Is organic farming better for the environment than conventional farming?
As someone who has studied the environmental impacts of agriculture for many years, there are a handful of questions that I get over and over.
作为多年来研究农业对环境影响的人，我反复遇到一些问题。
One of them is whether we are right to assume that organic farming is better for the environment than conventional farming.
其中之一是我们认为有机农业比传统农业对环境更好的假设是否正确。
I think this is a common assumption.
我认为这是一个常见的假设。
When I eat with others, there is often an expectation that I will automatically choose the organic option.
当我和别人一起吃饭时，通常会期望我会自动选择有机选项。
When I speak to friends, they are keen to tell me that they’ve started buying organic vegetables or beef.
当我和朋友交谈时，他们热衷于告诉我他们已经开始购买有机蔬菜或牛肉。
They are looking for a thumbs-up that this was the best choice.
他们正在寻找一个竖起大拇指的人，认为这是最好的选择。
While this choice might seem obvious and simple (organic is good, and conventional is bad), the research is far more mixed.
虽然这种选择可能看起来显而易见且简单（有机是好的，传统是不好的），但研究却更加复杂。
In 2017, I wrote an article looking at the latest studies .
2017年，我写了一篇文章看看最新的研究。
I mainly drew on a meta-analysis by Michael Clark and David Tilman, which found little clear difference in some environmental impacts — such as carbon emissions and water use — between organic and conventional methods.
我主要参考了迈克尔·克拉克（Michael Clark）和大卫·蒂尔曼（David Tilman）的荟萃分析，该分析发现有机方法和传统方法在某些环境影响（例如碳排放和用水）方面几乎没有明显差异。
1 But it did find some areas where organic performed worse: specifically, water pollution and land use.
1 但它确实发现了一些有机表现较差的领域：特别是水污染和土地利用。
Organic farming tends to get lower yields and therefore uses more land.
有机农业的产量往往较低，因此会占用更多的土地。
That article has been a popular one since then.
从那时起，这篇文章就很受欢迎。
But it’s now old and worthy of a refresh.
但现在它已经很旧了，值得更新。
Nine years on, do we have better data on these comparative impacts?
九年过去了，我们是否有关于这些比较影响的更好数据？
How should we think about these differences in farming practices?
我们应该如何看待农业实践中的这些差异？
Organic agriculture refers to the farming of crops or livestock without the use of synthetic inputs.
有机农业是指不使用合成投入物种植农作物或牲畜。
That includes synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, plant growth regulators, nanomaterials, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
其中包括合成肥料、农药、植物生长调节剂、纳米材料和转基因生物 (GMO)。
2 This doesn’t mean organic farming is chemical or pesticide-free.
2 这并不意味着有机农业不使用化学品或杀虫剂。
Chemicals are often used in organic farming, but most are not synthetically manufactured; there are a few exceptions that have been approved by the National Organic Program of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
有机农业中经常使用化学品，但大多数不是合成制造的；有一些例外情况已获得美国农业部 (USDA) 国家有机计划的批准。
3 Conventional — sometimes called “industrial” — farming is any agricultural system that uses one or more of the above synthetic inputs.
3 传统农业（有时称为“工业化”）农业是指使用上述一种或多种合成投入的任何农业系统。
The methods applied for weed and pest control in conventional and organic systems can also affect planting and tillage techniques.
传统和有机系统中用于杂草和害虫控制的方法也会影响种植和耕作技术。
Conventional farming often uses synthetic herbicides to control weeds; this approach is often more conducive to low- or no-till management techniques.
传统农业经常使用合成除草剂来控制杂草；这种方法通常更有利于低耕或免耕管理技术。
Since herbicide applications cannot be widely adopted in organic farming, options for no-till farming can be more limited and place greater emphasis on mechanical controls or mulching.
由于除草剂的应用无法在有机农业中广泛采用，免耕农业的选择可能更加有限，并且更加注重机械控制或覆盖。
In crop production, nutrients can be added to the soil as organic matter, such as green compost, animal manure (human sewage sludge is usually banned), or bone meal.
在农作物生产中，养分可以以有机质的形式添加到土壤中，例如绿色堆肥、动物粪便（通常禁止人类污水污泥）或骨粉。
For livestock, organic methods mean animals must be fed organically certified feed (or graze on land with no synthetic chemical inputs), and antibiotics cannot be used throughout their lifetime, except in emergency cases such as disease or an outbreak of infection.
对于牲畜来说，有机方法意味着动物必须饲喂有机认证的饲料（或在没有合成化学投入的土地上放牧），并且不能在其一生中使用抗生素，除非在疾病或感染爆发等紧急情况下。
In conventional livestock production, there are no constraints on feed certification, and antibiotics and growth hormones are often used.
传统畜牧生产中，没有饲料认证的限制，经常使用抗生素和生长激素。
Animal welfare standards for organic certification can vary by country; in many, livestock must be raised with access to the outdoors (i.e., caged hens are not permitted).
有机认证的动物福利标准可能因国家/地区而异；在许多国家，牲畜饲养必须能够进入户外（即不允许将母鸡关在笼子里）。
Conventional livestock farming covers a range of production methods: they can be produced in either “free range” or “caged” conditions.
传统畜牧业涵盖了一系列生产方法：它们可以在“散养”或“笼养”条件下生产。
These are typically monitored and labeled as such on product packaging.
这些通常会受到监控并在产品包装上贴上标签。
Rather than looking at individual studies one by one, I’ll mostly rely on data from a large meta-analysis by Fatemeh Hashemi and colleagues, published in Communications Earth & Environment in 2024.
我不会一一查看个别研究，而是主要依赖 Fatemeh Hashemi 及其同事于 2024 年在《通信地球与环境》上发表的一项大型荟萃分析的数据。
4 It compiled data from 100 assessment studies.
4 它汇集了 100 项评估研究的数据。
On some environmental impacts, there was no clear winner.
在某些环境影响方面，没有明显的赢家。
But let me start with two where there was.
但让我从已有的两个开始。
Organic agriculture almost always proved better on the metric of “ecotoxicity”.
在“生态毒性”指标上，有机农业几乎总是被证明更好。
This measures how harmful a farming system’s chemical inputs — which are mostly pesticides — are to plants, insects, and aquatic life in the local environment.
它衡量了农业系统的化学投入（主要是农药）对当地环境中的植物、昆虫和水生生物的危害程度。
Particular chemicals have an ecotoxicity score, which is multiplied by the amount of each substance applied.
特定化学品具有生态毒性评分，该评分乘以每种物质的使用量。
Across the studies that measured it, organic farming almost always had much lower ecotoxicity than conventional farming.
在所有测量的研究中，有机农业的生态毒性几乎总是比传统农业低得多。
Since the key distinction between organic and conventional farming is the use of synthetic chemicals, ecotoxicity is really the measure where organic farming nearly always wins.
由于有机农业和传统农业之间的主要区别在于合成化学品的使用，因此生态毒性实际上是有机农业几乎总是获胜的衡量标准。
There are a few exceptions, though.
不过，也有一些例外。
Some chemicals, such as copper sulfate, are allowed under organic certification.
一些化学品，例如硫酸铜，在有机认证中是允许的。
In a few of the studies where these were used, organic actually had a higher ecotoxicity score.
在一些使用这些材料的研究中，有机产品实际上具有更高的生态毒性评分。
As a result, organic farming also tends to support greater biodiversity on the land it uses.
因此，有机农业也倾向于支持其所用土地上更大的生物多样性。
Studies typically find greater diversity of plant, insect, and bird species on organic land.
研究通常发现有机土地上的植物、昆虫和鸟类物种更加多样化。
5 They also find that, on average, these organisms are more abundant.
5 他们还发现，平均而言，这些生物体的数量更为丰富。
6
6
These positive results vary widely depending on the scale.
这些积极的结果根据规模的不同而有很大差异。
Organic tends to perform better in terms of biodiversity at the level of a particular field.
就特定领域的生物多样性而言，有机食品往往表现更好。
But studies have shown that these positive effects diminish when looking at biodiversity across an entire farm or the surrounding area.
但研究表明，当观察整个农场或周边地区的生物多样性时，这些积极影响会减弱。
7
7
On the other hand, conventional agriculture consistently performed better on land use.
另一方面，传统农业在土地利用方面始终表现更好。
It had higher yields of both plant and animal products, so producing one kilogram of food required less land.
它的植物和动物产品产量较高，因此生产一公斤粮食所需的土地较少。
8
8
In the chart below, you can see the difference in average land use between organic and conventional products; one dot is equal to one study.
在下图中，您可以看到有机产品和传统产品之间平均土地利用的差异；一个点等于一项研究。
The gray line marks where the land use between organic and conventional systems would be equal.
灰线标记了有机系统和传统系统之间的土地利用相等的地方。
As you can see, almost all of the dots lie above the gray line; this means organic farming almost always uses more land.
正如您所看到的，几乎所有的点都位于灰线上方；这意味着有机农业几乎总是使用更多的土地。
The median result was that organic practices used 64% more land.
结果中位数是有机实践多使用了 64% 的土地。
Let’s then look at the environmental indicators where the answer is less clear-cut: carbon emissions (often referred to as “global warming potential”) and two metrics that capture water pollution: acidification and eutrophication (the leakage of nutrients into land and water bodies).
然后让我们看看答案不太明确的环境指标：碳排放（通常称为“全球变暖潜力”）和反映水污染的两个指标：酸化和富营养化（营养物质泄漏到土地和水体中）。
The first thing to note is that across all these metrics, organic farming performs better per unit of land .
首先要注意的是，在所有这些指标中，有机农业在单位土地上的表现更好。
If I grow one hectare of wheat using organic methods, and the same using conventional methods, carbon emissions and water pollution will be lower on the organic hectare.
如果我用有机方法种植一公顷小麦，和用传统方法种植一公顷小麦一样，有机公顷上的碳排放和水污染会更低。
But as we just saw, organic farms tend to produce less food per hectare.
但正如我们刚才所看到的，有机农场每公顷的粮食产量往往较少。
When we look at impacts per kilogram of food (which is ultimately what we care about when it comes to food consumption and our own choices), those gains disappear.
当我们考虑每公斤食物的影响时（这最终是我们在食物消费和我们自己的选择方面所关心的），这些收益就消失了。
The researchers found that across the 100 assessments, there was no statistically significant difference between organic and conventional farming when it came to greenhouse gas emissions, acidification, and eutrophication.
研究人员发现，在 100 项评估中，有机农业和传统农业在温室气体排放、酸化和富营养化方面没有统计学上的显着差异。
The results were very mixed: in some studies, one won over the other, but almost just as many found the opposite effect.
结果好坏参半：在一些研究中，一项研究胜过另一项研究，但几乎同样多的研究发现了相反的效果。
In the chart below, I’ve shown the outcome of each of these studies.
在下图中，我展示了每项研究的结果。
Those in pink on the right-hand side had lower impacts with conventional methods.
右侧粉红色的部分对传统方法的影响较低。
Those on the left, in purple, found organic was better.
左边的紫色衣服发现有机食品更好。
You can clearly see the difference between the two methods in the top (ecotoxicity) and bottom (land use) panels, and the mixed results in the three middle panels.
您可以清楚地看到顶部（生态毒性）和底部（土地利用）面板中两种方法之间的差异，以及中间三个面板中的混合结果。
The largest source of emissions in conventional crop farming is the use of synthetic fertilizers.
传统作物种植中最大的排放源是合成肥料的使用。
Manufacturing fertilizers is an energy-intensive process.
制造肥料是一个能源密集型过程。
It uses the Haber-Bosch process, in which natural gas serves as both a feedstock and an energy source.
它采用哈伯-博世工艺，其中天然气既作为原料又作为能源。
Once nitrogen fertilizers are applied to the soil, they’re converted to nitrous oxide (N 2 O), which is a powerful greenhouse gas (one gram generates around 270 times the warming impact of CO 2 over a 100-year timescale).
一旦氮肥施入土壤，就会转化为一氧化二氮 (N 2 O)，这是一种强大的温室气体（在 100 年的时间内，一克产生的变暖影响约为 CO 2 的 270 倍）。
Organic farming doesn’t use synthetic fertilizers, but it does still need nutrient inputs in the form of manure, compost, or cover crops.
有机农业不使用合成肥料，但仍然需要肥料、堆肥或覆盖作物形式的养分投入。
The nitrogen in these sources is still converted into N 2 O, so these emissions aren’t avoided; they just come from a different source.
这些来源中的氮仍然会转化为 N 2 O，因此无法避免这些排放；它们只是来自不同的来源。
Since the chemical composition of manure is more varied and less optimized than it is in synthetic fertilizers, organic farming can result in more of these nutrients being wasted and converted to greenhouse gases.
由于粪便的化学成分比合成肥料更加多样化且优化程度较低，因此有机农业可能会导致更多的营养物质被浪费并转化为温室气体。
Since most synthetic pesticides are banned in organic agriculture, farmers often rely more on mechanical tillage to remove weeds.
由于大多数合成农药在有机农业中被禁止使用，农民通常更多地依赖机械耕作来清除杂草。
That not only burns more fuel from the machinery, but can also release carbon from the soil in the form of CO 2 .
这不仅会燃烧更多的机械燃料，而且还会以CO 2 的形式从土壤中释放碳。
Land use also plays a role.
土地利用也发挥着作用。
Since organic farming typically requires more land, this can generate additional climate costs in terms of the release of soil carbon and the application of manure or compost to a larger area of land.
由于有机农业通常需要更多的土地，因此在土壤碳的释放以及在更大面积的土地上施用粪肥或堆肥方面可能会产生额外的气候成本。
That’s why organic often does better on a per-hectare basis, but no better per kilogram of food .
这就是为什么有机食品通常以每公顷为单位表现更好，但每公斤食物却没有更好的表现。
One of my other most popular articles on Our World in Data looked at the role of food miles in the carbon footprint of our food.
我在《数据世界》中另一篇最受欢迎的文章探讨了食物里程在食物碳足迹中的作用。
It was titled: “ You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food?
它的标题是：“你想减少食物的碳足迹吗？
Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local ”, and that was the main takeaway.
关注你吃的东西，而不是你的食物是否是本地的”，这是主要的收获。
Reducing food miles might change the carbon footprint of your food choices by 5% to 10%.
减少食物里程可能会将您选择的食物的碳足迹改变 5% 到 10%。
Changing what you eat could change it by ten times or more.
改变你吃的东西可能会改变十倍甚至更多。
That’s because the difference in greenhouse gas emissions between animal products such as beef or lamb, and plant-based ones like soy is so large.
这是因为牛肉或羊肉等动物产品与大豆等植物产品之间的温室气体排放量差异很大。
Not to be a broken record, but the conclusion here is the same.
不是要打破记录，但这里的结论是一样的。
Across lots of different farms and products, there’s no significant difference in the carbon footprint of organic chicken versus conventional, or organic apples versus conventional ones.
在许多不同的农场和产品中，有机鸡肉与传统的碳足迹，或有机苹果与传统苹果的碳足迹没有显着差异。
Even when differences do exist across individual studies, they are often on the order of 5% or 10%, or in more extreme cases, 50%.
即使个别研究之间确实存在差异，但差异通常约为 5% 或 10%，或更极端的情况为 50%。
That goes both ways, so it’s not that organic or conventional farming consistently wins.
这是双向的，所以有机农业或传统农业并不总是获胜。
Those differences are small compared to the differences between foods.
与食物之间的差异相比，这些差异很小。
In the chart below, you can see the greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of different foods.
在下图中，您可以看到每公斤不同食物的温室气体排放量。
This comes from one of the large meta-analyses to date.
这来自迄今为止的一项大型荟萃分析。
9
9
Let’s say you’re fretting over whether to go for the organic or non-organic peas.
假设您正在为是否选择有机豌豆或非有机豌豆而烦恼。
Perhaps the carbon footprint could differ by up to 50% between them.
也许它们之间的碳足迹可能相差 50%。
Rather than the carbon footprint being 1 kilogram of greenhouse gases per kilogram, it’s 1.5 kilograms (again, you don’t know whether it’s the organic or conventional ones that are higher).
碳足迹不是每公斤 1 公斤温室气体，而是 1.5 公斤（同样，你不知道是有机的还是传统的更高）。
This is a rounding error compared to the difference between peas and beef.
与豌豆和牛肉之间的差异相比，这是一个舍入误差。
Choosing the latter would increase your carbon footprint not by 50%, but by 3,300% to 10,000%.
选择后者不会增加您的碳足迹 50%，而是增加 3,300% 到 10,000%。
This is even true when comparing animal products.
在比较动物产品时更是如此。
A 50% difference in the carbon footprint of organic versus conventional chicken matters less than choosing chicken over beef or lamb.
有机鸡肉与传统鸡肉的碳足迹相差 50%，这比选择鸡肉而不是牛肉或羊肉更重要。
We also see substantial differences in the carbon footprints of the same foods produced under the same system (organic or conventional).
我们还发现在同一系统（有机或传统）下生产的相同食品的碳足迹存在显着差异。
Producing organic tomatoes in one location could have twice the carbon footprint of producing organic tomatoes elsewhere.
在一个地方生产有机西红柿的碳足迹可能是其他地方生产有机西红柿的两倍。
That’s because a range of other production factors matter: the climate, the soil quality, and the specific techniques a farmer is using.
这是因为一系列其他生产因素也很重要：气候、土壤质量以及农民使用的具体技术。
These geographical differences in productivity can, again, dwarf any differences between organic and conventional systems.
这些生产力的地理差异再次使有机系统和传统系统之间的差异相形见绌。
What you eat, and all of these location and farm-specific factors, matter much more than whether it’s organic or not.
你吃什么，以及所有这些地点和农场特定的因素，比它是否是有机的更重要。
Organic agriculture is comparable to conventional agriculture in terms of carbon emissions.
有机农业在碳排放方面与传统农业相当。
As we saw earlier, it may also have biodiversity benefits, specifically for the area of land that is farmed.
正如我们之前所看到的，它还可能具有生物多样性效益，特别是对于耕地面积。
Its major downside is that it requires more land.
其主要缺点是需要更多土地。
The impact of land use is often underrated, both on climate and on biodiversity loss.
土地利用对气候和生物多样性丧失的影响往往被低估。
When it comes to climate, it’s not just the greenhouse gases we emit that matter.
当谈到气候时，重要的不仅仅是我们排放的温室气体。
It’s whether we could otherwise suck more carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in vegetation if we were using the land in another way.
问题在于，如果我们以其他方式利用土地，我们是否可以从大气中吸收更多的碳并将其储存在植被中。
Most studies — and the meta-analysis we just looked at — do include the emissions from land use change in their results.
大多数研究——以及我们刚刚看到的荟萃分析——确实在其结果中包含了土地利用变化带来的排放。
That is, the carbon emitted from deforestation, or the conversion of grasslands into agricultural land.
也就是说，森林砍伐或将草原转变为农田所排放的碳。
But they do not factor in what we call “ carbon opportunity costs ”: the fact that if it weren’t cropland or pasture, it might otherwise be natural grasslands or forest and would continually suck more carbon out of the atmosphere.
