|
southern MN | In my 30 or more years learning about and discussing organic ideals, I am very frequently told I need to stop using granular fertilizer, and start using kelp to build up my soils.
Now seriously, if I had a dollar for every time I was told this, I could take a nice small vacation, this is an ongoing and common suggestion by everyone in the organic circles.
I do like about 1500 miles from most oceans, so the transportation costs of kelp, which -does- have some soil building organic compounds, but is -low- in actual N, P, K, and other fertilizers, would have a huge transportation bill to get enough P, K or other fertilizer level to raise a crop of corn on my land.
The granular stuff is actually mined or formulated closer to me than any kelp would be. The granular stuff is very dense with fertility, so I need far far less tons of product than kelp. My soil is naturally high in organic matter so while kelp has some, it is not really a primary concern for me. All in all, the granular fertilizers seem to win at being more sustainable for my fields than importing kelp.
Which, again, is the prescription many many many organically minded folks keep telling me is what I should be doing.
Then, now, if 1% of the farm land in the USA has kelp imported to it, likely no one will really notice.
However, if the organic people who tell me what I should be doing are to be believed, no granular fertilizer should be used, the sustainable thing to do is for every farmer to go out and get kelp to put on the fields instead. I suspect, if that level of kelp is harvested from the seas, there would be great ecological harm. I think it would be a disaster, actually.
I do not believe there is any way at all that kelp can really be considered a sustainable fertilizer, if one looks at it at all.
The other option I am always told, to be sustainable and organic, is to not plant crops, but plant clovers.
This is something I have done for decades. Tho, we need to understand that growing N through a legume means I am not able to grow a harvestable crop, so I produce less. There are some compromises to be made here, and I agree with the organic side that clover and other legumes can be a great part of farming; but it will lower production overall, and can only create N, it does not magically solve all fertilizer needs. This, growing clover is a nice tool, but it does not make us sustainable in any way, any more or any less than using fertilizers does. There is a cost to growing your own fertilizer - time. More time growing clovers, means less time to grow actual crops.
I address one small part of your reply, but in general this is how it goes for all your points.
I do not understand the sustainability claims of organic producers. It appears to be an artificicial line in the sand.
Much like the Amish may not allow tractors, but an engine pulled by horses can power equipment. And steel wheels are ok, but rubber tires are not. Those are fine guidelines to live by if you are Amish and that is the way you wish to live. But if you are not Amish, there appears no reasonable explanation as to why tractors and rubber tires are bad, but wheels and engine units are ok.
I am not opposed to organic setups, frankly kinda think highly of the dedication and work. Just like I feel about Amish, they live by a standard of their choosing, and work and struggle to make it all move forward.
But I just cannot fathom how organic is, in any way, more sustainable than conventional farming. Both ways take substances out of the soil, water, and air, and haul away food products. Those substances need to be replaced, and to those of us,outside of organics, it would appear there is little difference in the sustainability of organic or conventional farming. Haul a crop off, haul fertilizers back in.
Same difference?
Paul | |
|
Forbes article on the "Organic Religion".
