Pros and cons of organic vs nonorganic?

[Hbrey]

One, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not all GMO organisms are the same - it is a broad term. No self respecting student of science would declare "all GMO food to be safe". Many of us would rather depend on a diverse and demonstrated (time) healthy food base.

Two, this argument misses the other critical point directed at Monsanto and bioengineered plants: it is folly to allow our nation's food production to become dependent on patented engineered crops.

Personally I would rather see the country move away from large, centralized agribusiness and back towards small, decentralized, more diverse food production. For reasons of food safety, health, environment, and economics. And I shall do my part in helping that paradigm shift by my own food production as well as by my consumer spending.

I agree that large scale farms dependent upon too few seed and chemical companies is likely not the optimal system for anything other than utilizing economies of scale to mass produce the most food at the lowest prices. My main concern is not necessarily with GMO seeds but rather the diminishing biodiversity available to us. We plant, almost exclusively, single strains of corn, beans, wheat, etc.. A year or two with plant diseases these strains are susceptible to would leave us in a world of hurt!
The downside is that we would need to be prepared to spend a far greater percentage of our income on food than we currently do to move away from current agricultural practices. Economies of scale are real, and profits drive the system. Polyface Farms and others that follow their lead can not compete on a simple cost basis. They are "boutique" farms supported by a very small portion of the population.
So I will plant heirloom seeds in my garden, raise my chickens, and try to utilize empty acreage to raise some grass fed beef.
This does not mean that I believe GMO grains are in and of themselves bad for us or our animals! We live a world that continues to see starvation and malnutrition run rampant. Large corporations are not "evil", they are simply an economic response to the current marketplace. Big agriculture did not kill the small family farm, cheap transportation of goods and agricultural products made the decline inevitable. The economic term "comparative advantage" must be understood to grasp why this is so. If a region can produce wheat, as an example, more cheaply than other regions, even marginally so, it will now focus entirely on producing wheat and shipping it to other areas. This forces other regions to give up wheat production and focus on areas of production in which they may realize a comparative advantage. This leads, inevitably, to large scale operations focused primarily on one crop or product. No one would expect one factory to efficiently or profitably manufacture lawn mowers, blenders, and light bulbs in the same production facility. For this reason the days when people farmed like my grandparents or great-grandparents did, with a bit of wheat, some corn, pigs, a couple of dairy cows, and chickens are now the domain of the hobby farmer or the urban homesteader. GMO's were not developed to take over agriculture but as a part of the natural economic system we operate under. They are a response to a need.

 

[ChickCrazed]

I agree that large scale farms dependent upon too few seed and chemical companies is likely not the optimal system for anything other than utilizing economies of scale to mass produce the most food at the lowest prices. My main concern is not necessarily with GMO seeds but rather the diminishing biodiversity available to us. We plant, almost exclusively, single strains of corn, beans, wheat, etc.. A year or two with plant diseases these strains are susceptible to would leave us in a world of hurt!
The downside is that we would need to be prepared to spend a far greater percentage of our income on food than we currently do to move away from current agricultural practices. Economies of scale are real, and profits drive the system. Polyface Farms and others that follow their lead can not compete on a simple cost basis. They are "boutique" farms supported by a very small portion of the population.
So I will plant heirloom seeds in my garden, raise my chickens, and try to utilize empty acreage to raise some grass fed beef.
This does not mean that I believe GMO grains are in and of themselves bad for us or our animals! We live a world that continues to see starvation and malnutrition run rampant. Large corporations are not "evil", they are simply an economic response to the current marketplace. Big agriculture did not kill the small family farm, cheap transportation of goods and agricultural products made the decline inevitable. The economic term "comparative advantage" must be understood to grasp why this is so. If a region can produce wheat, as an example, more cheaply than other regions, even marginally so, it will now focus entirely on producing wheat and shipping it to other areas. This forces other regions to give up wheat production and focus on areas of production in which they may realize a comparative advantage. This leads, inevitably, to large scale operations focused primarily on one crop or product. No one would expect one factory to efficiently or profitably manufacture lawn mowers, blenders, and light bulbs in the same production facility. For this reason the days when people farmed like my grandparents or great-grandparents did, with a bit of wheat, some corn, pigs, a couple of dairy cows, and chickens are now the domain of the hobby farmer or the urban homesteader. GMO's were not developed to take over agriculture but as a part of the natural economic system we operate under. They are a response to a need.

