Organic Farming More Than Competitive
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 07.27.05
What some of us already knew is being confirmed by a Cornell University study: "Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes." Of course, the people who make fortunes selling fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, GMO crops, etc, don't want people to know that. We must keep believing that the kind of agriculture we're seeing since the "Green Revolution" (a misnomer from the environmental perspective, you can read about it here) is the only viable way to do things and that organic methods are a throwback to less efficient times and more expensive (which is often wrong, since a big part of the costs of regular agriculture come from the high prices of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, patented GMOs, etc). In fact, as far as we know organic farming would be cheaper than non-organic if it was as heavily subsidized. I guess we need a stronger lobby.
"Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does," Pimentel added.
The study compared a conventional farm that used recommended fertilizer and pesticide applications with an organic animal-based farm (where manure was applied) and an organic legume-based farm (that used a three-year rotation of hairy vetch/corn and rye/soybeans and wheat). The two organic systems received no chemical fertilizers or pesticides. [...]
The research compared soil fungi activity, crop yields, energy efficiency, costs, organic matter changes over time, nitrogen accumulation and nitrate leaching across organic and conventional agricultural systems.
"First and foremost, we found that corn and soybean yields were the same across the three systems," said Pimentel, who noted that although organic corn yields were about one-third lower during the first four years of the study, over time the organic systems produced higher yields, especially under drought conditions. The reason was that wind and water erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm while the soil on the organic farms steadily improved in organic matter, moisture, microbial activity and other soil quality indicators.
[We can only assume that the organic fields they monitored were not organic before the experiment. If they had been, the higher yields would probably have been there from the start. -MGR]
The fact that organic agriculture systems also absorb and retain significant amounts of carbon in the soil has implications for global warming, Pimentel said, pointing out that soil carbon in the organic systems increased by 15 to 28 percent, the equivalent of taking about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per hectare out of the air.
This is helpful, but a footnote compared to the importance of stopping soil erosion. The "Green Revolution" way of doing things has been destroying most of our most fertile land for decades now.
::Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds, via ::Energy Bulletin
The real question now is: How do we make organics competitive? Because whatever they cost to produce, you tack on certification costs and profits, and suddenly they're much more expensive than everything else.
Soil loss can occur on organic cropland of course. If demand rises and much larger tracts are organically managed by industrial operations, we can expect soil loss rates to go up on those fields compared to the small plots now being used by family farmers who pioneered organic methods.
Most organic farming as we know it exists in northern temperate zones. Very little comercial organic farming of products destined for western markets is done tropically and a limited amount sub-stropically. Bananas being the exception. Without annual freezes, insect and weed pressures can be much higher. I am no so sure, then, that the organic paradigms apply to crops as might be grown in the developing world. At least not for the grains and produce items we prefer in the north.
As I posted earlier (sorry if this shows up twice):
While organic farming may be "more competitive" in these terms, it's not competitive at the grocery store. We have a number of issues there - the cost of organic certification seems to be a big one. Why are organics more expensive than non-organics?
The linked blurb on the Cornell news website mentions higher labor costs for organics, which could certainly be a large cost. It also says "Organic farming can compete effectively in growing corn, soybeans, wheat, barley and other grains, Pimentel said, but it might not be as favorable for growing such crops as graapes [typo inserted to avoid spam filtering of the word r*pe], apples, cherries and potatoes, which have greater pest problems.", which would also explain why prices for organic fruits and other vegetables might be relatively higher than for organic corn and soybeans.
Personally, I never really notice any organic corn or soybeans amid the other organic produce when I go grocery shopping. It could be that as most conventional corn grown in the US goes to feeding conventional livestock, the largest market for organic corn in the US is as feedstock for organic livestock.
Well i imagine that the prices for organic fruits and vegetables are higher partly (if not largely) because the farmer can charge more for it. Since this cornell studies show the production costs are comparable, one would imagine the organic farmers want to make a better living by selling "premium" organic produce. I think people are willing to pay more for since they perceive organic food to be healthier (fear consuming pesticides etc) and perhaps they are willing to pay more to feel better about the doing the right thing environmentally. I would like to add that the truly organic food that I purchased fresh from the farmer personally has been astoundlingly more tasty than their supermarket equivalent (this is true for normal supermarket chains and the "organics" from Whole Foods.) Furthermore, i beleive that there was an article on this site in the last month about the expanded definition of "organic" labelling by the US government, i wonder if the food in the supermarkets with the coveted "organic" label is truely as organic, ie pesticide free etc.
In my experience the fruits from organic farmers have been smaller but much more flavorful than their supermarket cousins. I intuitively feel that this is because the agra businesses have chosen strains of plants that maximally put their resources towards growing large in order to maximize pounds of produce per acre,(based on the assumption by huge anonymous farm businesses that people buy based mainly on price) whereas the small organic farmers that sell in local street markets have selected plants based on the best taste (based on the assumption that their customers are already willing to pay a premium, so they want to sell the best tasting food, so that the customer will come to their vegetable stand repeatedly in the future).
Well i imagine that the prices for organic fruits and vegetables are higher partly (if not largely) because the farmer can charge more for it. Since this cornell studies show the production costs are comparable, one would imagine the organic farmers want to make a better living by selling "premium" organic produce. I think people are willing to pay more for since they perceive organic food to be healthier (fear consuming pesticides etc) and perhaps they are willing to pay more to feel better about the doing the right thing environmentally. I would like to add that the truly organic food that I purchased fresh from the farmer personally has been astoundlingly more tasty than their supermarket equivalent (this is true for normal supermarket chains and the "organics" from Whole Foods.) Furthermore, i beleive that there was an article on this site in the last month about the expanded definition of "organic" labelling by the US government, i wonder if the food in the supermarkets with the coveted "organic" label is truely as organic, ie pesticide free etc.
In my experience the fruits from organic farmers have been smaller but much more flavorful than their supermarket cousins. I intuitively feel that this is because the agra businesses have chosen strains of plants that maximally put their resources towards growing large in order to maximize pounds of produce per acre,(based on the assumption by huge anonymous farm businesses that people buy based mainly on price) whereas the small organic farmers that sell in local street markets have selected plants based on the best taste (based on the assumption that their customers are already willing to pay a premium, so they want to sell the best tasting food, so that the customer will come to their vegetable stand repeatedly in the future).
As I said, organic production is a lot less subsidized than non-organic, which makes for a big part of the price difference.
Another factor is certainly the scale; as production ramps up, prices should fall.
Also, certification could be streamlined, simplified and universalized, which would make it almost a non-factor as far as price.
Well i imagine that the prices for organic fruits and vegetables are higher partly (if not largely) because the farmer can charge more for it. Since this cornell studies show the production costs are comparable, one would imagine the organic farmers want to make a better living by selling "premium" organic produce. I think people are willing to pay more for since they perceive organic food to be healthier (fear consuming pesticides etc) and perhaps they are willing to pay more to feel better about the doing the right thing environmentally. I would like to add that the truly organic food that I purchased fresh from the farmer personally has been astoundlingly more tasty than their supermarket equivalent (this is true for normal supermarket chains and the "organics" from Whole Foods.) Furthermore, i beleive that there was an article on this site in the last month about the expanded definition of "organic" labelling by the US government, i wonder if the food in the supermarkets with the coveted "organic" label is truely as organic, ie pesticide free etc.
In my experience the fruits from organic farmers have been smaller but much more flavorful than their supermarket cousins. I intuitively feel that this is because the agra businesses have chosen strains of plants that maximally put their resources towards growing large in order to maximize pounds of produce per acre,(based on the assumption by huge anonymous farm businesses that people buy based mainly on price) whereas the small organic farmers that sell in local street markets have selected plants based on the best taste (based on the assumption that their customers are already willing to pay a premium, so they want to sell the best tasting food, so that the customer will come to their vegetable stand repeatedly in the future).
I agree we might be concerned if certification bodies are overcharging, but I also accept the cost of ensuring that the less-than-honest cannot claim they are organic, and steal my green dollars. The cost of organics is always going to include the cost of keeping out the rutheless and guiding the newly converted. If certification does that job, I'm all for it.
"The real question now is: How do we make organics competitive? Because whatever they cost to produce, you tack on certification costs and profits, and suddenly they're much more expensive than everything else."
I don't think that's the real problem. Here's what I think is happening:
1) Certification is more expensive than it should be right now, but it's still a minor part of the cost compared to what fertilizer/pesticides/herbicides/etc would cost. That cost can go down, but it's not the reason for the premium you pay right now.
2) The problem is that there's less supply than demand, and that there's less subsidies for organic farming (so you are paying closer to the real cost of your food - if you paid the real cost of your non-organic food, it would be more expensive).
The fact that there isn't enough supply (despite a 20% annual growth) and less subsidies encourages organic farmers to sell their product at a premium, both because they can (lots of demand) and to make up for loss of subsidies.
Dear Everyone,
I sincerely apolygize for the reposting the same thing three times, i thought the site was blocking my name for some reason since I waited a long time for each post to be "confirmed?" I am sure the confirmer is rather busy.
sincerely,
Nothalo
Ike - unfortunately the US can't product organic corn (maize crops & cousins) or soy in the US because GMO crops have jumped ship (cross pollinated) to such an extent that no crops in the entire country can be certified organic now! In other countries they're available organic.
Re: competitiveness, peverse subsidisies have to be removed, including the supply chain markets (ie fertiliser production).
It's difficult to make total (large-scale) comparisons on land productivity, partly as land-use patterns are changing rapidly. I often wonder how the relative yield results would look if tehy included all of the land that's been denuded, salinated, eroded, poisoned etc by industrial ag so its no longer useable. It's a lot of degraded land!
Beware the Nothalo/seesaw/jim troll, folks. Check out the "Packed Like Sardines – Density is Good" thread or search for "nothalo" on Google to see for yourself.
Don't fall for his nonsense. The reason he's posting multiple times is that Treehugger instituted moderated comments because of his trolling on the aforementioned thread and so he's now wondering if they're banning him altogether (which they should).