Was wondering if anyone had any info on this subject. I found a good article on the subject (http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html), but it doesn't really cover supply/demand issues. Looking forward to some input.

I support organic farming for the reasons mentioned in the article - for being a sustainable method of agriculture that will ensure steady yields for years to come. However, whether switching to organic farming is something that will help 'feed the world' is a matter controlled by world economics, not production. The Western world already produces far more that it can consume, to the extent of destroying (usually by burying) entire crops that can't be absorbed into the market, just to keep prices steady. If you've never heard of this before, I assure you that it's common practice. The government pays the farmers some compensation and then buries the excess produce. That's right. It doesn't donate them to the homeless or to 3rd World Countries, it buries it. So, I don't think that it's lack of surplus that keeps a good portion of the planet's population hungry, it's war and world economics.

The issue I think is with the rate the population is growing, and it reaching numbers where it won't be feasible to feed even just the Western World, especially if one takes into consideration that convential and GM farming practices exhaust the soil, so that it won't be able to produce as much. That's why there's so much talk about organic farming lately, it's about sustainability and maintaining the Western standard of living. The countries that are starving now will be prolly be starving even if there is a switch to organic farming. So much for feeding 'the world'.

World hunger has been proven to be caused by poverty, inequity, and poor government, not food shortage.

Organic farming can certainly feed the world's current population, but not without more people going into farming in the First World.

Not on the amount of land being farmed now. There simply is not enough organic sources of nitrogen. Would we be able to do it at all? it would not be easy.

Start with a calculation of the amount of food necessary to feed the world. Then add a little padding for safety sake. Currently, about 9/10 of the nitrogenous matter of such plants, comes from synthetic ammonia, made from air and natural gas, that is, industrially produced nitrogen plant food. If you were to try an provide this much nitrogen with the material that is next richest in nitrogen, animal feces and decaying animal flesh, you would have to use up every ounce of animal feces that is now going into rivers and streams -- ok a good idea -- and you would still only supply a small portion of the amount needed. This is not conjecture; this is what the situation was before 1920, and the introduction of the Haber Process to produce synthetic ammonia. http://shakahara/nitrogen.shtml On that page, see the link to "global population and the Nitrogen Cycle"

Once that is used up, and the small amount of bat guano, and mined sodium nitrate (Chilean nitrate) is used up, you would have to look to other sources of nitrogen. This would mean you would have to consider clear-cutting more forest area, to get virgin soil that has not been depleted yet. And it would only last 3 or 4 years before it was totally depleted. And you would have to consider gathering green (as opposed to brown) plant matter to compost. This would be easier today, with petroleum powered machinery, than it was in 1920, but it would still require huge amounts of compost for small amounts of nitrogen. We are talking ammonium nitrate which supplies something like 80 grams of nitrogen per every 100 grams of ammonium nitrate, vs compost with less than 1 gram of nitrogen per every 100 grams. Compare shipping costs. I'll have to get the figures for you for how many grams of N are needed for an acre of, say, corn, or wheat, or canteloupe. Just off the top of my head, if I have a 20-foot by 5 foot bed of sweet corn, I'd need a handful of ammonium nitrate to supply the nitrogen it needs, vs about 8 bushel baskets of compost -- not only does compost have less N, but it also releases its N slower.

How do you get that high-N that compost? You make a mix of maybe half fall tree leaves, and 1/2 mowed green plants, such as rye, oats, buckwheat.

How else do you get N? You plant nitrogen fixing plants. Hopefully you plant something that you can eat, as well, such as split-pea types of peas, beans, lentils, soybeans. But one crop of split peas would not supply enough N for one crop of sweet corn. For one crop of dent corn, it might be enough.

So we would have to think about eating more dry beans, and less leafy greens. Lettuce uses humongous amounts of nitrogen. More than any other plant I can think of. You want juicy sweet lettuce, you supply huge amounts of nitrogen, as fast as you can -- otherwise your lettuce plant will be small, and bolt early. Sure you could eat it, but it wouldn't be the exquisite leaves we are used to. We might want to switch to leafy endive varieties, such as what is commonly called escarole where I live, but that is a misnomer. It is really endive with wavy-shaped leaves.

That is about it: animal feces will run out. Fish waste will run out. Guano will run out Chilean nitrate will run out. We will need to take lots of land and use it for growing green manures to turn in, and green manures to cut and compost. Maybe 3 acres of green manures for every acre of moderate N-requiring food plants. More for plants that have a high N-requirement. Planting that stuff and composting it will be easier than it was 90 years ago -- we have both improved technology for cutting things up small so they can decompose faster -- and we have improved knowhow re the science of composting for maximum nitrogen. But it will still be a lot harder than making synthetic ammonia from air and natural gas.

Biointensive practices, which use no animal feces or other non-plant fertilizers (except possibly some rock powders), produce much more food on less land than conventional non-organic practices, but require more human labor. So yes, we could produce enough food on the current land in production, but more people would have to farm. This is thoroughly documented in John Jeavon's book Grow More Vegetables as well as in many research publications available through Ecology Action. I suggest you look into this, soilman, if you're interested. Especially if you're interested in veganic farming.

http://www.growbiointensive.org/biointensive/GROW-BIOINTENSIVE.html

from the article timmyboy linked to

Animal manure is not in short supply by any means. EPA estimates indicate that US livestock operations generate one billion tons of manure per year; most of this is not utilized in agriculture, instead it leaches nitrogen and phosphorus into our waterways, thus threatening wetlands and river systems and in many cases drinking water supplies. Organic agriculture, and especially small diversified farms, could allow us to once again couple livestock production to crop production, thus cycling this valuable byproduct back into the soil and eliminating costly environmental degradation.

I don't believe it was true. Although a larger percentage of human food is from animals now, than it was in 1920, this is simply because we have more plant matter to feed them. Once we try to stop growing plants without artificial N, we will not be able to have as many plants, and therefore won't be able to raise as many animals. And the historical fact is that before 1920, there simply was not enough animal feces to supply the nitrogen needed for plants. Even today, I do not think there is enough. All the N that goes into streams and rivers comes from animal, via plants, via synthetic ammonia.

Ludi, all already use 6 of the 8 methods mentioned on the page you linked to (i don't do much in the way of "calorie planting" or "companion planting.") Using the 6 things I use, I don't believe I can get any more than about 1/2 the yield that I could get, by supplementing these techniquies with industrially produced N, or using mostly just industrially produced plant foods and only minimal use of the mentioned method. Historicaly China and Japan only got about 2/3, i think it is, of the rice yield per acre, using azolla fern and other sophisticated non-industrial soil replenishment methods, that they get today by using industrial N or by supplementing with industrial N. At the very most.

http://shakahara.com/garden8.html

I have more photos that I need to fix up and show folks. One showing beds being prepared for sweet corn, another showing corn coming up in double rows. That is, instead of corns spaced 12 inches apart in a row, and then the next row 3 feet away, I have 2 rows of corn, in a raised bed, 12 inches apart, and the rows are only 16 inches apart instead of the typical 30 to 36 inches apart. Then I have the next row, in a new bed, 36 inches apart (3 feet) from the last row. This is ok for hand picking, but not for machine picking. So it is row, 16 inches, row, 36 iches, row, 16 inches, instead of row, 36, row, 36, row, 36. Plus the double rows are raised. Plus I raise them more and more as the corn grows -- helps prevent corn from blowing over in high wind -- sweet corn is not deep rooted and is very susceptible to blow-over.

Early in the growth I use the tripod sprinkler (which I made myself) and later I cut a detent between the double-rows, and fill it up with water trickling from a hose. This uses less water. Sweet corn needs a lot, too. Since the beds are raised, not too much water spills out and onto the paths between the bed.

In other words, almost all that eutriphication that comes from nitrogen that comes from animal feces -- it comes from synthetic ammonia, industrially produced plant food. Not only is human food now dependent on synthetic ammonia, but so is animal food.

http://shakahara.com/garden9.html

It is hard to see the netting that I have covering the beds, to keep birds from pulling out the seedlings so they can get to the germinated seed at the bottom of the seedling. I have seen daring birds do that right next to me. They must really like corn seeds, if they are willing to risk plopping down right next to a farmer, in order to steal one. The netting is propped up with stakes and held on the ground with rocks.

My suggestion would be, that instead of trying to entirely elimnate the use of industrial N, we use it only to bring up yield from that 1/2 to 2/3 that is possible by using natural plant or animal sources of N only. Only after those are exhausted, should we begin using industrial N.

I'm sorry, my raised bed are not "double dug." They are "padded depth." I dig down to 9 inches -- the max depth of my tiller. Then I rake maybe the top 3 inches of that 9 inches of depth from the path area -- which is not as wide as the bed, typically less than half as wide -- onto the bed area, using it to lower the path a few inches and raise the bed about 5 inches above the path (the 3 inches of path only provides 2 inches of height to the bed). So I will have a bed that is about 14 inches deep, raised 5 inches above the path and extending 9 inches below the level of the path. I make the bed higher and deeper than that, for deep rooted plants and less high and deep for shallow rooted plants.

Soilman, their research has produced yields 2 - 6 times greater than conventional agriculture.

Masanobu Fukuoka got yields comparable to conventional rice yields from his organic fields.

I find the concept of yields being 2 to 6 times greater than ordinary agriculture where goodly amounts of industrial nitrogen are added, to be hard to believe.

For example with my corn plants, I do that double-row thing, and I do the "hexagonal spacing" thing, sort of, too. But I don't push it to its insane limit. Conventional growers space corn in single rows, 36 inches apart, and put the plants in each row only 8 - 9 inches apart in some cases. Then they dump all the industrial N they can, along with P, and K, and a trace-nutrient commercial package, barely concerning themselves about organic matter in the soil. I Space my double rows 15-16 inches apart, rather than going to 8 inches apart. And 12 inches apart in the row. It is going to take me awhile to do the math, but I don't get that many more plants per acre than they do.

In about 10 feet by 10 feet I get aobut 40 plants, they get about 36. But even with peas, hairy vetch, and oats the year before, then 3 inches of compost shoveled onto the soil, I still lhave to add industrial nitrogen to get a nice decent ear on every plant. I would say I need about 1/4 the N I would need if I used the el-cheapo dead sand and industrial N method. Otherwise I will get smaller ears, and only one ear on each plant. I figure if I tried to space 8x8 instead of 12 x 16, there just wouldn't be enough room for the roots to stretch out and absorb the N that is slowly released from organic matter in the soil. On the other hand, it has been proven that spacing corn too far apart actually reduces yield -- they seem to grow better simply due to each other's company! Typical of grasses.

Now, I might be able to get dent corn without supplemental industrial N, but not sweet corn, which is artificially bred so long that it probably has adapted to unholy amounts of N, in order to get those giant sweet ears we know and love. Early varities of corn grown by pre-Colombians were not the 10-inch monsters we know today. Ther were about 4 inches long.Which they probably bred from corn they found in the wild, that was only 1.5 inches long.

Actually, there is a formula used to estimate how much nitrogen you need to add. And acc to this formula, it seems that in order to grow sweet corn, you have to add N, because naturally occuring max amounts of free N that can possibly occur in the soil, even if the soil is very high in organic matter, are not sufficient to get a max yield from sweet corn. I have the formula somewhere.

Actually what I have is a spreadsheet. To find the formula in the spreadsheet, it would take me awhile. But I have the places to plug in the numbers and read out the answers marked off.

And basicly it says that at very high organic matter of .05 (5%) and a goodly 50 pounds per acre of measurable nitrate N in the soil, you'll need at least 88 pounds per acre of industrial N, to get max yield. To get max yield without adding industrial N, you'd have to push the organic matter up to a huge number, like .083. 5% is considered high, as might be found in a very rich backyard organic garden. Typical agricultural soil is under 2%.

It's ok for you to not believe it, soilman. That doesn't matter, it's been documented. If you actually want to learn about these techniques, instead of simply not believing in them, I suggest you get some of Ecology Action's publications. I understand that you may know more about gardening and farming than these people who have been making a living at it for 30 - 50 years, but you might still have a couple things to learn.

Biointensive finds carbon to be more important than nitrogen in maintaining optimum soil fertility. The goal is to have 4 - 6% organic material in the soil. Too much nitrogen causes the organic material to break down too quickly.

The conventional scientific opinion is that "close seed spacing" can only get so close, or you have plants "competing for nutrients," and not yeilding as much per plant. Zillions of experiements have been done with lots of different kinds of plants, to see just how close you can get before the plants and their edible parts get smaller. This idea is certainly not a "bio-intensive" idea, it is common to all scientific agriculture, all agriculture. You don't waste space. I really doubt they can get plants any closer than anyone else.

They do say they loosen soil to 24 inches, something I just don't have the ability to do. I would need to buy custom tools and custom machinery, to do that.

I'm sorry but bio-intensive sounds more like a philosphy to me, than a method All the things it mentions are either already scientificly proven, or terribly obvious. Like plant in bed without excess space between rows for machines. How anyone could fail to figure that out for themselves is beyond me. Yes, lots of books say plant your corn 12 inches apart in rows 36 inches apart, but anyone with half a brain can figure out that if you can plant 12 inches apart in the row, you can also space the rows 12 inches apart instead of 36 inches apart, and that the only reason for saying 36 is that you coulnd't possibly reach all the ears, if you had to reach across the row in front of you to the row behind -- thus double rows instead of single rows could save space without reducing yield -- but triple rows -- you would have a row in the middle with ears you couldn't reach.

Neither is "carbon farming" a new idea. It appears to be simply using certain crops as cover crops, green manures, and food crops.

There is no explantion why they get 2 or more times the yield of modern scientific "plant-feeding in sand" as I call it, since the ancient practices that they are using, in ancient times, only got 1/2 the yeild of modern farms.

