Organic Farming Outperforms Conventional Practices in 30-Year Study

[Veena Annadana]

Organic Farming Outperforms Conventional Practices in 30-Year Study

SustainableBusiness.com News


Organic farming produces yields that match or surpass those of conventional farming systems, especially during times of drought, according to a 30-year study.

The non-profit Rodale Institute today announced the results of its Farming Systems Trial, America's longest running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming practices, encompassing productivity, soil quality, energy and economics.

Rodale finds that organic methods improve the nutritional profile of food, the health of soil and water, and the conditions of rural areas.

"Organic agriculture creates more jobs, provides a livable income for farmers, and can restore America's confidence in our farming community and food system," they say.

Key findings include:

Organic yields match or surpass conventional yields;
Organic yields outperform conventional yields in years of drought;
Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system;
Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient;
Conventional agricultural systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases;
Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional farming systems.
These results are congruent with a legion of shorter term studies, that uniformly demonstrate the superiority of organic agriculture to that of chemical-based monoculture farming.

It's also widely reported that organic farming sequesters carbon in the soil, providing a pivotal way to address climate change. In contrast, conventional farming releases the carbon in the soil, adding carbon to the atmosphere.

"America's farming techniques affect the health of our families, our communities, and our planet. The Farming Systems Trial shows that organic farming is the healthiest and safest way to feed the world, provide much-needed jobs, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and protect precious natural resources," says Mark Smallwood, Executive Director of Rodale Institute.

"The Farming Systems Trial clearly documents in a replicated, scientific fashion, that many of the current myths are not true. Organic agriculture does not result in the grower losing money, does not result in lower yields, or more expensive management practices," says Dr. Elaine Ingham, Chief Scientist at Rodale Institute. "The next step forward is to educate growers, whether they are conventional or organic, in the methods used in the Farming Systems Trial to assure equal or better yields through farming practices that do not harm the environment."

The trial will continue with a new focus on nutrition and human health. "We have shown that organic can feed the world. Now it is time to take on the matter of feeding the world well," says Smallwood.

Website: REPORT: 30 Years of the Farming Systems Trial | Rodale Institute

source: Organic Farming Outperforms Conventional Practices in 30-Year Study

 

[Veena Annadana]

Is the organic food movement full of compost?

Is the organic food movement full of compost?
By Abby Vigderman
September 16, 2011
Section: Impressions

Maybe it’s due to my liberal arts education. Maybe I’ve been influenced by my friends. Perhaps my upbringing changed me in some way. I’m not sure which of these sources changed me, repulsed me to the point that I can say, with absolute certainty, that I hate organic food.
I seem to be the only person I know who has no preference between organic and non-organic foods. SEA supports the purchase of organic foods over non-organics, and my friends love to buy organic fruits that they get from markets that definitely don’t have a “super” prefix. Yet I find the organic food industry to be a complete waste of time and a hoax meant to steal the money of unknowing hippies and mothers who want their children to eat only “the best.”
What defines the best? I define it as food that is healthy for you and helps you live longer and maintain all your vital organs and limbs, among other things. What are “the worst” foods? Any food that is unhealthy for you, meaning foods that give you cancer, foods with trans fats and anything in between.
I specifically have a problem with organic fruits. What I have been led to believe is that organic fruits are better for you partially because of their use of natural pesticides. Nonorganic fruit is grown with synthetic pesticides, which apparently cause the whole “third arm” cancer thing that we try to avoid. And, in that respect, I completely agree. We should not be eating foods that cause cancer or any other diseases. But that is why I support real research into healthy foods and eating habits, not armchair knowledge, which seems to be what the discussion of organic foods has become.
I’ve thought about the role that organic foods play in a healthy diet before, but I was always a skeptic. In a recent science lecture class, my professor made a little reference to this debate and did not seem supportive of the consumption of organic fruits at all. This got me thinking about the true health benefits of organic fruits in regard to synthetic versus natural pesticides, leading me to do a quick Google search, which led me to a New York Times article and, lo and behold, it was titled “Synthetic vs Natural Pesticides.” How convenient.
Finally, an answer to my prayers! And by prayers I mean Google search and by answer I mean one man’s answer. Via citation of a scientific paper by a famous and well-respected scientist named Bruce Ames, the writer—John Tierney—argued that the synthetic pesticides humans ingest cause cancer no more than natural pesticides.
The article points out that, while synthetic pesticides are more likely to cause cancer, you eat such a small amount in your lifetime that it is very unlikely that they will cause cancer. At this point, I decided to read the actual scientific paper that Tierney cited, just to verify what the paper was actually saying.
I am as much a skeptic of articles from The New York Times as I am of organic fruits, so I came to this paper with no preconceived notions, except the notion that Bruce Ames is a wonderful scientist based on everything I had learned about him in science class. The paper seemed to have the same conclusion that the Times article had: Synthetic pesticides in the quantities we consume are no worse for us than natural pesticides. But the paper took it a step further; it claimed that organic fruits are actually causing cancer because they are taking focus away from eating habits that actually cause cancer like, oh, I don’t know, not drinking soda every day. Or not going to Sherman every night and gorging yourself on eggs and toast (story of my life). Or not eating three bagels at a time because you have to use up a meal. Proper diet, meaning eating foods that are healthy for your body such as low-fat, low-calorie options, is a much larger determinant of whether or not you will get cancer. By taking the focus away from proper eating habits, organic foods are truly the wool in sheep’s clothing of the food industry. And I never thought I would put those words together in a sentence, but crazier things have happened.
I take Ames’ argument a step further. Not only are organic fruits “causing” cancer, but I postulate that the organic fruit industry is nothing but a sham to play on the fears of unknowing customers who are led to believe, maybe by the organic fruit gods, that organic fruits are better for you. These companies charge more money for products that, while costlier, most likely do not cost the large amounts that we see in supermarkets. I only have my speculations, of course—it’s not as if I actually know how much it costs to produce and ship organic fruits—but it’s at least a plausible situation. Isn’t it at least plausible that the organic fruit industry is feeding off of peoples desires to provide nothing but the best for their families? The funniest thing is that the people who buy organic would probably buy fruit anyway, so in that way the organic fruit industry would truly be scamming people out of their money.
I’m not saying that you have to agree with my thoughts, all I suggest is that you think about these kinds of things for yourself and do your own research so you can create personal conclusions about what to eat and how to live. In short, have an organic thought before you have an organic fruit.

Add a comment
Comments are subject to moderation and/or publication in The Hoot. Write a letter to the editor.

Sources: The Brandeis Hoot Is the organic food movement full of compost?

 

[Veena Annadana]

Organic farming reduces antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Organic farming reduces antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Sep 26, 2011

Sapkota, AR, RM Hulet, G Zhang, P McDermott, RL Kinney, KJ Schwab and SW Joseph. 2011. Lower prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Enterococci on U.S. conventional poultry farms that transitioned to organic practices. Environmental Health Perspectives Environmental Health Perspectives: Lower Prevalence of Antibiotic-resistant Enterococci On U.S. Conventional Poultry Farms That Transitioned to Organic Practices.
Synopsis by Renee Gardner

When compared to farms that maintain conventional chicken-raising practices, farmers who switch to organic farming methods reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria – especially those resistant to more than one antibiotic – that can cause infection in people.

ShareThis
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria were less common on chicken farms that had recently switched to organic farming practices when compared to those that continued to use conventional farming practices, finds a study of organic poultry farms in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The results are published online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
The results show that reducing nontherapeutic use of antibiotics also reduces antibiotic-resistant bacteria in chickens and their waste materials. It is one of the first to examine the changes on farms in the United States. The findings agree with prior studies from Europe and Asia that report similar results: less antibiotic use means fewer resistant bacteria in the animals and food products.
In conventional chicken farming, antibiotic use goes beyond just treating sick chickens. The drugs are often added to feed to promote the growth of chickens living in crowded poultry houses. Antibiotics use increased during the 1990s and a large portion of that increase was due to these so-called nontherapeutic uses.
However, this kind of overuse can increase antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the facilities. The bacteria can then spread to people by either direct contact with the animals, through the handling and eating of meat products and via manure spread on crops and farmland.
This can be a problem because medical complications due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming more commonplace in hospitals. An infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria generally means a longer and more serious illness for the patient, as well as more complicated and often more expensive treatments.
Demand for organic chicken is increasing at a time when the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is gaining more attention from scientists and the public. Sales of organic chicken quadrupled between 2003 and 2006, making poultry one of the fastest growing organic products. The demand is due in part to consumers' preference and perception that organically-grown poultry is safer than conventionally-raised poultry. This demand has also prompted more farmers to switch from conventional to organic methods.
In this study, a team of researchers from University of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Johns Hopkins University took advantage of mid-Atlantic farms that were transitioning to organic practices. The researchers compared five formerly conventional farms that were producing their first flock of certified organic chickens to five farms that continued conventional farming practices, including adding up to six different antibiotics to the feed.
The researchers sampled water, feed and poultry litter – a combination of bedding material such as straw or sawdust, manure, feathers and spilled feed. They cultured bacteria from these samples and tested each for bacteria resistant to a wide variety of antibiotics.
The authors found the same strains of bacteria on both organic and conventional farms. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria were less common in samples from the organic farms. Most of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria were found in the poultry litter samples, though some were also found in food and water samples.
Bacteria that were multi-drug resistant – that is, resistant to three or more kinds of antibiotics – were also less common in samples from organic farms. Forty-two percent of samples isolated from conventional poultry houses were multi-drug resistant, compared to 10 percent of samples isolated from organic farms. Bacteria isolated from conventional farms were more likely to be resistant to antibiotics routinely used for people with infections, such as cyprofloxacin, tetracycline, penicillin and gentamicin.

