Is organic farming sustainable? 5 carbon footprint challenges

For some farmers, “organic” looks like an attractive deal. The switch from conventional farming may mean lower yields and greater labor needs, but the extra costs are incurred are often made up for through higher profit margins that come from charging premiums to consumers. At least that’s the conclusion in a recent study by two Washington State University professors, who found that premiums paid to organic farmers ranged up to 32 percent more than for conventional crops.

Most customers who are willing to spend more for the “certified organic” seal or a “non GMO” label do so because of their belief that their food will be “safer,” “healthier” or more “environmentally friendly.” In the absence of convincing evidence that organic foods are truly healthier or safer in comparison to conventionally grown crops, the claim “environmentally friendly” has garnered special attention in recent years as the rallying justification for eating organic foods.

Growing concerns about climate change—and estimates that one-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture—have helped fuel the organic industry and environmental groups’ marketing of organic foods as reducing environmental impacts. Even mainstream media outlets like The Wall Street Journal have pushed the idea forward in their reporting last year: “Organic practices could counteract the world’s yearly carbon dioxide output while producing the same amount of food as conventional farming, that organic foods.”

The Organic Trade Association (OTA), the leading mainstream lobbying group for the organic industry in the U.S., goes as far as to boast that eating more organic foods could mitigate or even reverse factors that contribute to human-induced climate change. “Organic agriculture is based on practices that not only protect environmental health, but also improve it,” the organization advertises on its website. Those farming practices include manure composting, cover crops, and crop rotation, each of which put carbon into the soil.

To back up its claims, the OTA cites a white paper by organic nonprofit lobbying group Rodale Institute. The paper concludes that if all cropland, as well as pastures, on the Earth were converted to the what the institute calls “regenerative” organic farming model, then it would appropriate all if not more carbon emissions annually and, as a result, solve the problem of global warming. The white paper reads:

“Simply put, recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100 percent of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term ‘regenerative organic agriculture.’ These practices work to maximize carbon fixation while minimizing the loss of that carbon once returned to the soil, reversing the greenhouse effect.”

It should be noted that the paper is not a peer-reviewed article or event a real study. Far from it. It’s an opinion piece and what amounts to a public relations document by an advocacy group. But it’s widely cited by other organic promoters as if it’s fact and science.

But not everyone is buying into the OTA’s assurances that organic farming results in a lower carbon footprint (and greater profits). Farmers, soil scientists, and agricultural scientists are especially skeptical because the organic industry’s utopic assertions just don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Comparing claims

Comparing the carbon footprints of organic and conventional agriculture is complex. For an accurate life-cycle assessment, total carbon equivalency based on all activities related to farming must be evaluated and measured all year round. Carbon equivalency means that assessments must also include those of other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, which are about 24 times more potent or about 295 to 320 times more potent, respectively, as compared to carbon dioxide.

Assessments by the organic industry and environmental groups too often overlook greenhouse gases emitted during the process of manure composting along with carbon releases from tillage, which are most commonly associated with organic systems, according to agriculture scientist Steve Savage. Combined with the need to use more land to produce equivalent crop yields and the need for more cows to produce manure to fertilize those crops, the evidence suggests that, despite all of the hyperbole surrounding organic farming community’s ideals, claims of a reduced environmental impact are just not grounded in reality.

For a true comparison of carbon footprint (based on carbon equivalency) from organic farming and conventional farming, the following five challenges should be considered:

  • Large-scale commercial manure composting as compared to synthesizing nitrogen for farming.
  • Machinery to haul around manure compost.
  • Yields of organic farming versus conventional farming.
  • Tillage of land of organic farming versus “no till” conventional farming.
  • Cows needed for producing manure for organic and carbon equivalency of cow burping and flatulence.

Manure composting’s “leaky pipe”

Let’s start with manure composting. Organic advocates often credit manure composting as the solution for returning lost carbon back into soil. Additionally, they say it reduces the need for the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer that is generated through a process that depends on burning fossil fuels. It’s estimated, in fact, that the amount of energy it takes to synthesize nitrogen to grow an acre of corn is about 30 gallons of gasoline. So, the use of manure compost is chalked up as the answer to avoiding the use of fossil fuels. Because manure compost holds more of the nitrogen inside the soil, preventing pooling or runoff, the manure compost also helps build up soil carbon while reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and methane.

