Organic Farming Vs. Conventional Farming In Thailand

[dbrisinda]

I've set up this topic to deal with the debate of organic vs. non-organic farming in Thailand.

The original thread requested information on the availability of organic produce on Koh Samui, and resulted in some heated discussions on the general merits of organic vs. non-organic farming, including the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This topic was started to move that debate into a separate topic in an appropriate forum. The reference to the original topic is here.

Regards,

Dalmazio

[loong]

It is rather silly that Organic and those who use chemicals has developed into a them and us type thing. There are definitely benefits to both camps.

Non organic farmers are likely to benefit by he use of compost.

Compost will likely increase the presence of earthworms in clay soils and help to keep the soil aerated and help with drainage. No matter how much chemical fertiliser is added, it will not necessarily increase the yields that much. The roots need oxygen as well as nutrients and often not enough is available to them in compacted clay soils.

Better drainage will also help where soil erosion is a problem.

In sandy soils, the addition of compost can improve water retention and so less leaching of nutrients and this could mean that less chemical fertilisers are needed.

Also soil needs friendly microbes, bacteria and fungi as these can help by converting a nitrogen source that is not available to the roots to a type that the plant can absorb.

I currently grow veggies on a small plot, mainly for home consumption and I choose to grow organically. My yields are slightly better than the locals who use chemical fertilisers and pesticides. My plants cope with the heat at this time of year better as well.

I am looking to grow vegetables on a larger scale as a cash crop and will no doubt have to use chemicals, but I will incorporate as much compost as possible in order to keep the use of chemicals as low as possible.

[Scoop1]

Whats the difference between , calcium, nitrogen, and all the others elements { Salts } you get in a bag than what the plant is getting from the soil??? hey it all comes out of the ground, pesticides, well thats a different story.

scoop

[drtreelove]

I agree with Loong that it's silly to have the us vs them issue, and soil organic matter content is an important factor for all growers. So is soil mineral analysis and replenishment. So is least toxic materials and methods to avoid personal and environmental contamination. The term "organic" is much mis-used and mis-understood and even abused for commercial puposes.

When I was introduced to organic gardening and farming in the early 70's, I was taught that 5% OM content was considered a minimum requirement for a grower to consider his soil "organic", and that was the origin of the term, "organic farming". An early certification program in California required 5% OM. More recently I was told by an organic farm certification inspector in Thailand that now OM content is not even considered in organic farm certification. Granted it's harder to maintain soil OM content in the tropics because of rapid breakdown.

I think the bottom line is that more and more people want food that is clean, healthy, and free from stuff that could hurt them and harm earth ecosystems. They latch on to the term organic because they think that is assurance of purity. But in my opinion there is a lot of mis-understanding of terms and materials and methods and what is organic or not. Scoop has pointed out that natural systems are made up of minerals and chemicals. But some people are so afraid of 'chemicals' even though they may not know what that really means, what chemicals are being used, in what amounts and formulations.

In the game of supply and demand, the demand for "organic" food has grown from a niche to big business. But can big business really be trusted to be honest and true to the expectations of purity. You don't really know what you are getting unless you know the grower or are growing it yourself, and have studied and used materials and methods of so called "conventional" and "organic' systems. Not all chemicals are harmful; not all pesticides will harm you or the environment; many are OMRI approved for organic growers. IPM, appropriate use and least toxic choices are the key.

[RPCVguy]

What the two sides really most often represent is a difference in style of interaction with the modern global distribution food chain. Non-organic is most commonly a production line process using larger holding with a single crop at a time. Organic, especially permaculture designed organic, is more adept at raising mixed crops, with multiple tier/ layers of plants in an area... and often better suited to local consumption. That said the two sides are not equal as to long term effect upon topsoil.

Loong's comments above as to earthworms and soil aeration are correct. What generally happens is that the pesticides and herbicides that get added to non-organic farms end up killing either the beneficial organisms directly - or indirectly by removing their companion plants.

Fertilizer alone is also a problem as to soil development. Use of fertilizers have been shown to reduce long term health of soil.

http://grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines/

Head to head land comparrisons focused only on yields also show organic techniques outperform for fruits and vegetables, excluding grains, though after costs for chemicals, even grains become comparable.

Thailand is jumping into/ has joined a global economy that is trading short term profits for long term viability of its soil - on both hills and flat-lands. The importation of techniques and crops from temperate climates to grow under the sun and rain of Thailand is killing the soil, and leaving it exposed to near vertical sun and torrential rain that even if it were not killed by chemicals, leads to erosion and silted rivers.

Bottom line, picking between organic and non-organic is more consequential than just choosing between "apples or oranges"

[necronx99]

Whats the difference between , calcium, nitrogen, and all the others elements { Salts } you get in a bag than what the plant is getting from the soil??? hey it all comes out of the ground, pesticides, well thats a different story.

scoop

I think it's a bit like eating crap and taking a multivitamin is not a viable long term replacement for a healthy balanced diet.

Organic promotes good soil health.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[loong]

Whats the difference between , calcium, nitrogen, and all the others elements { Salts } you get in a bag than what the plant is getting from the soil??? hey it all comes out of the ground, pesticides, well thats a different story.

scoop

I think that many will rely totally and have faith in chems to solve their problems with reducing yields and completely ignore the basic health of their soil.

So often in Thailand, crop residue is simply burnt, whereas in many cases it could be composted with little effort or ploughed in. I think that most people will agree that burning CR is not good for the environment.

I really can't think of any time that composting would have a negative effect on soil health or the environment.

I do realise that ploughing in CR can have a detrimental effect on soil nitrogen levels and so should not be ploughed in too deep and this will not always be possible without the addition of extra nitrogen

[Scoop1]

Hey guys , i do hydoponics, i dont put chemicals in the ground, i mix "SALTS" with water in a balanced formula and the feed it to my plants, "Organic" great but thats a choice some people make , as drtreelove suggests in a commercial sense its just a way of asking more money for a product, and "FERTILIZERS" are not chemicals!!! they are salts, just like whats in the ground, and i also agree, putting 200kg of super phosphate on your garden is not the way to go, but the farmers of old are slowly learning and if it is in moderation and balanced it will not harm anything, if i add 600ppm instead of 75ppm, well i will get told by my plant very quickly.

Cheers

Scoop

[Scoop1]

Hey Loong, i dont think this will damage any plant or any soil, like i said balance is the key factor. My mother uses it in her soil garden and she works very hard with the cow shit and compost and green manure that she grows, and she loves it, she only uses organic pesticides, so i guess she cant be cetified as an "organic" grower, but the hydroponics industry is well aware of this type of marketing, and as drtreelove said in his post, who police's these organic producers, sorry but i dont think the commercial side of "organic" produce is up to the standard of the price you often see for the stuff.

Cheeers

Scoop

Hydroponic Nutrient xx.txt

[dbrisinda]

A little free advice for the future: if you are planning to debate this issue in a more appropriate forum, you might want to consider providing independent references for your data points. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. (And citing data from experiments that were conducted and/or funded by chemical fertilizer or pesticide companies doesn't qualify as corroborating evidence. Nor does citing an opinion piece by someone who just happens to be on a chemical fertilizer/pesticide companies' payroll. As in all things, follow the money.)

Like most hippies, it's pretty obvious from this paragraph that your opposition to modern agriculture is based primarily on your opposition to capitalism. It would probably shatter your worldview to discover that most organic produce comes from the same corporate farm enterprises that produce non-organic food.

There is absolutely no difference between organic food and non-organic food, except that organic food results in much lower yields per hectare.

I'm not even sure what you are asking me to cite. Do you want proof that organic food is no healthier, or do you want proof that it results in lower yields? Either way I can provide sources to demonstrate either, not that it will make any difference, since as you have already said you will not be convinced even if I did provide evidence.

Anyway, I'm sure if you look hard enough you could probably convince yourself that the US National Library of Medicine and the UK Food Standard Agency are in the payroll of Monsanto, but the fact is that you won't find any scientist claiming there is any health benefit to organic food.

Another fact I think you are missing is that "organic" is not the same thing as "pesticide free". Organic production still uses pesticides. They just use naturally occurring pesticides like Strychnine and Arsenic, rather than chemically produced pesticides like Roundup. And I shouldn't need to point out that Strychnine is no better for you than any other kind of chemical. Just because something occurs in nature doesn't make it healthier than something produced in a lab.

-----------

YDRAW: Like most hippies, it's pretty obvious from this paragraph that your opposition to modern agriculture is based primarily on your opposition to capitalism. It would probably shatter your worldview to discover that most organic produce comes from the same corporate farm enterprises that produce non-organic food.

-----------

That's amusing. However, you are incorrect in your obvious assessment. I’m not a hippie. And I’m not opposed to anything for which there is a genuine demand, provided the natural rights of all those involved are protected and preserved (yes, including the protection of private property, which synthetic pesticide/fertilizer advocates will have a hard time justifying due to the nature of chemical runoff effects on soil and water supplies and un-contained environmental damage).

You are overstating the case. Only 14% of total agricultural food production comes from corporations or other non-family entities in the United States. Data for countries in Europe is likely to be even less favourable for large corporate farms. [Source: USDA's "U.S. Farms: Numbers, Size, and Ownership"] Organic fruits and vegetables represented over 11 percent of all U.S. fruit and vegetable sales. [source: Organic Trade Association’s 2011 Organic Industry Survey]

Quick math: 11% of total U.S. fruit and vegetable sales are organic. And 14% of total agricultural food production is from corporate farms and enterprises. If we assume a roughly even distribution, that means corporate farms are producing roughly .11 x .14 = 1.54% of total U.S. organic fruit and vegetable sales. Even if the data is off by a bit, due to corporate farms weighting their production more in favour of organic produce due to higher profit margins, it is still quite a stretch to say “most” organic production is by large corporate farms. Actually, far more than a stretch.

In any event, even if what you say were true, which it obviously isn't, it wouldn't shatter my worldview because, whenever possible, I try to buy organic products from small local operators and farmer's markets. I tend to support the people and communities where I live, since that money will get recirculated into the local economy where it will benefit the community and therefore myself. In contrast to large corporate multinationals, where it generally doesn't. Not that I have anything against large corporations—provided they come to their s/excesses in an honest sustainable way, which preserves intact the rights of others. Spending money is like voting: when we spend money we effectively vote for the kind of world we want to see.

The philosophical reason why I'm opposed to "modern agriculture", as you put it, which is technically incorrect, as organic farming is more "modern" than conventional synthetic pesticide/fertilizer-based agriculture, is because it does not respect private property rights. Also, there is a disturbing trend towards increasing centralization and control of food resources across the globe by a small group of large multinational corporations (yes, Monsanto is one).

I say private property rights because you should be free to do as you wish on your property, provided it does not adversely effect others. If the water, soil or air contamination occurring in and around your land cannot be contained, you are infringing on the rights of others. The same applies to GMO crops. We do not have conclusive evidence to show there are no ill side-effects of GMO crops on the environment or human organism. Although evidence is now appearing that shows it can be harmful to organisms. As such, it is irresponsible at best for governments and corporations to be pushing GMO crops on populations. Further, the private property issue comes into play, because of cross-pollination and contamination of non-GMO crops.

-----------

YDRAW: There is absolutely no difference between organic food and non-organic food, except that organic food results in much lower yields per hectare.

-----------

False. In this case, I don't have to do a lot of independent research, as the contributors over at Wikipedia have already collected a number of resources on this topic. Please see the numbered references in the original article.

1. Various studies find that versus conventional agriculture, organic crops yielded 91%,[47] or 95-100%,[48] along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides,[49] or 100% for corn and soybean, consuming less energy and zero pesticides. The results were attributed to lower yields in average and good years but higher yields during drought years.[50]

2. A 2007 study[51] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that "organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base."

3. Converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) but higher than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). This is due to relatively lower adoption of fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive farming of the developed world.[52]

4. Organic farms withstand severe weather conditions better than conventional farms, sometimes yielding 70-90% more than conventional farms during droughts.[53] Organic farms are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[54] Organic farms survive hurricane damage much better, retaining 20 to 40% more topsoil and smaller economic losses at highly significant levels than their neighbors.[55]

5. Contrary to widespread belief, organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming.[56]

-----------

YDRAW: I'm not even sure what you are asking me to cite. Do you want proof that organic food is no healthier, or do you want proof that it results in lower yields? Either way I can provide sources to demonstrate either, not that it will make any difference, since as you have already said you will not be convinced even if I did provide evidence.

-----------

I didn't say that. I said you're not going to convince me, precisely because of the method you've employed, which was repeatedly making authoritative statements instead of citing credible sources. But now I fear I've opened Pandora's Box, inviting you to submit a flurry of in-credible Monsanto-sponsored research that shows how wonderful synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are for human neural and immune function, that we should even consider employing them directly into our diets as alternatives to vitamin supplementation!

-----------

YDRAW: Anyway, I'm sure if you look hard enough you could probably convince yourself that the US National Library of Medicine and the UK Food Standard Agency are in the payroll of Monsanto, but the fact is that you won't find any scientist claiming there is any health benefit to organic food.

-----------

No scientist claiming health benefits to organic food? For starters, how about here, here, here, and here. I’m sure you won’t object to supporting publications in the U.S. National Library of Medicine or the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

In any case, if the shoe fits. But it's not about an institution being on a corporate behemoth's payroll. Instead it's about certain individuals in positions of influence, and of questionable integrity, who are willing to accept funding from certain powerful special interests in order to advance the special interests' corporate agenda in the form of perceived "hard science". Don't tell me you believe our institutions, whether governmental, or scientific, are completely void of favouritism, bribery, exploitation, blackmail, extortion, or any other form of corruption? You'll like this: just look at the fraud regarding the recent "definitive" and "scientific" international global-warming studies, which many who participated in are now admitting were fraudulent? Who stands to benefit? As always, follow the money. And usually, the money is on the side of the large special interests.

-----------

YDRAW: Another fact I think you are missing is that "organic" is not the same thing as "pesticide free". Organic production still uses pesticides. They just use naturally occurring pesticides like Strychnine and Arsenic, rather than chemically produced pesticides like Roundup. And I shouldn't need to point out that Strychnine is no better for you than any other kind of chemical. Just because something occurs in nature doesn't make it healthier than something produced in a lab.

-----------

The vast majority of organic production does *not* use pesticides. [Source: Hester, Ronald (2007). Biodiversity under threat. Royal Society of Chemistry. pp. 16]. And the very small percentage that do use naturally occurring forms are still superior to synthetic forms for one main reason: they occur more naturally in their environment, and have evolved over millions of years to co-exist in a state of equilibrium with their surroundings, vs. those devised very recently and synthetically by man for which we only have a few decades of data available in terms of their effects on ecosystems as well as human beings (and even that data is negative towards synthetics).

Naturally occurring pesticides, when they are used, do not have the same metabolic characteristics or bio-accumulative effects in the environment as synthetic pesticides. The human body does not metabolize synthetic pesticides/fertilizers in the same way as naturally occurring substances. Synthetic substances enter the human body though digestion, absorption, or inhalation and remain in the body for long periods of time, often in some even more toxic form. [Source: Degradation of Synthetic Bio Molecules in the Biosphere (Absorption and Metabolism of Insecticide Chemicals). National Resarch Council, U.S.] The human body does not have the capacity to metabolize and excrete them in the same way as for natural occurring substances for which the organism has evolved the capacity over millions of years of adaptation. So these synthetic substances can accumulate in our tissue, cells, and in our organs to a much larger degree.

I'm not talking about a large dose of a naturally occurring pesticide that will immediately kill if ingested. But rather the small natural pesticide residue, if present, that doesn't build up in the organism over time because it is metabolized and excreted relatively quickly. So your argument regarding naturally occurring strychnine being no better than synthetics is not sound. While both may be toxic, in trace amounts the natural form is more easily metabolized and excreted and therefore has a much less toxic effect on the organism over time. Admittedly, we don't know the metabolic effects of all natural toxic compounds, but if I was being forced to choose between a trace amount of a natural vs. synthetic toxin which serve a similar function, I'd always go with the natural one. Even in nature we often see toxins and poisons, and then within the very same ecosystem, a natural remedy for that toxin or poison. Not so with synthetics. And in case you haven’t noticed, much of modern pharmacology is based on naturally occurring plant-based compounds, for example, in the Amazon rainforest, that are then synthetically manufactured. But of course, there's not as much money in a naturally occurring plant-based remedy or cure for xxx which is relatively easy to harvest by indigenous peoples, as there is in a manufactured synthetic compound.

A few decades from now, we may finally have conclusive data showing that synthetic fertilizers and pesticides did irreparable damage to ecosystems and organisms, and was one of the underlying root causes of dramatic increases in incidents of all forms of disease, due primarily to the negative effects on the nervous and immune systems. Do we really need to wait for that conclusive evidence? Indeed, the evidence already exists that suggests this is in fact the case over the last half century, whether its fluoride or chlorine in water, mercury cocktails in vaccines, or a variety of synthetic chemicals in our foods.

If you want to solve world hunger, it's certainly not through synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. It will be through a number of other approaches, including:

1. Encouraging scientists, small businesses and entrepreneurs, by limiting the role of governments to stay out of the free market, so large special interests no longer have an incentive to harness the power of a "Leviathon" government bureaucracy through their lobbying force to create legislation that makes it near impossible for small innovative businesses to enter and compete in the marketplace through innumerable regulations and high compliance costs. It's these small businesses, scientists and entrepreneurs that will find real solutions to our problems.

2. Hold government officials accountable in their duty to protect the free market, so innovative technologies can continue to be devised and developed to compete on their merits, instead of having powerful special interests blackmail, threaten or buy out new and promising technologies only to have them shelved because these very same special interests stand to lose a great deal if such technologies enter the marketplace. This is in reference to all forms of new technologies, whether it's alternative energy vs. oil and gas, alternative medicine vs. allopathic medicine, private or home education vs. government funded dumbing-down, commodity-backed competing currencies vs. fiat currencies, decentralized small local farming vs. large centralized agribusiness.

3. Educate people as to the nature of the banking system, and how the current rapacious system has been at the root of all world conflict in the 20th and 21st centuries, as well as much of the 19th and 18th centuries, which in turn is directly connected to poverty and hunger. There is only one way to finance the excesses of warfare: through debt-based financing which makes central banking institutions extremely wealthy. These institutions, therefore have no incentive for peace and widespread prosperity. In the absence of a debt-based system, an asset-based system backed by commodities would arise, where there couldn't be any large and expensive government funded warfare or welfare projects. A real commodity-backed currency system would effectively chain and limit the power and excesses of government, particularly foreign adventurism and the propping up of foreign dictators who continue to oppress their own poverty-stricken populations, and instead provide freedom, opportunity, and prosperity to its people.

These are some of the things that would help solve world hunger and create peace, opportunity and prosperity around the globe.

[loong]

Hey guys , i do hydoponics, i dont put chemicals in the ground, i mix "SALTS" with water in a balanced formula and the feed it to my plants, "Organic" great but thats a choice some people make , as drtreelove suggests in a commercial sense its just a way of asking more money for a product, and "FERTILIZERS" are not chemicals!!! they are salts, just like whats in the ground, and i also agree, putting 200kg of super phosphate on your garden is not the way to go, but the farmers of old are slowly learning and if it is in moderation and balanced it will not harm anything, if i add 600ppm instead of 75ppm, well i will get told by my plant very quickly.

Cheers

Scoop

Hi Scoop,

All fertilisers, whether organic or produced in the petro-chemical industry include chemical compounds. Maybe chemical fertiliser is not the ideal phrase, but it is generally accepted that it means fertiliser that is produced in a factory environment and not from a naturally occurring process.

I agree with you that there is probably absolutely no difference between the 2 when just considering nutrient values. In fact chemical fertiliser may actually have some sort of advantage as the farmer will know how much nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium he is adding to the soil. When using compost, you can't be sure how much of each is being incorporated without soil testing.

Chemical fertilisers will do harm to the environment when used excessively due to leeching into the water table and run offs into rivers etc.

Apart from this, the main negatives of chems are that they do nothing to improve the health of the soil. Also most farmers will add a NPK fertiliser and not realise that micronutrients and minerals are being depleted with every crop. They are simply unaware or don't care that plants needs more than NPK for good healthy growth.

I am only just learning about hydroponics, but hydroponic nutrients take into account the complete needs of plants, more than just NPK and undoubtably the best use of manufactured nutrients.

[IsaanAussie]

Apologies to DrTreeLove,

Just how far up your own fundamental orifices do you guys want to push your own heads. Talk to me about plant available nutrients, talk to me about root as opposited to foliar nutrition. At 46-0-0 Urea is 46% mitrogen and 64 % god knows. Where is the leech zone on your land or under each crop? How does a plant feed? What is the difference between vegetative stage and cropping? When does a legume begin consuming nitrogen as opposited to depositing it?

I make compost seriously and I sell it. Is that the whole answer? Absolutely not! Why not?

Sorry guys but this topic responses do not do anything for me.

[Scoop1]

Wow, IssanAussie, was that spray aimed at all of us posters on this subject totally necessary, everyone has their own ideas and opinions on things, thats called democracy, and as you said "I make compost seriously and I sell it" hey good luck to you! that does not mean we cant debate a subject, i was enjoying the topic and i also learned a few things guys, so thank you for that guys

Scoop

[necronx99]

Here's a very short clip that demonstrates one particular aspect of organic v factory food.

Bon Appatit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exBEFCiWyW0

[Scoop1]

very interesting necronx99, never heard of bud nip before, when my mother plants potatoes she always gets certified seed potatoes,

Cheers

Scoop

[Scoop1]

hey, maybe the first potato was from seeds from monsanto's and they have used there "terminator technology" on it

cheers

scoop

[necronx99]

Beyond the use of pesticides and fertilizer it's a safe bet that a whole cocktail of Chemicals are added, one for each production line problem...None of which are listed as ingredients or additives.

Edited May 12, 2012 by necronx99

[dbrisinda]

Here's a very short clip that demonstrates one particular aspect of organic v factory food.

Bon Appatit!

Nice video. Never heard of Bud Nip before. What I found particularly disturbing is how the supermarket "organic" sweet potato still didn't grow very many vines in comparison to the farmer's market organic sweet potato. Food for thought.

Edited May 12, 2012 by dbrisinda

[Gary A]

I'm always amused by the organic fan boys. The average farm in our area is only about ten rai. That is about as large as a small family can take care of. Try covering that ten rai with your organic compost. Chemical fertilizer is expensive and therefore used sparingly. I have no problem with chemical fertilizer but do shun pesticides. The pesticides normally kill all insects including the beneficial ones.

Does the fertilizer soak through to the water table? Not likely. Over many years, the land was tilled with buffalo and now mechanical buffalo. This means that only shallow tillage was possible. A hard plow pan has been created and water cannot soak through. Herbicides are not used on diked rice paddies because the rice is normally under water long enough to kill the weeds.

As a side note, I encouraged my wife to try the pit manure from a local hog farm. The tanker trucker did a good job of evenly spreading the stinking stuff. It was applied with a powerful pump that was able to cover the entire paddy from the dikes. Since the rice paddies were still underwater the stench didn't last long. That was the first and last time she went that way.

[Scoop1]

Well said GaryA, in days gone by here in Australia they flooded there land with fertilizers but that has changed since those bad old days and as you said they are expensive , i am into hydroponics, so i do agree that when farmers fertilize their land now its used lightly and therefore i think that whatever they are fertilizing it will eat it very quickly, which is the same with hydroponics, and i would hate to cover 10rai with organic compost, but what my old mum does, is plant some of her gardens with green manure and then plow it in, but i cant see a thai farmer doing it that way because he cant grow anything in it for that period, but each to their own.

Cheers

Scoop

[IsaanAussie]

Scoop,

Not as any critisism only clarification:

Herbicides are used on upland rain fed rice paddies, in fact, often used twice. Firstly to kill whatever is growing in the paddy after the dry season and early rains and secondly a post emergent herbicide to kill grass.

Their are many Thai farmers planting green manure crops, sunhemp seeds are supplied free to farmers. Here in Isaan this practice is growing, admittedly from a small base.

It is not the NPK major nutrients, the minor nutrients or the trace elements that are the issue with chemical fertilisers. It is the residual salts that are left. The arguable advantage of commercial fertiliser is that is in a more concentrated and plant available form than most composts. This allows the crop to be feed regardless of the soil condition. The result is soil is being degraded, humus levels drop, biology lost and topsoil eroded. The basic difference in using compost and other organic practices is you are building up the soil, or feeding the soil not the crop. Nutrients required to grow a specific crop need to be added to maintain the balance. The biggest challenge here is establishing what is in the soil and what should be added. As Dr Treelove has written often the available tests here are insufficient to get it right. NPK and pH are not enough.

As Gary said composting 10 rai is a challenge. One I am yet to, and doubt would try to attempt. At up to 10 ton per hectare or about 15 ton for 10 rai that would mean at 30kg per bag some 450 bags of my compost to do the job. It would take me months to produce that much compost and to maintain its moisture and microbiological content would be almost impossible.

My direction is to reduce the quantity needed but increasing the nutrient content of the compost and by pelletising it to trap the contents. This can be achieved by adding vegetable protein and minerals and fermenting the finished compost with probiotic solutions. The result, organic fertiliser. It is still low in primary nutrients compared with commercial fertiliser and needed in larger volumes. But is competetive against good quality commercial stuff in terms or cost to purchase. For me, it will replace a major buy-in cost.

I would love to become self sufficient and fully organic, not just from a cost perspective but for the benefit to the soil. Is a fully organic commercial farm possible here? I doubt it given the difficulty in getting farm labour alone.

So to the topic of this thread, I believe it is not a one or the other answer, but more a combination of things needed.

[Scoop1]

Thanks isaan, i totally agree with every thing you have said, and have thought a lot about the way farmers use fertilizers, and yes just throwing it around all over the place is not only destructive in the long term but much more expensive, because as you said the plant does not consume all of what the farmer throws on the land and nor is it balanced for healthy plant growth , so therefore there is always going to be a residual in the soil but with no balance whatsoever, but this can also happen in the world of hydroponics but is much easier to control and fix, i can never understand why they dont get a balanced product and mix it with water at a proper rate and liquid fertilize ther crop as it is needed, then there would not be as much of a toxic build up, which is what the problem is, 'soil hydroponics' for want of a better term, and i am sure they would get better results allround. As with hydoponics, if i have a tomato plant under heavy fruit load conditions, it can strip over 600mg/l of potassium per day out of the nutrient, and that is very hard to monitor, test for, and change, in other methods of gardening, i have 5 different formulations for different stages of the growth of a tomato plant, yes this is 'extreme fine tuning', and not needed to get a good result ,but its just that i like to be in control every step of the way and this gets me a much better result, in 'Fruit Flavour' and Dry Matter Content' which is the way it should be, but large commercial growers are after that almighty dollar, and if there is more water in the fruit there is more weight and they get paid by weight not taste.

Thanks isaan for your informative reply

Cheers

Scoop