You are right - I didn't focus at all on Sharon Hestvik's (not Sherl Swink's)
question (I was responding to a later post from someone else, in line with the
original thread).
However, I think the importance of the Farm Service Agencies being involved with
establishing a criteria appropriate to sustainable as distinct from conventional
agriculture can not be overemphasized. This means that the basic differences in
concept between the two are beginning to become understood by the federal
government. This may be the major benefit of OFPA's Proposed Rule debacle -
the fact that major conceptual differences exist (and therefore the need to
develop an appropriate criteria) has been recognized, and those differences will
now be defined, over time.
I'm glad, because there's absolutely no doubt that the future of agriculture
resides in employing sustainable (ecological, biological) concepts and practices
(and the future of the human race depends on it). Better sooner than later.
What about the value of the humus built up, and the creation of a healthier soil
ecology (conceivably defined by microbial activity)? It may not all fit into
the framework of insured value, but the precedent is encouraging.
It is important to remember that while some costs may be higher (depending on
the availability of local sources for needed inputs), other costs will become
increasingly reduced as a balanced biological environment becomes established
around the economic crops (i.e., there will be less need to use increasing
amounts of expensive (and toxic) pesticides to combat increasingly resistant
pests that have flourished in the absence of predators, parasites and pathogens
killed off through use of an unselective pest control program.
The knowledge generated will at one point become publicly accepted to the degree
that one point it will become embodied in legislation, and MANY agrochemicals
will follow the path that some (like DDT, asbestos and soon tobacco) already
have. (If that sounds far fetched to anyone, save this post and read it ten
years from now).
A few last points: "Organic" ideally (in concept) IS sustainable, but the
term is associated with an established market that exists for those products
labeled as such. Since a given organic crop's value is tied to that market,
this is of interest to any organic crop insurance program. Also, the price
differential on organic products for the grower as distinct from the distributor
or retailer, is generally greater than with conventional products; due to the
relative lack of economies of scale, competition and the fact that a number of
"big" shakers and movers in the organic marketing industry want to keep it that
way. (Incidentally, OFPA will probably enhance - and at least maintain this
disparity if implemented as now written - with compulsory OFPA certification for
all products sold as organic included).
D. Hinds
Harris, Craig wrote:
> i agree with hinds that a full comparison of the
> advantages/disadvantages of organic versus conventional needs to include
> nutritional content, animal health, and human health . . . but i think
> this gets beyond the scope of swink's original question: how would an
> insurer (government agency or private company or cooperative) develop
> insurance programs for organic farmers . . . in the perspective of that
> question, it seems to me that the focus should be on: what is the loss
> to the farm and the farm family . . . it seems to me that the
> insurable/compensable loss might include (1) income from crop or animal
> sales; (2) organic feed for the farm's animals; (3) animal manure, green
> manure and nitrogen credits from legume crops; and (4) organic food for
> the farm family
> cheers,
> craig
>
> craig k harris
> department of sociology
> michigan state university
> 429b berkey hall
> east lansing michigan 48824-1111
> tel: 517-355-5048
> fax: 517-432-2856
>
> > ----------
> > From: Douglas Hinds[SMTP:dmhinds@acnet.net]
> > Sent: Friday 22 May 1998 9:55 PM
> > To: Sean Clark
> > Cc: Sheryl N. Swink; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
> > Subject: Re: How does organic differ from sustainable ag?
> >
> > Good data and perspective, but yield and monetary cost differences are
> > only part
> > of the picture. Were any studies included on nutritional content and
> > / or animal
> > health? (Regarding the latter, obviously I'm referring to studies
> > done on animal
> > groups raised exclusively on food cultivated one way or the other).
> > Another
> > interesting area would be physical, mental and psychological
> > performance of
> > individuals and groups fed products cultivated under different
> > systems.
> >
> > These are all relevant factors. Quantifying "Quality of Life" in
> > concrete terms
> > is a real issue and unfortunately, those who aren't personally
> > familiar with the
> > effects of consuming a diet based on fresh picked, biologically
> > cultivated food
> > have little basis for comparison. For the figures to reflect real
> > meaning,
> > comprehensive criteria must be applied. In short - the juries still
> > out because
> > the research is still far from complete. In fact, many significant
> > variables
> > have yet to be plainly identified.
> >
> > DH
> >
> > Sean Clark wrote:
> >
> > > At 05:32 PM 5/22/98 -0500, Sheryl Swink wrote:
> > > >How about it, fellow sanet-mg folks? Do you, especially those who
> > are
> > > >producers (not just consumers, researcher/extensionists, and
> > interested
> > > >digesters like myself), find that this is a generalizable fact? Or
> > has it
> > > >become a myth? What is the current state of affairs in terms of
> > yield
> > > >comparisons between organic and conventional methods? Are there now
> > > >reliable organic practices by which farmers are regularly attaining
> > or
> > > >surpassing expected conventional yields onece past the transition
> > stage?
> > > >Anyone have any current research data/references to address this
> > issue?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sheryl,
> > >
> > > Organic crop yields are sometimes lower than conventional yields due
> > to
> > > inadequate (N) nitrogen availability or excessive weed competition,
> > > particularly during the transition, but this really depends on alot
> > of
> > > interacting and site-specific factors. Stanhill (1990) reviewed
> > about 200
> > > studies comparing organic and conventional cropping systems in
> > Europe and N.
> > > America and found that organic yields averaged about 9-10% less.
> > This is an
> > > interesting and important finding but may not tell you much about a
> > specific
> > > region or crop due to geographic differences in soils, climate, pest
> > > pressures, farmer experience and support, market demands, etc. The
> > results
> > > of studies coming out since then have been variable.
> > >
> > > At the Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems (SAFS) project at the
> > > University of California at Davis, we've had lower organic corn and
> > tomato
> > > yields (compared to conventional years) in some years due to N
> > > immobilization by soil biota and weed pressure. However, bean yields
> > have
> > > often been higher under organic management.
> > >
> > > Nitrogen mineralization/immobilization is sometimes less predictable
> > in
> > > organic systems and may present problems for crops with high N
> > demands, such
> > > as corn. However, after 10 years of farming organically these soils
> > have
> > > been pretty consistent in supplying adequate N. Last year we had a
> > weed
> > > problem in the organic corn plots. Crow damage at germination
> > resulted in
> > > poor stands in the organic and conventional treatments.
> > Consequently, weed
> > > pressure was high due to the gaps. Herbicides were used in the
> > conventional
> > > system to prevent yield loss but no economically feasible control
> > options
> > > were available in the organic system once the corn was too high to
> > cultivate.
> > >
> > > Organic tomato yields at the SAFS site have equalled conventional
> > yields
> > > over the last few years. Weeds can be hand hoed out of this
> > high-value crop
> > > and other pest groups (insects, nematodes, and diseases) are not a
> > problem.
> > > This is not the case in the eastern U.S., however, where diseases
> > can be a
> > > real problem in the humid climate.
> > >
> > > Overall, the findings of the SAFS project indicate that equal crop
> > yields
> > > can eventually be achieved in this area with organic methods but
> > that
> > > economic risk may be greater, particularly during the transition,
> > and
> > > production costs may be higher, depending upon the crop.
> > >
> > > Stanhill 1990. The comparitive productivity of organic agriculture.
> > > Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 30: 1-26.
> > >
> > > M. Sean Clark
> > > Research Manager
> > > Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems Project
> > > Department of Agronomy and Range Science
> > > University of California
> > > Davis, CA 95616
> > > msclark@ucdavis.edu
> > > TEL:(530) 752-2023
> > > FAX:(530) 752-4361
> > >
> > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe
> > sanet-mg".
> > > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the
> > command
> > > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe
> > sanet-mg".
> > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> >
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
--------------F5D6B8DD710683FDB70C148D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You are right - I didn't focus at all on Sharon Hestvik's (not Sherl Swink's) question (I was responding to a later post from someone else, in line with the original thread).
However, I think the importance of the Farm Service Agencies being involved with establishing a criteria appropriate to sustainable as distinct from conventional agriculture can not be overemphasized. This means that the basic differences in concept between the two are beginning to become understood by the federal government. This may be the major benefit of OFPA's Proposed Rule debacle - the fact that major conceptual differences exist (and therefore the need to develop an appropriate criteria) has been recognized, and those differences will now be defined, over time.
I'm glad, because there's absolutely no doubt that the future of agriculture resides in employing sustainable (ecological, biological) concepts and practices (and the future of the human race depends on it). Better sooner than later.
What about the value of the humus built up, and the creation of a healthier soil ecology (conceivably defined by microbial activity)? It may not all fit into the framework of insured value, but the precedent is encouraging.
It is important to remember that while some costs may be higher (depending on the availability of local sources for needed inputs), other costs will become increasingly reduced as a balanced biological environment becomes established around the economic crops (i.e., there will be less need to use increasing amounts of expensive (and toxic) pesticides to combat increasingly resistant pests that have flourished in the absence of predators, parasites and pathogens killed off through use of an unselective pest control program.
The knowledge generated will at one point become publicly accepted to the degree that one point it will become embodied in legislation, and MANY agrochemicals will follow the path that some (like DDT, asbestos and soon tobacco) already have. (If that sounds far fetched to anyone, save this post and read it ten years from now).
A few last points: "Organic" ideally (in concept) IS sustainable, but the term is associated with an established market that exists for those products labeled as such. Since a given organic crop's value is tied to that market, this is of interest to any organic crop insurance program. Also, the price differential on organic products for the grower as distinct from the distributor or retailer, is generally greater than with conventional products; due to the relative lack of economies of scale, competition and the fact that a number of "big" shakers and movers in the organic marketing industry want to keep it that way. (Incidentally, OFPA will probably enhance - and at least maintain this disparity if implemented as now written - with compulsory OFPA certification for all products sold as organic included).
D. Hinds
Harris, Craig wrote:
i agree with hinds that a full comparison of the--------------F5D6B8DD710683FDB70C148D-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
advantages/disadvantages of organic versus conventional needs to include
nutritional content, animal health, and human health . . . but i think
this gets beyond the scope of swink's original question: how would an
insurer (government agency or private company or cooperative) develop
insurance programs for organic farmers . . . in the perspective of that
question, it seems to me that the focus should be on: what is the loss
to the farm and the farm family . . . it seems to me that the
insurable/compensable loss might include (1) income from crop or animal
sales; (2) organic feed for the farm's animals; (3) animal manure, green
manure and nitrogen credits from legume crops; and (4) organic food for
the farm family
cheers,
craigcraig k harris
department of sociology
michigan state university
429b berkey hall
east lansing michigan 48824-1111
tel: 517-355-5048
fax: 517-432-2856> ----------
> From: Douglas Hinds[SMTP:dmhinds@acnet.net]
> Sent: Friday 22 May 1998 9:55 PM
> To: Sean Clark
> Cc: Sheryl N. Swink; sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu
> Subject: Re: How does organic differ from sustainable ag?
>
> Good data and perspective, but yield and monetary cost differences are
> only part
> of the picture. Were any studies included on nutritional content and
> / or animal
> health? (Regarding the latter, obviously I'm referring to studies
> done on animal
> groups raised exclusively on food cultivated one way or the other).
> Another
> interesting area would be physical, mental and psychological
> performance of
> individuals and groups fed products cultivated under different
> systems.
>
> These are all relevant factors. Quantifying "Quality of Life" in
> concrete terms
> is a real issue and unfortunately, those who aren't personally
> familiar with the
> effects of consuming a diet based on fresh picked, biologically
> cultivated food
> have little basis for comparison. For the figures to reflect real
> meaning,
> comprehensive criteria must be applied. In short - the juries still
> out because
> the research is still far from complete. In fact, many significant
> variables
> have yet to be plainly identified.
>
> DH
>
> Sean Clark wrote:
>
> > At 05:32 PM 5/22/98 -0500, Sheryl Swink wrote:
> > >How about it, fellow sanet-mg folks? Do you, especially those who
> are
> > >producers (not just consumers, researcher/extensionists, and
> interested
> > >digesters like myself), find that this is a generalizable fact? Or
> has it
> > >become a myth? What is the current state of affairs in terms of
> yield
> > >comparisons between organic and conventional methods? Are there now
> > >reliable organic practices by which farmers are regularly attaining
> or
> > >surpassing expected conventional yields onece past the transition
> stage?
> > >Anyone have any current research data/references to address this
> issue?
> > >
> >
> > Sheryl,
> >
> > Organic crop yields are sometimes lower than conventional yields due
> to
> > inadequate (N) nitrogen availability or excessive weed competition,
> > particularly during the transition, but this really depends on alot
> of
> > interacting and site-specific factors. Stanhill (1990) reviewed
> about 200
> > studies comparing organic and conventional cropping systems in
> Europe and N.
> > America and found that organic yields averaged about 9-10% less.
> This is an
> > interesting and important finding but may not tell you much about a
> specific
> > region or crop due to geographic differences in soils, climate, pest
> > pressures, farmer experience and support, market demands, etc. The
> results
> > of studies coming out since then have been variable.
> >
> > At the Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems (SAFS) project at the
> > University of California at Davis, we've had lower organic corn and
> tomato
> > yields (compared to conventional years) in some years due to N
> > immobilization by soil biota and weed pressure. However, bean yields
> have
> > often been higher under organic management.
> >
> > Nitrogen mineralization/immobilization is sometimes less predictable
> in
> > organic systems and may present problems for crops with high N
> demands, such
> > as corn. However, after 10 years of farming organically these soils
> have
> > been pretty consistent in supplying adequate N. Last year we had a
> weed
> > problem in the organic corn plots. Crow damage at germination
> resulted in
> > poor stands in the organic and conventional treatments.
> Consequently, weed
> > pressure was high due to the gaps. Herbicides were used in the
> conventional
> > system to prevent yield loss but no economically feasible control
> options
> > were available in the organic system once the corn was too high to
> cultivate.
> >
> > Organic tomato yields at the SAFS site have equalled conventional
> yields
> > over the last few years. Weeds can be hand hoed out of this
> high-value crop
> > and other pest groups (insects, nematodes, and diseases) are not a
> problem.
> > This is not the case in the eastern U.S., however, where diseases
> can be a
> > real problem in the humid climate.
> >
> > Overall, the findings of the SAFS project indicate that equal crop
> yields
> > can eventually be achieved in this area with organic methods but
> that
> > economic risk may be greater, particularly during the transition,
> and
> > production costs may be higher, depending upon the crop.
> >
> > Stanhill 1990. The comparitive productivity of organic agriculture.
> > Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 30: 1-26.
> >
> > M. Sean Clark
> > Research Manager
> > Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems Project
> > Department of Agronomy and Range Science
> > University of California
> > Davis, CA 95616
> > msclark@ucdavis.edu
> > TEL:(530) 752-2023
> > FAX:(530) 752-4361
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe
> sanet-mg".
> > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the
> command
> > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe
> sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".