Even as the United States government continues to push for the use of
more chemically-intensive and corporate-dominated farming methods such
as GMOs and monoculture-based crops, the United Nations is once against
sounding the alarm about the urgent need to return to (and develop) a
more sustainable, natural and organic system.
That was the key point of a new publication from the UN Commission on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) titled“Trade and Environment Review
2013: Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,” which included contributions from
more than 60 experts around the world. Read more on TechnologyWater
Industrial agriculture has huge, unsustainable impacts on our environment. And while organic and other ecologically based farming systems (agroecology) have huge benefits, some have suggested that it will never produce enough food. Production is only one of the challenges for food security. But, according to new research, even by this measure, critics seem to have substantially underestimated the productivity of organic farming. Impressive research from Iowa State University has already begun to show that agroecological systems that don’t completely eliminate synthetic chemicals can match or exceed yields from U.S. industrial grain production and provide equal or higher profits to farmers. Now, new research by a team of U.C. Berkeley scientists shows that organic systems can also be highly productive.
I want to point out that, despite the fact that we currently produce more than enough crops to feed our global population, around a billion people are hungry around the globe. And, in the meantime, we waste between 30 to 40 percent of the food we produce. In other words, crop productivity is only one piece of the food security puzzle. Food sovereignty is another important one.
That said, the U.C. Berkeley research [PDF], published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, makes a strong case that organic farming can play an important, and growing, role in “feeding the world.” The study taps into a larger set of data and uses refined statistical methods not applied to previous research that analyzed the combined results of published studies*.
Previous, commonly cited research from 2012 found that, on average, organic methods produce about 25 percent less than conventional ones overall, and some as little as 12 to 13 percent. Now, the researchers have found that some farming practices actually boost organic productivity, so that it is only about 8 or 9 percent short of conventional farming methods. The researchers also found that “there were no significant differences in organic and conventional yields for leguminous crops, such as beans, peas and lentils, for instance.”
“This paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said the study’s senior author, Claire Kremen, professor of environmental science, policy and management and co-director of the Berkeley Food Institute in a statement.
But here’s what really interests me: The scientists looked at organic and agroecological methods such as long crop rotations (alternating crops year-to-year) and polyculture (growing several crop species together in one field) and found they yielded much better results than their bare-bones organic counterparts.
The new study draws an important distinction between organic systems using long crop rotations and other, bare-minimum organic system, which may resemble industrial monocultures except for the prohibition of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.
Simply eliminating pesticides does not make a farming system agroecological and many organic farmers recognize this. In fact, when this stripped down organic farming is compared to conventional farming, its yields are about 19 percent lower. Bare-bones organic practices provide a floor of prohibitions that reduce harm compared to conventional agriculture. But the implementation of ecologically based practices like crop rotations is critical as we move forward. Organic Can Do Even Better
The new paper also recognizes several other important ways that we can reduce the “yield gap” between organic and conventional, industrial farming.
First, the large majority of agriculture research has been devoted to improving the productivity of crops grown industrially. In fact, only a small percentage of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) research budget is devoted to sustainable agriculture improvement, according to research cited in the new paper. The results are easy to see. For example, conventionally produced corn yield has increased by six- or seven-fold since the 1930s, much of it due to research in breeding and agronomy for industrial systems.
When the huge efforts to improve the productivity of a few grain and other commodity crops is accounted for, the yield gap between organic and conventional may be further reduced. This is in part because there is a bias—i.e., more available studies—toward grain crops, compared to other crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. The yield gap was larger for grain crops than the other crops and that’s precisely where the research disparity to improve them has been greatest.
The new paper discusses ways to further reduce this gap through research. One opportunity to do this is to breed crops specifically adapted to organic systems, crops that would, say, use organic sources of nutrients more efficiently. Another is to breed crops to suppress weeds without herbicides, since the larger yield differences between organic and conventional grain production have often been attributed to weeds that out-compete the crops.
The use of cover crops–another very powerful and important organic practice with little research behind it—may also increase nitrogen availability . Public Sector Breeding Can Help
Plant breeding that is done in universities and other parts of the pubic sector is crucial to produce unpatented crops that make agroecological farming systems more resilient and productive. For example, many crops themselves can be bred to be more competitive with weeds. (As I noted above, weeds are one of the biggest factors in reducing yields, in grain crops in particular.) But plant breeding for industrial agriculture routinely includes the use of herbicides during testing and this masks the ability of some crop varieties to better compete with weeds. In fact, there is evidence [PDF] that suggests industrial crops now do worse when it comes to competing with weeds
Similarly, little has been done to improve cover crops for increased nitrogen production, weed suppression, or productivity.
Unfortunately, farming research has been moving in the opposite direction, letting the private seed companies displace public-sector breeders and the development of public crop varieties. According to an important new assessment of public breeding, the number of crop breeders in the U.S. has fallen by about a third in the past two decades. This leaves the role of “crop improvement” in the hands of industry that is simply not interested in breeding for agroecological farming systems.
The new U.C. Berkeley research is encouraging. And given the disparity of efforts devoted to conventional agriculture, it is surprising that the yield gap is as small as it is. It also suggests that by recognizing the opportunities provided by organic farming, we might be able to reverse current misplaced priorities and move toward a resilient, ecologically sound, and highly productive approach to farming.
Tom Willey, left, and Jim Gerritsen converse in the Esalen garden in Big Sur, Calif.Peter DaSilva for The New York Times
BIG
SUR, Calif. — Among the sleek guests who meditate and do Downward
Facing Dog here at the Esalen Institute, the farmers appeared to be out
of place. They wore baggy jeans, suspenders and work boots and had long
ago let their hair go gray.
For
nearly a week, two dozen organic farmers from the United States and
Canada shared decades’ worth of stories, secrets and anxieties, and
during breaks they shared the clothing-optional baths.
The
agrarian elders, as they were called, were invited to Esalen because
the organizers of the event wanted to document what these rock stars of
the sustainable food movement knew and to discuss an overriding concern:
How will they be able to retire and how will they pass their knowledge
to the next generation?
Michael
Ableman, a farmer and one of the event’s organizers, said the concerns
were part of a much larger issue, a “national emergency,” in his words.
Farmers are aging. The average age of the American farmer is 57, and the
fastest-growing age group for farmers is 65 and over, according to the
Census Bureau.
The Graying Lions of Organic Farming
Eliot Coleman, 72, at left in the blue shirt, shares his history in
farming at the Agrarian Elders Conference hosted by the Esalen Institute
in Big Sur, Calif. Organizers of the event wanted to document what
these rock stars of the sustainable food movement knew and to discuss
what will happen when they are gone.
Peter DaSilva for The New York Times
During
their meetings, some of the farmers worried that their children would
not want to continue their businesses and that they might have to sell
their homes and land to retire.
Esalen
is the birthplace of the human potential movement and a stunningly
beautiful spiritual retreat overlooking the Pacific Ocean. When they
were not in conference, the farmers wandered among floating monarch
butterflies through Esalen’s farm and garden, rich with Calypso
cilantro, tatsoi and flamboyant orange marigolds.
But
the institute also holds conferences on major world and national
issues. Mr. Ableman and Eliot Coleman, a Maine farmer, organized the
intimate conference. Mr. Ableman, the author of “Fields of Plenty,” is
writing a book about the gathering. Deborah Garcia, the widow of Jerry
Garcia of the Grateful Dead and a filmmaker whose previous films include
“The Future of Food” and “The Symphony of the Soil,” is making a
documentary.
While
the farmers here were proud of their anti-establishment beginnings,
their movement has since gone mainstream, and organic farming has grown
tremendously. Sales of organic food in the United States reached $31.5
billion in 2012, compared with $1 billion in 1990, according to the
Organic Trade Association.
So
the grandfathers and grandmothers of organic farming should be joyous,
but they are not. Their principles of local, seasonal fruits and
vegetables have been replaced in many cases by year-round clamshelled
tomatoes for Walmart, Target and other stores. Some of today’s organic
farmers have thousands of acres of single crops, which are flown to
supermarket shelves, where they are sold at lower prices than many small
organic farmers can afford to sell their produce.
Generally,
the farmers at Esalen have less acreage and sell dozens or hundreds of
varieties of fruits and vegetables at local farmers’ markets, to upscale
restaurants and through so-called community-supported agriculture.
C.S.A.’s, as these arrangements are known, consist of consumers who pay
before the harvest for weekly deliveries of seasonal fruits and
vegetables.
The
sustainable agriculture these farmers practice goes beyond farming
without synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. They adhere to a broader
political and ecological ethos that includes attention to wildlife,
soil, education and community. For most of them, the bottom line has
never been their bottom line.
Many have done well, though not all organic farms succeed in the same way.
Some
farmers operate a “debit card” C.S.A.; members make annual payments and
buy at a discount only what they want. Jake Guest, who farms 70 acres
in Norwich, Vt., said customers told him, “It’s like we’re getting free
food.”
Stephen
and Gloria Decater of Live Power Community Farm in Mendocino County,
Calif., whose six Belgian draft horses help till the soil, operate “a
participatory C.S.A.” with 200 households whose members split operating
costs for the season and share the harvest with weekly baskets of
organic food.
The
proliferation of farmers’ markets has been a boon. Betsy Hitt sells her
cut flowers, fruits and vegetables at one of 12 Saturday markets within
70 miles of her farm in Graham, N.C. Nash Huber, who farms in
Washington State, sells his produce at seven farmers’ markets.
Some farmers have farm stands, some of which bring in $1 million or more annually. Another has a farmer’s cafe.
Farming
an acre and a half of land in Harborside, Me., Mr. Coleman grosses
$150,000, netting $30,000 annually. Tom Willey, with his wife, Denesse,
grosses $2.8 million in direct food sales in the San Joaquin Valley. A
few have had rough patches. But even they wax romantic about their love
affair with the land.
“We
went out of our way to give everything to the earth, and the earth
gives back to us,” said Jack Lazor, who started his organic dairy farm
in the 1970s. The earth doesn’t always give cash, though. He dropped his
health insurance in 2008, because, he said, “We couldn’t afford it.”
All
of the farmers were rebels. “We were told it was impossible to grow
food without chemicals and pesticides,” said Mr. Coleman, who farms
year-round, aided by his invention, a greenhouse on wheels.
They
had few mentors or books to guide them. They went to schools like
Tufts, Dartmouth, Cornell and the University of California. Some dropped
out, protested the Vietnam War, occupied buildings or went to jail.
They smoked marijuana and started communes.
“Every one of us broke the law,” said Frank Morton, 57, an Oregon seed farmer, with perverse pride.
When
he was younger, Bob Cannard, 61, sprayed DDT and malathion, he said,
and he passed out “many times” while working for his nurseryman father.
Now Mr. Cannard lets weeds grow in harmony with his crops and is the
main herb and vegetable grower for Chez Panisse in Berkeley, a temple of
organic cuisine.
Mr.
Ableman climbed out the window of his parents’ house when he was 16 and
ran away. He was soon managing a 100-acre orchard, and then a 12-acre
farm in Southern California, which grossed close to a million dollars.
He now farms on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, and travels to
Vancouver to oversee urban farms he developed for people coping with
addiction and mental illness. They are paid to work the land, and they
sell their food to 30 restaurants and at six farmers’ markets.
Amigo
Bob Cantisano’s dreadlocks dangle below his knees; he is tie-dyed down
to his socks. Mr. Cantisano, 63, is the only one of the group at Esalen
who has regular contact with industrial organic farmers. Some of them
are Republicans in cowboy hats, he said, but they overlook his
nonconformist appearance. He consults with companies like Sun-Maid,
Sunkist and Earthbound Farm on how to improve yields and practice better
sustainable agriculture.
Mr.
Morton, who sells seeds through his Wild Garden Seed catalog,
discovered at age 6 that food could be free but digging was hard. As a
teenager, he said he “came to the realization that seed was the key to
wealth and independence.”
Some
related their marketing tips. Mr. Coleman, who sells his produce to 10
restaurants, said the endive variety called Bianca Riccia da Taglio
would not sell until he renamed it. “Within two weeks, every lobster
salad was sitting on a bed of golden frisée,” he said.
When
farmers changed the name of Mandarin Cross tomatoes to tangerine
tomatoes, sales soared. A farmer who had trouble selling her misshapen
potatoes labeled them “Ugly Potatoes” and cut the price. They sold.
And
many came looking for answers to the conundrum of retirement. Some have
put their farms in land trusts; others said they tried to negotiate
similar deals but failed. Like other family farmers around the country,
some are finding that their children do not want to carry on their work.
Dru
Rivers of Full Belly Farms in the Capay Valley in California was one of
the few farmers whose children had returned to the farm, with their own
ideas. A son is doing farm weddings and dinners. A daughter is
operating a summer camp and running farm tours. In true hippie style,
Ms. Rivers said: “I don’t want to die with one thing to my name. I want
to give it all away. We have to do that to regenerate.” So she will give
the farm to her children.
Norbert
Kungl, 58, who farms in Nova Scotia, is concerned about the future of
his land, which he says produces enough income for only one family. “I
can’t find a cushion,” he said. “What options do I have other than
selling to the highest bidder, which I do not want to do? These are
questions that I have no answer for.”
Mr.
Willey, 65, said he called a family meeting with his three children.
“We made clear to them we have a very profitable business,” he said, but
none were interested in carrying it on.
He
understands why. “Farmers often work seven days a week and as many
hours a day as the sun is up,” he said. “Young people looking into
agriculture are not willing to make that drastic a sacrifice.”
Mr.
Huber, who owns 25 acres and farms more than 600 acres on the north
Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, said, “I think we’re looking at
models that don’t work anymore.”
“I’m
72. I love what I do,” he said. “Obviously, I can’t keep doing it.” But
young people “don’t have the financial resources to make it happen,” he
said, with land in his area going for $26,000 an acre. “And they don’t
have the knowledge, yet.”
A version of this article appears in print on January 25, 2014, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Elders of Organic Farming. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe
