Organic farming: Perceptions and reality

(Concluding Part III)

The organic way of farming embraces a slew of traditional, broadly accepted and scientifically proven cultural practices. These practices tend to promote soil health and biodiversity in farms and require less energy. However, these practices are not unique to organic farming because conventional farming also adopts them to varying degrees.

But what really set organic farming apart are the growing methods it prohibits. It prohibits the application of chemical fertilizers, use of synthetic chemical pesticides and deployment of genetically modified crops, livestock, fish and microorganisms.

The claimed exclusive benefits to consumers from organic farming of more nutritious, tastier and safer foods and a cleaner more sustainable environment are more perceptions than reality. What are real for the most part are lower yields per hectare, higher costs of production, and consequently more expensive foods.

But what is also real is that organic farming is more profitable to farmers than conventional farming (as much as 2.9–3.8 times more profitable to farmers by one US estimate). Increasingly the world over consumers are willing to pay the premium for the organic label.

Part 1 (26 November 2017 issue) of this series pointed out that the total ban on the application of chemical fertilizers has no scientific bases. The contention that continuous application of chemical fertilizers render soils unfit for crop production is refuted by long-term field experiments growing wheat and beans in England (since 1843), growing maize in Illinois in the America Midwest (since 1876) and close to home, continuous monoculture of rice at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños (since 1963).’

On the other hand, the animal manures and composts allowed by organic farming to restore the soil nutrients extracted by crops, for the most part are not nutrient-dense enough to supply the requirements of crops in the amounts and times the nutrients are needed by crops for optimum productivity.

Tons of animal manures are needed per hectare to grow decent crops. But animal manures are not always readily available and they are expensive to assemble, transport and spread.

Moreover, the potential for fecal contamination with Salmonella, Listeria and virulent strains of E. coli is higher in organic produce than for conventionallyraised farm products for the simple reason that organic farming uses that much more animal manures.

Part 2 (03 December 2017 issue) addressed the uncritical absolute prohibition of the use of synthetic pesticides, ostensibly to eliminate pesticide residues making organic foods safer to eat than those grown in the conventional way.

However, contrary to the common perception, organic produce are not necessarily pesticide-free. Organic farming allows the use of herbal preparations, containing naturally-occurring toxins like rotenone, pyrethrins, azadirachtin, nicotine and capsaicin; traditional compounds containing copper and sulfur, and a few synthetic chemical exceptions like methyl bromide as a soil fumigant.

The active ingredients in organic pesticides, albeit found in lower concentrations, can be as hazardous as those in synthetic pesticides. In fact, many chemical pesticides are based on toxins found occurring in nature.

Some chemical pesticides are even less toxic and less persistent than their organic counterparts. Mancozeb, a chemical to control fungi, is as effective but 15 times less toxic than copper sulfate and lime sulfur, two of the most widely used organic fungicides.

Continuous development work by the chemical pesticide industry is leading to the release of newer safer pesticides belonging to Category III and IV. Organic farming should therefore be open to these new families of synthetic pesticides which are more benign to people and the environment than the ones presently in use.

GMOs are as safe As conventional foods

Thirdly, organic farming absolutely prohibits the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, animals and microorganisms for fear that GMOs are bad for human health and the environment.

This flies in the face of the global scientific consensus that GMOs are as safe as their conventionally-raised counterparts. No less than the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Union Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and all the prestigious national academies of science have publicly acknowledged their safety.

Last year 108 Nobel Prize winners recognized for their achievements in medicine, chemistry, biology, a third of all living laureates, signed an open letter in support of precision agriculture (GMOs). They urged the United Nations (UN) and Governments around the world to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, to recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies. The Nobel Laureates singled out GREENPEACE to abandon its uncalled for campaign against GMOs.

The open letter further stated that “Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans and animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment and a boon to global biodiversity.”

Conventional farming still the mainstream

The rise of organic farming is in part a response to the excesses of chemical-intensive farming which have come to dominate world agriculture. It is indeed timely that we rediscover the virtues of traditional cropping practices espoused by organic farming such as minimum tillage, use of green manures and cover crops, rotation cropping, more use of animal manures and composts, and return of crop residues to maintain soil organic matter.

But as FAO has pointed out organic farming cannot feed the current world population, much less the billions yet to come.

Organic farming is a luxury landpoor countries like the Philippines can ill afford. With higher food prices from organic farming, more Filipinos will be food insecure.

Thus from the food security point of view, the bulk of our agricultural effort must be directed to conventional farming.

Chemical fertilizers provided they are not applied in excess will not permanently injure our soils. But more manures and composts are needed to enhance soil health. The ideal is the judicious balanced application of manures as basal fertilizers and nutrient-rich chemical fertilizers as supplements.

Weeds, pests of all kinds and diseases will always be around to challenge crops, fish and livestock. The pesticides needed to control them invariably are injurious to human health. But advances in biology and chemistry are leading to the development of pesticides which are far less toxic and less persistent in the environment than currently available substances. The more rational approach is to replace current pesticides whether organic or synthetic, with more specific, less toxic and more biodegradable pesticides as they become available.

For crops, the ideal is the evolving method of integrated pest management (IPM) which combines cultural practices, use of resistant varieties, deployment of biocontrol agents, and USE OF PESTICIDES REGARDLESS OF SOURCE AS A LAST RESORT.

And finally GMOs whether crops, animal or microorganisms are not bad to human health and the environment. On the contrary there is a global scientific consensus that GMO foods are as safe as their conventionally-bred counterparts

A global meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops showed that GM crops resulted in a decrease of pesticide use of 37 percent, increase in yields of 22 percent and a profit increase for farmers of 68 percent.

We should not deny our farmers the use of GMOs. The world of science is inexorably leading to the development of more GMO crops, fish and livestock with improved traits useful to man. In fact, we should master modern biotechnology ourselves to advance our national interests.

Niches for organic farming The growing world-wide demand for organic produce is a market phenomenon we cannot ignore. Even among more affluent Filipinos, there is increasing demand for organically grown fruits, vegetables, poultry and pigs. Although yields per hectare are lower, organic farming is more profitable for farmers because of the premium customers are willing to pay for the certified organic label.

Moreover, organic is labor intensive. It will create more jobs in the countryside and thereby, contribute to moderating poverty.

There are two niches for organic farming, first for subsistence farmers (and hobbyists) who produce for their family consumption and would not bother for certification which add to the costs. For subsistence farmers substituting their labor for cash inputs which they do not have make sense.

The bigger opportunity is for farmers who produce certified organic foods for the local market and for export. Organic farming is knowledge intensive and highly location specific. For our organic farmers to participate in the lucrative organic export trade, they will need a lot of government support for technology and market development, and certification to reduce costs and to improve their competiveness.

***** Dr. Emil Q. Javier is a Member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and also Chair of the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP). For any feedback, email eqjavier@ yahoo.com.