Organic and Feeding the World
For today, three items that add refreshing new perspectives to the often depressingly static battle lines about modern food with their proponents hunkered down in trenches.
When I was at the University of California at Davis in February, I heard Pamela C. Ronald, as a plant geneticist the real McCoy, a hard-nosed scientist, appeal for genetically engineered crop varieties. She knows the subject inside out, having worked in the lab, in research plots, and in the field in Nihe (China) and Orissa (India) developing a rice that can withstand fourteen days of flooding.
She’d just produced the book above with her husband Raoul Adamchak who manages the Organic Market Garden at the UC Davis student farm. If you are interested in organic and suspicious of GM, then you might enjoy this book.
The two of them see GM as a way to move organic forward and make it economically viable. There are examples of successful GM (Hawaiian papaya, Amish tobacco growers, rennet), clear explanations of how genetic engineering works, and analysis of the politics and economics. Although I differ with the authors on the virtues of organic, I learned a huge amount. And I am an enthusiastic follower of Pamela Ronald’s blog.
Ronald and Adamchak stress the importance of cereals in feeding the world. There they agree other authors I have found very useful, K.W.T. Goulding of the Department of Soil Science at Rothamstead Research (the major British agricultural research station) and A.J. Trewavas of the Institute of Molecular Plant Science at the University of Edinburgh on the importance of considering cereals when talking about organic.
If arguments are to be made about feeding the world from organic farming then the primary concern must be the yield ratios of organic/conventional for the major cereal crops. Whether organic cabbage, tomatoes or even oats or apples for example can match conventional yields used by Badgley et al., (2007), is of relatively little importance, so we have not considered these at all.
Wheat is grown on 220 million ha worldwide, a substantially greater area than that of corn (maize) or rice, is tolerant of arid climates and, containing more protein than corn or rice, is one of the primary food staples.
Therefore, for brevity and simplicity, our critical assessment of the claims made by Badgley et al. (2007) is limited to wheat. However the criticisms and serious omissions that we describe are likely applicable to all the data provided by these authors.
The authors argue that many of the claims floating around for the high productivity of organic crops just don’t hold up, particularly where wheat is concerned.
They argue persuasively, to my view, (and this is a different tack from that taken by Ronald and Adamchak) that organic fertilizer needs to be supplemented with artificial soluble fertilizer that can give wheat a boost when it most needs it.
Their article was posted on a website called AgBioWorld run by Professor C.S. Prakash of the Tuskegee institute. He collects news about agricultural research. Even if you don’t share my view that farming benefits from scientific and agricultural research, you should not miss this an invaluable resource.
Anyway, back to the point made by Goulding and Trewaras, it’s all too easily forgotten in the US where we have plenty of calories and are concerned about getting more vegetables and fruits in our diet that cereals are the big, big news in farming. For the last 12,000 years, it is cereal crops that have delivered most of the world’s calories, an astounding range of delicious dishes, and all kinds of subsidiary products from various kinds of alcohol, to oil, to sweeteners. This is not likely to change.
Now compare their point with this terrific map from the New York Times (thanks to Diana Buja for the tip) of where the organic farms are in the US. Definitely not cereal country.
much to think about – my workplace is involved in experimental work with gm technology as well as sustainable practices. these two terms can be collocated
(i’ll be linking this post with an up-coming one of my own)
A common misperception is that organic agriculture is less productive than conventional agriculture. Additionally, it is often mistakenly assumed that organic cannot feed the world. In fact, several studies have shown that organic production is on par with, and sometimes superior to, conventional production levels, and that it offers a compelling and sustainable alternative to conventional approaches toward addressing the world’s hunger problems.
A United Nations report—Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa—released in October 2008 found organic farming offers African and other developing countries the most hope for feeding their people. Findings by the U.N. Environment Programme showed that organic practices raise yields, improve the soil, and boost the income of developing countries’ small farmers. Similarly, the Long-term Agro-ecological Research (LTAR) initiative at Iowa State University’s Neely-Kinyon Farm found yields equal or greater than conventional counterparts for organic corn, soybeans and oats. In 2007, for instance, the organic corn yielded more than the conventional with 209 bushels per acre compared to 188 bushes per acre for the conventional corn. Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Michigan found that organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land in developing countries.
In light of such findings, as well as the many personal health and environmental benefits that organic agriculture has to offer, it is becoming clearer that organic offers a sustainable solution that addresses the world’s hunger problems and the long-term health of the planet.
It’s illogical to suggest that organic ag, which by definition includes all agricultural practices minus those that process chemicals in a lab, can be as or more effective than the alternative. everything that exists is made of chemicals and it’s ludicrous to suggest that all chemicals that exist without man are safe for us and our environment and that any chemicals modified in the lab are automatically more dangerous. crops, pesticides and practices must be evaluated on a case by case basis. we won’t get anywhere with sustainable ag while we live by superstitions and not science.
Hi Matt. Like your blog. But do you take me to be defending organic agriculture. No way as you’ll see if you go back a bit in my blog. It’s founded on a spurious distinction between natural and artificial that makes no sense.
Hey Rachel,
I actually just wrote a quick response to the comment above mine as it’s an attitude that I come across a lot and find frustrating (e.g. that U Michigan study is a joke). I saw your post in AgBioView and I’ll take a look at your older posts when I have a few minutes. I’m always glad to hear another person who’s willing to take the time to understand the important issues they talk about.
Anecdotal evidence:
I taked to a farmer in Indiana 4 weeks ago .
He told me that he gets over 200 bushels of corn per acre using spray and no-till and uses 60% less fuel.
This is the same farm that his grandfather got 50-60 bushels per acre on.
Thanks for the link to the study, Rachel – which I’ll read tonight. Another link that is useful, from FAO, is this one:
http://www.fao.org/Ag/Magazine/0111sp.htm
“…Developing transgenic crops implies massive investments, and the need for massive returns. The small number of GM technologies currently in use suggests that there is a real danger that the scale of the investment may lead to selective concentration on species and problems of global importance, and concomitant capital inertia. At the same time, there is a growing use of “hard” intellectual property rights over seeds and planting material and the tools of genetic engineering. This changes the relationship between the public and private sectors, to the detriment of the former. ”
Lots to think about.
Thanks Diana. My pile of reading keeps growing.
Agriculture was “organic” for centuries, millennia! and if it had been so fabulous nobody would have been looking for a better way — a way to get more security of production and higher yield. Now we have the benefit of improvement and some people are anxious to return to the “good old days” which they, themselves, never endured. I think there is still a lot of improvement possible but doubt that it will be found by going into reverse.