Until around 1970 organic farming as a method of producing food had been developed mainly by experienced farmers and gardeners. Although there were scientists and philosophers like Rudolf Steiner, Hans Müller, Hans Peter Rusch, Lady Eve Balfour and Sir Albert Howard who brought up the concepts and general ideas of organic farming, it was always farmers who developed the production technique. Major research activities in organic farming started in the 1970s, with the Institute for Biodynamic Research in Germany, FiBL in Switzerland, the Louis Bolk Institute in Holland, the Elm Farm Research Centre and the Henry Doubleday Research Association in the UK and the Rodale Institute in the USA. Researchers have had to legitimize their analytical approach vis-à-vis the intuitive "trial and error" method of the pioneers since the very beginning. To meet the holistic thinking of a farmer, organic farming researchers developed holistic approaches in research. The following paper tries to show the state-of-the-art of what is inherent in and specific to organic farming research.
Wynen (1996) proposed that organic and conventional agriculture belonged to two different paradigms. Beus and Dunlap (1990) characterized the fundamental difference between the two competing agricultural paradigms as follows:
Conventional |
Organic |
Centralization |
Decentralization |
Dependence |
Independence |
Competition |
Community |
Domination of nature |
Harmony with nature |
Specialization |
Diversity |
Exploitation |
Restraint |
In contrast, several agro-ecologically based researchers stress more the fluid transition between conventional, integrated and organic farming, as an outcome of different assessments of economic, ecological and social goals (Altieri, 1995). Consequently, technical strategies such as integrated pest management or balanced nutrient supply might improve conventional agriculture to such an extent that it may appear unnecessary to strictly ban pesticides and mineral fertilizers as required by organic standards.
However, there is scientific evidence that organic agriculture differs from conventional agriculture not only gradually but fundamentally. Implementing organic methods consequently seems to provide a new quality in how the agro-ecosystem works. This functioning cannot be explained by summing up single ecological measures. Maire et al. (1990) compared the biomass (measured as ATP) of soil samples of cereal and potato fields of 60 organic farms with that of 190 integrated farms. In order to improve statistical significance, the soils were extensively classified according to their physical, chemical and biological properties and comparisons were made only with similar soils. In contrast to soils taken from integrated farms (which represented an ecologically optimized conventional farming method), organic farms showed a rapid growth in soil biomass correlating to the number of years the conversion period lasted (see Figure 1). Organic farming seems to improve soil fertility in a way and to an extent which cannot be achieved by conventional farming even if the latter consistently respects some ecological principles.
Figure 1. Interrelation between the number of years after conversion from conventional to organic farming and the ATP-content in the soil (Source: Maire et al., 1990)
Comparable and even more significant results have been obtained with the DOC Trial carried out by FiBL and the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agro-ecology and Agriculture (FAL) at Therwil/CH (Mader et al. 1996, Fliessbach et al. 1997). Assessing numerous parameters of soil fertility at the same experimental site over 21 years, biodynamic (DYN) and organic (ORG) treatments differed fundamentally from conventional ones (CON=IPM, MIN). The conventional farming systems (even the one with farmyard manure and integrated pest management) had in general, the same poor microbiological properties as the permanently non-fertilized treatments (NON) (see Table 1).
Table 1. Soil microbial properties after two crop rotations in the DOC Trial in Therwil/CH. Significant differences are indicated by different letters (p ≤ 0.05)
Soil property |
Treatment | |||||||||
NON |
DYN |
ORG |
CON |
MIN |
||||||
Microbial biomass [mg Cmic 100 g-1] |
36.1 |
a |
60.3 |
d |
52.8 |
c |
44.3 |
b |
35.9 |
a |
Cmic Corg-1 ratio [%] |
2.4 |
a |
3.4 |
c |
3.2 |
c |
2.7 |
b |
2.5 |
a |
Respiration [µg CO2-C 15d-1 100 g-1] |
25.8 |
a |
32.4 |
a |
30.2 |
a |
29.5 |
a |
27.3 |
a |
Dehydrogenase [µg TPF 6h-1 g-1] |
41.5 |
a |
106.3 |
d |
84.6 |
c |
58.8 |
b |
45.6 |
a |
Catalase [mg H2O2 h-1 g-1] |
3.6 |
a |
6.05 |
c |
5.41 |
bc |
4.4 |
ab |
3.97 |
a |
Protease [µg Tyrosinequivalents 2h-1 g-1] |
233 |
a |
810 |
d |
613 |
c |
476 |
b |
378 |
b |
Alkal. phosphatase [µg Phenol 16 h-1 g-1] |
112 |
a |
1607 |
d |
973 |
c |
531 |
b |
416 |
ab |
Saccharase [mg red. sugar 3h-1 g-1] |
1188 |
a |
2293 |
d |
1966 |
c |
1579 |
b |
1491 |
ab |
Microbial biomass-C total carbon-1 [%] |
2.42 |
a |
3.41 |
c |
3.23 |
c |
2.75 |
b |
2.47 |
a |
In the DOC Trial, the microbial populations were characterized by their energy use efficiency by determining their specific respiration, relating basal respiration to the microbial biomass (metabolic quotient for CO2 or qCO2). The highest qCO2 values were calculated in the minerally fertilized soil of the DOC Trial, whilst the bio-dynamic and organic systems, which had received organic manure, showed lower values (Figure 2). This indicates that the microorganisms of manured soils need less energy for maintenance. The conventional treatment with manure (CON) showed a significantly higher qCO2 and the minerally fertilized conventional treatment an even higher qCO2, i.e. a lower efficiency of energy use. Soils with lower qCO2 (metabolic quotient) are generally regarded as less exposed to various stress conditions. As the soil bacteria seem to use C-sources more efficiently, organic soils are viewed as sinks for CO2.
