Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World

8/3/2019 Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World

1/18

Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World

Leu, Andre F. Chairman, Organic Federation of Australia

Abstract

Proponents of industrial agriculture state that synthetic biocides, soluble fertilisersand genetic engineering are necessary to feed the worlds growing population. Severalauthorities further state organic agriculture is not capable of this task.

This paper looks at numerous and diverse data sets from around the world, showingthat given the right conditions, organic agriculture can deliver sustainable high yields.Organic agriculture programs initiated by several organisations have substantiallyincreased yields for many third world communities. This has been done with very lowinput and infrastructure costs to these communities and has substantially increasedtheir standard of living. Data from the advanced agricultural economies of North

America, Australia and Europe show that best practice organics can deliver equal andto significantly better yields than current conventional agricultural practices.

Introduction

Several of the high profile advocates for conventional agricultural production havestated that the world would starve if we all converted to organic agriculture. Theyhave written articles for science journals and other publications saying thatorganic agriculture is not sustainable and produces yields that are significantlylower than conventional agriculture.Avery (2000) Trewavas (2001)

The push for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), growth hormones, animalfeed antibiotics, food irradiation and toxic synthetic chemicals is being justified,in part, by the rationale that without these products the world will not be able tofeed itself.

Since Thomas Malthus, wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798 andfirst raised the spectre of overpopulation, various experts have been predicting theend of human civilisation because of mass starvation. Malthus (1798)

The theme was popularised again by Paul Erhlich in his 1968 book, The Population

Bomb. According to his logic, we should all be starving now that the 21 st century hasarrived. The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world willundergo famines; hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spiteof any crash programs embarked upon now. Erhlich (1968)

The only famines that occurred since 1968 have been in African countries saddledwith corrupt governments, political turmoil, civil wars and periodic droughts. Theworld had enough food for these people. It was political and logistical events thatprevented them from producing adequate food or stopped aid from reaching them.Hundreds of millions of people did not starve to death.

The spectre of mass starvation is being pushed again as the motive for justifyingGMOs. In June this year (2003) President Bush stated at a biotechnology conference


2/18

We should encourage the spread of safe effective biotechnology to win the fightagainst global hunger.Dayton (2003)

Is global hunger due to a shortage of food production?

In this first decade of the 21st century, many farmers around the world are facing a

great economic crisis of low commodity prices. These low prices are due tooversupply. The laws of supply and demand, in current economic theories, show thatprices decrease when supply is greater than demand.

Most of our current production systems are price driven, with the need for economiesof scale to reduce the unit costs. The small, profit margins of this economicenvironment favor enterprises working on large volumes and as a result the familyfarm is declining. Many areas of the USA and Australia have fewer farmers now than100 years ago and the small rural centres they support are disappearing off the map.Hundreds of thousands of farmers have had to leave their farms in Argentina due tohigher production costs and lower commodity prices. Lehmann (2000) The sugar

industry in Australia is on the verge of collapse for the same reason. Australian dairyfarmers continue to leave the industry since deregulation forced down the prices theyreceive. Most of the major industrial countries are subsidising their farmers so thattheir agricultural sectors do not collapse.

Europe, North America, Australia and Brazil are in the process of converting a largepercentage of their arable land from food production to bio fuels such as ethanol inan effort to establish viable markets for their farmers. The latest push in GMOdevelopment is BioPharm where plants such as corn, sugarcane and tobacco aremodified to produce new compounds such as hormones, vaccines, plastics, polymersand other non-food compounds. All of these developments will mean that less food isgrown on some of the worlds most productive farmland.

Grain farmers in India have protested about cheap imports that are sending themdeeper into poverty. Countries like India and China, once considered as overpopulatedbasket cases, export large quantities of food. In fact, India, one of the worlds mostpopulated countries, is a net food exporter in most years.

South American rainforests are cleared for pasture that is grazed with beef destinedfor the hamburger chains of North America. Once the soil is depleted, new areas arecleared for pasture and the old degraded areas are abandoned to weeds. In Asia, most

of the forests are cleared for timber that is exported to the developed industrialeconomies. One of the saddest things about this massive, wasteful destruction ofbiodiversity is that very little of the newly cleared land is used to feed the poor. Mostof this production of timber and beef is exported to the worlds richest economies.

The reality is that the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone andhas more than enough suitable agricultural land to do it. Unfortunately due toinefficient, unfair distribution systems and poor farming methods, millions of peopledo not get adequate nutrition.


3/18

Can Organic Agriculture feed the world?

Organic agriculture needs to be able to answer two major questions.

1: Can organic agriculture get high yields?

2: Can organic agriculture get the food to the people who need it?

The editorial of New Scientist February 3, 2001 stated that low-tech sustainableagriculture is increasing crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 percent or more. This has been achieved by replacing synthetic chemicals in favor ofnatural pest control and natural fertilizers. New Scientist (2001)

Professor Jules Pretty the Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at theUniversity of Essex in the UK wrote: Recent evidence from 20 countries has foundmore than 2 million families farming sustainably on more than 4-5 million hectares.This is no longer marginal. It cannot be ignored. What is remarkable is not so much

the numbers, but that most of this has happened in the past 5-10 years. Moreover,many of the improvements are occurring in remote and resource-poor areas that hadbeen assumed to be incapable of producing food surpluses.Petty (1998b)

An excellent example of this type of agricultural extension has been published in theJanuary 2003 edition of World Vision News. Working in conjunction AusAID, WorldVision linked farmers from the impoverished Makuyu community in Kenya with theKenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF). (World Vision 2003)

They arranged workshops where KIOF members taught the principles of organicfarming, including compost making, preparing safe organic pesticides, vegetablegardening and organic care of livestock.

Maize yields increased from four to nine times above previous levels. The organicallygrown crops had yields that were 60% higher than crops grown with expensivechemical fertilisers.

The wonderful thing is that many of these farmers now have a surplus of food to sell,whereas previously they did not have enough to eat. They are organising marketingco-ops to sell this surplus.

The profits are going back to the community. They have distributed dairy goats,rabbits, hives and poultry to community members and have planted out 20,000 treesincluding 2,000 mangos. Several of the organic farmers are training many otherfarmers in the district and helping them to apply organic farming techniques to theirfarms.

The mood of the community has changed. They are now confident and veryimportantly they are empowered with the knowledge that they can overcome theproblems in their community.

These types of simple community based organic agricultural models are what is

needed around the world to end rural poverty and starvation, rather than GMOs andexpensive toxic chemicals.


4/18

The Makuyu community in Kenya is not an isolated example. Professor Pretty givesother examples from around the world of increases in yield when farmers havereplaced synthetic chemicals and shifted to sustainable/organic methods.

223,000 farmers in southern Brazil using green manures and cover crops oflegumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of maize and wheat to 4-5

tons/ha;

45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras used regenerative technologies totriple maize yields to 2-2.5 tons/ha and diversify their upland farms, which has ledto local economic growth that has in turn encouraged re-migration back from thecities;

200,000 farmers across Kenya as part of sustainable agriculture programshave more than doubled their maize yields to about 2.5 to 3.3 t/ha and substantiallyimproved vegetable production through the dry seasons;

100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico have adopted fully organic productionmethods, and increased yields by half;

A million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia,Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam have shifted to sustainableagriculture, where group-based farmer-field schools have enabled farmers to learnalternatives to pesticides increased their yields by about 10%.

Pretty (1995), Pretty (1998b)

Nicolas Parrott of Cardiff University, UK, authored a report, 'The Real GreenRevolution'. He gives case studies that confirm the success of organic andagroecological farming techniques in the developing world.

In Madhya Pradesh, India, average cotton yields on farms participating in theMaikaal Bio-Cotton Project are 20 per cent higher than on neighbouring conventional

farms.

In Madagascar, SRI (System of Rice Intensification) has increased yields fromthe usual 2-3 tons per hectare to yields of 6,8 or 10 tons per hectare.

In Tigray, Ethiopia, a move away from intensive agrochemical usage in favourof composting has seen an increase in yields and in the range of crops it is possible to

grow.

In the highlands of Bolivia, the use of bonemeal and phosphate rock andintercropping with nitrogen-fixing Lupin species have significantly contributed toincreases in potato yields.

One of the most important aspects of the teaching farmers in these regions toincrease yields with sustainable/organic methods is that the food and fibre isproduced close to where it is needed and in many cases by the people who need it. It

is not produced half way around the world, transported and sold to them.


5/18

Another important aspect is the low input costs. They do not need to buy expensiveimported fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides. The increase in yields also come withlower production costs allowing a greater profit to these farmers.

Thirdly the substitution of more labour intensive activities such as cultural weeding,composting and intercropping for expensive imported chemical inputs, provides more

employment for the local and regional communities. This employment allows landlesslaborers to pay for their food and other needs.

As in the example of the Makuyu community in Kenya, these benefits see a positivechange in the wealth and the mood of the community. These communities arerevitalised, proactive and empowered to improve their future.

Can organic agriculture achieve high yields in developed nations?

Since 1946, the advent of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, improved cropvarieties and industrial paradigms are credited with producing the high yields of

green revolution. Because organic agriculture avoids many of these new inputs it isassumed that it always results in lower yields.

The assumption that greater inputs of synthetic chemical fertilisers and pesticides areneeded to increase food yields is not accurate. In a study published in The LivingLand, Professor Pretty looked at projects in seven industrialised countries of Europeand North America. Farmers are finding that they can cut their inputs of costly

pesticides and fertilisers substantially, varying from 20-80%, and be financiallybetter off. Yields do fall to begin with (by 10-15% typically), but there is compellingevidence that they soon rise and go on increasing. In the USA, for example, the topquarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher yields than conventional

farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment. Pretty(1998b) Pretty (1998a)

Professor George Monbiot, in an article in the Guardian, 24th August 2000, wrote thatwheat grown with manure has produced consistently higher yields for the past 150years than wheat grown with chemical nutrients, in trials in the United Kingdom.Monbiot (2000)

The study into apple production conducted by Washington State University comparedthe economic and environmental sustainability of conventional, organic and

integrated growing systems in apple production. The organic system had equivalentyields to the other systems. The study also showed that the break-even point was 9years after planting for the organic system and 15 and 16 years respectively forconventional and integrated farming systems. Reganold (2001)

In an article published in the peer review scientific journal, Nature, Laurie Drinkwaterand colleagues from the Rodale Institute, showed that organic farming had betterenvironmental outcomes as well as similar yields of both products and profits whencompared to conventional, intensive agriculture. Drinkwater (1998)

Gary Zimmer, one of the American pioneers of biological farming runs an organic

dairy farm with his son in Wisconsin. In 2000 one of his remineralised alfalfa (lucerne)fields produced a yield 4 times greater than the average for the district. He has


6/18

increased the nutrient value of pasture by 300% and currently calves 150 cows everyyear without one health problem Zimmer (2000) Zimmer pers. com.

Dick Thompson, a founding member of the Progressive Farmers of Iowa, engages inorganic farm research in conjunction with the University of Iowa, the Rodale Instituteand the Wallace Institute. He obtains some of the highest yields in his district using

composts, ridge tilling and crop rotations. Thompson (2000)

The innovative system of rotationally grazing several species of animals developed byJoel and Therese Salatin, in Virginia, is one of the best examples of a high yieldorganic system. They use 100 acres of dry land pasture to cell graze cattle, sheep,pigs, meat chickens, laying hens, turkeys, pheasants and rabbits.

The system has been based on native pastures, without cultivation or new improvedpasture species. The only input has been the feed for the poultry. This multi-speciesrotational grazing system builds one inch of soil a year and returns the family 15 timesthe income per acre than is received by neighbouring farms using a set stocking of

cattle

Salatin pers. com.

Steve Bartolo, President of the Australia Organic Sugar Producers Associationproduced similar yields of commercial sugar per hectare from his organic Q124 caneto his conventional cane in 2002. The average yield of sugar for his best organic caneachieved higher tonnes [of sugar] per hectare compared to the average of allconventionally grown Q124. Bartolo (in publication)

Greg Paynter, an organic farmer who works for the Queensland Department ofPrimary Industries conducted the organic section of grain comparison trials at DalbyAgricultural College in 2002. The organic wheat produced 3.23 tonnes to the hectarecompared to the conventional wheat of 2.22 tonnes. This trial was conducted duringone of the worst droughts on record. Paynter pers. com. In publication

Graham McNally of Kialla Farms, one of Australias significant organic pioneers,consistently achieves comparable yields to the conventional farms in his region.McNallyIn publication

Dr Rick Welsh, of the Henry A Wallace Institute reviewed numerous academic

publications comparing organic production with conventional production systems inthe USA. The data showed that the organic systems were more profitable. This profitwas not always due to premiums but due to lower production and input costs as wellas more consistent yields. Dr Welshs study also showed that organic agricultureproduced better yields than conventional agriculture in adverse weather events, suchas droughts or higher than average rainfall. Welsh (1999)


7/18

Will GMOs feed the world?

Argentina is a good example of what happens when a country pursues the policies ofmarket deregulation and GMO crops.

Argentina is the third largest producer of GMO crops with 28% of the worlds

production. By the 1999/2000 season, more than 80% of the total soybean acreage or6.6 million hectares had been converted to GMOs. These are some of the resultsaccording to a study published by Lehmann and Pengue in the Biotechnology andDevelopment Monitor.

Declining profit margins: Prices for soybeans declined 28% between 1993and 1999.

Farmers' profit margins fell by half between 1992 and 1999, making itdifficult for many to pay off bank loans for machinery, chemical inputs and seeds.

A 32% decrease in producers: Between 1992 and 1997, the number ofproducers dropped from 170,000 to 116,000. 54,000 farmers were forced toleave the industry.

At least 50% of the acreage is now managed by corporate agriculture.

Increasing role of transnational companies in the agricultural sector:Industrialization of grain and soybean production has boosted dependence onforeign agricultural inputs and increased foreign debt.

Removal of import tariffs led to the bankruptcy of domestic farm machinerymanufacturers and a loss of employment.