By the way I am not a fan of the "plant-feeding with sand to hold the roots" method of modern farming. I have seen it and smelled it and it stinks. Some of the local farmers near where I live use this method and I have visited their farms and dug their soil and smelled it and I wanted to retch. There is onle local farm that grows dry corn to feed pigs, then uses the pig feces to take some of the industrial N requirement out of feeding the corn. They are so proud that they "recycle" their pig feces. I went and tried to grab a handful of their soil. They started with the same sandy soil I started with. Only instead of made it better, they made it worse. Now they have sand particles stuck together in a matrix of pig ****, which for some reason still smells like pig ****, 2 months after they dumped it there. The soil is hard. The sand is very fine particles from being over-tilled at the beginning of each season. It seems more like stoneware than soil. Except the particles are not particle sof clay, they are particles of very finely pulverized sand! Why do they need to over-till -- because it gets hard and set-up from the dried pig ****? So they over water, in order to loosen it up ,then till, then when it dries it "sets up" again. I am amazed they corn is growing. Yes, they are using the 8-36 setup.

This is a farm, run by the county, that proudly advertises how they use resource-sparing recycling methods, using their corn to feed their pigs, and their pigs to feed their corn, and the pigs -- yes to feed themselves -- they don't eat any of the corn themselves. They proclaim it saves the tax payers money because who is operating this farm? The inmates at the low-security county jail. They save money on buying pork and give the inmates career training -- as if training them to be migrant farm workers when they get out is helping them.

Odd, but on a nice warm day, I did not see any inmate in the field. It was obviously machine-worked and stark empty. I suppose the inmate were all in the on-site slaughterhouse, killing pigs.

Ludi, I didn't see any claim about 2 to 6 times the yield -- not of any crop. What they claimed is they produced 2 to 6 times the food. This sounds believable, but it is a very different claim.

Simply by planting sweet potatoes instead of corn, I wouldn't be surpised if you have twice as much food per acre, assuming a max yield of each.

Here is the corn, in the same spot, after it has reached full height. http://shakahara.com/garden6.html Look at the top photo.

I understand you aren't interested in accepting other people's ideas, soilman. That's ok, but it does tend to shut down conversation, at least with me. I lose interest quickly when everything becomes a debate and an argument over proving every statement, with you saying "I don't believe it."

The actual yields are higher, if you would look at the publications, not just the website. There are tables in Jeavon's book Grow More Vegetables comparing typical US conventional yields and low, medium, and high Biointensive yields.

Some examples, per 100 square foot area, in pounds:

Bush Beans, snap - Biointensive yields 30-72-108 Conventional: 10.1

Carrots Biointensive 100-150-1080 Conventional 65.7

Leaf Lettuce Biointensive 135-202-540 Conventional 51

Sweet Corn, shelled, wet Biointensive 17-34-68 Conventional 19.5

Wheat, durum Biointensive 4-10-26 Conventional 4.5

Biointensive never claims to be "new ideas." In fact, their material clearly states these methods are based on older methods, some going back thousands of years. The fact that something isn't new doesn't invalidate it. Neither does the fact that not everyone can use these methods. That you can't use these methods doesn't invalidate them. I don't use them, myself, because I prefer less labor intensive methods. That does not invalidate them. I would find myself in a narrow world indeed if I rejected every idea I wasn't personally able to apply to my own life.

Masanobu Fukuoka's "Natural Farming" or what he jokingly calls "Do-nothing Farming" produces yields of barley or rye at 22 bushels (1300 pounds) per quarter acre, and rice also at 22 bushels per quarter acre (2 crops per year, one rice crop, one winter grain crop). Conventional industrial rice yields (US) are approx 1475 per quarter acre, sometimes higher, but represent a much higher input of energy and of course chemical fertilizers. Fukuoka used clover intercrop, the grain straw, and sometimes a little chicken manure on his fields.

Don't be silly Ludi. I am perfectly willing to accept other people's ideas, at times. Sorry if ordinary skepticism offends you.

I cannot afford to buy a book just to look at it. These days, mostly everything I learn is freely available on the internet. If there is nothing new about their ideas, I should be able to find them on the net without buying anything.

Certainly, there was very little in E. Coleman's book that I couldn't also find on the net, however I bought his book way before the internet had blossomed into what it has become today.

I didn't quite undertand your figures.

"Carrots Biointensive 100-150-1080 Conventional 65.7"

are you saying that conventional yields are 65.7 pounds per 100 square feet, and biointensive yeilds, in 3 separate trials, were 100, later 150, and later 1080?

The 100 is easy to understand, and mechanized farmers plant a row of carrots, leave 2 feet, then plant another row. Or something like that. Simply by planting in beds with "hexagonal" spacing of carrots in 6 rows across (it is not too hard to reach across 3 carrots, to pick a 4th carrot, for a person, but a machine might have trouble doing this) you can greatly increase the yield per 100 square feet.

By the way, I've tried "no-dig, mulch only" gardening, and found that I can't get it to work. Aerating the soil greatly increased biological activity, and availability of nutrients from organic matter, being made, by micro-organisms, to green plants. That is why a wild relatives of leafy greens are scrawny little things that are hardly recognizable without dna testing, as the same plant, as their cultivated cousins.