Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World

Leu, Andre F.
Abstract Proponents of industrial agriculture state that synthetic biocides, soluble fertilisers and genetic engineering are necessary to feed the worlds growing population. Several authorities further state organic agriculture is not capable of this task. This paper looks at numerous and diverse data sets from around the world, showing that given the right conditions, organic agriculture can deliver sustainable high yields. Organic agriculture programs initiated by several organisations have substantially increased yields for many third world communities. This has been done with very low input and infrastructure costs to these communities and has substantially increased their standard of living. Data from the advanced agricultural economies of North America, Australia and Europe show that best practice organics can deliver equal and to significantly better yields than current conventional agricultural practices. Introduction Several of the high profile advocates for conventional agricultural production have stated that the world would starve if we all converted to organic agriculture. They have written articles for science journals and other publications saying that organic agriculture is not sustainable and produces yields that are significantly lower than conventional agriculture. Avery (2000) Trewavas (2001) The push for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), growth hormones, animal feed antibiotics, food irradiation and toxic synthetic chemicals is being justified, in part, by the rationale that without these products the world will not be able to feed itself. Since Thomas Malthus, wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798 and first raised the spectre of overpopulation, various experts have been predicting the end of human civilisation because of mass starvation. Malthus (1798) The theme was popularised again by Paul Erhlich in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb. According to his logic, we should all be starving now that the 21 st century has arrived. The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines; hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Erhlich (1968) The only famines that occurred since 1968 have been in African countries saddled with corrupt governments, political turmoil, civil wars and periodic droughts. The world had enough food for these people. It was political and logistical events that prevented them from producing adequate food or stopped aid from reaching them. Hundreds of millions of people did not starve to death. The spectre of mass starvation is being pushed again as the motive for justifying GMOs. In June this year (2003) President Bush stated at a biotechnology conference Chairman, Organic Federation of Australia

We should encourage the spread of safe effective biotechnology to win the fight against global hunger. Dayton (2003) Is global hunger due to a shortage of food production? In this first decade of the 21st century, many farmers around the world are facing a great economic crisis of low commodity prices. These low prices are due to oversupply. The laws of supply and demand, in current economic theories, show that prices decrease when supply is greater than demand. Most of our current production systems are price driven, with the need for economies of scale to reduce the unit costs. The small, profit margins of this economic environment favor enterprises working on large volumes and as a result the family farm is declining. Many areas of the USA and Australia have fewer farmers now than 100 years ago and the small rural centres they support are disappearing off the map. Hundreds of thousands of farmers have had to leave their farms in Argentina due to higher production costs and lower commodity prices. Lehmann (2000) The sugar industry in Australia is on the verge of collapse for the same reason. Australian dairy farmers continue to leave the industry since deregulation forced down the prices they receive. Most of the major industrial countries are subsidising their farmers so that their agricultural sectors do not collapse. Europe, North America, Australia and Brazil are in the process of converting a large percentage of their arable land from food production to bio fuels such as ethanol in an effort to establish viable markets for their farmers. The latest push in GMO development is BioPharm where plants such as corn, sugarcane and tobacco are modified to produce new compounds such as hormones, vaccines, plastics, polymers and other non-food compounds. All of these developments will mean that less food is grown on some of the worlds most productive farmland. Grain farmers in India have protested about cheap imports that are sending them deeper into poverty. Countries like India and China, once considered as overpopulated basket cases, export large quantities of food. In fact, India, one of the worlds most populated countries, is a net food exporter in most years. South American rainforests are cleared for pasture that is grazed with beef destined for the hamburger chains of North America. Once the soil is depleted, new areas are cleared for pasture and the old degraded areas are abandoned to weeds. In Asia, most of the forests are cleared for timber that is exported to the developed industrial economies. One of the saddest things about this massive, wasteful destruction of biodiversity is that very little of the newly cleared land is used to feed the poor. Most of this production of timber and beef is exported to the worlds richest economies. The reality is that the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone and has more than enough suitable agricultural land to do it. Unfortunately due to inefficient, unfair distribution systems and poor farming methods, millions of people do not get adequate nutrition.

Can Organic Agriculture feed the world? Organic agriculture needs to be able to answer two major questions. 1: 2: Can organic agriculture get high yields? Can organic agriculture get the food to the people who need it?

