(updated 8/22/11)
Yesterday I posted about what I believe to bethe five best things about Organic farming. These are attributes that I seriously believe are good ideas for how we should farm, and ideas that make sense to increasingly bring into mainstream agriculture (more cover cropping, more diverse rotations, more focus on building the quality of soils…). But I don’t believe that Organic or even Conventional farming influenced by the best of Organic will be all we actually need.
The Great Food Challenge
Somehow, by mid century we need to increase the amount of food that we produce by 50-100%. We really need to do that without adding much new farmed land. We need to do that in a way that actually has less environmental impact than what we do today.
I actually think that is possible. I’veposted a descriptionof what solutions are well supported by science and which also have been demonstrated at substantial commercial scale. In this post I’ll describe why a farmer working within the USDA Organic rules would not be able to be part of that optimum solution. I’m not saying this to argue that Organic should be changed. I don’t think that is possible given the politics. I’m saying this to explain why the answer for the99.5% of non-Organicagriculture needs to be something different.
These 5 key limits of Organic are:
1. Limited access to safe, effective, pest control options
Organic growers use pesticides, but from a list based on whether they are natural. This includes some very effective chemicals made by the fermentation of microbes such as Dow AgroScience’sSpinosad. It includes live biologicals like AgraQuest’sSerenade®, and plant extracts like Marrone Bio-Innovations’Regalia. These are all very safe products which do control pests. The approved Organic list also includes various forms of copper (copper sulfate, copper hydroxide…) as fungicides. These products are quite a bitmore toxic and environmentally damagingthan many non-organic fungicides options (and also less effective). There are many very safe and effective pesticide options available to conventional growers. If the Organic rules were modified to allow the use of “Reduced Risk” and/or “Category IV” synthetic options, Organic yields could be much higher as they would need to be to be part of the big “solution.”
2. Reliance on Tillage
One category of pesticide that is almost completely lacking for Organic is a herbicide. This means that for many crops grown as Organic, the only way to control weeds is mechanically (plowing, harrowing, hoeing…) or by “flame weeding” with LPG. It turns out that the best way to build soil health (my #1 good thing about Organic) is to never disturb it. This is accomplished through a practice called“No-till,”or variations on that method. That combined with cover cropping and “controlled wheel traffic” is a way to build soil quality as well as Organic methods, but without the need to import large quantities of Organic matter to the field. This is a truly scalable way to get all the benefits of soil health. The Rodale Institute recognizes this and has tried to develop anOrganic no-till system, but this is only practical on a small scale.
3. Dependency on Animal Agriculture
Even though Organic farmers supply a significant part of their nitrogen via legume crops, it is still necessary to apply more nitrogen for many other crops. This principly comes from animal sources (manure, composted manure or other materials, fish meal, blood meal, bone meal…) . Ironically, the manure/compost frequently comes from aCAFOor large dairy because that is where one can collected enough manure. There is only enough collectablemanureto fertilize 5% of US crops. The other Organic sources are more expensive and also limited. Our sustainable crop future cannot be dependent on these animal sources.
4. Inability to Fully Use Precision Fertilization
化肥无疑是农业最大的环境问题。只有在植物从土壤中吸取养分以便生长的时候才能给它提供养分是非常困难的。当某些营养物质(主要是氮和磷)在这些需要期之前或之后存在于土壤中时,它们可以进入地下或地表水,并且/或者它们可以转化为强有力的温室气体——一氧化二氮。上述免耕+覆盖作物方案在很大程度上减少了这些问题,但仍有改进的空间。
For an irrigated crop it is actually possible to “spoon feed” fertilizers at very close to the exact crop need by delivering through the irrigation water as a soluble fertilizer. To do this with Organic approved sources of soluable fertilizer is extremely expensive, and there have beentwo recent major incidents of fraudwhere the marketer of an Organic option was actually spiking it with “synthetic nitrogen” to reduce cost. For non-irrigated crops there are ways to place the fertilizer exactly where it is needed and to apply different amounts to different parts of the field to better match need and supply. This is not practical to do with something like a manure or compost that are applied at multiple tons/acre. Once again, the Organic rules limit a farmer’s ability to optimize both yield and environmental impact.
