You link doesn't work, but copy/pasting it into the address bar works.

Anyway, it's utter nonsense.

To claim that organic cropping yields 2-3 times that of conventional farming is a fantasy.

One of the challenges of organic farming is finding cost effective ways to do it and get enough yield to turn a profit. It's not that organic methods can't be on par with 'traditional' methods, it's simply that there is no way whatsoever it is 2-3X as productive.

Sorry, nobody's perfect :) This one should work:

http://www.mlive.com/annarbor/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-23/1185087233247120.xml&coll=2

True, I do think 2 to 3 times may be a bit of an exaduration, but I did like this quote from the article:

"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies, as well as fertilizer companies - all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she said.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there about growing organically, such as "it's more expensive" and "you won't get as much". There are a lot of people I know that say they want to grow organically but if they get a bug problem they think they have to use a chemical to get rid of it. I think if people would research and try some of the organic control methods that they might be surprised. I'm not saying there is a good/quick organic solution to EVERY problem, but there a lot of them out there. And a lot of times they use just household products.

But, for a whole farm to be organic, that would take a bit more than just the backyard gardener can do. I would agree that it is much easier for us to do it then for them.

Here is a link that might be useful: Article

Ummm, yeah. I'd like to point out that MSU is the land-grant institution in the state (and therefore has an excellent ag program) and that UM doesn't have any sort of ag program. And, I'm an MSU grad, so that of course doesn't influence what I'm saying. :)

The reason we still can't farm organically is because of the increased labor that's required. I work for a company that has both organic and conventional production, and we throw tons more labor at the organic fields, and while yields aren't drastically lower, they are reduced.

Even though Michigan State University is the "Agricultural College" in Michigan, the University of Michigan has an excellent Horticultural School as well. Note the the researchers found that yields in the 3rd world would be less on an organic farm while yields of organic produce can be equal to or greater than those of "conventional" farms. Those increased yields could be due to more intensive use of the same amount of area that organic methods can allow due to the increased fertility of the soil.
Those farmers around here that sell their organic produce at the local Organic Farmers Market tell me that their methods are no more labor intensive than the "conventional" farmers, because the "conventional" farmers spend as much time and energy cultivating, as well as spraying for weeds, and have more insect pest problems simply because of monoculture.
If organic farming is so difficult why are so many people converting their farms to organic practices?

No kimmsr, I'm talking about actual MAN hours. I know, for a fact, that in large-scale organic farming situations (we still MUST have large-scale farms to produce enough food given the way everything in the US is structured) it takes many more man hours to produce organic foods. Labor shortage is the biggest single problem facing farmers, especially those that grow high-input crops such as fruits and veggies, today.

I'm not arguing that organic farms do not experience good yields. I'm saying that a large-scale organic farm doesn't get the same yield as a large-scale conventional farm because they have a harder time battling the effects of monoculture. And, as I stated above, the US (and most other developed countried) are not structured in such a way to allow for a multitude of small farms.

And I really think you are mistaken that UM has a hort program. I couldn't find anything that says they offer degrees in horticulture. I did find an environmental studies program, but not a horticulture program. Those are two separate things.

I knew several grad students at MSU who had done their undergrad work at UM in other related fields, but never horticulture.

It is totally amazing to me that people that do not believe that organic methods work come to this Organic Gardening forum to offer advice to people trying to be organic. Organic methods work quite well IF you actually use them. Insect pests and diseases are less of a problem when the soil is made good and healthy so it can grow strong and healthy plants. Skeptics just have not gotten there yet. There is no need for someone that actually has been using proper organic methods for several years to need to use any fertilizer, organic or not, because if that soil has been properly treated it already has everything it needs to grow strong, healthy plants. People that still need to add "fertilizers" to get plant growth do not have a good, healthy soil.
Fruitgirl, in my Master Gardener classes I have had professors of Horticulture from the University of Michigan as well as from Michigan State University instructing the class. One UM Hort Prof we had turned his yard into a prairie, to the chagrin of his neighbors, and burned it off and found that the local Fire Department frowned on that type of activity, strongly.

Monoculture, exactly the issue. When you've got a solid acre, or ten, or a hundred of potatoes, you're going to have a wicked CPB problem whether using chemical pesticide or no. Put the potatoes in narrow strips with other crops - many other crops - and the CPB's tend to become a minor problem after a few years, and so on with most other insect pests.

As Fruitgirl says, that and many other differences in management typically associated with 'organics' (composting operations, for example), requires much more labor. Conventional ag bypasses a bunch of that labor cost, pockets the saving as profit, but the cost comes out in other ways ultimately and is picked up by the taxpayer.

