Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming · fruits and nuts, strawberries and veg- ... investments into alternative bio-logically integrated and organic methods

26 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, VOLUME 54, NUMBER 4

California simultaneously leads thenation in agricultural production,

biodiversity, listed endangered spe-cies, yearly urban population growthand immigration. From stratosphere tocoastal estuary waters, from farm fieldto dinner table, California’s food andfiber production systems function on ahighly visible environmental stage.Over the next 25 years, California’ssystem of agricultural production willbe scrutinized ever more closely for itssocial and environmental impacts.

Renowned as a diversified, $28 bil-lion enterprise, California agricultureis expected to continue its nationalprominence in the production of for-age, livestock products, grapes, treefruits and nuts, strawberries and veg-etables over the next quarter-century.

Growth predicted in biologically integratedand organic farmingSean L. Swezey ❏ Janet C. Broome

California agriculture faces mul-tiple environmental challenges,the result of a fast-growingpopulation, the increased role ofconsumers in decision-makingabout the food system, a morerestrictive regulatory climate andmounting evidence of agri-culture’s contribution to non-point-source water pollution. Atthe same time, innovative part-nerships involving growers, con-sumers, commodity boards,regulators and university re-searchers are exploring creativesolutions to these challengesthrough biologically integratedand organic farming systems.Simultaneously, the agricultural

biotechnology industry is experi-encing phenomenal growth. TheU.S. food industry’s resistanceto labeling products that containtransgenic ingredients is stimu-lating consumer interest in or-ganic products, which prohibittransgenics. Based on thesetrends and the growth of organicacreage and product sales, wepredict that alternative farmingsystems could comprise at least20% and as much as 60% of allCalifornia cropland in productionin 2025. Nonetheless, researchinvestments into alternative bio-logically integrated and organicmethods lags far behind organicproduct sales.

Cover crops, such as the clover on the floor of this almond orchard, are an integral component of biologically integrated orcha rdsystem (BIOS) projects.

Rob

ert

L. B

ugg/

UC

SA

RE

P

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, JULY-AUGUST 2000 27

But evidence is also mounting that aradically altered social and environ-mental landscape will confront Cali-fornia agriculture in the new century.

Population growth. California’spopulation has nearly doubled in 30years to 35 million residents, and isprojected to reach 52 million by 2030(Clark 2000). This growth could di-rectly reduce California’s farmlandbase in the Central Valley alone by anestimated 1 million acres (Bradshawand Muller 1998). Much of the urbanconversion will be on some of thestate’s richest agricultural soils.

California’s population growth hasresulted in more contact and moreconflict between farms and sprawlingcities and suburbs. Production agricul-ture has entered a volatile politicalstruggle over land, air, water andother resources (Medvitz and Sokolow1995).

Consumer activism. Motivatedglobal consumers and environmental-ists are demanding more active par-ticipation in shaping the quality andsustainability of California’s farm andfood systems (The Hartman Group1996). Increasing numbers of consum-ers and public-interest groups are call-ing for disclosures on food labels re-garding genetically modifiedorganisms, countries of origin andeven the labor practices employed infood production (Barham 1997).

Environmental regulation. Califor-nia farmers and ranchers face increas-ing restriction, regulation and outrightprohibition of farming practices con-sidered commonplace until recently.These changes will have a lasting im-pact on California agriculture.

The 1996 Food Quality ProtectionAct requires the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (U.S. EPA) to re-view some 9,000 pesticide tolerances,including the widely used organo-phosphate and carbamate insecticides.Agricultural uses of several insecti-cides including chlorpyrifos, methylparathion and azinphos methyl havealready been scaled back. At the sametime, the U.S. Clean Air Act and theUnited Nations Montreal Protocol, aninternational treaty concerning ozonedepletion, will require the United

States and most developed countriesto stop using the popular fumigantmethyl bromide by 2005. The 1994CALFED agreement provides ecosys-tem protection for the San FranciscoBay-Delta Estuary while giving agri-cultural water users a guaranteed, if re-duced, water supply (CALFED 1999).

Water quality. Environmentalmonitoring and analysis has deter-mined that agriculture remains a lead-ing factor in non-point-source pollu-tion in California waterways (SWRCB1999). For example, insecticides ap-plied during dormant orchard seasonthreaten surface-water quality in theCentral Valley. From 1992 to 1995, U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) researchersroutinely detected diazinon and otherinsecticides in excess of water-qualitycriteria in the San Joaquin River andits tributaries (Dubrovsky et al. 1998).

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

BIFS Biologically Integrated FarmingSystems

BIOS Biologically Integrated OrchardSystems

CAFF Community Alliance withFamily Farmers

DPR California Department ofPesticide Regulation

IPFP Integrated Prune FarmingPractices

LWWC Lodi-Woodbridge WinegrapeCommission

NRCS Natural ResourcesConservation Service

PCAs Pest Control Advisers

SAREP Sustainable AgricultureResearch and EducationProgram

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency

Rob

ert

L. B

ugg/

UC

SA

RE

P

By 2025, from 20% to 60% of California crop acreage could be in alternative farmingsystems, including organic farms such as this one in Watsonville.


In this new revolution,shared knowledge ofbiological processes thatdetermine pest dynamics,soil health and microbialecology will combine withthe demonstrated ability ofCalifornia growers andagricultural researchers toinnovate, thereby main-taining the preeminenceof California commodities.

Monitoring has also revealed soil-absorbed organochlorines from his-torical pest-management practices(Klienfelder Inc. 1993) and organo-phosphate insecticide residues —some above toxicity thresholds forresident aquatic species — in wetlandsand waterways that drain into theMonterey Bay National Marine Sanc-tuary, the nation’s largest of its kind(Hunt et al. 1999).

Likewise, herbicides and nitratesfrom crop and animal productionthreaten California’s groundwaterquality. Herbicides such as simazineare the most commonly detected pesti-cides in annual state surveys of do-mestic wells (DPR 1996). In a recentUSGS study, simazine was detected in50% of California groundwatersamples (Burow et al. 1998). On theCentral Coast, highly soluble nitratesfrom agricultural fertilizers applied inthe Pajaro Valley have contaminateddrinking-water wells, with nitrate lev-els exceeding maximum allowable

contamination lev-els for potable uses(MontgomeryWatson Consult-ants 1993). Most re-cently, groundwa-ter contaminationhas been associatedwith some Califor-nia dairy opera-tions due to liquidwaste managementand forage-cropproduction prac-tices (Morse et al.1997).

Agriculturalbiotechnology.Conflicts over therole of agriculturalbiotechnology arecertain to continuewell into the 21stcentury. In 1999,more than half of72 million acres ofU.S. soybeans weregenetically engi-

neered with resistance to the herbicideglyphosate (“Roundup Ready”)(Abelson and Hines 1999). However,in response to consumer concernsabout transgenic food — mostly in Eu-rope and Japan — Archer DanielsMidland, the nation’s largest soy-bean purveyor, announced in 1999that it would segregate engineeredsoybeans and offer price premiumsto growers with nongeneticallymodified crops. Gerber recently an-nounced it would not use geneticallyengineered ingredients in babyfoods, while Frito-Lay and other ma-jor food processors announced plansto exclude transgenic ingredientsfrom some of their products.

Resolving conflict by partnering

California agriculture can surviveregulatory and other pressures byforging partnerships among growers,consumers, commodity boards, regu-lators and university researchers.These new partnerships can be seen asan expansion of past farm input andgrower marketing cooperatives as wellas farm lobby organizations. By bring-ing together diverse food-system par-

With the scheduled phase-out of methyl bromide by 2005, strawberry growers are look-ing for alternative pest- and disease-control methods. Beneficial insects, “farmscaping”and nonchemical weed control are components of the Biological Agriculture Systemsin Strawberries (BASIS) project, in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties.

Jane

t C

. B

room

e/U

C S

AR

EP


ticipants, partnerships helpgrowers to adopt forward-looking approaches to con-temporary pressures ratherthan waiting for changeto be imposed by regula-tory agencies. Model part-nerships rely heavily oninformation-sharing tomake the kinds of environ-mentally sound changesthat consumers want.

Of central importance,farmers and ranchers arepartnering with researchand agricultural profes-sionals to maximize theuse of biologically derivedsources of pest control andsoil fertility to reduce theirreliance on agriculturalchemicals. The first suchvoluntary partnership inCalifornia, known as BIOS(Biologically IntegratedOrchard Systems), wasformed in 1993 and is administered bythe nonprofit Community Alliancewith Family Farmers (CAFF).

Following early BIOS successes, thestate legislature created a competitivegrants program called Biologically In-tegrated Farming Systems (BIFS) in1995. BIFS seeks to reduce reliance ontargeted chemicals, maintain farm pro-ductivity and protect natural resourcesand wildlife. To date, about a dozenBIFS and BIOS demonstration projectshave received just over $4 million infunding from federal and state agen-cies, including the U.S. EPA, CALFED,the California Department of PesticideRegulation and an array of foundations.The UC Sustainable Agriculture Re-search and Education Program (SAREP)administers the BIFS program.

Since 1993, nearly 240 growersfarming 200,000 total acres have par-ticipated in on-farm BIOS and BIFSprojects, with about 26,866.5 demon-stration acres (table 1).

BIFS/whole-systems approach

The BIFS program exemplifies abiological or “whole-farming-system”approach to agricultural extension andnon-point-source pollution preven-tion. In contrast to a traditional regula-

tory approach that prescribes single-purpose “best management practices,”the farming-systems approach ad-dresses multiple environmental im-pacts by managing the farm as an in-teractive biological system.

Comprehensive management con-siders the inherent links among thecomponents of a farming system (till-age practices, crop rotation, nutrients,water and pest management) and thelarger landscape and watershed. Em-phasis on one objective to the exclu-sion of others can cause unnecessaryenvironmental trade-offs and increasecosts, slow the rate of adoption anddecrease the effectiveness of new tech-nologies and management methods(NRC 1993).

BIFS growers work with biologicalsources of pest control and soil fertilityto the greatest extent possible. For ex-ample, cover crops are used to supplynitrogen, improve orchard and fieldaccess in wet months, suppressweeds, provide habitat for beneficialarthropods, manage plant vigor andincrease infiltration rates (Ingels etal. 1998; Prichard et al. 1989;Folorunso et al. 1992).

On a typical BIFS demonstrationproject, each grower enrolls 10 to 20

At a BIOS field day, growers, advisors,regulators and others gather to shareinformation. Partnerships help growersto voluntarily adopt forward-looking,environmentally sound practices.

Tho

mas

Nel

son/

CA

FF

UC pomologist Ken Shackel demonstratesthe “pressure bomb” during an IntegratedPrune Farming Practices program trainingday. The machine uses air pressure tomeasure water levels in plant leaves,allowing for more precise irrigation.

John

Stu

mbo

s


TABLE 1. Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) projects, January 2000

TotalAcres bearing Demonstrated Inputs Resource

Demon- farmed acres Acreage practices targeted and wildlifeYear Farmers stration by BIFS in state served of farming for risk/use conservationbegun Project Counties enrolled acres growers (1998)* by BIFS † system reduction practices

%

1993‡ BIOS Merced 87 19,277 33,820 460,000 7.4 Bt at bloom, Dormant & Cover crops,for Stanislaus cover crops, in-season insectary

almonds Madera monitoring & organophosphate plantsSan Joaquin action thresholds, insecticides,

Colusa enhance & release pre-emergencebeneficial species herbicides,

synthetic N

1994‡ BIOS Yolo 20 510 900 193,000 1.8 Cover crops, In-season Cover crops,for Solano mating disruption, insecticides insectary

walnuts enhance & acaricides, shrubs,beneficial species, pre-emergence tailwater ponds

1999 San Joaquin 10 230 2,530 monitoring, action herbicides, riparianStanislaus Total = 3,430 thresholds, compost synthetic N restoration

1995§ BIFS for San Joaquin 43 (+16 2,370 30,000 385,000 7.8 Cover crops, Pre-emergence Cover crops,Winegrapes/ Sacramento PCAs) beneficial species, herbicides, shelters/

Lodi- monitoring, synthetic N, perchesWoodbridge action thresholds, organophosphate for raptors,Winegrape disease risk models, insecticides, riparian

District canopy management fungicides restoration

1995§ Extending Fresno 12 1,653 90,000 846,150 10.6 Compost, cover Synthetic Cover crops,Biologically crops, soil & nitrogen cow peaIntegrated plant fertility fertilizers, border stripsFarming/ testing, herbicides, for trap

West Side crop rotation, insecticides croppingSan Joaquin time of planting,

Valley action thresholds

1999‡ Integrated Butte, Fresno 22 708 6,303 83,000 7.6 Monitoring Organophosphate Cover crops,Prune Glenn for insects etc., insecticides preserving

Farming Madera water use & in dormant water quality,Practices Merced quality monitoring, applications insectary

(IPFP) Sutter Bt & less toxic (90% reduction shrub plantings,Tehama insecticides, in 5 years), grassedTulare N and K monitoring, synthetic N roadways,

Yolo, Yuba cover crops, compost fertilizer owl boxes

1999 BIFS Butte 8 750 15,000 480,000 3.1 Straw incorporation, Herbicides, Cover crops,in rice Sutter water management synthetic straw incorporation,

for weed control, nitrogen wetland habitatdrill seeding, fertilizers provided by

winter cover crops winter flooding

1999 Biologically Fresno 8 155 6,360 201,811 3.2 Monitoring and Broad-spectrum Cover crops,Integrated (navels & action thresholds, insecticides preserving

Citrus valencias) cultural, biological, & herbicides water qualityOrchard less-toxic controls,

Management cover crops,water management

1999 Biological Monterey 8 16.5 700 23,000 3.0 Enhance & release Methyl bromide, Native insectaryAgriculture Santa Cruz (86 beneficial species, organophosphate plants,Systems in organic) nonchemical insecticides, grasses for

Strawberries weed control such as acaricides erosion control,(BASIS) hot water, mulches, furrow slope

broccoli incorporation alignment

1999 Integrating Tulare 11 440¶ 5,500¶ Total — Forage-crop NPK fertilizers, PreservingForage Fresno dairy acres nutrient budgeting, nitrate in surface water quality

Production San Joaquin not fertility monitoring, and groundwater with tailwaterw/Dairy Manure Stanislaus available: precision irrigation, return systems,Management/ Merced 1.34 million water distribution overseeding oldSan Joaquin dairy cattle, system improvements alfalfa for nutrient

Valley 2,308 farms sequestration

2000‡ Integrated Contra Costa 9 757 1,540 37,000 4.2 Mating disruption, In-seasonPome Fruit reduced-risk insecticides, organophosphateProduction monitoring, insecticides

biological control

Totals 238 26,866.5 193,553 2,708,961 7.1

* California Agricultural Statistics Service. 1999. Acreage reports. www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/acreage/indexac.htm. Accessed Oct 1999.† Recent acreage served by BIFS is calculated as acres farmed by BIFS farmers/total bearing acres in the state x 100.‡ Project funding also provided by others, such as DPR, U.S. EPA or private foundations including Pew Charitable Trusts and Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.§ Not currently supported as a demonstration project by SAREP.¶ Estimated acreage.BIOS: Biologically Integrated Orchard SystemsBIFS: Biologically Integrated Farming Systems


acres for 3 years, receives customizedfarm plans and shares informationwith other growers (Santer 1995). Eachfarming system is tailored to take fulladvantage of grower innovation anduniversity research. To enable greaterfarmer-to-farmer information-sharing,the demonstration projects utilizenonhierarchical project managementteams made up of growers, consult-ants, university researchers and public-resource-agency personnel (Dlott et al.1996; Lacy 1996).

Intensive data collection and analy-sis are becoming increasingly impor-tant to all agriculture. Intensive moni-toring is integral to BIFS, not only forbiological and economic decision-making but also for project impact as-sessment. Whether through automatedon-farm collection of weather data,weekly monitoring of pests and ben-eficial species or monitoring for site-specific agricultural applications, datacollection has reduced and can furtherlimit the use of synthetic pesticidesand fertilizers. Such data can also pro-vide evidence for label claims, protectagainst global trade barriers triggeredby food-safety concerns, and informregulatory agencies about agriculturaltrends.

Promising results

All BIFS projects set well-definedchemical-use reduction targets. The re-

sults so far have been promising (table1) (Broome et al. 1997, 1999). For ex-ample, many BIOS almond growersand all participating Integrated PruneFarming Practices (IPFP) prune grow-ers have eliminated diazinon applica-tions during the dormant season.

Almonds. BIOS growers in Mercedand Stanislaus counties utilized theless-toxic microbial pesticide, Bacillusthuringiensis (Bt), on 20% to 30% oftheir total almond acreage in 1992 andalmost 80% in 1995, while non-BIOSgrowers treated only 20% to 25% oftheir orchard area with Bt (Broome etal. 1997). BIOS almond growers alsoachieved major reductions in syntheticnitrogen use while simultaneously in-creasing their reliance on leguminousand grass cover crops.

Wine grapes. The Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commissionhas just completed its third year in theBIFS program. By coupling intensivemonitoring with economic-injurythresholds for major arthropod pestssuch as leafhoppers and mites, theregion’s grape growers have reducedtheir reliance on pesticides by 50% forthese pests (Broome et al. 1999). Theyare also beginning to reduce their reli-ance on simazine.

Resource conservation. MostBIFS projects partner with the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture’s Natural Re-sources Conservation Service (NRCS)

or a local resource conservation dis-trict in order to ensure the inclusion ofconservation practices in the demon-stration system and effectively utilizefederal cost shares and conservationsubsidies. NRCS is an important part-ner in the strawberry, citrus, prune,walnut, almond and grape projects(table 1).

Wildlife protection. Some BIFSprojects work closely with nonprofitenvironmental groups such as The Na-ture Conservancy and Point ReyesBird Conservancy to lessen the impactof agriculture on wildlife. Preliminarymigratory-songbird surveys depict in-creased populations and species diver-sity in biologically managed prune or-chards (King and Geupel 1998).However, further research is neededin the Sacramento Valley and withother BIFS projects to evaluatewhether alternative farming methodsbenefit wildlife.

The rice BIFS project builds on 5years of work by the rice industry, UCresearchers and Ducks Unlimited touse rice-straw residue managementand winter flooding in rice fields. Thispractice also provides food, water andhabitat for millions of waterfowl thatmigrate along the Pacific Flyway;about 2.5 million birds traveled the Pa-cific Flyway in the mid-1980s, downfrom historical highs of 10 million to12 million (Brouder and Hill 1995).

Butte County farm advisor William Olson samples for insects in a prune orchard on theeast side of Sacramento Valley. Intensive monitoring, data collection and analysis areincreasingly important in agriculture, particularly in “whole-systems” farming. Califor-nia, the birthplace of integrated pest management (IPM), is a logical setting for the de-velopment of BIFS projects. UC Berkeley Professor Robert van den Bosch, right, at workin the mid-1970s, was an IPM pioneer.

John

Stu

mbo

s

Jam

es R

. C

arey


Historic influences

Integrated pest management.California is a logical setting for thedevelopment of BIFS projects. Duringthe early 1960s, UC launched a majorcotton research and education pro-gram in the San Joaquin Valley in re-sponse to severe pest resurgence andoutbreaks of secondary pests. Theseconditions were traced to indiscrimi-nate applications of broad-spectrumorganochlorine and organophosphateinsecticides, often used in combinationdue to pest resistance. The resultingresearch led to the development of theintegrated pest management (IPM)concept.

ment tool, a new ecologically basedpest-management paradigm isemerging (NRC 1996). BIFS pestmanagement redesigns the farmingsystem using biological strategiessuch as naturally occurring com-pounds, cultural controls, biologicalcontrol agents and resistant culti-vars, as well as soil amendments andcover crops. The farm system is inte-grated into the larger landscape withhedgerows and farmscaping.

