I have to agree with fruitgirl, but for reasons that most people seldom think about. No doubt about it, organic yields are comparable to conventional on a bushel-to-bushel basis. And I agree that organic methods do work. On certain plots, with certain techniques they may even out produce conventional several times over. However, what we seem to forget is that organic practices include longer rotation schedules than conventional. I live on a conventional farm in the upper Midwest and here the rotation is probably the same for most Midwest farm: corn, then soybeans, then corn again, then soybeans again, and so on, forever. An organic farmer would also plant corn, then soybeans. The third year is where the difference begins to show. The farmer is going to plant oats, buckwheat, or rye early in the spring, and then more than likely, it will get plowed under to break the weed cycle. After it gets plowed, the field will be seeded to alfalfa, or maybe timothy hay. If it is alfalfa, the field will remain in alfalfa for several years until the cycle begins again. THIS IS GREAT FOR THE SOIL!! But look what it does for the on-going, overall yield of corn and soybeans: over four years the organic farm has only produced one-fourth of the conventional yield of corn and soybeans. Of course, we can argue that is how farming should be done, however, our society and culture must undergo a tremendous culture shift in order for that to succeed. A whole lot less meat, and much more vegetables and grain. So fruitgirl rightly stated: "I'm not arguing that organic farms do not experience good yields. I'm saying that a large-scale organic farm doesn't get the same yield as a large-scale conventional farm because they have a harder time battling the effects of monoculture. And, as I stated above, the US (and most other developed countries) are not structured in such a way to allow for a multitude of small farms". In the end, it is this "really-good-for-soil" cycle that reduces overall yields, not the lack of chemicals applied to the soil. Small organic farms do out produce conventional farms. Small organic vegetable and fruit operations are better for our health, the environment, and our society as a whole. And despite the fact that I would wish the whole planet to go organic, I agree with fruitgirl, that our structure of food production is now geared towards feeding 6 billion people and difficult to change. Yes, we do add more organic acres every year, but China is adding them even faster than the US. The US hasnt met its need for organic production since 2000. Nearly 15% of all organic food sold in this country is now imported, and at the rate of production of organic food look-alike junk (Oreos, Cheetos, toaster pastries, etc.) the imports are only going to rise. Moreover, the rate of conversion of conventional to organic has slowed down. Unfortunately, I suspect suburbanites often fail to fully understand farming and fall victim to the shouts of the anti-agribiz types.

Hello Marshall, Brandan and others, Thanks for your interest in Whole Systems Ag and I am glad you enjoyed Dr B's paper. I think it's one of the best I've seen on oaks. Yes, I've visited the Santa Barbara museum many times when my family was living in Thousand Oaks. The botanic garden was a particularly nice attraction because, at the time, I was doing a lot of work with native plants. I checked out the PGI and that looks like a kind of Jungian place. I had a big interest in that stripe of psychology at that time too. At present, my work on the farm and with the tasks in front of my nose keep me from the more academic pursuits I once enjoyed. The garden at Pacifica sounds like a wonderful endeavor. Indeed, I'd be delighted if you should come for a visit. I seldom leave the farm so one time is about as good as another. It's easy to find just 6 miles or so north of the San Joaquin River on Highway 41 toward Yosemite. Send me a personal email at daddyoat@netptc.net and I'll return detailed directions.

I find the information on their site quite humorous. They must also be in the entertainment business. Here's a sample: "For much of this century, however that process has been reversed. With genetic seed improvements, fertilizers, pesticides and the relentless land efficiencies of corporate farming, we almost trebled (and in many instances, more than trebled) the land-to-food productivity of our agriculture. That has saved a tremendous amount of land..... "Biotechnology could double and redouble the agricultural productivity of land, in much the same way as silicon technology has doubled and redoubled the informational productivity of sand. We can do even better with livestock. First our cattle graze on the open range, then they fatten in feedlots, consuming much of the grain we grow. Triple the efficiency of the corn (if you can), then triple the efficiency of the cow (if you can), and you cut by nine-fold the amount of farm and range it takes to deliver a burger.... "Pesticides, preservatives, food irradiation and plastic packaging -- you name it, if the Soft Greens hate it, I can almost certainly add it to my list  almost all of these things have comparable effects. They sharply reduce losses along the food chain, from farmerÂs field to dining-room table, with commensurate reductions in the agricultural footprint. To put it another way, these things enhance the efficiency of the solar engines most widely used in this country and around the globe. TheyÂre not sitting on our rooftops, theyÂre not photovoltaics; theyÂre plants. Enhance their efficiency, reduce the losses, and you shrink the agricultural footprint." Sounds like a wonderful, sustainable, golden civilization to me. Here is a link that might be useful: Pristine America

This has come to light in recent years. There are what we call "native nazis" who insist that only very local plants are what they consider native and everything else doesn't count. For instance Amalanchier x grandiflora 'Autumn blaze' would not be considered native as a serviceberry hybrid by some. Then again others would consider it native. A native nazi would not order a red maple grown in Georgia and plant in in Alabama. As for could native species become invasive... yes I believe they most certainly can however they are generally well adapted to a specific area and there are natural controls in place such as predators, pests, diseases to keep it under control. Not so in the case of Juniperus virginia in some midatlantic and plains states however and definitely not the case of Black locust. I personally think the use of natives take out a lot of the guesswork in determining a plant's (or animal's) invasive potential however. So for me I could plant a DED resistant cultivar of American Elm for instance and still call it native. And I consider trees not immediately found growing around me to be native also provided it's hardy in my area. (Example: Honeylocust) I do prefer natives but I'm not strictly native. It just so happens my favorite plants are native anyway. I could care less about wildlife habitat in my yard and to be honest I'd prefer the wildlife eat and poop elsewhere. I am very opinionated on the subject of invasive species. And I'm strongly opposed to their sale and cultivation. That's a topic for another day.