Large-scale organic farming is actually releasing MORE CO2 than large-scale conventional farming?

[NickB79]

https://around.uoregon.edu/content/study-suggests-organic-farming-needs-direction-be-sustainable

Large-scale organic farming operations, based on a review of almost a decade of data from 49 states, are not reducing greenhouse gas emissions, says a University of Oregon researcher.

The increasing numbers of commercialized organic operations, which now make up just 3 percent of total agricultural lands, appear to contribute to increased and more intense levels of greenhouse gases coming from each acre of farmland, reports Julius McGee, a doctoral student in the UO sociology department. His study is in the June issue of the journal Agriculture and Human Values.

snip

The U.S. Department of Agriculture initiated certification standards for organic production under the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act in 1990, but as organic farming moved toward large corporate operations the use of USDA-recommended practices had declined. Recommendations include crop rotation best suited to local soils; organically derived pesticides and herbicides; locally produced composted and manure fertilizers; and mulch tillage.

As operations grow, McGee said, it takes more machinery to do the work. The trend, he noted, is for a focus on single rather than rotated crops, an increased use of organic pesticides and herbicides and the importing of manure-based fertilizers from other locations.

So the idea of organic farming was taken up by Big Ag, mutated into something almost unrecognizable compared to the image portrayed in public of gentle, eco-friendly family farmers, to create a multi-billion dollar industry that's STILL killing the planet

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Yup. 'Large scale organic farming' as practiced by the same folks who also run the large scale

regular factory farming.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Oh, and a second point...

Large-scale organic farming operations, based on a review of almost a decade of data from 49 states, are not reducing greenhouse gas emissions, says a University of Oregon researcher.

Doesn't that seem to suggest that the purpose of organic farming was 'reducing greenhouse gas emissions'? That somehow organic farming has 'failed' because it doesn't do so?

Of course, this is the first time I've even heard it suggested that the point of organic farming was to 'reduce greenhouse gas emissions'. It may well have been suggested over time, I guess, but it's not why anyone I know who eats or grows organic does so.

[NickB79]

9. Very reputable institutes have stated organic farming can reduce GHG emissions if done properly

http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/eat-organic-food-combat-global-warming

http://rodaleinstitute.org/reversing-climate-change-achievable-by-farming-organically/

Of course, they are very clear that farms must use specific practices to sequester carbon, rather than emit it. However, I seriously doubt the average consumer of organic food products would make that distinction when shopping for a can of organic pinto beans and organic chicken.

Instead, the majority of people read such headlines, assume organic farms are like old-school family farms instead of factory farms with very slight differences (because this is the image that organic farms actively promote in advertisements), and actually do assume they're fighting global warming via organic foods. And they're not really at fault, because one of the main points of eating organic is supposed to be a way to tread more gently on the planet, not use toxic chemicals and GM crops to get food, and be more green.

If the goal of organic farming is to be more gentle to the planet's ecosystems, and you accept that climate change is the most dangerous threat facing our planet's ecosystems, that means that large-scale organic farming as currently practiced has indeed failed at it's core purpose.

[Igel]

3. Well, d'uh.

Take my backyard patch of dirt. I've had one since I was in 4th grade, whenever I had a backyard.

My first few years I used inorganic fertilizers. No CO2 emissions. At the end of the growing season the dead plants that remained got pulled up and tossed out in the trash.

Now I compost, mulch, and nothing that grows on my property leaves my property unless it's passed through our digestive system. Plant-based kitchen scraps get composted, as well. It means a lot of organic "stuff" goes into the dirt. Check back a couple of years later most of it is gone: worm food, bacteria food, either way it's carbon's been put into the air.

The low-CO2 method was worse for the soil. I figure that most of the organic stuff that feeds the worms would wind up rotting anyway; it just rots in my patch o' dirt.

That's how organic farming is. You mulch and compost and you will have more CO2 per acre than if you use inorganic fertilizers. (It's unclear to me what happens if you take into account the CO2 emitted by the Haber process in producing the high-N fertilizers, processing, packaging, and transportation.)

[hedgehog]

4. OTOH - when organic methods end up in building a deeper soil base,

aren't they pulling carbon out of circulation?

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Wasn't able to find who funded the study.

Always an important element.

[GreatGazoo]

6. He points out that USDA Organic certification has had little impact on climate change without

looking at the even bigger picture: the consumer has moved on.

The good news is that as awareness builds on the consumer side, the production side is re-aligning. We are moving beyond the social environment that created the USDA Organic label. We are moving toward transparency as information and social media empowers consumers and producers to connect around meaningful changes in practices.

"USDA Organic" was never intended to mean that the product has a lower carbon footprint so that becomes a bit of a strawman as McGee's builds on this flawed fundamental assertion:

The increasing prevalence of ecologically sustainable products in consumer markets, such as organic produce, are generally assumed to curtail anthropogenic impacts on the environment

The consumer is much more specific and as transparency becomes dominant in the new food marketing environment the consumer has ever more impact and efficacy at voting with their dollars to get the changes they value. In that context, this study seems completely obsolete.

[bemildred]

7. The problem is the "large scale" farming. We need small farms, lots of them. nt

[NickB79]

8. That would be a dream of mine come true

I grew up on a 120-acre family farm in central Minnesota in the 80's and 90's. Then, the "big" farms were 250-300 acres. Larger than that was unheard of. This meant that you had plenty of farm families working the land, and a large enough population base to support the small towns, businesses and school districts in any given county. Big box stores hadn't quite entered the picture in the area, so small town economies s were vibrant without the chokehold of Walmarts and Home Depots yet. Farmers worked diverse farms, with properly rotated fields of soybeans, corn, alfalfa, wheat, oats, sorghum, and pastured lands, allowing for good soil management. You had livestock that provided rich manure to fertilize the fields, and you had land set aside for woodlots (managed for firewood production), wetlands, streams and ponds.

Today, we have farms (both organic and non-organic) spanning thousands of acres, growing monocrop fields, no livestock, lots of trucked-in fertilizers, and small towns are turning into ghost towns as the counties depopulate in search of better/more jobs in cities and suburbs.

[bemildred]

10. My brother is a dairyman, I know.

But the point here is that large scale industrial farming is VERY energy inefficient. Small scale family farms, on the other hand, can be run with a mix of farm animals and small biodiesel engines and solar, such that they are very efficient, and ecologically much sounder. And yet it can still be a very good life, and very independant. And as you say it makes for a healthier and stronger society and economy. And nobody gets filthy rich.

[The2ndWheel]

11. Would that work with government as well?

Instead of one large federal body, a lot of smaller independent bodies.

[bemildred]

12. What you want is a hierarchy really.

Power at each level appropriate to the responsibilities assigned to it, and absolutely dependent on the people and things it is supposed to care for.

But the real problem is us, we are just not very good at running things yet, we are just big apes, and we are very immature and prone to self-aggrandizement. Because we are apes, we are obssessed with issues of social status and all that goes with that, for example, and prone to the sorts of emotional pissing contests we see in the news whenever some guy feels disrespected, and we love to piss on other people because it makes us feel safe.

But we do have possibilities.