The organic farming paradigm.Organic agriculture is an ecologicalfarming system that promotes andenhances biodiversity, biological ac-tivity and natural cycles. It is basedon minimal use of synthetic pesti-cides and fertilizers and manage-ment practices that restore, maintainand enhance ecological harmony(NOSB 1995). A national study byUSDA (1996) of organic vegetablefarming documents that most grow-ers manage pests through practicessuch as crop rotation, pest-resistantvarieties and adjustment of plantingdates.

Organic farms reduce some nega-tive impacts of conventional farmingsuch as soil erosion and leaching ofcarbon and nitrogen (Reganold et al.1987; Drinkwater et al. 1998; Siegristet al. 1998).

One study demonstrated that or-ganic farming could protect wildlife;East Coast organic apple orchardshad higher numbers of nontargetinsects and supported larger popu-lations of songbirds than orchardswhere pesticides were used(Fluetsch and Sparling 1994).

Organic agriculture has the addedbenefit — over BIFS- and IPM-basedapproaches — of clearly definedstandards and a certification processdelineated and enforced by the Cali-fornia Department of Food and Agri-culture Organic Program and regis-tered third-party certifiers.

Growth of the organic industry

Organic farming is growing inimportance internationally, nation-ally and in California. EuropeanUnion consumers spend an esti-mated $4.5 billion on organic prod-ucts and Japanese consumption ap-

UC entomologists defined inte-grated control as the use of chemicalcontrols in a manner least disruptiveto biological control (Stern et al. 1959).IPM includes the use of economicthresholds to prevent actual financiallosses, pest suppression based onnatural regulatory processes, and theuse of chemical interventions onlywhen natural processes are deemed in-effective. The historical consensusamong researchers and practitioners isthat the IPM paradigm has been suc-cessful in improving the efficiency ofinsecticide use, but has had less im-pact on weed and pathogen control.

While earlier IPM strategies reliedon pesticides as the primary manage-

Some major fast-food chains have asked their suppliers not to ship them transgenicpotatoes. Consumer interest in organic produce may be partly linked to its prohibition oftransgenics.

John

Stu

mbo

s


proaches $2 billion per year. In 1997,the U.S. market for organic productswas $4 billion, up from $78 million in1980; estimates place the current mar-ket at $6 billion. In California, averageannual organic sales growth was 15%,while acreage growth approximated10% per year between 1992 and 1998with a self-declared farmgate value ofover $150 million (Klonsky 2000). Theactual organic sales figure is assumedto be higher than this total (over $200million) but accurate estimates are notavailable. A recent USDA surveyfound that in 1997, California had96,000 acres in certified organic pro-duction (USDA 2000). These data sug-gest a doubling of California organicacreage from 1992 to 1997, or a greaterthan 20% per year increase in acreage.

Consumers of organic products arehighly motivated and probable fore-runners of future consumer trends.Pressed by the global expansion of or-ganic production and trade, and underprovisions of the 1990 Organic FoodsProduction Act, USDA began rule-making in 1998 to enact a national,uniform standard. USDA received arecord-breaking 275,000 comments onthe proposed rule, the vast majority inopposition to the potential inclusionof genetically modified organisms,biosolids and irradiation as organi-cally acceptable practices. The newUSDA draft, released for comment inMarch 2000, eliminates these andmany other consumer and growerconcerns.

Under provisions of the 1990 Califor-nia Organic Foods Act, more than 1,500organic growers registered with countyagricultural commissioners in 1997 andthat number rose to 1,800 by early 2000(Ray Green, Organic Program, Califor-nia Department of Food and Agricul-ture, personal communication).

The state’s major certification orga-nization, California Certified OrganicFarmers (CCOF) has over 120,000 totalprogram acres, with more than 95,000acres certified (Brian McElroy, Califor-nia Certified Organic Farmers, per-sonal communication).

With new registrations and the ac-tivities of several other certificationagencies added, we estimate that be-tween 1% and 2% of California crop-

land is currently in transitional or cer-tified organic production. (Californiahad a total of 89,000 farms on 8.5 mil-lion harvested cropland acres in 1998.)

While their percentage is still small,organic farmers serve as mentors inmany BIFS projects, sharing their skilland experience with participatinggrowers. Organic farmers serve onproject management teams or partici-pate with demonstration acreage in 7of 10 projects (table 1).

Research results and needs. Uni-versity-directed research on organicproduction-system performance inCalifornia is largely characterized bycomparative studies (Hendricks 1995;Gliessman et al. 1996; Swezey et al.1994; 1999; Temple et al. 1994;Shennan et al. 1991; Drinkwater et al.1998). These studies point to the needfor research to improve yields andpest control, and stabilize income. Thestudies reveal that the economic incen-tives available to organic growers in-clude price premiums, lower-inputproduction costs and reduced eco-nomic impact from regulations.

Future in focus:The next “green revolution”

If acreage growth rates of 10% to20% per year continue (from the 1997USDA base estimate of 96,000 acres oforganic production in California), andassuming a reduced cropland base of 7million acres, as much as 10% ofCalifornia’s cropland acreage could beorganic by 2025.

This is a conservative linear projec-tion based on present regulations.Technical innovation, market expan-sion and regulatory pressures coulddouble this estimate — using an expo-nential growth model — to over 20%of California’s acreage.

BIFS-style partnerships, funded bycommodity boards, state agencies andUC, could also expand to cover asmuch or more acreage than organicduring the next 25 years. BIFS projectsfall between organic farming and con-ventional farming. Given the risingcosts of regulation and inputs, we pre-dict more acreage will transition tothese intermediate or “third-path”farming systems. After only 6 years ofactivity in California, BIFS growers are

estimated to be farming more than26,000 acres utilizing BIFS farmingsystems. But these same growers farma total of 193,553 acres, which theycould quickly transition to alternativefarming systems.

The commodities currently in BIFSprojects covered an estimated 2.7 mil-lion total acres in California in 1998,and BIFS demonstration acreage hasreached about 1% of that to date. BIFSgrowers farm just over 7% of the totalcommodity acreage. If we assume thesame 10% linear growth rate for BIFSas for organic, then there could be atleast 10% of California’s crop acreagein BIFS by 2025. Technical innovation,eco-label supported market expansion,regulatory pressures, and inclusion ofother agencies reduced-risk demon-stration programs (like DPR’s PestManagement alliance) could greatlyincrease this estimate — using an ex-ponential growth model — to 46% ofCalifornia’s acreage. By combiningpossible increases in organic and BIFS-style partnership acreage estimates,we predict that from at least 20% to asmuch as 60% of California’s farmlandwill be in such systems by 2025.

Consumer interest. Croplandacreage increases for organic and BIFSfarming will be fueled by consumerconcerns about the environmental im-pacts of farming. The Hartman Groupsurveyed American consumer atti-tudes toward food and the environ-ment (The Hartman Group 1996). Withroughly 7% of the population consid-ered “true naturals,” who understandwhat organic means and buy organicproducts regularly, Hartman identi-fied an additional 23% of those he sur-veyed as the “new green mainstream”— consumers who would pay morefor products that made claims to beingenvironmentally sound. Exploratoryefforts are currently under way byCalifornia wine grape, almond andother growers to evaluate “third-way”or “eco” labels as a means of informingconsumers about products that incorpo-rate biologically integrated farming sys-tems. Around the country, numerouseco-labels have been developed such asthe Wegmans–Cornell IPM label andThe Food Alliance-Approved label inthe Pacific Northwest.


TABLE 2. Organic relevance of UC SAREP research and education (R&E), BIFSand methyl bromide (MeBr) grants (1987–1999)

Organic relevance No. of Amount Percent of allcategory projects funded funded projects

$ %

Direct 25 1,340,848 20.2Indirect 63 4,145,480 62.3Neutral 51 1,163,168 17.5Total (R&E, BIFS, MeBr) 139 6,649,496Educational events 85 108,307Graduate student awards 39 61,589TOTAL 263 6,819,392

Direct = explicit organic experimental context; practices and materials researched compliant with NationalOrganic Standards Board criteria.Indirect = experimental context not explicitly organic, but practices and materials researched could be di-rectly applied to organic farms.

New partnerships . With or with-out market incentives, voluntary part-nerships for the protection of environ-mental quality and farm viability willbe a future feature of California agricul-ture. In 1999, a Farm Bureau-sponsoredcoalition of farmers in Santa Clara, SanMateo, Santa Cruz, San Benito,Monterey and San Luis Obispo countiesformed voluntary watershed steward-ship groups to fund pilot demonstra-tions to reduce non-point-source pollu-tion in four watersheds of the MontereyBay National Marine Sanctuary.

Research funding. Additional re-search will be essential to supportthese new farming systems, but re-search investments have not kept pacewith the growth in organic productsales. Several analyses of organic agri-culture have noted the lack of in-creased investment in research to cor-respond with organic sales growth.For example, one analysis of USDA’s

Current Research Information System(CRIS) found that in 1995 only $1.5million in federal funds was devotedto organic farming research projects,representing less than 0.01% of theagency’s research funding that year(Lipson 1997).

The California Sustainable Agricul-ture Research and Education Act of1986 stated the goal of “increasing re-search and education on sustainableagricultural practices . . . such as or-ganic methods.” Since 1987, UCSAREP has awarded just over $1.3 mil-lion to 25 research projects deemed di-rectly relevant and immediately appli-cable to organic farming, about$100,000 a year in competitive grants(table 2). This annual investment wasless than 0.01% of California’s organicindustry sales in 1998.

