| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
a USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2150 Pammel Dr., Ames, IA 50011
b USDA-ARS, 1636 E. Alisal St., Salinas, CA 93905
c Iowa State Univ., 720 Seventh Ave. SW, Tripoli, IA 50676
d Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011–1070
* Corresponding author (Doug.Karlen{at}ars.usda.gov)
Received for publication April 21, 2006.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Abbreviations: ARS, Agricultural Research Service • DLRS, Deep Loess Research Station • ISU, Iowa State University • VNS, variety not specified
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
To support the expansion of organic production throughout the U.S., more certified organic research sites are needed to address weed management, soil fertility, crop health, soil biology, crop rotation, and cover crop issues (Walz, 1999). On-farm research under conditions that are representative of those encountered by producers considering making the transition from conventional to organic production practices are also needed to help them make input and practice changes across the spectrum of their operations (Greene and Kremen, 2003).
Sooby (2001, 2003) reported that 44 states now have some state-supported organic research activity. In addition, the USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research Service) has initiated organic research programs in several locations throughout the USA (Bull, 2006a; Jawson and Bull, 2002). Many of the programs have focused on market facilitation (Greene and Kremen, 2003), although some states—Minnesota and Iowa in particular—have begun subsidizing conversion to organic farming systems as a way to capture the environmental benefits of these systems (Delate and DeWitt, 1999; Plank, 1999). Aggressive organic research and education programs are also being developed throughout the nation (Sooby, 2003). Iowa was a leader in this endeavor, developing an Organic Farming Systems faculty position at Iowa State University (ISU) in 1997. Information developed through this extension and research position (Delate, 2002; Delate et al., 2002a, 2003a, 2003b; Delate and DeWitt, 2004; Delate and Cambardella, 2004; Delate and Friedrich, 2004; Friedrich et al., 2002) and technology transfer (Delate, 2000, 2002; Delate and Hartzler, 2002; Delate et al., 2002b) has helped sustain the growth of the organic industry in the state [14 480 ha in 1997 to 30 350 ha in 2005 (Greene, 2006)] and throughout the nation.
According to the U.S. National Organic Standards Act (Anonymous, 2000), conversion of land from conventional to organic agricultural production requires 3 yr before the crops can be given an organic label. During transition, marketable yields are often lower than previous conventional yields (Liebhardt et al., 1989; Lockeretz et al., 1981; MacRae et al., 1990; Temple et al., 1994; USDA, 1980). This transition effect may be due in part to gradual improvements in soil quality during the conversion process (Drinkwater et al., 1995; Scow et al., 1994), but grower experience with organic methods often results in significant differences when comparing first- and fourth-year organic production (Martini et al., 2004). For many researchers and producers, limited awareness and understanding of the high managerial costs and risks of shifting to a new way of farming continue to be obstacles that limit widespread adoption of organic farming systems (Dobbs et al., 2000; Lohr and Salomonsson, 1998).
A challenge for many organic research programs is that they are evolving from existing conventional agriculture practices. As a result, the researchers, their support staff, partners, cooperators and the land are all going through transition processes that can have tremendous implications toward the success or failure of these efforts. Our objective is to discuss the agronomic and economic lessons we learned from using alternate cropping systems to establish a certified organic farming research site in western Iowa. We suggest that being aware of these experiences will enable others conducting on-farm research to proceed with less stress than was encountered by our farmer cooperator, technical staff, land owner, and research team.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
20 km east of Council Bluffs, IA (41°20' N, 95°49' W). This 63-ha field-scale watershed was established in 1964 by the USDA-ARS to determine how various conservation practices affected runoff and water-induced soil erosion. The agronomic practices used and hydrologic characteristics of the watershed were representative of the deep-loess hills found in Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 107 within western Iowa and northwest Missouri (Karlen et al., 1999).
Transition Cropping Systems
The transition from no-till corn and soybean to a certified organic research site began in 2001 with an 8-ha portion of the watershed. Five crop sequences were evaluated as transition strategies. This included (i) oat [variety not specified (VNS)], snail medic (Kelson) or burr medic (Polygraze), sweet corn (‘Incredible’), and triticale (‘Trical 815’); (ii) organic certified field corn (‘Wilson 1096’, ‘Wilson 1580’, ‘Wilson 1664’, and ‘Pioneer 34W67’), rye cover crop, and soybean (‘Pioneer 9305’ and ‘IA 3012LF’); (iii) sweet corn (‘Early Ambrosia’ and Incredible), triticale (‘Pika’), and medic (VNS); (iv) oat (VNS)–alfalfa (‘Meadowlark’); and (v) soybean (‘US Soy 20145’, ‘IA 3006’, Pioneer 9305, and ‘NC+ Vinton 81’) followed by oat (‘Blaze’) and alfalfa (VNS).
Crop sequence No. 1 was initiated on a 0.5-ha area (Fig. 1, Fields 1 and 7) by disking to incorporate agricultural lime (9 Mg ha–1) and to prepare a seedbed before drilling oat with a conventional grain drill. After harvesting the oat for hay, the fields were disked and smoothed with a field cultivator before drilling medic as a N-producing cover crop. However, because of erratic rainfall, soil crusting, and very high temperatures immediately after planting, the medic failed to produce any substantial amount of biomass. As a result of the poor stand, no estimates of N fixation were made. Swine manure providing 240–80–130 kg ha–1 N–P–K was applied in December before planting sweet corn in spring 2002. Rotary hoeing and cultivation were used to partially control weeds in the sweet corn. After picking the sweet corn, the fields were disked twice and smoothed with a cultipacker before drilling triticale. No additional fertilizer or weed control was deemed necessary.
|
Crop sequence No. 3 was initiated on a 0.6-ha area (Fig. 1, Field 2). Nutrient requirements were met with a preplant application of liquid swine manure (170–50–108 kg ha–1 N–P–K) and 6.7 Mg ha–1 of agricultural lime. The site was disked and smoothed with a field cultivator. Two sweet corn cultivars (Early Ambrosia and Incredible) were grown in 2001 to provide product at two different harvest dates. Weeds were suppressed by rotary hoeing four times and cultivating twice. An organic-approved insecticide (Dipel or Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki, Strain HD-1) was applied to control ear worm [Helicoverpa (= Heliothis) zea (Boddie)]. The sweet corn was hand harvested and marketed through a local grocery store. Following harvest, the fields were disked, smoothed with a field cultivator, and drilled with triticale. Following triticale harvest in 2002, the fields were disked twice, smoothed with a cultipacker, and drilled to medic.
Crop sequence No. 4 was initiated on a 1.7-ha area (Fig. 1, Field 5) by disking twice to incorporate 6.7 Mg ha–1 of agricultural lime and smoothing with a field cultivator before planting four food-grade soybean cultivars (US Soy 20145, Pioneer 9305, NC+ Vinton 81, and IA 3006). The first three cultivars had acceptable stand establishment, but the area planted to the IA 3006 had to be replanted. As a result, this cropping system treatment required a total of six rotary hoeing and three cultivation operations to suppress weeds. After combining the soybean, liquid swine manure providing 240–80–130 kg ha–1 N–P–K was applied because we were expecting to plant corn in 2002. However, after evaluating the weed pressure following the soybean crop, we decided to disk the site and then drill an oat–alfalfa mixture in 2002. After drilling, a cultipacker was used to firm the soil surface and provide better soil–seed contact.
Crop sequence No. 5 was initiated on a 2.1-ha area (Fig. 1, Field 6) by disking to incorporate 9 Mg ha–1 of agricultural lime and then drilling an oat–alfalfa or oat–red clover mixture. Based on soil test values (data not presented), no additional fertilizer was applied. The oat–legume mixtures were mowed and baled in early June, clipped to suppress weed competition in July, and harvested again in September. In October, red clover was overseeded across the entire area to fill in gaps where the legumes had failed to become established. The forage was harvested as hay four times in 2002.
Research Management
Research at the DLRS involved a three-way partnership between the ISU Committee for Agricultural Development, a local conventional farmer, and the ARS. Activities that decreased the average annual profit ha–1 for the land owner and producer were compensated for by the ARS. Thus by default, we adopted a research model emphasizing profit as the primary measure of success for our transition experience.
Research models were developed from a survey of USDA-ARS research scientists working in organic agricultural systems (Bull 2006a, 2006b; Bull, 2006, unpublished data). As part of a survey taken between 2000 and 2002, ARS scientists conducting research in organic systems were asked how they managed their research projects. Scientists were asked if they conducted their studies at research stations or on grower land and were asked what role the growers played in the planning and execution of the research. The management models described herein were developed from the survey results which included information from this specific research project.
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
The emphasis on sustaining a profit, coupled with a sharp learning curve for the research team, farmer cooperator, and land owner, collectively created a very stressful transition period for everyone. Our cooperator had a personal conventional farming operation to manage as well as the increased demands placed on his time for the plot studies used to test the various crop sequences. Weed control, nutrient management challenges associated with using swine manure rather than commercial fertilizer, and timeliness of operations gradually created a situation where the potential for being able to conduct high-quality organic research was in jeopardy. Eventually, an insurmountable barrier was reached and even after the site was certified for organic production, the decision to terminate all future activities was mutually agreed on by all parties. However, several lessons were learned from this experience. They are being used to improve our next transition study and will hopefully help many others as they conduct research to develop certified organic research sites or to solve other on-farm agronomic problems.
Cropping System Responses
Cropping System No. 1 (Fig. 1) was initiated in two small fields (0.38- and 0.14-ha, respectively) and was the only area where oat was grown as part of our cooperator's overall farming operation. Because it would have been very difficult to use his large combine to harvest those areas, he concluded that it was simply not worth his time to even take the combine out of his storage shed. Furthermore, neither the ARS scientists nor ISU partners had a plot-scale combine available for harvesting the oat crop, so the crop was ultimately harvested as low-quality hay rather than for grain and straw (Supplemental Table 1). Medic was planted as a N-fixing cover crop, but failed to establish because of erratic rainfall, soil crusting, and very high temperatures immediately after sowing. The 2002 sweet corn crop was also plagued by poor emergence because of excessive planting depth (10 cm). This occurred because the loess soil was very loose and powdery following manure injection, disking, and field cultivation. Poor emergence of the first sweet corn planting led to a replanting decision that subsequently delayed crop maturity and thus lost the potential fresh-market buyer for the crop. Weeds were also a major problem in sweet corn because of the very high seed bank populations of foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis L.), wild sunflower (Helianthus annus L.), and velvet leaf (Abutilon theopohrasti Medic.) (Karlen et al., 1999). Finally, even though the triticale crop produced well (5.75 Mg ha–1 or 91.6 bu acre–1), the research team failed to locate a buyer for the grain so there was no income from that crop. As a result of these problems, this cropping system was not included in our economic assessment of the various transition strategies.
|
Cropping System No. 3 was initiated by growing two sweet corn cultivars because of their high potential market value even during the transition period. Weed pressures and growing corn with two different maturities created several management problems (Supplemental Table 1). Four rotary hoeing operations, two cultivations, and two applications of insecticide were required for this treatment alone. However, marketable yield was very good (13 400 ears ha–1) and the crop was purchased locally. This resulted in a net return exceeding $800 ha–1 (Supplemental Table 2). After both sweet corn cultivars were picked, stalks and weeds were shredded and the site was disked before planting triticale. Composted swine manure was applied during late winter, but because of spreader problems, the rate of application (30 Mg ha–1 or 13.3 t acre–1) was much higher than planned and nutrient loading (206–165–262 kg ha–1) was excessive. The tall growth habit of the Pika triticale coupled with the high rate of fertilization resulted in severe lodging and required the crop to be harvested as hay during the boot stage rather than for grain and straw (Supplemental Table 1).
|
Crop sequence No. 4 was initiated by growing four food-grade soybean cultivars. The planting was delayed until the end of May to allow spring weeds to emerge and be partially controlled by preplant disking. Unfortunately, the seed bank population was so great that weeds were still a major problem. Later planting did help minimize damage by bean leaf beetles [Cerotoma trifurcata (Forster)] which can significantly reduce the quality of food-grade soybean by serving as vectors for the seed-staining bean pod mottle virus (BPMV) and seed-staining fungi such as Cercospora kikuchii T. Matsu. & Tomoyasu and Fusarium spp. (Karlen et al., 2004).
