Organic Farming and Agriculture Research Paper

Recent years, organic farming and organic methods become a part of the agriculture and, as a result, food. Population growth and new laws and regulations demand new farming and production methods and techniques. In addition, environmental degradation and land extortion are still the main problems in agriculture. Organic farming is one and the most cost effective way to overcome current problems and ensure productivity. It is worth considering what conditions are necessary in order for crops to adapt to changed socio-economic and environmental conditions. Natural selection in ‘the wild’ requires that there be diversity on which selection pressures can act.

The process of selection imparts to adaptation a genetic, and therefore heritable, base (DeGregor 44). Those combinations that are selected will constitute the best part of the genetic make-up of subsequent generations, resulting in the development of ecotypes adapted to local ecological conditions. Ecotypes are made up of populations which are not uniform genetically, but are characterized by the frequency with which different alleles of genes occur within that population.

At the beginning of the 21^st century, evolutionary perspectives in economics are very much in fashion. Evolutionary thinking in economics is nothing new, and has a notable pedigree. Renewed interest reflects the belief that the keystones of economic orthodoxy, its assumptions concerning the rationality of actors and preoccupation with equilibrium, are losing their capacity to support the edifice founded upon them. The transmission of cultural information does not, of course, guarantee that the behavior of individuals will be modified in accordance with cultural norms. Indeed, if this were the case, cultures might lack the source of variation enabling them to evolve.

Information is processed through cognitive structures of individuals who may subsequently either accept or internalize the values or norms of a culture, or choose to reject them (Lampkin and Spedding 74). Genetic engineering techniques applied to agricultural products, both plant and animal, have been referred to by terms as varied as food biotechnology, frankenfoods, agricultural genetic engineering, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), transgenic, and genetically engineered (GE).

By whatever name, it is the topic for the new millennium. Genetic engineering is simply altering the genetic material of an organism (DeGregor 48). The debate on the topic is anything but simple. It generates emotional and far-reaching opinions among consumers, researchers, and governments around the world. A simplistic view would be that grassroots consumer groups, organic farmers, religious groups, and Europeans oppose genetic engineering; while industry, academic groups allied and funded by industry, and the U.S. government support it.

Caught in the middle is the U.S. consumer—lulled by the promise of low food prices and improved foods, frightened by new technology, consumed by the media, and confused by conflicting reports from scientists. Groups on either side of the issue can produce many well-known experts who cite studies supporting their view (Holloway 219).

For many farmlands, organic agriculture is the alternative that is best known and most practiced in Europe and the United States. Many countries have certification bodies that award symbols for the produce of farms that qualify by dint of their following certain codes of practice. The certification bodies together form the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), which has drawn up minimum production standards to which all members, in principle, subscribe. together form the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), which has drawn up minimum production standards to which all members, in principle, subscribe (Holloway 219).

An increasing number of studies have been carried out comparing organic and conventional farming in the developed country setting. Most of these, to the extent that they consider yields, do so in the context of a comparison of financial performance of the two systems. “The organic movement has arisen largely as a reaction against conventional farming. Thus, in trying to define organic agriculture, it is useful to describe the salient characteristics of its conventional counterpart. Conventional agriculture relies heavily on chemical fertilizers and manure to restore the optimal chemical balance of the soil for particular crops” (Gutman 2351).

Over time, the debates over comparisons have become considerably more sophisticated as interest has grown in organic farming. Many of the problems mentioned above in comparing systems are recognized. On the whole, yield performance of organic agriculture is not as great as in modern HEIA.

Whilst this is not universally the case, most have been led to conclude from these studies that the gap between yields does appear to increase with the intensity of use of external inputs both by crop, over time, and by country/region. Others believe that size of grain also is an important factor, with organic farms’ yield performance relatively better for small grains than for large. As a result, relative yield performance tends to be better for small grains and in regions/countries where synthetic chemical input use is less intense (Hornstein 15410).

