Organic farming could feed the world (says 20-year study)

[Narz]

From New Scientist

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12245-organic-farming-could-feed-the-world.html

Organic farming could feed the world
13:46 12 July 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic

A switch to organic farming would not reduce the world's food supply and could also increase food security in developing countries, say the authors of a new study.

They claim their findings lay to rest the debate over whether organic farming could sustainably feed the world. Organic farming avoids or heavily restricts the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, as well as livestock feed additives.

Numerous studies have compared the yields of organic and conventional methods for individual crops and animal products (see 20-year study backs organic farming).

Now, a team of researchers has compiled research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems.

Available materials

Ivette Perfecto of the University of Michigan in the US and her colleagues found that, in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms. (italics mine)

Perfecto points out that the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible to farmers in poor countries.

Those poor farmers may buy the same seeds as conventional farms use in rich countries, but they cannot afford the fertilisers and pesticides needed for intensive agriculture. However, "organic fertiliser doesn't cost much – they can produce it on their own farms", says Perfecto.

Using data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the team then estimated what would happen if farms worldwide were to switch to organic methods today.

The world currently produces the equivalent of 2786 calories per person per day. The researchers found that under an organic-only regime, farms could produce between 2641 and 4381 calories per person per day.

Misplaced debate

Perfecto's colleague Catherine Badgley says she believes the calculations they carried out to arrive at the upper number are more realistic. These took into account the higher yields that would be obtained in developing countries, and the details of which crops are grown where.

She points out that even the lower number is sufficient to feed the world. Nutritionists recommend that people consume between 2100 and 2500 calories a day.

The debate over whether the world can produce enough organic food is misplaced, argues Perfecto: "We are producing enough food – it's a question of distribution of that food."

The researchers also found that small farms tend to produce more per hectare of land. (italics mine again) "An increase in the number of small farms would enhance food production," they say. They also note that although organic production tends to require more labour, this labour is often spread out more evenly over the growing season, making it easier to manage.

Precision farming

Carl Pray, at University of Rutgers, New Jersey, US, says there is good evidence that small-scale farming in developing countries is more efficient. This is probably because small farms put more effort in the precise management of small areas of land.

But, he says, "the likelihood of all farms reverting to 'small farmerdom' is a big question in an age in which labour is becoming more and more expensive. Take China and India, for instance: the demand for labour is such that people are continually being pulled out of the countryside".

Perfecto, however, maintains that the idea that conventional farming is cheap is a fallacy. "That is not including the real costs. Once you incorporate the cost to the health of people, once you incorporate the environment cost – then organic agriculture is a much superior system."

Pesticides are associated with a number of diseases, including cancer – a fact that was first brought to public attention in Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. Organic farming is thought to benefit biodiversity and the environment, as well as human health.

Journal reference: Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (vol 22, p 86)

It's encouraging that people are getting out and doing this type of research. It seems obvious to me that less energy & material intensive agriculture would be superior in 3rd world countries but it helps to actually get real world data on it. I hope articles about these studies make it to more mainstream news sources (NewScientist is great but it's not equally the Wall St. Journal or the NY Times in terms of readership) and most important into the minds & hearts of those in power.

BTW, I may have posted a link to the study mentioned in the article before (the study IIRC is two months old) but I thought this was a fine article about it and that it deserved it's own thread.

It's good to see even Perfection is starting to realize the superiority of organic farming.

Perfecto, however, maintains that the idea that conventional farming is cheap is a fallacy. "That is not including the real costs. Once you incorporate the cost to the health of people, once you incorporate the environment cost – then organic agriculture is a much superior system."

 

[LightFang]

Huh. Really? Organic farming is good?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Is-Organic-Farming-Bad---If-It-Is?&id=532724

In 2002, Swiss scientists at the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture published in "Scientist" a highly publicized study. Their study, which covered 21 years, compared four types of farming. Two of those types were organic farming. The other two types were conventional farming.

Reporters quickly stated that the study proved organic farming was more efficient. Organic farming's advocates said the study showed that organic farming uses 50% less energy. The facts?

1. Conventional farming is 20 percent more productive than organic farming.

2. Crop yields were significantly lower in organic farming.

3. The above two facts meant energy savings in organic farming were actually only about 19 percent per unit of crop produced, not 50 percent.

4. The study did not test organic farming against the most current methods of conventional farming. If it had, experts say, the 19 percent advantage of organic farming would disappear.

5. Current conventional farming matches organic farming when it comes to environmental advantages. Both have beneficial insects, produce less pesticide and fertilizer runoff, and reduce soil erosion.

6. Food quality was almost identical in conventional and organic farming. Advocates of organic farming had long claimed their food was far superior.

7. Current conventional farming methods produce the same or greater yields mentioned in number 1 above.

And, if you want something more up to date, from the same website:

Skimming Mr. Avery's book, one finds statements that indicate:

1. Organic farming started in the 1920s when a German mystic advised use of only animal manure because synthetic fertilizers had no cosmic energy.

2. Soon, the wealthy decided manure-fertilized produce was better.

3. J.I. Rodale first published his "Organic Gardening Magazine" in 1942, and the organic farming / organic gardening movement was named.

