Can Organic Agriculture Feed the World?

[nosmokes]

original

Can Organic Agriculture Feed the World?

 
The Post (Lusaka)
ANALYSIS
December 29, 2005
Posted to the web December 29, 2005

Judith Lungu
Lusaka

"In developing countries, UNDP (1992) concluded that organic farming methods seem able to provide similar outputs, with less external resources, supplying a similar income per labour day as high input conventional approaches. Studies show increases in output where local farmers adopt organic farming systems, reaching levels similar to those of high input systems."

Before the 19th century, most food in the world was organically produced using human and animal manure. Agricultural revolution began in England when a horse-drawn hoe and seed drill were invented in the early 19th century. In the mid-19th century, super phosphate fertiliser was manufactured. The first tractor with internal combustion engine was invented in the USA in 1910. At about the same time, a German chemist developed a process which led to the manufacture of nitrogen fertiliser. Nitrogen fertiliser was needed in large amounts to benefit from the discovery of high-yielding hybrid maize.

In 1939, DDT was discovered to have insecticidal properties. This was followed by discovery of BHC in France and UK. Selective herbicides were developed. Nitrophenols were the first group of herbicides developed in 1933, followed by 2,4-D and MCPA in the 1940s. By the middle of the 20th century, most components of modern agriculture, ie. tractors, farm machines, fertiliser, agrochemicals, hybrid seed, were in use in the developed world. The increased agricultural output with no net increase in cultivated area in post 1960s was a result of increased use of modern agriculture, namely: fertiliser, pesticides and farm machinery and this has helped to alleviate hunger in the developed world.

Nevertheless, overuse of pesticides, especially in vegetables and fruits resulted in residues above safety levels and brought to the attention the ill-effects of modern agriculture. Drinking water was not spared. The ill-effects of over-use of nitrogen fertiliser was recognised in Europe and USA. These were nitrate enrichment of ground water and rivers and release of ammonia and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. The former added to the problem of acid rain while the latter led to reduction in the ozone layer. These ill-effects of modern agriculture forced people in rich countries to demand food grown without fertilisers.

The roots of organic farming can be traced back to 1927 when a movement for agricultural reform was formed following Christian concepts of land stewardship and preservation of family farms. By using crop rotation, soil fertility was maintained. In 1947, a soil and health foundation was formed in the USA that was to study production of healthy crops and livestock while maintaining healthy and fertile soils and to link farm produce to health and nutrition.
~snip~
.
.
.
--###--
complete article here

[pberq]

1. Organic, Yes!

"These ill-effects of modern agriculture forced people in rich countries to demand food grown without fertilisers."

[Warpy]

2. Some longer term organic famers have found that yields

have increased over time, surpassing what the land produced using conventional chemical farming. Apparently conditioning the soil over time rather than repeatedly mining it while chemically replacing what the plants take up has a positive effect on both quanitity and quality of product.

Agribusiness went to chemical farming because of the convenience and predictability. It was certainly a lot more convenient to transport and spread a balanced NPK powdered fertilizer than it was to lug, compost, and then spread manure from a dairy farm. Insect control was more predictable with pesticides than it was with a balance of insect predators.

I love to see articles like this, but there is often a very rough five to seven year transition period from chemical farming to organic during which there is reduced yield combined with maximum damage from insects. A rational society would offer support for farmers willing to risk the change.

[texastoast]

3. Yes

And at a cost savings AFTER the initial healing of the land. Land currently cultivated using conventional methods produces a smaller amount in transition to organic methods. After soil is built using organic methods, output essentially equals and sometimes surpasses conventional harvest amounts.

In a study by the Rodale Institute, results have shown that after 15 years, "organic methods are as efficient, economical and financially competitive as conventional methods, and better for the soil and the environment."

The organic crops performed as well as, and sometimes better than, conventionally grown crops. Especially during drought years, organic crops outperformed conventional crops of the same type.

http://www.omorganics.org/page.php?pageid=87&contentid=61#yields

And considering the cost of treating cancer, birth defects, and other maladies brought on by herbicides and pesticides, it is even the best choice for "bottom line" thinkers.

[William Bloode]

4. Organic can yield much more than chemical ferts.

The draw back is it requires much more labor. In my gardens i yield much better with healthier plants overall, but as i mentioned it requires much more effort. It's a trade off like anything else. Organic is better overall, but shows increased cost due to more man hours required. Chemical while inferior cost much less, but requires much less attention.

*Edit to clarify

[Ron Green]

6. This is a good reason why a partial return to an agrarian system

is desirable. Working hard on a farm or in a big garden is much more honest and rewarding than most "wage slave" jobs that support our bullshit corporate "service" economy. Government policy, tax structure and incentives should encourage labor inputs, rather than petroleum inputs, into our food supply.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Br. Paul's Organic Cotton and Vegetable Farm

Br. Paul's Organic Cotton and Vegetable Farm

Jesuit brother breaks all the rules he learned in agricultural college, and shows how to bring food security to the world

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho


Brother Paul Desmarais of the Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre of Lusaka in Zambia is a happy man. He has just demonstrated that cotton can be grown organically, and furthermore, at yields up to more than twice the national average. That is quite an achievement as cotton is notorious for consuming the most agrochemicals of any crop, some 21 percent of that

“I am confident that anyone can grow cotton organically in Zambia”, says Br. Paul, beaming from ear to ear. You need to do only two things: increase the fertility of the soil with organic matter, and put extra local plant species into the cotton fields to control insect pests.”

<snip>

Kasisi has actually been growing organic vegetables several years before, and the results are even more stunning. Land was contracted out to a company which started growing in 2000, the organic yields were 40 to 60 percent those of conventionally grown crops, but increased in successive years while those of convention crops decreased. By 2004, the organics were out-yielding the conventionals by 2 to 3 fold (see Table 4).

<snip>

In the 1980s, someone suggested to Br. Paul that he should look at organic agriculture, but he thought it was strictly for a small left-wing group who had enough money to pay for this type of farming. Nevertheless when he returned for home leave in Canada in 1988, he visited organic farmers, and found them to be successful. He studied the principles of organic agriculture in Ontario and adapted them to the situation in Zambia, and has never looked back.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BrPaulsOrganicFarm.php

More articles on sustainable agriculture from the Institute of Science in Society web site at: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/susag.php

[thereismore]

7. We are essentially eating oil today. The synthetic fertilizer

is made from oil or natural gas. When that's finished, yield will plummet, resulting in hunger everywhere people are not willling to switch back to traditional ways to nurturing the soil. Either by crop rotation or by natural fertilization. That may have to include using human waste for fertilizer. I know, I know. But there are many economies in the world that are using this method. China used to be one of them. I do not know what the import specs are on Chinese produce, but whenever you are having that delicious water chestnuts and bamboo shoots in your meal in China, you are eating produce grown with human waste for fertilizer. I would not be surprised if the same could be said about all canned water chestnuts and bamboo shoots sold in the US. Humans really produce a lot of good fertilizer.