TUF, I would have to disagree with a lot of your points.
I will say that painting with a broad brush and using absolute assumptions is, well, uncool.
Basically, saying that soluble fertilizers and non-organic farming kills soil is a blanket exaggeration. This assumes that all conventional farmers are willy nilly spreading whatever ferts they want and are clueless. Don't get me wrong, this does exist, but not the norm based on my 1ST HAND experience.
I think if you were to go out and personally visit 100 farms and see their soils, soil tests, and look at what they are using for nutrients, the rates they are using, and their crop rotation, perhaps you would come up with an adjusted conclusion.
As far as quasi-organic being impossible, I think that is close minded.
I want you to go tell that to the farmer that i met with that has been no-tilling for 22 years, doing intense cover-cropping, and has raised his organic matter from 4 to 11 percent, all the while using commercial fertilizer and occasional herbicide. As I'm sure you know, that is a small jump mathematically, but a HUGE jump as far as what that means agriculturally.
His yields are way up, inputs are way down, and his drainage and compaction problems are 100% gone. His worm population is unreal.
This is just one farmer in one state.
So, in my experience, the EMPIRICAL and visual evidence is there to show me that a blend of biological/organic principals with conventional does build soil health, improves efficiency, and conserves resources.
To say that it is all or nothing smacks of zealotry towards an emotional attachment to an idealistic way of doing something. I understand your perspective, I am not a fan of chemicals.
However, I want you to think about your daily life. Do you drive a car? Think about all the fluids in that car. Gas, brake fluid, motor oil, gear oil, trans fluid. What did it take to make the battery?
Your home. All the materials in it. Your appliances, what are they made from. Your bedding?
How much plastic is in all of the goods you buy?
The point is, in and of themselves those things are 'bad' for the planet and us. But, we do the best we can to limit our exposure. We do our best to acquire the raw ingredients in a way that is good for all. Can we do better? Yes.
But if I take the blanket approach and say all industry that is no good all the time because we are killing the air, soil, and water by supporting these processes, and that nobody is gonna correctly use them so lets do away with them, I am left living in a cave with no electricity. So then my burning of wood for heat and light will be a problem because I am cutting down trees and putting carbon into the air.
|