I think the organic solution has more questions to be answered, one thing is sure, the productivity may not match the intense systems but the sustainability is far better.

thanx Azad sahab,then what should be the best way to meet the evergrowing demand of foodgrains.

On one hand, I think that organic agriculture would be a solutions to some emerging problems concerning to environment and health. But on the other hand, it seems evident that this is not a sustainable system... in terms of area of ​​land required, for example. But I think that also in economical terms, due to these products usually are more expensive and they are not available for the median consumer.

What do you think?

No doubt organic foods are expensive one and this is due to less farmers are doing organic farming mostly follow modern high input agriculture practice that involve chemicals and pesticides. Since both farming systems have some associated problem how can we mitigate such problem associated with organic farming.

I really dont think organic food alone can be enough, especially in the future period when extreme climate events are going to harm the global agriculture...

No. Certainly not at present. Organic farming in our present world is either the only surviving life style option of the poor, or a luxurious life style that rich can choose to have among many alternatives. What we are witnessing as "organic products" in rich developed world is in most cases a show of luxury life which is far from the reality of feeding the increasingly hungry population.

Deciding on organic farming is premised on whether we want quantity and live shorter life or decide on qualitative but little food and live longer

Only organic farming can sustain the growing population. The current average U.S. diet for one person requires an area of around 2,000 m². For a person in economically developing nations an area of around 1,500 m² is utilised. And this is done with heavy use of fossil fuels and by eroding our most precious natural resource, the soil.

The good thing is, intensive organic farming with a proper nutrient cycling and small-scale poly-culture can fully sustain one person from an area of around 400 m². This was proven during the last three decades by people like John Jeavons from Ecology Action. And it was done during 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation, until the introduction of mechanized chemical agricultural techniques, that destroyed around one quarter of China's agricultural soil since the late 1950s.

The fact that today's "organic" produce is more expensive than crops from industrial, high-input farming has at least two main reasons. Current agriculture uses cheap (but getting more expensive) fossil resources for machines, fertiliser, and pesticides and the main export producers of crops are heavily subsidized by their governments (mainly USA and EU). The last point is at the same time responsible for undermining sustainable small-scale agriculture in states which import the subsidized over-production.

By the way, the current "organic" certification is indeed not the solution to world hunger, it just provides crops grown with less pesticides and mineral fertiliser to people who can afford it. On the other hand, it allows also some smaller farmers to shift from pesticide and mineral fertiliser driven agriculture to a more sustainable form of food production.

The need for utilization of treated waste generated by food production and agro-industry, is leading to a new sense of organic agriculture. The mineral extraction for the production of chemicals has destroyed landscapes, soils, forests at a very high cost to our planet. The high amount of wastes with quality for food production that are left in the environment are rich sources of mineral and organic matter and need to be recycled.

Dear all,

this is an interesting topic, and my answer is yes.

I am from Almeria (in the south east of Spain), which is the place of higher concentration of greenhouses in the Mediterreanean area. It is clear that the population is growing, but using accurate agriculture systems it is possible to cultivate sufficient quantity of many crop varieties.

Some data about greenhouse cultivation can be obtained by a paper we published recently. I hope it will be interesting for you.

"Multi-objective crop planning using pareto-based evolutionary algorithms", Agricultural Economics, 42(6), pp. 649–656, 2011

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00546.x/abstract

I feel that we must understand the difference between organic farming and sustainable agricultural practices and the try to answer the question. As I understand the plants draw their food from soil mostly, and they are not able to distinguish between the sources of the food, it may be organic source or an inorganic fertilizer. This is because the nutrient uptake is in form of ions and not as such. So in a way organic produce is more of a misnomer and a marketing practice than some things which is always safe to consume.

There are still no answers to many of the problems (insect, pests, diseases) faced by the farmers, if they go for producing food through organic means only, so we still have a long way to go.

While the organic foods world over are being sold at a premium, because most consumers understand that any thing produced using inorganic chemicals is invariably harmful, which is not always the case. Judicious use of inputs, can be more safe way to produce crops than exclusive use of organic inputs.

The question of residue in food and natural resource becomes an area of concern if the inputs are not used properly. However, strict quality control measures and capacity building of farmers, particularly from the developing world, may be the answer for sustainable agricultural production.

Whether the food is produced through organic or inorganic methods, we must ensure that sustainable agricultural practices are adopted so that it becomes more wide spread among the farmers from the developing countries, where most of the world's population lives..

The Global Landscapes Initiative have gathered and interpreted an impressive set of data that suggests that organic agriculture alone will not be the one solution to a growing food demand of the world's population, but rather be one of many important aspects that contribute to the solution. This is similar to what Daniel explains in his comment above.

See this link, which includes a very interesting TED talk: http://environment.umn.edu/gli/

This is a heavily debated topic in the Netherlands, and particularly in Wageningen University. An absolutely essential contribution to the discussion has been given by Prof. Fresco. Unfortunately, the book is in Dutch ("Hamburgers in Paradise"). Here is a link to a speech she gave in English on a similar topic:

http://www.ksla.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/KSLA-Commemorative-meeting-2013_Louise-Frescos-speech.pdf

Personally, I agree with Sebastian that there is plenty of evidence that organic ag. will not and cannot be the only solution.

I think the higher question is 'Will current agricultural production systems sustain the food demand of a growing population?'. Organic production systems have an important role and are highly effective in small parcel farms or for crops produced from high value intensive farming systems. The problem is that these two systems alone cannot sustain the global food demand now or 20 yrs out. For example, if we removed synthetic fertilizers as a crop input, our ability to sustain the current population with conventional farming methods would be reduced by 50%.

So Brian, back to the Malthusian chaos (albeit in a slightly different form) debate. One cannot argue the issue from just one side (i.e agricultural production) – and what is wrong with a situation where agricultural production turned out to be the hard limiter for population growth? I am of the opinion that sooner we hit a hard biophysical or technological barrier the better, for our planet as a whole.

Dear colleagues, thank you for the discussion of a serious problem.

Some of the ideas and questions are presented in one of my papers (Soil management for agro-ecosystems

P. A. Kozhevin

Moscow University Soil Science Bulletin 01/2011; Volume 66(Number 1):Pages 42-44, the full-text version). I hope it will be interesting for you.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224852217_Soil_management_for_agro-ecosystems?ev=prf_pub

Article Soil management for agro-ecosystems

this is a great and difficult question about organic food. i think no organic agriculture alone can't sustain the food demand of growing population. we must take care of the "growing population" first of all. Act first in the world family planning for exemple.

I do not think that this is possible. Now the population has exceeded a gigantic count and agricultural sector will need to exploit more intensive farming methods.

Let's try to find the pro and con for each one, and then try to find out they're impact on the agricultural output, the quality of product and the sustainability of this type of exploitation:

intensive exploitation:(monocultures)

pro:

-large output

-only need one type of material

con:

-exhaust the land nutriment rapidly, depend heavily on fertilizer (nitrate pollution, higher cost of exploitation)

-very large plots of land without natural cut wind barriers, need larger mechanized material to applied fertilizer and harvest on these surfaces (higher cost, pollution, reduced bio diversity, no barrier to erosion from wind /water,reduced productivity from reduced bio diversity and erosion)

-tendencies to monoculture (vulnerability to diseases and insect, reduced bio diversity (impact on productivity), heavy need on pesticide, pollution)

organic agriculture witht sustainable methods (multiculture):

pro:

- reduced need of fertilizer from crop rotation, natural cut wind barrier (low pollution , low cost)

-r educed need of pesticide from multiculture, bio diversity (low pollution, low cost)

- reduced erosion from natural cut wind barrier and smallest plots (higher productivity)

- high bio diversity from crop rotation, natural wind cut barrier and multiculture

- reduced vulnerability to disease and pest from crop rotation, smallest plots, multiculture and high bio diversity

con:

-reduced output (how much exactly?) in comparison to intensive exploitation

-may need more diversified mechanized material to ensure multiculture (but smaller than intensive exploitation)

Thanks for enlighten about various aspects of organic farming and food production and in most of the answers very simply an equation is generated that is food production = food consumption and that is partly true because there are several factors ( social, climatic, political etc.) that decided who will get how much food. Till date 30 % of the world rich population is eating equal to 70 % of the poor population. So it is the matter of distribution first. Second is the losses during transport, storage etc. Third is the commercial crops like floriculture ,sugarcane, cotton, biofuel, plantations etc and even construction of cement forests- is rapidly encroaching the fertile fields of food grain crops.Now we always worry about growing population but on the other side no effort to preserve/ reserve fertile lands for food grain crops. Now come to organic vs. chemicals take the example of India plateau in food grain crops is observed since last two decades despite of sharp increase in fertiliser and pesticide consumption than how there is chemical system gives guarantee for feeding the population in 2050 or after , at that time petroleum and phosphate reserves will also be exhausted- the major source for fertilisers and pesticides. And the pollution level will reach to an alarming level. In most of the seminars now a days a ray of hope is carbon sequestration, low emission of green house gasses - which farming fits in that . Obviously organic farming but it has to be taken in wider perspective and not keeping limited to the certification, high price in market , safe food BUT a holistic approach for efficient utilisation/recycling of natural resources. AND it has been proved at many places that this approach is successful to feed the population till the civilisation exist. Learning from such examples may help to make strategy for planning to feed growing population. In conclusion, The challenge is multidimensional therefore, solution will have to be multidirectional with near to nature approach as the agriculture is still a nature's gift and may not be long lasting if we go away to nature.

I don't think that organic farming alone will be able to sustain the food demands of a growing population. Employing organic agricultural techniques would usually mean that staple foods like wheat or corn won't grow as frequently as they do in farms that use inorganic fertilizers.

I think that current organic agriculture technology alone will not be able to cope with the pressures of a growing population. Organic agriculture cannot compete with the high output of conventional agriculture.

Organic is a system in that you will realize the potential when the system developed. Making some predictive statement or some equations may be very limited use in biological science where numerous interactions go on and their result decide the outcome.So first let us have experience of organic farming and a possible situation of world after a minimum period of 50 years about availability and quality of natural resources and then decide which method is better.

In a study conducted by environmental scientists at McGill University in Montreal and the University of Minnesota, they found out that organic yields are considerably lower than conventional yields although this yield differences varies across different conditions. Through this study, we can deduce that as organic farming is not enough to cover our overall present food supply nor will it be able to sustain the increasing food demand in the coming years. However, further research and development on organic farming may increase its productivity and help support our growing population.

The study by the way is entitled "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture" by Verena Seufert, Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley.

Organic agriculture alone would not be enough to sustain the growing demands of our population. Like what Keth said, the study performed by the scientists at McGill University in Montreal and University of Minnesota discussed the fact that the organic yield is 25% lower compared to conventional or artificial farming. As our population gets higher, conventional farming tries to compensate by genetically modifying crops and through intense applications of pesticides and fungicides which could also pose negative effects in the soil.

Like i've post before in this topics, they are several method to applied in addition of choosing between organic and artificial ...

Thoses method coulb be applied to both, the main aspect here is to see if there is a non marginal impact on the final yield (and on the production cost)

try to think a little further than just the final yield, you should take in account the cost, the sustainability of the production into the same field (if the yield is highter the first year but decrease every years after..it isn't interesting...)

you seem's to forget that more than 85% of the food produce is wasted, between production, travel, stock, selling, before being finally consume ....

So from my point of view we have more work to do toward reducing this awfull waste than increasing to amount produced.....and wasted

The organic agriculture alone can not be able to feed the population. But we should start the organic agriculture on the farmers field in the small area so that it should not affect the production.

We still do not know if organic agriculture will support the world population growth, but we know that the current food waste are enormous, the soil and rivers contamination by chemical fertilizers and pesticides is increasing, and environmental services has decreased, that global warming is increasing. With these and other arguments I believe the current model is not right.

Dear Anil,

You might be interested in a recent paper comparing the yields from organic versus conventional agriculture for >300 paired observations.

Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485, 229-232.

The authors say: "The overall result was that organic yields were 25% lower than conventional yields, the organic-to-conventional yield gap was highly contextual. For example, we found that perennials and legumes had lower yield gaps, probably because of their better ability to deal with nitrogen limitations. Similarly, organic system performance was better in rainfed systems and in soils that were neither too acidic or alkaline."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535250

Keeping limited to the comparison of yield ( organic vs. chemical) have least significance if we do not taken into account the long term overall outcome of the both the system and therefore assuming , quoting ,comparing two systems only on yield basis is just like comparing two countries on the basis of GDP and not on the basis of quality of life , equality , social justice etc. Although in present days market oriented materialistic life it looks very good if you are presenting quantitative data but when social and ecological disturbance occur then we think about the QUALITY in society and environment . AND same is true with organic concept although it is also diluted to some extent by the certification and commercialization.

So, continuing debate on the basis of yield will not be able justify any of the system. The comparison need to be holistic and long term basis.

I would like to quote the remaining part of the reference cited by AERIN JACOB in that the authors synthesized the paper in balanced way.

"Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems."

I think there are some aspects that are missed in this conversation as it typically appears in conventional discussions. And I just want to preface this by saying that, as I'm sure everyone here agrees, that there is no well-defined concept of "organic" agriculture, and what we are all discussing here exists on a huge spectrum of practices. But in general I think we mean mixed crop, low input, non-pesticide/herbicide agriculture (feel free to correct me if that is not your definition).

The first often missed aspect is that the vast majority of the efforts and research that have gone into agriculture over the past 100 years is focused on industrial, mono-cropped, fertilizer-heavy (since the green revolution), and now roundup-ready (since GMO) agriculture. Very, very little research has gone into organic farming, and the crops and varieties needed to perform well in organic systems. The very few research stations focused on plant breeding for non-industrial agriculture have shown huge gains in organic systems. I think we need to consider how productive organic agriculture could be if we invested in it, not just taken the current state of things as they are. Obviously industrial agriculture is going to seem more productive if we've put all our effort into making it so. To say that organic systems cannot yield as much as industrial ones I think is the wrong claim to make...they currently do not, but I would argue that it is largely because of the lack of investment and unrealized potential.

Secondly I agree with Arun that organic systems are already highly productive in many cases. Agro-forestry systems in Polynesia have shown to yield up to 15 tonnes per ha of mixed crop yields...that is more that the corn yields of US or soybeans of Brazil. So they can be much more efficient in terms of yield:area. However, they are not nearly as productive in terms of yield:labor...it takes many, many more workers to operate these systems. So I agree with others that a lot of the choice between organic and industrial agriculture comes down to a social choice. Do we want to invest the human capital into caring for the very land that has allowed us to reach the state we are at? I would say of course we do, but I also know not everyone agrees.

Finally, I would ask do we want the world to only live on organic agriculture? There are, just for one example, some amazing closed loop systems for urban agriculture using aeroponics in Singapore...wonderful innovations that don't have many of the environmental impacts that either organic or industrial dirt farming have. I'm not at all saying this is the way to go in the future, but I am saying that we should be open to a range of options, and recognize that the best solutions are going to be a mix or strategies that will increase our resilience and sustainability each in their own way. The best thing we can do is be scrutinizing of every system of agriculture to make sure it is performing as best it can. I don't think we have done that well with industrial agriculture.

We cant supply all the essential and required quantity of nutrients to plant through organic sources. we must blend inorganic sources

I think organic agriculture has the potential to meet the growing food demand - in theory. Why? A lot of food is discarded during production at the farms because it does not meet trade criteria (does not look nice), by traders (wholesale + retail) because it still dies not look nice enough to sell or to make place for the new delivery or to imply a shortage and keep prized high as well as at home because people often buy more than they actually need (large packages are often cheaper, sale actions, shopping before eating etc). It is not a production problem but a distribution problem. More food is produced than consumed in most industrialized countries. If people would plan ahead and just buy what they really need as done in foodcoops (the ones where you actually order in advance and than pick up your ordered stuff and maybe a few stored products) less food is wasted at home. Also if the demand decreases traders might follow suit and order less supplies from wholesale or producers/farmers reducing the need for highly efficient industrial agriculture. But this means also less profit so it is not going to happen on large scale in certain parts of the world because many people are greedy.

Thank you for your thoughtful and multi-factorial question.

I work with farmers in India who have, for the last 40 years, been using chemical (aka conventional) methods of crop farming. Many have been negatively impacted by the high cost of pesticides and fertilizers, financially and physically. As a result, a small group of farmers began experimenting: they stopped using chemicals, returned to traditional forms of farming (before the Green Revolution) and endeavored to increased the resilience of seeds and so crops with thought-based practices of meditation.

This farmer-led initiative is termed "Sustainable Yogic Agriculture" (SYA).

Colleagues at SD Agricultural University in Gujarat, have been gathering data for the last three years, contrasting chemical/ organic/ yogic. The results are interesting (see attached). The data collected so far have been laboratory based and focussed on plant physiology and soil nutrition. I am leaving soon to do some ethnographic research in Maharashtra.

After participating here at the United Nations on issues of food security and the Sustainable Development Goals, I can see there are many other things to consider: the value chain, the wellbeing of farmers, supportive infrastructure, trade agreements, access to credit, access to energy, and timely transport of goods. Also, this experiment has only been conducted with small-holders in India so far, so to what degree this is replicable on a large scale, is yet to be determined.

I do believe, in answer to your query, that local and organic initiatives such as this are critical to addressing the social and environmental problems that we are facing globally. However, projects such as SYA need proper support at all levels of governance. There also needs to be more research to determine the impact of such projects on, among other areas, food security, farmer livelihood, farmer wellbeing, sustainable development and biodiversity.

PS. A brief article with some tabulated data that may be useful.

Article Systems Approach to Agriculture

Not sure if this has been brought up already, but there was a recent paper looking at the benefits of organic vs conventional farming:

Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12035/abstract

Organic farming is widely sold as the more environmentally friendly side of agriculture, and it’s marketing often relies on its image as being ‘better’ in order to succeed. Here, the evidence suggests that the environment may benefit as much from a willingness to accept lower yields as it is from reduced chemical applications. This hits at the crux of an ongoing stalemate in agriculture. The current mosaic of organic and conventional farms works because we can still tolerate lower yields in some land, but for how much longer? Solitary bees, bumble bees and butterflies did not fare well in high yield landscapes, but careful habitat management around the fields can be effective in boosting numbers. In an associated study the authors published a few years earlier, nature reserves out performed any kind of farming for these pollinators. One interesting case was the Hoverflies, which responded positively to increased yield. Most of these belonged to species with predatory larvae, which help to manage pest aphids in cereals and other crops. At first, this sounds great: more yield, more beneficial insect predators. But the increased hoverfly abundance would suggest greater pest abundance, and furthermore, cereal aphids could benefit much more from increased yield than their predators, which need a greater range of resources.

I really liked this study, because it was thorough in its methods, both in its design and the range of biodiversity that it covers. It can be pretty tricky to compare different systems over such a large area, given how much the local landscape can affect the abundance of flora and fauna, but despite this, the results are quite clear and well presented. The arguments around sparing land versus sharing land with wildlife were well covered, and it raises some interesting questions about how agriculture will cope in the future demands for higher yields.

Organic agriculture has potential to feed the population however the growth rate at present cannot be managed by the organic agriculture. The input responsive varieties can boost the yield of the crops by many fold and organic agriculture cannot in practical equate this task.

A.K.: "many ecologists and agricultural scientists suggest adopting the organic form of agriculture"

this means agriculture without pesticides?

Organic agriculture is not a solution instead it is an alternative farming. The output of organic farming is the organic product which is an expensive one so that only rich people can afford to buy it. To my opinion, conventional industrial agriculture would feed the hungry world.

Organic products are not necessarily only for rich people. If consumers band together and search for farmers which sell their products directly it is often cheaper than buying at the farmers' market or supermarket. If there are enough members in the buying syndicate resulting in quite large grouped orders some farmers might even deliver their stuff to the syndicates storage facility. At least, this is the case for our foodcoop. And of course, there is also community supported agriculture as alternative. If the growing season is good, the harvest share will be plentyful accordingly.

For those interested in this discussion, it might be of interest too that in Germany under the so-called BioEconomy strategy of the government, soil is in particular understood as a critical resource. As stated in its recently released call for research projects: "Bioeconomy aims primarily at a shift from oil-based to biobased production systems. Biobased production relies on the availability of biomass for different fields of application : food & feed, industrial compounds, energy, and others.

