Organic farmingis a form ofagriculturethat relies on techniques such ascrop rotation,green manure,compost, andbiological pest control. Depending on whosedefinitionis used, organic farming uses fertilizers and pesticides (which includeherbicides,insecticidesandfungicides) if they are considerednatural(such asbone mealfrom animals orpyrethrinfrom flowers), but it excludes or strictly limits the use of various methods (including synthetic petrochemicalfertilizersandpesticides;plant growth regulatorssuch ashormones;antibiotic use in livestock;genetically modified organisms;[1]human sewagesludge; andnanomaterials.[2]) for reasons includingsustainability,openness,independence,health, andsafety.Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by theInternational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements(IFOAM), an internationalumbrella organizationfor organic farming organizations established in 1972.[3]The USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) definition as of April 1995 is:Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony."[4]Since 1990 the market fororganic foodand other products has grown rapidly, reaching $63 billion worldwide in 2012.[5]:25This demand has driven a similar increase in organically managed farmland which has grown over the years 2001-2011 at a compounding rate of 8.9% per annum.[6]As of 2011, approximately 37,000,000 hectares (91,000,000 acres) worldwide were farmed organically, representing approximately 0.9 percent of total world farmland (2009).[7]

History[edit]Main article:History of organic farmingTraditional farming (of many kinds) was the original type of agriculture, and has been practiced for thousands of years.Forest gardening, a traditional food production system which dates fromprehistoric times, is thought to be the world's oldest and most resilientagroecosystem.[8]Artificial fertilizers had been created during the 18th century, initially withsuperphosphatesand thenammonia-based fertilizers mass-produced using theHaber-Boschprocess developed during World War I. Theseearly fertilizerswere cheap, powerful, and easy to transport in bulk. Similar advances occurred in chemical pesticides in the 1940s, leading to the decade being referred to as the 'pesticide era'.[9]But these new agricultural techniques, while beneficial in the short term, had serious longer term side effects such as soil compaction,soil erosion, and declines in overall soil fertility, along with health concerns about toxic chemicals entering the food supply.[10]:10Soil biology scientists began in the late 1800s and early 1900s to develop theories on how new advancements in biological science could be used in agriculture as a way to remedy these side effects, while still maintaining higher production. In Central EuropeRudolf Steiner, whoseLectures on Agriculturewere published in 1925.[11][12][13]:[14]createdbiodynamic agriculture, an early version of what we now call organic agriculture.[15][16][17]Steiner was motivated by spiritual rather than scientific considerations.[13]:1719In the late 1930s and early 1940sSir Albert Howardand his wifeGabrielle Howard, both accomplishedbotanists, developed organic agriculture. The Howards were influenced by their experiences with traditional farming methods in India, biodynamic, and their formal scientific education.[11]Sir Albert Howard is widely considered to be the "father of organic farming", because he was the first to apply scientific knowledge and principles to these various traditional and more natural methods.[18]:45In the United States another founder of organic agriculture wasJ.I. Rodale. In the 1940s he founded both a working organic farm for trials and experimentation,The Rodale Institute, and founded theRodale Pressto teach and advocate organic to the wider public. Further work was done byLady Eve Balfourin the United Kingdom, and many others across the world.There is some controversy on where the term "organic" as it applies to agriculture first derived. One side claims term 'organic agriculture' was coined byLord Northbourne, an agriculturalist influenced by Steiner's biodynamic approach, in 1940. This side claims the term as meaning the farm should be viewed as a living organism and stems from Steiner's non scientificanthroposophy.[19]The second claim is that "organic" derives from the work of early soil scientists that were developing what was then called "humus farming". Thus in this more scientific view the use oforganic matterto improve thehumuscontent of soils is the basis for the term and this view was popularized by Howard and Rodale. Since the early 1940s both camps have tended to merge.[20][21]Increasing environmental awareness in the general population in modern times has transformed the originally supply-driven organic movement to a demand-driven one. Premium prices and some government subsidies attracted farmers. In the developing world, many producersfarmaccording to traditional methods which are comparable to organic farming but are not certified and may or may not include the latest scientific advancements in organic agriculture. In other cases, farmers in the developing world have converted to modern organic methods for economic reasons.[22]Organic farming systems[edit]There are several organic farming systems.Biodynamic farmingis a comprehensive approach, with its own international governing body. TheDo Nothing Farmingmethod focuses on a minimum of mechanical cultivation and labor for grain crops. French intensive andbiointensive, methods are well-suited to organic principles. Other examples of techniques areholistic management,permaculture,SRIandno-till farming(the last two which may be implemented in conventional or organic systems[23][24]).Methods[edit]

Organic cultivation of mixed vegetables inCapay, California. Note thehedgerowin the background."An organic farm, properly speaking, is not one that uses certain methods and substances and avoids others; it is a farm whose structure is formed in imitation of the structure of a natural system that has the integrity, the independence and the benign dependence of an organism"Wendell Berry, "The Gift of Good Land"Organic farming methods combine scientific knowledge of ecology and moderntechnologywithtraditional farmingpractices based on naturally occurring biological processes. Organic farming methods are studied in the field ofagroecology. While conventional agriculture uses synthetic pesticides and water-soluble synthetically purified fertilizers, organic farmers are restricted by regulations to using natural pesticides and fertilizers. The principal methods of organic farming includecrop rotation,green manuresandcompost,biological pest control, and mechanicalcultivation. These measures use the natural environment to enhance agricultural productivity:legumesare planted to fixnitrogeninto the soil,natural insect predatorsare encouraged, crops are rotated to confuse pests and renew soil, and natural materials such aspotassium bicarbonate[25]andmulchesare used to control disease andweeds. Hardier plants are generated throughplant breedingrather than genetic engineering.While organic is fundamentally different from conventional because of the use of carbon based fertilizers compared with highly soluble synthetic based fertilizers andbiological pest controlinstead of synthetic pesticides, organic farming and large-scale conventional farming are not entirely mutually exclusive. Many of the methods developed for organic agriculture have been borrowed by more conventional agriculture. For example,Integrated Pest Managementis a multifaceted strategy that uses various organic methods of pest control whenever possible, but in conventional farming could include syntheticpesticidesonly as a last resort.[26]Crop diversity[edit]Crop diversityis a distinctive characteristic of organic farming. Conventional farming focuses onmass productionof one crop in one location, a practice calledmonoculture. The science ofagroecologyhas revealed the benefits ofpolyculture(multiple crops in the same space), which is often employed in organic farming.[27]Planting a variety of vegetable crops supports a wider range of beneficial insects, soil microorganisms, and other factors that add up to overall farm health. Crop diversity helps environments thrive and protect species from going extinct.[28]Soil management[edit]Organic farming relies heavily on the natural breakdown of organic matter, using techniques likegreen manureandcomposting, to replace nutrients taken from the soil by previous crops. This biological process, driven bymicroorganismssuch asmycorrhiza, allows the natural production of nutrients in the soil throughout the growing season, and has been referred to asfeeding the soil to feed the plant.Organic farming uses a variety of methods to improve soil fertility, including crop rotation, cover cropping, reduced tillage, and application of compost. By reducing tillage, soil is not inverted and exposed to air; less carbon is lost to the atmosphere resulting in more soil organic carbon. This has an added benefit of carbon sequestration which can reduce green house gases and aid in reversing climate change.Plants neednitrogen,phosphorus, andpotassium, as well asmicronutrientsandsymbiotic relationshipswithfungiand other organisms to flourish, but getting enough nitrogen, and particularly synchronization so that plants get enough nitrogen at the right time (when plants need it most), is a challenge for organic farmers.[29]Crop rotationandgreen manure("cover crops") help to provide nitrogen throughlegumes(more precisely, theFabaceaefamily) which fix nitrogen from the atmosphere through symbiosis withrhizobialbacteria.Intercropping, which is sometimes used for insect and disease control, can also increase soil nutrients, but the competition between the legume and the crop can be problematic and wider spacing between crop rows is required.Crop residuescan beploughedback into the soil, and different plants leave different amounts of nitrogen, potentially aiding synchronization.[29]Organic farmers also use animalmanure, certain processed fertilizers such as seed meal and variousmineralpowders such asrock phosphateandgreen sand, a naturally occurring form ofpotashwhich provides potassium. Together these methods help to controlerosion. In some casespHmay need to be amended. Natural pH amendments includelimeandsulfur, but in the U.S. some compounds such asiron sulfate,aluminum sulfate,magnesium sulfate, and solubleboronproducts are allowed in organic farming.[30]:43Mixed farms with bothlivestockandcropscan operate asley farms, whereby the land gathers fertility through growing nitrogen-fixingforagegrasses such aswhite cloveroralfalfaand growscash cropsorcerealswhen fertility is established. Farms without livestock ("stockless") may find it more difficult to maintain soil fertility, and may rely more on external inputs such as importedmanureas well as grain legumes and green manures, although grain legumes may fix limited nitrogen because they are harvested.Horticulturalfarms growing fruits and vegetables which operate in protected conditions are often even more reliant upon external inputs.[29]Biological research into soil and soil organisms has proven beneficial to organic farming. Varieties of bacteria and fungi break down chemicals, plant matter and animal waste into productive soil nutrients. In turn, they produce benefits of healthier yields and more productive soil for future crops.[31]Fields with less or no manure display significantly lower yields, due to decreased soil microbe community, providing a healthier, more arable soil system.[32]Weed management[edit]Organicweedmanagement promotes weed suppression, rather than weed elimination, by enhancing crop competition andphytotoxiceffects on weeds.[33]Organic farmers integrate cultural, biological, mechanical, physical and chemical tactics to manage weeds without synthetic herbicides.Organic standards requirerotationof annual crops,[34]meaning that a single crop cannot be grown in the same location without a different, intervening crop. Organic crop rotations frequently include weed-suppressivecover cropsand crops with dissimilar life cycles to discourage weeds associated with a particular crop.[33]Research is ongoing to develop organic methods to promote the growth of natural microorganisms that suppress the growth or germination of common weeds.[35]Other cultural practices used to enhance crop competitiveness and reduce weed pressure include selection of competitive crop varieties, high-density planting, tight row spacing, and late planting into warm soil to encourage rapid cropgermination.[33]Mechanical and physical weed control practices used on organic farms can be broadly grouped as:[36] Tillage- Turning the soil between crops to incorporate crop residues and soil amendments; remove existing weed growth and prepare a seedbed for planting; turning soil after seeding to kill weeds, includingcultivationof row crops; Mowing and cutting - Removing top growth of weeds; Flame weeding and thermal weeding - Using heat to kill weeds; and Mulching- Blocking weed emergence with organic materials, plastic films, orlandscape fabric.[37]Some critics, citing work published in 1997 by David Pimentel of Cornell University,[38]which described an epidemic ofsoil erosionworldwide, have raised concerned that tillage contribute to the erosion epidemic.[39]The FAO and other organizations have advocated a "no-till" approach to both conventional and organic farming, and point out in particular that crop rotation techniques used in organic farming are excellent no-till approaches.[39][40]A study published in 2005 by Pimentel and colleagues[41]confirmed that "Crop rotations and cover cropping (green manure) typical of organic agriculture reduce soil erosion, pest problems, and pesticide use." Some naturally sourced chemicals are allowed for herbicidal use. These include certain formulations ofacetic acid(concentrated vinegar),corn gluten meal, andessential oils. A few selectivebioherbicidesbased on fungalpathogenshave also been developed. At this time, however, organic herbicides and bioherbicides play a minor role in the organic weed control toolbox.[36]Weeds can be controlled by grazing. For example, geese have been used successfully to weed a range of organic crops including cotton, strawberries, tobacco, and corn,[42]reviving the practice of keepingcotton patch geese, common in the southern U.S. before the 1950s. Similarly, some rice farmers introduce ducks and fish to wetpaddy fieldsto eat both weeds and insects.[43]Controlling other organisms[edit]