The editorial of New Scientist February 3, 2001 stated that low-tech sustainable agriculture is increasing crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 per cent or more. This has been achieved by replacing synthetic chemicals in favor of natural pest control and natural fertilizers. New Scientist (2001) Professor Jules Pretty the Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex in the UK wrote: Recent evidence from 20 countries has found more than 2 million families farming sustainably on more than 4-5 million hectares. This is no longer marginal. It cannot be ignored. What is remarkable is not so much the numbers, but that most of this has happened in the past 5-10 years. Moreover, many of the improvements are occurring in remote and resource-poor areas that had been assumed to be incapable of producing food surpluses. Petty (1998b) An excellent example of this type of agricultural extension has been published in the January 2003 edition of World Vision News. Working in conjunction AusAID, World Vision linked farmers from the impoverished Makuyu community in Kenya with the Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF). (World Vision 2003) They arranged workshops where KIOF members taught the principles of organic farming, including compost making, preparing safe organic pesticides, vegetable gardening and organic care of livestock. Maize yields increased from four to nine times above previous levels. The organically grown crops had yields that were 60% higher than crops grown with expensive chemical fertilisers. The wonderful thing is that many of these farmers now have a surplus of food to sell, whereas previously they did not have enough to eat. They are organising marketing co-ops to sell this surplus. The profits are going back to the community. They have distributed dairy goats, rabbits, hives and poultry to community members and have planted out 20,000 trees including 2,000 mangos. Several of the organic farmers are training many other farmers in the district and helping them to apply organic farming techniques to their farms. The mood of the community has changed. They are now confident and very importantly they are empowered with the knowledge that they can overcome the problems in their community. These types of simple community based organic agricultural models are what is needed around the world to end rural poverty and starvation, rather than GMOs and expensive toxic chemicals.

The Makuyu community in Kenya is not an isolated example. Professor Pretty gives other examples from around the world of increases in yield when farmers have replaced synthetic chemicals and shifted to sustainable/organic methods. 223,000 farmers in southern Brazil using green manures and cover crops of legumes and livestock integration have doubled yields of maize and wheat to 4-5 tons/ha; 45,000 farmers in Guatemala and Honduras used regenerative technologies to triple maize yields to 2-2.5 tons/ha and diversify their upland farms, which has led to local economic growth that has in turn encouraged re-migration back from the cities; 200,000 farmers across Kenya as part of sustainable agriculture programs have more than doubled their maize yields to about 2.5 to 3.3 t/ha and substantially improved vegetable production through the dry seasons; 100,000 small coffee farmers in Mexico have adopted fully organic production methods, and increased yields by half; A million wetland rice farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam have shifted to sustainable agriculture, where group-based farmer-field schools have enabled farmers to learn alternatives to pesticides increased their yields by about 10%. Pretty (1995), Pretty (1998b) Nicolas Parrott of Cardiff University, UK, authored a report, 'The Real Green Revolution'. He gives case studies that confirm the success of organic and agroecological farming techniques in the developing world. In Madhya Pradesh, India, average cotton yields on farms participating in the Maikaal Bio-Cotton Project are 20 per cent higher than on neighbouring conventional farms. In Madagascar, SRI (System of Rice Intensification) has increased yields from the usual 2-3 tons per hectare to yields of 6,8 or 10 tons per hectare. In Tigray, Ethiopia, a move away from intensive agrochemical usage in favour of composting has seen an increase in yields and in the range of crops it is possible to grow. In the highlands of Bolivia, the use of bonemeal and phosphate rock and intercropping with nitrogen-fixing Lupin species have significantly contributed to increases in potato yields. One of the most important aspects of the teaching farmers in these regions to increase yields with sustainable/organic methods is that the food and fibre is produced close to where it is needed and in many cases by the people who need it. It is not produced half way around the world, transported and sold to them.

