songbird wrote:
i don't recall this link being posted,
i've not read it yet, but supposedly it is a
comparison between conventional methods and
organic done for 30 years.


http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-c...okletFINAL.pdf


songbird

So where are the details available that justify all these claims? In which
peer-reviewed journal was the detailed study published? Were are the methods
described? Who wrote this summary? Who supervised the study? Who audited
the books? How do the references given relate to the body text, that is,
who actually said what?

The summary has little content in 13 pages and lacks any reference to the
methods, the raw data or the analysis performed which relegates the document
to merely a public relations campaign that is all about asserting a case not
proving it. I was somewhat alarmed to find things like this definition
"sustainable is a system that can maintain or enhance soil fertility
indefinitely". A very narrow and to me even quirky definition. It makes
me wonder what other oddities there might be lurking in the detail. But
maybe there is more behind the scenes.

I would think 30 years of work could not be presented in a summary like this
as it would fill several fat books. It is also quite reasonable that a
first level summary ought to be pitched at the average citizen not a
technical audience. However a summary ought to at least tell you where to
get that detail so that it can be reviewed. So I followed the URL to their
site and down into the FST section. I found a page of references ( 40 or
more) to academic papers on individual topics. Highly specialised topics
like this:

Douds, D., Janke, R., and S. Peters. 1993. VAM fungus spore populations and
colonization of roots of maize and soybean under conventional and low-input
sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 43:325-335.

So there are in fact many studies in peer-reviewed journals but nothing in
between the two levels. Either it is the glossy magazine or you have to
read all the papers.

Do the papers support the summary? I don't know and probably cannot find
out as: a) I don't have a week or two to wade through 40 papers b) I would
doubt that there are many living individuals would have the breadth and
depth of knowledge to properly review such a wide spread of highly
specialised content, I am certainly not one. This is the crux of the
matter, to show that together all the low level changes they have documented
are real and relevant and together are responsible for the sweeping success
they claim. But they don't show that.

They may conceivable be right but I don't see this type of presentation
making too many converts. The faithful will of course love it but that
won't influence those who ought to take notice; farmers, business leaders
and legislators. Which is all rather sad.

David