Indian rice farmer shatters GMO production myth using organic farming.

page: 1
58
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+29 more 
posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Organic rice farmer in India yields over 22 tons of crop on only two acres, proving the fraud of GMOs and Big Ag.


As reported by Gaia Health, Indian rice farmers using traditional, organic growing methods are achieving yields far higher than farmers using more modern methods.

In the case of Sumant Kumar, rice yields have surpassed the national average per hectare (about 2.5 acres) nearly ten-fold.

Sorry Monsanto (and others), despite your propaganda, GMO seeds and your bio-engineered Frankenstein foods are NOT the solution to the World's food needs.


This is good news, as Monsanto and others in the agriculture-for-obscene-profits industry are aggressively pursuing market expansions in developing countries like India. If the truth about the benefits of SRI can be widely disseminated, poor farmers across the globe will be well-equipped to reject the lies of Big Ag and the GMO industry.

Which is why this type of information cant get out.

ATS, you know what to do.

edit on 9-4-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I love science I really do...BUT when you mix science with GREED you create monsters, plain and simple!.


I hate Monsanto not because I hug trees, but because they are using the science for profit, insane profit without justification of the consequences and not for the betterment of mankind but for the bottom line.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
sri.ciifad.cornell.edu...


agro-ecological methodology for increasing the productivity of irrigated rice by changing the management of plants, soil, water and nutrients. SRI originated in Madagascar in the 1980s and is based on the cropping principles of significantly reducing plant population, improving soil conditions and irrigation methods for root and plant development, and improving plant establishment methods.


Basically it is farming using common sense, you don't overpopulate your plants so they don't compete for nutrients, you hand weed your crops using the weeds as fertilizer and you don't flood your farming land which is typically done for rice in paddies.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
as long as one owns politicans
reality has no bearing

just look at iraq
saving seeds is illegal and monsanto is pretty much the only game in town



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
This is excellent news! I hope millions read the article and realize that organic is the way to go. Mother nature has answers for everything.
I'll do my part and share it on bookface. Hopefully others will also share.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Starred for being a good link to information. However, working in the agricultural industry (with reduced fertilizer methods no less), I will tell you that a 10 fold increase is a ridiculous (and in this case, completely unverified) claim. What you can see realistically, is up to a 40% increase in production on a 30% reduction of fertilizer input (be it organic or chemical) over "conventional" methods. That's where the current edges are in alternative growing and organic biotech practices.

Now if anyone has information that is verifiable that produces more than that using less fertilizer, I am all ears and will be all over that information soaking it up.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I tried to explain this to my gf I told her that the GMO is bad and she doesnt get it.. I told her that if everyone would just do organic that the price could be just as cheap as the gmo food.. She said that its to much work and to hard to grow food organic that GMO helps it grow easier...

I explained to her that is not the case that organic is not hard to do and even if it is a little bit harder its worth it for the health aspects...

GMO is evil and is created for profits.. I saw in the grocery yesterday a grapple.. its an apple that taste like a grape supposably.. I am told they are delicious but I will not eat one because its gmo and not good for you.

People dont understand what gmo even is hardly if you asked them if they know if there food is gmo or not they probably would tell you they have no idea what the is. No one wants to eat gmo foods but most people don't know they are eating it.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Starred for being a good link to information. However, working in the agricultural industry (with reduced fertilizer methods no less), I will tell you that a 10 fold increase is a ridiculous (and in this case, completely unverified) claim. What you can see realistically, is up to a 40% increase in production on a 30% reduction of fertilizer input (be it organic or chemical) over "conventional" methods. That's where the current edges are in alternative growing and organic biotech practices.

Now if anyone has information that is verifiable that produces more than that using less fertilizer, I am all ears and will be all over that information soaking it up.


Same here, I strongly suspect that the data collection for the statistical analysis here is seriously flawed.


Originally posted by Danbones
as long as one owns politicans
reality has no bearing

just look at iraq
saving seeds is illegal and monsanto is pretty much the only game in town

danbones, have you got a link for that please?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure this is the same thread as here, but worded differently:

Study: Biodiversity from Polyculture Outperforms Industrial Farming Chemicals

I suppose it's possible, but he would have to be living in a very warm region. How many harvests per year as well? 3?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
It is a known fact that organic farming can produce nicer and bigger crops than commercial farming. The food usually tastes better to me too. I think they are trying to BS people that there is no taste difference and most people believe it so they can't tell the difference. Sure there is no difference if you drown both with spices and herbs to cover up the taste because that is the taste that society made you get used to. I see this a lot in restaurants. Many spices were originally incorporated to cover up the taste of old food. Some were added to make food more digestible. Nowadays they are trying to add chemistry to food so we don't negatively react to it when we should. Other chemistry is added to attract us by making us feel great or high after eating it, all which reduce our intellect temporarily.
edit on 9-4-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
Starred for being a good link to information. However, working in the agricultural industry (with reduced fertilizer methods no less), I will tell you that a 10 fold increase is a ridiculous (and in this case, completely unverified) claim.



Going past the chinese whispers of blogs reporting on blogs and back to the original source of the story, the numbers are ...

- Before SRI, this farmer got 4 - 5 tonnes per hectare
- After, one year, one sample point, one farmer, 22.4 tonnes per hectare.

Describing it as "ten times" would be a lie.

And whats with the quote of using "less chemicals" in the article?
By any common definition, that use of "chemicals" although less, makes the practise anything but the "organic" that people are claiming.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Looking through the comments and the pdf report on this story, from the guardian...

1. The area may be poor, but has some of the best soils around.

2. Better weather for the magical crop.
The climate and rainfall distribution were better in 2011 than in the previous year, when much of
Bihar experienced serious drought conditions.

3. They used hybrid rice from evil multinational chemical companies.
"Sumant Kumar planted the Bayer hybrid variety Arise-6444, while the other four farmers used Syngenta’s hybrid 6302"

3. They used the fungicide Carbendazim, which a google search tells me is highlighted by Friends of the Earth as one of their ‘filthy four’ pesticides, as well as other nutrients, along with some amount of chemical fertilizers.

4. The amazing yield was from the 2011 harvest.
The author was asked for the numbers on the 2012 harvest, but failed to respond (although replying to other comments). One usually assumes its a question a poster wants to avoid answering.

These are facts people should know before, like NaturalNews, one wishes to paint it as a miracle of "organic" farming.

Organic farming is good enough to stand on its own merits, without having to lie about it.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
S&F for the post. Few chinese poindexters couldn't believe it and questioned the numbers at one point. Imagine if this method along with efficient use of land was made around the world, we wouldn't be facing a food shortage in many parts of the world. Just look at a single case of the imnense continent of Africa and its weather which for the most part is under utilized. Imagine if the governments focused more or invested more in agricultural projects in that continent alone. Obviously other industries/sectors are luring the locals/politicians into steering their efforts/capitals/labor away from the effective/efficient agriculturing. They should publicize this news around the world and somehow send a strong message to many nations to increase their yield without GMO crops.
LINK1

LINK2

LINK3
edit on 10-4-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
It is a known fact that organic farming can produce nicer and bigger crops than commercial farming. The food usually tastes better to me too.


I don't think this is a fact. From my observations, organic and natural farming tends to have smaller yields than with chemicals. The upside is the smaller "fruits" of the harvest are more nutrition packed.

The "nicer" part of your statement depends on your definition. Nutrition wise yes, aesthetics and other "looks", not always, though sometimes. And as for taste and nutrition, its better to know where your food comes from and how it is grown.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


This makes me wonder why people continue to use gmos if non gmo crops produce more food. More importantly why do people use the idea that they are used to feed people and end world hunger when they produce less



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


With organic farming, you can get bigger produce but it takes more work. In commercial farming, the manhours per acre is usually less so it is more profitable. I grew up on a farm and we used fertilizers and some chemicals. The crops were a lot less work than when I grew things organically later with my ex wife's grandfather. My exwife's grandfathers produce was considerably more productive and better tasting. Cow manure sure does wonders compared to bagged fertilizer on everything but potatoes



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater


GMO is evil and is created for profits.. I saw in the grocery yesterday a grapple.. its an apple that taste like a grape supposably.. I am told they are delicious but I will not eat one because its gmo and not good for you.

Whilst I also try and keep my diet GMO free, these grapples you mentioned are not GMO, just a quick google search showed me this, it is better to do a little research that assume the worst.

grapple homepage



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
So in other words by looking backward, he went forward. Changing the cellular structure of food should be considered a crime against humanity. It took nature millions of years to create these gifts. Little research has been done on the health effects of these frankenfoods. In my opinion, the Creatrix is pissed.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


could the GMO's accidentally cross pollinate with other crops and turn them into terminator seed plants that are sterile?

just curious



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Personally, as someone that has a 1/2 acre garden, I think that as a society we need to go back to the locally grown produce methodology of old. The nutritional value of food is in the tank. It tastes like "poo" compared to fresh vegetables right out of the garden. Most scary is the fact that, as an example, if I pull a carrot from the ground and bring it into my home, if I let it set for more than a couple of days, it starts to decay... kind of like dead things are supposed to do. If I bring a carrot from the store into my home and store it then it will last for weeks. Weeks AFTER it's already travelled a few thousand miles to get here.

Do you ever wonder why it's possible to eat a fresh carrot when it's winter where you live? Or a watermelon? Produce is a high mileage item that sometimes travels thousands of miles, from countries that aren't very diligent about what they put on their crops, to get to your table. Read the Omnivore's Dilemma. It's not going to make you feel good but it will at least educate you on how tenuous and propped up our food supply really is

Meat is another issue. Have you ever seen a feedlot or any other CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). They live in and on their own feces. Their food is laced with antibiotics just to keep them alive long enough to reach slaughter. Chickens and turkeys live on top of the ones that don't make it (until a worker can removed the dead animal to a location where it's processed into animal feed). There is not a single thing good about our food supply except that it keeps us fed... kind of like the cows, chickens, and turkeys that I just mentioned. Obesity and diabetes, as well as many other diseases, can be traced back to our food supply.

Many people today are up in arms about getting off of oil. They look to wind generators and solar panels to free us from the tyranny of big oil. The funny thing is... big oil is the energy supplier, it's the petrochemical industry that we are enslaved by. Almost everything that is in your daily life is created by or is a result of the petrochemical industry.

The fertilizer for crops, and therefore your food, is created from natural gas. Half of the nitrogen fertilizer produced today is used for the production of corn. An acre of corn takes about a barrel of oil to get it to market. Corn is hybridized to more efficiently turn N2 into food for you, me, and the animals that I mentioned earlier. In a particularly humorous twist, governments subsidize ethanol to help us get off of "evil fossil fuels" yet the very fossil fuel that they demonize to justify the subsidies that make ethanol viable are an integral part of the creation of ethanol. The ethanol subsidy was a contrivance to create a market for the excess corn that comes from hybridization of corn and relatively cheap fertilizer.

Plastic, electronics, your car, your house, the coating on the cables that bring you power and the internet, the circuitry that makes satellites and space travel as we know it today possible... all tied to the petrochemical industry. Medicines (like Zantac which is derived in part from propane), etc, etc, etc. Petrochemicals are the elephant in the room...

The "wizard of oil" isn't what you see, it's the "man behind the curtain" and his name is petrochemicals. He owns your very existence.





top topics
 
58
<<   2 >>

log in

join