permaculture

[dwoodard@becon.org]

There were a couple of studies done in the late 60s or early 70s comparing
established organic farms (which were well past their adaptation period
when yields tend to decrease temporarily) raising field crops, to
commercial conventional farms.

It was found that gross yields were slightly higher on the conventional
farms and profits were slightly higher on the organic farms, partly due to
the organic farms selling some of their crops at premium prices (5 or 10%
I believe) and partly due to lower input costs of the organic farms.

I think Barry Commoner's Center for the Biology of Natural Systems
was involved with one of these studies.

Now it is also known that organic grown crops tend to contain less water
and more dry matter, i.e. nutrients. The dry matter comparison would make
sense but it is normally not done; farners are normally paid for weight
and bulk, so that is what the conventional yield studies of cultivars and
techniques measure.

It is also known that organic grown crops tend to have slightly higher
levels of vitamins and markedly higher levels of minerals.

Organic grown crops tend to keep better all things being equal. With some
species they taste better. And the reproductive performance of lab animals
tends to be better on organic crops.

I recall some studies on these points from an issue of the Internal
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) "Bulletin" in 1979.

I recall that the Henry Doubleday Research Association in England
in the 1960's or 70's found that non-smokers and especially vegans
preferred the taste of potatoes grown with compost; smokers preferred
conventionally grown potatoes.

Lady Eve Balfour's book "The Living Soil and the Haughley Experiment"
describes her experience with dairy farming over a period of decades
showing the high performance of organic methods in terms of nutrients
produced versus inputs. I think the Pye Research Foundation carried on her
work on the same land after her death.

Patrick Moore is well known in Canada as a renegade from the
environmental movement who works for the forest industry. We are not
inclined to believe anything he says without solid independent evidence;
his word is worth nothing. He seems to be broadening his clientele,
but his methods are the same as they have been for years. He is not a
"green" except by self-description.

I note there have been studies in England showing the higher populations
of birds on organic farms.

I note also that Moore doesn't mantion any ecological footprint analysis
taking into account the higher inputs of conventional farms.

The implication that environmentalists and organic farmers are "pro-bug,
anti-human" is typical of the lying idiocy of this propaganda. In fact
most commercially important plant pests are held in check by their natural
enemies, not by pesticides. Anyone who wants to pursue this should read
Dr. Paul De Bach's book "Biological Control by Natural Enemies". De Bach
and his colleagues were able to reliably produce outbreaks of insect
pests in test orange orchards by applying DDT which preferentially killed
the natural enemies, something which is especially noticeable with scale
insects which are a major problem with oranges.

Doug Woodard
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada


On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Michael Murphy wrote:

> It is unbelievable to me that this kind of crap is still published by
> intelligent people not on the payroll of agribiz.  I think the yield
> question has to be fought head-on for both quality AND quantity, with
> quantity being calculated over 10 to 20 years versus the one-year
> shot-in-the-arm crowd that doesn't tell you 10 years from now the soil
> will be dead and the bugs mutated.  Arguing chemicals and GMOs are
> actually green is extremely seductive to the press.
>
>     From the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)
>     Number 2.9
>     March 10, 2005
>
>    A Few Greens Make Sense--No, Really
>
>
>    Science magazine reports that world food demand is expected to more
>
>    than double by 2050.  This is a job for technology; Luddites need not
>
>    apply.
>
>
>
>    The most obvious solution would be high-yield farming, which means
> the
>    use of chemical agents as well as genetically modified crops.  Both,
> of
>    course, are the bane of the backward-looking, anti-science crowd that
>
>    tends to place bugs above man.
>
>
>
>    But influential thinkers are making the intellectual case for
>
>    high-yield farming, one them being Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of
>
>    Greenpeace.
>
>    "There's a misconception that it would be better to go back to more
>
>    primitive methods of agriculture because chemicals are bad or
> genetics
>    is bad. This is not true," says Moore, who supports the Center for
>
>    Global Food Issues which understands that "Growing More Per Acre
> Leaves
>    More Land For Nature."

[snip]