The Soil Biodiversity Aricle I Have Never Seen....

Much has been written about soil bio-diversity.  The basic premise is that intensive agriculture and intensive use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides leads to less soil biodiversity and this is bad for the overall ecology.

I am not disputing that typical organic agricultural practices provide better soil biodiversity, the question I have is this:  Is this a result of the pesticides or is this a result of the higher density agriculture?  Does anyone consider that in an organic agricultural environment, more acreage needs to be planted per bushel so that if production is converted to organic agriculture, some land that is currently fallow (with rich biodiversity) has to be put to the plow.

In other words, the real comparison between organic and conventional agriculture methods in the area of biodiversity is to look at comparing organic fields with the combination of conventional and fallow fields that would need to be cultivated if the fields were converted to organic production.

Said differently:  Organic agriculture can claim that their farms have higher biodiversity but one must factor in the additional amount of land needing to be put the plow.  If the organic agriculture has a 20% lower yield, than the comparison should include 20% (or more) of woodland included in the conventional tally.  In other words it makes no sense to compare the biodiversity within an acre of farmland farmed conventionally vs. organically unless one considers that more fallow land will need to be put to the plow for organic agriculture for the same amount of OUTPUT.  It is really a question of biodiversity across full ecosystems for feeding whole populations, not an acre vs. acre comparison.

My making this point should seem obvious and it is shocking that no one makes writes an article that considers the whole ecosystem.  Is it because they are trying to spin an article to support their biases by ignoring this point or are they just that naive?

Read more...