For all of fanfare about large-scale manure composting, however, Savage said it’s like having a “leaky pipe” releasing greenhouse gases into the environment long before it ever reaches the soil. The process of creating compost, for instance, is going to emit not only carbon dioxide, but also large amounts of methane and nitrous oxide that are far more concerning for the environment.

“When you actually do the math on those emissions, it can be pretty substantial and that adds up over time. It becomes a lot greater number than what it takes to make synthetic nitrogen,” said Savage in a phone interview.

Savage has calculated that organic use of manure composts releases about 12 to 14 times more in the equivalence of carbon emissions compared to conventional agriculture using synthetic nitrogen from fossil fuels. These are greenhouse gas emissions that are largely ignored in the Rodale Institute’s life-cycle assessments, he said. In fact, one global meta-analysis from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture of Switzerland determined that organic farming led to greater nitrous oxide emissions, while having only a relatively small methane uptake, as compared to conventional farming from the soil.

Still, there are other emissions released indirectly due to large-scale composting that are also not necessarily considered. These include emissions released during the act of hauling the manure from feedlots, food waste from recycling plants for compost, and the compost around itself to farms. It includes emissions released during the use of a tractor to turn the compost to maintain aerobic conditions. And it includes emissions released when tilling manure compost into the soil.

More tillage of forests and pastures

That brings us to tillage itself. Tillage is the act of overturning the soil mechanically through ploughing or digging and hoeing. By itself, historically, it’s been the practice with the largest initial releases of carbon into the atmosphere. The reason is that when soils are tilled, it also destroys large networks of microorganisms and fungi that act like the glue that holds soil together. And advocates of organic farming often ignore the issue of land use, a key factor driving carbon emissions. So for organic farming to match production of conventional farming, it means cutting down more forest or using up more pasture to create farmland. Tillage is also one of the largest uses of fuel on nearly every organic farm.

Related article:  Will organic community embrace gene editing if it restores ancient crops?

Lower yields from organic agriculture in the face of a growing global population means more tillage of land. Overall the yield gap for organic and conventional corn and soybean crops could average out to as much as 30 percent, according to a 2011 policy brief by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development. There are no honest studies that don’t show yield gap including those performed by organic proponents, such as one published by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, which evaluated 115 studies with more than 1,000 comparisons of more than 50 crop species across approximately 36 countries. The paper found a near 20 percent lower yield for organic crops compared to conventional and recommended more investment in crop rotations and diversification to help close the gap.

False promise of “no-till” or “reduced till” organic production

Yet tillage is needed as a step for controlling weeds on most organic farms because of prohibition of synthetic herbicides, which are used for “no-till” agriculture in conventional farming. The Rodale Institute’s white paper recognizes the problem of “marginal” practices of no-till or reduced-tillage on organic farms. For these reasons, the organization has been working on a roller-crimper technique intended to squash cover crops or weeds as a method of organic “no-till” agriculture. But the fact is that the technology is unlikely to be available as a large-scale approach anytime soon.

The scientific research evaluating “reduced-tillage” organic farming hasn’t been promising either. One study by soil scientist Jane Johnson and her colleagues from the USDA-Agriculture Research Service evaluated reduced-tillage farming in both the organic and conventional methods during a four-year rotation of corn, wheat, soybean, and alfalfa in Minnesota. The researchers used closed-vented chambers to monitor greenhouse gas emissions for three years during early spring thaws until late fall.

During those four years, they found that yields varied, but averaged much lower for organic farming. In 2007 and 2008, for example, organic and conventional yields for soybean were found to be similar, but 2006 organic soybean was 90 percent lower than conventional yields. Organic and conventional corn yields were similar for 2007, but then organic was 60 percent lower than conventional in 2006, and 40 percent lower during 2008. In 2006, organic wheat also was 50 percent lower than conventional wheat yields.