Chloroxylon is used for Pest Management in Organic Rice Cultivation in Chhattisgarh, IndiaSee also:Biological pest controlandIntegrated Pest ManagementOrganisms aside from weeds that cause problems on organic farms includearthropods(e.g., insects,mites),nematodes,fungiandbacteria. Organic practices include, but are not limited to: encouraging predatory beneficial insects to control pests by serving them nursery plants and/or an alternative habitat, usually in a form of ashelterbelt,hedgerow, orbeetle bank; encouraging beneficial microorganisms; rotating cropsto different locations from year to year to interrupt pest reproduction cycles; plantingcompanion cropsandpest-repelling plantsthat discourage or divert pests; using row covers to protect crops during pest migration periods; usingbiologic pesticides and herbicides usingno-till farming, and no-till farming techniques asfalse seedbeds[44] using sanitation to remove pest habitat; Usinginsect trapsto monitor and control insect populations. Using physical barriers, such asrow coversExamples of predatory beneficial insects includeminute pirate bugs,big-eyed bugs, and to a lesser extentladybugs(which tend to fly away), all of which eat a wide range of pests.Lacewingsare also effective, but tend to fly away.Praying mantistend to move more slowly and eat less heavily.Parasitoid waspstend to be effective for their selected prey, but like all small insects can be less effective outdoors because the wind controls their movement. Predatory mites are effective for controlling other mites.[30]:6690Naturally derivedinsecticidesallowed for use on organic farms use includeBacillus thuringiensis(a bacterial toxin),pyrethrum(a chrysanthemum extract),spinosad(a bacterial metabolite),neem(a tree extract) androtenone(a legume root extract). Fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California userotenonewhile 1.7% usepyrethrum.[45]:26These pesticides are not always more safe or environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides and can cause harm.[30]:92The main criterion for organic pesticides is that they are naturally derived, and some naturally derived substances have been controversial. Controversial natural pesticides includerotenone,copper,nicotine sulfate, andpyrethrums[46][47]Rotenoneandpyrethrumare particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most conventional insecticides. Rotenone is extremely toxic to fish[48]and can induce symptoms resembling Parkinson's disease in mammals.[49][50]Although pyrethrum (natural pyrethrins) is more effective against insects when used with piperonyl butoxide (which retards degradation of the pyrethrins),[51]organic standards generally do not permit use of the latter substance.[52][53][54]Naturally derivedfungicidesallowed for use on organic farms include the bacteriaBacillus subtilisandBacillus pumilus; and the fungusTrichoderma harzianum. These are mainly effective for diseases affecting roots.Compost teacontains a mix of beneficial microbes, which may attack or out-compete certain plant pathogens,[55]but variability among formulations and preparation methods may contribute to inconsistent results or even dangerous growth of toxic microbes in compost teas.[56]Some naturally derived pesticides are not allowed for use on organic farms. These includenicotine sulfate,arsenic, andstrychnine.[57]Synthetic pesticides allowed for use on organic farms includeinsecticidal soapsandhorticultural oilsfor insect management; andBordeaux mixture,copper hydroxideandsodium bicarbonatefor managing fungi.[57]Copper sulfate and Bordeaux mixture (copper sulfate plus lime), approved for organic use in various jurisdictions,[52][53][57]can be more environmentally problematic than some synthetic fungicides dissallowed in organic farming[58][59]Similar concerns apply to copper hydroxide. Repeated application of copper sulfate or copper hydroxide as a fungicide may eventually result in copper accumulation to toxic levels in soil,[60]and admonitions to avoid excessive accumulations of copper in soil appear in various organic standards and elsewhere. Environmental concerns for several kinds of biota arise at average rates of use of such substances for some crops.[61]In the European Union, where replacement of copper-based fungicides in organic agriculture is a policy priority,[62]research is seeking alternatives for organic production.[63]Livestock[edit]

