yeah, industry (monsanto) backed science....that is about it.

I'm left wondering what, exactly, "science sides with agriculture" means. To what "science" does the writer refer? Fortunately, this promotional piece for inorganic fertilizers (Mr. Cornett is, after all, in the business of selling them) was published on the same day the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food published the report, Agroecology and the Right to Food, the result of a lengthy study of hundreds of small scale agricultural programs worldwide that follow agroecological principles. These programs showed huge growth in yields after converting from conventional farming methods, such as monocropping with accompanying use of inorganic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, to agroecological methods. The implications of the study are enormous, and confirm other research by the FAO, IAASTD, UNEP, UNCATD, the Rodale Institute, and Worldwatch Institute that show that agroecological farming can dramatically improve upon conventional yields, if given adequate support. While Mr. Cornett may be technically correct in stating that "inorganic fertilizers are unsurpassed in their ability to provide high levels of nutrients to plants in an efficient and economical manner," such fertilizers do nothing to improve the state of the soil itself (unlike agroecological methods), pollute our streams & groundwater, and are made from a finite and rapidly depleting resource - oil - which the IEA confirmed passed its peak world production in 2006. From here on out there will be more demand for the oil in a time of dwindling supply, and what remains is more difficult to reach and more environmentally devastating. And apparently Mr. Cornett does not believe in man-made climate change, as it doesn't merit much attention. It is absolutely ludicrous and irresponsible (at best) to discuss agriculture in this day and age without discussing climate change. Agriculture contributes 14% of man-made greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Conversion of forest land to ag and pasture contributes an additional 18%. Add food processing and transportation and our food production system contributes nearly 50% of all greenhouse gases. Additionally, inorganic fertilizer use accounts for 38% of the overall agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This MUST change or it will end us all. The increasing frequency of extreme weather events and decreasing predictability of precipitation are indelibly linked to climate change.
Agroecological (sustainable, non reliant on fossil fuels) ag methods are far more resilient in the face of climate change impacts.
Other points:
I too am proud of what our California farmers do - it's the most productive ag region the world has ever seen; but it is unsustainable. Period. Add looming water problems to the mix of what was not mentioned in this piece. I would like to point out that, we are not "keeping the world fed." There are now 1 billion people without sufficient food.
The writer's comparison of greenhouse gas emitting low-input conventional farms with "the majority of organic cropping systems" is a red herring. Most conventional farms in California are not low-input. And the vast majority of the agroecological projects studied in the UN report I mentioned use low- and no-till methodologies. Another UN report has unequivocally stated that the immediate large scale conversion to agroecological methods would allow agriculture worldwide to be carbon neutral by 2030.
Finally, the writer has touched upon an important distinction in his sustainability vs. profitability discussion. The U.S. and most of the rest of the world has recognized that each and every one of us has a right to adequate food. Period. Try and find profitability when we can no longer predict when rain will fall, floods will come, water is rationed or unusable due to pollution, and a barrel of oil tops $200. Good luck with that. But in the meantime, Mr. Cornett's got some fertilizer to move.