often misrepresenting what is posted on those forums.

Evidenceless Pot, meet kettle.

Dan

one is looking at an improbable event when the p values are low.
Yes, you're right.

The authors stated their p values.
Yes, they sure did.

That's where I got the shockingly high percentages of insignificant differences that I was talking about in my original post. By referencing the p values (or...what is considered "low") stated by the authors themselves. Out of fairness to the paper, I made sure that my statements conformed to the authors' p values (Although I personally feel they're playing the data a little loosey goosey with a p value of 0.1 in some places.)

Also, those p values have nothing to do with the data itself, just the interpretation of the data. The data contains certain margins of error that are stated by the authors themselves. I'm going to stick with what I said on that account as well.

kimmsr:
What this study confirms is that foods grown as what today is known as organic instead of "conventional" is just as good, and maybe better then those "conventionally" grown foods.
By golly, buddy. I think we're just about on the same page with that statement. (Although I would change "confirms" to "supports" and emphasize the "maybe" since a generous description of the evidence supporting that part of the statement is "flimsy".)

Straight from the article: In one variety, sensory panels judged organic strawberries to be sweeter and have better flavor, overall acceptance, and appearance than their conventional counterparts.

Talk about cherry-picking the data. What about the other two varieties they tested?

I could just as easily write In two varieties, sensory panels judged conventionally grown strawberries to be sweeter and have better flavor, overall acceptance, and appearance than their organic counterparts.

Exactly!
And that's just the sort of thing that people who want to put a hole in the organic "boat" will pick up and run with. Not only to make their own point but to discredit past, present and future claims that may actually have some validity.

...."Almost every major indicator is favoring the organic strawberries," said lead author John Reganold, who studies sustainable agriculture at Washington State University in Pullman.

But other scientists noted that the organic strawberries came up short in several respects. They were 13.4% smaller than their conventional counterparts and contained significantly less of the dietary minerals potassium and phosphorus, which are no less important than antioxidants.

Anthony Trewavas, a professor at the University of Edinburgh's Institute of Molecular Plant Sciences, also questioned the study's assumption that extra antioxidants made the organic strawberries more nutritious. Studies have found that people who eat a balanced diet don't get any boost from additional antioxidants or vitamin C, he said, and it is unclear whether the body can even absorb the extra nutrients.

Critics also pointed out that organic strawberries didn't win out across the board in taste tests: The conventional San Juan strawberries had a slight edge over their organic counterparts, according to the study, and tasters didn't register much difference between organic and conventional Lanai strawberries.

The critics added that organic farming usually entails higher costs and lower yields, two issues that weren't addressed in the study because they do not factor into consumers' buying decisions. In an interview, Reganold said that the Watsonville strawberry farmers who used organic methods grew about 25% fewer strawberries than their conventional counterparts..."

Here is a link that might be useful: LA Times

Yes, exactly. Not to mention the press release headline writers who infer that this paper studied 'fruit' instead of strawberries.

Dan

The following was stated: "I could just as easily write In two varieties, sensory panels judged conventionally grown strawberries to be sweeter and have better flavor, overall acceptance, and appearance than their organic counterparts."

H. Kuska reply. No, one could not say that from the data obtained. Please look at Table 4. The other 2 varieties were not claimed to be statically better after the p test was applied. That is why the authors chose to have the "a" or "b" following the data. All that can be said for those 2 compared to organic is that at p "In one variety, sensory panels judged organic strawberries to be sweeter and have better flavor, overall acceptance, and appearance than their conventional counterparts."

Journal articles are often cut down in length by the editor (sometimes drastically), I do not know if the original manuscript contained something in words about the others being equal or not, but I would not be surprised if the authors and/or editor felt that these equalities being presented in Table form were sufficient.
-----------------------------------------
Thank you Dicot for pointing out the LA Times news report of the Washington State paper.

