Weeds are survivors! Even if you controlled all the weeds in your field this year, you could still expect new infestations to arise from the weed “seedbank” for the next two to 78 years. The knowledge that weeds will always be present conflicts with our ideal image of a “weed-free” field. Since the complete eradication of weeds is most likely impossible, perhaps it is time we change our ideal to accept that weeds will always be present at some level. Our goal then changes from eradication to suppression and weed management to a point where yields are minimally impacted. So, what are the keys to long-term weed management?

Avoid additions to the seedbank; do not let weeds go to seed
Weeds can disperse several hundred to several hundred thousand seeds each year by way of wind, water, animals and humans. The number of seeds produced depends on the weed species and its environment. As you can imagine, if left uncontrolled, weed seed production and subsequent weed infestations could increase exponentially for the years to come.

More information on weed seedbank management can be found in “Managing weed seed banks throughout the growing season” by Adam Davis, in the April 29, 2004 issue of the New Ag Network (http://www.new-ag.msu.edu/issues04/04-29.htm#3).

Increase favorable habitats for weed seed predators
Though we mainly view weeds as a nuisance, there are several animals that use weed seeds as a food source. Mice, insects, worms and birds that are already in your fields are all example of weed seed feeders or “predators.” The exploitation of predator feeding can help reduce the weed seedbank; a tactic that is referred to as conservation biological control. Certain crop management strategies, such as tillage and the use of pesticides, can disrupt the habitat and lifecycles of these creatures, ultimately reducing the weed management benefits realized from predator feeding. To aid in increasing weed seed predator populations consider the following:

• Plant cover crops – In addition to suppressing off-season weeds, cover crops can provide weed seed feeders with protection from predators.
• Leave border strips around fields – Border strips can serve as overwintering sites and refuges for weed seed predators.
• Reduce fall tillage – Reducing fall tillage leaves more weed seeds on the soil surface, where most seed predation occurs. It also increases the persistence of crop residues which provides shelter and refuge to weed seed predators similar to a cover crop.  

Boost crop vigor
Increased crop vigor will reduce the impact of competition by weeds on yields. Crop vigor can be enhanced through variety selection and management practices that favor the crop over the weeds.

Favorable variety and hybrid traits to look for include:

• Rapid emergence – Planting hybrids/varieties that emerge quickly will give the crop a head start over emerging weeds, helping them to establish and better compete.
• Quick canopy closure – Once the canopy closes it reduces the amount of light that reaches the soil surface which some small seeded weed seeds need to initiate germination. The faster the canopy closes the more weeds it shuts out.
• Efficient nutrient scavenging – Logically, crop varieties that are efficient in utilizing nutrients will perform better and they may help prevent weeds from taking up nutrients.
• Indeterminate growth habit – Because indeterminate crops continue to grow throughout the season, they are less likely to be shaded out by weeds.
• Drought tolerance – Drought tolerant plants that are better water scavengers will be better equipped to compete with weeds.

Management practices that favor crop vigor over weed vigor:

• Appropriate placement and timing of fertilizers for the crop – Banded fertilizer applications applied at times when the crop demands it most will favor the nutrients reaching the target crop instead of feeding the weeds.
• Increase plant density or populations – Increasing your planting density will provide quicker canopy closure and deprive weed seeds and seedlings of light.
• Early-season weed control – Getting a jump on weed control when the crop is most vulnerable will increase plant health and help the crop compete against future weeds.
• Adjust planting dates – By delaying planting until after the first flush of weeds, new weed seedlings can be killed with a light cultivation or flaming. This practice can help deplete the seed bank in the top layer of soil, resulting in reduced competition later in the growing season. This technique is referred to as a false seedbed approach.

Avoid practices that favor persistence and resistance
Persistent weeds are those that are untouched by a management strategy. Resistant weeds are those that used to be controlled by a strategy but now have adapted to survive that strategy. Most persistent and resistant weeds result from the reliance on cropping systems and management practices that are not diversified.

