Organic farming excellent way to mitigate climate change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released an update on the impacts of climate change. The storm is upon us.

We can no longer speculate that maybe weather will get weird. Weird is here. Powerful weather events have increased. Polar ice is in decline. Wildfires are increasing. Global average temperature is rising.

What does this have to do with agriculture?

Much of the talk about reducing the effects of climate change focuses on energy use. In agriculture, the single largest energy use is in the production of fertilizer, and the vast majority of that goes to produce nitrogen fertilizer.

Is there another way? Of course.

Nitrogen is abundant in the air and can be captured biologically using legume green manures. Organic agriculture, which depends on green manure nitrogen, uses 50 percent less energy than agriculture based on chemical fertilizers.

It also produces less because of those green manure years, but it remains more energy efficient.

The nitrogen rich waste produced by animal agriculture becomes a pollution liability when livestock are mass-produced but can be part of the solution at lower densities.

Small, mixed farms seem to be a model of sustainability.

Pesticide production is another significant use of energy. Again, there is another way.

Organic producers have a diverse tool kit of techniques to prevent, avoid and manage weeds, insects and diseases without resorting to these chemicals.

Neil Harker at Agriculture Canada in Lacombe, Alta., has done excellent work on stacking cultural techniques, such as increasing seeding rate and growing crops in diverse rotations, as well as mechanical weed management techniques. He has found that these multiple techniques can successfully reduce weed pressures to a minimum.

Disease and insect pressures are greatest when crop diversity is low. Sound rotations can significantly reduce insect and disease levels and provide more stability in uncertain markets.

Does this mean that organics is the answer to reducing agriculture’s ecological footprint? It certainly has promise with biologically based fertility, strong and diverse weed and pest management techniques and an insistence on rotations.

Realistically, however, I’d have to say that we aren’t there yet. More emphasis is needed on reduced tillage and livestock incorporation.

Organic farmers do not substitute herbicides for tillage. Tillage remains an important part of weed control, seed bed preparation and green manure incorporation.

There is ample evidence that tillage can damage soil structure, but Diane Knight of the University of Saskatchewan has found that soil on organic farms is more resistant to these negative effects.

Perhaps this is related to the greater dependence on green manures to feed soil biology and to the higher levels of polysaccharides that soil microbes exude, which help to aggregate soil particles.

Still, reducing tillage in organic systems is important. A number of researchers, such as Steve Shirtliffe at the U of S, hope to build on the Rodale No-till Organics System de-veloped in Pennsylvania.

Rodale’s system uses crimper-rollers to establish weed suppressing mulch, into which the crop is seeded. The system relies on a longer season than we have, but Shirtliffe is finding ways to use the crimper-roller to reduce the amount of tillage in green manure termination.

Martin Entz of the University of Manitoba has found that terminating green manures with livestock rather than tillage can be effective and provide income as well as nitrogen benefits.

Manure can be a valuable source of fertility, and grazing crop land offers the benefit of capturing the nitrogen-rich urine as well as the solids, which allows livestock to “add value” to weeds, chaff and insects. A variety of livestock can provide a variety of specific functions.

The social-lifestyle aspect is perhaps the biggest source of resistance to incorporating livestock into grain farms.

Animals require daily care and don’t fit in well with busy schedules and holidays. It’s harder to find a livestock sitter than a pet sitter.

However, if we want more viable farms, perhaps this is another item we need to consider. How do we establish the needed supports to make livestock management viable as a small-scale enterprise?

The IPCC has amply documented the fact that climate change is upon us. How can we be part of the solution rather than part of the problem?

Organic agriculture offers suggestions: biological nitrogen fixation, use of rotations, stacking cultural and mechanical weed management techniques and incorporating livestock. This is a start.

However, to be truly sustainable, we also need more research on organic agronomy so that organic yields can continue to improve and organic management options can continue to increase and be fine-tuned.

Perhaps we also need social research to support desirable lifestyle options for today’s livestock producers so more people will embrace the small-scale mixed farming model.

Brenda Frick, Ph.D., P.Ag. is an extension agrologist and researcher in organic agriculture. She welcomes your comments at 306-260-0663 or email [email protected]

3 Responses

Post a response
  1. mememine69 on

    32 years of 95% certainty is why it’s called; “BELIEF”
    Don’t tell kids that science “believes” as much as you remaining “believers” do. Your eagerness to “believe” in this misery is sickening.

    • Edward on

      The previous comment is correct when it go on about “Belief” based science. The modern and extremely short trial balloon science we are experiencing now is more about half or quarter truths, deceptive math and clever advertising. It is sickening for sure in many ways. Maybe this piece should have been titled “Organic agriculture excellent way to cure financial woes and mitigate cancer.”

  2. I am a conventional farmer that uses fertilizers and pesticides but I do agree that perennial forages and livestock make a grain farm more sustainable in the long term. There are three challenges I see to this happening for all grain farms. The one was noted in the article, the reluctance to go back to caring for livestock 365 days a year. The second is where could we market/eat enough meat to handle all the livestock that would be needed to match all the grain acres in Western Canada. You would also need to take livestock numbers away from all the marginal land (that is only suited to livestock production) to spread across the grain acres. This marginal land could go back to nature. The third is the decrease in financial rewards for producers as this system means more labour for less gross and net income. This is the system we used to have 50-100 years ago and most farmers left the farm for better wages in the cities and more free time. I can’t see farmers going back in time to when they worked harder and made less money than the rest of society. The only way this may work is if society subsidized farms to maintain a similar lifestyle to the rest of society but on much smaller, less specialized, more diversified farms. This is what Europe has been doing since World War II and they are slowly moving away from it due to cost.

Respond





You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>