“If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn’t
support the Earth’s current population – maybe half”
Nina Federoff
My last post identified that synthetic
fertilizers can successfully maintain and enhance soil quality, but at a significant
environmental cost. Organic agriculture aims to avert this ‘cost’ by only using organically fixed nitrogen incorporated into the soil via techniques such as crop rotation, companion planting and compost addition. Organic agriculture is generally perceived to be the 'environmentally friendly' choice.
 |
|
Fig. 1 Pro-organic slogan from American smoothie company claiming “100%
organic, no harm to nature” (Source: Organic Greenfix)
|
However, as I explained in my last post organically fixed nitrogen is limited. Humans can intentionally increase biological N-fixation but this requires time and space. Furthermore, some argue that organic
farming is only half as productive as conventional farming. Therefore, to maintain/increase agricultural production using 100% organic methods we would need to expand agriculture onto new land. Yet land use change to make way for agriculture (particularly deforestation) is one of the primary causes of soil degradation (see my third post) and biodiversity loss (see Ruth's blog). Is organic agriculture actually environmentally superior or is this just an urban myth?
More recent studies have challenged these low productivity claims. They have found that organic yields are highly context specific and may only be 3% lower than conventional ones if at all. Thus the debate continues…
 |
|
Fig. 2 Agriculture is responsible for
around 80% of deforestation worldwide. This photo shows deforestation in the
Papua Province Forest, Indonesia (Source: Archaeology News Network; Credit: Geografika Nusantara)
|
More recent studies have challenged these low productivity claims. They have found that organic yields are highly context specific and may only be 3% lower than conventional ones if at all. Thus the debate continues…
Hi Becca! Firstly, would you say that you are pro or against organic farming? I'd love to know your personal opinion. I know that if you frame the main goals as being able to feed the world, then perhaps organic agriculture is not the best. However, as you so effectively explained, fertilisers have such detrimental impacts on the environment - something which I personally think should not be excused. I'm really looking forward to reading about the other agricultural techniques you suggest that are less intensive!
ReplyDeleteHi Ruth,
DeleteI completely agree that the environmental impacts of conventional farming are too great to ignore. Clearly something needs to change … but I don’t think organic agriculture is the best alternative. I love the IDEA of organic farming and I fully support its principles but I just don’t think it is realistic at a global scale. This leads perfectly onto my next post, which is going to be about GM crops. These have the potential to allow us to both intensify agriculture AND dramatically reduce our artificial fertilizer use. Too good to be true? Tune in next week to find out!
Hello and happy world soil day!
ReplyDeleteThere's no doubt industrial/conventional agriculture is more 'productive' in terms of maximising inputs for greater yields. As you know, monoculture is at the core of this system which is heavily dependent on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, but it has been widely accepted that over time it actually undermines soil productivity and quality (which then requires more inputs). Soil degradation is rampant, even the FAO estimated we have about 60 years of harvests left. So what is ''productive''?
You also mentioned we would need to expand cropped areas if we were to grow 100% organic. I don't know logistically how organic farming could match the efficiency of industrial agriculture (which benefits from mechanization and inputs that ''control'' crop growth), but the amount of land already cleared for agriculture is already extensive... Surely it would take much more time to restore soil health using organic fertilizers and it would require much more labour, which are not cost-efficient for global food traders! Anyway, I love how much we can share and debate on subjects like these... There is no right answer at this point! Looking forward for your next post !
Hi Candida,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment and really interesting to see that you are also writing about the challenges we face in relation to food production.
You’re first question: “what is productive?” is a good one. Productivity fundamentally refers to a soil’s ability to grow crops. You raise the issue of timescale, which is important. Increasing short-term productivity at the expense of long-term productivity is different to sustainably increasing productivity. Yet they may initially be indistinguishable.
In my 5th post on soil management I discuss the need to ‘sustainably enhance’ the provision of soil ecosystem services (of which food production is one). The main problem with monoculture is nutrient depletion, which causes the chemical degradation of the soil (see my 3rd post on causes of degradation). In theory, you could overcome this degradation by re-applying the nutrients that have been lost. On an industrial scale this is usually done via synthetic fertilizers. However, to be effective and sustainable the correct balance of nutrients, in the correct quantities must be applied consistently at regular intervals. This is often not achieved. Furthermore, these fertilizers can have significant detrimental environmental effects, as discussed in my 8th post on fertilizer. Therefore, we need to come up with other ways to be sustainable productive! Organic agriculture IS sustainable… but it is arguably not productive enough (per unit area) to meet our current and future food demand. My next post will be looking at GM crops and whether these would be a better alternative to allow us to sustainably enhance our soil productivity.
