Neil wrote:
> >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
Precisely.
Sheldon
|