Organic farming
Organic farming is a form of agriculture which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, plant growth regulators, and livestock feed additives. As far as possible organic farmers rely on crop rotation, crop residues, animal manures and mechanical cultivation to maintain soil productivity and tilth, to supply plant nutrients, and to control weeds, insects and other pests.
According to the international organic farming organisation IFOAM : "The role of organic agriculture, whether in farming, processing, distribution, or consumption, is to sustain and enhance the health of ecosystems and organisms from the smallest in the soil to human beings." [3]
Organic farming is also often associated with support for principles beyond agricultural practices, such as fair trade and environmental stewardship.
Approximately 31 million hectares (75 million acres) worldwide are now grown organically. [4]
Overview
"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 excludes the use of certain, though not all, synthetic inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In a number of countries, including the US, China[1] and most of Europe organic farming is also defined by law, so that the commercial use of the term organic to describe farming and food products is regulated by the government. Where laws exist, organic certification is available to farms for a fee, and it is usually illegal for a non-certified farm to call itself or its products organic. Elsewhere, for example, in Canada, voluntary certification is available, while legislation may be pending.
Methods of organic farming vary. However, organic approaches share common goals and practices. In addition to the exclusion of synthetic agrichemicals, these include protection of the soil (from erosion, nutrient depletion, structural breakdown), promotion of biodiversity (for example growing a variety of crops rather than a single crop or planting hedges around fields), and outdoor grazing for livestock and poultry, though none of these is required in the United States to earn the USDA organic seal[2][3] . Within this framework, individual farmers develop their own organic production systems, determined by factors such as climate, market conditions, and local agricultural regulations.
History
The organic movement began as a reaction of agricultural scientists and farmers against the industrialization of agriculture. Advances in biochemistry, (nitrogen fertilizer) and engineering (the internal combustion engine) in the early 20th century led to profound changes in farming. Research in plant breeding produced hybrid seeds. Fields grew in size and cropping became specialized to make efficient use of machinery and reap the benefits of the green revolution. Technological advances during World War II spurred on post-war innovation in all aspects of agriculture, resulting in such advances as large-scale irrigation, fertilization, and the use of pesticides. Ammonium nitrate, used in munitions[citation needed], became an abundantly cheap source of nitrogen. DDT, originally developed by the military to control disease-carrying insects among troops, was applied to crops, launching the era of widespread pesticide use.
In Germany, Rudolf Steiner's Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture, published in 1924, led to the popularization of biodynamic agriculture.
The first use of the term organic farming is by Lord Northbourne. The term is derived from his concept of "the farm as organism" [5] and which he expounded in his book, Look to the Land (1940), wherein he described a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming.
The British botanist, Sir Albert Howard studied traditional farming practices in Bengal, India. He came to regard such practices as superior to modern agricultural science and recorded them in his 1940 book, An Agricultural Testament and adopted Northbourne's terminology in his book "The Soil and Health: A Study of Organic Agriculture" in 1947.
Lady Eve Balfour, author of the organics classic The Living Soil, established the pioneering Haughley Experiment on her Suffolk farm in 1939 that ran for more than 40 years.
In the US, J.I. Rodale popularized organic gardening among consumers during the 1940s.
In 1972, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), was founded in Versailles, France. IFOAM was dedicated to the diffusion of information on the principles and practices of organic agriculture across national and linguistic boundaries.
In the 1980s, various farming and consumer groups worldwide began pressing for government regulation of organic production. This led to legislation and certification standards being enacted beginning in the 1990s.
Since the early 1990s, the retail market for organic farming in developed economies has grown about 20 per cent annually due to increasing consumer demand. While small independent producers and consumers initially drove the rise of organic farming, meanwhile as the volume and variety of "organic" products grows, production is increasingly large-scale.
Methods
Organic farming involves fostering natural processes, often over extended periods of time, and what advocates describe as a holistic approach[citation needed]. Enhancing soil health is the cornerstone of organic farming. This is a biological process, driven by microorganisms, that allows the natural production of nutrients in the soil throughout the growing season, and has been referred to as feeding the soil to feed the plant.[citation needed] A variety of methods are employed, including crop rotation, green manure, cover cropping, application of compost, and mulching. Organic farmers also use certain processed fertilizers such as seed meal, and various mineral powders such as rock phosphate and greensand, a naturally occurring form of potash.
Pest control targets animal pests (including insects), weeds and disease. Organic pest control involves the cumulative effect of many techniques, including, allowing for an acceptable level of pest damage, encouraging or even introducing beneficial organisms, careful crop selection and crop rotation, and mechanical controls such as row covers and traps. These techniques generally provide benefits in addition to pest control—soil protection and improvement, fertilization, pollination, water conservation, season extension, etc.—and these benefits are both complementary and cumulative in overall effect on farm health. Effective organic pest control requires a thorough understanding of pest life cycles and interactions.
Weeds are controlled mechanically, thermically and through the use of mulches.
Organic farms that raise livestock and poultry, for meat, dairy and eggs, provide animals with "natural" living conditions and feed[citation needed]. Ample, free-range outdoor access, for grazing and exercise, is a distinctive feature, and crowding is avoided[citation needed]. Feed is also organically grown, and the addition of drugs, including antibiotics, is prohibited by organic standards.
Organic farming systems
There are a number of formal organic farming systems that prescribe specific techniques. They tend to be more specific than, and fit within, general organic standards. Biodynamic farming is an approach based on the esoteric teachings of Rudolf Steiner. The Japanese farmer and writer Masanobu Fukuoka invented a no-till system for small-scale grain production that he called Natural Farming. In the early 1940s, the Japanese philosopher and spiritual leader Mokichi Okada introduced a farming method called Nature Farming. The method, still in use today in Japan and parts of the United States, raises crops entirely of natural plant compost and free of chemical or animal residues. French intensive and biointensive methods and SPIN Farming (Small Plot INtensive) are all small scale gardening techniques.
Standards
Increasingly, organic farming is defined by formal standards regulating production methods, and in some cases, final output. Two types of standard exist, voluntary and legislated. As early as the 1970s, private associations created standards, against which organic producers could voluntarily have themselves certified. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production guidelines. Beginning in the 1990s, a trend toward legislation of standards began, most notably the EU-Eco-regulation developed in the European Union.
In 1991, the European Commission formulated the first government system to regulate organic labeling. In one go, the European Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 set the rules in 12 countries, creating a huge market[citation needed]. Organic certification, which until then was a voluntary quality control system, became mandatory to all operations and was also to be applied for imports. In the meantime, Europe had become the most prominent market place for organic products and an increasing number of suppliers all over the world accepted this niche as a new challenge and a rewarding option to export high quality and high priced speciality products. All these supplies, of course, had to comply with the requirements of the European market and thus the Regulation (EEC) N° 2092/91 became a universal standard for organic production systems
An international framework for organic farming is provided by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the international democratic umbrella organization established in 1972. For IFOAM members, organic agriculture is based upon the Principles of Organic Agriculture and the IFOAM Norms. [6] The IFOAM Norms consist of the IFOAM Basic Standards and IFOAM Accreditation Criteria.
The IFOAM Basic Standards are a set of "standards for standards." They are established through a democratic and international process and reflect the current state of the art for organic production and processing. They are best seen as a work in progress to lead the continued development of organic practices worldwide. They provide a framework for national and regional standard-setting and certification bodies to develop detailed certification standards that are responsive to local conditions.
Legislated standards are established at the national level, and vary from country to country. In recent years, many countries have legislated organic production, including the EU nations (1990s), Japan (2001), and the US (2002). Non-governmental national and international associations also have their own production standards. In countries where production is regulated, these agencies must be accredited by the government.
Since 1993 when EU Council Regulation 2092/91 became effective, organic food production has been strictly regulated in the UK. [7].
In India, standards for organic agriculture were announced in May 2001, and the National Programme on Organic Production (NPOP) is administered under the Ministry of Commerce. [www.apeda.com/organic/quality.html]
In 2002, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established production standards, under the National Organic Program (NOP), which regulate the commercial use of the term organic. [4] Farmers and food processors must comply with the NOP in order to use the word.
Productivity
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, but consumes less energy and contains no pesticide residues[5]. However, 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[6]. 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[7]. Comparative yield studies are still scarce[8] and overall results remain "inconclusive".
The issue of productivity is more complex than a summary of yield (production per land area), which was the measure used in these studies. Instead, productivity could be calculated in labour time rather than by land area. Organic methods often require more labor, providing rural jobs but increasing costs to urban consumers. Also, grain forms the majority of world agricultural production, and most of that is fed to animals, not humans—broad calculations of how much agriculture is feeding people is therefore complicated when feeding animals to feed people is factored in.