Transgenic vs. organic crops.Like organic agriculture, the agricul-tural biotechnology industry has expe-

rienced phenomenal growth in recentyears. Transgenic crop sales totaled$236 million in 1996 worldwide andincreased six-fold to between $1.2 bil-lion and $1.5 billion in 1998, withgrowth projections reaching $20 bil-lion by 2010 (James 1997).

Because the food industry has re-sisted labeling products that containtransgenic ingredients, future growthin the organic industry may be stimu-lated by the fact that transgenic ingre-dients will not be permitted by theforthcoming U.S. national organicstandards. Indeed, opponents of label-ing often argue that consumers whodo not want to consume engineeredfood can simply buy organic.

The BIFS program does not prohibittransgenic technology. However, acentral tenet of the BIFS approach is thatalternative pest- or soil-managementpractices must reduce risks to environ-mental and human health. In addition,consumer acceptance or rejection ofbiotechnology will certainly be a factorin the decision by BIFS growers toadopt or reject it.

Given all these factors, we believethat a second, greener revolution is onthe way (Conway 1998). In this newrevolution, shared knowledge of bio-logical processes that determine pestdynamics, soil health and microbialecology will combine with the demon-strated ability of California growersand agricultural researchers to inno-vate, thereby maintaining the preemi-nence of California commodities. Cali-

California growers are exploring the use of “eco labels,” like these from otherparts of the country, to inform consumers about environmentally friendlygrowing practices.


fornia producers will expand eco-nomic and political alliances withurban consumers through direct-marketing, certified organic food andfiber, eco-labeling and educational pro-grams to change the rules of consumerengagement with the food system.

S.L. Swezey is Extension Specialist andDirector, UC Sustainable Agriculture Re-search and Education Program (SAREP),and Adjunct Associate Professor, Envi-ronmental Studies, UC Santa Cruz. J.C.Broome is Associate Director, UCSAREP. The authors thank R.L. Bugg andM.T. Stevenson for information on theBIFS program. They acknowledge fundingfor the BIFS program from U.S. EPA andthe California Department of PesticideRegulation.

ReferencesAbelson PH, Hines PJ. 1999. The plant

revolution. Science 285:367-8.Barham E. 1997. What’s in a name?: Eco-

labeling in the global food system.www.pmac.net/bbarham.htm. Accessed Oct1999.

Bradshaw TK, Muller B. 1998. Impacts ofrapid urban growth on farmland conversion:Application of new regional land-use policymodels and geographic information systems.Rural Soc. 63(1):1-25.

Broome JC, Bugg RL, Denton D, et al.1999. Promoting environmental healththrough biologically integrated farming sys-tems. Poster at International Congress onEcosystem Health. Sacramento, CA. Report#24. UC Genetic Resources ConservationProgram.

Broome JC, Settle WH, Bugg RL, et al.1997. Biologically integrated farming sys-tems: approaches to voluntary reduction ofagricultural chemical use. Proceedings of theSociety of Toxicologists and Chemists annualmeeting. Poster. San Francisco www.setac.org/pubsam.html.

Brouder SM, Hill JE. 1995. Winter floodingof ricelands provides waterfowl habitat. CalAg 49(6):58-64.

Burow KR, Shelton JL, Dubrovsky NM.US Geological Survey. 1998. Occurrence ofnitrate and pesticides in groundwater be-neath three agricultural land-use settings inthe eastern San Joaquin Valley, California,1993-1995. USGS Water-Resources Investi-gations Report 97-4284. p 51.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 1999. http://calfed.ca.gov. Accessed Oct 1999.

Clark WAV. 2000. Immigration, high fertil-ity fuel state’s population growth. Cal Ag54(1):11-8.

Conway G. 1998. The Doubly GreenRevolution: Food for All in the 21st Century.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 335 p.Dlott J, Nelson T, Bugg RL, et al. 1996.

California USA: Merced County BIOS Project.In: Thrupp LA (ed.). New Partnerships forSustainable Agriculture. Washington, DC:World Resources Institute. p 115-26.

[DPR] California Department of PesticideRegulation. 1996. Sampling for pesticide resi-dues in California well water, 1996 update.Well Inventory Database. EH 96-06. Sacra-mento, CA.

Drinkwater LE, Wagoner P, SarrantonioM. 1998. Legume-based cropping systemshave reduced carbon and nitrogen losses.Nature 396:262-4.

Dubrovsky NM, Kratzer CR, Brown LR, etal. 1998. Water Quality in the San JoaquinTulare Basins, California, 1992–95. Denver,CO: US Geological Survey Circular #1159.p 38.

Fluetsch KM, Sparling DW. 1994. Aviannesting success and diversity in convention-ally and organically managed apple orchards.Env Tox & Chem 13:1651-9.

Folorunso OA, Rolston DE, Prichard T,Louie DT. 1992. Cover crops lower soil sur-face strength, may improve soil permeability.Cal Ag 46(6):26-7.

Gliessman SR, Werner M, Swezey SL, etal. 1996. Conversion to organic strawberrymanagement changes ecological processes.Cal Ag 50(1):24-31.

Hartman Group,The. 1996. Food and theEnvironment: A Consumer’s Perspective.Bellevue, WA. The Hartman Group. 60 p.

Hendricks LC. 1995. Almond growers re-duce pesticide use in Merced County field tri-als. Cal Ag 49(1):5-10.

Hunt JW, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, et al.1999. Patterns of aquatic toxicity in an agri-culturally dominated coastal watershed inCalifornia. Ag Econ & Envir 75:75-91.

Ingels CA, Bugg RL, McGourty GT,Christensen LP (eds.). 1998. Cover Croppingin Vineyards: A Grower’s Handbook. Oakland,CA: UC DANR Publication #3338. 162 p.

James C. 1997. Global Status ofTransgenic Crops in 1997. International Ser-vice for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Appli-cation (ISAAA) Brief #5. www.isaaa.org. Ac-cessed Oct 1999.

King A, Geupel GR. 1998. Songbird Re-sponse to Biological Prune Systems Protocolat Shasta View Farms: Progress Report ofthe 1997 Field Season to The Nature Conser-vancy. 25 p.

Klienfelder Inc. 1993. Elkhorn Slough205(j) Uplands Water Quality ManagementPlan. Prepared for Association of MontereyBay Area Governments. 49 p.

Klonsky K. 2000. A Picture of California’sOrganic Agriculture. UC Davis Department ofAgricultural and Resource Economics. 2 p.

Lacy WB. 1996. Research, extension, anduser partnerships: models for collaborationand strategies for change. Ag & Human Val-ues 13(2):33-41.

Lipson M. 1997. Searching for the O-word:Analyzing the USDA Current Research Infor-mation System for Pertinence to OrganicFarming. Organic Farming Research Founda-tion. Santa Cruz, CA. 83 p.

Medvitz AG, Sokolow AD. 1995. Popula-tion growth threatens agriculture, open space.Cal Ag 49(6):11-7.

Montgomery Watson Consultants. 1993.Basin Management Plan. Pajaro Valley WaterManagement Agency. 165 p.

Morse et al. 1997. A Survey of Dairy Ma-nure Management Practices in California. JDairy Science 80:1841-5.

[NOSB] National Organic StandardsBoard. 1995. Definition of organic. Draftedand passed at April 1995 meeting in Orlando,FL. www.ota.com/. Accessed Oct 1999.

[NRC] National Research Council. 1996.Ecologically Based Pest Management: NewSolutions for a New Century. Washington,DC: National Academy Press. p 144.

NRC. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: AnAgenda for Agriculture. Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press. p 493.

Prichard TL, Sills WM, Asai WK, et al.1989. Orchard water use and soil characteris-tics. Cal Ag 43(4):23-5.

Reaganold J, Elliot P, Unger YL. 1987.Long-term effects of organic and conventionalfarming on soil erosion. Nature 330:370-2.

Santer L (ed.). 1995. BIOS for Almonds: APractical Guide to Biologically Integrated Or-chard Systems Management. Davis/Modesto,CA: Community Alliance with Family FarmersFoundation and Almond Board of Calif. p 104.

Shennan C, Drinkwater LE, Van BruggenAHC et al. 1991. Comparative study of or-ganic and conventional tomato productionsystems: An approach to on-farm systemsstudies. In Rice B, Madden JP (eds.). Sus-tainable Agriculture Research and Educationin the Field. NRC, National Academy Press,Washington DC p 109-32.

Siegrist S, Schuab D, Pfiffner L, et al.1998. Does organic agriculture reduce soilerodibility? The results of a long-term fieldstudy on loess in Switzerland. Ag Econ &Envir 69:253-64.

Stern VM, Smith RF, van den Bosch R,Hagen KS. 1959. The integrated control con-cept. Hilgardia 29:81-101.

Swezey SL, Goldman P, Jergens R,Vargas R. 1999. Preliminary studies showyield and quality potential of organic cotton.Cal Ag 53(3):9-16.

Swezey SL, Werner M, Buchanan M, et al.1994. Granny Smith conversions to organicshow preliminary success. Cal Ag 48(6):36-44.

[SWRCB] State Water Resources ControlBoard. 1999. California 305(b) Report on Wa-ter Quality. Sacramento, CA. 242 p.

Temple SR, Somasco OA, Kirk M, Fried-man D. 1994. Conventional, low-input and or-ganic farming systems compared. Cal Ag48(5):14-9.

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture.2000. U.S. Organic Agriculture. EconomicResearch Service Issues Center. Washing-ton, DC. www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/organic/.

USDA. 1996. Organic vegetable growerssurveyed in 1994. Economic Research Ser-vice, Natural Resources and Environment Di-vision. Washington, DC.

Documents

Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming · fruits and nuts, strawberries and veg- ... investments into alternative bio-logically integrated and organic methods