The USDA has concluded that the present agricultural more-on approach of increased synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides is not sustainable. The alternative regenerative organic approach using compost, limited tilling, rock powders and microbes reestablishes the nutritionally balanced soil and sequesters the CO2 from the atmosphere. The result is greater nutritional density (higher BRIX), greater yields (30-200%) and longer shelf life (from days to weeks and months) of fruits and vegetables.
Georgia is unique in that the State has approved the “Invest Georgia Exemption” (IGE) allowing non-accredited resident investors the right to invest in corporations residing in Georgia. A single County could raise $1,000,000 in equity to fund a local organic farm. The investors would make a fair return on their investment, jobs would be available and as customers the investors would receive a small discount on their farm purchases.
If growing numbers of consumers continue to prefer food grown, raised, processed, packaged and sold by local farmers the economics of community food production will steadily improve. The next step is community ownership of the farm. If consumers in a community were to become co-owners of the land and equipment, effectively shareholders, the community bond would be stronger, jobs would be available and the money would stay in the community (multiplier effect). Our goal should be to make agriculture profitable at the community level, profit will make organic farming sustainable. We need a financial infrastructure to do that.
Where did you find this info?
I tried using AI search and received the following response:
Based on the provided search results, there is no direct quote or explicit conclusion from the USDA stating that the “present agricultural more-on approach of increased synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides is not sustainable.”
However, several points from the search results indirectly relate to this topic:
-
ERS (Economic Research Service) of the USDA evaluates the influence of various factors including fertilizers and pesticides on agriculture, but the focus has been on understanding their use rather than making a direct statement on sustainability. They discuss trends in pesticide use, the environmental impact of fertilizers, and the strategies farmers employ under different economic conditions, but they do not conclude on the sustainability of the current approach in these terms.
-
Organic Farming Research Foundation discusses the adverse effects of synthetic chemicals on soil health, suggesting an alternative view where these chemicals are seen as detrimental to soil organisms and biodiversity. While this isn’t a USDA source, it reflects a perspective on sustainability in agriculture, highlighting the negative impacts of conventional methods.
-
USDA’s National Organic Program through its list of allowed and prohibited substances, indirectly supports a more sustainable approach by promoting organic farming which eschews synthetic chemicals. However, this is more about regulation and less about a direct statement on the sustainability of synthetic inputs.
-
Various articles discuss the environmental impacts of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with some suggesting that organic methods could be more sustainable, but these are not direct USDA conclusions.
In summary, while the USDA does research and regulate aspects of agriculture that touch on sustainability, the specific conclusion you mention about the unsustainability of current synthetic-based agriculture practices is not explicitly stated in the provided search results. This might be an interpretation or aggregation of multiple sources or a perspective from another document not included in these results.
Investments have consequences, and you could lose all of your investment.
Why Do Investors Need to Be Accredited?
From Investopedia:
Investors need to be accredited so that they can invest in riskier assets. The goal is really to protect non-accredited investors. It is assumed that accredited investors have enough financial expertise to analyze the risks and rewards of a riskier investment or at least have the wealth to absorb a significant loss.