A newly formed food production company wants to invest in the development of farm land. Though they are new to agribusiness, they are looking to the future. The company wants to maximize their production yields, but at the same time minimize greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. Which form of agriculture, organic or conventional, should the company invest in, with consideration of their aim to be both efficient and “sustainable” in production?

As the global population continues to grow at a staggering rate, the problem of providing substantial sustenance for everyone becomes an ever increasing problem.  Food production methods and systems are becoming more and more significant. Though production of food in purely a quantitative sense seems to be the matter at hand, it is only the surface of the actual whole issue. Various methods of food production are used across the globe, but some are more sustainable and environmentally friendly than others. A specific example of this concern can be seen when comparing organic agriculture to conventional agriculture. We aim to quantify the costs and benefits of organic versus conventional agriculture in terms of greenhouse gas emissions through our research and literature reviews and compare is with our findings of pure crop yield in production. Though we holistically contextualize the environmental trade offs, our findings are based off life cycles analyses, material flow analyses, and the response inducing sustainability evaluation.

In the 20th century, the world human Population dramatically increased from 1.6 billion people to 6.1 Billion (Lutz et al., 2013). The globe’s burgeoning population will put stress on our current agricultural system's capability to feed billions of mouths, and such a rise necessarily brings higher consumption of natural resources and agricultural products (Foley et al., 2011). This is especially true as an increasing percentage of the world demands the less sustainable Western diet of animal products. However, it is estimated that an 80% reduction in current emissions by 2050 is necessary to avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change. This will prove challenging as historically, the greater the agricultural yield is, the more greenhouse gases emitted. With a degrading environment, we won’t be able to grow food in the same way as our past.

Conventional industrial agriculture has become incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis. Thanks to fertilizers, mechanization and irrigation, each American farmer feeds over 155 people worldwide on average. Conventional farming gets more and more crop per sq. foot of cultivated land—over 170 bushels of corn per acre in Iowa, for example—which can mean less territory needs to be converted from wilderness to farmland. And since a third of the planet is already used for agriculture—destroying forests and other wild habitats along the way—anything that could help us produce more food on less land would preserve the natural environment. While the productivity of Sales of organic food rose 7.7% in 2010, up to $26.7 billion—and people are making those purchases for their consciences as much as their taste buds.

When it comes to energy, everyone loves efficiency. Cutting energy waste is an intuitive goal that both sides of the political divide can agree on, even if they sometimes diverge on how best to get there. Energy efficiency allows us to get more out of our given resources, which is typically good for the economy and (mostly) good for the environment as well. In an increasingly hot and crowded world, the only sustainable way to live is to get more out of less. Hence, a substantial portion of what comprises sustainable practices hinges on properly allocating resources and cutting waste.

Research Question: When considering the growing population and the environmental aspect of sustainable agriculture, is organic farming or industrial farming the more “sustainable” option?

We believe organic farming, though less efficient than industrial agriculture in terms of crop yield, is the more sustainable means of food production for the increasing population due to its more environmentally-positive practices and lower contributions to climate change. We hypothesize that conventional farming will have higher yields than organic farming. However, the differences in GHG emissions between organic farming and conventional farming will be even larger than the differences in yields. Therefore, Organic farming would be considered more sustainable when the units of our results are in kg CO₂ equivalent/kg of produce. 

Our approach to this project evolved throughout the process of completion. We started thinking purely of the landscapes of the farms, asking how scale and location affected the efficiency of production. Due to the limited information on this subject, we changed our focus to comparison of organic farming practices vs conventional practices. Within this focus, we narrowed our research down to negative environmental impacts and production yields of each of these systems to compare their sustainability ratings. We initially were going to look at all of the factors that go into sustainability such as the numerous environmental, social, and economic contributors. However, because of time, unit comparison issues, and overall complexity of the project, we decided to focus only on environmental affects, more specifically greenhouse gas emissions, between the two farming systems. In addition to the amount of emissions, we looked at comparing the yields to overall assess the sustainability between the two. Our method behind this was to compare the statistics of kg of CO2 eq. / kg of produce, where the smaller the ratio, the more sustainable the farm system. Along with sustainability, we had to define what we meant by “organic” farming. Our definition came from the USDA that states organic agriculture as, “the application of a set of cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that support the cycling of on-farm resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity through the application of fertilizers, pesticides, and antibiotics.”

