Do liberals/hippie types realize how much food can be grown on an acre of land allocated for organic farming?

I am a hippie liberal Organic farmer and i know compared to mono-cropping my small diversified farm will produce 10x to 15x more per acre (both in yields and what i will make per acre) and I can feed 50 people on my four acres. Monsanto says one of their 150 acre fields can 150 people so who is feeding more from less acreage? The conventional farm that can feed one person per acre or the sustainable small farm that feeds 9 people per acre? You do the math and get back to me on that.

Perhaps instead of hating us farmers you should learn a lot more about Organic farming

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ is a great place to start your education and there is http://www.localharvest.com,/ http://www.ofrf.org,/ http://www.ota.com/

I strongly suggest going to these site and reading up on Organic farming and food and that will do much to curb your ignorance about it.

Your looking at the problem wrong. Large farms can produce more food per$ to the acre than small farms. Small farms can produce more food to the acre than large farms. But it is labor intensive so the food cost more $ to the acre.To grow. Large farms require millions of dollars in equipment to operate. And large areas to operate in. Small organic farms are usually in rolling land were large equipment can not operate efficiently. But there smaller equipment can. Lots of trade offs Good and bad to both. About the only place left for food expansion. Is across Africa. Very unstable area. And some areas in Russia. Or go genetic. Modification. We are pressing the wall right now. And in many areas food production is declining per acre.

Well if you own the land and the farm, you should be able to grow anything you want on it. That's at the heart of free enterprise.

Some people are willing to pay more for organically grown food, because they think that it is healthier, that's why there is a market for it.

Another stereotype..but a common one..is that liberals are the only ones interested in healthier, organically grown food. Personally, I doubt that it is any different, and I wouldn't pay more for it, but others are welcome to.

Do YOU or any other cons realize that it takes one acre of land to grow 1 lb. of coffee beans in a year? And that due to the demand for useless coffee in your country and other 1st World countries, coffee industry takes up more of the world's farmland than any other produce?

And that land wasted on coffee production could most easily be used to grow food for not only you, but also the starving poor of the world, who count far more than the rich?

Have a cup, and seriously consider giving up the farming business. You don't have the first inkling what you're talking about.

Its been proven that there is no nutritional difference between organic and non-organic produced foods. Ive never seen organic farming being apart of the liberal agenda.

If anything our current model was made possible by more gov't intrusion, which is the antithesis of right-wing ideology. The FDA is paid off by special interest and food conglomerates and they frown upon independent operations.

So long as that acre isn't in central California where the water is shut off because no goods want to protect the delta Smelt.

its the mass farming that gets us though! You have huge companies that end up with unsanitary conditions, and they start using unnatural fertilizers, and other things that are detrimental to the health of the crop. Don't even get me started on animal farming either! Have you seen KFC farms they're AWFUL!!!!!

Wasteful, is paying farmers not to grow crops so that the prices can be fixed.

Well maybe not the FDA standard for organic, but at least no GMO or pesticides on my food, I think we can agree on that?