Notions of Organic

As organic farming and marketing entered the 1970s, it began to develop as an industry. As a result, a clearer definition was needed to distinguish it and its products from conventional agriculture. This was no straightforward task. Environmental issues and other alternative agriculture philosophies had created diverse notions about what organic agriculture was and what it should be.

A particularly problematic image grew unexpectedly from the anti-pesticide movement of the 1960s. This was the romantic notion that organic simply meant “doing next-to-nothing.” In this exploitative approach, not only were pesticides avoided, sound farming practices that built the soil were also largely ignored. The results achieved on such farms were predictable, as yields were low and the quality poor. These approaches became collectively known as organic by neglect and are a far cry from the responsible farming models proposed by Albert Howard and J.I. Rodale.

It is unclear how many farmers actually chose to farm “by neglect” and advertise themselves as organic over the years. However, this extreme representation of organic agriculture was quickly taken up by critics who tried to characterize all of organic agriculture as soil depleting and unproductive (10). To counter this, current standards for certified organic production require an “organic plan” outlining the use of soil building activities and natural pest management.

There is a further notion that organic farming also describes farm systems based on soil building, but that continue to use some prohibited fertilizers and pesticides in a limited or selective manner. A USDA study of U.S. organic farms (11) made note of many such individuals who readily and sincerely referred to themselves as organic farmers. While these growers were largely conscientious and would, in most instances, fall under the modern umbrella of “sustainable farmers,” industry standards evolved to preclude all synthetic pesticides or commercial fertilizers. The approach to farming by this loose-knit group of growers and their supporters has come to be called “eco-farming” or “eco-agriculture”¾terms coined by Acres USA editor Charles Walters, Jr. (12).

A further notion of organic agriculture that bears addressing is the persistent image of organic farming as being possible only on a very small scale. This impression has been enhanced by the high visibility of organic market gardens. These, of course, are small because market gardening—conventional or organic—is usually done on a smaller scale. Also, some organic market garden systems, such as Biointensive Mini-Farming, utilize highly labor intensive/low capital investment technologies. These have become popular among U.S. gardeners and, more importantly, with those concerned with Third World development, where such systems are especially relevant. Focus on these systems has, unfortunately, distorted the picture of organics as a whole. Traditionally, organic farms truly have been smaller than conventional operations. This has been due in part to labor requirements. Organic systems are generally more labor intensive. Studies done in the late 1970s by Washington University, for example, found that about 11% more labor was required per unit of production where agronomic crops were concerned (13).

This difference can be much greater where horticultural crops are involved, and farm size may be limited accordingly. However, technological innovations in organic horticultural production are helping to narrow the gap. Organic systems are also more information intensive, requiring additional management time in planning, pest scouting, and related activities. For this reason, organic management can be better done if a farm is not too large. Essentially, the notion that organic systems are only possible on very small farms is a false one. Both the Washington University and the USDA studies confirmed this (3, 11). Given the range of acceptable technologies available, organic agriculture can be sized to fit a wide range of farms and enterprises.

Throughout its early history, organic agriculture was treated with either hostility or apathy by the USDA, land grant universities, and conventional agriculture in general. Since it was largely promoted as a better alternative to the status quo, this is not surprising. Fortunately, the atmosphere for discussing and investigating organics has improved considerably. While it did not become boldly evident until the 1990s, the tide actually began turning in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

A number of factors precipitated this change, among them the growth in the organic industry. Serious money demands serious attention. Also critical, from the perspective of the research community especially, were some landmark studies that lend credibility to organic farming as a truly viable option for American agriculture.

The first of these “landmarks” was a series of studies done by Washington University. Funded by the National Science Foundation, this research was motivated by the energy crisis of the 1970s and the effect that higher energy prices would have on agriculture in the nation’s Cornbelt. When researchers learned that there were commercial farms that were not dependent on the high-energy inputs of conventional farming, the focus quickly shifted to the study of organics.

In addition to the documentation of practices, crop yields, attitudes, and the sustainability indices (cited earlier in this publication), the researchers made what was certainly the most astounding discovery of all—that commercial organic farms could be competitive with conventional farms in the conventional marketplace (3).

Arriving on the heels of the Washington University work was another study of great significance done by the USDA. In contrast to the Washington University effort, these researchers chose to extend their survey of farmers nationally and over a wide range of enterprises. The findings of the USDA study, which were fair, largely positive, and encouraging, kicked open the door for future organic research in the way a non-land grant/non-USDA entity like Washington University could not. The final report—bound with pastel green cover sheets—was a conspicuous object at alternative agriculture conferences and field days throughout the early 1980s (11).

Also of particular note was a symposium on organic farming held in Atlanta, Georgia in late 1981. The meeting was sponsored jointly by the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America—traditionally very conservative entities. It brought together not only representatives of the Washington University and USDA teams, but a surprising number of other researchers clearly interested in the same issues of sustainability and finding a glimmer of hope in organic agriculture (14).