Does it take more water to grow organic veggies?

[burritos]

I've heard that 20% of our energy is used to move water. I've also heard that it takes more water to grow organic foods. If both premises are true, then aren't we replacing the use of fossil fuels(for fertilizers and pesticides) in non organic farming with the fossil fuels to move more water in organic farming? Yes, it's probably healthier and maybe cleaner(no nitrogen dead zones from river runoff) but we're still emitting a good amount of carbon no?

[DaveinOlyWA]

yes organic foods do take more water to grow simply because they take longer to grow.

and what does that fact have to do with resources? there is no free lunch. does the fact that a single drop of oil will taint 100,000 gallons of water mean anything?

or does the fact that fertilizers and pesticides are introduced to billions of gallons of ground water every day that we will eventually drink?

what does all those trace elements and particles doing to us and our children??

[burritos]

Originally Posted by DaveinOlyWA

yes organic foods do take more water to grow simply because they take longer to grow.

and what does that fact have to do with resources? there is no free lunch. does the fact that a single drop of oil will taint 100,000 gallons of water mean anything?

or does the fact that fertilizers and pesticides are introduced to billions of gallons of ground water every day that we will eventually drink?

what does all those trace elements and particles doing to us and our children??

I don't dispute the ails that are concomitant with the use of oil generated fertilizers and pesticides. They are as great and vast as the Grand Canyon. Nor did I suggest or expect that eating organic gives us a free ride in terms of environmental damage. But if it's true that 20%(that's a large percentage) of our energy is used to move water and the vast majority of our energy is from fossil fuels, then are we deluding ourselves that eating organic is necessarily best for us? Is it possible that the benefits of eating organics are offset by the extra carbon we're emitting in which we don't know what the ultimate consequence is?

I eat mainly organic and shop at our farmer's market. But if all 6 billion people on this earth were to do so, is there enough water to do so? Is there enough affordable and accessible energy to do so? Is eating organic just reserved for the wealthy(relatively) who do it to feel better? Or does it really not matter and the main problem is that this earth has just too many people, a problem than can only solved with solutions that are morally unacceptable(war, famine, disease, etc...)?

[DaveinOlyWA]

moving water is energy intensive, but there is a HUGE difference between the process to irrigate verses taking a shower in any big city.

i think if we examine what it takes to move water to the farms, i think we will find the "energy" penalty to not be anywhere as extreme

in fact, i venture to say that if we stopped taking showers, that 20% would be reduced to virtually nothing

**edit**

another thing that basic facts dont incorporate is culture. organic farmers usually do it for environmental reasons.

i buy all my beef from organic farm, cattle is raised 100% on pasture grass, no pesticides, or fertilizers.
here is a pic of a water delivery system. it works when cow walks up, steps on lever, water is pumped up and deposited into the tray for cow to drink. no dinosaur sacrifices required. water comes from creek just on other side of bushes.

windmills also pump up water to other areas of the farm. sure some electricity is involved, but its minimized and ya, it took the cows a few weeks to learn it and yes, they do frequently pump out more than they need and it makes a mess.

but the quantity spilled probably is no where near the evaporation of open tanks, plus the tank does not have to be dumped and cleaned as often...

[burritos]

Originally Posted by DaveinOlyWA

moving water is energy intensive, but there is a HUGE difference between the process to irrigate verses taking a shower in any big city.

i think if we examine what it takes to move water to the farms, i think we will find the "energy" penalty to not be anywhere as extreme

in fact, i venture to say that if we stopped taking showers, that 20% would be reduced to virtually nothing

Taking less showers would also help address the population issue too.

[Rae Vynn]

Even if it does take more water to grow organic produce, the runoff is clean water. That runoff water returns to lakes, streams, rivers, and the aquifer as clean, usable water, not polluted water.
Also, you have to factor in the amount of water that is used/polluted to produce chemical fertilizers and pesticides into total water use for growing conventional produce.

All of which takes MUCH, MUCH LESS water than producing beef.

[JamesBurke]

It doesn't take any more water to grow organic and often takes less as the soil has more organic material to act as a sponge to soak up and hold water. Length to maturety depends on the variety that is grown not weather it's organic or not. I've done desert, high altitude, and natural/traditional(almost Amish)/organic. Never seen the need to spend my money on spray. Never used BT either.

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by burritos

<snip>
But if it's true that 20%(that's a large percentage) of our energy is used to move water and the vast majority of our energy is from fossil fuels, then are we deluding ourselves that eating organic is necessarily best for us? Is it possible that the benefits of eating organics are offset by the extra carbon we're emitting in which we don't know what the ultimate consequence is?
<snip>

With or without the water issue, you are deluding yourself. There are no proven benefits from eating organic. Furthermore, there is little difference in the impact between organic farming and normal farming. The differences now relate more to the size of operations than whether they are organic or conventional. In the bad old days of commercial farming, pesticides and fertilizers were used indiscriminately, but not anymore. Economics have forced farmers to use them much more wisely, and the bad ones have been outlawed. Likewise, much of the stuff used by organic farmers is pretty nasty as well. Several of my friends are organic farmers, so I get to see a lot of this first hand.

Tom

[icarus]

GB,

I think that you are a bit naive to believe that large scale agri-biz is not more chemically intense than even large scale organic or semi organic agriculture. I do agree however that I don't think it makes much difference in my body if my food is organic or not. (especially in my case, given all the shit I have put into it over the years, having been a smoker for ~40 years, plus the stuff I still eat and drink!)

I think that organic or semi organic farming is at least a step towards sustainable, responsible farming. I am not naive enough however to believe that this can solve all the worlds problems as I think that there are just too many mouths to feed.

I also believe that the local food movement is all good, in that it increases the awareness of some real global issues.

Icarus

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by DaveinOlyWA

moving water is energy intensive, but there is a HUGE difference between the process to irrigate verses taking a shower in any big city.

i think if we examine what it takes to move water to the farms, i think we will find the "energy" penalty to not be anywhere as extreme

in fact, i venture to say that if we stopped taking showers, that 20% would be reduced to virtually nothing

I think there are a lot of problems with the assumptions for the same reasons that I disagreed with your assessment of leaks in a prior thread. I doubt cutting out showers would have much noticeable impact on water pumping expenditures. Take a look at the USGS estimate of water use from 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3051: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000

Public water supply: 11% (that would include lawn irrigation, toilets, showers, etc.)
Irrigation: 34%
Thermoelectric: 48%
Industrial: 5%
Livestock, aquaculture, mining: 3%

The worst part is that agriculture appears to be depleting deep aquifers more rapidly than they can be replenished.

So while I'm definitely in favor of reducing water use for showers, toilets, etc. there appear to be far larger fish left to fry...electric use being one of them, ag another. Fortunately, if you cut enough power use, you can kill two birds with one stone.