Another important aspect is the low input costs. They do not need to buy expensive imported fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides. The increase in yields also come with lower production costs allowing a greater profit to these farmers. Thirdly the substitution of more labour intensive activities such as cultural weeding, composting and intercropping for expensive imported chemical inputs, provides more employment for the local and regional communities. This employment allows landless laborers to pay for their food and other needs. As in the example of the Makuyu community in Kenya, these benefits see a positive change in the wealth and the mood of the community. These communities are revitalised, proactive and empowered to improve their future. Can organic agriculture achieve high yields in developed nations? Since 1946, the advent of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, improved crop varieties and industrial paradigms are credited with producing the high yields of green revolution. Because organic agriculture avoids many of these new inputs it is assumed that it always results in lower yields. The assumption that greater inputs of synthetic chemical fertilisers and pesticides are needed to increase food yields is not accurate. In a study published in The Living Land, Professor Pretty looked at projects in seven industrialised countries of Europe and North America. Farmers are finding that they can cut their inputs of costly pesticides and fertilisers substantially, varying from 20-80%, and be financially better off. Yields do fall to begin with (by 10-15% typically), but there is compelling evidence that they soon rise and go on increasing. In the USA, for example, the top quarter sustainable agriculture farmers now have higher yields than conventional farmers, as well as a much lower negative impact on the environment. Pretty (1998b) Pretty (1998a) Professor George Monbiot, in an article in the Guardian, 24th August 2000, wrote that wheat grown with manure has produced consistently higher yields for the past 150 years than wheat grown with chemical nutrients, in trials in the United Kingdom. Monbiot (2000) The study into apple production conducted by Washington State University compared the economic and environmental sustainability of conventional, organic and integrated growing systems in apple production. The organic system had equivalent yields to the other systems. The study also showed that the break-even point was 9 years after planting for the organic system and 15 and 16 years respectively for conventional and integrated farming systems. Reganold (2001) In an article published in the peer review scientific journal, Nature, Laurie Drinkwater and colleagues from the Rodale Institute, showed that organic farming had better environmental outcomes as well as similar yields of both products and profits when compared to conventional, intensive agriculture. Drinkwater (1998) Gary Zimmer, one of the American pioneers of biological farming runs an organic dairy farm with his son in Wisconsin. In 2000 one of his remineralised alfalfa (lucerne) fields produced a yield 4 times greater than the average for the district. He has

increased the nutrient value of pasture by 300% and currently calves 150 cows every year without one health problem Zimmer (2000) Zimmer pers. com. Dick Thompson, a founding member of the Progressive Farmers of Iowa, engages in organic farm research in conjunction with the University of Iowa, the Rodale Institute and the Wallace Institute. He obtains some of the highest yields in his district using composts, ridge tilling and crop rotations. Thompson (2000) The innovative system of rotationally grazing several species of animals developed by Joel and Therese Salatin, in Virginia, is one of the best examples of a high yield organic system. They use 100 acres of dry land pasture to cell graze cattle, sheep, pigs, meat chickens, laying hens, turkeys, pheasants and rabbits. The system has been based on native pastures, without cultivation or new improved pasture species. The only input has been the feed for the poultry. This multi-species rotational grazing system builds one inch of soil a year and returns the family 15 times the income per acre than is received by neighbouring farms using a set stocking of cattle Salatin pers. com. Steve Bartolo, President of the Australia Organic Sugar Producers Association produced similar yields of commercial sugar per hectare from his organic Q124 cane to his conventional cane in 2002. The average yield of sugar for his best organic cane achieved higher tonnes [of sugar] per hectare compared to the average of all conventionally grown Q124. Bartolo (in publication) Greg Paynter, an organic farmer who works for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries conducted the organic section of grain comparison trials at Dalby Agricultural College in 2002. The organic wheat produced 3.23 tonnes to the hectare compared to the conventional wheat of 2.22 tonnes. This trial was conducted during one of the worst droughts on record. Paynter pers. com. In publication Graham McNally of Kialla Farms, one of Australias significant organic pioneers, consistently achieves comparable yields to the conventional farms in his region. McNally In publication Dr Rick Welsh, of the Henry A Wallace Institute reviewed numerous academic publications comparing organic production with conventional production systems in the USA. The data showed that the organic systems were more profitable. This profit was not always due to premiums but due to lower production and input costs as well as more consistent yields. Dr Welshs study also showed that organic agriculture produced better yields than conventional agriculture in adverse weather events, such as droughts or higher than average rainfall. Welsh (1999)

Will GMOs feed the world? Argentina is a good example of what happens when a country pursues the policies of market deregulation and GMO crops. Argentina is the third largest producer of GMO crops with 28% of the worlds production. By the 1999/2000 season, more than 80% of the total soybean acreage or 6.6 million hectares had been converted to GMOs. These are some of the results according to a study published by Lehmann and Pengue in the Biotechnology and Development Monitor. Declining profit margins: Prices for soybeans declined 28% between 1993 and 1999. Farmers' profit margins fell by half between 1992 and 1999, making it difficult for many to pay off bank loans for machinery, chemical inputs and seeds. A 32% decrease in producers: Between 1992 and 1997, the number of producers dropped from 170,000 to 116,000. 54,000 farmers were forced to leave the industry. At least 50% of the acreage is now managed by corporate agriculture.

Increasing role of transnational companies in the agricultural sector: Industrialization of grain and soybean production has boosted dependence on foreign agricultural inputs and increased foreign debt. Removal of import tariffs led to the bankruptcy of domestic farm machinery manufacturers and a loss of employment. The commercial seed sector has become increasingly controlled by subsidiaries of transnational corporations. Lehmann (2000) Since the above data was published, the Argentinean economy collapsed causing riots and the resignations of several governments. The country is now currently in deep debt with its economy under the control of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Its standard of living has declined and thousands more farmers have been forced off their farms. Rural and urban poverty and hunger has increased. According to Caritas Argentina, the social services agency of the Catholic Church in Argentina, over 40% of all Argentinean children are now undernourished. World Health Organization standards for daily caloric intake are unmet for nearly 40 percent of Argentinean children under 18, and for up to half in the poorer northeast region of the country. Even in the comparatively wealthy capital city Buenos Aires, at least 19 children have died of malnutrition in recent months. Caritas 2003 If GMOs cannot feed the children in the country that is the worlds third largest producer of GMO crops, how will they feed the rest of the world?

Conclusion The data shows that it is possible to get very good yields using organic systems. This is not uniform at the moment with many organic growers not producing at the levels that are achievable. Education on the best practices in organic agriculture is a cost effective and simple method of ensuring high levels of economically, environmentally and socially sustainable production where it is needed. Organic agriculture is a viable solution to preventing global hunger because 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: needs 6: It can achieve high yields It can achieve these yields in the areas where it is needed most It has low inputs. It is cost effective and affordable It provides more employment so that the impoverished can purchase their It does not need any expensive technical investment

It costs tens of millions of dollars and takes many years to develop one genetically modified plant variety. This money would be more productive being spent on organic agricultural education, research and extension in the areas where we need to overcome hunger and poverty.

ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IS THE QUICKEST, MOST EFFICIENT, COST EFFECTIVE AND FAIREST WAY TO FEED THE WORLD.

References: Avery D. (2000) Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming, Hudson Institute, USA. Bartolo, S. Organic Sugar Production - A Case Study, to be published in the proceedings of the Inaugural Queensland Organic Conference. 2003 Caritas 2003, Argentina Crisis Leaves Millions of Children Undernourished, March 17, 2003 For More Information: Matt Felice, Catholic Relief Services, mfelice@catholicrelief.org, (410) 951-7304, P.O. Box 17090 Baltimore, MD 212037090 Dayton, Leigh (2003) Putting Food on the Table, The Australian, Friday July 4, 2003, p9 Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P. & Sarrantonio, M. (1998), Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396, 262 - 265 (1998). Erhlich, P. (1968) The Population Bomb, Buccaneer Books Inc PO Box 168, Cutchogue NY 11935, ISBN 1-56849-587-0 Lehmann V. and Pengue W. (2000), Herbicide Tolerant Soybean: Just another step in a technology treadmill? Biotechnology and Development Monitor. September 2000. McNally, G. THE KIALLA STORY ABSOLUTELY ORGANIC, to be published in the proceedings of the Inaugural Queensland Organic Conference. 2003 Malthus, Thomas (1798) An Essay on the Principle of Population, Printed for J. Johnson St Pauls Church-Yard. London Mader, P.et al, (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296, 1694 1697. Monbiot G (2000), Organic Farming Will Feed the World, Guardian, 24th August 2000 New Scientist (2001), Editorial, February 3, 2001 Parrott, Nicholas(2002) 'The Real Green Revolution' ,Greenpeace Environmental Trust, Canonbury Villas, London ISBN 1 903907 02 0 Paynter, G. Personal communication on the results of the grain comparison trials at Dalby Agricultural College in 2002. The results are to be published later. Pretty, Jules (1998a) The Living Land. Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe", Earthscan Publications, London. Pretty, Jules (1998b) SPLICE magazine, August/September 1998 Volume 4 Issue 6. Pretty, Jules (1995) Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance, Earthscan Publications, London.

Reganold, John P. et al (2001), Sustainability of three apple production systems, Nature, Vol 410, 19th April, pp 926- 930 Salatin, Joel, pers. com. Joel explained the details of his farm during a visit in 2000. Thompson, Dick et al (2000) Alternatives in Agriculture 2000 Report, Thompson On Farm Research and Henry A. Wallace Institute, Boone, Iowa. Trewavas AJ (2001) Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 410, 409-410. Welsh R. (1999), Henry A. Wallace Institute, The Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States, Policy Studies Report No. 13, May 1999. World Vision News, January 2003 edition Zimmer G. F (2000), The Biological Farmer. Acres USA Zimmer G. F. pers com. Gary explained the details of his farm during a visit in 2000.

18 WAYS HOW 'MODERN FARMING' AFFECTS OUR

WORLD
1 Land exhaustion The constant use of artificial fertiliser, together with a lack of crop rotation, reduces the soil's fertility year by year. High yield levels are produced by applying large quantities of artificial fertilisers, instead of by maintaining the natural fertility of the soil. About half of the nitrate in the artificial fertiliser used on crops is dissolved by rain. The dissolved nitrate runs off the fields to contaminate water courses. Where repeated deep ploughing is used to turn over the ground, heavy rains can carry away the topsoil and leave the ground useless for cultivation. Damage to the structure of soil by compression is a serious problem in areas that are intensively farmed. Conventional tillage may involve a tractor passing over the land six or seven times, and the wheelings can cover up to 90 per cent of a field. Even a single tractor pass can compress the surface enough to reduce the porosity of the soil by 70 per cent, increasing surface run-off and, therefore, water erosion. In the worst cases, the surface run-off may approach 100 percent - none of the water penetrates the surface. As crop yields grow, so does the amount of fuel needed to produce them. European farmers now use an average of 12 tons of fuel to farm a square kilometre of land; American farmers use about 5 tons (1987 figures). The only controls used against weeds and pests are chemical ones. Most crops receive many doses of different chemicals before they are harvested. On most "modern" farms, all animals are crowded together indoors. Complex systems of machinery are needed to feed them, while constant medication is needed to prevent disease. The cruelty involved in managing, breeding. growing and slaughtering farm animals today is unimaginably repulsive and horrifying. With so many animals packed together in indoor pens, their manure accumulates at great speed. It is often poured into lagoons which leak into local watercourses, contaminating them with disease-causing organisms and contributing to algae-blooms. Many farms are not self-sufficient in animal feed; instead they rely on feed brought into the farm. This often comes from countries which can ill afford to part with it. In countries where stubble is burned, large amounts of potentially useful organic matter disappear into the sky in clouds of polluting smoke. Large and other chemical farms tend to be monocultures growing the same crop and crop variety. Native cultivars and animal breeds lose out to exotic species and hybrids. Many native animal breeds are today threatened with extinction. The same holds true for many indigenous plant varieties which have disappeared within the space of one generation. Agribusiness farming demands that anything which stands in the way of crop production is uprooted and

2 Fertilisers

3 Nitrate run-off

4 Soil erosion

5 Soil compaction

6 Agricultural fuel

7 Biocide sprays

8 Cruelty to animals

9 Animal slurry

10 Imported animal feed

11 Stubble burning 12 Loss of cultivated biodiversity

Threat to indigenous 13 seeds and animal breeds and species 14 Habitat destruction

destroyed. The wild animals and plants which were once a common sight around farms are deprived of their natural habitat and die out. Food, both plant and animal products, leaves the farm 15 Contaminated food contaminated with the chemicals that were used to produce it. Destruction of Rural indigenous knowledge and traditions, both 16 traditional knowledge agricultural and non-agricultural, is invariably connected systems and traditions to agriculture and agricultural systems. The supply and trading in agricultural inputs and Control of agriculture produce is in the hands of a few large corporations. This 17 inputs and food threatens food security, reducing the leverage and distribution channel importance of the first and the last part of the supply chain - the farmer and the consumer. Threat to individual Chemical agriculture is a threat to their livelihoods and 18 farmers changes their lifestyles, unfortunately not for the better. Source : Internal inputs and "Return to the Good Earth", Third World Network

Date:02/11/2004 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2004/11/02/stories/2004110200111600.htm Open Page

Organic farming: facts and fallacies

ORGANIC FARMING is being touted as the panacea for a whole range of maladies afflicting third world rural society. These range from low agricultural output to wasteful dumping of massive doses of farm chemical on cultivated lands as to reach toxic levels. It is cited as being the viable relief from the fatigue of Green Revolution besides heralding holistic solutions to rural poverty alleviation providing employment opportunities to rural women. And it includes claims that organic foods are healthier for human and animal consumption.

