Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming. Organic farms do not consume or release synthetic pesticides into the environment although organic pesticides are as damaging to the environment as synthetic pesticides. Pesticides have the potential to harm soil, water and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The general consensus across these surveys is that organic farming is less damaging for the following reasons:
- Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.
- When calculated per unit area, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.
The environmental impact of pesticides as well as the impact to the health of farm workers are reasons given for purchasing organic food. However, critics of organic farming methods believe that the increased land needed to farm organic food could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems
One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide. Studies comparing yields have had mixed results. Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years.
One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming. Bringing average world yields up to modern organic levels could increase the world's food supply by 50%.
A research showed that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. The researchers also found that while in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms in developing countries, because the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible than synthetic farming materials to farmers in some poor countries. On the other hand, communities that lack sufficient manure to replenish soils would struggle with organic farming, and the soil would degrade rapidly.
A study of the sustainability of apple production systems showed that in comparing a conventional farming system to an organic method of farming, the organic system in this case is more energy efficient. A more comprehensive study compared efficiency of agriculture for products such as grain, roughage crops, and animal husbandry. It concluded that organic farming had a higher yield per unit of energy over multiple crops and for livestock. However, conventional farming had higher total yield.
Conversely, another study noted that organic wheat and corn production was more energy efficient than conventional methods while organic apple and potato production was less energy efficient than conventional methods. A long-term study, spanning two decades, noted that crop yields were 20% lower in organic systems while fertilizer plus energy input was 34% to 53% lower. However, pesticide input was reduced by 97% in organic farm systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment