ORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH FOUNDATIONofrf.org/sites/ofrf.org/files/docs/pdf/ib10.pdfM ention the name...

Mention the name “Avery” in

organic circles and you’re likely

to cause a stir. Public percep-

tion is so important to the success of organic

farming, and so often the Avery name is

directly linked to information about organic

that is false, misleading or hostile to the

ideals and practices of organic agriculture.

What many don’t realize is that there are

actually two Averys: Dennis T. Avery is

Director of the Center for Global Food Issues

(CGFI) in Churchville, Virginia, a project

of the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute.

Dennis’s son Alex serves as CGFI’s Director

of Research and Education. For years this

team has waged campaigns aimed at dis-

crediting organic production systems, charg-

ing that organic is, among other things,

low-yielding and environmentally harmful.

For those well versed in organic, it’s easy

to see many instances where the Averys’

work is poorly supported factually. But

unfortunately, they are frequently cited by

the media to provide “perspective” on the

“pros and cons” of organic and conventional

agriculture.

CGFI’s misinformation campaign on

organic is a disservice and nuisance to all

producers—organic, conventional , and

those who integrate a variety of farming

methods in pursuit of sustainability.

In this issue, Bill Liebhardt and Nancy

Creamer take on some of the Averys’ recent

anti-organic rhetoric. —EW

Last December, participants at a university conference in Valley Forge,Pennsylvania took up the debate on genetically modified (GM) organisms.Rebecca Goldberg, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, represented the cau-

tionary environmental perspective, while Dennis Avery, of the Center for Global FoodIssues at the Hudson Institute and author of Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastics,took the pro-GM position.

The crux of Avery’s argument in support of genetically modified organisms was thatthe high yields necessary to feed a growing world population could only be possible withhigh inputs of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides plus new genetically modified seeds.In fact, he argued, the use of such technologies would preserve fragile, marginal land thatmight otherwise be used to grow crops. He asserted that 18 to 20 million square milesof wild land habitat are preserved through high input agriculture compared to the use oforganic agriculture, which only yields 55 to 60 percent of conventional yields.

Since his argument rested on the question of yield, I asked him for the source of hisinformation. He replied that he had heard that organically grown wheat yields in Englandwere 40 to 42 percent lower than conventionally grown English wheat.

This past February, Alex Avery published his latest diatribe against organic agricul-ture, titled Nature’s Toxic Tools: The Organic Myth of Pesticide-Free Farming1. I’mwriting this response to Avery’s report because it is full of misleading statements

and false information. My attempt is to shed some light on the report’s deceptive aspects.The claims in the Hudson Institute press release about the article include: “A new

report shows a shift to organic farming methods could increase pesticide use by hundredsof millions of pounds per year.”; The ‘natural’ pesticides used by organic farmers areamong the most heavily used, toxic, and persistent in American agriculture today”; “Themyth that organic farming is toxics-free should be buried forever. The American publichas been misled through poor reporting and aggressive marketing schemes to believeorganic is ‘pesticide-free’ and safer for human and ecological health”; “One organic fungi-cide accounts for more than half of all U.S. fungicide use”; and, “Switching to all organicproduction would result in up to a 700 percent increase in U.S. fungicide use.”

The way that Avery sets the stage, it is evident that he is purposefully manipulatinginformation with intent to damage the organic industry. His opening statement pro-claims: “Organic pesticides are the most heavily used agricultural pesticides in the U.S.,”

Continued on page 4

ORGANIC FARMINGRESEARCH FOUNDATION

I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I N

Summer 2001 Number 10

Get the facts straight: Organic agriculture yields are good by Bill Liebhardt

Continued on page 6

by Nancy Creamer

Myth vs. reality: Avery’s rhetoric meets the real world of organic

2 OFRF News, by Don Burget tBoard & s ta f f changes , events ca lendar ; suppor t OFRF!

8 Pol icy Prog ram Notes , by Mark LipsonSCOAR inaugura l , b iotech pol icy update

10 Technica l Prog ram Notes , by Jane SoobyState o f the Sta tes update

12 Board member prof i le , by Mel i s sa MatthewsonOFRF Board Pres ident Ron Rosmann

32 Spring 2001 grants: $74,114 awarded; EPA supports OFRF funding pool

RESEARCH REVIEWS13 College farm turns food waste into resource

Sean Clark, Berea College, Berea, KY

17 Balancing soil nutrients in organic vegetable production systemsMark Schonbeck, Virginia Association for Biological Farming, Floyd, VA

22 Orchard floor management and biological control in pearsDavid Horton, USDA-ARS, Wapato, WA

24 Homeopathic preparations for preventing mastitis in dairy cows28 Supplement: Is homeopathy effective in farm animals?

Fernando Moncayo, DVM, Paradise, Nova Scotia, Canada

30 A biorational program for artichoke pests Sean Swezey, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA

Changes at the topThis spring, we said farewell to boardmember Woody Deryckx. Joining theboard in 1992, Woody lent his keen mindand broad farming expertise to OFRF’smission, ultimately serving as presidentfrom 1998 to 2001. We wish him the bestas he turns his attention to the difficultissues facing farmers in southern Oregon,as Executive Director of the KlamathBasin Ecosystem Foundation.

Stepping into leadership as OFRF’sfourth president is Ron Rosmann. AnIowa farmer, Ron is the first OFRF presi-dent from the midwest, and ExecutiveDirector Bob Scowcroft is fond of sayingthat we now operate on Central Time(read more about Ron in our “BoardProfile” on page 12).

Departing the board in March wereLew Grant and J.B. Pratt. Lew served onthe board for six years and chaired ourNominating Committee, leading the criti-cal work of ensuring strength and stabilityto the organization. We are grateful toLew and look forward to his continuedparticipation as an advisor to the Research& Education Committee. Thanks, too, to

J.B. for his time and service to OFRF, andwe wish him well in his efforts to bringnutritious organic food to consumers inOklahoma through Pratt Supermarkets.

Joining the OFRF board this springwere:

Frederick Payton, who has a Ph.D.from Cornell University in VegetableCrops and is the director of the SoutheastRegional Alternative Agriculture Project atthe University of Georgia;

Steve Ela, a partner and manager of a100-acre organic orchard for Silver SpruceOrchards in Hotchkiss, Colorado. Stevehas an MS in Soil Science from theUniversity of Minnesota and serves on theColorado Agricultural Commission. He isalso a coordinator and board member ofthe Colorado Organic Crop ManagementAssociation;

Juli Brussell, who is chief consultantfor The Farm Gate, an agency specializingin sustainable agricultural enterprise devel-opment and food systems issues. She cur-rently coordinates a marketing project forthe Illinois Stewardship Alliance, teachesoff-campus food systems courses forEastern Illinois University, and coordinates

the Small Farm Enterprise Project at theUniversity of Illinois. Juli and her husbandKevin farm organically in southeasternIllinois.

Staff changesBrise Tencer recently joined OFRF as ourPolicy Program Assistant. Brise previouslyworked as an environmental consultantand as an agricultural extensionist with thePeace Corps in Guatemala, and is current-ly completing her master’s degree inInternational Environmental Policy.

We’ve also been very lucky to havetwo talented interns this year. NatashaUnger worked with Policy Director MarkLipson for several months this winter andspring as our first OFRF Policy Intern.

On the administrative and “anything-urgent” side, Natalie Lydon has quicklybecome indispensable. Natalie internedwith Program Associate MelissaMatthewson in the spring, and we askedher to stay on to help out with our busysummer.

2

OFRF NEWS

O F R F I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I N No. 10 I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I N

Erica Walz, Editor

Jane Sooby, Contributing Editor

Dianne Carter, Illustration

Woody Deryckx, Helen Atthowe,Cynthia Hizer, Editorial Advisors

PRINTED BY

Community Printers Santa Cruz, CA

The Information Bulletin is published by the Organic Farming

Research Foundation, a non-profit foundation dedicated to

fostering the improvement and widespread adoption of organic

farming practices.Our mailing address: P.O.Box 440,Santa Cruz,

California 95061, telephone: (831) 426-6606, fax: (831) 426-6670,

email: <[email protected]>, web: www.ofrf.org. Material in this

publication may be reprinted with credit.

Research Reviews are the results of OFRF-funded research and

education projects. Project reports presented in this newsletter

are derived from materials submitted to OFRF by project coor-

dinators. The use of trade names or commercial products pub-

lished in these results does not constitute any product endorse-

ment or recommendation by OFRF.

OUR MISSION • To sponsor research related to organic farming

practices • To disseminate research results to organic farmers

and to growers interested in adopting organic production sys-

tems • To educate the public and decision-makers about

organic farming issues

O F R F I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I NPrinted on recycled-content paper. Please recycle.

by Don Burgett

3S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

Events CalendarIn March OFRF hosted an all-organic bene-fit luncheon in conjunction with the NaturalProducts Expo West. Record attendance andgreat support from New Hope NaturalMedia made it a very successful event. Manythanks to remarkable chefs DonnaPrizgintas and Chris Blobaum, who againgave generously of their time to produce alavish and delicious meal!

Look for us again at the NaturalProducts Expo East in October! New Hopeand the Organic Trade Association arehosting an organic benefit dinner there onThursday, October 11th, honoring pioneer-ing women in organic. OFRF will be one ofthree groups to receive proceeds from theevent, so plan now to join us for a greatmeal and hear from some of the leadingwomen of the organic movement.

Finally, we just wrapped up our 5th

Biennial Organic Business and RegulatoryConference at the Claremont Resort andSpa in Berkeley at the end of July. Twohundred leaders from the organic worldparticipated in three days of panels, round-tables and receptions.

At the conference, USDA NationalOrganic Program leader Keith Jonesunveiled his proposal to resolve the OrganicRule’s conflict of interest issue by using anFDIC audit model for certifiers with farmerclients on their boards. Attorney RobertUram presented a concept paper on whatGMO liability legislation could look like.Anthony Zolezzi and others called for anorganized campaign to promote organicfoods and defend against attacks in themedia.

Many thanks to all who contributed,financially and otherwise, to this event.We’d especially like to acknowledge the fol-lowing companies for underwriting ourconference:

Baccharis CapitalFrontier Natural Products Co-opGoodness GreennessGreen Field Paper CompanyNew Hope Natural MediaNew Organics CompanyNewman’s Own OrganicsNorth Castle PartnersSheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPSmucker Quality BeveragesVeritable VegetableWhole Foods Market ■

O f f i c e r s

Ron Rosmann, PresidentRon & Maria Rosmann Family Farms, Harlan, Iowa

Ingrid Lundberg, Vice-presidentLundberg Family Farms, Richvale, California

Mary Jane Evans, TreasurerVeritable Vegetable, San Francisco, California

Stephen Porter, SecretaryPorter Farms, Elba, New York

❇Helen Atthowe

Biodesign Farm, Missoula, Montana

Roger BlobaumBlobaum and Associates, Washington, DC

Juli BrussellThe Farm Gate, Casey, Illinois

Jerry DeWittDepartment of Entomology, Iowa State University,

Ames, Iowa

Tom DobbsDepartment of Economics,

South Dakota State University,Brookings, South Dakota

Steve ElaSilver Spruce Orchards, Hotchkiss, Colorado

Betsy LydonEnvironmental Grantmakers Association,

New York, New York

Doug O’BrienO’Brien Consulting, Santa Cruz, California

Frederick PaytonSoutheast Regional Alternative Agriculture Project,

University of Georgia, Jakin, Georgia

Marianne SimmonsOnion Creek Farm, Dripping Springs, Texas

Dear Bob,

Since your note in June, I've intendedto reply to your question about how thearticle affected the MISA situation [AnExperiment in Partnership: TheMinnesota Institute for SustainableAgriculture, OFRF Information BulletinNo. 9]. The MISA Board and the Deanhave compromised on the bylaws andMISA is still a functioning entity. My article sparked a number of letters to theDean and President of the University.

Governor Ventura put much less in hisbudget for the University, than thePresident had asked for. This put pressureon MISA again as base funding comesfrom the College of Agriculture, andMISA was a target for cuts. I know that

the OFRF article was sent to legislators tourge them to keep MISA funded, and theydid. Just this past week, the College ofAgriculture renewed the contract for theAlternative Swine Program coordinator,which is a MISA position.

This is a much longer story than I amwriting. But the gist of it is that the Deanknows we're in it for the long haul and hecan't ignore the non-profit partners. Ithink the article kept him aware that theLSP has attentive constituents and thatthere are people all over the country whoare serious about sustainable agriculture.

Sincerely,Dana Jackson, Associate DirectorLand Stewardship Project ■

L E T T E R S

O F R F B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

OFRF needs your support! Your donation is important to continuing ourresearch and technical programs, policy initiatives, and getting OFRF’s InformationBulletin to you. We’ve saved a great deal of valuable funding by not including an enve-lope with this newsletter. So, we hope you will take a moment to donate through ourwebsite at www.ofrf.org, call our office at 831-426-6606, or make a gift through ourrecent or future mailings. It’s easier than ever—OFRF can now accept your donation bycredit card!

Don BurgettDevelopment Assistant &

Information Services Coordinator

Mark LipsonPolicy Program Director

Melissa MatthewsonProgram Associate

Laura RidenourEvents Coordinator

Bob ScowcroftExecutive Director

Jane SoobyTechnical Program Coordinator

Brise TencerPolicy Program Assistant

Erica WalzEditor, Information Bulletin

Coordinator, National Organic Farmers’ Survey

O F R F S T A F F

4

I’ve spent a career in academic and research activities in bothconventional and organic agriculture, and I am aware of compar-ative yield data and alarmed that someone should have a privi-leged forum for advocacy based on such limited information.When I returned to my office at the University of California,Davis, I began to gather scientif-ically replicated research resultsfrom seven major state universi-ties: University of California,Iowa State University,Pennsylvania State University,Michigan State University, SouthDakota State University,University of Nebraska andUniversity of Wisconsin. I alsolooked into data from theresearch demonstration farm atRodale Research Center inPennsylvania and the MichaelFields Center at East Troy,Wisconsin on corn, soybeans,wheat and tomatoes grown underexperimental controls for conventional and organic farming prac-tices over the last 10 years.

Since less than 1% of agriculture research dollars are spent onorganic practices, I assumed it would be difficult for organicmethods to compete with conventional practices in the yield cat-egory, in particular since yield is an over-arching objective of con-ventional research. But that is not what I found. Here are thehighlights:

◆ Corn: With 69 total cropping seasons comparing high inputand organically grown crops, organic yields were 94% of conven-tionally produced corn1,2,3,4,5,6,7.

◆ Soybeans: Data from five states with 55 growing seasons ofdata showed that organic yields were 94% of conventionalyields2,3,4,5,6.

◆ Wheat: Two institutions with 16 cropping year experimentsshowed that organic wheat produced 97% of the conventionalyields3,5.

◆ Tomatoes: At the University of California, 14 years of com-parative research on tomatoes showed no yield differencesbetween conventionally and organically grown crops7.

In summary, for a total of 154 growing seasons for differentcrops, grown in different parts of this country on both rain-fedand irrigated land, organic production yielded 95% of cropsgrown under conventional high-input conditions.

Now let’s step away from the fields of academic research sta-tions and take a take a real-world look at organic yields. Here area few selected examples of what organic farmers are yielding,looking at the same crops summarized above:

◆ Corn and soybeans: Ron and Maria Rosmann operate a diver-

sified, certified organic farm in Harlan, Iowa, and consistentlyobtain yields on a par with their county averages: average cornyields between 1991 and 2000 for the Rosmann Farm were 131bu/ac, compared with 130 bu/ac for Shelby County. For soybeansduring the same period, Rosmann Farm yields matched Shelby

County yields at 45 bu/ac8.

◆ Wheat: Rex and GlennSpray, operators of a 720-acre,diversified, certified organicfarm in Mt. Vernon, Ohio, alsoconsistently obtain wheat yieldson a par with their county aver-ages. Data provided for years1990-1991 show yields averag-ing 46 bu/acre, matching KnoxCounty, Ohio averages9.

◆ Tomatoes: Small PlanetFoods, parent company to MuirGlen organic tomato products,contracts with a variety of pro-ducers of organic tomatoes. Alec

McErlich, Director of Agricultural Research and Developmentfor Small Planet Foods, states that their growers generally obtainyields of 30-36 t/ac, and have seen 42 t/ac yields. This is com-pared with a conventional yield average in California of 31 t/ac.While noting that the best conventional yields can exceed thoseof organic, the quality of organically grown processing tomatoesis consistently higher. Muir Glen has a well established industryreputation for quality, with brix (solids) averages typically 1-2points above conventional10.

While this is admittedly a limited sample, what these figuresillustrate is that organic systems have every possibility of match-ing conventional system yields. These are good yields producedby skilled farmers. But these yields are not considered exception-al in the organic industry, and similar results are maintained byhundreds--thousands-- of organic producers around the country.

What these figures do not reflect are the other benefitsderived by organic producers and the land: increasedprofit per acre, and improved soil quality as measured

by soil structure, organic matter, biological activity, water infiltra-tion and water-holding capacity. This translates to higher yieldsduring drought under organic systems, leading to production sta-bility year after year. Nitrogen leaching is reduced considerablyunder organic agriculture, leading to less water pollution—amajor ecological issue all over the world.

This leads to an example of the kind of information Avery iswilling to ignore. Avery denies the threat of massive fertilizerpollution such as the Gulf of Mexico’s Dead Zone south of theMississippi River Delta—5,500 square miles of water with so lit-tle summer oxygen that it is unable to sustain aquatic life. Whileten federal agencies, nine states and Native American tribes arecooperating to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus run-off that ends

O F R F I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I N

Organic yields continued from page 1

Continued on page 5

For a total of 154 growing seasons for different crops, grown in different parts ofthis country on both rain-fed and irrigated

land, organic production yielded 95% of crops grown under conventional

high-input conditions.

5S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

up in the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico, the HudsonInstitute’s Center for Global Food Issues pronounces, “There isno water quality crisis in the Gulf.”11.

Why does the Hudson Institute ignore this? Perhapsbecause the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that toeliminate the dead zone, nutrient flow into the Mississippi mustdrop by 40 percent. Under its new plan, nutrient input would becut just 30 percent but even thiswould certainly cut into theprofits of the agribusinesses thatsupport Avery and his institute.If we follow the money, we findthat among the top contributorsto the Hudson Institute areMonsanto, Dow and Lilly—huge agricultural chemical andpharmaceutical companies.

The advantages and risksof high-input and organic agri-cultural production systemsneed to be considered by bothfarmers and consumers, byindividuals and by nations. The choices are too important to leavethe generation and dissemination of decision-influencing infor-mation only to those who have a direct financial stake in the out-come.

The issues before the Valley Forge conference—choices thatinvolve survival of the world’s resource base—are complex andmust be considered from the personal perspective all the way tothe international policy level. What kind of information is beingmade available to us and to policy-makers as we face these choic-es? What kind of information is being generated by our researchinstitutions to help us decide? ■

Bill Liebhardt, a sustainable agri-culture specialist at the Universityof California, Davis, directed thestatewide UC SustainableAgriculture Research andEducation Program (SAREP)from its inception in 1987 until1999. SAREP, now in its 14th

year, was the first university-based sustainable agriculture pro-gram in the U.S.

REFERENCES

1 Duffy M. Crop Yields and NetReturns from Long-Term CroppingSystem Comparison, Iowa StateUniversity (selected data are foryears 1990-1997). In: Rick Welsh.Economics of Organic Grain andSoybean Production in theMidwestern United States, PolicyStudies Report No. 13. Greenbelt,MD: Henry A. Wallace Institute forAlternative Agriculture, May 1999.p. 24.

2 Helmers et al. Crop Yields, NetReturns and Net Present Value forSelected Cropping Systems,University of Nebraska Study, 1978-1985. University of Nebraska. In:Rick Welsh. Economics of OrganicGrain and Soybean Production inthe Midwestern United States,Policy Studies Report No. 13.Greenbelt, MD: Henry A. WallaceInstitute for Alternative Agriculture,May 1999. p. 32.

3 Smolik et al. Crop Yields by Studyand Cropping System, SouthDakota State University ExperimentStation Trials, 1986-1992. SouthDakota State University. In: RickWelsh. Economics of Organic Grainand Soybean Production in theMidwestern United States, PolicyStudies Report No. 13. Greenbelt,MD: Henry A. Wallace Institute forAlternative Agriculture, May 1999.p. 34.

4 Coch, R. Rodale Research Center.Personal communication. Data isfor 1990-1999.

5 Harwood, R. Michigan StateUniversity. Personal communica-tion. Data is for 1993 to 1999.

6 Riesterer J, Hall J. University ofWisconsin and the Michael FieldsCenter at East Troy, Wisconsin.Personal communications. Data atone site 1994-1999 and at othersite1994-2000.

7 Temple S, Denison F. University ofCalifornia Davis. Personal commu-nication. Data is for 14 croppingyears at two sites between 1992-2000.

8 Rosmann R. Ron and MariaRosmann Family Farms, Harlan IA.Personal communication. April 20,2001.

9 Stinner D. Yield Comparisonsbetween Spray and Knox CountyAverages. Ohio State University,Personal communication, May 8,2001.

10 McErlich A. Small Planet Foods,Sedro-Woolley, WA. Personal com-munication. April 13, 2001.

11 Avery DT. The World Can’t Win aWar Against Plant Nutrients.Presented before the MissouriAgricultural Institute, Columbia,Mo, Nov. 11, 1998.

Organic yields continued from page 4

If we follow the money, we find thatamong the top contributors to the HudsonInstitute are Monsanto, Dow and Lilly—

huge agricultural chemical and pharmaceutical companies.

A view from the field

After working in processingvegetable production for 25years, and solely in organicfor 13 years of those 25years, here’s a summation ofmy experience: It is the cal-iber of the grower which hasthe greatest impact on yieldand quality. Find a good con-ventional grower and theywill be a great organic grow-er once they have learned tomanage the organic system.

All too often yield compar-isons are made when grow-ers are new to organic, whenthe ground is relatively newto organic practices, com-pounded with a lack ofexpert advice for a grower toturn to and lack of infrastruc-ture to support organic grow-ers. I think the conventionalvs. organic yield comparisonis deceptive unless you canfind an experienced growerwith both conventional andorganic components to their

farming operation and thegrower has been in organicfor at least five years and theyields for the first four yearsare not counted in the com-parison. So often, universityside-by-side yield compar-isons are completed onground where organic prac-tices were utilized for just theperiod of the trial and oftenby staff with no or limitedexperience with organic prac-tices. If organic had the samebillions of dollars spent on itas conventional, I am sureyields and quality would beon a par with conventional.

But at the end of the dayit’s not about yields anyway,its about profit per acre. Thisis the mainstay of any accu-rate comparison.

Alec McErlich Director of AgriculturalResearch and Development Small Planet Foods

6 O F R F I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I N

followed shortly thereafter by: “two organic-pesticides aloneaccounted for over 23% of all U.S. agricultural pesticide use in1997.” Unfortunately, he erroneously ties these statistics to use onorganic farms by saying, “These statistics raise important ques-tions. With organic farming still representing less than 3 percentof total U.S. food production, what will happen to overall pesticideuse if and when organic farming expands to supply a larger per-centage of U.S. food?”

While the stated pesticide use rates are correct, that is becausethese “organic” pesticides are used heavily by conventional grow-ers. Many conventional growers are seeking to use the least toxicmaterials available. According to the National Pesticide UseDatabase2 website referenced in Avery’s article, “oils” (refinedpetroleum products known as “dormant” or “summer” oils, usedcommonly on fruit trees and shrubs) are the most frequently usedinsecticides. Dormant oils, used to smother overwintering insects,are relatively benign, and are used widely in part because of theirlow toxicity. They are safe for humans and wildlife, and don’t gen-erally harm beneficial insects, which are not prevalent at the timethey are sprayed. In other words, it is a good thing that dormant oiluse is high among conventional growers, instead of somethingmore toxic. Again, from the National Pesticide Use Database: 65%of all apple growers use dormant oils, 70% of all citrus growers,97% of all nectarines are treated, 94% of all pears are treated, and92% of plums. And a variety of other fruit trees are treated as well.But Avery draws a non-existent connection between the use ofthese oils and use by organic farmers (and potential increases inthe future as the number of organic farmers increase). From thelargest national survey of certified organic farmers in the country,published by OFRF in 1999, 65% of organic growers never usedormant or summer oils, 11% do so rarely, 13% do on occasion,and 11% do so regularly (of 1,032 responding)3.

Sulfur, the next “organic” chemical on Avery’s list, is alsowidely used in conventional agriculture. And Avery knows this,since again, the information is cited in his own article: 90% ofblackberries are treated; 63% of cherries; 80% of all grapes; 58% ofhops, 64% of peaches, 66% of raspberries, along with a wide vari-ety of other fruits and vegetables. Again, sulfur is a relatively lowtoxicity fungicide and it’s good that conventional growers areusing it instead of other, more toxic compounds. OFRF’s surveyresults show that 60% of organic farmers say they never use sulfuror sulfur-based materials, 14% rarely use them, 14% occasionallyuse them, and 12% frequently use them (of 1,046 responding).

Organic does not mean pesticide-freeAvery states, “Organic does not mean “pesticide-free,” and

makes the claim that toxicity is not important in determiningwhich inputs are allowed, and that only origin of the input mat-ters. While the origin of a material is one of the guides that deter-mines whether a chemical is approved, disallowed, or restricted inorganic crop production, to say that toxicity is not a factor is a bla-tant misrepresentation of the truth. Following are the criteria usedby the National Organic Standards Board in evaluating substancesthat can be used in organic agriculture4:

The Act (7 U.S.C. 6518(m)) requires that the NOSB consider thefollowing criteria for each substance evaluated:

(1) The potential of such substances for detrimental chemicalinteractions with other materials used in organic farming systems;

(2) The toxicity and mode of action of the substance and ofits breakdown products or any contaminants, and their persistenceand areas of concentration in the environment;

(3) The probability of environmental contamination duringmanufacture, use, misuse or disposal of such substance;

(4) The effect of the substance on human health;(5) The effects of the substance on biological and chemical

interactions in the agroecosystem, including the substance’s physiological effects on soil organisms (including the salt indexand solubility of the soil), crops and livestock;

(6) The alternatives to using the substance in terms of prac-tices or other materials; and,

(7) Its compatibility with a system of sustainable agriculture.

This list of criteria is far-reaching and considerably differentfrom those that guide traditional chemical use decisions.The certification process seeks to address sustainability so

that organic agriculture does not just become the same old systemwith a different list of inputs. There is a focus on soil building,crop rotation, and other production practices that can enhancesustainability.

Next, Avery attempts to create an illusion of scandal by say-ing,“there is no way to determine the amount of use of Bt, themost heavily used pesticide on organic farms.” The amount of Btused on organic farms is irrelevant when compared with the largeacreages of genetically engineered Bt crops in production rightnow (as of 1998 there were 14.4 million acres planted to Bt corn,2.3 million acres planted to Bt Cotton, and .05 million acresplanted to Bt potatoes). What is used on organic farms is minis-cule in comparison and Avery knows this. According to theUSDA Economic Research Service5 there are only 1,346,000 cer-tified organic acres in the U.S. Again, OFRF’s survey results showthat only 18% of organic growers use Bt regularly, 27% do onoccasion, 12% rarely or as a last resort, and 43% never do. ForAvery to make an issue of Bt from an environmental perspective isespecially upsetting because the genetically engineered Bt (unlikethe form organic farmers use) may have the potential to remain inthe soil in its active form for long periods of time, and no oneknows how soil biological communities may be affected6.

Myth vs. reality continued from page 1

The amount of Bt used on organic farms isirrelevant when compared with the large

acreages of genetically engineered Bt crops in production right now.

Continued on page 7

7S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

What if the U.S. went all organic?It’s difficult to follow the line of reasoning that causes Avery togo from data that shows use of organic chemicals in predomi-nantly conventional farming operations to: “Obviously, a switchto organic farming by a large number of U.S. farmers would resultin a massive increase in U.S. fungicide use and significantlyincreased soil contamination.” The assumption behind thisstatement is that organic growers would replace the amount ofsynthetic fungicides that conventional growers use with sulfur.First, he chose a compound for his example (sulfur) that is

applied at a rate 30 times higher than synthetic fungicides(choosing the worse case scenario). Odd to choose sulfur when itis not even effective on most crop diseases.

To assume that organic farmers would substitute organicfungicides everywhere that conventional farmers use themignores all of the data suggesting otherwise, and ignores the otherstrategies that organic farmers use effectively to minimize dis-ease. Organic farmers minimize disease through soil building(taking advantage of disease-suppressive soils and systemicinduced resistance), crop rotation, cover cropping, cultural prac-tices, resistant varieties, multi-cropping, and a variety of otherproduction strategies. In fact, when ranking disease managementstrategies most frequently used, the OFRF survey results are inthis order: Crop rotation (80%), disease resistant varieties (53%),compost or compost teas (38%), companion planting (22%), sul-fur materials (12%), copper materials (7%), and solarization (4%).So, to say that organic growers would have to use the sameamount of fungicide (or, per his example, 30 times more) as con-ventional growers is nonsense. Diseases are generally lower (butnot always) on organic farms in the few comparative studies thathave been conducted7.

As far as soil erosion and organic agriculture goes, I cite anarticle in Nature by Reganold et al.8 The authors con-clude: “the organically-farmed soil had significantly

higher organic matter content, thicker topsoil depth, higher poly-saccharide content, lower modulus of rupture and less soil erosionthan the conventional-farmed soil. This study showed that, in thelong term, the organic farming system was more effective thanthe conventional farming system in reducing soil erosion, andtherefore, in maintaining soil productivity.” His study did notcompare organic to no-till systems, but it is clear that the inputs

of organic matter in organic farming systems yield some of theexact same soil quality results (that lead to the reduction of ero-sion) as no-till. I challenge Avery to show one scientific studywhere soil erosion was found to be greater on an organically man-aged farm than its conventional counterpart.

An article by Langdale et al.9 compares the impact of covercrops on soil erosion in both till and no-till systems. Most of thetime the impact of the cover crops is as great as the impact of no-till. Most organic growers do use cover crops, so the benefit ofreducing soil erosion that no-till farmers receive, can also bereceived by organic farmers using cover crops and other organicamendments in their systems.

His final statement, “A major U.S. shift to organic agricul-ture would mean more pesticide use, not less; more toxicity, notless; and higher pressures on agricultural and other naturalresources without any apparent offsetting benefits,” just does nothave any basis in fact.

Avery claims that the effectiveness of alternatives available toorganic growers are minimal. We know this is untrue. Again,growers have been using a combination of these alternatives suc-cessfully for years. Proof is in the high quality, aesthetically pleas-ing, blemish-free, wide-range of organic products we find now inour markets and grocery stores. ■

Nancy G. Creamer is an Associate Professor and Director of the Centerfor Environmental Farming Systems, North Carolina StateUniversity.

Myth vs. reality continued from page 6

REFERENCES

1 Avery A., Nature’s Toxic Tools: TheOrganic Myth of Pesticide-FreeFarming. www.cgfi.org/pdf/Natures%5FToxic%5FTools%2Epdf. Center for Global FoodIssues, Churchville, VA, February2001. 9 pp.

2 National Pesticide Use Database:www.ncfap.org/ncfap/indx.html.

3 Organic Farming ResearchFoundation. Final Results of theThird Biennial National OrganicFarmers’ Survey. Santa Cruz,California. 1999.

4 USDA National Organic Programwebsite: www.ams.usda.gov/nop/nop2000/Final%20Rule/regtext/reg-natlist.htm

5 Greene C. USDA ERS April AgOutlook: U.S. Organic AgicultureGaining Ground. April 2000.www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/apr2000/ao270d.pdf

6 Saxena D, Flores S, and Stotzky G.Insecticidal toxin in root exudatesfrom Bt corn. Nature: 1999;402:480.

7 van Bruggen, A.H.C. 1995. Plantdisease severity in high-inputcompared to reduced-input andorganic farming systems. PlantDisease. 79:976-984.

8 Reganold JP, Elliott LF, Unger YL.Long-term effects of organic andconventional farming on soil ero-sion. Nature:1987; 330:370-372.

9 Langdale et al. Cover Crop Effectson Soil Erosion by Wind andWater. In: Hargrove, W.L. CoverCrops for Clean Water. 1991. Soiland Water Conservation Society.

To assume that organic farmers wouldsubstitute organic fungicides everywhere that

conventional farmers use them ignores all of the data suggesting otherwise.

PPoolliiccyy PPrrooggrraamm NNootteess


by Mark Lipson, Policy Program Director

TThhiiss hhaass bbeeeenn aann eevveennttffuull yyeeaarr for OFRF’s policy program. Inaddition to an extended medical leave for Program Director MarkLipson (he’s back now and everything is OK), we hired a PolicyProgram Assistant, launched the Scientific Congress on OrganicAgricultural Research (SCOAR), established an internal structurefor political lobbying, and continued our work on biotechnologyissues, organic crop insurance, and other questions of national pol-icy for organic farmers.

SSCCOOAARR gglliiddeess iinnttoo ggeeaarr Our biggest event was the Inaugural Assembly of the ScientificCongress on Organic Agricultural Research (SCOAR), heldJanuary 23-24 in Pacific Grove, CA. Under the theme, Sewingthe Quilt of Organic Knowledge, the meeting focused on laying thefoundations for a long-term organic research agenda. The meeting

also included posters and writings about on-farm research resultsfrom farmers as well as professional researchers. A summary of themeeting is posted on the OFRF web site, and the full proceedingswill also be posted there in the near future. On the following pagewe feature the meeting’s opening statement by OFRF past presi-dent, Woody Deryckx.

SCOAR also played a role in the recent Organic Tree FruitSymposium held May 30 in Colorado. This meeting featuredresearch results from around the country on organic pome fruitproduction. SCOAR provided travel expenses for five growers toattend this meeting.

SCOAR’s next event will be the Second Assembly of theCongress, on Nov. 4-5 in Rock Hill, South Carolina, held in con-junction with the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association’s annu-al meeting. For more information, including applications forgrower travel support, check the OFRF web site or call 831-426-6606. You can also enlist as a SCOAR participant and receiveperiodic bulletins about the project by filling out the participantform on the web site or emailing [email protected].

NNaattiioonnaall ppoolliiccyy sstteewwThis spring the OFRF Board of Directors decided to establishthe capacity for OFRF to conduct political lobbying activity byfiling a “501-h” option with the IRS. This places us within a spe-cific set of rules defining what counts as “lobbying,” how thisactivity is documented and how much of our budget can bedevoted to it. So far we have not activated this capacity, but wewill probably begin to do so this fall.

A number of important areas of national policy that directlyaffect the organic farming sector are clamoring for our attention.These range from USDA agency actions (national organic rules,crop insurance, disaster payments, organic transition research) toCongressional proposals for major intervention in organic agricul-ture (certification cost-sharing, transition subsidies, new researchprograms). The new administration in Washington hasn’t done

much yet in the agricultural area(except some crisis managementaround foot-and-mouth disease) butwe expect that will change soon.While our primary focus will remainon those matters closest to ourresearch mission, we will continue tomonitor other areas of national pol-icy and take action when and howwe can.

NNeeww PPrrooggrraamm AAssssiissttaannttIn June we hired Brise Tencer as apart-time Program Assistant. She isactually trained in agricultural poli-cy, and will be finishing her Master’s

Degree at the Monterey Institute for International Studies thisFall. We are very glad to have her on board and learning the ropes.

BBiiootteecchhnnoollooggyy ppoolliiccyy In March the Board of Directors adopted a new policy statement(previewed in our last Information Bulletin) on biotechnology.Mark has continued his service on USDA’s Advisory Committeeon Agricultural Biotechnology (ACAB), which has met inWashington, DC twice so far this year. ACAB’s 38 members havenot been able to agree on very much. However, the committeerecently adopted a position paper on revitalizing the public plant-breeding programs that have withered in the last decade as molec-ular plant breeding in the private sector has dominated the field.This is an important development that could have significant impactsdown the road. The paper will be posted athttp://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/acab/meetings/acab mtg_8-01.html, or you can call MarkLipson at OFRF for a copy.

The ACAB continues to struggle and argue about the com-plex questions related to “gene flow” and trace levels of GMO

SCOAR facilitators Kimberly Stoner and MarkLipson shown leading the SCOAR InauguralAssembly in Pacific Grove, January 2001. NickMaravell (not shown) co-facilitated the meeting.

Participating members of the SCOAR InauguralAssembly. The 100 attendees included farmers,researchers, information specialists and others.

9S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

As an organic farmer and the president of the OrganicFarming Research Foundation, I just want to extend apersonal, very enthusiastic and warm welcome to you

all for coming here. You are making history today and tomor-row, embarking on an extremely revolutionary act and it’s adarn good thing. Our task before us is nothing less than toframe a new agenda of research, not just to support organicfarming and organic farmers, but also to accompany a wholenew vision of agriculture for the next century, which will gaindominance in the next century. That is a vision of agriculturebased on ecological principles, agroecology.

It is absolutely vital for us not to allow new resources devot-ed to organic agricultural research to be squandered just oninput substitution and organic certification standard compli-ance, and continue to reside within the paradigm of industrialagriculture. Our mission is far greater than that. It is vitallyimportant that we reach far and achieve building a foundationfor really ecological agricultural research. As we do so we needto keep in mind that we are prioritizing how we address ourlimited resources in beginning this process.

At the Organic Farming Research Foundation, we dothis by asking farmers with our surveys. It is reallyimportant, I want to point out, that as well as asking

for research on practical matters such as controlling weedswithout chemicals, the organic farmers that OFRF has sur-veyed have stressed over and over again, value-oriented, sys-tems-approach questions like, “What are the effects of variousmanagement practices like crop rotation, soil amendment useand tillage regimes on soil quality? And the ecological factorsof the microbes in the soil?” And in turn, “What effects dothese have on the nutritional value of the produce that we pro-duce? And on the abilities of our crop plants to withstandpressures of insects and pathogens?” So it’s important for us tokeep an eye on the big picture, and in addition to prioritizinglike that it’s important for us to consider the methods with

which we conduct research, because in going for the big pic-ture, the interconnections of an ecological examination ofagroecosystems, it is probably very important for us to leavebehind a lot of the reductionist, simplistic approaches tomethods and experimental design and probably pave newpathways in methods and the ways we measure and evaluateour data as well.

The settings in which we conduct our research are veryimportant, since organic farms operate very differently in theecological sense compared to the farms of the industrial para-digm. They have to be studied in an appropriate setting, whichis on certified organic farms. We can’t expect to learn aboutorganic farming on farms that have been subjected to industri-al practices of soluble salt fertilizers and toxic technology.

Lastly, it is really important that we adhere to holistic andfar-reaching methods of evaluating the results that wehave, far more reliance on interdisciplinary approach

and different and more diverse methods of evaluating theeffects, because we are here to not only produce more organicbushels of wheat per acre, but also to produce better soils andbetter communities and more stable and secure families on thelandscape. So biological diversity and things like that are thekinds of things we’re going to be measuring, as well as produc-tivity.

So it is a wonderful opportunity that we have. I invite you toapproach this work with tremendous dedication and sense ofpurpose, face the obstacles that lie before us with a lot ofcourage, and celebrate the accomplishments that we’re goingto see with a lot of joy. This is a very important and goodthing that we are doing. Thank you for coming.

OOppeenniinngg ssttaatteemmeenntt bbyy WWooooddyy DDeerryycckkxxttoo SSCCOOAARR’’ss IInnaauugguurraall AAsssseemmbbllyy,, JJaannuuaarryy 2233--2244 iinn PPaacciiffiicc GGrroovvee,, CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa..

Woody Deryckx, OFRF past president, is a certified organicfarmer in Malin, OR, and serves as Executive Director of theKlamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation. Woody also serves as amember of the SCOAR project Steering Committee.

contamination in seeds, crops and handling channels. The seedtrade representatives are looking for endorsement of a tolerancefor “adventitious presence” of GMOs in non-GMO seed, of atleast 1% and perhaps as much as 5%. The international shippersof grain products are asking for some type of standard to allowtrace levels of GMOs in non-GMO grain. Organic growers andprocessors are mostly feeling that they are between a rock and ahard place: the process-based language of the National Organic

Program requires that GMOs not be used, but even so there arebuyers in Europe and elsewhere that insist on zero-presence ofGMOs, even if the farmer did not use them. The organic indus-try is mostly opposed to establishing allowances for the presenceof GMOs, feeling that this will remove responsibility of theGMO manufacturers for contamination that their products arecausing. Look for this to be a hot issue in the future. ■

Technical Program Notes


State of the States: Organic Farming Systems Research atLand Grant Institutions 2000-2001, was released by OFRFearlier this year. Response to the report has varied from enthusi-asm at having a clearly defined starting point, to dissatisfaction atperceived inaccuracies or omissions. We intend to update the pub-lication as the quantity of information warrants; in the meantime,this column will provide immediate corrections, additions, andupdates on the organic farming resources listed in the full report(available through our website or by contacting our office).

We remain interested in learning about any organic farmingresearch, extension, or educational effort being conducted anywherein the world, whether or not it is part of the U.S. land grant system.We encourage readers to tell us about projects not listed here or inthe full report. In the future, we may expand the scope of this reportto include private institutions, state and community colleges, NativeAmerican colleges, and/or international research entities.

What countsIn the report, we focused on research, extension, and educa-

tional activities that had identifiable organic content. Someresearchers took issue with this narrow focus and described howtheir work, though not always 100% organic, could still benefitorganic farmers.

An article printed in Maine's Bangor Daily News quotedUniversity of Maine weed scientist Eric Gallandt as saying,"There are a lot of university projects out there that may not nec-essarily be primarily for organic growers, but certainly the researchcan be used and will benefit the organic community."

R. Ford Denison, director of the Long-Term Research onAgricultural Systems project (LTRAS) housed at the Universityof California--Davis, provides the following examples of suchwork: "The discovery that wild potatoes produce aphid alarmpheromone when injured doesn't immediately help either conven-tional or organic farmers, but this information could be used todevelop aphid-resistant cultivars...Among my most importantcurrent research is trying to figure out what controls the evolutionof rhizobia towards higher or lower nitrogen fixation rates.Neither conventional nor organic farmers would benefit immedi-ately by reading my current work on the topic, but this work sug-gests that 1) rhizobia may be working at only a fraction of theirpotential, 2) it may be possible to breed legumes that selectivelyfavor better rhizobial strains."

Practical concerns arise when one sets aside the criteria thatwe used of "work presented in an organic context" and attemptsto document all research that may possibly be useful to organicproducers. Undoubtedly, much work on cover cropping, rotations,green manures, and biological control can be applied to organicfarming systems. But our task was not to compile a compendiumof work that might possibly be used by organic farmers, it was tospecifically identify work being done in an organic context. What

kind of criteria might we use if we were to try to do a more gen-eral survey of research with possible value to organic growers?

Denison has some ideas on this point as well, suggesting fourcategories of research:

1) farmer-ready research most relevant to organic farms;2) farmer-ready research most relevant to conventional farms;3) farmer-ready research equally relevant to conventional and

organic farms;4) basic research.

“Only a fraction of important agricultural research is farmer-ready,” Denison adds, “in the sense that the average farmer canread the paper and immediately apply it. It is unfair to comparefarmer-ready research targeted at organic farmers with the total ofthe other three categories."

We appreciate researchers from Maine and California bring-ing up these concerns and invite other comments on this issue.

Research, production: A long-term compar-ison study was initiated in 1975 by agrono-mist Warren Sahs. Originally a comparison

between 4-year rotations and continuous corn, the 4-year rotationwas managed either conventionally, with chemical fertilizer only,or organically with cow manure only. The trial has been managedby agronomist and professor Charles Francis since 1985. Therotation treatments have been modified over the course of theexperiment. The crop sequence in the rotations varies dependingon system management. Weed counts were taken over a course offive years and weeds were found to cycle along with the crops inthe rotation. Heavy foxtail growth in the corn years was almostentirely controlled with fall planting of wheat and was absent dur-ing the soybean year. Half of the 15-acre experiment, or 7 ½ acres,are managed organically though not certified because of the use ofchemicals in the conventional plots. Contact Charles Francis,Dept. of Agronomy, 225 Keim Hall, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE68583-0910; phone 402-472-1581; e-mail [email protected].

Research, economic/consumer: Part of theRutgers Extension crop budget websiteincludes an interactive "Smart Form" that

allows growers to enter their variable and fixed costs of productionand their receipts to calculate net returns for each crop. Organic isone of the three production methods that can be selected on theform: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~farmmgmt/ne-budgets/SmartForm.html

Research and funding source: In 1997, AnuRangarajan of Cornell's Dept. ofHorticulture formed an organic advisory

council to advise the university on organic research needs, struc-

State of the States Update

by Jane Sooby, Technical Program Coordinator

NEBRASKA

Omissions:

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

11S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

tured on the model of a commodity advisory group. A privatedonation to Cornell professor of horticulture Ian Merwin andRangarajan has enabled them to organize and fund a competitivegrants program for the past two years to support organic farmingresearch in New York state. $40,000 was disbursed in 2000 and$45,000 in 2001. Funding is open to Cornell faculty, students,staff, extension educators, and New York farmers, with 25% of thetotal reserved to fund student-initiated or -led projects. Theresults of the funded projects will be posted on the web and havebeen printed in a booklet, "Summary reports for New Yorkresearch projects in organic agriculture." Contact Ian Merwin,phone 607-255-1777, e-mail [email protected], or AnuRangarajan, phone 607-255-1780, e-mail [email protected].

The Cornell student farm, Dilmun Hill, isnot certified organic by the NortheastOrganic Farming Association-New York.

Max Shane is the manager of the WesternColorado Research Station at Rogers Mesa,rather than Rick Zimmerman as reported,

and Al Gaus is no longer with the station. Rick Zimmerman willbe taking over the organic fruit project started by Gaus.

Research, production: The rotation studydescribed did not include organic plotacreage. The large on-farm study in Moore,

Montana, includes a comparison trial between high-input andlow-input no-till and organic cropping systems. Spring 2000 wasthe first growing season of the trial. The researchers are document-ing changes in agronomic characteristics, soil characteristics, and pestpopulations over time. They are especially wondering if they'll see anincrease in weeds when using low or no inputs versus high inputs ina no-till system. The organically managed plots at the on-farmlocation in Moore total 0.66 acres. A smaller version of the studyis being done at Bozeman, where 0.44 acres are managed organi-cally. Annual reports on the study will be posted on the MontanaState University weed science website at http://www.weeds.montana.edu/research/spm-summary.htm

Education: The Florida A&M UniversityCollege of Engineering Sciences,Technology and Agriculture offered a Small

Farm Organic Workshop on August 25, 2001, with a focus onhands-on, how-to-do-it organic agriculture. For additional infor-mation, contact J. Taylor, Coordinator Small Farm Programs,College of Engineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture,Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida 32307, 850-599-3546. http://www.foginfo.org/events.htm

Extension publication: Suggestions forOrganic Blueberry Production in Georgia,by Gerard Krewer. May 2001. University of

Georgia Fruit Publication 00-1. http://www.smallfruits.org/Recent/00organi.htm.

Research, production: A SARE-funded crop-ping systems trial was initiated at theUniversity of Maine's Rogers Farm in 2000

that compares three organic cover cropping strategies with a conven-tional rotation of broccoli and winter squash. Cover crops are beingmanaged to optimize weed control and reduce reliance on tillage inthe organic systems. Soil quality parameters are also being moni-tored. Farmers participated in planning the organic treatments.Contact Eric Gallandt, weed ecologist, phone 207-581-2933, [email protected].

Research, production: Sites ranging in sizefrom 1 to 7 acres have been identified at 7research stations in Maryland that will be

put through the transition to organic, then be permanently man-aged as organic research sites. An in-house competitive grantsprogram administered by the College of Agriculture and NaturalResources will disburse funds to support organic farming researchat these sites. The sites are representative of the range of climatesand soils found in Maryland, from the Atlantic Ocean to themountains. For more information, contact Tom Simpson,Chesapeake Bay program coordinator, Univ. Maryland, phone301-405-5696, e-mail [email protected], or Jim Hanson, ExtensionEconomist, phone 301-405-8122, e-mail [email protected].

Extension publication: OrganicCertification of Crop Production inMinnesota, by Lisa Gulbranson, revised in

2001, from the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture incooperation with the University of Minnesota Extension Service.May be ordered for $3 plus $2 shipping by calling 800-876-8636,or mail check to University of Minnesota Extension ServiceDistribution Center, University of Minnesota, 1420 EcklesAvenue, St. Paul, MN 55108-6069. Checks payable to Universityof Minnesota; state residents, add 7% sales tax.http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/DC7202.html. "This 40-page publication is a detailed and com-prehensive description of the organic certification process.Although the information is specific to Minnesota, the conceptsare applicable across the region."

Extension publication: Organic VegetableIPM Guide, by Pat Harris, James H. Jarratt,Frank Killebrew, John D. Byrd, Jr., and Rick

Snyder. Feb. 2001. http://msucares.com/pubs/pub2036.htm.

Researchers Carol Miles and MartinNicholson at the Washington StateUniversity Vancouver Research and

Extension Unit gained certification on 2.1 acres for vegetable cropresearch. The land is certified by the Washington StateDepartment of Agriculture. Carol Miles, phone 360-576-6030, e-mail [email protected], website http://agsyst.wsu.edu. ■

COLORADO

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

MARYLAND

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI

MONTANA

NEW YORK

Errors:

New material:

MAINE

WASHINGTON


Wes Jackson, in an essay printed in Meetingthe Expectations of the Land, quotesWendell Berry describing the harmony of

agriculture as similar to “...the craft of the muddaubers which, as they trowel mud into their nestwalls, hum to it, or at it, communicating a vibrationthat makes it easier to work, thus mastering theirmaterial by a kind of song.”

When talking to Ron Rosmann recently about hisorganic farm in Iowa and his history in the movement of organicagriculture, I could not help but think of the testimonial, “mas-tering their material by a kind of song” — a graceful and fittingdescription of Ron’s approach to farming.

Growing up on the same farm that he now manages, Ronwatched as his father experimented with organic practices such ascrop rotation and diversity. After college, when Ron took to farm-ing himself, he sensed that organic was the right way to farm. Butwhen he began looking into alternative growing practices for hissoybeans in 1983, he was initially afraid of the word “organic.” Atthat point, there was not much information on such practices,although one of the best resources he found at the time was theNebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society.

As a founding member of the Practical Farmers of Iowa in1986, a group formed with the purpose of doing research on thefarm, Ron explained that at the time, “organic” meant a “narrow”approach to farming and it was considered “off the wall.” A long timefriend, farmer and neighbor of Ron’s, Denise O’Brien says, “A lotof people were skeptical of Ron in those days. When you growup in a rural community and you start to do something different,people think you are radical and might not respect you. It’schanging now because he’s been farming successfully for a longtime and has gained some credibility in his community.”

Ron has come a long way since then, and now runs, with hiswife, Maria and three sons, a successful 600-acre certified organicfarm in Shelby County, growing a variety of crops from corn, oatsand soybeans to rye, barley and turnips. Ron and Maria also run acow-calf operation of 90 cows (Red Angus and Simmiental cross)and are involved in both ends of the meat processing business. Ronis currently working on getting their chickens certified organic andhe identifies the next challenge as “working to get the hogs certified.”

There have been a number of struggles and challenges as afarmer — one in particular particular is locating markets for hisbeef and crops. “There was a lack of markets in the early days,”said Ron. “I was one of the first ten members of the HeartlandOrganic Marketing Cooperative in 1993 and we were marketingsoybeans at that time.” Currently Ron and Maria are selling theirbeef under the Rosmann Family Farms label in Des Moines andsurrounding regions of Iowa, emphasizing the importance of localfood consumption.

Ron’s success as an organic farmer can be seen in some of hisdistinctive growing practices. He explained that they use a formof no-till farming called ridge tillage. They have experimentedwith randomized, replicated trials on their farm and found thatthe results are similar in each: there are 7-10 times fewer weedsin the no-till beds. Another unique strategy is allowing the cowsto forage on the greens and bulbs of turnips that are grown as acover crop—which serve as an effective feed source when the pas-tures are losing their steam. Also, in their cow-calf operation, theRosmanns fervently support the use of rotational grazing.

As a pioneer organic farmer and a leader in the preservationof small family farms, Ron emphasizes the importance of talkingto other farmers and gaining more knowledge and experiencewith cultivation and management issues.

Ron identifies his parents as the source of inspiration for hisfarming and his leadership in the organic agriculture movement.“We were brought up feeling that we had a social responsibility. Myfather owned 800 acres and rented out parts of that land to begin-ning farmers in the community. My father didn’t have to do that, buthe did.”

Ron has served on the OFRF Board since 1997. As thenewly elected president of OFRF, Ron’s leadership and guidancewill continue to have an impact on organic agricultural systemsand research. As Ron explained to me, he “hopes to change main-stream agriculture and continue to support the small familyfarmer.” ■

Ron Rosmann, th i rd generat ionfarmer, and st i l l a p ioneerby Melissa Matthewson

Left: RonRosmann, (stand-ing with arms fold-ed) regularly openshis farm to visitorsthrough field days,which are very popular and well-attended.

Boa

rd m

embe

r pr

ofile

Right: Ron &MariaRosmannFamily Farmsis on 600acres of rollingland in westcentral Iowa.

RESEARCH REVIEW

13S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

Berea College, a small liberal artscollege in eastern Kentucky, oper-ates a College Farm comprised of

200 acres of row crops, 400 acres of pas-ture and hay land, and a greenhouse andgarden area that includes five acres of cer-tified organic farmland and two green-houses. The greenhouses produce orna-mentals and vegetables, which are soldlocally to support educational activities.The farm produces salad greens year-round and fruits, vegetables, herbs, andflowers for a 35-member community-sup-ported agriculture (CSA) program duringthe summer months. The College Farmprogram averages 100 student majors eachyear.

In the fall of 1998, students developedan on-campus pilot food residuals collec-

tion and composting program. The pri-mary goals of the project were to reducewaste, generate compost and to improvethe overall sustainability of the campus.Additional objectives included measuringthe value of compost as a heat resource forthe on-campus greenhouses, and assessingthe compost’s value as material for a seed-starting mix for the farm operation.

The collection systemThe Berea College food service facilityfeeds about 1,200 students during the falland spring semesters and about 200 dur-ing the summer session. The estimatedamount of pre-consumer waste generatedper capita is about one-quarter pound perday.

