HelpfulGardener.com

I just saw a video about the global fertilizer crisis triggered by the war between Russia and Ukraine and protectionist policies of other fertilizer producing countries to limit fertilizer exports to protect their own farmers. Supply chain issues, climate change, war, and limited supply affects the poorest countries first as they are the most dependent on imported fertilizer and can least afford them. Climate change affects everyone. Dependence on a few staple crops and subsequent crop failures have global impacts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMpfQwA ... gOriginals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUWIUbk ... CNAInsider

Can organic feed the world?
Well, it depends on who you ask. The organic coalition says yes, and it is better for the soil and the environment. But is this true?

Well, yes, if you make a few changes like eat a lot less meat and you are willing to accept lower yields on some crops, switch to different crops that require less nitrogen and are more adaptive to a changing climate, stop diverting food crops for animal feed and gasoline, increase farm acreage, and cut waste by 50%.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018 ... riculture/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... te-change/

On the other hand, changing the way crops are grown are only one factor in providing food for the world. Climate change is here and the crops of the future need to be more adaptive to the changing environment. Recently vertical farming ventures have collapsed. Despite their potential to get around the problems of climate change and pests, the cost of production does not realize a profit when it costs more to produce a head of lettuce than the price it yields. Alternative crops have potential, but it means having to get people to accept these alternatives in their diets. Research is being done on that, but will it be too little to late?

Organic methods are more labor intensive require tons more of inputs and nitrogen inputs are especially hard to get because they are not immediately available. Results are not realized over a single season. Yields will be decreased more in the short term and in the longer term yields will still be less than synthetic fertilizer unless organic farms are well managed and waste is greatly curtailed.

"" organic yields are considerably lower than conventional yields," explains McGill's Verena Seufert, lead author of the study to be published in Nature on April 26. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) "But, this yield difference varies across different conditions. When farmers apply best management practices, organic systems, for example, perform relatively better."

"In particular, organic agriculture delivers just 5 percent less yield in rain-watered legume crops, such as alfalfa or beans, and in perennial crops, such as fruit trees. But when it comes to major cereal crops, such as corn or wheat, and vegetables, such as broccoli, conventional methods delivered more than 25 percent more yield.

The key limit to further yield increases via organic methods appears to be nitrogen—large doses of synthetic fertilizer can keep up with high demand from crops during the growing season better than the slow release from compost, manure or nitrogen-fixing cover crops. "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... te-change/

The kind of crops grown also matter. Wheat, corn, and rice are the main staples of the world. Wheat, corn, and some vegetable crops are highly dependent on nitrogen. Rice is dependent on water, another limited resource in a changing climate.

Changing world dependence on wheat and corn, growing more adaptive crops and crops that require less nitrogen, reducing waste, converting more land into organic production, increasing the labor and inputs required to manage them, and eating less meat take time. It is hard to change practices of farmers who have grown the same crops for generations one way. It is hard to get people to try new foods and give up their old staples. For some, this is not an option, the poorest people have no choice but to limit their food choices to what is available, which is not always going to be the healthiest options or the most aesthetically acceptable. In very poor countries, meat is a luxury and they eat insects to fulfill part of their protein requirements.

In the short term, the sudden loss of readily available fertilizer, climate change, diseases in food production has severely limited food supplies for this and the next few years. Food affordability has gotten worse especially for the poorest people who spend more of their available resources on food, and the effects of lower yields in 2022 will be felt as a food availability problem, pushing prices up higher. While most likely there will be food, at least in the U.S., not all food items will be available and what is available will likely cost more. Social unrest and inequalities will become more pronounced and lives will ultimately pay the price.

As I understand it, conventional nitrogen fertilizers require large amounts of natural gas/energy. That resource is limited and not renewable and, likely to become more and more expensive.

To my way of thinking, modern agricultural practices are very resource inefficient. The resource that might be thought of as best utilized on today's farmland is human effort. Machinery and transportation making abundant supplies of everything needed to cultivate and harvest from vast acreage is a modern phenomena. Once harvested, transportation and processing makes the food available to the general population, the market.

I have serious trouble imagining how organic production could be utilized on such a vast scale. It seems only likely that the size of farms would have to be reduced which means more people on the land as food producers. Transportation may only be required for short distances and certainly, not across oceans. Population densities would have to shift and, perhaps, not just locally.

We have made changes in my lifetime that are quite remarkable. When I was a kid growing up on a farm that my father hoped would become a dairy, 40 - 60 cows might have been thought to be reasonable. Industrial agriculture has taken that to hundreds, even thousands of cows. The farmer's role has become that of a CEO of a huge enterprise. That is, if the farmer hasn't just been replaced by a corporation's board with specialists in every "field" of the enterprise. It's staggering to travel through and above farmland where once there were many homes, outbuildings, etc. and see the trace left as a reminder of where those homes and families were. To me, organic production would require a near return to those earlier days when farmers were in far greater numbers.

Steve

Distribution of food is a big problem in a huge country like most in the world. In theory it is a great idea but then difficult to work with the differing grow zones. A big switch from a food industry going back to sustainance farming. I can't grow enough to feed myself let alone rely on someone else to share with me. Besides I don't have a place to raise cattle, hogs, chickens or turkeys; and not enough of a fisherman to help. Besides, I like shrimp that don't live in my pond.

True, synthetic nitrogen requires a lot of natural gas to make it. It was why most of the nitrogen fertilizer plants are located near natural gas sources. I don't understand the total Haber-Bosch process. I know that it was an economical way to produce nitrogen fertilizer from natural gas basically forcing Nitrogen and Hydrogen to form ammonia under high heat and pressure.

It revolutionized agriculture. Nitrogen is a limiting factor of growth. Synthetic nitrogen could efficiently support agricultural growth at a low cost, especially of staple crops like corn and some vegetables that need large nitrogen inputs. Without it, modern agriculture could not exist. More crops are grown on less land by fewer people ( and a lot of expensive machines) than was possible before WWII. It was the start of the urban movement where fewer people were needed to be engaged in agriculture. It has also been the harbinger of the end of the family farm as small farms could not compete with larger agribusinesses. Small scale organic farms are finding their niche, but there are many hurdles to overcome to be an organic farmer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Judging by the dearth of organic products that now are almost everywhere, from Costco to small markets. The number of certified organic farms have grown and they have an average size of 333 acres. Most of the organic produce sold in the U.S. is grown in Mexico and Canada. Organic foods make up 6% of the U.S. market but only 1% of U.S. agriculture. Most of the U.S. organic farms are very small compared to corporate farms that grow mainly conventional crops and most of the staple crops.

https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog ... r-organic/

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/o ... 60846.html

The crux of the problem with organic agriculture are the hurdles and higher costs that are incurred in production. Requiring more land, more inputs (in terms of tonnage), more labor, more frequent pesticide applications, adopting different land management options (crop rotation, cover crops), and more rules. It is much harder for a small organic farmer with only a few hectares to market their produce. Many will be depending on niche markets, CSA, and direct sales to consumers. What can be grown on the organic farms will also be limited as it is now by what organic inputs are available and small farms may not have the ability to market their products far from home.

As you have pointed out. It is a lot of work to grow anything organically and the costs are higher than conventional methods. The yields are lower for high nitrogen crops. Some crops can get adequate yields, but I have very limited space so every inch has to count. I get higher yields with some crops and the lower yielding crops, I really have to want to grow them. Right now, I have cilantro. It has a very short season and I only grow a 48 qt tub of it. It is not a practical plant for me to store and while people do like it. I practically have to harvest the entire bin for one bunch. I would rather grow eggplant, papaya, cucumber, tomatoes, herbs, Asian greens, kale, chard, and hot peppers. They have relatively long harvest periods (some with succession planting) and high yields per sq ft. Growing these things organically, especially in containers required weekly supplements and more pesticides than the conventionally grown crops. It was a lot of work for poorer yields.

Can organic feed the world?

Oh dear. Steve, as I see it 'The World' is already not being fed; only parts of it are. I see no remedy and matters will only get worse. We've gone way too far down the road of overpopulating the planet, irreversibly exhausting its resources and creating dangerous pollutants that have spread to every corner of the globe. Now frightening climate change is added to the dilemmas we already faced and a catastrophe we never imagined has begun. I think a return to much earlier days will be forced upon those who survive. Over population & consumption may solve themselves.

Meantime I'm pleased that I'm in a position to grow some of my own food in my own way while living the short time left to me in a a fairly frugal way, and trying to leave a 'lighter footprint'. But I think we're all just whistling in the wind. I'm very sad for the conditions my kids & grand kids are facing.

I also grow what I grow as responsibly as possible. Not strictly "organic", but by using as little chemicals as possible. I am not opposed to pesticides and fertilizer from a bag but only according to label instructions and only when absolutely necessary

The world needs inexpensive food of all sorts and a hungry belly doesn't really care if non-organic methods were applied in producing that food. I call organic produce, "east and west coast yuppie fad food." Very few advocates have ever dirtied their own fingernails in a garden or know where vegetables are grown or how. Organics is a buzz word.

The high cost of fertilizer forced farmers in 2022 to rethink how much fertilizer to use, how much to plant, and what to plant. Climate issues of drought, pests, and disease, and deluge did not help.

This was not a problem limited to a single country. Farmers all over the globe faced similar issues. The hardest hit were countries that were the most populous and the most dependent on imported fertilizer.

Increasing farm costs does not always translate to better prices of the end product. Commodity markets are volatile. Those costs have to be absorbed up front. In many cases, the farmer gets paid much less especially in markets controlled by an oligopoly, despite rising prices for consumers. Supply chain, transportation, and labor issues add to the cost along the way.

Global production of food worldwide was reduced from the effects of drought, deluge, disease, and rising costs of production. Countries started banning exports to protect domestic supplies. Countries dependent on exports could not get or afford to buy more.

The U.S. has enough land and capacity to feed itself, there is still inequality in affordability as the price of everything rises faster than incomes. Diseases that hit the poultry industry and lettuce farmers, shortages of packaging materials like aluminum, and crop losses from anything else will cause interim disruptions in supply and higher prices. There will be empty shelves, but while there won't be oranges available, there maybe bananas instead. People won't be able to afford the higher priced items, so they will have to make other choices like eating more beans and less meat.

Considering that organic costs more and the yields are lower, it doesn't seem to be the better solution in the short term. It certainly is not an instant one. There is no way farms can convert from synthetic to organic fertilizers and not have to pay more for the tonnage of organic fertilizers that would be needed as well as the labor to spread it and the decreased yields because it is a less efficient fertilizer.

If farms use both, it may increase yields, but it would still take a couple of years to fully realize all the gains from the organic inputs. It will still depend on what crops farmers select.

Could we see empty shelves in the markets? Yes, we could. Food chains are fragile especially when most of the food grown in the U.S, is grown in one region. 45% of the vegetables are grown in California. It is also probably why there is so much imported food on our grocery shelves. Who would have thought that the bird flu would hit the large farm factories more than once causing poultry and egg prices to soar. Not to mention that states have changed laws requiring cage free eggs which means that egg producers who normally do not have a high profit margin will need to spend money to upgrade their facilities.

Just be glad no matter how we grow in our own gardens whether it is strictly organic, conventional, or a hybrid, that we are contributing to our own food security and hopefully sharing it with a few others.

I once did some calculating. A half acre of land may be expected to produce enough "calories" of balanced foods for a family of 4. One of the resources I used was from Mother Earth News:

https://www.motherearthnews.com/homeste ... z12onzkon/
The article provides links to expected yield.

There is little margin for error. And certainly, not every family has access to 1/2 acre despite there being nearly 900 million acres of farmland in the US.

Many foods, perhaps now thought of as staples, would off the table. That would include most meats. Nevertheless, the calories, protein, and other nutrients would be there.

Steve

'Organic' is another of those words hijacked and perverted by marketers because they thought it sounded cool and would sell more product. They intend it to imply freedom from chemical fertilizers, pesticides etcetera. For growing without those substances, maybe 'traditional' would be a more appropriate word.

I don't think that growing food in this more traditional way is some kind of meaningless ploy for selling "east and west coast yuppie fad food". I believe the agricultural & scientific experience around long term depletion of soil fertility due to the use of 'artificial' chemicals is valid, real, and not some kind of uninformed yuppie illusion.

digitS' wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:05 pm

Many foods, perhaps now thought of as staples, would off the table. That would include most meats. Nevertheless, the calories, protein, and other nutrients would be there. Steve

In other words, if we had banded together and fundamentally altered our lifestyle as though humanity's existence depended on it, we could have avoided the crisis that now faces civilization. I agree with you. But I also think the mass of humans would/will never do that. We are far too greedy & short-sighted.

