[ Editors Note: Darren made a comment to an earlier post that piqued my interest. I wrote him back asking if he would be interested in sharing his thoughts on what he sees as the future of agriculture, and the role for sustainable and organic farming systems. He was kind enough to present his views in the post that follows. Considering his academic background and professional expertise, I believe he offers an important perspective for all of us to hear, especially so, to the degree that his views may be divergent from our own.—Fred ]
I believe the short answer is yes, but perhaps not in the way some think of it. I’ll try to explain.
First, we need to define what we mean by “sustainable” and “viable.” I’ll define sustainable agriculture to mean a system of producing agricultural commodities that maintains the capacity of the resource base (natural, economic, and technological) to indefinitely continue to produce at least the quantities and qualities of products as in the past. Viability, in this context, means workable or capable of continuing (which includes economic viability as well as physical viability). Some people think of sustainability as being synonymous with “organic,” but organic may more realistically be the “upper bound” or most extreme version of “sustainable.” Here, my hope is to bridge the gap between the die-hard proponents and opponents of organic/sustainable agriculture a bit by infusing some realistic logic into the discussion of the future of agriculture.
Costs and Inputs
Let’s start with the most straightforward and most easily documented fact on organic agriculture…it just costs more. For example, a study by Shadbolt et al. (PDF) in New Zealand suggested that organic dairy production in the European Union was as much as 15-25% higher than conventional dairy production, with cost differences in the U.S. potentially higher. At the same time, according to data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS), organic soybean production cost is around 17% higher than conventionally-grown soybeans.
In processed goods made from underlying agricultural products (like wheat, soy, and corn), these cost differentials are probably less important because the price of the commodity is but a small portion of the final product price (here, I am using cost/price interchangeably; I am assuming the cost differences are covered by price differences…more on that later). But for products like milk, eggs, and vegetables, where the cost of the raw product is a larger proportion of the final consumer price, these price differences may significantly affect their competitiveness in the consumer market.
Organic production uses fewer chemicals, and sustainable production systems are more likely (but not necessarily) to use less chemical inputs than conventional systems(for example, no-tillage crops are more “sustainable” from a water usage/soil erosion perspective, but often require more chemical inputs such as herbicides to be economically viable). But, the fact is that chemicals substitute for labor in production. Reduce the chemicals…increase the labor. Labor shortages create production problems, and further exacerbate the cost of production differentials. This greater reliance on labor, of course, is not universal across all of sustainable agriculture, but is a big enough problem that it substantially affects sustainable competitiveness relative to conventional production practices.
Market Opportunities
USDA-ERS data suggest that, at least as late as 2005, price premiums for organic produce were holding above the added cost of production relative to conventional practices, leading to increased acreage. Clearly, a major strength of the organic agriculture sector has been its rapid adaptation to consumer demand. Organic producers have taken a large financial risk to get certified through three or more years of reduced yields/profits to then receive future expected premiums. Early adopters, as always, have benefitted the most from the higher relative premiums. But, one has to wonder how long that can last. While a study in Choices magazine (PDF) suggests that demand was growing faster than supply in 2004 and there was little association between income and organic demand (a conclusion not found by other studies), recent economic events may overtake consumer demand and force a movement back toward lower-priced food. A recent report in the Wall Street Journal indicates that spending has definitely declined, which is a combination of lower overall prices, lower consumption, and consumer substitution of lower-priced foods relative to more expensive alternatives.
Positive Impacts
Organic agriculture has had a major impact on environmental attitudes across agriculture. Consider the following diagram outlining the environmental impact of cotton developed by the Keystone Group (PDF).
Here, moving toward the center is an “improvement” in that category. In all cases (energy use, land use, climate impact, irrigation use, and soil loss), cotton has improved substantially since 1987. In fact, using 2000 as the base year, cotton has improved as much as 40-60% across all categories in the most recent year studied (most agricultural products have seen a similar improvement with the notable exception of wheat which is largely due to yield lags in that crop). So, viewed from this perspective, all of agriculture appears to be becoming more environment-friendly.
Another positive impact of the organic/environmental movement has been an increased attention to nutrition and local production. A review of literature in the online magazine Medical News Today shows the extent of research that has been undertaken to evaluate the nutritional impacts of organic food. A point that appeared in the same Wall Street Journal report shows that in the last quarter, consumers shifted to what many might consider a “healthier” set of food purchases. This is a short time period for evaluation, but does suggest that consumers are thinking about eating healthier foods even in the face of a significant economic downturn. And, these data do not include food that is grown at home, which has seen a revival in recent years according to The Economist.
A popular misconception, however, is that organic farming, or even sustainable farming, is synonymous with “small farms” and “family farms.” This has been one of the biggest obfuscations by the movement and should be abandoned. I know 3,000 acre wheat farms, 16,000 acre cotton farms, as well as 150 acre vegetable farms that are all “family” farms and may or may not be corporate. A more precise definition of “non-family” farms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (PDF) reveals that around 2% of all farms can be classified as not being held strictly by family members. (Interestingly, where non-family farms tend to have the largest influence is in livestock and high value crops such as vegetables, which is perhaps why the organic/sustainable movement tends to encounter them more often).
The term “corporate farms” is largely created to demonize large scale production agriculture. It is “technically” correct because they are classified as a corporation for tax purposes, but the “company” consists of a father, son, and grandson…or two brothers…or a husband and wife. They are making a living and wanting good educations for their kids, they are worried about making mortgage payments and paying production loans, etc., just like everyone else. The local production benefits from small farms that many organic advocates suggest (such as supporting friends and neighbors, fresher produce, our children being able to relate with their food production processes, etc.) are real, but are achievable without demonizing other “family farmers” that do not share their zeal for cow poo on their tomatoes.
Keeping It Real
With the above in mind, it is important to keep things in perspective. As of 2005, USDA-ERS data indicated that organic farms were 0.51% of total farm acreage. And, while demand for organic food is growing, it is still only a small part of overall consumption. But, it is obvious that there is some segment of the population that has preferences for these goods and that this segment will continue to grow along with demand. Here are some things I think will contribute to the long-run success of organic/sustainable agriculture:
• Focus on Information – The quality of food labels and the strength of labeling laws is absolutely essential to successful product differentiation. Food labels that provide adequate, verifiable information (but not too much) will help consumers make decisions. Inaccurate and misleading health/nutrition/content claims are ferreted out quickly in the information age and lead to consumer cynicism about products associated with those claims.
• Organic is not “THE” answer, but it has a place in the market. The fact is that we cannot produce enough food to feed the world “organically.” But, that is not to say that reducing our environmental impact is not desirable or achievable. In fact, the cotton story above is largely based on increased productivity with the same inputs. But, to achieve these gains, we are going to have to recognize the role of biotechnology and research as well as recognize that there is a real demand for organic products.
In the broader scheme, “sustainable” may have both a more realistic opportunity a being economically viable on a larger scale as well has having a broader audience with consumers. But, how “sustainable” is defined will have a lot to do with its potential success.
Conclusion
A closing thought that may be a bit disheartening for some: As these markets continue to develop and mature, the laws of economics will mean that the differentials in prices between organic and conventional products will move toward the differences in the average cost of production. That is, production will eventually increase enough so that the price differences between organic and conventional equals the cost differences between the two. The overall conclusion is that while total conversion to organic production is neither viable nor sustainable, but a viable, sustainable agricultural production system most likely includes a share of organic production.
Darren Hudson is the Larry Combest Endowed Chair of Agricultural Competitiveness and the Director of the Cotton Economics Research Institute at Texas Tech University. In addition he is Farm Foundation Fellow for Globalization with the non-partisan Farm Foundation based in Chicago, IL. Hudson earned his Ph.D. in Agricultural and Applied Economics at Texas Tech University in 1997. He then worked at Mississippi State University from 1998-2008, when he returned to Texas Tech. Hudson is author of one textbook on agricultural prices and markets, over 50 refereed publications, 6 other books or chapters in books, and over 200 other publications and presentations. His main research areas are in consumer behavior and demand, policy, and international trade.
8 Comments
Those are all valid points. I cannot speak to philosophy as I have never heard a farmer refer to it in that manner. Most farmers that I know have a deep respect for the land even if they are not fully aware of the consequences of their actions. I did not mean to imply that you were questioning farmers, only that the frame of the question does. Again, I believe many have been and continue to be receptive to new information. But, if they choose to interpret that information and act differently than you would desire does not make them irrational or uncaring. They simply face a different set of constraints and view the world differently.
Policy is historical. All policy originated with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. During the Depression, most farmers grew one of the major program crops, so this was a mechanism to deliver money to those people. The 70/10 statistic from GAO is an often quoted (and, essentially correct) statistic, but misses a central point. That 10% of farms produces roughly 70% of the value of agricultural production. An analogy is that the U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s fossil fuels. Yes, but it produces 25% of the world’s economic output. One may disagree with the system, but this is not the statistic to demonstrate its ills. In fact, I would submit the 70/10 statistic shows that the farm program is matched quite well with output (obvious cases of fraud, abuse, and stupidity aside).
Interestingly, you point to fruits and veggies and the government not encouraging production of those goods. Having worked some with that industry, its safe to say that they want no part of government interference with their markets. Perhaps these are only the big players, but I do know that those markets are very sensitive to changes in supply (that is, price changes quite rapidly with changes in supply) and so even small additions to production through subsidies or programs intended to increase supply rapidly decrease price. In one study that I did for USDA, a 1% increase in watermelon production led to a 18% decrease in price. So, be careful what you wish for. You say the system is making you poorer…wait until organic vegetable production goes up by 5%.
This probably isn’t the forum to debate economic policy, but let’s just say that I see our current course as self-destructive at best. But since the the Farm Bill is less than 1% of the overall federal budget and food and nutrition programs (that is, food stamps, WIC, school lunches, etc.; all “liberal” favorites) are over 60% of that amount, I hardly think those expenditures on farm commodities are worth discussing in light of current government spending. It’s funny how some will quibble over $15 billion in the farm bill when we flushed $1.6 trillion down the toilet in a matter of a week.
I also do not think the “food” debate is worthy of much air time. As I stated earlier with you, I think Mr. Pollan does not know of whence he speaks. I am quite sure he means well, but the economics just do not bear out his arguments. If, as Mr. Pollan I am sure agrees, the cost of corn in a bag of corn chips is quite small…say around 1%, that means that farm programs would have to reduce the price of corn by say 200% before you would get any appreciable price change in the Fritos. Then, one would have to assume that the price elasticity of demand for food is large (which it is not) for any price change to have a large impact on consumption. It just does not compute. Obesity is a mass balance problem…calories in vs. calories out. It is preferable to get lower income people greater access to fruits and veggies, but the impact of that on health outcomes is likely to be marginal (there is evidence of the “trading up” phenomenon where people buy higher quality food as income increases, so maybe it might work well). But, none of this supports Mr. Pollan.
Finally, I am not a climatological alarmist (and I do not believe the world’s oil supply will run out anywhere near the time period you suggest, but it will certainly get more expensive in the absence of alternative energy sources). In fact, the “global warming” movement has had to give up that term because global temperatures have reversed themselves and have been on a downward trend from almost 10 years now. They have adopted the term you use–”global climate change”–which is the scientific equivalent of of a smoke and mirrors game to trick the public into believing that they “know” what is happening when they do not have a clue (the “No Idea” camp is where I firmly reside and believe that the scientific community has sold itself out by not being intellectually honest on this point). Prudent steps to conserve and extend our resource base are both warranted and wise because we simply do not know the future. But, self-serving appeals to drastically change the economy are not necessary (you might check out Al Gore’s or Boone Pickens’ stock portfolios before you put tremendous credence in their reliability).
So, again, I return to my original point. The “change is afoot” statement is almost rhetorical as change has been afoot for over 50 years. That change has accelerated in the last 20 years. We are still learning and still changing, but agriculture is a lot further along than many wish to admit. You have a particular perspective on the problem, which is healthy. My perspective is simply that organic systems cannot and will not ever replace conventional production systems because there is an insufficient market to sustain their prices. Moving as significantly in that direction as some in the movement would like would only serve to significantly increase global food prices to the detriment of developing countries (yes, their producers might benefit, but they are net calorie importers, so their consumers are made worse off by a larger amount). The solution for sustainable long-term production will require additional movements in commercial agriculture and organic will be part of the mix.
My question is about the difference between the two farming philosophies, conventional vs. sustainable. How conventional agriculture views the soil (and by extension, nature), whether as a living entity working to preserve and promote its vitality because there is no real substitute for maintaining higher yields over time, or, as dirt composed of certain nutrients and properties that with the right mixture of inputs and plant genetics will result in maximize crop production. It never crossed my mind to question the integrity of farmers, of their commitment to their families. I do question the ability of most people to be receptive to new information (farmers included), and for the sake of their children, do what they can to become better stewards of the land. But the farmers who want to change will need our help.
It goes well beyond the individual farmer. The federal government may have created an unintended monster with the Farm Bill. In essence, we have been financially encouraging farms to become bigger (or die), and we are encouraging farmers to maintain profitability by squeezing out every acre of land that is being farmed for maximum production.
Although this goes beyond farming, politics and economics are also intertwined in this (as they are to varying degrees in every other industry), food will have to cost more. You are right to point out that reducing dependence upon chemical inputs increases the need for more labor. How much more, I would leave that to you and other experts to debate. The degree to which the Farm Bill can be changed to promote the growing of specialty crops (as you know, crops for people to eat) to reduce their over-all costs would be in my opinion a good act of public policy. In contrast, the GAO reports that 70% of available annual Farm Bill dollars (billions of dollars) go to only 10% of all US farmers. To make matters worse, presumably because of lack of adequate funding for USDA enforcement, the GAO reports that over a 6 year period of time (1999-2005) the USDA made 1.1 billion in payments to farmers, 2 years (or more) after their death; 40% of this money was dispensed without any eligibility inspection of any kind.
Regardless of one’s political orientation, political conservatives usually are more concerned with government waste and individual fraud, than perhaps those with a more liberal bias (I admit, I am of that latter breed)—this is certainly a practice that should be stopped. Let’s use some of that money to beef up USDA on enforcement and also (where available) help people pay for food that costs more to produce, but is less damaging to the environment. Let’s make junk food, or as Michael Pollan refers to it as “food like substances”, let’s make those products more expensive to buy.
Is this a form of social engineering, a redistributing of the wealth. Yes, it may be to some degree. Isn’t that what we do every day when we offer tax subsidies to major corporations that don’t need our support (look at how we subsidize the oil companies despite having years of record profits)? The point is this: our government over the last 40 years has instituted policies that have led to tremendous income disparity in this country. The rich have gotten much richer, the rest of us, poorer. I believe this is largely a matter of record.
If you believe that we are running out of oil, that roughly in 2035-2040 we will run out, if you believe that climate change will produce long-term, unstable, and more extreme weather, worldwide, if you believe that water is fast becoming our next scarse resource, and that our soils have been damaged by decades of industrial farming, if you believe that food safety is of too great a concern to continue as we do with industrial farming practices and our present food distribution system, yes, I believe farmers will have to change their farming practices (along with it, some of their cherished beliefs). We all will have to change our ways (at the very least, some of our ways) in order to survive.
Farmers are not the enemy. They represent our future, and in many ways, they are our real heros, struggling to produce food in a food system that promotes environmental destruction, and terrible resource waste. Farmers must not only battle the financial environment that creates its own challenges, they also must cope with nature with little room for mistake. From the eaters to our politicians, to farmers, processors, distributors, to the multinationals and other large agribusiness interests—change is inevitably afoot.
Change is in the air!
Fred:
Thanks for the questions. I think they are legitimate and deserve a response. First, the form of the question reveals your “bias.” That is, you ask: “is it fair to say that conventional farming practices do not recognize the importance of the soil beyond being a repository for applying chemical inputs as deemed necessary to extend crop yields?” So, are you really saying that conventional farmers do not care about their children or the potential for their children to make a living off that land in the future? I don’t think that is how you mean it, but it is certainly how those in conventional agriculture take the meaning and why many shut down and choose not to engage in the conversation. We must remember that these farmers were: (1) brought up in a particular culture with a particular set of experiences, and (2) operating in a particular economic environment that is not necessarily the same as you. A Kansas farmer does not have the same cropping opportunities, local markets, or input costs as a farmer in the Central Valley of California. This is essentially a resource base/input mix problem.
A little thought experiment may help illustrate what I am trying to say. Chemicals and mechanization replace labor. Currently, there are roughly 7.2 million people engaged in farming across the U.S. (or about 2% of the U.S. population). Let’s say we go in the direction of “sustainable” on a commercial basis, and let’s further VERY conservatively assume that we would need to roughly double labor to offset chemicals in order to maintain the same yield. That would mean we would instantly need an additional 7.2 million workers just to stay where we are. (This is part of the reason organic is touted for Africa by the previous poster…they have excess labor that needs to be employed; so this is just as much a social program as it is a food program in Africa). And mind you, this is nowhere near the requirements. Back of the envelope estimates suggest that biotechnology alone reduced labor requirements in cotton by roughly half. Add on fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, and WOW!! At present, the market provides premiums for organic products that are sufficient to cover the cost, but as I noted, that market is thin. Too much production and the price differences will not cover the added costs of production.
So, I would say that conventional farming does recognize issues of soil quality and does view itself in a broader ecological system (after all, conventional farmers are the largest source of privately held wildlife habitat in the country and have long ago recognized the economic and biological benefits of wildlife on their farms). Do all farmers know all there is to know and do they all act how you would act? No. But, then again, I might say that I view some of the economic decisions you make as irrational. But, given a limited set of information about uncertain future events and your personal preferences, I cannot say much about how rational you may be other than whether your decisions maximize your money income.
In answer to your question on oil…how will any of us survive at $300/barrel oil? The answer…we adapt to new prices, develop new technology, and even contract production. Even today, we are examining ways to utilize on-farm crop and animal residues to generate biodiesel and/or electricity to offset some off-farm demand for that energy.
In response to the UN report…part hogwash, part truth. Let’s be perfectly clear. “Sustainable” or organic production (whichever you prefer, it does not really matter) are susceptible to all of those factors just like conventional agriculture. To the extent that any of those issues rear their ugly head, they will affect conventional and organic agriculture, and may actually affect organic more adversely because they will not have access to those risk reducing inputs like pesticides for dealing with invasive pests. I do worry some that biotech companies have focused on a very narrow germplasm set. If a disease comes along to which the germplasm is susceptible, it could create problems. Right now, those firms appears to be using 3 or 4 lines; but some of those lines are even related…so, this is a legit concern that needs to be addressed.
You ask: “How will conventional agriculture evolve toward embracing the philosophy of sustainability (in a substantial way) to insure its future? Or, is this unfair a question?” I think the answer is that conventional agriculture has made that move, although there are some elements/practices that have evolved more quickly than others (for primarily economic reasons) and there are still practices that we are developing on a commercial scale. For example, U.S. farmers increased no-till acreage from 16 million acres in 1990 to over 64 million in 2004 according to the Conservation Technology Information Center in West Lafayette, IN. The total was more than 22% of total cropland that year, and has likely increased more than that (although I could not find more recent data). As another example, according to USDA/ERS data, nitrogen fertilizer use peaked out in the mid-1990s and has been bouncing around the same levels since that time. Organic material fertilizer use has grown over that same period.
Bottom line…conventional farmers have long had a misunderstanding of the term sustainable. But the “sustainable” community has long had a false impression of conventional agriculture and perhaps a too narrow definition of “sustainable” themselves. As farmers have learned more about their impact on their environment, many have altered practices to the extent that it was economically viable for them to do so. The “farmer’s market, local production, organic” crowd needs to get a mental image of their customers, and then go to Wal-Mart in a mid- to low-income area. If your eyes are open, you will understand why the organic market is a thin slice of the overall pie and why a large customer base simply cannot afford the higher prices of organic products.
So, I return to my original points. Organics will play a role and the sustainable movement has already had significant impacts on conventional agriculture by “pulling” conventional production towards more sustainable production practices.
Darren:
I have a few questions for you, or anyone else who may care to jump in.
Instead of focusing upon the term “Organic”, can you expand upon the key differences in approach (and philosophy) that exists between conventional agriculture and sustainable agriculture?
For example, is it fair to say that conventional farming practices do not recognize the importance of the soil beyond being a repository for applying chemical inputs as deemed necessary to extend crop yields? As opposed to a sustainable approach that may involve crop rotation, no till methods, and growing more types of crops within a given area of land to maintain soil fertility? A recognition that the soil itself contains beneficial bacteria, living organisms, etc. that provide nutrients to the soil, and also improve its water holding and dispersal capabilities?
Is it also fair to say (in your opinion) that conventional agriculture does not view farming based upon a holistic understanding of it being part of an ecological system (or appreciation for such an interrelated system), but instead treats each part, based upon a particular form of analysis, with its own arsenal of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, etc., adding what is needed to maximize( largely) mono-crop production? As opposed to a sustainable approach that may use some chemicals, for example, a limited use of pesticides, under certain conditions, with the broader understanding that it is generally preferable to work with nature, as opposed to working against it. An example would involve the approach of integrated Pest Management, again a systems approach to controlling ( in this instance) pests. Using beneficial insects (where possible) to control pest populations is a better, more sustainable approach because it’s not subject to pesticide resistance that reduces effectiveness over time, higher costs (of regularly applying pesticides), and poses lower health risks to farm workers (and possible food eaters) from exposure to an array of chemical poisons. More importantly, it recognizes that nature has evolved over millennium natural ways to control pest populations, introducing beneficial insects being but one example using IPM methods.
How will conventional agriculture practices survive when oil prices hit $300 a barrel?
Finally, the United Nations Environment Program ((UNEP) released a sobering report: The Environmental Food Crisis ( http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis/ ) (February 2009) stating, in part: “Up to 25% of the world food production may become ‘lost’ during this century as a result of climate change, water scarcity, invasive pests and land degradation. Simply cranking up the fertilizer and pesticide-led production methods of the 20th Century is unlikely to address the challenge. It will increasingly undermine the critical natural inputs and nature-based services for agriculture such as healthy and productive soils; the water and nutrient recycling of forests to pollinators such as bees and bats.” It goes on to say: “We need a green revolution but one with a capital G if we are to balance the need for food with the need to manage the ecosystems that underpin sustainable agriculture in the first place”
How will conventional agriculture survive, with its greatest emphasis upon maximizing profits through means that rely upon standard manufacturing practices (Paul Roberts says, we produce TVs the same way we grow food http://cookingupastory.com/show/paul-roberts-the-end-of-food/ ): centralization of large scale production and processing centers (mega-farms, for example); mono-crop production (mass production), Fred Kerschenmann ( http://cookingupastory.com/show/fred-kirschenmann-the-future-of-agriculture-part-2/ ) says that 92% of agricultural crops grown in Iowa are just corn and soybean; using biotechnology to create super varieties of plants (with a more highly desirable mix of traits) but adapted to a narrower range of environmental conditions (the achilles heel of biotechnology?); long distance distribution from highly centralized operations, all requiring tremendous reliance upon fossil fuel and irrigated water to produce desired results.
How will conventional agriculture evolve toward embracing the philosophy of sustainability (in a substantial way) to insure its future? Or, is this unfair a question? Should I be asking instead: How will sustainable agriculture evolve so that it will play a substantial role in future food production, to meet our needs, and that of a expanding world?
In response to the comment by Organic Trade, the data presented in the UN report and others is a bit misleading. Organic is viewed as a viable production system in Africa because of two primary factors. First, the land that has been farmed has been exploited beyond its sustainable point both because of intensity and because of inferior inputs (like DDT and other chemicals with long soil residual). (We actually could go into a whole dialogue on common property problems, resource exploitation, and the importance of private property rights, but that is for the sociology blog…) Second, Africa does not have access to higher quality inputs due to cost, logistics, and outright government corruption.
The other university studies sound interesting and promising, but I am not aware of them. The few that I have seen have suffered from one primary problem…there was residual nitrogen in the soil from previous fertilization in their test plots. If that is truly the case, all it shows is that we have been over-fertilizing…not that organic will continue those yields into the future. Remember, part of being sustainable means that you must be able to produce that amount indefinitely. Certainly, I get a yield boost when I follow corn behind soybeans (a nitrogen fixer). So simple rotation can help improve soil fertility, reduce chemical use and it not be “organic.”
My point is that your viewpoint that organic is THE solution is a bit naive. We have been pursuing organic research since the 1960s at least with no evidence that it can sustain global population. It is PART of the answer for reaching environmental goals and producing food for sure. A good analogy is wind energy. Can it replace fossil fuel consumption by itself? Not a chance. Can it be a meaningful part of a solution to fossil fuel consumption? Of course.
I am still unable to share your posts via your share widget. When I mouse over it, it will bring up all the sites, but I’m not able to click any. Celeste
As ever…never a disappointment.
One aspect not discussed here, is the need for the re-training (as it were), of the consumer brain. We all live entirely too much by immediate gratification. We’re accustomed to enjoying foods out of season, and out of region. Imagine that impact, should we all truly begin to commit to viable sustainability.
I’m fortunate to live on a full acre in a fairly wealthy community. My immediate goal is, to improve an as yet “unsustainable” soil. We’re very much clay challenged around here. I also have to battle fairly severe ordinances. My city was developed a s a planned community; makes for a sustainable nightmare.
Thank you SO MUCH for what you’re doing here. I’m sharing you with everyone I know. Celeste
Thank you for engaging in this important debate. You raise a common misconception that needs to be addressed. You state that “we cannot produce enough food to feed the world ‘organically.’” Several studies directly challenge this claim. Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, a report released by the United Nations in October 2008, suggests that organic farming offers African and other developing countries the most hope for feeding their people. Findings from research conducted by the U.N. Environment Programme show that organic practices raise yields, improve the soil, and boost the income of developing countries’ small farmers.
Additionally, the Long-term Agro-ecological Research (LTAR) initiative at Iowa State University’s Neely-Kinyon Farm shows 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
It is becoming clearer that organic offers a very sustainable solution that addresses the world’s hunger problems and the long-term health of the planet.