From Guest Blogger Emily Folk: Does Growing Organic Food Require More Energy?
There are plenty of good reasons to get excited about organic farming and growing organic food. Of course, organic agriculture is also sometimes misunderstood. It seeks to produce as much food as possible without the use of genetic engineering and synthetic compounds. These compounds include pesticides, fertilizers and other growth-altering additives.
This is not to say that organic farming must be 100% chemical-free. But it does mean that anything we add to our livestock or crops, with a very small handful of exceptions, must be wholly natural.
Environmental impact is one of the most frequently cited reasons why consumers choose to buy organic foods. Research also shows that many customers are willing to pay a premium for that peace of mind.
We’ll talk more about the benefits of growing organic food. But as we do so, we’ll also get to the bottom of whether organic agriculture truly uses less energy than traditional methods.
A Deep Dive Into Traditional vs. Organic Agriculture
In 2017, Clark and Tilman published a series of research letters called “Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency and food choice.” Their efforts helped draw back the curtain on land, energy and other resource usage for various types of crops across traditional and organic farming.
It was also one of the first attempts to “disaggregate” multiple types of food crops from being lumped together in similar studies. It also shows that the answer to our question — whether organic farming uses less energy — is more complex than many of us thought at first.
Clark and Tilman looked at a variety of grown food products and other resources, including fruits and vegetables, pulses, cereals, grains, eggs, meat, dairy products and oil crops. The researchers also broke down the entire life-cycle for each product, from pre-farming activities to harvesting and distribution.
So what did they find?
The factors studied here included greenhouse gas emissions, land use, the impact on the water table, potential for acidification and, of course, the use of energy.
For some of these factors and for certain types of foods, there was no statistically significant benefit to choosing organic farming over traditional farming. As an example, the study deduced that, strictly in terms of efficient land use, organic farming doesn’t perform as well as traditional farming in the cultivation of each of the studied foods. For greenhouse gas emissions, however, organic farming is the wiser choice.
And when it comes to the impact on the water table, the research suggests that organic agriculture as applied to vegetable and cereal cultivation stands a far greater chance at causing eutrophication. This is the addition of excess nutrients into local water sources, which causes oxygen depletion and runaway algae growth.
The results for energy use, however, were a little more clear-cut in this study. Let’s take a look at what the researchers found and whether their results are backed up elsewhere.
The Energy Footprint of Organic Farming
The question we’re here to answer is whether organic farming uses less energy. According to Clark’s and Tilman’s research, vegetables are the only food crop where traditional farming uses definitively less energy than organic farming. But for cereal cultivation, organic farming is less energy-intensive.
For the other food products studied — pulses, oil crops, fruits, dairy, eggs and meats — organic farming uses less energy, but by a less definitive margin than cereals.
To sum things up so far, it appears that traditional farming often makes better use of land for most grown food products while organic farming often uses less energy.
A Dutch study from 2014 came to similar conclusions where organic dairy production is concerned, but not growing crops.
Per individual “unit of milk,” the researchers concluded that organic farming uses less energy than conventional farming. However, they found that growing food and oil crops organically uses more energy in Dutch farming than conventional farming does. This isn’t consistent with similar research projects, and the authors of this study point to Dutch-style crop rotation systems as a potential reason why organic farming doesn’t deliver an energy savings here.
Interestingly, the study concluded with the advice to spend as much time thinking about food packaging and how far our food is transported, as we do debating traditional versus organic farming, if we want to cut our energy expenses. It also suggests that the most energy-efficient farming activity may be to apply conventional farming practices to the cultivation of energy crops.
Organic Farming Delivers Benefits, but We Need More Data
There are many good reasons to choose organic farming and even organic animal feed. We enjoy healthier bodies overall when our livestock and crops do not contain antibiotics, synthetic chemicals, animal byproducts and hormones. Organic produce, specifically, usually offers improved nutritional content over traditionally farmed food.
As far as choosing organic agriculture over traditional agriculture in the name of saving energy? It’s complicated. It varies by country and locality and even by the type of crop in question. And we get a different answer when we disaggregate various crops instead of studying them together.
Growing organic food is good for us and good for the planet in many ways. And depending on the crop, the energy savings may be substantial. But further refinements in our farming and research methods are necessary to even better understand and further optimize this relationship.
Craig,
Thank you for a relatively sensible analysis.
You are quite correct, ‘Organic’ farming depends on the type of crop, locations, quantity of crop or livestock, production volume and market accessibility.
Health benefit can be significant, but come at an economic premium and are not always all that beneficial.
