Patrick Weddle, who wrote the above, makes a good point.
Organic farming (fervor or not) like
everything else, is closely linked with economics. However, there
is good reason that economics is often referred to as, "the dismal
science".
Economics (and economists) have done a remarkably poor job
of developing information upon which a system which incorporates
"externalities" might be based. What is the market
value of unpolluted air and water and good soil? Valueing these
factors is a complex task, especially trying to incorporate a value
for clean air, water, etc, into the production cost of agricultural
products. However, the present system, in which externalities are
largely ignored (or at least grossly undervalued) resembles in
some ways the ad hoc, arbitrary (and discredited) Soviet economic
model which the West and western economists generally found so
displeasing.
Organic standards, if nothing else, are an attempt at placing a
value on these externalities. Perhaps it's more correct to say
that the premium generally paid for organic produce might be
considered as a value judgement by the market of the externalities
generally ignored in many production systems (agricultural or
otherwise).
One of the problems with Federal Organic Standards is that these
regulations may enshrine a system which not only prevents many
ostensibly sustainable (but not organic) growers from recovering
(through price premiums) the internalized production costs of
"externalities"--- this system will also likely send many false
economic signals to the market about the relative environmental
costs associated with sustainable production systems.
Guy Ames provided a good example with the dilemma of imidan vs.
rotenone for the control of plum curculio on apples. Rotenone is a
broad-spectrum, short-lived botanical pesticide with notable
piscicidal (fish-killing) and swine-killing properties. Imidan
is also broad spectrum, somewhat less fish-toxic, but longer-lived
than rotenone. Which is more environmentally costly if imidan is
applied twice, or rotenone applied half a dozen times or more?
Another example, perhaps more compelling, is the use of herbicides vs.
tillage for weed control. Recent research has indicated that one
tillage of moderate depth will release carbon dioxide in the
following 2 days roughly equal to the amount of carbon put into the
soil by a previous cover crop. Add to that the soil compaction,
fuel use and wear and tear on machinery associated with weed
control by tillage. Use of herbicides instead of tillage may
conserve soil carbon, reduce soil compaction, fuel use and wear and
tear on machinery because fewer runs over the field are generally
required. High levels of carbon (organic matter) in the soil
generally have positive impacts on water absorption and storage,
erosion, and biodiversity in the soil, which itself is often
beneficial. So which is the better practice, ecologically
speaking?
The sad fact is, perhaps nobody knows. I suspect very few
economists were consulted when the state and federal organic
standards were/are being formulated. Now, this may not be a bad
thing, especially in view of the lack of useful economic data
comparing the cost/effectiveness of various ag. production practices
in the context of considering externalities. But I also suspect
that at some point economists will be needed to help develop a system
which more accurately reflects ecological costs than the
present organic standards system does.
I don't mean to scapegoat economists (at least not very much... ;.)
as economists need money in order to do research. However, it is
probably the economists who write up most of the funding proposals
to do economic research and if proposals investigating the
economics of various sustainable ag. production practices are not
written, needed information will never be developed.
Rex Dufour
Rexd@ncatfyv.uark.edu