H. Kuska comment about the newspaper writer utilizing outside comments in an attempt to be fair. I suggest that the reader be skeptable of such comments. There can be a "difference" between information presented in a reviewed published scientific journal (in which the authors have to state that they have no conflicts of interest) and the information offered by individuals/experts who comment on a published paper. When a paper is published that challenges "the profit" of a large corporation/industry, the company affected, and/or the industry affected may attempt to "present another picture" by the use of their own scientists and/or consultants challenging the paper. Of course, one should also be aware that it is possible that an independent scientist may feel that a certain published research paper for one reason or another is deficient. In science a common way of handling that is for the concerned scientist to prepare a "follow up paper/letter to the editor. This may or may not be sent out for independent review but normally it, at least, will be sent to the original authors for a chance for them to publish a reply.
-----------------------------------------
I went back into the future and obtained a full copy of the 2011 paper that I referred to earlier in this thread. This paper also utilizes pIt was my understanding from talking to USDA scientists during my professional career that any paper published from there went through an internal review process that was often as strict or stricter than the journal review process.
----------------------------------------------
We now have 2 papers, one from a very respected (in agriculture) state university, and one from 2 USDA laboratories.
--------------------------------------
Because of copyright I cannot post the full 2011 paper, but I can distribute a limited number of copies for educational purposes. If you are interested in a copy please e-mail me at kuska@neo.rr.com

No, one could not say that from the data obtained. Please look at Table 4. The other 2 varieties were not claimed to be statically better after the p test was applied.
Right you are. I missed that.

"Perhaps this is another reason to go organic at the farmers market. Methyl bromide, a popular fumigant used on Strawberry fields from Ventura and up the California coast, is being phased out because it "depletes the earth's protective ozone layer," according to the Associated Press. In its place, the state's Department of Pesticide Regulation is proposing to allow the use of methyl iodide instead, which some fear is worse."

The above quote is from the newspaper link below.

When discussing the costs of organic versus conventional farming strawberries, I suggest that the "costs" to the environment should somehow be considered.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

I think the study was faulty in that it didn't look at yield and plant size. If the organic plants produced a lower yield (which is generally what happens on big farms), that could very well explain the differences in soluble solids, antioxidants, etc, they saw. They also didn't note plant size. Organic plants are sometimes smaller, and if they were, that would've explained the reduced incidence of botrytis (smaller canopy=dryer canopy=less botrytis).

'If the organic plants produced a lower yield (which is generally what happens on big farms), that could very well explain the differences in soluble solids, antioxidants, etc, they saw.'

H. Kuska question. Please explain your reasoning behind this statement.

------------------------------------------

Another subtopic.
'Not surprisingly, agribusiness conglomerates and their supporters dismiss organic farming, claiming it produces yields too low to feed a growing world population. Dennis Avery, an economist at the Hudson Institute funded by Monsanto, Du Pont, Dow, and Novartis among others  had this to say in a recent ABC News' 20/20 broadcast. 'If overnight all our food supply were suddenly organic, to feed today's population we'd have plowed down half of the world's land area not under ice to get organic food ... because organic farmers waste so much land. They have to because they lose so much of their crop to weeds and insects.' In fact, as a number of studies attest, organic farming methods can produce higher yields than conventional methods. Moreover, a worldwide conversion to organic has the potential to increase food production levels -- not to mention reversing the degradation of agricultural soils and increase soil fertility and health.'

Quote from link below.

Had similar discussion in the past.

Very interesting to look at your link henry, some excellent points, especially the diagram. Water buffalo??!! ;-)

Lloyd

Nice report Henry. Very simple explanation of the organic advantages and long-term potentials.

If one is not familar with the details about the dangers of the use of the now being banned methyl bromide, the following Scorecard link may be helpful.

I suggest that one also does a scorecard search for the proposed substitute methyl iodide. (The methyl iodide search returns (in part) the following:

"More hazardous than most chemicals in 7 out of 9 ranking systems.
Ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds (worst 10%) to ecosystems and human health.")

Great points Garg et. al. (too tired to go back up and properly apply the names). One small point to add - this is just one experiment in one general location on one crop over one period of time. I applaud the attempt though and am in no way trying to properly poo-poo the original work, Garg has done a pretty darned thorough job of that.

Oh BTW a crass statement to those who like to trash conventional farmers with blanket statements along the lines of, they like to throw out tons of fertilizer and chemicals like there is no tommorrow, consider this. Those folks are running businesses and trying to make a living, it would make no more sense for them to be over applying conventional ag. products than it would for an organic farmer to be applying manure at 200 tons/A to grow a lettuce crop. They aren't all a bunch of dumb-ass, earth murdering hayseeds. How many of those farms have you ever visited, how many of the farmers have you ever sat down and talked to long enough to know what they are really doing, not one I suspect? I am an advocate of organic farming, it just galls me to hear/read comments that come from either side, playing to the public, slamming the other that make no damned sense at all, shame to them all.

I do appreciate facts, as best they can be understood being debated however.

From the LAT article about the paper that is the subject of the overselling of the headline:
In an interview, Reganold said that the Watsonville strawberry farmers who used organic methods grew about 25% fewer strawberries than their conventional counterparts.

And the article stated that the fruit size was smaller as well.

And michael357: I know lots of farmers. The good ones don't overapply fert. If all American farmers were as you say, the dead zones in our waterways wouldn't be bigger every year. Jus' sayin' that just because someone has a business doesn't magically make them run it well.

Dan

From The Globe and Mail, not exactly no topic but related (sort of)...

"For whatever reason, consumers appear willing to shell out increasing amounts for gourmet burgers, often made with organic meat and upscale toppings."

Clearly there is a market for organics if run of the mill burger restaurants are offering the product.

Lloyd

Although I am not totally familiar with the dead zone, I'm not convinced it is entirely farmer caused. How many communities' drainage go into that watershed and how many people improperly fertilize their lawns? In my local town (nowhere near that watershed) I've seen guys out pouring the granular nitrogen onto their lawns and then watering until the water is flowing down the street straight into a drain that goes to somewhere. They do this to get the real fast 'green-up' so that they can boast of having the nicest lawn on the street. And many of them do it to compete.

Lloyd

While raising crops organically or at least highly sustainably may well produce more per acre when there are enough helpers like on an Amish farm, there just are not enough hands, hoes, and sweat to do it large scale in this country it seems to me.

I'm not convinced it is entirely farmer caused.

Nor am I. But it is the majority of it. Industrial ag effects such as these are one of the main drivers of organic farming. It is not, to date, the increased yields/ac surely. It is the lower caloric input/unit yield that is key. Exaggerating findings like what is common on this forum helps no one.

Dan

I agree Dan, not all farmers are great stewards of the land they farm, I don't think I said they all are. There are folks in every realm of business making and executing poor decisions that hurt more than their bottom line. It is just those unsubstantiated, extremely broad based statements ragging on one group or another than I find absurd.

To their credit, there are farmers who have changed for the better as far as the planet is concerned, then there are those who have not. Turning the Titanic around takes time, effort and patience, mud slinging doesn't help nor is it constructive. And of course, there are those who will never change no matter what, I've worked with a couple of farmers like that, just damned stubborn, period.

Thanks for that link Dan. I see where the author mentions only ag with absolutely no mention of non-ag fertilizers. I don't imagine there is any way to tell the difference between the two but I know my neighbour (3000+ acres under cultivation) is very parsimonious with fertilizers. He has the combine monitor to track yields and puts that information together with soil tests to determine the nutrient bank and only adds what and where it is necessary. This crap is expensive so it behooves him to ensure excess is not applied.

In Manitoba we are facing the death of Lake Winnipeg due to nutrient loading and the vast amount of blame is being heaped upon the farming community yet there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people living in communities that drain their waste water into that system. I'd find it difficult to believe that the urban population doesn't contribute a huge portion of the nutrients given what I've seen.

It may be totally different in the States (Mississippi River basin), I don't know.

Lloyd

The following was stated:
"In an interview, Reganold said that the Watsonville strawberry farmers who used organic methods grew about 25% fewer strawberries than their conventional counterparts.

And the article stated that the fruit size was smaller as well."

H. Kuska comments. The second part about fruit size is the easiest to answer. The complete journal article quote is:
"Strawberries from organic farms were significantly smaller (by 13.4%) than those from conventional farms, but had significantly greater dry matter content (by 8.3%)"

Thus, the larger strawberries contained less solids. I myself have been disappointed to bite into a oversized strawberry only to find that it contains a lot of space/air. However, the bottom line is not my preference, but the preference of the test panel. Organic - one variety; tie - two varieties.

The second statement: "farmers who used organic methods grew about 25% fewer strawberries than their conventional counterparts." may not have any significance to the discussion of organic versus conventional strawberry farming. Please note the term "yield was not used. The unanswered question is: why did they grow fewer? Not enough information was given to even guess. Did organic farmers, due to their greater understanding/appreciation of nature diversify and grow more types of crops? This is speculation, but illustrates that this "fact" by itself cannot be used to somehow show that organic strawberry farming is deficient.

