the GDP? Compared to paying more for groceries (a tiny sliver of GDP), it's an
economic no-brainer.

~~~
spraak
Thank you for explaining that

------
bryanlarsen
Tillage is a far more destructive method for weed control than herbicides. If
environmentalists really cared about the land, they'd pay a premium for crops
grown using zero-till methods rather than tillage-heavy organic crops.

~~~
Angostura
Weed control is perfectly possible using either mulching or superficial
hoeing. Those are both techniques much used in British organic farming. Zero-
dig is quite a popular method. However, if you're going to sow seed, you're
going to need a decent tilth.

~~~
searine
>Weed control is perfectly possible using either mulching or superficial
hoeing.

We are talking about farming, not gardening.

~~~
bryanlarsen
To be fair farmers do use those techniques. We'd normally use the terms
"harrowing" or "shallow depth tillage" instead of hoeing though.

------
fenwick67
Easements and contracts are not the right way to do this.

Easements mean that the US taxpayers are further subsidizing farmers by paying
farmers to literally do nothing.

The government needs to actually buy the land and make it into parks /
preserves. This way it stays a natural resource, and can be sold (for a
profit) later if it's no longer needed.

------
devrandomguy
I know a few hobby farmers who are big on aquaponics; one of them actually
makes most of his profit by selling the live trout to stock lakes, from ~1
acre of land. Is there some reason that this is not taking off on an
industrial scale? Sure, the traditional farmers won't pivot overnight, but why
are there not legions of startups farming in the desert, eating the
traditional industrial farmer's lunch?

Water is tightly conserved, the main loss is through plant respiration, but
even that could be reduced in a greenhouse. Then the main water loss would be
either the occasional emergency flushing, when a tank of fish get sick, or
through exporting the product itself.

Nutrients are greatly simplified by the fish and insect side of the system.
Many of the vegetable byproducts can be converted into feed pellets, or used
to grow grubs as feed. Some input may still be needed, beyond atmospheric CO2,
in the form of supplemental fish feed.

Automation in aquaponics is unheard of, but it should be much cheaper, because
the plants are not embedded in soil. The presence of healthy, voracious
predators (fish, frogs, geckos) reduces the insect-related problems. A
tolerance for insects reduces fungus problems. There is little or no need to
spray the crops.

Are we not scaling up because of a lack of research? Are there just too many
unknowns for anyone to invest in the $100M range? Have there already been
large scale failures where we were unable to analyze the root cause, due to
the biological complexity of the system? This all looks so good on a small
scale.

~~~
MrFantastic
Large scale aquaponics would have the same antibiotic problem that farmed fish
have.

I'd also be concerned that the produce would lack micro nutrients because the
system is artificial.

That said, I think aquaponics will be part of the solution.

~~~
searine
>I'd also be concerned that the produce would lack micro nutrients because the
system is artificial.

Plant nutrition isn't that complex. Plant nutrition deficiencies are easy to
diagnose and easy to treat. It only takes a few drops of say, molybdenum to
give an entire field all micro-nutrient it needs.

There is no vital essence to micro-nutrients that are lost in a potted plant
or aquaponics. It is simply a formula for nutrition, where a plant needs
quantities fulfilled to be healthy.

~~~
MrFantastic
If that's the case then why has the nutritional value of our food decreased as
artificial fertilizer has come to dominate the market?

~~~
searine
Here's the amazing thing. It hasn't.

In fact, it's gotten better. So much better that now obesity is the problem,
not malnutrition.

------
Pxtl
This will be Organic farming's legacy - while generally the benefits of
organic farming are between "dubious" and "complete woo-woo", their soil
management techniques will eventually take over the world. Better water
retention, better soil structure, etc.

~~~
DaggerDagger
I guess you like eating apples that taste like wood chips then. Organic is how
farmers have been doing it for 10,000+ years of farming, the in-organic kind
was invented in the last century by RoundUp and MiracleGro and friends.
Pouring industrially produced chemicals into fields of neatly rowed (and
erosion prone) staple monocrops is a recipe for failure and more dustbowls and
global nutrient debt. Please don't sell organic farming down the river it's
going to save us all.

~~~
reilly3000
The smart money is on biodynamic farming. It's a 100+ year old system that
leverages natural synergy to maximize sustainable, quality output.

------
strainer
"Overall, organic farms tend to store more soil carbon, have better soil
quality, and reduce soil erosion. Organic agriculture also creates less soil
and water pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions."

Read more at: [https://phys.org/news/2016-02-agriculture-key-world-
sustaina...](https://phys.org/news/2016-02-agriculture-key-world-
sustainably.html#jCp)

~~~
exclusiv
On the flipside it's not all rosy for organic and evidence points towards a
blend of organic/conventional as a best practice.

"The results show that organic farming practices generally have positive
impacts on the environment per unit of area, but not necessarily per product
unit. Organic farms tend to have higher soil organic matter content and lower
nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia
emissions) per unit of field area. However, ammonia emissions, nitrogen
leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic
systems" [1]

"In order to reduce the environmental impacts of farming in Europe, research
efforts and policies should be targeted to developing farming systems that
produce high yields with low negative environmental impacts drawing on
techniques from both organic and conventional systems." [1]

This research was included in Science Vs Organic podcast [2] which was a
pretty good episode and discusses the hybrid approach at the end which is
apparently more common than people realize. Most debate on the topic seems to
flare as if we must be either completely organic or just go conventional as if
a balanced, combined approach is not an option.

[1]
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004264)

[2] [https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-
food/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/5-organic-food/)

~~~
strainer
A wide ranging organic system without areas of contention and without room for
improvements is a practical impossibility - but there should not be any
genuine argument that the major legislated systems of organic agriculture
developed across the World, currently represent the most mature and well
researched alternatives we have to legacy standards.

To be dismissive of the biggest organised effort in the world to improve
agricultural practice, and argue past it is really to miss out on the biggest
opportunity to do so.

~~~
exclusiv
> there should not be any genuine argument that the major legislated systems
> of organic agriculture developed across the World, currently represent the
> most mature and well researched alternatives we have to legacy standards

You just made an incredibly generalized statement which tries to shut down any
criticism while conveniently ignoring research and data.

I proposed valid research that says that per unit, organic farms leach more
ammonia, nitrogen and oxide per product unit. That's a problem because you
need to produce X units and your waterways could get disrupted and
contaminated more than if you used a hybrid or straight conventional system.
However, research shows a lot of good things from organic methods.

It's certainly possible a hybrid approach is best. I don't know why you're so
dismissive of research that suggests this.

~~~
strainer
I just recalled the overarching situation - there is no 'hybrid approach'
there is your nations mandatory standards and your regions Organic standards.
There are no other accessible alternatives which we can practically select
between as consumers of agriculture. You can support organic standards and
production, or focus on research critical of it.

That research I referenced covered bythe phys.org article is a substantial
metareview published last year. You responded with a small study published in
2012 and a list of links too diverse to use. your argument is very general
"hybrid would be best" \-- Recognise the wood amongst the trees.

~~~
exclusiv
> There are no other accessible alternatives which we can practically select
> between as consumers of agriculture.

I'm not talking about consumers of agriculture. The vast majority of consumers
will choose whatever is cheapest and looks good. I'm talking about best
practices for farming as it relates to yield and environmental impact. If the
truly best practice happens to be a hybrid method and that becomes the
standard, well then consumers will be forced to support that best practice and
won't have to think anymore.

> your argument is very general "hybrid would be best"

I never said that. I said it's quite possible that it is since there's
research to suggest this and you must consider a lot of factors, one of which
is yield. If organic had the lowest environmental impact on an area but
yielded way less produce, thereby requiring more land to be used, which had a
larger overall environmental impact - that's sensible to question and study.
Do you not agree?

We have a lot of farms already using some organic best practices alongside
conventional methods. There's examples in the podcast I posted that use a
hybrid approach.

> You can support organic standards and production, or focus on research
> critical of it.

Or, you could throw your agenda aside and support finding out the optimal way
to farm these days and treat it as an ongoing process just like we usually do
with technology.

Bottom line: there's nothing preventing the new best practice from being a
hybrid approach which includes organic and conventional methods.

~~~
strainer
>The vast majority of consumers will choose whatever is cheapest and looks
good.

That is a dismissive position on the potential of consumers of organic
agriculture to affect the whole system. Its not a spectator sport - proponents
of organic agriculture consume it.

>you must consider a lot of factors, one of which is yield.

The substantial 2016 meta review which I linked is actually a professional
peer reviewed consideration of all relevant factors including yields.

