Organic Farming as a Climate Hedge

February 17, 2016


This piece is worthwhile assuming it reaches people who did not already know how valuable organic farming is going to be in a climate altered world.

I’ve heard a lot of folks argue about the relative nutrient value of organic food, see below, as well as the merits of chemicals vs no chemicals, but the real value of organic, in my mind, is the understanding that soil is a living organism, and that building and maintaining it are critical if we think humans are going to stick around for a while.


Organic farming – long held to be irrelevant in tackling world hunger – could be key to feeding the world as global warming takes hold, one of the biggest studies ever to be carried out into the “contentious” practice has concluded.

The research, which has reviewed hundreds of studies stretching back over four decades, not only overturns conventional wisdom but contradicts Britain’s official Food Standards Agency, which has repeatedly attacked chemical-free agriculture. It adds to emerging evidence that it may be more productive and profitable than conventional farming in the long term, especially in developing countries, and says it can provide an “ideal blueprint in addressing climate change”.

Published this month in the leading journal Nature Plants, the study admits that “organic agriculture has a history of being contentious” and is still considered by its many critics as “an inefficient approach to food security and a farming system that will be become less relevant in the future”.

It adds that the practice is regarded as “ideologically driven”, with “many shortcomings”, not least because it “relies on more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional agriculture”, And it quotes a 1970s US Agriculture Secretary, Earl Butz: “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”.

Organic techniques are even more effective in developing countries, where most farmers cannot afford to buy much artificial fertiliser or pesticide (AFP/Getty)

Yet, the study – led by Professor John Reganold of Washington State University – goes on, “organic food and beverages” are now “a rapidly growing market segment in the global food industry”. Worldwide sales increased fivefold to US $72bn (£50bn) between 1999 and 2013, and are expected to double again by 2018. The practice is certified in 170 countries and the current US Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, describes it as “one of the fastest growing segments of American agriculture” driven by “growing consumer demand.”

The research also acknowledges it produces lower yields than chemically driven agriculture, but at 8 –25 per cent, the reductions are less than often supposed. Another mammoth study – at the University of California 14 months ago – found that the deficit could be more than halved by rotating crops and avoiding monocultures: for leguminous produce such as beans, peas and lentils there was no difference at all and overall it could be “a very competitive alternative to industrial agriculture”.

But it is climate change that may give organic farming the edge. As the new research underlines, “organically managed farms have frequently been shown to produce higher yields than their conventional counterparts” during droughts, because the manures they use retain moisture in the soil. And severely dry conditions “are expected to increase with climate change in many areas”.

As other studies have shown, organic fertilisers also increase the amount of carbon in the soil, while intensive agriculture denudes it, increasing erosion and reducing its fertility. Wheat, for example, has traditionally produced much higher yields in conventional than in chemical-free farming, but these have now stagnated for some 20 years after almost tripling during the previous 50 years.

Losses of organic matter from British soil now cost the country £82m a year and the Government admits that this is “not sustainable in the long term”. But it has done little about it: there is not even any countrywide monitoring of soil health.

Organic techniques, moreover, are even more effective in developing countries, where most farmers cannot afford to buy much artificial fertiliser or pesticide. One UN report which looked at 114 projects, involving nearly two million African farms found that they more than doubled yields.

Another, led by the University of Essex – which examined projects in 57 countries, covering three per cent of the Third World’s cultivated area – revealed an average 79 per cent increase.

Chemical-free farming is also more profitable in both developed and developing countries, the new report adds: four decades of studies covering 55 crops grown on five continents found they yielded a 22-35 per cent better return than conventional produce. This was, of course, due to the premium organic producers can charge, but even slashing the price differential several times over would still leave them better off. And they employ more people.

More predictably, the report finds that organic farming is better for nature and wildlife and reduces exposure to toxic pesticides both on the farm and in food. And it adds that 80 per cent of major studies into its nutritional value have suggested that it is better for consumers, contradicting the position of the Food Standards Agency.

New York Times:

Organic meat and milk differ markedly from their conventionally produced counterparts in measures of certain nutrients, a review of scientific studies reported on Tuesday.

In particular, levels of omega-3 fatty acids, beneficial for lowering the risk of heart disease, were 50 percent higher in the organic versions.

“The fatty acid composition is definitely better,” said Carlo Leifert, a professor of ecological agriculture at Newcastle University in England and the leader of an international team of scientists who performed the review.

The European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, and the Sheepdrove Trust, a British charity that supports organic farming research, paid for the analysis, which cost about $600,000.

However, the question of whether these differences are likely to translate to better health in people who eat organic meat and drink organic milk is sharply disputed.

“We don’t have that answer right now,” said Richard P. Bazinet, a professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto who was not involved with the research. “Based on the composition, it looks like they should be better for us.”

The two new scientific papers, published in The British Journal of Nutrition, are not the result of any new experiments, but instead employ a statistical technique called meta-analysis that attempts to pull robust conclusions out of many disparate studies.