Emergence and stand establishment for three of the four soybean cultivars was satisfactory, but not the IA 3006 cultivar. This cultivar germinated, but crusting of the silt loam soil prevented the cotyledons from emerging and many of the seedlings died as the hypocotyl pushed through and ripped off the cotyledons. As a result, one-fourth of the area had to be replanted (Supplemental Table 1). The amount of seed was limited, however, so a mixture of the other three cultivars (US Soy 20145, Pioneer 9305, and NC+ Vinton 81) was used for replanting. Six rotary hoeing operations and three cultivations were used to reduce weed pressure, but weeds were still a major management problem. As a result, soybean yields were very low (1.4, 0.8, and 1.3 Mg ha–1 or 21.4, 11.4, and 19.1 bu acre–1 for the US Soy 20145, NC+ Vinton 81, and Pioneer 9305, respectively). The replanted mixture produced only 0.8 Mg ha–1 (13.3 bu acre–1). With annual profit being the important motivator, this was very disappointing to our cooperator since the average soybean yield for Potawattamie County was 3.0 Mg ha–1 (45 bu acre–1). An oat–alfalfa mixture was planted in 2002 and harvested for hay twice and mowed once for weed suppression without harvesting the forage.
Crop sequence No. 5 was initiated in 2001 by sowing strips of oat and alfalfa or oat and red clover. Although the field had been disked to prepare a seedbed, the drill used for planting was intended for no-till conditions. As a result, the seed tubes plugged frequently and the resulting plant stands were more erratic than desired. Coupled with the legume seed cost, this resulted in rather low yields (4.6 Mg ha–1 of oat–hay and 1.1 Mg ha–1 of alfalfa–red clover in the fall) and a net loss for these crops during the establishment year (Supplemental Table 2). Additional red clover seed was broadcast over Field 6 (Fig. 1) to fill in the bare and sparse areas. This improved stand uniformity and resulted in a second-year alfalfa–red clover yield of 11.3 Mg ha–1. With regard to transition from conventional crop production to a certifiable organic production site, the forage-based cropping system provided low-cost weed control with minimal external inputs. Growing forage was also more efficient when the crop was maintained for at least 2 yr to help offset establishment costs.
Weed control was a major challenge associated with the transition from conventional to organic production practices at the DLRS. This was not unexpected, since the number one research priority in the third biennial national organic farmer's survey (Walz, 1999) was weed management. Also, based on prior measurements in two of the four field-scale watersheds (Karlen et al., 1999), the weed seed bank at the DLRS was known to have very high levels of foxtail, wild sunflower, Amaranthus spp., and velvet leaf. An unexpected outcome from this research was discovering the excellent weed control provided by a dense, tall triticale cultivar (Pika) for several weeks following its harvest for hay. This suggests that growing triticale for hay or perhaps as a biomass crop for bioenergy production may be an effective method for reducing the weed seed bank during transition from conventional grain crops to organic production or even for existing conventional and/or organic farming operations.
Economic Analysis
The weed control, nutrient management, and timeliness problems that ultimately led to a mutual agreement to terminate research at the DLRS generally resulted in lower-than-expected yield levels and higher-than-expected expenses (Appendices A and B). Both were very different from other organic transition studies in Iowa (Delate et al., 2002a, 2003a; Delate and Cambardella, 2004). This may reflect the challenges that any grower going through a transition process may face, but we chose to use a more generalized economic analysis to compare the various cropping systems.
Production Costs
Table 1 lists the typical field operations associated with four crop sequences that might be used to convert from conventional to organic production practices. Overall, the oat–alfalfa (with or without red clover) rotation required less fieldwork (3.8 h ha–1) than the other rotations (Table 2). Fieldwork for corn–soybean and soybean–alfalfa sequences was increased by 1.25 h ha–1 (5.2 and 5.1 h ha–1, respectively) by including 5 h ha–1 for hand-weeding soybeans. The sweet corn–triticale required the most hours per unit area, with nearly 62 h ha–1 invested for hand harvesting the sweet corn.