I dont enjoy arguing at length against common dismissal of organic farming,
which is why I just dropped a very relevant quote and link to a good study in
this thread. I think it could serve your interests to examine that study fully
rather than brush over it.

~~~
exclusiv
It's not a dismissive position - that's how capitalism works. Consumers as a
whole don't believe the extra cost is justified. In fact, they don't even
think the taste is better in some cases [1] or only a 5% preference in another
[2].

Anyway, did your article talk about doing conventional and organic together?
No it didn't. That's all I'm talking about. You see it as binary. I don't and
neither do a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create
a great product and have great soil.

Why is it so hard to believe that combining the best of both methods could be
ideal? I mean - look at the chart at the top of your link. Imagine you decided
you wanted to create a better combined system with a hybrid approach which
would get you better yield and a lot of the benefits of organic. Logic and
alternative research appears to be escaping you because you see it as binary
and likely biased for some reason.

Did they also talk about waste of organic food versus conventional? No.
Organic spoils faster. Since you like discussion from the consumer perspective
- that's not good.

Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too.

Like this: "even when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more
profitable for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more"

That's not an accurate claim and it's dishonest because it suggests everyone
should go organic and charge the consumer more; as if forcing an industry to
do it one way, charge more, and have consumers be able to afford it is
possible. That would likely just push them away from produce and onto more
crap than they are already eating.

Higher prices do not necessarily mean higher profit and organic requires a lot
more investment. If I'm a farmer and have a ton of acreage and go all organic,
but cannot sell it - how do I make more profit? Or if I sell it to a
market/store and it doesn't sell there - they'll order less or ask for a
cheaper alternative.

If it was so simple as the author suggests, everyone would be organic. But
it's not that simple of course. It costs more. Even if you remove some of the
cost of the certification. You can only sell so much organic produce at the
higher cost required to have a sustainable business with those methods.

> The review paper describes cases where organic yields can be higher than
> conventional farming methods.

In severe drought conditions only.

> Reganold and Wachter suggest that no single type of farming can feed the
> world. Rather, what's needed is a balance of systems, "a blend of organic
> and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated
> farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock and still
> undiscovered systems."

Right there it backs up my claim that there might not be a one true way. Note:
"other innovative farming systems" and "still undiscovered systems too"

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-
food...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340585/Organic-food-less-
tasty-than-normal-watchdog-says.html)

[2]
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329399000221)

~~~
strainer
>that's how capitalism works and the market as a whole has already spoken

Not true, the organic market is growing fast even in USA. Organic agriculture
has grown by being bought and consumed, not by being recommended or mandated,
or just theorised as an ideal - people have to buy it.

>a lot of the best farms that have been using both methods to create a great
product and have great soil.

I dont think you have any actual data for that idea - it sounds very
indistinct and anecdotal.

If you think there is some clearly superior selection of organic and non-
organic practices, why do you think the agricultural scientists in charge of
constantly developing and reviewing the organic standards are ignorant of such
insight? Since its not actually your job,livelihood,passion to improve a
system of agriculture, (or the job of "science vs ...." podcasters), who is
most likely to be aware of the worst and best issues??

>Organic spoils faster

Just quoting this as an example you could appreciate of wild overgeneralised
criticism. Very little organic produce actually spoils faster than
conventional.

>Your article you posted makes absurd general claims too. Like this: "even
when yields may be lower, organic agriculture is more profitable for farmers
because consumers are willing to pay more" That's not an accurate claim and
it's dishonest....

Not absurd in the slightest! That situation is securely documented in the
actual study which the article is introducing for you. The study analyses the
prices and profits of organic produce. Who do you think works at WSU to
publish 'absurd claims' ?

I put one substantial, recent, peer reviewed, scientific and accessible
reference on organic agriculture in this thread, the least you could have done
is read it before trying to dismiss it with podcast hearsay and random links
about tomatoe growing in 1999 and such.

------
EGreg
What if there is great wisdom in letting the land lie fallow every seven
years!

~~~
bluGill
there is, and it is commonly used in places by modern farmers. In North Dakota
my uncle leaves his fields fallow every third year. Some of his neighbors
leave their land fallow for 2 years then farm for one. (this lets them grow
crops that need a lot of water in a desert, the two fallow years recharges the
ground water)

However as I've said repeatedly, the best farming practice isn't the same even
on the scale of one field. When you go to a larger scale it gets worse. (in a
field the right practice is at least similar, as you move to the next field it
often is very different)

------
EGreg
Apparently we shouldn't have been killing all those elephants and herds!!

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-
gra...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-livestock-grazing-stop-
desertification/)

------
orasis
1) Expose black soil as little as possible - ideally with no-till.

2) Implement key line design to improve water holding and infiltration

