 |
 |
What’s new in Michigan Organic Ag? August 15 – 27 Compiled by Vicki Morrone and Kate Leitch PRODUCTION NEWS AND INFORMATION 1. New Ag Network Newsletter (in part 1) 2. MarketMaker links producers with agricultural businesses and consumers (in part 1) 3. Field Crop CAT Alert, MSU (in part 1) 4. Summary of 2008 Soil-Building Workshop at Morgan Composting (in part 1) 5. Masanobu Fukuoka, author of The One-Straw Revolution, passed away this month (in part 1) 6. The Dynamics of Change in the US Food Marketing Environment (in part 1) 7. Legislation connects local farming to schools (in part 2) EVENTS 8. University of Wisconsin-Madison organic workshop and field tour - Sep 4 (in part 2) 9. Entrepreneurial Farm Tour - Sep 9, 10, 11 (in part 2) 10. Growing Hope’s Tour de Fresh - Sep 16 (in part 2) 11. Gearing up to increase production: An equipment field day in Southwest Michigan - Sep 18 (in part 2) 12. Intro to Permaculture: Ecological Edible Landscapes - Sep 20 (in part 2) ******** PRODUCTION NEWS AND INFORMATION ******** 1. New Ag Network Newsletter Vol. 5, No. 9 - August 27, 2008 http://www.new-ag.msu.edu/ In this issue: Soil organic matter in a continuous corn cropping system Bullet Canada thistle management strategies for sustainable and organic farming systems Canada thistle biology: Knowing your enemy Gearing up to increase production: An equipment day for vegetable farmers Chatting up sustainable ag in Chattanooga Reports from organic growers Canada thistle management strategies for sustainable and organic farming systems Abram J. Bicksler and John B. Masiunas University of Illinois Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a vigorous, perennial weed that spreads by a fibrous root system or wind blown seed. Canada thistle is considered a noxious weed and has become a common problem of sustainable and organic farms. What makes Canada thistle such a problem weed? It can rapidly spread, forms dense patches, suppresses growth of crops, and is poorly controlled using standard approaches. Tillage can cut the roots into small pieces, spreading patches; tillage equipment can also carry root pieces to new sites. Mowing must start at thistle flowering and be repeated numerous times. Common winter annual cover crops (i.e. cereal rye, hairy vetch, wheat) are not present during the most susceptible growth stages of Canada thistle. What are the key factors to controlling Canada thistle? It is a long-day plant; flowering and seed production starts in July through August. Shoots must be killed to prevent seed production. Emerging Canada thistle seedlings will not survive shading from other plants. Grow competitive crops that rapidly close canopy. Thistle plants store sugars and other carbohydrates in their roots. The stored carbohydrates allow thistles to overwinter and emerge in the spring or after disturbance. Established Canada thistle is best controlled after emergence at the beginning of flowering, when root carbohydrate reserves are lowest. Depletion of these reserves will reduce the thistles’ fitness and ability to re-grow from roots. Our research combined tillage, summer annual cover crops, and mowing to control Canada thistle. Sudangrass alone or combined with cowpea (70:30 sudangrass:cowpea) produced 13 to 14 Mt/ha of biomass. Sudangrass alone or combined with cowpea caused a 96 percent reduction in thistle density in the first growing season. One year after planting sudangrass, thistle numbers were still below 10 percent of the beginning densities. Neither buckwheat nor a summer fallow adequately suppressed Canada thistle. Mowing is less important for reducing thistle fitness and survival compared to the Sudangrass cover crop. We recommend disking thistle-infested areas several times during the spring to eliminate emerged thistle, prevent flowering, cut roots into small pieces, and create a uniform seed-bed for sudangrass. In early June, drill a sterile sudangrass hybrid such as “Special Effort” at 55 lbs/acre into the freshly prepared seedbed. The thick sudangrass canopy can shade out Canada thistle. Sudangrass may be mowed when 4 to 6 feet height to manage cover crop growth and prevent flowering of surviving Canada thistle. Use a flail mower to create a surface mulch and encourage sudangrass regrowth and tillering. In late fall or early spring, incorporate the sudangrass residue into the soil and plant a competitive crop. Use cultivation, hand-removal, or spot treatment with herbicides or flaming to control any remaining Canada thistle. Canada thistle biology: Knowing your enemy Abram Bicksler, John Masiunas, and Dan Anderson University of Illinois Canada thistle, also called creeping thistle, California thistle, and field thistle, Cirsium arvense, is a