Maybe the most popular argument against organic farming is that crop yields can’t compete with conventional agriculture that uses nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides and often, genetically modified seeds. The usual argument is that these chemical-intensive farming practices are needed in order for us to feed the world.
There is science out there that says this isn’t so. In 2007, at least one report and one research study were published showing that yields from organic farming could compete, and in some cases, outdo conventional agriculture.
In May 2007, at an International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security the FAO — the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations — presented a paper, “Organic Agriculture and Food Security”
The report states that “By managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping), organic farmers use their labour and environmental services to intensify production in a sustainable way.â€
The paper also quotes models of a global food supply grown organically which indicate that organic agriculture could produce enough food on a global per capita basis for the current world population.
In July 2007, a University of Michigan study of crop yields came up with a similar conclusion:
“Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.”
These reports were published in 2007, a year when organics hit the U.S. retail mainstream. Too bad the conclusions in them aren’t mainstream too.
