| Organic vs. Industrial Agriculture * By Greg Bowman Rodale Institute, July 30, 2008 Straight to the Source 1. Chemical-industrialized farming isn't feeding the world, and is creating huge ecological/social issues in the process. There's no reason to be fundamentalist about it, as all farming everywhere needs to be transitioned to be more sustainable for land/water/people, and better aimed at feeding everyone who needs food. Commercial, economic and trade policies, and lack of income by so many people, distort what seems to work and not work in food. For an overview of how organic agriculture could improve food-short regions, see: The Organic Green Revolution If feeding people were really the goal, agricultural policy would be different around the world. Growing culturally appropriate crops for regional markets with low-input, naturally recycling fertility and genetics would the most positive investment in upgrading human nutritional advance. 2. At the systems level, organic agriculutre that builds soil and encourages biodiversity delivers more diverse/profound benefits and ecological services than farming which amounts to "agricultural sacrifice areas" divorced from their geological surroundings. When the measure is lifecycle carbon assessment that includes the embedded fossil-fuel energy in fertilizer and pesticide manufacture, along with carbon sequestered in regenerative organic systems at higher levels than is possible with chemical no-till, organic systems can produce more food value per acre through intensive multi-cropping not possible when pesticides are used. Producing corn and soybeans organically can be done with lower total energy, a bit more labor, and with a lower GHG footprint over the life of a rotation. See Regenerative Organic Farming: A solution to global warming Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603 To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ |