The problem with organic farming is it is too simplistic of an approach. It's tenants are based upon a guess not scientific data and enforced regardless of if it makes logical sense with what we known now.

[–] moonluna@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is study by Clark and Tilman (2017) that they based their results from doesn't correlate to any reality that I've ever witness. I tried to find connections to a GMO producer that they might of had but I could not. Because I can't understand how they could come to such a conclusion.

Non organic farming uses just as much fertilizer and on top of it uses very toxic chemicals from synthetic pesticides. So their eutrophication levels would certainly be higher than organics that may use fertilizers but dont use the synthetics.

The report also shows that it is some not all instances that organic is worst for energy levels or pollution which as nothing to do with your claim nor my claim of viruses coming from regrowing your vegetables/fruits from the grocery.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Did you read the paper?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5/pdf

It's a pretty decent one but there are others that I find better done. I posted the world in numbers one because its got nice graphs and is well cited.

I'll post more if you would like to discuss it futher.

As for your question on nitrogen/phosphate runoff it's pretty simple. Organic fertilizers like manure take time to break down by microbial action into the exact same molecular chemicals as synthetic fertilizer. Say you have 4 months of production time when the plants can use nutrients. Microbial action on manure can take up to 6 months until it releases all of the nutrients. The excess nutrients that are release when no crop is growing runs off and causes environmental damage.

As for my comments on disease and seed, I can give you references to all of them except the SQMV. That's unpublished data that I used to convince some idiot C-suite types to release some capital investment. Gave a pathology tech a very bad few weeks one summer.

You are under the impression the all synthetic chemistry and GMO's are bad. This is flat out not true . They are technology that can be used for very f Good and stupid uses. Example a very good GMO is virus resistance (PRSV in Papayas). A fucking stupid one is Roundup resistance.

[–] electricyarn@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

But the manure already exists? It's putting to use a waste product. Whereas the synthetic fertilizers are being added to the nitrogen cycle of our planet. Don't you think thats an important distinction?

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

No manure is a waste product for crop production. It is extensively utilized in conventional agriculture. Organic production unfortunately uses it inefficiently.

There are some pretty complicated biological processes to explain this but I'll try to keep it short.

First off manure is a not balanced fertilizer. It's got two much of some nutrients and not enough of others . This imbalance causes two issues: it delays the release of nutrients and causes excess unused nutrients to buildup in the soil.

The nutrient composition in manure varies widely as well. There are many variables that can affect this. It's pretty wild when you get the laboratory test back.

Most of the nitrogen in the original food source for the animal is lost by denitrification before the next years crop can utilize it. There flat out is not enough N in the manure to raise our crops without synthetic fertilizer

Application of manure acidifies the soil. Acidic soil locks up nutrient via chemical reactions.

The most efficient and environmentally friendly way to fertilize crops is with a combination manure, compost, synthetic fertilizer and covercrops. The addition of synthetic fertilizers allows farmers to reduce the amount of manure they apply and balance out the nutrients ratios. It also reduces the total need of synthetic fertilizer and increases the soil microbial activity. The covercrops capture and hold nutrients over the winter and minimizing the runoff and inputs for the following year.

[–] moonluna@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I read the paper. I already know organic food is better than GMO, people have been farming organically 99% of humanities existence compared to GMO. If you want to eat that man made manipulation of nature you can but I'll just eat the nature. No synthetic is good for organic lifeforms which humans are. You humans think you can out perform nature but you can't.

[–] IncogCyberspaceUser@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Food crops have been manipulated(domesticated) by humans for thousands of years before GMOs.
https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits-vegetables-before-domestication-photos-genetically-modified-food-natural

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol, you KNOW do you. That sounds like a religious belief. When you come to a conclusion based upon a belief and then try to force facts to fit it.

Yep that doesn't work for me.