Soil productivity is the key resource for a sustainable land based production of plants and, hence, the first essential step in bioeconomical value chains. In order to maintain or increase the fertility of productive soils, the knowledge of soil functions has to be further enhanced. [The newly announced funding programme] BonaRes [... by] the [German] Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the umbrella of the [German] National Research Strategy BioEconomy 2030. BonaRes intends to place emphasize on an interdisciplinary research approach. Please find details about the funding purpose and the areas of research to be funded in the call document." https://www.bonares.de/

Hello everyone, sorry a bit late on this discussion...

Organic agriculture almost always will come with a relatively lower yield than conventional agriculture (Seufert's paper in Nature, our paper in J app ecol, cited above by Mark Ramsden. In the long run, organic agriculture may be more sustainable (sensu stricto) in terms of allowing the same ground to be used for production way into the future. It may also be more resilient to variability driven by climate change. However, while demand is so large, a reduction in yields will lead to a greater land pressure and then that leads to an additional environmental cost as agric land is always lower in biodiv and ecosystem services than semi- or natural land.

Thus for me, the issue is not about either organic or conventional but place-appropriateness. In some areas, the benefit to organic is relatively larger and so perhaps the yield penalty can be foregone; in other areas, the benefits to organic may be lower, and the costs in yield penalty may be higher - in which case, pragmatically, being organic may be less wise.

One issue is that as in many areas, "organic" is a suite of certified management practices, it may reduce a farmer's ability to manage his land to the best effect given his (or her) context. I was recently on an organic farm and the farmer was saying he suffered from soil loss to wind erosion and wished he had leeway to plant a cover crop and spray if off later as, in his mind, organic was about maximising sustainability and this sometimes required trade-offs. The Soil Association's response was that such pragmatism would undermine consumer trust in the product.

The final thought is that the costs/benefits of organic are sensitive to market demand. By reducing demand for food, we reduce the relative importance of the yield penalty. Given that about 40% of global food production is wasted (in the UK about 20% in the home), and that (in the Uk and US) people over consume (according to the growth in obesity) by 10-20% of calories on a daily basis, then in parts of the world this implies that up to 50% of food is wasted in total. Reducing this would reduce land pressure, making organic-like production more affordable. Given the growing healthcare costs of over-consumption (a recent report showed a whopping 50% of the adult Chinese population show signs of diabetes), the need to eat better ("sustainable nutrition") is raising its head across a range of policy discussions globally. A recent paper by Pete Smith showed, a propos, GHG emissions for agriculture that changing diets, and demand for food, created much bigger GHG savings than changing agric per se. So, if we all try and champion "sustainable demand" and help drive cultural change that will allow space back in for nature in agri-landscapes.

A recent article in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development says a lot about this issue:

“Modern agriculture has proven highly productive, yet has simultaneously generated environmental and social impacts of global concern. Pressing environmental issues call into question the ability of the current model of industrial agriculture to sustain adequate yields without undermining the natural resource base upon which it depends. Meanwhile, global food needs are projected to double by 2050, raising questions over the need to further intensify agricultural production. Current research demonstrates that biologically diversified farming systems can meet global food needs sustainably and efficiently, as they outperform chemically managed monocultures across a wide range of globally important ecosystem services while producing sufficient yields and reducing resource waste throughout the food system. Research and development related to diversified systems, however, commands less than two percent of public agricultural research funding. We argue that this "knowledge gap" is at the crux of the "yield gap" that is often raised as the impediment to transitioning a greater share of global agriculture to diversified, agroecological production. If United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) research, education, and extension were to shift significantly toward agroecology and biologically diversified farming systems, the potential to address global resource challenges would be enormous.”

There's too much focus on biotechnology as the panacea, when there maybe no interest in spending this kind of money on other crops due to smaller returns on investment. At closer look at GMO seed production in Hawaii shows a bi-polar approach. They use state of the art technology in creating these seeds, yet use ancient technology in controlling pests. They use over 70 different pesticides in Hawaii on this crop. We are islands, and cannot sustain this kind of chemical bombardment.

The bottom line is that we've become too dependent on pesticides and its not sustainable for most countries, especially with the escalating costs. If more funds are expended on better understanding natural systems, including microbes, biochar, and organic matter recycling, these have a better promise for the future. Bigger is not better anymore. Lots of small systems are stronger than one large one. The large multinationals have a black eye globally, and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Stability comes from more community-based, food security focused systems, with small circles of involvement.

USDA and NSF needs to change their focus. Late maturing, disease-tolerant cultivars with large root systems, for example, will fit better in tropical areas. Cold tolerance and earliness are not important priorities in tropical areas of the world, yet these are the vegetable cultivars available. In Hawaii, we're using cultivars developed over 30-40 years ago because there's no active conventional breeding programs for fruits or vegetables. In the past, there were collaborative tomato breeding programs with over 15 states. The Southern Tomato Exchange Program (STEP) was able to encourage state breeding programs connected to regional programs. A major accomplishment included the development of tomato cultivars with resistance to 12 different diseases. Some were developed for low input systems.

The focus cannot be on high input farming anymore because we cannot afford the high inputs. Developing an infrastructure for this type of farming system includes new cultivars, a better understanding of pests and stress, and in the area of fertility, slowing things down so the system doesn't crash.

Many thanks for some well thought out answers and comprehensive responses. This is of interest to me, since I have recently begun co-supervision of a student investigating the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals in agriculture (in this case, in Zimbabwe). My supervision expertise is on the climate change side, but I've learnt a lot about endocrine disruption in agriculture, and pesticide exposure more broadly - it is a significant issue in southern Africa.

