But by far the greatest gains are due to savings on damages to public health and the environment estimated at more than US$59 billion a year Dr. Mae-Wan Ho puts the nail on the coffin on industrial agriculture
Scientists who should know better - if only they had kept up with the literature - continue to tell the world that organic agriculture invariably means lower yields, especially compared to industrial high input agriculture, even when this has long been proven false (see for example, “Organic agriculture fights back” SiS 16 [1]; “Organic production works”, SiS 25 [2]).
Researchers led by David Pimenthal, ecologist and agricultural scientist at Cornell University, New York, have now reviewed data from long-term field investigations and confirmed that organic yields are no different from conventional under normal growing conditions, but that they are far ahead during drought years [3]. The reasons are well known: organic soils have greater capacity to retain water as well as nutrients such as nitrogen.
Organic soils are also more efficient carbon sinks, and organic management saves on fossil fuel, both of which are important for mitigating global warming.
But by far the greatest gains are in savings on externalised costs associated with conventional industrial farming, which are estimated to exceed 25 percent of the total market value of United States’ agricultural output. Long-term field trials at Rodale Institute
From 1981 through 2002, field investigations were conducted at Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania on 6.1 ha. Three different cropping systems: conventional, animal manure and legume-based organic, and legume-based organic. Plots (18 x 92 m) were split into three (6 x 92 m) subplots, which are large enough for farm-scale equipment to be used for operations and harvesting. The main plots were separated with a 1.5 m grass strip to minimize cross movement of soil, fertilizers, and pesticides. Each of the three cropping systems was replicated eight times.
The conventional system based on synthetic fertilizer and herbicide use, represented a typical cash-grain 5-year crop rotation (corn, corn, soybeans, corn, soybeans) that reflects commercial conventional operations in the region and throughout the Midwest. According to USDA 2003 data, there are more than 40 million ha in this production system in North America. Crop residues were left on the surface of the land to conserve soil and water; but no cover crops were used during the non-growing season.
The organic animal-based cropping represented a typical livestock operation in which grain crops were grown for animal feed, not cash sale. This rotation was more complex: corn, soybeans, corn silage, wheat, and red clover-alfalfa hay, as well as a rye cover crop before corn silage and soybeans. Aged cattle manure served as the nitrogen source and applied at 5.6 tonnes per ha (dry), 2 years out of every 5 immediately before ploughing the soil for corn. Additional nitrogen was supplied by the plough-down of legume-hay crops. The total nitrogen applied per ha was about 40 kilograms per year or 198 kg per ha for any given year with a corn crop. Weed control relied on mechanical cultivation, weed-suppressing crop rotations, and relay cropping, in which one crop acted as living mulch for another.
The organic legume-based cropping represented a cash grain operation without livestock. The rotation system included hairy vetch (winter cover crop used as green manure), corn, rye (winter cover crop), soybeans, and winter wheat. The total nitrogen added to this system per ha per year averaged 49 kg (or 140 kg per ha) per year with a corn crop). Both organic systems included a small grain, such as wheat, grown alone or inter-seeded with a legume. Weed control was similar in both organic systems.
The challenges of certification and the threats of corporate makeover. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
One major obstacle to growth in the organic sector is certification and accreditation [1]. Products are labelled organic based on certification that they have been grown, handled and processed in accordance with organic standards. These certifications are now generally provided by third parties, which are then accredited to any overlying organization, which may be national, international, governmental or non-governmental.
Certification systems and standards were initially developed by farmers and farmer organizations, and shaped by local conditions and markets. Hence the roots of certification contained both diversity and local control, even though there was a lot in common. As organic agriculture expanded, more specialized certifying organizations have been created, many of these becoming larger in size and scope.
IFOAM has commented on its website that, “The growth of organic agriculture and markets during the last decade has been accompanied by a rapid growth in the number and complexity of private sector standards followed by the burgeoning of government organic regulations. Though the purpose of certification was to foster confidence of buyers and enhance trade, the plethora of certification requirements and regulations is now considered to be an obstacle for the continuous and rapid development of the organic sector.”
For example, there are virtually no mutual equivalence agreements between countries on organic standards. Efforts to establish equivalence among the many regulatory systems have been led by IFOAM together with FAO, the International Trade Centre of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the European Union. There is consensus about standards on major issues – such as the clear exclusion of GMOs – though debate continues on others, such as the use of food additives and processing aids.
As the national governments in Europe and North America institutionalise certification and also become involved as accrediting organizations, they may become “gatekeepers” controlling access to these largest markets. It also increases the cost and complexity of certification to the point that small-scale farmers may be excluded.
Price premium is also an obstacle, resulting primarily from the high costs of labour, far greater than money save in reduced inputs such as pesticides and chemical fertilizers. But the higher return to farmers is integral to the future of organic agriculture.
Certification systems and standards were initially developed by farmers and farmer organizations, and shaped by local conditions and markets. Hence the roots of certification contained both diversity and local control, even though there was a lot in common. As organic agriculture expanded, more specialized certifying organizations have been created, many of these becoming larger in size and scope.
IFOAM has commented on its website that, “The growth of organic agriculture and markets during the last decade has been accompanied by a rapid growth in the number and complexity of private sector standards followed by the burgeoning of government organic regulations. Though the purpose of certification was to foster confidence of buyers and enhance trade, the plethora of certification requirements and regulations is now considered to be an obstacle for the continuous and rapid development of the organic sector.”
For example, there are virtually no mutual equivalence agreements between countries on organic standards. Efforts to establish equivalence among the many regulatory systems have been led by IFOAM together with FAO, the International Trade Centre of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the European Union. There is consensus about standards on major issues – such as the clear exclusion of GMOs – though debate continues on others, such as the use of food additives and processing aids.
As the national governments in Europe and North America institutionalise certification and also become involved as accrediting organizations, they may become “gatekeepers” controlling access to these largest markets. It also increases the cost and complexity of certification to the point that small-scale farmers may be excluded.
Price premium is also an obstacle, resulting primarily from the high costs of labour, far greater than money save in reduced inputs such as pesticides and chemical fertilizers. But the higher return to farmers is integral to the future of organic agriculture.
Etiquetas: Organic
0 Comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Suscribirse a Comentarios de la entrada [Atom]
<< Página Principal