How Do Organics Par With Non-Organics?

Contrasting Data For And Against Organic Yields Dissonance

When it comes to produce, the line is drawn; Will you dish out the extra money to buy organic produce, or is non-organic the same thing? There are even different aisles grabbing your attention pertaining to different markets. Perhaps the biggest question in organic vs non-organic produce, though, is whether organic produce is sustainable enough to feed the world. Do we really need pesticides and genetic modification in order to feed our constantly growing global economy? An article in Scientific American asks that exact question with a no: Can organic agriculture feed a world of nine billion people? I found this cited as a source in an argument by Monsanto regarding sustainable farming practices and feeding global populations. Monsanto seems to be the company that people point fingers at in response to arguments on genetically modified foods or pesticide usage, so what they trying to argue is important to note.

The lead scientist in the study cited in this article is Verena Seufert. The study shows 5%-25% yield differences between organic and non-organic dependent on the crop tested. Although the article seems to lean towards the fact that pesticide use is necessary in feeding global populations, both sides are presented and there is a nod that organic farming is idealistically better. 

"Conventional farming requires knowledge of how to manage what farmers know as inputs—synthetic fertilizer, chemical pesticides and the like—as well as fields laid out precisely via global-positioning systems. Organic farmers, on the other hand, must learn to manage an entire ecosystem geared to producing food—controlling pests through biological means, using the waste from animals to fertilize fields and even growing one crop amidst another. "Organic farming is a very knowledge-intensive farming system"

The question that arises while reading this is, if both require knowledge, then why can't we teach the more environmentally sound option just as if not more effectively? The article seems to be questioning this for the scientific audience which tends to lead to the message "trust science" that backs genetic modifications and agrochemical research.

Rodale Institute located in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, however, has been collecting data from a Farming Systems Trial for the past 30 years that goes head to head with conventional farming practices. This trial claims to be America's longest running side-by-side comparison of organic vs. conventional farming and has produced some contrasting results to research done by Scientific American. Rodale Institute is a historic organic research farm that frequently tests organic and conventional practices separately and together.

Their research can be concluded by several fast facts:

Organic yields match conventional yields. Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought. Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system. Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient. Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases. Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

Although an organic research farm may have a bias towards promoting organic products, the research was presented in a fair tone. There is a dismissal towards conventional practices in a "we don't need this" message, but that is expected. The underdog in any scenario must always dismiss the incumbent in order to make their case. Nobody can argue that ideally not using pesticides yielding the same results as using pesticides is a better option, yet this case study seems to argue just that. The study argues that in organic farming, oxygen and nitrogen retention is stronger during drought and soil remains healthier over time. Perhaps this study alone is the key to understanding the argument of organic vs. non-organic. It seems that there is a threshold of when organic soil can outlast non-organic during droughts and retain more moister after pesticide soaked soil can't absorb any more nutrients.

Each argument is persuasive, yet opinionated and biased. A more public knowledge of this information is key to understanding the actual answer to the question of whether organic or non-organic is the solution to our global produce needs. When more research is presented and more studies are conducted, the world will benefit over time. Until then, the decision is yours to make.