Research Paper- FINAL

ORGANIC VS. CONVENTIONAL FARMING SYSTEMS 1

Organic versus Conventional Farming Systems: Production and Food Markets

Kassie Killebrew

Prescott College


Abstract

This paper explores the differences in how conventional farming and organic farming is achieved. This

is realized by addressing the methods, production and markets of both forms of farming. We then

discuss the effects and outcomes that both types of farming have on the environment and furthermore,

local and global food markets. The purpose of this paper is to provide obvious reasoning as to why

organic farming is the most beneficial and appropriate option of the two, given our current economic

and environmental deficits.


Organic versus Conventional Farming Systems: Production and Food Markets

Heavy agricultural reliance on synthetic-chemical fertilizers and pesticides is having serious

impacts on public health and the environment. The estimated environmental and health care costs of

the recommended use of pesticides in the U.S. are about $10 billion per year (Pimentel 2005). In the

United States over 90% of corn farmers rely on herbicides for weed control (Pimentel 2005). The U.S.

National Academy of Sciences (2003) reported that excessive fertilizer use costs $2.5 billion from

wasted fertilizer inputs. The estimated costs of public and environment health losses from modern

agricultural methods related to soil erosion exceed $45 billion yearly (Pimentel et al. 2005).

Integrated pest and nutrient management systems executed in certified organic agriculture can

reduce reliance on agrochemical inputs as well as make agriculture environmentally and economically

sound. Pimentel and Pimentel (1996) and the National Academy of Sciences (2003) have demonstrated

that sound management practices can reduce pesticide inputs while maintaining high crop yields and

improving farm economics. Organic agriculture seeks to enhance ecological processes that promote

plant nutrition while conserving soil and water resources. Organic systems remove agrochemicals and

decrease other external inputs to better the environment as well as farm economics. These systems give

consumers certainty of how their food is produced and for the first time, have the ability to select foods

based on food production methods.

Both organic and conventional farming methods have their pros and cons. While agribusiness

and the multinational food producers have done an excellent job over the years of providing substantial

amounts of nutritious food for a growing world population, their efforts are driven by profiteering and

are neither sustainable nor beneficial to local economic markets. While organic farming practices also

have their downfalls, such as consumer costliness of the product, their alternative growing methods are

beneficial to the environment and extremely valuable in terms of long-term economics. I will further

discuss environmental and economical comparisons between both practices.


I chose this topic to be able to identify the means by which both practices operate as a whole.

This information will be used to determine whether conventional or organic farming is the best choice

for current and future generations' health and well being in regard to economy and environment. I

speculated that after all content is thoughtfully reviewed, organic farming practices would be the most

advantageous and profitable of the two.

Method

To begin, conventional farming practices and markets are predominantly dictated and

manipulated by corporate agribusinesses. At the onset of the Industrial Revolution, issues of food

production and supply for growing populations were resolved by the implementation of mechanized

power. It was quickly realized that shifting to this form of production could be very profitable and thus

factory farms became synonymous with food production. Current farming practices are solely

dependent upon monocultures of genetically modified (GM) seeds, external inputs (petrochemicals)

and overuse of machinery. All three of these dependencies harm the environmental greatly, but

maintain Big Ag's1 multi-billion dollar profits.

One key factor is responsible for the incredible growth of conventional factory farming.

Unchecked mergers and acquisitions between the largest seed companies, petrochemical producers and

insurance and pharmaceuticals companies create an intensely consolidated landscape where a few giant

agribusinesses exert tremendous pressure on crop and livestock producers to become larger and more

intensive (Factory 2010). This market monopolization is also referred to as biorevolution. For

example, corporations such as the Farm Bureau align themselves with companies like Monsanto to

manipulate farmer’s decisions. Farmers are forced to purchase crop insurance from the Farm Bureau

(which masquerades as a non-profit) and are promised lower premiums if they purchase Monsanto's

GM seeds, which are of course much more expensive than non-GM crops. With the Farm Bureau's

1 Big Agriculture (a.k.a. Big Ag) refers to the large business of agriculture.


nearly three thousand affiliated state and county level non-profit farm bureaus, the combined

organization maintains billions of dollars in assets, making it among the most moneyed non-profit

organizations in the United States. “While the Farm Bureau tries to maintain an image of fighting for

the little guy, its affiliates invest tens of millions of dollars into corporate agribusiness — Cargill,

ConAgra, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Tyson and Archer Daniel Midlands” (Food 2010). Dow Chemical

is in the biotech industry and has also found a unique way to corner their market. For example, not

only does Dow supply most farms with the necessary petrochemicals for crop application, but their

subsidiary Triumph Seeds now offers GM seeds which are resistant and hardy to the chemicals in their

fertilizers, pesticides, etc. The cycle continues. These are just a couple of examples of how corporate

businesses control food production and markets.

Now that we know who controls the food market, let's address the process in which food is then

produced. Conventional farming is essentially achieved as follows: first, massive amounts of diverse

prairie or forestland is cut and cleared. Monocultures of GM seeds are planted or tiny spaces are filled

with unsustainable numbers of farm animals, petrochemicals (made from fossil fuels) are added (to

either soil or to livestock feed), the plants are then harvested or animals slaughtered, and then

processed, packaged and shipped for worldwide distribution. This is where we encounter the global

economic food system.

The processed food sector is the largest product manufacturing and distribution segment of the

U.S. economy, accounting for more than one-sixth of the nation's industrial activity (Nützenadel 2008).

Processed foods account for about two-thirds of international food and agricultural trade (Nützenadel

2008). But international commerce in processed foods is more than imports and exports. The most

prevalent means by which processed foods reach overseas markets is through sales from foreign

operations. Shipments from foreign operations of U.S. processed food firms are four times larger than

direct U.S. exports (O'Brien and Leichenko 2005). Globalization of the food market is transforming


the production and storage of food, the movement and trade of food, access to and consumption of

food, and the quality and safety of food. It has a direct effect on agricultural production, livelihoods,

and the viability of rural, agricultural economies. More importantly, conventional farming processes

are creating dynamic conditions that influence vulnerability to both rapid and gradual environmental

changes.

Organic farming began as a reaction against the industrialization of agriculture in the early 20th

century. Practices and methods are predominantly based on a small scale by owner/operators. Unlike

their predecessors, organic farmers rely on crop rotation, crop residues, animal manure and mechanical

cultivation to maintain the soil and to control weeds, insects and other pests. Many methods are

employed in maintaining soil health including crop rotation, green manure, cover cropping, application

of compost and mulching. Organic farmers also use certain fertilizers such as seed meal and mineral

powders such as rock phosphate and greensand, which are naturally occurring forms of potash.

The retail market for organic farming in developing economies has grown at about 20%

annually due to increasing consumer demand (OTA 2009). While most of the early producers were

small, the popularity of organic food is rising as the volume and variety of organic products become

available at an increasingly larger scale. Despite the economic recession that gripped the United States

in 2009, the organic market continued to experience growth. “In 2009, total U.S. organic consumer

product sales grew 5.3% to reach $26.6 billion” (OTA 2009). Organic sales growth continued to

outpace total sales of comparable conventional food and non-food items by a significant margin.

“While organic food sales were up 5.1% in 2009, total food sales were up by only 1.6%” (OTA 2009).

“Organic non-food sales experienced 9.1% growth, while total comparable non-food item sales actually

declined by 1%” (OTA 2009). Farmers markets, co-ops, CSA's and natural retailers all provide an

outlet for locally and organically grown foods to be distributed without long distance travel.

The primary demand driver for the increased consumption of organic food is health concerns.


Consumers are increasingly interested in foods that are free of pesticides, and other health risks (Mintel

Organic Foods 2006). A second demand driver is the USDA Organic Food standards, which appear to

have increased consumer awareness of organic foods and provide assurance to consumers that the

products are what they claim to be. Twenty-five percent of the consumers surveyed by Mintel have

purchased organic foods. Most consumers are aware and concerned about food from genetically

modified organisms (GMOs); women consumers are particularly concerned about GMOs (Mintel

Organic Foods 2006). Most consumers also believe that organic foods are healthier and better for the

environment than conventionally produced food products (Mintel Organic Foods 2006).

The single biggest barrier to market growth of organic foods is the lack of certified organic

crops and livestock products (Mintel, FPSA, 2006). There are shortages of organic dairy farms,

organic feed producers, sugar producers and fruit and vegetable producers (Brady, p.51). Converting

from conventional to organic production is expensive and time consuming. A problem from the

processors and manufacturers perspective is the variability in quality of organic food (Brady, p.54).

Consumers still prefer products of a consistent quality, and maintaining consistent quality is more

difficult in producing organic foods than it is in producing food from conventional methods. The use of

chemical fertilizers and pesticides not only increases yields but also improves consistency. Those

organic producers and processors that can adequately address the issue of consistency will possess a

competitive advantage.

Results

The environmental results of these two markets could not be more different. While methods for

conventional farming are largely based on fossil fueled power as energy inputs, organic farmers depend

more so on human muscle and allow the natural world to do the work for them.

It has been reported that the most significant change in the structure of ecosystems has been the

transformation of approximately one quarter of Earth's terrestrial surface to cultivated systems (MA


2005). Cultivated systems describe the parts of conventional farming such as croplands, shifting

cultivation, confined livestock production and freshwater aquaculture. These systems of food

production, specifically regarding croplands, are the most harmful to the environment. The energy

inputs for these systems include fossil fuels for farm machinery, fertilizers, seeds, and herbicides.

Fossil energy inputs are also required for transport. This means we are extracting enormous amounts of

a finite resource in order to produce our food. Efforts to create croplands (clear cutting forests) release

huge amounts of CO22 into our already extremely warming atmosphere. Habitat loss and a reduction in

biodiversity are also results of land transformation. After we slash and burn, we focus on growing

monocultures of soybeans, corn, and wheat. Monocultures cause cycles of nutrients, energy, water and

waste to become more open systems, rather than closed as in natural ecosystems. Furthermore, part of

the instability and susceptibility to pests of agroecosystems can be linked to the adoption of vast crop

monocultures. Therefore, there is a required increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, but the

efficiency of use of applied inputs is decreasing and crop yields in most key crops are leveling off.

Chemical fertilizers can become air pollutants, and have recently been implicated in the

destruction of the ozone layer and in global warming. Their excessive use has also been linked to the

acidification/salinization of soils, a higher incidence of insect pests and diseases and negative

nutritional changes in crop plants (MA 2005). Fertilizer nutrients that enter surface waters (rivers,

lakes, bays, etc.) can promote eutrophication, characterized initially by a population explosion of

photosynthetic algae that prevent light from penetrating beneath surface layers, and therefore killing

plants living on the bottom (MA 2005). Eventually, such nutrient enrichment of freshwater ecosystems

leads to the destruction of all animal life in the water systems.

As far as conventional farming's contribution to our economic market, allotments are slim.

2 Carbon dioxide


Moreover, the whole machinery of corporate agribusiness, whether it is Monsanto or Dow Chemical,

has become inseparable from the global financial sector. The past two decades of globalization has,

more than anything else, been about the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of Wall Street

and other financial centers (Nützenadel 2008). More and more of this money now flows into corporate

agribusiness and commodities. Access to this huge pool of capital is propelling the expansion of

agribusiness, giving companies the financial resources to take over smaller firms or to set up new

operations, while also harnessing them even tighter to the philosophy of fast and high returns which are

made off the backs of workers, consumers and the environment. Meanwhile, the amount of theoretical

capital in agricultural commodities has soared in recent years, and this, combined with rising corporate

control at all levels of the food chain, means that prices have little to do with supply and demand and

that food distribution has become disconnected from need (O'Brien 2005). Today’s corporate global

food system is organized according to one principle only: profit for the owners of the corporations.

On the other hand, organic farmer’s methods of food production are quite different than those of

modern agriculture practices. Reduction and furthermore, elimination of agrochemicals require major

changes in management to assure adequate plant nutrient composition and to control crop pests. As it

was done a few decades ago, alternative sources of nutrients to maintain soil fertility include manures,

sewage sludge and other organic wastes, as well as legumes, in cropping sequences. Rotation benefits

are due to biologically fixed nitrogen and from the interruption of weed, disease and insect cycles

(Pimentel 2005). Maximum benefits of pasture combination can be realized when livestock, crops,

animals and other farm resources are assembled in mixed and rotational designs to optimize production

efficiency, nutrient cycling and crop protection.

Increasingly, researchers are showing that it is possible to provide a balanced environment,

sustained yields, biologically mediated soil fertility and natural pest regulation through the design of

diversified agroecosystems and the use of low-input technologies, in which organic farmers rely. In


essence, the optimal behavior of agroecosystems depends on the level of interactions between the

various biotic and abiotic components. By constructing a functional biodiversity, it is possible to

launch synergisms which support agroecosystem processes by providing ecological services such as the

activation of soil biology, the recycling of nutrients, the enhancement of beneficial arthropods and

antagonists, and so on. Today there is a diverse selection of practices and technologies available.

Organic farmers have found their niche in local food systems. Consumers are looking for fresh,

high quality tasting produce. Farmers who grow organically and market locally benefit from these

customer preferences, which can become market demands. Local farmers receive a higher share of the

consumer food dollar, especially with organic premiums. Farm input costs for fertilizers, herbicides,

and pesticides are reduced. Transportation costs are reduced. Money recirculates locally. Consumers

pay farmers directly and depress corporate control of the food system.

Farmers seek innovations to survive on the farm, and consumers are going out of their way to

support local farmers. Local food systems are not intended to replace the conventional food system;

rather, they are offered as a means to diversify the global chain. Farmers who sell directly to

consumers receive higher net returns, and consumers are rewarded with fresh produce that supports a

local farmer and the local community as a whole.

Discussion

The truth is that we do not need agribusiness. Rather, as the last two decades have shown, we

have every reason to get rid of it. Twenty years of expanding agribusiness control over the food system

has generated more hunger – 200 million more people go hungry than 20 years ago (McMichael 2009).

It has destroyed livelihoods – today 800 million small farmers and farm workers do not have enough

food to eat (McMichael 2009). Agribusiness has been a leading cause of climate change and other

environmental tragedies, the effects of which Big Ag is inadequately prepared to deal with. It has

generated irregular food safety problems and has made agriculture one of the most dangerous sectors to


work in, whether as a farmer or a worker. And it has routed the wealth created though global food

production into the hands of a few (GRAIN 2008). The main story in agriculture over the past twenty

years has been the rise of agribusiness. If humanity is going to survive with any dignity on this planet,

the next twenty years need to see its decline.

As I speculated, this research shows that a more progressive transformation of agriculture is

needed. One guided by the perception that ecological change in agriculture cannot be boosted without

parallel changes in the social, political, cultural and economic divisions that also accommodate

agriculture. In other words, change toward a more socially just, economically viable, and

environmentally sound agriculture should be the result of social movements in the rural sector in

alliance with urban organizations. This is especially relevant in the case of the new biorevolution,

where collaborative action is needed so that biotechnology companies feel the impact of environmental

changes, farm labor issues, animal rights, and consumer concerns pressuring them to re-orient their

work for the overall benefit of society and nature.


References

Brady, D. (2006) The Organic Myth, Business Week, (50-56).

Factory Farm Nation. (2010). food&waterwatch. Retrieved from http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/FactoryFarmNation-web.pdf

GRAIN. Making a killing from hunger. Against the grain. Retrieved from http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=39

Karen O’Brien and Robin Leichenko, (2005). Food Systems and Globalization. IHDP. Retrieved from http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/get/7181

Mintel (Mintel, FPSA) (2006). FPSA State of the Industry and Forward Look. Chicago: Mintel.

Mintel (Mintel, Organic Foods). (2006). Organic Foods – US. Chicago: Mintel. McMichael Philip. (2009). The World Food Crisis in Historical Perspective. Monthly Review. Retrieved

from http://monthlyreview.org/090713mcmichael.php

Nützenadel, Alexander, Trentmann Frank. (2008). Food and Globalization: Consumption, Markets and Politics in the Modern World (Cultures of Consumption). Berg Publishers

Pimentel D, Pimentel M. (1996). Food, Energy and Society. Niwot: ColoradoUniversity Press.

Pimentel D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the recommendedapplication of pesticides and herbicides. Environment, Development, and Sustainability.Forthcoming.

Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Siedel R, Douds D. (2005). Organic andconventional farming systems: Environmental and economic issues. Forthcoming.

U.S. Organic Industry Overview. The Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) 2010 Organic Industry Survey. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/ 2010OrganicIndustrySurveySummary.pdf

http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/2010OrganicIndustrySurveySummary.pdf

http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/

http://monthlyreview.org/090713mcmichael.php

http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/get/7181

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=39

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/FactoryFarmNation-web.pdf


Documents

Research Paper- FINAL