Traceability: farm, packhouse, food manufacturing - Organic Farming

Produce Traceability

nospam@example.com (The Traceability Team) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:44:00 -0700

Produce traceability

Large amounts of produce, such as these fruits and vegetables pictured in a New Orleans grocery store, is now global in its origin, making it difficult to trace in the event of a foodborne illness.Produce traceability makes it possible to track produce from its point of origin to a retail location where it is purchased by consumers.

Produce traceability is an important link in protecting public health since it allows health agencies to more quickly and accurately identify the source of contaminated fruit or vegetables believed to be the cause of an outbreak of foodborne illness, remove them from the marketplace, and communicate to the supply chain.

Since many fruits and vegetables are eaten raw, the produce industry‚ from farmer to retailer, works diligently to protect these foods from contamination. Despite their best efforts, foreign matter can occasionally contaminate produce in the field or orchard, in packing or processing, in transit or storage.

Because traceability systems can provide information on the source, location, movement and storage conditions of produce, they also allow growers, packers, processors and distributors to identify factors affecting quality and delivery.

Beginning in 2008, an industry-led effort to enhance traceability throughout the entire produce supply chain was launched as the Produce Traceability Initiative.

Contents [hide]
1 Trends in outbreaks of produce-related illness
2 Benefits
3 Voluntary industry initiatives
4 Legislative and regulatory matters
5 Technology
6 Notes

[edit] Trends in outbreaks of produce-related illness
An analysis of 3,500 food-poisoning outbreaks between 1990 and 2003 found that contaminated produce was responsible for the greatest number of individual foodborne illnesses. The study, by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, found that produce caused 428 outbreaks and 23,857 cases of illness.[1]

Authorities note that several factors have contributed to the rise in outbreaks:

Great consumption of fresh produce, especially cut fruits and vegetables.
Wider distribution.
Improved electronic reporting of outbreaks.
An aging population more susceptible to foodborne illness.
Unlike meat, which can be rid of bacteria through proper cooking, fresh produce is often meant to be consumed raw.[2]

Salmonella is a common source of foodborne illness.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration noted in 2007 that fruit and vegetable-related outbreaks of food poisoning are on the rise and had struck in spinach, tomatoes, lettuce and cantaloupes. The agency urged fruit and vegetable processors to adopt food safety plans similar to those in the meat industry.[3]

An outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul in 2008 was characterized by the US Center for Disease Control as the largest foodborne outbreak in a decade. Some 1304 infected persons were identified in 43 states, at least 252 were hospitalized and two deaths were possibly linked to the outbreak. CDC noted that the trace back of fresh produce, such as tomatoes, through the supply chain could be very difficult and labor intensive.[4] Ironically, the carrier item was ultimately determined to be jalapeño peppers, not tomatoes.[5]

[edit] Benefits
Tracing of an item through various stages of production, manufacturing, processing, handling, transportation, sales and consumption is a widespread practice in today's world. Manufacturers may require purchasers to register ownership of a product to facilitate possible future recall for safety reasons or warranty fulfillment. The Post Office and package delivery companies make widespread use of tracking packages from pickup to delivery, even to destinations on the other side of the world.

Some often-recognized benefits of traceability include:

Ability to determine the origin of a product, ingredient or component.
Simplifies problem-solving in event of defective or contaminated product, ingredient or component.
Allows issues to be more quickly identified, contained and resolved.
Limits losses and lowers costs.
Protects public health and safety.
Builds trust and confidence in affected products, businesses or systems.
[edit] Voluntary industry initiatives
In 1930, produce industry leaders sponsored legislation to require an internal trail of accounting between buyers and sellers along the entire produce marketing chain. This law, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) of 1930, set the foundation for basic traceability.[6]More recently, the Bioterror Act of 2002 required food companies to keep records that could be traced in the produce supply chain (i.e.one step up and one step back). [7] Based on these records, many organizations in the fresh produce distribution chain have long maintained the ability to trace products inside their enterprise. In simple terms, they know where they got it and where they sent it, but with products that may move through multiple parties who may transform or comingle them, trying to connect many links quickly in time of crisis is a challenge.

Some 30 years ago, manufacturers and retailers created an organization called GS1 to improve the efficiency of the distribution of food and consumer goods to supermarkets. Today GS1 is a leading global organization dedicated to the design and implementation of global standards and solutions to improve the efficiency and visibility of supply and demand chains globally and across sectors.[8][9] One of its many programs was to develop the now-familiar bar code on products that can be scanned at checkout by retailers. GS1‚international standards will provide the foundation for the PTI.

Multiple shippers, distributors and retailers in the produce industry have endorsed the Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI) to encourage adoption of whole chain traceability. The initiative's sponsor associations include United Fresh Produce Association (United Fresh), Canadian Produce Marketing Association (CPMA) and Produce Marketing Association (PMA).[10] Both internal and external traceability programs are needed in order to effectively track and trace product up and down the supply chain, achieving whole-chain traceability. At present, most companies have internal traceability programs but not external traceability. The PTI outlines a six-step course of action to achieve chain-wide adoption of electronic traceability of every case produce by the year 2012. Meanwhile, companies are putting into operation technologies that will support the PTI.

[edit] Legislative and regulatory matters
Various government agencies have oversight or regulatory control over different aspects of fresh fruit and produce production, processing and distribution. These include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control. Some groups have pushed for a single food-safety agency, on-farm improvements and improved reporting and surveillance of foodborne illness outbreaks.[11]

The draft Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 was introduced May 27, 2009, in the U.S. House of Representatives. It would expand FDA authority, require registration of food manufacturers and processors, regulate crop cultivation and harvesting and other measures. After committee hearings and extensive amendment, the bill (HR2749) passed the House on July 30, 2009. HR2749 does not specifically endorse the PTI, or prescribe a traceability method or methodology, but instead Section 107 calls for regulations establishing a tracing system that includes:

the establishment and maintenance of lot numbers;
a standardized format for pedigree information; and
the use of a common nomenclature for food
with a goal of identifying each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells food in as short a timeframe as practicable but no longer than 2 business days.[12]

The measure is pending consideration in the Senate.[13]

In parallel, the White House created a Food Safety Working Group[14] which has issued statements calling for a national traceability system that would enhance traceability of all food, but without specifically endorsing a particular approach.

[edit] Technology
Radio-frequency identification and barcodes are two common technology methods used to deliver traceability.

An example of a generic RFID chip.RFID is synonymous with track-and-trace solutions, and has a critical role to play in supply chains. RFID is a code-carrying technology, and can be used in place of a barcode to enable non-line of sight-reading. Widespread deployment of RFID has been inhibited by certain limitations of the technology.

Specifically: tag cost, tag readability and privacy issues. The cost of RFID tags currently limits their economic justification for item level tagging or case-level tagging in the produce industry. Reading RFID tags requires specialized equipment limiting their usefulness for consumers today. Product orientation, packing density and materials (in particular water, which is predominant in produce) can have a significant detrimental effect on read reliability of passive tags. Finally, the widespread use of RFID tags on consumer goods is anticipated to be contentious until privacy concerns can be satisfied.

Some produce traceability makers use matrix barcodes to record data on specific produce.Barcoding is a common and cost effective method used to implement traceability at both the item and case-level. Variable data in a barcode or a numeric or alphanumeric code format can be applied to the packaging or label. The secure data can be used as a pointer to traceability information and can also correlate with production data such as time to market and product quality.[15] Packaging converters have a choice of three different classes of technology to print barcodes:

Inkjet (dot on demand or continuous) systems are capable of printing high resolution (300 dpi or higher for dot on demand) images at press speed (up to 1000fpm). These solutions can be deployed either on-press or off-line. Companies such as Domino, MARKEM, VideoJet and EFI/Jetrion provide these technologies.
Laser marking can be employed to ablate a coating or to cause a color change in certain materials. The advantage of laser is fine detail and high speed for character printing, and no consumables. Not all substrates accept a laser mark, and certain colors (e.g. red) are not suitable for barcode reading.
Thermal Transfer and Direct Thermal. For lower speed off-press applications, thermal transfer and direct thermal printers are ideal for printing variable data on labels. Companies such as Carlisle Technology provide these technologies.

Leveraging new advancements in mobile technology, food brands are now incorporating mobile messaging and QR codes on product labels. Consumers can text or scan the barcode with smartphones for immediate retrieval of product information. FoodLogiQ launched a mobile messaging solution that provides traceability and brand information about products to consumers via their mobile phones.[16] YottaMark also announced the availability of the HarvestMark Traceability application for the G1-Phone which uses the phone camera to perform the traceback.[17]

Consumers can also trace the origins of their purchased produce at websites like www.traceproduce.com. Consumers can type a code found on a produce item into a search box at the tracing website and view information about the grower, field, and packing operation that the produce came from.

Industrial agriculture

nospam@example.com (The Traceability Team) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:06:00 -0700

Industrial agriculture

Industrial agriculture is a form of modern farming that refers to the industrialized production of livestock, poultry, fish, and crops. The methods of industrial agriculture are technoscientific, economic, and political. They include innovation in agricultural machinery and farming methods, genetic technology, techniques for achieving economies of scale in production, the creation of new markets for consumption, the application of patent protection to genetic information, and global trade. These methods are widespread in developed nations and increasingly prevalent worldwide. Most of the meat, dairy, eggs, fruits, and vegetables available in supermarkets are produced using these methods of industrial agriculture.

Contents [hide]
1 Historical development and future prospects
1.1 British agricultural revolution
2 Challenges and issues
2.1 Society
2.1.1 Benefits
2.1.1.1 Cheap and plentiful food
2.1.1.2 Convenience and choice
2.1.2 Liabilities
2.1.2.1 Environment
2.1.2.2 Social
3 Animals
4 Crops
5 Sustainable agriculture
5.1 Organic farming methods
6 See also
7 Sources and notes
8 Further reading
8.1 Criticism of factory farming

[edit] Historical development and future prospects
Main article: History of agriculture
The birth of industrial agriculture more or less coincides with that of the Industrial Revolution in general. The identification of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus (referred to by the acronym NPK) as critical factors in plant growth led to the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers, making possible more intensive types of agriculture. The discovery of vitamins and their role in animal nutrition, in the first two decades of the 20th century, led to vitamin supplements, which in the 1920s allowed certain livestock to be raised indoors, reducing their exposure to adverse natural elements. The discovery of antibiotics and vaccines facilitated raising livestock in concentrated, controlled animal feed operations by reducing diseases caused by crowding. Chemicals developed for use in World War II gave rise to synthetic pesticides. Developments in shipping networks and technology have made long-distance distribution of agricultural produce feasible.

Agricultural production across the world doubled four times between 1820 and 1975[1] to feed a global population of one billion human beings in 1800 and 6.5 billion in 2002.[2] During the same period, the number of people involved in farming dropped as the process became more automated.[citation needed] In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, each worker supplied 90 consumers.[2] The number of farms has also decreased, and their ownership is more concentrated. In the U.S., four companies kill 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs, and produce 50 percent of chickens, cited as an example of "vertical integration" by the president of the U.S. National Farmers' Union.[3] In 1967, there were one million pig farms in America; as of 2002, there were 114,000,[4] with 80 million pigs (out of 95 million) killed each year on factory farms, according to the U.S. National Pork Producers Council.[2] According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way.[5]

According to Denis Avery of the agribusiness funded Hudson Institute, Asia increased its consumption of pork by 18 million tons in the 1990s.[6] As of 1997, the world had a stock of 900 million pigs, which Avery predicts will rise to 2.5 billion pigs by 2050.[6] He told the College of Natural Resources at the University of California, Berkeley that three billion pigs will thereafter be needed annually to meet demand.[7] He writes: "For the sake of the environment, we had better hope those hogs are raised in big, efficient confinement systems."[6]

[edit] British agricultural revolution
Main article: British Agricultural Revolution
The British agricultural revolution describes a period of agricultural development in Britain between the 16th century and the mid-19th century, which saw a massive increase in agricultural productivity and net output. This in turn supported unprecedented population growth, freeing up a significant percentage of the workforce, and thereby helped drive the Industrial Revolution. How this came about is not entirely clear. In recent decades, historians cited four key changes in agricultural practices, enclosure, mechanization, four-field crop rotation, and selective breeding, and gave credit to a relatively few individuals.[8]

[edit] Challenges and issues
See also: Agricultural policy, Agribusiness, and Factory farming
The challenges and issues of industrial agriculture for global and local society, for the industrial agriculture industry, for the individual industrial agriculture farm, and for animal rights include the costs and benefits of both current practices and proposed changes to those practices.[9][10][11] Current industrial agriculture practices are temporarily increasing the carrying capacity of the Earth for humans while slowly destroying the long term carrying capacity of the earth[citation needed] for humans necessitating a shift to a sustainable agriculture form of industrial agriculture. This is a continuation of thousands of years of the invention and use of technologies in feeding ever growing populations.

[W]hen hunter-gatherers with growing populations depleted the stocks of game and wild foods across the Near East, they were forced to introduce agriculture. But agriculture brought much longer hours of work and a less rich diet than hunter-gatherers enjoyed. Further population growth among shifting slash-and-burn farmers led to shorter fallow periods, falling yields and soil erosion. Plowing and fertilizers were introduced to deal with these problems - but once again involved longer hours of work and degradation of soil resources(Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth, Allen and Unwin, 1965, expanded and updated in Population and Technology, Blackwell, 1980.).

While the point of industrial agriculture is lower cost products to create greater productivity thus a higher standard of living as measured by available goods and services, industrial methods have side effects both good and bad. Further, industrial agriculture is not some single indivisible thing, but instead is composed of numerous separate elements, each of which can be modified, and in fact is modified in response to market conditions, government regulation, and scientific advances. So the question then becomes for each specific element that goes into an industrial agriculture method or technique or process: What bad side effects are bad enough that the financial gain and good side effects are outweighed? Different interest groups not only reach different conclusions on this, but also recommend differing solutions, which then become factors in changing both market conditions and government regulations.[9][10][11]

[edit] Society
The major challenges and issues faced by society concerning industrial agriculture include:

Maximizing the benefits:

Cheap and plentiful food
Convenience for the consumer
The contribution to our economy on many levels, from growers to harvesters to processors to sellers
while minimizing the downsides:

Environmental and social costs
Damage to fisheries
Cleanup of surface and groundwater polluted with animal waste
Increased health risks from pesticides
Increased ozone pollution and global warming from heavy use of fossil fuels[10]
[edit] Benefits
[edit] Cheap and plentiful food
See also: World population and History of agriculture

Population (est.) 10,000 BCE – 2000 CE.Very roughly:

30,000 years ago hunter-gatherer behavior fed 6 million people
3,000 years ago primitive agriculture fed 60 million people
300 years ago intensive agriculture fed 600 million people
Today industrial agriculture feeds 6 billion people
Estimated world population at various dates, in thousands Year World Africa Asia Europe Central & South America North America* Oceania Notes

An example of industrial agriculture providing cheap and plentiful food is the U.S.'s "most successful program of agricultural development of any country in the world". Between 1930 and 2000 U.S. agricultural productivity (output divided by all inputs) rose by an average of about 2 percent annually causing food prices paid by consumers to decrease. "The percentage of U.S. disposable income spent on food prepared at home decreased, from 22 percent as late as 1950 to 7 percent by the end of the century."[14]

[edit] Convenience and choice
Main article: Convenience food
Industrial agriculture treats farmed products in terms of minimizing inputs and maximizing outputs at every stage from the natural resources of sun, land and water to the consumer which results in a vertically integrated industry that genetically manipulates crops and livestock; and processes, packages, and markets in whatever way generates maximum return on investment creating convenience foods many customers will pay a premium for. A consumer backlash against food sold for taste, convenience, and profit rather than nutrition and other values (e.g. reduce waste, be natural, be ethical) has led the industry to also provide organic food, minimally processed foods, and minimally packaged foods to maximally satisfy all segments of society thus generating maximum return on investment.

[edit] Liabilities
[edit] Environment
Main article: Environmental science
Industrial agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy, and industrial chemicals; increasing pollution in the arable land, useable water and atmosphere. Herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and animal waste products are accumulating in ground and surface waters. "Many of the negative effects of industrial agriculture are remote from fields and farms. Nitrogen compounds from the Midwest, for example, travel down the Mississippi to degrade coastal fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. But other adverse effects are showing up within agricultural production systems -- for example, the rapidly developing resistance among pests is rendering our arsenal of herbicides and insecticides increasingly ineffective."[15]

[edit] Social
Main article: Rural sociology
A study done for the US. Office of Technology Assessment conducted by the UC Davis Macrosocial Accounting Project concluded that industrial agriculture is associated with substantial deterioration of human living conditions in nearby rural communities.[16]

[edit] Animals
Main article: Industrial agriculture (animals)
"Confined animal feeding operations" or "intensive livestock operations" or "factory farms", can hold large numbers (some up to hundreds of thousands) of animals, often indoors. These animals are typically cows, hogs, turkeys, or chickens. The distinctive characteristics of such farms is the concentration of livestock in a given space. The aim of the operation is to produce as much meat, eggs, or milk at the lowest possible cost.

Food and water is supplied in place, and artificial methods are often employed to maintain animal health and improve production, such as therapeutic use of antimicrobial agents, vitamin supplements and growth hormones. Growth hormones are not used in chicken meat production nor are they used in the European Union for any animal. In meat production, methods are also sometimes employed to control undesirable behaviours often related to stresses of being confined in restricted areas with other animals. More docile breeds are sought (with natural dominant behaviours bred out for example), physical restraints to stop interaction, such as individual cages for chickens, or animals physically modified, such as the de-beaking of chickens to reduce the harm of fighting. Weight gain is encouraged by the provision of plentiful supplies of food to animals breed for weight gain.

The designation "confined animal feeding operation" in the U.S. resulted from that country's 1972 Federal Clean Water Act, which was enacted to protect and restore lakes and rivers to a "fishable, swimmable" quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified certain animal feeding operations, along with many other types of industry, as point source polluters of groundwater. These operations were designated as CAFOs and subject to special anti-pollution regulation.[17]

In 24 states in the U.S., isolated cases of groundwater contamination has been linked to CAFOs.[citation needed] For example, the ten million hogs in North Carolina generate 19 million tons of waste per year.[citation needed] The U.S. federal government acknowledges the waste disposal issue and requires that animal waste be stored in lagoons. These lagoons can be as large as 7.5 acres (30,000 m2). Lagoons not protected with an impermeable liner can leak waste into groundwater under some conditions, as can runoff from manure spread back onto fields as fertilizer in the case of an unforeseen heavy rainfall. A lagoon that burst in 1995 released 25 million gallons of nitrous sludge in North Carolina's New River. The spill allegedly killed eight to ten million fish.[18]

The large concentration of animals, animal waste, and dead animals in a small space poses ethical issues. Animal rights and animal welfare activists have charged that intensive animal rearing is cruel to animals. As they become more common, so do concerns about air pollution and ground water contamination, and the effects on human health of the pollution and the use of antibiotics and growth hormones.

One particular problem with farms on which animals are intensively reared is the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Because large numbers of animals are confined in a small space, any disease would spread quickly, and so antibiotics are used preventively. A small percentage of bacteria are not killed by the drugs, which may infect human beings if it becomes airborne.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), farms on which animals are intensively reared can cause adverse health reactions in farm workers. Workers may develop acute and chronic lung disease, musculoskeletal injuries, and may catch infections that transmit from animals to human beings.

The CDC writes that chemical, bacterial, and viral compounds from animal waste may travel in the soil and water. Residents near such farms report nuisances such as unpleasant smells and flies, as well as adverse health effects.

The CDC has identified a number of pollutants associated with the discharge of animal waste into rivers and lakes, and into the air. The use of antibiotics may create antibiotic-resistant pathogens; parasites, bacteria, and viruses may be spread; ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus can reduce oxygen in surface waters and contaminate drinking water; pesticides and hormones may cause hormone-related changes in fish; animal feed and feathers may stunt the growth of desirable plants in surface waters and provide nutrients to disease-causing micro-organisms; trace elements such as arsenic and copper, which are harmful to human health, may contaminate surface waters.

[edit] Crops
Main article: Industrial agriculture (crops)
The projects within the Green Revolution spread technologies that had already existed, but had not been widely used outside of industrialized nations. These technologies included pesticides, irrigation projects, and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer.

The novel technological development of the Green Revolution was the production of what some referred to as “miracle seeds.” [19] Scientists created strains of maize, wheat, and rice that are generally referred to as HYVs or “high-yielding varieties.” HYVs have an increased nitrogen-absorbing potential compared to other varieties. Since cereals that absorbed extra nitrogen would typically lodge, or fall over before harvest, semi-dwarfing genes were bred into their genomes. Norin 10 wheat, a variety developed by Orville Vogel from Japanese dwarf wheat varieties, was instrumental in developing Green Revolution wheat cultivars. IR8, the first widely implemented HYV rice to be developed by the International Rice Research Institute, was created through a cross between an Indonesian variety named “Peta” and a Chinese variety named “Dee Geo Woo Gen.”[20]

With the availability of molecular genetics in Arabidopsis and rice the mutant genes responsible (reduced height(rht), gibberellin insensitive (gai1) and slender rice (slr1)) have been cloned and identified as cellular signalling components of gibberellic acid, a phytohormone involved in regulating stem growth via its effect on cell division. Stem growth in the mutant background is significantly reduced leading to the dwarf phenotype. Photosynthetic investment in the stem is reduced dramatically as the shorter plants are inherently more stable mechanically. Assimilates become redirected to grain production, amplifying in particular the effect of chemical fertilisers on commercial yield.

HYVs significantly outperform traditional varieties in the presence of adequate irrigation, pesticides, and fertilizers. In the absence of these inputs, traditional varieties may outperform HYVs. One criticism of HYVs is that they were developed as F1 hybrids, meaning they need to be purchased by a farmer every season rather than saved from previous seasons, thus increasing a farmer’s cost of production.

[edit] Sustainable agriculture
Main article: Sustainable agriculture
The idea and practice of sustainable agriculture has arisen in response to the problems of industrial agriculture. Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental stewardship, farm profitability, and prosperous farming communities. These goals have been defined by a variety of disciplines and may be looked at from the vantage point of the farmer or the consumer.

[edit] Organic farming methods
Main article: Organic farming methods
See also: Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture
Organic farming methods combine some aspects of scientific knowledge and highly limited modern technology with traditional farming practices; accepting some of the methods of industrial agriculture while rejecting others. Organic methods rely on naturally occurring biological processes, which often take place over extended periods of time, and a holistic approach; while chemical-based farming focuses on immediate, isolated effects and reductionist strategies.

Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture is an example of this holistic approach. Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) is a practice in which the by-products (wastes) from one species are recycled to become inputs (fertilizers, food) for another. Fed aquaculture (e.g. fish, shrimp) is combined with inorganic extractive (e.g. seaweed) and organic extractive (e.g. shellfish) aquaculture to create balanced systems for environmental sustainability (biomitigation), economic stability (product diversification and risk reduction) and social acceptability (better management practices).[21]

Certified Naturally Grown

nospam@example.com (The Traceability Team) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:59:00 -0700

Certified Naturally Grown

Certified Naturally Grown logoCertified Naturally Grown is a non-profit alternate farm assurance certification program created for small-scale organic farmers, and striving to strengthen the organic movement by preserving high organic standards and removing financial barriers that tend to exclude smaller farms that are selling locally and directly to their customers. The program is operated in the United States by a non-profit corporation, Certified Naturally Grown, Inc, based in Stone Ridge, New York. It was founded by Ron Khosla who operates a community supported farm in New Paltz, New York using the Community Supported Agriculture model.[1] A United Kingdom sister organization, the Wholesome Food Association, promotes similar food production standards, but does not operate a farm assurance or certification program.[2]

To be Certified Organic (as opposed to Certified Naturally Grown) in the US, a grower must keep detailed records of planting, cultivation, fertilization, harvest, and storage, and must pay for both organization membership and periodic inspection. This process works well for large-scale commercial growers, but becomes onerous for small mixed-agriculture farms. Since only certified seeds may be used, the varieties available to be grown are limited, and sustainable practices such as seed-saving is not permitted, unless the farmer also applies to be certified as a seed supplier.

