A study done at the University of Michigan found that organic crops produced yields no different than conventional farming in developed countries and may actually increase the yields in developing countries. This could be for a couple of reasons including “narrow row spacings, environmentally friendly soil conservation practices and natural insect control” but also the general fact that organic farmers give a lot of though on how to get the most out of their land (possibly because the CW is that organic yields are less?). An MSU extension guy says that this doesn’t jive with his experience, but when it comes to anecdote vs data, I’ll go with the data unless there is a compelling reason in the anecdote why the data may be wrong. I’d like to know more about why developing countries could actually increase their yield. Any ideas?
Also, I’m tired of news agents giving opposing views equal voice when it’s clear they are coming from a weak position. The whole “give both sides of the story” is BS and a disservice to readers when one side is wrong (or can’t make a compelling case). It also leads to stupid he said, she said stories. This isn’t a very bad case but they should at least put a flag in there, like “Joe doesn’t agree but admits he hasn’t collected any data on the subject”.