vigorous, competitive perennial weed that can establish from seed or wide-ranging, deep creeping roots. It is native to Europe, parts of North Africa, and the Middle East, and was introduced to North America in the early 17th century and has spread extensively. Canada thistle is a problem throughout the Midwestern United States on organic, sustainable and conventional farms. Cirsium species are troublesome weeds in organic cropping systems of northern Europe. Canada thistle can be distinguished from other thistles by three characteristics: 1) creeping horizontal lateral roots, 2) dense clonal growth, and 3) small dioecious (contain both male and female parts) flower heads (Nuzzo, 1997). Moreover, Canada thistle can be differentiated from other Cirsium and Cardus species by the following traits: 1) small dioecious flower heads <1 inch high; and 2) stems not conspicuously spiny-winged. Up to four varieties of Canada thistle have been recognized across the world, based predominantly upon their leaf morphology and pubescence. Canada thistle may change morphology in response to environmental conditions, and various ecotypes may respond differently to management practices. Limitations to Canada thistle spread Canada thistle is the most frequently declared noxious thistle in this country. Canada thistle requires a day-length of at least 14 to 16 hours for flowering to be induced, depending on ecotype. Canada thistle can survive winter temperatures of -17o F but is limited in its southerly distribution in the United States because it is less successful in hot, dry climates. It is generally a serious weed problem in areas receiving 18 to 36 inches of rainfall a year and it thrives on deep, productive well-aerated soils that do not become too warm. Optimum growth occurs at daytime temperatures of 77o F and nighttime temperatures of 59o F in soils with high nitrogen. Thistle flowering and seed production Thistles flower from July to September and sometimes into October. Seeds become viable within 8-10 days after flower opening, and an individual plant may produce from 5,000 to 40,000 seeds a year. There are conflicting reports about the number of days after flowering that a plant can be cut and still produce viable seed. Viable seed may be produced if the plant is cut down 4 days after flowering, 7 to 9 days after flowering, or 10 to 11 days after flowering. A small proportion of seeds (0.2 percent) can disperse one-half mile or more from the parent plant; thus, Canada thistle is difficult to prevent even if you are using best management practices. Canada thistle seeds float and are easily spread by flooding or in irrigation water from surface sources. Viable seeds can also be dispersed in manure. Canada thistle seeds germinate best in the top one-third inch of soil at temperatures averaging from 68o to 86o F. Approximately 60 to 90 percent of seeds germinate within one year; however, some seeds can remain dormant in the soil for up to 20 years. The deeper the seed is buried, the longer the viability. Seedlings Seedlings are sensitive to competition for light and are unlikely to survive in competition with established plants. Once established, however, Canada thistle spread is primarily vegetative in both agricultural fields and in natural communities. Within 8 to 10 weeks of emergence, seedlings develop a taproot and spreading lateral roots that can penetrate to over 2 feet after 6 months. The horizontal spreading lateral roots can grow up to 25 feet in one season, but most patches spread at the rate of 3 to 7 feet per year. At the base of these spreading lateral roots, adventitious buds develop, rendering the plants able to regenerate if hoed or cultivated. Roots and vegetative reproduction Edges of shoots can pinpoint the spread of the patch, because roots do not spread far beyond aboveground shoots. Most regeneration occurs from roots within or just below the plough layer. Most root buds are produced in the center of the Canada thistle patch, and each foot of root can average 4 to 8 root buds. The greatest Canada thistle shoot density corresponds to regions with the most underlying root biomass and adventitious root buds. The densities of adventitious root buds are three to five times greater in late summer than in spring. Cultivation stimulates the growth of horizontal roots, which increases the number of new vertical shoots borne by the chopped horizontal runners. Root fragments smaller than 1 inch in length may not re-grow, whereas root fragments 2 to 3 inches long readily regenerate shoots. Adventitious root buds are inhibited when the main shoot is present. If the main shoot is removed by tillage or mowing new shoots can emerge rapidly. In outdoor boxes, a single C. arvense plant was able to produce 26 emerged adventitious shoots, 154 adventitious root buds, and 360 feet of roots after just 18 weeks of growth. Even in systems that use herbicides, such as glyphosate, dose-response and time-course experiments have shown that the herbicide is more likely to reduce root bud numbers and secondary shoot re-growth potential than overall root biomass, still rendering Canada thistle able to regenerate. Control strategies should aim to deplete carbohydrate reserves. Carbohydrate reserves are stored in roots rather than in shoot bases or root buds, and that these reserves can range from as low as 3 percent of root fresh weight in spring to as high as 26 percent of root fresh weight in the fall. Canada thistle carbohydrate reserves were lowest from May through August, increased in the fall, and then began decreasing in April. In growth chamber experiments, carbohydrate movements to and from the roots correspond to environmental conditions typical of fall and early spring. Moreover, environmental cues seem to supersede growth stage control of carbohydrate movement. Development of root buds is highest in the autumn when short days and moderate temperatures dominate, and root bud elongation is greatest with the long days and high temperatures of summer. In addition to regeneration from root buds, Canada thistle shoots can grow from lateral buds at internodes on stem segments. These shoot pieces then survive if partially buried in the soil. This capacity to regenerate from root and stem fragments is particularly troublesome, as cultivation has been used for Canada thistle control. Canada thistle impact on crops. Canada thistle causes extensive crop yield losses through competition, and perhaps, allelopathy (release of inhibitory chemicals). The prickly mature foliage increases harvest difficulty and deters livestock from grazing. A density of 2 Canada thistle shoots per 1 ft2 caused yield losses of 34 percent in barley, 26 percent in canola, 36 percent in winter wheat, and 48 percent in alfalfa grown for seed. In addition to deterring livestock grazing and competing with crops, Canada thistles’ shoots, roots, and leaf litter can reduce shoot and root growth of other plants through allelopathy. Canada thistle and other perennial weeds are very difficult to control once established, so any management strategy must also prevent their introduction and spread. Canada thistle spreads as a contaminant in crop seed, hay and packing material. Additionally, it can be spread in soil attached to vehicles and farm equipment. Thus, using clean seed, hay, and packing material and cleaning equipment are important for preventing Canada thistle from being introduced or from spreading once on a farm. There are a few key places in the Canada thistle life cycle that are most susceptible to management. Thistle seedlings are very sensitive to competition for light and cannot survive in dense competitive stands of established plants. Canada thistle seedlings were very sensitive to plant stand density, light, soil aeration, and soil moisture conditions. The seedling to rosette and the rosette to flowering transitions, when root food reserves are at a minimum, are particularly important times for reducing Canada thistle populations. During July to October, carbohydrate reserves accumulate in thistle roots while from May to July the carbohydrate reserves are at their lowest. The lowest root carbohydrate reserves in Canada thistle occur just before flowering. If insect (such as stem-mining weevil) feeding on Canada thistle shoots occurs just before flowering, levels of carbohydrates in the root system tend to be reduced. Moreover, if shoots are tilled between the 7-10 leaf stages (for plants originating from 5 cm and 20 cm root fragments, respectively), minimum re-growth is observed. Drought stress on Canada thistle also increases the efficacy of mechanical control. Several years of drought can reduce perennial root biomass and decrease adventitious bud production, limiting adventitious shoot production. In conclusion, you should focus on maximizing early spring rosette and seedling mortality. Reducing seed production and inhibiting the survival of newly shed seeds is also important, but persistence of seeds that are already in the soil seed bank has little effect on population growth because of the importance of vegetative propagation in Canada thistle patch growth. Selected Sources Bond, W. and R. Turner. 2006. The biology and non-chemical control of creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense). HDRA online publication: www.organicweeds.org.uk Doll, J. D. 1997. Controlling Canada thistle. University of Wisconsin-Madison: North Central Regional Extension Publication. No. 218. Donald, W. W. 1994. The biology of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:77-101. Doyle, S., M. Morgan, and S. K. McDonald. 