One of my biggest problems with the studies from Rodale et. al. comparing the productivity of organic farming versus production ag relates to markets. Typically the studies compare a corn-only cropping series, a corn-soybeans rotation cropping series, and something like corn-alfalfa-wheat-soybeans cropping series, and finds that the corn productivity is roughly equal. My peeve is the studies ignore the question of marketing; they assume that everything grown can be marketed. Back in the old days of horse-drawn ag, you could rotate oats and hay crops with your corn and find a market for any fodder not consumed on the farm. These days, not so. California can grown alfalfa to be exported to China, but Iowa not so much.
A little bit of market recognition is the theme of this piece in the NYT, though I suspect the author (Mr. Barber, the chef and foodie) is drastically oversimplifying. (Yes. mustard makes a good rotation crop for the soil, and can be cooked/prepared for human consumption. But being able to provide mustard greens to chefs and CSA's over an extended period is probably not realistic. If you're planting greens in the garden, you know you want succession planting to extend the season, which is doable in small plots but possibly not on the scale of a farm.) Despite my doubts, it is a good step towards greater realism on the food movement, at least that part of the movement which reads the Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment