Organic Agriculture

Approaches to Agriculture, Sustainability and Food Security
Agriculture has evolved remarkably since its inception approximately 11 000 years ago. Before humans learned how to ‘domesticate’ plants and animals, their survival depended upon hunting and gathering (Lambert, 2005). During the medieval age in England, farm sizes were characteristically small and run by individual pheasants, spanning on average below 5 hectares and yielding less than 9 bushels of wheat per hectare (Bailey, 2007). During the 1950’s the average farm size grew to approximately 100 hectares, and today that number is almost tripled at 300 hectares. Keeping in mind that the land dedicated to farming remained almost constant during this time, this increase in the size of farms was due mostly to the influx of the Canadian populous into the city and away from the farm. As of 2006, less than three percent of the Canadian population are farmers, a far cry from an estimated 80% before the industrial revolution (Statistics Canada, 2006). Not only has the number of independently owned farms and farmers, decreased but productivity has increased drastically. For example, Canadian wheat yields are expected to reach an average of 67 bushels per hectare this spring (Canadian Wheat Board, 2012). Though not a direct comparison to medieval aged farms run by pheasants in England, there is no doubt in claiming that agricultural productivity even one hundred years ago is incomparable to that of today. Having more than tripled since 1961, this increase in yields is due in most part to technological advances during a period known as the Green Revolution (Wik et al., 2007).
The Green revolution, as a technological response to a looming world-wide food shortage, transformed agricultural practice throughout the tropics and the sub-tropics, whose staple crops were rice, wheat and maize. Through substantial public investments in agricultural research, in only forty years wheat yields climbed from 2 to 6 metric tons per hectare, compared to a 1000 years for an increase from 0.5 to 2 in England. Combined with increasingly improving plant breeding, the advent of inorganic fertilizers, modern pesticides and now genetically modified foods, crop yields are finally reaching their peak under the practices of conventional agriculture (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2002).
Since 1960, the global population has more than doubled, from 2.9 billion to just over 7 billion today, while the demands on global agriculture production as a result of this population boom, have almost tripled. Thanks to the green revolution, this demand has been met…Or perhaps population would not have reached such growth rates had agricultural production not kept pace? Regardless, at present, there is enough food produced to feed the 7 billion human inhabitants of this earth, yet the food and technology consistently do not reach those in need (Sadik, 2000). Although approximately 900 million people are currently undernourished, the majority in developing countries, it is important to acknowledge that the proportion of those malnourished has decreased by almost half since the 1960s. Perhaps further improvement is possible (Wik et al., 2008).
‘How?’ is the next question. Inequitable food distribution is not the only issue currently facing global food security. Not only is population continuing to increase, expected to reach somewhere between 9 and 10 billion people, but income growth and development will also occur in developing countries, where most of this population growth is projected to occur, which could result in an estimated 70% rise in demand for food and other agricultural goods by 2050 (FAO, 2005). Climate change is another worry, having already threatened global food supply through increased droughts which reduce yield through water scarcity, heavy precipitation events which cause increased soil erosion, crop damage and water logging, tropical cyclones which disrupt food production, high sea levels which threaten agricultural production in coastal and low land areas (Stern 2007), and lastly increased pests and diseases due to higher average temperatures, resulting in lower yields and higher production costs (Bruinsma, 2003). These concerns are destined only to get worse, as the consequences of climate change increase in severity. Considering that almost all arable land is already in use, and that climate change and water scarcity are an increasing threat to crop yields, it may be the perfect time to consider how to initiate the next green revolution. Lastly, the heavy reliance on synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides is resulting in severe environmental degradation as well as health risks for humans. Such consequences include soil erosion and degradation, high water requirements, loss of biodiversity, pollution from fertilizer runoff, deforestation, carbon dioxide release, and health impacts related to pesticide residues on food (Soule et al., 1990).
These issues require a comprehensive look at the current agricultural infrastructure in place. While conventional agriculture boasts high yields, it is coupled with severe environmental costs. The alternative, which is known as organic farming, is much ‘friendlier’ in environmental terms, but fears of yield losses hinder its progress. Unnecessarily so, these two approaches to agriculture are often pitted against each other. This paper will attempt to value different agricultural approaches for their appropriateness in considering the issues at hand and will conclude with recommendations for how to best address them.
Organic Farming
The practice of Organic farming has increased in popularity during the past decade, driven by the demand of consumers for food that is perceived to be healthier for humans, and safer for the environment as compared to food produced by conventional agriculture. Organic agricultural techniques have a long history, having been employed for the past 6000 years in order to conserve water, soil, energy and biological resources. In general, organic agricultural practices do not include chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides or veterinary drugs, genetically modified organisms, and certain food processing chemicals and preservatives. These characteristics allow for benefits such as lower fossil fuel inputs, higher soil organic matter and nitrogen content, and similar or greater yield than ‘modern/industrialized’ agriculture (Pimental et al., 2005).
The negative impacts of conventional agriculture have resulted in the increasing popularity of organic foods (particularly consumer’s concern’s over the health impacts). From 2001 to 2006, Canada saw a 60% increase in the number of certified organic farms, and a 28% increase in the total sales of certified organic food from 2005 to 2006 (Kendrick, 2007). In the United States, the area farmed for organic production doubled from 1992 to 1997, with sales totalling over $7 billion annually and growing (Greene, 2004). Nevertheless, the academic debate over which is superior seems to continue. Critics of organic farming warn that a global conversion from conventional to organic would result in widespread famine and natural habitat loss. These claims spawn primarily from the argument that organic agriculture can only produce half of the yield that is possible with conventional agriculture (Smil, 2000).
This claim was explored by many academics, and their results have stated quite the opposite. In many cases, though not all, organic agriculture or practices has been shown increase yields, while conserving soil and water quality and reducing pesticide and inorganic fertilizer use. Badgley et al. (2007) completed a comprehensive study which evaluated the potential contribution of organic agriculture to the globa food supply. They investigated the main arguments against organic agriculture making a significant contribution to global food security, these include ‘insufficient yields’ and ‘inadequate qualities of nitrogen fertilizers’. They define organic as synonymous with agroecological, sustainable or ecological practices, and which may include the use of cover crops, manures, compost, crop rotation, intercropping and integrated pest management or biocontrols. It is important to note that they do not refer to a specific organic certification standard, but as mentioned, include farming practices which are considered sustainable and unconventional as compared to conventional agriculture.
Badgley et al. compared yields of organic and conventional food production using a global dataset of 293 case studies, and estimated the average yield ratio of organic versus non-organic in various food categories for both the developed and developed world. They also estimated the amount of nitrogen that is potentially available for use in organic production, considering what could be provided by leguminous green manures grown in between cropping periods. They found that for most food categories, the average yield ratio was marginally less than one for case studies in the developed world, and slightly greater than one for studies in the developed world. Using models, they estimated that organic agriculture could produce enough food for the global population on a per capita basis, and potentially even larger, without having to increase agricultural land. They also found that implementing a leguminous crop cover into the crop rotation would provide a sufficient amount of nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer that is currently being used globally.
There are many examples of successes in the organic agricultural realm. Stanhill (1990), making 205 comparisons of yields from organic and conventional farming systems, found that more than half of the yields for milk production and beans were greater than conventional systems. Pimentel et al. (2005) summarized findings from a 22-year long Rodale Institute Farming Systems trial, and found that even though organic corn yields were almost a third lower during the first four years of the trial, the organic treatment produced greater yields long term, especially when water scarcity is an issue. The greater yields were primarily due to improvements in soil quality as a result of organic inputs. The soil in the organic fields contained more moisture, organic matter, essential elements and had lower soil runoff and erosion than those in the conventional fields. However, the yield benefits may differ depending on the crop, as grains such as corn, soybeans and wheat are not as threatened by pests as other crops such as potatoes, cherries and apples.
Cost, is another consideration that must be taken, especially by famer’s whose livelihoods depend on the profits of their harvests. Organic crops typically require more investment than conventionally farmed crops, but in many cases they result in greater profits to the farmer, in the short and long term. One farmer, Joe Bradford, a USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientist, explored organic systems involving five pecan varieties and compared their yields and quality to those of conventionally farmed pecans. They applied various organic treatments, including poultry compost, rock minerals, mycorrhizal fungi and other nutrients. They were surprised to find that the organic treatment had greater yields than the conventionally managed orchard consistently over a five year period. Additionally, because of the increased quality of the nuts, their profits from the organic treatment were approximately $3,540 higher per acre than in the conventional agriculture treatment (Eddy, 2009). In summary, net income for organic farms appear to be slightly higher than for conventional, due to the price premium paid for organic products (Pimental et al., 2005).