For livestock like these healthy cows vaccines play an important part in animal health since antibiotic therapy is prohibited in organic farmingRaising livestock and poultry, for meat, dairy and eggs, is another traditional, farming activity that complements growing. Organic farms attempt to provide animals with natural living conditions and feed. While the USDA does not require any animal welfare requirements be met for a product to be marked as organic, this is a variance from older organic farming practices.[64]Organic livestock may be, and must be, treated with medicine when they are sick, but drugs cannot be used to promote growth, their feed must be organic, and they must be pastured.[65]:19ff[66]Also, horses and cattle used to be a basic farm feature that provided labor, for hauling and plowing, fertility, through recycling of manure, and fuel, in the form of food for farmers and other animals. While today, small growing operations often do not include livestock, domesticated animals are a desirable part of the organic farming equation, especially for true sustainability, the ability of a farm to function as a self-renewing unit.Genetic modification[edit]Main articles:Genetically modified crops,Genetically modified foodandGenetically modified food controversiesA key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and animals. On October 19, 1998, participants at IFOAM's 12th Scientific Conference issued theMar del Plata Declaration, where more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously to exclude the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and agriculture.Although opposition to the use of any transgenic technologies in organic farming is strong, agricultural researchers Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales continue to advocate integration oftransgenictechnologies into organic farming as the optimal means to sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world,[67]as does author and scientistPamela Ronald, who views this kind ofbiotechnologyas being consistent with organic principles.[68]Although GMOs are excluded from organic farming, there is concern that the pollen from genetically modified crops is increasingly penetrating organic andheirloom seed stocks, making it difficult, if not impossible, to keep these genomes from entering the organic food supply. Differing regulations among countries limits the availability of GMOs to certain countries, as described in the article onregulation of the release of genetic modified organisms.Standards[edit]Main article:Organic certificationStandards regulate production methods and in some cases final output for organic agriculture. Standards may be voluntary or legislated. As early as the 1970s private associations certified organic producers. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production guidelines. In the 1990s, a trend toward legislated standards began, most notably with the 1991EU-Eco-regulationdeveloped forEuropean Union,[69]which set standards for 12 countries, and a 1993 UK program. The EU's program was followed by a Japanese program in 2001, and in 2002 the U.S. created theNational Organic Program(NOP).[70]As of 2007 over 60 countries regulate organic farming (IFOAM 2007:11). In 2005 IFOAM created thePrinciples of Organic Agriculture, an international guideline for certification criteria.[71]Typically the agencies accredit certification groups rather than individual farms.Organic production materials used in and foods are tested independently by the Organic Materials Review Institute.[72]Composting[edit]Using manure as a fertiliser risks contaminating food with animal gut bacteria, including pathogenic strains of E. coli that have caused fatal poisoning from eating organic food.[73]To combat this risk,USDAorganic standards require that manure must be sterilized through high temperaturethermophilic composting. If raw animal manure is used, 120 days must pass before the crop is harvested if the final product comes into direct contact with the soil. For products which do not come into direct contact with soil, 90 days must pass prior to harvest.[74]Economics[edit]Theeconomicsof organic farming, a subfield ofagricultural economics, encompasses the entire process and effects of organic farming in terms of human society, includingsocial costs,opportunity costs,unintended consequences,information asymmetries, andeconomies of scale. Although the scope of economics is broad, agricultural economics tends to focus on maximizing yields and efficiency at the farm level. Economics takes ananthropocentricapproach to the value of the natural world: biodiversity, for example, is considered beneficial only to the extent that it is valued by people and increases profits. Some entities such as theEuropean Unionsubsidizeorganic farming, in large part because these countries want to account for theexternalitiesof reduced water use, reduced water contamination, reducedsoil erosion, reduced carbon emissions, increased biodiversity, and assorted other benefits that result from organic farming.[46]Traditional organic farming is labor and knowledge-intensive whereas conventional farming is capital-intensive, requiring more energy and manufactured inputs.[75]Organic farmers in California have cited marketing as their greatest obstacle.[76]Geographic producer distribution[edit]The markets for organic products are strongest in North America and Europe, which as of 2001 are estimated to have $6 and $8 billion respectively of the $20 billion global market.[45]:6As of 2007Australasiahas 39% of the total organic farmland, including Australia's 1,180,000 hectares (2,900,000 acres) but 97 percent of this land is sprawlingrangeland(2007:35). US sales are 20x as much.[45]:7Europe farms 23 percent of global organic farmland (6.9 million hectares), followed by Latin America with 19 percent (5.8 million hectares). Asia has 9.5 percent while North America has 7.2 percent. Africa has 3 percent.[77]Besides Australia, the countries with the most organic farmland are Argentina (3.1 million hectares), China (2.3 million hectares), and the United States (1.6 million hectares). Much of Argentina's organic farmland is pasture, like that of Australia (2007:42). Spain, Germany, Brazil (the world's largest agricultural exporter), Uruguay, and the UK follow the United States in the amount of organic land (2007:26).In the European Union (EU25) 3.9% of the total utilized agricultural area was used for organic production in 2005. The countries with the highest proportion of organic land were Austria (11%) and Italy (8.4), followed by the Czech Republic and Greece (both 7.2%). The lowest figures were shown for Malta (0.1%), Poland (0.6%) and Ireland (0.8%).[78][79]In 2009, the proportion of organic land in the EU grew to 4.7%. The countries with highest share of agricultural land were Liechtenstein (26.9%), Austria (18.5%) and Sweden (12.6%).[80]16% of all farmers in Austria produced organically in 2010. By the same year the proportion of organic land increased to 20%.:[81]In 2005 168,000 ha of land in Poland was under organic management.[82]In 2010 100,000 ha of land were under organic management in Romania, representing 1% of the total utilized agricultural area. 70%-80% of the local organic production, amounting to 100 million Euros in 2010, is exported. The organic products market grew to 50 million Euros in 2010.[83]After the collapse of theSoviet Unionin 1991, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased fromEastern bloccountries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.[84]Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries. Although some products called organic in Cuba would not satisfy certification requirements in other countries (crops may begenetically modified, for example[85][86]), Cuba exports organic citrus and citrus juices to EU markets that meet EU organic standards. Cuba's forced conversion to organic methods may position the country to be a global supplier of organic products.[87]Growth[edit]

Organic farmland by world region (2000-2008)As of 2001, the estimated market value of certified organic products was estimated to be $20 billion. By 2002 this was $23 billion and by 2007 more than $46 billion.[7]By 2012 the market had reached $63 billion worldwide.[5]:25Europe (2011: 10.6 million hectares, which is 5.4 percent of Europe's farmland and an increase of 6% from the prior year; Europe has 29% of the worlds organic agricultural land) and North America (2011: 2.8 million hectares, 7.5% of the worlds organic agricultural land) have experienced strong growth in organic farmland.[5]:26In theEUit grew by 21% in the period 2005 to 2008.[88]However, this growth has occurred under different conditions. While the European Union has shifted agricultural subsidies to organic farmers due to perceived environmental benefits, the United States has not,[89]continuing to subsidize some but not all traditional commercial crops, such as corn and sugar. As a result of this policy difference, as of 2008 4.1% percent of European Union farmland was organically managed compared to the 0.6 percent in the U.S.[7]As of 2012 the country with the most organic land was Australia (12 million hectares), followed by Argentina (3.8 million hectares), and the United States (1.9 million hectares).[5]:26Productivity[edit]Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.[90]A meta-analysisstudypublished in 2012 suggests farmers should take a hybrid approach to producing enough food for humans while preserving the environment.[91]A study published in 1990 made "two hundred and five comparisons ... of yields from organic and conventional farming systems..... Data from 26 crops and two animal products, in the form of the ratio of organic to conventional yields, were normally distributed with a mean of 0.91, a standard deviation of 0.24 and a modal value between 0.8 and 0.9. More than one-half of the comparisons of milk production and bean yields had ratios greater than 1.0, i.e. higher yields from organic than conventional systems. There was no evidence to show that the organic systems had any effect on year-to-year variability in yield, either climate-induced or caused by any transitional or conversion effects." The study also discussed procedural difficulties in comparing the productivity of organic with other farming systems.[92]A US survey published in 2001 analyzed 150 growing seasons of data on grain and soybean crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields.[90]A study spanning two decades was published in 2002 and found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer, 97% less pesticide, and energy input was 34% to 53% lower.[93]A 2003 study found that during drought years, organic farms can have yields 20-40% higher than conventional farms.[94]Organic farms are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[95]Organic farms survive hurricane damage much better, retaining 20 to 40% more topsoil and smaller economic losses at highly significant levels than their neighbors.[96]A study published in 2005 compared conventional cropping, organic animal-based cropping, and organic legume-based cropping on a test farm at theRodale Instituteover 22 years.[97]The study found that "the crop yields for corn and soybeans were similar in the organic animal, organic legume, and conventional farming systems". It also found that "significantly less fossil energy was expended to produce corn in the Rodale Institutes organic animal and organic legume systems than in the conventional production system. There was little difference in energy input between the different treatments for producing soybeans. In the organic systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were generally not used". As of 2013 the Rodale study was ongoing[98]and a thirty year anniversary report was published by Rodale in 2012.[99]A 2007 study[100]compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that "organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base." The researchers also found that while in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms in developing countries, because the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible than synthetic farming materials to farmers in some poor countries. This study was strongly contested by another study published in 2008 which stated, and was entitled, "Organic agriculture cannot feed the world"[101]and said that the 2007 came up with "a major overestimation of the productivity of OA" "because data are misinterpreted and calculations accordingly are erroneous."Another study published in 1999 from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming.[102]Michael Pollan, author ofThe Omnivore's Dilemma, responds to this by pointing out that the average yield of world agriculture is substantially lower than modern sustainable farming yields. Bringing average world yields up to modern organic levels could increase the world's food supply by 50%.[103]Profitability[edit]The decreased cost of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide inputs, along with the higher prices that consumers pay for organic produce, contribute to increased profits. Organic farms have been consistently found to be as or more profitable than conventional farms. Without the price premium, profitability is mixed.[45]:11Organic production was more profitable in Wisconsin, given price premiums.[104]For markets and supermarkets organic food is profitable as well, and is generally even sold at significantly higher rates than non-organic food[105]However, when the buyer compares prices and buys consciously, organic food is not always more expensive for the buyer than non-organic food. For example, in 2000, Phillipe Renard made his restaurant to switch to use 85% organic food, without increasing the cost for the clients.[106]In the documentary "Architects for Change", he also stated that since 2000, the cost of organic products has come down even more, and at present, it is no longer a problem to attain organic products at a price comparative to products of non-organic agriculture.[107]Energy efficiency[edit]A study of the sustainability ofappleproduction systems showed that in comparing a conventional farming system to an organic method of farming, the organic system in this case is moreenergy efficient.[108]A more comprehensive study compared efficiency of agriculture for products such as grain, roughage crops, and animal husbandry. While the study did not investigate specific additional requirements ofarable landor numbers of farm laborers to produce total yields for organic farming vs. conventional farming, leaving open the question of overall capacity of organic farming to meet current and future agricultural needs, it concluded that organic farming had a higher yield per unit of energy over multiple crops and for livestock. However, conventional farming had higher total yield.[109]Conversely, another study noted that organic wheat and corn production was more energy efficient than conventional methods while organic apple and potato production was less energy efficient than conventional methods.[110]A study done with apple orchards in the state of Washington found that organic orchards found to be at least 7% more energy efficient.[108]Sales and marketing[edit]Most sales are concentrated in developed nations. These products are what economists callcredence goodsin that they rely on uncertain certification. Interest in organic products dropped between 2006 and 2008, and 42% of Americans polled don't trust organic produce.[111]69% of Americans claim to occasionally buy organic products, down from 73% in 2005. One theory was that consumers were substituting "local" produce for "organic" produce.[112]Distributors[edit]In the United States, 75% of organic farms are smaller than 2.5hectares. In California 2% of the farms account for over half of sales.[45]:4Small farms join together incooperativessuch asOrganic Valley, Inc.to market their goods more effectively.Most small cooperative distributors have merged or were acquired by large multinationals such asGeneral Mills,Heinz,ConAgra,Kellogg, and others. In 1982 there were 28 consumer cooperative distributors, but as of 2007 only 3 remained.[113]This consolidation has raised concerns among consumers and journalists of potential fraud and degradation in standards. Most sell their organic products through subsidiaries, under other labels.[114]Organic foods also can be a niche in developing nations. It would provide more money and a better opportunity to compete internationally with the huge distributors. Organic prices are much more stable than conventional foods, and the small farms can still compete and have similar prices with the much larger farms that usually take all of the profits.[115]Farmers markets[edit]Price premiums are important for the profitability of small organic farmers. Farmers selling directly to consumers atfarmers' marketshave continued to achieve these higher returns. In the United States the number of farmers' markets tripled from 1,755 in 1994 to 5,274 in 2009.[116]Labor and employment[edit]Organic production is more labor-intensive than conventional production.[117]On the one hand, this increased labor cost is one factor that makes organic food more expensive.[117]On the other hand, the increased need for labor may be seen as an "employment dividend" of organic farming, providing more jobs per unit area than conventional systems.[118]The 2011 UNEP Green Economy Report suggests that "[a]n increase in investment in green agriculture is projected to lead to growth in employment of about 60 per cent compared with current levels" and that "green agriculture investments could create 47 million additional jobs compared with BAU2 over the next 40 years."[119]The UNEP also argues that "[b]y greening agriculture and food distribution, more calories per person per day, more jobs and business opportunities especially in rural areas, and market-access opportunities, especially for developing countries, will be available."World's food security[edit]In 2007 the United NationsFood and Agriculture Organization(FAO) said that organic agriculture often leads to higher prices and hence a better income for farmers, so it should be promoted. However, FAO stressed that by organic farming one could not feed the current mankind, even less the bigger future population. Both data and models showed then that organic farming was far from sufficient. Therefore chemical fertilizers were needed to avoid hunger.[120]Other analysis by many agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological scientists, and international agriculture experts revealed the opinion that organic farming would not only increase the world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger.[121]FAO stressed that fertilizers and other chemical inputs can much increase the production, particularly in Africa where fertilizers are currently used 90% less than in Asia.[120]For example, in Malawi the yield has been boosted using seeds and fertilizers.[120]FAO also calls for usingbiotechnology, as it can help smallholder farmers to improve their income and food security.[122]AlsoNEPAD, development organization of African governments, announced that feeding Africans and preventing malnutrition requires fertilizers and enhanced seeds.[123]According to a more recent study in ScienceDigest, organic best management practices shows an average yield only 13% less than conventional.[124]In the world's poorer nations where most of the world's hungry live, and where conventional agriculture's expensive inputs are not affordable by the majority of farmers, adopting organic management actually increases yields 93% on average, and could be an important part of increased food security.[121][125]Capacity building in developing countries[edit]Organic agriculture can contribute to ecologically sustainable, socio-economic development, especially in poorer countries.[126]The application of organic principles enables employment of local resources (e.g., local seed varieties, manure, etc.) and therefore cost-effectiveness. Local and international markets for organic products show tremendous growth prospects and offer creative producers and exporters excellent opportunities to improve their income and living conditions.[citation needed]Organic agriculture is knowledge intensive. Globally, capacity building efforts are underway, including localized training material, to limited effect. As of 2007, theInternational Federation of Organic Agriculture Movementshosted more than 170 free manuals and 75 training opportunities online.[citation needed]In 2008 theUnited Nations Environmental Programme(UNEP) and theUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD) stated that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long-term"[127]and that "yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used" and that soil fertility and drought resistance improved.[128]Organic Agriculture and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)[edit]The value of organic agriculture (OA)in the achievement of the MDGs particularly in poverty reduction efforts in the face of climate change can be shown in its contribution to both income and non-income aspects of the MDGs. A series of case studies conducted by the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) in Tokyo showed that OA contributes to both income and non-income aspects of the MDGs in all the study areas in selected Asian countries. OAs outcomes on MDGs include contributions to the alleviation of poverty by way of higher incomes, improved farmers' health owing to less chemical exposure, integration of sustainable principles into rural development policies, improvement of access to safe water and sanitation, and expansion of global partnership for development.[129]A related ADBI study on OA estimates costs of OA programs and sets them in the context of the costs of attaining the MDGs. The results show considerable variation across the case studies, suggesting that there is no clear structure to the costs of adopting OA. Costs depend on the efficiency with which the OA adoption programs are run. The lowest cost programs were more than ten times less expensive than the highest cost ones. A further analysis of the gains resulting from OA adoption reveals that the costs per person taken out of poverty was much lower than the estimates of the World Bank,[130]based on income growth in general or based on the detailed costs of meeting some of the more quantifiable MDGs (e.g., education, health, and environment).[131]Externalities[edit]Agriculture imposes negative externalities (uncompensated costs) upon society through land and other resource use, biodiversity loss, erosion, pesticides, nutrient runoff, water usage, subsidy payments and assorted other problems. Positive externalities include self-reliance, entrepreneurship, respect for nature, and air quality. Organic methods reduce some of these costs.[132]In 2000 uncompensated costs for 1996 reached 2,343 million British pounds or 208 pounds per hectare.[133]A study of practices in the USA published in 2005 concluded that cropland costs the economy approximately 5 to 16 billion dollars ($30 to $96 per hectare), while livestock production costs 714 million dollars.[134]Both studies recommended reducing externalities. The 2000 review included reported pesticide poisonings but did not include speculative chronic health effects of pesticides, and the 2004 review relied on a 1992 estimate of the total impact of pesticides.It has been proposed that organic agriculture can reduce the level of some negative externalities from (conventional) agriculture. Whether the benefits are private or public depends upon the division of property rights.[135]Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming and have found that organic techniques, while not without harm, are less damaging than conventional ones because they reduce levels of biodiversity less than conventional systems do and use less energy and produce less waste when calculated per unit area.[136][137]A 2003 to 2005 investigation by the Cranfield University for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs in the UK found that it is difficult to compare the Global Warming Potential (GWP), acidification and eutrophication emissions but "Organic production often results in increased burdens, from factors such as N leaching and N2O emissions", even though primary energy use was less for most organic products. N20 is always the largest GWP contributor except in tomatoes. However, "organic tomatoes always incur more burdens (except pesticide use)". Some emissions were lower "per area", but organic farming always required 65 to 200% more field area than non-organic farming. The numbers were highest for bread wheat (200+% more) and potatoes (160% more).[138][139]The situation was shown dramatically in a comparison of a modern dairy farm in Wisconsin with one in New Zealand in which the animals grazed extensively.[140]Using total farm emissions per kg milk produced as a parameter, the researchers showed that production of methane from belching was higher in the New Zealand farm, while carbon dioxide production was higher in the Wisconsin farm. Output of nitrous oxide, a gas with an estimated global warming potential 310 times that of carbon dioxide was also higher in the New Zealand farm. Methane from manure handling was similar in the two types of farm. The explanation for the finding relates to the different diets used on these farms, being based more completely on forage (and hence more fibrous) in New Zealand and containing less concentrate than in Wisconsin. Fibrous diets promote a higher proportion of acetate in the gut of ruminant animals, resulting in a higher production of methane that has to be released by belching. When cattle are given a diet containing some concentrates (such as corn and soybean meal) in addition to grass and silage, the pattern of ruminal fermentation alters from acetate to mainly propionate. As a result methane production is reduced. Capper et al. compared the environmental impact of US dairy production in 1944 and 2007.[141]They calculated that the carbon footprint per billion kg of milk produced in 2007 was 37 percent that of equivalent milk production in 1944.Environmental impact and emissions[edit]Researchers at Oxford university analyzed 71 peer-reviewed studies and observed that organic products are sometimes worse for the environment.[142]Organic milk, cereals, and pork generated highergreenhouse gasemissions per product than conventional ones but organic beef and olives had lower emissions in most studies.[142]Usually organic products required less energy, but more land.[142]Nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication potential and acidification potential were higher for organic products, however organic methods had less nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia emissions) per unit of field area.[143]Other differences were not significant.[143]The researchers concluded "Most of the studies that compared biodiversity in organic and conventional farming demonstrated lower environmental impacts from organic farming." The researchers believe that the ideal outcome would be to develop new systems that consider both the environment, including setting land aside for wildlife and sustainable forestry, and the development of ways to produce the highest yields possible using both conventional and organic methods.[142][144]Proponents of organic farming have claimed that organic agriculture emphasizes closed nutrient cycles, biodiversity, and effective soil management providing the capacity to mitigate and even reverse the effects ofclimate change[145]and that organic agriculture can decrease fossil fuel emissions.[146]"The carbon sequestration efficiency of organic systems in temperate climates is almost double (575-700 kg carbon per ha per year) that of conventional treatment of soils, mainly owing to the use of grass clovers for feed and of cover crops in organic rotations."[147]Critics of organic farming methods believe that the increased land needed to farm organic food could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems.[148][149]Nutrient leaching[edit]According to themeta-analysisof 71 studies, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication potential and acidification potential were higher for organic products,[143]although in one study "nitrate leaching was 4.4-5.6 times higher in conventional plots than organic plots".[150]Excess nutrients in lakes, rivers, and groundwater can causealgal blooms,eutrophication, and subsequentdead zones. In addition,nitratesare harmful to aquatic organisms by themselves.[151]Land use[edit]The Oxford meta-analysis of 71 studies proved that organic farming requires 84% more land, mainly due to lack of nutrients but sometimes due to weeds, diseases or pests, lower yielding animals and land required for fertility building crops.[143]While organic farming does not necessarily save land for wildlife habitats and forestry in all cases,[142]the most modern breakthroughs in organic are addressing these issues with success.[152][153][154]Professor Wolfgang Branscheid says that organic animal production is not good for the environment, because organic chicken requires doubly as much land as conventional one and organic pork a quarter more.[155]According to a calculation by Hudson Institute, organic beef requires triply as much land.[156]On the other hand certain organic methods of animal husbandry have been shown to restore desertified, marginal, and/or otherwise unavailable land to agricultural productivity and wildlife.[157][158]Or by getting both forage and cash crop production from the same fields simultaneously, reduce net land use.[159]In England organic farming yields 55% of normal yields.[160][161]While in other regions of the world, organic methods have started producing record yields.[162][163]Pesticides[edit]

A sign outside of an organicappleorchard inPateros, Washingtonreminding orchardists not to spray pesticides on these trees.Unlike conventional farms, most organic farms largely avoid synthetic pesticides[164]The five main pesticides used in organic farming areBt(a bacterial toxin),pyrethrin,rotenone,[165]copperandsulphur.[166]"Fewer than 10% of organic farmers use botanical insecticides on a regular basis, 12% use sulfur, and 7% use copper-based compounds."[45]:26Reduction and elimination of chemical pesticide use is technically challenging.[167]Organic pesticides often complement otherpest control strategies.Ecological concerns primarily focus aroundpesticideuse, as 16% of the world's pesticides are used in the production of cotton.[168]Runoff is one of the most damaging effects of pesticide use. The USDANatural Resources Conservation Servicetracks the environmental effects of water contamination and concluded, "the Nation's pesticide policies during the last twenty six years have succeeded in reducing overall environmental risk, in spite of slight increases in area planted and weight of pesticides applied. Nevertheless, there are still areas of the country where there is no evidence of progress, and areas where risk levels for protection of drinking water, fish, algae and crustaceans remain high".[169][170]Food quality and safety[edit]Main article:Organic foodWhile there may be some differences in the amounts of nutrients and anti-nutrients when organically produced food and conventionally produced food are compared, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results, and there is insufficient evidence to make claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food.[171][172][173][174][175]Claims that organic food tastes better are not supported by evidence.[172][176]Soil conservation[edit]Main article:Soil conservationSupporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality[177]and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years. Organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming.[178]An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrient-depleted soil, concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility and yield for nutrient-depleted soils in cold-temperate climates, arguing that much of the benefits from organic farming are derived from imported materials which could not be regarded as "self-sustaining".[179]InDirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, geomorphologist David Montgomery outlines a coming crisis from soilerosion. Agriculture relies on roughly one meter of topsoil, and that is being depleted ten times faster than it is being replaced.[180]No-tillfarming, which some claim depends upon pesticides, is one way to minimize erosion. However, a recent study by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service has found that manure applications in tilled organic farming are better at building up the soil than no-till.[146][181][182]Biodiversity[edit]Main article:Organic farming and biodiversityA wide range of organisms benefit from organic farming, but it is unclear whether organic methods confer greater benefits than conventional integrated agri-environmental programs.[183]Nearly all non-crop, naturally occurring species observed in comparative farm land practice studies show a preference for organic farming both by abundance and diversity.[183][184]An average of 30% more species inhabit organic farms.[185]Birds, butterflies, soil microbes, beetles, earthworms,[186]spiders, vegetation, and mammals are particularly affected. Lack of herbicides and pesticides improve biodiversity fitness and population density.[184]Many weed species attract beneficial insects that improve soil qualities and forage on weed pests.[187]Soil-bound organisms often benefit because of increased bacteria populations due to natural fertilizer such as manure, while experiencing reduced intake ofherbicidesand pesticides.[183]Increased biodiversity, especially from beneficial soil microbes andmycorrhizaehave been proposed as an explanation for the high yields experienced by some organic plots, especially in light of the differences seen in a 21-year comparison of organic and control fields.[32]Biodiversity from organic farming provides capital to humans. Species found in organic farms enhance sustainability by reducing human input (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides).[188]Proponents of organic farming[edit]"Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils,ecosystemsand people. It relies on ecological processes,biodiversityand cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved..."International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements[189]In India, states such as Sikkim[190][191][192][193]and Kerala[194][195]has planned to shift to fully organic cultivation by 2015 and 2016 respectively.Critical analysis[edit]Norman Borlaug(father of the "Green Revolution" and aNobel Peace Prizelaureate),Prof A. Trewavasand other critics have contested the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than conventional farming systems. Borlaug asserted that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process.[196][197][198][199]Borlaug and his coauthors advocated using organic matter in addition to inorganic fertilizers in soil fertility management, but opposed advocating only organic agriculture for the developing world.[200]The Danish Environmental Protection Agency estimated that phasing out all pesticides would result in an overall yield reduction of about 25%. Environmental and health effects were assumed but hard to assess.[201]One study claims that organic agriculture could feed the entire global population, somewhat more than 6 billion people. It states that organic farms have lower yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) but higher than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (180%), attributing this to lower adoption of fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive farming of the developed world.[202]However, concerns have been expressed about that study's selection, characterization and interpretation of data, and its assumptions and analytical methods, casting doubt on several of its conclusions.[13]:3972[101][203][204][205]TheCenters for Disease Controlrepudiated a claim byDennis Averyof theHudson Institute, that the risk ofE. coliinfection was eight times higher when eating organic food. (Avery had cited CDC as a source.) Avery had included problems stemming from non-organic unpasteurized juice in his calculations.[206][207][208]Epidemiologiststraced the2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak- which caused over 3,900 cases and 52 deaths - to an organic farm inBienenbttelinGermany.[209][210]A long-term field study comparing organic/conventional agriculture carried out over 21 years in Switzerland concluded that "Crop yields of the organic systems averaged over 21 experimental years at 80% of the conventional ones. The fertilizer input, however, was 34 51% lower, indicating an efficient production. The organic farming systems used 20 56% less energy to produce a crop unit and per land area this difference was 36 53%. In spite of the considerably lower pesticide input the quality of organic products was hardly discernible from conventional analytically and even came off better in food preference trials and picture creating methods"[211]Urs Niggli, director of theFiBL Institute, contends that a global campaign against organic farming[212]derives mostly from Alex Avery's bookThe Truth About Organic Farming.[206]See also[edit]Agriculture and Agronomy portal

Advance sowing Agroecology Biodynamic agriculture Biological pest control Certified Naturally Grown Companion planting List of companion plants List of pest-repelling plants List of beneficial weeds Crop rotation Holistic management (agriculture) List of organic food topics List of organic gardening and farming topics Integrated pest management Organic clothing Organic farming by country Organic Farming Digest Organic food Organic movement

Advance sowingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAdvance Sowing(also known as "no kill cropping"[1]) is anagriculturalmethod developed by Bruce Maynard in 1996 inNSW, Australiathat allows the production of annualcropsfromperennialgrasslands. It consists in dry-sowing crops directly into existingpastureswithout usingtillage, fertilizer or chemicals.Principles[edit]Advance Sowing has 5 major principles:1. Sowingis done when the topsoil is dry.2. Coulter type sowing equipment must be used.3. NoHerbicidesor pesticides are applied at any stage.4. NoFertilizersare applied at any stage.5. Grazing management must be good.The rationale behind the method is to produce crops without simplifying thebiodiversity. All other commonly used sowing methods of cropping rely on eliminating some or all of the plant and animals present to create an advantage for the growing crop. Advance Sowing relies on complementarity of plant/animal interactions to producebiomassthat can be utilised directly for human consumption or fed to animals.No Kill Cropping offers opportunities to expand the grain crop production throughout the world as an addition to the grazing resources that people depend upon. By using No Kill in areas that are already grasslands or are arid or highly erodible grain can be produced without risking ecological damage. Other advantages include the low capital costs involved and also low needs for outside energy intensive inputs.No Kill Cropping is mentioned in the book "Here On Earth" by Tim Flannery, 2010. It is described as 'Zero Kill' or 'Zero Till' on pages 264 and 268. Flannery confuses the method by including the use of ploughs and also of the term pastures rather than grasslands that the crop is sown into. He proposes that the system has possibilities to promote "coevolution's capacity to increase biological productivity and ecosystem stability".

AgroecologyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acommunity-supported agricultureshare of crops.Agroecologyis the study of ecological processes that operate in agricultural production systems. The prefixagro-refers toagriculture. Bringingecological principlesto bear inagroecosystemscan suggest novel management approaches that would not otherwise be considered. The term is often used imprecisely and may refer to "a science, a movement, [or] a practice."[1]Agroecologists study a variety of agroecosystems, and the field of agroecology is not associated with any one particular method offarming, whether it beorganic,integrated, orconventional;intensiveorextensive.

Biodynamic agricultureFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPart of aserieson

Anthroposophy

General

AnthroposophyRudolf SteinerAnthroposophical SocietyGoetheanum

Anthroposophically inspired work

Waldorf educationBiodynamic agricultureAnthroposophical medicineCamphill MovementEurythmy

Philosophy

The Philosophy of FreedomSocial threefolding

v t e

Biodynamic agricultureis a method oforganic farmingoriginally developed byRudolf Steinerthat employs what proponents describe as "aholisticunderstanding of agricultural processes".[1]:145One of the firstsustainable agriculturemovements,[2][3][4]it treatssoil fertility, plant growth, and livestock care asecologicallyinterrelated tasks,[5][6][7]emphasizingspiritualandmysticalperspectives. Proponents of biodynamic agriculture, including Steiner, have characterized it as "spiritual science" as part of the largeranthroposophymovement.[1][2][8]Biodynamics has much in common with other organic approaches it emphasizes the use ofmanuresandcompostsand excludes the use of artificial chemicals on soil and plants. Methods unique to the biodynamic approach include its treatment of animals, crops, and soil as a single system; an emphasis from its beginnings on local production and distribution systems; its use of traditional and development of new local breeds and varieties; and the use of anastrologicalsowing and planting calendar. Biodynamic agriculture uses various herbal and mineral additives for compost additives and field sprays; these are sometimes prepared by controversial methods, such as burying ground quartz stuffed into the horn of a cow, which are said to harvest "cosmic forces in the soil", that are more akin tosympathetic magicthanagronomy.As of 2011 biodynamic techniques were used on 142,482 hectares in 47 countries. Germany accounts for 45% of the global total;[9]the remainder average 1750 ha per country.Biodynamic methods of cultivating grapevineshave been taken up by several notable vineyards.[10]There are certification agencies for biodynamic products, most of which are members of the international biodynamics standards groupDemeter International.No difference in beneficial outcomes has been scientifically established between certified biodynamic agricultural techniques and similarorganicandintegrated farmingpractices. Critics have characterized biodynamic agriculture aspseudoscienceon the basis of a lack of strong evidence for its efficacy and skepticism about aspects criticized as beingmagical thinking.[11][12][13][14]

Biological controlis abioeffector-method ofcontrolling pests(includinginsects,mites,weedsandplant diseases) using other living organisms.[1]It relies onpredation,parasitism,herbivory, or other natural mechanisms, but typically also involves an active human management role. It can be an important component ofintegrated pest management(IPM) programs. There are three basic types of biological pest control strategies: importation (sometimes called classical biological control), augmentation and conservation.Natural enemies of insect pests, also known as biological control agents, include predators,parasitoids, andpathogens. Biological control agents of plantdiseasesare most often referred to as antagonists. Biological control agents of weeds include seed predators,herbivoresand plant pathogens.

Certified Naturally GrownFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Certified Naturally Grown logoCertified Naturally Grown(CNG), "The Grassroots Alternative to Certified Organic", is aUS-basedfarm assuranceprogram certifyingproduce,livestockandapiariesfororganic producerswho sell locally and directly to their customers.[1]CNG was founded in 2002 by organic farmers Kate andRon Khosla, as a simpler to administer and less expensive alternative to theUSDA'sNational Organic Program(NOP) certification, using a production standard based on the NOP.[2][3]It is operated as anon-profit corporation, headquartered inBrooklyn, New York.Contents[hide] 1History 2Certification process 3International scope 4References 5External linksHistory[edit]According to Ron Khosla, CNG was created as reaction to thelegislatingof organic production in the US in 2002:"Farmers that have proudly referred to themselves as Organic for decades were not permitted to do so after October 21, 2002, unless certified by a USDA-sanctioned agency. Today, most family farmers that continue to grow organic are not certified by the USDA. It shouldnt matterexcept that the law states a farmer cannot declare or even describe their produce as organic (including non-certified organic) unless it is certified by a USDA accredited certifier."[4]Certification process[edit]Certified Naturally Grown farmers are required to submit to an annual inspection. and pay an annual fee. In contrast with the NOP, where inspections are conducted by a USDA-accredited certifying agency and third-party inspectors, CNG farms may be inspected by other CNG farmers, non-CNG farmers, extension agents, master gardeners and customers, with CNG farmers being ideal.[5]Inspection procedures and forms can be perused and downloaded, and completed applications and signed declarations are available for public viewing, on the CNG web site. All CNG farms are subject to randompesticideresidue testing.[6]International scope[edit]CNG operates in the US andCanada. AUnited Kingdomsister organization, theWholesome Food Association, promotes similar food production standards at the local, grassroots level, but does not operate a certification program.[7]

Companion plantingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Companion planting of carrots and onions.Companion plantingin gardening and agriculture is the planting of different crops in proximity forpest control,pollination, providinghabitatfor beneficial creatures, maximizing use of space, and to otherwise increasecrop productivity.[1]Companion planting is a form ofpolyculture.Companion planting is used by farmers and gardeners in both industrialized and developing countries for many reasons. Many of the modern principles of companion planting were present many centuries ago incottage gardensin England andhome gardensin Asia, and thousands of years ago inMesoamerica.

