"Neil" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >Organic production _definitely_ is good for the environment.
>>Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to developers.
>
> No real correlation there. Any system of farming that makes the farmer
> successful tends to keep the land out of development. Farmers are
> successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public desires.
> Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.
>
> Neil
>

You are misunderstanding. "Good for the environment" does not just mean
limiting development. I agree that limiting development is good, but organic
farming's benefits are different. It means that fertilizer runoff is
lessened with a decrease in harmful effects to rivers and lakes. It means
that fewer harmless insects and other animals are killed by pesticides. It
means that farm workers are not poisoned by pesicide residues. It means that
harmful insects and bacteria do not develop resistant strains. It means
fewer phosphate and other mines to produce fertilizer, and less oil and
other resources used to produce pesticides. It often means that erosion and
soil loss is decreased.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.