Study Defines the Impacts of Organic Farming on the Environment

Organic farming is often viewed as more friendly to the environment as compared to traditional farming when it comes to the system of food production.

Feeding the Whole World

One of the greatest challenges of our time is to produce enough food to ensure adequate nutrition for the expanding global population without destroying the planet. By 2050, the population of the world is expected to be close to 10 billion, yet more than 811 million people still go to bed hungry every night.

One potential solution is considered to be organic farming. A target to reach 25 % organic farmland in the area by 2030 is part of the EU Farm to Fork strategy, which places farming at the center of its goal to adapt a more sustainable food production system.

As part of what the Commission called a new era for the transformation of the food and farming systems towards organic and agroecology, the EU Organic Action Plan also lays out a plan to increase demand for organic products.

The use of chemical inputs in conventional agriculture, among other practices, can harm wild insect populations. This could be good news for biodiversity. However, worries about lower yields, together with the consequent need for more land to be cultivated, have sparked discussion about whether organic farming can produce enough food to feed the world while also delivering environmental benefits.

The question of whether organic farming is always the best use of land has recently been put to the forefront of research.

In a recent study, the Centre for Ecological Research, and various universities developed a method to assist farmers and policymakers in determining whether switching from conventional to organic farming will increase biodiversity while maintaining productivity. The trade-off between yield and biodiversity within the same land areas is said to be quantified for the first time in a global meta-analysis.

Dr. Yi Zou, a land-use expert at Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool and corresponding author of the study, stressed that their comprehensive meta-analysis of land use identifies the most advantageous course of action for both farmers and the environment.

Additional Land Needs

The debate between "land sharing" and "land sparing" has arisen out of concern that organic farming's need for additional land may negate the resulting biodiversity gains.

Dr. Jenny Hodgson, a member of the research team, explained that the land-sparing strategy uses agricultural land intensively for high-yielding agriculture to leave the greatest amount of space for preserving high biodiversity in natural lands. On the other hand, the agricultural land is carefully managed and kept in a biodiversity-friendly manner in the land-sharing strategy. However, to produce as much as in intensive agriculture, more land is typically needed.

To determine a threshold where the increase in biodiversity from organic farming and land sharing is beneficial despite the additional land it requires, researchers analyzed the yield and biodiversity of land in 75 international studies.

Importantly, they discovered that the solution is largely context-dependent. According to the study, the threshold is determined by how much biodiversity is already present on the additional land that would have to be put to agricultural use to make up for yield losses brought on by the less productive nature of organic systems.

Shanxing Gong, the first author of the study, pointed out that their results show that if the unfarmed lands are less than 2.4 times more biodiverse than the farmed lands, switching to organic farming would be a more successful strategy. Naturally, this value depends on the situation and varies from region to region. In areas with lower species richness in remaining non-crop habitats, switching to organic farming and land sharing is probably the best use of the land.

What Crop and Where to Farm

The study found that the impact of organic farming on biodiversity and yield depends on the species being measured and the crops being grown, which further complicates the calculation.

In cereal crops like oats, barley, wheat, and maize, the overall yield decline is comparable to the increase in biodiversity that results from the conversion to organic farming. While birds were less affected, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of plant and invertebrate species.

In contrast, switching to organic farming shows no appreciable yield loss in non-cereal crops like vegetables and coffee, but there is an increase in biodiversity.

This indicates that certain products can be grown organically without requiring additional land to produce the same yield.

Zou elaborated that it may be possible, depending on the crop, to switch to organic farming for greater biodiversity gain with little to no yield loss. In these circumstances, switching to organic farming is beneficial to both parties.

The researchers emphasized that this threshold is only a guide and that other elements, such as the environment's landscapes and the variety of organic farming practices, may also have an impact on the advantages of organic farming. For instance, it was noted that moderate-intensity fertilization of organic non-cereal crops may increase yield and biodiversity.

According to Gong, their study is only the beginning of our understanding of this trade-off. The abundance of protected species, farmer incomes, and crucial ecosystem services like carbon absorption, pollination, and soil protection need to be taken into account in the study.

As the majority of existing studies have been conducted in developed nations, Zou added that the team wants to promote more research examining the trade-off between yield and biodiversity in developing nations.

In conclusion, whether organic farming is more environmentally friendly depends on what is being grown and where it is being grown, Food Navigator reports.