Organic agriculture in relation to food security of developing countries

A study was conducted to investigate the differences in farm production, input use and farm income between organic and conventional systems in three regions (Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and Tamilnadu) of India. From each region, 40 organic and 40 conventional farmers were interviewed with semi structured questionnaire. The results showed that input costs were less in the organic system while either total farm yield or net margin was righter in the organic system in two of the three regions. In Tamilnadu specializing in rice production, rice yield was less under organic system while net margin did not differ signifcantly. In addition, the IFPRI-IMPACT model was used to fnd out the impact of large scale conversion to organic farming on food security of Sub-Saharan Africa. The model showed that large scale conversion to organic farming in Europe and North America will not have major impact on food security of Africa and large scale conversion in Sub-Saharan Africa will improve the local food security

Can organic farming help to reduce national energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gasses in Denmark?

Methods to investigate whether organic farming might help toreduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions areneeded. The aim of this study is for the first to present anupscaling procedure, where an existing farm level energyconsumption model, in combination with the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change’s guidelines, is used to calculateagricultural energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissionson the national level. Secondly, this procedure is used to simulatescenarios for conversion to organic farming in Denmark.Three scenarios for conversion to organic farming with thepresent crop yield and an expected improved future crop yieldare compared to the 1996-situation in Denmark, whereconventional farming dominates. In all scenarios, fossil energyuse and emissions of the three major agricultural greenhousegases carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are reduced.The highest reduction in the net energy use (49-51%) is found ina scenario (A) with 100% fodder self-sufficiency and reducedlivestock production, while the lowest reduction (10-16%) isfound in a scenario (C), with the same animal production as in1996. The average energy use per fodder unit in the organic cropproduction (1.4-1.5 MJ/fodder unit) and livestock production(18-24 MJ/livestock unit), was lower than in the 1996-situation(2.5 MJ/fodder unit, and 30 MJ/livestock unit). However, totalproduction was also lower in the organic scenarios, whichfurthermore had different compositions, with lower potentials forfuture bio-energy production

Can organic farming help to reduce N-losses? Experiences from Denmark

This study is in two parts. In the first part, nitrogen N)losses per unit of milk and meat in Danish conventional and organic pig and dairy farming were compared on the basis of farm data. In the second part, organic and conventional dairy farming were compared in detail, using modelling. N-surpluses at different livestock densities, fodder intensities, and soil types were simulated. Finally, simulated N-surpluses were used in national scenarios for conversion to organic dairy farming in Denmark. In Part one, pig farming was found to have a higher N-efficiency than dairy farming. Organic pig production had a lower N-efficiency and a higher N-surplus per kg meat than conventional pig production. The possibilities to reduce N-loss by conversion to organic pig production therefore appear to be poor. Organic dairy farming had a higher N-efficiency and a lower N-surplus per kg milk than conventional dairy farming. Conversion from conventional to organic dairy farming may therefore reduce N-losses. In Part two, a positive correlation between livestock density and N-surplus ha−1 was found for dairy farming. For all simulated livestock densities, fodder feeding intensities and soil types, organic systems showed a lower N-surplus per unit of milk produced than conventional systems. National scenarios for dairy farming showed that the present Danish milk production could be achieved with a 24% lower total N-surplus if converted from intensive conventional farming to extensive organic farming. At the same time, N-surplus ha−1 and N-surplus (tmilk) −1 would be lowered by 50% and 25%respectively. Changing from intensive to extensive conventional dairy farming with a livestock density equal to that in the organic scenario resulted in a reduction in N-surplus ha−1 of 15%. It was concluded that a reduction in total N-loss from agriculture is possible by converting from conventional to organic dairy farming but at the cost of either lower production on the present dairy farm area, or the current production on a substantially larger area

A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming

Knowledge about fossil energy use in agricultural systems is needed, because it can improve the understanding of how to reduce the unsustainable use of limited energy resources and the following greenhouse gas emissions. This study describes and validates a model to assess fossil energy use in Danish agriculture; gives an example of how the model can be used to compare organic and conventional farming; and discusses the implications and potentials of using the model to simulate energy use in scenarios of agricultural production. The model is a development of an existing model, which was too coarse to predict measured energy use on Danish farms. The model was validated at the field operational, thecroptype, and the national level, and can supplement the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change manual to quantify fossil energy use and subsequent carbon dioxide emissions from agriculture. The model can be used to model energy use as one indicator in a multi-criteria evaluation of sustainability, also including other agroecological and socio-economicindicators. As an example, energy use for eight conventional and organic crop types on loamy, sandy, and irrigated sandy soil was compared. The energy use was generally lower in the organic than in the conventionalsystem, but yields were also lower. Consequently, conventional crop production had the highest energy production, where as organic crop production had the highest energy efficiency. Generally, grain cereals such as wheat have a lower energy use per area than roughage crops such as beets. However, because of higher roughage crop yields per area, energy use per feed unit was higher in the roughage crops. Energy use for both conventional cattle and pig production was found to be higher than that for organic production. With respect to fossil energy use per produced livestock unit, agro-ecosystems producing pigs were in both cases less energy effective than those producing cattle. Fossil energy use for thre escenarios of conversion to organic farming with increasing fodder import was compared to current conventional farming in Denmark.The scenario with the highest fodder import showed the highest energy use per livestock unit produced. In all scenarios, the energy use per unit produced was lower than in the present situation. However, the total Danish crop production was also lower. In conclusion, the model can be used to simulate scenarios, which can add new information to the discussion of future, sustainable agricultural production

Issues of scale for environmental indicators

The value of environmental indicators largely depends upon the spatial and temporal scale that they represent. Environmental indicators are dependent upon data availability and also upon the scale for which statements are required. As these may not match, changes in scales may be necessary. In this paper a geostatistical approach to analyse quantitative environmental indicators has been used. Scales, defined in terms of resolution and procedures, are presented to translate data from one scale to another: upscaling to change from high resolution data towards a low resolution, and downscaling for the inverse process. The study is illustrated with three environmental indicators. The first concerns heavy metals in the environment, where the zinc content is used as the indicator. Initially, data were present at a 1km2 resolution, and were downscaled to 1m2 resolution. High resolution data collected later showed a reasonable correspondence with the downscaled data. Available covariates were also used. The second example is from the Rothamsted’s long-term experiments. Changes in scale are illustrated by simulating reduced data sets from the full data set on grass cuts. A simple regression model related the yield from these condcut to that of the first cut in the cropping season. Reducing data availability (upscaling) resulted in poor estimates of the regression coefficients. The final example is on nitrate surpluses on Danish farms. Data at the field level are upscaled to the farm level, and the dispersion variance indicates differences between different farms. Geostatistical methods were useful to define, change and determine the most appropriate scales for environmental variables in space and in time

Input output accounting systems in the European community - an appraisal of their usefulness in raising awareness of environmental problems

Input Output Accountingsystems (IOAs) can be used to identify farming practices which are not ‘environmentally neutral’ and thus unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. In an EU sponsored project, European countries were surveyed and over 50 farm level IOAs identified. The subjects covered by the IOAs included nutrients, pesticides, energy, soil/habitat, conservation, wastes (e.g.packagingandtyres)and other items such as veterinary products. Nearly half the IOAs covered more than one subject and nutrient budgets were the most commonly included(91% of the IOAs studied). Looking at the 30 single subject systems, most (26)were nutrients with only three pesticide and one energy based system. In total 50 systems covered nutrients. Overall, where specified, nutrient budgets covered nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)in 13 cases, N and P in 12 cases, N only in nine and P only in four cases. The most common indicators for nutrient budgets were calculation of a balance followed by nitrate leached. The method by which indicators were evaluated and presented to farmers varied. Farming sectors were not equally represented with systems for the arable, dairy and pig sectors the most common. Farmers received a detailed interpretation of their results in two thirds of the systems, most commonly related to official limits or targets. Most of the systems were developed to reduce adverse environmental impacts and 65%of the systems were considered by the respondents to have had a positive environmental impact by reducing surpluses or improving waste disposal. Use of five of the systems could lead to a marketing advantage via certified produce with a recognised quality label. Where factual evidence as to effectiveness was available, the benefits varied between subject types(nutrients, energyandpesticides) and between sectors. Farmers’ responses to the systems were generally positive and they appear to be a useful way of raising awareness of environmental problems. However, economic issues need to be considered, if the costs to the farmer outweigh the benefits, uptake will not be sustained. The type and nature of the interpretation is also important as the most successful IOAs interms of continued use and interest appeared to be those where there was regular technical input from an adviser. Overall IOAs could offer a useful tool for voluntary improvement in agri-environmental performance on topics that are not already strongly regulated. But more studies are needed to ensure that farmers in reality change their behaviour and to develop the use of reference values

Environmental impact of organic agriculture in temperate regions

Can organic agriculture elaborate a scientifically based, resource-efficien and agroecological approach to low-input farm management? This review examines the literature from temperate regions, with a particular emphasison Canadian and USstudies that relate to environmental and ecological impacts of organic agriculture with respect to (i )soil organic matter storage, (ii) soil quality/soil health, (iii) nutrient loading and risks of off-farm nutrient and agrochemical losses, (iv) biodiversity and (v) energy use and global warming potential. The context and implications of semi-arid conditions and low soil P levels, common to many organic farms in North America, and wide spread adoption of genetically engineered crops in conventional production, is also considered. The consensus of the data available to date indicates the distinctiveness of cropping, flora and habitat diversity, soil management regime, nutrient intensity and use efficiency and energy, and pesticide use in organic farming confer important environmental and ecological benefits. These include maintenance of soil organic matter and added return of carbon to soil, improved soil health, reduced off-farm nitrogen and phosphorus losses, enhanced vegetative and wildlife (bird) biological diversity, extended some times to other taxa depending on landscape context, improved support for pollinators and pollination and reduced energy use and improved energy efficiency. The continued evolution of organic agriculture to a more outcomes-based, agroe cological production system will require an expanded multi-disciplinary research effort, linked ideally to support from consumers and policy-makers on the basis of renewed under-standing of its potential contribution to global environmental sustainability

An LC inventory based on representative and coherent farm types

There is a need for valid and representative data regarding the production, resource use and emissions from typical farming systems in Denmark for analysis of the environmental impact of different systems and as input to product oriented analyses such as Life Cycle Assess-ments of basic food items. An inventory of 31 farm types was constructed on the basis of 2138 farm accounts from 1999 selected and weighted to be representative for the Danish farming sector. The farm accounts were grouped according to the major soil types, the num-ber of standard working hours, the most important enterprise (dairy, pig, different cash crops) and the stocking rate (livestock units per hectare). For each group the account data on the average inputs and outputs, land use and herd structure was used to establish a farm type model with coherency between livestock production, total feed use, land use, yields, im-ported feed, home-grown feed, manure production, fertiliser use and crop production. The set of farm types were scaled up to national level thus representing the whole Danish agricul-tural sector for the included products. The sum of area and yield by crop, number and pro-duction by livestock type and the use of fertiliser, energy and concentrated feed was checked against national level statistics and corrected accordingly across all farm types. Resource use and emissions in each farm type was established using standard nutrient concentrations and models for nutrient cycling, energy use and emissions of e.g. ammonia, nitrous oxides and methane. For LCA the product oriented inventory was established using system expan-sion rather than allocations to account for the secondary enterprises in the livestock farm types. Data are made available on a web-based database and may be used for analyses of the primary production systems or as input for LCA across the whole production chain

