I could not find the data for the 40% figure, that was from memory..
Some figures I can source that should be of interest are the UN FAO
report in 2006 on livestock alone causing around 20% global
greenhouse gas emissions, more then transportation. The Worldwatch
institute claims the number is around 51% for livestock alone.
Obviously a huge difference. Meanwhile the Rodale institute claims
there research shows that organic farming can sequester almost 40% of
global CO2 emissions ,, Their 30 years of research on side by side
organic and conventional production concludes that organic production
of corn and soy was equal to the conventional system, except during
drought years where the organic system yielded 30% more. Doing that
while sequestering carbon and substantial reduction in pollution.
Very interesting research: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/
Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf
Agriculture is one of the most important areas to focus on.. A lot of
the problems with livestock production could be turned into
solutions, as when they are properly managed their production can
actually sequester carbon. Put them back on the farms to cycle
nutrients and ban the CAFOs, and cutting down the rainforests for
pasture(or soy for that matter)
I am sorry but the system in place does not really care about feeding
the world.. Organic farming can feed the world. It will not give the
massive returns to chemicals companies who can definitely be blamed
for a lot of this mess. Consumers do want food that is good for
them, and organic food is not ugly! We know how to grow it..
I am shocked that you would think more research can't do us any
good.. Really ? do we already know everything? This seems like a lack
of creative thought.
I suggest that your belief that we can't feed our population using
organic methods is not based on sound science.. Their is plenty of
evidence to suggest otherwise. There might be some doctrinal
constraints here.. The chemical companies are always using the "we
must feed the world" argument , but they make billions while people
starve and farmers commit suicide,. In India, it is something of a
trend for farmers who are going broke because the so called "green
revolution" agriculture methods are failing them to kill themselves
by drinking the pesticides. The University of Kentucky has research
claiming that 42% of energy used to produce corn in the conventional
system can be attributed to production of nitrogen fertilizer. This
is compared to 29% for drying the grain and only 7% to plow and disc
the field. I have read on average this is about 30% of energy use on
conventional farms. This was a process that before world war 2 was
done by the nitrogen fixing bacteria and their plant partners.
Farmers spend more on fertilizer inputs from off the farm and earn
much less as a result.. The nutritional quality of the food has also
gone down over this 50 year period. I don't think any of the
greenhouse gas result data has factored in the dual effect of
destroying the soil fungi that sequester carbon that these
fertilizers have.
I am not trying to claim that anything being labeled organic is
more ecological.. It depends. Organic farmers may use more fossil
fuel , but they might not.. It depends on the systems.. They are
different systems and there is plenty of overlap.. There are organic
no till systems. Certainly IPM systems can be much more sustainable
then organic systems that over rely on fossil fuels instead of fossil
fuel based chemicals.
Okay, enough ranting. I am glad that many on this list are so
thoughtful, even if they dont agree.. The sharing of information can
lead to further inquiry and hopefully we can move forward.. I hope
everyone is out there making a difference if they can , and if not,
asking how we can make a difference..
Robert Kuljis
On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:34 PM, Dave Rosenberger wrote:
Mr. Kuljis, your response causes me considerable pain for several
different reasons.
First, where did you come up with data indicating that 40%
of green house gas emissions result from agriculture? I find that
figure very difficult to believe, although I am not an expert on
greenhouse gasses. However, very quick search on google led me to
the EPA report available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads10/US-GHG-Inventory-2010_Report.pdf, which, on page ES-11
provides data indicating that agriculture in 2008 accounted for
6.1% of greenhouse gas emissions whereas 86% of greenhouse gas
comes from energy usage. I'm not certain how EPA came up with
their numbers, but even if their numbers for ag do not include any
of the energy burned on farms or used for making fertilizers, I'd
be surprised if adding those items would bring the total to 40%.
And then how does one "charge" for the emissions costs
involved in transporting food? Is that a charge to agriculture?
Shouldn't that be charged to all of the east coast elites who have
chosen to live far away from where their food is produced? Perhaps
we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions considerably just by
forcing people to relocate across the country so that population
distribution across the US would be more closely aligned with the
food production capabilities of the surrounding country side. That
would also reduce the numbers of people who commute an hour or more
each day to work in cities where they cannot afford to live.
Obviously, relocating the US population is not a realistic
suggestion, but it is no more of a stretch than the suggestion that
we could feed our population using organic methods and biocontrols
if we only tried a bit harder.
I agree with you that our current ag system (for that
matter, our entire society) has become dependent on systems that
are NOT sustainable in the long term. However, as a scientist who
has spent most of my career working with agrichemicals, I am pained
by the naïveté that comes through when you imply that we could make
organic methods and biocontrols work effectively to feed the world
if we just put more money into the appropriate kinds of research.
For most of our major crops and their major pests, we already have
a pretty good understanding of pest biology, life cycles, crop
susceptibility, etc. And we know that biocontrols work best in
situations where some crop loss can be tolerated because, unlike
agricultural pesticides, biocontrols are almost never 100%
effective. Biocontrols work by creating balances that usually
allow at least a low survival rate for the pest being controlled.
Unfortunately, American and European consumers demand food
that is 100% free of pests, blemishes, and contaminants (e.g.,
fungal mycotoxins) that might cause illness or death. Microscopic
levels of insect parts are regulated even in our canned foods where
they would cause no harm. Thus, by definition, consumers are
demanding food that, at least in terms of horticultural crops,
cannot be produced in sufficient quantities using organic methods
and biological controls. More ag research will NOT change that
fact. Agriculture will be able to change only as the whole of
American society changes their views on what is important in life.
Agriculture, ag universities, research scientists, and agrichemical
companies should not be blamed for the evolution of a non-
sustainable ag system that is largely by-product of American
society as a whole. Change will only occur after someone succeeds
in getting the attention of the majority of self-centered gas-
guzzling SUV-owners who live in MacMansions and who can't be
bothered to think beyond the latest diatribes and half-truths that
they have heard on fact-free radio and TV programs.
Most proponents of organic still have an idealized air-
brushed image of organic production in the US. Organic does not
mean "without pesticides," although some short-season organic
vegetables may not require any pesticides. For the most part,
large-scale organic production in the US still functions by
replacing pesticides with irrigation in the dry land areas in the
west and southwest. Even in these areas, organic growers who
encounter persistent problems with weeds or insect pests may rotate
their land back to conventional production periodically so that
they can get pest problems under control before they go back
through the 3-yr recertification process for organic. Thus, farms
that produce the majority of organic fruits and vegetables for
supermarket chains do not fit the idyllic image of the small family-
owned farm where perfect produce pops out of the naturally fertile
soil with almost no work at all. In fact, I suspect that organic
farms must use more energy for tillage and pest control than
conventional farms. Therefore I doubt that organic production will
ultimately provide any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
I'm sorry, but reducing greenhouse gasses will not be easy,
and the major reductions are unlikely to come from agriculture
unless we first agree that large-scale human starvation should be
part of the solution. We need to continue doing our best to reduce
energy inputs in agriculture, but we also need to convince
consumers that not all food looks perfect and that none of life is
risk-free.
Finally, this is a personal bias, but I suspect that one
might have greater success in finding options for rapid decreases
in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions if one targeted the
military-industrial complex rather than agriculture, but that might
attract the ire of the fact-free media crowd!
I think that is a good point about the kaolin,,, I know the non ag
formulations for pottery have all kinds of warnings for cancer,
inhalation threat, etc.. A simple particle mask would probably take
care of most of it. Not that it is that much fun to wear a mask all
the time while working in the trees. Of course there are lots of
unknowns with chemicals as well. The problem we have is that the
chemicals are extremely lucrative for giant companies who control
much of the university funding, so much less research and development
goes into non chemical methods. These methods could be much much
cheaper.
Considering that conventional ag is responsible for at least 40% of
greenhouse gas emissions, mostly due to petroleum based fertilizer,
conversion to an ecological organic ag system seems to be not only
healthier, but a prerequisite for survival at this stage..
Some things that can help with the application of either organic or
chem materials would be monitoring, understanding the disease/pest
life cycle,, implementing and enhancing biological controls. These
have come a long way, but the scale of the efforts is much higher on
the end of the paradigm that wants growers to keep putting out
chemicals whose ultimate cost is much more then the $ amount paid.
Robert Kuljis
Thomas Paine Farms
--
**************************************************************
Dave Rosenberger
Professor of Plant Pathology Office: 845-691-7231
Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:
845-691-2719
P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528 Cell: 845-594-3060
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
