research paper- final
TRANSCRIPT
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 1
Organic versus Conventional Farming Systems: Production and Food Markets
Kassie Killebrew
Prescott College
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 2
Abstract
This paper explores the differences in how conventional farming and organic farming is achieved. This
is realized by addressing the methods, production and markets of both forms of farming. We then
discuss the effects and outcomes that both types of farming have on the environment and furthermore,
local and global food markets. The purpose of this paper is to provide obvious reasoning as to why
organic farming is the most beneficial and appropriate option of the two, given our current economic
and environmental deficits.
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 3
Organic versus Conventional Farming Systems: Production and Food Markets
Heavy agricultural reliance on synthetic-chemical fertilizers and pesticides is having serious
impacts on public health and the environment. The estimated environmental and health care costs of
the recommended use of pesticides in the U.S. are about $10 billion per year (Pimentel 2005). In the
United States over 90% of corn farmers rely on herbicides for weed control (Pimentel 2005). The U.S.
National Academy of Sciences (2003) reported that excessive fertilizer use costs $2.5 billion from
wasted fertilizer inputs. The estimated costs of public and environment health losses from modern
agricultural methods related to soil erosion exceed $45 billion yearly (Pimentel et al. 2005).
Integrated pest and nutrient management systems executed in certified organic agriculture can
reduce reliance on agrochemical inputs as well as make agriculture environmentally and economically
sound. Pimentel and Pimentel (1996) and the National Academy of Sciences (2003) have demonstrated
that sound management practices can reduce pesticide inputs while maintaining high crop yields and
improving farm economics. Organic agriculture seeks to enhance ecological processes that promote
plant nutrition while conserving soil and water resources. Organic systems remove agrochemicals and
decrease other external inputs to better the environment as well as farm economics. These systems give
consumers certainty of how their food is produced and for the first time, have the ability to select foods
based on food production methods.
Both organic and conventional farming methods have their pros and cons. While agribusiness
and the multinational food producers have done an excellent job over the years of providing substantial
amounts of nutritious food for a growing world population, their efforts are driven by profiteering and
are neither sustainable nor beneficial to local economic markets. While organic farming practices also
have their downfalls, such as consumer costliness of the product, their alternative growing methods are
beneficial to the environment and extremely valuable in terms of long-term economics. I will further
discuss environmental and economical comparisons between both practices.
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 4
I chose this topic to be able to identify the means by which both practices operate as a whole.
This information will be used to determine whether conventional or organic farming is the best choice
for current and future generations' health and well being in regard to economy and environment. I
speculated that after all content is thoughtfully reviewed, organic farming practices would be the most
advantageous and profitable of the two.
Method
To begin, conventional farming practices and markets are predominantly dictated and
manipulated by corporate agribusinesses. At the onset of the Industrial Revolution, issues of food
production and supply for growing populations were resolved by the implementation of mechanized
power. It was quickly realized that shifting to this form of production could be very profitable and thus
factory farms became synonymous with food production. Current farming practices are solely
dependent upon monocultures of genetically modified (GM) seeds, external inputs (petrochemicals)
and overuse of machinery. All three of these dependencies harm the environmental greatly, but
maintain Big Ag's1 multi-billion dollar profits.
One key factor is responsible for the incredible growth of conventional factory farming.
Unchecked mergers and acquisitions between the largest seed companies, petrochemical producers and
insurance and pharmaceuticals companies create an intensely consolidated landscape where a few giant
agribusinesses exert tremendous pressure on crop and livestock producers to become larger and more
intensive (Factory 2010). This market monopolization is also referred to as biorevolution. For
example, corporations such as the Farm Bureau align themselves with companies like Monsanto to
manipulate farmer’s decisions. Farmers are forced to purchase crop insurance from the Farm Bureau
(which masquerades as a non-profit) and are promised lower premiums if they purchase Monsanto's
GM seeds, which are of course much more expensive than non-GM crops. With the Farm Bureau's
1 Big Agriculture (a.k.a. Big Ag) refers to the large business of agriculture.
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 5
nearly three thousand affiliated state and county level non-profit farm bureaus, the combined
organization maintains billions of dollars in assets, making it among the most moneyed non-profit
organizations in the United States. “While the Farm Bureau tries to maintain an image of fighting for
the little guy, its affiliates invest tens of millions of dollars into corporate agribusiness — Cargill,
ConAgra, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Tyson and Archer Daniel Midlands” (Food 2010). Dow Chemical
is in the biotech industry and has also found a unique way to corner their market. For example, not
only does Dow supply most farms with the necessary petrochemicals for crop application, but their
subsidiary Triumph Seeds now offers GM seeds which are resistant and hardy to the chemicals in their
fertilizers, pesticides, etc. The cycle continues. These are just a couple of examples of how corporate
businesses control food production and markets.
