Organic Farming – Half The World Knows Half The Biased Truth

Which half? Guess!

On 15 December 2018, David Nield of Science Alert says, "New Paper Shows How Much Worse Organic Farming Can Be For The Climate" (sciencealert.com):

Organic farming aims to maximize the "natural" and minimize chemical interference when it comes to producing our food, but is it actually better for the environment? ¶ A new study looking at pea and wheat crops suggests the opposite, claiming that organic farms are worse for the climate, because they tend to take up more room.

The study was done in Sweden. With that negative finding, since I believe in the wisdom of organic farming, my question is: "Was Sweden the wrong place for the study?" My own answer is: "No – the study itself was wrong!" Duh.

"Organic farms are worse for the climate, because they tend to take up more room." Because they yield less per hectare; to produce more, more hectares need to be planted.

And why is that? Mr Nield says:

For their study, the team of scientists focused on the farming of organic peas and wheat in Sweden. ¶ Primarily because no fertilizers are used, organic pea farming takes up more space than non-organic pea farming.

"Around 50 percent bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas," says Stefan Wirsenius, from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, member of the research team. This is the setup:

Conventional farms vs organic farms.
Inorganic fertilizers vs no fertilizer at all.

You have fields not completely matched. Now tell me, how would the data or stats from those fields match?

I read again: "Primarily because no fertilizers are used, organic pea farming takes up more space than non-organic pea farming."

I must emphasize: The report says, "No fertilizers are used." So, in that organic farm, organic fertilizer was not used. In the conventional farm, inorganic fertilizer was used. In that case, we have 2 experimental setups that are not balanced. In other words, the research team of Mr Wirsenius in Sweden conducted:

A study comparing 2 farming systems that were
not completely matched in methods from each other!

I repeat: The conventional farm was fertilized, while the organic farm was not. You cannot compare 2 unmatched setups and come up with a logical conclusion.

So, your stats are derived from 2 fields where one is a complete representation of itself (conventional farming with inorganic fertilizer) and the other incomplete (organic farming without fertilizer). So, to borrow from Shakespeare's Cassius in Julius Caesar, this is my lament:

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stats,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

Mr Nield says the research paper has been published by the journal Nature, which I know is very prestigious internationally. I'm not intimidated. I myself have been Editor in Chief of several technical publications in the Philippines in the last 43 years, not to mention editing a hundred or so theses and dissertations in Agriculture and Forestry, so I should know if your study is biased or not. Truth to tell, I have my own bias: Unbiased research! @