I’m not sure whether your second point is a direct question or not. But (1) you highlight that agriculture is already extensive. Yes! It is already extensive and further expansion arguably limited. (2) you argue that it would take more time and more labour to restore soils using organic as opposed to industrial methods. I don’t know to what extent this is true. I think you need to be careful with terminology here because a lot of people would argue that organic agriculture CAN be industrial. According to many definitions, organic means ‘no synthetic substances or genetic engineering’; it does not mean ‘no machines’ (although this is often implied). Again I don’t entirely know what you mean by more ‘time’ to restore the soils… do you mean that it may take longer for crop yields to increase after fertilizer application for organic as opposed to synthetic fertilizers? This largely depends on how ‘composted’/decomposed the organic material that you are adding is... if it is very decomposed the productivity response can actually be quite rapid. Furthermore, even if organic methods of nutrient incorporation take ‘longer’ to ‘restore soil quality’ they may maintain this quality for longer without the need for constant reapplication. This is partly because they can help build up and sustain the soil microbiome in a way that synthetic chemicals often can’t. The role of the microbiome in sustaining the soil and improving its resistance to stress should not be underestimated and is something I shall come on to after I have looked at GM crops.
Sorry this response ended up being so long - but I hope that I have (at least) started to answer some of the questions you asked!
Thanks for the detailed answer! You raise a great point in highlighting that organic agriculture can be industrial. I guess I'm trying to imagine how 'organic' practices could be applied in industrial-scale plantations with the same efficiency as 'conventional' agriculture since chemical inputs are faster solutions to enhance soil productivity/avoid pests. You mentioned very decomposed organic material, but on a farm level, this takes up to months to be produced, no? But you are right in saying that the quality is maintained for longer!
ReplyDeleteAgain, you say that organic agriculture is sustainable but arguably not productive enough. I still don't see why organic agriculture would need to 'significantly expand'. It would be challenging enough to apply organic practices to all the already cleared areas, don't you think? Also, while GM and chemical inputs may increase yields, they degrade soil health over time undermining resilience and productivity. So should we compromise sustainability for productivity? If we understand that organic agriculture is an approach that works with nature to restore AND maintain soil health then it is sustainable in both senses (holistic and productive in the long-term) not to mention, like you said, these practices promote the resilience of microbiomes.
Timescale is an important aspect of why organic agriculture is considered less productive than conventional agriculture. You are right organic fertilizers tend to take longer to prepare and cover cropping (e.g. planting a field with clover to replenish nitrogen) means you lose a harvest (although crop rotation with edible legumes largely overcomes this issue). This is a serious limitation because farmers are working to produce as much food as possible each year.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of agricultural expansion, I think you are missing my point. I’m not saying that we SHOULD expand organic agriculture. I’m saying that IF we decided to produce all our food organically we would HAVE to expand the amount of land under production (if the low productivity claims are correct). I’m actually arguing against this because it is (a) not feasible and (b) not desirable (because of the negative environmental impact it would have).
In terms of the actual soil, I disagree that GM crops and artificial fertilizer inputs are unsustainable. This is a sweeping generalization that I don’t think holds true. The balance of nutrients in fertilizer inputs is key and if you get the balance right… their application should enhance not degrade long-term soil quality. However, you could consider them unsustainable in terms of their associated environmental impacts of eutrophication and GHG emissions (although these do not directly impact crop productivity). Or you could consider them unsustainable economically due to their significant expense. In terms of GM crops, what’s unsustainable about these? If we could engineer food crops to fix their own nitrogen (see my next post) then this is arguably one of our most sustainable options?! Again if you are referring to economic sustainability and Monsanto’s current monopoly on GM seeds then this is an entirely separate issue.
I also think we need to stop putting things in boxes as either ‘organic’ (seen as good) or ‘conventional’ (seen as bad). Most people (including myself) don’t reaaally know what organic means. It doesn’t just mean ‘no fertilizers’, it means doing things in a more ‘natural’ way that is more in tune with natural ecosystems. No till farming is seen as an ‘organic practice’, but there is no reason why conventional farms can’t use it too. No till reduces erosion, retains organic matter and reduces harm to microorganisms! This increases sustainability, productivity and the resilience of the microbiome (as you promoted). Yet it isn’t strictly organic! Similar to the argument that we shouldn’t classify ‘meat eaters’ and ‘vegetarians’ but recognize that there is a scale between the two extremes, I think we shouldn’t classify ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ farming. Let’s take the best from both to try to maximize sustainability AND productivity not chose between the two!!!
Hi Becca,
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post and thanks for the shoutout!! The last part of this post particularly struck a chord with me and is linked to something i've also written about. It's so interesting that you report that organic yields are so context specific - almost suggesting that if you were a real die-hard green environmentalist who only bought organic food for its environmental benefits - you might actually be quite disheartened to learn that the products you're buying aren't actually helping in the way you first thought! I know it's sort of a tenuous link - but I feel it comes round to being a conscious consumer - clearly someone who is buying organic food is trying to be conscious, but that's sort of made impossible if brands don't make it clear if their products are really and truly being organic (and when I say organic, I mean the growth of the crops aren't detrimental to the environment etc.) - Bit of a tangent I know, but just thought i'd share what your post made me think about!
Hi Ruth!
ReplyDeleteLoved your blog about biodiversity loss and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
You mention distinguishing between ‘organic’ and ‘truly organic’ and you define ‘truly organic’ as when ‘the growth of crops aren’t detrimental to the environment’.
You have struck right into the heart of the issue… people equate the term ‘organic’ with ‘environmentally friendly’ even though this is arguably not the case. In my opinion the most ‘environmentally friendly’ approach may be a combination of conventional practices, organic practices and genetic modification. I think we need to stop putting different types of agriculture into boxes whose labels people don’t really understand.