
The study has been criticised for only looking at one crop, wheat, in its comparison of organic and conventional farms
Related Articles
- This week's changes to the Ecologist.org
- Climate change 'will wreak havoc on Britain's coastline by 2050'
- Huhne accused of 'hypocrisy' for promoting offshore oil in Scotland and Arctic
- Tanzania urged to accept World Bank funding of alternative Serengeti highway route
- UK's 'fracking' gas-extraction is not unconventional says industry
Conservation and food production should be kept separate says study
Ecologist
6th May, 2010
Researchers claim the benefits of combining conservation and food production through organic farming are not enough to make up for the drop in yields
Organic farming increases biodiversity but not enough to compensate for the lower yields, according to an analysis of English farms.
Researchers from the University of Leeds' Faculty of Biological Science found biodiveristy to be an average of 12 per cent higher on organic compared to conventional farms.
However, yields of the crop they compared, winter wheat, were on average 55 per cent lower.
Rather than dismissing organic farming all-together, researchers said their findings showed that in order to keep up with worldwide demand for increased food production, conservation management should be separated from food production.
Co-author Professor Tim Benton said while the UK and EU did need targets for both biodiversity and food production, there was a debate to be had about the best way of achieving the targets at a regional and farm level.
'If you want to produce yields in food and biodiversity then rather than trying to do both our results show that specialising in one area may be the better approach,' he said.
Professor Benton said organic farming may be best kept away from highly productive areas of the UK like East Anglia. In contrast, areas like the Yorkshire Dales or West Country, which cannot deliver the same yields, would be more suited to conversion to organic.
'To meet future demands of food production, we will need to keep farming our most productive areas in the most intensive way we can – and potentially offset that by managing some of our remaining land exclusively as wildlife reserves,' he explained.
The Conservation Trust said separating food production and conservation would lead to a 'two-tier countryside; part industrial and part play ground'.
'Our countryside is farmed from coast to coast and the wildlife it contains reflects the historic patterns of agriculture from chalky downlands to clay vales. We need all farms to retain their wildlife,' said director of policy Dr Stephen Tapper.
The Soil Association criticised the study for basing claims about yield losses on one single crop, winter wheat. A study by Reading University in 2009 found that switching to organic would lead on average to only 30 per cent drops in wheat yields and actually lead to increases in beef and lamb production.
The Soil Association also criticised the study for underestimating the benefits of organic farming by comparing individual fields rather than the entire farms.
However, Professor Benton said organic farms had come out well in earlier research into biodiversity and wildlife because they tended to be found in areas with smaller fields, more hedges and woodland so they started with an advantage.
The Soil Association said this ignored the fact that organic farms did usually have more and smaller fields. Professor Benton said his study wanted to see if organic farming was still as good for wildlife if these landscape effects were taken out of the equation.
Useful links
Leeds University study
Reading University study
Previous Articles...
Users Comments
Re: Conservation and food production should be kept separate says studyA handful of very thorough and objective contemporary research on the topic
arguably puts the “anti-organic” information campaign in the same category as information campaigns
seeking to convince that climate change is non-existent or at least non-anthropogenic. The following
meta-studies in particular, when given the benefit of the doubt if one is already sceptical, put gullible
trust in proponents like Norman Borlaug and John Emsley in an incredulous situation. It is important
to mention that it has been widely demonstrated that the “colossal” lower yields of organic agriculture,
i.e 20 – 30 percent of conventional agriculture, is a phenomenon that is only observed on extremely
industrially intensive cash crop cultivation systems under prime climatic and soil conditions (Badgley,
et al. 2006; Halberg, et al. 2006; Niggli, et al. 2007; Pretty, et al. 2001). The developing world
however is a different story. A study published in the final report from the “SAFE-World” project,
conducted by the University of Essex examined organic and ecological agricultural conversion
projects consisting of 8.98 million farmers on 28.92 million ha, equalling three percent of the 960
million hectares of arable and permanent crops in Africa, Asia and Latin America in the developing
world. Yields increased on average by 93 percent (Pretty, et al. 2001). A study conducted by
researchers from the University of Michigan estimated how much food would be available following a
global shift to organic agriculture based on 293 relevant examples of yield comparisons between
Organic and conventional agriculture from around the world. The first model applied the developed
world’s yield ratio to the rest of the planet’s, making developed-world yield decline universal
regardless of location and found the daily global per-capita kilocalorie availability to be just three
percent less than the current availability of 2786, but still ca. 12 percent higher than the average caloric
requirement of a healthy person (2200-2500 kcal) (Badgley, et al. 2006). The second model separated
the yield ratios of developing and developed nations, and reviled a daily global per-capita kilocalorie
availability 57 percent higher than current availability showing that there would be no need to clear
additional land to compensate for “lower” organic yields (Badgley, et al. 2006). Neils Halberg (2006)
from the Danish institute of agricultural sciences headed a study addressing the impact of organic
farming on food security that plugged the documented ratios of organic/conventional yields for a wide
assortment of crops into an algorithm called IMPACT created by the World bank’s international food
policy research institute, which is considered to be the most decisive model for estimating farm
production, income and the amount of hungry people on a regional and global basis. The study found
that although total yield declined in North America and Europe, global food prices were little affected
(Halberg, et al. 2006). Moreover, the algorithm showed developing nations of Latin America, Africa,
and Asia displaying a potential export of food surpluses. One keen bit of information here is that close
to one billion starving people remained hungry as a result of surpluses being bought by hands that
could afford it (Halberg, et al. 2006). If humanity and the environment don’t benefit from the antiorganic
information campaign, who then? The answer is obvious; any stakeholder in cheap
agricultural labour, liberal agricultural markets, pesticides, chemical fertilizer, high yielding industrial
livestock breeds and crop varieties, genetically modified organisms, etc. | |
Re: Conservation and food production should be kept separate says studyThe story of modern agriculture has sadly
emphasized uncritical maximization of short term gain
rather than long term sustainability, which has resulted in
the fragmentation and homogenization of our cultural
landscapes. In landscapes rendered most penurious by
intense conventional agriculture, islands of organic
management appear to stand out like biodiversity oases,
while differences in biodiversity parameters between
organic and conventional management seem more obscure
in landscapes still rich in complexity. It is these obscurities
in the apparently richer landscapes that organic agriculture
may or may not be playing important roles for biodiversity
which to date have mostly eluded scientific remark, e.g.
greater matrix quality, higher diversity of insect pollinated
plants, or greater nesting success for farmland birds. | |
Re: Conservation and food production should be kept separate says studyWhether agricultural land surrounds protected areas
or smaller fragments of natural to seminatural
environment, or conversely dominates the view of the
landscape, it deserves cultivation that conserves the
ecological integrity of the landscape by facilitating
heterogeneity and the migration of species. Organic
management with its positive trends in biodiversity need
not be the modern biodiversity solution in agriculture, but
continues offering important lessons which to a larger
extent should be dissected by the facets of landscape
ecology. Future studies addressing this topic will benefit
from a higher degree of classification by species
phenology, guild and degree of dispersal capability,
together with more highly defined and directly tested
explanatory factors in farm management and landscape
scale and qualities, with larger spatial and temporal
samples sizes. | |
Re: Conservation and food production should be kept separate says studyProf Benton has made a serious error in seeking to eliminate small fleld sizes and more hedges from his analysis of organic farms. These are intrinsic features of organic farming and benefit both wildlife and yolds. | |
Re: Conservation and food production should be kept separate says studyProf Benton has made a serious error in seeking to eliminate small fleld sizes and more hedges from his analysis of organic farms. These are intrinsic features of organic farming and benefit both wildlife and yields. | |
Re: Conservation and food production should be kept separate says studyThe is is not sfact is industrialised agriculture operates with a myopic time horizon. This leads to unsustainability. For sustainability we need to operate with time horizons of centuries and millenia. Organic agriculture naturally has such time horizons. | |
Re: Conservation and food production should be kept separate says studyThe research is flawed by assuming lower yielding organic farming is a bad thing. In the developed world we do not need "more food" - what about the growing OBESITY PROBLEM in the US/UK? Obesity is a result of our subsidised, mass-produced, cheap and unhealthy food (particularly meat products). And we THROW AWAY about 30% of our food in the UK!!
So the problem is the reverse! Moreover, the study ignores the massive agricultural subsidies (see the US Farm Bill in 2002); we are dumping our subsidised food on developing country producers (already 'organic') so they cannot compete and remain in poverty (since agriculture is their main industry). The WTO Doha Round on this issue has stalled. Not the mention energy-intensive inputs of energy, artificial pesticides/herbicides (already having an dangerous impact on BEES/POLLINATORS) - and the fact that most of our food goes towards animal feed for subsidised intensive cattle farms (without animal welfare). There is NO FOOD SHORTAGE IN THE UK. FULL STOP. |