The latter is an important consideration when one considers the changing policy context of developed country farming. Various forms of farm subsidy have promoted a high level of input use, but these are now being scaled back, partly owing to environmental concerns. This is one reason why interest in organic farming, even amongst those practising HEIA, is growing (Ronald and Adamchak 92).

The question, then, is whether organic agriculture presents an attractive alternative to current non-sustainable practices. The answer is a qualified ‘yes’… both in high potential areas and marginal lands, organic agriculture offers agronomically feasible solutions for problems of environmental sustainability (Ronald and Adamchak 92). The feasibility includes a positive microeconomic effect for most of the producers involved, and possibly leads to positive effects on regional and national economies as well.

The above account has served to do two things; it has shown that modern agriculture, based as it is on genetic uniformity, substitutes diversity for uniformity, makes crops vulnerable to pest attack, and is at the root of environmental problems associated with pesticide use; and it has also shown that alternative ways of doing agriculture are at least worthy of greater attention from formal agricultural research than they currently receive, and that, notwithstanding the difficulties encountered in comparing farming systems, it may not be universally true to say that HEIA gives yields superior to any other system (Lampkin and Spedding 82).

The increased use of mechanical power as opposed to animal traction has had a number of impacts on the structure of the farm. Not least has been the reduced need to feed animals on the farm, though of course, the feeding of animals has itself become a specialized industry. However, animals were not simply suppliers of power. Their manure was a vital source of fertility and organic matter for the soil, helping maintain soil structure too. This fertility gap was first met through increased use of organic manures such as guano, but increasingly, it has been met through the application of chemical fertilizers, derived from natural gas and limited deposits of phosphate which vary in their associated cadmium concentrations (Lampkin and Spedding 49).

Perhaps more difficult to deal with are the impacts that diversity and the reduced use of synthetic pesticides have for the appearance of food. Consumers tend to purchase unblemished produce whose shape fits their perception of the ideal product, the cost of producing which is genetic uniformity and high levels of chemical pesticide use. As markets have expanded, the relatively fixed costs of transport have dictated that only premium quality (in the sense of being unblemished, visibly) produce and that of maximum durability is marketed.

Ironically, given the arguments raised concerning food supply, one report suggests that as much as half of organic produce being sold to supermarkets is deemed inedible through not meeting cosmetic standards It is difficult to separate the issue of consumers’ perception from that of food marketing, and it is not clear whether the desirability of such produce was first proclaimed by consumers or the food industry itself, which has considerable power to shape such issues. It has been suggested that in some countries where consumers are acutely aware of problems associated with pesticide use, they deliberately purchase blemished produce (Lampkin and Spedding 82).

The irony of this situation is that, whilst food companies equate appearance with quality, the nutritional content of food produced organically has, in some studies undertaken, been demonstrably superior. The exact reasons for this are unknown. Possible reasons include the effect of reduced soil organic matter on the activity of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil which are important in facilitating uptake of these nutrients. When one adds that many non-organic foods are contaminated with pesticide residues, sometimes at levels above even that deemed acceptable by the bogus scientific procedures mentioned above, the external costs of cosmetically superior produce begin to appear appreciable (Lampkin and Spedding 82).

Many farmers suppose that organic farming is not safe. But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates most new foods, new food additives, and animal feed. FDA determines whether genetically engineered foods are safe to eat. Regulatory responsibility for biotechnology in FDA is shared between the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Center for Veterinary Medicine. In 1992 FDA ruled that foods produced through biotechnology would be subject to the same review and approval processes as are other new food products. Federal regulations evaluate the end product, not the process by which a product is made.

Therefore, FDA evaluates new food biotechnology products for their individual safety, allergenicity, and toxicity, under the guidelines of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, just as are other new foods (Hornstein 54). Agricultural biotechnology products will help, not harm, the environment. Benefits include decreased pesticide and herbicide use, more efficient use of pesticides and fertilizer, and water and soil conservation. Crops with the internal ability to resist insects and other pests will require fewer applications of pesticides. This will mean fewer chemical residues will find their way into ground and surface water supplies and onto foods.

Less land will have to be converted to agricultural use because of the increased yield of GE crops. Those in favor of biotechnology cite GE corn as a positive example. “At its broadest level, organic agriculture reflects a set of ethical positions–toward the environment, toward socioeconomic justice, and toward animal welfare–as well as a set of agricultural methods. The International Federation of organic Agriculture Movements speaks of four overarching principles of organic agriculture–of health, ecology, fairness, and care” (Hornstein 1541).

Scientists favoring genetic engineering claim there is no scientific evidence that “superpests” or “superweeds” could occur through foods. Insects and weeds naturally develop resistance to chemicals in their environment. Biotechnology can better manage this evolution in resistance. There are already systems in place—crop rotation, hybrid rotation, and insect resistance management—that help prevent resistance from developing.

With regard to insects developing resistance to Bt crops, supporters point to the practice of insect resistance management (IRM). This is a practice in which growers plant non-Bt crops near the genetically modified resistant plants. Pests infecting these non-Bt plants will not develop Bt resistance and will breed with their counterparts in the Bt crop fields, which will lessen the chances of the development of resistance. Proponents argue that research demonstrating the possibility of resistance has been done in the laboratory, and thus may not be applicable to the natural environment (Lampkin and Spedding 18).

Organic farming can increase crop yields by several mechanisms. Increasing a plant’s ability to withstand environmental factors can expand a product’s geographical growth range. By building into plants better tolerance to droughts, floods, salts, metals, heat, and cold, marginal land can be made available for agriculture. Growers will be able to plant crops in areas that are now considered unsuitable for farming. This could improve the economies of developing nations. Globally pests destroy 45 percent of the world’s crops. Biotechnology can decrease this amount of waste by building in resistance to pests and weeds.

Supporters claim that agricultural biotechnology will reduce the risk of crop failures. In addition, growing animals for food can be made more efficient and feasible for the world by producing animal feed that will help animals to better digest their food through improved protein quality of animal feed crops. Proponents claim that advantages of organic farming that will be noticed in the marketplace are foods that have longer shelf life and better flavor, appearance, and texture.

They use as examples peppers modified to be tastier and sweeter; smaller seedless melons for use as single servings; bananas and pineapples with delayed ripening properties; sweeter peas; bananas resistant to fungus; and strawberries with higher crop yields and improved freshness, flavor, and texture. Using biotechnology, familiar food products can be produced more cheaply. For example, before genetic engineering techniques became available, the enzyme used to make cheese, rennet, was obtained from the lining of calves’ stomachs (Hornstein 1541).

In sum, changes in environmental conditions can be catastrophic for a given ecotype lacking the diversity necessary for adaptation. In most wild plants, a degree of diversity is maintained within the ecotype through genetic recombination via cross-fertilization. As long as the available genetic diversity allows new adaptive combinations to be generated, so the possibility of new ecotypes adapted to new environmental conditions arises.

Ultimately, a species comes to be composed of a series of ecotypes, the variation usually arising from differences in the frequencies with which particular genes are found in the populations rather than in the genes themselves. Farmers have continuously, and quite consciously, experimented in their fields with crops. Most observers have overlooked this process, emphasizing instead innovations that have originated in laboratories and field stations of research organizations and corporations established specifically for that purpose.

Works Cited

DeGregori, Th. R. Origins of the Organic Agriculture Debate. Wiley-Blackwellm, 2003.

Gutman, B.N. Ethical Eating: Applying the Kosher Food Regulatory Regime to Organic Food. Yale Law Journal, 108 (1999), 2351-2384.

Holloway, L. et al. Managing Sustainable Farmed Landscape through ‘Alternative’ Food Networks: A Case Study from Italy. The Geographical Journal, 172 (2006), 219.

Hornstein, D.T. The Road Also Taken: Lessons from Organic Agriculture for Market- and Risk-Based Regulation. Duke Law Journal, 56 (2007), 1541.

Ronald, P.C., Adamchak, R.W. Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. Oxford University Press, USA, 2008.

Lampkin, N. Spedding, C.R.W. Organic Farming. Farming Press Books and Videos, 2006.