Study on Input/Output Accounting Systems on EU agricultural holdings

Of 241 questionnaires sent out to 20 countries 55 completed forms were returned. No information could be obtained about systems in Portugal or the USA. The subject of nutrients was covered by 91% of systems, pesticides 38%, energy 29% and other subjects including wastes 44%. Nearly half of the systems covered more than one subject, the most common single subject system was nutrients. The arable sector was covered most often by the systems (76%), with dairy (62%) and pig (56%) the most prominent of the livestock sectors. The respondents judged that 65% of systems were at least moderately effective in improving the ratio of inputs to outputs. The highest levels of ratio reduction tended to occur with systems which included the livestock sectors or protected horticultural crops. Over half (56%) of farmers had a good opinion of the system, indifferent or bad opinions were more likely to be due to effect on income than the type of system or who managed it. High uptake was more likely in compensated systems. Farm incomes in the arable and dairy sectors were most likely to be improved by systems, negative effects were most likely in the horticultural sector. Government was the main driving force in 38% of the systems, but government was not necessarily the driving force behind the 15% compulsory systems and only one of these was compensated. Increasing concern about environmental issues was the driving force behind development of each of the systems studied. In most cases a major part of the funding to develop the system or run pilot projects came from government. Benefits in terms of increased awareness of problem areas were identified by several systems originators. Anecdotal evidence suggests that farmers are encouraged to make actual changes to their management on the basis of the systems, if they receive detailed help from an adviser associated with the system, or if the system results in a marketing advantage. It seems likely that input output accounting systems could be used to increase awareness and provide evidence of the impact of management changes, they may need to be linked to supporting systems of technical advice. More than 40 IOA systems representing very different approaches have been developed and applied on farms in European countries with the aim of improving environmental performance. Major differences regard especially two characteristics: The no topics covered (single or multiple) and the way indicators are presented. In many systems the indicators used are presented as calculations of input related to output and are derived from accounts based data. Other systems present indicators that are transformed to a standard scale and often these indicators are based on a combination of practise and account data compared with norms for Good Agricultural Practices. Moreover, the systems differ in their origin and driving force: Only a few systems have been developed for mandatory use or for labelling and formal auditioning. Most systems have been developed for the use by advisory services on a voluntary basis. A number of very different systems seem to have been successful. Effectiveness is defined here as the combination of a system with high (potential) impact on the participating farmers in combination with high uptake in terms of the no of farmers willing to use the system. Generally documentation of effects and uptake is poor and more investigations into this are needed. It seems that many systems have not passed the pilot phase, even though some of them did get a positive evaluation by the farmers. In several examples the effort of researchers to develop a scientifically valid concept was not matched by efforts to secure the uptake by advisors or other institutions afterwards. The right institutional setting and political context seems to be more important than the character of the indicators used for the question of farmer uptake. But that does not mean that the choice of indicators is not important from another point of view. In none of the reviewed systems were the use of confidence intervals or variation coefficients an established part of the procedure. Only few reports exist that analyse the variation between farms or between years on specific farms in order to decide to which degree differences are due to systematically different management practices

A systems approach for assessing sustainability in livestock farms

The concept of sustainability is widely used in agriculture. There i, however, a large variability in the interpretation of the meaning of sustainability. The broad understanding in conjunction with the complexity of livestock farming calls for a systems approach. In this paper different interpretation of sustainable agriculture id described and discussed. It is concluded that sustainable agriculture has a major normative dimension and obviously has different meanings for different groups in society. Using sustainability in a system describing concept, one has to be very aware of the normative dimension. With a starting point in farm models previously described in this journal a model is introduced where the farm is shown in the centre and put into perspective with other groups in the whole society. The other group represents different perceptions of sustainable agriculture. These perceptions might be in conflict with each other and/or with the observed farm. The idea is then to analyse and forecast in which direction the dominant perception of sustainability will be moving. It is suggested that this can be analysed be means of the discourse concept, which come from social science. A key point in the model is that the farm is considered as a learning human activity system where the farmer reconsiders or reflects his current management in the light of the change in society. In Denmark the dominant perception of agricultural sustainability has changed towards the environmental issues during the last 20 years. As a consequence of this change different indicators have been developed for the purpose of describing and stimulating self reflection concerning environmental issues at farm level. These environmental indicators are presented and discussed through examples. Finally, an approach including a variety of productions systems (i.e. both conventional and organic farming systems) in conjunction with researchers from a variety of disciplines is described