Throughout our study we had to follow many steps to make sure our research process and data collection was accurate and done efficiently. We researched case studies that were directly related to our research question. The studies we selected were relatively new studies to assure accuracy in our overall results. We decided not to focus on just one type of produce because of the limited amount of existing research data and to see if there were differences in results between the different types of produce. We also used our knowledge from the class field trip in directing our research and overall discussion of results. Another important step in our project was to properly define our definition of sustainability. As previously mentioned, our definition of sustainability strictly focused on the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere through farming practices compared to the actual yield at each farm. Obviously sustainability has an infinite amount of factors, but for this report, we only included the emissions vs the yields. As for our methods, most of our project findings came from research of past the case studies. Some of the data, found from looking at case studies, that was used in our results incorporated the life cycle analysis (LCA) method and the use of the RISE Model (Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation). The LCA is a technique used to assess the environmental impacts associated with products entire life cycle from raw material to waste. The RISE Model assesses the sustainability of agricultural production at farm level. The process begins with the collection of information on environmental, economic, and social aspects through a personal interview with the farmer. The information is then entered into a computer model, which calculates scores based on twelve sustainability parameters. The end results show scores that correspond to each of the 12 parameters and compares them to the sustainable scores. For the study we looked at CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions. After finding and collecting all of our data, we had to convert our emission data to CO2 equivalents to get a common unit throughout. Any additional yield data was also converted to Kg. The best way to express our results was through the form of graphs, tables, and images. This helps show the similarities and differences between the two farm practices more clearly.

MATERIAL/SUBSTANCE FLOW ANALYSIS OF CARBON FLUX IN AN ORGANIC AND A CONVENTIONAL VEGETABLE FARM

L. Hongyeng and P. Agamuthu

Any discussion of climate change is incomplete without mentioning that one third of the global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) come from agriculture sector. The movement towards organic farming is seen as a mitigation effort in response. Organic farms (OF) are believed to be carbon (C) sequestering because organic fertilizer application is the common practice in OF, while conventional farms’ (CF) lack of organic input is viewed to be the contributor to GHG emissions. Despite this, insufficient information of carbon storage on agricultural land is prevalent within the developing world, tropics and subtropics (also referred to as the Global south).

This study utilized MFA (material flow analysis) for carbon modeling within the farm systems, in order to have a comprehensive assessment of farm system sustainability. It is a practical, analytical method to quantify flows and stocks of materials or substances in a defined space and system, which provide vital information on farm system stability. This study evaluated the role of material flow modeling in understanding carbon flux dynamics of OF and CF systems. The objectives were to identify the system differences between OF and CF, potential drivers for changes and differences between systems in carbon flow. The system boundary is within two existing vegetable farms in Malaysia: conventional farm and organic farm. There were three primary outputs at OF which includes surface runoff that takes up 97% of total carbon output, harvested vegetables and gaseous emission which were 0.5% and 2.4%, respectively. Similar to OF, CF has three major carbon outputs; 28% was through surface runoff and leaching, 72% and 0.001% were attributed to harvested vegetable and gaseous emission, respectively. The net input of carbon of mass balance suggested that OF portrays the potential to be a carbon sink (Fig. 3). The reason is that large amount of organic matters, such as compost and Bokashi compost, are used as fertilizer and in the same time, the farm is characterized of low carbon output as the results of low vegetable yield has shown. Usage of organic matter input increases carbon input and resulted to 1.50tC ha−1y−1 of carbon flux (stored carbon). On the other hand, CF in this study has shown it is the source of carbon where carbon stream out from the system (Fig 4). Conventional farm in this study showed high carbon flux compared to research done by Vleeshouwers and Verhagen (2002) where 0.84 tC ha−1y−1 of carbon exits conventional managed arable land. The soil carbon stock of OF increased from 20025 kg ha-1to 25922 kg ha-1. In contrast, the soil carbon concentration at CF decreases 11.7%. During the study period CF shows reduction of carbon stocks from 15670 kg ha-1 to 13837 kg ha-1.

Conventional farm managers should opt for practices that increase organic fertilizer use and reduce chemical use, without jeopardizing farm yield. It is crucial to achieve balance between food security and environment sustainability, and MFA model provides fundamental information for farm manager to evaluate the farm’s stability. This research has high temperatures in a tropical region, which is often considered not suitable for carbon sequestration due to high soil respiration and decomposition activity. However, this study shows otherwise as OF proved to have potential to be carbon sequester even at tropics region. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions were actually higher for OF in this study. However, because of the carbon sequestration (carbon sink) of OF, they were still considered much more sustainable and actually stored more carbon than released.

EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES FROM THE EGG PRODUCTION WITHIN THE CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC FARMING SYSTEM

Jan MOUDRÝ jr., Zuzana Jelínková, Marek KOPECKÝ, Jaroslav BERNAS, Jan MOUDRÝ, Petr KONVALINA, Václav KALKUŠ

This study compared the environmental load arising from the GHG emissions within breeding of laying hens, and egg production in the context of the representative organic and conventional farm. As a tool for evaluating this impact, the LCA method had been chosen, respectively its climate change impact category. The results are related to the functional unit of 1 egg and they are expressed as kg CO2e where CO2e = 1x CO2+ 23x CH4+ 298x N2O. The system boundaries have been set on the farm base; fuels, energy (electricity, fossil fuels, natural gas) and feedstuffs have been regarded as inputs. From the results, it is obvious that organic farming produces less emission load within one egg production, mainly due to the breeding method, which is far less energy intensive. On the contrary, higher emissions within organic farming are produced within the feeding category (0.170496 kg CO2e/egg in organic farming against 0.100781kg CO2e/egg in conventional farming), due to the different feed ration in this system. In total, however, the emission load from egg production within the conventional farming system is almost twice the organic production (0.218853kg CO2e/egg in organic farming against 0.392569kg CO2e/egg in conventional farming).

The contribution of agricultural activities reaches about10 -12 % global share and until 2030 we can expect rise of these numbers by about 50%. Carbon dioxide produced within the industrial livestock production originates from usage of fossil fuels, dinitrogen monoxide from manures and methane from dung. Also ammonia emissions from pig, cattle and poultry farms are of important influence.To express this load and its emission factor, the LCA method can be suitable (Stern etal., 2005).Using this tool, we can assess the environmental impact of a product based on energy and material flows within the system interchanges (Kočí, 2009).This also enables the assessment of the emission loads originating from the conventional and organic egg production.The emission load per one egg itself makes 0.100781 kg CO2e in conventional farming, in organic farming it makes0.170496kg CO2e (Table 1 andtable2).The feedstuff emissions represent very important share on the total emission load. In organic farming it represents most of the emissions.

Feedstuff emission load in organic farming

-Organic farming also shows markedly higher emission load from the dung management. In organic farming it makes approximately four times higher values when compared to conventional production(0.00604590 kg CO2e/egg in conventional and 0.0268152 kg CO2e/egg organic farming system).

-The total emissions from energy consumption within conventional farming systems then makes 0.285742474 kg CO2e/egg. Within the organic farming it reaches only 0.021542066 kg CO2e/egg.

An overall higher emission load resulting from higher energy inputs produce a conventional farming system, where the load per one egg reaches 0.382569 kg CO2e, within a organic farming system this number drops almost to a half value (0.218853 kg CO2e). The intensity of organically managed lying hen farms shows higher loads per one egg as a result of more complicated feedstuff and waste matter management on one hand, but it is compensated by a markedly lower energy consumption on the other. Just the energy savings achieved within the organic farming systems plays the most important role and are the main reason, while the emission load per one organically produced egg reaches almost half values.

 HOLE FOOD BLUES: WHY ORGANIC AGRICULTURE MAY NOT BE SO SUITABLE

By Bryan Walsh

As we already established, food consumption is expected to rise dramatically by 2050. The reason why organic produce will likely only constitute a fraction of this food is because organic farming yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional agriculture. More land is therefore needed to produce fewer crops—and that means organic farming may not always be the least-cost choice. Clearing undeveloped land for agriculture can leach more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, erode soils, and hinder the spatiality of animal habitats. Depending on the approach of future farmers, cropland expansion could also potentially increase emissions through transportation.

The key difference between the systems is nitrogen, the chemical key to plant growth. When we talk about a Green Revolution, we really mean a nitrogen revolution—along with a lot of water. Conventional agriculture makes use of 171 million metric tons of synthetic fertilizer each year, and all that nitrogen enables much faster plant growth than the slower release of nitrogen from the compost or cover crops used in organic farming. But not all the nitrogen used in conventional fertilizer ends in crops—much of it ends up running off the soil and into the oceans, creating vast polluted dead zones. These hypoxic zones and algal blooms asphyxiate the animal life swimming in the afflicted waters, and generally upset ocean pH and trophic systems. Conventional agriculture also depends heavily on chemical pesticides, which can have unintended side effects. Though the practices, and thus results, vary considerably from one farm to another, synthetic biocides can bioaccumulate in animal species, pollute watersheds, or disrupt soil chemistry.

Although, as with most subjects, the verdict for organic farming is best characterized as an it depends scenario. In the Nature analysis, scientists from McGill University in Montreal and the University of Minnesota performed an analysis of 66 studies comparing conventional and organic methods across 34 different crop species, from fruits to grains to legumes. They found that organic farming delivered a lower yield for every crop type, though the disparity varied widely. For rain-watered legume crops like beans or perennial crops like fruit trees, organic trailed conventional agriculture by just 5%. Yet for major cereal crops like corn or wheat, as well as most vegetables—all of which provide the bulk of the world’s calories—conventional agriculture outperformed organics by more than 25%.

In conclusion, today’s organic farming practices are probably best deployed in fruit and vegetable farms, where growing nutrition (not just bulk calories) is the primary goal. But for delivering sheer calories, especially in our staple crops of wheat, rice, maize, soybeans and so on, conventional farms have the advantage right now. Looking forward, I think we will need to deploy different kinds of practices (especially new, mixed approaches that take the best of organic and conventional farming systems) where they are best suited — geographically, economically, and socially.

THE COMPARISON OF SUSTAINABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL FARMS USING THE RISE MODEL

Beata FELEDYN-SZEWCZYK, Jerzy KOPIŃSKI

The RISE Model was used in this study of comparative sustainability (Response Inducing Sustainability Evaluation). After evaluations, the researchers found that the organic farm was the only farm type that was sustainable in accordance to the RISE methodology. Surprisingly, it attained all positive values for the 12 indicators used in the analysis, whereas the conventional farm had problems with managing fertilizers and maintaining biodiversity. Both of these values were negative.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TESTED FARMS

-The twelve indicators in the study were energy, water, soil, biodiversity, nitrogen and phosphorus emission potential, plant protection, waste, economic stability, economic efficiency, local economy, working conditions, and social security. Takes into account the environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainability.

Total possible points:

Ecological – 700

Economic – 300

Social – 200

-Categories are rated by importance in the RISE Model (Ecological has more than 3 times the possible points as social)

Evaluation of the sustainability of an organic farm

Evaluation of sustainability of a conventional farm

List of indicators determining the degree of the sustainability of farms by points

MODELING CARBON CYCLES AND ESTIMATION OF GREEHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS

Bjorn Kustermann*, Maximilian Kainz, and Kurt-Jurgen Hulsbergen

This source details the modeling software REPRO which analyzes carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) fluxes within environmental systems.  The system pairs these fluxes, along with energy fluxes, with target levels in order to approximate climate levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) sunks and sources respective to the agricultural systems.  The authors also calculated the overall greenhouse effect of each by calculating carbon sequestration within soil, methane emissions due to the raising of livestock, nitrous oxide emissions from soil, as well as carbon dioxide emissions from energy derived from fossil fuel use. From there they were able to convert these values into their carbon dioxide equivalents by using the respective global warming potential.

 This was then applied to a farm in Scheyern, Germany that has been experimenting with organic and conventional agricultural practices and systems since 1992. The organic farm there was multi-structured using legume-based crop rotation where as the conventional farm was a simple-structured system dependent on cash crops.  Both farming systems showed similar greenhouse gas emissions in accordance to fossil fuel use (through machinery use and fuel consumption). Though this was true of the southern Germany farm, the conventional system emitted over 600 kg CO2 eq per hectare per year than the organic system did.

The authors then applied their system to twenty eight more farms, ten of which were conventional and eighteen of which were organic, that had similar climate patterns and soil conditions. They hoped to rate the emissions due to different management systems of the various farms, though they only used emissions from cropping systems in order to make their results more cohesive.  Their analysis and results showed that organic farms possessed far lower nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions than the conventional farms due to lower inputs of energy and nitrogen.

 Their findings also showed a significantly large potential for the sequestration of carbon and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with organic farming.  The REPRO model is now used by over eighty different farms within Germany and aims to aid research in farm management practices.

Organic agriculture seemed to be favored by our sources. Even when emissions were higher — in the tropics — the carbon sequestering capability of organic agriculture offsets its emissions and pitfalls elsewhere. Carbon sequestration, and soil quality by extension, are suitable places to start not only for climate change mitigation, but climate change reductions. Other sources proved that where the bulk of the globe’s food is grown, emissions of greenhouse gases are significantly lower overall for organic egg farms. The conventional egg farms did have less emissions from dung, but the natural fertilizer was balanced within the organic system, and since emissions were at a reasonable level, the difference was negligible.

Furthermore, organic farming proves itself from a much more holistic approach and all-encompassing survey through the RISE model. Though conventional farming typically prides itself on the affordability of its products, organic farming was more or less equivalent in economic measures of efficiency and stability — and even was substantially better for the local economy. Because conventional farming cannot even support itself through means of more favorable working conditions or social security, the benefits of biodiversity, soil quality, and plant protection from organic outweigh conventional that much more.

It is imperative to not assume that just because the tropics and subtropics have more easily erodible soils that are less suitable for carbon sequestering, that we not allow subsistence farmers to grow crops there. Whether these lands must be certified organic, or allowed to continue their low-input methods is less critical, as the systems are more comparable than if conventional were favored by scientists there.

It is also myopic to assume that every crop or agricultural product must be grown organically, when there is such a disparity between yield differences from crop to crop. The stereotypically unsubsidized crops might be stabilized by the price premium of organic, which is less feasible for caloric, staple crops. While our research suggests that organic has positive effects, particularly economically and socially, some nuances are lost by the strict adherence to our emissions-only approach. If organic is to meet its full potential, restoring degraded lands and urban or vertical farming where suitable will best counteract it tendency for land expansion. Another aspect that will prevent further agricultural intensification is by remedying our systemic food waste dilemma to compensate for organic’s yield shortcomings.