Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Mike <mike.lists@mlxvi.org>]

The question posed by the headline is a nonsense in itself. It HAS to 
feed the world. There is no other alternative. If it can't then we will 
run out of earth. Only the timeframe is up for discussion.

Or the size of the world has to reduce.

Do the words goose and golden egg mean anything to these people?

Mike

TradingPostPaul wrote:
> What is this report missing completely that would improve the outlook
> further?
>
> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
> -------------
>
> Shattering Myths: ?Can sustainable agriculture feed the world?
> http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1778
> By M. Jahi Chappell, PhD Candidate, University of Michigan Department of
> Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
> Fall 2007
>
> For years, critics and proponents alike have worried that the related
> methods of organic, low-input, low- or no-pesticide, integrated,
> small-scale, and sustainable production may address environmental concerns,
> but cannot produce sufficient food to sustain the large and growing human
> population. Such skepticism was understandable---the ?so-called Green
> Revolution of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s had been credited with averting
> widespread hunger crises by drastically increasing agricultural production,
> while the downsides of its technological advancements only began to enter
> the popular consciousness in the years after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring
> in 1962. Questioning the source of the cornucopia that provided plenty to
> people throughout the world seemed downright ungracious and backward. How
> could we be critical of the Green Revolution when it had staved off so much
> hunger?
>
> Now, years later, with the benefit of both hindsight and the insights
> available to us in works from Silent Spring to World Hunger: Twelve Myths
> to The Omnivore's Dilemma, evaluations of the social and environmental
> costs of the Green Revolution---and the fact that hunger is still
> pervasive---have led many to question the Green Revolution's claims.
> Sustainable alternatives are receiving greater attention. Organic
> agriculture is fast on the rise, and the call to buy local, buy seasonal,
> and buy fair are growing louder. But the question of whether or not such
> alternatives can provide enough food for a growing human population is
> still open. Or is it? A recent study by a research team at the University
> of Michigan addresses just this question.
> Smashing the myth that sustainable organics cannot produce enough food
>
> The important question of whether or not sustainable agricultural methods
> can produce enough food is still a stumbling block for its advocates 40
> years after the heady days of the Green Revolution. Can we risk spending
> scarce resources on an unproven system of production? Indeed, the focus on
> sustainable and organic agriculture has been portrayed by some, such as
> geographer Vaclav Smil and the conservative Hudson Institute's Dennis and
> Alex Avery as a "liberal fetish" that would bring hunger and ruin to
> millions in the global south if it were allowed to go forward.
>
> Such concerns would be valid if sustainable methods were as unproven or
> unproductive as often portrayed. However, besides the thousands of years of
> small-scale and family agriculture that developed and field-tested the
> antecedents of many modern sustainable practices, the past 40 years have
> not been spent idly by those who question the now-conventional industrial
> agricultural methods. A significant amount of scientific literature has
> compared "conventional" and "sustainable" agriculture. Nonetheless, what
> were originally valid and important doubts among some scientists about
> sustainable agriculture, have since turned into a "New Myth" that ignores
> this accumulated scientific work. That is, the idea that yields from
> sustainable agriculture are insufficient to feed the human population is
> almost regarded as "common knowledge." Skepticism is a vital and healthy
> part of science and public debate, but it must be moderated by even-handed
> evaluations of available information. So what does the available
> information on organic agriculture say? Are organic yields sufficient to
> feed us?
> Organic agriculture and the global food supply
>
> A study in the June 2007 issue of the Journal Renewable Agriculture and
> Food Systems looked to answer this question. What do we know now about
> agricultural production from sustainable methods? Can we say with any
> confidence that it could provide enough food for a global population?
> Looking at 293 examples comparing alternative and conventional agriculture
> from 91 studies, a group of University of Michigan researchers were able to
> demonstrate that current scientific knowledge simply does not support the
> idea that a switch to organic and sustainable agriculture would drastically
> lower food production and lead to hunger. Instead, we found that current
> knowledge implies that, even under conservative estimates, organic
> agriculture could provide almost as much food on average at a global level
> as is produced today (2,641 as opposed to 2,786 kilocalories/person/day
> after losses). In what these University of Michigan researchers considered
> a more "realistic" estimation, organic agriculture could actually increase
> global food production by as much as 50% (to 4,381
> kilocalories/person/day).
>
> The University of Michigan study synthesized as much of the current
> scientific literature on the subject as possible, gathering 160 cases
> comparing production from sustainable/organic methods to conventional
> production and 133 cases comparing sustainable/organic production to local
> low-intensity methods (i.e., subsistence farming or other
> non-industrialized practices). For the purposes of our study, we used the
> term "organic" to refer to practices that fall under the related categories
> of agroecological, sustainable, or ecological agriculture rather than to a
> specific certification system. "Organic" practices generally utilize
> natural (non-synthetic) nutrient sources and nutrient-cycling processes,
> exclude or rarely use synthetic pesticides, and sustain or regenerate soil
> quality. Examples of such practices include cover crops (which are often
> used as "green manure"), animal manure, compost, crop rotation,
> intercropping, and biological pest control.
>
> The cases used came predominantly from peer-reviewed, published scientific
> literature, though a minority came from what scientists call "Grey
> Literature"---conference proceedings, technical reports, and results from a
> well-known agricultural research station posted online. Such sources are
> considered "Grey" as they may be generated by reputable scientists and
> institutions, but have not necessarily undergone formal peer review by
> other scientists unconnected to the specific research project. The team
> statistically tested whether or not results would significantly differ if
> only the peer-reviewed works were used.
>
> The University of Michigan team grouped the 293 examples into 10 general
> food categories covering the major plant and animal components of human
> diets (i.e. grains, meats and offals, fruits, etc.), and determined the
> average ratio of yield from organic production to yield from
> conventional/low-intensity production in each category. Averaging the yield
> ratios from different studies within a food category reduces the effects of
> unusually high or low yield ratios from individual studies. Certain
> products were omitted as they didn't compose a significant source of
> calories or nutrients (i.e. spices and stimulants), and although data were
> reported for "seafood and other aquatic products," a yield ratio was not
> constructed since most of these foods are currently harvested from the
> wild.
>
> Once we had determined yield ratios, we used food production data from the
> United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) from 2001---the
> most recent data available when we began our analysis---and calculated the
> amount of food theoretically available in each category on a caloric basis
> if all agriculture were organically produced. Data from the FAO, based on
> on-farm production, was aggregated at the national level and adjusted for
> exports, imports, stocks, and losses to feed, seed and waste.
>
> Compiling the data for the world, for "developed" countries and for
> "developing" countries (following the FAO classifications for nations), we
> found large differences in yield ratios between the developed and
> developing countries. From our food production estimate based on the 10
> food categories and 160 cases in developed countries, we found that organic
> production could theoretically generate an amount of food equal to 92% of
> the current caloric availability (or a yield ratio of 0.92). This ratio is
> close to that found in a 1990 study by Gerald Stanhill of Israel's
> Agricultural Research Organization. However, looking at the 133 examples
> from the developing world, our team estimated food production equivalent to
> an overall yield ratio of 1.80---that is, 180% of current production in the
> developing world on a caloric basis.
>
> >From these regional results, researchers at the University of Michigan then
> constructed two models, a "conservative case" and a "realistic case." The
> "conservative case" applied the yield ratios of organic production to
> conventional production from the developed countries to worldwide
> agricultural production (production in both the developed and developing
> countries). As the yield ratios in the ten food categories were generally
> lower in the developed countries, applying them worldwide means that
> slightly fewer calories would be produced under a fully organic global
> system: 2,641 kcal/person/day instead of 2,786 kcal. However, this number
> is still above the suggested intake for healthy adults of 2200 to 2500
> kcal/person/day, so even under this conservative estimate there would be
> sufficient food production for the current population. However, under more
> realistic assumptions---that a switch to organic agriculture would mean the
> relatively lower developed world yield ratios would apply to production in
> the developed world and the relatively higher developing world yield ratios
> would apply to production in the developing world---the result was an
> astounding 4,381 kcal/person/day, a caloric availability more than
> sufficient for today's population. Indeed, it would be more than enough to
> support an estimated population peak of around 10-11 billion people by the
> year 2100.
>
> As with any scientific work, there are caveats. The study isn't a precise
> prediction for any specific crop or region, but rather an indicator of
> potential performance of organic relative to conventional and the current
> low-intensity agriculture practiced in much of the developing world. By
> necessity, an average ratio isn't predictive of specific cases. Critics
> often seize upon this and a similar point---that the best comparison of the
> different methods would be an optimized organic system versus an optimized
> conventional one. Such an argument misses the point. There is not an
> agreed-upon one way to optimize a given system, and even if there were,
> different local conditions would require different methods of optimization.
> Beyond this, no real system can ever fully meet all of the theoretical
> requirements for optimum performance. The Michigan study, by drawing from a
> wide base of data, reflects the best current understanding of how the two
> systems compare across a variety of circumstances. Indeed, one could argue
> that Green Revolution technologies have advanced rapidly largely as a
> result of decades of public and private research funding which dwarfs the
> modest resources devoted to organic research in the same time period. It
> therefore does not stretch imagination to think that the potential of
> organic agriculture hasn't yet been as fully realized as that of Green
> Revolution methods.
> Nitrogen: The Limiting Factor
>
> Another frequent claim by critics of organic agriculture is that organic
> agriculture is bad for the environment and biological conservation because
> it requires more land. This requirement, they say, is because of its lower
> yields and its use of green manure---nutrients from cover crops planted in
> between food crop rotations and then incorporated into the soil.
>
> University of Manitoba geographer Vaclav Smil has prominently maintained
> that a cropping system using only residue and manure recycling, rotations
> of cereals with legumes and planting of green manures cannot provide
> sufficient Nitrogen (N) for global food production to meet humans' dietary
> needs. This point is used to justify the assertion that because additional
> land will be needed to generate green manure and other organic N sources,
> organic agriculture will require more land than conventional practices and
> therefore be damaging to conservation. This important point was tested in
> the Michigan study, in which we evaluated the N availability generated
> solely by green manure as opposed to N from synthetic sources. Based on 77
> studies---33 for temperate regions and 44 for tropical regions---we found
> that current data would predict an average N availability from green manure
> of 102.8 kg N/ha. How much is that? Assuming that green manures could be
> planted on the current agricultural land base in between food crops, during
> winter fallow, or as a relay crop (and excluding land already planted under
> similar crops, such as soybeans and other legumes), we calculated that 140
> million Mg of N could be fixed by green manures each year. In comparison,
> the global use of synthetic N fertilizers in 2001 was 82 million Mg, or 58
> million Mg less than our estimated production from green manures.
>
> These results imply that, in principle, no additional land is required to
> obtain enough useful N to replace the current use of synthetic N
> fertilizers. Besides, other organically-acceptable sources of N including
> intercropping, alley cropping with leguminous trees, reintegration of
> livestock and annual crops, and inoculation of soil with free-living N
> fixers were not included in our analysis. In other words, similar to the
> findings around yields from organic production, our estimate is a
> conservative one and there may be significant potential in such alternative
> N sources that could be realized if research resources were devoted to them
> on the scale of the effort that has supported the Green Revolution. What
> does the future hold?
>
> Though the results from our study show that the most dramatic concerns of
> ruination and starvation predicted by organic opponents are contradicted by
> current knowledge, there is clearly much work yet to be done. For example,
> the typically different crop rotation systems used in organic and
> conventional production significantly complicated the calculation of
> relative yields and made any "across the board" yield adjustment for
> rotation systems unrealistic. When comparing, say, a three or four-year
> rotation schedule in an organic system growing corn with legumes to a
> conventional system where corn is planted every other year, the time-yield
> adjustment for this system would not apply to other, alternate rotation
> patterns. Further experimental comparisons and demonstrations are therefore
> needed to adequately address production differences from organic and
> conventional rotation systems. Nevertheless, adjustments for specific cases
> in our study showed that while total calories produced did drop in organic
> rotation systems, the amount of food produced was still sufficient.
>
> Other directions for future research also include exciting lines of inquiry
> in agroecology, from fertility generated by certain forms of crop/microbe
> "cooperation" to the benefits of urban agriculture, and the possibilities
> of agroforestry systems and companion planting. It is also worth noting
> that although a significant scientific literature shows that organic
> agriculture is, on the whole, better for conservation and the environment,
> further work is needed to understand how to go beyond local strategies to
> coherent national and international policies and incentives. Yet the
> concerns listed here should not obscure two vitally important points: a)
> the Michigan study shows that (notwithstanding future research) the answer
> to whether organic agriculture can provide enough food for the world is an
> unambiguous yes, and b) the problems of hunger and food security in the
> world are not presently associated with not enough food, but with poverty
> and the lack of ability to acquire food. Whether sufficient food is
> produced organically or conventionally, the problems of fair distribution
> and acknowledgment of the right to food will still need to be resolved, and
> no amount of food production alone will change the political system that
> leaves those without money to live without sufficient food.
>
> Critics and proponents of organic agriculture alike can agree that there
> are serious problems in a food system that produces more than sufficient
> calories worldwide, but still has 840 million people who cannot acquire
> enough food for their basic needs. Though the discussion regarding organic
> agriculture is certainly not over, if it is to address world hunger, it
> cannot avoid food sovereignty: people's right to healthy and culturally
> appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable
> methods, no matter how much is produced. This implies the democratization
> of our food systems---not their further industrialization.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Livingontheland mailing list
> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>
>