It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

30 Year Study: Organic Farming Outperforms Conventional, Chemical Farming

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Finally...

EPIC WIN!!

Try to debunk a 30-year side by side study. (allthough i don't think anyone is going to try)

This is GREAT news!


Based on a 30-year side-by-side trial [See full report pdf] of conventional and organic farming methods at Pennsylvania’s Rodale Institute, organic farming outperformed conventional farming in every category.


In every category.



Just to get you interested.

So exactly WHY are we using all these chemicals?


Rodale Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to pioneering organic farming through research, claims the Farming Systems Trial (FST)® at Rodale Institute is America’s longest running, side-by-side comparison of organic and chemical agriculture.



The farming trial started in 1981 for the purpose of studying what happens during the transition from chemical to organic agriculture.


Some fast facts from the study:
*Organic yields match conventional yields.

*Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought. Organic fields increased groundwater recharge and reduced run-off.

*Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system. Soil health in the organic systems has increased over time while the conventional systems remain essentially unchanged.

*Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.

*Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.

*Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

Organic farming also helps to create more jobs according to a UN report.


Organic farming also helps sustain rural communities by creating more jobs; a UN study shows organic farms create 30 per cent more jobs per hectare than nonorganic. More of the money in organic farming goes to paying local people, rather than to farm inputs.”



The Rodale trials showed organic crops were more resilient, and organic corn yields were 31 percent higher than conventional in years of drought, compared to genetically modified (GM) “drought tolerant” varieties, which showed increases of only 6.7 per cent to 13.3 per cent over conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties.


This is just plain AWESOME.

A 30 year study.

Suck on that Monsanto


Full Study With Lots Of Facts And Nice Graphs
[PDF]


source




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
Rodale Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to pioneering organic farming through research, claims Organic outperforms conventional.




The "I tested my belief/claim and found I was right" argument isnt a strong one.

Certainly thats would be the outcry here if Monsanto had produced a report saying their techniques were better.

How does one retute the claim that an institude dedicated to organic farming could be biased in finding their own policy is correct?

Edit - this is a duplicate thread anyway.
You shoulda done a search before posting, I shoulda done a search before replying.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 25-2-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Brilliant,
This gives me some ammo to debate with the anti organic/environment/green crowd that is prevalent in my society.
Kudos,
Peace



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 




How does one retute the claim that an institude dedicated to organic farming could be biased in finding their own policy is correct?

I understand what you are saying and i do not trust it as much as i would trust a report by completely non-involved party.
But i still trust it more then ,say, Monsanto's one.
Corporation like mentioned above will gain financial benefits from positive report by selling more of its products to farmers who are their target.
Institute dedicated to organic farming sells nothing as far as i know. This report might increase number of organic farms and i fail to see who is going to gain by playing with numbers to do this.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


we poison are soil for money... nothing else. Just to support chemical corporations.. Of course mother nature can do better we do not need a thirty year study to tell us that...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


funny that you mention Monsanto.



The "I tested my belief/claim and found I was right" argument isnt a strong one.


Why isn´t this logic applied to them?

And they DON'T do a 30 year study.

Nope, the studies they have handed in so far regarding their crops are flawed at best. (these are not even my words)

I mean organic is like nature intended it to be.

I'll go with nature and this 30 year study over Monsanto's crops.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
May I just add having spent some time looking at this "report", is that in fact it comes across more like a sales brochure than any scientific study.
Unlike any scientific paper I've ever read, it has absolutely none of the raw data or numerical results whasoever and its presentation is more akin to that of something touting a new car or washing machine.

Where's the data? The costing? The anythingatall?

I'm not saying its wrong or false, I'm saying there's no way of knowing.

Is it a pack of lies? Is it all true? Did they delete some "outlier" data? Did they include it all? Did they fake some? How could I reproduce the results if I wished? Did an errant but enthusiastic underling massage some of the data unbenowst to the Institute?
Cant be done.
Cant be known.
How could anyone know?

Monsanto would be hauled over the coals if they tried this, and rightly so.

edit on 25-2-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 




May I just add having spent some time looking at this "report", is that in fact it comes across more like a sales brochure than any scientific study. Unlike any scientific paper I've ever read, it has absolutely none of the raw data or numerical results whasoever and its presentation is more akin to that of something touting a new car or washing machine.


I have to give you this one.

I think they just made a report about their final findings.

and you go on to ask some very valid questions.

i've send e-mail to the institute requesting further information on the study (including raw data).

If i get a reply i'll post here ASAP.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'm interested in this topic because I buy organic foods as much as possible, and my family and I are currently trying to buy a very small-scale organic farm. We'll be growing organic vegetables if our bid is accepted. Time will tell.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
It does sound like organic farming has failed in one important area, labour demands. When there are many thousands of square kilometres of farmland around the planet, even a small added labour cost does end up costing millions.

I do see the reports point that this is good for providing a source of employment, but trying to get someone to pay for it in a competitive market environment is no easy task.




top topics



 
8

log in

join