A Critical Understanding of Organic Research
As mentioned above, valid organic research must be consistent with the NOP standards as well as with good scientific protocol. In addition, research on organic agro-ecosystems should be designed in a way that acknowledges that these systems function according to principles different from “conventional” or synthetic-input based agriculture.(Lipson, 1997) One fundamental difference is that organic agriculture relies primarily on ecological or biological processes, while conventional agriculture relies more on eliminating or minimizing biological factors through chemical interactions or impacts.
Because organic systems “behave differently in terms of nutrient cycles, disease suppression, and pest resistance” from conventional agriculture, research into these systems requires “a different set of management principles and assumptions,” and “a specific set of investigative contexts” to be effective.(Lipson, 1997) Unfortunately, much of the organic research conducted in the U.S. prior to the implementation of the NOP did not recognize fundamental differences between organic and conventional agriculture, nor did it analyze organic agriculture as an ecological system. Some research that claimed to be studying “organic” agriculture was inconsistent with the current NOP regulations, and thus cannot, at this time, be regarded as valid organic research. Because of these “misrepresentations,” the “methods” section of research studies on organic agriculture must be read critically to determine the validity of the study, and hence, the accuracy and/or applicability of its results.
The following are critical components of research methodology that must be in place for organic research studies to be credible.
- Management of organic agriculture treatments must be consistent with current NOP regulations.
- Inputs used in organic treatments or practices must be permitted under the NOP
- Organic treatments or practices must be implemented on land that has gone through a certifiable three-year transition period.
- Comparative studies of organic and conventional agriculture must provide the organic treatment with required buffer areas.
- Organic agriculture should be evaluated in the context of a system.
- Any organically approved input or management practice should be evaluated in the context of specific environmental conditions and in relationship to other inputs and management practices.
- Multiple organic management practices may be required to serve the same role that a single input or management practice does in a conventional system. Thus, substituting organic for conventional inputs on a one-to-one basis is often invalid.
- Component research should be conducted within the context of a larger system. This research involves investigating the underlying factors that influence interactions among plants, animals, plant-associated microbes, insects, plant-insect interactions, and/or the soil environment.
- Organic agriculture should be evaluated using long-term studies rather than two- or three-year studies
- Organic agriculture should be evaluated based on its resiliency under “poor conditions” as well as its responsiveness to ideal conditions.(Temple, 2000)
- Organic agriculture should be evaluated based on “management effort per unit of production” over time, rather than on yields per acre over the short term.(Lee, 2002)
Mark Lipson (1997) summarized these concerns about organic research studies in his introduction to Searching for the “O-Word,” a critique of the USDA Research Information System’s ability to identify valid organic research. He then goes on to challenge researchers to “ask the right questions” in order to “provide reliable answers to the important questions” of how organic agro-ecosystems operate.
Among these thousands of farms, there exists a fundamentally different set of biological and agronomic premises, in contrast to their “conventional,” chemical-management-intensive counterparts. The point here is not to argue which system is “better,” but to recognize that organic systems are qualitatively different, that they have different management principles, and to consider the costs and potential benefits of investing explicitly in research and development of them . . . .
Organic farming is NOT just a “different flavor” of farm inputs. The best organic farmers are not relying on purchased “biopesticides,” nor are they managing crop fertility by simply substituting natural sources for equivalent pounds of chemical fertilizer. They are building and maintaining the balances of the farming system such that adequate resources are available to meet their crops’ or animals’ needs without inducing problems generated by artificial imbalances. These farms conspicuously display“preventive-intensive” attributes, and they have different management and informational needs accordingly.
We have barely begun to tap the full potential of organic farming systems. In many ways, the state-of-the-art of organic farming is still in a rudimentary phase. We know very little about exactly how our systems are working.
The patterns of systemic relationships between biological fertility and soil qualities on one hand, and pest resistance and disease suppression on the other, are barely beginning to be understood. We have only glimpsed the outlines of the “soil food web”: the complex mediation of nutrients and disease prevention by communities of living organisms in biologically active agricultural soils. We are just getting to the point where we can ask questions at the correct (i.e., systems) level, let alone ask the best questions (e.g., “What characterizes the optimum patterns of relationship among specific soil biotic constituents?”), let alone provide reliable answers to the important questions.
| References |
|