Organic farming has significant positive effects on the environment and biodiversity, however its contribution to climate protection is ‘less clear’, according to researchers at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL).
FiBL undertook a comprehensive meta-analysis of 528 scientific publications to determine the role that organic farming plays in areas such as water protection, soil fertility, biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation, resource efficiency, and animal welfare.
The results of its findings were published in the Organic Agriculture journal.
‘Great potential’
As the researchers state, organic agriculture offers ‘great potential’ for protecting ground and surface water, with nitrogen emissions reduced by an average of 28%, due to the absence of synthetic chemical pesticides
In addition, the abundance and biomass of earthworm populations were, on average, 78% and 94% higher, FiBL noted, while lower acidification in topsoil was found in 62% of cases.
The positive effect on biodiversity was also noted, with the number of arable flora species increasing by 95%, field birds by 35%, and flower-visiting insects by 23%, compared to conventional farming.
Climate protection
As the researchers note, the contribution of organic farming and sustainable agriculture to climate protection is ‘less clear’, with organic farms emitting, on average, 1,082 kg less CO2 equivalents per hectare per year.
‘However, due to the lower yield levels in organic farming, the yield-related climate protection benefits are probably comparable to those of conventional agriculture,’ they note.
Other areas highlighted by FiBL include the role that organic farming can play in prevention of erosion and flood protection, as well as improved resource efficiency – nitrogen and energy use are more effective in organic farming by 12% and 19%, respectively.
In terms of animal welfare, meanwhile, ‘no clear picture’ emerged in 46% of comparisons, the researchers state.
While in more than a third (35%) of cases, organic farming had an edge when it came to animal welfare, conventional systems were seen to be better in 19%.
‘No fundamental differences were found in animal health; management appears to be more decisive here than the farming method,’ they note.
Other organisations involved in the study included the Thünen Institute, the University of Kassel, the Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture, the Justus Liebig University Giessen, the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, the Technical University of Munich and the Center for Applied Research and Technology at the Dresden University of Applied Sciences. The project was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). Read more here and here.