2005. Organic noxious weed management. Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense Family Asteraceeae. www.cepep.colostate.edu/factsheets/CanadaThistle.pdf Graglia, E. and B. Melander. 2005. Mechanical control of Cirsium arvense in organic farming. 13th European Weed Research Society, #4600. http://orgprints.org/4600/01/4600.pdf Graglia, E., B. Melander, and R. K. Jensen. 2006. Mechanical and cultural strategies to control Cirsium arvense in organic arable cropping systems. Weed Res. 46:304-312. Gustavsson, A-M. D. 1997. Growth and regenerative capacity of plants of Cirsium arvense. Weed Res. 37:229-236. Haderlie, L. C., S. Dewey, and D. Kidder. 1987. Canada thistle biology and control. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service: Bulletin No. 666. [HDRA] Henry Doubleday Research Association. 2006. Creeping Thistle Management Strategies in Organic Systems. Available:www.organicweeds.org.uk. Hogdson, J. M. 1968. The nature, ecology, and control of Canada thistle. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin: 1386.McAllister, R. S. and L. C. Haderlie. 1985. Seasonal variations in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) root bud growth and root carbohydrate reserves. Weed Sci. 33:44-49. Nuzzo, V. 1997. Element Stewardship Abstract for Cirsium arvense. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA.Sullivan, P. 2004. Thistle control alternatives. ATTRA NCAT www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/thistlecontrol.pdf ******** 2. MarketMaker links producers with agricultural businesses and consumers (This story is from the MSU Fruit CAT Alert Newsletter, Vol. 23, No. 16, August 19, 2008. http://ipm.anr.msu.edu/cat08fruit/f08-19-08.htm ) Anyone in Michigan who grows, sells, processes or eats food now has a new resource to help them. Market Maker© locates producers, businesses and markets of food products, providing an important link between Michigan producers and their buyers including end-consumers. The on-line information is provided on maps so that producers, businesses and markets can be visually located. Producers can use the web site to find processors, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, restaurants or farmers’ markets who might buy their products. Producers who are registered on the site can be easily found by their potential buyers and end-consumers. Registration and use of MarketMaker is free. Producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, restaurants, farmers’ markets and wineries can register by going to the website at http://mimarketmaker.msu.edu/ and clicking on the link, “Register Your Business.” Producers can also download a paper registration form by going to the Michigan State University Product Center web site at www.productcenter.msu.edu. Complete that form and return it per the instructions. Businesses that are already on the web site can establish their own unique user name and password so they can update their information at any time. “Consumers are increasingly interested in buying food that was produced closer to home. MarketMaker is an important tool to help all parts of the supply chain meet this consumer need,” said Don Koivisto, Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Wayne Wood, President of Michigan Farm Bureau, adds, “We support the development of an Internet marketplace for farmers to feature Michigan-based commodities and value-added products. MarketMaker meets that need.” MarketMaker has been brought to Michigan by the MSU Product Center with funding support from Project GREEEN, the Nowlin Chair for Consumer-Responsive Agriculture, Greenstone Farm Credit Services, the Southeast Michigan Food Systems Economic Partnership, the C.S Mott Chair for Sustainable Food Systems, Michigan Food & Farming Systems, and the Washtenaw County Agricultural Council. “In addition to our financial supporters, the Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Farm Bureau, and Michigan State University Extension have provided information to help build the database of producers, farmers markets, processors and wineries,” reports Chris Peterson, Director of the MSU Product Center. MarketMaker is active in ten states with two more states plus the District of Columbia scheduled to become active in the near future. The Michigan State University Product Center was established to improve economic opportunities in the Michigan agriculture, food and natural resource sectors. The Product Center assists the development and commercialization of high value, consumer-responsive products and businesses in the