Crop rotationFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"Fallow" redirects here. For other uses, seeFallow (disambiguation).This article includes alist of references, butits sources remain unclear because it has insufficientinline citations.Please help toimprovethis article byintroducingmore precise citations.(April 2009)

Agriculture

General

Agribusiness Agricultural science Agroforestry Agronomy Animal husbandry Ecology Extensive farming Farm Free range Agricultural engineering Mechanised agriculture Ministries Intensive farming Intensive animal farming Intensive crop farming Organic farming Permaculture Stock-free agriculture Sustainable agriculture Universities Urban agriculture

History

History of agriculture History of organic farming British Agricultural Revolution Green Revolution Neolithic Revolution

Types

Aquaculture Aquaponics Dairy farming Dryland farming Grazing Hydroponics Livestock Natural farming Orchard Pig farming Poultry farming Ranching Sharecropping Sheep husbandry Slash-and-burn

Categories

Agricultural Agriculture by country Agriculture companies Biotechnology Livestock Meat industry Poultry farming

Agriculture / Agronomy portal

v t e

Satellite image of circular crop fields inKansasin late June 2001. Healthy, growing crops are green.Cornwould be growing into leafy stalks by then.Sorghum, which resembles corn, grows more slowly and would be much smaller and therefore, (possibly) paler.Wheatis a brilliant yellow as harvest occurs in June. Fields of brown have been recently harvested and plowed under or lie fallow for the year.

Effects of crop rotation and monoculture at the Swojec Experimental Farm,Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences. In the front field, the "Norfolk" crop rotation sequence (potatoes, oats, peas, rye) is being applied; in the back field, rye has been grown for 45 years in a row.Crop rotationis the practice of growing a series of dissimilar/different types ofcropsin the same area in sequentialseasons.Crop rotation gives various nutrients to the soil. A traditional element of crop rotation is the replenishment ofnitrogenthrough the use ofgreen manurein sequence with cereals and other crops. Crop rotation also mitigates the build-up ofpathogensand pests that often occurs when one species is continuously cropped, and can also improvesoil structureandfertilityby alternating deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants. Crop rotation is one component ofpolyculture.Contents[hide] 1History 2Objectives 3Implementation 3.1Choice of crops 3.2Incorporation of animals 4Benefits 4.1Disadvantages 4.2Nutrients 4.3Pest control 4.4Soil erosion 4.5Additional soil improvements 5See also 6Notes 7References 8External linksHistory[edit]Middle Eastern farmers practiced crop rotation in 6000 BC without understanding the chemistry, alternately planting legumes and cereals. In the Bible chapter of Leviticus 25, God instructs the Israelites to observe a 'Sabbath of the Land'. Every seventh year they would not till, prune or even control insects (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/sabbath-land.html). TheRomanwriterCato the Elder recommended that farmers "save carefully goat, sheep, cattle, and all other dung".[1]In Europe, since the times ofCharlemagne, there was a transition from a two-field crop rotation to a three-field crop rotation. Under a two-field rotation, half the land was planted in a year, while the other half lay fallow. Then, in the next year, the two fields were reversed. Underthree-field rotation, the land was divided into three parts. One section was planted in the autumn with winter wheat or rye. The next spring, the second field was planted with other crops such as peas, lentils, or beans and the third field was left fallow. The three fields were rotated in this manner so that every three years, a field would rest and be fallow. Under the two-field system, if one has a total of 600 acres (2.4km2) of fertile land, one would only plant 300 acres. Under the new three-field rotation system, one would plant (and therefore harvest) 400 acres. But, the additional crops had a more significant effect than mere productivity. Since the spring crops were mostly legumes, they increased the overall nutrition of the people of Northern Europe.From the end of theMiddle Agesuntil the 20th century, the three-year rotation was practised by farmers in Europe with a rotation ofryeor winterwheat, followed by springoatsorbarley, then letting the soil rest (leaving it fallow) during the third stage. It has long been recognized that suitable rotations such as planting spring crops for livestock in place of grains for human consumption make it possible to restore or to maintain a productive soil.A four-field rotation was pioneered by farmers, namely in the regionWaaslandin the early 16th century and popularised by theBritishagriculturistCharles Townshendin the 18th century. The system (wheat,turnips,barleyandclover), opened up a fodder crop and grazing crop allowinglivestockto be bred year-round. The four-field crop rotation was a key development in theBritish Agricultural Revolution.George Washington Carverstudied crop rotation methods in theUnited States, teaching southern farmers to rotate soil-depleting crops like cotton with soil-enriching crops likepeanutsandpeas.[2]In theGreen Revolution, the traditional practice of crop rotation gave way in some parts of the world to the practice of supplementing the chemical inputs to the soil through top dressing withfertilizers, e.g. addingammonium nitrateorureaand restoring soilpHwithlimein the search for increased yields, preparing soil for specialist crops, and seeking to reduce waste and inefficiency by simplifying planting and harvesting.Objectives[edit]Growing the samecropin the same place for many years in a row disproportionately depletes thesoilof certainnutrients. With rotation, a crop that leaches the soil of one kind of nutrient is followed during the next growing season by a dissimilar crop that returns that nutrient to the soil or draws a different ratio of nutrients: for example, rice followed by cotton.Implementation[edit]Choice of crops[edit]The choice and sequence of rotation crops depends on the nature of thesoil, theclimate, andprecipitationwhich together determine the type of plants that may be cultivated. Other important aspects of farming such as crop marketing and economic variables must also be considered when deciding crop rotations.Crop rotations may include two to six or more crop rotations over numerous seasons. A two crop rotation such as corn and soybean in cash grains or corn and alfalfa in forage systems use legumes to help fix nitrogen in the soil for utilization over the long term. Multiple cropping systems, such as intercropping or companion planting, offer more diversity and complexity within the same season or rotation. Carrots can be shaded by tomatoes and loosen soil below them. Double cropping is common where two crops, typically of different species, are grown sequentially in the same growing season. Winter rye and barley can be sown after oats or rice and harvested before the next crop goes in of oats or rice. These systems can maximize benefits of the rotation as well as available land resources.More complex rotations commonly utilize people for greater use of on-farm nutrient management and additional farm products. A soil-feeding crop of clover could be replaced or aided by an application of manure to set up a field for a double crop of winter grains after potatoes. Soil building and pest population management benefits can be further utilized with different complexities of crop rotation. In general the complexity of a fields rotation is limited by what soil, climate, and other environmental conditions permit. This also includes the current or desired management tools and goals of the farmer.Incorporation of animals[edit]In Sub-Saharan Africa, as animal husbandry becomes less of a nomadic practice many herders have begun integrating crop production into their practice. This is known as mixed farming, or the practice of crop cultivation with the incorporation of raising cattle, sheep and/or goats by the same economic entity, is increasingly common. This interaction between the animal, the land and the crops are being done on a small scale all across this region. Crop residues provide animal feed, while the animals provide manure for replenishing crop nutrients and draft power. Both processes are extremely important in this region of the world as it is expensive and logistically unfeasible to transport in synthetic fertilizers and large-scale machinery. As an additional benefit, the cattle, sheep and/or goat provide milk and can act as a cash crop in the times of economic hardship.[3]Benefits[edit]Using some forms of crop rotation farmers can keep theirfieldsunder continuous production, instead of letting them lie fallow, as well as reducing the need for artificialfertilizers, both of which can be expensive.A general effect of crop rotation is that there is a geographic mixing of crops, which can slow the spread of pests and diseases during the growing season. The different crops can also reduce the effects of adverse weather for the individual farmer and, by requiring planting and harvest at different times, allow more land to be farmed with the same amount of machinery and labour.Agronomists describe the benefits to yield in rotated crops as "The Rotation Effect". There are many found benefits of rotation systems: however, there is no specific scientific basis for the sometimes 10-25% yield increase in a crop grown in rotation versus monoculture. The factors related to the increase are simply described as alleviation of the negative factors of monoculture cropping systems. Explanations due to improved nutrition; pest, pathogen, and weed stress reduction; and improved soil structure have been found in some cases to be correlated, but causation has not been determined for the majority of cropping systems.Other benefits of rotation cropping systems include production costs advantages. Overall financial risks are more widely distributed over more diverse production of crops and/or livestock. Less reliance is placed on purchased inputs and over time crops can maintain production goals with fewer inputs. This in tandem with greater short and long term yields makes rotation a powerful tool for improving agricultural systems.Disadvantages[edit]Some crops are picky in the type of soil they need for maximum profitability. Crop rotation is centered around the needs of the soil and not of the crop. Planting picky crops on not-preferred soil will lead to a lower yield in a specific growing season.Nutrients[edit]Rotating crops adds nutrients to the soil.Legumes, plants of the familyFabaceae, for instance, have nodules on theirrootswhich containnitrogen-fixingbacteriacalled rhizobiabacteria. It therefore makes good sense agriculturally to alternate them with cereals (familyPoaceae) and other plants that requirenitrates. An extremely common modern crop rotation is alternatingsoybeansandmaize(corn). Insubsistence farming, it also makes good nutritional sense to grow beans and grain at the same time in different lands.Pest control[edit]Crop rotation is also used to control pests and diseases that can become established in the soil over time. The changing of crops in a sequence tends to decrease the population level of pests. Plants within the sametaxonomic familytend to have similar pests and pathogens. By regularly changing the planting location, the pest cycles can be broken or limited. For example,root-knot nematodeis a serious problem for some plants in warm climates and sandy soils, where it slowly builds up to high levels in the soil, and can severely damage plant productivity by cutting off circulation from the plant roots. Growing a crop that is not a host for root-knot nematode for one season greatly reduces the level of the nematode in the soil, thus making it possible to grow a susceptible crop the following season without needing soilfumigation.It is also difficult to controlweedssimilar to the crop which may contaminate the final produce. For instance,ergotin weed grasses is difficult to separate from harvested grain. A different crop allows the weeds to be eliminated, breaking the ergot cycle.This principle is of particular use inorganic farming, wherepest controlmay be achieved without synthetic pesticides.Soil erosion[edit]Crop rotation can greatly affect the amount of soil lost fromerosionby water. In areas that are highly susceptible to erosion, farm management practices such as zero and reduced tillage can be supplemented with specific crop rotation methods to reduce raindrop impact, sediment detachment,sediment transport,surface runoff, and soil loss.[4]Protection against soil loss is maximized with rotation methods that leave the greatest mass of crop stubble (plant residue left after harvest) on top of the soil. Stubble cover in contact with the soil minimizes erosion from water by reducing overland flow velocity, stream power, and thus the ability of the water to detach and transport sediment.[5]Soil Erosion and Cill prevent the disruption and detachment of soil aggregates that cause macropores to block, infiltration to decline, and runoff to increase.[6]This significantly improves the resilience of soils when subjected to periods of erosion and stress.The effect of crop rotation on erosion control varies by climate. In regions under relatively consistent climate conditions, where annual rainfall and temperature levels are assumed, rigid crop rotations can produce sufficient plant growth and soil cover. In regions where climate conditions are less predictable, and unexpected periods of rain and drought may occur, a more flexible approach for soil cover by crop rotation is necessary. An opportunity cropping system promotes adequate soil cover under these erratic climate conditions.[7]In an opportunity cropping system, crops are grown when soil water is adequate and there is a reliable sowing window. This form of cropping system is likely to produce better soil cover than a rigid crop rotation because crops are only sown under optimal conditions, whereas rigid systems are not necessarily sown in the best conditions available.[8]Crop rotations also affect the timing and length of when a field is subject to fallow.[9]This is very important because depending on a particular region's climate, a field could be the most vulnerable to erosion when it is under fallow. Efficient fallow management is an essential part of reducing erosion in a crop rotation system. Zero tillage is a fundamental management practice that promotes crop stubble retention under longer unplanned fallows when crops cannot be planted.[7]Such management practices that succeed in retaining suitable soil cover in areas under fallow will ultimately reduce soil loss.Additional soil improvements[edit]The use of different species in rotation allows for increased soil organic matter (SOM), greater soil structure, and improvement of the chemical and biological soil environment for crops. With more SOM, water infiltration and retention improves, providing increased drought tolerance and decreased erosion. Soil aggregation allows greater nutrient retention and utilization, decreasing the need for added nutrients. Soil microorganisms also improve nutrient availability and decrease pathogen and pest activity through competition. In addition, plants produce root exudates and other chemicals which manipulate their soil environment as well as their weed environment. Thus rotation allows increased yields from nutrient availability but also alleviation of allelopathy and competitive weed environments.[citation needed]