I agree. This thread has been a hilarious read. I also feel the need to state that I do not work for Monsanto (again, hilarious that it will be assumed), Contrary to what most of the anti-GMO movement believes, GMOs are not bathed in nuclear bathwater. It is science and takes advantage of the same natural genetic modification principles as happen in nature. These companies are merely trying to "hurry" nature along. Genetic modification is also not a new principal. It is just something that the alarmists have gotten a hold of and gone crazy over in recent years. Most of you grew up eating GMO foods....It is also very clear that the majority of the posters on here have done no research on the subject and are just regurgitating scare tactics and propaganda. Please people, turn off the Bachelor and do some research.

The reality is, with the rate of population growth as it is today, many parts of the world will be in crisis mode in a matter of decades. Much of the world is inhospitable to conventional crops and I think it is amazing that agri-business is trying to address the issue in advance and come up with crops that can be planted in areas that currently can't support them. How can anyone find fault in that? (cue the crazies for their wildly emotional response here). As has been stated before, I fully support your decision to avoid these crops. You have every right to buy and eat what you want. You should also avoid trying to push your beliefs on others. Just because you don't want to eat GMO doesn't mean no one else should be allowed the choice to do so and support these companies. I get really irritated by all the hype around this subject. I am sorry to the original poster that this whole thread turned into an anti-GMO tirade.

 

[Samantha W]

Hi everyone, I just got five day old baby chicks and they are currently eating a conventional non-soy non-GMO starter feed. I'm an avid health nut and have been buying certified organic pasture raised eggs and personally believe they are the absolute best. What I want to know is what are the benefits of feeding chickens organic vs nonorganic food? The most obvious con of organic is the high price tag, which might not be that much of a big deal for me in some cases. When my chicks are grown I will have them in my backyard but they will not be fully "pasture raised." So along with the little bit of natural grasses and whatnot they will be eating, what difference in overall bird health and egg quality/nutritive value will be apparent between feeding them organic versus conventional feed? What are the best feeds on both ends of the spectrum? And other than feed, what sort of foods and treats will the chicks get the most health benefits from?

Why not ferment your feed? Health benefits are big and if you buy organic, chickens typically eat half of fermented feed than dry.

Just a thought!! And I am not getting into the GMO/Organic argument!!!!!

 

[jonsccm]

Why not ferment your feed? Health benefits are big and if you buy organic, chickens typically eat half of fermented feed than dry.

Just a thought!! And I am not getting into the GMO/Organic argument!!!!!

By fermenting your feed they eat less? This could be helpful!
What do you think the best way to ferment a small batch like 25 lb at a time be? What methods do you use?

 

[Samantha W]

By fermenting your feed they eat less? This could be helpful!
What do you think the best way to ferment a small batch like 25 lb at a time be? What methods do you use?

The best way is to take a large container with an airtight top and put in your feed and cover with water about and inch or two above feed, leave for a couple of days stirring every few hours (except night time!!) and adding more water as necessary to keep it above feed, and voila.....your feed should have naturally fermented. The water on top will bubble, that's when you know it's done.

Usually what people do is when you scoop out feed they add the same amount back in of dry feed which then ferments and the cycle goes on.

And you can add all sorts of extras too....chopped fruit and veg, seeds and grains.

I've only done this for a couple of days but so far so good. My babies are 5 weeks old. I did a lot of research before starting and found what method worked best for me. If you google fermented feed recipe, the sites are endless and full of more great info too

Good Luck

 

[jonsccm]

The best way is to take a large container with an airtight top and put in your feed and cover with water about and inch or two above feed, leave for a couple of days stirring every few hours (except night time!!) and adding more water as necessary to keep it above feed, and voila.....your feed should have naturally fermented. The water on top will bubble, that's when you know it's done.

Usually what people do is when you scoop out feed they add the same amount back in of dry feed which then ferments and the cycle goes on.

And you can add all sorts of extras too....chopped fruit and veg, seeds and grains.

I've only done this for a couple of days but so far so good. My babies are 5 weeks old. I did a lot of research before starting and found what method worked best for me. If you google fermented feed recipe, the sites are endless and full of more great info too

Good Luck

Thanks for the info!

 

[chickengeorgeto]

Some claim that GMOs are reducing bio-diversity. I have no idea what they mean by that and I am sure that they likely don't know what they are saying as well.

For over 75 years hybrid corn has been the most planted corn variety in the United States, over 90% of all corn planted in the US to day is hybrid corn. Hybrid seeds do not breed true and new seeds are required each and every year. I can surely guarantee all of you that any farmer who saves and plants his own corn "SEEDS" year after year has long since been driven out of farming as a way of earning a living. Oh there may be a few out there but to be sure they are circling the drain. All this seed saving and replanting business is a red herring that is deceitfully used by some to deceive you well meaning people into leaping on the anti-GMO band wagon before they've looked at the facts.

What is the Organic Industry going to advocate next, Plowing with an ox pulling a dead hardwood tree instead of the preverbal old John Deere?

When you order an organic Starbucks latté remember that a little of Juan Valdez's urine is included in the recipe.

Now here are some more inconvenient facts about organic food:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/01/2334-busting-the-myth-of-organic-food/

Americans believe that organic food is healthier than conventional fare by a 2-1 margin, reports John Miller of National Review. But Miller’s worthy article (link requires subscription) demonstrates that the reverse is far closer to the truth. “Organic foods may be fresh,” he points out, “but they’re also fresh from the manure fields.”
To be sure, there’s nothing wrong with buying organic. Miller rightly scorns, however, the holier-than-thou organic-only political movement trying to legislate and scare the rest of us into buying their high-priced alternatives.

The discovery of a single case of mad cow disease in the United States provided a perfect opportunity for organic advocates to promote the false belief that conventional foods are excessively risky. As we pointed out in the Orlando Sentinel: “During the Christmas season, it was hard to open a newspaper without reading assurances from Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, that organic beef provided a safety net from mad cow disease.” He conveniently forgets that in 1995, the British had hundreds of mad-cow diagnoses on organic farms.
Facts aren’t particularly important to a guy like Cummins, who believes that American consumers “aren’t smart enough to know what they want.” Based on the facts, of course, most of us won’t pay hefty premiums for organic meat. So Cummins strives to raise unwarranted fears about mad cow disease. That’s the only way he can achieve his goal of getting consumers to pay “twice as much for their meat.”

For those who think that eating organic food will somehow protect us from mad cow disease and bring about world peace, learning that manure-grown spuds come from large enterprises might be a bit of shock. But as Miller points out, “one of the dirty secrets of organic farming” is that “it’s big business.”

Although the organic movement has humble origins, today most of its food isn’t produced on family farms in quaint villages or even on hippie communes in Vermont. Instead, the industry has come to be dominated by large corporations that are normally the dreaded bogeymen in the minds of many organic consumers. A single company currently controls about 70 percent of the market in organic milk. California grows about $400 million per year in organic produce — and about half of it comes from just five farms.​

The high-priestess of organic-only eating, Joan Dye Gussow, has complained for years about business interests intruding on her church. “When we said organic we meant local,” she wrote in 2002. “We meant healthful. We meant being true to the ecologies of regions. We meant mutually respectful growers and eaters. We meant social justice and equality.”
Gussow claims that she views food choices in terms of ecology. She should read Miller’s article. He notes that, if anything, organic food is worse for the environment:

The very worst thing about organic farming requires the use of a word that doomsaying environmentalists have practically trademarked: It’s not sustainable. Few activities are as wasteful as organic farming. Its yields are about half of what conventional farmers expect at harvest time. Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his agricultural innovations, has said, “You couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people” on an all-organic diet.​

If organic-food consumers think they’re making a political statement when they eat, they’re correct: They’re declaring themselves to be not only friends of population control, but also enemies of environmental conservation. About half the world’s land area that isn’t covered with ice or sand is devoted to food production. Modern farming techniques have enabled this limited supply to produce increasing quantities of food. Yields have fattened so much in the last few decades that people refer to this phenomenon as the “Green Revolution,” a term that has nothing to do with enviro-greenies and everything to do with improvements in breeding, fertilization, and irrigation. Yet even greater challenges lie ahead, because demographers predict that world population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. “The key is to produce more food,” says Alex Avery of CGFI. “Growing more per acre leaves more land for nature.” The alternative is to chop down rainforests so that we may dine on organic soybeans.

