Food and political affiliation

[Pepper Pig Profile]

And also he wasn’t highlighting this post. Unheard.com picked it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnHerd

[jeral Profile]

Surely we have to look at things as knowledge learned rather than linking with any adverse history in formulation or development/testing or many medicines and surgical procedures as just one example would be declined.

I'm curious about this below paragraph though. I assume animal fertiliser accounts for green house gas and using more land is due to less year round multicropping or re-introducing hedgerows or having fields lie fallow, but nutrient run-off and acidification of soil?
Any info please?

"Many studies have been conducted, and the balance seems to show that per unit of food, organic farming produces more greenhouse gases, uses more land, has higher rates of nutrient run-off and is worse for acidification of soil."
[my bold]

[Stokey Sue Profile]

I’ve heard that a number of times jeral - I believe James Wong has written about it for New Scientist, but that’s paywalled of course. Very much not my field, I’d have to do a lot of reading to be sure I’d grasped it

[jeral Profile]

For now, I'll assume that the detriment to soil would have to be marginal or those putting their money where their mouth is into organic farming would be less than keen.

Also, the effect would have to be worse than dead, over-worked soil full of chemical residues for organic to be shunned as bad.

I'd like to think that organic farming is still better and something to aim for; hoping history won't show me to be a poor deluded fool who hopped onto a a fad bandwagon.

[Stokey Sue Profile]

If I’ve understood James’ Tweets correctly the problem is not so much with the condition of the soil in the organic field as with nutrients running off into water - soil science is very complicated

[Badger's Mate Profile]

Soil is complex stuff. There is a tendency for it to become acidic naturally over time, due to rain containing dilute carbonic acid as it dissolves carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In industrial countries that effect is exacerbated by elevated concentrations of CO2 and oxides of sulphur and nitrogen from fossil fuels. 'Acid Rain' was A Big Thing a few decades ago, it's largely a reflection of our love of fashion in all things, including science, that it is now less so. Soil acidity is promoted by the addition of positively charged ions to the soil. This is because soil contains weathered clay that is structurally like a wafer biscuit or mille-feuille. Sheets of aluminosilicates, of negative charge , with positively charged ions lying between them. Addition of a solution of positively charged ions can displace those in the clay with unexpected results. So adding pH-neutral calcium chloride solution to pH-neutral soil can eject hydrogen ions from the clay and the pH of the mixture magically goes acidic. OK, it isn't magic really.

Anyway, it's complicated and adding stuff to soil can acidify it. Ammonium salts are capable of doing this because ammonium ions are cationic (positively charged). This process occurs whether the ammonium compounds are industrially produced granules or within manures. The relative effect depends on so many things; soil type, application rate and what is being added. I think that there isn't a clear and obvious difference. The long-term trials at Rothamsted, which have been running in one form or another for nearly two centuries, have comparative plots where some are fed with manures and others with mineral fertilisers. They have shown similar pH for both manured and fertilised plots.

Given that there is no obvious clear-cut distinction, but that it's complicated, some people will infer whatever result they wanted in the first place. One inference drawn is that if there is no big difference
in acidification between organic and conventional agriculture, but also that organic yields are lower, it would require more soil to be acidified by agriculture if organic systems are used.

However it is complex, and looking at one aspect of one issue is not the whole picture.

[dennispc Profile]

I was surprised to see it was by Anthony Warner.

I'm sure most of our coffee group are organic food eaters - I'll mention it next time to start the discussion. Should be fun.

[dennispc Profile]

My dismissal of this article originally was because of the dubious links between organic farming and fascism.
However, Jeral’s quoting and Badger’s Mate’s explanation have stuck in my brain.

Within the original article one sentence begins, “Many studies have been conducted, and the balance seems ….” the word balance underlined is a link to a blog on the topic, a bit beyond me unfortunately, because as BM said, soil is complex. The following sentence shows just by how much.

