>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.

The point about fertilizer run-off is completely immaterial; manure
run-off is as harmful to water quality and wildlife as synthetic
fertilizer run-off is; the question is, which can be applied most
efficiently, with less waste. And if you think farm workers are being
poisoned by pesticide residues, you have remedies under MSPA and OSHA
and our country's famously punative tort system to prove it under. You
don't mention the environmental expense which the creators of organic
fertilizers incur; it takes pasture and fodder to raise a cow. The
points about erosion and soil-loss are red herrings; "no-till" is now a
mainstream technique, but typically the larger operators have the
capital to do a better job of it.

Neil