TL;DR: In this article, the authors reviewed the literature that compares biologically diversified farming systems with conventional farming systems, and examined 12 ecosystem services: biodiversity; soil quality; nutrient management; water-holding capacity; control of weeds, diseases, and pests; pollination services; carbon sequestration; energy efficiency and reduction of warming potential; resistance and resilience to climate change; and crop productivity.
TL;DR: In this paper, a long-term integrated fertility management in organic farming relies on a longterm integrated approach rather than the more short-term very targeted solutions common in conventional agriculture.
Abstract: Complex relationships exist between different components of the organic farm and the quantity and quality of the end products depend on the functioning of the whole system. As such, it is very difficult to isolate soil fertility from production and environmental aspects of the system. Crop rotation is the central tool that integrates the maintenance and development of soil fertility with different aspects of crop and livestock production in organic systems. Nutrient supply to crops depends on the use of legumes to add nitrogen to the system and limited inputs of supplementary nutrients, added in acceptable forms. Manures and crop residues are carefully managed to recycle nutrients around the farm. Management of soil organic matter, primarily through the use of short-term leys, helps ensure good soil structure and biological activity, important for nutrient supply, health and productivity of both crops and livestock. Carefully planned diverse rotations help reduce the incidence of pests and diseases and allow for cultural methods of weed control. As a result of the complex interactions between different system components, fertility management in organic farming relies on a long-term integrated approach rather than the more short-term very targeted solutions common in conventional agriculture.
TL;DR: In this paper, a modified soil quality index was developed to evaluate the effects of conventional, integrated and organic apple production systems on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties using four replicates of each of the three treatments in a randomized complete block design.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the environmental impacts of two long-term farming system experiments: the DOC experiment comparing bio-dynamic, bio-organic and conventional/integrated farming and the “Burgrain” experiment encompassing integrated intensive, integrated extensive and organic production.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide an economists' perspective on the factors which make diversified farming systems (DFS) economically attractive, or not so attractive, to farmers, and discuss the potential for and roadblocks to widespread adoption.
Abstract: In response to a shift toward specialization and mechanization during the 20th century, there has been momentum on the part of a vocal contingent of consumers, producers, researchers, and policy makers who call for a transition toward a new model of agriculture. This model employs fewer synthetic inputs, incorporates practices which enhance biodiversity and environmental services at local, regional, and global scales, and takes into account the social implications of production practices, market dynamics, and product mixes. Within this vision, diversified farming systems (DFS) have emerged as a model that incorporates functional biodiversity at multiple temporal and spatial scales to maintain ecosystem services critical to agricultural production. Our aim is to provide an economists’ perspective on the factors which make diversified farming systems (DFS) economically attractive, or not-so-attractive, to farmers, and to discuss the potential for and roadblocks to widespread adoption. We focus on how a range of existing and emerging factors drive profitability and adoption of DFS. We believe that, in order for DFS to thrive, a number of structural changes are needed. These include: 1) public and private investment in the development of low-cost, practical technologies that reduce the costs of production in DFS, 2) support for and coordination of evolving markets for ecosystem services and products from DFS and 3) the elimination of subsidies and crop insurance programs that perpetuate the unsustainable production of staple crops. We suggest that subsidies and funding be directed, instead, toward points 1) and 2), as well as toward incentives for consumption of nutritious food.