agriculture and natural resource sectors. For more information, contact the MSU Product Center by e-mail at [log in to unmask] or call (517) 432-8750. ******** 3. Field Crop CAT Alert, MSU Vol. 23, No. 16, August 21, 2008 http://www.ipm.msu.edu/cat08field/fc08-21-08.htm The above link will be helpful for folks growing crops- you can see what’s going on with corn and bean pests in your region of Michigan. In this issue: Soil organic matter in a continuous corn cropping system Fungicidal seed treatments for wheat Agricultural labor statistics for summer 2008 Regional reports Weather Soil organic matter in a continuous corn cropping system Lowell Gentry and Sieglinde Snapp Crop and Soil Sciences, Kellogg Biological Station Soil organic matter (SOM) plays a critical role in fertility, water holding capacity, aggregate stability, tilth, and overall soil quality. It has been estimated that 50 percent of the SOM of most soils was lost in the first 100 years after the agricultural conversion of prairies and savannahs. A major goal of the USDA/NRCS has been to decrease soil erosion through practices such as reduced tillage, contour farming, grassed waterways, and buffer strips. These techniques have been instrumental in saving billions of tons of topsoil and have helped conserve SOM levels across the United States, especially on vulnerable lands. Recently, the predominant cropping system in the Midwest (a corn-soybean rotation) has been under scrutiny in regard to the potential mining of SOM and has been questioned for its overall sustainability. The argument has been made that continuous corn, because of its large volume of stover return, can build SOM. As corn acres increase in response to market demands, the question arises “How will this influence SOM?” Surprisingly, results from a long term rotation experiment initiated in 1993 at the Kellogg Biological Station indicate that SOM has not increased under a continuous corn cropping system during the past 15 years, but rather has increased for a four-year rotation of corn-corn-soybean-wheat (see Figure 1). In 1993, this sandy loam soil had 1.5 percent organic matter. After 15 years, SOM has remained the same for the continuous corn cropping system; however, there is a significant increase in SOM due to crop rotation; and a trend for increased SOM for soil receiving cover crop inputs. Here we explore several possible explanations for this observation: A) microorganisms in low organic matter soils (1.5 percent SOM) may be carbon limited and have a greater propensity to degrade corn residues; B) diversity and quality of biomass inputs may contribute to carbon sequestration; C); greater living cover exists in the rotation (especially when using cover crops) compared with continuous corn (see Figure 2); and D) corn grown in northern latitudes becomes source limited and partition more dry matter to grain. In regard to explanation C, a corn crop only has living roots in the soil for about five months per year, or 20 months over a four-year period. A corn-corn-soybean-wheat rotation has living cover for about 33 months, and adding cover crops such as interseeding crimson clover into corn and frost-seeding red clover into wheat provides living roots for a total of 40 months. We believe that continuous living cover likely plays a role in building SOM over time. In regard to explanation D, source limitations, such as sunlight, lead to a physiological response of corn where more kernels are set than can be filled, and in an attempt to fill those kernels the plant is forced to cannabolize dry matter from the leaves and stalks to make grain. In 2006, the continuous corn plots at the Kellogg Biological Station produced 159 bu/A of corn with 135 lbs of N/A. The harvest index of this crop, which is the ratio of the amount of grain divided by the entire above ground plant biomass, was 59 percent (many working agricultural models use a value of 50 percent for harvest index). A high harvest index directly reflects the increased partitioning of dry matter from the leaves and stalks to the grain. Therefore due to light limitations in northern states, continuous corn cropping systems return less stover than is generally expected and this may be part of the reason why SOM has not increased in the continuous corn plots over the past 15 years. Today, with the high price of organic corn, there may be some temptation to grow second year corn. However, we need to remember the benefits of crop rotation, such as improved soil fertility, reduced soil erosion, breaking pest cycles (weed, disease, and insect problem), and spreading the workload. These results from the Living Field Laboratory demonstrate the need for long-term research studies to quantify the accumulative