“If I were to advise on where and when to choose one or the other, I’d advise trying to choose organic pulses and fruits, but sticking with non-organic for all other food products (cereals, vegetables, dairy and eggs, and meat).”

Did anyone else do more reading? In the link there is a bar chart on Global Land Use, which is interesting in itself.

[Badger's Mate Profile]

Again the problem that bedevils all concern for the environment is that it is a complex issue. Concentrating on one aspect of one effect and following it without consideration for any others is likely to lead to confusion, even if well meant. Consequently, a generation ago FoE claimed that any drivers who did not choose diesel vehicles were costing the earth (because of fuel economy). More recently any drivers using diesel were told by the same organisation they were poisoning the planet with particulate emissions.

Given that cereals are now routinely sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate (classified by WHO as a probable human carcinogen) simply to desiccate them for more predictable harvest, you might consider there are good reasons to choose organic cereal products. Similarly, organic husbandry standards tend to be rather more than the bare legal minimum for free range animal welfare.

[Earthmaiden Profile]

After reading the article when it was originally posted here, I spent some time reading the Soil Association standards. Section 2.3 onwards deals best I think with the subjects raised here. As has been said, it is a complex issue but I'd say that the choice to be an organic farmer in the UK is far from one made to make a quick buck and thus would expect a great level of care to be taken by farmers to do their best. https://www.soilassociation.org/media/1 ... ndards.pdf

I may be misguided but I admire them. The Chief Exec. is Helen Browning, a local farmer here who I have watched behave with what I consider to be the utmost integrity since first coming across her the 1970s (when I realise now, she was even younger than I'd thought having been born in 1961). I realise that care for the environment has become much more of an issue for all farmers in the UK since then - I'd be interested to hear what Suffs had to say on the matter. As has been said, it is so complex that the layman has to go with gut feel but an article like that which cannot even name a source of information is typical of life in 2021.

[jeral Profile]

dennispc asks if anyone has done further reading and I'm ashamed to say I hadn't because I know it's beyond my knowledge to form any sensible opinion. My thanks nonetheless to Badger's Mate for explaining about soil coherently for the likes of people like me, and must try harder on the reading.

I do agree that short termism and piecemeal actions have their own built-in pitfalls when there's no overall strategy. Small holdings are also at the mercy of encroachment of chemicals (wind drift, water runoff) from non-organic neighbouring landowners. Several lawsuits have arisen in the US. I'm surprised there isn't a global ban on glyphosate given the adverse evidence surrounding it. It does mean that unless the big conglomerates get on board it will be like rolling a snowball uphill for those more passionate about the longer term future.

There are then the aspects of burgeoning population, claims that the world could be fed if more even distribution was the intention - which brings us back to the thread title. Are capitalists and communists equally as bad since wealth ends up in the hands of the top echelon to the detriment of hoi poloi and the planet in either case?

[Badger's Mate Profile]

With glyphosate, opinion on the toxicity is divided. The European Chemicals Agency is less convinced by the evidence than WHO, yet a Californian court found that a farmworker had contracted cancer from using the chemical. It is a very effective herbicide. Less of a health issue (but with environmental implications) if used as a chemical hoe to kill off weeds around plants or after harvest, but used directly on crops must present a greater risk of contamination. As mentioned, it's used as a preharvesting treatment of cereals, but there are also crops bred or engineered to be resistant to it, allowing the field to be treated with less precision. 'Roundup Ready' crops are quite commonly grown in the US, particularly cotton, soy & sweetcorn. In this case, pollen from the crop would also be prejudicial to the organic status of adjacent farms.

[dennispc Profile]

Badger’s Mate, thank you for the post, the example of spraying crops gave me clarity.

Another part of the farming system is the dangers of carbon emissions. The Oxford Martin school at Oxford University produced a study separating carbon from methane, produced by cows. Although methane is more damaging to the atmosphere it doesn’t stay there for ever, typically 12 to 20 years, though upwards of 20% does convert into carbon.