What is organic farming and what is the primacy of this method over other methods? Stated succinctly, any method of cultivation that does not use any manufactured chemical (such as urea, pesticides, fungicides, etc.) for raising a crop or during its transit through harvest, storage, processing into foods and distribution is regarded as "organic." Interestingly, however, this is how ancient man's foray into agriculture began centuries ago! The soil abounded in naturally occurring minerals which supported raising healthy crops that gave a plentiful harvest. Disease and pest pressure was minimal or non-existent and human need for the farm produce was limited owing to the small size of the community and the sparse animal population. Over a period of time, as demand for food production increased with the increasing population, new methods and techniques to increase farm productivity became necessary. Thankfully, the advent of chemistry coupled with a better understanding of crop physiology provided one array of crop production improvement techniques via chemical fertilizers to replenish depleted minerals in the cultivated lands. Strides in other disciplines helped, arming the farmer with pesticides and fungicides to combat pestilent microbes and insects that devoured crops and grain. Modern organic farming is much the same as our forefathers practised but in a significantly different era with its attendant pressures brought about by efflux of time. The soil today is nowhere as rich in native minerals as witnessed centuries ago due to constant depletion brought about by farming and other physical phenomena, some natural, others inflicted by human development. Likewise, the biotic stresses on plants have increased manifold because microbes and insects that predate on them are constantly evolving to resist their annihilation wrought by human intervention via chemical warfare and from their own zest to survive and succeed. This brings us to the question of the unique primacy of organic farming. Undoubtedly, organic farming reduces build-up of residual chemicals (insecticides/pesticides/fungicides) on the surface of plant leaf, fruit and grain which, when not adequately washed, enters human and animal gut which can be injurious to health. Yet, equally, abstinence from the use of such chemicals has led to build-up of deadly mycotoxins in foods that are every bit as dangerous to human and animal life fumonisins by Fusarium afflicting maize and aflotoxins by Aspergillus damaging chilly, groundnut, cashew, etc. It is well established, likewise, that organic farming gives low yield and therefore jacks up the price of farm produce. Besides, claims of organic produce tasting better are nothing short of pandering to the whims of the rich who can afford to pay twice as much for the same rice or cucumber as raised by traditional farming. The biochemical pathways of the plant in absorbing the minerals from the soil, photosynthesis or grain filling do not differentiate between the different sources of macro- and micro- nutrients made available to it, be it from a bag of manufactured compound fertilizers or from a bale of farm yard manure underpinning the lack of superiority of any mineral derived from living beings (plant, animal or microbe) compared to the one manufactured in a chemical plant. This is so because plants and animals absorb chemicals and process them in their elemental form and not the compound or complex form that we frequently encounter them as. Thus, the elemental form of nitrogen is what is absorbed from urea, ammonium nitrate, DAP, farm-yard manure or processed organic waste available to the plant before it is converted into a host of other molecules that go to form carbohydrates, proteins and fats in living tissues. Likewise, the rice that we eat is a

complex carbohydrate which is broken down to its elemental form of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen before being further processed and is not absorbed in the compound form! From a different perspective, a drop of cobra venom or ricin from castor bean, both genuinely organic substances, would prove to be just as lethal as hydrogen cyanide manufactured in a chemist's lab regardless of the former being devoid of any `inorganic contamination' two random examples merely to underpin the fact that there is nothing sacrosanct about organic! As to the other claims that organic farming provides employment to women labourers in weeding operations (because organic farming does promote excessive growth of weeds in the absence of chemical control for weeds) or cleaning of harvested grain (damaged by insect and fungal attacks in the absence of chemicals to control this damage), it is waxing eloquent on employment opportunities of the back-breaking and un-remunerating kind! This is perpetuation of low yields at the farm, recurrent attacks of weeds, microbes and pests so rural farmers can continue to produce less and stagnate in perpetual poverty, their women folk can be yoked to uneconomic `employment' while the affordable rich can take their pick at a fabulous premium for no intrinsic worth in return! Instead of making a false pitch for organic foods on fictitious premises, it is best left to the choice of the producer and the consumer to make his pick based on truthful, science-based knowledge. We owe it to them to allay any unfounded fears of new technologies while equally sharing the truth about organic foods. GURUMURTI NATARAJAN Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Date:16/11/2004 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2004/11/16/stories/2004111600511500.htm

Organic farming: only facts, no fallacies

THIS IS in response to the article "Organic farming: facts and fallacies" (Open Page, November 2) by Gurumurti Natarajan. The author's definition of organic farming is lacking in clarity and depth. He defines it as any process that does not use the factory produced chemicals. His arguments against it seem to be based on a lack of understanding of nature's balance and how it is applied in farming. Applying non-chemical inputs alone cannot be considered organic farming. It is a larger philosophy of working in harmony with nature for attaining the needs without damaging the resources. Which in other words is called sustainable agriculture.

Beneficial microbes Now let us look at a few samples of how nature works: earthworms help aerate soil and add fertility by recycling the farm waste. We did learn in our school days that "earthworms are friends of the farmer." Is that statement still true with the advent of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides which kill the friend of the farmer? It is not just earthworms, it kills all life in the soil including the microbes. Microbes have several functions in soil fertility. It is known that the microbes break up complex chemicals into elemental form and provide them to the roots of the plants. The application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and weedicides kills these beneficial microbes. This is the reason why the soil loses its fertility with chemical farming, whereas it increases with organic farming. Chemical inputs also leave behind hazardous chemical residues in the food produce. The author himself has accepted that "Undoubtedly organic farming reduces the build-up of residual chemicals (toxins) on the surface of plant leaf, fruit and grain." Yes, this is a fact. But the real fact is that not only the surface of plant parts has the residual toxins, but the entire plant body has these toxins which cannot be washed away. According to many references the current day chemical agriculture is nothing but a residue of the war economy. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides were introduced into agriculture after the end of the two world wars. Prior to and during the wars factories were producing gun powder for ammunition and poisons for polluting enemy water sources. After the wars these factories were retrofitted to produce the aforementioned chemicals that are harmful to the soil life, wild and domestic animals and human beings. We don't need chemical fertilizers to increase the crop yield. The author says that there was deficiency in mineral content of the soil. So, it was necessary to apply urea. But on the other hand there cannot be nitrogen deficiency at any time, because the atmosphere contains 78 per cent of nitrogen at all times and everywhere. We need only micro-organisms such as Azospirillum, Rhizobium, Bluegreen algae to fix the atmospheric nitrogen in the roots. Application of chemicals in the form of fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides kills all the micro-organisms besides the earthworms making the soil sterile and non-productive. The author says that a bag of urea and a cartload of cow dung are the same. But it is not so. The cartload of cow dung promotes microbial growth, whereas the bag of urea kills all life in the soil. The myth of poor yield The author claims that organic farming has very poor yield. It is a fallacy. He has not visited many farms that have achieved far more than what is produced by chemical agriculture. Hundreds of farmers in Andhra Pradesh who grew cotton seeds supplied by companies, applying chemical fertilizers and pesticides, committed suicide because they could not control the pests. At the same time Tamil Nadu farmers applying panchakavya were able to get cotton yield of more than 15 quintals an acre. The average yield of sugarcane is 40 tonnes an acre and they are able to take only two ratoon crops. But organic farmers in Erode district are taking 60 to 70 tonnes an acre and they are able to harvest eight ratoon crops. After prolonged research by our agricultural universities, all India average in rice yield is one tonne an acre. Nowadays progressive chemical farmers harvest 2 to 2.5 tonnes an acre, but organic farmers Sethuraman, Ramuvelu, Sampantham Pillay of Nagai district are able to harvest 3 tonnes of paddy an acre. Likewise other crops also record higher yields in organic agriculture compared to chemical farming.

The author says that organic farming requires less labour. Machines, chemicals and mono-cultures displaced the farm workers and sent many of them to the cities seeking construction work. The people remaining in the villages are suffering due to unemployment and under-employment. Organic farming is the only remedy for this problem. Organic farming introduces poly-culture, mixed farming, waste recycling/waste management, value addition of farm produce which do create employment opportunities. Everyone knows that there are poisonous substances in plants too. That does not mean everything in organic is poisonous; one should know what to consume and what not to consume. While cutting the vegetables itself we normally remove bad portions. Whereas toxins introduced by chemical farming cannot be removed at all. The presence of residual poisons in all produce including mother's milk has been acknowledged by all the universities and research institutes in India. This information alone is sufficient to convince anybody that chemical farming should be stopped. The author presumes that organic produce is expensive because of low yield. And he adds that the consumer has to pay a premium price for no apparent benefit. The consumer is prepared to pay a premuim price for the organic food which also helps to cut down the medical bills. G. NAMMALVAR & BALAJI COOMANDUR Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Date:23/11/2004 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/op/2004/11/23/stories/2004112300311700.htm

Organic farming myths and facts

THE RECENT Open Page article "Organic farming: facts and fallacies" by Mr. Gurumurti Natarajan (November 2) abounds in myths and self-contradictions. Let's consider these one by one. Myth 1: ... demand for food production increased with the increasing population ... A myth that consistently does the rounds is that population pressures force the use of intensive, technologybased solutions in all human endeavours, especially agriculture. Either out of convenience (for a minuscule minority of those in the know) or out of sheer ignorance, this myth has been strongly embedded in the public psyche. At least as early as in 1986 this Malthusian myth was debunked in publications. Anyone who cares to check the facts may refer to the latest edition of World Hunger Twelve Myths by Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins.

Unsatiated consumption It is not population per se that is pushing ecosystems to the edge of extinction. What is responsible for global warming and all attendant ills is wasteful and unsatiated consumption of those who have, one way or another, acquired the means to do so. Also, as any long-time reader of The Hindu and Frontline would know, it is not the shortage of food that is responsible for widespread hunger in our country. In research that led to his Nobel Prize, Amartya Sen showed that hunger is caused mainly by unequal distribution of wealth. This is definitely not a problem of science and technology; it is solely a socio-political problem. In the 20th century global water use increased sevenfold while world population trebled. How would those who cite population pressures (as the main cause of many serious maladies) explain this? Myth 2: Harmful insects can/should be eliminated at all costs. Mr. Natarajan contradicts himself later in the essay when he says that bugs develop resistance. How do you eliminate them, then? This is analogous to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. Myth 3: By adequately washing vegetables, etc., we can rid them of harmful chemicals. Even if this were true, what about the health of ecosystems? Does this not matter? Myth 4: Abstinence from the use of chemicals leads to a build-up of deadly mycotoxins in foods that are every bit as dangerous to human and animal life. Taking this suggestion to heart is the perfect recipe for an ever-expanding spiral of death and destruction by chemicals: chemical abuse gives rise to resistant bugs; use chemicals that are even deadlier to try and eliminate these bugs. What is the next logical step when the microbes evolve resistance to those chemicals? We will not even have time to invent new and deadlier concoctions and test them before they become outdated because of resistance. Of course, some will only be too happy to dispense with cumbersome testing and regulations and, instead, just keep pushing new chemicals onto unsuspecting masses. As is well known, the deadly chemicals we use kill hundreds of species of beneficial microbes, insects, and birds as well. Prevention by using proper handling and storage techniques and sanitation is the best way to handle aflatoxin and related problems. In April this year Greenpeace released the findings of a study on children at risk due to pesticide exposure. Those who push chemicals in the guise of what they claim is true science should enlighten the rest of us on measures they propose to tackle this. And why such measures failed so miserably in the past. Monocultures also contribute to ever increasing spiral of resistance. The only way out is to encourage biodiversity, which also leads to sustainability. Comparable yields Myth 5: It is well known that organic farming gives low yields. The fact is that organic farming gives comparable yields. For a very recent example refer to Frontline (November 5). For other examples, interested readers may refer to www.foodfirst.org www.twn.org and www.indsp.org to name just a few. This is also confirmed by many farmers who have switched to organic farming and are happier for that.

Even if it were true that yield goes down, the farmer will not lose because the expenses are lower in organic farming than in chemical farming. This would be even more so if/when governments completely withdraw the massive level of direct and indirect subsidies to manufacturers and users of farm chemicals. There are farmers who sell organic produce at the same or lower price than current market price because they still make a profit. As for the claim that organic food does not taste better, where is the scientific proof? As far back as 1990, when organic farming was not as popular as it is today, my brother used to sell organic produce to grocers in Palladam. They told him that their customers prefer his vegetables. My brother was not paid more; he still made a small profit. Hence, supposed low yields are not likely to be the cause of higher price for organic produce, as is commonly believed. Myth 6: Organic farming is being touted as the panacea for a whole range of maladies afflicting third world rural society. Choosing to go organic is only changing the technology. No one who is serious about eliminating poverty would suggest that this can be achieved simply by going organic! Technology is not by itself a solution to societal ills. Of course, choice based on truthful, science-based knowledge is to be welcomed. The problem is acquiring such knowledge. I don't believe it can come from those who have a stake in chemicals. Emancipation from poverty, rural as well as urban, lies in carrying out land and income reforms to ensure equitable sharing of resources. Let us direct our creativity and intelligence to achieving these goals rather than spreading half-truths, including the one about producers and consumers having free choice! T. RAMAKRISHNAN Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu