Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
smaller number of farming options to choose from than con-
ventional farmers. In fact, if organic really were more produc-
tive, there would be nothing stopping conventional farmers
from using organic methods, but the fact that conventional
farmers choose other technologies suggests organic methods
are less productive.
Higher productivity means it takes fewer inputs to pro-
duce any given unit of output, and fewer inputs typically
mean less carbon emissions per unit. However, an “input”
is not a single thing, and even if a farmer spends less money
on all inputs, that doesn't mean the carbon emissions from
those inputs will fall, if the portfolio of inputs changes in
favor of high carbon emitters. For these and other reasons,
the question of whether organic food has a smaller carbon
footprint is an empirical question, requiring data for an
answer.
The data do not crown either organic or conventional as
king. Sometimes organic food has less emissions and some-
times it does not. One study comparing organic and conven-
tional production of twelve crops (blueberries, two kinds of
apples, two kinds of wine grapes, raisins, strawberries, alfalfa
for hay, almonds, walnuts, broccoli, and lettuce) found that
conventional production usually had a smaller footprint,
assuming the land had been used in the same way for many
years. However, if the organic farm is rather new, and its fields
were heavily plowed in the past, the soil may be sequester-
ing enough carbon to make organic produce the low-carbon
emitter.
Similar results were found for hogs. Conventional hog pro-
duction appears to emit less carbon when soil sequestration
of carbon is ignored, but, when it is accounted for, organic
pork systems might or might not emit less carbon. Beef will
be discussed in its own section, and it will be shown that
unless carbon sequestration of pasture is much higher than
current measurements, organic beef results in a larger carbon
footprint.