5. Inability to Use Genetically Modified Crops
There are a great many crops that will never be GMO because they are too small to justify the research and regulatory investment. This includes most fruits and vegetables, and so this point is only an issue for the major row crops. The Organic community rejected the use of biotech traits long before there were any commercial GMO crops. The rejection was based on purely philosophical grounds, not on any scientific evidence genera
ted before or after. UC Davis geneticist Pam Ronald and her husband Raul Adamchack who is an Organic specialist, have argued that Biotech traits should be part of a future sustainable standard that goes beyond Organic because of their demonstrated environmental benefits (see Tomorrow’s Table. I had previously misrepresented their position as inclusion of GMO in Organic, my apologies). I agree with what they are saying, but I can’t imagine Organic advocacy groups ever agreeing to such a change. Genetically engineered crops can only deal with certain of the challenges that face agriculture today and in the future, but their complete exclusion from Organic limits what that system could ever achieve.
I’m not a defender of the status quo in Agriculture, nor do I believe that it is a static system anyway. My hope is that the future of agriculture will entail a major shift to the sort of optimal practices that I have described atApplied Mythology. I’m sure Organic will continue as a niche, but because of its philosophical constraints, it will not be a significant part of the solution.
You are invited to comment here or to emailmeat feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com.
有机床上用品和沐浴用品:看看我们目前选择的有机床上用品、毛巾、化妆品和女性护理产品。
rural_galsays
Great. Another proponent of petroleum products and GMOs.
Steve Savagesays
Rural_gal,
I am actually a proponent for significant change in the way we farm which will, among other things, reduce fossil fuel consumption for farming.
http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-i-hope-will-be-future-of.html
Deborah Dolensays
I still have not figured out if organic means no GM also.
Steve Savagesays
Deborah,
The planting of GM crops is not allowed for Organic growers. There is a specific exemption for manure/compost that comes from animals fed GM crops
Marc Ballatsays
For your information, spinosad may not be as safe as you claim it. It has been reported to me by a dutch advisor that in Switzerland where it has been used since 2002 on grapes and later on apples, organic fruit farmers who use it note a decline in their population of earwigs and as a side-effect, an increase in aphid populations. Spinosad was first believed to have a narrow activity spectrum while it is now known to have a wide activity spectrum and to remain active during around 3 weeks.
是的,铜是一种重金属,对海洋生物和无脊椎动物有毒。欧洲的有机农场主正面临着减少使用有机农药的压力(丹麦和荷兰已经正式禁止使用有机农药作为杀菌剂),现在每公顷有机农药的用量被限制在每年6公斤(通常一次150到300克)。继巴西之后,法国的一名苹果种植者成功地将每次申请的苹果数量减少到20克。值得注意的是,传统农业在猪粮中大量使用铜和锌,以提高猪的生长性能。超过90%的粪便会被排出体外,最终进入施肥的土壤中。
“There are many very safe and effective pesticide options available to conventional growers”. Based on the experience of some of my conventional fruit growers, this is not true in Europe anymore. Both the number of molecules available for controlling pests and fungus and the level of residue admitted in food have been decreasing over the past decades. Due to those increasing restrictions, growing scab or mildew-free apples is becoming increasingly difficult in conventional farming. And while manufacturers advise to use different molecules for controlling a given pest in order to reduce the risk of selecting resistant strains, most retail stores have been limiting the number of different residues that are allowed in food. Is the situation really different in the U.S. ?
Dependency on animal agriculture. What you consider as a down-side is actually one of the goals promoted by the EU directive that regulates organic farming : re-creating a balance between surface and animal population and bringing back amounts of manure being applied to an acceptable level. Britanny, a region of France that is said to be populated with more pigs than humans is saturated with nitrogen. Every summer, the mouths of its rivers are filled with green, life-threatening algae that costs local authorities firtunes to dispose of. Some scientists in France (e.g. Claude Bourguignon) claim that manure (in reasonnable amount of course) is necessary to maintain healthy, living soils while synthetic fertilizers cause their death. It is true that one of the major problems in organic agriculture is to bring enough nitrogen when the plant needs it. It is however only a problem if you try to achieve performances similar to those of conventional agriculture. If however you consider that the performance achieved in conventional agriculture is not sustainable in the short, medium or even in the long-term, if you consider that it endangers the life of the soils that feed a nation and their ability at feeding future generations, the dependency is no longer a problem but rather a indicator of what the future of agriculture should be.
“我们需要养活不断增长的人口”这句话在西方世界已经被这个行业使用了50多年。这个产业能够养活美国、加拿大和欧洲的人吗?答案是肯定的。价格:对化石能源的依赖,对补贴的依赖,肥胖,糖尿病,心脏病和癌症。考虑到人口增长的国家大多买不起昂贵的合成产品、昂贵的灌溉系统和昂贵的转基因种子,在西方世界增加有能力负担这些产品的产量可能会使该行业受益,而不是南半球那些饥饿的国家。欧盟的农业政策甚至已经被证明对非洲和亚洲国家有害:当地农民无法与得到补贴的竞争对手竞争,导致他们破产。奇怪的养活世界的方式。
Steve Savagesays
Marc,
许多有趣的点;然而,欧洲鼓励低生产力农业的趋势(补贴有机农业,禁止各种各样的东西,不采用转基因作物的选择……)是他们自给自足的一件事。事实上,欧盟从一个面积相当于德国的非欧盟国家进口食品。That is not just for off-season and tropical – it includes a huge amount of grains for animal feeds and wheat for bread/pasta etc.
SBGsays
I disagree with points 3 and 4.
POINT 3:
You say there is only enough ‘collectable manure’ for 5% of US cops. Based on your previous post (appliedmythology.blogspot.com/2011/01/detailed-look-at-us-organic-farming.html) organic agriculture currently comprises only 0.5% of US crops. This allows for close to a 1000% increase in organic production from this one source alone.
Additionally, there are other large sources of organic nutrients that are currently wasted such as biosolids from sewerage treatment plants, and municipal food and green waste. I am currently implementing a muncipal organics recycling system for a regional city of 100,000 that will divert 8,000 tonnes of waste from landfill each year and convert it into about 9,000 cubic metres of nutrient rich compost.
Also, it would be a good thing if animal agriculture were to decline, as meat has much higher land, nutrient, energy and water requirement compared to an equivalent calorific value of plant material. The shortfall in animal manure would be made up through the use of green manure crops which would become more viable considering the greater resource and land availability.
SBGsays
POINT 4:
‘Inability to use precision fertilization’ is limited by economy of scale, and the willingness of organic farmers to utilise new technologies, not by any regulations or inherent problems with the organic model.
Manures and other nutrient sources as previously mentioned can be quite easily converted into soluble fertilizers for precise application through conventional delivery systems.
虽然我认为,通过提高规模经济,目前大规模生产可溶性有机肥料的高昂成本将开始被克服,但我认为蓬勃发展的生物技术部门将开发出一种技术,允许从当地的废物产品现场生产具有成本效益的肥料解决方案(aq)。
Education and equipping farmers for analysing the NPK properties of their nutrient sources would also go a long way to improving nutrient delivery in organic farming systems.
Steve Savagesays
SBG,
I think it is great that you are recovering nutrients from sewage, but the use of sewage-based fertilizers has always been specifically banned for Organic. Yes, one could get the soluble nutrients out of manure, but there have already been two cases of massive fraud by companies selling such products because the high cost makes it so tempting to spike the product. It is all a bit silly since the plant “sees” the identical nutrients regardless of source. The release dynamics are just different and depending on the situation, it can be better to use the synthetic sources. Yes, Organic isn’t currently limited by the manure supply – I believe it is limited by the lack of good pest control options and the price premium that requires.
AnumakondaJagadeeshsays
Excellent. Organic Farming,natural farming,permaculture etc. are all supplementary but cannot replace chemical farming.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India