|
|
$15 000, the annual cost for that picker would include depreciation, interest, taxes, housing, and insurance (the fixed cost) and variable costs for fuel, repairs and maintenance. Depreciation depends on an estimate of economic life for the machine and the salvage value at the end of the economic life. Again, assuming the picker has a 15-yr life and a 30% salvage value, depreciation would be $1008 per year [(15 000 – 4500) x 0.096]. The 0.096 is the capital recovery factor taking into consideration time value of money. Taxes, insurance, and housing can be estimated at 2% of the purchase price or $300 per year; opportunity cost or interest expense would vary depending on assumed rates, type of loan, and so forth. For the $15 000 investment at 5% interest, the average cost would be $375. Repair and fuel costs should be minimal since the equipment wouldn't be used much, so for this analysis we simply assumed $24.70 ha–1 ($10 acre–1) for repairs and $24.70 ha–1 ($10 acre–1) for fuel. Adding these together, the total cost would be $1683 (about 11% of the purchase price) plus $50 ha–1 ($100 ha–1 if including 2 h of labor).
Hand harvesting was calculated to cost $630 ha–1 ($255 acre–1). The current plot was 0.6 ha (1.4 acre), resulting in a hand-harvesting cost of $378 vs. a machine-harvesting cost of $1739. Obviously, these numbers would change as assumptions change, but we suggest that it probably wouldn't make sense to purchase harvesting equipment until the operation is at least 3- to 4-ha (8–10 acres) or more. For small operations such as the one evaluated for this study, mechanization probably wouldn't make economic sense.
For other operations, machinery and input costs of production were determined by applying standardized cost estimates from Duffy and Smith (2006) to the cultural practices used for each rotation. The standardization of costs per operation eliminates differences from purchasing discounts of inputs and machinery repairs and depreciation, among others, and focuses on practices. Cost of the injected swine manure in the corn–soybean and sweet corn–triticale rotations was calculated as the cost of trucking the manure to the farm. A manure application charge for machinery operation was also included.
Production costs by crop and rotation are presented in Table 3. Total average production costs for the corn–soybean and sweet corn–triticale rotations were almost identical at $447 and $450 ha–1, respectively. In both rotations, corn production costs were substantially higher than the other crops. Swine manure application ($141 ha–1 for product and $22 ha–1 for application) contributed to this occurrence. Average production costs for the oat–alfalfa rotation were approximately one-third less at $299 ha–1. The soybean–alfalfa rotation incurred the lowest average production cost at $279 ha–1.
|
|
Returns
The analysis of returns is divided into three components: (i) an analysis of returns to land, labor, and management; (ii) an analysis conducted with a $10.50 per hour labor charge subtracted to estimate a return to land and management; and (iii) an analysis conducted with a $370 ha–1 land charge subtracted to estimate a return to management.
Farm labor is typically provided by the owner–operator. The value associated with this labor will depend on the types of enterprises and operations involved, outside opportunities available, and other variables. However, we assume that someone, whether the owner–operator or hired labor, is available at $10.50 per hour. The land use is charged a cash rent equivalent of $370 ha–1. This charge reflects ownership costs and a return to the land asset regardless of whether the land is actually owned or rented.
Returns to land, labor, and management are determined by first calculating gross revenues from sales (i.e., yield multiplied by price) and then subtracting production costs (Table 5). The lowest return among the crops occurred with corn ($230 ha–1) due to its high production cost structure and average gross revenues. Alfalfa incurred the second highest return ($699 ha–1) as a result of relatively low production costs and higher-than-average gross revenues. The highest return occurred with the sweet corn crop due to much higher gross revenues ($2223 ha–1). Average returns to land, labor, and management fell along these same patterns with the corn–soybean rotation having the lowest rotational returns at $309 ha–1; the oat/alfalfa–alfalfa rotation the second highest at $484 ha–1; and the sweet corn–triticale rotation the highest return at $1010 ha–1.
|
1 h or $10.50 ha–1. The sweet corn crop incurred the highest labor charge at $635 ha–1, but still provided the rotation the highest return ($1013 ha–1).
|
This study did not take into consideration the total influence of any government program. The average corn and soybean prices used in this analysis were $0.0840 and $0.2277 kg–1, respectively. These prices are higher than the loan rate, indicating no loan deficiency payment would have been received. The counter-cyclical and direct payments were not included because those payments are determined by base acres and historical yields and would be received regardless of the rotation or crop sequence used to move through the transition phase. Also, the very high return associated with producing a crop such as sweet corn during this period must be viewed with caution. Being certain that a viable and dependable market existed for the crop being produced was an extremely important lesson if the annual income is to be sufficient to cover costs for seed, fertilizer, insurance, cash rent, labor, machinery, fuel, repairs, and interest on operating capital.
Importance of Marketing
The importance of marketing must be recognized when moving from a traditional commodity or natural resource focus into organic or other systems studies. This can be critical even during the transition phase of developing an organic research site, as evidenced by this study. Our experience is also consistent with concerns expressed in the fourth National Organic Farmers' Survey (Walz, 2004). Those survey results emphasized that to support the economic sustainability of organic farming systems, everyone involved should understand the marketing needs of organic farmers and target those needs as part of the research or program that is being developed. Unfortunately, these socioeconomic factors can be easily overlooked if the project focus is only on publishable results. The loss of our sweet corn market during the second year was a major reason why Cropping System No. 1 (oat–medic–sweet corn–triticale) failed and had to be dropped from our analysis.
The relative certainty of a reasonable market and reduced weed pressure are two reasons why we suggest moving through the transition phase by planting a small grain such as oat or triticale in the first year followed by a forage crop such as alfalfa or red clover during the second and third years of transition or until the site qualifies for certification as an organic production site.
Management Models
Interfacing research projects with on-farm production practices increases the complexity for everyone involved (i.e., land owners, operators, and researchers). To fully appreciate the complexity, we found it useful to develop management models from strategies that have been used to develop and run organic research programs by USDA-ARS scientists (Table 7). These models were developed from responses to a survey provided by USDA-ARS researchers who had worked in organic production systems (Bull, 2006a, 2006b). Biggs (1989) described the range of interactions between growers and researchers as contract, consultative, collaborative, or collegiate. While the respondents described examples of each of the other interactions, no collegiate (researchers supporting farmer's research projects) interactions were described. This result may be due to bias in the survey since we specifically asked about research initiated by researchers and data from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education database indicates that USDA-ARS scientists have been participants on farmer initiated SARE projects in organic systems. Alternatively, this may reflect the central source model of research innovation on which agricultural research institutions are based (Biggs, 1990).
|
Among the 88 USDA-ARS scientists who were working in organic systems between 2000 and 2002, eight reported that they had access to certified or certifiable organic land at their research stations. Seventeen scientists were working on certified land located at other research stations or land managed by research station staff. Three different models of research management emerged from survey data for research conducted on research station managed or owned land.
For a Type 1 Model, staff from the research institution supply farm labor through contracts or permanent employees and an agronomist (grower) is part of staff. The land belongs to or is managed by the research institution and is being or has been transitioned from conventional research operations. The food produced is not marketed because it would compete with local growers. Just as soil resources are going through a transition phase, the land manager may also be going through a transition period learning how to produce crops organically, (Drinkwater et al., 1995; Martini et al., 2004; Scow et al., 1994). Additionally, researchers may be moving through the transition phase of their own (Bull, 2006b). In this Model, growers have no or little involvement. The proposals of Biggs (1989) and others (Lyon, 1996; Norman et al., 1998; Riley and Alexander, 1997) do not include this type of model primarily because they were interested in growers participating in research. Biggs (1989) described a consultative relationship between growers and researchers. In a consultative relationship, the researchers consult farmers to diagnose their problems and help develop solutions. In the Type 1 Model, the researchers may eventually use the data generated in the research to provide advice to growers, thus entering into a consultative relationship to share their findings or they may have no direct interactions with growers. The Type 2 Model is very similar to Type 1, but there may be a liaison committee or group of growers that make recommendations about cropping practices and to make sure the research is relevant. The consultative relationship described above is in contrast to what is found in organic systems. In organic agricultural research, the consultation is done by the growers since researchers are generally not familiar with the organic cropping practices and the growers are the original innovators (Lipson, 1997; Sooby, 2001, 2003; Yandoc et al., 2004). We have designated this relationship as grower consultative (Table 7) to distinguish it from the nature of consultation described by Biggs (1989). In the Type 2 Model, again the harvest is not usually marketed so economic analysis is conducted using available data instead of actual sales. There is little risk in either Type 1 or Type 2 (researcher intensive) studies of not having experiments finished regardless of the cost of production.
Of the 88 USDA-ARS scientists working in organic systems, 60 of them were conducting research on grower land. Even those with access to organic land on research station often conducted on-farm research because of the benefits of this type of research (Lockeretz, 1987; Rzewnicki et al., 1988; Vogl et al., 2004; Yandoc et al., 2004). When research was conducted on grower land, the amount of grower involvement varied. In some cases, researchers only sampled organic or transitional fields, while in other cases growers took the lead in management.
For the Type 3 Model (shared management), researchers may or may not involve the growers in the design of their experiments. The research is conducted on research institution land and the grower may be compensated in some way. Because of contractual arrangements with the grower to complete the research, there is little risk of the work not being completed, though grower needs may influence plot management. There may be more relevance of this research to growers in the region due to the hands-on grower involvement.
For the Type 4 Model (grower intensive), the research is conducted on grower land and some of the management costs are born by the grower. The grower is usually involved in the planning of the research, which influences its direction, but insures that it is highly relevant to others in the region. Because the help given by the grower is a courtesy to the researchers, there is always that possibility that the research will be compromised due to economic needs of the grower. The Type 5 Model is also Grower Intensive, but in this situation the grower owns the land and is intimately involved with the management decision process. The grower has freedom to make changes in management plans and therefore may compromise the research objectives. The research and lessons learned under Models 4 and 5 usually have significant relevance to growers in the area, but may compromise the ability of research scientists to publish the research in respected journals. There is no correct research management Model since each has advantages and disadvantages depending on the imperatives being evaluated. For all the imperatives implicit in organic and sustainable agriculture to be met, however, sociological and environmental impacts must be addressed and may require Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) or other scientific disciplines to be involved in the research.
A Type 3 Model (shared management) best described our project since it involved a transitioning grower, researchers, and placed a high emphasis on economic return. We recognized from previous studies (Karlen et al., 1999; Kramer et al., 1999; Logsdon et al., 1999) that weed control would be a challenge, but were confident that using several different crop sequences would result in one or more successful transition strategies for developing our organic research site. We also recognized the importance of reducing runoff and soil erosion, balancing both N and water use efficiency, and developing a soil condition (quality) that would be resilient and able to buffer periodic but anticipated plant water and heat stress. In hindsight, errors were made by all parties involved and for that reason alone, we hope our experiences will provide for smoother and less stressful transition periods than we encountered.
|
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
Three different economic returns were calculated. They were for land, labor, and management; land and management; and management. The relative rankings of the rotations did not change as labor and land charges were included. However, only two of the four crop sequences incurred a positive return to management; sweet corn–triticale and oat/alfalfa–alfalfa. Using our projections, those returns were $311 and $74 ha–1, respectively. Using annual profit as the primary factor, these results suggest two possible strategies for making a successful transition from a no-till corn and soybean rotation to a site suitable for organic certification. One scenario is to include a high-value crop such as sweet corn. Sweet corn incurred gross revenue of $2223 ha–1, which was more than enough to cover the crop's inherent higher production cost structure. The second transition strategy would be to use crops with low production costs such as oat, triticale, and alfalfa or red clover. Those crops have low production cost structures, and in addition, alfalfa/red clover hay has the advantage of returning relatively high gross revenues. If weeds are already a major problem, high priority should first be given to minimizing the weed seed bank.
If the land is not in row crop production, but rather is currently enrolled in a program such as the Conservation Reserve (CRP), being grazed, or managed for forage production, the practices outlined by Delate (2000) and Delate et al. (2002a) will provide a very appropriate transition strategy. This includes (i) moldboard plowing the grass and legume area in the fall, (ii) planting a cover crop for erosion control, weed control, and supplemental organic matter, and (iii) performing additional tillage in spring to prepare a seed bed and kill any remaining vegetation before planting soybean.
We conclude that following these suggestions will help facilitate the development of certified organic research sites and thus increase the availability of research information desired by organic producers (Walz, 1999) and consumers.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| The SCI Journals | Crop Science | Vadose Zone Journal | |||
| Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education |
Soil Science Society of America Journal | ||||
| Journal of Plant Registrations | Journal of Environmental Quality |
The Plant Genome | |||
used for each transition rotation evaluated for converting from conventional to organic practices.