Dr. John Ikerd
Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics
University of Missouri Columbia
College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
Can Organic Agriculture Feed the World?
The organic food market continues to grow, in spite of the current economic recession. The Organic Trade Association recently reported that sales of organic foods in 2008 were more than 15% higher than in 2007. Earlier estimates had placed the 2008 growth rate at closer to 5%. While the recent growth rate is well below those of recent years, organic foods continue to be a growing segment of the food market.
Those who see organics as a luxury niche market had expected a sharp drop in sales as consumers became more concerned about their household budgets. However, a recent Harris survey conducted for Whole Foods Inc. indicated that nearly 80% of consumers were very reluctant to compromise on food quality, and 70% were still buying as much or more organic and natural food than before the economic downturn. While core buyers of organic foods account for less than 20% of American consumers, close to 60% have become occasional buyers. While organics still account for less than 4% of total food sales, there is no doubt that organic foods are making significant inroads into mainstream America.
Critics claim that organics is destined to remain a small, niche market because “organic agriculture simply cannot feed the world.” With an anticipated growth in global population from under seven billion to more than nine billion people in the next 40 years, they claim that we have to continue to rely on conventional industrial agriculture to meet the growing food demands of global society.
The critics start with the assumption that organic farms have significantly lower yields per acre than conventional farms. If so, a complete shift from conventional to organic farming would require cultivation of marginal cropland as well as farming much of the land currently set aside for conservation and preservation. Even then, they claim there would simply be insufficient livestock manure to replace the nitrogen fertilizers currently used in food production. They conclude that only a high-input, high-yield industrial agriculture, including new biotechnologies, will be capable of feeding the world.
Organic advocates have responded with scientific studies comparing yields from conventional and organic farms. From example, a team of researchers at the University of Michigan recently completed a comprehensive a study based on 293 field trials comparing yields from conventional and organic, about three-fourths of which were reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Using average yield ratios, they concluded the global food supply that could be grown organically without expanding the current agricultural land base. Their results indicate that farms using existing organic methods could produce enough food for the current human population, and with increased organic research and education, could meet the needs of a growing world population.
Organic critics responded by criticizing the procedures used in the study. They claimed nearly one-third of the comparisons were duplicates, as the same primary yield data was used in two or more different reports cited by the authors. Critics also found the study had included results from no-till farming and other “low-impact” methods, which were not organic, in calculating organic yields. The claim that sufficient nitrogen could be produced using legume cover crops was countered by the authors’ admission that extensive use of cover crops might reduce yields of food crops. In general, the critics of organics appeal to the common knowledge that farmers who shift from conventional to organic farming generally suffer yield losses, particularly in the transition years, and most organic farmers claim they need premium prices to offset lower organic yields.
The arguments over whether organic agriculture can feed the world will never be resolved through scientific studies. Today’s scientific methods are designed to study phenomena in isolation under specific sets of conditions. Scientists may conclude a given crop is more likely to yield more or less using “organic” production practices than “conventional” production practices. However, this tells us little, if anything, about whether that same crop will add more or less to the total food supply when grown on an organic farm than on a conventional farm.
Organic farming systems are inherently individualistic, site-specific, and dynamic. What works for one organic farmer on a specific farm in a given year may not work for another farmer or farm in another year. Organic farming systems have to be tailored to fit specific farms and farmers. Organic farmers are constantly adjusting and fine tuning their systems to accommodate changes in weather and other natural conditions. In addition, organic farmers don’t necessarily attempt to maximize yields in any given year; they are always trying to create conditions that will sustain or enhance yields in the future.
There are countless examples of organic farmers who consistently achieve equal or higher yields than do their conventional farming neighbors. However, it may take far longer than the three-year transition period required for organic certification for a farm and farmer to complete the transition to organic production. Most organic farmers understand that restoring the level of biological health to soils needed to sustain high yields may take a decade or more. Organic farming also is knowledge-intensive. Organic farmers have to develop an understanding of soils, plants, animals, and people before they can farm in harmony with nature and society. It takes time to develop a true organic farm or farmer.
Organic farms at any given time represent farms at all stages of transition. Over time, however, organic yields can logically be expected to trend toward those of mature organic farms, where yields are equal to or higher than on conventional farms. We can’t make to the shift from conventional to organic within the span of a few years. This means that the time remaining to make the transition necessary to feed a growing global population may be running out.
The strongest argument for a global shift from conventional to organic farming methods is that “industrial agriculture cannot feed the world.” When we look beyond short run profits to sustaining the future of humanity, organic agriculture is not an option; it is an absolute necessity. One-billion people are currently undernourished – 15% of global population. This statistic alone provides clear and compelling evidence that industrial agriculture cannot feed the world. Defenders may point to the fact that most developed nations do not practice industrial agriculture. However, industrial agriculture has had nearly a century to transform the global food system to one that provides food security for all people. In this regard, it has failed dismally. We do not have another century to waste on a failed food system. In fact, we may only have a few decades.
Today’s agriculture uses almost 20% of the total fossil energy used in the U.S., about ten kcals of fossil energy for each kcal of food energy produced. Agriculture globally accounts for more than 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions, even more than transportation. Agriculture is also is the number one source of nonpoint source pollution in the U.S., as exemplified by large dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay. Most energy experts agree that we are at or near a peak in global petroleum production and economically recoverable petroleum will be largely depleted by 2050. Energy from coal, the only abundant source of fossil energy, cannot be used to offset petroleum without intensifying global climate change. We cannot continue to pollute our environment without threatening the future of humanity. The conventional model of industrial agriculture is simply incapable of feeding the world of the twenty-first century.
New biotechnologies are not the answer. First, there is no economic incentive to develop new biotechnologies unless they increase profits for those who develop them. In addition, the agribusinesses that develop new technologies will hold patents that restrict their use to those who are willing and able to pay their price. This means those who are hungry will continue to be hungry because most people are hungry because they are poor. Biotechnology does nothing to create economic opportunities for poor people, and those without economic opportunity will continue to be poor and hungry.
The poor of the world will be well fed only when people individually and collectively, in villages and communities around the world, are assured an opportunity to produce enough food for themselves and their neighbors. Most poor people could grow food organically and have an economic incentive to do so, if they knew how. Organic farming depends on knowledge and a willingness to work, not on expensive equipment and purchased inputs. The hungry of the world will be well fed, only when we give those who are willing to work and learn the opportunity to grow food organically.
Growing markets for organic foods reflect a growing awareness that the current industrial model of agriculture is not ecologically sound, socially responsible, or economically viable. It is simply not sustainable. Long run global food security depends on an agriculture that uses solar energy to regenerate and renew the productivity of the land and the people who farm it – on organic agriculture. Organic agriculture can feed the world, and in fact in the future, must feed the world.