The great organic debate

Scientists are at odds over the role of organic food production in modern agriculture. According to some, the low yields will never meet modern demands and the environmental benefits and improved food quality are scientifically dubious. Supporters on the other hand argue that the lack of scientific evidence in favor of organic methods just reflects the scarcity of quality research into the subject. This research deficit only adds to organic farming¹s image of being "muck and magic" compared to conventional intensive methods.

Recent articles in the journal Nature, arguably the most respected publication in science, clearly illustrated the depth of division in the scientific community.

In March 2001, Prof. Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh published an article describing the "Urban myths of organic farming". He argues that the Soil Association¹s claim that organic agriculture is superior to other farming methods cannot be substantiated because of the lack of scientific studies. Furthermore, he suggests that some aspects of organic farming result in a poorer quality product and have no environmental advantages over traditional methods. He states " Organic agriculture was originally formulated as an ideology, but today¹s global problems ­ such as climate change and population growth ­ need pragmatism and flexibility, not ideology".

The environmentally friendly label on organic farming relies heavily on avoiding the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Prof. Trewavas disputes these credentials using a number of examples. Frequent mechanical weeding by organic farmers to replace herbicides is damaging to nesting birds, invertebrates and worms. It also burns greater amounts of fossil fuels. Similarly there are a number of ill effects of natural fertilisers i.e. manure. Manure breakdown can produce similar amounts of harmful nitrogen compounds (which leach into aquatic systems) as chemical fertilisers, and the breakdown process also results in significant amounts of nitrous oxide and methane, the most potent greenhouse gases.

While clearly unimpressed by organic farming, the professor acknowledges the problems of intensive monoculture production and suggests that integrated farming, a third, intermediate method, is a more environmentally sensitive way forward. This system uses detailed information on soil structures and site-specific factors to minimise waste and maximise production while considering wildlife conservation. It "integrates concern for the environment with safe efficient methods of production" and "combines the best of traditional farming with responsible use of modern technology".

A well timed reply.

So while one eminent scientist in the UK is an organo-sceptic, another, on the other side of the Atlantic was coming to a very different conclusion. Prof. John Reganold and colleagues at Washington State University conducted what is probably the most rigorous research into the subject to date. They compared conventional intensive production of apples with integrated and organic production methods. The experimental plots were monitored for profitability, environmental sustainability and energy efficiency over a six-year period. The scientists kept track of everything that was measurable, including compost, chemical budgets and fuel used by farm machinery. The results were published in Nature in April 2001 and made the front cover.

The research will make interesting reading for Prof Trewavas, as while the organic plots took longest to reach profitability, they ranked first for every other category. By the end of the research period the organic plots also proved the most profitable. The organic apples were also consistently voted the sweetest tasting by independent panels.

The results clearly vindicate organic methods, at least for fruit crops, and Prof. Reganold is currently conducting similar experiments into more globally significant crops like wheat and other grain. In an exclusive interview with OOTW, Prof. Reganold explained why there was a general lack of science in organic farming. He explained that it was largely due to the way the funding system is biased towards research into conventional methods. He said that in the United States "well less than one percent of the available funding goes into organic farming research". The Professor pointed out that for many crops including wheat, organic yields can be up to 91% of conventional production and added "when you think about that, if we did more research into organics, those yields could probably be equaled."

As it was said in Nature "if there was as much research into alternative farming practices as there is into conventional ones, the muddy boot could be on the other foot when it comes to the sustainability of organic farming".

OOTW would like to thank Prof John Reganold for agreeing to an interview for this article.