I'd like the answer to be an unconditional yes, but in reality it will depend on whether we also look at our diet… eating 'higher up the food chain', wasting lots of food from 'farm to fork' (and even after fork) etc mean we could easily eat ourselves out of existence (ok, that's put a bit too succinctly, but I hope you know what I mean). Going for non-organic wouldn't just have impacts on food for humans, so *full* 'life cycle assessments' (most studies I've read on this had a biased vested interest to hand pick limited 'life cycle') are in order….

An Austrian scientific consortium recently finished a study on "Food Security Risks for Austria Caused by Climate Change", which will be published soon. One of the scenarios was based on 100% organic farming and the result is obvious! To do so, would mean that much more productive area of other countries will be needed to keep the actual nutrition level of Austrian population. This import of agricultural land implies that it may be unavailable to feed people in the agricultural land exporting country. It also worked out that in some developing countries it already would be helpful to implement basic knowledge of organic farming as well as to implement simple crop rotation systems to brush up yields and better the food situation. On the other hand up to 43% of calories produced on the fields are lost by bad harvesting, transport, processing and storing conditions, as well as finally ending up in waste containers of private households, super markets and the gastronomy (Nellemann, C. et alt. (2009): The environmental food crisis - The environment´s role in averting future food crisis. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID - Arendal).

Hello, in my own opinion I subscribe to some of the definition of organic agriculture as suggested to involve the non-use of chemicals like pesticides/fertilizers and herbicides in farming. But this raised a critical issue: do we all think that this could be effective in the context of the impoverished small-scale farmers in sub-saharan Africa? For instance, cocao production or even cowpea and or maize cultivation by these farmers is fraught with a lot of problem that transcend just soil enrichment. Part of the problem these farmers faced is the control of weeds, diseases (in the case of coaoca and cowpea) which make the use of chemicals absolutely necessary. As at present, a major problem hindering the productivity of these farmers is their inability to access these chemicals. A better alternative for them would have been access to improved hybrids genetically modified varieties which are not accessible, affordable and even raise the question of its being organic or sustainable. I still strongly maintain that until we can find an orgainc equivalent of pesticides or herbicides that would be relatively affordable and available to these farmers, the conventional approach may still be a better approach.

I agree with Professor Tim Benton that despite the fact that currently organic agriculture come with a relatively lower yield than conventional agriculture, but in the long run, organic agriculture will be more sustainable in terms of allowing the same ground to be used for production way into the future. It may also be more resilient to variability driven by climate change. This is correct if the soil fertility, need for pesticides parameters are taken into consideration. Until the gap between organic agriculture with conventional agriculture productivity can be bridged out, integrated management is needed.

I also agree with Proff. We in northern Srilanka are facing sever threat by conventional agriculture practise . This Leeds high contamination of nitrate in GW. One article related to this is uploaded by me in RG, that may be useful to you pl

I believe that organic agriculture is always lower yield than conventional agricultural practices s

My experience is that the best organic farmers have yields comparable to above-average conventional farmers. Much (as usual) depends on quality of management. This in turn depends on knowledge, experience and attention to detail.

Organic farms may currently, on average, yield less than conventional, but they are still going to produce a whole lot more than land that's been degraded to the point of collapse.

In any area of economic development whether its tourism or value-added ag products, it really comes down to how much research and development is put into the effort. In Hawaii, if we invested the kind of energy and infrastructure into organic agriculture that we put into tourism, we would be way ahead in organic technology, including advanced varieties of resilient, low input vegetable varieties and advances in microbes to enhance plant growth. It all comes down to the will of the decision makers. Unfortunately, that's not where the focus is.The highest and best use of land is in housing in Hawaii, but there seems to be a disconnect in where our food will come from. As one of the most isolated places in the world we could be an example of sustainability, taking our cues from the ancient Hawaiian, but using modern ingenuity and knowledge. Sugar is probably the best example of solving insect problems without pesticides, focusing on biocontrol as the only solution to pest damage. Contrast that with seed corn in Hawaii that sprays every 7-10 days year round! Now that's not sustainable, and what are the long-term effects not only on the farming system, but also the environment. This can be likened to a dog chasing his own tail.

hi,

Organic farming and inorganic farming.

A/C to IFOAM

Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains health of soil, eco-system and people, by relying on ecological process, bio diversity and natural cycles and adapted to local conditions than use of inputs with adverse effects.

- first of all we have to think in which form the plants are going to uptake the nutrients. they are going uptake in the ionic form. it won't distinguish that whether it has came from inorganic fertilizer or from organic manures.

-then all of you know that soil is dynamic in nature. why it so? because due to presence of soil micro flora and fauna. for its survival it also require food i.e. organic matter. before green revolution the yield levels were less but our soils were fertile and productivity. after green revolution and construction of dams led to intensive farming to meet the greedy demands of growing population without using organic manures. this has led to injudicious usage of inorganic fertilizers and excess water inturn soil fertility and productivity has came down.

under these situations in order to improve soil fertility and productivity the physical, chemical and biological properties has to be enhanced. it is possible only through bulky organic manures but due to their less mineralization rate and less availability of nutrients its so difficult to meet the requirement of new varieties and hybrids as well as to meet the food demands of growing population the help of inorganic fertilizers is required. so i finally conclude that the usage of organic matter (60%) and inorganic fertilizers (40%) is the way to meet both soil health, soil fertility as well as food demand of growing population i.e. "Integrated nutrient management".

In industrial production we supply fertilizers specially N in large amounts. The first consequence is that the Root:Shoot ratio decreases as well as exudation of organic acids to the soil by plant roots. This exudate are the source of energy for soil microorganisms that in turn help the plant roots to acquire nutrients better by various mechanisms. Therefore in soils shifted to industrial management the organic matter of soil as well as microorganisms population and diversity decreases. The population of soil fauna decreases as well by use of pesticides. Therefore when we shift back to organic the soil needs enough time to rebuild all the potential and life. This is why the production in organic system is a matter of time. After conversion to organic it takes some years (around5-10 years) for the soil to heal from industrial production side effects.

Much of the studies that compare production miss this fact. There are studies done for more than 150 years which could show the effect of this accumulated potential on yield (Institute of Arable Crops , England). I have copied the following part from Wikipedia. Please take a look at the final report of 30 years of comparison which covers other aspects of difference.

"A study published in 2005 compared conventional cropping, organic animal-based cropping, and organic legume-based cropping on a test farm at the Rodale Institute over 22 years.The study found that "the crop yields for corn and soybeans were similar in the organic animal, organic legume, and conventional farming systems". It also found that "significantly less fossil energy was expended to produce corn in the Rodale Institute’s organic animal and organic legume systems than in the conventional production system. There was little difference in energy input between the different treatments for producing soybeans. In the organic systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were generally not used". As of 2013 the Rodale study was ongoing[92] and a thirty year anniversary report was published by Rodale in 2012.[93]"

Link to Final 2012 report:

http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf

Therefore in such a situation i.e. in long term experiments, we can see that the organic system produces on par with conventional systems.

Another point to consider is that monoculture of plants is not organic in essence. Organic multiculture systems are more near to organic concepts. The mixed or multicropping systems usually surpass the conventional systems by better management of resources. It is mimicry of natural vegetation system in which each plant occupies a different zone in soil and air so the total yield increases.

Developing of multicropping systems for organic management is the key to eliminate both hunger and to bring back safety to agricultural products.

When farming began as a settled agriculture almost all products were organic. Traditional practices such as fallowing and shifting cultivation were used to replenish soil fertility. However, long years of cultivation coupled with the increase in population and shrinking land size, and the disturbance of the natural ecosystem resulted in the deterioration of soil fertility and incidence of harmful crop insects and diseases. These called for surplus products and the advancement of agricultural science and technology necessitated the development and application of man-made agricultural inputs. I think organic agriculture alone may not feed the world population at the current growing pace. But the integration of inorganic and organic inputs has been showing promising results in terms of agricultural and environmental sustainability.

In some countries the population is plummeting.

I've already posted this in another forum but I think it's relevant here also. A colleague of mine recently attended an IFOAM gathering in Bangkok. What follows is a summary of his report:

FAO reports that in 2009 there were an estimated 1.02 billion undernourished people. This is largely because of higher food prices, lower incomes and increasing unemployment – not lower yields.

80% of the world’s hungry live in rural areas

50% of the world’s hungry are small farmers

20% are the landless who are dependent on farm work

70% of the world’s food (excluding wild fish) is produced by small holder farmers

80% of the food in developing nations comes from small holder farmers.

The agribusiness food chain only produces 30% of the world's food

It is important to increase the production of small holder farmers at local level to ensure adequate food security for the world. If these farmers adopted organic growing practices it would lead to significant increases in yields.

In a 2008 report to UNCTAD and the UNEP on 114 organic projects across Africa covering 2 million hectares and 1.9 million farmers the average crop yield was a 116% increase for all African projects and 128% for East African projects. The report also notes that since the introduction of conventional agriculture the production per person is 10% lower now than in the 1960’s

In a more recent study by the FAO of over 50 studies found that in the majority of cases organic systems are more profitable than non-organic systems

I think combination of organic and inorganic system could help increase yield of crop. In this case we need to manage the crop using scientific norms and principles. Sustainable yield improvement in any crop can not be possible with organic or inorganic alone, rather the judicious use of both i.e. integrated approach would be beneficial for environmental safety, crop yield and quality.

I think the question should be put in other words. Such as ¿Do we really want to our food be produced organically or using pesticides and fertilizer?, is it really that this world do not produce enough food for its population?, when world-wide from 25 to 30% of the food is lost for many causes and indeed the same amount of food is lost due to not being eaten, because we buy more food that we can really eat, and is when food become rubbish and goes to the rubbish bin. So in other words, in fact this world produce enough food, but the problem is the access, justice and distribution. The other question is ¿What kind of agriculture do we should promote to cope with climate change?. Using pesticides, fertilizer, monocrop, loosing biodiversity, loosing soil carbon, etc . are these really the agricultural practices recommended to cope with climate change? or we have to move to low productivity agricultural systems (such as organic agriculture) that promote agro-biodiversity conservation, think in people´s health and not just in productivity and money, promote inclusion of marginal farmers and indigenous people, etc.

Is true that organic agriculture alone will not be able to produce the food demanded for a growing population. But is an option that well managed would be able to produce enough food with many direct and indirect benefits in terms of environmental (recycling, conserving agro-biodiversity, based on natural cycles (ecology knowledge) to improve fertility and control pests and disease, etc.), social (inclusion of marginal farmers, family participation, social cohesion, etc.), and economic/business (farmers get more money for their product, the product by itself has an aggregated value, innovation and creativity are needed to develop successful business, etc.). The only think that interfere with this is that people (society in general) should have an ecological knowledge, think for the family and for the best for this unique world that we have until now to live. Food can be produced in any scale, even in flats or apartments in pots, in urban relicted land (urban agriculture), and in roofs. Then at the end the question should be put in other words and I would like to mention Einstein quotation: “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

No, I dont think that purely organic agriculture could sustain the demands of a growing population due to the fact that organic agriculture do not use pesticides and fertilizers. Knowing this it could be possible that there will be lesser number of viable produce and slower growth rates that would not sustain a growing population's needs. Also nutrients available in the soil will not be able to sustain fast plant growth to supply a growing population's needs.

Alex...if we are using the USDA definition of organic agriculture arenʻt they allowed to use fertilizers? I thought it was only pesticides and herbicides that were not allowed. Plus I would say that there is an immense growth in non-industrial fertilizers (i.e. reprocessed waste) that will likely be supplying most of the soil nutrients in the future. And Iʻm not quite sure why you are saying that there would be a lesser number of viable produce? Could you explain please?

Organic agriculture (OA) or Sustainable agriculture will enhance the quality of the food products; OA alone will not be able to sustain the food demand of population.

it is the integrated approach of rural areas and community development in developing countries, which includes water.fodder.pasture land development /hill management society/aquaculture/micro finance/marketing/ animal husbandry and more taken together will bring sustainable development

Dear Dr. Kumar,

Depending on the study you read, you will find that some researchers say that organic farming requires more land and is less productive. However, other studies (these ones use to be long-term studies) tend to show that productivity is similar, and that other outputs (socials and environmental services) are provided in addition (advatange above conventional farming.

Please check my book chapter attached. This slightly comment on this topic.

Regards,

Alfredo J. Escribano.

Chapter Organic Livestock Farming: Challenges, Perspectives, And Str...

Certainly not! Please have a look at these useful RG links.

Article Short communication Organic agriculture cannot feed the world

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_organic_agriculture_fulfill_the_growing_needs_of_the_people_and_feed_the_world

Dear Dr. anil Kumar , it is an interesting issue. For now, my answer is NO.

We are talking about sustaining the world population. Think about the cultural diversity, geographic diversity, climatic diversity, topographic diversity etc. These all contribute a lot in addressing the diversified nature and societies all over the world. This needs diversified approach for addressing diverse and complex existing situations. For this reason, it is hardly possible to sustain the food demand of growing population of the world.

However, organic farming will be one of the best options to produce healthiest and strongest sectors in agriculture and play a larger part in feeding the world for the reason that it will be one of the best ways to overcome the challenges of climate change and environmental degradation. In the future, organic farming contributes a lot to produce produce adequate yields together with better human health, better environment and better socioeconomic benefits.

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq7/en/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate-change/

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-agriculture-world-hunger

No, organic agriculture alone can not sustain the food demand of growing population.

Do you think that organic farming alone will be enough to meet the food demand of the growing population?

I'm sure it will be enough. I am sure that the number of diseases will be reduced. I am sure of the health of the people and the earth will be good BUT I am also sure that it will not fill the pockets of ....... and ...... The people who live with the principle (my pocket and the rest can die).

No, only organic agriculture alone can not sustain the food demand of growing population.

Whether we like it or not, organic, or something similar, will eventually become the prime method of food production. It takes 7 MJ of oil equivalent to put 1 MJ of food into the market of industrialised countries (and then 20% of that gets thrown out). This is why world food prices tend to follow oil prices. The majority of the world's remaining phosphate deposits are in politically unstable countries and at current rates of depletion, may not see out the century. Soil degradation and lack of suitable water in many places means conventional farming in such environments is becoming marginal.

The obvious answer is to rebuild resilient soils and tighten nutrient cycles but this is not going to happen overnight. Although we currently produce far more food than we need (and the way to feed a growing population is to cut back the appalling wastage and sort out social justice issues), we need to prepare for a time when conventional farming simply won't do the job. The time to prepare is now.

Please have a look at the following link:

Article Organic Farming: Reality and Concerns

Dear all!

Before starting religious wars, read the following study:

Food Security Under Climate Change Conditions, The Case of Austria, 2014.

Why should we go for organic agriculture alone. We need more for meeting the demand of the growing population of the country vis a vis of the world. Certainly we should go for commercialization which requires use of organic and inorganic inputs. We want safe food which is free from all sort of toxic substances as well as harmful biological materials. Can the organic agriculture alone fulfill this objectives. No, surely not. Therefore, we should make an integrated program where we will be able to attain all objectives without any hesitation and questions. We, who are working in this line for long time, strongly disagree with the view that we should go alone for organic agriculture which is not capable of meeting the food requirement of the growing population as well as can not produce safe food as because there is more chance of contamination by the different pests.

No. With the rapidly growing population and projected population for the future, Organic agriculture alone can not meet the food need of the world