Food collection begins with two 40-gal-

Col lege farm turns food waste into mult i -purpose resourceFood residuals are an under-utilized resource as a compost feedstock, and most arehandled as a waste product and sent to landfills. On-site composting of food wastes,especially where farm or garden facilities exist close by, are a key means of closingenergy and resource loops. In 1998 Sean Clark, Greenhouse Manager at BereaCollege, spearheaded an on-campus food residuals composting program, and evalu-ated several usage scenarios of the finished product to help determine values of thisresource to the College and the College Farm. —EW

lon plastic buckets placed in the campuskitchen—one in the preparation area andone next to the washing sink. Kitchenworkers put all food waste in the bucketswhile trying to minimize the amount ofnon-organic waste such as plastic wrap-pers and gloves. Buckets are collectedevery day, emptied at the gardens andgreenhouse, washed, and returned to thekitchen.

Over the course of a year the estimatedyield is over 30 tons (wet weight) from thekitchen facility. Peelings, seeds, andbruised or spoiled produce typically com-prise a significant portion of the wastecollected. Considerable amounts of grainproducts, such as bread, pasta, and rice,that are prepared but not distributed tostudents, are also found in the waste.

Processing the wasteOnce the food waste is collected it has anumber of uses in the gardens and green-house area including:

1) a source of heat in a greenhouse dur-ing the composting process;

2) a feed for the farm’s small livestock(chickens, ducks, and geese);

3) a raw material for compost that ishigh in nitrogen and water; and

4) a soil amendment or potting mixsubstitute after the composting process iscompleted.

Summer regime. During warmermonths the food waste is either fed to

...and process compost made from food waste andhay to be used in potting mix.

DEMONSTRATION & RESEARCH ✦✦ COMPOSTING FOOD RESIDUALS

Project leader: Sean Clark, Assistant Professor and Greenhouse Manager, Department ofAgriculture and Natural Resources, Berea College, Berea, Kentucky ✦ OFRF support: $1,100 ✦Project No. 99-40 ✦ Additional support provided by: Appalachian College Association ✦Project period: 1999 ✦ Reported: April 2000

Students at Berea College add collected food waste tospoiled hay for composting...


Energy Savings. Following the initiationof the compost-supplemented heatingoperation in the experimental greenhousein mid-January, analysis of fuel useshowed that fuel use in the experimentalgreenhouse supplemented with compost-generated heat was less than 5% of that inthe control greenhouse (Fig. 1).

The thermostat in the experimentalgreenhouse was set at 32°F (0°C) to pre-vent snow or ice accumulation on theglass or frost formation on the plantswhile the composting experiment was inprogress (mid-January through earlyMay). During this period the experimen-tal greenhouse used only 136 m3 of natu-

ral gas while the control greenhouse usedover 4000 m3. Air temperatures in theexperimental greenhouse often dropped tonear freezing, especially at sunrise, butsoil temperatures in the flats on tablesabove the active compost piles could bemaintained high enough for rapid seedgermination (data not shown). And oncegermination had occurred the plantscould tolerate air temperatures just abovefreezing.

Potting Mix TrialsFinished compost was evaluated as a par-tial and full substitute for commercial

process. Once a compost pile is of sufficientsize (2-3 weeks) it is turned and moved intothe larger greenhouse area.

Greenhouse Heating ExperimentsMetal-mesh tables are placed over thepiles and seeded planting flats are then seton the tables. The heat generated duringthe composting process, as well as thatproduced metabolically by the poultry,serves as a fossil fuel substitute in promot-ing seed germination and plant growth. Aback-up heating system using natural gasis used only rarely when the greenhousetemperature drops to 32°F (0°C).

Estimating baseline usage. The energysavings from the use of compost-generat-ed heat was estimated by comparing base-line natural gas use during the 1998-1999winter season between the experimentaland control greenhouses. With the ther-mostats of both greenhouses set at 65°F(18°C) from October through December, theexperimental greenhouse, prior to addingsupplemental compost heat, used 20% lessfuel than the control, when both green-houses were heated solely by natural gas.We therefore determined that the experi-mental greenhouse would normally useabout 80% of the fuel used by the control.

mixed poultry flocks or composted direct-ly. The poultry are maintained in mobilebottomless cages (“chicken tractors”) orrotationally grazed using portable electricfencing. For composting, the food waste ismixed with dry materials that are high incarbon such as straw, wood shavings, orlandscape wastes from campus.

Each day the food waste is layered withstraw, leaves, or wood shavings. Once thepiles are 5-7 feet wide at the base and 2-3feet high, the temperatures are monitoredand the piles turned with a front-endloader as necessary to reach and maintaintemperatures of 150°F or more for severalweeks. Water is added as needed duringthe process but the food waste usuallycontains adequate moisture to reach hightemperatures. After the heating periodthe piles are allowed to cool and cure forseveral months with occasional turningand watering.

Winter regime. During colder months,compost and poultry are moved into oneof the glass greenhouses. An areaapproximately 500 ft.2 is fenced off forthe poultry providing about 15 ft.2 perbird. Food waste is brought to this area tofeed the poultry and build the compostpiles. The amount delivered is far in excessof what the birds can eat so only a smallfraction is actually processed through thebirds. However the birds help to mix andstir the carbonaceous materials in with thefood which facilitates the composting

Dec/Jan 980 2124Jan/Feb 20 1093Feb/Mar 108 1351Mar/Apr 8 1541Apr/May 0 130

Oct

/Nov

Nov

/Dec

Dec

/Jan

Jan/

Feb

Feb/

Mar

Mar

/Apr

Apr/

May

CompostControl

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Nat

ura

l ga

s u

se (

cub

ic m

eter

s)

Fig. 1. Natural gas use during the 1998-1999 winter in the experimentalgreenhouse heated by composting (compost) and the adjacent green-house heated with natural gas fuel (control). The composting operationin the experimental greenhouse began in mid-January, 1999.

Fuel use in the experimental greenhouse supplemented with

compost-generated heat was less than

5% of that in the control greenhouse.

Fig 2. Leaf lengths of lettuce grown in mixtures of commercial pottingmix (pm) and compost (cpst) made of food waste from Berea Collegefood service. Leaf lengths were measured 36 days after planting. N = 5replicates for the 5 treatments; ANOVA on ranked data and Student-Newman-Keuls test for mean separation, P < 0.05.

0102030405060708090

100%

pm

75%

pm/2

5% cp

st

50%

pm/5

0% cp

st

25%

pm/7

5% cp

st

100%

cpst

Treatments

Mea

n l

eaf

len

gth

s (c

m

ab

c

dd

15S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

potting mix in two replicated trials in let-tuce. The first trial evaluated the relativeeffects of five “soil” treatments, represent-ing different mixtures of commercial pot-ting mix and compost, on the germinationand growth of lettuce (Green Bibb).Results showed that mixtures with up to75% compost had no significant effect onpercent germination or germination ratesbut that 100% compost resulted in slowergermination. Lettuce growth, measured asleaf lengths 36 days after planting, showedthat any amount of compost substitutedfor the commercial potting mix improvedgrowth. Moreover, the treatment with75% compost and 25% commercial pot-ting mix demonstrated the fastest growthover the 36-day period (Fig. 2).

In the second trial only three treatmentswere assessed and ‘Red Romaine’ was usedas the test-lettuce variety. This trial alsodemonstrated that the use of 100% com-post resulted in slower germination thaneither a potting mix-compost mixture or100% potting mix. Further, it demonstrat-ed that a 50%/50% mixture of commercial

potting mix and compost or the use of100% compost resulted in faster lettucegrowth, measured 37 days after planting.

Overall, these trials indicate that the useof 100% compost as a potting mix substi-tute will result in slower, and perhapsslightly lower, germination due to variabletexture, which apparently leads to incon-sistent soil-to-seed contact or unevenwetting. However, as a media for plantgrowth, the compost is superior to thecommercial potting mix. Results suggestthat substituting compost for 50-75% ofcommercial potting mix should result inimproved plant growth without reduc-tions in percent germination or germina-tion rates.

Using the CompostThe compost has been used as a soilamendment to build fertility in the gardenarea and as a substitute for purchasedcommercial potting mix for starting veg-etable transplants. The nutrient composi-tion is comparable to commercial com-posts on the market (Table 1). Based on

the estimated amounts of food waste gen-erated at Berea College, the compost pro-duced (=5 tons per year) should be ade-quate to replace all nutrients currentlyexported from the gardens as vegetables,fruits, and flowers, thus eliminating theneed to purchase manure, compost, or fer-tilizer.

EconomicsThe economics of collecting, composting,and using the food waste from BereaCollege food service was initially assessedbased on costs of acquiring and processingthe waste and the value of the nutrientsobtained. The costs included labor paid at$7.00 per hour and equipment (40-gallon,plastic buckets, dolly, and pitch fork)depreciated over 5 years. The value wasdetermined based on plant-macronutrientcontent (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,sulfur, calcium, and magnesium) with all

Right:Representative flatsfrom the bibb lettucetrial showing differences amongthe five potting mix(pm) and compost(cpst) seed startingtreatments. Frontrow, left to right,these are:

ElementContent

(%)Pounds of

Nutrients/Ton

Nitrogen (N)

9.6

Phosphorus (P)

Potassium (K)

Sulfur (S)

Magnesium (Mg)

2.38

0.62

1.13

0.40

0.48

47.6

12.4

22.6

8.0

Table 1. Nutrient composition of finished com-post (on a dry-weight basis) produced fromBerea College pre-consumer, food-servicewaste, 1998-1999.

Above:Planted flats placed above an active compostpile in the greenhouse for germination.Floating row cover is placed over the top tokeep in the compost-generated heat.

The treatment with 75% compost and 25% commercial

potting mix demonstrated the fastest growth over the

36-day period.

Substituting compost for 50-75% of commercial potting mix

should result in improved plant growth without reductions in

percent germination or germination rates.

1)100% pm;2) 75% pm/25% cpst; 3) 100% cpst;

4) 50% pm/50% cpst; 5) 25% pm/75% cpst

In Context


macronutrients assumed to have equalvalue. It was also assumed that one-thirdof the nitrogen would be lost during thecomposting process, and this amount wassubtracted from the estimated total nutri-ent content.

The estimated cost for the plantmacronutrients collected was $1.76 perpound. If the savings in natural gas use arefactored into the equation the cost-benefitanalysis for the collection, composting,and use of the food waste is extremelyfavorable. The use of the compost heatingsystem in the experimental greenhousesaved over $900 in fuel costs from mid-January to early May. This exceeds thetotal food-waste collection costs for anentire year by over $100. Thus, the collec-tion of the food-waste as a source of plantnutrients is essentially free when the sav-ings in natural gas use are considered.Additional benefits not factored into thisanalysis include the improvements to soiltilth from compost applications and thereduction in solid waste generation atBerea College.

❈

A lowdown on food residualsBioCycle magazine has collected data on trends in food residuals composting

for more than five years. Their food residuals “census” distinguishes between on-siteand off-site projects—on-site projects are not as highly regulated, and tend to process100 tons or less per year, whereas off-site projects may process in the thousands oftons. In 1995, fifty-eight food residuals composting projects were counted in the US,and by 1999 this number had increased to 250, split just about in half between on-site and off-site programs. BioCycle cites a changing regulatory climate, the piggy-backing of food residuals onto existing yard-trimming sites and a growing market forcompost as among the reasons for this increase.

Food waste was collected at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Australia, totaling aprojected 4-5,000 metric tons. It is increasingly common for schools, prisons, hospi-tals, restaurants, conference centers, and public event organizers to gather foodwastes for processing into compost.

For institutional leaders interested in turning food residuals into a compostresource, the regulatory climate in some states can be quite favorable. In particular,regulations tend to be less stringent for sites taking only pre-consumer materials. Inother cases, on-site projects at institutions and restaurants can fall into an on-site“exemption” status. Some states impose a quantity limit within this category.

There is a also a good web page that contains a state-by-state summary of per-mits and requirements for establishing a composting facility and marketing compost.For example, for California, the CA Integrated Waste Management Board contact islisted with a brief description of current regulations. Each state is listed with a link tothat description and contact. The link is: http://www.recycle.cc/compostregs.htm.

For further details onfood residuals, one cansubscribe to BioCycle, orrefer to their website:www.biocycle.net for relat-ed articles. In general, wehighly recommend thispublication for the latestinformation on the com-post industry--where it istoday, and where it’s headed.—EW, JS, & MM

Project update, Spring 2001: Adding post-consumer content to the mix

Berea College’s food residuals pilot composting project has been so successful,organizers have now added post-consumer waste recovery to the program. Thecafeteria’s foodservice contractor, Marriott Corporation, while originally reluc-tant, has been very cooperative. They’ve agreed, for example, to order condiments(ketchup, mustard, creamer, etc.) in bulk rather than in packets, to reduce overallwaste and the potential for contamination of the post-consumer food residualstream.

The program is now processing a total of 700-800 lbs of food wastes per day,about 45% of which is pre-consumer and 55% post-consumer—which includesboth food wastes and napkins. The number of kitchen staff has remained thesame. While it remains a challenge to get campus diners to change their disposalpractices, signage and educational efforts are making headway. Overall, the pro-gram processes an estimated 100 tons of food waste per year.

Berea College student using a post-consumerfood-waste collection bin in the school cafeteria.

Sean Clark’s complete project report:Development of a biologically integratedfood waste composting system (Project#99-40) is available from OFRF bymail or by visiting our website atwww.ofrf.org. The complete report is 8pages, including 5 figures, 1 table andreferences.

BioCycle (JG Press, Emmaus,PA, 610-967-4135 orwww.biocycle.net). Annualsubscriptions for 12 issuesare $69.

BioCycle also sponsors east,midwest and west coastconferences.

RESEARCH REVIEW

17S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

The goal of this project was todetermine whether an unfavorablebalance of potassium (K), sodium

(Na), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg)in the soil might be limiting vegetableproduction on some organic farms in thesoutheastern U.S.

In Virginia and other southeasternstates, many cultivated soils show Ca basesaturation below Albrecht’s recommendedoptimal ratio of 65%, with Mg and/or Kwell above their recommended ranges.This imbalance is believed to “tighten” thesoil and degrade crumb structure, hamperaeration and drainage, cause surface crust-ing and hardpans, inhibit beneficial soilorganisms and humus formation, aggra-vate weed, pest and disease problems, andgenerally harm crop and livestock health.Applications of high calcium lime or gyp-sum to restore the balance are claimed tocorrect these problems; to enhance soilbiological activity and organic matter lev-els; to increase availability of phosphorus

(P), nitrogen (N) and other nutrients; andto improve produce flavor, nutritionalvalue and shelf life.

Many soil scientists, including someproponents of organic and sustainableagriculture, reject the base saturation ratioapproach to soil management as unneces-sary and potentially wasteful1,2,3 (alsocommunicated to me in 1999 byRaymond Weil, Professor of soil scienceat the University of Maryland). They citea lack of evidence that Ca amendmentsbenefit either crop yields or soil physicalproperties sufficiently to justify the costs,except when liming is required to correctsoil pH. Farm consultants who use theAlbrecht formula have not produced hardevidence in the form of replicated fieldtrials, yet they report a high degree ofgrower satisfaction with application ofthis approach to their farms4,5,6. This alsohas been communicated to me byVirginia-based agricultural consultantsCarl Luebben and Reid Putney.

Materials and MethodsReplicated field trials were established in1998 at five organic vegetable farms inVirginia and eastern Tennessee. Low-Caand high-Ca treatments were replicatedthree times at each site. Plots receivedfour experimental amendment applica-tions between spring 1998 and spring2000. Plots measured at least 20 ft. x 30ft., except at Site 2, where the small scaleof operation necessitated a plot size of 10ft. x 25 ft. Table 1 provides a descriptionof each site.

Experimental amendments applied ateach site and base saturation ratios forlow-Ca and high-Ca treatments areshown in Table 2.

Other mineral amendments wereapplied equally to both treatments as fol-lows: Borax was applied at 5 lb/acre atSites 1 (1998) and 4 (1998 and 2000) toremedy a low boron (B) level. Greensandwas applied at 1,040 lb/acre at Site 1 infall 1999 after both soil and tomato foliartests showed low K. Rock phosphate wasapplied at 500 lb/acre at Sites 1, 2, 3 and4 in 1998 in the belief that existing soil P

Balancing soil nutrients in organic vegetable production systems: Testing Albrecht’s base saturation theory in southeastern soils William Albrecht was a soil scientist at the University of Missouri in the 1920s-50swhose theories on soil nutrient balancing are strongly influential in ecological agricul-ture today. Clay and humus particles in soil carry a negative electrical charge, whichcan attract and hold positively charged atoms (cations) on their surfaces. The cationexchange capacity (CEC) of a soil measures the strength of negative charge in the soiland represents the amount of cations it can carry. Cations such as calcium (Ca), mag-nesium (Mg), potassium (K), sodium (Na), and hydrogen (H) are important crop nutri-ents and also influence soil’s physical properties. Ca, Mg, K, and Na are the mostcommon cations in most soil systems and are referred to as the “base cations.”Albrecht theorized that there is an optimum base saturation ratio, or proportion of sitesoccupied by these cations, for ideal crop yields and soil structure. Albrecht’s recom-mended ratio was 60-75% Ca, 10-15% Mg, 2-5% K, 0.5-3% Na, and about 10-15%H. Agronomist Neal Kinsey is one of the best-known advocates of Albrecht’s nutrientbalancing system today. In this study, Mark Schonbeck experimented with changingthe base saturation ratios at five organic on-farm research sites and measured theeffects on crop production, quality, and numerous soil traits. —JS

Project leader: Mark Schonbeck, Virginia Association for Biological Farming, Floyd, VA ✦Cooperating farms: Dayspring Farm, Screech Owl Farm, Seven Springs Farm, Abundant DawnFarm, Holley Creek Farm ✦ OFRF support: $2,000 (1998); $5,600 (1999); $6,000 (2000) ✦Report No(s). 98-16, 99-05, 99-40 ✦ Reported: December 2000 Additional support provid-ed by: Southern Region SARE Producer Grant Program, Soil Foodweb, Inc. ✦Project period: 1998-2000

Above: Field day at Dayspring Farm,Cologne, VA (Site 1). Mark Schonbeckdiscusses the use of a heavy-duty broadfork (or chisel plow at the farmscale) and deep-rooted crops to relievea hardpan that has not responded tocation nutrient balancing alone.

ON-FARM TRIALS ✦✦ SOIL NUTRIENT BALANCING


levels were below optimum. Since then,however, we learned that a P-1 level of20-25 ppm may be sufficient7.

