What is the real productivity of organic farming systems?
David J. Connor
Abstract
The impact of current calls for transformation of agriculture away from reliance on agrochemical inputs (conventional agriculture) to natural processes (organic agriculture) is gaining strength because the limited productivity of agriculture transformed in this way is unappreciated and/or ignored. Of course, it is possible to produce high yields of individual crops adequately fertilized organically or chemically, but organic fertilizers require land set aside for biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) by legumes to provide the key macronutrient nitrogen (N) on which organic production relies. The consequence is more area to produce the same amount of food and expansion of agriculture can only be done at the expense of land allocated to nature, presently in critically short supply. The current clamour to reduce animal production and eat less meat will impact negatively on the productivity of organic crops. An analysis of the productivity of organic farms reveals, using the common metric of human food energy, that equal production requires 2–3 times the land area of conventional farms. This was well established before the current post-truth era and, if not reincluded in planning, will lead to both more hunger and less land allocated to natural biodiversity and conservation. The ‘transformationists’ avoid scientific scrutiny by publishing in colourful promotional literature rather than in peer-reviewed journals. More attention is needed in the debate to bring two currently separated spheres of publication together and to include ‘land-use efficiency’, the output per unit land area, in this case human food, from an increasingly scarce resource.