The overuse of chemicals and low cast fertilizers, mono-cropping, pesticides, herbicides etc, is always undesirable and farmers along with “Big Ag” must accept responsibility for deploying these products in a manner that doesn’t endanger the environment.
Naturally the deployment of organic farming methods is desirable in more affluent countries with good soil and prosperous small holdings able to produce a wide variety of crops for nearby markets or access to wealthier, more discerning consumers.
Organic methodology is more difficult with ‘Broadacre”, high volume production. This is especially evident on more marginal land, vast distances to markets, low cost consumers, etc.
In these cases ‘organic’ farming is not only uneconomic, but impossible to achieve any kind of feasible yield.
In these cases, it’s not a matter of organic v traditional, but traditional or starve!
7 billion humans, with about the same number of pets kept by human adding the equivalent of another 3 billion humans in terms of food consumption, is a lot of food to produce each day.
Since the population will continue to rise, albeit hopefully more slowly, over the next decade, food production must also increase.
In order to meet the challenge of food supply in a changing environment, consideration must be given to more economical and environmental production technology in addition to distribution, storage and logistics.
The world produces plenty of food. In fact, although most people don’t realize,, the planet produces huge food surpluses.
The most pressing environmental and social problems lie within the economics of distribution, storage, and logistics. Enormous challenges are yet to be fully recognized in restructuring transport infrastructure, distribution chains and access to markets.
Solutions are often hindered by economic, political, ideological, or even religious regulations,customs and circumstances. These issues are not easily resolved and often not even objectively discussed.
Recently, a movement began to reduce the use of plastic bags supermarket bags. Although this was implemented in many regions with the best of intentions, and pursued with ideological vigor and enthusiasm, the outcome hasn’t proved beneficial for the environment.
Undoubtedly a small percentage of environmentally minded people appreciated the change, but they weren’t the target audience.
Research has discovered the cynics were right! Sadly, as was predicted, the vast majority of consumers may have stopped using the highly bio-degradable plastic shopping bag, but most continued either buying cheap plastic bags.
Worse still, it became obvious that most consumers used the original thin plastic disposable bags as rubbish bin liners and since their abolition, sales of plastic rubbish bin liners have increased to replace the supermarket bags.
These bags are often less bio-degradable and more difficult to prevent particle pollution reaching waterway and oceans.
Regrettably, this is often the case with enthusiastic, but poorly thought through solutions.
Most of us like the idea of ‘Natural’ or ‘organic’ food. Unfortunately, “organic’ food isn’t always healthier or even as nutritious.
Certainly most people would believe vegetables grown in one’s own garden to be more nutritious and ‘cleaner’ than canned or frozen food.
In some instances this may well be correct, but not always. For those enthusiasts who grow food hydroponically in a closed environment with controlled water and nutrient technology, this might be the case, but in the average suburban garden an analysis might be a bit of a shock to the average keen gardener!
In the end, it doesn’t really matter. The human digestive systom and metabolism is amazingly tough and robust. Human health is largely genetic programming and most diet fads, although passionately believed, are more based on ‘faith’ than actual scientific reality.
A looming “elephant in the room” is the growing demand for fertilizer and the rapid depletion of super-phosphate resources. The most viable alternative to super-phosphate is produced from Natural Gas.
Anti-coal advocates seem to overlook the increasing pressure on Natural Gas resources over the next decade. Asia, Europe, North America, Australia and especially the Middle East and Asia Minor, will all be in desperate need of fertilizer.
World food production is inextricably linked to economical fertilizer availability. Industrial world prosperity is inextricably linked to affordable energy prices.
The pressure on Natural Gas reserves has already commenced. Fortunately, increased technology has so far kept NG prices at a historically low price, that good fortune can’t continue indefinitely.
Relying on Wind and Solar to provide any industrial nation’s future power needs while remaining economically viable, is economic suicide and irresponsible.
Following the passionate rantings of children such as Greta Thunberg, is not only silly, but criminally negligent!
Why would anyone listen to a person judged to immature to determine control of her own body, drive a motor vehicle, enter into a contract, consume alcohol, see certain movies, travel independently, rent a dwelling, own a fire arm etc.
The reason these responsibilities are not grated to children, is we judge them too immature,lacking perspective and judgement.
Environmental issues are very serious and even the judgement highly qualified adults is often clouded by passion, prejudice, custom or ideological self interest.
Craig, I applaud you new tendency to bring a measure of rational objectivity to your thinking and advocacy! Keep it up 🙂 !