Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:28:55.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

D.W. Lotter ,
R. Seidel  and
W. Liebhardt
D.W. Lotter
Affiliation:
The Rodale Institute, 611 Siegfriedale Rd., Kutztown, PA 19530
R. Seidel*
Affiliation:
The Rodale Institute, 611 Siegfriedale Rd., Kutztown, PA 19530
W. Liebhardt
Affiliation:
The Rodale Institute, 611 Siegfriedale Rd., Kutztown, PA 19530
*
R. Seide (rita.seidel@rodaleinst.org).
Get access

Abstract

The 1999 severe crop season drought in the northeastern US was followed by hurricane-driven torrential rains in September, offering a unique opportunity to observe how managed and natural systems respond to climate-related stress. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial has been operating since 1981 and consists of three replicated cropping systems, one organic manure based (MNR), one organic legume based (LEG) and a conventional system (CNV). The MNR system consists of a 5-year maize–soybean–wheat–clover/hay rotation, the LEG of a 3-year maize–soybean–wheat–green manure, and the CNV of a 5-year maize-soybean rotation. Subsoil lysimeters allowed quantification of percolated water in each system. Average maize and soybean yields were similar in all three systems over the post-transition years (1985–1998). Five drought years occurred between 1984 and 1998 and in four of them the organic maize outyielded the CNV by significant margins. In 1999 all crop systems suffered severe yield depressions; however, there were substantial yield differences between systems. Organic maize yielded 38% and 137% relative to CNV in the LEG and MNR treatments, respectively, and 196% and 152% relative to CNV in the soybean plots. The primary mechanism of the higher yield of the MNR and LEG is proposed to be the higher water-holding capacity of the soils in those treatments, while the lower yield of the LEG maize was due to weed competition in that particular year and treatment. Soils in the organic plots captured more water and retained more of it in the crop root zone than in the CNV treatment. Water capture in the organic plots was approximately 100% higher than in CNV plots during September's torrential rains.

Keywords

organic agricultureorganic farming drought resistancecrop waterhydrology
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 146 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. 1994. Nature farming rice crop succeeds despite record cold summer: Story is front-page news in Japan. World Sustainable Agriculture Association Newsletter 3(12):1.Google Scholar
Clark, M.S., Ferris, H., Klonsky, K., Lanini, W.T., van Bruggen, A.H.C., and Zalom, F.G.. 1998. Agronomic, economic, and environmental comparison of pest management in conventional and alternative tomato and corn systems in northern California. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 68 (1–2):51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, R.F. 1996. Organic matters. The LIRAS century, 4 (March): Long Term Research on Agricultural Systems (LTRAS). College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California Davis.Google Scholar
Dormaar, J.F., Lindwall, C.W., and Kozub, G.C.. 1988. Effectiveness of manure and commercial fertilizer in restoring productivity of an artificially eroded dark brown chermozemic soil under dryland conditions. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 68:669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drinkwater, L.E., Letourneau, O.K., Workneh, F., Vanbruggen, A.H.C., and Shennan, C.. 1995. Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecological Applications 5(4):1098–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eason, W.R., Scullion, J., and Scott, E.P.. 1999. Soil parameters and plant responses associated with arbuscular mycorrhizas from contrasting grassland management regimes. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 73(3):245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, K.L., Powers, W.L., Jones, A.L., and Helmers, O.A.. 1997. Alternative production systems' effects on the K-factor of the revised universal soil loss equation. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12(2):55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardt, R.A. 1997. A comparative analysis of the effects of organic and conventional farming systems on soil structure. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 14(2):139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, J. 1994. Economics of organic farming in Canada. In Lampkin, N.H. and Padel, S. (eds.). The Economics of Organic Farming. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 3–8.Google Scholar
Holt-Gimenez, E. 2002. Measuring farmers' agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaenicke, E.C. 1998. From the Ground Up: Exploring Soil Quality's Contribution to Environmental Health. Policy Studies Report No. 10. Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
Liebig, M.A., and Doran, J.W.. 1999. Impact of organic production practices on soil quality indicators. Journal of Environmental Quality 28(5): 1601–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D.H.. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. Science 211:540–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohr, L., and Salomonsson, L.. 2000. Conversion subsidies for organic production: results from Sweden and lessons for the United States. Agricultural Economics 22(2): 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotter, D.W. 2003. Organic agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 21(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mader, P., Edenhofer, S., Boiler, T., Wiemken, A., and Niggli, U.. 2000. Arbuscular mycorrhizae in a long-term field trial comparing low-input (organic, biological) and high-input (conventional) farming systems in a crop rotation. Biology and Fertility of Soils 31(2): 150–156.Google Scholar
Moyer, J.W., Saporito, L.S., and Janke, R.R.. 1996. Design, construction, and installation of an intact soil core lysimeter. Agronomy Journal 88:253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S.E. 1994. Conversion to low-input farming systems in Pennsylvania, USA: an evaluation of the Rodale Farming Systems Trial and related economic studies. In Lampkin, N.H. and Padel, S. (eds.). The Economics of Organic Farming. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 265–284.Google Scholar
Petersen, C., Drinkwater, L., and Wagoner, P.. 1999. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial: The first 15 years. The Rodale Institute, Kutztown, PA.Google Scholar
Pretty, J., and Hine, R.. 2001. Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence. SAFE Research Project, University of Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Reganold, J.P. 1995. Soil quality and profitability of biodynamic and conventional fanning systems: A review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10(1):36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reganold, J.P., Palmer, A.S., Lockhart, J.C., and Macgregor, A.N.. 1993. Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. Science 260(5106):344–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reganold, J.P., Glover, J.D., Andrews, P.K., and Hinman, H.R.. 2001. Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410(6831):926–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, M.H., Chilvers, G.A., and Dumaresq, D.C.. 1994. Colonisation of wheat by VA-mycorrhizal fungi was found to be higher on a farm managed in an organic manner than on a conventional neighbour. Plant and Soil 160(1):33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., and Rickerl, D.H.. 1995. The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional and reduced-till farming system. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10(1):25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sombrock, W.G., and Gommes, R.. 1996. The climate change-agriculture conundrum. In Bazzaz, F.A. and Sombrock, W.G. (eds.). Global Climate Change and Agricultural Production. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, p. 1–14.Google Scholar
Stanhill, G. 1990. The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 30 (1–2): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, J.J. 1994. Maintaining the biological status of soil: A key to sustainable land management? In Greenland, D.J. and Szabolcs, I. (eds.). Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use. Proceedings of a symposium held in Budapest; 28 September to 2 October 1992, including the Second Workshop on the Ecological Foundations of Sustainable Agriculture (WEFSA II). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 235–247.Google Scholar
Syliva, D.M., and Williams, S.E.. 1992. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae and environmental stress. In G.J. Bethenfalvay and R.G. Linderman (eds.). Mycorrhizae in Sustainable Agriculture. Proceedings of a symposium, 31 October 1991. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison Wisconsin, p. 101–124.Google Scholar
USDA. 1994. Summary Report: 1992 National Resources Inventory. Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Weiss, H., and Bradley, R.S.. 2001. What drives societal collapse? Science 291(5506):988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, A.T., Chan, K.Y., and Cornish, P.S.. 2000. Comparison of conventional and alternative vegetable farming systems on the properties of a yellow earth in New South Wales. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 80(1–2):47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynen, E. 1994. Economics of organic farming in Australia. In Lampkin, N.H. and Padel, S. (eds.). The Economics of Organic Farming. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 185–199.Google Scholar