How Organic Farming Can Help Save the Planet
Fighting climate change, producing sustainable yields, eliminating environmental toxins, bringing back biodiversity and much more.
By Kat Schuett
Our planet needs a hero.
Recent studies, facts and figures don’t paint a pretty picture for the planet’s future.
It’s Getting Hotter. According to a study released by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in May of 2009, without rapid and massive action, global warming will be about twice as severe as it was estimated to be six years ago. New research indicates a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90 percent probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. Compare this to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees.
?We’re Losing Ground. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) states that accelerated land degradation threatens the food security of a quarter of the world’s population; an estimated 1.5 billion people depend directly on land that is degrading rapidly. Already, “desertification,” the degradation of once arable lands into desert, has affected 33 percent of the global land surface. At this point, only about 3 percent of the global land surface can be considered as prime or Class I land, and only 8 percent can be considered Class II or III, states a report from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. This 11 percent of land must feed the six billion people today and the 7.6 billion
expected in 2020.
We Are Poisoning the Environment and Ourselves. Annually, over 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to crops, forests, residential areas, public lands and aquatic areas in the United States alone. Our soil, water and air are becoming more and more saturated with poisons, wreaking havoc on the natural habitat and development of many animal species, including the human species. Frogs are turning into hermaphrodites. Bee colonies are disappearing at alarming rates. Marine life is fighting for oxygen, suffocating from algae created by excess chemical fertilizers.
The sky may seem like it is indeed starting to fall. But we are not doomed. There is a hero who can save us: the organic farmer.
Organic farming, if practiced on all the world’s 3.5 billion tillable acres, could mitigate up to 40 percent of all carbon.
Organic farming can rebuild the soil life web, creating a healthy foundation for sustainable yields that can feed the world and provide economic security.
Organic farming can significantly reduce pollution and toxins in the environment, protecting all species from disease.
Organic farming can help save the planet.
Organic Agriculture: The Overlooked Answer to Climate Change
In 1997, when the United Nations’ (UN) Kyoto Protocol was launched to address the growing problem of climate change, agriculture was viewed as part of the problem and virtually ignored as a solution. According to data from the U.S. government, conventional chemical-based agriculture contributes nearly 20 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. On a global scale, figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say that agricultural land use is responsible for 13.5 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A problem indeed. Furthermore, without action to improve soil carbon levels, depleted soil carbon (organic matter) will exacerbate the most serious impacts of climate change that face societies and threaten future food security: flooding, drought and water shortages.
When agriculture fails to respect nature, it can truly be a detriment to the planet. However, when agriculture is based on organic methods, it can turn agriculture from a problem into a solution. According to the IPCC, almost 90 percent of the GHG mitigation potential of global agriculture now resides in improving soil carbon levels. Organic farming is by far the most effective way to do this.
When compared to other major land use operations that mitigate carbon, soil sequestration has tremendous potential. According to UK’s Soil Association, it has been estimated that a global forestation program would take over 20 years just to offset the emissions from the establishment of the plantations before positive carbon sequestration starts. On the other hand, the Association says, “Soil carbon sequestration provides a rapid and timely GHG mitigation ‘win’ for climate policy targets since carbon sequestration starts as soon as the positive practices are adopted and about half of the total amount that will be sequestered occurs within the first 20 years. This is critical as drastic GHG reductions are required within the next two decades. Soil carbon sequestration still continues thereafter for a hundred years or more.”
While organic agriculture was not considered as an option to mitigate carbon when the Kyoto Protocol was written, many studies have come out since then demonstrating that it’s an essential step in dealing with climate change. In November 2009, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the Round Table on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change (RTOACC) was formed to bring together the evidence needed to prove to the UN that organic farming should be considered a viable way to diminish global warming and help farmers around the globe adapt to climate change. Members of this group include the Rodale Institute, the Soil Association, the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), and many others. Already, four European countries, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, are considering changing their emission-reduction targets for the Kyoto Protocol to include contributions from organic agriculture policy based on the Rodale Institute’s research alone. But, there is still much work to be done. Part of RTOACC’s goal is to develop measurement and verification systems that would enable organic farmers to earn carbon credits for GHGs sequestered. At the very least, the group hopes to have organic farming recognized by governments as an official carbon mitigation method so that organic farmers can have access to subsidies that other “green” businesses are garnering.
Organic Soil: The Foundation of Sustainability. While those in the organic movement have always had a reverence for the soil, its true power is just now starting to be fully understood. Soil is a major store of carbon, containing twice as much carbon as terrestrial vegetation, three times as much carbon as the atmosphere itself and five times as much as forests. About 60 percent of this is in the form of organic matter in the soil.
Many studies now indicate that integrated organic practices can dramatically alter the carbon storage of arable lands by building soil organic matter, which contains stable carbon-holding compounds. Because soil organic matter is made of carbon, increases in these levels will be directly correlated with carbon sequestration. While conventional farming practices that use synthetic inputs typically deplete soil organic matter, organic farming practices work to build it.
The Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST)—one of the world’s longest running side-by-side comparisons of organic and conventional farming—looked at 30 years of soil carbon data from integrated organic systems and was the first to announce to the world the carbon-holding potential of organic soil. Although the amount of carbon sequestered varies depending on the climate and the types of organic methods used, Rodale stated that its research verified that organic agriculture, if practiced on the planet’s 3.5 billion tillable acres, could sequester 40 percent of current CO2 emissions. In the United States alone, if we were to just convert the existing acreage to organic, we could mitigate up to 25 percent of emissions.
The Organic Difference. Rodale’s studies of organic systems have shown an increase of almost 30 percent in soil carbon over 27 years. Meanwhile, the conventional chemical system showed no significant increase in soil carbon in the same time period and some studies have shown that these systems, in fact, may lose carbon. Why is this? One of Rodale’s most significant findings was the high correlation between increased soil carbon levels and very high accounts of mycorrhizal fungi in organic soil. Although it’s estimated that a single gram of soil can contain up to several billion microorganisms, these fungi in particular play a key role because they produce a potent glue-like substance called “glomalin,” which helps aggregate soil into compounds, creating a secure holding place for carbon and essentially trapping it in the soil.
It’s All in the Method. While conventional farming kills microrganisms and leaves the soil fragile, organic farmers use several techniques to feed microrganisms and build soil. Tim LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, calls this “regenerative organic farming.”
“Regenerative organic farming is not just about avoiding pesticides,” he says. “It’s about building the soil.” The most effective methods are animal manure fertilization, planting cover crops, planting grass and clover into the rotations as feedstuff for livestock and diversifying the crop sequences, as well as reducing plowing depth and frequency (no-till or min-till). These techniques also increase carbon sequestration rates on organic fields.
Plowing, a method often used by organic and conventional farmers to control weeds, has been criticized by some because it releases some stored carbon. Conventional chemical companies are trying to convince the UN that because their chemical herbicides allow them to kill weeds without tilling, their methods should be part of the Kyoto Protocol—however, the math for that argument just doesn’t add up. When compared with no-till conventional farming, the Rodale FST showed that organic tillage farming combined with cover cropping and crop rotation still has three to 10 times the sustained carbon gain—sequestering around 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre per year. When the same integrated organic system was combined with no-till methods, the results were even higher, enhancing creation of soil organic carbon by three- to seven-fold. Rodale’s long-term FST also shows that composting allows for much greater accumulation of carbon in soil, up to 2,000 pounds per acre, an equivalent of 3.5 tons of carbon dioxide per acre. In stark contrast, the conventional, chemical-based tillage farming showed no significant amounts of carbon deposited.
In addition to sequestering carbon by building soil, the Rodale FST shows a 33-percent reduction in fossil-fuel use for organic corn/soybean farming systems that use cover crops or compost instead of chemical fertilizers. Furthermore, the organic rotational no-till system developed by the Rodale Institute can reduce the fossil fuel needed to produce each no-till crop in the rotation by up to 75 percent compared to standard-tilled organic crops.
Besides Rodale’s, there are several other studies that show the advantages of organic agriculture in sequestering carbon. In the Soil Association’s recent report, Soil Carbon and Organic Farming, which compares over 39 studies, the Association conservativly stated that on average, organic farming could offset at least 23 percent of UKs agriculture GHG emissions and 11 percent of the world’s emissions. These numbers are lower than Rodale’s because the Association took different land mass and practices into consideration. However, the numbers are still powerful, and similar to Rodale’s U.S. study, they found that in the UK organic farming produces 28 percent higher soil carbon levels than non-organic farming.
The Soil Association’s research also highlights the importance of grass-fed livestock in climate change. “According to a recent European Commission report, grasslands have the potential to sequester large amounts of carbon on an ongoing basis,” the report states. “In the UK, the potential sequestration has been calculated to be 670kgC/ha/year, which, if true, would offset all the methane emissions of beef cattle.” They also pointed out that the trend in conventional to move from grass to grain-fed livestock systems means grassland that was once used to sequester high amounts of carbon, is now being converted to low-carbon arable land to grow grains to support the livestock sector.
In a review written for the UN, Urs Niggli, director of FiBL, compared the findings of four long-running studies, including those from Rodale and the Soil Association, and concluded that although the other studies did not have numbers as high as Rodale’s, that on average the findings showed that “a conversion of current global agriculture to organic farming would reduce the GHG emissions of the agricultural sector considerably and make agriculture almost GHG neutral.”
“Although the studies vary and take into account different elements, science shows in numerous studies that organic farming can sequester significantly more carbon than conventional farming,” Niggli says. “Even if we didn’t get to Rodale’s estimated 40 percent—if were only able to sequester 10 to 20 percent of the world’s carbon—we would already be tremendously successful in making an impact on global warming.”
LaSalle of Rodale agrees, “No matter what, right now there is enough research saying that we can mitigate a huge amount of carbon in the soil through organic agriculture, so let’s get to work and start putting governmental policies into effect that support change.”
Eliminating Excess Nitrogen from Air and Water
Although nitrogen is not discussed nearly as much as carbon, nitrous oxide is actually a much more prevalent GHG and 296 times more potent than CO2. Conventional agriculture’s overuse of fertilizers overloads the soil with high levels of reactive nitrogen (NH4, NO3), and part of this excess ends up in the air as nitrous oxide emissions. Current estimates for annual emissions from agriculture range from 2 to 4 million tons of nitrous oxide globally.
The rest of the excess nitrogen either leaches down into groundwater or runs off into the surface water system, causing weeds to take over ponds, reservoirs and lakes, and choke out wildlife. Mass amounts of nitrogen are also the main cause of the “dead zones” in coastal estuaries, where the fertilizer causes algae to grow uncontrollably, resulting in “hypoxia,” which depletes oxygen from the water and literally suffocates marine life. On a global basis this is estimated to exceed $90 billion in cleanup costs.
Despite the millions of dollars spent over the past 25 years to help farmers reduce agricultural nutrient losses to the East Coast’s Chesapeake Bay, roughly 300 millions pounds of nitrogen (39 percent from agricultural sources) still reaches the bay annually. And the problem is global. According to Science, agricultural runoff from nitrogen fertilizers and the burning of fossil fuels have boosted the reactive nitrogen in the open oceans 50 percent above the normal range, and “this can deplete essential oxygen levels in the water and have significant effects on climate, food production, and ecosystems all over the world.”
In a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Quality, data from Morrow Plots, America’s oldest experiment field, showed that nitrogen fertilizer inputs ranging from 1.8 to 5.6 tons per acre over 51 years provided at least 60 percent more nitrogen than the corn was able to absorb, yet there was a net decline of 624 to 1606 pounds per acre in total soil nitrogen. This highlights two issues. First, it points out how much excess nitrogen is escaping into our waterways and the atmosphere. Second, it illustrates that chemical fertilizers do nothing to build soil, as many in the conventional world have believed. Instead, conventional farmers just have to keep using more and more nitrogen fertilizer and more and more ends up polluting our environment. It must stop.
On the other hand, in integrated organic systems, nitrogen from cover crops and compost is used efficiently or stored securely. According to Chuck Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, “In an organic farming system, there are lower levels of nitrogen in the soil and plants work harder to scavenge for nitrogen, directly resulting in less loss of nitrogen to the air and water. Because of this, a growing coalition of hydrologists, water quality experts, and conservation leaders are advocating for organic and sustainable farming throughout the major river basins flowing into the Mississippi, as well as in the major farming regions along the river itself.”
Besides plants being more efficient at taking up nitrogen in organic systems, healthy soil aggregates in organic systems tend hold onto any excess nitrogen, keeping nitrogen cycling within the soil and cropping systems, and out of the water and atmosphere.
Challenges in Fighting Climate Change
Although science has proven that organic agriculture can play an important role in fighting climate change, the U.S. government still fails to recognize or reward organic farmers in climate legislation. For example, Benbrook of the Organic Center points out that the current American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act rewards many other methods—from clean coal and high-speed trains, to cap-and-trade programs—but doesn’t include organic agriculture. Recently he wrote, “At this point, the ACES bill dances around, or just flat out ignores, some of the most promising farming system changes, if the goal is to cost-effectively reduce net agricultural GHG emissions. These options include adoption of organic farming systems, reinventing the nitrogen cycle on corn farms, shifting beef cattle from the feedlot back onto well-managed pastures, reducing per capita consumption of beef, and adoption of water--saving irrigation system technology, especially drip systems.”
Even worse, this bill actually includes a loophole—the “energy-intensive, trade-exposed entities” (EITE) provision—which stands to significantly benefit nitrogen fertilizer companies. Speculating that the ACES Act would increase U.S. gas prices, this provision was included to protect U.S.-based industries in the near-term (2010 through 2025) from an influx of imports from countries not impacted by these energy-price-driven increases. Because nitrogen fertilizer is a fossil-fuel-based product, they will be by far the major agricultural beneficiary of this provision, and will receive what amounts to nearly one-half billion dollars in annual subsidies.
Benbrook also cited a recent study from the University of Tennessee’s Bio-Based Energy Analysis Group, which looked at how several proposed energy/climate change policy scenarios might impact land use. The study predicts that these new policies, which increase the demand for bioenergy feedstocks—and reward farmers via subsidies for growing these—will likely shift land use to dedicated energy crop acreage and cause significant decreases in pasture conversion for grass-fed livestock.
According to Benbrook, this will not only make it more expensive for organic dairy and beef farmers to feed their animals, but it also fails to logically weigh the impact of this land shift in regard to environmental gains. “If an organic farmer is managing grassland through an intensive rotational grazing system, they are already optimally sequestering carbon compared to any imaginable system and they should be getting rewarded for this,” he comments. “The key is for the organic community to be at the table when these programs and incentives get shaped to ensure that organic is included in the discussion. If not, all these governmental subsidies will draw land away from organic livestock for uses that sequester less carbon, and we all lose—the organic farmer, the taxpayer and the environment.”
Yes, Organic Can Feed the World—and Do it Sustainably
Organic soil has many other benefits that go far beyond sequestering GHG emissions. The carbon-rich organic matter creates a stronger, healthier soil that helps conserve water and support healthier plants that are more resistant to pests and diseases and more resilient during droughts and floods. In Rodale’s study, researchers found that during times of drought, organically-grown corn and soybeans outperform conventional crops by 30 percent and 50 to 100 percent respectively. Additionally, water capture in organic fields can be 100 percent higher than in conventional fields during torrential rains. As we face climate change, these agricultural traits can help improve climate adaptation by reducing the risks and impacts of water shortages and unpredictable weather—protecting vulnerable agricultural land in semi-arid areas from desertification and improving global food and water security.
Already, 1.9 billion hectares throughout the world are significantly degraded, according to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), an intergovernmental process supported by over 400 experts under the cosponsorship of groups such as FAO and the World Heath Organizaton (WHO). In many third-world countries soils are less fertile, erosion has greatly increased, and breakdowns in agro-ecological functions have resulted in poor crop yields, land abandonment and deforestation. On top of this, more and more people are hungry. The most recent estimate, released in October 2009 by FAO, says that 1.02 billion people are undernourished, a sizable increase from FAOs 2006 estimate of 854 million people.
Organic agriculture is the answer to both heal the land and feed the world. In fact, according to a 2009 report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), organic farming may be the only way we can solve the growing problem of hunger in developing countries. UNEP states that its extensive study “challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity.”
As discussed in The Organic Green Revolution, one of the most recent reports from Rodale, “The UNEP reported that organic practices in Africa outperformed industrial, chemical-intensive conventional farming, and also provided environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. This analysis of 114 farming projects in 24 African countries found that organic or near-organic practices resulted in a yield increase of more than 100 percent. Achim Steiner, head of UNEP, said the report “indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world may be far higher than many had supposed.”
Similar conclusions were reached by IAASTD. The IAASTD stated in a recent report that “the way the world grows its food will have to change radically to better serve the poor and hungry if the world is to cope with growing population and climate change while avoiding social breakdown and environmental collapse.” The authors suggested that food producers should try using “natural processes” like crop rotation and organic fertilizers and call for more attention to small-scale farmers and utilization of sustainable agricultural practices, specifically mentioning organic farming as an option several times, according to the Rodale report.
The report also highlights several other findings that prove organic agriculture’s ability to feed the world, including:
• In a large-scale examination of yield data from 286 farms in 57 countries, researchers found that small farmers increased their yields by an average of 79 percent by using environmentally sustainable techniques including organic farming and crop rotation.
• Another study of agriculture in the developing world showed that organic methods were two to three times more productive than conventional with added crop rotations. Researchers concluded that organic farming can produce enough food to feed the world without increasing the land base.
• An eight-year comparison study of organic and conventional fruit and vegetable production conducted by the U.C. Davis Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems project showed that yields from organic systems were comparable to or better than yields from conventional, fossil-fuel based systems.
• An evaluation of research from seven major state universities, the Rodale Institute, and the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, shows that in a total of 154 growing seasons, organically produced crops yielded 95 percent as much as crops grown under conventional high-input conditions.
LaSalle of the Rodale Institute also points to a story of an organic corn farmer in Minnesota who had told him that he and several other organic farmers were yielding the same, if not more than the conventional leaders in the state, clearing over 200 bushels per acre.
“In the United States, with many organic crops you can hit close to the same numbers as conventional, and sometimes higher. In other countries, yields for organic are actually much higher. And as we build the soil and have more research, these numbers will get even better,” La Salle says.
“Yield data just by itself makes the case for a focused and persistent move to regenerative organic farming systems,” he adds. “When we also consider that organic systems are building the health of the soil, sequestering CO2, cleaning up the waterways, and returning more economic yield to the farmer, the argument for organic becomes overwhelming.”
Saving Animal Species and Ourselves
In addition to future water shortages and drought brought on by climate change, we also have come to a point where much of the water that we do have is polluted. Toxic pesticides from chemical agriculture are being found in our ground water, and ultimately ending up in our drinking water. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, ground water is used for drinking water by about 50 percent of the nation’s population, with 95 percent of these people living in agricultural areas where pesticides are used. In the past it was thought that soil acted as a protective filter that stopped pesticides from reaching ground water. Studies have now shown that this is not the case. Pesticides can reach aquifers below ground from applications onto crop fields, seepage of contaminated surface water, accidental spills and leaks, and improper disposal. Organic agriculture is an essential step to minimize the amount of persistent, toxic chemicals in our water supply.
Mutant Frogs: A Sign of an Environment Gone Wrong. In September 2009, a study published in Environmental Perspectives drew attention to the seriousness of this matter by directly linking the widely used pesticide atrazine, which has been regularly detected in drinking water, to several sub-lethal developmental defects in fish and amphibians. This study, conducted by the University of South Florida and funded by the National Science Foundation, the USDA and the U.S. EPA, found that in practically all the cases studied atrazine significantly reduces immune function, increases risk of infection, alters spermatogenesis and sex hormones, and causes “gonadal morphology”—or in laymen’s terms, it chemically castrates and feminizes wildlife. In the conclusion of the study, researchers state: “Although there is much left to learn about the effects of atrazine, we identified several consistent effects of atrazine that must be weighed against any of its benefits and the costs and benefits of alternatives to atrazine use.”
Research has also shown that atrazine leads to breast and prostate cancer, retards mammary development, and induces abortion in laboratory rodents, according to Dr. Tyrone Hayes, a lead amphibian endocrinologist and professor at U.C. Berkley who has published more than 40 papers and over 150 abstracts on this issue. He adds, “Studies in human populations and cell and tissue studies suggest that atrazine poses similar threats to humans.” He explains that the atrazine-tainted water in which frogs develop acts like the amniotic fluid that humans develop in. This is scary considering that many studies have actually found atrazine in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women.
Ironically, back in 1997, Hayes actually conducted research for Syngenta (then Novartis), the company that makes atrazine, but after having the company essentially ban him from presenting his findings, he resigned and published his work with independent funding.
In a posting on the Facebook page for “Global Citizens Against Atrazine,” Hayes encourages members to sign a petition asking the EPA to ban the pesticide, saying, “It is incumbent upon us to become involved in the regulatory process regarding atrazine. We (the public) must play an active role in this regulatory decision.” So far the use of atrazine has been discontinued in the EU, including Switzerland, the home base for Syngenta. However, due to the company’s lobbying efforts in D.C., atrazine is still allowed by the EPA and over 77 million pounds are applied to crops in the U.S. every year.
A Real Buzz-Kill. In 2006, for unknown reasons, honey bee colonies suddenly began to die across the U.S. In recent years, this phenomenon— called colony collapse disorder (CCD)—has been linked more and more to pesticide exposure, in particular the nicotinyl insecticides, imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam and acetamiprid. In terms of bees, nicotinyls are the most acutely toxic pesticides ever registered. They are known to cause chronic and sublethal effects in bees at doses in the low low parts-per-billion, or even parts-per-trillion range. Virtually all conventional corn seed, most soybeans, and the seeds of dozens of other crops are now treated with a nicotinyl insecticide. Neurobehavioral problems in bees have been reported from exposures to imidacloprid and other nicotinyls. The finding of neurobehavioral disruption is significant given that a hallmark of CCD is that adult foraging bees fly away from the hive but cannot find, or make their way back.
Recently the Organic Center reported an important breakthrough. In Europe, researchers have discovered a new exposure pathway through which bees are ingesting nicotinyl insecticides in virtually all intensively farmed regions—the honey bee’s drinking water. In this study, published in October 2009, it was found that bees drink water in the form of guttation drops, which are emitted from plants in the morning throughout the growing season. Guttation drops come from inside plant cells, and can carry with them natural or man-made chemicals that are present in plant cells, such as residues of systemic pesticides. The latest results from European research found 20 parts per billion of nicotinyl insecticides in guttation droplets, almost certainly enough to deliver a dangerous dose to nearby bees. In many cases this exposure will prove deadly.
The fact is that we’ve already lost over a third of the total honey bee population in the U.S., and each year we are losing nearly 8 percent more. That spells big trouble for agriculture, which relies on honey bees to produce roughly one third of the food we consume. We are so dependant on honeybees that Albert Einstein estimated, “If honey bees become extinct, human society will follow in four years.” Scientists are predicting that honeybees will be extinct in the U.S. by 2035.
Organic: The Answer to Restoring Balance and Biodiversity In Nature
While conventional, chemical-based agriculture eliminates biodiversity, destroys habitats and endangers wildlife, regenerative organic farming depends on biodiversity and seeks to create a harmonious coexistance between nature and agriculture.
This is exactly the mission of the Green Cane project at the São Francisco Sugar Mill, an organic sugar “eco-farm” in Brazil. On its 79 square kilometers of integrated, organically managed land, the biodiversity is six times higher than on conventional farms in the same area—hosting over 247 types of wildlife, including 191 species of birds. To achieve this they planted over a million trees, interweaving wildlife corridors and water sources between their organic, biodynamic sugar cane crops.
Biodiversity on the Ground Level. The soil at São Francisco’s eco-farm is also rich in biodiversity. Through integrated organic methods such as cover crops, crop rotation and fertilizer made from its own waste they have built the soil to a point where they have been able to bring back beneficial fungi and insects that had not been seen in the agricultural areas around their farms in years. Then they worked to breed these insects and microorganisms so they could release more into the environment.
In addition, rather than burning the sugar fields prior to harvest, as is traditionally done, they developed a special machine to harvest the cane and simultaneously mulch the waste, adding even more nutrients to their soil. This specialized machine even has tires that are designed to inflate when on the land to keep from compacting the soil.
While São Francisco goes beyond what the organic standards call for, the project is a shining example of the organic philosophy and shows the impact that can be made when agriculture truly works in harmony with nature. This should ultimately be the goal of every organic farmer.
What is the Next Step?
From sequestering GHGs and feeding the world to building soil and protecting biodiversity, organic agriculture without a doubt is a much better system for the health of our planet and every species that lives on the planet. In fact, it is a critical step in creating a sustainable future, period. But in order for organic farming to truly save the world, we have to get the word out, and we have to get it out now. It’s time to raise consciousness to a level that starts a revolution.
We must work to get consumers, politicians, businesses around the world to work with us to create change. We need to recruit more organic farmers and in order to do that, we must demand a support system from the government that rewards farmers for their heroism. Working together, we have the power to save the planet, one scoop of organic soil at a time.
Kat Schuett is the editorial director of Organic Processing Magazine. She can be reached at kat@organicprocessing.com.
