Organic vs *conventional* farming - 30 year study

EGAR

Study debunks myths on organic farms


BY PAUL HANLEY, SPECIAL TO THE STARPHOENIX SEPTEMBER 27, 2011



The results are in from a 30-year side-by-side trial of conventional and organic farming methods at Pennsylvania's Rodale Institute. Contrary to conventional wisdom, organic farming outperformed conventional farming in every measure.

There are about 1,500 organic farmers in Saskatchewan, at last count. They eschew the synthetic fertilizers and toxic sprays that are the mainstay of conventional farms. Study after study indicates the conventional thinking on farming - that we have to tolerate toxic chemicals because organic farming can't feed the world - is wrong.

In fact, studies like the Rodale trials (www.rodaleinstitute.org/ fst30years) show that after a three-year transition period, organic yields equalled conventional yields. What is more, the study showed organic crops were more resilient. Organic corn yields were 31 per cent higher than conventional in years of drought.

These drought yields are remarkable when compared to genetically modified (GM) "drought tolerant" varieties, which showed increases of only 6.7 per cent to 13.3 per cent over conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties.

More important than yield, from the farmer's perspective, is income, and here organic is clearly superior. The 30-year comparison showed organic systems were almost three times as profitable as the conventional systems. The average net return for the organic systems was $558/acre/ year versus just $190/acre/year for the conventional systems. The much higher income reflects the premium organic farmers receive and consumers pay for.

But even without a price premium, the Rodale study found organic systems are competitive with the conventional systems because of marginally lower input costs.

The most profitable grain crop was the organically grown wheat netting $835/acre/year. Interestingly, no-till conventional corn was the least profitable, netting just $27/acre/year. The generally poor showing of GM crops was striking; it echoed a study from the University of Minnesota that found farmers who cultivated GM varieties earned less money over a 14-year period than those who continued to grow non-GM crops.

Importantly, the Rodale study, which started in 1981, found organic farming is more sustainable than conventional systems. They found, for example, that:

. Organic systems used 45 per cent less energy than conventional.

. Production efficiency was 28 per cent higher in the organic systems, with the conventional no-till system being the least efficient in terms of energy usage.

. Soil health in the organic systems has increased over time while the conventional systems remain essentially unchanged. One measure of soil health is the amount of carbon contained in the soil. Carbon performs many crucial functions: acting as a reservoir of plant nutrients, binding soil particles together, maintaining soil temperature, providing a food source for microbes, binding heavy metals and pesticides, and influencing water holding capacity and aeration. The trials compared different types of organic and conventional systems; carbon increase was highest in the organic manure system, followed by the organic legume system. The conventional system has shown a loss in carbon in recent years.

. Organic fields increased groundwater recharge and reduced run-off. Water volumes percolating through the soil were 15-20 per cent higher in the organic systems. Rather than running off the surface and taking soil with it, rainwater recharged groundwater reserves in the organic systems, with minimal erosion.

Organic farming also helps sustain rural communities by creating more jobs; a UN study shows organic farms create 30 per cent more jobs per hectare than nonorganic. More of the money in organic farming goes to paying local people, rather than to farm inputs.

With results like these, why does conventional wisdom favour chemical farming? Vested interests. Organic farming keeps more money on the farm and in rural communities and out of the pockets of chemical companies. As the major funders of research centres and universities, and major advertisers in the farm media, they effectively buy a pro-chemical bias.

Still, the global food security community, which focuses on poor farmers in developing countries, is shifting to an organic approach. Numerous independent studies show that small scale, organic farming is the best option for feeding the world now and in the future. In fact, agroecological farming methods, including organic farming, could double global food production in just 10 years, according to one UN report.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Study+debunks+myths+organic+farms/5462520/story.html

What ya'll think? Different in Ireland?

JohnBoy

Interesting article.

As a relative non farmer I keep thinking about organic farming from the perspective of cost, that article mentions it, as did the recent farm income survey.

At the end of the day, if an organic farmer only earns 50% as much per hectare as the conventional farmer, but spends 25% of what the conventional farmer spends on inputs then he's still quids in.

makes for interesting reading anyway.

Username John

It is an interesting article.

My opinion (am totally open to correction here ) of organic farming is that organic vegtable / tillage production is more profitable than organic beef / lamb production. Maybe its that the market is there for it, whereas its not for lamb & beef...

I have heard stories of organic beef and lamb producers not really being paid a premium for their produce.

I looked into it (for lamb production) a while ago. And a combination of economies of scale (*I think* you need to pay an annual fee for organic membership?) & where to sell organic produce meant that it was better for me to go the conventional route...

But always interesting to see and read these things...

Mothman

Article doesn't give much detail on what kind of farms were included in the study.
So difficult to make judgment.
For example if there were a higher proportion of vegetable farms representing the organic side then this would relatively push the profit per acre upwards.

blue5000

Ya looks interesting ok. But is saying

" In fact, studies like the Rodale trials (www.rodaleinstitute.org/ fst30years) show that after a three-year transition period, organic yields equalled conventional yields. What is more, the study showed organic crops were more resilient. Organic corn yields were 31 per cent higher than conventional in years of drought."

a bit like saying Irish farmers' incomes rose 31% in 2010 compared to 2009?

"Statistics are a bit like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital"Aaron Levenstein:D

Muckit

blue5000 wrote: »

"Statistics are a bit like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital":D

Ah blue I love it! Permission please to use that one down the pub sometime?!

blue5000

Thanks muckit, just googled it there and I think all credit must go to Aaron Levenstein!!

But you can have my permission to quote me down the pub any day.....

Corsendonk

Not exactly too much detail in the pdf, it reads more like a brochure than a study with little real detail. The study seems limited to only 2-3 crops and not exactly the hardiest crops to grow organically.