Apologists for industrial food production often level what they see as a devastating charge against organic agriculture: that it could never "feed the world."
The claim goes like this: industrial ag produces higher yields, and as global population grows, we're going to have to squeeze as much food as possible out of the earth, by any means necessary, to produce enough sustenance.
Not so long ago Norman Borlaug, that aging lion of industrial ag, growled:
[D]on't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this [pro-organic] misinformation becomes destructive.
(Borlaug and his followers rarely mention that even in this age of petrochemical-charged agriculture, some 820 million lack enough food to eat.)
But mounting evidence suggests that organic agriculture at least matches, and may even outperform, chemical agriculture, even in terms of yield. The latest evidence: a study from Iowa State University.
After a nine-year study involving what researchers believe to be the "largest randomized, replicated comparison of organic and conventional crops in the nation," the researchers found that for corn organic yields beat conventional, while for soy the two styles performed similarly.
And while conventional agriculture has been shown to degrade soil structure and impede its ability to hold water, organically managed soil holds up much better.
[Head researcher Kathleen] Delate said the organic plots infiltrate more water, which reduces soil runoff and more effectively recharges groundwater supplies. The organic soils also cycle nutrients more efficiently, making them available when and where the plants need them. Soil structural stability also remained good, despite increased tillage involved with the organic rotations.
Thus organic ag seems to not only produce as much as or more than conventional, it also does a much better job of conserving soil and water in the process -- surely an important consideration for any long-term plans to "feed the world."
The Iowa State findings echo those of other studies. This past summer, researchers at the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, organic and conventional growing styles yield roughly the same amount of food.
But in the global south, "food production could double or triple using organic methods."
Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Threaded
GreenEngineer Posted 6:18 am
14 Nov 2007
Thoughts?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:32 am
14 Nov 2007
"In the fourth year, organic corn yields in the longest rotation outpaced those of conventional corn."
How long does this last? Will organic corn continue to outpace conventional corn year after year? And is land left fallow at any point? If organic corn yield is higher year after year, but the land is not producing food every fifth year, it doesn't really seem more productive than conventional agriculture?
[Since no one responded to an earlier post... How do organic farmers control corn borer and/or minimize contamination of their product by fumonisins, toxins produced by fungi which can infect a growing corn plant, especially if the plants are injured by corn borer?]
"Soil structural stability also remained good, despite increased tillage involved with the organic rotations."
Despite increased tillage? Hmmm... When comparing organic and conventional agriculture, folks might want to start looking at energy and labor costs. Organic: high energy in a world short on fossil fuel for tractors and high labor in a world where people are looking for high-paying and comfortable jobs. Conventional: low- or no-till and reduced labor.
"This past summer, researchers at the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, organic and conventional growing styles yield roughly the same amount of food."
This depended on planting a nitrogen-fixing crop between growing seasons. Where is this possible? I'm not denying that it is possible, but it is difficult to imagine a farmer in Wisconsin -- and a large portion of the rest of North America -- planting a nitrogen-fixing crop right now. Lows are in the 20s at night and farmers are still removing corn stover from their fields to feed to their livestock. When were they supposed to plant the nitrogen-fixing crop between growing seasons that would liberate them from the need to apply fertilizer?
Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 8:40 am
14 Nov 2007
Wisc: yes, pests are a concern...regular rotation, soil-enriching activities, and smaller amounts of each crop per farm are the best ways to deal with them. Off farm inputs, organic or not, and cultural methods like tilling and tools get outstripped fast with huge numbers of plants.
And about nitrogen, there are nitrogen-fixing cover crops appropriate for nearly every region. There is one which I can't remember at the moment that is very small/low growing, and cold tolerant, so it can establish before winter in harsh places. If I can turn up the name of it, I'll post it up.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:45 am
14 Nov 2007
Re: nitrogen fixing plants. Aren't all legumes nitrogen fixing? I think you just need to make sure you allow the plant, or at least the roots, to stay in the soil. So you wouldn't be able to harvest the whole plant, you'd have to pick by hand.
We've become so dependent on chemicals it's hard to imagine letting go of them. But non-chemical farming was the norm since the beginning of agriculture. So to think it's not practical seems very strange to me.
Permalink
nedruod Posted 12:29 pm
14 Nov 2007
Seems to me though, that it's not nearly so simple. Studies that compare the two in that way have a point; to establish that organic practices have yield advantages. But, if your only goal was higher sustainable yields, it seems to me there's practices not part of the conventional "organic" that when would, when combined with the extra labor and attention to detail necessary for conventional organic, would produce higher yields than either of the idealogical concepts.
What defines the two sets of practices isn't a mutual exclusivity of most of the practices, it's a set of values that defines the choices. Yields are important to both sets of practices, but conventional farming practices place labor efficiency as either first or just behind yield on the value list. Another way of saying this would be that conventional places profit as it's prime value, and profit is revenue-cost, which in a farm today is simplified as "harvest - (LABOR + land)". Thus the undecidedness between the primacy of bushels per labor hour or bushels per acre.
Organic places "naturalness" as the first and foremost priority. That organic clearly, rather than vaguely puts yields as a non-prime value is why people naturally assumed yields were lower. But organic farmers were more inventive and detail oriented which actually led them to do as good or better.
So.. my opinion is, we would benefit greatly from more detailed care of crops, many of the practices organic farming has discovered, rediscovered, or honed. But I also think GMO is a natural opportunity. Some GMO plants may be losers under a non-labor oriented value system, but I'm sure many GMO plants would be winners under a yield-sustainability-environmental mix of values. That may sound similar to organic, but there is an important departure from the naturalness ideology, that allows better focus on the goals I agree with. The fact that those goals are better represented by "organic" than "conventional" means I support organic. Still it's not a perfect set of values by my book, though I'm sure many would disagree.
Permalink
meander Posted 3:09 pm
14 Nov 2007
More on this topic, and how the Food and Farm Bill could make a difference at The Ethicurean
---
meander
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:01 am
15 Nov 2007
Yes, that is a very valid point. And casting the difference in terms of values/priorities is, I think, the best way to look at it.
Personally, I think that ideological adherence to a single system is kind of silly, and can actively be destructive. I practice organic and permaculture techniques on my urban farm, but I will also employ herbicides (glyphosate) on occasion. I'm just very selective about it.
On the other hand, I'm not growing for market. I hope that some day, the values around agriculture will have shifted enough that the practices and priorities of conventional agriculture will no longer even be considered an option. Until that point, however, maintaining organic as a distinct set of practices, defined by law, is probably necessary. At least, I don't see any way to liberalize organic standards in a sensible fashion without throwing the door wide open to abuse by agribiz.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:37 am
15 Nov 2007
One might argue that it is a slipperly slope and difficult to figure out where to draw a line. However, organic standards manage to exclude 100s of chemicals, while still permitting use of chemicals such as copper ammonium carbonate, copper sulphate, copper oxychloride, rotenone (VERY TOXIC), sulphur, potassium salts of fatty acids, nicotine sulfate, veratrine, azadirachtin, salannin, potassium permanganate, and pyrethrin.
Carefully thought out GMOs -- taking into consideration the views of experienced organic farmers -- could increase yields, restore soil, and eliminate ALL chemicals from agriculture.
Carefully thought out GMOs -- taking into consideration the views of experienced organic farmers -- could permit the growing of crops such as potatoes and cotton on a large scale without use of chemicals.
Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
Permalink
SnoDragon Posted 3:53 am
15 Nov 2007
Organic agriculture (and more importantly, sustainable ag) does take more managing. But that's the trade-off for not eating poisons on a daily basis.
And contrary to popular belief, farmers are not stupid. Though they are extremely cautious, and so are generally reluctant to take up any newfangled idea until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it works and works well. Hence the lack of organic farming in the U.S.
I'd like to note that just because it takes three years to become USDA certified organic, doesn't mean that there isn't a market for pesticide-free food. You just have to find local, instead of corporate, markets.
I personally would like to see lots of small, sustainable family farms that are well-managed and have local and regional markets. If we can do that, I think we can "feed the world" far better than industrial factory farming ever can.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:41 am
15 Nov 2007
This table indicates that farmer IQ's are relatively modest:
iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:52 am
15 Nov 2007
Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:59 am
15 Nov 2007
That said, every college counselor in the country has been encouraging their best and brightest to go into medicine, law, or technical professions for the last several decades at least. That's going to have an effect.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:38 am
15 Nov 2007
That theory has been tested and found wanting. See this book, especially Chapter 8, The Practical Validity of g, and Chapter 14, The g Nexus:
amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275961036
You can read some 50 pages of it online for free by clicking the Search inside this book link.
GreenEngineer wrote: It correlates strongly to income
Correlation does not imply causation.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:40 am
15 Nov 2007
Permalink
nedruod Posted 4:07 pm
15 Nov 2007
More likely in the short term, the change will be in what I'll call developing agriculture. That is, agriculture, occurring within the developing world. Here is where yield, sustainability and environment logically trump both labor costs and naturalist agendas. For reasons of power and history, this area is currently inspired mostly by industrial agriculture, but if you look out there, you can see organic practices being mixed in as well.
It makes logical sense, there is lots of excess labor, and as long as an area has reasonable stability, it would be an excellent use of that labor to maximize yields in a sustainable way. The only missing component is the influence over research agendas that insure more creations of the GMO, chemical, etc. research are in alignment with this set of values, rather than the labor sensitive values of the markets from which they derive most of their profits. It's coming though.
Permalink
high hopes gardens Posted 11:46 am
19 Mar 2008
Obviously Havana has some advantages of a full growing season that northern cities would not, but growing that much food organically in an urban environment is amazing.
Permalink