Can Organic Feed the World?

We frequently hear that organic production is fine as niche market goods targeted at rich folks, but it can not feed the world. Embedded in this position are a number of myths about the causes of hunger, and about organic agriculture.

Myth 1: Organic yields are low
Organic agriculture has been compared to conventional agriculture in many studies, from rice in Bangladesh¹ and sheep in New Zealand², to apples³, corn⁴ or soybeans⁴ in the United States and grain crops in Switzerland⁵. Many of these studies indicate similar yields for organic products and those produced under conventional systems¹,³,⁶,⁷. Some studies show that organic yields are reduced to about 80% of conventional⁵,⁷ or even as low as 50% of conventional¹,⁴,⁸. Alternately, some studies show organic yields higher than conventional, some as high as 200 or even 300%⁴.

These studies indicate the potential for organic crops to yield well.

Research on organic agronomy has been neglected over the past 50 years, and is only now re-emerging as a vibrant field of study. Where organic yields are low, there are opportunities for research. When similar research efforts are put into organic production as into production with chemicals, perhaps organic yields will increase.

Myth 2: Organic will reduce conservation
Organic farmers frequently use green manures, which take land out of production for a season. Because of this, there is a concern that an increase in organic farming will require an increased land base at the expense of natural areas.

Let’s take a closer look at the two methods of nitrogen production, use of legumes and use of anhydrous ammonium. Producers who use legume green manures in rotation are feeding microbes that fix nitrogen literally from out of the air. This source of nitrogen is abundant and locally available (78% of the air above every acre) with no further inputs required than those to grow the crop.

The fertilizer anhydrous ammonium is also produced from the abundant nitrogen in the air, this time using natural gas. The industrial process uses tremendous amounts of energy and produces greenhouse gases. Manufacture and use of such nitrogen fertilizers has been blamed for the contamination of surface and ground waters and for dead zones along shorelines, particularly in the Mississippi watershed and the Gulf of Mexico. ⁹

Martin Entz, at the University of Manitoba compared energy use in research plots¹⁰. He found that organic production used less than half the amount of energy used in conventional production, and that fertilizer inputs accounted for most of that difference. As well, conventional production produced 2 to 2.5 times the CO², and used 2.2 to 2.8 times the energy of organic production. Organic systems consistently use less energy per acre or per calorie of food produced. Burning more gas to increase food production has huge implications as fuel prices rise. It seems unlikely that this is the way to conserve natural resources.

Myth 3: Food production must rise to meet the demands of the hungry
The United Nations World Food Program estimates that there are 815 million chronically hungry people in the world today. They also claim that there is enough food produced for every one of our 6.4 billion people to be healthy and productive¹¹. The problem lies in poverty. Poor people simply do not have the money to buy this abundant food. This is a tragic failure of our social system, not a lack of production¹².

Nor is it likely that increased production will help solve world hunger. In Canada, food exports have increased more than 2.5 times in the last 15 years while farm income has increased….not at all¹³. There is a surplus of grain on Saskatchewan farms in 2005 at the same time that farm auction sales are booked solid for the next several months. Increased production is not helping our farmers.

Many of the world’s hungry are rural people in countries that export food or other agricultural products like coffee. An increase in their countries’ export production is unlikely to bring them food.

What is the role of organic agriculture in the world’s food dilemma? First, organic systems do not endanger the world’s food supply by reducing yields or reducing conservation. Organic systems are less reliant on purchased inputs, and thus are more likely to be accessible to people with severely limited income.

Organic agriculture is an alternative that holds great promise for meeting the food demands of our world. It can help keep money in the hands of farmers, and thus farmers on the land, while reducing energy use and producing abundant food.

Brenda Frick, Ph.D., P.Ag., is the Prairie Coordinator for the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada at the College of Agriculture, University of Saskatchewan. She welcomes your comments at 306-966-4975 or via email at brenda.frick@usask.ca .

References:
1 Golam, R. and G. B. Thapa. 2003. Sustainability analysis of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh. World Development 31(10): 1721-1741.

2 Nguyen, M. L. and R. J. Haynes.1995. Energy and labour efficiency for three pairs of conventional and alternative mixed cropping (pasture-arable) farms in Canterbury, New Zealand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 52(2/3): 163-172.

3 Reganold, J. P., J. D. Glover, et al. 2001. Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410(6831): 926

4 Lotter, D.W., R. Seidel, and W. Liebhart. 2003. The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18(3):146–154.

5 Mäder, P.,et al. 2000. Soil Fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296(5573): 1694.

6 Martini, E. A., J. S. Buyer, et al. 2004. Yield increases during the organic transition: improving soil quality or increasing experience? Field Crops Research 86(2/3): 255-266.

7 Bromm, J. 2002. An economic and productivitiy comparison of organic and conventional farming in Saskatchewan. Honours thesis, Lakeland University

8 Entz, M.H., R. Guilford, and R. Gulden. 2001. Crop yield and soil nutrient status on 14 organic farms in the eastern portion of the Northern Great Plains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:351–354

9 Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia, A.K.A. “The Dead Zone”. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33: 235-63.

10 Entz, M. http://www.umanitoba.ca/afs/plant_science/glenlea/glenlearesresults.html

11 United Nations World Food Program. 2005. Why does hunger exist? http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/introduction/hunger_causes.asp?section=1&sub_section=1

12 Food First. 1998. 12 myths about hunger. http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html

13 NFU, 2003. The Farm Crisis, Bigger Farms, and the Myths of “Competition” and “Efficiency”. http://www.nfu.ca/Releases/Myths_news_release_THREE.rel.pdf

This article first appeared in The Western Producer, and is published here on the OACC website with permission.