organic vs. conventional gardening

[c-ray]

okay let's talk about organic vs. conventional farming

here's an interesting study to start the ball rolling

from http://www.organic-center.org/science.antiox.php?action=view&report_id=8

Organic Catsup Found to Contain More Than 50% Higher Levels of the Beneficial Antioxidant Lycopene
January 2005

A team of U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists stationed at the Western Regional Research Center in Albany, California studied the lycopene content of 13 commercially available brands of catsup – six major national brands, three organic brands, two store brands, and two brands sold in fast food restaurants and/or vending machines (Ishida and Chapman, 2004).

They measured the micrograms of trans-lycopene per gram of catsup. The average level in the organic brands was by far the highest – 174.2 micrograms per gram of catsup. The major national brands averaged 110.7 micrograms per gram, the store brands 112.3, and the fast food/vending brands, 102.5.

The average level in the organic brands was 57 percent higher than the national brands and 55 percent higher than the store brands. In the Organic Center’s “State of Science Review” (SSR) on the impact of organic production methods and food processing on antioxidant levels, organic food was found to have on average 30 percent higher levels of antioxidants compared to conventional foods grown under otherwise similar conditions (Benbrook, 2005; see link below).

The USDA scientists also measured total antioxidant capacity using the TEAC assay (Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity; for more details on this and other methods to measure total antioxidant capacity in foods, see the Center’s antioxidant SSR). One of the organic catsups had the highest level – 350 TEAC units, about double the level in the fast food/vending brands and about two-thirds higher than the major national brands.

The authors note that catsup is a major form of tomato consumption in the U.S. and offer an interesting observation:

“Tomato catsup is an excellent source of lycopene, carotenoids, and antioxidant compounds. A good estimate of lycopene content can be made by the dark red appearance of the product. The organic brands had a much deeper red color than the other brands examined.”

Sources: “A Comparison of the Carotenoid Content and Total Antioxidant Activity in Catsup from Several Commercial Sources in the United States.”
Authors: Betty K. Ishida and Mary H. Chapman.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Volume 52, Number 26, December 29, 2004.

“Elevating Antioxidant Levels in Food Through Organic Farming and Food Processing.”
Author: Charles M. Benbrook
State of Science Review, Organic Center for Education and Promotion, January 2005

[c-ray]

another one

from

Elevating Antioxidant Levels in Food Through Organic Farming and Food Processing
January 2005

Author: Charles M. Benbrook Ph.D. Chief Scientist

This State of Science Review (SSR) projects the potential contributions of organic farming methods and food processing techniques on an important dimension of food quality – the polyphenol and antioxidant content of food. This review assesses research comparing antioxidant levels in conventional and organic foods, as well as studies analyzing the impacts of specific production practices that are typically used by organic farmers, but are less often found on conventionally managed farms.

Executive Summary (6 pages) (http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Exec_summary_2.pdf)

Full Antioxidant SSR (81 pages) (http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Antioxidant_SSR.pdf)

SSR bibliography with full abstracts in pdf format (273 references; 136 pages) (http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Biblio_Antioxidant_SSR.pdf)

[funstarfish]

why would you not go organic if you were going with a soil grow? maybe thats a better question... maybe lack of access to organic soil and additives? only reason i can think of not to go organic.

[Green Supreme]

I would love to go organic at some point. My problem is cost.My organic friends are spending more on one crop for food, than I do for 3 years.Everything else comes down in price over time.I wonder when this'll happen for organic food. Seems its going the opposite way.The word organic on your product is a wicked sell feature though now a days.Peace GS

[c-ray]

to save $$ with organics you got to make your own compost and/or teas basically, which takes time and labor since it takes about a year for a heat based compost to fully mature enough for the bugs to do their work and the nutrients to be stable/mineralized, it can happen much quicker with worms but that is extra work too

[Green Supreme]

Heard you can get worm bins here in the city. Perhaps something to ponder.Maybe make a little compost spot in the yard too. Peace GS

[capt carnuba]

Compost is great, but add heat in the guise of fire and lots of nutrients become available.

[capt carnuba]

Rocks in a good sized bonfire get very brittle and are easily broken up as well.

[Parabola]

Rocks in a good sized bonfire get very brittle and are easily broken up as well.

right, then quickly throw the razor sharp rock pieces at some helpless hippies to chase them off of their organic compost stash ...am I following your line of thinking here?

[capt carnuba]

It's almost as if you were reading my mind. Spooky.

[c-ray]

Compost is great, but add heat in the guise of fire and lots of nutrients become available.

huh? are you suggesting I light my compost on fire?

[Parabola]

It's almost as if you were reading my mind. Spooky.

:D


I'm with C-ray. I've heard of mixing ashes into soil, but what are you suggesting here... seriously.

[capt carnuba]

LOL, either heating or burning. Less invasive techniques would use heat. They stimulate breakdown. Boiling if yer feeling jaunty, but more heat=greater breakdown, faster water cycle as well.

[otto]

Hey is this thread about organic vs convent or hippie killing?

c'mon get with it I'm trying to learn here!

[c-ray]

welcome!

[vapor]

you can park your bus outback dude ! welcome

[plantbuilder]

he gets it!!!

[justcurios]

why would you not go organic if you were going with a soil grow? maybe thats a better question... maybe lack of access to organic soil and additives? only reason i can think of not to go organic.definitley lack of access. if i could i would. some parts of the world are not up to date on new methods or materials to use . hardware store just got small bags of "organic" soil.big money though. i would realy like to make my own with one of those recipies in those hippie pot mags. maybe one day.

[c-ray]

learn to make compost...let it mature until there is next to no bug and worm activity and then mix it with equal parts of perlite and peat and you are good to go, it'll provide you plants with everything they need for the first half of life then in flowering feed them a few times with a flowering tea

[Parabola]

I'll remember to check the sense of humor at the door next time.

our family organic garden was always more colorfull and healthy than the neighbors chem gardens. the chem gardens grew larger fruit and produce but were much less flavorfull. We always had a compost pile chock full of worms and bugs. There is really no comparison and you have to look at the big picture when considering cost. Chems kill the soil, organic methods create a living breathing loving soil that is really much less expensive in the long term.

[justcurios]

compost looks like it takes a long time to, ahh, ferment, so to speak. i did a job for these people one time, and they had a compost bin in the back of the yard. well on the back porch , they had a bucket to fill up so they didi not have to go out in the yard, and man, i looked in the bucket because we needed one, holy smoke stacks, it had food and eggs and everything, bugs and maggots. whew. man did it stink. ill never look in another bucket again unless i know what is in there. i think natural yard waste and lawn clippings sounds a little cleaner. do you think that would be sufficient for good hearty compost with all the natural nutes?

[justcurios]

how long does it take ,usually, for compost to be ready for use?

[nuggdigger]

This really depends on how evenly and well it gets to heat. Turning for fresh air is also essential. Chopping up the ingredients smaller is another aid. One of the best gages for a compost pile is a probe thermometer. When its done "cooking" and cools off and the materials are broke down your done. Good compost doesn't have to smell bad:)

[Parabola]

it will smell pretty bad in the beginning stages. if it smells like it could gag a maggot, it aint ready yet. don't put meat, bones, fish, or pet or human poop into the compost.

Lawn clippings, leaves, veggie and fruit leftovers, cannabis leaves and trim (after making bubble of course), egg shells, coffee grounds, tea bags and wood ashes are all acceptable compost material

a comprehensive list of what is good in the compost heap might be usefull...

[justcurios]

sounds tasty!

[nuggdigger]

Here's a partial list of common compostables. As they say at funerals, 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust.' Anything that breaks downs, without killing the bugs is pretty much eligible IMO, and I don't put kitchen meat scraps in my composter either, but I did throw in a dead sparrow..lol

http://www.plantea.com/compost-materials.htm


peace

[justcurios]

Good Lord, Piss Too!!! Lol

[c-ray]

piss is great for compost!!

[justcurios]

I Here Ya! Said It Acts As An Accelerator. I Was Trying To Think What My Compost Pile Would Look Like With All Of My Familys Paper Towels And Napkins..,,<>? Old Bills, Paper Products. Might Take A Long Time To Break Down.then Again , If I Piss On It All The Time............?

[capt carnuba]

huh? are you suggesting I light my compost on fire?

Not at all, compost can be heated above 131 degrees to remove most pathogens, most likely with a need for minimum forced air, this will speed breakdown. A secondary pile of already heat treated compost would be left to absorb beneficial microbes and potentially introduce red wigglers and the like. A third step involving fire would readily carbonize matter that couldnt conventially be added to a composter without affecting microbes(meat, vegetable eating animal manure, citrus, onions and things of the like, even pine needles, wood) either because of effect or length of breakdown not being conducive.Rock material will also succumb to breakdown in fire to remineralize soils or fortify compost. Nuff said?

[c-ray]

yes carbon is totally important for microbes..not sure about burning veggie eating animal manure though can you elaborate?...but yeah coconut shells, avocado skins, banana peels, chunks of wood, etc...those avocado shells stay intact for a long time..also need to make sure not to add too many ashes to a compost pile at a time, something to do with the alkalinity and the high K I think
on a side note I know a guy who is really into organic/biodynamic forestry who makes special compost piles for trees...using leaves, twigs, some manure etc...they take like 3 years

[capt carnuba]

If the manure is field dried it will burn. However, it needs air, otherwise with any restriction it will become explosive. We have vast piles of horse and cow manure and when she gets piled she starts to naturally burn because of the compression. Ashes of thing such as pine needles and such would most likely counteract deciduous alkalinity. There is a war in the forest between the acids and alkalines. As a sidenote, this fall i did an experiment with organic crop compost and conventional store bought produce. the organic pile was enveloped in a thick white carpet within a week, while the regular store produce had very little of this white mould. this is the same non harmful white mould you get when you top dress with organics and beginto get a biotic crust. And when you think burning manure think Tuaregs using camel droppings as there combustion source fer dindin.

[capt carnuba]

Do you really think in organic form K levels are dangerous? I would figure unlike chemicals the plants would only take up what they need. I know too much iron is especially injurious to plants and humans, but I often see plants growing unimpeded in vast fields of rusty metal.

[c-ray]

why burn the manure though? just curious

I've just read numerous times not to add too much ashes to a pile, that it slows things down or burns things

[capt carnuba]

Simply put, fire of heat breaks down materials faster. It breaks the chemical bonds. I'm looking up some material as I type:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/hooker87.html

[capt carnuba]

There seems to be very little on the net. But, It is a great fuel source and it kills pathogens. Manure is also rife with cut worms and lots of nasties, burning ensures there removal. And remember, animal feces is a huge problem to north american waterways. Shit logs may help more than just yer garden.

[Albi]

A neighbour of my dad uses 1/3 of his tomato/veggies harvest to go back as compost. This way he get INCREDIBLE results without anycosts.

To heat it up he covers the pile with cut grass.

ALBI

[Parabola]

^^^ we used to cover our compost piles with straw. The Capt's comments got me to thinking about the feasability of using an idea i saw for a solar wood kiln (basicly a small south facing greenhouse type structure with a black wall and an exaust fan) for heating up your compost. What do you folks think?

[otto]

Hey thanks for the warm welcome!

just lurking and learning, grow away hippies!!

[c-ray]

^^^ we used to cover our compost piles with straw. The Capt's comments got me to thinking about the feasability of using an idea i saw for a solar wood kiln (basicly a small south facing greenhouse type structure with a black wall and an exaust fan) for heating up your compost. What do you folks think?

sounds good, just got to keep the temps between 135 and 160F
here's some good composting basics: http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/compost/fundamentals/

[Albi]

Aquarium heaters

[c-ray]

from http://www.foodtechnology.ru/news/ng.asp?n=75567-organic-certification-nitrogen-isotopes-vegetables

By Neil Merrett

06/04/2007 - Research into a nitrogen isotope-based testing system being pioneered in Britain could provide a vital new tool in ensuring valid organic certification for food and drink products.

According to the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, recent testing at the University of East Anglia has found a notable variance in the levels of nitrogen isotopes composition in some conventional and organic crops, which could be used to better identify the validity of organic foods.

Organic certification is becoming an increasingly important issue in food production, not least for the growing number of organic producers and products keen to capture public confidence that their products meet standards that are being promised.

As such, the study collected commercial organic and conventionally grown tomatoes, lettuces, and carrots, ascertain whether organic and conventionally grown materials are systematically different in the levels of nitrogen isotope they contain.

By looking into the respective variances of the rarer 15N nitrogen isotope in vegetables, the tests sought to indentify any profound differences realting to food porduction methods.

The research, led by Simon Kelly, attributes the variances to the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers that are prohibited for use in organic production.

Non-organic nitrogen based fertilisers - which are derived from the atmosphere - were found to have relatively stable isotope values between minus two and two percent

Conversely, organically viable alternatives like manure, which according to the report are the most commonly used non-synthetic fertiliser, have a much larger 15N values.

These values are often recorded with a nitrogen value of around 10 per cent - 20 per cent.

Though other organic fertilisers had not been as extensively tested, the findings indicated that they were still likely to differ from synthetic products due to the more diverse nature of their origins.

Despite variable factors of organic food production including soil types and atmospheric conditions, fertiliser type was seen as the only factor that affect the presence of nitrogen isotopes in a product.

Organically grown tomatoes on average were found to have nitrogen isotope levels some 8.2 per cent higher than in conventionally grown samples of the product.

This correlated with similar testing on lettuces, which while having higher nitrogen isotope levels in organic samples; saw some overlap between both sets of results.

It was in the tested samples of carrots found that some limitations with the testing were found though.

Results of organic and conventionally grown carrots were found to completely overlap, finding no discernable patterns between the two sets of samples.

This was linked to the lower nitrogen requirements of carrots.

While the findings did show some inconsistencies, the research concluded that testing for nitrogen isotopes did have benefits as part of wider testing process for fraudulent organic claims on food and beverage products.

"We strongly advocate that end product tests such as the nitrogen isotope approach cannot and should not be thought of as a replacement for organic certification and inspection schemes," the report concluded.

"However, it is our view that any analytical techniques that assist in protecting consumers from fraud and help to protect the interests of all honest growers should be viewed positively."

At last weeks 35th meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, organic certification was found to be one of the most pressing issues facing food labellers.

Source: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Volume 55, Pages 2664 - 2670
"Nitrogen Isotope Compostion of Organically and Conventionally Grown Crops"
Authors: A. S Bateman, S. D Kelly, and M. Woolfe

[dpn]

good read if you haven't read it already :) http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/QR/QR3.html

[c-ray]

4fpEgurO-ec

[c-ray]

here's a nice little slideshow about organic veggie growing from Steve Diver at Attra:
http://www.ssawg.org/documents/SSAWG-Org-Veg-Prod-SDiver-PDF.pdf

[c-ray]

from http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526114.900-organic-tomatoes-have-more-antioxidants.html

Organic tomatoes have more antioxidants
05 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Duncan Graham-Rowe

Is organic food healthier for you, after all? A 10-year study comparing organic tomatoes with those grown conventionally suggests that it may be. It's the kind of evidence that pro-organic groups have been desperate to dig up, as most studies have suggested otherwise.

According to the new findings, levels of the flavonoids quercetin and kaempferol were found to be on average 79 and 97 per cent higher, respectively, in organic tomatoes. Flavonoids such as these are known antioxidants and have been linked to reduced rates of cardiovascular disease, some forms of cancer and dementia, says Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist who led the research at the University of California, Davis.

Differences in soil quality, irrigation practices and the handling of harvested produce have made direct comparisons difficult in the past, says Mitchell. So in this study, due to be published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, the researchers used data from a long-term project in which standardised farming techniques are used to reveal trends in crop productivity.

Mitchell's team say the finding can be explained by the availability of nitrogen. Flavonoids are produced as a defence mechanism that can be triggered by nutrient deficiency. The inorganic nitrogen in conventional fertiliser is easily available to plants and so, the team suggests, the lower levels of flavonoids are probably caused by overfertilisation.

Previous research has found no differences between organic and conventional crops such as wheat or carrots. Meanwhile a study proclaiming that organic milk had higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids failed to convince the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA), which pointed out that these short-chained fatty acids do not have the health-promoting benefits offered by long-chained omega-3 oils.

This latest study does not prove that a healthy diet must be organic. The evidence of health benefits for flavonoids is conflicting, says Peter Bramley at Royal Holloway, University of London. And even if such benefits exist, higher flavonoid levels do not necessarily make organic food healthier, says John Krebs, former chair of the FSA and now at the University of Oxford. "This depends on the relevance of the differences to the human body," he says. "Tomato ketchup has higher levels of lycopene than either organic or conventional tomatoes. So if you wanted lots of lycopene you should eat ketchup."

From issue 2611 of New Scientist magazine, 05 July 2007, page 16

[Green Supreme]

Ketchup, thats just nasty. In my best Cleveland voice from Family Guy. Peace GS

[Albi]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

the lower levels of flavonoids are probably caused by overfertilisation

[c-ray]

from http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.html
12 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic

A switch to organic farming would not reduce the world's food supply and could also increase food security in developing countries, say the authors of a new study.

They claim their findings lay to rest the debate over whether organic farming could sustainably feed the world. Organic farming avoids or heavily restricts the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, as well as livestock feed additives.

Numerous studies have compared the yields of organic and conventional methods for individual crops and animal products (see 20-year study backs organic farming).

Now, a team of researchers has compiled research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems.


Available materials

Ivette Perfecto of the University of Michigan in the US and her colleagues found that, in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms.

Perfecto points out that the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible to farmers in poor countries.

Those poor farmers may buy the same seeds as conventional farms use in rich countries, but they cannot afford the fertilisers and pesticides needed for intensive agriculture. However, "organic fertiliser doesn't cost much – they can produce it on their own farms", says Perfecto.

Using data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the team then estimated what would happen if farms worldwide were to switch to organic methods today.

The world currently produces the equivalent of 2786 calories per person per day. The researchers found that under an organic-only regime, farms could produce between 2641 and 4381 calories per person per day.


Misplaced debate

Perfecto's colleague Catherine Badgley says she believes the calculations they carried out to arrive at the upper number are more realistic. These took into account the higher yields that would be obtained in developing countries, and the details of which crops are grown where.

She points out that even the lower number is sufficient to feed the world. Nutritionists recommend that people consume between 2100 and 2500 calories a day.

The debate over whether the world can produce enough organic food is misplaced, argues Perfecto: "We are producing enough food – it's a question of distribution of that food."

The researchers also found that small farms tend to produce more per hectare of land. "An increase in the number of small farms would enhance food production," they say. They also note that although organic production tends to require more labour, this labour is often spread out more evenly over the growing season, making it easier to manage.


Precision farming

Carl Pray, at University of Rutgers, New Jersey, US, says there is good evidence that small-scale farming in developing countries is more efficient. This is probably because small farms put more effort in the precise management of small areas of land.

But, he says, "the likelihood of all farms reverting to 'small farmerdom' is a big question in an age in which labour is becoming more and more expensive. Take China and India, for instance: the demand for labour is such that people are continually being pulled out of the countryside".

Perfecto, however, maintains that the idea that conventional farming is cheap is a fallacy. "That is not including the real costs. Once you incorporate the cost to the health of people, once you incorporate the environment cost – then organic agriculture is a much superior system."

Pesticides are associated with a number of diseases, including cancer – a fact that was first brought to public attention in Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. Organic farming is thought to benefit biodiversity and the environment, as well as human health.

Journal reference: Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (vol 22, p 86)

[Green Supreme]

If yields are almost equal and the cost of organic ferts cheap as stated, I wonder why everyones not doing it. Peace GS

[c-ray]

fear

[Green Supreme]

Hahahaha .OK you got me there. Peace GS

[The Cannarchist]

Monsanto

[Green Supreme]

Good answer. Even I must lose my sarcasm with that remark. Respect. Peace GS

[c-ray]

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/22/eaoil122.xml
Apocalyptic vision of a post-fossil fuel world
By Paul Eccleston
22/11/2007

An apocalyptic vision of how the world will look after the oil runs out has been given by a top scientist.

Richard Heinberg, one of the world's leading experts on oil reserves, warned that the lives of billions of people were threatened by a food crisis caused by our dependence on dwindling supplies of fossil fuels.

Higher oil prices, the loss of farmland to biofuel crops, climate change and the loss of natural resources would combine with population growth to create an unprecedented food shortage, he claimed.

The only way to avoid a world food crisis was a planned and rapid reduction of fossil fuel use - oil, coal and gas - and a switch to more organic methods in the growing and delivery of food. It would mean a return to living off the land not seen for 150 years.

The stark predictions were made by Heinberg in a lecture to the Soil Association in London.

Heinberg, an author and former advisor to the National Petroleum Council, specialises in 'Peak Oil' - the point where oil production reaches its maximum and begins to decline - and the implications it has for climate change and food security.

He said for thousands of years, until the 19th century and the onset of the Industrial Revolution, all food production had been local. In good years there was enough to eat and to store and in bad years there was starvation.

The invention of the petrol engine increased the amount of arable land available to grow food, the size and efficiency of farm machinery improved, and better pesticides were developed - all of which contributed to a better food supply.

As food became more plentiful and cheap, the threat of famine disappeared and obesity became more widespread than hunger. Food, grain, meat and vegetables began to be exported around the world and the world population increased six-fold.

By the 1960s industrial-chemical practices had been exported to the third world and in the next half century food production tripled - but at an unrecognised cost of water and soil pollution and enormous environmental damage.

Heinberg said that, unfortunately, it was all unsustainable and the abundance of food depended on depleting, non-renewable fossil fuels whose burning produced climate-altering carbon dioxide.

The depletion of oil stocks, the demand for biofuels as an alternative, environmental degradation and extreme weather caused by climate change, were coming together to pose massive problems for world food production.

The situation would be made worse by a shortage of fresh drinking water. According to UN estimates, one third of the world's population lived in areas with water shortages and 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water. The situation was expected to worsen dramatically over the next few decades.

While the human population had tripled in the 20th century, the use of renewable water resources had grown six-fold.

The UN Environment Program had concluded that the planet's water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks were all in "inexorable decline" much of it due to agriculture, which constituted the greatest single source of human impact on the biosphere.

Heinberg said that to get to the heart of the crisis a comprehensive transformation of world agriculture was needed - greater than anything seen in many decades - which would produce a system that was not reliant on fossil fuels.

He cited Cuba as an example of what could be achieved. In the 1980s it had become reliant on cheap fuel supplied by Russia and was using more agrochemicals per acre than even the US. But after the fall of communism, supplies dried up. The average Cuban lost 20lbs in weight, living standards collapsed and malnutrition became widespread.

Cuban authorities responded by redesigning the food supply system. Large state-owned farms were broken up and given to families and they were encouraged to form co-operatives, biological methods were used for pest control, oxen replaced tractors, urban vegetable gardens flourished and people began to keep chickens and rabbits for food. Twenty years later food production was 90 per cent of its former levels.

Heinberg said what was needed was a return to ecological organic farming methods which would require the transformation of societies.

And with oil supplies rapidly running out the full resources of national governments would be needed to achieve it.

The amount of food transportation would have to be reduced, food would need to be grown in and around cities, and producers and consumers would need to live closer together.

The use of pesticides would have to be reduced in packaging and processing, draft animals would be reintroduced and governments would have to provide incentives for people to return to an agricultural life. Land reform would be needed to enable smallholders and farming co-ops to work their own plots and population growth would have to be curbed.

"All of this constitutes a gargantuan task, but the alternatives - doing nothing or attempting to solve our food-production problems simply by applying mere techno-fixes - will almost certainly lead to dire consequences," he said.

" All of the worrisome trends mentioned earlier would intensify to the point that the human carrying capacity of Earth would be degraded significantly, and perhaps to a large degree permanently."

Heinberg added: "The transition to a fossil-fuel-free food system does not constitute a distant utopian proposal. It is an unavoidable, immediate, and immense challenge that will call for unprecedented levels of creativity at all levels of society.

"A hundred years from now, everyone will be eating what we today would define as organic food, whether or not we act.

"But what we do now will determine how many will be eating, what state of health will be enjoyed by those future generations, and whether they will live in a ruined cinder of a world, or one that is in the process of being renewed and replenished."