The Lower Productivity Of Organic Farming: A New Analysis And Its Big Implications

[progressoid]

The productivity of organic farming is typically lower than that of comparable “conventional” farms. This difference is sometimes debated, but a recent USDA survey of organic agriculture demonstrates that commercial organic in the U.S. has a significant yield gap.

I compared 2014 survey data from organic growers with overall agricultural yield statistics for that year on a crop by crop, state by state basis. The picture that emerges is clear – organic yields are mostly lower. To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming of one hundred nine million more acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas in the lower 48 states or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation. As of 2014 the reported acreage of organic cropland only represented 0.44% of the total, but if organic were to expand significantly, its lower land-use-efficiency would become problematic. This is one of several reasons to question the assertion that organic farming is better for the environment.

The USDA conducted a detailed survey of organics in 2008 and then again in 2014. Information is collected about the number of farms, the acres of crops harvested, the production from those acres, and the value of what is sold. The USDA also collects similar data every year for agriculture in general and makes it very accessible via Quick Stats. It is interesting that they don’t publish any comparisons of these two data sets as they would be able to make comparisons on a county basis. By working with both USDA data resources I was able to find 370 good comparisons of organic and total data for the same crop in the same state and where the organic represented at least 20 acres. That comparison set covers 80% of US crop acreage.




For 292 of those comparisons, the organic yields were lower (84% on an area basis). There were 55 comparisons where organic yield was higher, but 89% of the higher yielding organic examples involved hay and silage crops rather than food crops. The organic yield gap is predominant for row crops, fruit crops and vegetables as can be seen in the graphs below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/09/the-organic-farming-yield-gap/

[mucifer]

1. It wouldn't be such a huge issue IF

Americans ate less meat and animal products. Most of the grain and vegetable crop grown commercially are grown to feed the animals and animal products people eat.

[Kali]

4. then again pasture/grass fed beef is less intensive ag than growing grain, even for humans.

[mucifer]

5. If all the humans ate the same amount of cows they are eating now

we wouldn't have enough space for the cows to graze. Grass fed only works if few people are eating it.

[Travis_0004]

12. perhaps true, but its not always so simple

I have some land where I grow hay. I get the land cut for free, and get a small amount of money.

The soil is not great for growing crops, I dont want to deal with growing crops anyway. If there was no demand I would just pay somebody to cut it.

Animal feed pays less per acre than a lot of other crops, because its often grown in areas where growing other crops may not make sense.

[Kali]

2. yields aren't the full measure of the impacts of various methods

but profits are all that too many care about in out culture. I think there is a place for both and all in-between.

[hunter]

16. Yes!

This thing we call "productivity" in today's economy is often a direct measure of the damage we are doing to our planet and our own human spirit.

An organic farm may not be as "productive" but it may be more beneficial and less destructive to a community than high energy, industrial style non-organic farming.

The cheapest way of doing something isn't usually the best way of doing something.

Inexpensive beef and dairy products are not essential to the human diet.

Extreme chemically enhanced monoculture of any sort, corn, soy, chickens, pork or beef, is an ugly thing, and probably not a sustainable thing.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. We already grow more food than is ever eaten.

What would lower yields mean? Less food wasted.

[JCMach1]

9. Mostly grain for cows and livestock...

[HuckleB]

19. It's odd to see this as a response to information that shows organic's inefficiency.

It is an issue, but it doesn't change that fact that organic is not the way to go.

[tencats]

6. I may be a bit off topic here but I believe what is more important is food that is wasted

Food waste—which represents a third of all food produced globally—is a major area where the Earth’s resources could be used more responsibly.

Before food is even purchased, losses occur due to improper handling, quality deterioration during transport, and inadequate infrastructure for cooling and storage. Fruit and vegetables losses during this stage have been estimated at 2-20 percent in developed countries, and at 24-40 percent in developing countries. High levels of waste result in higher prices for the final product, which could contribute to lower consumption of fruits and vegetables.

