 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Questions and Comments backfire@ofthisandthat.org |
ofthisandthat Commentary |
Copyright © 2017 ofthisandthat.org.
All rights reserved.
All rights reserved.
January 17, 2018
Yes We Can – Feed 9 Billion with Organic Agriculture
By Gunnar Rundgren
Source: Garden Earth and resilience.org
It is possible to feed more than 9 billion people with organic production methods with a
small increase in the required crop acreage and with decreased greenhouse gas
emission. But this assumes considerable reduction in food wastage and in the
quantities of feed grown to animals.
That is the conclusion in the paper Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably
with organic agriculture in Nature communications by researchers from the Research
Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland, the Institute of Environmental Decisions
in Switzerland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Italy,
Institute of Social Ecology Vienna in Austria and the Institute of Biological and
Environmental Sciences in the UK.
The research builds on assumptions of a 25% reduction in yield with organic methods,
the continued increase in global population up to more than 9 billion 2050 as well as
different scenarios of impact of climate change on agriculture yields. The model doesn’
t assume any change in the area used for grazing. The researchers acknowledge that
different research show big variation in the ”yield gap” between organic and
conventional. It is primarily research from Europe that shows big yield gaps, while
other studies show much smaller gaps, if any. In general their assumptions are
conservative and could hardly be accused of being biased in favour of organic.
Obviously, if consumption patterns are equal and yields are lower and population
increases, more land would be needed with a large-scale conversion to organic
agriculture. But if food waste is reduced with 50% and this is combined with a 50%
reduction in the use of human-edible crops as animal feed, less land would be used
compared to a reference scenario (the assumed population, consumption and
production as per 2050 in FAO:s analysis) – still more than today though.
The biggest agronomic challenge for such a large scale conversion to organic would
be the supply of nitrogen. On the up-side of that, the reactive nitrogen overload of the
whole biosphere, one of the biggest changes in local and global biological cycles,
would be reduced and gradually disappear. The researchers acknowledge that
recycling of human waste and food waste into the agriculture system could reduce the
nitrogen deficiency in agriculture, but they have not included that in the model.
The exclusion of synthetic fertilizers leads to big reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions, as both the use and production of nitrogen fertilizers are major causes for
emissions. Emissions from ruminants (cows, sheep and goats) will increase somewhat
as their total numbers will increase (but less than the increase of population).
Similarly, the greenhouse gas emissions from rice cultivation will increase because of
more rice being produced.
The combination of the lower yields and the increase of leguminous plants (beans
etc) in order to fix nitrogen makes the availability of animal feed lower. So the
decreased use of human-edible crops as feed for animals is rather a production
necessity than something triggered by consumption changes. The reduction of
animals will mainly be for monogastric animals such as pigs and chicken as they are
the ones that mainly eat human-edible crops.
The results of the study coincides with similar results on a national and regional level.
For instance, researchers from the Nordic countries concluded that it would be
possible to feed between 31 and 37 million people (compared to the current 26
million) in the Nordic countries with organically produced food assuming substantial
reduction in meat consumption.
One can claim that the results also show that you can’t convert the agriculture system
to organic without increasing the cultivated lands considerably. Because, despite the
conclusions of the authors, that is also a result from their scenarios. If nothing else is
changed land demand will increase with 33%.
Ultimately, all this modelling and scenario-building has limited value and the results
are very much fixed by the assumptions and input data. The food system is a dynamic
system where you can’t change just one or two parameters and keep the rest the
same. But models and scenarios can still help us to identify certain critical conditions.
The choice of the authors to change food wastage and the proportion of food fed to
animals is a rather reasonable choice and not taken out of the blue. One can assume
that food will become more expensive with a large-scale conversion to organic and
that will reduce waste considerably. Similarly, using human-edible food as feed for
animals will be less interesting from a commercial perspective when they become
more expensive. The dramatic increase of consumption of pig and chicken meat is as
much a result of cheap grains and soy beans as of consumer demand. The
increased consumption of pulses to compensate for the reduction of meat coincide
with a need to increase the cultivation of such crops to adjust to nitrogen shortages.
There are also other assumptions that could be included in models. The total calories
produced under the scenarios are far above what people need to eat and as obesity
is now a big global problem, one could have reduced calories available and thus be
able to show even better results AND an improved health status of the world’s
population. Improvements in the utilization of grasslands could also have been a
parameter to consider.
Finally, the economic feedback loops are very important. There are several ways to
increase yields in agriculture, of which the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
are just two. They are admittedly important, but one can increase productivity by
deploying more work, other nature resources (e.g. water), by switching crops or taking
more crops per year. What is done is mainly determined by economic factors. Very
few farms, organic or non-organic, produce at their maximum, but they produce what
is optimal given prices of factors of production and output prices. In most cases,
production per person has been much more important that production per unit of
land. But in a world with limited land resources and 9 billion people, this will sooner or
later change.
So yes, we can. If we want to.
Yes We Can – Feed 9 Billion with Organic Agriculture
By Gunnar Rundgren
Source: Garden Earth and resilience.org
It is possible to feed more than 9 billion people with organic production methods with a
small increase in the required crop acreage and with decreased greenhouse gas
emission. But this assumes considerable reduction in food wastage and in the
quantities of feed grown to animals.
That is the conclusion in the paper Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably
with organic agriculture in Nature communications by researchers from the Research
Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland, the Institute of Environmental Decisions
in Switzerland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Italy,
Institute of Social Ecology Vienna in Austria and the Institute of Biological and
Environmental Sciences in the UK.
The research builds on assumptions of a 25% reduction in yield with organic methods,
the continued increase in global population up to more than 9 billion 2050 as well as
different scenarios of impact of climate change on agriculture yields. The model doesn’
t assume any change in the area used for grazing. The researchers acknowledge that
different research show big variation in the ”yield gap” between organic and
conventional. It is primarily research from Europe that shows big yield gaps, while
other studies show much smaller gaps, if any. In general their assumptions are
conservative and could hardly be accused of being biased in favour of organic.
Obviously, if consumption patterns are equal and yields are lower and population
increases, more land would be needed with a large-scale conversion to organic
agriculture. But if food waste is reduced with 50% and this is combined with a 50%
reduction in the use of human-edible crops as animal feed, less land would be used
compared to a reference scenario (the assumed population, consumption and
production as per 2050 in FAO:s analysis) – still more than today though.
The biggest agronomic challenge for such a large scale conversion to organic would
be the supply of nitrogen. On the up-side of that, the reactive nitrogen overload of the
whole biosphere, one of the biggest changes in local and global biological cycles,
would be reduced and gradually disappear. The researchers acknowledge that
recycling of human waste and food waste into the agriculture system could reduce the
nitrogen deficiency in agriculture, but they have not included that in the model.
The exclusion of synthetic fertilizers leads to big reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions, as both the use and production of nitrogen fertilizers are major causes for
emissions. Emissions from ruminants (cows, sheep and goats) will increase somewhat
as their total numbers will increase (but less than the increase of population).
Similarly, the greenhouse gas emissions from rice cultivation will increase because of
more rice being produced.
The combination of the lower yields and the increase of leguminous plants (beans
etc) in order to fix nitrogen makes the availability of animal feed lower. So the
decreased use of human-edible crops as feed for animals is rather a production
necessity than something triggered by consumption changes. The reduction of
animals will mainly be for monogastric animals such as pigs and chicken as they are
the ones that mainly eat human-edible crops.
The results of the study coincides with similar results on a national and regional level.
For instance, researchers from the Nordic countries concluded that it would be
possible to feed between 31 and 37 million people (compared to the current 26
million) in the Nordic countries with organically produced food assuming substantial
reduction in meat consumption.
One can claim that the results also show that you can’t convert the agriculture system
to organic without increasing the cultivated lands considerably. Because, despite the
conclusions of the authors, that is also a result from their scenarios. If nothing else is
changed land demand will increase with 33%.
Ultimately, all this modelling and scenario-building has limited value and the results
are very much fixed by the assumptions and input data. The food system is a dynamic
system where you can’t change just one or two parameters and keep the rest the
same. But models and scenarios can still help us to identify certain critical conditions.
The choice of the authors to change food wastage and the proportion of food fed to
animals is a rather reasonable choice and not taken out of the blue. One can assume
that food will become more expensive with a large-scale conversion to organic and
that will reduce waste considerably. Similarly, using human-edible food as feed for
animals will be less interesting from a commercial perspective when they become
more expensive. The dramatic increase of consumption of pig and chicken meat is as
much a result of cheap grains and soy beans as of consumer demand. The
increased consumption of pulses to compensate for the reduction of meat coincide
with a need to increase the cultivation of such crops to adjust to nitrogen shortages.
There are also other assumptions that could be included in models. The total calories
produced under the scenarios are far above what people need to eat and as obesity
is now a big global problem, one could have reduced calories available and thus be
able to show even better results AND an improved health status of the world’s
population. Improvements in the utilization of grasslands could also have been a
parameter to consider.
Finally, the economic feedback loops are very important. There are several ways to
increase yields in agriculture, of which the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
are just two. They are admittedly important, but one can increase productivity by
deploying more work, other nature resources (e.g. water), by switching crops or taking
more crops per year. What is done is mainly determined by economic factors. Very
few farms, organic or non-organic, produce at their maximum, but they produce what
is optimal given prices of factors of production and output prices. In most cases,
production per person has been much more important that production per unit of
land. But in a world with limited land resources and 9 billion people, this will sooner or
later change.
So yes, we can. If we want to.