In order to estimate the functional diversity of the soil microflora, an identification system for bacteria was also used according to Garland and Mills (1991). It allows the simultaneous testing of microbial utilization of 95 separate carbon sources. The substrate utilization of the whole microflora was analysed by inoculating soil dilutions directly to plates containing different substrates. Direct incubation may therefore produce patterns of metabolic response suitable for the characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities.
Functional richness and diversity (Shannon Index), calculated on the basis of substrate utilization patterns, revealed highest values for both organic treatments and lower values for the conventional treatments (Figure 2). These results were obtained in spring 1995 and 1996 under winter wheat. The DOC Trial at Therwil in Switzerland clearly shows that microbial properties of organic soils differ quite fundamentally from conventional and integrated ones in the long run.
Figure 2. Metabolic quotient (basal respiration to microbial biomass) and functional diversity of soil microbial communities in the DOC trial . NON = unfertilized control, DYN = bio-dynamic, ORG = organic, CON = conventional (combined organic and mineral fertilization), MIN = mineral. Sampling date: March 1995.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that accepting a shift in paradigm from conventional to organic farming has a profound impact on research work. This concerns both the choice of research methods and the relevance of topics and priorities (Wynen, 1996).
Within the organic community there is no consensus as to what "holism" in research work means. To become holistic, the EC Workshop in Belgium in 1992 concluded: "We recommend that [organic farming] research on crops and pasture should be done in the context of crop rotations." (MacNaeidhe, 1992). Others develop on-farm research concepts and integrate farmers in their research work. Or does it mean working inter- or multidisciplinarily, integrating socio-economics in agronomic research? Debating social issues like rural development, ethics and health is another approach to holism. Finally, adopting anthroposophic concepts seems to be the most radical way of holistic thinking. In his agricultural course in 1924, Rudolf Steiner already transferred his holistic concept of nature to agriculture: "Single parts don't add up to a whole, but a whole controls partial activity and organizes it functionally, whereby this partial activity is subordinate to the whole" (Dewes, 1994). Bio-dynamic farming indeed combines scientifically based knowledge with spiritual notions based on anthroposophy. Some of its particular techniques, like the application of bio-dynamic preparations (field and compost compounds) and the consideration of cosmic and terrestrial forces, had no experimental basis when introduced by Steiner. His image of the farm as an organism is a challenging concept for research!
The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) has revenues of seven million Swiss Francs for research and extension work and of three million for certification. The certification branch will be outsourced in 1999 to ensure the independence of certification work. Research and extension work are carried out in plant production, animal husbandry and animal health, economics, landscape and biodiversity. Knowing that there is no perfect recipe for holism in research and that many problems cannot be resolved without reductionist approaches, FiBL tries to combine and maintain scientific research at all levels of complexity (see Figure 3). At each level, interactions differ. Whereas at the laboratory and glasshouse level pure scientific effects can be studied, site-related issues becomes dominant at the on-farm level. The human factor guides inquiry at the level of the network of reference farms. Socio-economic impacts become more and more important from the network of reference farms up to the wider scale of regional modelling and finally to the national level of analysing data from all organic farms.
Figure 3. The research concept of FiBL tries to achieve a holistic view through consistently combining research work at all levels of complexity
A second approach by which we try to deal with holism is to put complex issues at the centre of research projects. Some of these issues are "food quality", "animal health" or "human health". To study such complex issues, multidisciplinary research is absolutely necessary and results of one discipline cannot be discussed without considering those of the others.
Finally, there is an intensive exchange of information between researchers and extension workers at FiBL. In addition, permanent feed-back from inspection work to both research and extension workers is crucial. This guarantees that the farm as a unit and the socio-economic reality of the rural society remains relevant in the thinking of researchers (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Knowledge transfer from research to the farms via extension service is important. Close exchange of information with the inspection bodies (in Switzerland bio.inspecta) helps research to remain relevant
A very broad and detailed enumeration of problems in production technique where research is needed is given in the paper of Willer and Zerger (1999). Therefore, the discussion in this section is only very general.
Organic farmers have successfully dealt with organic fertilizers, composting, crop rotation design, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen supply in crop rotations and weed regulation in recent years. Therefore, research projects in organic farming should concentrate on the following fields:
Unfortunately, funds for organic farming research will remain limited in the next five to ten years, so that fast progress cannot be expected. Our experience in Switzerland shows that policy-makers do not have enough understanding of the role which organic farming could play in rural development to provide funding for organic farming research that is commensurate to this potential. It was the fast growing market for organic products, even though the land area under full organic management and in conversion was still less than 10 percent, that has created a much more favourable situation for research funding in Switzerland. As a result, a considerably increased amount of public funds has been made available for organic farming research. In addition, trading and processing firms as well as farmers' associations (e.g. livestock breeding, dairy and fruit associations) have provided money for R&D projects in order to develop and safeguard future markets. All strategies helping to develop a faster and sustainable growth of the organic market should also be considered and supported by the scientific community too.
There is no universally agreed consensus among the organic movement as to what a holistic approach in research does mean. A better understanding of holism can be achieved when groups of researchers work at different levels of complexity in parallel. At the very least, each research group should have a network of reference farms (commercial farms) or several on-farm projects for gauging results or insights derived from "isolated" scientific work.
In the practice of organic farming, there is an urgent need for both simple technical solutions and a better understanding of complex interactions. The research methodology has to be appropriate to each level so there is a peaceful co-existence of methods in organic farming research. Nevertheless, we do not dispose of really good holistic research methods to describe complex impacts (e.g. "What is healthy food?", "When is an animal kept in a species-appropriate manner?", "What is a fertile soil?"). Such methods could be computer models, a simple co-efficient of different analyses or measurements or methods which are sensitive enough to describe new qualities (like the picture creating methods).
Finally, it must be said that research collaboration among the organic community is insufficient. Improved exchange of information about on-going experiments and recent results is vital. Closer collaboration and more joint projects could partly compensate for the lack of funding and poor research facilities.
Dewes, T. (1994): "Der Wissenschaftsbegriff im ökologischen Landbau - Zur Konzeption ökologischer Landbausysteme". Sonderausgabe Nr. 58, Stiftung Ökologie und Landbau, D-67098 Bad Dürkheim, 16-27 pp.
Fließbach, A., Mäder, P., Wiemken, A. and U. Niggli (1996): "Metabolic diversity of microbes in biological and conventional soils". In: Organic Agriculture: Down to earth and further afield. Abstracts of the 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference, Copenhagen, August 11-15, 154 pp.
MacNaeidhe, F.S. (1992): "Conclusions and recommendations for further research". In: Potential and limits of organic farming. Proceedings of an EC Workshop. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Peeters, A. and Van Bol. V. (eds). Working document for the Commission of the European Communities ref. F.II.3-SJ/0008, 185-191 pp.
Mäder, P., Alföldi, Th., Fließbach, A., Pfiffner, L. and U. Niggli (1999): "Agricultural and Ecological Performance of Cropping Systems Compared in a Long-term Field Trial". Book CAB (in print).
Mäder, P., Pfiffner, L., Fließbach, A., von Lützow, M. and J.C. Munch (1996): "Soil ecology-The impact of organic and conventional agriculture on soil biota and its significance for soil fertility". In: Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture. Proceedings of the 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference, Copenhagen, 11-15 August, Vol.1, 24-46 pp.
Maire, N., Besson, J.M., Suter, H., Hasinger, G. and A. Palasthy (1990): "La conversion des domaines agricoles en mode biologique: Effet sur l'equilibre physico-chimique et biologique des sols". Rapport 43 du Programme national de recherche "Sol"; Liebefeld-Bern, 131 pages.
Willer, H. and U. Zerger (1999): "Demand of research and development in organic farming in Europe". Proceedings of the FAO Workshop "Research Methodology in Organic Farming", Frick, Switzerland, 30 September-4 October 1998.
Wynen, E. (1996): "Research implications of a paradigm shift in agriculture. The case of organic farming. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies". The Australian National University, Canberra, p. 1-58.