The commercial seed sector has become increasingly controlled bysubsidiaries of transnational corporations. Lehmann (2000)

Since the above data was published, the Argentinean economy collapsed causing riotsand the resignations of several governments. The country is now currently in deepdebt with its economy under the control of the International Monetary Fund and theWorld Bank. Its standard of living has declined and thousands more farmers have beenforced off their farms. Rural and urban poverty and hunger has increased.

According to Caritas Argentina, the social services agency of the Catholic Church inArgentina, over 40% of all Argentinean children are now undernourished. WorldHealth Organization standards for daily caloric intake are unmet for nearly 40percent of Argentinean children under 18, and for up to half in the poorernortheast region of the country. Even in the comparatively wealthy capital cityBuenos Aires, at least 19 children have died of malnutrition in recent months.Caritas 2003

If GMOs cannot feed the children in the country that is the worlds third largestproducer of GMO crops, how will they feed the rest of the world?


8/18

Conclusion

The data shows that it is possible to get very good yields using organic systems. This isnot uniform at the moment with many organic growers not producing at the levelsthat are achievable. Education on the best practices in organic agriculture is a costeffective and simple method of ensuring high levels of economically, environmentally

and socially sustainable production where it is needed.

Organic agriculture is a viable solution to preventing global hunger because

1: It can achieve high yields

2: It can achieve these yields in the areas where it is needed most

3: It has low inputs.

4: It is cost effective and affordable

5: It provides more employment so that the impoverished can purchase theirneeds

6: It does not need any expensive technical investment

It costs tens of millions of dollars and takes many years to develop one geneticallymodified plant variety. This money would be more productive being spent onorganic agricultural education, research and extension in the areas where weneed to overcome hunger and poverty.

ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IS THE QUICKEST, MOST EFFICIENT, COSTEFFECTIVE AND FAIREST WAY TO FEED THE WORLD.


9/18

References:

Avery D. (2000) Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The EnvironmentalTriumph of High-Yield Farming, Hudson Institute, USA.

Bartolo, S. Organic Sugar Production - A Case Study, to be published in the

proceedings of the Inaugural Queensland Organic Conference. 2003

Caritas 2003, Argentina Crisis Leaves Millions of Children Undernourished, March 17,2003 For More Information: Matt Felice, Catholic Relief Services,[email protected], (410) 951-7304, P.O. Box 17090 Baltimore, MD 21203-7090

Dayton, Leigh (2003) Putting Food on the Table, The Australian, Friday July 4, 2003,p 9

Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P. & Sarrantonio, M. (1998), Legume-based cropping

systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396, 262 - 265 (1998).

Erhlich, P. (1968) The Population Bomb, Buccaneer Books Inc PO Box 168, CutchogueNY 11935, ISBN 1-56849-587-0

Lehmann V. and Pengue W. (2000), Herbicide Tolerant Soybean: Just another step ina technology treadmill? Biotechnology and Development Monitor. September 2000.

McNally, G. THE KIALLA STORY ABSOLUTELY ORGANIC, to be published in theproceedings of the Inaugural Queensland Organic Conference. 2003

Malthus, Thomas (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population, Printed for J.Johnson St Pauls Church-Yard. London

Mader, P.et al, (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science,296, 1694 1697.

Monbiot G (2000), Organic Farming Will Feed the World, Guardian, 24th August 2000

New Scientist (2001), Editorial, February 3, 2001

Parrott, Nicholas(2002) 'The Real Green Revolution' ,Greenpeace EnvironmentalTrust, Canonbury Villas, London ISBN 1 903907 02 0

Paynter, G. Personal communication on the results of the grain comparison trials atDalby Agricultural College in 2002. The results are to be published later.

Pretty, Jules (1998a) The Living Land. Agriculture, Food and CommunityRegeneration in Rural Europe", Earthscan Publications, London.

Pretty, Jules (1998b) SPLICE magazine, August/September 1998 Volume 4 Issue 6.

Pretty, Jules (1995) Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainabilityand Self-Reliance, Earthscan Publications, London.


10/18

Reganold, John P. et al (2001), Sustainability of three apple production systems,Nature,

Vol 410, 19th April, pp 926- 930

Salatin, Joel, pers. com. Joel explained the details of his farm during a visit in 2000.

Thompson, Dick et al (2000) Alternatives in Agriculture 2000 Report, ThompsonOn Farm Research and Henry A. Wallace Institute, Boone, Iowa.

Trewavas AJ (2001) Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 410, 409-410.

Welsh R. (1999), Henry A. Wallace Institute, The Economics of Organic Grain andSoybean Production in the Midwestern United States, Policy Studies Report No. 13,May 1999.

World Vision News, January 2003 edition

Zimmer G. F (2000), The Biological Farmer. Acres USA

Zimmer G. F. pers com. Gary explained the details of his farm during a visit in 2000.


11/18

18 WAYS HOW 'MODERN FARMING' AFFECTS OURWORLD

1 Land exhaustionThe constant use of artificial fertiliser, together with alack of crop rotation, reduces the soil's fertility year byyear.

2 Fertilisers

High yield levels are produced by applying large

quantities of artificial fertilisers, instead of bymaintaining the natural fertility of the soil.

3 Nitrate run-offAbout half of the nitrate in the artificial fertiliser used oncrops is dissolved by rain. The dissolved nitrate runs offthe fields to contaminate water courses.

4 Soil erosionWhere repeated deep ploughing is used to turn over theground, heavy rains can carry away the topsoil and leavethe ground useless for cultivation.

5 Soil compaction

Damage to the structure of soil by compression is aserious problem in areas that are intensively farmed.Conventional tillage may involve a tractor passing overthe land six or seven times, and the wheelings can cover

up to 90 per cent of a field. Even a single tractor passcan compress the surface enough to reduce the porosityof the soil by 70 per cent, increasing surface run-off and,therefore, water erosion. In the worst cases, the surfacerun-off may approach 100 percent - none of the waterpenetrates the surface.

6 Agricultural fuel

As crop yields grow, so does the amount of fuel neededto produce them. European farmers now use an averageof 12 tons of fuel to farm a square kilometre of land;American farmers use about 5 tons (1987 figures).

7 Biocide spraysThe only controls used against weeds and pests arechemical ones. Most crops receive many doses ofdifferent chemicals before they are harvested.

8 Cruelty to animals

On most "modern" farms, all animals are crowdedtogether indoors. Complex systems of machinery areneeded to feed them, while constant medication isneeded to prevent disease. The cruelty involved inmanaging, breeding. growing and slaughtering farmanimals today is unimaginably repulsive and horrifying.

9 Animal slurry

With so many animals packed together in indoor pens,their manure accumulates at great speed. It is oftenpoured into lagoons which leak into local watercourses,contaminating them with disease-causing organisms andcontributing to algae-blooms.

10 Imported animal feed

Many farms are not self-sufficient in animal feed; instead

they rely on feed brought into the farm. This oftencomes from countries which can ill afford to part with it.

11 Stubble burningIn countries where stubble is burned, large amounts ofpotentially useful organic matter disappear into the skyin clouds of polluting smoke.

12Loss of cultivatedbiodiversity

Large and other chemical farms tend to be monoculturesgrowing the same crop and crop variety.

13Threat toindigenousseeds and animalbreeds and species

Native cultivars and animal breeds lose out to exoticspecies and hybrids. Many native animal breeds aretoday threatened with extinction. The same holds truefor many indigenous plant varieties which havedisappeared within the space of one generation.

14 Habitat destruction Agribusiness farming demands that anything whichstands in the way of crop production is uprooted and
http://www.satavic.org/soilandwater.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/pesticides_in_your_food.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/animalwelfare.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/cropping_systems.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/cropping_systems.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/soilandwater.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/pesticides_in_your_food.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/animalwelfare.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/cropping_systems.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/cropping_systems.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/indigenous_seeds.htm


12/18

destroyed. The wild animals and plants which were oncea common sight around farms are deprived of theirnatural habitat and die out.

15 Contaminated foodFood, both plant and animal products, leaves the farmcontaminated with the chemicals that were used toproduce it.

16

Destruction of

traditional knowledgesystems and traditions

Rural indigenous knowledge and traditions, both

agricultural and non-agricultural, is invariably connectedto agriculture and agricultural systems.

17Control of agricultureinputs and fooddistribution channel

The supply and trading in agricultural inputs andproduce is in the hands of a few large corporations. Thisthreatens food security, reducing the leverage andimportance of the first and the last part of the supplychain - the farmer and the consumer.

18Threat to individualfarmers

Chemical agriculture is a threat to their livelihoods andchanges their lifestyles, unfortunately not for the better.

Source : Internal inputs and "Return to the Good Earth", Third World Network

Date:02/11/2004

URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2004/11/02/stories/2004110200111600.htm

Open Page

Organic farming: facts and fallacies

ORGANIC FARMING is being touted as the panacea for a whole range of maladies afflicting

third world rural society. These range from low agricultural output to wasteful dumping of massive

doses of farm chemical on cultivated lands as to reach toxic levels. It is cited as being the viable

relief from the fatigue of Green Revolution besides heralding holistic solutions to rural poverty

alleviation providing employment opportunities to rural women. And it includes claims that

organic foods are healthier for human and animal consumption.
http://www.satavic.org/pesticides_in_your_food.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/traditionalknowledge.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/traditionalknowledge.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/traditionalknowledge.htmhttp://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2004/11/02/index.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/pesticides_in_your_food.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/traditionalknowledge.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/traditionalknowledge.htmhttp://www.satavic.org/traditionalknowledge.htmhttp://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2004/11/02/index.htm


13/18

What is organic farming and what is the primacy of this method over other methods? Stated

succinctly, any method of cultivation that does not use any manufactured chemical (such as urea,

pesticides, fungicides, etc.) for raising a crop or during its transit through harvest, storage,

processing into foods and distribution is regarded as "organic."

Interestingly, however, this is how ancient man's foray into agriculture began centuries ago! The

soil abounded in naturally occurring minerals which supported raising healthy crops that gave aplentiful harvest. Disease and pest pressure was minimal or non-existent and human need for the

farm produce was limited owing to the small size of the community and the sparse animal

population.

Over a period of time, as demand for food production increased with the increasing population,

new methods and techniques to increase farm productivity became necessary. Thankfully, the

advent of chemistry coupled with a better understanding of crop physiology provided one array of

crop production improvement techniques via chemical fertilizers to replenish depleted minerals in

the cultivated lands. Strides in other disciplines helped, arming the farmer with pesticides and

fungicides to combat pestilent microbes and insects that devoured crops and grain.

Modern organic farming is much the same as our forefathers practised but in a significantly

different era with its attendant pressures brought about by efflux of time. The soil today is nowhere

as rich in native minerals as witnessed centuries ago due to constant depletion brought about by

farming and other physical phenomena, some natural, others inflicted by human development.

Likewise, the biotic stresses on plants have increased manifold because microbes and insects that

predate on them are constantly evolving to resist their annihilation wrought by human intervention

via chemical warfare and from their own zest to survive and succeed.

This brings us to the question of the unique primacy of organic farming. Undoubtedly, organic

farming reduces build-up of residual chemicals (insecticides/pesticides/fungicides) on the surfaceof plant leaf, fruit and grain which, when not adequately washed, enters human and animal gut

which can be injurious to health. Yet, equally, abstinence from the use of such chemicals has led to

build-up of deadly mycotoxins in foods that are every bit as dangerous to human and animal life

fumonisins by Fusarium afflicting maize and aflotoxins by Aspergillus damaging chilly,

groundnut, cashew, etc.

It is well established, likewise, that organic farming gives low yield and therefore jacks up the

price of farm produce. Besides, claims of organic produce tasting better are nothing short of

pandering to the whims of the rich who can afford to pay twice as much for the same rice or

cucumber as raised by traditional farming.

The biochemical pathways of the plant in absorbing the minerals from the soil, photosynthesis or

grain filling do not differentiate between the different sources of macro- and micro- nutrients made

available to it, be it from a bag of manufactured compound fertilizers or from a bale of farm yard

manure underpinning the lack of superiority of any mineral derived from living beings (plant,

animal or microbe) compared to the one manufactured in a chemical plant.

This is so because plants and animals absorb chemicals and process them in their elemental form

and not the compound or complex form that we frequently encounter them as. Thus, the elemental

form of nitrogen is what is absorbed from urea, ammonium nitrate, DAP, farm-yard manure or

processed organic waste available to the plant before it is converted into a host of other moleculesthat go to form carbohydrates, proteins and fats in living tissues. Likewise, the rice that we eat is a


14/18

complex carbohydrate which is broken down to its elemental form of carbon, hydrogen and

oxygen before being further processed and is not absorbed in the compound form!

From a different perspective, a drop of cobra venom or ricin from castor bean, both genuinely

organic substances, would prove to be just as lethal as hydrogen cyanide manufactured in a

chemist's lab regardless of the former being devoid of any `inorganic contamination' two

random examples merely to underpin the fact that there is nothing sacrosanct about organic!

As to the other claims that organic farming provides employment to women labourers in weeding

operations (because organic farming does promote excessive growth of weeds in the absence of

chemical control for weeds) or cleaning of harvested grain (damaged by insect and fungal attacks

in the absence of chemicals to control this damage), it is waxing eloquent on employment

opportunities of the back-breaking and un-remunerating kind! This is perpetuation of low yields at

the farm, recurrent attacks of weeds, microbes and pests so rural farmers can continue to produce

less and stagnate in perpetual poverty, their women folk can be yoked to uneconomic

`employment' while the affordable rich can take their pick at a fabulous premium for no intrinsic

worth in return!

Instead of making a false pitch for organic foods on fictitious premises, it is best left to the choice

of the producer and the consumer to make his pick based on truthful, science-based knowledge.

We owe it to them to allay any unfounded fears of new technologies while equally sharing the

truth about organic foods.

GURUMURTI NATARAJAN Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Date:16/11/2004


Organic farming: only facts, no fallacies

THIS IS in response to the article "Organic farming: facts and fallacies" (Open Page, November 2)

by Gurumurti Natarajan.

The author's definition of organic farming is lacking in clarity and depth. He defines it as any

process that does not use the factory produced chemicals. His arguments against it seem to be

based on a lack of understanding of nature's balance and how it is applied in farming.

Applying non-chemical inputs alone cannot be considered organic farming. It is a larger

philosophy of working in harmony with nature for attaining the needs without damaging the

resources. Which in other words is called sustainable agriculture.


15/18

Beneficial microbes

Now let us look at a few samples of how nature works: earthworms help aerate soil and add

fertility by recycling the farm waste. We did learn in our school days that "earthworms are friends

of the farmer." Is that statement still true with the advent of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and

weedicides which kill the friend of the farmer? It is not just earthworms, it kills all life in the soil

including the microbes. Microbes have several functions in soil fertility. It is known that themicrobes break up complex chemicals into elemental form and provide them to the roots of the

plants. The application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and weedicides kills these

beneficial microbes. This is the reason why the soil loses its fertility with chemical farming,

whereas it increases with organic farming.

Chemical inputs also leave behind hazardous chemical residues in the food produce. The author

himself has accepted that "Undoubtedly organic farming reduces the build-up of residual

chemicals (toxins) on the surface of plant leaf, fruit and grain." Yes, this is a fact. But the real fact

is that not only the surface of plant parts has the residual toxins, but the entire plant body has these

toxins which cannot be washed away.

According to many references the current day chemical agriculture is nothing but a residue of the

war economy. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides were introduced into agriculture after the end of

the two world wars. Prior to and during the wars factories were producing gun powder for

ammunition and poisons for polluting enemy water sources. After the wars these factories were

retrofitted to produce the aforementioned chemicals that are harmful to the soil life, wild and

domestic animals and human beings.

We don't need chemical fertilizers to increase the crop yield. The author says that there was

deficiency in mineral content of the soil. So, it was necessary to apply urea. But on the other hand

there cannot be nitrogen deficiency at any time, because the atmosphere contains 78 per cent of

nitrogen at all times and everywhere. We need only micro-organisms such as Azospirillum,Rhizobium, Bluegreen algae to fix the atmospheric nitrogen in the roots. Application of chemicals

in the form of fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides kills all the micro-organisms besides the

earthworms making the soil sterile and non-productive. The author says that a bag of urea and a

cartload of cow dung are the same. But it is not so. The cartload of cow dung promotes microbial

growth, whereas the bag of urea kills all life in the soil.

The myth of poor yield

The author claims that organic farming has very poor yield. It is a fallacy. He has not visited many

farms that have achieved far more than what is produced by chemical agriculture. Hundreds of

farmers in Andhra Pradesh who grew cotton seeds supplied by companies, applying chemical

fertilizers and pesticides, committed suicide because they could not control the pests. At the same

time Tamil Nadu farmers applying panchakavya were able to get cotton yield of more than 15

quintals an acre. The average yield of sugarcane is 40 tonnes an acre and they are able to take only

two ratoon crops. But organic farmers in Erode district are taking 60 to 70 tonnes an acre and they

are able to harvest eight ratoon crops.

After prolonged research by our agricultural universities, all India average in rice yield is one

tonne an acre. Nowadays progressive chemical farmers harvest 2 to 2.5 tonnes an acre, but organic

farmers Sethuraman, Ramuvelu, Sampantham Pillay of Nagai district are able to harvest 3 tonnes

of paddy an acre. Likewise other crops also record higher yields in organic agriculture compared tochemical farming.


16/18

The author says that organic farming requires less labour. Machines, chemicals and mono-cultures

displaced the farm workers and sent many of them to the cities seeking construction work. The

people remaining in the villages are suffering due to unemployment and under-employment.

Organic farming is the only remedy for this problem.

Organic farming introduces poly-culture, mixed farming, waste recycling/waste management,

value addition of farm produce which do create employment opportunities.

Everyone knows that there are poisonous substances in plants too. That does not mean everything

in organic is poisonous; one should know what to consume and what not to consume.

While cutting the vegetables itself we normally remove bad portions. Whereas toxins introduced

by chemical farming cannot be removed at all. The presence of residual poisons in all produce

including mother's milk has been acknowledged by all the universities and research institutes in

India. This information alone is sufficient to convince anybody that chemical farming should be

stopped.

The author presumes that organic produce is expensive because of low yield. And he adds that theconsumer has to pay a premium price for no apparent benefit. The consumer is prepared to pay a

premuim price for the organic food which also helps to cut down the medical bills.

G. NAMMALVAR & BALAJI COOMANDUR Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Date:23/11/2004


Organic farming myths and facts

THE RECENT Open Page article "Organic farming: facts and fallacies" by Mr. Gurumurti

Natarajan (November 2) abounds in myths and self-contradictions. Let's consider these one by one.

Myth 1: ... demand for food production increased with the increasing population ... A myth that

consistently does the rounds is that population pressures force the use of intensive, technology-

based solutions in all human endeavours, especially agriculture. Either out of convenience (for a

minuscule minority of those in the know) or out of sheer ignorance, this myth has been strongly

embedded in the public psyche.

At least as early as in 1986 this Malthusian myth was debunked in publications. Anyone who cares

to check the facts may refer to the latest edition ofWorld Hunger Twelve Myths by Frances

Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins.


17/18

Unsatiated consumption

It is not populationper se that is pushing ecosystems to the edge of extinction. What is responsible

for global warming and all attendant ills is wasteful and unsatiated consumption of those who

have, one way or another, acquired the means to do so. Also, as any long-time reader ofThe HinduandFrontline would know, it is not the shortage of food that is responsible for widespread hunger

in our country. In research that led to his Nobel Prize, Amartya Sen showed that hunger is causedmainly by unequal distribution of wealth. This is definitely not a problem of science and

technology; it is solely a socio-political problem.

In the 20th century global water use increased sevenfold while world population trebled. How

would those who cite population pressures (as the main cause of many serious maladies) explain

this?

Myth 2: Harmful insects can/should be eliminated at all costs. Mr. Natarajan contradicts himself

later in the essay when he says that bugs develop resistance. How do you eliminate them, then?

This is analogous to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics.

Myth 3: By adequately washing vegetables, etc., we can rid them of harmful chemicals. Even if

this were true, what about the health of ecosystems? Does this not matter?

Myth 4: Abstinence from the use of chemicals leads to a build-up of deadly mycotoxins in foods

that are every bit as dangerous to human and animal life. Taking this suggestion to heart is the

perfect recipe for an ever-expanding spiral of death and destruction by chemicals: chemical abuse

gives rise to resistant bugs; use chemicals that are even deadlier to try and eliminate these bugs.

What is the next logical step when the microbes evolve resistance to those chemicals? We will not

even have time to invent new and deadlier concoctions and test them before they become outdated

because of resistance.

Of course, some will only be too happy to dispense with cumbersome testing and regulations and,

instead, just keep pushing new chemicals onto unsuspecting masses. As is well known, the deadly

chemicals we use kill hundreds of species of beneficial microbes, insects, and birds as well.

Prevention by using proper handling and storage techniques and sanitation is the best way to

handle aflatoxin and related problems.

In April this year Greenpeace released the findings of a study on children at risk due to pesticide

exposure. Those who push chemicals in the guise of what they claim is true science should

enlighten the rest of us on measures they propose to tackle this. And why such measures failed so

miserably in the past.

Monocultures also contribute to ever increasing spiral of resistance. The only way out is to

encourage biodiversity, which also leads to sustainability.

Comparable yields

Myth 5: It is well known that organic farming gives low yields. The fact is that organic farming

gives comparable yields. For a very recent example refer to Frontline (November 5). For otherexamples, interested readers may refer to www.foodfirst.org www.twn.org andwww.indsp.org

to name just a few. This is also confirmed by many farmers who have switched to organic farmingand are happier for that.
http://www.foodfirst.org/http://www.indsp.org/http://www.indsp.org/http://www.foodfirst.org/http://www.indsp.org/


18/18

Even if it were true that yield goes down, the farmer will not lose because the expenses are lower

in organic farming than in chemical farming. This would be even more so if/when governments

completely withdraw the massive level of direct and indirect subsidies to manufacturers and users

of farm chemicals.

There are farmers who sell organic produce at the same or lower price than current market price

because they still make a profit. As for the claim that organic food does not taste better, where isthe scientific proof? As far back as 1990, when organic farming was not as popular as it is today,

my brother used to sell organic produce to grocers in Palladam. They told him that their customers

prefer his vegetables. My brother was not paid more; he still made a small profit.

Hence, supposed low yields are not likely to be the cause of higher price for organic produce, as is

commonly believed.

Myth 6: Organic farming is being touted as the panacea for a whole range of maladies afflicting

third world rural society. Choosing to go organic is only changing the technology. No one who is

serious about eliminating poverty would suggest that this can be achieved simply by going

organic! Technology is not by itself a solution to societal ills.

Of course, choice based on truthful, science-based knowledge is to be welcomed. The problem is

acquiring such knowledge. I don't believe it can come from those who have a stake in chemicals.

Emancipation from poverty, rural as well as urban, lies in carrying out land and income reforms to

ensure equitable sharing of resources. Let us direct our creativity and intelligence to achieving

these goals rather than spreading half-truths, including the one about producers and consumers

having free choice!

T. RAMAKRISHNAN Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Documents

Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World