Source: Organic farming reduces antibiotic resistant bacteria. — Environmental Health News

 

[Veena Annadana]

Feeding the world requires "a new paradigm”

Feeding the world requires "a new paradigm”

Soybean harvest in western Brazil. Nearly half of all cereal production is used to feed livestock for meat production (Reuters)
RELATED STORIES
Famine and abundance rub shoulders in Ethiopia
Farming of the future takes root
Seeking more open and innovative agriculture
Meat consumption gets ecological grilling
by Jessica Dacey, swissinfo.ch
Agriculture specialists convening in Bern to debate the question of how to feed the world have agreed on one thing: a new paradigm is needed.
Farming models are breaking down – as witnessed by the suicide of a farmer every half hour in India - and new directions for research in agriculture for development are needed to support the sector and combat global poverty.

A joint conference hosted by non-government organisation Swissaid and Bern University asked 12 experts which agriculture methods worked and where research should be headed.

Although a similar conference was held ten years ago by Swissaid, this time around there is a growing urgency to act, Caroline Morel, head of the agency, told swissinfo.ch.

Under pressure
“What’s changed is that the pressure is growing. Pressure on natural resources like land, water and forests mainly, and also the population. Because of climate change there are a lot of bigger challenges than before.”

“We need a change of paradigm in agriculture and in future research.”

Agricultural paradigms have been shifting since the war, according to Angelicka Hilbeck, an agrobiologist at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

In the post-World War era there was a shift from food and feed production to raw material production for the “industrial value chain” and commodities traded and owned by a handful of giant companies.

For example, less than one per cent of all corn produced in 1997 landed on people’s dinner tables while still on the cob, the other 99 per cent being used for anything from flavourings to animal fodder.

“We need a paradigm shift in science and research to support the shifts in production, consumption and lifestyle,” Hilbeck told the conference.

Big versus small
In one trend, people have become bigger meat eaters. From 1960-2000 meat production nearly doubled from 22kg to 38kg per capita, according to a 2008 study by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).

As a result, nearly half of cereal production is used to feed animals for meat production. Of that 75 per cent is produced by big industrialised farms.

With big farms taking on the lion’s share of output, where does that leave small farmers? Hans Hurri, of the National Centre of Competence Research, noted that 99 per cent of farmers are living on small-scale farms. Only one per cent lives on large-scale, mechanised farms – the very farms that are cultivating about 50 per cent of all cropland.

But with 40 per cent of the human population living in rural areas and mostly employed in farming, it remains the “single most important occupational sector worldwide”.

In India, 93 per cent of farmers have small holdings of under four hectares. But these farmers are suffering from the effects of climate change such as drought, temperature extremes and changes in eco-systems resulting in pest shifts. Indebtedness is triggering high numbers of suicides of farmers there.

“Ninety-nine per cent of farmers are small and marginal. We need to look after them,” Gangula Ramanjaneyulu, senior scientist at the Indian Council of Agriculture and one of the conference speakers, told swissinfo.ch.

“It’s not just an issue for farmers. Everyone in the world has to depend on farming for their food, directly or indirectly. If farming is threatened, life on earth is threatened.”

The answer is to return to biodiverse farming (growing more than one crop in a field) and reviving time-tested traditional crop varieties which are more resistant to climate change, he said.

“Today most of our foods comes from just four or five crops. If you look back 50 years we used to have 20-30 crops. The narrowing of our genetic base of food is serious. That’s something that needs to be addressed by the research system.”

Organic future
Is organic farming another way forward? For Urs Niggli of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture it is one of the best options on the table, in part because organic has the “best adaptation to climate change”, improving soil fertility and therefore leading to higher soil carbon levels.

Niggli pointed to two studies that found organic farming would increase yields. One study for the United Nations found yields rose by 116 per cent among 114 projects assessed in Africa.

Swissaid’s Caroline Morel said there should be an international focus on both organic and ecological agriculture based on small-scale farming. Agriculture and scientific research should focus on small farmers, using their know-how and working with them to find solutions for ecological production.

In a move to focus research, a single strategy has now been developed for the 15 International Agriculture Research institutes around the globe (see sidebar).

If anything the conference was a chance to share points of view. For Nina Buchmann, head of the ETH World Food System competence centre, comparing small and large farms was not a black and white issue.

Large industrialised farms need to be more sustainable to avoid negatively impacting on the environment, and at the same time the economic power of the small holders needs to be increased, she said.

“We have to bring those different points of views - that small is beautiful and big is beautiful - together otherwise we lack the portfolio of options we need in order to answer the challenges that we have globally,” she told swissinfo.ch.

Jessica Dacey, swissinfo.ch

Source: new directions for research in agriculture for development are needed to support the sector and combat global poverty. - swissinfo

 

[Veena Annadana]

Promote organic food with science

Promote organic food with science


BY MISCHA POPOFF, THE STARPHOENIX SEPTEMBER 22, 2011



Popoff, based in Osoyoos, B.C., is the author of Is it Organic? The inside story of the organic industry.

Richard Phillips and Lorne Hepworth (Farmers require tools to feed all world's hungry, SP, Aug. 25) are quite right that being on the leading edge of innovation has allowed Canadian farmers to become leaders in feeding the world.

And yet we continue to see opposition to progress in farming from a handful of activists in the organic sector.

I grew up on an organic farm and worked for five years in the United States and Canada as an organic inspector.

It shames me to admit that the people I used to look up to in the organic sector are leading the charge against scientific innovation.

And why? The answer is disturbing.

Instead of basing their multibillion-dollar "organic" industry on science, the people at the top of the organic food chain have built their business into a top-heavy bureaucratic nightmare. Rank and file organic farmers do not approve of this at all; they accept the validity of science and the need for innovation.

However, they have no choice but to play along because they know criticism will be rewarded with immediate decertification.

So, rather than deliver to consumers an alternative form of food that is actually purer and more nutritious, the activist leaders of the organic sector instead build market share by attacking their avowed enemies - the ag-biotech and ag-chemical industries.

A case in point is Canada's former federal NDP agriculture critic, MP Alex Atamenenko, who's still conducting forums across the country to stir up debate over the very validity of biotech crops.

I respect Atamanenko (he's my MP), but he needs to explain why two of Canada's most successful New Democratic premiers - Saskatchewan's Roy Romanow and Manitoba's Gary Doer - both supported biotech when they held office, investing millions of dollars into the development of this form of innovation.

As my grandfather used to say, "You can't sell a Chev by running down a Ford."

It's time for the leaders of the organic industry to quit levelling baseless attacks against the conventional and biotech crop sectors and to stand up, once and for all, and prove the worth of their product line scientifically.

It is my professional opinion that as soon as they do this we'll see peace in the whole agricultural sector. Until then, c'est la guerre, and Canadians will suffer.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix


Read more: Promote organic food with science

Source: Promote organic food with science

 

[Veena Annadana]

Organic farming gets a boost

Organic farming gets a boost
Laxmi Ajai Prasanna Sep 22, 2011, 08.52am IST
Tags:
Kerala state biodiversity board
THIRUVANATHAPURAM: Offering incentives to organic farming initiatives, wetland preservation and heronary conservation, which involve the protection of incoming bird species such as water fowls, the Kerala State Biodiversity Board (KBB) has decided to go ahead with its documentation.

"Documentation is essential to prove that the model works. For instance, it is proved that organic farming is a profitable initiative far from the propagated notion by some


Source: Organic farming gets a boost - Times Of India