And what about the health risks from eating those manure-grown sprouts? Here’s one final excerpt from Miller’s article, where he describes the organic brand of fertilizer creating a:

… luscious breeding grounds for all kinds of nasty microbes. Take the dreaded E. coli, which is capable of killing people who ingest it. A study by the Center for Global Food Issues found that although organic foods make up about 1 percent of America’s diet, they also account for about 8 percent of confirmed E. coli cases.​

Organic food products also suffer from more than eight times as many recalls as conventional ones. Some of this problem would go away if organic farmers used synthetic sprays — but this, too, is off limits. Conventional wisdom says that we should avoid food that’s been drenched in herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. Half a century ago, there was some truth in this: Sprays were primitive and left behind chemical deposits that often survived all the way to the dinner table. Today’s sprays, however, are largely biodegradable. They do their job in the field and quickly break down into harmless molecules.

What’s more, advances in biotechnology have reduced the need to spray. About one-third of America’s corn crop is now genetically modified. This corn includes a special gene that produces a natural toxin that’s safe for every living creature to eat except caterpillars with alkaline guts, such as the European corn borer, a moth larva that can ravage whole harvests. This kind of biotech innovation has helped farmers reduce their reliance on pesticides by about 50 million pounds per year.

Organic farmers, of course, don’t benefit from any of this. But they do have some recourse against the bugs, weeds, and fungi that can devastate a crop: They spray their plants with “natural” pesticides. These are less effective than synthetic ones and they’re certainly no safer. In rat tests, rotenone — an insecticide extracted from the roots of tropical plants — has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. The Environmental Protection Agency has described pyrethrum, another natural bug killer, as a human carcinogen. Everything is lethal in massive quantities, of course, and it takes huge doses of pyrethrum to pose a health hazard. Still, the typical organic farmer has to douse his crops with it as many as seven times to have the same effect as one or two applications of a synthetic compound based on the same ingredients. Then there’s one of the natural fungicides preferred by organic coffee growers in Guatemala: fermented urine. Think about that the next time you’re tempted to order the “special brew” at your local organic java hut.

The text in bold characters was highlighted by me as a courtesy to those out there who only know how to speed read.

 

[Cindy in PA]

Hybridization is not the same as inserting a gene from a different organism in a plant. Don't try and make it sound better. They used BT in corn and plastered the country with it. Now the corn ear worm is becoming resistant. The use Round Up on all the RR crops & now weeds are becoming immune. Don't they get it??? No self respecting organic farmer would use BT or anything else except on a limited basis. GMO BT corn has taken that away from organic farmers. So they want to "speed up" the process for what? So that all weeds & insects become immune to everything quicker? Grow what you want & buy what you want. If consumers were given a clear choice we would have our answer, but the corporations & government won't let that happen.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

We could solve the GMO debate by labeling all human & animal feed & let the consumer & free market decide. It will never happen because there is too much money behind GMOs.

We already label food. If you wish to buy organic food there is a big bright lovely pastel label right on the front of the package that shouts "BUY ME, I'M ORGANIC" But what so many of you fail to recognize is that organic refers to a process and this process allows most government agencies to just look at the "organic" label, yawn and then look off the other way while big organic agriculture in both this country and in China passes along the whole Periotic Table to the consumer in the form of heavy metal contamination, viruses, bacteria, and those lovely nonpoisonous organic poisons that some insist are not in organic food but that are indiscriminately sprayed, dusted, and dumped on organic food crops so that the bugs can't eat your lunch before you get a chance to chow down on it first.

With organic food the only real protection the consumer enjoys is the process of filling out paperwork to get your "organic certification" paperwork. After certification an organic grower is off to the races and from there on out pretty much anything goes. In fact the people issuing the organic certification usually aren't part of the Department of Agriculture, EPA, or FDA.

The humorous thing in all of this is that big agricultural service companies like Bayer and Monsanto sell "organic" seeds, pesticides and chemicals to organic certificate holders and these "organic" farmers use these organic pesticides and chemicals wholesale on your organic food. Bon Appetite Sparky.

As has already has been mentioned in a former post of mine, the new generation of synthetic pesticides degrade so rapidly that inspection of organic crops to detect synthetic pesticide residue may not even prove feasible.

http://deltafarmpress.com/government/organic-food-inspections-lacking-former-inspector-says?page=2

I've included the snippet below from the Washington State Department of Agriculture to reinforce my contention that organic is about the process of production but that the word organic in no way has any guarantee of consumer safety connected to it. Look up the word ACCREDITED, it carries with it about as much safety as a 16 year old new driver in his mother's SUV on prom night. As long as he has his new drivers license in hand the teen is an ACCREDITED driver.

"The WSDA Organic Food Program, a USDA-accredited certifier, upholds the integrity of the organic label through certification and inspection of organic crop and livestock producers, processors, handlers and retailers. Whether you are looking to market your organic product at home or abroad, WSDA offers certification services to meet your needs. Please browse below to find out how WSDA can put your business on the path to certification."
http://agr.wa.gov/foodanimal/organic/

Once a certifier is on the hook to an organic grower it behooves the certifier to not rock the organic boat to much, because the failure of a certificate holder or a certificate holder who games the system reflects badly on the certifier.

 

[Cindy in PA]

We already label food. If you wish to buy organic food there is a big bright lovely pastel label right on the front of the package that shouts "BUY ME, I'M ORGANIC" But what so many of you fail to recognize is that organic refers to a process and this process allows most government agencies to just look at the "organic" label, yawn and then look off the other way while big organic agriculture in both this country and in China passes along the whole Periotic Table to the consumer in the form of heavy metal contamination, viruses, bacteria, and those lovely nonpoisonous organic poisons that some insist are not in organic food but that are indiscriminately sprayed, dusted, and dumped on organic food crops so that the bugs can't eat your lunch before you get a chance to chow down on it first.

With organic food the only real protection the consumer enjoys is the process of filling out paperwork to get your "organic certification" paperwork. After certification an organic grower is off to the races and from there on out pretty much anything goes. In fact the people issuing the organic certification usually aren't part of the Department of Agriculture, EPA, or FDA.

The humorous thing in all of this is that big agricultural service companies like Bayer and Monsanto sell "organic" seeds, pesticides and chemicals to organic certificate holders and these "organic" farmers use these organic pesticides and chemicals wholesale on your organic food. Bon Appetite Sparky.

As has already has been mentioned in a former post of mine, the new generation of synthetic pesticides degrade so rapidly that inspection of organic crops to detect synthetic pesticide residue may not even prove feasible.

http://deltafarmpress.com/government/organic-food-inspections-lacking-former-inspector-says?page=2

I've included the snippet below from the Washington State Department of Agriculture to reinforce my contention that organic is about the process of production but that the word organic in no way has any guarantee of consumer safety connected to it. Look up the word ACCREDITED, it carries with it about as much safety as a 16 year old new driver in his mother's SUV on prom night. As long as he has his new drivers license in hand the teen is an ACCREDITED driver.

"The WSDA Organic Food Program, a USDA-accredited certifier, upholds the integrity of the organic label through certification and inspection of organic crop and livestock producers, processors, handlers and retailers. Whether you are looking to market your organic product at home or abroad, WSDA offers certification services to meet your needs. Please browse below to find out how WSDA can put your business on the path to certification."
http://agr.wa.gov/foodanimal/organic/

Once a certifier is on the hook to an organic grower it behooves the certifier to not rock the organic boat to much, because the failure of a certificate holder or a certificate holder who games the system reflects badly on the certifier.

I don't buy big ag organic, because it is not. I buy local organic local & non organic where I can verify how it is grown. You spend a lot of time putting down organic. Why??? We lost a lot when the government took over Organic Certification. I am not looking for certification of "safety". That's what is wrong with our food supply, too far from the consumer. Do your research & buy from whom you trust. Enjoy your pesticide & herbicide laced food & water if you choose. Unfortunately we all pay for that choice & that's what is a shame.