A recent story in The Western Producer that compared crop insurance data on conventional yields versus organic yields for many of Western Canada’s main crops has rekindled old rivalries.
At times it seems like the two sides in the conventional versus organic debate will never see eye to eye, even though the two camps don’t, as a rule, compete for the same markets. There is a philosophical divide that makes it hard for the two to relate.
There are many reasons why one farmer chooses to grow organically while another prefers conventional methods.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Organic producers might prefer that system because of its approach to the environment through zero pesticide use (with proper manure applications) and careful attention to management plans based on the situation at hand, rather than a cookie-cutter approach that uses boxed solutions from chemical manufacturers.
Conventional growers often hold up their methods as being of broader benefit with higher yields that are better able to feed the burgeoning world population, as well as environmental gains made through zero till.
When these types of motherhood issues are involved, people find it difficult to see the opposing perspective.
The basis for the renewed debate focused on Western Producer analysis that provided data from crop insurance in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The analysis found that organic yields are generally 40 to 50 percent of conventional.
The lower yields didn’t surprise many people, but the width of the gap raised questions.
First off, it should be understood that yield is not the sole determining factor of success. Organic profits can far exceed what conventional growers earn, thanks to crop prices that can be two to three times higher than conventional.
As well, organic agriculture’s low input use means much lower operating costs.
Still, there is room for organic growers to close the yield gap. Organic farmers usually have less available extension information, and research funding into organic methods is a small fraction of what goes into conventional farming methods.
At a recent field day in Manitoba, one organic researcher said he believed organic growers could boost their yields to as much as 80 percent of conventional by simply staying up to date with the latest research, such as use of inter-row cultivation.
It’s proof that more often than not, it is not what you know but what you don’t know that can hurt you.
It also demonstrates that conventional and organic growers can actually share much common ground.
Research into new techniques and management practices that enhance soil fertility and reduce weeds without chemicals benefit both conventional and organic farmers.
However, because most of the research funding is directed by private companies, which have shown little interest in this type of work, the demand must come from farmers themselves.
It is possible for conventional and organic farmers to share a common goal.
In the end, both are in business to feed their families and produce safe, healthy food for a wider world while practicing sound environmental stewardship and pursuing their lifestyle of choice.
Each might choose different pathways to achieve their goals, but the routes run congruously, side by side, each serving its own markets, attracting its own consumers and telling its own stories.