Henry, have you found anything on the cost? I couldn't find a price difference in the links, maybe there wasn't one, but it would/should be part of the overall picture I would think.

Lloyd

Aquatic dead zones have multiple causes depending on the specific water body - anything from urban / lawn run-off to farming w/o regard to waterway protection to treated sewage water to mega chicken / hog / cattle feeding outfits. Either direct run off or it leaches its way into the water system over years. I'm reminded of a recent story about municipal sewage sludge being spread on wheat fields and along comes a severe thunderstorm.

The price of commercial/chemical fertilizers has doubled over the last few years, and farmers around here are getting very careful about throwing it around.

Anyway, no one has mentioned the taste aspect of this, stated in the OP, and at least for some vegetables, including strawberries, the difference is remarkable. The eye opener for me was celery. Then onto winter squash, sweet corn, green peppers, etc. Then we got fruit, and an organic peach is something to really savor, in spite of it being smaller and with fewer on the tree.

pt03, I commented on the evaluation of cost in this thread on Fri, Sep 3, 10 at 16:49.

Ah, I see that now. I'll try and find the answer elsewhere, thanks.

Lloyd

Some time ago in grad school I studied the Puget Sound nutrient loading. Some was due to septic. Some ag. Some urban runoff. That body has particular challenges which merit solutioning unique to Cascadia. Aral Sea imminent death is due to ag, but diversion is major component, not loaded runoff (altho there is that too, esp from cotton).

Most dead zones at the mouths of major rivers are extant due in large part to ag ops. Some is due to urban runoff, some inadequate sewage treatment (which NPDES is attempting to correct, and some cities wailing about th' regalayshun), some reduced flow due to dams.

There are some who are now arguing that the major transition into the Anthropocene is marked by farming, which most agree is one of the single most destructive activities we do. Sure is ironic, but that is the human condition. Organic farming attempts to lessen that impact. There are effects and outcomes, of course, but that is what it is.

Dan

National Public Radio discusses the organic strawberry topic. See link below

Any comment, Henry, on your implicit cheerleading and the conclusions of the scientists and the points made in the thread, or are you going to do your standard?

On topic only, the topic being your comments on your initial cheerleading and what the scientists said on SciFri. Be specific and on-topic only please.

Dan

Scientific American is also covering this story. See link below.

Any comment, Henry, on your implicit cheerleading and the conclusions of the scientists and the points made in the thread, or are you going to do your standard?

On topic only, the topic being your comments on your initial cheerleading and what the scientists said on SciFri. Be specific and on-topic only please.

Dan

The link below is to a "Medical News" article on the first study. It was given an "Editors Choice" designation. There also is a place for the public and for medical professionals to rank the article.

I have not yet found any news reports about the Food Chemistry, Volume 124, Issue 1, 1 January 2011, Pages 262-270 study.

Any comment, Henry, on your implicit overselling the findings, including how this contrasts with the conclusions of the scientists interviewed, or are you going to continue to avoid and change the subject?

On topic comments only, the topic being your comments on your initial cheerleading and what the scientists said on SciFri. Be specific and on-topic only please.

Dan

Yikes! I enjoy a good discussion but what's up with the bickering? This is what drives me away from this forum at times.

Benne

Benne - You're going to find that in virtually every forum on every web site you go to. It's just the nature of the beast.

Greg
Southern Nevada

Another 2010 strawberry reviewed scientific research paper. This one from Italy.

Abstract: "Strawberries (Fragaria ananassa L., cv. favette) were studied to investigate the influence of cultivation practices (biodynamic, conventional) on the synthesis of bioactive molecules (ascorbic acid, ellagic acid, anthocyanins, flavonols) and to evaluate their antioxidant activity. Additionally, the in vitro bioactivity, in terms of antioxidant and antiproliferative activity, of the same strawberry samples in human colon carcinoma (Caco-2) cells was also studied. Compared to conventional strawberries, biodynamic fruits had a significantly higher content of ascorbic acid (P ----------------------------------

H. Kuska comment: they tried to "guess" why the organic strawberries were better (in the areas where they were better). In the conclusion section they state:

"Our findings showed that strawberries belonging to cultivar Favette were rich in ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds, mainly pelargonidin-3-glucoside, ellagic acid, and kaempferol. When 2 different cultivation methods were compared, the biodynamic system was found to have a marked influence on the synthesis of phytochemicals, in fact the above mentioned bioactive molecules were higher in strawberries grown by the biodynamic system than in conventional ones. These differences may be attributed both to compost utilization in the biodynamic growing system and to the utilization in conventional agriculture of herbicides blocking the shikimate pathway reducing the synthesis of aromatic amino acids, the starting point of the synthesis of phenolic compounds."

H. Kuska comment. The editor and reviewers allowed the "guess" to remain in the final paper so they must (I assume) think that there was some merit to the "may be attributed ..... statement.

Greg,
You may be right. I may be alone on this but I see it as a sign that the forum is devolving. I love an intelligent discussion and have learned a lot from many different folks on this forum over the years. But all this sputtering and posturing reminds me of TV news programs. I've had enough of those.
Benne

Benne - It does get old at times, I agree. I used to be a news junkie, now I won't even watch it anymore.

Greg
Southern Nevada

H. Kuska comment: ...[irrelevancy snipped]

Any comment, Henry, on your implicit overselling the findings, including how this contrasts with the conclusions of the scientists interviewed, or are you going to continue to avoid and change the subject?

On topic comments only, the topic being your comments on your initial cheerleading and what the scientists said on SciFri. Be specific and on-topic only please.

Dan

The last paper that I presented touched on "the why" organic strawberries tested better in some tests. I feel that the paper that I am linking to in this post also speaks to this issue (but in an indirect way). This paper did not compare organic versus non-organic. Instead it compares organic and "boosted" organic.

When I first read it, I thought of the saying "it takes a village to raise a child" (i.e. a plant needs nature's friendlies to reach it's full potential).

Then I thought. If the addition of more "friendlies" has this much effect on an already organic crop, imagine the effect on plants grown in convention soil that had been "sterilized/purified" with methyl bromide and/or other treatments such as herbicides and insecticides.

Title: Effects of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) on yield, growth and nutrient contents of organically grown strawberry.

Authors: Esitken, Ahmet; Yildiz, Hilal E.; Ercisli, Sezai; Figen Donmez, M.; Turan, Metin; Gunes, Adem.

Authors affiliation: Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Atatuerk University, Erzurum, Turk.

Published in: Scientia Horticulturae (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (2010), 124(1), pages 62-66.

Abstract: "The effects of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) on the fruit yield, growth and nutrient element content of strawberry cv. Fern were investigated under org. growing conditions between 2006 and 2008. The exptl. plot was a completely randomized design with 3 replicates. Three PGPB strains (Pseudomonas BA-8, Bacillus OSU-142 and Bacillus M-3) were used alone or in combination as bio-fertilizer agent in the expt. Data through 3 years showed that the use of PGPB significantly increased fruit yield, plant growth and leaf P and Zn contents. Root inoculation of M3 and floral and foliar spraying of OSU-142 and BA-8 bacteria stimulated plant growth resulting in significant yield increases. M3 + BA-8, BA-8 + OSU-142, M3, M3 + OSU-142 and BA-8 applications increased cumulative yield by 33.2%, 18.4%, 18.2%, 15.3% and 10.5%, resp. No. of fruits per plant significantly increased by the applications of M3 + BA-8 (91.73) and M3 (81.58) compared with the control (68.66). In addn., P and Zn contents of strawberry leaves with bacterial inoculation significantly increased under org. growing conditions. Available P contents in soil were increased from 0.35 kg P2O5/da at the beginning of the study to 2.00, 1.97 and 1.82 kg P2O5/da by M3 + OSU-142, M3 + BA-8 and M3 + BA-8 + OSU-142 applications, resp. Overall, the results of this study suggest that root inoculation of Bacillus M3 alone or in combination with spraying Bacillus OSU-142 or Pseudomonas BA-8 have the potential to increase the yield, growth and nutrition content of strawberry plant under org. growing conditions."

It would be great if dan staley could refrain from spamming this thread.....

Thank you Henry. That non-sequitur conflicts with what the actual authors of the paper state, as I must imply and not state explicitly (as you know). And the non-sequiur conflicts with several statements upthread (which tend to agree with the actual authors). Thank you for an inadvertent clarification.

It is unfortunate that the press release that is the title of this thread misstates the findings. Alas.

And Carol, ever since the Enlightenment is has been fine for people to ask detailed questions to understand why someone is not addressing the oversold findings. That is not spam. What may be considered spam is cut-pasting non-sequiturs in the guise of agreement.

To restate: asking for clarification is not spam.

Just because there is repeated avoidance, then asking again, then avoidance, then asking isn't spam. It is something else, but spam it surely is not.

Dan

Sorry if that wasn't clear - reference was to these 4 identical posts:
Wed, Sep 8, 10 at 12:16
Thu, Sep 9, 10 at 22:27
Fri, Sep 10, 10 at 17:09
Fri, Sep 10, 10 at 21:45

...not the other 1s adding to the discussion.

Carol, they had to be roughly identical because someone took some sort of "umbrage" at an explicit comment I made about avoidance (which got umbragedly deleted). So I had to make the avoidance implicit by repeatedly asking for a comment on why the difference in what the authors said and the implicit claims here.

It is trying to nail someone down on something who doesn't want to be nailed down. Not spam.

Dan

Apparently the link that I gave earlier to the 2011 paper has stopped working. Try this link:

doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.06.029

Here is the abstract.

Title: Effect of cultural system and storage temperature on antioxidant capacity and phenolic compounds in strawberries

Authors: Peng Jin a,b, Shiow Y. Wang c, Chien Y. Wanga,*, Yonghua Zheng b

Authors affiliation: a Food Quality Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
b College of Food Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, PR China
c Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA

Published in: Food Chemistry 124 (2011) 262270

Abstract: "The effects of cultural systems and storage temperatures on antioxidant enzyme activities and nonenzyme antioxidant components in two cultivars (Earliglow and Allstar) of strawberries were investigated.
Fruit samples were hand-harvested from organic and conventional farms in Maryland, USA, and were stored at 10, 5 and 0 C. The results from this study showed that strawberries grown from organic culture exhibited generally higher activities in antioxidant enzymes. Moreover, the organic culture also produced fruits with higher level of antioxidant contents. Strawberries stored at higher temperature (10 C) had higher activities of antioxidant enzymes and antioxidant capacities than those stored at lower temperatures (0 or 5 C), in both organic and conventional cultural systems. In conclusion, strawberries produced from organic culture contained significantly higher antioxidant capacities and flavonoid contents than those produced from conventional culture, and even though low storage temperatures retarded decay, they also reduced the increase in antioxidant activities."

---------------------------------------------

I found the following idea of a "compost sock" interesting (wouldn't this be considered an organic method?).

This link is to a 2009 USDA reviewed research paper that compared growing straberries in "compost socks" with a standard black plastic mulch system and also in a standard matted row system. Please compare the results.

The definition of what a "compost sock" is was given as:

Compost Socks. Mature, leaf-yard-trimming compost (Leafgro, Millersville, MD) was used to fill 20-cm-diameter compost socks (Filtrexx Inc., Grafton,OH) using a pneumatic blower system attached to a flexible hose.
Leaf-grass-poultry (layer) manure compost produced at the USDA Composting Facility, Beltsville, MD, and polyethylene-mesh socks were also used.Adrip irrigation system (BerryHill Irrigation, Buffalo Junction, VA) with emitters spaced 30.5 cm apart and an emitter flow rate of
0.055 L-min per linearm(4.5 gal-min per 1000 linear ft) of row was placed on bed centers (on top of compost socks) and secured with metal landscape pins."

"Scientists find organic farms have higher quality fruit, better s [sic].

Scientists also make GMOs.

Scientists also make GMOs.

Yeah! Let's get 'em! Get 'em allllll!!!!!

{{gwi:154775}}

Dan, you say it is ironic that farming is one of Man's biggest impacts; I guess because the average person conceptualizes farming as a cute little place with a red barn, cows and chickens in bucolic little green fields? Farmer Brown in his overalls?

Not huge, huge plains of hybrid vegetables growing in muck in the wrecked former Everglade watershed or in stolen water in the blazing and inhuman Imperial valley, peopled by an ethnic underclass, some held as peons? Not gigantic oceans of boring hybrid maize or soybeans in Brazil or Iowa with an occasional air-condition-cabbed monster machine drifting by?

The former image is also real, though, and is coming back in eastern north america and europe.

You get polarization and atomization in resource scarcity or threat. Blamin them SCAHHHHHHHN-tists with their knowledge is an expected reaction.

The job of thinking people IMHO is to ensure a soft landing when the scarcity hits in earnest.

Dan