They are certain to further stir a combative debate over whether organic foods are healthier. Some scientists assert that organic and conventional foods are nutritionally indistinguishable, and others find significant benefits to organic. Many people who buy organic food say they do so not for a nutritional advantage, but because of environmental concerns and to avoid pesticides.

The higher levels of omega-3, a type of polyunsaturated fat, arise not from the attributes usually associated with organic food — that the animals are not given antibiotics, hormones or genetically modified feed — but rather from a requirement that animals raised organically spend time outside. Organic milk and beef come from cattle that graze on grass, while most conventional milk and beef come from cows subsisting on grain.

“It’s not something magical about organic,” said Charles M. Benbrook, an organic industry consultant who is an author of the studies. “It’s about what the animals are being fed.”



10 Responses to “Organic Farming as a Climate Hedge”

  1. Gingerbaker Says:

    “the real value of organic, in my mind, is the understanding that soil is a living organism, and that building and maintaining it are critical if we think humans are going to stick around for a while.”

    I think that is spot on. The other great thing about organic farming is that it can be done inexpensively and on a very small scale. And there is plenty of non farm land which can be devoted to it – everywhere you see a lawn is a potential farm.

    There is a lot of interest in agrarian pursuits among the young. Soon we will see a huge back-to-the-land movement pick up even more speed, I predict.

    You can actually farm organically even in areas of intense drought. Hugulculture appears to really work:

    • Great points. Plus, agricultural reform is necessary if we are to have any hope of keeping global temps below +1.5C. According to Richard Heinberg the Earth has lost 136 GtC from the soil as escaped CO2 from agricultural activities. Hansen says much of this is recoverable and is our surest bet for CO2 drawdown this century. He thinks 100 GtC is a challenging but realistic target from a combination of reforestation and modified soil management. I don’t know how well industrial agriculture would adapt to the required no-till methods.

      Not to mention the ocean-killing run-off from our bad agricultural methods.

  2. Sir Charles Says:

    Agriculture is already the main sources of nitrous oxide emissions. Because of the inefficiencies of nitrogen uptake by plants and animals, only about 10 to 15% of reactive nitrogen ever enters a human mouth as food. The rest is lost to the environment..

    Fertilizer production is an energy-intensive process. Mainly natural gas is being used which is increasingly sourced by fracking with a disastrous carbon footprint.

  3. dumboldguy Says:

    GB and Bill and Peter,

    “…that soil is a living organism, and that building and maintaining it are critical if we think humans are going to stick around for a while”.

    Organic farming is just another of those things we should have adopted decades ago when we first became aware of the negative impacts of AGW. (Oh, wait! Exxon-Mobil and the Merchants of Doubt covered it up and we dithered for 25 years).

    The green revolution and the huge increase in human population that it fostered are dependent on industrial agriculture, and it’s going to be hard to wind it down, to say nothing of the fact that there just isn’t enough good land left and water scarcity is a problem. Maybe better attention to the soil and agriculture as a means of carbon sequestration will be part of the Manhattan Project-like response that will be our only hope once the SHTF,. but IMO it’s not going to happen otherwise. Right now the efforts are just more too little too late, especially since we take a step back in many ways for every two steps forward.

  4. oldguy, amen. Here’s another vid about a permaculture expert from Australia who went to Jordan — one of the driest, lowest (think salt) countries in the world, to start a 10-acre orchard, to use as a demonstrator project for teaching his techniques.

    Building soil.

    Has a wonderful ring to it.

    According to Citizens Climate Lobby (the carbon tax folks), people turn off, turn to denial, if they only hear the problem and don’t hear the solution.

    Permaculture and soil-CO2-sequestration are my 2 favorite solutions, plus Hansen’s math that says we can do it. He’s really the only climate scientist promoting such an idea. All the others are hopelessly realizing that we need nearly unrealistic rates of CO2 mitigation to even stay below 2C (a disaster) and they are the voices that get heard. Naomi Klein, for instance, is really intelligent and politically savvy, but she refers to Kevin Anderson (anti-carbon tax, anti-nuclear) for her CO2 mitigation policy and the Jacobson guy from Stanford for her (all-renewables) technology pathway. Is it any wonder she gives us a 1 or 2 percent chance for success? It’s really sad.

    We live in a blitheringly complex world and it’s hard for one person to put it all together, but Hansen comes real close.

  5. As long as monoculture’s desire to continue using neonicotinoids is realised, everybody better get used to hand pollinating most of our permacultured gardens. I am one of the lucky people in the world living on a big enough block to be able to feed my family completely if necessary and am soon investing in an Australian native stingless bee hive to do the pollinating. Their honey is amazing. More chooks and a goat will also be on the cards. Now, if anyone knows a way to make goat’s milk palatable?

  6. earl Says:

    If you think Organic is good, check out Aquaponics. The savings in water consumption compared to soil-grown is substantial. Something Californian farmers might want to consider.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: