Now that organic farming is coming into vogue, a whole new breed of farmers is taking up organic production. They often approach organic production as just another specialty crop. The result is an increasing emphasis on farming by “input substitution.” That means substituting conventional farming inputs with inputs that are approved for organic production, rather than using an array of cultural and biological practices to build soils, control pests and grow nutritious, productive crops–as had been the tradition in organic farming.
Another approach common among farmers who see organic production as a specialty crop is farming by “neglect.” That means “organic farming” using neither any inputs nor any additional cultural or biological farming practices. The result, not surprisingly, is decreasing yields and increasing weed and pest pressures. These farmers usually give up “organic” production in a few years, convinced that it doesn’t work.
Is organic farming by input substitution or by neglect really organic farming? Technically, yes, by today’s working definitions, but not really, by the standards of traditional organic farmers.
As an aside, it is not surprising that studies comparing the nutritional value of organic and conventionally grown food are inconclusive. Clearly, that is because a lot of “organic” food is essentially “conventionally” grown–by input substitution or neglect methods. It is not likely to be nutritionally different from conventional food because it is grown under conditions that mimic conventional production. I suspect, however, that if we were to test food grown on an organic farm that utilized generous amounts of green manure and compost in comparison with food from an NPK conventional farm, the organic food would be found to be superior in taste and nutritional value.
Tags: Organic Apple, Organic Beef, organic dairy, Organic Farming, Organic Milk, Organic Produce