Quote:
One UM Hort Prof we had turned his yard into a prairie, to the chagrin of his neighbors, and burned it off and found that the local Fire Department frowned on that type of activity, strongly.

He must have forgotten to get a burn permit first :)

Many local refuse centers take yard waste and compost it. You can then pick it up for use. Maybe farmers could tap into that system or develop one similar using their own "yard" waste.

I see two problems here. One being the monoculture and two being the dependancy placed on them by the chemical companies. Some of those fields have become so depentant on chemicals that the change to organics would be a shock to the system and would take time to repair. How many billions of mico organisams have died and need to be replaced?

When they grow plants from genetically altered seeds that are "round-up ready".....what are we really eating? I don't know what sounds worse, eating something that was sprayed with round-up, or eating something that can't be killed by round-up.

I agree with kimmsr. Once the plan is established, proper rotation, good healthy soil, the work involved would be minimal. But to take fields and soil that have become so dependant on chemicals and swith them over would not be a single year project.....but it could be done.

I have to agree with fruitgirl, but for reasons that most people seldom think about. No doubt about it, organic yields are comparable to conventional on a bushel-to-bushel basis. And I agree that organic methods do work. On certain plots, with certain techniques they may even out produce conventional several times over. However, what we seem to forget is that organic practices include longer rotation schedules than conventional. I live on a conventional farm in the upper Midwest and here the rotation is probably the same for most Midwest farm: corn, then soybeans, then corn again, then soybeans again, and so on, forever. An organic farmer would also plant corn, then soybeans. The third year is where the difference begins to show. The farmer is going to plant oats, buckwheat, or rye early in the spring, and then more than likely, it will get plowed under to break the weed cycle. After it gets plowed, the field will be seeded to alfalfa, or maybe timothy hay. If it is alfalfa, the field will remain in alfalfa for several years until the cycle begins again. THIS IS GREAT FOR THE SOIL!! But look what it does for the on-going, overall yield of corn and soybeans: over four years the organic farm has only produced one-fourth of the conventional yield of corn and soybeans. Of course, we can argue that is how farming should be done, however, our society and culture must undergo a tremendous culture shift in order for that to succeed. A whole lot less meat, and much more vegetables and grain. So fruitgirl rightly stated:

"I'm not arguing that organic farms do not experience good yields. I'm saying that a large-scale organic farm doesn't get the same yield as a large-scale conventional farm because they have a harder time battling the effects of monoculture. And, as I stated above, the US (and most other developed countries) are not structured in such a way to allow for a multitude of small farms".

In the end, it is this "really-good-for-soil" cycle that reduces overall yields, not the lack of chemicals applied to the soil. Small organic farms do out produce conventional farms. Small organic vegetable and fruit operations are better for our health, the environment, and our society as a whole. And despite the fact that I would wish the whole planet to go organic, I agree with fruitgirl, that our structure of food production is now geared towards feeding 6 billion people and difficult to change. Yes, we do add more organic acres every year, but China is adding them even faster than the US. The US hasnt met its need for organic production since 2000. Nearly 15% of all organic food sold in this country is now imported, and at the rate of production of organic food look-alike junk (Oreos, Cheetos, toaster pastries, etc.) the imports are only going to rise. Moreover, the rate of conversion of conventional to organic has slowed down. Unfortunately, I suspect suburbanites often fail to fully understand farming and fall victim to the shouts of the anti-agribiz types.

loodean and fruitgirl understand it - you can't compare a bunch of 1-2 acre organic plots cared for by folks producing their own food with 100-10,000 acre plots cared for by folks collecting a paycheck by feeding the hoards of apartment dwellers in cities hundreds or thousands of miles away

I can grow a lot more tomatoes per acre in my little greenhouse, to feed me and my friends, or sell at the local market, but I sure couldn't do it on a hundred acres to feed the 9-5'ers in the city .... and while the local organic orchardists can produce as much as a chemical operation, they have to spend every weekend of the season in the big city selling the smaller percentage of #1 apples at $1-2 each to the yuppies in order to survive [and turn the rest into juice to sell at double the price of conventional, or even large scale organic] - who's gonna feed the minimum wage workers, and who's looking after the orchard while the owner is in the city? ..... minimum wage workers, or more likely no wage WOOFERs

as long as humanity insists on concentrating in apartment blocks and office buildings, small scale organic agriculture will never feed the masses - grow yer own

Bill