The biggest ideas of this film where the idea that organic farming is
actually better for the farmers and that it makes better food the conventional
farming and industrial farming. some evidence of this was when Joel, the farmer
who is the poster child for organic farming, said that conventional farming
" made 150 dollars per acre with just cows on it." while in contrast
he made nearly 3,000 dollars per acre by growing food and feeding chickens and
cows and all the other stuff. I think the biggest strength of this film was
that they were able to explain the concepts behind organic farming and crop
rotation and all of the different processes that Joel used. The other strength
was that they were able to show people an example of someone who was doing it
and was making money off it. As people we generally are skeptical until we can
see something in person or a picture or a film. So without Joel and him being
on the film they would have had no proof to say. They just would have been able
to explain the concepts. I think that the biggest weakness of the film is that
they didn't seem to have a lot of hard facts to support their claims. They just
seemed to say, hey this is what we think you should do because of X, Y, and Z,
but they didn't seem to have a lot of hard facts. Since I am a big math and
numbers kind of guy it was hard to believe them because they didn't support it
with hard numbers. For example when they talk about selling pigs for meat they
said it was cheaper for the farmer because they didn't have to pay vet bills or
loss pigs to illness. I would have liked the to say things more like the
average pig costs 500 dollars to raise on an organic farm as opposed to 850
dollars on a conventional farm where they spend an average of 125 dollars on
medicine and 200 dollars on feed when the organic farmers don't have those
costs. If they had stats like that they could present a stronger argument to
support their statement that it is cheaper for the farmers.
The theme that I researched was the topic of hydroponics. The thing that I
was curious about was the problems that occur with hydroponics. Since the movie
only talked about the good parts I wanted to find out what didn't work. Some of
the major problems that I found with hydroponics was that it takes a lot more
money and knowledge to grow this way, if the water system fails all the plants
will die, some still need a soil substitute, and you will make less money per
plant if you sell them. In my opinion this is a serious problem for hydroponics
because it simple means that not everyone will be able to grow this way, which
is contradictory to what the film said. The other problem is that this way
seems to be a less effective way for people to make a living from it because it
will cost them more for the same product and they will need more knowledge to
do it in the first place. Now this doesn't mean that hydroponics isn't a good
way to go, I just think the movie made and unrealistic image of
hydroponics.
http://www.guide2hydroponics.com/about-hydroponics/pros-and-cons.aspx
I thought the theme that you researched was very interesting to learn about as well. I didnt think about what would happen if the water system broke. It seemed like a good way to do things but after reading your research I concluded that it can be very useful, but it need to be very well maintained.
ReplyDeleteHydroponics is a very interesting topic to me because I eventually want to study Ecology and your points about hydroponics are very useful. It's hard to believe that there are things that can go wrong with a hydroponics system. And if you don't take care of the system and maintain it well, then your whole system will fail and not be worth anything.
ReplyDelete