但他们没有考虑我们所说的“碳机会成本”：如果不是农田或牧场，它可能是天然草原或森林，并且会不断从大气中吸收更多的碳。
When we factor in these opportunity costs, some conventional agricultural systems may be better for the climate than organic ones.
当我们考虑到这些机会成本时，一些传统农业系统可能比有机农业系统更适合气候。
Lower yields and higher land demand can also have spillover impacts for the rest of the world.
产量下降和土地需求增加也会对世界其他地区产生溢出影响。
A country might think that an environmentally friendly thing to do is to go all in on organic farming.
一个国家可能认为对环境友好的做法就是全力发展有机农业。
Laurence Smith and colleagues modeled what would happen if England and Wales had such aspirations.
劳伦斯·史密斯和同事模拟了如果英格兰和威尔士有这样的愿望将会发生什么。
10
10
England and Wales’ greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture would go down.
英格兰和威尔士农业产生的温室气体排放量将会下降。
This is to be expected: as we saw earlier, organic practices did have lower climate impacts per hectare .
这是可以预料的：正如我们之前所看到的，有机做法确实对每公顷的气候影响较低。
But lower yields mean it would produce far less food, and have to import the shortfall from elsewhere.
但较低的产量意味着它生产的粮食将少得多，并且必须从其他地方进口短缺的粮食。
Effectively, its farmland use would expand overseas.
实际上，其农田用途将扩大到海外。
When the researchers accounted for this spillover, the climate impact of its food consumption was higher under an organic-farming scenario than under the current one.
当研究人员考虑到这种溢出效应时，有机农业情景下食品消费对气候的影响比当前情景下更大。
Nearly half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture .
世界上近一半的可居住土地用于农业。
You can see this breakdown in the chart below.
您可以在下面的图表中看到这种细分。
The expansion of this land over millennia has displaced around one-third of the world’s previously forested land.
几千年来，这片土地的扩张已经取代了世界上约三分之一的先前林地。
That has transformed landscapes and dramatically changed biodiversity in the process.
这改变了地貌，并在此过程中极大地改变了生物多样性。
If we want to preserve the world’s remaining forests and other natural habitats, we need to find ways to use less land for agriculture, not more.
如果我们想保护世界上仅存的森林和其他自然栖息地，我们需要找到减少而不是增加农业用地的方法。
A dramatic shift to organic farming would move us in the opposite direction, at least without huge changes to what the world eats.
向有机农业的巨大转变将使我们走向相反的方向，至少不会对世界的饮食产生巨大的变化。
This article has focused on the environmental impacts of different farming methods.
本文重点讨论不同耕作方法对环境的影响。
But it’s worth noting that there is a strong human side to this, too.
但值得注意的是，这也有很强的人性化的一面。
It’s estimated that around half of the global population today relies on synthetic fertilizer for the food they eat.
据估计，当今全球约一半人口的食物依赖合成肥料。
11 An organic world wouldn’t just mean more farmland.
11 有机世界不仅仅意味着更多的农田。
It would also lack the nitrogen needed to feed the 8 or 9 billion people in it.
它还缺乏养活八九十亿人口所需的氮。
12
12
We send two regular newsletters so you can stay up to date on our work and receive curated highlights from across Our World in Data.
我们定期发送两份时事通讯，以便您及时了解我们的工作并接收来自“我们的数据世界”的精选亮点。
Where does this leave us on the original question: is organic better for the environment?
这给我们留下了最初的问题：有机对环境更好吗？
If we look at this through the question of “how do I limit the environmental impacts on this plot of land ?” then organic methods will often be the better choice.
如果我们通过“如何限制对这块土地的环境影响？”的问题来看待这个问题。那么有机方法往往是更好的选择。
The greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and biodiversity impacts on that hectare will often be lower.
该公顷的温室气体排放、水污染和生物多样性影响通常会较低。
That is different from the question of “how do we feed the world in a way that limits the environmental impacts of agriculture?” For that question, the per-kilogram metrics are more important.
这与“我们如何以限制农业对环境影响的方式养活世界？”的问题不同。对于这个问题，每公斤指标更为重要。
There, organic still wins on ecotoxicity, but conventional farming is no worse in terms of its climate or water pollution impacts, and is much better in terms of land use.
在那里，有机农业在生态毒性方面仍然胜出，但传统农业在气候或水污染影响方面并不差，而且在土地利用方面要好得多。
If the world were to move to a 100% organic farming system, we’d have to convert far more forest and natural habitat into farmland.
如果世界要转向 100% 有机农业系统，我们就必须将更多的森林和自然栖息地转变为农田。
This could ultimately work against our intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve biodiversity.
这最终可能违背我们减少温室气体排放和保护生物多样性的意图。
A future with less agricultural land but more organic farming would only be possible with widespread shifts to more plant-based, less land-hungry diets and large reductions in food waste.
只有广泛转向更多以植物为基础、更少占用土地的饮食以及大幅减少食物浪费，才有可能实现农业用地减少、有机农业增多的未来。
13
13
Many thanks to Edouard Mathieu for comments and suggestions on this article.
非常感谢 Edouard Mathieu 对本文的评论和建议。
“Eat local” is a common recommendation to reduce your diet's carbon footprint.
“吃本地食物”是减少饮食碳足迹的常见建议。
How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it comes from?
与食物来源相比，您所吃的食物的影响如何？
What are the carbon opportunity costs of our diet?
我们饮食的碳机会成本是多少？
How much carbon could we store by regrowing forests and wild habitats on existing farmland?
通过在现有农田上重新种植森林和野生栖息地，我们可以储存多少碳？
What are the environmental impacts of food production?
粮食生产对环境有哪些影响？
How do we reduce the impacts of agriculture on the environment?
我们如何减少农业对环境的影响？
Clark, M., & Tilman, D.
克拉克，M.和蒂尔曼，D.
(2017).
（2017）。
Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice.
农业生产系统、农业投入效率和食物选择的环境影响的比较分析。
Environmental Research Letters.
环境研究快报。
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2015).
美国农业部自然资源保护局（2015 年）。
Natural Organic Farming Handbook .
天然有机农业手册。
Regulators — such as the USDA’s National Organic Program — have approved a small number of synthetic pesticides for use in organic farming.
美国农业部的国家有机计划等监管机构已批准少量合成农药用于有机农业。
The most widely discussed example of this is copper sulfate, which is often used as a fungicide.
最广泛讨论的例子是硫酸铜，它经常被用作杀菌剂。
Hashemi et al.
哈希米等人。
(2024).
（2024）。
Organic food has lower environmental impacts per area unit and similar climate impacts per mass unit compared to conventional.
与传统食品相比，有机食品对单位面积的环境影响较小，而单位质量的气候影响则相似。
Communications Earth & Environment .
通讯地球与环境。
Tuck, S.L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L.A., and Bengtsson, J.
Tuck, S.L.、Winqvist, C.、Mota, F.、Ahnström, J.、Turnbull, L.A. 和 Bengtsson, J.
(2014).
（2014）。
Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis.
土地利用强度和有机农业对生物多样性的影响：分层荟萃分析。
Journal of Applied Ecology.
应用生态学杂志。
This isn’t always the case, but on average, organic farms tend to have higher abundance.
情况并非总是如此，但平均而言，有机农场往往拥有更高的丰度。
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J.
本特森，J.，安斯特罗姆，J.
and Weibull, A-C.
和威布尔，A-C。
(2005).
（2005）。
The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis.
有机农业对生物多样性和丰度的影响：荟萃分析。
Journal of Applied Ecology.
应用生态学杂志。
Schneider, M., Lüscher, G., Jeanneret, P.
施奈德，M.，吕舍尔，G.，让纳雷，P.
et al.
等人。
(2014).
（2014）。
Gains to species diversity in organically farmed fields are not propagated at the farm level.
有机农田物种多样性的增长并未在农场层面得到传播。
Nature Communications.
自然通讯。
This result — that organic farming tends to achieve lower yields — is consistent with previous research in this area.
这一结果——有机农业往往会获得较低的产量——与该领域之前的研究一致。
De Ponti, T., Rijk, B., & Van Ittersum, M.
De Ponti, T.、Rijk, B. 和 Van Ittersum, M.
K.
K.
(2012).
（2012）。
The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture.
有机农业和传统农业之间的作物产量差距。
Agricultural Systems .
农业系统。
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J.
Seufert, V.、Ramankutty, N. 和 Foley, J.
A.
A.
(2012).
（2012）。
Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.
比较有机农业和传统农业的产量。
Nature, 485(7397), 229–232.
自然，485（7397），229-232。
Seufert, V., & Ramankutty, N.
Seufert，V.，＆Ramankutty，N.
(2017).
（2017）。
Many shades of gray—The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture.
许多灰色阴影——有机农业的环境依赖性表现。
Science Advances .
科学进步。
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T.
普尔，J.，＆内梅切克，T.
(2018).
（2018）。
Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers .
通过生产者和消费者减少食品对环境的影响。
Science .
科学 。
Smith, L.
史密斯，L.
G., Kirk, G.
G.，柯克，G.
J., Jones, P.
J.、琼斯、P.
J., & Williams, A.
J.，＆威廉姆斯，A.
G.
G。
(2019).
（2019）。
The greenhouse gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales to organic methods.
英格兰和威尔士的粮食生产转为有机方法的温室气体影响。
Nature Communications.
自然通讯。
Erisman, J.
埃里斯曼，J.
W., Sutton, M.
W.，萨顿，M.
A., Galloway, J., Klimont, Z., & Winiwarter, W.
A.、加洛韦，J.、克里蒙特，Z. 和维尼瓦特，W.
(2008).
（2008）。
How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world.
一个世纪的氨合成如何改变了世界。
Nature Geoscience .
自然地球科学。
Smil, V.
斯米尔，V.
(2004).
（2004）。
Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production.
丰富地球：弗里茨·哈伯、卡尔·博世和世界粮食生产的转型。
MIT Press.
麻省理工学院出版社。
Rosa, L., & Gabrielli, P.
罗莎，L.，＆加布里埃利，P.
(2023).
（2023）。
Energy and food security implications of transitioning synthetic nitrogen fertilizers to net-zero emissions.
将合成氮肥转变为净零排放对能源和粮食安全的影响。
Environmental Research Letters .
环境研究快报。
Even in Muller et al.’s (2017) most optimistic scenario — combining reduced food waste with reduced animal product consumption — adequate nitrogen supply was a persistent challenge for a fully organic food system.
即使在 Muller 等人（2017）最乐观的设想中——将减少食物浪费与减少动物产品消耗相结合——充足的氮供应对于完全有机食品系统来说也是一个持续的挑战。
Muller, A., Schader, C., El-Hage Scialabba, N., Brüggemann, J., Isensee, A., Erb, K.
Muller, A.、Schader, C.、El-Hage Scialabba, N.、Brüggemann, J.、Isensee, A.、Erb, K.
H., ...
H.，...
& Niggli, U.
＆尼格利，U.
(2017).
（2017）。
Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture.
通过有机农业更可持续地养活世界的战略。
Nature Communications.
自然通讯。
Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations.
我们的文章和数据可视化依赖于许多不同的人和组织的工作。
When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources.
引用本文时，请同时注明底层数据来源。
This article can be cited as:
这篇文章可以引用为：
We are a live site and we keep our work maintained.
我们是一个活跃的网站，我们会保持我们的工作。
So our articles are often changed, including the data.
所以我们的文章经常改，包括数据。
You can browse previous versions of this work here.
您可以在此处浏览此作品的先前版本。