I posted 4 articles from ScienceDaily in this series of posts. I don't know what to make of this reporting. I don't see any data to back these claims up. I actually am a fan of many of the things "organic" agriculture does, but I'm a bit confused by the claims made here. No one outright comes out and says more is produced year over year or if it is produced in a profitable way(?) The writers and researchers state "yield" is more and "other" benifits increase and your footprint on the earth is less. Is more produced overall and in a cost effective way (?) I don't know and I don't see it stated.
Now because it's my forum (blog) I'll give my take on organic
- Lots of organic farmers are making a good dollar and reducing there environmental food print all over North America. There is a great (and growing) market for organic product and these pioneers are doing an excellent job filling that need. I say more power to them and a scourge on their critics. Much of noise and criticism of these producers may come from corporate spin, I'm cynical enough to believe that. Other opposition is motivated by ignorance of what organic farmers do or "backlash" against the organic movement's criticisms of conventional farming.
- Organic systems have strengths that could be used across agricultural production. Organic rotations for improved weed control and fertility should be looked at for cost savings for all producers.
- If producers can make changes that decease food productions use of non renewable resources everyone wins. You have to make a buck, but non renewable imputs may cost themselves out of the picture. That scenario makes some organic ideas attractive
- Dependence on pesticides has created rapidly evolving "resistant" pests. In the last 10 year there appearance has continued steadily. So far producers have adjusted. Maybe a good adjustment would be looking at more "organic" solutions
- My last point is a rip on organic production. What in the heck is the definition anyway. I see a lot of the "organic" production sold to consumers fits the definition of "organic" the retailer comes up with. I guess that's not the producers fault, but the consumer rips conventional producers and then buys his product anyway, thinking it's "organic". That kind of bugs me (pisses me off really)
Enjoy the posts! Take them with a grain of salt!