The researchers also found that while both conventional and reduced-tillage organic systems emit nitrous oxide emissions, the amount cumulatively represented 4.74 percent of nitrogen of the synthetic nitrogen added into the conventional system compared to 9.26 percent of the nitrogen from manure added to the organic system. Essentially, the organic farming system had nearly twice the nitrous oxide emissions for the same amount of nitrogen applied compared to the conventional system—for a smaller yield!

More land use means more cows and methane gas

Still the smaller yields requiring more acres of land for tillage doesn’t yet highlight what would likely be the single greatest threat on the environment were more conventional farmers to turn to organic farming—it’s the need for all the extra cattle to produce manure to fertilize those organic crops. The extra cattle would not just take up additional land; they’d lead to huge releases in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from manure production itself and from burping and farting. One estimate is that every individual cow lets out between 30 and fifty gallons of methane per day, from both its behind and mouth.

Currently, cattle livestock is already blamed for generating nearly 20 percent more greenhouse gases in terms of carbon equivalency as compared to driving automobiles. The problem could grow far worse as summarized quite succinctly by Ramez Naam, author of Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet:

If we wanted to reduce pesticide use and nitrogen runoff by turning all of the world’s farmland to organic farming, we’d need around 50% more farmland than we have today.  Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug, whose work helped triple crop yields over the last 50 years and arguably saved billions from starvation, estimated before his death that the world would need an additional 5 to 6 billion head of cattle to produce enough manure to fertilize that farmland.  There are only an estimated 1.3 billion cattle on the planet today.

Combined, we’d need to chop down roughly half of the world’s remaining forest to grow crops and to graze cattle that produce enough manure to fertilize those crops.   Clearing that much land would produce around 500 billion tons of CO2, or almost as much as the total cumulative CO2 emissions of the world thus far.  And the cattle needed to fertilize that land would produce far more greenhouse gasses, in the form of methane, than all of agriculture does today, possibly enough to equal all human greenhouse gases emitted from all sources today.

That’s not a viable path.

A sustainable way forward for agriculture

Comparatively it’s a lot cleaner to skip the manure production and composting altogether. Instead, Savage suggests putting manure and organic waste into an anaerobic digester. An anaerobic digester collects methane and burns it as a carbon. The result is a carbon neutral effect since it started in the air, ends up in the plant, and then ends up in food before it’s released back into the atmosphere. Some water treatment plants and dairies have already invested in anaerobic digesters. So have some farms such as Gills Onions, the big onion processor, which uses its anaerobic digester to take its stinky pile of skins and use it to generate electricity to run its plant.

Nevertheless, most would agree that other organic-type practices to improve soil quality are useful for lowering agriculture’s carbon footprint overall. A good combination, according to Savage, is actually a mixture of typical organic farming practices like cover crops and crop rotations along with conventional farming practices that include no-till agriculture, genetically engineered crops, and the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer.

That synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, after all, adds one other twist that is not often acknowledged by organic farming proponents. Organic farming is just as dependent if not more dependent on synthetic fertilizer—because cows don’t actually create nitrogen; they extract it from whatever foods they eat, which often is from conventional crops.

That’s cow manure that would be better off left in the pasture, or placed in an anaerobic digester if sourced from a feedlot, Savage said. It’s better than being piled up and left to get hot, resulting in the production of even more potent greenhouse gases.

David Despain, M.Sc., is a science and health journalist based in Gilbert, Ariz. Follow @daviddespain on Twitter.

43 thoughts on “Is organic farming sustainable? 5 carbon footprint challenges”

    • The vast majority of the carbon that goes into a plant doesn’t come from the soil. Soils can act as carbon sinks, which is why tilling in organic agriculture is so bad in terms of CO2 release.

      • And then there’s the fact only so much carbon can be put into soil before it turns into a layer of coal. Most carbon emissions are from fossil fuels. I’d think we could only put roughly the same amount of carbon back in the soil that was there in the first place (or it’s back to 3 feet of coal), which means, none from fossil fuels.

    • The carbon used by the crop comes from the air. The plants take in CO2 and turn that into plant matter and energy. Once that plant dies, the carbon in the plant is slowly released back into the air via decomposition. But, because it decomposes slowly that organic matter (and the carbon in it) collects.