Now that we know who controls the food market, let's address the process in which food is then
produced. Conventional farming is essentially achieved as follows: first, massive amounts of diverse
prairie or forestland is cut and cleared. Monocultures of GM seeds are planted or tiny spaces are filled
with unsustainable numbers of farm animals, petrochemicals (made from fossil fuels) are added (to
either soil or to livestock feed), the plants are then harvested or animals slaughtered, and then
processed, packaged and shipped for worldwide distribution. This is where we encounter the global
economic food system.
The processed food sector is the largest product manufacturing and distribution segment of the
U.S. economy, accounting for more than one-sixth of the nation's industrial activity (Nützenadel 2008).
Processed foods account for about two-thirds of international food and agricultural trade (Nützenadel
2008). But international commerce in processed foods is more than imports and exports. The most
prevalent means by which processed foods reach overseas markets is through sales from foreign
operations. Shipments from foreign operations of U.S. processed food firms are four times larger than
direct U.S. exports (O'Brien and Leichenko 2005). Globalization of the food market is transforming
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 6
the production and storage of food, the movement and trade of food, access to and consumption of
food, and the quality and safety of food. It has a direct effect on agricultural production, livelihoods,
and the viability of rural, agricultural economies. More importantly, conventional farming processes
are creating dynamic conditions that influence vulnerability to both rapid and gradual environmental
changes.
Organic farming began as a reaction against the industrialization of agriculture in the early 20th
century. Practices and methods are predominantly based on a small scale by owner/operators. Unlike
their predecessors, organic farmers rely on crop rotation, crop residues, animal manure and mechanical
cultivation to maintain the soil and to control weeds, insects and other pests. Many methods are
employed in maintaining soil health including crop rotation, green manure, cover cropping, application
of compost and mulching. Organic farmers also use certain fertilizers such as seed meal and mineral
powders such as rock phosphate and greensand, which are naturally occurring forms of potash.
The retail market for organic farming in developing economies has grown at about 20%
annually due to increasing consumer demand (OTA 2009). While most of the early producers were
small, the popularity of organic food is rising as the volume and variety of organic products become
available at an increasingly larger scale. Despite the economic recession that gripped the United States
in 2009, the organic market continued to experience growth. “In 2009, total U.S. organic consumer
product sales grew 5.3% to reach $26.6 billion” (OTA 2009). Organic sales growth continued to
outpace total sales of comparable conventional food and non-food items by a significant margin.
“While organic food sales were up 5.1% in 2009, total food sales were up by only 1.6%” (OTA 2009).
“Organic non-food sales experienced 9.1% growth, while total comparable non-food item sales actually
declined by 1%” (OTA 2009). Farmers markets, co-ops, CSA's and natural retailers all provide an
outlet for locally and organically grown foods to be distributed without long distance travel.
The primary demand driver for the increased consumption of organic food is health concerns.
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 7
Consumers are increasingly interested in foods that are free of pesticides, and other health risks (Mintel
Organic Foods 2006). A second demand driver is the USDA Organic Food standards, which appear to
have increased consumer awareness of organic foods and provide assurance to consumers that the
products are what they claim to be. Twenty-five percent of the consumers surveyed by Mintel have
purchased organic foods. Most consumers are aware and concerned about food from genetically
modified organisms (GMOs); women consumers are particularly concerned about GMOs (Mintel
Organic Foods 2006). Most consumers also believe that organic foods are healthier and better for the
environment than conventionally produced food products (Mintel Organic Foods 2006).
The single biggest barrier to market growth of organic foods is the lack of certified organic
crops and livestock products (Mintel, FPSA, 2006). There are shortages of organic dairy farms,
organic feed producers, sugar producers and fruit and vegetable producers (Brady, p.51). Converting
from conventional to organic production is expensive and time consuming. A problem from the
processors and manufacturers perspective is the variability in quality of organic food (Brady, p.54).