Integrated pest managementFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An IPMboll weeviltrap in a cotton field (Manning, South Carolina).Integrated pest management(IPM), also known asIntegrated Pest Control(IPC) is a broad-based approach that integrates practices for economic control ofpests. IPM aims to suppress pest populations below the economic injury level (EIL). The UN'sFood and Agriculture Organisationdefines IPM as "the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms."[1]Entomologistsandecologistshave urged the adoption of IPM pest control since the 1970s.[2]IPM allows for safer pest control.[clarification needed]This includes managing insects, plant pathogens and weeds.Globalizationand increased mobility open allow increasing numbers ofinvasive speciesto cross national borders.[3][4]IPM poses the least risks while maximizing benefits and reducing costs.[5]For their leadership in developing and spreading IPM worldwide, Perry Adkisson and Ray F. Smith received the 1997World Food Prize.Contents[hide] 1History 2Applications 3Principles 4Process 5Southeast Asia 6See also 7References 8Further reading 9External linksHistory[edit]Shortly after World War II, when syntheticinsecticidesbecame widely available, entomologists in California developed the concept of "supervised insect control".[6]Around the same time, entomologists in the USCotton Beltwere advocating a similar approach. Under this scheme, insect control was "supervised" by qualified entomologists and insecticide applications were based on conclusions reached from periodic monitoring ofpestand natural-enemy populations. This was viewed as an alternative to calendar-based programs. Supervised control was based on knowledge of the ecology and analysis of projected trends in pest and natural-enemy populations.Supervised control formed much of the conceptual basis for the "integrated control" that University of California entomologists articulated in the 1950s. Integrated control sought to identify the best mix of chemical and biological controls for a given insect pest. Chemical insecticides were to be used in the manner least disruptive to biological control. The term "integrated" was thus synonymous with "compatible." Chemical controls were to be applied only after regular monitoring indicated that a pest population had reached a level (the economic threshold) that required treatment to prevent the population from reaching a level (the economic injury level) at which economic losses would exceed the cost of the control measures.IPM extended the concept of integrated control to all classes of pests and was expanded to include all tactics. Controls such as pesticides were to be applied as in integrated control, but these now had to be compatible with tactics for all classes of pests. Other tactics, such as host-plant resistance and cultural manipulations, became part of the IPM framework. IPM combined entomologists,plant pathologists,nematologistsand weed scientists.In the United States, IPM was formulated into national policy in February 1972 when PresidentRichard Nixondirected federal agencies to take steps to advance the application of IPM in all relevant sectors. In 1979, PresidentJimmy Carterestablished an interagency IPM Coordinating Committee to ensure development and implementation of IPM practices.[7]Applications[edit]IPM is used inagriculture,horticulture, human habitations,preventive conservationand general pest control, including structural pest management, turf pest management and ornamental pest management.Principles[edit]An American IPM system is designed around six basic components:[8] Acceptable pest levelsThe emphasis is oncontrol, noteradication. IPM holds that wiping out an entire pest population is often impossible, and the attempt can be expensive and unsafe. IPM programmes first work to establish acceptable pest levels, called action thresholds, and apply controls if those thresholds are crossed. These thresholds are pest and site specific, meaning that it may be acceptable at one site to have a weed such aswhite clover, but not at another site. Allowing a pest population to survive at a reasonable threshold reduces selection pressure. This lowers the rate at which a pest develops resistance to a control, because if almost all pests are killed then those that haveresistancewill provide the genetic basis of the future population. Retaining a significant number unresistant specimens dilutes the prevalence of any resistant genes that appear. Similarly, the repeated use of a single class of controls will create pest populations that are more resistant to that class, whereas alternating among classes helps prevent this.[citation needed] Preventive cultural practicesSelecting varieties best for local growing conditions and maintaining healthy crops is the first line of defense. Plantquarantineand 'cultural techniques' such ascrop sanitationare next, e.g., removal of diseased plants, and cleaning pruning shears to prevent spread ofinfections. Beneficialfungiandbacteriaare added to the potting media ofhorticulturalcrops vulnerable to root diseases, greatly reducing the need forfungicides.[citation needed] MonitoringRegular observation is critically important. Observation is broken into inspection and identification.[9]Visual inspection, insect and spore traps, and other methods are used to monitor pest levels. Record-keeping is essential, as is a thorough knowledge target pest behavior and reproductive cycles. Since insects are cold-blooded, their physical development is dependent on area temperatures. Many insects have had their development cycles modeled in terms ofdegree-days. The degree days of an environment determines the optimal t