  1. I wonder if green manure has any merit, skipping the extra cows altogether. It still requires significant land above and beyond the actual crop land but i wonder what that does to the numbers.

    One other thing, let’s say we did have all those extra cows. Would that mean filet mignon at 2 bucks a pound? {:^>)

  2. A Straw Man created by your own logic is easy to knock down, Mr. Despain. Perhaps you should study more than manure before writing about organic (no “quotes” needed) farming.

  3. Instead of spending hundreds of words engaged in speculative correlation between certain aspects of organic farming and the carbon cycle, why not just go directly to the science?

    “…datasets from 74 studies from pairwise comparisons of organic vs. nonorganic farming systems were subjected to metaanalysis to identify differences in soil organic carbon (SOC). We found significant differences and higher values for organically farmed soils of 0.18 ± 0.06% points (mean ± 95% confidence interval) for SOC concentrations, 3.50 ± 1.08 Mg C ha(-1) for stocks, and 0.45 ± 0.21 Mg C ha(-1) y(-1) for sequestration rates compared with nonorganic management.” Source:

    • Rob,

      It’s true that building organic matter in the soil is one of the strengths of organic production. That doesn’t change the fact that the 5 challenges listed above are in fact challenges – and offset that one advantage.

      If the SOC in those paired organic farms is coming in part from cow manure, then while SOC is going up, it’s a bit of taking from Peter to pay Paul.

      • Sorry Marc, but to me the fact that the science shows that organic systems are achieving higher SOC and higher sequestration rates proves that they are addressing those challenges quite effectively. You’ll have to explain to me how you’re not trying to stand this argument on its head.
        As for the cow manure issue, the paper abstract goes on to state “Restricting the analysis to zero net input organic systems and retaining only the datasets with highest data quality (measured soil bulk densities and external C and N inputs), the mean difference in SOC stocks between the farming systems was still significant (1.98 ± 1.50 Mg C ha(-1)), whereas the difference in sequestration rates became insignificant (0.07 ± 0.08 Mg C ha(-1) y(-1)).”
        And why is recycling cow manure considered robbing Peter to pay Paul, but importing chemical fertilizers is not?

  4. Not all farmering is “dirt farming.” My neighbor & I grow citrus n California- his organic, mine IPM (Integrated Pest Management). Our product fruit are indistinguishable but he charges more. The issue of this article is the land management. I used Urea fertilizer which while using fossil fuel to generate heat basically burns Methane and produces CO2 as a product of combustion- a 25x reduction of greenhouse gas effect. He uses fish parts & chicken feathers, and manure- all of which are trucked here my diesel trucks and spread with diesel tractors. The soil 6″ below the surface of the untilled soil is anaerobic so the digestion of the organic material into something useful to the tree produces Methane.

    I control weeds with 2-3 applications of glyphosate / year. The re is no run-off and none of it has ever been detected by chemical analysis. He uses diesel tractor/mower and 2-cycle weed whackers ~ 20x/ year. The weeds he does have increase water use by evapotranspiration every day, and make the grove floor colder in freezing conditions. The cold (2-3 degrees) requires the use of a wind machine, which runs on propane, and the use of an orchard heater (propane) which is drawn about the grove by the diesel tractor all night.

    I do not understand the immorality of this otherwise nice man who harms the environment and fleeces customers for a no-better product.

  5. It seems to me that “organic” agriculture has had 10,000 or so years to deal with these challenges, while “conventional” (chemical-using) agriculture has developed to where it is over the last 100 or so years. “Organic” agriculture is using the pest control and fertilizer techniques that were developed in the early 1900s. “Conventional” agriculture is continuing to innovate and change daily.

    While I don’t know exactly how the Amish and Hutterite colonies compare, their farming practices seem similar to the organic/conventional agricultural differences.

    The Amish do not use modern motorized machinery and their farming is very labor intensive. In contrast, the Hutterite colonies use the latest modern machines and technology. Both do a wonderful job and have a niche in modern agriculture/society, but one stopped innovating and the other didn’t.

    The big difference is that neither disparage the other nor set out to disparage agriculture outside their realm.

    “Organic” agriculture/food adherents seem to have developed almost cult-like behavior while trying to make “conventional” agriculture/food adherents appear to be purveyors of evil. At the same time ignoring or downplaying the challenges they haven’t been able to solve.

  6. To expand on the last point a bit, every harvest removes nutrients that were in the soil. They have to be replaced, and replacing them with animal manure doesn’t solve the big picture problem, because the animals need a source of nutrients too.

    Because organic agriculture prohibits not just synthetic fertilizers, but also biosolids, the sources of replenishment are a major constraint on scaling up organic production. Most of the harvested nutrients end up in our bodies or in our feces. Since human wastes are excluded from use in organic, there is a major loss with no ready offset. The system works today because conventional ag “launders” nutrients from prohibited sources, not just synthetic but the biosolids as well.

    Of course we can (and should) compost food waste, but this represents a small fraction of the harvested nutrients that are otherwise permanently locked out of organic production. Perhaps yard wastes also contribute, though we’re just moving nutrients from one soil to another and those sources are not indefinitely sustainable without their own fertilization.

    I’m more interested in phosphorus as long term sustainability issue, since we can grow nitrogen fixing crops and genetic engineering may expand the range of those crops. There’s not a similar source of P in the atmosphere, though perhaps we can encourage a rhizosphere that makes more of the inorganic P available.

    With no-till it was hoped we’d eliminate most loss of P which was believed to be primarily a particulate erosion problem. But in some cases there’s more dissolved P lost because it isn’t incorporated in the soil well in no-till. I expect precision agriculture will be the solution to this, because going back to tilling isn’t the answer.

  7. You paint too nice a picture of organics. I have a citrus grove here, right next to my certified organic neighbor, who grows the same citrus. Note the Urea is made using methane as a heat source & releasing it as CO2- a much less active heat trapping molecule. You did mention the transport cost in Diesel fuel- he takes a large truck 2-3 x/year to drive for miles. I can self-deliver a year’s supply of N in two trips with my gas & cat converter pick up. He uses diesel tractor and 2 cycle fuel weed whacker 2-3x/month for weed control. I hand apply glyphosate 2x/year at low rates with no detectable residue. His weeds also transpire more water than my bare dirt- using more of that precious resource.
    Those weeds also make the grove colder in the winter by 2-3 degrees. That requires a Propane fired wind machine for frost protection vs nothing for my side.
    “Organic” growing of citrus crops is clearly worse for the environment.

    • Just because your neighbor isn’t a very good organic farmer doesn’t mean organic farming is worse for the environment. Urea is made from ammonia that already required immense amounts of energy to synthesize from the atmosphere. Forming the urea takes even more. That methane wasn’t in the atmosphere, it was buried underground until someone sucked it out.

      If your neighbor knew what he was doing, he’d be getting his nitrogen from an organic source like Alfalfa. He should be using mulch and specialized livestock like weeder geese to control weeds, not a machine.

      How much soil erosion does your bare dirt generate each year? I’ll be you lose as much as a half ton of soil per hectare every year. You also neglected to mention the arsenal of toxic pesticides you have to apply every year. How many fossil fuels did it take to make them? What effect do they have on the environment?

  8. Excellent fact-based article!
    As for carbon sequestration, that is relative, like everything else.
    Modern agriculture usually supports a more modest carbon content in soils than idealized notions of “organic” soils, but with no-till we have significantly increased our tally. Also, organic fanatics never mention the stark reality that there is an upper limit to how much carbon can be sequestered in any sort of working soil, even in forests, before uptake is balanced by out gassing of methane and nitrogen compounds from organic decomposition and so forth. You’d have to get as far as creating deposits of coal, oil and gas to sequester more carbon than that. So, “going organic” to trap carbon is only a stop-gap measure, at best. If not, wouldn’t the earth have been entirely frozen over millennia ago when none of it was cultivated by man, and how would man ever have evolved under those conditions?
    There is no danger of altering, much less depleting the CO2 content of our atmosphere by indulging in trendy street performances of wishful agroecology pipe dreams, even if any of those could be scaled up to any significant level. All wishful foolishness, so sad.

    • Yeah. even organic can’t put more carbon than what the overlying forest/field had there in the first place and then it won’t even touch that from the fossil fuel emissions. to posit that it can do so is to posit that it’ll form a many foot thick layer of pure coal in place of the topsoil.

  9. Extrapolating global organic to mean ‘needing’ 5 billion or so more cows is pretty disingenuous. It assumes cow shit is the only option for organic farmers. Which is, of course, horseshit.

        • Of course you are confused. That was obvious from your original comment. Which ignored many other sources of manure and cover crops. The main nutrients provided by manure are N and P. The feeds given to livestock were grown mainly with synthetic N. It smelling worse after passing through livestock doesn’t change that.

          • “the single greatest threat on the environment were more conventional farmers to turn to organic farming—it’s the need for all the extra cattle to produce manure to fertilize those organic crops.”
            – is this not a false assumption that manure is the only option in organic farming?

          • I wouldn’t call it the single greatest threat. But it is a biggie. Cover crops are another option. But that takes the land out of production. What manure is produced needs to be recycled. But that my be less of an issue if lab grown meat becomes widespread. Apparently I got your original comment backwards. Sorry.

          • The single greatest threat to the environment is destruction of the worlds forests. Forests are 3 dimensional carbon sequesters, farmland is relatively 2 dimensional, so cannot absorb as much carbon. Forests would have to cut down just to grow the same amount of organic crops that conventional farms produces no matter what is used for fertilizer, so the source of manure is unimportant, it could just as easily be human waste, there would still be less trees. As for sequestering, it is always temporary unless it is buried too deeply to be reached by fungi and plant roots, trees at least produce wood that can stand for a century, and that can then be incorporated into buildings for perhaps hundreds of years, or at least with today’s disposable housing, decades.
            Of course all of this is irrelevant if human induced climate change is a huge hoax perpetrated by progressive global elitists who are making fortunes from furthering the hoax.

          • Do you really suspect human induced climate change is a huge hoax? Because it always depresses me when apparently intelligent people take that position.

          • What depresses me is that so many people are taken in by the lies that proliferate about it. If the earth is warming (not proven) it would cause the release of CO2 from oceans, burning forests etc, someone has deliberately switched the “cause and effect” to say CO2 is causing the warming, rather that the more obvious, warming increases atmospheric CO2.
            Chistiana Figueres, (since fired I believe) Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
            Al Gore flies around the world in the most polluting form of transport (private jet) releasing 1000 times as much CO2 (and that’s just because he has a big mouth) as the average person does, without appology.
            Scientists are doctoring results on CO2 readings as well as temperature in the arctic and other places.
            Alarmists are still predicting oceans rising (originally 26 feet was projected in the 1970’s) despite the fact they are not.
            If this was real, there would be no need to falsify results, the science should stand on it’s own merits. It doesn’t. The weather alarmists will tell you it’s uncertain when it will happen after all, then change it from Global Warming to “Climate Change” in case it doesn’t get warmer, and people believe them, but when I suggest it’s all a hoax (as do more and more scientists who are now coming out against the theory) you get depressed about it. It’s all going to unravel the way Hollywood’s sympathy towards women is unraveling. The truth will out.

          • I’ll try keep it short as there’s no point in debating this stuff with a smart person whose confirmation bias has it all figured out.
            Just ask yourself: in whose interests is it to create a hoax intended to launch a concerted global effort to reduce pollution and emissions? The corporations? The fossil fuel industry perhaps?
            As for your original comment that organic farming is less productive and therefore requires vast deforestation to meet demand – not true. The productivity gap can be reduced, even eliminated by progressive techniques such as long crop rotations and polyculture, to name just two.
            All you are doing is trying to justify the status quo and, apparently, defend the failings of agribusiness.

    • These folks also ignore that all their synthetic fertilizers are taking a synthetic piss on the entire Mississippi water shed resulting in the gulf’s dead zone. The dead zone’s very existence shows that crops are being over fertilized and a large portion of that natural gas being converted to N is pure waste. And then there is the NOX emissions from applying N in the spring…

      Then there is the fact that aerobic composting has been taking place on this planet since life evolved to digest cellulose. It is anaerobic decomposition that creates tons of methane, like your local land fill or manure lagoon.

      I don’t have time to go into the carbon footprint of chemical no-till or their misunderstanding of how cover crops work.

  10. Thought it was a new article by the way it was posted – ah well.
    I am in general agreement with much of it but there were 2 fairly easy to spot examples of overkill.
    First is repeatedly trying to blame organic farmers for the cows – as if we have cows because people want cow manure. It’s preposterous. The question is, given we have cows, what is the best use of their output. Fertilizer does not seem like a crazy thing to do with it.
    Next was the nitrous oxide production – the study cited found both systems produced 3.75 lb per acre per year. Our author surely knows that. The organic farmer is applying less, and further she was likely applying something that was going to produce some NO anyway. Applying twice as much nitrogen does not sound so great at first thought – there’s water to think about too. Again, the question is what is the best use of that cow dung.
    If part of the answer is to have less cows, that could be proposed. I advocate farm animal (and pet) taxes. They create external costs not paid for by the consumer. I am not a vegetarian, but I do see an ecological problem we can work on with incentives, and not just admonishing people to eat less cow (we will just ship more cows out of country).

    • Mr. Rork, I am not a farmer, I do not presume to know all the answers on sequestering carbon in agriculture. I would never presume to tell professional farmers and academics in the field what “part of the answer is.” I think a little more humility on your part is called for. The article clearly does not accuse organic farmers of being responsible for the number of cattle that exist today (1.9 billion the article said). But if organic farming is to be “scaled up” to feed the whole world organically, like organic farmers and the Rodale Institute want, a whole lot more cows will have to come into existence just to provide all the manure necessary for organic farming. Organic farmland comprises about 0.6% of agricultural land in America. Whatever the demand for organic manure is for just for organic farming, multiply that by 16566 times to get enough organic manure fertilizer for all 100% of American farmland. Now, do that for just about every other country in the world. That gives you an idea of how many new cows we would need to make enough manure to grow all the world’s food organically.

        • I agree totally with you that the label “organic” is something arbitrary with little science behind it and more marketing. Why something created through bombardment with radiation can be deemed “organic” while something else that was tweaked in a laboratory is not completely boggles the mind. But if it can justify a higher price, organic farmers and their fans will embrace it and denigrate conventional farming practices to boot.

  11. Poison everything and upload to AI robots and we won’t have to waste any resources on growing food. The robots will all be organic, made from natural atoms.
    Next problem?

  12. This article puts forward some important arguments, but there are a number of problems:
    1: You criticize the Rodale report as “not peer reviewed science” then cite a blog post by a plant pathologist to make your argument about carbon emissions. Both are USES of science, rather than science themselves.

    2: All of the articles cited by Dr Savage don’t meet best practices in livestock manure composting: the nitrogen and moisture contents are much too high (C:N ratios well below 25:1, moisture above 60%). In fact, in the Sommer & Moller (2000) paper that Savage cites, when more straw was added to the manure, CH4 and N2O emissions went down by >99%. I have no idea if most livestock manure composting meets best practices, though, and I doubt its being measured

    3: Most comparisons of organic vs conventional, at least in the US, (from which the yield gap figures are developed) don’t involve importing composted manure: they either don’t use manure or manure application rates are low enough that they could be supported by the landbase, these experiments represent integrated crop-livestock systems.

    4: Deforestation in tropical areas is a political matter, not an agronomic one. Lower yields from an Iowa organic farmer don’t cause a Brazilian official to take bribes from agricultural interests.

    Overall, however, I agree with your thesis that organic certification excludes too many potentially useful tools to be a broad solution as practice, and that the best environmentally friendly farming practices will combine insights from organic farming with a wider suite of tools

  13. THere’s a perfect way of farming which will take care of all the flaws in organic or chemical farming. Its called zero budget natural farming. One can cultivate 30 acres of land with the help of just one cow. No need to add any fertilizer or manure to the soil, no need to till deeper than 4 inches. please go thru . This technique has changed the life of almost half a million farmers. its enviro-friendly and produces poion free food in large scale.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend