5
79

[–] dirething 5 points 79 points (+84|-5) ago 

Study Authors, The Rodale Institute is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports research into organic farming.

Assuming this is similar to past claims: The flaw in their past results was including the increased yield of all the crops they are rotating through to prevent having to amend the soil so much. So yes, you can "outperform" the conventional farmers in terms of yield, but the increased yield was in much less desirable produce.

I would be interested in an external audit of the profitability claim here. One that includes a risk assessment from the lack of preventative spraying.

15
17

[–] AgriGrunt 15 points 17 points (+32|-15) ago 

Scientific scrutiny on Voat? Get out of here with your facts and science. This is a science free zone.

0
11

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

In what way was it less desirable?

0
11

[–] achuie 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

I think he means that the crops they have to rotate through to maintain the soil are less desirable (by the market, or whatever, I don't know).

0
9

[–] Lemongarb 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I know plenty of people that produce better fruits and vegetables at home using organic methods. I don't know how this translates on a bigger scale, though.

0
3

[–] dirething 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

as achuie correctly pointed out they are going to have to be including some crop rotation in this if they are claiming this can apply to any crop and also claim

Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.

crops not artificially fertilized or sprayed for pests and disease usually require you rotate between crops to prevent the soil from becoming low on the resources that crop is hard on, or a field reaching the tipping point for a pest or disease.

Corn rotating to hay is a good example. Both plants benefit from being planted in a field previously harvested from the other, but the hay "yield" in terms of profit and productivity is far below the value of the corn. you can rotate between corn and soybeans, there is less benefit, but the soybeans are at least worth a bit more.

My point was, the organic crowd has often claimed better yields by planting garbage that doesn't need much maintenance in the first place. I am curious about their claims to profitability for that reason.

0
7

[–] hotgirl 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

To add to what you are saying, I wouldn't trust them as the most reliable source of research. I mean their mission says "Through organic leadership we improve the health and well-being of people and the planet." Trusting them to be unbiased, would be as blind as trusting Monsanto's research to be unbiased.

Edit: Misspelled Monsanto.

0
2

[–] idle_voating 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What are the less desirable crops needed for crop rotation? The only thing I can think of is growing pulses like beans and lentils for nitrogen fixing and people all over the world eat beans.

0
2

[–] dirething 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Some combinations are better than others hay/corn outperforms soybeans/corn on the corn phase, but the soybeans have more value than the hay for example.

Also, in addition to nitrogen and the other nutrients you sometimes rotate to make the field inhospitable to disease or pests.

Many combinations are possible, all I was saying is past studies of this sort claimed higher yield, but at a lower profit with less marketable crops. I am curious to see and outside verification of this statement and some insight on the risk involved in bypassing any preventative spraying or herbicide.

0
0

[–] Upvoats_McGoats 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That person doesn't seem to understand that rotating plants in a field is part of organic farming.

11
26

[–] zephroth 11 points 26 points (+37|-11) ago 

study funded by who? Follow the money. Just because its a study doesnt necessarily make it true.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 31 points (+33|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

10
17

[–] davethesaviour 10 points 17 points (+27|-10) ago 

you forgot to add a sarcasm tag.

Unless you of course you are talking about all the organic farming trillionaires who are astroturfing the mainstream media to promote their liberal aganda /s

5
12

[–] AgriGrunt 5 points 12 points (+17|-5) ago 

You do realize that Whole Foods is a bigger company than Monsanto.

4
1

[–] Drewcifer 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

made me chuckle

0
3

[–] 0x5f3759df 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Study reported by permaculture.co.uk.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They complain about it constantly.

0
0

[–] zephroth 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Lol dunno. I say it about all studies.

12
15

[–] VoutGuy 12 points 15 points (+27|-12) ago 

Better tasting too.

0
9

[–] dorf_physics 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Only things I've been under the impression that there is a difference is for carrots and tea. Which is weird. Why would pesticides alter the taste? Maybe it's just some kind of placebo... I should do a double-blinded test.

4
12

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 4 points 12 points (+16|-4) ago 

I used to be super into organic foods until i did several double blind tests and found that when I didn't know what was what i didn't notice any difference in taste.

Switched to non organic and I'm just as healthy as ever. I don't notice any difference other than now my wallet feels heavy.

1
7

[–] trolleyfan 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

People have. Usually the results range from "we can't tell" to "conventional tastes better," depending on what's tested (and probably a ton of other things). I strongly suspect that - all other factors the same (picking time, age of item, preparation, similar growing areas), "we can't tell" is the likely answer.

This is usually followed up by the organic groups going "but what about pesticides?"

0
1

[–] VoutGuy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Not agriculture but still; ever try organic bacon? HHNNG

1
0

[–] onlyrealfood4me 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Dumping gallons of a toxic chemicals onto crops might change the taste.

9
9

[–] HenryCorp [S] 9 points 9 points (+18|-9) ago 

I noticed that immediately when I first started trying out organic foods.

0
9

[–] Orthum 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

So you did a double blind taste test to challenge the role your perception played?

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I've been told they do, but I've never personally been able to tell the difference. Only exception is eggs, chickens with better living conditions produce better eggs, but that's a whole other thing.

3
1

[–] BiscuitFever 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

That's a placebo, friend.

0
1

[–] VoutGuy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ok, buddy.

2
13

[–] 2607055? 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

And yet organic produce is more expensive. Something doesn't add up.

7
23

[–] HenryCorp [S] 7 points 23 points (+30|-7) ago 

That's because most farmers are not currently organic, so there's less supply of the organic food for a greater demand. If every farmer went organic, that would change quickly.

1
19

[–] casper 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

Actually no, its because organic brands can command a higher margin due to effective marketing. More people are simply willing to pay more, so grocers charge more.

0
8

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'm not even remotely convinced by this. If there were double or triple profit margins for organic food at a reduced operating cost every farmer in the world would be scrambling to have their produce certified. Heck, even without the certification they'd be switching as fast as possible just to run more efficiently.

Farming is a cut-throat business, the fact that farmers mostly aren't switching over suggests that it's a well supplied and saturated niche market with higher operating costs.

1
6

[–] Drewcifer 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I can't say for sure, but my guess to the reason its more expensive is scale. Non-organic produce is more established so its cheaper.

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Right. And if it can't be scaled then it's not really relevant to commercial agriculture.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 5 points (+9|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If you're suggesting that federal subsidies artificially prop up conventional farming against organic, then that doesn't account for the same trend existing outside of the US.

1
3

[–] Lodley 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Because this organic research institute knows better than farmers obviously. Farming is run by corporations and everyone knows corporations don't like money. Also organic food is magic and doesn't respond to supply and demand.

3
11

[–] screwreddit 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

Higher yielding and more efficient, 3 times the price... Doesnt make much sense.

5
15

[–] HenryCorp [S] 5 points 15 points (+20|-5) ago  (edited ago)

That ignores supply and demand. Relatively few organic farms and large demand for it. Consider that legal marijuana production in the US is about to become larger than organic food: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/25/marijuana-industry-fastest-growing_n_6540166.html

2
11

[–] butthole_fart_poop 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago 

No, ignoring supply and demand would be failing to take into account why the suppliers have not mobilized en masse to carry out organic farming if it's more efficient, cheaper, higher yielding, and substantially more profitable given the current pricing structure.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That ignores supply. If there were huge demand for a produce and few suppliers, there'd be an enormous incentive to get in while the going was good and make a killing. If the situation you were describing were true, organic farming would be a gold rush.

4
6

[–] Amalek_slaps_SJWs 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

0
1

[–] bugmenot 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Not peer-reviewed. It's not science. Wrong sub.

1
1

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Economies of scale just don't exist. Plus massive subsidies for existing farming systems.

0
3

[–] trolleyfan 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

"Organic" of 4% of total U.S. food sales. Just how big do they have to get before "economies of scale" kick in?

4
0

[–] Wedhro 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

I wonder who gets the most subsidies...

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ok, if it's just because of US government subsidies, then why isn't the rest of the world flooded with organic farms?

5
9

[–] Amalek_slaps_SJWs 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago  (edited ago)

That's not true.

When marijuana producers grow organically yield suffers drastically.

http://www.cannabis.info/us/abc/10003673-organic-vs-synthetic-side-by-side

5
3

[–] HenryCorp [S] 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago 

Do you have sources/studies supporting that?

1
5

[–] Rostin 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Don't pretend like it'll change your mind. You censor viewpoints you don't like in your sub.

Proof.

4
2

[–] Amalek_slaps_SJWs 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

0
2

[–] Drewcifer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Care to provide a source?

4
1

[–] Amalek_slaps_SJWs 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Amalek_slaps_SJWs 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

No, but I assume it's all the same.

Tomatoes are similar to the cannabis plant.

I could probably dig some studies up though.

7
-5

4
4

[–] casper 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

Not peer-reviewed, not science. Wrong sub.

4
4

[–] AgriGrunt 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

A company with a vested interest finds desirable traits with organic farming. Sounds like crap science to me.

3
0

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

but everyone is eating it up because it fits their pre-conceived bias.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)