Eric Brown wrote:
>  This list discussed the study comparing organic and conventional 
> rapeseed not too long ago. (snip) In any case, there are systemic differences, and in that 
> study the organic system (as a whole) was favorable. 
Only if you are only looking at percent increase when pollinated. The 
organic had no increase and the GM self pollinating crops had 33% 
increase. So the self pollinating crops benefited from pollination. That 
is where the anti-GM folk jumped in and twisted the data.

If they were honest and included the rest of the data, they would have 
to report all the non-organic crops had higher yields than the organic 
even without pollination. The organic crop also suffered from pests. The 
organic fields were much smaller than the other fields, had other 
crops/nectar sources around them, while some of the GM fields were 
surrounded by forest and had no pollinators. They still out produced the 
organic fields.

That self pollinators benefit from pollination is not new. Nor is the 
finding that organic crops have smaller yields because of pest damage. 
If organic actually increased yields over other methods, everyone would 
be organic. Unfortunately it is not sustainable.

There was a time when mankind was completely organic and enjoyed 
sustainable famine.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************