Consumers still prefer products of a consistent quality, and maintaining consistent quality is more
difficult in producing organic foods than it is in producing food from conventional methods. The use of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides not only increases yields but also improves consistency. Those
organic producers and processors that can adequately address the issue of consistency will possess a
competitive advantage.
Results
The environmental results of these two markets could not be more different. While methods for
conventional farming are largely based on fossil fueled power as energy inputs, organic farmers depend
more so on human muscle and allow the natural world to do the work for them.
It has been reported that the most significant change in the structure of ecosystems has been the
transformation of approximately one quarter of Earth's terrestrial surface to cultivated systems (MA
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 8
2005). Cultivated systems describe the parts of conventional farming such as croplands, shifting
cultivation, confined livestock production and freshwater aquaculture. These systems of food
production, specifically regarding croplands, are the most harmful to the environment. The energy
inputs for these systems include fossil fuels for farm machinery, fertilizers, seeds, and herbicides.
Fossil energy inputs are also required for transport. This means we are extracting enormous amounts of
a finite resource in order to produce our food. Efforts to create croplands (clear cutting forests) release
huge amounts of CO22 into our already extremely warming atmosphere. Habitat loss and a reduction in
biodiversity are also results of land transformation. After we slash and burn, we focus on growing
monocultures of soybeans, corn, and wheat. Monocultures cause cycles of nutrients, energy, water and
waste to become more open systems, rather than closed as in natural ecosystems. Furthermore, part of
the instability and susceptibility to pests of agroecosystems can be linked to the adoption of vast crop
monocultures. Therefore, there is a required increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, but the
efficiency of use of applied inputs is decreasing and crop yields in most key crops are leveling off.
Chemical fertilizers can become air pollutants, and have recently been implicated in the
destruction of the ozone layer and in global warming. Their excessive use has also been linked to the
acidification/salinization of soils, a higher incidence of insect pests and diseases and negative
nutritional changes in crop plants (MA 2005). Fertilizer nutrients that enter surface waters (rivers,
lakes, bays, etc.) can promote eutrophication, characterized initially by a population explosion of
photosynthetic algae that prevent light from penetrating beneath surface layers, and therefore killing
plants living on the bottom (MA 2005). Eventually, such nutrient enrichment of freshwater ecosystems
leads to the destruction of all animal life in the water systems.
As far as conventional farming's contribution to our economic market, allotments are slim.
2 Carbon dioxide
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 9
Moreover, the whole machinery of corporate agribusiness, whether it is Monsanto or Dow Chemical,
has become inseparable from the global financial sector. The past two decades of globalization has,
more than anything else, been about the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of Wall Street
and other financial centers (Nützenadel 2008). More and more of this money now flows into corporate
agribusiness and commodities. Access to this huge pool of capital is propelling the expansion of
agribusiness, giving companies the financial resources to take over smaller firms or to set up new
operations, while also harnessing them even tighter to the philosophy of fast and high returns which are
made off the backs of workers, consumers and the environment. Meanwhile, the amount of theoretical
capital in agricultural commodities has soared in recent years, and this, combined with rising corporate
control at all levels of the food chain, means that prices have little to do with supply and demand and
that food distribution has become disconnected from need (O'Brien 2005). Today’s corporate global
food system is organized according to one principle only: profit for the owners of the corporations.
On the other hand, organic farmer’s methods of food production are quite different than those of
modern agriculture practices. Reduction and furthermore, elimination of agrochemicals require major
changes in management to assure adequate plant nutrient composition and to control crop pests. As it
was done a few decades ago, alternative sources of nutrients to maintain soil fertility include manures,
sewage sludge and other organic wastes, as well as legumes, in cropping sequences. Rotation benefits
are due to biologically fixed nitrogen and from the interruption of weed, disease and insect cycles
(Pimentel 2005). Maximum benefits of pasture combination can be realized when livestock, crops,
animals and other farm resources are assembled in mixed and rotational designs to optimize production
efficiency, nutrient cycling and crop protection.
Increasingly, researchers are showing that it is possible to provide a balanced environment,
sustained yields, biologically mediated soil fertility and natural pest regulation through the design of
diversified agroecosystems and the use of low-input technologies, in which organic farmers rely. In
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 10
essence, the optimal behavior of agroecosystems depends on the level of interactions between the
various biotic and abiotic components. By constructing a functional biodiversity, it is possible to
launch synergisms which support agroecosystem processes by providing ecological services such as the
activation of soil biology, the recycling of nutrients, the enhancement of beneficial arthropods and
antagonists, and so on. Today there is a diverse selection of practices and technologies available.
Organic farmers have found their niche in local food systems. Consumers are looking for fresh,
high quality tasting produce. Farmers who grow organically and market locally benefit from these
customer preferences, which can become market demands. Local farmers receive a higher share of the
consumer food dollar, especially with organic premiums. Farm input costs for fertilizers, herbicides,
and pesticides are reduced. Transportation costs are reduced. Money recirculates locally. Consumers
pay farmers directly and depress corporate control of the food system.
Farmers seek innovations to survive on the farm, and consumers are going out of their way to
support local farmers. Local food systems are not intended to replace the conventional food system;
rather, they are offered as a means to diversify the global chain. Farmers who sell directly to
consumers receive higher net returns, and consumers are rewarded with fresh produce that supports a
local farmer and the local community as a whole.
Discussion
The truth is that we do not need agribusiness. Rather, as the last two decades have shown, we
have every reason to get rid of it. Twenty years of expanding agribusiness control over the food system
has generated more hunger – 200 million more people go hungry than 20 years ago (McMichael 2009).
It has destroyed livelihoods – today 800 million small farmers and farm workers do not have enough
food to eat (McMichael 2009). Agribusiness has been a leading cause of climate change and other
environmental tragedies, the effects of which Big Ag is inadequately prepared to deal with. It has
generated irregular food safety problems and has made agriculture one of the most dangerous sectors to
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 11
work in, whether as a farmer or a worker. And it has routed the wealth created though global food
production into the hands of a few (GRAIN 2008). The main story in agriculture over the past twenty
years has been the rise of agribusiness. If humanity is going to survive with any dignity on this planet,
the next twenty years need to see its decline.
As I speculated, this research shows that a more progressive transformation of agriculture is
needed. One guided by the perception that ecological change in agriculture cannot be boosted without
parallel changes in the social, political, cultural and economic divisions that also accommodate
agriculture. In other words, change toward a more socially just, economically viable, and
environmentally sound agriculture should be the result of social movements in the rural sector in
alliance with urban organizations. This is especially relevant in the case of the new biorevolution,
where collaborative action is needed so that biotechnology companies feel the impact of environmental
changes, farm labor issues, animal rights, and consumer concerns pressuring them to re-orient their
work for the overall benefit of society and nature.
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 12
References
Brady, D. (2006) The Organic Myth, Business Week, (50-56).
Factory Farm Nation. (2010). food&waterwatch. Retrieved from http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/FactoryFarmNation-web.pdf
GRAIN. Making a killing from hunger. Against the grain. Retrieved from http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=39
Karen O’Brien and Robin Leichenko, (2005). Food Systems and Globalization. IHDP. Retrieved from http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/get/7181
Mintel (Mintel, FPSA) (2006). FPSA State of the Industry and Forward Look. Chicago: Mintel.
Mintel (Mintel, Organic Foods). (2006). Organic Foods – US. Chicago: Mintel. McMichael Philip. (2009). The World Food Crisis in Historical Perspective. Monthly Review. Retrieved
from http://monthlyreview.org/090713mcmichael.php
Nützenadel, Alexander, Trentmann Frank. (2008). Food and Globalization: Consumption, Markets and Politics in the Modern World (Cultures of Consumption). Berg Publishers
Pimentel D, Pimentel M. (1996). Food, Energy and Society. Niwot: ColoradoUniversity Press.
Pimentel D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the recommendedapplication of pesticides and herbicides. Environment, Development, and Sustainability.Forthcoming.
Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Siedel R, Douds D. (2005). Organic andconventional farming systems: Environmental and economic issues. Forthcoming.
U.S. Organic Industry Overview. The Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) 2010 Organic Industry Survey. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/ 2010OrganicIndustrySurveySummary.pdf
ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 13