"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
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,

--------------
A lot of qualifiers have crept in there, 'nearly' and 'some'
Remember the figures, we need a world wheat crop that is at least between
620 and 640 million tons. If it is under 620 the results are going to be
very bad indeed, the prices will rocket. The current estimate/hope is that
we might even be on line for 642 million tons
If the 'nearly' and 'some' mean a mere 10% loss of yield then we are down
below 580 million tonnes and people are going to go very hungry indeed.




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

----------
The healthier might or might not be argued, it depends on the soils health,
another problem is with the 'energy efficient per unit crop'
What on earth is a unit crop?
Indeed conventional agriculture is almost certainly not optimised for energy
efficiency, it is optimised for output because we have people to feed.

Jim Webster