UK Cannot Feed Itself with Organics
Submitted by Aguanomics Blog
[begin quote] I’ve had a number of comments back on the report from FCRN members and have passed some of them by the Soil Asssociation, at the SA’s request, so that they can reply, as well as the report’s author, Philip Jones. I’m copying here the comments, followed by the SA and Reading responses (note that they haven’t responded to comment 1 as it’s only just come in and I don’t want to get stuck in an endless round of email forwardings…
- Anonymous commentThe problem with the Reading University study is that it only compares Business As Usual with Organic systems. Organic-certified systems have given us a lot of lessons learnt, as they are a radical alternative to conventional agriculture. The world continues to benefit from this living experiment; however, for developing policy on how we should change land-use practices as a reaction to climate change the study may be confusing as it misses out the approach that is most practical at generating change. My reasons are as follows:Organic or Bio or Biological farming is based on a code that is Exclusionist. In other words it is based on beliefs that certain things should be excluded from the agricultural system. Especially synthetic agrochemicals and fertilizers, but also GM crops and human waste are not allowed. So its starting point is to empty the agricultural tool-box; this throws out a lot of bad stuff but also a lot of good opportunities go too; it also eliminates the potential to modify technologies so that they are used in a safe way.
The main non-Organic approach towards sustainable agriculture might be described as Integrationist which looks at how to adapt mainstream agriculture rather than designing a radical alternative. Since the days of ‘Silent Spring’ this approach in the UK, largely driven by regulation arising from public concern (e.g. on pesticide use) and through codes of practice (driven often by markets). This has resulted in widespread changes to farming practice, far greater across 95% of agriculture which is mainstream than those achieved by organic systems. This is not to say that we are near having a sustainable food and farming system. However, whatever the approach the urgency to speed up progress towards moving mainstream agriculture is now rising.
FCRN shows us that the World is now waking up to the fact that we are running out of time and that we need huge changes to land-use practice Worldwide. The main drivers for change are:
- Climate change (which means we have to change land management to reduce GHG emissions from land and the whole food chain; but we we also have to sequester as much carbon into farmland, and forests; and ideally need to free surplus land from food production for off-farm carbon sequestration and bio-energy production). We are told we have to reduce food chain GHG emissions by 70-80%!
- Rising population (which means we have to be able to feed 6-9 billion people; in a World where the resource base – soil and water resources – is increasingly compromised.
- In addition we also have to try to maintain the other environmental services we expect from the World’s land (biodiversity, water catchment, landscape, sea defence etc).An integrationist approach is one that uses a variety of tools to internalise the negative costs of social and environmental impacts. This should be seeking to develop a mainstream framework for best achieving the seemingly impossible task set by these three drivers. For example possible elements of a programme for change within such a framework to achieve 70% reduction might be:
- Incentives and regulation to recycle all bio-waste (including human waste) to put back on the land as an agricultural input (obviously this needs to be done with investment in treatment and guidlines to protect human and animal health and prevent contamination by industrial waste).
- Setting up a fair mechanism to ensure farmers are paid for carbon sequestration from soil and woodland and perennial crops (as well as punished for carbon losses).
- Setting up a system such that all products are carbon foot-printed with a unified international standard – this would allow differentiation within the markets of the food value chain between high GHG and low GHG emitting sources of any commodity.
- We need to change dietry habits aware from ‘meat and grease’; so we might expect a programme to educate people to adopt healthier eating habits and to promote subsitutes– possibly with the aim of reducing meat and dairy consumption to 50% of current levels.
- A good economist would almost certaintly recommend a universal carbon tax (this would create pressure to reduce carbon-wasteful agricultural inputs such as nitrogen fertilizer and cardboard packaging; this would also drive the demand for developing high yielding synthetic-fertilizer free cropping systems ).
In my view a programme of these measures in a integrationist framework would bring us close to a sustainable end-point far quicker and more efficiently than the exclusionist approach of Organic-certified systems. One big advantage is that this evidence-based integrationist approach is that it keeps the tool-box full; allowing, for example, the possibility of using GM (under careful regulation). For example, it may be that we can transfer blight resistant genes from resistant potato varieties to susceptible varieties with GM; and if we can do this we should as this may also help the environment. The integrationist approach means that we can use synthetic chemicals where there is a clear net environmental benefit. Most importantly of all we can make sure that all bio-waste is recycled, in a safe way, without having to give in to the squeamishness of organic consumers.
Organic certification codes emphasise practices such as improved animal welfare and other ethical standards. It also favours on-farm nutrient recycling, rotations. But these are not unique to Organic systems and studies from academic institutions and international agencies should be therefore careful not to label these as Organic methods. They are in the tool-box of agriculture generally.
The rise in demand for Organic-certified food does not mean that it is becoming more desirable for society (the rising sales of 4×4 cars in the 1990s does not make them the best choice for the planet). University academics and international agencies that do studies comparing Organic farming with conventional agriculture - may do good work with good methodologies - but they should be very careful to draw conclusions about future policies to promote organic, as their conclusions may be misleading. They should be aware that Organic systems are a great living-experiment but probably a poor model for shifting mainstream agriculture in the way we need it to shift. The paper Can Britain Feed Itself (Land 4 Winter 2007-8 / circulated by FCRN) is to my mind a more interesting study as it takes a broader perspective and looks at a range of different systems – not just setting out to check if Organic is OK or not.
(NB: you can read the Can Britain Feed Itself paper by Simon Fairlie here: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/researchLib/researchlib.php?id=2#4_15 )
- Anonymous commentHave had a look at the report and am mystified by the model the researchers have used to “weight” organic production by region. For example, table 7 arrives at an modelled organic wheat yield of 5.2 t/ha in Yorks/Humber. Compare this with Farm Business Survey own crop summary from 2007:
- Summary
“Driven by a 60 per cent rise in average sale price to £140 per tonne, the improved winter wheat gross margin of £809 per hectare (£488 in 2006) was the main contributor to improved farm profitability in 2007, despite a nine per cent reduction in yield to 7.7 tonnes per hectare, and seven per cent increase in seed, fertiliser and spray costs. Winter wheat set a pattern of reduced yield, higher sale price and higher growing cost that was replicated for every combinable crop….
The year proved to be a difficult one for organic producers. The increased price of organic winter wheat failed to compensate for the 30 per cent reduction in yield to 3.4 tonnes per hectare. The organic winter wheat gross margin of £854 was only £45 per hectare higher than its conventional equivalent.”
This reality on the ground (at a macro- i.e. regional level) shows organic wheat achieving 44% of the yield achieved by conventional production on a per hectare basis (not the 67% achieved by using the research model). It might be worth road testing the modelled figures for other commodities in the same way by way of a control.
- From Pete Ritchie, pete@whitmuirorganics.co.ukAlthough Peter Melchett’s introduction paints a great picture, the Soil Association/University of Reading organic agriculture report holds few surprises. Under organic management, cereal yields would be lower: home-produced less intensive eggs, chicken and pork would be more expensive so we would eat less or buy from abroad, and there would be more grass for cows and sheep (as well as probably more woodland and forest when the cows and sheep come down the hill). The report is also slightly disingenuous in relation to dairy since organic dairy farming also relies heavily on imported (organic) soyaThe question ‘how much food could be produced in England and Wales?’ is the wrong one - not just because it leaves out Scotland, but because it leaves out the rest of the world. In a globalised agricultural system, there is a reasonable case for the organic movement to answer: if organic farming can’t decently feed the whole world how can we decently recommend it as a moral system? So a coherent global analysis would be helpful - and would echo the climate change argument that it’s doable - but our intake of meat and dairy products needs to contract and converge and we would have to be much less wasteful.
I start from the position that organic farming as currently practised in the UK yields benefits in terms of public goods, including animal welfare, (probably) reduced greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil carbon sequestration and a more thoughtful approach to food. It would be better if there were more organic farms, as a stronger sector would generate more research on nutrient use efficient crops, pest and disease management, breeding for resilience etc as well as more opportunities for co-operation between producers.
So for me there were more interesting UK questions to ask, such as: what would the impact of carbon taxation/carbon trading be on the balance between organic and conventional farming? and conversely: without carbon taxation, since the oil and wheat prices are linked, what combinations of oil price and organic premium and government incentive would be needed for most cereal farmers to convert to organic?
- Anonymous comment:I have read the ‘organic’ issues with interest, as I have had a close association with both organic farmers and organic certification organisations over the past 30 years, although my involvement has significanltly reduced because I now have an entirely different job which doesn’t leave any time to maintain an involvement.I have always been intrigued by the notion that ‘organic is better’. My view of the world is not so simple. I believe that organic farming is a legitimate farming system as is conventional and minimal till etc. Consumers purchase organic product for many different reasons, some of which are based on perceptions and ideology (perceptions are as good as reality in this life I have found).
So, the question - “Can organics feed the world?” is a very legitimate question as long as the organic movement continues to present itself as the only alternative to conventional farming, rather than another legitimate farming system which can live side by side with all the other mechanisms of producing food.
If the organic movement considered itself as a legitimate farming system alongside other legitimate farming systems, then we would no longer need to be asking the question - “Can organics feed the world?” But as this is not so,
I attach a link to an article which provides some information on this question - http://www.sfiar.ch/documents/recommend_dubock_field_crops_research.pdf and another link which you are probably also aware of - http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24987&Cr=food&Cr1
As I am not as involved with the organic industry as I once was, I would prefer to remain anonymous, as I can then choose to be involved in any further discussion or not, depending on what time I have available.
- Anonymous commentThe last time we had proper organic production is in Victorian times when soil phosphate indices (for example) were much lower generally than now. No accident that oats (which require less fertile soils) were then, and are now, a major crop on organic farms.Much of today’s expanded organic production is milking the fat of previous decades of inorganic phosphate, potash and agrochemical applications (a few years transition from conventional to organic does not “cleanse” the land of all this inorganic heritage - which is why organic is more about consumer perception than technical reality).
The real test will be to what extent organic production levels can be sustained over the longer term as soils become slowly more nutritionally depleted and weed seed bank rebuilds. As organic volumes increase, farmgate prices go down. Will lower returns/ha mean less long term investment in field drainage (which would impact on total crop land available - which is also shrinking anyway due to other building pressures etc.)?
Response by Peter Melchett, Soil Association
Pete Ritchie rightly says that ‘if organic can’t decently feed the whole world, how can we decently recommend it as a moral system?’. This is not the sum of our moral obligations though - we also have to feed the world decently without destroying the planet, so in ways that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farming, and that recognise the restrictions on the use of non-renewable resources that will face farmers in future. The leading European organic research centre FiBL in Switzerland has recently looked at this question on behalf of the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation. We have to find a system that can feed everyone decently while reducing global greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture - the legal target for all ghg emissions in the UK is 80% by 2050, and the US climate bill that has just passed the House of Representatives sets a target of 82% by 2050. In addition, we face rapidly declining availability of natural gas used in the manufacture of artificial Nitrogen fertiliser, and an optimistic estimate of global phosphate supplies now running at about 60 years. Morality starts with the recognition that any proposed system of feeding people must do so within massively increased constraints on the resources available for industrialised, non-organic farming compared to the last 60 years.
Pete also says that a more interesting question would be to look at the impact of the cost of carbon on farming. He suggests carbon taxation or trading, but if the price of oil continues to rise faster than inflation over the next two or three decades, non-organic farming may prove to be the more expensive way of producing food, and organic, using renewable energy from the sun to fix Nitrogen via legumes, the cheaper option. Last year, the Soil Association asked the farm business consultants, Andersons, to look at the impact of the price of oil on typical organic and non-organic systems, and their report is available from us.
So, to respond to ‘Anonymous’ who was involved in organic certification for 30 years, I think the nature of the question we need to ask about the future of farming in the UK has changed drastically since last Autumn, when it was decided that the 80% cuts in greenhouse gases should include farming’s two main emissions, Methane and Nitrous Oxide. Of course current organic systems do not provide all the answers, and whatever happens over the next few decades, we are going to see dramatic changes in diets, including substantially less meat consumption in developed and some developing countries.
Farming in Victorian times does not compare to modern organic farming - crop varieties have developed, the power and efficiency of agricultural machinery has increased dramatically, as has our scientific understanding of soils and Nitrogen conservation, and much else. It is true that in the UK over the last sixty years we have seen virtually no research aimed to help organic systems, but there has been more research in many other European countries. We desperately new crop breeding aimed at low input systems, for example.
As for the legacy from non-organic farming, many weed problems, particularly major arable weeds like blackgrass and wild oats, decline on conversion to organic - control in lower fertility systems through crop rotations and sometimes limited mechanical and hand weeding are generally effective. There is no evidence to support the notion that organic farming relies on fertility built up by non-organic farming. On the contrary, experience suggests that organic fertility builds the longer land is farmed organically. Of course, organic systems are not closed, and we need to do more in future to recycle nutrients, in particular phosphates in human waste. But organic systems are already far less reliant on external inputs than non-organic systems.
Comment on wheat yields by report author Philip Jones
The organic yields estimated in Table 7 were not ‘modelled’ in the sense implied above, but were calculated, as explained in the text, by dividing total regional output volume (for each commodity in each region) by the total area (of each commodity in each region) under organic production. The data used in the calculations were taken from the organic sub-sample of the Farm Business Survey (176 farms) for the year 2006. The FBS data provides a coding structure that allows the organic status of not just the farm to be identified, but also individual enterprises on the farm. Care was taken, when generating these calculations, to scrutinize these codes and enterprises that were not at least in conversion were excluded. Using the case of wheat for illustration, it should be pointed out that the organic yields given in Table 7 of my report are based on 2006, while the average yield given in the text quoted by the anonymous reviewer (ie 3.4 t/ha) is based on the performance of organic agriculture in the year 2007 when, as the author (Ben Lang) points out, there was adverse weather which depressed organic wheat yields by 30%. If you discount for this 30% yield reduction, the assumed organic wheat yield is near 5 t/ha – which is pretty close to the average value of 5.4 t/ha implied in my own calculations for England and Wales for 2006. It should also be pointed out that the adverse weather in 2007 had markedly different effects on conventional and organic wheat yields, with conventional being depressed by just 9% and organic by 30%. In view of the atypical weather (and differential yield response) it is probably not sensible to use data taken from this particular year alone as an indicator of the differential between organic and conventional wheat yields.[end quote]
We want to hear your thoughts on conservation so we make this a better world. Register on Conservation Blog now and get published within minutes. Before posting, it is recommended that you review our posting guidelines.
