headline: "Organic Farming Shows Limited Benefit to Wildlife"

[mike_c]

Not sure whether to post this in GD or environment. The real problem, it seems to me, is that human populations are unsustainably large, and that we are reaching the point where stress on arable land is simply so extreme that methodological changes can no longer address the problems we're creating. Frankly, I see the Gulf oil spill in the same light. Too many people, using too many resources, too quickly.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505102553.htm
Organic Farming Shows Limited Benefit to Wildlife, Researchers in UK Find

ScienceDaily (May 6, 2010) — Organic farms may be seen as wildlife friendly, but the benefits to birds, bees and butterflies don't compensate for the lower yields produced, according to new research from the University of Leeds.

In the most detailed, like-for-like comparisons of organic and conventional farming to date, researchers from Leeds' Faculty of Biological Science found that the benefits to wildlife and increases in biodiversity from organic farming are much lower than previously thought -- averaging just over 12 percent more than conventional farming.

The organic farms in the study produced less than half of the yield of their conventional counterparts, so the research -- published online in Ecology Letters -- raises serious questions about how we can use agricultural land to maximise food production and still protect our wildlife.

"Over the next forty years, we're going to have to double food production worldwide to keep pace with population increases," says Professor Tim Benton, who led the project. "Our results show that to produce the same amount of food in the UK using organic rather than conventional means, we'd need to use twice the amount of land for agriculture.

"As the biodiversity benefits of organic farming are small, then the lower yield may be a luxury we can't afford, particularly in the more productive areas of the UK."

edited to add: more@link