At all sites, organic matter manage-ment, compost and organic fertilizerapplications, and tillage were conductedaccording to growers’ normal practices.

During the 2000 season, broccoli andother brassicas were grown at Sites 1, 2and 3, and tomatoes were grown at Site 5.At Site 4, the plots were divided into 4beds, which have been in a 4-year rotationof onions, brassicas, tomatoes and wintersquash since 1998.

Soil analyses were conducted in springof 2000. For each plot, 8 cores (0-6”)

were taken and mixed thoroughly in aclean bucket. Subsamples were used todetermine soil organic matter, pH, cationexchange capacity, active (permanganate-oxidizable) organic matter, and majornutrients. Additional samples (8 cores perplot, 0-3” depth, pooled) were submittedfor a complete soil foodweb analysisincluding active and total bacteria; activeand total fungi; amoeboid, flagellate andciliate protozoa; and beneficial (micro-

bial-feeding) and pest (root-feeding)nematodes (Soil Foodweb, Inc., Corvallis,OR). The standard soil analysis wasrepeated in fall of 2000.

The following properties were meas-ured in each plot in May-June and againin September-October, 2000: soilstrength, infiltration rate, bulk density,moisture-holding capacity and soil respi-ration. Earthworm populations wererecorded in June and September at Site 4.

Foliage samples were collected frombroccoli at the mid-growth stage at Sites1-4 and from tomato at early fruit set atSites 4 and 5 and submitted for nutrientanalysis. Total soluble solids (Brix) was

measured with a hand-held refractometerfor stalks of broccoli side-heads (5 sam-ples per plot) at Sites 1, 3 and 4, and fortomato (4 fruits per plot, blended togeth-er) on 2 harvest dates at Site 4. For win-ter squash, shelf life was evaluated at Sites3 and 4 in the 1999 season by storing 10apparently-sound fruit from each plot atroom temperature until early winter.

During the growing season, participat-ing growers took observations on pest,

Site 1.

Dayspring Farm King and Queen Co.,VA

Located in the Tidewater region. The experimental field is on a level, sandy loam with low organic matter andCEC. It has been under organic vegetable production with winter cover cropping since 1997, and had been inhay (grass + alfalfa) for several years prior to that. A strong, persistent hardpan exists between 6 and 12 inchesdepth. It appears to be associated with a long history of conventional agriculture and heavy machinery prior to1990 under previous ownership.

Site 2. Screech Owl Farm Nelson Co., VA

Located in the Blue Ridge foothills. The experiment is on a loam to clay-loam soil, on a ~5% south-facingslope, that has been in organic vegetable production with winter cover crops since 1996. Topsoil organic matterand tilth have been built up, but a moderately strong hardpan persists between 6 and 12 inches, again possiblyresulting from heavy farm machinery traffic under previous ownership.

Site 3. Seven Springs FarmFloyd Co., VA

Located in the Appalachian region, elevation ca. 2,700 ft. The experiment is on a level creek bottom loam withhigh organic matter and fertility. The soil has a high content of river stones, but is well drained and free ofhardpan. It has been in organic/biodynamic vegetable production with winter cover crops since 1995.

Site 4. Abundant Dawn Farm Floyd Co., VA

In the Appalachian region at ca. 2200 ft elevation. The experiment is on a level river bottom loam with physicalproperties similar to Site 3, but with fewer stones and somewhat lower organic matter, P and K levels. The fieldhas been an organically managed homestead garden for at least 12 years.

Site 5. Holley Creek FarmGreene Co., TN

Located in the Nolichuckey River valley. The experiment is on a nearly-level field with a clay to clay-loam soilwith a long history of conventional tobacco production and heavy machinery traffic that depleted organic matterand degraded soil structure. Beginning in fall 1995, it was converted to organic vegetable production with win-ter cover crops, and the use of municipal leaves as mulch. Drainage is somewhat slow, and a severe hardpanpersists at a depth of 4 to 12 inches.

disease and weed problems in the experi-mental plots and recorded any apparenttreatment-related effects.

Marketable and total yields wererecorded in 2000 for broccoli (Sites 1, 2, 3and 4), tomatoes (Sites 4 and 5) and win-ter squash (Site 4). Percent marketableyield was computed as: 100 x (marketableyield)/(total yield). Plantings of Chinesecabbage (Sites 3 and 4) were insufficientfor yield measurements, and onions failedat Site 4 because of root maggots.

Data were subjected to standard statis-tical analyses across sites to evaluate over-all treatment effects. Site-specific trendswere evaluated qualitatively, since replica-tion at a single site (3 reps x 2 treatments)was insufficient for meaningful statisticalanalysis

Results and DiscussionSoil tests verified substantial differencesbetween treatments in cation balance as ofSeptember 2000. Application of Caamendments (gypsum and/or calcitic lime)brought soil base saturation ratios substan-tially closer to the guidelines proposed byDr. William Albrecht. Four applications ofcalcitic lime and/or gypsum, totaling 2000to 3300 lb/acre, lowered Mg base saturationlevels by 4-8%, raised Ca saturation by asimilar amount, and reduced K saturationby about 1% (Table 2).However, when results were averaged

When results were averaged across the 5 study sites, no net

benefits to other soil properties were observed. In particular,

soil physical properties related to tilth showed no apparent

response to the Ca treatment.

Table 1. Descriptions of organic farms providing experimental sites for soil nutrient balancing study,

19S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

across the 5 study sites, no net benefits toother soil properties were observed. Inparticular, soil physical properties relatedto tilth showed no apparent response tothe Ca treatment (Table 2). Soil strengthvalues below 200 psi are considered favor-able to root growth and function, and val-ues above 300 psi generally restrict rootgrowth. Strong hardpans occurred atabout a 6” depth at Sites 1, 2 and 5, result-ing in high maximum soil strength,regardless of treatment. Topsoil bulk den-sities and water infiltration rates at all siteswere generally favorable, and again unaf-fected by treatment.

Whereas the high-Ca treatment had lit-tle effect on soil properties averaged acrossthe five study sites, some trends wereobserved that indicate possible site-spe-cific treatment effects. Summarized here,details are described in the full projectreport.

Soil chemical and biological propertiesshowed no clear benefits from the Catreatment. As expected, Ca amendmentsaugmented soil Ca and reduced Mg, and

gypsum caused a sharp but temporaryincrease in S. However, Ca treatment didnot enhance organic matter or available P(Table 2). Field respiration and activeorganic matter levels were essentially the

same in low-Ca and high-Ca treatments(Table 4). Apparent differences in popu-lations of fungi, bacteria, protozoa, andboth pest and beneficial nematodes weretoo small to indicate a treatment effect.

At Site 4, June earthworm counts were43/sq. ft. in the high-Ca treatment versus27/sq. ft. for low-Ca. However, this trenddid not hold in September: 34 for high-Ca versus 37 for low-Ca.

The high-Ca treatment consistentlyincreased broccoli foliar Ca levels andreduced foliar Mg, but the changes wererelatively small. Notably, foliar Ca levels

Site TreatmentCation amendments

applieda pH OM ppm P-1

1

% base saturation:

S K Mg Ca

2

3

4

5

Low-Ca

High-Ca

Low-Ca

High-Ca

Low-Ca

High-Ca

Low-Ca

Low-Ca

High-Ca

High-Ca

Mean of 5sites:

Low-Ca

High-Ca

spm 500, grn 1040 6.5 1.9 53 5 7.8 18.9 64.7

gps 2000, grn 1040 6.3 2.0 58 5 6.1 11.2 70.9

none 7.0 4.0 45 5 8.0 21.4 70.0

gps 3000 6.9 4.1 39 14 6.7 16.6 74.8

none 6.5 5.7 19 10 6.6 26.7 59.0

gps 2000 6.5 5.6 19 23 6.2 22.9 63.1

dol 1230 6.3 3.3 11 7 3.4 28.1 57.7

cal 1230, gps 1500 6.4 4.6 9 15 3.2 21.0 66.5

dol 2720 6.6 3.8 52 6.5 23.9 63.0

cal 2800 6.7 3.8 61 5.8 16.4 72.8

6.6 3.7 36 8 6.5 23.8 62.9

6.6 4.0 37 14 5.6b 17.6b 69.6b

Table 2. Total amendments applied 1998-spring 2000, and fall 2000 soil test results for low-Ca and high-Ca treatments at each site.

a Figures give lbs/acre: dol=dolomitic limestone; cal=calcitic (high-calcium) limestone; gps=gypsum; spm=sul-po-mag; grn=greensand.b Difference between treatments is statistically significant at the 5% probability level.

were near optimum at all four sites,regardless of treatment. Foliar N, P andK levels were ample, and were not affect-ed by Ca treatment. The high-Ca treat-ment pushed foliar S to very high levels,

almost certainly because of the gypsumused to supply Ca. At Site 1, where thelow-Ca plots received sul-po-mag inspring of 2000, both treatments resultedin extremely high foliar S (>2%).

Tomato foliar tests at Site 4 showedvery high Mg levels, with Ca, N, P and Knear the lower end of their sufficiencyranges (data not shown). At Site 5,tomato foliar Ca was definitely low. Thehigh-Ca treatment enhanced foliar Caand reduced foliar Mg at both sites, butthe changes were fairly small, especially atSite 5. The gypsum applied to high-Ca

Whereas the high-Ca treatment had little effect on soil properties averaged across the five study sites, some

trends were observed that indicate possible site-specific treatment effects.

When soil pH was 6.3 or below, the high-Ca treatment received calcitic limestone and the low-Ca treatment received dolomitic limestone at equalrates. Lime was applied at 500 to 2,000 lb/acre depending on soil pH and CEC. When soil pH was 6.4 or higher, the high-Ca treatment receivedgypsum (500 to 1,000 lb/acre), and the low-Ca treatment received no amendment, with one exception. At Site 1, the low-Ca treatment received sul-po-mag (potassium-magnesium sulfate) at 500 lb/acre in spring of 2000, since K and Mg levels were possibly sub-optimal on this sandy loam soil.


plots raised foliar S levels significantly, butnot to excessive levels.

Tomato foliage samples were takensomewhat later in crop development (earlyfruit set) than recommended by the labora-tory (early flowering). This may haveplayed a role in the apparently low N, Pand K values. However this is probablynot true for Ca, since Ca is not translocat-ed from leaves to fruit as are other nutri-ents8.

Effects of Ca treatment on marketablevegetable yield were inconsistent. In the1999 season, the Ca amendments had lit-tle effect on cabbage or winter squashyields, and seemed to reduce tomato yieldat two sites. In 2000, the high-Ca treat-ment apparently enhanced broccoli yield attwo out of four sites. When data were ana-lyzed across all 4 sites, broccoli yields aver-aged about 11% higher in the Ca-amend-ed plots, and the difference was just signif-icant at the 5% probability level. At site 4,broccoli, tomato and butternut squash allshowed higher average marketable yieldsin the high-Ca treatment. At site 5, yieldswere measured only for a late planting oftomato, which became severely blightedbefore maturity. An earlier tomato plant-ing in the experimental plots gave muchbetter yields.

Several problems were observed in thevegetable crops during the 2000 season.We did not observe any differencesbetween Ca treatments in the severity ofany of these problems.

Percent weed cover was estimated inspring and summer of 2000 at Sites 1 and4. Again, no differences between Ca treat-ments were detected.

The high-Ca treatment did not enhancethe total soluble solids content (Brix—data not shown) of tomato or broccoli, anddid not significantly improve percent mar-ketable yield. Brix values of both cropswere much lower in 2000 than in 1999.This was most likely related to the cool,moist conditions during summer 2000,and not to soil cation balance. Butternutsquash grown in low-Ca and the high-Catreatments showed very similar percentmarketable yield and shelf life.

ConclusionsFindings to date do not support the appli-cation of a single formula for optimum

base saturation ratio to all soils. Instead, asite-specific and resource-conservingapproach to soil cation balancing may bet-ter serve the overall goal of sound nutrientmanagement. Furthermore, base satura-tion ratio is just one component of soilquality, which may be more dramaticallyenhanced by improving the health anddiversity of the soil life.

Results show some benefits to some soils:Mineral amendments or other measuresto adjust soil cation balance may confersome of the following benefits on somebut not all soils that depart from the

Soil strength200 psi at(depth, in.)

Max psi at0-12 inches

Low-Ca

Dry bulkdensity

Moisturecontent (%)

Infiltration(minutes/inch)

High-Ca

L.S.D. 0.05b

6.4 410 1.17 23.4 3.5

6.1 410 1.18 23.2 3.6

0.8 40 0.03 1.0 2-foldc

Table 3. Effects of Ca treatments on soil physical properties.

a Mean across five study sites and three sampling dates (fall 1999, spring and fall 2000), exceptthat soil strength was measured at four sites in spring 2000, and at three sites in fall 2000.

b Least significant difference at 5% probability level. Apparent treatment differences smaller thanthis are considered “not significant,” or likely to have occurred by chance.

c Infiltration data were so variable that a log-transformation was used for statistical analyses. Atwo-fold difference between treatments would be just significant at the 5% probability level.

Active OM,ppm

Respiration,late spring

lbs C/acre-day: early

fall

Microbial biomass, ppm dry soil

Low-Ca

High-Ca

L.S.D. 0.05b

Protozoa,flagellates

1000s pergram soil:Amoebae

Ciliates

Low-Ca

High-Ca

L.SD 0.05b

1,680

1,680

132

35.5

38.0

1.7-foldc

26.8

26.9

4.8

107.2

107.2

2-fold

22.4

21.9

2.8

0.93

1.12

3-fold

28.0

9.7

3.3

4.4

1.6 0.57

0.74

0.65

35

182

190

active total

--Bacteria--

active total

--Fungi--

25.6 24.8 116

22.8 113

11.7 32

Root feeders (pests)total

Nematodes, individuals per gram soil

Table 4. Effects of Ca treatments on soil biological properties.

a Mean across five sites.b Least significant difference at 5% probability level.c Protozoan counts were highly variable; thus data were log-transformed for statistical analysis.

Albrecht formula:

◆ Improved tilth, reduced hardpan,especially on loam or clay with veryhigh K levels;

◆ Higher marketable yields in brassicasand other crops with a high Carequirement.

Claims not supported by results: Limiteddata gathered on foliar nutrient levels,produce quality, and weed, pest and dis-ease pressures, did not support any of thefollowing claims for cation nutrient bal-ancing:

soils in the southeastern U.S. If Mg ishigh, it makes sense to choose high-Calime if the soil’s pH merits liming; con-versely, dolomitic lime should be used onan acid soil with low Mg (<60 ppm or<8% base saturation). However, usinglime to “correct” the base saturation ratioof a nearly-neutral soil may be counter-

productive, as overliming can tie upmicronutrients and possibly inhibit soillife.

Gypsum applications may be appropri-ate on soils that are low in both Ca and S.However, we found extremely high foliarS in broccoli planted after gypsum wasapplied at just 500 lb/acre. Possibleeffects of such high S on the crop are notfully known.

Either lime or gypsum may correct theCa deficiency and aluminum excess of ahighly-acid subsoil (pH <5.0) thatrestricts crop root growth. However,gypsum can cause excessive leaching loss-es of K and Mg from sandy soils, andmust be used with caution on these soils.

There is some evidence that excessivesoil K (>350 ppm, or >8% base saturationon a loam or clay soil) can upset plant

21S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

nutrition and contribute to a deteriorationin crumb structure and tilth. High soil Klevels are fairly common in intensive veg-etable production, both conventional andorganic. In this case, cation balancingmeasures consist primarily in reducinginputs, particularly K-rich materials suchas manure, hay mulch and NPK fertiliz-ers.

Other considerations include the eco-nomic and environmental costs of amend-ment applications to “correct” the soil’sbase saturation ratio. Apparently, about 1-2 tons/acre of either high-Ca lime or gyp-sum must be applied to shift the soil’s basesaturation ratio by 5-10 % (a typical goalon a moderately “out-of-balance” soil).This may cost anywhere from $40 to $300per acre, including shipping and applica-tion. If high-value vegetable crops with ahigh calcium requirement are grown, thisinvestment may pay off on some soils. Forexample, a 10% yield increase in broccolimight fetch an extra $150 per acre if thebroccoli is wholesaled at $0.50/lb. Thiswould pay for the amendment applicationin a year or two. However, growers shouldtry this strategy on a small area to verifybenefits before applying it to the entirefarm. Treating large acreages of hay oragronomic crops with lime or gypsumsimply to adjust base saturation ratio maynot be good economics. It would alsoentail significant environmental costs inthe mining, transport and application ofthe materials.

❈

References

1 Eckert DJ. Soil test interpretations: basiccation saturation ratios and sufficiency lev-els. In: Soil Science Soc. Amer. SpecialPubl. 21, Soil Testing, Sampling,Correlation, Calibration and Interpretation.1987; 53-64.

2 Goldstein W. Cation Balancing: is itBeneficial or Bogus? East Troy, WI:Michael Fields Agricultural Institute; 1990.6 pp.

3 Liebhardt WC. The basic cation saturationratio concept and lime and potassium rec-ommendations on Delaware’s coastal plainsoils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 1981;45:544-549.

4 Kinsey N, Walters C. Neal Kinsey’s Hands-On Agronomy. Kansas City, MO: Acres

USA; 1993. 352 pp.

5 Young G A. A Training Manual for SoilAnalysis Interpretation in NorthernCalifornia. Master’s Thesis, Sonoma StateUniversity;1999. 158 pp. Available throughY&B Agricultural Services, P.O. Box 246,Talmage, CA 95481; tel. 707-485-5121.

6 Zimmer G. Biological Farming. Oral pres-entation to the Acres USA Eco-FarmingConference. 1999.

7 Magdoff F, van Es H. Building Soils forBetter Crops. Burlington, VT: SustainableAgriculture Publications, Hills Building,Room 10, University of Vermont, 05405-0082. 2000.

8 Kirkby EA. Maximizing calcium uptake byplants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1979;10(1-2)):89-113.

◆ Increased availability and crop uptakeof N, P or micronutrients;

◆ Increased crop resistance to pests, dis-eases and environmental stresses;

◆ Fewer weeds;◆ Higher soluble solids (Brix);◆ Longer shelf life.

Claims neither refuted nor supported: Caamendments had no apparent effect onsoil biological activity level (respiration)or humus formation (active organic mat-ter). However, because of the great com-plexity of the soil’s web of life, and thepotentially long time needed for sucheffects to become manifest, the followingclaims cannot be fairly evaluated based ondata collected thus far:

◆ Stimulation of beneficial soil life andhumus formation;

◆ More balanced and diverse soil life,fewer root pathogens.

In general, there appears to be little evi-dence that moderately high Mg levels(20-25% base saturation), and moderatelylow Ca levels (55-65% base saturation),are harmful to soil or crop health on most

Findings to date do not support the application of a single formula for optimum base saturation ratio to all soils.

In general, there appears to be little evidence that moderately highMg levels (20-25% base saturation), and moderately low Ca levels

(55-65% base saturation), are harmful to soil or crop health onmost soils in the southeastern US.

Mark Schonbeck’s complete proj-ect report: Soil nutrient balancing insustainable vegetable production (Project#00-10) is available from OFRF bymail or by visiting OFRF’s website atwww.ofrf.org. The complete report is24 pages, including 10 tables, 2 figures,and extended references.

Mark also reports ongoing projecresults in the Virginia BiologicalFarmer, available from the VirginiaAssociation for Biological Farming,(subscription $15; VABF, Box 1666,Louisa, VA 23093). The newsletter andadditional materials on soil nutrientbalancing are also available on on theirwebsite: www.vvac.org/vabf/

RESEARCH REVIEW


The nature of the interactionbetween orchard ground cover andthe tree is not well understood,

particularly whether ground cover is avaluable source of natural enemies (bene-ficials). This study was done to determinewhether mowing frequency affects naturalenemy densities in the ground cover andpear trees of organic pear orchards andconventional orchards using mating dis-ruption, and if so, whether these changesin natural enemy densities translate intoimproved control of key insect pests. Welooked in particular at parasitism of pearpsylla nymphs and predation of late instarcodling moth larvae.

Project objectives◆ To determine the effects of mowing

frequency on the density and diversityof pests and beneficials on the orchardfloor, in the ground cover, and on thepear tree; and

◆ To estimate the impact of beneficials,such as parasitism and predation rates,on pear pests in each mowing regime.

Experimental design Mowing frequencies were varied to alterground cover composition at twoorchards: an experimental organic orchardlocated in Moxee, Washington (owned byUSDA-ARS) and a mating disruptionpear block located in Hood River, Oregon.Three mowing frequencies were estab-lished at both orchards:

(1) weekly (7-10 days);(2) monthly;(3) mowed once in early spring

(referred to as “unmowed”).At both orchards, the experiment was

set out in a completely randomized block

design, with 3 replicates per treatment. Atthe mating disruption orchard, blockswere each 15-21 tree rows wide (= 5-7 treerows per treatment plot) by 100-200 feetlong. At the organic orchard, blocks were9-12 tree rows wide (= 3-4 tree rows pertreatment) x 80 feet long. At both loca-tions, perimeter tree rows were used asbuffer rows, and sampling was restricted asmuch as possible to interior trees.

Beneficials were sampled every threeweeks beginning in April and ending inlate August. Sampling methods used were:pitfall traps (for ground-dwellers); sweepnets and whole plant samples (for groundcover dwellers); and, beat trays and leafsamples (for beneficials on the pear tree).

To determine whether communitychanges between mowing treatmentsmight translate into benefits for the grow-er, two sources of impact were quantified:parasitism of pear psylla nymphs; and pre-dation of late instar codling moth larvae.

In all three mowing regimes, broadleafspecies comprised about 15% of total leafarea, and were dominated by dandelion,clovers, mallow, dock, and knapweed(Hood River site), or by dandelion andclovers (Moxee site).

Results and discussion ◗◗ Natural enemy (beneficial) populations- seasonal averages: The relative composi-tion of the natural enemy communitieswas similar among the three mowingtreatments. Beneficials in the pitfall sam-ples were dominated by ground beetles(60% of those commonly found), spiders(15%), staphylinid beetles (5%), and har-vestmen (“daddy long legs”; 5%). Sweepnet samples of beneficials were dominatedby parasitoids (60%), spiders (15%), and

damselbugs (Nabidae; 5%). Beat traysamples of beneficial arthropods weredominated by spiders (60%), parasitoids(20%), earwigs (10%), and Deraeocoris bre-vis (a predatory bug; 5%).

Mowing frequency had a larger effecton total numbers of beneficials. In pitfalltraps, decreased mowing frequency wasaccompanied by slight reductions in num-bers of harvestmen, earwigs, spiders, andground beetles (based upon season-longaverages for each group).

◗◗ Seasonal trends: Different groups ofpredators peaked in densities at differenttimes of the year. For the ground dwellingpredators, spiders peaked very early in theseason, ground beetles and staphylinidbeetles peaked in late July, and harvest-men peaked in mid-August. Arthropodsassociated with the ground cover tendedto peak in early July. Those that feedextensively on aphids (including damsel-bugs and lacewings) showed sharp dropsin numbers in mid-July, coinciding with acrash in the aphid populations occurringin the ground cover. On beat trays (i.e., inthe pear tree), spiders and parasitoids weremore abundant in late summer than earlysummer.

◗◗ Mowing effects: Counts of lacewings,spiders, damselbugs, parasitoids, syrphidflies, ladybug beetles, big-eyed bugs(Geocoris spp.), and minute pirate bugs(Orius tristicolor) were considerably largerin unmowed and monthly mowed plotsthan in weekly mowed plots, suggesting

USDA-ARS TRIALS ✦✦ ORCHARD FLOOR MANAGEMENT IN PEARS

Evaluating the effects of

orchard floor management

on biological control in pears

Project leader: David Horton USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Wapato, WA ✦ Growercooperators: George Ing Farm, White Salmon, WA, USDA-ARS 1-acre block, Moxee, WA ✦ OFRFsupport: $4,700 (1998) ✦ Report No. 98-06 ✦ Additional support provided by: Winter PearControl Committee, USDA-SARE Western Region ✦ Project period: 1998 ✦ Reported: May 1999

Above: Regularly mowed plot (every 10days or so), at mid-summer.

23S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

that mowing frequency may affect orenhance biological control in orchards.

Of the various natural enemies affectedby mowing, only spiders and parasitoidsshowed the same population trends in thepear tree (i.e., had higher densities in theless frequently mowed plots).

Several common predators on theorchard floor or in the ground cover(ground beetles, harvestmen, earwigs)were only marginally affected by mowingfrequency.

◗◗ Block-to-block variation: For severalnatural enemies, differences amongblocks were much larger than differencesamong mowing treatments. Densities ofground beetles and earwigs were extreme-ly high in a block of very young trees withopen canopies, and were much lower inadjacent blocks of older trees. Theseresults suggest that population densitiesof these ground dwellers may be affectedmore by factors such as soil type, aspect,slope, tree age and openness of canopy, orsurrounding habitats than by mowing fre-quency.

◗◗ Ground cover/tree community corre-lations: Certain beneficials (ground bee-tles, harvestmen) were exceptionallyabundant on the ground but were nevercollected from the pear tree. Thus, thesespecies may impact those pear pests thatalso occur near ground level at some stage

of their life cycle (e.g., cutworms, lateinstar or diapausing codling moth larvae).Note that ground beetles and harvestmenare both thought to be effective naturalenemies of codling moth, thus their pres-ence in the orchard should be conservedas much as possible.

Certain predators of pear psylla(Anthocoris spp., Deraeocoris brevis) wereoccasionally abundant in the pear tree butwere never encountered in the groundcover. Mowing frequency or ground cover

management is unlikely to have signifi-cant direct effects on densities of theseimportant predators.

◗◗ Pest densities: Spider mites—weekly-mowed plots kept broad-leaf weeds virtu-ally free of spider mites although densitiesnever reached damaging levels. Pear psyl-la—populations were not affected bymowing frequency. Psylla counts on beattrays were low all year at both orchards.Lygus and stinkbug—populations in theground cover were significantly higher inthe unmowed and monthly mowed plotscompared to the weekly mowed plots.However, neither pest was recovered indamaging numbers on beat tray samplestaken in the pear tree.

◗◗ Impact of beneficials on pests. Psylla—parasitism rates were atypically low mostof the year (<<10% in all plots), thus Imade no attempts to compare mowing

treatments for effects on parasitism rate.Generally, parasitism rates at this orchardare much higher than observed in 1998(often >50%).

Codling moth—disappearance rates oflarvae from cardboard monitoring stripsplaced on pear trees (presumably due topredation) was 10-20% per strip in 48hours, and no relationship was notedbetween disappearance rate and mowingfrequency. Correlation analyses to deter-mine whether disappearance rates wererelated to densities of natural enemies sur-prisingly showed no relationship betweendensity of ground beetles and disappear-ance rates of codling moth (r < 0.1).However, there was a significant relation-ship between numbers of earwigs recov-ered in strips and numbers of codlingmoth disappearing from strips (r = 0.80),suggesting that earwigs are predators ofcodling moth.

ConclusionsIn this study, mowing frequency had

striking effects on densities of natural ene-mies in the orchard, but it remains unclearjust what impact this has on orchard pests.Parasitism rates of pear psylla nymphs inall three mowing regimes showed noeffects of mowing treatment. However,parasitism rates were atypically very lowduring the 1998 season. Results did notshow any effects of mowing frequency onpredation rates of codling moth. Thesestudies have continued on a larger scale inthe same orchards, incorporating the samemowing treatments. ❈

Above: Monthly-mowed plot (left) and unmowed plot (right), both at mid-summer.

David Horton’s complete report:Enhancing biological control in matingdisruption and organic pear orchards byunderstory management (OFRF project#98-06) is available from OFRF by mailor by visiting OFRF’s website atwww.ofrf.org. The complete report is 8pages plus 14 figures including data onpopulation densities of beneficialsamong treatment groups.

A continuation of this study is inplace through December 2001; resultscan be monitored by visitinghttp://nps.ars.usda.gov/projects/projects.htm?accession=402529

Of the various natural enemies affected by mowing, only spiders and parasitoids showed the same population trends in the pear tree.

Certain beneficials (ground beetles, harvestmen) were exceptionallyabundant on the ground but were never collected from the pear tree.


Efficacy of homeopathic preparations of autogenous mastitis-causing organisms in the prevention of mastitis in dairy cattle

ON-FARM TRIALS ✦✦ HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT OF LIVESTOCKRESEARCH REVIEW

Homeopathy is a tradition of medicine developed by German physician Dr. SamuelHahnemann in the 1800s. Based on the theory of “like cures like,” homeopathy isguided by the principle that a remedy that produces symptoms similar to the diseasein question can have a curative effect on that disease. Homeopathic remedies areprepared through a series of dilutions, referred to as potentizations—the more dilute asolution, the greater its potency. Homeopathy is described as an “energy treatment,”like acupuncture, working on the body’s vital force, as opposed to the illness itself.While there are many anecdotal observations of the efficacy of homeopathy in live-stock, few studies have been conducted. In his report, Dr. Fernando Moncayo providesa literature review of homeopathic research related to livestock treatments, as well asthe results of a three-part study of homeopathic preparations for mastitis. Two treat-ments involve nosodes—preparations made from disease material—and one treatmentevaluates more commonly-used herbal- and mineral-based remedies. —EW

Autogenous: self-produced;self-generated.

Mother tincture: the undiluted tincturefrom which potentized remedies are made

Nosodes: a special category of remedies pre-pared from disease material

Potentization: a process of diluting a mothertincture in a water/alcohol solution and thenshaking vigorously

Potency: a means of describing the dilution ofhomeopathic remedies;

Decimal remedies are those diluted by a fac-tor of ten (e.g. a D4 remedy is diluted by afactor of 10 four times);Centesimal remedies are those diluted bya factor of 100 (e.g. a C6 remedy is diluted bya factor of 100 six times)

Repertorization: the process by which a remedyis chosen that best matches the symptoms iden-tified and selected for treatment

Project leader: Fernando Moncayo, DVM, MSc, Paradise, Nova Scotia ✦ Collatorator: AlanFredeen, PhD PAg ✦ Grower cooperators: Robert Banks, Peter DeNuke, Alan Jackson ✦OFRF support: $3,534 (1999) ✦ Project Period: 1999-2000 ✦ Reported: September 2000

Terms

Dependence on antibiotics to pre-vent and treat mastitis in dairycows is a major obstacle in the

transition to organic dairying. Mastitisprevention in conventional herds dependson hygiene and antibiotic treatment atdrying-off. No prevention other thanhygiene is available for the late dry periodand early lactation when susceptibility toinfection is high.

Homeopathic preparations called“nosodes” are potentized high-dilutions ofpathogens or of products of disease (secre-tions or exudations). To prepare a nosode,the pathological material is initially con-served in alcohol/water solution for 7days; next, following a sequential dilutionwhere at each dilution step the solution isforcefully shaken (succussed) the solutionis taken to high dilution levels. Above the

12th Centesimal dilution, nosodes do notcontain any detectable remnants from theoriginal pathogen. However, the uniquepreparation process seems to give the sol-vent medicinal properties. As such,nosodes are safe and do not leave anyresidues in animal products, makingthem an ideal tool for organic dairy herdhealth management. Some studies sup-port the use of nosodes for the preventionof infection.

The efficacy of homeopathic medicinein general and of nosodes in particularhas not been established. Similarly, theefficacy of nosodes for prevention ofmastitis has not been determined.Research in veterinary homeopathy, par-ticularly in mastitis, is extremely limited.However, two studies (Fredeen, and Day,1984.) as well as personal observations

have led to a determination that an auto-genous mastitis nosode may be effectivefor prevention of clinical and subclinicalmastitis when given frequently during theperiods of higher risk of infection.

Following are the methods and resultsof this three part-project.

Materials and methodsHerds: No commercial organic dairyherds were available in Nova Scotia forstudy, and three conventional herds locatedin the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia(Canada) were used: Banks’, Jackson’s andDeNuke’s. All herds had fixed stall systemswith housing from November to May andgrazing from June to November. All herdsused milk pipe milking systems where cowsare milked on the extensions twice daily.Hygiene methods were standard with pre-and post- milking teat dipping. Banksmilked between 90-100 cows, DeNuke andJackson milked 25-30 cows. All threefarms milked cows year round.

Autogenous nosode: The CaliforniaMastitis Test was conducted on all cowsand milk samples taken from those thattested positive. Samples were submittedfor culture to the Provincial VeterinaryPathology Laboratory. At the lab, cottonswabs were impregnated with isolatedbacteria and placed in a glass tube con-taining ethanol and ultra distilled water50/50 by volume. The tubes were sealedand left undisturbed for 7 days.

Afterwards, tubes belonging to thesame farm from which the samples camewere combined and used as the mothertincture (MT), which was processed asfollows:

1) 0.01 ml of the MT were added to aglass test tube containing 10 ml ofultra distilled water;

2) The tube was forcefully shaken (suc-cussed) by hitting its bottom 100times on a hard cover book;

Part I.

Comparison of an autogenous mastitis nosode to antibiotic as drycow treatment for the preventionof mastitis in three commercialherds.

25S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

3) 0.01 ml were withdrawn from this tubeand added to a second tube containing10 ml of ultra distilled water;

4) The second tube was succussed 100times;

5 ) 0.01 ml were withdrawn from the sec-ond tube and added to a third tubecontaining 10 ml of ultra distilledwater;

6) The third tube was succussed 100times, etc.

The steps of dilution and succussionwere repeated 29 times. Finally, 0.04 mlwere withdrawn from the 29th tube, addedto an amber glass bottle containing 40 mlof ethanol/ultra distilled water 80/20 byvolume, and succussed 100 times. Thebottle was labeled with the name of thefarm and the organisms included in thesolution and used as the base solutionfrom which the medication administeredto the cows was prepared. The base solu-tion was kept in a dark cupboard awayfrom other medications and electricdevices.

Throughout the experiment, new suc-cussed bacteria solutions derived frommastitis cases and cows that presentedpersistently high Somatic Cell Count(SCC) were added to the base solution.

The solution for administration to thecows was prepared by adding 0.04ml ofthe base solution to an amber glass bottlecontaining 40 ml of ethanol/ultra distilledwater solution 20/80 by volume and suc-cussion of the bottle 100 times. This for-mulation was given to the farmers andreplaced monthly when not used entirely.The organisms isolated and included inthe nosode were:

Banks: Staphylococcus aureus,Staphylococcus epidermicus, Streptococcus dys-galactiae, Streptococcus agalactiae, Bacillusspp, Klepsiella spp.

DeNuke: Staphylococcus aureus,Staphylococcus epidermicus, Streptococcusdysgalactiae

Jackson: Staphylococcus epidermicus,Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Staphylococcusaureus

Treatment groups: Forty-eight cows weredivided in two groups that were balancedfor number of lactations and history ofmastitis. By the toss of a coin the groupswere allocated to either Antibiotic (A) orNosode (N) treatment. This was donemonthly from the expected calving listand for each farm.

Twenty-four cows in the A group weretreated with a dry cow antibiotic formulaof common use: Cephapirine benzathine(Cefa-Dry-Ayers) for most cows; orCloxacillin benzathine (Dry Clox-Ayers)when it was determined that the cow wasinfected with Staphylococcus aureus.

Twenty-four cows in the group N weregiven 2 ml of nosode in the feed everyother day during two weeks after drying-off and during two weeks before the calv-ing due date and for two weeks after calv-ing.

Data for SCC were collected frommonthly test reports done by AtlanticDairy Improvement Centre. The variableof interest was the SCC on the first test-ing postpartum. Data for SCC weretransformed to the logarithm and analysisof variance was performed to test for theeffect of treatment, farm and interactionof farm and treatment.

Results and discussionSCC for cows included in the

trial is presented in Table 1. Thenumber of observations consti-tutes a small sample where signif-icant differences may not bedetected. The analysis of varianceindicated that there were no sig-nificant differences in the SCCbetween treatments but that therewas a significant farm effect(P=0.093)*. Lower SCC wereobserved at DeNuke’s andJackson’s.

There were very few cases ofclinical mastitis encountered.Banks reported two cases for eachtreatment group; DeNuke report-ed two cases for each treatmentgroup; Jackson did not report any

FarmNosode

SCC x 1000Antibiotic

SCC x 1000

Banks

Mean ± SE

Range

Standard deviation

No. of cows observed 11

834

45 to 2654

559 ± 251 680 ± 323

27 to 3274

1012

10

DeNuke

Mean ± SE 1522 ± 75

Range 21 to 697

Standard deviation 225

No. of cows observed 9

607 ± 418

19 to 3876

1254

9

Jackson

Mean ± SE 582 ± 559 81 ± 36

Range 26 to 2256 18 to 219

Standard deviation 1116 82

No. of cows observed 4 5

Table 1. Somatic cell count within the first monthpost-partum of cows treated with either nosode atdrying off and early post-partum, or with antibiotic atdrying off. Data show combined observations fromeach farm.

*Probability (P), or statistical significance, refers to the chance that the measured differ-ences are due to the treatments rather than to random variation or error. For example,P<0.05 means the probability is less than 5% that the analysis is picking up on non-existent differences, or not measuring real differences, and thus has a 95% confidencelevel.

clinical cases. These data are insufficientto be analyzed. Farmers confirmed that,in their perception, clinical mastitis wasnot a problem. They were more con-cerned with cows that presented a persist-ently high SCC.

ConclusionsA larger sample size is required to draw amore solid conclusion regarding the com-parative efficacy of an autogenous nosodein the prevention of mastitis in the post-partum.

Farmers’ perception on the efficacy ofthe nosode and management stylesseemed to be important factors on decid-ing whether to continue using the nosode.The treatment with nosode required thatat drying-off, cows had to be kept in thebarn for two weeks, and were brought inthe barn two weeks prior to their duedate. As a result, the labour demands forthe farmer increased.

Banks, who operates a relatively largerfarm, felt that the nosode was not effec-tive, was unpractical and would not con-tinue using it. In contrast, Jackson andDeNuke, who are operating small herds,were satisfied and would consider usingthe nosode in the future.


Materials and methodsHerd. Three trials were conducted at theBanks’ farm in the Annapolis Valley ofNova Scotia.

Homeopathic treatment. Homeopathictreatment consisted of Sepia 30C (10-60)and nosode at the 30C (10-60) potency.

Sepia is a homeopathic medicationderived from cuttlefish ink. It was select-ed using the classical homeopathy methodof prescription known as the genus epi-demicus whereby a homeopathic medica-tion required to treat a population afflict-ed by a common disease is selected basedon the peculiar signs and symptomsobserved in the population. The signs ofhomeopathic value observed at the Banks’that indicated Sepia were:

■ Edema, both mammarian and ovarian ■ Obesity ■ Disease aggravated by rain■ Rich diet: cows fed large quantities of

grain and silage■ Abscesses: suppuration in the mamma-

ry gland

The nosode was prepared from organ-isms isolated from milk from the cowsinvolved in the study. It was preparedmanually following the process describedin Part I.

Both Sepia and the nosode were pre-pared separately in an 80/20 ethanol/watersolution added to white sugar in a propor-tion of 20 ml of medicine to 4 kg of sugar.The medicated sugar was mixed into 11kg of crushed barley.

Treatment groups:❖❖ Trial 1: Thirteen cows with SCC over

100,000 were selected and randomlyallocated to two groups of 7 and 6cows. The group of 7 cows receivedhomeopathic treatment. The groupof 6 cows was treated with homeopa-thy as well as with the antibioticcephapirin sodium (Cefa-Lak).

❖❖ Trial 2: Twenty-one cows with SCC

over 100,000 were allocated to twogroups of 10 and 11 cows. Groupswere balanced for number of lactationsand history of mastitis. With the tossof a coin the groups were allocated toeither homeopathic treatment oruntreated control.

❖❖ Trial 3: Twenty cows that had SCCover 100,000 were randomly allocatedto two treatment groups: homeopathicand untreated.

Cows were fed about 1 cup of medicat-ed feed as follows: Sepia 30C for threedays; no medication for 4 days; secondSepia 30C treatment for 3 days; no treat-ment for 4 days; nosode for 3 days; notreatment for 4 days; second nosode-treat-ment for 3 days.

Data and analysis: Data for SCC werecollected from the ADIC reports usingthe analysis taken closest to before thestart of and after the treatment. Data wastransformed to the logarithm and the val-ues before treatment were compared tothe values after treatment using a paired t-test.

Results and discussionSummary results of the trials are shown inTable 2.❖❖ Trial 1: Cows given homeopathic treat-

ment experienced a decline in theSCC. In contrast, the group treatedwith homeopathy and antibiotic expe-rienced a mild increase.

❖❖ Trial 2: Both treated and untreatedgroups experienced a significantdecline in the SCC.

❖❖ Trial 3: Both groups presented adecline in the SCC, but not as signifi-cant as the group in Trial 2.

Overall, pooling the data for cows thatreceived homeopathic treatment only forthe trials, a significant reduction isobserved from 1255 ± 213 to 699 ± 166;the means were different at a significancelevel of 0.006.

Similarly, the SCC in the control groupsfor Trials 2 and 3 pooled together showed asignificant reduction from 936 ± 275 to 706± 254 with a significance of 0.081.

It was our objective to determinewhether homeopathic treatment couldhelp reduce the SCC at this farm.Homeopathic treatment had the expectedeffect but there was no response whenhomeopathy was combined with antibi-otic treatment. According to basic home-opathic principles, any substance withhigh medicinal power can potentiallyinterfere with a homeopathic medicine.Antibiotics are strong medicine com-pared to homeopathic remedies.Antibiotic failure in the treatment of highSCC was not uncommon at this farm.

The results of Trial 2 were unexpectedsince both treated and untreated cowsexperienced a significant reduction in theSCC. No management changes otherthan the treatment given to the cows wasmade, and cows had not yet been turnedout to pasture. Some cows may haveinadvertently received medicated feedfrom a neighbouring treated cow. It hasbeen reported in homeopathic provingsboth in humans and animals that individ-uals receiving placebo experience signsand symptoms of the remedy in experi-mentation. Hypothetically, by anunknown mechanism the effect of ahomeopathic medicine can be shared byindividuals living in close contact.

Effect of an autogenous nosode on thesomatic cell count (SCC) of lactatingcows

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Before(SCC x 1000)

After(SCC x 1000)

1063 ± 52 2348 ± 888

296 ± 66 2930 ± 1406

Significance P=0.108 P=0.381

1477 ± 471

832 ± 239

P=0.052

863 ± 233

582 ± 166

P=0.041

1165 ± 257

850 ± 370

P=0.246

1016 ± 533

842 ± 513

P=0.50

homeopathy homeopathy+ antibiotic

homeopathy untreated

control homeopathy

untreatedcontrol

Treatment

29Jan00 to 20Feb00Treatmentperiod

13Apr00 to 6May00 14Aug00 to 9Sep00

Part II.

Table 2. Somatic cell count (SCC) of cows (mean ± SE) receiving homeopathic treatment,homeopathic treatment plus antibiotic and untreated control before and after treatment.

27S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

However, Trial 3 did not replicate theresults and a less significant difference wasobserved in the homeopathic group; theuntreated group experienced an insignifi-cant reduction in the SCC.

The individual trials were composed ofsmall samples where statistical differencesare more difficult to detect. When the datafor all treated cows was pooled, the reduc-tion in the SCC proved to be highly signif-icant (p=0.006) suggesting that indeed thetreatment had a real effect on reducing theSCC. The control groups for Trial 2 and 3pooled also revealed a significant reductionin the SCC but the reduction in the treat-ed cows was 13.5 times more significant.The three trials were slightly differentwhich may invalidate the results of poolingthe data. However, the highly significantdifferences detected in the SCC betweenbefore and after the treatment in the threegroups treated with homeopathy suggeststhat the treatment effect was real.

ConclusionLactating cows on the Banks’ farm receiv-ing homeopathic treatment showed sig-nificantly reduced SCC. Factors otherthan direct administration of homeopath-ic treatment might be significant.

At the DeNuke’s farm several cows present-ed chronic mastitis manifested as persistent-ly high SCC and periodic mild clinical signs,e.g. swelling of udder and milk clots. Ahigher than usual incidence of mastitis hadoccurred in 1999, and several cows weretreated during the summer with antibioticbut the response had been marginal.

Initially, four cows that failed to respondto antibiotic were treated with homeo-pathic medicine with no success.Homeopathic remedies that have beenrecommended for mastitis treatment wereused, e.g. Belladonna, Bryonia, Lachesis.

However, homeopathic theory states thatthe treatment of chronic disease requires theuse of medicines prescribed according to theindividualizing characteristics of the diseaseand personality of the individual. Further,

when various individuals in a population areafflicted by a common disease, one remedythat covers the characteristics of the disease(genus epidemicus) as it appears in the popu-lation must be used.

It was decided to treat a group of cowswith both 1) a remedy of the population; and2) a remedy of the individual.Carbo Vegetabilis (vegetable charcoal dilut-ed in alcohol) was chosen as the remedy ofthe population. This is a remedy preparedfrom charcoal. Carbo Vegetabilis wasbelieved to suit the population because:1)It is reported to be useful for treatingmastitis in humans: 2) It applies to chron-ically ill individuals who consume richfood that is difficult to digest. This maybe analogous to the feeding of concentrat-ed grain to ruminants whose natural dietis grass; and 3) It applies to diseases thatare insidious and develop slowly.

Remedies of the individual were select-ed studying the characteristics of each ani-mal according to classical homeopathy.

❖❖ Dolly: Startles with sudden move-ments; docile, can be approached andtouched; slim body with fine longbones. Rx: Phosphorus

❖❖ Polka dots: tame, mild and calm char-acter when she is outside, startles tosudden movements when she is in thebarn. Rx: Pulsatilla

❖❖ Lily: shows dislike at being touched;she is the leader of the herd.Rx: Aurum Metallicum

❖❖ Charity: generally tame in the barnbut cannot be approached when she isoutside; dislikes to be touched.Rx: Antimonium Crudum

Treatment. Cows were treated with thefollowing remedies in sequence:Remedy of the population:1) Carbo Vegetabilis 30C two doses

(1 dose=5-10 pellets) 12 hours apart

repeated every three days for two weeks.2) Carbo Vegetabilis 200C two doses 12

hours apart once per week for two weeks.Remedy of the individual:3) From prescriptions listed above, two

doses twelve hours apart.The medication was in the form of coat-

ed pellets. The dose was dissolved in 30ml of water and sprinkled over the feed.

Results and discussionDolly, Polka dots and Lily presented a

gradual decline in the SCC after the start ofthe homeopathic treatment. The SCCreached acceptable levels within twomonths. Dolly presented a sharp decline inthe SCC but it soared again to pretreatmentlevels after 3 months. Then, it was treatedwith antibiotics resulting in a sharp declinein the SCC. Charity did not appear torespond to treatment and was culled.

Three of the four cows receiving thetreatment exhibited the desired effect. Itis interesting that one of the cows thatresponded temporarily to treatmentresponded rapidly to antibiotic treatmentwhen antibiotic alone had failed.

This was a very small sample of animalsand does not intend to be proof of effica-cy but an encouraging first approach to amodality of treatment that might be use-ful for organic dairy farmers. ❈

Fernando Moncayo’s complete report:Efficacy of homeopathic preparations of auto-genous mastitis-causing organisms in the pre-vention of mastitis in dairy cattle (OFRFproject #99-03) is available from OFRFby mail or by visiting www.ofrf.org. Thereport is 13 pages, plus 1 figure and 9tables describing the SCC counts relatedto treatments for each farm.

News from Agri-Food Canada : Government to Fund Organic Center in Nova ScotiaIn early July the Canadian government announced allocation of $854,700 in funding to

develop the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, to be based at the Nova ScotiaAgricultural College in Truro. Agri-Food Minster Lyle Vanclief commented at theannouncement, "Organic agriculture is presenting producers with excellent opportunitiesand this new centre will ensure they stay on top of the learning curve and that Canada con-tinues to enhance its reputation as a world class supplier of organic food."

This is a great development for organic research in North America, in a recent conversation,Dr. Moncayo expressed hope that this support will lead to the development of organic dairyherds in the region for further studies. —EW

Case study: Homeopathic treatment ofchronic mastitis in lactating dairy cows(without nosodes).

Part III.


In homeopathy, theapplication of medi-cines is based on the

Law of the Similars or“like cures like”.Remedies are experi-mented with in doubleblind trials, called “prov-ings,” to determine the

symptoms and clinical signs that they induce. When prescribing a reme-dy, the practitioner attempts to replicate the proving in the patient, andby the Law of Similars, to induce a cure. As such, homeopathy appearsas a scientific medical system because it is based on experimentationand replication. Therefore, it may be expected that the effectiveness ofhomeopathy is equally reproducible under the scientific method. Ourobjective was to establish whether there is published scientific evidencethat homeopathy is effective for the treatment of diseases in farm ani-mals.

Searching for the “H-word”We searched the literature through electronic databases and informa-

tion from practitioners. Databases searched were: Medline and HealthStar 1966-1997; Science Citation 1995-1996; Life Sciences 1990-1996,and Agricola 1992-1996. We searched on the key words: homeopathy;veterinary homeopathy; homeopathic; alternative medicine; complemen-tary medicine. We contacted practitioners in Argentina and Canada andthe United States. Through a Canadian practitioner we obtained informa-tion about research conducted in France. A US practitioner informed usabout research conducted in England. We looked at papers in English,French, Spanish and English translations of German papers.

Selection criteria for papers to be reviewed and analyzed were: 1)that studies be published in a report, book, proceedings or journal; 2)that reports include a sufficient description of methodology as to allowreplication; 3) that the studies include a control/no homeopathic treat-ment group; 4) that statistical analysis be presented to establish signifi-cant difference between homeopathic and other treatments and/or con-trol; and 5) that the studies not include laboratory animals.

Search resultsEighteen trials met the selection criteria. (Only two trials were found

through the database searches.) Trials dealt with 6 species including

bovine, swine, equine, poultry, rabbits and water buffalo. Clinical applica-tions involved: parturition [birthing] aid in sows; reproductive manage-ment in dairy cows; mastitis in dairy cows; feet ulcers in rabbits; gas-trointestinal disease in veal calves; bovine lungworm; hemoparasites inwater buffalo; and retarded growth in swine. A series of experiments ingrowth promotion in poultry and swine were also reviewed.

Fifteen trials (79%) claimed that homeopathy had the expectedeffect. An equal number included randomization and all of them showedan effect from homeopathic treatment. Five trials (27%) included ran-domization and blinding (4 were double blind), all of these showingeffect. Only 7 (39%) trials appeared in peer reviewed journals; six ofthem showed positive effect of homeopathy. Four of these trials werepublished in journals dedicated to homeopathy, all of them showingpositive effects (1,2,3). Only three trials were published in generic veteri-nary journals (6,7,8), two of them showing an effect of homeopathy(6,8). Eleven trials were collected from author’s reports (4,5).

Does the medium affect the message?Homeopaths may be as eager to demonstrate that homeopathy

works as others may be at trying to discredit it. Therefore, publicationbias is a concern. From the already limited number of trials that stand upto scientific scrutiny, literally a handful were published in peer-reviewedjournals including alternative journals. No trials with negative resultswere published in alternative journals (i.e. Cahier de Biotherapie andThe British Homeopathic Journal). The only peer-reviewed journal thatpublished negative results was a mainstream journal. A mainstream jour-nal also published a trial with positive results. The size of our sample istoo small to assess whether alternative journals tend to publish onlypositive results and main stream journals negative results. An extensivereview of homeopathic research in humans found no evidence of publi-cation bias against or for homeopathy in either alternative or mainstream journals (11). However, it is possible that homeopathicresearchers only submit positive results for publication. All of the articlespublished in the alternative journal Homeopatia (Argentina) show posi-tive results. Yet, it is clear that homeopathic researchers reach negativeresults. Two out of ten experiments conducted by Briones showed noeffect. The fact that Briones published negative as well as positive resultsgives confidence in the veracity of his studies. In addition, Briones con-ducted most of the research in an institutional setting at UniversidadAustral de Valdivia in Chile and presented the results at various Chileanveterinary conferences where some scientific scrutiny took place; Briones

Is homeopathyeffective in farm animals?

l Mahe F. Comparaison en aveugled’un traitement homeopathique etd’un placebo dans un cas collectifd’ulc6rations chroniquez chez lelapin. Cahiers de Bioth6rapie1986; 91:81-84.

2 Mahe F. and Roger C. Evaluationen double aveugle de 1’effetd’une cure homeopathic collective

sur la morbidite et les qualitesboucheres de veaux a 1’engrais.Cahiers de Biotherapie 1998;Suppl 91:1-6.

3 Williamson AV, Makie WL,Crawford WJ and Rennie BA. Astudy using Sepia 200C given prophylactically postpartum toprevent anoestrus problems in thedairy cow. Brit Hom J1991;80:146-156.

4 Fredeen AH, Penny GA, AndersonD, Mackay D and Farid H. Efficacyof parabiologics in the prevention

of mastitis in commercial dairyherds. Final Report Canada/NovaScotia Agri-Food DevelopmentAgreement. TechnologyDevelopment Programme, Project#TDP 21.

5 Briones F. Estudios sobre la aplica-cion de la homeopatia en produc-cion animal. Santiago de Chile,1987.

6 Day CEI. Control of stillbirths inpigs using homeopathy. Vet. Rec.1984; 114:216.

7 Taylor SM, Mallon TR and GreenWP. Efficacy of a homeopathic pro-phylaxis against experimentalinfection of calves by the bovinelungworm, Dictyocaulus viviparusVet. Rec. 1989;124 (1):15-17.

8 Kumar V, Joshi HC and Kumar M.Therapeutic trials in buffaloes nat-urally infected with microfilariae ofSetaria cervi Vet. Parasitol.,1989;3(2):125-129.

9 De Medio H. Introducci6n a laVeterinaria Homeopitica. BuenosAires, Albatros, 1993;177-180.

Fernando Moncayo, DVM

Literature Reviewed

29S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

adjusted the experimental design in response to critique from peers. Theexperiment by Fredeen et al. (4) is likewise credible as it was conductedunder an institutional setting with collaborators from the Nova ScotiaDepartment of Agriculture.