Agreed. I do think there is a lot of misunderstanding among the general public about what organic really means. It doesn't mean that inorganic inputs are not used, NOP does allow some inputs. They also allow some synthetic products that don't have good organic substitutes. Lay people think that organic means there is no GMO, and that is true, but they have no clue what GMO is really all about. They also think that organic means that no pesticides are used and that is not only not true, organic may actually require more frequent pesticide application and some organic pesticides are either impractical to use or are ineffective on hard bodied pests.

Panama disease is threatening the banana industry, just that it did the papaya industry in the 60's. The
Cavendish banana are all clones and it is the only banana grown commercially. It is seedless, so difficult to breed. Scientists took 10 years to breed a Panama resistant banana by inserting 1 gene from a resistant primal banana, but because of consumer resistance, it cannot be marketed. It will take years to try to develop resistance through conventional breeding, and again it is hard to breed seedless plants.

In the paradigm for organic to be able to feed the world, it would not only require more land, but it would require people to get most of their proteins from legumes and other plants foods as grains that are grown primarily to support the meat industry as well as land would have to be redirected to supply calories to people. The meat industry heavily depends on grains for animal feed from poultry to pigs, to cattle. Grass fed beef would require enough land to provide the hay if not grains to the animals. I know chickens can forage on young plants and bugs, but not when they are raised in large numbers in a small area. Pigs allowed to root are very destructive, so that may not be sustainable in either case where animals are raised in large factory farms.

This is such a complicated topic. Another aspect that I think haven’t been mentioned / discussed is the perception of what is available and in season locally vs. expectation of “year-round availability” in wealthier countries.

I don’t think the concept has been as challenged in places where it had become the “norm” or at least *marketed* and conventionally thought of as “desirable” as it had been during the worst of the Pandemic when shipping and supply chains were thoroughly disrupted.

And yet, in the midst of shortages, massive volumes of FOOD were destroyed just so they can be put down on the ledger as “businesss losses”, even as some efforts were made — not entirely or always successfully — to redistribute them.

I think to us backyard gardeners the concept of seasonal harvest — what can be grown in what time/season of the year, and when those produce are harvested — as well as just how long the harvest can be stored without extraordinary measures, how to “preserve” them after home processing from their raw state …. We also know that the more labor intensive care is given, the better quality harvest can be expected.

These are all learned as we gain experience. We have all agreed at one time or another that some crops can’t be grown at all or only during limited time of the year where we live.

This rather underscores the significant roles shipping/transportation and supply chains play in “feeding the world”. Some can *afford* to pay more for the rare and the difficult to to obtain.

IF everybody’s perception can be reset, I think there would be a lot more room to work with the “organic” methods. But that’s not likely considering the long history and baked in mindset we’re at — spice, silk, chocolate, sugar, … $100 strawberries and even more expensive watermelons, it’s become a normalized status symbol, and not being able to get what have become /had been readily available for the reasonable prices would impact the sense of the “norm” to some and contribute to feeling of failure and resentment … even while some people are literally starving for basic food.

But again, do I think “feeding the world” might be possible if we all accepted that sometimes we don’t have to have some things at certain times of the year and other people might have them instead? If the distribution of available food was re-imagined?

What about if food was grown more locally and not relied so much on importing from far away lands?

…There are groups of farmers in Japan who are continuing with the ideas begun with The One Straw Revolution — 自然農法　“Natural Farming” — and I recently watched an elderly farmer earnestly lecturing that it takes at least 4 years for the land to “take” to the conversion, and then around 7th year, you will see the crops start to grow vigorously without relying on the super-addition of any form of fertilizers….

That is the thing with a global economy. People have become accustomed to having a variety of foods available all year, and don't pay attention to the country of origin on the package. Any disruption in the crop cycle from weather or disease can disrupt supply, then there are the supply chain issues from transporting goods to packaging.

Organic methods do not give instant results. It takes years to build up the soil. It also requires constant inputs of organic matter annually. Natural farming is more like permaculture. It depends on diversity and balance with minimal disturbance. Animals are part of it as well as crop rotation and incorporating crop residues to keep the soil productive.