benefits of both crop rotation and the use of cover crops on SOM. For more information about our long-term research site, go to the Living Field Laboratory at: www.kbs.msu.edu/faculty/snapp/LFL.php ******** 4. Summary of 2008 Soil-Building Workshop at Morgan Composting Speaking of building soil organic matter... This year’s annual soil-building event was held last week at Morgan Composting in Sears, MI. Both days of the event were successful, thanks very much to the weather and the perfect backdrop of the Morgan family’s innovative composting facilities. Brad Morgan and his family shared so much of their time, their ideas, and their wisdom with all of us; it was lovely to have the example of their business to illustrate the soil-building principles of the event. We are also so thankful to our financial sponsors: The C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU, Michigan State University, Michigan State University Extension, MSU Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, and the USDA Farm Service Agency. Our keynote speaker was Bob Schindelbeck, a Soil and Water Management Research Support Specialist at Cornell University. His keynote addresses broadly covered soil building topics, with a particular emphasis on the physical properties (“crumb” or tilth) of your farm’s soil. He described how the biological webs in your soil, as well as the chemical properties of your soil, can affect your soil structure. Later in the day, to demonstrate these ideas, he performed an aggregate stability test on some soils brought in by participants. This simple test showed that a heavily worked sample had poorer aggregate stability than an unworked soil sample from the same field. Bob helped explain this result in terms of soil biology. Our other speakers did a fantastic job, as well! We had a wide variety of talks, all united in the common theme of making one’s operation more environmentally and financially sustainable. For example, we heard a talk from the co-owner of a successful greenhouse which has just recently transitioned to organic production. His talk was honest and straightforward, and his perspective as a “converted organic guy” was very helpful for those considering ways to increase the sustainability of their production methods. We also were given tours of the Morgan Composting facility. For many, the highlight of the tour was the vermicompost room. The sheer number of these wriggly workers was staggering. We learned a lot from the Morgan folks- they have figured out some clever ways of keeping their worms healthy, reproducing, and producing beautiful mountains of rich black castings. And you wouldn’t think it, but a room full of worms smells pretty nice! Throughout the day, participants had many chances to walk around the trade show booths at their own leisure. There were tables with information about organic seed sources, loan options, organic soil amendments, and some very innovative growing techniques being started up right here in Michigan. Of course, we tried to keep our participants well-fed throughout the day. We were careful to fill our menu with as many local and sustainably produced items as possible. Perhaps most notable was the potato salad, featuring potatoes and kohlrabi from a non-certified organic farm in Leslie, Michigan. Finally, everyone had a chance to watch equipment demonstrations. We put some brassicas in the ground with a mechanical transplanter, and showed various ways to mulch and spread for your fields. We recorded the events of the day with photographs and video. We plan to post these materials on our website, www.MichiganOrganic.msu.edu , in the future. We provided evaluation forms at the event, but if anyone has thought of any more suggestions since then, we would absolutely love your feedback! We want next year to be even better. Please contact Vicki Morrone with your ideas. Vicki Morrone Organic Vegetable and Crop Outreach Specialist Michigan State University C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems 303 Natural Resources Bldg. East Lansing, MI 48824 517-353-3542 517-282-3557 (cell) 517-353-3834 (fax) ******** 5. Masanobu Fukuoka, 1913-2008 By Tom Philpott for Grist Environmental News and Commentary http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/25/211438/300 August 26, 2008 “I was aiming at a pleasant, natural way of farming which results in making the work easier instead of harder. ‘How about not doing this?’ ‘How about not doing that?’ -- that was my way of thinking. I ultimately reached the conclusion that there was no need to plow, no need to apply fertilizer, no need to make compost, no need to use insecticide. When you get right down to it, there are few agricultural practices that are necessary. The reason that man's improved techniques seem necessary is that the natural balance has been so badly upset beforehand by those same techniques that the land has become dependent on them.” -- Masanobu Fukuoka, The One-Straw Revolution Masanobu Fukuoka died last week at the age of 95. Like the 20th century's other great critic of industrial agriculture, Albert Howard, Fukuoka got his start as a conventional plant pathologist. Both spent lots of time staring into microscopes looking to "solve" the various problems associated with teasing food out of the earth. They came of age when plant science was beginning to splinter into a set of specializations, each viewing particular aspects of agriculture in isolation. Fukuoka and Howard both decided that the conventional scientific approach led to disaster: a downward spiral of "solutions" to problems created by the previous solution. As Fukuoka, Japan's most celebrated alternative farmer, put it in his masterpiece, The One-Straw Revolution: “Specialists in various fields gather together and observe a stalk of rice. The insect disease specialist sees only insect damage, the specialist in plant nutrition considers only the plant's vigor.” These specialists are blind to the broader context in which the rice plant thrives or flails -- and to the vast ignorance that surrounds their narrow bands of knowledge. Many conventional scientists (such as the one now shaping our nation's foreign policy with regard to ag development) exude arrogance about humanity's ability to control "nature"; Fukuoka preached humility. "The irony is that science has served only to show how small human knowledge is," he writes. Here's another irony: Fukuoka's "do-nothing" style of farming is extremely difficult in our era. As he writes, the "the natural balance has been ... badly upset"; our farmland has become dependent on heroic interventions. Restoring the proper balance for do-nothing agriculture takes time and resources. Fukuoka offered no one-size-fits-all method for proper farming. He urged farmers everywhere to discover simple, low-input, synergistic/symbiotic approaches appropriate to their areas. That project takes time and resources. It could -- and should -- be the main task of publicly funded ag research, and indeed of all ag policy. It isn't, though. As Fukuoka well knew, you can't just take over a piece of farmland, "do nothing," and expect a bumper harvest. He tells an anecdote about his first attempt to farm without chemicals after abandoning his science career. He took over a patch of tangerine trees owned by his father, and proceeded to "do nothing." The result: "the branches became intertwined, insects attacked the trees, and the entire orchard withered away in no time." He concludes: “I had acted in the belief that everything should be left to take its natural course, but I found that if you apply that way of thinking all at once, before long, things do not go so well. This is abandonment, not ‘natural farming.’” In our time, small-scale farmers operate under brutal economic pressure -- and the resources needed to develop a truly sustainable agriculture too often lie beyond their grasp. So we slog on, doing our best, often falling short. Fukuoka's vision offers a beacon, a goal, an ideal to strive for. Making predictions is arrogant, but I'll venture one anyway: As long as humans are still scratching their sustenance out of the earth, Fukuoka's work will remain an inspiration. ******** 6. The Dynamics of Change in the US Food Marketing Environment Last month, the USDA issued a fairly hefty booklet describing the current trends in food markets, which may be of interest to some readers. The publication contains a segment explaining how direct-to-consumer markets such as CSAs and farmers’ markets are “gaining traction,” and a segment on trends in organic foods. These two segments are posted below. To view the booklet in its entirety, please visit www.michiganorganic.msu.edu/portals/organic/2008FoodRetailTrends.pdf “The popularity of direct-to-consumer marketing outlets, such as farmers markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture, is another challenge to supermarket profitability. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, the value of direct-to-consumer food sales in the United States grew 37 percent between 1997 and 2002—from $592 million to $812 million—reflecting the enormous growth in the number and accessibility of direct-to-consumer marketing outlets, especially in urban and suburban neighborhoods. This increase has been bolstered by the growth in the number of farmers markets in the United States—from around 1,750 in 1994 to approximately 4,475 by late 2007. By the end of 2005, farmers markets in the United States were estimated to generate more than $1 billion in sales per year. Furthermore, the number of community supported agriculture (CSA) operations, in which customers purchase advance shares of a farm’s production in return for regular deliveries during the growing season, has expanded from an estimated 60 operations in 1990 to approximately 1,150 operations in early 2007. The farmers market movement in the United States was initially concentrated along the West Coast and within parts of the Northeast. However, during the last few years the number of farmers markets throughout the country has increased significantly, especially in Midwestern States with a tradition of small farms, and where farms are close to population centers (figure 3). Direct-to-consumer marketing channels appear to be especially important to buyers of organic food products. According to the Organic Trade Association, about 7 percent of U.S. organic food sales in 2005 occurred through direct sales at farmers markets and other nonretail direct market outlets (including sales to foodservice customers). In contrast, only 3.9 percent of all U.S. food sales in 2005 were made through any form of direct sale or home/mail order delivery. The exponential growth in access to direct marketing outlets, such as farmers markets and CSAs, throughout the country appears to have stimulated significant growth in the value of locally grown food sold to consumers. The market research firm Packaged Facts estimated in 2007 that consumer demand for locally grown food could rise from around $4 billion in 2002 to $5 billion a year by the end of 2007 and to as much as $7 billion a year by 2012, refl ecting both increased consumer patronage of farmers markets and CSAs and an expanded effort by retail and foodservice fi rms to procure more locally grown food that appeals to consumers.12 Indeed, the popularity of farmers markets has grown so rapidly in the United States that a recent national survey reports that 2 percent of U.S. food shoppers now say farmers markets are their primary food shopping venue.13 In light of these developments in the marketplace, mainstream news media are giving increasingly prominent attention to the growth of the local food movement. “Despite several consecutive years of aggressive sales growth in recent years (figure 7), the organic food market is expected to continue expanding rapidly, rising an average of 16 percent per year between 2005 and 2010, compared with a projected annual growth of 2–3 percent in the conventional food sector.27 With organic food sales currently representing less than 3 percent of the U.S. food market, consumer demand for organic foods appears far from saturated.28 A slight slowdown in growth rates for well-established product categories such as fresh produce (about 39 percent of the organic food market) is likely to be overshadowed by a growth surge in such less-well-established product categories as meat, poultry, dairy, and sauces/ condiments. The Hartman Group, a market research fi rm that investigates trends in the natural product marketplace, reported that two-thirds of U.S. consumers purchased organic food and beverages on an occasional basis in 2004 and that 30 percent purchased them on a regular (daily or weekly) basis.30 Additionally, organic food purchases were motivated primarily by health and nutritional concerns, most specifi cally an interest in avoiding pesticides, chemicals, antibiotics, and growth hormones. However, the motivation behind organic food and beverage purchases becomes more complex as the level of organic patronage increases. Among the most dedicated “core” organic consumers (accounting for 21 percent of organic food and beverage shoppers), most prefer to support brands that “are not owned by conglomerates” and that have “an authentic story behind their creation.” The interest of core organic consumers in learning where their food comes from and in supporting small businesses creates unique opportunities for those food producers and processors that can satisfy this interest. In addition, the organic food market can expect to receive a boost from demographic trends as increased buying power among Hispanic-Americans, Asian- Americans, and African-Americans should further help promote consumer demand.32 Recent analysis of organic food patronage by the Hartman Group indicates that Caucasian consumers in the United States as a whole are less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to purchase organic foods on a regular basis.” ******** If you would like to access previous postings to the Mich-Organic listserv you can copy and paste the following URL into your browser address bar http://list.msu.edu/archives/mich-organic.html