The retail level is also responsible for rejecting shipments of edible food that dosn't’t meet visual or size standards. A 2011 report estimated 20 percent of initial food production is lost from products not meeting grading requirements in North America, Europe, Oceania, and Latin America. Fortunately, consumers are supermarkets around the world are changing these standards to accept ‘ugly’ fruits and vegetables and prevent food waste.

Household food waste is another major concern in the developed world. Consumers in high-income countries discard up to 30 percent of fruit and vegetable purchases and trim products up to 33 percent by weight during household preparation. Furthermore, waste from food packaging is unlikely to be recycled at the household level, having been the least affected category by the four-fold increase in recycling since 1990.

Here are 10 facts you might not know about food waste:

1. 1.3 billion tons of food are wasted every year
2. This amounts to US$1 trillion dollars of wasted or lost food
3. If wasted food was a country, it would be the third largest producer of carbon dioxide in the world, after the United States and China
4. Just one quarter of all wasted food could feed the 795 million undernourished people around the world who suffer from hunger
5. Food waste in rich countries (222 million tons) is approximately equivalent to all of the food produced in Sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tons)
6. A European or North American consumer wastes almost 100 kilograms of food annually, which is more than his or her weight (70 kilograms)
7. A European or North American consumer wastes 15 times more food than a typical African consumer
8. Lack of technology and infrastructure is the main cause of food waste in Africa, as opposed to household food waste in the developed world
9. Food waste in Europe alone could feed 200 million hungry people
10. Food waste generates 3.3 billions tons of carbon dioxide, which accelerates global climate change.

Quoted from foodtank.com/news/2015
http://foodtank.com/news/2015/06/world-environment-day-10-facts-about-food-waste-from-bcfn

[XemaSab]

7. We have more than enough acreage to feed Americans

Why is it our job to grow food and fiber for the planet, undercutting indigenous producers in other countries?

[katsy]

8. Symptom

The problem is overpopulation.

What is solved with greater good production? That we can feed more mouths?

[JCMach1]

10. Organic can only be sustainable if we are talking vegetables

and a few other crops...

If you haven't watched it yet, checkout Cowspiracy... it's on Netflix

http://www.cowspiracy.com/


Organic meats and a large number of other crops are just not sustainable at the population levels we have.

[NuclearDem]

11. Well, if there seems to be one organic crop that doesn't have this problem

it's apparently sour grapes.

[Igel]

13. This is a rebuttal.

There's a claim that's widely circulated that organic is a more efficient use of land. It's not entirely false--it's apparently sometimes true. But it's vastly overgeneralized.

Most of the counters to this particular OP, going on the assumption that the facts presented are accurate in the OP, go back to: Well, it doesn't matter that organic's not as efficient because what we really need to do is change other people's behavior. "Waste less food, then the inefficiency doesn't matter." "Eat less meat, so the inefficiency doesn't matter." "Do this or that other thing, so the inefficiency doesn't matter."

What matters is the validity of the original claim, not ways to make the inaccuracy of the claim irrelevant.

For row crops, things that tend to be grown organically in small quantities or with a lot of labor-intensive attention, the efficiency's roughly the same. Sometimes more efficient; sometime equal; sometimes less. For large-scale crops that cannot be economically labor intensive--and this isn't just going to be for forage but also for staples like rice, beans, corn, wheat, barley--organic is less efficient. The size of the inefficiency is what's at stake for this side-bar conversation.

I don't think the author considers another factor, one that's minor in the instance, might impact some of the marginally "more" or "less efficient" examples, and matters more in the aggregate. Organic farms tend to be smaller and have more land devoted to living space. The OP just looks, AFAIK, at land that's under production, not the total amount of land (including "overhead" or staging/support areas) used for production. Have a 4 acre farm with a 1/2 acre homestead on it versus a 4000 acre farm with a 1/2 acre homestead, all that matters is the productivity of each of the 4 acres versus each of the 4000. That the 4 acres' productivity "requires" 4.5 acres, so each acre "uses" 4.125 acres land, while each of the 4000 acres uses essentially 4.000 acres land may not seem like much, but have 500k such farms and that's a hefty number of acres "non-productively" used.

But again, the argument deals with efficiency, not ways of making the inefficiency unimportant. The upshot is that very quickly the argument will again be that organic farms, based on some examples (but not the general case) are actually more efficient and should be the general model. Whatever the wrong-spinning facts may suggest.

[Peace Patriot]

14. Irrelevant! What about the NUTRITIONAL yield?

Comparisons of quantity alone are meaningless. They are also weighted in favor of big corporate farms that not only poison land and people--with hidden dire costs for the future that corporate profiteers will not be paying (we will be)--but they are also based on an economic model that most small family or coop organic farms cannot compete with.

The hidden dire costs for the future are many, but include inefficient energy use, air pollution, water pollution (and overuse), killing of soils and failure to replenish soils with organics, catastrophes such as bee colony collapse, vast loss of environmental values of every kind (ripping apart of the web of life on and around farms, runoff of pollutants into the oceans and into fresh water sources, huge impacts on fish and on sentient mammals such as dolphins and whales), vast long-term health costs for corporate farmers themselves, for farm workers and for the communities from various kinds of pollution, and on and on.

The economic model of Big Ag is also ruinous. They have hijacked the government subsidies (not to mention the government agencies) that were intended to help small family farms and mid-size farms back in the Great Depression, and have created a monster out of government-supported, corporate agriculture. This monster has not only decimated small farming communities in the U.S., it has decimated small farming communities all over the world, wherever it has bribed and bullied its way into the country. U.S. Big Ag dumps its products (such as rice, potatoes, dried milk, etc.) onto local ag markets DELIBERATELY to destroy local, family and community organic farms!

Finally, small organic farms here do not get the help they need and deserve to improve yields. These are highly motivated, often young people, who love the land and are doing things right, but are enduring a nearly crushing struggle--mostly caused by lack of funds, also over-work--that no civilized society should tolerate. They are our heroes! They are saving our food supply and our country! And they have very limited time and energy to lobby against Chevron and Monsanto and other billionaire clients of the government. Monsanto & brethren will destroy these small farmers if they can, and are certainly trying every way they can to do so.

Which brings me to Forbes. Like all the rest of the corporate press, its purpose is to lie to you. Their articles, their facts, their arguments, their writers are not to be trusted. It is naive and foolish to take any assertion of theirs, such as this one, at face value. What it probably means is that small organic farmers--with all of their difficult struggles--have become a threat to Big Ag, because their food is far, far superior to Big Ag's, and people are demanding that higher quality.

[LWolf]

15. Do the stats

include soil health?

It seems like the increased soil health and depth of topsoil, which can speak to long-term yields, might be an important factor to consider.

I'm fine with lower yields and higher planetary health, soil health, depth of topsoil, and plant variety, myself.

Of course, I'm also fine with limiting human population growth, with a long-term goal of drastically reducing global human population numbers, which would relieve the stress on the planet and the need for science to figure out how to feed the population surplus. As well as reducing the carbon load.

And, while I'm also fine with reducing the consumption of animal products, FIRST I'd like to see the disappearance, or near-disappearance, of over-processed foods from the food market.

In an area like mine, with less population stress, people raise their own eggs and chicken meat, and one can knock on a local door to talk about free-range, grass-fed meat of other varieties that never see feedlots or factory farming; but that's because of the lower local population load.

[Marrah_G]

17. We throw away massive amounts of produce

There needs to be a change in how we get our food, how we use our food and how we store our food. The current system is destroying the environment. One of the biggest things I would like to see changed is cooking and gardening classes in school. Both can be connected to science and math.

[HuckleB]

18. Recommended. Considering that organic farming would also be on the wrong side of...

carbon sequestration, as well as output issues, it's becoming more and more clear that this is not the way to go.

[yellowcanine]

20. At some point we are just going to have to eat algae and yeast.

I can't wait to belly up to an algae yeast burger. Yum.

[progressoid]

23. And crickets.

[yellowcanine]

25. I prefer my crickets roasted.....

Yum. GMO and Gluten free also.

[GreatGazoo]

21. Organic farming is 00.6% of US farming so it's hard to see what "big implications"

there are in this.

Savage, the author, simply tortured USDA data and produced pretty pie charts. He did NOT look at the bigger equation.

We are running out of phosphorous -- this truly has big implications for all farming worldwide.

Who cares about phosphorus? For starters, every living thing on Earth—including humans—since all the crops we eat depend on it to produce healthy cells. Until the mid-20th century, farmers maintained phosphorus levels in soil by composting plant waste or spreading phosphorus-rich manure. Then new mining and refining techniques gave rise to the modern phosphorus fertilizer industry—and farmers, particularly in the rich temperate zones of Europe and North America, quickly became hooked on quick, cheap, and easy phosphorus. Now the rest of the world is scrambling to catch up, and annual phosphorus demand is rising nearly twice as fast as the population.
...
Morocco, it is thought, holds up to 85 percent (PDF) of the globe's known phosphate rock reserve—and a lot of it lies in Western Sahara. Morocco's royal family thus controls what Jeremy Grantham, cofounder of the prominent Boston-based global investment firm Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co., called the "most important quasi-monopoly in economic history."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/05/fertilizer-peak-phosphorus-shortage

Savage also misses a comparison of costs. He isn't a farmer. He worked for DuPont and other corps so he perhaps has never had to worry about whether the total value of the yield will exceed the total cost of production. Organic and no-till are both generally cheaper than Roundup Ready options. This means farmers can make money even if yields are lower. Also the marketplace is paying a premium for non-GMO right now and many farmers have gone back to pre-GMO corn in order to turn a profit (GMO corn production is subsidized because it is not otherwise profitable for the farmer).

We have to find better ways to keep phosphorous in the soils and out of run off. We need to close the loop before we hit peak phosphorous and begin to see drops in production.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. I'd like to see a similar analysis done by someone who isn't a big ag shill.

He may be using good science here but since he's clearly in the more technology, better living through chemicals camp there may significant biases in his work.

[PufPuf23]

24. "Organic" farming can fill an economic and food quality niche.

Until 2006 I leased (as lessor) an 8 acre organic farm in Humboldt county, CA (a local who shops at the Arcata or Eureka farmers markets would recognize various tenants from the 1980s to 2006). Prior to the coming of the "organic farmers" the site had been used by my family (since 1869) for family garden, irrigated pasture, and in the 70s to mid 80s part was in alfalfa. The alfalfa was for our own calves and horses and the excess sold locally. The alfalfa was not viable in and of itself.

The last tenant specialized in "heirloom" varieties of perishables (tomatoes, peppers, summer squash, herbs, greens, etc.) and sold at the coastal farmers markets, restaurants (local and San Francisco Bay Area), and bulk to non-corporate groceries (Arcata Coop).

In 2003 I had reason for a real estate appraisal and the tenant provided me his Schedule C tax form. In 2002 the small farm and marketing by the tenant netted $103,000 to the tenant farmer. The product was unprocessed fresh vegetables retail at the farmers markets or wholesale to the restaurants and groceries. Costs included wages, insurance, water (irrigation and sanitary), tractor, irrigation equipment, refrigerator truck, waxed boxes, seeds, manure and compost, bookkeeping, portapotty, and, of course, payment to the landlord. I would guess 5-6 FTE employees (more individuals but seasonal) besides the proprietor.

The "heirloom" vegetables are more perishable and flavorful that run of the mill corporate product. They also sold for a considerable higher price. Because of the intensity of farming, the per acre production was comparable or exceeded that of corporate farming with pesticides The vegetables were more perishable and also more attractive and flavorful than fresh vegetables available at the typical markets. The "heirloom" vegetables were also seasonal. There was a considerable wastage in produce that was flawed in appearance for market or returned unsold from farmers markets and this was used by the farmer and employees or given away locally and was in an amount that most ended up as compost.

One issue I had with the tenant was that he was by contract required to get the farm certified and maintain certification by the California Certified Organic Farmers Association and never did.

http://www.ccof.org/

Yet during part of his tenancy he was an officer in the North Coast Growers Association. Some of the farmers at this site and another farm owned by my family were founding members of NCGA.

http://humfarm.org/

[Dont call me Shirley]

26. Lower yields but healthier food.