organic is btter?

"since crop yields were considerably higher in the conventional systems, the difference in energy needed to produce a crop unit was only 19 percent lower in the organic systems."

yeah, i've always known about this, and actually was surprised to read that organic farming produced ANY benefits in efficiency. it's one of the reasons i've sort of always expected it to cost more. when i worked with the community agriculture farm in floyd, i tell you, i put in a lot of hours, and when i had my garden i did too (though with the arguably added-though-transparent benefit of not having to deal with any local politics and personalities other than my own inherent laziness).

“minor differences between the farming systems in food quality."
there's just no accounting for taste. frankly, i can TELL when i've made a recipe with organic food. but maybe years of smoking and drinking have heightened my pallate somewhat. :)

"No-till farming combined with genetically enhanced crops has been shown to be both better for the environment and more energy efficient than past conventional methods."
if all iwere concerned about were efficiency, i'd still be eating iceberg lettuce from food lion (eewwwwww.) genetic enginerring is bad, mmm-KAY?

“the greatest catastrophe the human race could face this century is not global warming, but a global conversion to ‘organic farming’– [where] an estimated 2 billion people would perish.”
oops. salient leaps here, and not always the most logical ones. i believe that it is important to go local, pesticide free over high-scale organic industry production. one of the reasons i believe this is because i think it is simply dumb dumb dumb not to A) know where your food comes from and B) live near a reliable source of food. i'm not saying that in the event of major catastrophe not to get food from elsewhere. but having a community, pesticide free, possibly no-till garden is pretty cool, dont you think? and when was the last time you ever saw anything but a surplus out of anyone's backyard gardening efforts? (go look at the stack of tomatoes, potatoes, green beans and corn that little employee break rooms during the summer months, and you'll know what i mean). frankly, the small few and lazy-ass efforts i put into my garden out back the two years i had it yeilded enough food and magic and wonder for the whole family and then some.

it's not only about efficiency. it's about reconnecting, being sustainable, not poisoning your food or your body or the environment, and not freaking out if kroger is closed. on that note, pick up a copy of the spring issue of the co-optimist next itme you're in the area. apparently two of the masions on grandin road (next to the post office) have been bought by my friends pete and kristen. they want to turn the extensive grounds into a permaculture organic garden, with the houses being used as community centers where we will learn to cook and put up food. organic homegrown foodstuffs all year? now THAT's something to crow about! [the vision is that for a few hours of work in the garden and the center, with whatever skills you have, results in getting to take home food from the garden. have another mouth to feed? spend a little extra time in the garden. can't pull weeds because of a bad back or pregnancy? host a class on how to can green beans or taking dried beans and cooking them up with winter's root vegetables, or just making your own basic salsa and setting it up with a shelf life of ten years or more. how can this ever be a bad idea?)

as to the honest tea, YAY for the organic chic making it to sheetz! i'm not a sheetz fan myself, but any time the populace puts status on a product that is better for the environment than one that is harmful, i'm all for it. thanks for doing your part by closing the circle and voting with your dollars. for that, i can overlook you eating junk food and calling it a meal. :) [read: i love you and don't want you to get cancer, mmm-KAY?]

does it matter? well, i doubt it could hurt. imagine if the people currently working in diamond mines in africa, women and men in the prime of their lives, frequently killed in their efforts or stricken with industry-related debilitating diseases and injuries, were to quit their jobs, quit growing cash crops (such as tobacco and coffee and other cash-agribuisness specific crops instead of focusing on actually growing food they could eat), and started planting a few, manageable rows of food that could sustain them. would they be worse off? my data tells me no, unfortunately. i hate this. that the people in africa are mining themselves further into poverty and starvation to profit debeers is bad enough, but to know that debeers doesn't provide adequate pensions, let alone long term medical care or short term either, is abominable.

ok.

i'm interested in your thoughts.

love and peace,
h

kn0w1 wrote:

just a random google and came across this..
really it's about organic farming vs conventional
kind of interesting..
but like most enviromental issues it seems there are always "facts" and proponents (not counting CEO/CFOs and their political friends) on either side (that is.. the hard vs. soft green sides; not the let's not even worry about it side)..

http://www.cfact.org/site/print.asp?idarticle=237

*copy-paste*:

Find this article at this address:
http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idarticle=237&idcategory=3
Are organic foods really better?

Facts challenge organic's benefits over modern agriculture
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker

Recently the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture published a highly publicized study comparing two types of organic farming with two types of conventional farming. Initially (and to the delight of enviro’s everywhere) newspaper reports claimed conventional farming to be the loser in at least 2 categories: That is, in its economic and environmental efficiency.

However when one pulls up the weeds from the research, one quickly discovers that reporters are playing fast and loose with the facts in order to show that organic farming is indeed more “efficient”. The research actually, in fact, points to an entirely other direction.

Advocates of organic farming claim that the study shows organic farming uses 50 percent less energy. However, this statistic does not take into account that the study also shows conventional farming to be 20 percent more productive than organic farming. Therefore, according to the study’s own conclusions, "since crop yields were considerably higher in the conventional systems, the difference in energy needed to produce a crop unit was only 19 percent lower in the organic systems."

Another claim of organic advocates is that organic foods are far superior to conventionally produced foods. This study asserts, however, that there were only “minor differences between the farming systems in food quality."

Also, the study did not test the organic system against the most recent form of conventional farming. No-till farming combined with genetically enhanced crops has been shown to be both better for the environment and more energy efficient than past conventional methods. If this method were placed up against organic farming, the 19 percent energy advantage of organic farming would, according to experts like Ron Baily of the Reason Public Policy Institute, likely disappear.

As for environmental benefits, conventional no till farming also matches the advantages of organic farming; such as less pesticide and fertilizer runoff, greatly reduced soil erosion, and a higher presence of beneficial insects, and it adds the other advantages of conventional farming such as higher yields.

Such higher yields are enormously important. They are not only economically beneficial to consumers in developed countries, but especially vital to the health and well being of those in underdeveloped countries who might well starve without such technology.

Little wonder that many scientists, such as Cambridge chemist John Emsley, believe that “the greatest catastrophe the human race could face this century is not global warming, but a global conversion to ‘organic farming’– [where] an estimated 2 billion people would perish.”