That's surprising, because it's the companies that employ these techniques, whatever they may be, that ensures their success or failure.
Just because you use bad science doesn't mean you will be a commercial failure or success. The market decides that, and regardless of the science involved, there is a market for organic produce.
It's the companies that decide how much they care about their land and their product. It's the companies that decide to prioritize quantity, quality or a sustainable balance of the two.
IPM, the methodology I propose as superior to conventional and Organic, does a better job of this prioritizing, by a number of science-based decision making processes that are part of the practices.
I'm arguing that your blanket statement is just that, a blanket statement, which is just the same as saying all organic agriculture is wonderful, as far as most people are concerned.
Some farms using Organic practices can be wonderful, I don't doubt this, but it doesn't mean it doesn't use outdated methodologies.
I'm far more interested in an informed consumer that knows how to find and support good agriculture, whether certified organic or not.
I don't argue that this isn't important and worthwhile, but organic methodology, from a good farm or not, needs to be brought into this century. There are movements to try and do this out there, but they are being resisted. I cannot condone a system that uses harmful Organic-certified pesticides when specific banned synthetic-pesticides could replace them and do less harm.There is no science behind such decisions, just rigid application of unchanging rules.
As organic is considered by the mainstream to be the main alternative to conventional farming, your blanket statement affects the perceptions of all those operations who fall outside conventional agriculture.
Yes, I do not recommend Organic agriculture as I see the public image it has is very misleading. That is my professional and well-read opinion based on the best currently available science, and will stay that way until I see evidence to the contrary. And if that evidence exists, I WILL change my mind. But it does not, and may not ever exist. That's not to say I recommend conventional farming either though.
As a farmer, I care less about the findings of a single study and more about the findings of hundreds of my peers. I trust those who make a living by observing nature to make accurate reports of when nature is doing well in their corner of the world. I trust those who have done this for 30, 40, 50 years and have found through trial and error, oftentimes, what promotes health on their land and what doesn't.
Human perception is innately flawed, and we developed science to be able to make decisions beyond the scope of our own flawed biology. Circumstantial evidence of 'what works' in agriculture needs to be proven by replicated studies in a variety of different scenarios. Otherwise, we get it wrong, or spend more resources than we need to to accomplish a task - rates of fertilizer for instance. While you know what works for your own land and perhaps a reasonable number of your peers, can you really make that same generalization for different soil types, different prevailing weather patterns, differing insect and microorganism and hundreds of other factors both across the country and, indeed, the world? Experience is valuable, to be sure, but you need science to figure out WHY your experience is valuable, and to apply it to other situations.
Perhaps you would feel less defensive if I were to point out the terrible consequences of conventional farming, with calendar-spraying of broad spectrum pesticides causing pest-resistance and destruction of the natural enemies of pests, resulting in a vicious cycle where conventional farming is the only approach that works without considerable effort? That's a problem, to be sure. In fact, I'll go as far as to say conventional farming is awful on many levels and that
Organic farming does have some clear advantages over conventional. However, my criticisms still stand. I could not, in good conscience, recommend either methodologies as best practices.
