Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990-2002 -- Posner et al. 100 (2): 253 -- Agronomy Journal

Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990–2002Joshua L. Posnera,*, Jon O. Baldockb and Janet L. Hedtckeaa Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706b AGSTAT, 6394 Grandview Rd., Verona, WI 53593. Major funding provided by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation's Integrated Food and Farming Systems program and federal appropriation from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Integrated Farming Systems program* Corresponding author (jlposner@wisc.edu).During the last half-century, agriculture in the upper U.S. Midwest has changed from limited-input, integrated grain–livestock systems to primarily high-input specialized livestock or grain systems. This trend has spawned a debate regarding which cropping systems are more sustainable and led to the question: can diverse, low-input cropping systems (organic systems) be as productive as conventional systems? To answer this question, we compared six cropping systems ranging from diverse, organic systems to less diverse conventional systems conducted at two sites in southern Wisconsin. The results of 13 yr at one location and 8 yr at the other showed that: (i) organic forage crops can yield both as much dry matter as their conventional counterparts and with quality sufficient to produce as much milk; and (ii) organic corn (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) can produce 90% as well as their conventionally managed counterparts. The average yields for corn and soybean, however, masked a dichotomy in productivity. Combining Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial (WICST) data with other published reports revealed that in 34% of the site-years, weed control was such a problem, mostly due to wet spring weather reducing the effectiveness of mechanical weed control techniques, that the relative yields of low-input corn and soybean were only 74% of conventional systems. However, in the other 66% of the cases, where mechanical weed control was effective, the relative yield of the low-input crops was 99% of conventional systems. Our findings indicate that diverse, low-input cropping systems can be as productive per unit of land as conventional systems.

Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990-2002 -- Posner et al. 100 (2): 253 -- Agronomy Journal

CAFOs Uncovered

CAFOs UncoveredThe Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding OperationsThe U.S. livestock industry—a large and vital part of agriculture in this country—has been undergoing a drastic change over the past several decades. Huge CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) have become the predominant method of raising livestock, and the crowded conditions in these facilities have increased water and air pollution and other types of harm to public health and rural communities.CAFOs UncoveredCAFOs Uncovered (PDF)Executive Summary (PDF)Author biographyPress releaseTake Action: Sign petition to USDA secretaryCAFOs are not the inevitable result of market forces. Instead, these unhealthy operations are largely the result of misguided public policy that can and should be changed.In this report, the Union of Concerned Scientists analyzes both the policies that have facilitated the growth of CAFOs and the enormous costs imposed on society by CAFOs. We also discuss sophisticated and efficient alternatives for producing affordable animal products, and offer policy recommendations that can begin to lead us toward a healthy and sustainable food system.

CAFOs Uncovered

The Effect of Rearing Density on Growth and Survival of Cobia

in a Closed Recirculating Aquaculture System

• Glenn M. Hitzfelder ^{a a} Maritech, Research and Development, 805 46th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 USA
• G. Joan Holt ^{b,1 b} University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute, Fisheries and Mariculture Laboratory, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, Texas 78373 USA ¹ Corresponding author.
• Joe M. Fox ^{c c} College of Science and Technology, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 USA and
• David A. McKee ^{c c} College of Science and Technology, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 USA

• ^a Maritech, Research and Development, 805 46th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 USA
  ^b University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute, Fisheries and Mariculture Laboratory, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, Texas 78373 USA
  ^c College of Science and Technology, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 USA

¹ Corresponding author.

Cobia, Rachycentron canadum, is a highly prized game fish as well as an important commercial fish in many parts of the world. This species is found worldwide in tropical, subtropical, and warm temperate seas, except for the eastern Pacific. Cobia is thought to be highly migratory in the Gulf of Mexico where it is absent from commercial and recreational catches during the late fall and winter (Ditty and Shaw 1992). Cobia migrate from the Florida Keys north and west along the Gulf coast during early spring and reappear in the northern Gulf of Mexico in late spring and summer.

Cobia is an excellent candidate for aquaculture because of its fast growth rate, reaching 6–10 kg in 12–14 mo (Liao et al. 2004), as well as excellent flesh quality (Chen 2001). However, intensive culture of cobia is relatively new to aquaculture. Techniques for the natural spawning of cobia broodstock in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) have only recently been developed in the United States (Arnold et al. 2002). Although larval rearing techniques have been under investigation for the past few years (Faulk and Holt 2003, 2005), little information is currently available regarding optimal rearing densities for cobia in RAS. The availability of large numbers of larvae and/or juveniles is necessary for successful grow-out operations, so high-density larva culture is favored.

