On Mar 8, 10:31*pm, Oz > wrote:
> Buxqi > writes
>
> >Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My interest in ecological
> >efficiency is based largely upon the observation that land has value to
> >animals as well as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast majority
> >of cropland could support much more wildlife than the hills and moors?
>
> Yes, of course that is true. Simply on biomass production.
>
> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> former means more food AND more wildlife.

"On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional
farming, measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years. The
bottom line: Organic farms can be nearly as productive as regular
farms for some crops, and they leave soils healthier. The study also
conclusively demonstrates that for most crops, organic plots are more
energy efficient per unit crop."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...296/5573/1589a

>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.