Study suggests organic farming needs direction to be sustainable

[OKIsItJustMe]

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

[font face=Serif]

[font size=5]Study suggests organic farming needs direction to be sustainable[/font]

July 12, 2015 - 11:56am

[font size=3]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.

While the findings appear troubling, McGee, a regular consumer of organic food, says the study really points to the need for a reassessment of where the organic-food movement wants to go and how to get there. He suggests stricter adherence to sustainability-driven farm practices and increased governmental oversight of the profit-motivated move toward upscale, certified organic production.

"The big questions are what are we are doing when we shift from conventional to organic production, and what are the environmental consequences," McGee said. "This study says that the organic farming industry is in the early stages. So far we don't see any mitigating effect on greenhouse gasses. We need to pay close attention to what processes in organic farming operations make them the sustainable alternative that we want them to be, and we are going to need to more strictly follow those."

…[/font][/font]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Organic farming was sustainable for millenia before we discovered any other methods...

We've only just (in terms of the history of agriculture) started using non-organic methods of farming.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. I don’t know if I accept that

We were depleting soils for a long, long time…

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Good point. Ok, then at least since the three field method was discovered.

I rotate crops myself in my garden to enrich the soil naturally, including planting nitrogen fixers like red clover in and around the other crops I'm harvesting during the growing season itself.

[NickB79]

4. There weren't 7.5 billion mouths to feed millenia ago

The problem (once again) boils down to the need to squeeze as much food per acre from land because of high demand from growing populations.

In millenia past, farmers would let their fields lie fallow every few years to recover, and expected far fewer bushels per acre than we see today.

[GreatGazoo]

5. If there is an "organic food movement" then it is centered around what's NOT in the food.

That is what the certifications refer to. That is what the customer pays for.

Sustainable agriculture is a whole other subject so I don't understand why this Sociology student is pretending that the 2 are one on the same (?) "Local" food, which now polls above "organic" as a customer preference includes a greater focus on avoiding carbon release.

The good news is that many practices are being adopted throughout the US agricultural industry that will reduce, eliminate or outright net sequester carbon. No-Till is being pushed by the USDA and is being adopted by more corn and soy farmers. Electric tractors are just now emerging as a viable option for large scale farms.

The guy in this Ted X talk works for the Rockefellers and is part of a trend toward combining existing agricultural practices (both organic and non-organic) with practices that will eliminate or sequester carbon.

[cprise]

6. Organic traditionally aims to conserve healthy soil

Hence why one of the original progenitors of organic certification is the Soil Association:

The principle of ecology

Organic Agriculture should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them and help sustain them.

This principle roots organic agriculture within living ecological systems. It states that production is to be based on ecological processes, and recycling. Nourishment and well-being are achieved through the ecology of the specific production environment. For example, in the case of crops this is the living soil; for animals it is the farm ecosystem; for fish and marine organisms, the aquatic environment.

As the organic philosophy got applied to more and more crops and environments, it essentially merged with ecological principles. Sustainable soil use led eventually to sustainable aquaculture, textiles, etc. But it has not yet caught up with the greenhouse gas issue, and its worth noting the study of how agricultural processes give off greenhouse gases (and, conversely, how global warming is affecting soils) is still a fast-moving one.

So, yes, organic is about sustainability. But its old enough to have some traces of siloing between what were thought to be separate disciplines. I am all for expanding the focus beyond the effects on the soil and water, to make agriculture accountable to impacts on the entire biosphere. That's why I shop to limit my carbon footprint but also buy organic when I can.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. The question is, “what is ‘organic farming?’”

Has “organic farming” been practiced for millenia? centuries? decades?

Is “slash-and-burn,” organic farming, if it uses no chemical fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides?

[cprise]

9. Its based on biodynamic validation of some traditional and new methods

The Soil Association offers a short definition or organic here: http://www.soilassociation.org/whatisorganic/organicfarming

And a history here: http://www.soilassociation.org/Aboutus/Ourhistory

There is a lot to talk about in those two links. The first one has a boast that organic can reduce CO2 emissions -- This is actually correct according to the OP, which has an abstract stating that one kind of organic does reduce emissions, while the USDA type does not. Back in 2009 the Soil Association issued a summary with independent support

The history page states:

For the first thirty years the Association was based on a farm in Suffolk and was primarily involved in basic research as well as building a membership base. The farm was divided into three units, one farmed using the new intensive techniques, one farmed traditionally and one with mixed system. At the end of this period the results were not as clear as had been hoped (hardly surprising since we still have a poor understanding of what we truly mean by health of land and food), however a much clearer understanding had been built up of how the best of old and new traditions in land husbandry could be combined, and so the first organic standards were compiled defining this system.

In 1967, the first Soil Association standards were drawn up. Ultimately they stated that the basis for the success of any organic enterprise is the creation and sustenance of a living soil. "The use of, or abstinence from, any particular practice should be judged by its effect on the well-being of the micro-organic life of the soil, on which the health of the consumer ultimately depends."

About the 'father of organic agriculture':https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Howard

So organic grew out of land husbandry, and a scientific concern for the health of the soil and the surrounding countryside. And its a response to intensive postwar agriculture.

On wildlife:

In developing countries there can be pressure to convert valuable ecosystems such as rainforest to farmland. But our standards state that any high conservation value land mustn't be converted to organic farmland, but left intact. This helps to protect the rich biodiversity that is found in these rare and diverse ecosystems.