Ways to diversify production:

• Crop rotation – Certain weeds are often affiliated with certain crops based on their growth habit and management. For example, there is more likely to be a problem controlling weedy grass species in corn than in soybeans. A diverse crop rotation with several different growth habits does not favor the buildup of any one particular weed. Incorporating fall and/or spring seeded cover crops into your rotation can help add diversity.
• Variations in postemergence control – Increasing the variety of postemergence control practices used will help suppress a larger spectrum of weeds than relying on one tactic.
• Herbicide mode of action rotation – Consistently relying on the same herbicides or organically acceptable compounds for weed control promotes resistance. If even one weed is naturally resistant, the over reliance of that strategy increases the selection pressure on that weed population and can go on to build an entire population of resistant weeds. One way to avoid this pressure is by alternating herbicide modes of action and practices. It is less likely that a weed will be resistant to multiple modes of action.

Scout, scout, and scout some more
Scouting is the only way to stay on top of current weed infestations. Besides looking for weed “hot spots,” it is important to take note of new weed types and infestations.

Likely locations/sources of introduced weed species:

• Water ways
• Power lines
• Road sides and railways
• Sites fertilized with external manures
• Contaminated seed sources

More in depth information on all of the above mentioned topics can be found in the MSU Extension bulletin “Integrated Weed Management ‘One Year's Seeding…'” (Inventory number E-2931. Order at http://www.emdc.msue.msu.edu/).

back to top

The economics of organic vegetables production

David Conner
C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems
Michigan State University

On February 1, 2006, I was invited to give a talk on the economics of organic vegetable production, especially as they pertain to growers looking to transition to organic practices. This talk was part of the Beginning Organic Farming Program at Purdue University. Here is a summary of what I said and for those of you who may be interested. The slides are available online at: http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/downloads/The%20Economics%20of%20Organic%20Vegetables.pdf

The talk covered three main themes: trends contributing to the decision to transition, profitability of organic versus conventional and skills needed to successful transition. I'll repeat here what I said then: that what we do not know is much more than what is known, and that the discussion below ties together bits and pieces of research throughout the nation.

Trends: farms, food and the future
Looking at USDA Agriculture Census data, it is clear that organic agriculture is bucking the trend on farm and farmland loss. While the number of farms and vegetable acres in the U.S. declined by three to five percent between 1997and 2002, organic acreage, and organic vegetable acreage in particular, increased by about 40 percent. So while not all conventional vegetable farms are failing, nor all organic farms successful, these stark contrasts highlight the opportunity that lies in organics. See Table 1.

Much of the success of organic farming is fueled by consumer demand. According to the Organic Trade Association:

- 39 percent of all U.S. consumers buy organic; 37 percent weekly and 39 percent daily

- Since 1997 organic food sales have increased 17-21 percent each year. Organic food sales are now about two percent of total U.S. food purchases.

- In 2003, 44 percent of sales were in grocery stores and 47 percent in health food stores.

The last point indicates that there are many potential outlets where farmers can sell organic products, including mainstream grocery, health food stores and direct markets.

The growth in organic sales coincides with a growing trend in the demand for food; having a connection with the food and farmer, and knowing where the food comes from. Evidence of this trend is seen, for example, in the growth of farmer's markets, which have more than doubled in number nationwide between 1994-2004, and the growth in direct market food sales, which increased by 37 percent between 1997-2002. Organic growers are well-positioned to meet growing demand from consumers concerned about health and the environment. Farmers selling to direct markets can also build relationships with consumers by selling the story of how the food was produced and who grew it, along with the product.

Profitability comparisons: organic versus conventional
Many of you are no doubt saying, “Yes, but can it make money?” Profit for any business is of course the difference between revenue and costs. So the key questions are: does organic bring higher revenue? Does it cost more to produce?

I wish I could report that I did a complete statistical analysis of numerous, parallel, side-by-side studies of organic versus conventional from every region in the country. The truth is that very few such studies have been done, and in many cases the findings may not apply to the Midwest. But here is a glimpse of what we do know.

