I read your post, Kimstu, for what it’s worth; and also noted that it didn’t seem to be responded to. Let’s see what happens to this one (though look out – Long Post Warning!)
Yeah, the more I look at that it’s not a good cite. It’s wrong in other fashions also, such as that it’s comparing one specific protein in the GMO crop to total bulk of the organically permitted product, and in assuming that organic growers in general are using BT in a fashion in which few if any actually do (see response to Deeg, at the very end of this long post).
As far as the copper and sulfur goes, I’m just going to quote from earlier posts of mine on this board in a different thread, and also refer you to my post #46 in this thread, as well as to the very end of this one:
As far as the efficiency question goes, to come at this from more than one direction:
First, in order to properly talk about efficiency, it’s necessary to discuss what measure of efficiency is being used. Total salable yield per acre by weight? Total nutrient production per acre? Total yield, whether by weight or by nutrients, and whether or not including items eaten by the farmers, per amount of fossil fuel used? per amount of overall non-renewable resources used? per total calories required to produce a calorie of food? per impact on the topsoil, whether positive or negative? per impact on water quality? per impact on other species, including but not limited to those also edible for humans? per amount and cost of off-farm inputs required to raise the crop? per amount of human labor needed? Those are all different measures, and they’re not all going to give the same answer. (Higher costs for organic food in the USA and similar countries are affected, not only by marketing issues and the costs of organic certification, neither of which are inherent to the system itself; but also by the fact that currently in the USA the cost of running machinery and purchasing inputs – both of which draw on non-renewable resources – is generally less than the cost of human labor. This isn’t true everywhere, and may well not be true forever anywhere.)
Second, results vary pretty drastically among studies even just of relative yield per acre. And many studies are done using fields that have been in production [ETA: in organic production] only briefly, and/or involving farmers with limited experience in organic areas. The Rodale long-term studies, reviewed at Cornell, did indeed see a drop in organic production relative to conventional –for the first five years. After that organic yields came back up, to equal and in some years exceed conventional yields – in particular in dry years; organic systems tend to show greater resilience in shifting weather, which is likely to be very important.
And third, if what we’re after is the greatest possible yield of food per acre: while research is still limited, it seems likely that the way to get that is with polyculture systems, in which multiple crops are mixed together, not just on one farm, but in one field. These systems are likely to produce a lower yield of any one crop, but a total greater quantity of nutrients (and a wider variety of nutrients, very important for people in areas with poor food distribution systems, and for the farmers themselves in areas where little money is available.)
Polyculture systems are entirely unsuited for conventional farming, because they mix together crops of different families, planted at different times, not at the same growth stage at the same time, and generally harvested and eaten at different times; which means that they’re not suitable for the use of conventional (or often organic) pesticides, because herbicides that could be used on one may kill the others, insecticides that could be used on one will kill pollinators and other beneficials needed for the others, and days-to-harvest limits don’t work. They also don’t work at all with large scale machinery, and machinery that might work with such systems has for the most part not been developed. They require significant hand work – though the mix of crops does some of that work for the farmer; once well established and growing they’re generally not susceptible to damage from weeds, and weeds that appear early may be edible and considered more a part of the mix than a problem.
But if you want the most possible nutrition per area, in the form most resilient to changing weather, and especially if you want it in a form accessible to people without a lot of money, polyculture’s the way to go.
(Note: this was very small scale plots.)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwit2ca4jNbkAhUzIjQIHTzKBX04ChAWMAZ6BAgJEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fojs.ethnobiology.org%2Findex.php%2Febl%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F721%2F411&usg=AOvVaw3BCpmhGW4ZABPQsgB_CkS3
(Seems to be downloadable pdf only)
How about a couple of cites from India?
a field experiment was conducted at the research farm of Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India during 2003-06 in rice-wheat-green gram cropping system [ . . . ] The rice grain yield (4.0 t ha-1) obtained under combined application of four organic amendments was at par with the yield recorded under recommended dose of chemical fertilizer application. An interesting observation recorded was that there was no serious attack of any insect pest or dis-ease in organically grown crop. Soil microbial population (Actinomycetes, Bacteria, Fungi and BGA) enhanced due to the application of organic amendments in compari-son to absolute control as well as recommended fertilizer application that in turn re-sulted in a notable enhancement in soil dehydrogenase and phosphatase enzyme activity. Soil organic carbon and available phosphorus contents were also found to be significantly increased due to organic farming practice over control as well as chemical fertilizer application.
https://crops.confex.com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/P11639.HTM
A field experiment to know the effect of application of organics on the productivity of groundnut (cv. JL-24) was conducted in organic deficient Vertisols (Medium black soil) under rainfed farming situations at the Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka (India) during rainy season of 2004. [. . . ]
The results indicated that organic farming in groundnut produced 18.18 and 22.09 % higher dry pod yield and higher kernel yield over inorganic farming (2970 and 2345 kg dry pod and kernel yield/ha, respectively). Further, use of organics in groundnut production also resulted in higher pod number/plant (23.04 %), dry pod weight/plant (13.08 %), double seeded pods (6.62 %), shelling percent (3.34 %), sound mature kernels (3.94%), 100-kernel weight (0.14%) and harvest index (3.16 %) as compared to inorganic farming (20.4, 28.912 g, 136, 78.94 %, 88.42 % 50.76 g and 0.411, respectively). Groundnut crop in organically amended plot did not show moisture stress during the period of dry spell of 38 days due to greater moisture conservation. On the contrary, groundnut in inorganic farming showed moderate to severe moisture stress during same initial dry spell period.
Theoretically, quite possibly. Though I, at least, and a number of other organic growers, would want a different and more open attitude to testing and research first. Access to GMO seed for research purposes was heavily restricted for years
; and while a number of universities are now allowed to do such research without individual permission for each study, there’s still not an entirely open situation
. A living organism can’t be withdrawn once it’s released, and so requires extra caution. We’re having enough trouble with chlorofluorocarbons, which came into common use because they were genuinely considered less toxic than their predecessors – and genuinely were, except that we had no idea they’d have effects in an area it hadn’t even occurred to us to test; but at least those don’t manufacture and release more of themselves.
In practice, what’s currently available in GMO’s is things we wouldn’t want in the toolbox. We don’t want to use dicamba or glyphosphate; and we don’t want to use BT in the fashion in which GMO crops use it. Organic growers who do use BT apply it only when and if the target pest is present or can reasonably be expected (based on previous area specific history, current year appearance of the pest in nearby locations, scouting for adults, and relevant weather reports, not on just looking at the date) to be imminently present in the field at the growth stage at which it’s vulnerable to BT, and the crop is simultaneously at a growth stage at which it’s susceptible to the pest. We don’t use even biologicals by applying them continuously from seeding until and after harvest, whether or not the pest even shows up that year.