The Future Confluence of Conventional and Organic Agriculture
Regardless of their ideals, their philosophy, or their motivations, American farmers of all stripes will face some Herculean challenges in the next decade. On one hand, they face increasing competition from imported goods that threatens their very viability. On the other hand they will have to compete with these foreign goods while being hamstrung by increased governmental regulation, skyrocketing fuel, energy, land and business costs, and potentially crippling labor shortages.
In a business that is heavily dependent upon the whims of nature to achieve success, where the wrong weather on the right day can spell disaster, there is little buffer to absorb these rising costs. If history is any indicator, it seems unlikely that crop prices will remain buoyant in the face of increased production costs. Thus, the pain that is felt in the near term might become be the symptom of a terminal illness. As growers and producers of commodity crops have seen time and again over the past few decades, the only way to survive may be to grow. Unfortunately, growth is not a panacea.
Most farmers are aware of these trends; the ones who are not are an endangered species. Of all of these threats, the one that people take the least seriously is that posed by regulation. Conventional farmers who have relied for years on organophosphates to quickly and effectively eliminate swelling populations of menacing pests will surely face a future where these chemicals are no longer available. Despite the fact that the current administration is working feverishly to extend the Methyl Bromide exemption until 2008, it, and many other critical use materials like it, will soon meet their end. This means that conventional growers will have to increasingly depend on Integrated Pest Management to relieve pest and blight pressures. In short, they will have to become more like organic farmers.
Organic growers and producers are not immune to this regulatory pressure. Water quality monitoring is serious business and point-source detection does not discriminate between pollution derived from conventional and that derived from organic materials. Thus, the manure dependent 20-acre organic farmer is exposed to the same risk as the 1000-acre conventional dairyman, one watershed over.
In fact, organic farmers may be at an exponentially higher risk since they may not yet have been slapped into dealing with the containment of their runoff. To make matters worse, the next incarnation of the Farm Bill will almost certainly weaken the standards for processed organic foods resulting in a new floor for market price of industrial organic ingredients.
Essentially, all farmers will have to get better both at using fewer materials and on limiting the footprint of their operations. Fortunately, we may have all of the answers to these and other unforeseen problems within our agricultural community. Without a doubt, agriculture is essential to our nation�s survival. Now is the time for farmers of all stripes to collaborate in order to ensure its future. Is there a suitable forum for this collaboration in cyberspace? If so please let me know; brianjkennymediaworks@yahoo.com.
[+/-] read/hide this post
The Conventional/Organic Divide
Over the past four years, I have had the opportunity to meet a wide array of farmers of varying stripes and to discuss both their philosophies about the earth and the farmer’s place on it. All farmers are very closely in touch with nature. It is only in their conception of their relationship with nature that they differ. Those who are called conventional farmers are pragmatic where those who are called organic farmers are idealistic. All farmers rely on materials to promote the harmony of their world, the ones that they chose are simply different in the way that they are manufactured.
Organic farmers strive to create healthy living soils and foster the establishment of compatible plant and animal systems. Their focus is on the creation and balance of a whole system. Although some organic farmers only farm organically because they want to earn the premium that organic food enjoys, many are true believers in the organic movement. They use cover crops and compost to build the microbial content of their soils, and rely on bacteria, fungi, insects, to eliminate parasites, pests, scales, rots, and molds. Their fields, orchards and rangelands are in relative balance with nature, so their problems are theoretically both fewer and less severe. When they do encounter pest pressure, they are able to rely on less potent materials to take immediate corrective action. When they do have to rely on materials, they frequently use significant quantities of them.
Conventional farmers strive to create the optimal conditions in which to grow their crops and employ technology in an effort to maximize both the efficiency of their operation and its profit potential. Many conventional farmers harbor an environmentalist streak but the nature of how they must sell their crops does much to direct their efforts. They are greatly exposed to the market which, almost without exception, has become a global commodity one. Since the commodity market is fickle, they are forced to grow their crop to a different quality standard each year. Thus, they are hindered by the market in any efforts to take a slow approach to anything that is related to the production of their crop. Problems must be dealt with swiftly and quick acting, powerful, man-made materials are available to solve their problems. Some of them are able employ limited quantities of these materials but every farmer uses them wants to be able to use less.
At a philosophical level, organic farmers work with nature to harness its energy to create a harmonious now while conventional farmers focus their efforts to sculpt nature into harmony. Sometimes, organic farmers view the conventional farmers as irresponsible, even arrogant, because they use synthetic materials to subvert nature. Other times, conventional growers dismiss the holistic, environmental approach of organic farmers as simplistic and archaic because they forego technology and allow themselves to be subjugated by nature unnecessarily.
Whatever their differences, all farmers care about their vocation and have an idealistic view of what they do and they only stand to gain by discussing their idealism with others.
[+/-] read/hide this post
Farm-To-Fork With Even Star Organic Farm
This is part of a series that I wrote documenting Bon Appétit Management Company's Farm-To-Fork Program.
Even Star Organic Farm – Bon Appétit Farm Brief
Brett Grohsgal of Even Star Organic Farm had been farming for nine years when he met Keith Costas at the farmer’s market in Chevy Chase, Md in 2002. Grohsgal, a former chef, and his wife, Dr. Christine Bergmark, a marketing specialist for the state of Maryland, were in the process of radically scaling back their wholesale accounts and moving to a subscription-based community supported agriculture (CSA) model. Feeling that the wholesale market was a dead-end, Grohsgal was both skeptical and disinterested when Costas, Bon Appétit’s General Manager at American University, told him about Bon Appétit’s Farm-To-Fork program.
Grohsgal’s initial reaction was that anyone representing a large, nationwide corporation was not worthy of trust, and did not deserve access to Even Star’s product. “Wholesale restaurant buyers are happy to pay top dollar for meat and fish,” Grohsgal explains, “however, they think that produce should be free and it essentially subsidizes the restaurant at the farmer’s expense. I couldn’t imagine that Bon Appétit could be any different.” However, after some discussion, Costas was able to convince Grohsgal to allow two Bon Appétit chefs to visit his farm.
The meeting began with Grohsgal explaining his position on the wholesale market. “He told me very clearly that he categorically refused to work with corporations, because they don't share his values of care for the land,” says Kimberley Tripplett, Executive Chef at American University. Tripplet and James Cavanaugh, her sous chef, undeterred by Grohsgal’s outspoken view, spent the better part of the day talking extensively with him about Bon Appétit's philosophy of sustainability. They also took the opportunity to sample Even Star’s produce; golden melons, squash flowers, and tri-colored organic tomatoes.
Despite its inauspicious start, the day ended with Bon Appétit’s first purchase of Even Star produce. It was clear to Grohsgal that Bon Appétit was a very unique company. “Kimberly came to the farm with a blank check,” he states, “she recognized the quality of our product and was happy to pay us for it. We were in the process of weaning all of our bad accounts away, but I had to give Bon Appétit a chance to work with us because they had walked the talk with me once.”
After six deliveries, Grohsgal began to believe in the promise of Farm-To-Fork. He had sold Bon Appétit a great deal of heirloom and cherry tomatoes as well as a wide variety of esoteric peppers, cucumbers, and watermelons. He would also be selling them large amounts of sweet potatoes, winter greens like tatsoi, arugula, mixed kales, and winter squashes, including Grohsgal’s favorite winter squash, courge lonque de nice. In short, he realized that Bon Appétit was buying large volumes of unique produce, that they were paying him promptly for his produce, that they were respectful of him as a farmer, and that they were using his produce in highly innovative ways.
“They have been extraordinarily creative in ways that you would never expect in a cafeteria environment. For example Kimberley and James made this incredible pesto with tatsoi, ginger, toasted sesame seeds, and sesame oil; it stunned me, it was that good. It is one thing to respect the farmer by paying quickly but it is another thing entirely to respect food and to create phenomenal things with it. Bon Appétit chefs are frequently as good as the three star chefs that we work with in white tablecloth restaurants. What is truly amazing is that they are creating food of this caliber for students. That is what made me realize that Bon Appétit is totally sincere about their mission.
Time has strengthened the relationship and the mutual respect between Even Star and Bon Appétit. “We don’t just have a good relationship with Bon Appétit,” Grosghal explains, “we have never had a bad experience with them and that is as glorious as it is rare. “I started farming because life’s too short to eat bad food,” Grohsgal states, “from the top down, Bon Appétit gets this. Unlike most food service companies, the buyers think like the chefs and the chefs treat our food with great respect and care. I won’t sell to somebody who is abusing my food.”
These days, business is booming for Even Star Organic Farms. Their CSA program is completely booked, they have a waiting list for new customers, and the demand for their food greatly outstrips their production. Despite this fact, Grohsgal cannot conceive of a future without Bon Appétit. “I see no point in the distant future at which we will not be selling to Bon Appétit,” he explains. “People and good relationships count in business, and the people and the practices at Bon Appétit, especially the Farm-To-Fork program, have forced my stubborn mind to concede that some nationwide corporations can really help, rather than hurt, small farms.”
[+/-] read/hide this post
The Evolution of the Organic Movement
In last week’s column I discussed the fact that a certain segment of consumers will only buy organic food. This week we will trace the evolution of the organic movement and shed light on a few of the reasons why it has resonated so strongly with consumers.
The modern organic movement began in the 1920s and was rooted in the effort to both understand the interrelation of the environment, animals, and mankind, and to use that understanding to build farm practices that leverage natural systems rather than try to subvert those same systems. The organic movement began to galvanize in the 1940’s as a backlash to the widespread adoption of synthetic agricultural materials, becoming more widespread in the early 1970s with the banning of DDT. The Alar scare in 1989, the truth and validity of which is still vigorously debated, provided a firm foundation for the future of organics. The fear, uncertainty, and doubt generated by these chemical scares gave conventional agriculture a bad name and provided the organic movement with a great deal of its power and appeal.
Conventional farmers are oft to point out that all registered agricultural materials have to be rigorously tested before they are approved for use. However, this is little consolation to most of the public, who have few reasons to entrust their safety to governmental bureaucracy. In short, nobody really trusts the government completely nor does anyone trust corporations completely. To err is human, to err in the name of increased profits is popularly considered to be corporate.
Thus, at the heart of the organic movement there lies a great deal of mistrust, suspicion, and hostility for both the government and for corporations. Organic farms are positioned in a more personal fashion than most conventional farms. Thus, conventional agriculture is associated with corporations, often large, bloodsucking ones, who are hell-bent on increasing their profits, while organic farms are often associated with well-intentioned people who are doing the right thing. Conventional farmers frequently get defensive in light of this association, and their defensiveness only makes them look worse. There is a dangerous catch-22 at work here.
Marketers have personalized the organic movement, making consumers feel like they are supporting both the environment and the people who work in it by purchasing organic food. The power of this sentiment is not to be underestimated despite the fact that nearly all global food conglomerates have their hand in the organic market in one way or another. Thus, marketing has been integral to the success of organic foods.
A great example of this marketing com,es from “Issues” section of Whole Foods Markets’ website (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/issues/). It describes organic food as follows: “These foods are produced without the standard array of modern toxic and persistent chemicals commonly used on conventional food products since the 1950s.” The message is clear, convention could be fatal.
Great marketing distills complex theories and philosophical constructs into concise soundbites. The challenge of crafting a similar statement regarding conventional agriculture, using a similar number of words, is a formidable one indeed. Next week we will look at more of the underlying themes of the organic movement and the positive things that they could do for conventional growers.
[+/-] read/hide this post
Thoughts on the Growth of Organics
If you spend enough time talking to people about food, you will eventually hear the phrase “I only buy organic.” Statistically speaking, mothers in the 20-40 age group are most likely to express this sentiment. Although it is a sentiment that is unique neither to women nor mothers, it is generally limited to the economic brackets that can afford to pay the premium for the organic label.
Although organic food is more expensive than conventionally grown products, the average organic consumer is happy to pay the premium for organic food because, to them, the term organic means that the food is not only healthier and safer than conventionally grown food, but that it is produced in a manner that is better for the environment. This perception explains the tremendous growth in the organic category over the past several years when the relatively cool economy should have slowed expenditures on premium staples.
Supermarkets like Whole Foods Markets have segregated their produce offerings, labeling them as either “Conventional,” Organic,” or “Transitional.” This move clearly indicates that, to Whole Foods at least, there is only one way to farm; organic. Conventional farming is a dead end in this mindset and the best that a conventional farmer can do is transition to organic. Thus, organic is good, conventional is bad, and transitional represents the road to good.
In general, without delving too deeply into philosophy, an individual’s perception is their reality. Thus, it is easy to write off the perception of a market chain as radical, extreme, or unrealistic. However, the perceptions and realities of publicly traded corporate entities can be seen as both harbingers of things to come and barometers of public perception. Thus, it can be enlightening for farmers to pay attention to these perceptions since they will eventually have an effect on the market for all agricultural products.
Over the next few months, this column will explore consumer perceptions regarding agriculture and will endeavor to explain these perceptions in an effort to inform readers of the Capital Press of what consumers see as the future of agriculture. The goal of this column is to be frank and honest and to respectfully represent both the viewpoints consumers and the viewpoints of farmers regardless of whether or not they jibe with my views.
Nobody can deny the explosive growth of organic foods. However, it is impossible for me to imagine our entire food supply being produced organically. Thus, the role of organic agriculture in our nation is yet to be decided. Given the premium charged for organic products, it is difficult to envision the average American stomaching higher food prices. However, prior to 2005, it was difficult to imagine $3/gallon gas.
In reality, the position of all agriculture in our nation is in flux. The adjective describing the agriculture is only part of the discussion. In order for agriculture to survive in this country in any way other than in the large corporate format, consumers will have to be both engaged and educated by farmers of all stripes. This is a significant challenge but we are equal to the task.
[+/-] read/hide this post
