__________________

Actually, there is evidence to contradict your claims. It would appear that the results are inconclusive.

I usually don't rely on wiki as a source, but this one has footnotes to back up what's in the article:

Wikimedia Error

Productivity and Profitability
A 2006 study suggests that converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) and that organic farms have higher pre-harvest yields than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world. Nonetheless, the researcher purposely avoids making the claim that organic methods routinely outperform green-revolution (conventional) methods.[8] This study incorporated a 1990 review of 205 crop comparisons which found that organic crops had 91% of conventional yields.[9] A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields.[10]

Lotter (2003:10) reports that repeated studies have found that organic farms withstand severe weather conditions better than conventional farms, sometimes yielding 70-90% more than conventional farms during droughts. A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods over the long-term averages, but consumed less energy and used zero pesticides. The results were attributed to lower yields in general but higher yields during drought years.[11] A study of 1,804 organic farms in Central American hit by Hurricane Mitch in 1998 found that the organic farms sustained the damage much better, retaining 20 to 40% more topsoil and smaller economic losses at highly significant levels than their neighbors.[12]

On the other hand, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides.[13] A long-term study by U.S Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists concluded that, contrary to widespread belief, organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming. [14]

While organic farms have lower yields, organic methods require no synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. The decreased cost on those inputs, along with the premiums which consumers pay for organic produce, create higher profits for organic farmers. Organic farms have been consistently found to be as or more profitable than conventional farms with premiums included, but without premiums profitability is mixed (Lotter 2003:11). Welsh (1999) reports that organic farmers are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[15]

^ a b Badgley, C. et al'. (2006). Organic agriculture and the global food supply, description
^ Stanhill, G. (1990). The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 30(1-2):1-26
^ The Information Bulletin of the Organic Farming Research Foundationaccessdate=2005-12-18
^ Lang, S. (2005). Organic farming produces same corn and soybeans yields, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds Cornell University News Service. Accessdate 4-2-2008
^ Holt-Gimenez, E. (2000) Hurricane Mitch Reveals Benefits of Sustainable Farming Techniques. PANNA.
^ Maeder, P. et al (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science v296, , 1694-1697. Accessdate 4-2-2008.
^ ARS (2007) Organic Farming Beats No-Till?
^ The Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States.

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The end of an error.

__________________

If you want to use opinion newspaper pieces and dismiss academic journals, okay: here ya go, I got lots of those:

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Organic Food Myths Debunked

This is being edited in progress as I do each paragraph. Nothing will be changed in them already done.

Organic producers may also have pesticides. The problem with organic in the United States is really...there is no standard. It's deceptive. Many organic producers, however, only use "organic " pesticides, such as pyretherin, but they disallow the synthetic version which is different only in that it's more effective.

Another problem is that organic agriculture works off of the fallacy that if something is natural, it's assumed to be "good." Natural organic pesticides aren't necessarily any better than unnatural, non-organic ones.

I get the idea from the scientific literature, such as in Nature. They indicate that organic farming methods have lower crop yields on the same amount of land relative to conventional technological agriculture. Organic farms consistently produce less food. To get teh same amount of food, you need to increase land use. The reason for this is that the pesticides and herbicides are disallowed, and when some types ARE allowed, they tend to be inferior, thus restricting maximum production-to-land ratio.

There is little evidence that the soil is really richer, either.


This isn't actually true. Many organic farmers are large commercial operations, just with different methods. It's a myth that organic = home cook'n.

Except that's largely not practical for the scale of human consumption.

[/quote]

Correlation != causation, and the fact that some people in the past overused them, doesn't mean they are bad and we need to switch to primitive third world farming luddite techniques.

Of the the above sources used against me actually agrees with me, indicating that organic farming is less efficient because it has lower yields per acre, requiring more land for the same yield. And my source also indicates an alternative variation of conventional farming which also has similar effects, in studies, in producing more sustainable, rich soil. So it's not either/or. Modern technology can help better target and minimize unnecessary herbicidal and pesticide product use.

GM crops also have tremendous potential, and organic producers are irrationally against it.

Edit: It is true that organic farming methods can lead to equal output as conventional techniques for some crops over decades--if conventional methods are used irresponsibly. That doesn't help the problem that it's inefficient land use and leads to extended agriculture. It still produces less per acre when people actually need it, thus requiring more land use anyway.

It doesn't really matter if it produces as much or almost as much over 22 years if you compare equal plots of land. What do you think is going to happen to demand? Will people go "okay, I will consume less, because Organic is less efficient and uses more land to give less food." Of course not. In the meantime, we will be meeting increasing demand with more land to make up for the short-term inability of organic to produce, which means greater extension of the human footprint and increased environmental damage. No one is going to cut down demand because you want to. It will just not meet demand.

You're cherry picking. My link shows the jury to be out on the issue of "efficiency" of organic farming.

Furthermore, there are other considerations, such as, the impact of artificial pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers on the environment. Agricultural runoff is considered one of the factors in the poor condition of the Chesapeake Bay, for example.

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The end of an error.

The bottom line is cost efficiency, and then you have to credit the fact chemical pesticides and fertilizers are not being used. Compared to commercial farming the utilizes those huge tractors, huge trucks, packing plants, etc... family organic farmers have a low overhead for expenses.

I noticed you side stepped my comment that at least where I live "Organic" is a legal definition and relates to testing for pesticide residues. If you to not meet that standard, legal action is taken to disallow the use of the word "organic." This is especially the case when the large supermarkets are now stocking organic produce.

You also side stepped the political issue with commercial farming relying heavily on illegal immigrants while family organic farming doesn't.

And I also think the issue of using more land needs to be examined given the fact the commercial farmers are paid to not grow on land by the government. So you don't count that land as "fallow" and I do because it isn't being used.

Last but not least, family organic farmers do not get huge government subsidies.

__________________
National Debt =

Agricultural runoff is bad, but that's more a problem of poorly regulated, unchecked use. That's not necessarily the way it needs to be. And the natural pesticides allowed by organic organizations are also often harmful, except they don't work as well and require you to use more of them. Natural pyrethroids, for example, are inferior to synthetic ones.

Manure can put you at risk of diseases, such as e-coli, and despite some of the claims that grinding manure and beans into the ground, it doesn't show consistent results in improving soil conditions.

The modern world produces the food it does exactly because of GM, pesticides, and herbicides, which is why we have such abundant harvests such that we have exports surpluses.