What contribution can organic farming make?

The challenge is as follows: feed an estimated population of 10 billion people in 2050 while causing as little damage to the environment as possible. But what exactly does “feeding the world” mean? Today, in terms of the global average, it means producing 2,850 kilocalories per person per day [1] with a high proportion of animal-derived proteins – and a food wastage rate of about 30%. Forecasts for 2050 predict a daily figure of no less than 3,070 kilocalories per head, along with a drastic increase in adverse environmental impact.

Does that make sense?

No. These quantities are so absurdly high that they leave huge room for improvement. And they make one thing clear: there is definitely no shortage of food. We have problems in terms of distribution, but we won’t go into that in greater detail here.

Instead, imagine what would happen if we did not produce a third of our food simply to throw it away, and if we did not dedicate 40% of the world’s arable land to producing animal feed simply to cover high levels of meat consumption. What capacities and resources that would free up!

It is precisely this wasted potential that we must use if we want to feed humanity sustainably in 2050. And this is also a key point if organic farming is to contribute to a sustainable food system in the long term. What exactly do I mean by that?

Unavoidable conflicting goals 

In a study [2] published recently in Nature Communications and led by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) [3], we investigated various scenarios for food systems of the future. If these are to be sustainable, conflicting goals are unavoidable. For example, organic farming reduces nitrogen surpluses, protects soils and is less ecotoxic, but it produces lower yields.

Another example: grassland-based animal production does not compete for arable land with direct human nutrition, but emits more greenhouse gases per kilogram of meat than if the animals eat concentrated feed. How we deal with such cases?

Our model calculations for 2050 show that if we were to switch to organic farming worldwide with consistent consumer behaviour – i.e. a high proportion of animal products and large volumes of waste – nitrogen surpluses and use of synthetic pesticides would fall sharply, and greenhouse gas emissions would also decline slightly. However, we would also need considerably more arable land – so this is not an environmentally sustainable option.

Three strategies, cleverly combined

A different picture emerges if we make a few tweaks: that is, if we feed animals using less concentrated feed and make greater use of grassland, eat less meat ourselves and reduce waste. Then we wouldn’t need to produce as much food in the first place. For example, with 50% less concentrated feed, 50% less waste and 100% organic farming, land use would barely increase and the adverse environmental impact would still be significantly reduced.

Overall, our study makes it clear that organic farming – applied on a global scale – could feed humanity sustainably in the future, provided we do not use concentrated animal feed, eat less meat and avoid food waste.

With the whole system in mind

In summary, when considering questions of sustainable farming, we must consider the food system as a whole and not just individual aspects, such as production. Only if we adopt a holistic perspective can we hope to alleviate the unavoidable conflicting goals. Satisfying the planet’s hunger in a sustainable way does not require radical solutions, but rather a clever combination of efficiency, sensible use of resources (often termed “consistency”) and frugality (“sufficiency”). Then organic farming can play a central role in a sustainable food system for the future.