4. In 2007, organic farming advocates still have no credible science to support their beliefs.

5. Organic farming does not avoid pesticides. About 5 percent a vegetable's weight is natural pesticides, some of which are cancer-causing.

6. Foods from organic farming have more illness-causing bacteria. (The January 2007 issue of "Consumer Reports" showed that chicken from organic farming has 300% more Salmonella than that from conventional farming. University studies have found more bacteria in vegetables from organic farming than in vegetables from conventional farming.

7. If organic farming, which decries synthetic fertilizer, was chosen over conventional farming, we would have a choice. We could kill millions of people to reduce global food needs, or we could sacrifice wildlife habitat in the amount of millions of square miles so we could produce more manure.

 

[Kozmos]

How does Farming-Technology beat Farming+Technology? It just doesnt make sense.

Oh yeah I just used the chewbacca defense. But really it just doesnt make any sense.

 

[taper]

The simple fact that organic food costs more at the store kinda destroys this study. As mentioned earlier, the world isn't even close to a shortage of food, those that don't have enough to eat can't afford to buy the available food. They need to get beyond subsistence farming, even if(if the study is correct) smaller farms are more productive per acre.

 

[Narz]

Skimming Mr. Avery's book, one finds statements that indicate:

1. Organic farming started in the 1920s when a German mystic advised use of only animal manure because synthetic fertilizers had no cosmic energy.

Mr. Avery is evidently misinformed. Organic farming was all there was until around the 40's, IIRC.

You obviously didn't read the OP. It states that while organic farming's yields are slightly lower in the first world they are 80% higher in the third world.

And the environmental toll they take on the land is less (see linked article).

Keeping in mind that the rate of oil extraction will eventually peak and go into decline (it may have already) and most pesticides & chemical fertilizers are made from fossil fuels does it make sense to remain dependent on such an energy intense system.

Your study is archic and probably severely limited. Feel free to link me directly to the study (and perhaps some peer reviews of it for balance) but I imagine it studied only ONE size of farm (an 5000 acre industrial farm may be more efficient than a 5000 acre organic farm with about 1/10 of the industrial farm's budget but how about comparing a 50 acre "convential" farm to a 50 acre organic farm where both farmers have equal funds to spend on machinery, workers and in the conventional farms cases chemical fertilizers and pesticides).

It's easy to warp statistics to make organic farms look bad. The current study appears alot more balanced than Mr. Avery's.

Also I'd like to see a source for the "fact" that "5 percent a vegetable's weight is natural pesticides, some of which are cancer-causing." (which vegetable, what percentage, if any, has been proven to cause cancer).

Seems like a lot of questionable conclusions based on one study. It's good they did more (New Scientists source cites multiple studies) to explore some of the previous one's premature conclusions.

 

[Narz]

The simple fact that organic food costs more at the store kinda destroys this study.

Just because it costs more in the store in America doesn't mean it would cost more for 3rd worlders to grow and distribute. Whole Foods is a corporation like any other and it's goal is to maximize profits at the expense of good-intentioned people who want to be healthy. Also, conventional farms in the US are MASSIVE and therefore can afford to offer lower prices. Also, organic certification costs quite a bit of money. Which is why many small farmers at your local farmers market probably have organic quality but cannot legally call themselves organic. Much of the produce (and/or fish, meat) is of cheaper price and better quality than the organic you'll find at a place like Whole Foods. Often it's even cheaper than "convential".

As mentioned earlier, the world isn't even close to a shortage of food, those that don't have enough to eat can't afford to buy the available food.

Some nations suffer from lack of food and unsustainable populations. Sure you can cart in food from foreign nations (creating dependency basically) but a more sustainable solution is to help them feed their own. "Give a man a fish..." (you know the rest)

TThey need to get beyond subsistence farming, even if(if the study is correct) smaller farms are more productive per acre.

Factory farming is below subsistence because it's not sustainable in the long term (soil depletion, ecological destruction, etc.). Many of the great empires fell, in part, due to improper stewardship of the soil. We're trying to get around that now with massive chemical input from nitrogen fertilizers (or simply adding synthetic vitamins & minerals to other deficient food) but we're only delaying the inevitable and in the end, it will be worse if we don't alter the way we farm.

 

[odintheking]

Well, I'm sure it could, but the problem isn't in the production, it's in the distribution. We make enough food now to support everyone in the world, but the distribution is flawed, causing many to starve.

 

[Avocado]

Pesticides cause cancer.

Pesticides disrupt the endocrine system and create hormonal imbalances.

Pesticides cause chronic fatigue.

And the list goes on and on....

Organic Farming + PROPER Technology = The Best Farming Ever. Organic farming is not farming without technology, it's farming that actually nourishes the land.

Food that is made bigger with the 3 basic elements is not nutritious. It might yield more and look bigger, but is void of real nutrition and trace elements.

Food made bigger through rock dust, dilute ocean water, compost, ormus etc... is super powerful food that fills you up MUCH quicker than food that is void of real nutrition.

Plants that are given 92 trace minerals are NOT going to die from fungus or pests or require incredibly toxic chemicals to kill off the critters that take the planet over. Their going to be so strong that it's almost impossible to kill them. And they make us that strong and resistant to disease too. Strong healhty plants make healthy people. Weak hybrid conventional plants that can't survive without human intervention make weak people.

Food needs to be grown for nutrition, not for yields.

http://lifeandlove.tv/environment/dwolf-growing/dwolf-growing.php

 

[Avocado]

And if you think organic food costs a lot of money, you are probably broke.

 

[odintheking]

Welcome to CFC, Avacado! Although it does seem weird you signed up for the forums just to argue in this thread, .

BTW, in Human Geography last year we had a (rather violent)debate about this very subject.

 

[Avocado]

LOL Hey =) Thanks for the welcome....

I come from the http://www.sunfood.com forums, Narz posted this thread and invited us over here, so I figured I'd sign up and speak my mind..

 

[Merkinball]

Nobody's starving because of poor distribution. People starve because they don't have enough money to buy food. Or they're forcibly displaced.

 

[taper]

And if you think organic food costs a lot of money, you are probably broke.

I didn't say it cost a lot of money, only more than conventional food. And for those that are broke, it can make a big difference.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful with our use of chemicals and monoculture planting is asking for trouble. My grandparents on both sides were farmers, and some of my relatives still farm. Anybody want to try and argue that the pesticides, fertilizers, and artificial hybrid seeds of the green revolution didn't lower prices and increase production?

 

[GenMarshall]

But yet, Organic Farming is too dang expensive.

 

[Mise]

You obviously didn't read the OP. It states that while organic farming's yields are slightly lower in the first world they are 80% higher in the third world.

Narz, it's 80% higher in the third world, but 8% lower in the West. That means that if we implemented modern Western farming techniques to the third world, it would increase their yield by 96%.

 

[ani uk]

in the long run with health costs, organic food has got to come into its own. but IMO it is not just organic. there needs to be a permaculture angle to it also. we can not keep medicating the population at such a high cost to society.

if conventional growers continue on the path they are going eventually there will be no unhybridized foods or non gm.
has already taken over 1/2 the world with their gm foods and terminator seeds. how long will it be before there is no such thing as a non gm and everyone has to buy seeds every year because they can no longer germinate their own.
does that not worry anyone (everyone) out there.

as for starvation and distribution. i think IMO there would be plenty of food to go all round if freetrade and the WTO were radically overhauled and food wasnt stockpiled to keep prices artifically high.

 

[nivi]

I don't know how much "Organic" is realy preferred, now that it has boomed, the big buisness' got into it, and they still don't have the consumer best intrest at mind.


Just a small anecdote:
There has recently been a exposé on what "freerange" and "fresh"(meaning they come to the markets faster then regular) chicken egg farmers has been doing, that is to add chemicals to alter the color of the yoke so it will look more appealing, they will litrally order off a catalouge the color of the yoke they want. Bah!

 

[StarWorms]

More organic farming means that we'll need more farms because they give less output, which means more forests need to be chopped. For overcrowded countries like the UK, that's not feasible when farmland is being taken over to make way for housing.

People in the third world mostly use organic farming because they can't afford chemicals. However, when used, it really does benefit their output and those that can afford it end up getting even richer.

I hate this new trend for people to choose "natural" products, often dismissing things like GM as harmful when there's no evidence to suggest it. Sadly, my mum has fallen for it too. Just yesterday I noticed she'd bought a bag of potatoes. The first thing I noticed was they hasn't been cleaned and had mud all over them, but because people see that as natural, they think it's good. Without the chemicals used you end up with a shorter shelf life of the products and there's a higher risk of finding things like maggots in your apple or some kind of fungal disease on your potatoes. I've noticed that over the last few years, supermarkets have been stocking organic bananas, about a third of the size of normal ones you'd find, but at the same price. Oh, and in a plastic bag - that's a bit ironic. Personally, if I could be bothered, I would deliberately go around the supermarket picking up the GM variety of products instead of the normal ones. I certainly avoid organic food because it is overpriced and of lower quality.

 

[Warman17]

What crops yield 80% more? Probably not fruits. Natural fruits are much smaller than our artificially enlarged fruits here in the 1st world. Most certainly not meat where in the 1stworld we can pack animals full of steroids to enlarge muscle mass.

The problem I have in this study is that it uses calories per person to determine if we can feed the world. However it doesn't take into account that everyone needs a balanced diet. "Artificial" foods can have nutrients artificially added to them to avoid dietary diseases. Sure you could be able to eat 2500 calories of say potatoes or other cereals, but where is your anti-scurvy vitamin c coming from? Where are the rest of your vital nutrients coming from?

If the study made claims that organic food could achieve a balanced diet for everyone, rather than just enough to feed them, I'd support it much more.



Also going back to the 80% The article itself admits its from the technological or financial upkeep that the 3rd world can't supply. Instead of just having everyone forget the problem of poverty at hand and switch to organic, why not aid 3rd world countries in creating an infrastructure capable of maintaining these more modern systems which WILL (as shown by the article) produce more when properly handled.

 

[Truronian]

Can't we just wash the pesticides off?