Rethinking Lifestyle

It was in the 1970s – 50 years ago – that then US Agriculture Secretary, Earl Butz is to have said “Before we go back to organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million Americans we are going to let starve or go hungry”. There may be more delicate ways of phrasing the issue, but the question is a real one: how are we going to feed all the people of the world? Is the industrial model, with its emphasis on inputs, the only way, or is there a different model?

John Reganold and Jonathan Wachter, researchers at the Washington State University have recently done a review of studies comparing the efficacy of organic and conventional agriculture world wide. The results of that study has just been published in the journal Nature Plants. They looked at hundreds of studies, and they conclude that organic agriculture should have a significant role in feeding the world. They come to this conclusion from several perspectives:

Organic agriculture frequently results in higher yields in drought years. This is because soil organic matter is consistently higher in organic cropping systems than in conventional systems, which results in higher water holding capacity.

Overall, organic farms tend to store more soil carbon, have better soil quality, and reduce soil erosion.

Organic agriculture creates less soil and water pollution, and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s more energy efficient because it does not rely on synthetic fertilizers or pesticides.

Organic agriculture is associated with greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microbes as well as genetic diversity. This biodiversity increases the services that nature provides like pollination and improves the ability of farming systems to adapt to changing conditions.

Conventional agriculture depends on the availability of select seed, fertilizers and pest control chemicals. In many parts of the world, the supply of these inputs is notoriously unreliable and in all parts of the world the prospect of supply disruption looms.

Reganold and Wachter suggest that no single type of farming can feed the world. Rather, what’s needed is a balance of systems, “a blend of organic and other innovative farming systems, including agroforestry, integrated farming, conservation agriculture, mixed crop/livestock and still undiscovered systems.”

However for organic agriculture to thrive, greater investment in government funded research will be needed. In the last 50 years, agricultural research has shifted significantly from government funded research to industry funded research. The agricultural supply industry is, of course, interested in selling its product, so industry funded research is focused on how to increase productivity using its product. There is value in such research, but it needs to be balanced with research into increasing productivity by lowering inputs. Such research is dependant on government funding.

This information will be of interest to farmers who are reviewing their own farming practice in terms of sustainability, but it should also be of interest to consumers, the people who make food choices every day. The way we spend their food dollar supports one food system or another.

An interesting graph comparing conventional and organic production can be seen at setimanitoba.org.