Looking at enterprise budgets for three crops in California gives a mixed message: organic produce is more costly to produce ($/acre) in the cases of lettuce (7,283 versus 6,346) and broccoli (7,462 versus 6,524), but less expensive for strawberries (26,950 versus 31,846). See http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/outreach/cost_and_return.php

On the revenue side, a study of 15 vegetable crops in Canada found that in six cases, organic revenue was higher, in eight cases, conventional was higher and in one case it was the same. In every case the organic price was higher and yield was lower. See http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/21-004-X/21-004-XIE2002109.pdf

While these studies are helpful, a grower must look at them critically. Are your growing conditions the same as in California? Are your markets the same as in Canada? Furthermore, since there is no universal methodology for preparing these budgets, any comparisons on study A from one state and study B from another should be done with great caution.

It is also important to note that research in this area can often be comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. There are two very different paradigms to organic production, what I would call the “input substitution” versus “agro-ecological” models. The former model relies more on purchased inputs, those allowed by organic certifiers, to replace those used on conventional farming. The latter relies on the eco-system as a whole to create favorable growing conditions for the crops. Too often the “organic treatment” in a research plot takes the former approach, while most successful organic growers use the latter.

This distinction is summed up well by Vern Grubinger of the University of Vermont: “The economics of organic vegetable production is difficult to assess fairly, since the value of certain indirect benefits, such as an improvement in soil structure or a reduction in risks associated with pesticide use, are hard to quantify and are never reflected in enterprise budgets.” (http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/organicveg.html)

Research I conducted in conjunction with the Northeast Organic Network indicates that growers can and do make a profit. Figure 1 provides a summary of the profits earned by farmers.

Figure 1. Profits Earned by Various Crop Types

These results come with caveats and lessons learned as well. First, your results may vary. These farmers were selected as being exemplary. Second, one cannot simply grow only the most profitable crops. There is a need for diversity in crops, from several standpoints, including offering a broad array of products (important for those selling via farmers markets or CSA), labor (staggering the workload over the year) and biology (crop rotation). Finally, and most importantly, even high cost farmers can earn a profit if they successfully create value for the products they sell.

Skills needed for transition
An organic farmer in Michigan recently told me that there must be three transitions when adopting organic methods: land, farmer and market. The land must be free of restricted practices and inputs for at least three years, but may need a longer time to develop the agro-ecosystem favorable to organic production. Second, in many cases the farmer must learn new management practices. Third, the farmer often has to find new market outlets. Cash flow in these transition years must be carefully considered.

In general, a farmer must have an entrepreneurial spirit and a mindset that focuses on agro-ecology and holistic, systems thinking. As one MSU professor says, the farmer must change his or her thinking from “weed management” to “crop competition” and from “pest and disease management” to “crop health.”

Two great resources for more information on the transition can be found through ATTRA and SARE:

http://www.attra.org/
www.sare.org
http://www.sare.org/publications/organic/organic.pdf

In conclusion, more research on organic agriculture, especially economics, is desperately needed. This paper gives an overview of what we know, but exposes just how much more we need to know.

back to top

The last decade has seen rapid growth in organic dairy farming in the United States. Growth in the organic dairy market has been driven in part by increased demand for organic foods, fueled by a complex mix of consumer concerns of food safety, nutrition, concern for the environment and other factors. On the supply side, growth in organic dairy farming has been fueled, in part, by the promise of higher returns relative to conventional dairy farming as well as environmental concerns on the part of producers. Although organic dairies account for less than one percent of total milk production in the United States, the organic model holds promise as a potentially profitable alternative to conventional. This article discusses some economic factors affecting organic dairy markets.

Economic factors affecting the returns to conversion to organic milk production
Conversion to organic milk production can be analyzed as an investment with costs and benefits. Potential costs of conversion include the effort and financial costs of adjusting to a new production system. Potential benefits of conversion include premiums for organic milk, reduced input costs, as well as “lifestyle” benefits associated with organic production methods. Here we outline some key factors that influence these costs and benefits of organic milk production, and discuss how these may change in the future.