Stocking density has been shown to influence growth rate (Pickering and Stewart 1984), feeding behavior (Kentouri et al. 1994), disease resistance (Mazur and Iwama 1993), and survival (Sodeberg and Meade 1987) in finfish. Density effects on cultured fish may result in behavioral interactions among siblings including competition for food and space that often result in cannibalism. Reduced water quality in high-density rearing systems can also affect growth and survival. If water quality can be controlled and sufficient food provided, high rearing densities may still affect growth and survival through responses related to crowding. Reduced appetite is one of the effects associated with reduced growth of juveniles under crowded conditions (Wendelaar Bonga 1997). The effect that crowding has on larvae is not well understood, but it often results in reduced growth and survival (Houde 1975; Alvarez-Gonzalez et al. 2001). This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of different rearing densities on the growth and survival of cobia larvae in an RAS.

Blackwell Synergy - J World Aquaculture Soc, Volume 37 Issue 2 Page 204-209, June 2006 (Full Text)

Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change

Gowri Koneswaran¹ and Danielle Nierenberg^1,2

¹Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC, USA; ²Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract
Background: The farm animal sector is the single largest anthropogenic user of land, contributing to many environmental problems, including global warming and climate change.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to synthesize and expand upon existing data on the contribution of farm animal production to climate change.

Methods: We analyzed the scientific literature on farm animal production and documented greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as various mitigation strategies.

Discussions: An analysis of meat, egg, and milk production encompasses not only the direct rearing and slaughtering of animals, but also grain and fertilizer production for animal feed, waste storage and disposal, water use, and energy expenditures on farms and in transporting feed and finished animal products, among other key impacts of the production process as a whole.

Conclusions: Immediate and far-reaching changes in current animal agriculture practices and consumption patterns are both critical and timely if GHGs from the farm animal sector are to be mitigated.

Environ Health Perspect 116:578–582 (2008) . doi:10.1289/ehp.11034 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 31 January 2008]

Technology Review: Corn Primed for Making Biofuel

In an effort to help boost the nation's supply of biofuels, researchers have created three strains of genetically modified corn to manufacture enzymes that break down the plant's cellulose into sugars that can be fermented into ethanol. Incorporating such enzymes directly into the plants could reduce the cost of converting cellulose into biofuel.

Last year, new federal regulations called for production of renewable fuels to increase to 36 billion gallons annually--nearly five times current levels--by 2022. Today, nearly all fuel ethanol in the United States is produced from corn kernels. To meet the required increase, researchers are turning to other sources, such as cellulose, a complex carbohydrate found in all plants. Corn leaves and stems, prairie grasses, and wood chips are leading candidates for supplies of cellulose. Cellulosic ethanol has many advantages over that produced from corn kernels. Cellulose is not only extremely abundant and inexpensive; studies also suggest that the production and use of ethanol from cellulose could yield fewer greenhouse gases.

However, the biggest obstacle to making cellulosic ethanol commercially feasible is the breakdown of cellulose. Enzymes that degrade cellulose, called cellulases, are typically produced by microbes grown inside large bioreactors, an expensive and energy-intensive process. "In order to make cellulosic ethanol really competitive, we really need to bring those costs down," says Michael J. Blaylock, vice president of system development at Edenspace, a crop biotechnology firm based in Manhattan, KS.

Mariam Sticklen, professor of crop and soil science at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, figured that she could eliminate the cost of manufacturing enzymes by engineering corn plants to produce the enzymes themselves. Instead of relying on the energy-intensive process of producing them in bioreactors, "the plants use the free energy of the sun to produce the enzymes," she says.

Typically, the breakdown of cellulose requires three different cellulases. Last year, Sticklen reported modifying corn with a gene for a cellulase that cuts the long cellulose chains into smaller pieces. The gene came from a microbe that lives in a hot spring. A month later, Sticklen inserted a gene derived from a soil fungus into the corn genome. That gene codes for an enzyme that breaks the smaller pieces of cellulose into pairs of glucose molecules. In this latest effort, Sticklen has modified corn to produce an enzyme that splits the glucose pairs into individual sugar molecules; the enzyme is naturally produced by a microbe that lives inside a cow's stomach. The final result: three strains of corn, each of which produces an enzyme essential to the complete breakdown of cellulose.

To avoid the possibility of transferring the genes to other crops or wild plants, the enzymes are only produced in the plant's leaves and stems, not in its seeds, roots, or pollen, says Sticklen. What's more, to prevent the corn from digesting itself, she engineered the plants so that the enzymes accumulate only in special storage compartments inside the cells, called vacuoles. The cellulases are released only after the plant is harvested, during processing. Sticklen described her modified crops last week at the American Chemical Society's national meeting in New Orleans.

