I am a conventional (meaning they shun organics!!) farmer's wife and I have to say that I have butted heads with my in-laws (and my hubby) many times because I too believe we should be striving to eat more organics, etc. Then my mother in law gave me an article out of a pork producer's magazine and it really opened my eyes. Some of you may jump down my throat for speaking out against organics (which I'm not strictly against because I still am afraid of chemicals and feeding them to my kids!)...but...please read some of these quotes because they definitely made me think twice:
"Without the higher food yields produced by plant breeding, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and confinement feeding, the world would already have destroyed virtually all of its forests to get today's food supply"
"Growing more food per acre leaves more land for nature and it leaves the most important land for nature"
"The world's best quality farmland never had much biodiversity. It had large numbers of a few species, such as the bison in America and the kangaroo in Australia...Without high yield farming, humanity's food needs would be pitted against the needs of wildlife. High yield farming allows us to feed both."
It also listed 6 myths about modern farming. The most shocking one to me was myth #4 "Organic farming is kinder to the environment":
"The first and foremost rule of organic farming is 'Thou shalt not use industrial fertilizer'" says Dennis Avery (Director of the Center for Global Food in Churchville, Virginia) "Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba says that means the world would need the manure from another FIVE to SEVEN BILLION cattle to make up for the 80 million tons of natural nitrogen we would no longer take from the air to create ammonia fertilizer. Each of those cattle would need at least 5 acres of forage per year. We'd have to starve half the people or clear all of the forest for low yield crops."
It also talks about buying local, which most people I think strive to do because they perceive it as kinder to the environment. Avery says that one example of when buying local takes more energy that importing is in the case of lamb production. He says that producing lamb in Britain uses more energy that raising lamb in New Zealand and then shipping it to Britain! Another point he makes is that although buying local produce is a good idea, it doesn't take into account "47 mothers driving individually into the countryside to bring home two pounds of tomatoes apiece".
"The Economist recently carried a major article on organic and locally-produced foods, and denounced both as frauds. The magazine noted that the Green Revolution had essentially tripled the crop yields on most of the world's good land. Reverting to organic, they said, would 'require several times as much land as is currently cultivated. There wouldn't be much room left for the rainforest'."
I know this isn't probably the viewpoint of most people on the forum and I have to say that until I read this article I wasn't really thinking of the bigger picture. Sure growing organic is better because of the lack of chemicals put into the final product but I have never considered the fact that organic crops generally have lower yields than conventional crops (generally!) and therefore the price is higher (supply and demand)...but because there is less food produced, more land needs to be cleared/altered to make way for more lower yield crops.
Just my two cents...and a little something to think about...
:wink:
