May 09, 2012

PREVIOUS POST
Where yields fall short: in measuring sustainability (a response to @MarcGunther) When measuring the productivity of farming, yield -- or output per acre of land -- is the metric that is often trotted out. And when this measure is used, organic farming usually falls short since it can’t match the yields of conventional agriculture. From there, it’s a short jump to conclude, as my friend Marc Gunther does, that organic methods will take more land to produce an equivalent amount of food, especially when population is increasing. The upshot, “organic food is not as green as you think.” The problem with this argument is not that the yield calculations are wrong. The problem is that yield studies are inappropriate by themselves in measuring what’s “sustainable,” in determining what might “feed the world,” and which methods actually end up using more land in a particular situation. That’s because farming does not occur in a vacuum where yield is the sole measure of success. Consider that the conventional farming methods that achieve higher yield require costly fossil fuel inputs in fertilizers and pesticides (the environmental impacts of which fall outside of yield studies), that they require highly mechanized tools that replace labor, and may rely on intensive irrigation from increasingly scarce water resources. Measured against the methods in most of the world -- 80% of the world’s workers are still farmers -- I have no doubt that the highly intensive model would produce a higher yield. But are those methods available or even appropriate to farmers in areas where food is most scarce...

Sam Fromartz

Writer, Journalist focusing on food, environment and bread

Luisa
Ruth Reichl
frederick kaufman
Michael Gold
Marc Gunther
Diana Elliott
Daniellenierenberg
Trina
Michael Booth
Jo
Pim
gardenrant
Denise Wakeman
Jennifer Farnell
Cheryl
The Typepad Team

Become a Fan

Recent Comments