View of Organic Growing.

[Mole]

Personally, I think that the stated objectives and methods of some Organic growers are a little confused, though much is laudable.

The jury's still out on whether food has more nutrition when grown organically (personally I think it will be found to when nutrition is totally understood). BUT non organic food is proven to contain more pesticide residues, so is to be preferred for that reason alone.

IMO The pesticide issue is the most obvious advantage. For our health and the planet. It seems logical and ethical that pesticides and herbicides which are proven to be persistent and have harmful effects to the ecosystem in the long term ought not be used. Unfortunately it's too late to


In terms of soil conservation, much Organic arable farming is no better than any other - using Glyphosate and minimum-till conserves soil when compared to ploughing.

(Riverford have been culprits in the past of seriously poor soil management- not sure what they are like nowadays.)

In terms of carbon use , it's probable that 'conventional' Organic Farming uses more fossil fuel due to it's reliance on both cultivation and flame weeding for weed control.

But possibly most important factor is that
Soil exposure to the air due to ploughing and cultivation is a major contribution to carbon emmissions. This has implications for all growers worlwide

See next thread

Mole[/quote]