The Organic Revolution and Urban Farming
One successful example of widespread organic agriculture occurred in the 1990s in Cuba, driven by the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent shortages in resources. This supply shock of oil in particular, was severe, with estimates of a fuel import decline between 1989 and 1993 of approximately 71%. Additionally, Cuba lost 80% of its import and export market, while the GDP dropped more than one third. This period was termed the ‘Special Period’ by Fidel Castro, to define the national emergency that occurred which included mass power outages, inability to run any fuel-operated machine, and resulting collapse of their industrialized agricultural industry. This resulted in an approximate average loss of one third of the average daily intake of food per Cuban. The remarkable reaction to this crisis, aided by their favourable climate, revenue from tourists, foreign investment and international aid, was a social reform, stimulated by the Cuban people. They turned to urban and local agriculture, which was largely organic, as they lacked the energy to fuel the production of pesticides and fertilizers (Friedricsh, 2010).
In order to convert to organics, they replaced petroleum-fed machinery with oxen, and reduced the need for food transportation by implementing local production. As of 2006, an estimated 50% of Havana’s (the Capital of Cuba) vegetables are local, and in other towns and cities in Cuba local food production accounts for 80% to more than 100% of their food requirements. Cuba is also using 21 times less pesticides than before the ‘Special period’, relying primarily on bio-pesticides and fertilizers. Although their caloric intake dropped from an average of 3000 calories per day to 1900 after the onset of the special period, because of their ‘organic revolution’ their caloric intake has returned to normal. Health issues have also decreased due to the healthier diet associated with local and organic food production, as well as the increased physical activity associated with farming as practiced by the majority of the Cuban population.
Although not driven by environmental activism, but by pure necessity for survival, Cuba’s ‘organic revolution’ provides a working model for countries to potentially follow should a crisis occur which stifles the abilities of conventional agriculture. According to Nugent (2000), the conditions under which urban agriculture prospers are after crises such as after civil, climatic, or macroeconomic emergencies, which result in poverty and food insecurity. Combined with good growing conditions, Nugent theorizes that the number one livelihood strategy in this state is to turn to household or community food production. In some developing, urbanised countries (such as East and West Africa, Southeast Asia and East Asia) where labour forces are growing faster in than new jobs are being created, unemployment and urban poverty and thus food insecurity, are increasing (IFPRI, 1999). Often and if possible, many of those who are experiencing these issues turn to agriculture in order to remedy their situation.
A major conversion to organic agriculture may not be possible in some countries, especially where climate, land space, soil type etc., are limiting factors, but where conversions are possible, the environmental, social and economic outcomes can be beneficial. For example, the upheaval of the Russian economy after the early 1990s resulted to increasing food production for self-sustenance in both urban and rural areas (Seeth et al. 1998). During this time household food production (in both rural and urban settings) rose to just under 40% of total agricultural input, up from 24% in 1990. This has occurred sporadically all over the world during the food crises in Sophia, Bulgaria, in Ecuador, Indonesia, Kosovo and Accra. In La Paz, where poverty is currently at 73% in slum areas, household food production is a major strategy employed to reduce household expenditures on food, which can range from 52-83% of household income. Undoubtedly, there are more examples. Other reasons why urban farming can become popular include cultural traditions, such as in Cairo and Nairobi where urban farming has been long standing or in Havana and London where political and economic factors create the incentives for self-sufficient food production. In several cities in Africa, income from household food production in urban settings was an important contributor to household food security and maintenance. For example in Lusaka, home gardens produced the income of an average worker for three month’s worth of work (Drescher, 1999), and provided one third of their total food consumption. Farmers in Accra produced 1-8 month’s worth of staple food for their household, helping to reduce the money spent on purchased food and diversify their income.
Not only can urban agriculture provide income but it can also be beneficial in terms of human and environmental health as it promotes local, small scale food production (thus reducing fossil fuel demand) and reduces water use as well as the need for heavy pesticide and fertilizer use. For example, on average, food in a supermarket in the United States will travel 2000 km from where it is produced, to where it is consumed. Increasing the prevalence of urban agriculture can mitigate the monetary and environmental costs associated with ‘long distance diets’, especially when considering that there may be savings in storage costs as well as food spoilage due to handling and transport. It also has the potential to reduce the need for land conversion from deserts, mountain slopes and rainforests into croplands (Smit and Naser, 1992).
To conclude, urban agriculture where appropriately implemented can contribute significantly to household income, food requirements and lower environmental costs. To improve the productivity, as it can be low if a project is not provided with the appropriate resources (labour, especially), needed are policies which create and support infrastructure, market opportunities, education, and incentives for households and community members to engage (Nugent, 2000).
An Integrated Approach
While some critics of organic agriculture scoff at the idea of a worldwide conversion to organic practices, they also raise some important considerations when approaching the issue of food security and agriculture. Marc Lynas in the God Species takes a look at the ‘Nitrogen Boundary’ as related to agriculture. He is wholly positioned against organic agriculture due to the claim that a worldwide conversion can only provide food for half of our population using the current land base. This debate as to whether organic agriculture can play a significant role in global food security has been settled. In the majority of cases, practices that include organic or agro ecological methods have been proven to provide sufficient (if not better) yields, increase the quality of the soil, and decrease the need for excessive fertilizer and pesticides, thus reducing the reliance on fossil fuels.
It is important to recognize, however, that in approaching the social, economic and environmental issues associated with farming, yield is not necessarily the first factor to consider. Current global food production can provide the daily recommended calorie demands for more than the 7 billion people humans on the planet (Sadik, 2000). The shortfall, resulting in 900 million undernourished humans globally, is the result of poor management and distribution, and also from the demands of consumers in the developed world. In a fuel hungry world where cars are powered by ethanol from corn , meat is an easily accessible and widely enjoyed commodity 2 and farming technology is not accessible to those who truly need it, it is no surprise that food insecurity is pervasive in both developing and developed countries. Marc Lynas is against cultural reform, he does not believe that consumer’s should be asked to become vegetarian or to stop driving their cars. Nevertheless, despite his mistaken disregard for the potential benefits of organic practices, he promotes technological fixes such as the reduction of excessive fertiliser and pesticide use and the promotion of genetically modified crops. Specifically, he looks to future developments in genetically engineering staple crops (such as corn and rice) being to fix their own nitrogen. Another example concerning rice, a crop that provides over 21% of all human food energy, includes efforts (Kronzucker, 2012) to breed strains of rice which can withstand saltier and drier conditions. Undoubtedly, these types of breakthroughs are invaluable and whoever patents such a process would likely receive a Nobel prize as the environmental, social and economic benefits would be countless. On the flip side, there are many unknown health and environmental effects associated with genetically modified foods, so perhaps a more cautious approach may be deemed necessary.
To avoid stark criticisms and the resulting dismissal of any one approach, it is important to be ‘diplomatic’ in a sense, and incorporate ideas from all ends of the spectrum. Resource-conserving agriculture is one such option. Petty et al. (2006) found that farms or food production projects which incorporate resource-conserving practices had yield increases of 79%. Some of these practices include integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, conservation tillage, agroforestry, aquaculture, water harvesting and livestock integration. In their study of 286 cases in 57 poor countries covering 37 million hectares, all crops show increases in water efficiency and carbon sequestration, and a decline in pesticide use. They estimate that if at least 25% of total global land area dedicated to farming could adopt these sustainable practices, then approximately 0.1 gigatons of carbon per year could be sequestered. Although they do not include an assessment as to whether these practices can meet global food demands, they conclude that the benefits, especially to poor farm houesholds, will outweigh any potential doubts. A similar study on farms in developed countries would further contribute to the credibility of this approach.
Whether it is conventional, pure organic, urban, local, agroecological, resource conserving, genetically modified miracle plants, widespread vegetarianism or otherwise, there will be critics and supporters, benefits and sacrifices to each. To simplify the issue of food security in terms of anyone solution or problem would be ignorant. There are many regional & climatic, socio cultural, environmental, political and economic considerations to be made when addressing such a multi-faceted global issue. With feasible solutions at hand, and on a case specific basis, it is important to consider and integrate approaches where possible, in order to maximize the benefits and ensure success.
____________________________________________________________________________________
References
Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero E., Zakem, E., Chappel M.J., Vasquez, K.A, Samulon, A., and Perfecto. I. (2007). Organic Agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 22: 86-108.
Bailey, M. (2007). The History of Suffolk: Medieval Suffolk – An economic and social history, 1200-1500. Boydell Press, Woodbridge.
Bruinsma (2003). World agriculture: towards 2015/2030, FAO, Rome.
Canadian Wheat Board, Bruce Burnett. (2011). Crop Issues Report, Growing season in review. Retrieved March 28, 2012 from http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/grain/crop/.Drescher A. (1999). Urban agriculture in Lusaka: case study.
Eddy, D. (2009). Organic yields superior. American Fruit Grower. 129: 46-46. http://search.proquest.com/docview/211059358?accountid=6180
FAO (2005) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2005. Eradicating world hunger – key to achieving the Millenium Development Goals. Rome.
Friedrichs, J. (2010). Global energy crunch: How different parts of the world would react to a peak oil scenario. Energy Policy.38: 4562-4569.
Greene, C. (2004). Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture: Data, Organic Production. Retrieved March 9 2012, from http:// www.ers.usda.gov/Data/organic/.Hazell, B.R. (2002). The Green Revolution. Curse or Blessing? International Food Policy Research Institute. Retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib11.pdf.
IFPRI - International Food Policy Research Institute (1999). Are Urban Poverty and Undernutrition Growing? Some Newly Assembled Evidence. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, Washington, DC.IFPRI - International Food Policy Research Institute. (2002). Green Revolution – A curse or blessing? Retreived March 26, 2012 from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib11.pdf.
Kendrick, J. (2009). Organic: from niche to mainstream. In Statistics Canada. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2007000/article/10529-eng.htm.Kronzucker, 2012. Research Statement. Retrieved Arpil 8, 2012 from http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~herbertk/.Lambert, T. (2005). A Brief History of Farming. Retrieved March 28, 2012, from http://www.localhistories.org/farming.html.
Nugent, R. (2000). The Impact of Urban Agriculture on the Household and Local Economies. Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture and Forestry. Consumer Economics. 67-98.Petty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T and J.I.L Morison. (2006). Resource Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries.
Pimental, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and R. Seidel. (2005). Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. Bioscience. 55: 573-582.
Sadik, N. (2000). Population Growth and the food crisis. Food and Agricultural Organization. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Retreived on April 1st, 2012 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/U3550t/u3550t02.htm.Seeth H, Chachnov S, Surinov A & von Braun J. (1998). Russian poverty: muddling through economic transition with garden plots. World Development 26 (9).Smil, V. 2000. Feeding the World—A Challenge for the 21st Century. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Smit J. and J. Nasr. (1992). Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Environment and Urbanization. 4: 141-152.
Soule, J., Carre, D., and W. Jackson. (1990). Ecological Impact of Modern Agriculture. Ecological Agricultural Projects. McGraw-Hill. 165-188.Stanhill, G.. (1990). The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 30: 1-26.
Statistics Canada. (2006). Canada at a Glance. Agriculture. Retrieved March 28, 2012, from http://www45.statcan.gc.ca/2009/cgco_2009_011-eng.htm.
Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change. The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.USDA, (2011). The Ethanol Decade: An Expansion of US Corn Production, 2000-09. Economic Information Bulletin.
USDA, 2004b. National Agriculture Statistics Service Historical Data. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/
Wik, M., Pingali, P., and Broca, S. (2008). Global Agricultural Performance: Past Trends and Future Prospects. Background Paper for the World development Report, 2008. Retreived April 1st 2012 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087-1191427986785/Pingali-Global_Agricultural_Performance.pdf.

References: Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero E., Zakem, E., Chappel M.J., Vasquez, K.A, Samulon, A., and Perfecto. I. (2007). Organic Agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 22: 86-108. Bailey, M. (2007). The History of Suffolk: Medieval Suffolk – An economic and social history, 1200-1500. Boydell Press, Woodbridge. Bruinsma (2003) Canadian Wheat Board, Bruce Burnett. (2011). Crop Issues Report, Growing season in review. Retrieved March 28, 2012 from http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/grain/crop/.Drescher A. (1999). Urban agriculture in Lusaka: case study. Eddy, D. (2009). Organic yields superior. American Fruit Grower. 129: 46-46. http://search.proquest.com/docview/211059358?accountid=6180 FAO (2005) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2005 Friedrichs, J. (2010). Global energy crunch: How different parts of the world would react to a peak oil scenario. Energy Policy.38: 4562-4569. Pimental, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and R. Seidel. (2005). Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. Bioscience. 55: 573-582. Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change. The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.USDA, (2011). The Ethanol Decade: An Expansion of US Corn Production, 2000-09. Economic Information Bulletin. USDA, 2004b