These should answer most of your questions. However, I don't know whether USDA or any other government organic program goes this far about conserving wildlife. My own reading of USDA's adoption of organic was that the word "organic" on packaging was in danger of being used for any sort of production; So they took the stance that "all natural" would remain unenforced and meaningless, while "organic" would have to be backed up by at least some of the defining features of the organic movement. If a different term that could be trademarked and controlled independently of government had be used, the conversation about organic might be different today.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I’m sorry, it was more of a rhetorical question.

The name, “organic farming,” is somewhat ill-defined.

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/torg.html

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

More than 40 private organizations and state agencies (certifiers) currently certify organic food, but their standards for growing and labeling organic food may differ. For example, some agencies may permit or prohibit different pesticides or fertilizers in growing organic food. In addition, the language contained in seals, labels, and logos approved by organic certifiers may differ. By the late 1980s, after an attempt to develop a consensus of production and certification standards, the organic industry petitioned Congress to draft the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) defining "organic".

…[/font][/font]

The key requirement of the “OFPA” is that no “synthetic chemicals” be used (hence, my reference to “slash-and-burn” agriculture.)


Upstream, “Erich Bloodaxe BSN” http://www.democraticunderground.com/112788309#post1 stated, “Organic farming was sustainable for millenia…”

That would be consistent with the idea that “organic farming” uses no “synthetic chemicals.”


I suspect what you consider “organic farming” is a relatively recent invention. (Well, relative to millenia at least.)

[cprise]

11. As my links indicate, organic started in 20th century England

Its a modern 'appropriate technology' movement with a scientific basis. For a comparison, modern medicine has evolved to investigate the value of traditional remedies, but that's not to say a doctor today would try to treat you as a healer would have hundreds of years ago.

The US government can insist on minimum standards for commercial labeling purposes, but it doesn't define the field any more than it defines ecology. If you can reach a scientific consensus on what is sustainable then you can do so for organic agriculture.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. I believe Wikipedia puts it well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Organic farming[/font][hr]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[font size=3]Organic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost, and biological pest control. Depending on whose definition is used, organic farming uses fertilizers and pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) if they are considered natural (such as bone meal from animals or pyrethrin from flowers), but it excludes or strictly limits the use of various methods (including synthetic petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides; plant growth regulators such as hormones; antibiotic use in livestock; genetically modified organisms; human sewage sludge; and nanomaterials.) for reasons including sustainability, openness, independence, health, and safety.

Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), an international umbrella organization for organic farming organizations established in 1972. The USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) definition as of April 1995 is:

Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.

Since 1990 the market for organic food and other products has grown rapidly, reaching $63 billion worldwide in 2012. This demand has driven a similar increase in organically managed farmland which has grown over the years 2001-2011 at a compounding rate of 8.9% per annum. As of 2011, approximately 37,000,000 hectares (91,000,000 acres) worldwide were farmed organically, representing approximately 0.9 percent of total world farmland.

…[/font][/font]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of organic farming. However, “Organic Farming” means different things to different people.

I would say that my Grandfather practiced “organic farming” back in the 60’s & 70’s, using techniques he learned from his cooperative extension agent.

[cprise]

13. If someone makes public claims about what is organic

they are going to have to justify it within a certain scientific or regulatory context. The regulatory part is about bare minimums and preventing the word from becoming officially meaningless forever (like "natural&quot , not about state-of-the-art (which is where I'd place the carbon emissions aspect at this point).

We all have different working, day-to-day definitions of many things. There is ample meaning in organic that is pretty specific, its just based on consensus and ongoing research. The more someone asserts a personal definition in the wider community, the more the dubious or dogmatic parts of that definition will be challenged. Some people make it sound like Luddism, and they are entitled to their impressions until they become strident... then they may be called out as ignorant.

Note the History sections of the organic-themed wikipedia pages. This one describes a shift away from traditional agriculture in the 1800s and then a wave of concern by soil scientists that laid the groundwork for organic, which has a specific history starting with a scientific approach in the 20th century.

The wider problem here is our cultural bias that results in people who are choosy about technology being derided as anti-technology and anti-science. We are supposed to react to every press release for a new product with wide-eyed wonder and hold off on criticism even when the developers are strongly implying certain assumptions.

[GreatGazoo]

8. The study in the OP looked only at the impact of an acre of USDA organic practices versus an acre of

conventional. Impact was defined strictly as CO2 emissions per acre. USDA organic is now used by businesses like Perdue for example to certify their chickens sold under the "Coleman Organic" label. So most of the product sold as USDA organic is now coming from the same supply chains as conventional. In this example, factory farmed chickens with the male chicks culled live into grinders that make them into dog food and all that. Same chickens, same warehouses full of ammonia laden chicken waste, just without hormones and antibiotics.

Many consumers have moved on to "local" foods, seeking more transparency, fresher product and less carbon release per calories.

The more the food industry hollows out "organic" the more they send customers to other sources. The age of big brands is closing and the age of transparency is dawning. The big brands are panicking because "big" is out and their efforts to stop GMO labeling or rename HFCS just makes it worse. Big brands were about trust and they blew it:

http://fortune.com/2015/05/21/the-war-on-big-food/?src=longreads