"Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
"Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
"Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way."unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
Credit ending colonialism and the arrival of democracy in saving a billion lives; Borlaug's technology merely shifted the demographics of hunger. People don't starve to death in a democracy, so the end of British rule probably saved more lives than Borlaug did. Credit Ghandi, not this mad scientist.
@ashevillecat This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. The end of British rule up to today has not saved billions. Besides, if you're going to credit Ghandi and the end of colonialism for decades and centuries why not do the same with Borlaug?
PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. Where does this billion figure come from? In 1970, there were an estimated ~942 million hungry people (close enough, right?), and it is assumed that the magic bullet of the Green Revolution has brought this number down (to zero?). WRONG. Excluding China, the number of hungry people actually increased by 11% while total food availability has increased. Apparently, the "Red" revolution was more effective at alleviating hunger than the "green" one,.
@ashevillecat even if the number of hungry people in the world had a 11% increase, since 1970 the world population has almost doubled from ~3.5 bil. to 6.8 bil. so the percentage of the global population that suffers famine has actually dropped even though the number of hungry people has increased
@Globernaff There are two kinds of lies: lies and statistics. Does this one make you feel better about world hunger? We're talking about a BILLION malnourished people as of today.The point is that land reform (favoring small farmers) and population controls have been far more effective at curbing hunger than so-called "miracle seeds" of high-yielding varieties. The green revolution just forces small farmers off their land and into city soup kitchens, or into wealthy neighboring countries.
@vjm3 Actually, that is false. Many people have died as a result of Borlaug's Green Revolution, which cased water shortages, water contamination, soil erosion and deaths and other health problems from pesticide use, etc. In the 1970's researchers had suggested that organic could have the same yields in countries that had used the Green Revolution and could do so using less water, having less contamination, less erosion and less deaths and health problems. Many FAO projects now confirm this!
Mr Borlaug undoubtedly saved millions of people from starvation; if more starve in the future it is not because of what he did but because of what we did in the space he gave us.
His crops are engineered to use less fertilizer and water, and are more resilient to disease.
@vjm3 Borlaug's crops and the system used in his Green Revolution was designed to use MORE water. It caused huge water shortages in many of the places that used his Green Revolution. His crops were not designed to use less fertilizer either, again one of the main focus of the Green Revolution was to use MORE synthetic fertilizer. Borlaug told people what to do and his Green Revolution was short lived, organic was the better solution, but he fought against organic, so he is to blame!
Show me credible sources that support this opinion of yours, or your emotion-fueled belief is null.
Don't give me a link to Organic Monthly pulling some extremist editorial writer's opinion as facts, give me numbers and measurements. Give me the sources that clearly and directly reflect your argument. You want me to believe in something you're saying? Put the effort to shut me up, bro.
@vjm3 FAO "In the flood plains of Bangladesh, community-based organic agriculture resulted from an increasing awareness to the harmful effects of the Green Revolution. The latter was showing a tremendous decline in crop yields despite an enormous increase in the need for the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Groundwater was less available""the health situation was worsening (including gastric, skin and respiratory diseases)" fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
"Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
myndy86 2 weeks ago
"Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 2 weeks ago
"Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way."unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 2 weeks ago
saw the video and had to put in my love. wonderful man.
hummurabi2010 9 months ago
Credit ending colonialism and the arrival of democracy in saving a billion lives; Borlaug's technology merely shifted the demographics of hunger. People don't starve to death in a democracy, so the end of British rule probably saved more lives than Borlaug did. Credit Ghandi, not this mad scientist.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat : "Probably"...
vjm3 9 months ago
@ashevillecat This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. The end of British rule up to today has not saved billions. Besides, if you're going to credit Ghandi and the end of colonialism for decades and centuries why not do the same with Borlaug?
Because it doesn't suit your agenda?
3rw42 4 months ago
PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. Where does this billion figure come from? In 1970, there were an estimated ~942 million hungry people (close enough, right?), and it is assumed that the magic bullet of the Green Revolution has brought this number down (to zero?). WRONG. Excluding China, the number of hungry people actually increased by 11% while total food availability has increased. Apparently, the "Red" revolution was more effective at alleviating hunger than the "green" one,.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat even if the number of hungry people in the world had a 11% increase, since 1970 the world population has almost doubled from ~3.5 bil. to 6.8 bil. so the percentage of the global population that suffers famine has actually dropped even though the number of hungry people has increased
Globernaff 1 year ago
@Globernaff There are two kinds of lies: lies and statistics. Does this one make you feel better about world hunger? We're talking about a BILLION malnourished people as of today.The point is that land reform (favoring small farmers) and population controls have been far more effective at curbing hunger than so-called "miracle seeds" of high-yielding varieties. The green revolution just forces small farmers off their land and into city soup kitchens, or into wealthy neighboring countries.
ashevillecat 1 year ago
@ashevillecat I wasn't arguing that there weren't a billion malnourished I was merely noting that it is possible that he had saved a billion lives
Globernaff 1 year ago
the greatest ever.
iakny 2 years ago
Best human in the world. And whats best he didn't have to kill anyone to become it.
If there is a God, I hope they bless this man if no other.
vjm3 3 years ago 4
I'm pretty sure this guy IS god.
Innomen 2 years ago
@vjm3 Actually, that is false. Many people have died as a result of Borlaug's Green Revolution, which cased water shortages, water contamination, soil erosion and deaths and other health problems from pesticide use, etc. In the 1970's researchers had suggested that organic could have the same yields in countries that had used the Green Revolution and could do so using less water, having less contamination, less erosion and less deaths and health problems. Many FAO projects now confirm this!
myndy86 2 weeks ago
@myndy86:
Mr Borlaug undoubtedly saved millions of people from starvation; if more starve in the future it is not because of what he did but because of what we did in the space he gave us.
His crops are engineered to use less fertilizer and water, and are more resilient to disease.
Borlaugh is not to blame for what people do.
vjm3 2 weeks ago
@vjm3 Borlaug's crops and the system used in his Green Revolution was designed to use MORE water. It caused huge water shortages in many of the places that used his Green Revolution. His crops were not designed to use less fertilizer either, again one of the main focus of the Green Revolution was to use MORE synthetic fertilizer. Borlaug told people what to do and his Green Revolution was short lived, organic was the better solution, but he fought against organic, so he is to blame!
myndy86 2 weeks ago
@myndy86:
Show me credible sources that support this opinion of yours, or your emotion-fueled belief is null.
Don't give me a link to Organic Monthly pulling some extremist editorial writer's opinion as facts, give me numbers and measurements. Give me the sources that clearly and directly reflect your argument. You want me to believe in something you're saying? Put the effort to shut me up, bro.
vjm3 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vjm3 FAO "In the flood plains of Bangladesh, community-based organic agriculture resulted from an increasing awareness to the harmful effects of the Green Revolution. The latter was showing a tremendous decline in crop yields despite an enormous increase in the need for the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Groundwater was less available""the health situation was worsening (including gastric, skin and respiratory diseases)" fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
myndy86 2 weeks ago 2
Change title to NORMAN BORLAUG and honor him correctly. What an amazing accomplishment and wonderful man.
trvlintl 4 years ago
Norman Borlaug. hth.
Janottaa 4 years ago
your mom got boring after a few times too
patient0Studios 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
*cough* BORING *cough*
MapleShizzle 4 years ago