Trends in organic dairy markets
Available public data, as well as data collected by private marketing firms and organic groups, have shown rapid growth in organic food sales. Retail sales of organic dairy products have experienced 20 percent annual growth in recent years, reaching $1.4 billion in 2003, approximately 13 percent of total organic food sales according to the Organic Trade Association's 2004 Manufacturers Survey.

Growth in demand for organic products has been fueled by a complex mix of consumer concerns over food safety, nutrition, the environment and other factors. While a very small percentage of U.S. consumers are frequent consumers of organic products, a large portion of consumers have tried organic foods. Statistical analysis of consumer surveys have found that consumers of organic products are willing to pay an additional $1.50/gallon over the conventional milk price for milk labeled “rbST-free”, and an additional $1.50/gallon premium for “organic” (Foltz and Dhar). These studies have also found that consumers of organic products are relatively unresponsive to price changes, suggesting that the perceived benefits listed above are more important than price for these consumers.

Industry reports suggest that growth in organic production has lagged growth in demand (Organic Consumers Association). Retailers have reported difficulties in keeping the organic dairy case stocked, and processors are looking to source more organic milk. Organic milk production is still less than one percent of total milk production in the United States.

Returns to organic milk production
Rapid growth in demand combined with relatively slow growth in supply has resulted in large premiums to organic dairy farmers. Farm-gate premiums for organic milk have been as high as 50 percent in recent years. A recent study of the organic milk market in Vermont and Maine found farm prices of $22.97/cwt, a premium of $4.90 over the price received by conventional farms in the same region (Dalton et al.). This same study found that milk production per cow was similar across organic and conventional farms, so that revenue from milk sales on organic farms was higher than that on conventional farms.

Dairy cows and calves raised under organic management from the last trimester of gestation can be sold as organic beef animals. This is a potential source of additional revenue for organic dairy farms. However, little information is available on the market for organic dairy cows and calves sold for slaughter.

The NOP requirements for organic dairy farms (highlighted above) affect production costs. Organic feed costs have been the biggest difference between production costs between organic and conventional dairies. The Maine study found that the additional cost of organic feed was equal to 54 percent of the price differential received for organic milk (Dalton et al.). However, availability of organic feed, and thus organic feed prices, differs regionally. Greater availability of organic feed and less reliance on purchased feed may reduce these additional feed costs in the Eastern Corn Belt.

Of course, organic farms have lower costs on prohibited inputs in crop production, such as chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. Similarly, NOP restrictions on medicines and other health supplies also reduce animal health management costs on organic farms. The Maine study found that reduced fertilizer costs amounted to a four percent cost savings, and reduced health supplies an additional four percent cost savings. These cost-savings must be weighed against the cost of NOP-approved methods of soil management, pest control and herd health, as well as potential differences in cropland and dairy cow productivity due to the different management practices.

The benefits and costs listed above need to be weighed to quantify the profitability of organic dairy farming. The Maine study found that costs exceeded revenue on organic dairy farms, generating a negative (-2.9 percent) return to farm assets on organic dairies, compared to a +4.1 percent return to farm assets on conventional farms. Thus, based on a sample of 30 farms and 2004 market conditions, organic dairy farming was on average not profitable in Vermont and Maine. These results must be viewed with caution before extrapolating to other years and other regions. Milk prices and costs vary over time and across regions. Importantly, the main additional cost component for organic dairy farms, organic feed costs, is likely to be smaller in regions where organic feed is more readily available and dairy farms are less reliant on purchased feed. Because of this, proponents of organic dairy farming believe that the Eastern Corn Belt may be ideally situated for organic production.

The costs of conversion to organic
Caution is also required for interpreting the results from the Maine study because it considers only the ongoing costs of existing organic farms. However, under NOP requirements, it takes several years to transition to organic milk production. It takes three years to convert cropland to organic if it has previously been farmed under conventional soil management practices. In addition, all milking cows must be under organic management for one full year before the milk can be sold as organic. Thus, during these transition years, producers incur the costs of compliance even though they are unable to benefit from organic milk prices.

Some organic dairy processors have made efforts to ease the financial burden of the transition years by offering premiums to producers still in the transition process.

Uncertainty in the organic market
As is the case with any investment, producers considering organic production must take into account not only present market conditions, but also forecast costs and prices out over several years. The difficulty associated with forecasting in an established market environment is compounded by the fact that the organic market is new and continues to develop. The NOP standards for organic milk and dairy products have existed only since 2002 and may continue to evolve. Many organic farmers and manufacturers are continuing to adjust to organic production methods. At the same time, consumer perception of organics continues to evolve. Here we outline questions that producers will want to consider before entering the organic market.

• How fast will demand for organic dairy products grow, and what will be the effect on prices? The organic dairy industry has projected that organic food sales will continue to grow at an impressive rate. Strong growth in demand will help support large retail premiums for organic dairy products.
• How fast will production of organic milk and dairy products grow? How responsive will the industry be to growing demand? Growth in production of organic dairy products and organic milk will reduce the premiums paid for these products. Stricter NOP standards that restrict entry will tend to limit supply and increase the organic premiums.
• How will premiums at the retail level translate to premiums at the farm gate? Thus far, farm-gate premiums for organic milk have reflected retail premiums for organic dairy products. However, the pass-through of premiums from the retail level to farmers depends on competitiveness along the supply chain.
• What will be the availability/prices of organic inputs? Prices of organic feed, pasture, heifers, etc., will affect the production costs on organic dairy farms. As organic inputs become more available, prices of these inputs could fall.
• What will be the prices of corollary outputs? Organic dairy farmers that can command premiums for surplus organic crops and organic cows and calves for slaughter will increase returns to organic farming.

References and sources for further information
Bowman, Cissy, Indiana Certified Organic (Accredited Certifying Agent), Phone 317.539.4317, e-mail: cvof@inquest.net.

Dalton, T.J., L.A. Bragg, R. Kersbergen, R. Parsons, G. Rogers, D. Kauppila, Q. Wang. 2005. “Costs and Returns to Organic Dairy Farming in Maine and Vermont for 2004,” University of Maine Department of Resource Economics and Policy Staff Paper #555 (November).

Dhar, Tirtha and Foltz, Jeremy, The Market for rBST-free and Organic Milk, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2003. http://www.pats.wisc.edu/pdf%20documents/fact18x.pdf

Organic Consumers Association, “Demand for Organic Dairy Products in USA Exceeds Supply--New Farmers Needed,” May 20, 2005, http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/cheese052705.cfm

Organic Trade Association, “The OTA 2004 Manufacturer Survey Overview” http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/2004SurveyOverview.pdf

Rheinheimer, Lowell, CROPP/Organic Valley (organic dairy processor), Phone 574.642.3759,

Rheinheimer, Lowell, CROPP/Organic Valley (organic dairy processor), Phone 574.642.3759 , e-mail Lowell.rheinheimer@organicvalley.coop

USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. National Organic Plan, http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexNet.htm .

USDA, Economic Research Service. Organic Farming and Marketing Briefing Room, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/ .

Useful information on conversion to organic dairy production is available at http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/
http://www.nodpa.com/grazing.html
www.attra.ncat.org
www.mosesorganic.org/factsheets/dairychecklist.pdf .

back to top

June 25-29, 2006

The University of Idaho at Moscow, Idaho, USA, is hosting the second International Biofumigation Symposium on June 25-29.

Brassicaceae plants have tremendous potential to be used in crop rotations as a natural pesticide source, thereby decreasing our dependence on synthetic chemicals. Various research groups around the world have been exploring the prospective use of these plants to control insects, nematodes, weeds, and fungal pathogens. The goal of this Symposium is to bring together chemists, agronomists, entomologists, nematologists, plant biochemists, plant pathologists, and soil scientists to comprehensively address issues critical to successful application and adoption of biofumigation in managed ecosystems. A field tour in the Palouse region of northern Idaho is to be held on the last day of the conference. Visit the symposium web site at: http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/biofumigation/

Or contact symposium organizer Matthew Morra at mmorra@uidaho.edu

back to top