What problems does organic agriculture solve?

[studiot]

Oh good, we seem to be back at the topic.

 

 

The topic asks about advantages and disadvantages of organic farming.

 

I originally listed the ban on modern vetinary intervention by organic farming as a disadvantage.

 

I will now add the judicious use of modern pesticides and fertilisers.

 

Unfortunately we cannot trust the use to be judicious rather than indiscriminate.

[jeskill]

 

http://www.nationmas...-kg-per-hectare

 

 

I'd like to respond, but this link doesn't work.

[juanrga]

Hello

As a city kid, I have zero knowledge about agriculture. To learn a bit about this, I will spend a few days on a farm at the end of the month to talk with farmers who went from "conventional" agriculture to organic.

In the meantime, I'm reading a bunch of books about agriculture, both conventional and organic, but am having a hard time finding sound, non-biased, scientific information about...

1. what problems organic agriculture is supposed to solve (too much, too strong pesticides/fertilizer? lower nutrition in food?)

2. whether these solutions really work, and if they have any drawbacks

For instance, some organic farmers refer to BS like homeopathy or biodynamics

Can you recommend good books and online articles that I should read before I go?

Thank you.

 

It could provide some alternatives to more conventional agriculture, but believing that it can totally replace conventional agriculture is not supported by any study that I know.

 

In fact, there are serious doubts that organic agriculture was more eco-friendly and healthy than conventional and that it could produce enough food to sustain the current human population.

 

Note: Even their use of the term "organic" is in disagreement with usual meaning, for instance as in organic chemistry.

Edited June 6, 2012 by juanrga

[John Cuthber]

I'd like to respond, but this link doesn't work.

It still works for me. Is anyone else having problems with it?

[jeskill]

Apologies. I don't know why "it" wasn't working yesterday, but it does today. Darn internets… J

 

Unless we grow enough food we cannot feed the people. … If all production yields were as low as some of those then we would starve. … However you cannot simply dismiss yield as important.

 

Of course, I agree that we have to be able to produce enough to feed the people. My argument is that yield is not as important a metric as food security, and that by focusing on yield, we promote policies that, ironically, DON'T feed the people in much of the world.

 

For example, we produced 2197.1 million metric tonnes of grains in 2010. If we assume there was roughly 7 billion people in 2010 (which is, I think, an overestimate), then, had yield been the determining factor in food security, each person would have been allotted 692/12 = ~57 pounds of grains per month. Americans eat, on average, 15 pounds of grains per month. If yield were the most important factor affecting starvation (edited this word), no one would have lacked for grains in 2010.

 

US, Canada, and other top producers are subsidizing the OVERPRODUCTION of grains and are too focused on yield. This has, ironically, caused more food insecurity in countries in the Global South like Haiti and Ethiopia. For example, excess cereal crops grown unsustainably in the US at a subsidized rate is shipped over as free "food aid", or is sold so cheaply it undercuts local prices, thus undermining local food economies. Overproduction also leads to food crops being used for biofuels instead of food, which, I hope you can agree, is ridiculously inefficient.

 

Questions for you:

1. Why do you think countries at the bottom of your list don't produce enough to feed their people?
2. How do you think industrial agriculture would benefit countries that can't afford to subsidize the costs of fertilizers, pesticides, and designer seeds?
3. How do you think industrial agriculture will "solve" the issue of its own unsustainability?

If you think that organic farming raises yields why do you think farmers generally don't adopt it (especially as"organic" food now sells at a premium) and why did they drop it inthe first place? In effect you are arguing against the farmers and theirunderstanding of their work.

 

1) In the US, Europe, and Canada,the number of "organic" farms is growing pretty fast, so your assumption that farmers aren't adopting it is incorrect. I should point out that the majority of organic growers are young (around 35 years old) while the majority of conventional growers are older (around 55 years old). Data: Organic farming growth in the US, in Europe, and in Canada.

 

2) The reason it's hard for conventional farmers in the Global North to switch over is because most countries with money (i.e.Canada, US, European countries), subsidize industrial agriculture so that it's profitable. If the price of fertilizer, pesticide and hybrid seeds weren't subsidized, OR if the farmer had to consider the cost of the environmental damage they create, then industrial agriculture wouldn't be profitable. I should also point out that many of the organic regulations are prohibitive for small farmers, hence the number of "organic" farms is underestimated, at least in the U.S. I know a number of farms near where I live that are organic, but never bothered to get the certification because it was too expensive.

 

Quote below from ifoam.

 

Conventional agriculture carries many hidden costs, such as the external environmental and social costs that such production systems create. These external costs are not included in the cost of production and in the final price because they remain externalities to the farm production system. … The yearly total cost of removing pesticides from the water supply in the UK is £120 million. Another example is the BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy) epidemic, which originated from a conventional practice aimed at reducing production costs by feeding cows on rations that included meat and bone meal (that was contaminated), but resulted in a huge collective cost.

On the contrary, prices of organic foods include not only the cost of the food production itself, but also a range of other factors that are not captured in the price of conventional food, such as:Environmental enhancement and protection (and avoidance of future expenses to mitigate pollution); Higher standards for animal welfare; Avoidance of health risks to farmers due to inappropriate handling of pesticides and to consumers due to a healthier foodand water supply (and avoidance of future medical expenses); and Rural development by generating additional farm employment and assuring a fair and sufficient income to producers.

A study carried out by Professor Jules Pretty calculated that the total hidden or "external" cost to the environment and to human health of organic farming was much lower than for conventional agriculture, probably no more than a third the cost, and that organic farming also has higher positive externalities [1]. The World Resources Institute, an environmental policy think tank, also reported that after accounting for all the external costs of soil loss, water contamination, and environmental degradation caused by conventional farming practices, the average farm shows a net loss instead of a net profit, which suggests that the tota lcost of food production to the society is much higher than current conventional food prices. If the hidden costs were included in the shelf price, consumers would be paying the real costs of food and organic food would be cheaper than conventional food because these additional costs are much lower.

Edited June 7, 2012 by jeskill