4) ... This is not correct. You can't just point to rate of output per area farmed and conclude that conventional is better for biodiversity and soil health. I

4) ... This is not correct. You can't just point to rate of output per area farmed and conclude that conventional is better for biodiversity and soil health. If you're going to do a comparison--you have to look at all the inputs. Account the footprint of the chemical plant where fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery comes from. Look at the shipping footprint to get those inputs into your fields. Look at the energy source for spreading them. Then look at fertilizer- and pesticide-use externalities. Conventional fields are net exporters of pollutants and species death. Whereas an ecologically rich field is going to actually filter water and net export richer biodiversity to it's surrounding ecosystem. The "conventional" advantage is on money and time--not concentration of biomass or biological health.