Certified Naturally Grown farmers follow the USDA standards of the National Organic Program, but the record keeping and inspection process is tailored to accommodate the needs of small-scale mixed-agriculture farmers, and are not normally permitted to use the word “organic”. Farmers commit to act as inspectors. Farmer-Inspectors are uniquely qualified to observe and note whether their neighbors are sticking to the standards, and are encouraged to provide helpful feedback, which helps foster a sense of community and sharing. Inspection forms are posted on the Internet for anytime public access, and all farms are subject to random pesticide residue testing. All in all, the CNG procedure requires significantly less paperwork, yet arguably results in more transparency and fostering of better farming practices, than the Certified Organic process, which primarily depends on farmer declarations backed by copious paperwork, and which inspects the paperwork rather than the farm.

A nationally recognized and endorsed grassroots effort, CNG exists because of enormous volunteer efforts, running primarily on free-will donations from farmers and supporters.

Biodynamic agriculture

nospam@example.com (The Traceability Team) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:40:00 -0700

Biodynamic agriculture

Biodynamic agriculture is a method of organic farming with homeopathic composts that treats farms as unified and individual organisms,[1] emphasizing balancing the holistic development and interrelationship of the soil, plants, animals as a self-nourishing system without external inputs[2] insofar as this is possible given the loss of nutrients due to the export of food.[3]

Regarded by some as the first modern ecological farming system[4] and one of the most sustainable,[5] biodynamic farming has much in common with other organic approaches, such as emphasizing the use of manures and composts and excluding of the use of artificial chemicals on soil and plants. Methods unique to the biodynamic approach include the use of fermented herbal and mineral preparations as compost additives and field sprays and the use of an astronomical sowing and planting calendar.[6] Biodynamics originated out of the work of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of the spiritual philosophy anthroposophy.

History
The development of biodynamic agriculture began in 1924 with a series of eight lectures on agriculture given by Rudolf Steiner at Schloss Koberwitz in what was then Silesia, Germany, (now in Poland east of Wrocław). The course was held in response to a request by farmers who noticed degraded soil conditions and a deterioration in the health and quality of crops and livestock resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers.[7] An agricultural research group was subsequently formed to test the effects of biodynamic methods on the life and health of soil, plants and animals. In the United States, the Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association was founded in 1938 as a New York state corporation.

In Australia the first biodynamic preparations were made by Ernesto Genoni in Melbourne in 1927[8] and by Bob Williams in Sydney in 1939. Since the 1950s research work has continued at the Biodynamic Research Institute (BDRI)[9] in Powelltown, near Melbourne Australia under the direction of Alexei Podolinsky. In 1989 Biodynamic Agriculture Australia was established, as a not for profit association. It has well over 1100 members and has local and regional groups throughout Australia. It publishes the biodynamic journal News Leaf quarterly and is the largest organic growers association in Australia.

Today biodynamics is practiced in more than 50 countries worldwide. The University of Kassel has a dedicated Department of Biodynamic Agriculture.[10]

[edit] Biodynamic method of farming
Biodynamic agriculture conceives of the farm as an organism, a self-contained entity with its own individuality. "Emphasis is placed on the integration of crops and livestock, recycling of nutrients, maintenance of soil, and the health and well being of crops and animals; the farmer too is part of the whole."[11] Cover crops, green manures and crop rotations are used extensively.

[edit] Biodynamic preparations
Steiner prescribed nine different preparations to aid fertilization which are the cornerstone of biodynamic agriculture, and described how these were to be prepared. Steiner believed that these preparations transferred supernatural terrestrial and cosmic "forces" into the soil.[3] The prepared substances are numbered 500 through 508, where the first two are used for preparing fields whereas the latter seven are used for making compost. A long term trial (DOK experiment) evaluating the biodynamic farming system in comparison with organic and conventional farming systems, found that preparations have influence on soil structure and micro-organisms enhancing soil fertility and increasing biodiversity.[12]. Regarding compost development beyond accelerating the initial phase of composting, some positive effects have been noted:[13]

The field sprays contain substances that stimulate plant growth include cytokinins.
Some improvement in nutrient content of compost.
[edit] Field preparations
Field preparations, for stimulating humus formation:

500: (horn-manure) a humus mixture prepared by filling the horn of a cow with cow manure and burying it in the ground (40–60 cm below the surface) in the autumn. It is left to decompose during the winter and recovered for use the following spring.
501: Crushed powdered quartz prepared by stuffing it into a horn of a cow and buried into the ground in spring and taken out in autumn. It can be mixed with 500 but usually prepared on its own (mixture of 1 tablespoon of quartz powder to 250 liters of water) The mixture is sprayed under very low pressure over the crop during the wet season, in an attempt to prevent fungal diseases. It should be sprayed on an overcast day or early in the morning to prevent burning of the leaves.
Both 500 and 501 are used on fields by stirring about one teaspoon of the contents of a horn in 40–60 liters of water for an hour and whirling it in different directions every second minute. Although some biodynamic beliefs refer to buried quartz "fermenting", a 2004 review commented that it is unclear what this actually means, as rock does not ferment.[14]

[edit] Compost preparations
Compost preparations, used for preparing compost, employ herbs which are frequently used in medicinal remedies:

502: Yarrow blossoms (Achillea millefolium) are stuffed into urinary bladders from Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), placed in the sun during summer, buried in earth during winter and retrieved in the spring.
503: Chamomile blossoms (Matricaria recutita) are stuffed into small intestines from cattle buried in humus-rich earth in the autumn and retrieved in the spring.
504: Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) plants in full bloom are stuffed together underground surrounded on all sides by peat for a year.
505: Oak bark (Quercus robur) is chopped in small pieces, placed inside the skull of a domesticated animal, surrounded by peat and buried in earth in a place where lots of rain water runs past.
506: Dandelion flowers (Taraxacum officinale) is stuffed into the peritoneum of cattle and buried in earth during winter and retrieved in the spring.
507: Valerian flowers (Valeriana officinalis) are extracted into water.
508: Horsetail (Equisetum)
One to three grams (a teaspoon) of each preparation is added to a dung heap by digging 50 cm deep holes with a distance of 2 meters from each other, except for the 507 preparation, which is stirred into 5 liters of water and sprayed over the entire compost surface. All preparations are thus used in homeopathic quantities. Each compost preparation is designed to guide a particular decomposition process in the composting mass.

One study found that the oak bark preparation improved disease resistance in zucchini.[13]

[edit] Astronomical planting calendar
The approach considers that there are astronomical influences on soil and plant development, specifying, for example, what phase of the moon is most appropriate for planting, cultivating or harvesting various kinds of crops.[15] This aspect of biodynamics has been termed "astrological" in nature.[16]

[edit] Treatment of pests and weeds
Biodynamic agriculture sees the basis of pest and disease control arising from a strong healthy balanced farm organism. Where this is not yet achieved it uses techniques analogous to fertilization for pest control and weed control. Most of these techniques include using the ashes of a pest or weed that has been trapped or picked from the fields and burnt. A biodynamic farmer perceives weeds and plant vulnerability to pests as a result of imbalances in the soil.

Pests such as insects or field mice (Apodemus) have more complex processes associated with them, depending on what pest is to be targeted. For example field mice are to be countered by deploying ashes prepared from field mice skin when Venus is in the Scorpius constellation.
Weeds are combated (besides the usual mechanical methods) by collecting seeds from the weeds and burning them above a wooden flame that was kindled by the weeds. The ashes from the seeds are then spread on the fields, then lightly sprayed with the clear urine of a sterile cow (the urine should be exposed to the full moon for six hours), this is intended to block the influence from the full moon on the particular weed and make it infertile.
[edit] Seed production
Biodynamic agriculture has focused on open pollination of seeds (permitting farmers to grow their own seed) and the development of locally adapted varieties. The seed stock is not controlled by large, multinational seed companies.[17]

[edit] Trademark protection of term biodynamic
The term Biodynamic is a trademark held by the Demeter association of biodynamic farmers for the purpose of maintaining production standards used both in farming and processing foodstuffs.(This is not a trademark held privately in New Zealand) The trademark is intended to protect both the consumer and the producers of biodynamic produce. Demeter International is an organization of member countries; each country has its own Demeter organization which is required to meet international production standards (but can also exceed them). The original Demeter organization was founded in 1928; the U.S. Demeter Association was formed in the 1980s and certified its first farm in 1982. In France, Biodivin certifies biodynamic wine.[18] In Egypt, SEKEM has created the Egyptian Biodynamic Association (EBDA), an association that provides training for farmers to become certified.[19]

[edit] Studies of efficacy
Studies have compared biodynamic farming methods to both other organic methods and to conventional methods. Most studies have found that biodynamic farms have soil quality significantly better than conventionally farmed soils but comparable to the soil quality achieved by other organic methods; the decisive factor is likely to be the use of compost.[20] Studies of yields differ in their conclusions.

A 1993 study compared soil quality and financial performance of Biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. The study reported that, "The Biodynamic farms proved in most enterprises to have soils of higher biological and physical quality: significantly greater in organic matter, content and microbial activity, more earthworms, better soil structure, lower bulk density, easier penetrability, and thicker topsoil."[21] The biodynamic farms were just as financially viable on a per hectare basis.[21] The study compared biodynamic farms with adjacent conventional farms, but didn't attempt to compare farms of similar size, or with similar crops.
A further study investigated whether biodynamic preparations had any effect on the yield and growth of lentil and wheat crops, weed populations and soil fertility in the short term. The study found that "[i]n general, soils and crops treated with biodynamic preparations showed few differences from those not treated". Plots tended with biodynamically treated compost produced results for yield, crop quality and soil fertility that were similar to those tended with non-biodynamic composts and NPK fertilizers. Some alteration was observed in the nitrogenous chemistry of the soil and grain where biodynamic field sprays were applied, however the study did not ascribe or discern any biological significance to the difference. Among the variables considered by the study, some measured outcomes correlated with biodynamic field spray usage, including a higher per-unit biomass yield ratio for lentils and a lowering of carbon and crude protein contents in wheat grains. The study's conclusion remarked that "any additional short-term benefits from biodynamic preparations remain questionable."[22]
A long-term study conducted at a commercial vineyard in California compared vineyard blocks treated with biodynamic preparations alongside those tended with general organic farming methods, to examine effects upon soil and crop quality. "No differences were found in soil quality" during the first six years of the study, and analyses of other indicators including the yield per vine, clusters per vine, cluster and berry weight also showed there were no differences. The study did find a statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) difference in the yield-to-pruning weight ratio, indicating an "ideal vine balance for producing high-quality wine grapes" for the biodynamically treated crop, but noted the control vines had been "slightly overcropped". In one particular year of the study the biodynamically treated wine grapes had significantly higher Brix and notably higher total phenols and anthocyanins. In conclusion, the study found that biodynamic preparations "may affect" the vine canopy and chemistry, but showed no effects on the soil and tissue nutrient parameters measured in the study.[23]
A 21-year study by the FiBL Institute in Switzerland compared the agronomic and ecological performance of biodynamic, organic and two conventional systems. The study found that nutrient input in the biodynamic and organic systems was 34 to 51% lower than in the conventional systems but crop yield was only 20% lower on average, indicating more efficient production. The total energy (for fuel, production of mineral fertilizer and pesticides, etc.) to produce a dry-matter unit of crop was 20 to 56% lower for the biodynamic and organic systems, and pesticide input was reduced by 97% (by 100% for the biodynamic system). In regard to soil aggregate stability, soil pH, humus formation, soil calcium, microbial biomass, and faunal biomass (earthworms and arthropods), the biodynamic system was superior even to the organic system, which in turn had superior results over the conventional systems. With the significant increase in microbial diversity in the biodynamic and organic systems, there was a significant associated decrease in metabolic quotient, indicating a greater ability to use organic material for plant growth.[24][25]
[edit] Related
Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, a biochemist prominent in the early development of biodynamic preparations, developed a process for the bacterial conversion of municipal waste into compost usable in agriculture.[26] The process was first used on a commercial scale in Oakland, California in the early 1950s.[27]

[edit] Criticism
In a newspaper editorial, Peter Treue argued that similar or equal results can be obtained using standard organic farming principles (which he also criticized as unproven in efficacy) and that the biodynamic preparations more resemble alchemy or magic akin to geomancy.[28]

In a 1994 analysis, Holger Kirchmann concluded that Steiner's instructions were occult and dogmatic, and cannot contribute to the development of alternative or sustainable agriculture and that many of Steiner's statements are not provable because scientifically clear hypotheses cannot be made from his descriptions (for example, it is hard to prove that you have harnessed "cosmic forces" in the foods). Kirchmann asserted that when methods of biodynamic agriculture were tested scientifically, the results were unconvincing.[29] Further, in a 2004 overview of biodynamic agriculture, Linda Chalker-Scott pointed out that many of the research articles comparing biodynamics with conventional agriculture did not separate the use of biodynamic preparations from practices used in organic agriculture. The term "biodynamic" should not be used interchangeably with "organic" agriculture. Chalker-Scott concluded that "scientific testing of biodynamic preparations is limited and no evidence exists that addition of these preparations improves plant or soil quality in organically managed landscapes."[30]

List of Biodynamic Farms
Agroecology
Permaculture
Sustainable agriculture
The Real Dirt on Farmer John - documentary on a conventional farm which converted to biodynamic and community-supported agriculture.
Veriflora
Homeodynamic agriculture

Organic farming - Introduction to organic farming

nospam@example.com (The Traceability Team) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:31:00 -0700

Organic farming

Organic farming is the form of agriculture that relies on crop rotation, green manure, compost, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity and control pests, excluding or strictly limiting the use of synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, plant growth regulators, livestock feed additives, and genetically modified organisms.[1] Since 1990, the market for organic products has grown at a rapid pace, to reach $46 billion in 2007. This demand has driven a similar increase in organically managed farmland. Approximately 32.2 million hectares worldwide are now farmed organically, representing approximately 0.8 percent of total world farmland.[2] In addition, as of 2007 organic wild products are harvested on approximately 30 million hectares .[3]

Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), an international umbrella organization for organic organizations established in 1972. IFOAM defines the overarching goal of organic farming as follows:

"Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and 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[4]

History
Main article: History of organic farming
The organic movement began in the 1930s and 1940s as a reaction to agriculture's growing reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Artificial fertilizers had been created during the 18th century, initially with superphosphates and then ammonia derived fertilizers mass-produced using the Haber-Bosch process developed during World War I. These early fertilizers were 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'.

Sir Albert Howard is widely considered to be the father of organic farming.[3] Further work was done by J.I. Rodale in the United States, Lady Eve Balfour in the United Kingdom, and many others across the world.

As a percentage of total agricultural output, organic farming has remained tiny since its beginning. As environmental awareness and concern increased amongst the general population, the originally supply-driven movement became demand-driven. Premium prices from consumers and in some cases government subsidies attracted many farmers into converting. In the developing world, many farmers farm according to traditional methods which are comparable to organic farming but are not certified. In other cases, farmers in the developing world have converted for economic reasons [5]. As a proportion of total global agricultural output, organic output remains small, but it has been growing rapidly in many countries, notably in Europe.

[edit] Methods
Main article: Organic farming methods

Organic cultivation of mixed vegetables in Capay, California. Note the hedgerow in 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"
[edit] Soil management
Plants need nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium as well as micronutrients, but getting enough nitrogen, and particularly synchronization so that plants get enough nitrogen at the right time (when plants need it most), is likely the greatest challenge for organic farmers.[6] Crop rotation and green manure ("cover crops") help to provide nitrogen through legumes (more precisely, the Fabaceae family) which fix nitrogen from the atmosphere through symbiosis with the bacteria rhizobia. 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.[6] Crop residues can be ploughed back into the soil, and different plants leave different amounts of nitrogen, potentially aiding synchronization.[6] Organic farmers also use animal manure (which must be composted), certain processed fertilizers such as seed meal and various mineral powders such as rock phosphate and greensand, a naturally occurring form of potash which provides potassium. Altogether these methods help to control erosion. In some cases pH may need to be amended. Natural pH amendments include lime and sulfur, but in the U.S. some synthetically compounds such as iron sulfate, aluminum sulfate, magnesium sulfate, and soluble boron products are allowed in organic farming.[7]:43

Mixed farms with both livestock and crops can operate as ley farms, whereby the land gathers fertility through growing nitrogen-fixing forage grasses such as white clover or alfalfa and grows cash crops or cereals when fertility is established.[6] Farms without livestock ("stockless") may find it more difficult to maintain fertility, and may rely more on external inputs such as imported manure as well as grain legumes and green manures, although grain legumes may fix limited nitrogen because they are harvested.[6] Horticultural farms growing fruits and vegetables which operate in protected conditions are often even more reliant upon external inputs.[6]

[edit] Weed control
After nutrient supply, weed control is the second priority for farmers.[7] Techniques for controlling weeds have varying levels of effectiveness and include handweeding, mulch, corn gluten meal, a natural preemergence herbicide, flame, garlic and clove oil, borax, pelargonic acid, solarization (which involves spreading clear plastic across the ground in hot weather for 4–6 weeks), vinegar, and various other homemade remedies.[7]:45-65 One recent innovation in rice farming is to introduce ducks and fish to wet paddy fields, which eat both weeds and insects.[8]

[edit] Controlling other organisms
See also: Biological pest control
Organisms aside from weeds which cause problems include arthropods (e.g. insects, mites) and nematodes. Fungi and bacteria can cause disease.

Insect pests are a common problem, and insecticides, both non-organic and organic, are controversial due to their environmental and health effects. One way to manage insects is to ignore them and focus on plant health, since plants can survive the loss of about a third of leaf area before suffering severe growth consequences.[7]:67 To avoid using insecticides, one can select naturally-resistant plants, put bags around the plants, remove dying material such as leaves, fruit, and diseased plants, covering plants with a solid barrier ("row cover"), hosing, encouraging and releasing beneficial organisms and beneficial insects, planting companion plants and polycultures, various traps, sticky cards (which can also be used to assess insect prevalence), and season extension. Biological pest control uses natural predators to control pests. Recommended beneficial insects include minute pirate bugs, big-eyed bugs, and to a lesser extent ladybugs (which tend to fly away), all of which eat a wide range of pests. Lacewings are also effective, but tend to fly away. Praying mantis tend to move slower and eat less heavily. Parasitoid wasps tend 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 mites.[7]:66-90

Several of pesticides approved for organic use have been called green pesticides such as spinosad and neem. Generally, but not necessarily, organic pesticides are safer and more environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides.[7]:92 The main organic insecticides used in the US are Bt (a bacterial toxin) and pyrethrum. Surveys have found that fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum (Lotter 2003:26). Rotenone used to be used by some organic growers in the US, however since 2005 it has not been approved by National Organic Program guidelines.[9] Nicotine sulfate may also be used;[10] although it breaks down quickly, it is extremely toxic, nearly as toxic as aldicarb.[7]:104 Less toxic but still effective organic insecticides include neem, spinosad, soaps, garlic, citrus oil, capsaicin (repellent), Bacillus popillae, Beauvaria bassiana, and boric acid.[7]:110 Pesticides should be rotated to minimize pest resistance.

The first disease control strategy involves keeping the area clean by removing diseased and dying plants and ensure that the plants are healthy by maintaining water and fertilization.[7]:129 Compost tea is sometimes promoted and can be effective,[11] but there is concern over whether these are ineffective or even harmful when not made correctly.[12] Polyculture and crop rotation reduce the ability of disease to spread. Disease-resistant cultivars can be purchased. Organic fungicides include the bacteria Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus pumilus, and Trichoderma harzianum which are mainly effective for diseases affecting roots. Bordeaux mix contains copper, which can be used as an organic fungicide in various forms. Sulfur is effective against fungus as well as some insects. Lime sulfur is also available, but can damage plants if not used correctly. Potassium and sodium bicarbonate are also effective against fungus.

[edit] Standards
Main article: Organic certification
Standards regulate production methods and in some cases final output for organic agriculture. Standards may be voluntary or legislated. As early as the 1970s organic producers could be voluntarily certified by private associations. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production guidelines. Beginning in the 1990s, a trend toward legislation of standards began, most notably with the 1991 EU-Eco-regulation developed for European Union[13], which set standards for 12 countries, and a 1993 UK program. The EU's program was followed by a Japan program in 2001, and in 2002 the United States created the National Organic Program (NOP).[14] As of 2007 over 60 countries have regulations on organic farming (IFOAM 2007:11). In 2005 IFOAM created the Principles of Organic Agriculture, an international guideline for certification criteria.[15] Typically the agencies do not certify individual farms, but rather accredit certification groups.

Materials used in organic production and foods are tested independently by the Organic Materials Review Institute.

[edit] Composting
Under USDA organic standards, manure must be subjected to proper thermophilic composting and allowed to reach a sterilizing temperature. 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.[16]

[edit] Economics
The economics of organic farming, a subfield of agricultural economics, encompasses the entire process and effects of organic farming in terms of human society, including social costs, opportunity costs, unintended consequences, information asymmetries, and economies of scale. Although the scope of economics is broad, agricultural economics tends to focus on maximizing yields and efficiency at the farm level. Mainstream economics takes an anthropocentric approach 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 governments such as the European Union subsidize organic farming, in large part because these countries believe in the external benefits of reduced water use, reduced water contamination by pesticides and nutrients of organic farming, reduced soil erosion, reduced carbon emissions, increased biodiversity, and assorted other benefits.

Organic farming is labor and knowledge-intensive whereas conventional farming is capital-intensive, requiring more energy and manufactured inputs. Organic farmers in California have cited marketing as their greatest obstacle.[17]

[edit] Geographic producer distribution
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 market (2003:6). However, as of 2007 organic farmland is distributed across the globe. Australasia has 39% of the total organic farmland with Australia's 11.8 million hectares, but 97 percent of this land is sprawling rangeland (2007:35), which results in total sales of approximately 5% of US sales (2003:7). Europe has 23 percent of total 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 a mere 3 percent. See also Organic farming by country.

Besides Australia, the countries with the most organic area 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). Italy, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Uruguay, and the UK follow the United States by the amount of land managed organically (2007:26).

[edit] Growth
As of 2001, the estimated total 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 according to Organic Monitor (Willer/Kilcher 2009).

In recent years both Europe (2007: 7.8 million hectares/European Union: 7.2 million hectares) and North America (2007: 2.2 million hectares) have experienced strong growth in organic farmland. However, this growth has occurred under different conditions. While the European Union has shifted agricultural subsidies to organic farmers in recognition of its environmental benefits, the United States has taken a free market approach[18]. As a result, as of 2007 4 percent of the European Union's farmland was organically managed compared to just 0.6 percent of United States farmland (Willer/Kilcher 2009).

IFOAM's most recent edition of The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009 lists the countries which had the most hectares in 2007. The country with the most organic land is Australia with more than 12 million hectares, followed by Argentina, Brasil and the US. In total 32.2 million hectares were under organic management in 2007. For 1999 11 million hectares of organically managed land are reported (Willer/Kilcher 2009).

In recent years organic agriculture has grown tremendously. Considering this rapid growth, it is within the nature of organic farming to keep it from becoming a large scale industrial business as conventional farming has become (Duram 183). Duram, Leslie. Good Growing. Santa Cruz: Bison Books, 2005.

[edit] Productivity and profitability
A 2006 study suggests that converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) and that organic farms have higher pre-harvest yields than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world. Nonetheless, the researcher purposely avoids making the claim that organic methods routinely outperform green-revolution (conventional) methods.[19] This study incorporated a 1990 review of 205 crop comparisons which found that organic crops had 91% of conventional yields.[20] A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields.[21]

Lotter (2003:10) reports that repeated studies have found that organic farms withstand severe weather conditions better than conventional farms, sometimes yielding 70-90% more than conventional farms during droughts. A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods over the long-term averages, but consumed less energy and used zero pesticides. The results were attributed to lower yields in general but higher yields during drought years.[22] A study of 1,804 organic farms in Central America hit by Hurricane Mitch in 1998 found that the organic farms sustained the damage much better, retaining 20 to 40% more topsoil and smaller economic losses at highly significant levels than their neighbors.[23]

On the other hand, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides.[24] A long-term study by U.S Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists concluded that, contrary to widespread belief, organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming.[25] An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrient-depleted soil concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility and yield in a cold-temperate climate, arguing that much of the benefits from organic farming are derived from imported materials which could not be regarded as "self-sustaining".[26]

While organic farms have lower yields, organic methods require no synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. The decreased cost on those inputs, along with the premiums which consumers pay for organic produce, create higher profits for organic farmers. Organic farms have been consistently found to be as or more profitable than conventional farms with premiums included, but without premiums profitability is mixed (Lotter 2003:11). Welsh (1999) reports that organic farmers are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[27]

In 2008 the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) issued a report which 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".[28] The report assessed 114 projects in 24 African countries, finding that "yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used" and that soil fertility and drought resistance improved.[29]

In 2009, a review concluded that organic production was more profitable in Wisconsin, when including price premiums.[30]

[edit] Macroeconomic impact
Organic methods often require more labor,[31] providing rural jobs but increasing costs to urban consumers.

[edit] Motivations
Main article: Motivations for organic agriculture
Agriculture in general imposes external costs upon society through pesticides, nutrient runoff, excessive water usage, and assorted other problems. As organic methods minimize some of these factors, organic farming is believed to impose fewer external costs upon society.[32] A 2000 assessment of agriculture in the UK determined total external costs costs for 1996 of 2343 million British pounds or 208 pounds per hectare.[33] A 2005 analysis of these costs in the USA concluded that cropland imposes approximately 5 to 16 billion dollars ($30 to $96 per hectare), while livestock production imposes 714 million dollars.[34] Both studies concluded that more should be done to internalize external costs, and neither included subsidies in their analysis, but noted that subsidies also influence the cost of agriculture to society. Both focused on purely fiscal impacts. The 2000 review included reported pesticide poisonings but did not include speculative chronic effects of pesticides, and the 2004 review relied on a 1992 estimate of the total impact of pesticides.

[edit] Pesticides

A sign outside of an organic apple orchard in Pateros, Washington reminding orchardists not to spray pesticides on these trees.Most organic farms use fewer pesticides than conventional farms, some pesticides damage the environment or with direct exposure human health. The main five pesticides used in organic farming are Bt (a bacterial toxin), pyrethrum, rotenone[citation needed], copper and sulphur [35]. Surveys have found that fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum (Lotter 2003:26). Reduction and elimination of chemical pesticide use is technologically challenging.[36]and organic pesticides are often used to complement other pest control strategies.

Pesticide runoff is one of the most significant effects of pesticide use. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service tracks the environmental risk posed by pesticide water contamination from farms, and its conclusion has been that "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".[37]

Pest resistant genetically modified crops have been proposed as an alternative to pesticide use, however concerns over the safety and the long term benefits of genetically modified food, result in the genetic modification being widely opposed in the organic farming movement.[8]

[edit] Food quality and safety
Main article: Organic food
Organic food is widely believed by the lay public to be healthier than conventional food,[38] although the research is inconclusive.[38] Animals fed organic diets appear to have slightly better health and reproductive performance, but similar tests in humans have not been performed.[38] In some vegetables and cereals there is a lower concentration of protein, but it is of higher-quality. Nutrients appear to be similar with the exception of a trend towards slightly higher vitamin C in organic food.[38]

Only tentative conclusions can be drawn on the relative safety of organic food. Organic produce is likely to have less agrochemical residues, but these residues are generally below the acceptable daily intake and their health impact is questionable.[39] Organic food also appears to have lower nitrate concentrations, but the health impact of nitrates is debated. Both organic and conventional food are expected to have similar concentrations of persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. Data is limited on natural plant pesticides and their health effects, as well as the relative risks from bacterial pathogens.[39]

Concerns have been raised that the higher expense of organic food (ranging from 45 to 200%) could limit the recommended consumption of 5 servings per day of vegetables and fruits, which are known to improve health and reduce cancer regardless of whether they are organic or conventional.[39]

Two studies have found that children fed organic diets experienced significantly lower organophosphorus pesticide exposure than children fed conventional diets.[40][41] Although the researchers did not collect health outcome data in this study, they concluded "it is intuitive to assume that children whose diets consist of organic food items would have a lower probability of neurologic health risks". A 2007 study found that consumption of organic milk is associated with a decrease in risk for eczema, although no comparable benefit was found for organic fruits, vegetables, or meat.[42]

Extensive scientific research is being carried out in Switzerland at over 200 farms to determine differences in the quality of organic food products compared to conventional in addition to other tests. The FiBL Institute has been investigating the differences at over 200 farms. It states that "organic products stand out as having higher levels of secondary plant compounds and vitamin C. In the case of milk and meat, the fatty acid profile is often better from a nutritional point of view. As far as carbohydrates and minerals, organic products are no different from conventional products. However, in regard to undesirables such as nitrate and pesticide residues, organic products have a clear advantage.[43] A £12m EU-funded investigation into the difference between organic and ordinary farming published in 2007 found that organic foods have more nutritional value.[44] A recent study found that organically grown produce has double the flavonoids, an important antioxidant.[45]. A 2007 study found that organically grown kiwifruit had more antioxidants than conventional kiwifruit.[46]

[edit] Clothing quality and safety
Main article: Organic clothing
Recently, organic clothing has become widely available, due to both ecological concerns and personal health concerns. Although many consumers of organic clothing merely have a dislike of synthetic chemicals, a significant portion of the organic clothing market comes from those suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a chronic medical condition characterized by symptoms that the affected person says are adverse effects from exposure to low levels of chemicals.

Ecological concerns primary focus around pesticide use, as 16% of the world's pesticides are used in the product of cotton.[47]

[edit] Genetically modified organisms
Main article: Genetically modified organism
A key characteristic of organic farming is rejection of genetically engineered products, including plants and animals. On October 19, 1998, participants at IFOAM's 12th Scientific Conference issued the Mar 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. From this point, it became widely recognized that GMOs are categorically excluded from organic farming.

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 of transgenic technologies into organic farming as the optimal means to sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world.[48] Similarly, some organic farmers question the rationale behind the ban on the use of genetically engineered seed because they see it a biological technology consistent with organic principles [49]

Although GMOs are excluded from use in organic farming, there is concern that the pollen from genetically modified crops is increasingly contaminating organic and heirloom genetics making it difficult, if not impossible, to keep these genetics from entering the organic food supply. International trade restrictions limit the availability GMOs to certain countries.

The actual dangers that genetic modification could pose to the environment or, supposedly, individual health, are hotly contended. See GM food controversy.

[edit] Soil conservation
Main article: Soil conservation
In Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, geomorphologist David Montgomery outlines a coming crisis from soil erosion. Agriculture relies on roughly one meter of topsoil, and that is being depleted ten times faster than it is being replaced.[50] No-till farming, which some claim depends upon pesticides, is regarded as one way to minimize erosion. However, a recent study by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service has found that manure applications in organic farming are better at building up the soil than no-till despite tillage.[51][52]

[edit] Climate change
In The Organic Answer to Climate Change, Anthony Meleca argues that organic agriculture — with its emphasis on closed nutrient cycles, biodiversity, and effective soil management — has the capacity to mitigate and even reverse the effects of climate change.[53]

According to the Rodale Institute, which has been comparing organic agricultural systems and conventional systems since 1981, organic agriculture also can be used to mitigate global warming by decreasing fossil fuel emissions and sequestering carbon in the soil. The elimination of synthetic nitrogen in organic systems decreases fossil fuel consumption by 33 percent (LaSalle) and carbon sequestration takes CO2 out of the atmosphere by putting it in the soil in the form of organic matter which is often lost in conventionally managed soils. Carbon sequestration occurs at especially high levels in organic no-till managed soil according to the Rodale Institute.

Organic agriculture can reduce the level of negative externalities from (conventional) agriculture. Whether this is seen as private or public benefits depends upon the initial specification of property rights.[54] However, it is clear that agriculture has been undervalued and underestimated as a means to combat global climate change. Soil carbon data recorded by The Rodale Institute show that regenerative organic agricultural practices are among the most effective strategies for mitigating CO2 emissions.[55]

[edit] Nutrient leaching
Excess nutrients in lakes, rivers, and groundwater can cause algal blooms, eutrophication, and subsequent dead zones. In addition, nitrates are harmful to aquatic organisms by themselves. The main contributor to this pollution is nitrate fertilizers whose use is expected to "double or almost triple by 2050".[56] Researchers at the United States National Academy of Sciences found that organically fertilizing fields "significantly [reduces] harmful nitrate leaching" over conventionally fertilized fields: "annual nitrate leaching was 4.4-5.6 times higher in conventional plots than organic plots".[57]

Scientists believe that the large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is caused in large part by agricultural pollution: a combination of fertilizer runoff and livestock manure runoff. A study by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found that over half of the nitrogen released into the Gulf comes from agriculture. The economic cost of this for fishermen may be large, as they must travel far from the coast to find fish.[58]

At the 2000 IFOAM Conference, researchers presented a study of nitrogen leaching into the Danube River. They found that nitrogen runoff was substantially lower among organic farms and suggested that the external cost could be internalized by charging 1 euro per kg of nitrogen released.[59]

A 2005 study found a strong link between agricultural runoff and algae blooms in California.[60]

[edit] Biodiversity
Main article: Organic farming and biodiversity
A wide range of organisms benefit from organic farming, but it is unclear whether organic methods confer greater benefits than integrated agri-environmental conventional programs.[61] Nearly all non-crop, naturally-occurring species observed in comparative farm land practice studies show a preference in organic farming both by population and richness.[62][63] Spanning all associated species, there is an average of 30% more on organic farms versus conventional farming methods.[64] Birds, butterflies, soil microbes, beetles, earthworms, spiders, vegetation, and mammals are particularly affected. Organic crops use little or no herbicides and pesticides and thus biodiversity fitness and population density benefit.[63] Many weed species attract beneficial insects that improve soil qualities and forage on weed pests.[65] Soil-bound organisms often benefit because of increased bacteria populations due to natural fertilizer spread such as manure, while experiencing reduced intake of herbicides and pesticides commonly associated with conventional farming methods.[62] Increased biodiversity, especially from soil microbes such as mycorhizzae, have 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.[66]

The level of biodiversity that can be yielded from organic farming provides a natural capital to humans. Species found in most organic farms provides a means of agricultural sustainability by reducing amount of human input (e.g. fertilizers, pesticides) [67] . Farmers that produce with organic methods reduce risk of poor yields by promoting biodiversity. Common game birds such as the ring-necked pheasant and the northern bobwhite often reside in agriculture landscapes, and are a natural capital yielded from high demands of recreational hunting. Because bird species richness and population are typically higher on organic farm systems, promoting biodiversity can be seen as logical and economical.

Biological research on soil and soil organisms has proven beneficial to the system of organic farming. Varieties of bacteria and fungi break down chemicals, plant matter and animal waste into productive soil nutrients. In turn, the producer benefits by healthier yields and more arable soil for future crops.[68] Furthermore, a 21-year study was conducted testing the effects of organic soil matter and its relationship to soil quality and yield. Controls included actively managed soil with varying levels of manure, compared to a plot with no manure input. After the study commenced, there was significantly lower yields on the control plot when compared to the fields with manure. The concluded reason was an increased soil microbe community in the manure fields, providing a healthier, more arable soil system.[66]

[edit] Sales and marketing
Organic farmers report that marketing and distribution are difficult obstacles. Most of organic sales are concentrated in developed nations. These products are what economists call credence goods in that they rely on uncertain certification. As food prices rise, organic products may experience a decrease in quantity demanded. A 2008 survey by WSL Strategic Retail found that interest in organic products had dropped since 2006, and that 42% of Americans polled don't trust organic produce. The Hartman Group reports that 69% of Americans claim to occasionally buy organic products, down from 73% in 2005. The Hartman Group says that people may be substituting local produce for organic produce.[69]

[edit] Distributors
In the United States, 75% of organic farms are smaller than 2.5 hectares and in California 2% of the farms account for over half of the sales (Lotter 2003:4). Groups of small farms join together in cooperatives such as Organic Valley, Inc. to market their goods more effectively.

Over the past twenty years, however, most of these cooperative distributors have merged or been bought out. Rural sociologist Philip H. Howard has researched the structure and transformation of the organic industry in the United States. He claims that in 1982 there were 28 consumer cooperative distributors but as of 2007 there are only 3, and he has created a graphic displaying the consolidation.[70] His research shows that most of these small cooperatives have been absorbed into large multinational corporations such as General Mills, Heinz, ConAgra, Kellogg, and assorted other brands. This consolidation has raised concerns among consumers and journalists of potential fraud and degradation in standards. Most of these large corporations sell their organic products through subsidiaries, allowing them to keep their names off the labels.[71]

[edit] Farmers' markets
Price premiums are important for the profitability of small organic farmers, and so many sell directly to consumers in farmers' markets. In the United States the number of farmers' markets has grown from 1,755 in 1994 to 4,385 in 2006.[72]

[edit] Capacity building
Organic agriculture can contribute to meaningful socio-economic and ecologically sustainable development, especially in poorer countries [73]. On one hand, this is due to the application of organic principles, which means efficient management of local resources (e.g. local seed varieties, manure, etc.) and therefore cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, the market for organic products – at local and international level – has tremendous growth prospects and offers creative producers and exporters in the South excellent opportunities to improve their income and living conditions.

Organic Agriculture is a very knowledge intensive production system. Therefore capacity building efforts play a central role in this regard. There are many efforts all around the world regarding the development of training material and the organization of training courses related to Organic Agriculture. Big parts of existing knowledge is still scattered and not easily accessible. Especially in Developing Countries this situation remains an important constraint for the growth of the organic sector.

For that reason, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements created an Internet Training Platform whose objective is to become the global reference point for Organic Agriculture training through free access to high quality training materials and training programs on Organic Agriculture. In November 2007, the Training Platform hosted more than 170 free manuals and 75 training opportunities.

[edit] Controversy
A number of critics contest the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems. Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the "green revolution," Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process[74], and Prof A. Trewavas.[75]

The debate has been summarized in an exchange between Trewavas and Lord P. Melchett, and published by a major supermarket, concerned about examining the issues.

A study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency assessed the overall consequences of phasing out the total or partial use of pesticides. They looked at farming, market gardening, fruit growing, and forestry, and the effects of pesticides on health and the environment. It was estimated that phasing out all pesticides would result in an overall reduction of yield of about 25%. Environmental and health effects were assumed but hard to access, studies were reccommended. In their conclusion they said, " The Committee recommends a reduction of the use of pesticides. The Committee finds that the optimisation of pesticide use could facilitate a reduction of treatment frequency in the treated areas of agriculture...without significant operating and socioeconomic losses."[76]

In 2008 a study from UN Environmental Programme concluded that organic methods greatly increase yields in Africa and [28] a review of over two hundred crop comparisons argued that organic farming could produce enough food per capita to sustain the current human population; the difference in yields between organic and non-organic methods were small, with non-organic methods resulting in slightly higher yields in developed areas and organic methods resulting in slightly higher yields in developing areas.[19]

That analysis has been severely criticised by Alex Avery, who contends that the review claimed many non-organic studies to be organic, misreported organic yields, made false comparisons between yields of organic and non-organic studies which were not comparable, counted high organic yields several times by citing different papers which referenced the same data, and gave equal weight to studies from sources which were not impartial and rigorous university studies[77].

Urs Niggli, director of the FiBL Institute contends that the wave of newspaper articles like 'Organic food exposed' or 'The hypocrisy of organic farmers'[78] are a part of a global campaign against organic farming that take their arguments mostly from the book 'The truth about organic farming', by Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute.[79]

In 1998, Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute claimed the risk of E. coli infection was eight times higher when eating organic food rather than non-organic food, using the Center for Disease Control (CDC) as a source. When the CDC was contacted, it stated that there was no evidence for the claim.[79][80]

The New York Times commented on Avery's attacks: "The attack on organic food by a well-financed research organization suggests that, though organic food accounts for only 1 percent of food sales in the United States, the conventional food industry is worried."[81]