Issues
All aspects of organic farming and organic food are under debate by environmentalists, food safety advocates, various consumer protection, social justice and labor groups, small independent farmers to agribusiness, food consumers and government agricultural policies. Controversy centers on the overall value and safety of chemical agriculture, with organic farming popularly regarded as the "opposite" of modern, large-scale, chemical-based farming, but also of the value of organic farming's solutions.
The following topics may be argued from both sides.
Pesticides
Organic farming standards do not allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do allow the use of certain so-called natural pesticides, such as those derived from plants. Organic advocates state that natural pesticides are a last resort, while growing healthier, disease-resistant plants, using cover crops and crop rotation, and encouraging beneficial insects and birds are the primary methods of pest control. The most common organic pesticides, accepted for restricted use by most organic standards, include Bt, pyrethrum, and rotenone. Some organic pesticides, such as rotenone, have high toxicity to fish and aquatic creatures with some toxicity to mammals including humans.
Critics argue that organic farms can work without using pesticides because pests are kept under control in surrounding conventional farms and thus do not spread into organic farms; if they became universal, the "islands" they operate on would disappear and pests would become a severe issue. This argument also works in reverse, as organic farms can be islands of safety for predator insects and pollinators, without which more pollination services would be required[citation needed], and ever-increasing quantities of pesticides would be needed as pest populations acquired resistance to pesticides (to a degree, in both instances this is already the case)[citation needed].
Workplace safety is a separate, related issue. Pesticides create a hazardous work environment. Chemical accidents and the effects of long-term exposure are both well-known risks faced by many farm workers. Also, the effect of chemicals, airborne after spraying, and in the groundwater, on neighboring communities is a concern[citation needed].
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 of IFOAM) 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.
"GMO-free" is also a popular marketing point for organic food. Opponents of GMOs claim that the impact of genetic engineering on food quality, plant or animal health isn't fully understood. Proponents argue that with a rapidly expanding global population, genetic engineering to create higher volumes of produce could play an important role in ending world hunger, without requiring additional land. It could also help, they say, to create healthier food, and to ensure proper nourishment, and has the potential to make farming more profitable, allowing agricultural industries to survive in increasingly service-oriented economies. Often overlooked in this debate is the fact that genetic engineering is a technique, not an essential characteristic of the organisms it produces, and that humans have used selective breeding to modify crops and livestock for tens of thousands of years.
The contamination of organic farms with GM product, usually through pollination, is an important issue[citation needed]. Contamination may lead to products being incorrectly labeled as organic or GMO-free, or may reduce the value of crop as it cannot be sold as organic, leading to losses for the farmer.
The mechanism of cross-contamination is not fully understood, with studies still underway[citation needed]. Meanwhile, cases of cross-contamination have been documented, while the extent is still unclear. A first-time study of genetic cross-contamination, published in Feb. 2004, found that at least two-thirds of conventional corn, soybeans and canola in the US contain traces of genetic material from GM varieties.[9] Along with commercial GM crops, trials for new GM plants producing food, pharmaceuticals (pharmacrops) and industrial materials (eg: plastics), are being conducted in the US, Canada, and elsewhere. With the genetic engineering of alfalfa (not yet widely grown), a primary green manure fertilizer crop, not only primary crops, but the underpinnings of organic agriculture are threatened[citation needed]. It is conceivable that genetic contamination could make GMO-free farming next to impossible[citation needed].
The environment
The environmental argument, from the pro-organic view, holds that conventional agriculture is rapidly depleting natural resources, particularly fossil fuels and fresh water, and seriously polluting soil, water and air[citation needed]. Cited are the large quantities of agricultural chemicals in use (synthetic pesticides and fertilizers), water wastage through high-volume irrigation, heavy use of petrochemicals for farm machinery and long-distance transport, high densities of various waste products from concentrated operations, and the list goes on[citation needed]. While there is no argument that conventional agriculture relies on an abundance of these resources and creates a high volume of waste, agribusiness supporters (which naturally includes the majority of conventional farmers) argue that the negative claims are exaggerated or inaccurate. The fact that the current food industry exists and has fed the much of the world for several decades is the biggest pro-argument to date.
Large-scale organic operations have been criticised for requiring many of the same resources as conventional operations. For example, an organic farm that made heavy use of farm machinery and indoor production facilities (requiring artificial heat and light), and shipped to far-off markets, would still be a major consumer of energy resources. The use of mined fertilisers by organic farming also raises resource issues.[10] Also, it is debated whether an organic farm using natural compost and manure on a large scale would cause any less damage to ground water and soil than manufactured fertilizers.[11]
Organic farming may also have a detrimental effect on the environment. Conventional agricultural methods allow agriculturists to precisely apply only necessary fertilizers to soil, in order to minimize expenditures on fertilizers and to minimize waste pollutants. Such agriculturists may identify necessary fertilizers based upon what the soil needs in order to properly grow crops, then may mix custom fertilizer to meet that precise need. Organic farmers, on the other hand, may only apply certain substances as fertilizers, so they do not always have that option.[8] Organic farmers largely depend upon fertilizers such as manure which contain fixed amounts of various elements.[9] When applying sufficient manure to meet the soil's need for one element, an organic farmer will incidentally apply an abundance of another element, as the manure is not processed to balance its value as a fertilizer to the soil's needs. As such, the most commonly present elements in manure will be overapplied, and cause a pollution hazard. This generally appears in the form of an abundance of nitrogen[10], which can contaminate waterways.
Many organic farms rely on manure that is not organic (meaning it comes from animals not fed and raised organically) to continue fertilization. This does not violate the traditional definitions of organic produce because there are no inorganic components added to the manure, although they may be present in its composition. Studies of the effects of chemicals within manure on organic produce is limited, although studies have shown that many carcinogens are present in variable amounts in even organic foodstuffs.
Some critics, most notably Norman Borlaug, contend that adopting organic farming methods on a global scale would be more detrimental to the environment than conventional farming. Borlaug asserts that if organic farming is to feed the globe, it will require a dramatic increase in cropland area, and that achieving this goal will ultimately lead to wide-scale deforestation. [11]
Food contamination
Critics point out organic food could be less safe than non-organic food, by increasing the risk of exposure to biological contaminants and food-borne diseases. Critics pointed out that manure might contain human pathogens and mycotoxins from molds.[12] One large, influential French study, evaluating organic and conventional food during 1999–2000, warned that biological toxins in certain organic products (apples, wheat) should be closely monitored.[13] Food contamination is usually caused by unhygienic handling and storage, including use of contaminated water, which can occur on-farm, in transit, and at the point of preparation. On the other hand, there has been no concrete evidence as of yet showing a direct link between organic farming practices and food contamination, and animal manure is also used extensively in conventional farming.[citation needed]
Food quality
Healthy soils equals healthy food equals healthy people is a basic tenet of many organic farming systems. But the claims of nutritional superiority of food grown by organic methods over conventional grown food is the subject of much controversy. Without conclusive evidence either way[14][15], some organic supporters believe that the overall nutritional and health-promoting value of food is compromised by chemical-farming methods. This involves areas like micronutrients and trace elements, plant physiology, the way plants grow and the process of human nutrition. The common sense appeal is that food grown in unnatural, sheltered, chemically assisted ways isn't as "good" for people as "naturally grown" food, as some things are different or missing[citation needed]. The counter-argument is that, by currently accepted standards of food science, there has been no demonstration of a functional difference between organically and conventionally produced food. Further, there is some concern that due to the limited methods available to organic farmers for combating quality problems while adhering to organic standards, some organic food does not generally achieve comparable safety and quality standards as "conventionally" grown products[citation needed]. Preliminary data from a UN study based in the UK shows that although organic dairy may have higher somatic cell counts, conventional dairy cows may be treated more often with antibiotics than organic dairy.[16]
There is extensive scientific research being carried out in Switzerland at over 200 farms to determine differences in the quality of organic food products vry conventional in addition to other tests. [12] The FiBL scientific research institute 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 regards carbohydrates and minerals, organic products are no different from conventional products. As regards undesirable substances such as nitrate and pesticide residues, organic products have a clear advantage." [13] Other studies have not replicated these results.[17]
Children's Health
In 2005 the EPA's "Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment" showed that children receive 50% of their lifetime risks of cancer during their first two years of life. [18]A 2001 study [19] demonstrated that children fed organic diets experienced significantly lower organophosphorus pesticide exposure than children fed conventional diets. A similar but perhaps more convincing study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 preschool children before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet. [20] These studies and others like it have helped spur a growing organic baby food trend in the United States. Mothers are more and more hesitant to feed their children potentially dangerous food, given that their small bodies are especially vulnerable to toxins.
Soil conservation
The practice of ploughing (see tillage) to prepare soil for planting is claimed to increase soil damage compared to using herbicides, like glyphosates. In fact, this argument applies primarily to large-scale, chemical-based agriculture, where huge areas are repeatedly tilled and planted with the same crops[citation needed]. By using artificial fertilizer rather than replacing organic material, the soil structure is progressively destroyed, and becomes increasingly susceptible to wind and water erosion[citation needed]. Use of herbicides to kill weeds, instead of plowing them under, may present a short-term solution to this problem. However, repeated use of herbicides can disturb the soil microflora and -fauna that contribute to the decomposition of the plant residues that help rebuild the soil organic matter content.[citation needed]. It can also encourage the build-up of resistances in weeds.[citation needed].
Rural infrastructure
Critics condemn agribusiness practices for putting small, independent farmers out of business, destroying rural communities in the process, and causing the "art of farming" to be lost. According to these critics, small-scale organic farming encourages local economies, and provides social and employment alternatives to concentrated, energy-dependent urban living, thus improving the quality of life for everyone.
As discussed previously, the entry of large-scale businesses into production of organic food undermines the belief that a preference by consumers for organic food will necessarily translate into a substantive change in the nature of agribusiness. This is where the distinction between organic farming, organic food, and organic certification becomes tricky. If the strong consumer trend represents simply the desire for an "organic" stamp on their food, then the trend to large-scale, global, corporate farming, certified organic or not, will continue. If consumers embrace a broader concept of "organic", which includes fresh, local food, substantial changes in the food industry would have to follow to meet this demand.
Sustainability
Although it is common to equate organic farming with sustainable agriculture, the two are not synonymous. Sustainability in agriculture is a broad concept, with considerations on many levels, such as "environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity."[21] With regard to organic farming methods, one goal of sustainability would be to approach as closely as possible a balance between what is taken out of the soil with what is returned to it, without relying on outside inputs. An organic operation that imports the manure it uses to replace the nutrients taken out of the soil by crops, must factor in the resources required to produce and transport that manure, when calculating sustainability. Organic farming today is a small part of the agricultural landscape, with a relatively minor impact on the environment. As the size of organic farms continues to increase, a new set of large-scale considerations will eventually have to be tackled. Large organic farms that rely on machinery and automation, and purchased inputs, will have similar sustainability issues that large conventional farms do today.
One vocal critic in particular, Anthony Trewavas, has written detailed critiques of the sustainability of organic agriculture.[22][23]
- Newer non-organic practices, particularly no-till agriculture, which relies on herbicides to clear the land, offer considerable improvements in energy efficiency. Anthony Trewavas argues that the sustainability of organic agriculture is less than that of conventional agriculture (see Trewavas (2000)[24][25]).
- Soil benefits: Trevavas also argues that many of the soil benefits of organic agriculture have been demonstrated to be due to crop rotation, which is not an exclusively organic strategy (see Trewavas (2000) cited above).
- Pesticide use: While organic agriculture aims to keep pesticide use to a minimum, it is a common misconception that organic agriculture does not use pesticides. Some pesticides used on organic farms contain the heavy metal copper, which can lead to copper accumulation in the soil. Other pesticides that are approved for use by organic producers include ryania, sabadilla, and rotenone.[26]The botanical pesticide sabadilla is toxic to honeybees, and according to the California Department of Environmental Protection its mammalian toxicology has not been fully studied.[27]
- John Kent, Lecturer in Agricultural Protection, from the School of Agriculture at Charles Sturt University in Australia supports the idea that organically grown food is not as sustainable, arguing that while organically grown food certainly has its place in today's free market, the world population could not be fed with pesticide-free agriculture.[28]
Certification
Organic certification, particularly where mandated by law, as in the US and the EU, is increasingly being seen by individual organic farmers and consumers as a contentious issue. Where the push for regulation was originally a grassroots effort by organic producers and buyers looking to uphold standards and prevent fraud, the complex regulations and opportunities for loopholes that have emerged have led to charges being leveled against major certifiers and government programs. In the US, where standards became law in 2002, serious complaints have been lodged with the USDA against the largest US certifying agency, and the USDA itself has been taken to court, based on such challenges. A leading US proponent of organic farming, Eliot Coleman, who served as an adviser to the USDA during the drafting of the original organic guidelines in the US in the 1980s, and served a term as Director of IFOAM, more recently stated: "The label 'organic' has lost the fluidity it used to hold for the growers more concerned with quality than the bottom line, and consumers more concerned with nutrition than a static set of standards for labeling." [14] Concern about the "watering down" of standards to facilitate large-scale production is currently a significant aspect of organic farming regulation.
A major certification body in India is INDOCERT.
The future
Organic farming is at a crossroads. Despite the growth in the organic food market over the last decade, the future of the small, independent farmer, organic or otherwise, is as much in jeopardy now as it has been in recent decades. The local infrastructure to support small farmers is all but non-existent in most developed nations - the current food distribution system favors high-volume production, and large farming operations. What is commonly known as "organic farming" may change quite dramatically in the coming few years.
Organic farming is now gaining popularity and is being accepted by people all over the world. In Deborah Koons Garcia's film The Future of Food[29], it is stated that the American market for organically grown food amounted to $1 billion in 1994, and $13 billion in 2003. A growing consumer market is naturally one of the main factors encouraging farmers to convert to organic agricultural production. Increased consumer awareness of food safety issues and environmental concerns has contributed to the growth in organic farming over the last few years.
References
- ^ J.Paull (2006). "China's Organic Revolution". Journal of Organic Systems. pp. 2(1), 1–11.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help) - ^ "Organic Foods Standards and Labels: The Facts". USDA. Retrieved 14 March.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (help) - ^ "Clouds on the Organic Horizon". CropWatch. Retrieved 14 March.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (help) - ^ http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html
- ^ "Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial". Retrieved 2006-12-27.
- ^ "Maeder, P. et al Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming from [[Science (journal)|Science]] v296, [[31 May]] [[2002]], 1694-1697". Retrieved 2006-01-06.
{{cite web}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (help) - ^ "the Information Bulletin of the Organic Farming Research Foundation" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-18.
- ^ "(Blakemore, 2000) Earthworms under Haughley Experiment" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-13.
- ^ "404". Retrieved 2005-12-18.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (help) - ^ Trewavas, Anthony (2004). "A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture" (PDF). Crop Protection. 23: 757–781. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.01.009.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help) - ^ Trewavas, Anthony (2004). "A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture" (PDF). Crop Protection. 23: 757–781. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.01.009.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help) - ^ Trewavas, Anthony (2004). "A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture" (PDF). Crop Protection. 23: 757–781. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.01.009.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help) - ^ "Le Dossier juin/juillet 2001 (in French)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-18.
- ^ Article in online magazine spiked online
- ^ [http://www.soilandhealth.org/06clipfile/Nutritional%20Quality%20of%20Organically-Grown%20Food.html Nutritional Quality of Organically Grown Food by Steve Diver]
- ^ [1]
- ^ Trewavas, Anthony (2004). "A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture" (PDF). Crop Protection. 23: 757–781. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.01.009.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help) - ^ EPA's "Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment"
- ^ study
- ^ [2]
- ^ "What is Sustainable Agriculture?". Retrieved 2005-12-18.
- ^ Trewavas, Anthony (March 2001). "Urban myths of organic farming". Nature. 410: 409–410.
- ^ Trewavas, Anthony (2004). "A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture" (PDF). Crop Protection. 23: 757–781. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.01.009.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help) - ^ Trewavas, Anthony (March 2001). "Urban myths of organic farming". Nature. 410: 409–410.
- ^ Trewavas, Anthony (2004). "A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till agriculture" (PDF). Crop Protection. 23: 757–781. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.01.009.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help) - ^ "Organic Pest Control" (2006-07-25). Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts. 2004.
- ^ http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/toxsums/pdfs/521.pdf
- ^ "Pesticides in Agriculture". The Regional Institute. Retrieved 2006-10-6.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help) - ^ "The Future of Food". Retrieved 2006-01-04.
- Kuepper, George and Gegner, Lance. "Organic Crop Production Overview", ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: August 2004.
- Emsley, John (April 2001). "Going One Better Than Nature". Nature. 410: 633–634.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: year (link) - Paull, John (2006). "The Farm as Organism: The Foundational Idea of Organic Agriculture". Journal of Bio-Dynamics Tasmania. 83: 14–18.
- Smil, Vaclav (2001). Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food. MIT Press.
- Trewavas, Anthony (November 1999). "Much Food, Many Problems". Nature. 402: 231–232.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: year (link) - Trewavas, Anthony (March 2001). "Urban Myths of Organic Farming". Nature. 410: 409–410.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: year (link)
See also
- Aquaponics
- Organic food
- Intensive farming
- Certified Naturally Grown
- Industrial agriculture
- Seasonal food
External links
- Template:Dmoz
- Key adjudication by the Advertising Standards Authority (UK) on claims around organic farming.