>Earlier postings (months back) during the OFPA debate revealed concerns
>that organic production might be taken over by big corporations focussed
>only on the bottom line -- ie, lacking the holistic, philosophical basis
>of the organic movement; this is a feasible outcome as long as the cost-price
>spread is attractive.
>I don't know whether farming organically for financial reasons might slowly
>lead to acquiring a deeper appreciation of agri-biological processes and
>evolve toward the more desirable philosophical underpinning of organic
Here in Iowa I notice a push for the big corn and bean guys to convert to
organic. ISU is helping them with the how-tos but I'm not sure all the whys
are covered, besides the hip trendy "added-value" reason.
I see these moves lean heavily on the bottom line factor and holistic
principles are, imho, not the main reason or even considered. And I'm not so
sure this evolution you speak of will take place.
So is it ok for a farmer to go organic for pure business reasons only? And
what should he be called? A clean-soil farmer? A scab? :-)
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: