TE Farm Blog

Mind the Gap... 
 
Here at TE, I don’t think a day goes by when we don’t talk about numbers...  
 
Without hard data it is difficult to promote the benefits of any activity, even organic agriculture where it is assumed that certain advantages are embedded (the most obvious being the removal of chemical hazards and associated risks to people and ecosystems).  
 
Curley Considerations 
 
Impact studies, assessments, footprints, and so on, are great tools for better understanding impact but they need to be used intelligently and set in context. At the end of the day, we still need to be able to stand back and look at the big picture, where the numbers are taking us – and how we will act in response to our data. In the lead up to our Metrics Webinar next week I’ve added a couple of considerations for your thoughts and comments... 
 
1. Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO) 
 
Assessment tools are only as good as the numbers driving the assessment. Attempting to compare one system with another is more complex than meets the eye. To start with there needs to be clear and transparent methodologies, limitations such as sample size, data source, and scope of the study needs to be clarified up front and it is essential to understand the context of the study. 
 
2. There are variances “within” as well as “between” 
 
Many researchers in this area emphasise that one of the biggest issues for reporting on impact is the variables WITHIN modes of production as well as BETWEEN them. This often comes down to farmer know-how, as reported just last week from the Technical University of Munich (see more about this later).  
 
3. Background issues 
 
Incorporating geographical and meteorological data / conditions is going to be essential to our interpretation of sustainability data and how significant the indicator is for the region and its communities. Considerations such as: rainfall and existing water stress, soil fertility, and biodiversity (land use clearance is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions) need to be acknowledged so we can better understand the impact.  
 
4. What to prioritise? 
 
When it comes to sustainability there are a number of indicators to choose from. The best tools are the ones that are holistic and account for indirect as well as direct inputs/impacts. Many indicators of sustainability work in harmony. Examples include low fossil fuel use results in better carbon footprints, rainfed agriculture or low water abstraction leads to better water footprints, and so on. However, for land use intensity this is less straightforward; land use is usually indicated by yield (ka/ha) but this CAN be at odds with other indicators such as fertiliser and pesticide use, biodiversity and conservation, AND probably will not take into account food security (i.e. cotton monoculture might score for crop yields but what if we considered on-farm calorie and protein production?) How sustainable is a production system if farmers and their families are hungry?  
 
5. How to account for “know-how”?  
 
From the reading I’ve done, it appears that the numbers are stacking up to support the positive environmental benefits of organic agriculture. However, one of the most “interesting” sustainability indicators appears to be farmer know-how. It’s this measure of a farmer’s knowledge, skills, and competency that will make all the difference on the ground. And of course this is not so easy to measure or make generalisations about.  
 
 
There are probably many others but if, like me, this all starts to get a little overwhelming for you, I’m going to stop here! I’m looking forward to hearing more from Marc and Laurence in next week’s webinar, and would like to urge you to start sending in your questions. WEBINAR – 12TH AND 13TH MARCH - Register here: http://textileexchange.org/webinars/upcoming  
 
The Rise of the Rural Entrepreneur 
 
Meanwhile I came across a great little video talking about the importance of accounting for knowledge – especially when it comes to getting to the core of sustainability - take a look! http://farmhub.textileexchange.org/#new  
 
 
FURTHER READING 
 
For those of you who are interested in the latest comparison studies between organic and “conventional” (see studies for further definition of conventional) I’ve summarised a couple below. Note the studies are from northern European or US research centres, and my apologies for not including any from cotton producing countries. If you know of any great meta-studies on cotton please do let us know! 
 
BRAND NEW STUDY - 28 February 2013 – Agriculture and Climate 
 
Latest research from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) reveals positive news for organic farmers in respect to climate change. The study showed that organic farming is more energy efficient than conventional and that greenhouse gas emissions are lower. It also admits that yields tend to be lower as well.  
 
The study, which ran for 3 years (2009-12), investigated 40 organic and 40 conventional agricultural holdings across Germany’s four agricultural regions. The focus was exclusively on crop and dairy farms. The scientists recorded all relevant climate gas streams during the entire production process, including methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. 
 
While this research was carried out in the global north, and did not include cotton, it certainly adds to the body of evidence on the sustainability advantages of various models of agriculture.  
 
The most revealing outcome, I believe, and this can apply to organic cotton scenarios, is that:  
 
“Yields and greenhouse gas emissions fluctuate significantly between different organic farms in some cases to an even greater extent than the fluctuations between organic and conventional holdings.  
 
“This demonstrates that the individual know-how of farm managers plays an important role in the greenhouse gas balance and that there is significant potential for improvement at individual farms.” 
 
For more information (and the research paper in German) please visit: http://www.tum.de/en/about-tum/news/press-releases/short/article/30452/  
 
 
16th October 2012 – FiBL findings on soil carbon stocks 
 
“Organic agriculture provides environmental benefits through the sequestration of atmospheric carbon in soil organic matter” 
 
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) a group of international experts analysed data from 74 field comparison studies that measured the soil organic carbon (humus) levels in different soils under organic and conventional farming systems throughout the world.  
The general results of the study indicated that soil organic carbon stocks were 3.5 metric tons per hectare higher in organic than in non-organic farming systems and that organic farming systems sequestered up to 450 kg more atmospheric carbon per hectare and year through CO2 bound into soil organic matter. Significant differences were also found in soil carbon levels between the farming systems for the comparisons that are based on organic systems without off-farm manure input. 
 
[Gattinger, A. Mueller, M. Haeni, C. Skinner, A. Fliessbach, N. Buchmann, P. Mäder, M. Stolze, P. Smith, N. El-Hage Scialabba, and U. Niggli (2012)] 
 
Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Download publication: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1209429109.full.pdf+html or read the summary here: http://www.fibl.org/en/media/media-archive/media-release/article/organic-farming-enhances-soil-carbon.html  
 
 
10th May 2012: Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture 
 
Research prepared by Seufert et al. based on a meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally was published by Nature, the leading scientific journal (Nature, 10 May 2012, Vol. 485, page 229-233). 
 
Research findings: 
• Organic farming is deemed less environmentally damaging than non-organic systems, but it may require more land to produce the same amount of food. 
• Although organic yields are lower on average, they are almost equivalent to conventional yields for some crop types and when good organic management practices are used. 
 
Comparing apples with oranges 
 
In the same issue (Nature, 10 May 2012, Vol. 485, page 176-177) John Reganold, Regents Professor of Soil Science and Agroecology, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, USA raises concern about components of the methodology used in the study and advocates the need to expand organic agriculture. 
 
About the study, Dr. Reganold said:  
 
“Yield differences between organic and conventional farming systems are a topic of intensive debate, and numerous studies have compared crop yields. Yet few studies have synthesized this information on a global scale. In the meta-analysis, Seufert et al. showed, from 316 yield comparisons in 66 studies, that organic farming systems in developed countries produce yields that are 20% lower than their conventional counterparts. This discrepancy rises to 25% when data from developed and developing countries are combined.  
However, the authors also found that for certain crops, growing conditions and management practices, organic yields nearly match those from conventional systems. These findings underscore the potential for organic farming to have an increasing role in a sustainable food supply. 
 
No one of these systems alone will produce enough food to feed the planet. Rather, a blend of farming approaches is needed for future global food and ecosystem security. Organic farming provides multiple sustainability benefits, and Seufert and colleagues’ findings indicate that it can play a part in feeding the world. Yet just under 1% of agricultural land worldwide is now managed organically. This percentage should be much larger in the future”. 
 
Summary of the Letter can be found online here (and information on how to purchase the full article) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature11069.html  
 
Further information on John Reganold’s commentary: Comparing apples with oranges can be found here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/485176a.html  
 
For article by TE Farm Team see: Engage Issue 18 May 2012 http://farmhub.textileexchange.org/newsletter/past-issues  
 
 
Rodale Institute – 30 Year Research 
 
The Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST) has been tracking the performance of organically grown grain crops (such as corn and soybeans) and conventional, synthetic-chemical-reliant grain crops for the past 30 years. 
 
As America’s longest-running side-by-side comparison of these farming systems, the FST has revealed that crops grown organically are healthier and hardier in the long run, and better able to cope with weather extremes. Organic fields in the FST produce just as much as the chemical-reliant fields. 
 
But it is the performance of the organic fields during drought years that impressed the researchers. 
 
In four out of five drought years, the organically grown corn produced significantly more than the conventionally grown corn. The organic corn of the FST was even more successful under drought conditions than the drought-tolerant seed varieties were in the industry trials. The Rodale Institute’s organically managed fields produced between 28.4 percent and 33.7 percent more corn than conventionally managed fields under drought conditions. 
 
That natural support system of organic practice is what makes those crops more drought-tolerant. Fertile soil, rich in organic matter and microbes, creates a more stable environment for plants. Rather than crop failure in times of stress, the organically cultivated plants can rely on the soil to provide what the weather has not. 
 
Even in times of severe water shortage, not only can organic fields produce a more successful crop, but they continue to contribute to our drinking water reserves. In the FST, the organic fields recharged groundwater at rates 15 to 20 percent higher than the conventional fields. 
 
Download the 30 Year Report: http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/farming-systems-trial-30-year-report/  

Hello! 
 
Last week we held the 2nd webinar in our six part Collaborative Learning Series: Rethinking and Reframing Sustainable Sourcing. The topic under discussion was “Measuring Sustainability” – where we looked at indices and metrics, and how these tools can help guide supply chain investments. 
 
And despite a power cut and the onset of daylight saving during the first of the two webinars we had an enlightening and fruitful exchange. Especially during the second of the two webinars where we were less challenged by technology!  
 
Later this week we will be uploading the recorded webinar, presentation slides, and the topic summary – complete with our thought-provoking illustrated overview – captured “live” by TEs creative Carlotta Cataldi during the course of the presentation.  
 
Included in this month’s topic summary will be a guide to the many sustainability assessment tools there are out there; what they do (and don’t do) and where to find out more about each of them. So don’t miss this valuable review.  
 
For me, as a layperson, the take-home messages from this topics discussion (and direct from our knowledgeable and experienced speakers, Dr Sabine Deimling (PE International Germany) and Laurence Smith (Organic Research Centre UK) were: 
 
• Carbon is a great starting point – but there’s much more to take into account when assessing product impact and lifecycles. (I recall Laurence referring to a “fetishization” of carbon which certainly grabbed my attention!).  
 
• The scope of the assessment, or process boundaries, needs to be transparent (so what’s in and what’s not) must be clearly communicated - and factored into any analysis of the results. 
 
• Caution should be applied when extrapolating data snapshots from one product lifecycle study and making whole-sector assumptions. Furthermore, data needs to be treated as a living thing – it will always be in a state of flux in both time and space. 
 
• Data must also be set in context - for example not divorced from local characteristics, climate, water scarcity, socio-economic factors and so on. 
 
• Our understanding of how and what to measure, and the dynamics at play between different indicators, is still evolving – for example we know biodiversity is a key element of sustainability but incorporating it into an assessment tool is beyond complex. 
 
• Sustainability assessment tools definitely have their place – they can identify “hot spots” and be a useful way to engage supply chain partners in dialogue – and hopefully collaborative solution finding, and performance improvement. 
 
This is just a quick recap – the full summary will be available shortly. Meanwhile if you have any comments, questions, or further requests for inclusion in the summary please do share them with us over the next couple of days.  
 
Have a great week 
Liesl  

For those of you following our collaborative learning series, with an interest in quantifying impact - you may enjoy this blog "Putting environmental impact on the balance sheet" http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/environmental-impact-on-the-balance-sheet and the link to the new TEEB for business report "Natural Capital at Risk – The Top 100 Externalities of Business" - which attempts to monetise natural capital. 
 
I was particularly pleased to hear the words of Dorothy Maxwell: 
 
"At the end of the day, a number is just a number. That's all very interesting, but it's all about how you use that number", observes Dorothy Maxwell, director of the TEEB for Business Coalition. "How do you incorporate this into business decision-making practically so that it's meaningful for a business?" 
 
To add to Dorothy's comment I would add the point that someone made to me the other day and that is... until we move from a commodity-based approach to a people-based one we will continue to chip away at the edges but not achieve the new business model we know we need.