Conventional farming

Conventional farming, also known as traditional farming or industrial agriculture, refers to farming systems which include the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other continual inputs, genetically modified organisms, concentrated animal feeding operation]s, heavy irrigation, intensive tillage, or concentrated monoculture production. Thus conventional agriculture is typically highly resource-demanding and energy-intensive, but also highly productive. Despite its name, conventional agricultural methods have only been in development since the late Nineteenth Century, and did not become widespread until after World War 2 (see: Wikipedia:Green Revolution.

Conventional farming is usually contrasted to organic farming (or sometimes sustainable agriculture or permaculture), as these respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.^[1] Rather than using synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators and livestock feed additives, organic farming systems rely on crop rotation, animal and plant manures as fertilizers, some hand weeding and biological pest control.^[2] Some conventional agriculture operations may include limited polyculture, or some form of Integrated Pest Management. (See: Industrial organic agriculture).

Conventional versus organic farming

Advantages and disadvantages

Any newly developed technology will have positive and negative consequences. If we analyze the positive and negative aspects of the way that we produce food, perhaps we will be able to improve upon the good things, and reduce the negative impacts. With conventional farming it is possible to produce much larger quantities of food, on less land and with less manual labor than ever before in history.

With rising food costs and millions of people starving all over the world, it seems like we have a moral obligation to use conventional methods to produce large amounts of food at affordable prices. However, because many of the effects of conventional farming are unknown, and because of how many of the effects may be irreversible and harmful, it may be safer to stick to what we have been doing for hundreds of years. It may be considered irresponsible to continue using pesticides, irradiation and GMO's when we really don't know what the side effects are.

Ecology

There is a common perception that organic farming is more ecologically sustainable than conventional farming. As a result of industrial farming conditions, today's mounting environmental stresses are further exacerbated, including:

• Water pollution, including fertilizer runoff causing eutrophication
• Chemical leaching^W

There are many factors in how sustainable farming practices are, besides use of artificial chemicals. E.g.:

• Land degradation^W
  • Erosion
  • Soil compaction
• Transport used - not just distance, but the type of transport.
• Water usage (including declining water table^Ws)
• Loss in biodiversity^[3]

Human health

Organic foods are usually assumed to be healthier than conventionally-produced foods. Hundreds of studies have attempted to assess the whether conventionally-produced foods have different health effects from organically produced ones. In the last few years a few meta-studies have drawn differing conclusions based on those earlier studies. One meta-study of 237 studies conducted at Stanford concludes that "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.".^[4] Another meta-study lead by researchers at Newcastle University based on 343 earlier studies found that conventionally-produced crops contained 18-69% less antioxidants, were four times as likely to contain pesticide residues, and had, on average 48% higher concentrations of heavy metals (including cadmium) than organically-produced crops.^[5]

Potential conflicts of interest have been identified in both of these cases, as the institutions involved with these studies have received funding from agriculture business interests in both the conventional and organic sectors.

Many supporters of organic agriculture rely on personal experiences and beliefs when choosing organic over conventionally produced food. "Although, as scientists, we may deplore the fact that people are swayed by non-scientific views, the fact is that a lot of them are. Despite the arguments presented by Trewavas, many people believe that organic production systems produce better food, care more for animal welfare and are kinder to the environment,".^[6]

Yield

It is generally recognized that conventional farming produces a higher amount of food than organic. One meta-study found organic yields to be on average 80% that of conventional, but "the organic yield gap significantly differed between crop groups and regions.".^[7] Another meta-analysis concluded that, "organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable)."^[8]

Modern farmland is claimed to produce 200 percent more wheat than the same area did 70 years ago. Hence switching to organic farming would lead to a reduction in output, e.g. by 20% for corn.^[9] The figure is plausible, but we need more than one unattributed figure.^[10]

Biodiversity

Several studies have compared the local biodiversity of conventional and organic systems. A meta-study at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences concluded,

"Organic farming usually increases species richness, having on average 30% higher species richness than conventional farming systems. However, the results were variable among studies, and 16% of them actually showed a negative effect of organic farming on species richness. [...] Birds, insects, and plants usually showed an increased species richness in organic farming systems. However, the number of studies was low in most organism groups (range 2–19) and there was significant heterogeneity between studies. [...] On average, organisms were 50% more abundant in organic farming systems, but the results were highly variable between studies and organism groups. Birds, predatory insects, soil organisms and plants responded positively to organic farming, while non-predatory insects and pests did not. The positive effects of organic farming on abundance were prominent at the plot and field scales, but not for farms in matched landscapes.^[11]

A study at the University of Bristol comparing 10 conventional and 10 organic agricultural landscapes found that although the organic farms had a greater amount of non-cultivated or "semi-natural" areas, they did not have higher biodiversity in those spaces. However, there was greater biodiversity in the organic farms' arable fields.^[12]

There is a common concern that links yield (see above) and biodiversity. The assumption is that if organic agriculture has lower yields, this will increase the need for more areas under cultivation, and hence have a negative impact on region- or world-wide biodiversity. It is unclear whether any studies have been done to test this assumption.

Social and economic aspects

A study regarding agricultural knowledge distribution from Cardiff University found that, "the conventional food chain [...] tends to distribute knowledge towards input suppliers, and the organic food supply chain [...] distributes knowledge back towards the farm," due to their differing economic features.^[13]

Pesticides

Fertilizers

Fuentes de nitrógeno

Borlaug dijo: ^[10]

Incluso si pudieras usar todo el material orgánico que tienes (el estiércol animal, los desechos humanos, los residuos vegetales) y devolverlos al suelo, no podrías alimentar a más de 4 mil millones de personas (y) lo harías. hay que aumentar drásticamente la superficie de cultivo...

En la actualidad, se utilizan aproximadamente 80 millones de toneladas de nutrientes nitrogenados cada año. Si intentara producir este nitrógeno orgánicamente, necesitaría 5 o 6 mil millones de cabezas de ganado adicionales para suministrar el estiércol.

Esto parece no considerar el impacto de la fijación de nitrógeno , ^por ejemplo, por cultivos de leguminosas . (Este es otro argumento para que el vegetarianismo y el veganismo sean más ecológicos: vacas que producen menos metano y más cultivos de leguminosas para reemplazarlas, que también producirán nitrógeno).

Actualmente, se desechan enormes cantidades de nutrientes en nuestras aguas residuales . A través del humabono esto se puede salvar, pero puede no ser adecuado para muchos cultivos alimentarios, especialmente donde la comida está cerca del suelo.

transgénicos

Referencias