Before getting into the matter, it is necessary to clarify something. If we define “ecological” as that act or activity that is carried out without causing a negative impact on the environment or, better still, protecting it, then until today, there is no form of truly ecological agriculture . All agricultural exploitation, without exception, requires a space, some resources and a series of activities that impact the environment, to a greater or lesser extent.
What we can talk about is whether a given exploitation or management method is more or less sustainable than another. It is within this comparative framework that we can move. For this, it will be necessary to assess multiple variables, and in many cases, an ‘ecological agriculture’ —as defined by European regulations— and a conventional one, under equal conditions, will not make a difference. But in others yes.
The use of space
One of the common problems when producing food is space. We cannot grow any product anywhere , and on occasion, this has caused human beings to gain ground on nature, deforesting and converting wild areas into farmland.
In this sense, the forms of cultivation that produce the greatest amount of product in the smallest possible space will be those that can be considered most sustainable. Traditionally, it was achieved with the use of pesticides to avoid predation and competition with other plants, with fertilizers and crop rotation and fallow systems to improve soil quality, and through artificial selection to choose the plants that produce the most. Today, it is possible to achieve some of these properties using genetic engineering: we can have plants resistant to insect attack , without spraying insecticides, or varieties capable of producing in unfavorable conditions such as drought.
However, and unfortunately, the Regulation of the European Parliament for ‘ecological agriculture’ (2018/88) excludes any form of genetic engineering in its article 11. This measure reduces the potential for improvement that transgenic organisms can provide, from the point of view of productive point of view. In addition, the list of permitted insecticides and herbicides has been significantly reduced, and for the most part, they are less effective than conventional ones, which makes crops more susceptible to the entry of unwanted wild weeds and the attack of herbivores and pathogens.
All these restrictions mean that ‘ecological agriculture’ makes less use of space, and therefore requires a larger area to produce the same amount of food . In a world where, in some regions, deforestation is still taking place to establish new fields, and where deforestation represents one of the main risks fueling anthropogenic global change , this disadvantage is a serious drawback that considerably reduces sustainability. of the model.
emissions and energy
On the other hand, a relevant aspect is also the energy required to produce a certain amount of product. As long as we continue to depend on energy sources based on combustion, which emit greenhouse gases – such as coal, oil or gas – this factor will have to be taken into account. Intimately linked to it is the emission generated by agricultural activity, as well as other pollutants. The comparisons will be made per unit of food produced, and not per unit of land used, for the reasons already stated.
In general, ‘ecological’ production has shown a reduction in energy use of between 15 and 20 % compared to conventional production, all other things being equal. When the different products are analyzed in detail, we find that the greatest reduction in energy use occurs with cereals, legumes and oil production. However, the opposite trend is observed when we analyze horticultural production.
Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, no significant differences are seen in most crops, only a reduction in favor of ‘ecological agriculture’ is recorded in fruit crops. However, in terms of nitrogen oxide emissions, an increase of about 8% is observed.
Perhaps the most relevant, in food production, with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, is in transportation . The most sustainable of kiwifruit, planted in New Zealand and shipped to Europe, is associated with far greater emissions than the least sustainable of kiwifruit grown within 50km of where it is consumed. In other words, in terms of emissions, the most sustainable is the consumption of local products , and it has much more weight than the mode of production itself.
In terms of other forms of pollution, ‘organic farming’ has a greater potential for eutrophication —up to 36% higher in phosphates, and 13% in sulfur dioxide— and an ammonium emission 11% higher than conventional agriculture . Although globally, nitrates seem to decrease, in Europe a worrying increase of 49% is observed.
The Biodiversity
The relationship between organic farming and biodiversity is a very little studied aspect, so the conclusions should not be taken as definitive. We must not forget that scientific knowledge is always provisional , something new may be discovered tomorrow that is ignored today.
In general, it is assumed that ‘ecological agriculture’ has a lower negative impact on biodiversity than conventional agriculture applied under equal conditions. In many cases, it is due to the lower use and effectiveness of herbicides and insecticides —although not always, many are authorized and used in ‘ecological’ production— or to less disturbance of the natural environment.
However, these benefits are only known when compared per unit of land analyzed. Biodiversity loss caused by increased land use has not yet been assessed, and compensation cannot be assured.
On the other hand, these inconveniences related to the loss of biodiversity could be mitigated by resorting, again, to biotechnology . If a plant is designed to produce a substance toxic to insects in its leaves, it will only affect the insects that try to eat it, and not the entire insect community, as happens when an entire field is sprayed—whether with insecticides conventional or ‘ecological’–. On the other hand, plants capable of competing more successfully could grow in a field, even though unwanted wild plants are present, without losing productivity and without the need for herbicides.
In conclusion
In general, and in biology in particular, things are rarely black or white. This false Manichean dichotomy does not usually find a reflection in reality. Neither conventional agriculture is as bad as some sectors would have you believe, nor is agriculture misnamed ‘ecological’ as beneficial as many would like to think. There are lights and shadows around ‘ecological’ agriculture that do not make it better or worse than conventional agriculture; it’s just better in some key ways, and worse in others. And of course, it is not really ecological .
Perhaps we should think about seeing what positive things each production model can contribute, without dogmatically refusing to use those applications that can benefit, and of course, without falling into bad business practices, which can and do happen. Combine the strengths of the different models, taking scientific knowledge as a reference . Search for a form of agricultural production that takes advantage of new technologies and evaluates the impacts in detail, to achieve an agriculture that is truly more sustainable than any we have. That it will never really be green, but it can be “greener”.
References:
Clark, M. et al. 2017. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 064016. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5
Official Journal of the European Union. 2018. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of May 30, 2018, on organic production and labeling of organic products. L150, 1-92.
Meemken, E.-M. et al. 2018. Organic Agriculture, Food Security, and the Environment. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10(1), 39-63. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023252
Tal, A. 2018. Making Conventional Agriculture Environmentally Friendly: Moving beyond the Glorification of Organic Agriculture and the Demonization of Conventional Agriculture. Sustainability, 10(4), 1078. DOI: 10.3390/su10041078