Sorting out the evidence

The number of trials published is too limited to allow an evaluationof the efficacy of homeopathy in any of the conditions involved.The analysis is further confused because of the different approach-

es used. Eight trials used the classical approach. However, in only twotrials was the remedy selected by repertorization. Remaining trials select-ed the remedy based on common clinical application [e.g. Silica wasselected to treat feet ulcers in rabbits because it is believe to aid healingof suppurative conditions (1); Caulophylum was tested for stillbirth insows because it is believed to promote cervix dilation and uterine con-traction (6)]. Nine trials tested complexes of homeopathic medicines(4,5,8) and two trials used Isopathy (4,7). However, all authors usedpotentized remedies with clinical application somewhat based on theLaw of Similars which characterize them as homeopathy. It is possiblethat the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments depends on the condi-tion and the approach taken. Schutte (10) found that a number of clini-cal applications of homeopathic remedies that German veterinarianswere using did not show an effect under experimental conditions;homeopathy was more effective when remedies were prescribed byrepertorization rather than by a clinical application defined a priori.Perhaps further experiments will show under which conditions homeop-athy is consistently effective.

We found several reports that did not fit the selection criteria butshowed results consistent with those of the reviewed trials. Day docu-mented a case of a dairy herd where 18 heifers required assistance atcalving with 7 stillbirths. After treating 7 heifers yet to calve withCaulophylum 30C, only 2 of the treated heifers required assistance (12).These findings are consistent with the experience with Caulophylum insows (6).

Other observations on mastitisOther work done in mastitis provided observations that are consis-

tent with those made by Fredeen. In an informal trial Day, (12) treated41 cows with a nosode of mastitis-causing organisms and the incidenceof mastitis was compared to that of a 41-cow control group in the sameherd. During the trial there were 10 cases of mastitis in the control

group and one in the treated group. After the end of the trial the wholeherd was treated with the nosode. Four months later the bulk milk cellcount fell to 374,000 compared to 598,000 in the previous year.

In a second trial (12), 50 cows identified as high risk for contractingmastitis in a herd with SCC of 1,000,000 were treated with a nosodeand the results were compared to a low risk, non-treated, 80-cow group.Before treatment the incidence of mastitis in the high risk group wasthree times that of the low risk group. After four months of treatmentthe incidence of mastitis was 25% less in the high risk (treated) groupcompared to the low risk (non-treated) group. Throughout the trial, theSCC increased in the non-treated group while decreasing in the treatedgroup.

Poultry studiesObservations made in Argentina on New Castle disease in poultry

are also interesting. A group of 12,140 chicks developed New Castle at14 days of age and was treated conventionally (not defined). A secondgroup (B) from the same lot developed New Castle at 17 days of ageand was treated homeopathically using classical methods. At 55 daysgroup A had a total accumulated mortality of 53%. Group B had anaccumulated mortality of 28% (13). In another instance, a group of7,596 meat birds was treated homeopathically and compared to a groupof 7,017 treated conventionally (undefined). At the end of the experi-ment, on day 53, accumulated mortality of birds treated with homeopa-thy was 9.72% while the accumulated mortality of the group treatedconventionally was 19% (14). Briones made a similar serendipitousobservation in a case of viral hepatitis in poultry. During a 56-day trial, anoutbreak of viral hepatitis caused 62% mortality in the control (placebo)group, 25% mortality in T2, 12.5% mortality in T3 and 0% mortality inT1. No statistical analysis of these results was reported. Saad did not sta-tistically analyze the data and, unexplainably, Briones does not reportwhether the mortality was statistically analyzed. However, the apparentdifferences between homeopathy and non-homeopathy groups are largeenough to wonder whether they might be real.

ConclusionWe cannot conclude that homeopathy is or is not effective because

the evidence available is limited. However, the trials reviewed and theevidence from case reports suggest that homeopathy may be effective incertain conditions. Briones suggested that homeopathy may promotegrowth in pigs and poultry particularly when management is deficient,and the potential of homeopathic treatments to prevent mortality inpoultry operations should be carefully examined. Likewise, the work ofFredeen et al. and Day suggests that there is a potential in homeopathyto prevent clinical mastitis. The possibility that homeopathy can aid inparturition particularly in conditions of high levels of abnormal labourcannot be disregarded.

We suggest that the applica-tion of homeopathy in the areasidentified above should be care-fully examined under an institu-tional setting and in conditionsthat are highly discriminating ofthe effects.

10 Schutte A. Is homeopathicresearch in veterinary medicinejustified? Fundamental thoughtsand results of five years investiga-tions at the field station of theFree University of Berlin inSchawarzenbek. Proc. 3rd Int.congr. Vet. Homeop. Int. Assoc.for Vet. Homeop., Germany 4-6Sept. 1992; pp 339-354.

11 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. and terRiet G. Clinical trials of homeopa-thy. BMJ 1991; 302:316-23.

12 Day CEI. Clinical trials in bovinemastitis. Brit Hom J 1986; 75(1):11-14.

13 Saad SD. Tratamiento home-opatico en un lote de pollos par-rilleros afectados de enfermedadde Newcastle. Homeopatia 1991;55:13.

14 Saad SD. Experiencia con unacrianza completa de pollos par-rilleros tratados con homeopatia.Homeopatia 1991; 55: 9-11.


Resistance to insecticides, increasingcosts of substitute insecticides,interest in organic production and

markets, and regulatory pressures limitingthe use of materials for artichoke plumemoth control have stimulated research incontrol alternatives. These alternativeshave included pheromones, microbialcontrols and native natural enemies.

Previous research has shown native nat-ural enemies to be poorly synchronizedand economically ineffective in suppress-ing artichoke plume moth (APM).However, natural enemy augmentationcould help overcome the poor searchingability of native natural enemy species.Insecticide use reduction could increasepopulations of native and augmented nat-ural enemies. Our research began withthese methods, and later included use ofpheromones to mass trap adult male arti-choke plume moths.

Two species of APM egg parasitoidswere first collected by Dr. MohammedBari in 1986: Trichogramma thalense(Salinas) and a new species, T nr. pintoi(Tomales Bay). Both species were latercollected in 1991 and mass-reared in thelaboratory at the University of California-CASFS for this study.

Project objectivesThis cooperative effort, called BIORAPP(BIORational Artichoke Pest manage-ment Program), had the following objec-tives:

◆ Establish commercial, on-farm com-parisons between biointensively-managed(BIORAPP) and conventionally managedartichoke production systems;

◆ Release T. thalense, mass-reared at the

CASFS insectary, into the BIORAPP-enrolled fields and evaluate the effects ofthis parasitoid on APM eggs;

◆ Incorporate pheromone-based matingdisruption (1998-1999) and mass trap-ping (1999-2000) into the BIORAPPfields for APM suppression; and

◆ Compare APM activity and damage inboth systems during the 1998-1999 and1999-2000 production seasons.

Materials and methodsFour artichoke growers, two conventionaland two organic, volunteered for the project.

Shortly after cutback in June of bothyears, growers provided five-acre fields:B1, B2, and B3 in 1998-1999 (year 1); B1,B3, B4, and B5 in 1999-2000 (year 2) forbiointensive (BIORAPP) management,and conventional fields (C1, C2, and C3in year 1; C1 and C3 in year 2) for com-parison. All fields were in traditionalperennial (globe) artichokes except forB5, an annual (Imperial Star) artichokefield monitored in 1999.

To assess the performance of the BIO-RAPP fields, APM infestation and adultmoth trap capture and T. thalense popula-tions were monitored, and damage datawas collected during harvest.

The observed seasons lasted from June1998 to May 2000, with treatment andmonitoring beginning in mid-June ofeach year, after all fields were double-cutback* at the start of the season to physi-cally suppress initial APM infestation.The harvest season occurred fromSeptember to April of each year.

The annual artichokes were grownfrom mid-February through August1999, and were monitored from mid-Maythrough the end of August.

Experimental treatments: A replicatedcomplete block design incorporating thetwo management system treatments wasestablished in 1998, with 5 acres in eachtreatment. Production practices, with theexception of BIORAPP APM controlmethods, were the same for both treat-ments.

APM controls in the two conventionalfields consisted of two winter syntheticinsecticide applications.

APM controls in BIORAPP fields bothyears consisted of combined biologicalmethods: Trichogramma release and mat-ing disruption; and in year 2 mass trap-ping of APM adults was included.Insecticides were applied once to a BIO-RAPP field (B2), in March 1999.

Nine (B3) to thirteen (B1, B2) releasesof T. thalense were made to BIORAPPfields in 1998. The APM Degree DayUtility was run for each BIORAPP fieldto bracket APM generations. Biofix (firstegg discovered) was set for June 19 in1998 and June 10 in 1999. Degree day -based predictions were used to help timeTrichogramma release dates in 1998.

Mass releases of T. thalense adults fromthe laboratory culture were made in threecentral acres in each BIORAPP field.Parasitoids were released as pupae devel-oping in host eggs glued to 1 in. sq. releasecards with 1,500 parasitoids per card,taped into small, screened paper boxes (2cards per box), at a density of 12-16boxes/acre. Pupae were scheduled foremergence on the release day.

During 1998-1999, a mating disruptionsystem using pheromone lure ropes wereplaced in the artichoke plants at the rateof 480 per acre in July 1998.

A mass trapping system was employedin year 2 due to a shortage in the avail-ability of pheromone ropes. This involvedset-up and monitoring of pheromone/oiltraps (consisting of plastic cups attachedto a grape stake) every 40 feet in theBIORAPP treatment fields.

ON-FARM TRIALS ✦✦ BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF APM IN ARTICHOKESRESEARCH REVIEW

A grower-managed biorational program for artichoke pests (BIORAPP)

Principal investigator: Sean L. Swezey, Specialist, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable FoodSystems (CASFS), University of California-Santa Cruz; Mohammad Bari, Entomologist, ArtichokeResearch Association, Salinas, CA; Reggie Knox, Central Coast Lighthouse Farm Coordinator,Santa Cruz, CA ✦ Cooperating Growers: Steve Bontadelli, Pfyffer Brothers Ranch, Santa Cruz,CA; Tim Hudson, Coastways Ranch, Pescadero, CA; Jim Cochran, Swanton Berry Farms,Davenport, CA; Mitchell Torres, Tierra Farms, Salinas, CA ✦ OFRF support: $4,839 (1998),$4,939 (1999) ✦ Project period: 1998-2000 ✦ Reported to OFRF: August 2000

* Double-cut back refers to an APM controlmethod in which the crop is cut back, grownfor one month, and then cut back again.

31S U M M E R 2 0 0 1 N U M B E R 1 0

Results and discussion◗◗ APM flights: The degree day modelpredicted four APM flight periods duringyear 1. Based on a biofix date of June 19,flights were predicted in mid-August andlate October, 1998, and early April, 1999.Fields B2 and C2 had the highest APMincidence, and APM trap captures matchthe predicted flight periods fairly closely.

Biofix in year 2 occurred on June 10,1999. The adult APM capture data do notcompletely correspond to the degree daymodels in some of the fields. This reflectsthe effect of mass-trapping in year 2,which captures male moths and disruptsnormal trap patterns.

Biofix for the annual artichokes (fieldB5) occurred on February 11, 1999, andsubsequent generations were predicted inmid-June and mid-August 1999. FewAPM were captured in this field, evidenceof the success of the annual system atescaping APM detection.

Average seasonal APM trap captureswere not significantly different betweenBIORAPP and control fields in year 1.

◗◗ APM damage: Bud damage generallywas below 4%, an acceptable level, in allfields except B2, where damage levelsexceeded 4% on four dates, reachingabout 10% during the period betweenJanuary and March 1999. With thisexception, growers expressed satisfactionwith these damage levels.

Average bud damage over the 1999-2000 season was below 3% in all fields,with maximum damage on any one dateat 8%, in the annual artichokes (B5).Control fields during year 2 showed lowinfestation of buds (0-2%).

◗◗ APM in-field reproduction: In bothyears, there were no significant differencesbetween BIORAPP and control fields innumber of APM eggs found or APM lar-vae found.

◗◗ Parasitization of APM by T. thalense:Field B2 in year 1 was the only field withsufficient infestation from which torecover parasitoids. Detectable parasitiza-tion of APM eggs began on August 27,1998 after four releases. One parasitizedegg was found out of four APM eggs(25%) recovered from B2 on that date.Parasitized APM eggs were also found ontwo other dates in 1998; four parasitized

of six viable APM eggs were recovered onSeptember 3 (66%) and one parasitizedegg (100%) was recovered on September17. No other parasitized APM eggs werefound in this study.

◗◗ Costs: Total costs for field monitoringwere $20 per week. If used in conjunctionwith degree-day predictions, annual mon-itoring costs would be about $800. Thislevel of monitoring could be applied to afield of up to about 40 acres with no addi-tional costs, which would bring annualmonitoring costs to $20 per acre. Totalcosts for rearing and releasing parasitoidswere about $12,000 for the year, or about$4,000 per 5 acre field ($800 per acre).These rearing costs, prohibitively high forartichoke growers, reflect the small scaleof current rearing facilities. A larger andmore efficient rearing operation couldbring rearing costs down considerably,and we have given a small stock culture ofT. thalense to a commercial insectary(Rincon-Vitova) for development.

ConclusionsRelease of T. thalense parasitoids intoBIORAPP fields during 1998 addeddetectable mortality of APM eggs in thefield with the highest APM infestationrates (field B2). Additionally, a six-monthinsecticide-free period was achieved in allBIORAPP fields in the first project sea-son and in the second year BIORAPPfields did not receive any insecticideapplications. Our results demonstrate thatwe can successfully rear a wild, adaptedTrichogramma species in the laboratory,release it into a commercial productionfield (free of insecticide stress), and collectparasitized APM eggs in the release area.While costs of this program are currently

prohibitively high, future improvementsin efficiency could make the program eco-nomically feasible for growers.

Based on data from the field B5 in1999, it appears that APM populationsizes and damage levels in an annual arti-choke production system are similarlyeffective to those in the perennial system.However, the annual site in this study waslocated in a different production area andan annual control site was not available inthe current study.

The BIORAPP approach could be fur-ther optimized. First, the degree-daymodel did not consistently result in accu-rate predictions of APM, perhaps becauseof low APM numbers, insecticide appli-cations in the C fields, and/or use of long-term temperature averages in the secondproject year. Second, the percent APMparasitism by laboratory-reared para-sitoids reported here is lower and lessconsistent than those obtained in prioryears of our research. Parasitization ratescould possibly be increased by improvingTrichogramma colony quality. Enhancingthe efficiency of release organisms couldimprove control of APM larval hatch anddamage to buds, and would help makemass release of Trichogramma an econom-ically viable control option. ❈

“The artichoke plume moth (APM) is the mostserious pest confronting growers of perennialartichokes. This insect is present in 100% of

the 5,813 acres of perennial Green Globeacreage in the Castroville area of northernMonterey County. All stages of the pest arepresent in the fields year-round, although theinfestation level drops somewhat during theperiod November - March. Economic damageoccurs when APM larvae feed on the floralbuds, rendering them unmarketable. Ifuntreated, yield losses could reach 70%.”

Source: http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caartichokes.html

Sean Swezey’s complete project report:A grower-managed biorational program forartichoke pests (BIORAPP) on the north cen-tral California coast (OFRF project No.99-16) is available from OFRF by mail orby visiting www.ofrf.org. The report is 7pages plus references, 1 table and 11 datafigures describing adult male APM cap-tures, percent bud damage by APM lar-vae, and APM egg and larvae counts.

The artichoke plume moth (APM) (1/8” wingspan) is found throughout the U.S.

32

Spring 2001 Grants:This spring, the OFRF Board of Directorsawarded a total of $74,110 in competitivegrants for the following projects:

Trap crop management in organicstrawberriesSean Swezey, University of California,Santa Cruz, CA $9,896

Biological and mechanical control ofperennial weedsBob Quinn, Organic Farmer,Big Sandy, MT $7,239

Organic soil management and inducedsystemic resistance in vegetable cropsAlexandra Stone, Oregon State University,Corvallis, OR $9,352

High-residue cover crop mulches tomanage weeds in no-till organic potatoesRonald Morse, Virginia Polytechnic Institute& State University,Blacksburg, VA $3,100

Corn trap crop to control European cornborer damage in bell pepperBeth Kazmar, Tipi Produce,Fitchburg, WI $6,711

Forage brassicas as a component oforganic production systemsNancy Callan, Montana State University,Corvallis, MT $9,480

Intercropping to manage plant diseasein organic tomatoesJames Kotcon, West Virginia University,Morgantown, WV $8,940

OFRF awards grants for organic farm-ing research and education projects twotimes per year. Grant application dead-lines are January 15 and July 15.Projects may be farmer initiated, and/orshould involve farmers in project designand execution and take place on organicfarms whenever possible. OFRF consid-ers funding requests within the range of$1,000 to $10,000.

To obtain our Procedures for GrantApplications, please contact OFRF at:tel. 831-426-6606, or visit our website atwww.ofrf.org.

Grants Awarded

Biological control of Delia sp. in colecrops with rove beetles, Aleochara sp.Renee Prasad & Deborah Henderson,E.S. Cropconsult, Vancouver, B.C. $1,400

Shade cloth and mulch to extend thegreens season in the MidwestKatherine Kelly, Full Circle Farm,Kansas City, MO $5,835

Long-term organic vegetable rotationsystems and conservation tillageGreg Hoyt, North Carolina State University,Mountain Horticultural Crops R&E Center,Fletcher, NC $5,157

Targeted mowing to increase allelopathyin ryeNeda Diab, University of Maryland,College Park, MD $7,000

ORGANIC FARMINGRESEARCH FOUNDATION

I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I N

P. O . B o x 4 4 0 S a n t a C r u z , C a l i fo r n i a 9 5 0 6 1

R E T U R N S E R V I C E R E Q U E S T E D

Non-ProfitOrganizationU.S. PostageP A I D

Permit No. 616Santa Cruz, Ca.

New Public Funding to Support Organic Research through OFRF!We are pleased to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency has granted$84,000 to OFRF to support research project grants in fourteen states. With leadershipfrom Agricultural Initiative staff in Region IX, EPA has chosen to back OFRF's grant-making program as one approach to achieving the research objectives of the FoodQuality Protection Act.

Next year, OFRF grants for organic weed and pest management research in Alaska,Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawai'i, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming and the U.S. Pacific Islands will be madein partnership with EPA Regions VIII, IX and X. All review and decisions on the grantswill remain with the OFRF Board of Directors, and applications may be submitted asusual.

Thanks EPA for supporting organic farming research!

ORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH FOUNDATIONofrf.org/sites/ofrf.org/files/docs/pdf/ib10.pdfM ention the name...

Documents

Transcript of ORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH FOUNDATIONofrf.org/sites/ofrf.org/files/docs/pdf/ib10.pdfM ention the name...