By Alexandra M. Goho

Costs, Considerations Of Switching To Natural Or Organic Agricultural Methods

ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2008) — When Kansas State University graduate student Ben Wileman was a practicing veterinarian in Belle Fourche, S.D., natural and organic labels were a big focus for the beef producers he saw.

"They tended to be terms that were thrown around a lot, but few people really seemed to know what they truly meant," Wileman said.

The definition of "organic" is defined by U.S. Department of Agriculture; "natural," however, can be defined differently depending on who's doing the labeling. But both terms mean one thing: higher costs for producers. That's why Wileman hopes that his research will be another tool to help those in the beef industry pondering whether to abandon conventional methods and go natural or organic.

Wileman, a doctoral student in diagnostic medicine and pathobiology at K-State, is examining the economics and logistics of conventionally raised beef versus organic and naturally raised beef. He is working with Dan Thomson, associate professor of clinical sciences at K-State. The research was presented in February at the Western Veterinary Conference in Las Vegas and will be presented again in July at the American Veterinary Medicine Association conference in New Orleans.

"The reason we're looking at this is because before anyone decides to go all-natural or all-organic, they need to be aware of what it's going to cost them and cost consumers," Wileman said. "We want producers to be knowledgeable about what to expect in terms of performance and economics."

Although the scientific facets of organic foods have been probed, Wileman said that little research has been done on the economic impact. Using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the K-State researchers considered feed costs and availability, the number of organic grain producers, the supply and demand for such grains going to beef cattle, and the performance impacts. They found that a producer would have to make about $120 more per head on naturally finished cattle to make the same profit as they would have on conventionally finished ones. For organically finished cattle, that increases to about $400 more per head.

The greatest contributing factor to the cost of going natural or organic is feed prices, Wileman said. In areas where there are relatively few certified-organic grain producers, transporting and certifying grain adds a major expense.

What's more, Wileman said, is that research done at K-State shows that beef producers are competing for a mere 2 percent of a consumer's income. He said another thing to keep in mind is research showing that most growth in organic and natural food items has come from the same shoppers buying more products, not from an increase in the numbers of like-minded consumers.

With this in mind, Wileman said there are a few things that the beef industry should consider when contemplating going organic or natural. Producers need to consider that they won't be able to feed their cattle in the same way and may consider forming cooperatives to meet their needs. Likewise, feedlots must be mindful of feed handling to prevent mixing organic grains with conventionally grown grains. Finally, packagers and restaurants need to know that they will have to absorb the increased costs of going natural or organic -- or be prepared to pass those costs on to their consumers.

The K-State researchers don't want to dissuade producers and others in the beef industry from going natural or organic, but they do want to offer information that can help them make that decision.

"There's not a problem with going natural or organic, but there will be production and economic issues that they will need to compensate for," Wileman said. "We want to be able to show what the implications of going organic or natural are before a producer or corporation makes that decision."

Because much of the scientific research on organic foods has centered on fruits and vegetables, Wileman said there is plenty of room to study the performance aspects of organic and natural beef production. For instance, he said that some research already has shown that natural diets can increase the prevalence of liver abscesses in cattle. Little is known about how these diets might affect other diseases like foot rot, he said.

"There are a lot more questions that need to be answered," he said.

Want To Reduce Your Food-related Carbon Footprint? What You Eat Is More Important Than Where It Came From

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) — The old adage, "We are what we eat,'' may be the latest recipe for success when it comes to curbing the perils of global climate warming. Despite the recent popular attention to the distance that food travels from farm to plate, aka "food miles," Carnegie Mellon researchers Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews argue in an upcoming article in Environmental Science & Technology journal that it is dietary choice, not food miles, which most determines a household's food-related climate impacts.

"Our analysis shows that despite all the attention given to food miles, the distance that food travels is only around 11% of the average American household's food-related greenhouse gas emissions,'' said Weber, a research professor in Carnegie Mellon's department of civil and environmental engineering and engineering and public policy.

The researchers report that fruit, vegetables, meat and milk produced closer to home rack up fewer petroleum-based transport miles than foods trucked cross country to your table. Yet despite the large distances involved--the average distance traveled for food in the U.S. is estimated at 4,000-5,000 miles --the large non-energy based greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing food make food production matter much more than distance traveled.

The authors suggest that eating less red meat and/or dairy products may be a more effective way for concerned citizens to lower their food-related climate impacts. They estimate that shifting to an entirely local diet would reduce the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions as driving 1,000 miles, while changing only one day per week's meat and dairy-based calories to chicken, fish, or vegetables would have about the same impact. Shifting entirely from an average American diet to a vegetable-based one would reduce the same emissions as 8,000 miles driven per year.

"Where you get your food from is a relevant factor in family food decisions, but what you are eating - and the processes needed to make it - is much more important from a climate change perspective,'' said Matthews, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon.