People have grown tree fruit crops throughout the world for thousands of years. Production systems have ranged from harvesting fruit from wild trees to sophisticated, highly managed orchards in which the fruit is harvested by robots. Within that range, each fruit grower can find a niche that is comfortable and meets his or her needs. This chapter provides insight into the evolution of farming methods, particularly as they relate to the organic production of orchard crops.
Before 1900, virtually all food was grown by what today we would call “organic” methods. Farms were small and often integrated crops and livestock. Labor requirements were high, and a typical farmer could feed only a small number of people. During the early 1900s, products of the industrial revolution began spilling over into agriculture. Tractors and combines reduced labor needs and made large, specialized farms possible.
The development of modern agriculture accelerated after World War I as new technology was transferred from military to civilian use. Synthetic, petroleum-based nitrogen fertilizers were discovered in the 1800s, but the production methods used for munitions explosives made large-scale manufacture of synthetic fertilizers feasible and profitable. Research on chemical weapons helped in the development of synthetic pesticides. Advances in plant breeding led to the creation of high-yielding hybrid crops that flourished in heavily fertilized monocultures.
In 1945, the Mexican government began research and educational programs directed at becoming self-sufficient in food production in the face of a rapidly growing population. These efforts, funded largely by U.S. philanthropic organizations, were highly successful. Within 11 years, Mexico was self-sufficient in wheat production; 8 years later they were a significant wheat exporter. Government and agricultural industry policies and goals emphasized developing hybrid crop varieties, synthetic pesticides, and fertilizers, and increasing mechanization. These practices rapidly spread around the world, fueling what came to be called the “green revolution.”
Many people benefited from the green revolution, particularly those in less developed countries, where populations were rising rapidly and hunger was all too common. In developed countries, modern agricultural practices spurred enormous economic growth. With fewer farmers and farm workers required to feed the population, people were able to pursue education, vocational training, and business opportunities. Huge agribusinesses and food companies thrived, spurring more employment and wealth.
A few voices of warning could be heard, however, against the onrush of agricultural development. In the early 1900s, soil scientist Franklin H. King emphasized the impacts of soil chemistry on fertility and crop yields and wrote about traditional Oriental farming practices that had produced sustainable crops for millennia. From 1909 to 1924, Sir Albert Howard (sometimes called the father of organic farming) served as a British agricultural advisor in India. Although he went to India to teach modern agricultural methods, he came to appreciate and improve upon traditional Indian agricultural practices, such as composting. His 1940 book, An Agricultural Testament, served as an early organic agricultural text.
In the 1920s, Austrian-born philosopher Rudolf Steiner began teaching an integrated approach to farming that came to be called biodynamic agriculture. His approach emphasized the integration and harmony among soils, crops, and animals. Steiner’s recommended practices included the use of composts, manures, and herbal preparations, with the goal of creating farms that were holistic, self-nourishing organisms. Today we refer to such practices as system or ecological approaches, and they are at the forefront of organic research.
Building on Sir Albert’s teachings, Lady Eve Balfour began the Haughley Experiment in England in 1939 to test the claims of organic farming advocates and fill in the gaps in knowledge of how such systems worked. This remarkably well-designed ecological experiment was conducted on farm-scale plantings. The experiments included three side-by-side sections of land, each large enough to operate a full farm rotation. The study examined the food chains involved on a farm — soil, plant, animal, and back to the soil through many crop successions and generations of plants and animals. The goal, according to Lady Balfour, was to determine “interdependences between soil, plant and animal, and also any cumulative effects could manifest.” Lady Balfour described her work in the book The Living Soil, which helped lead to the formation of the organic advocacy group The Soil Association in the United Kingdom.
Japanese microbiologist and plant pathologist Masanobu Fukuoka turned from “scientific agriculture” to “natural farming,” which he considered went one step further than organic practices. Growing cover crops, mulching with native vegetation, not using tillage, and integrating crops and livestock were among his recommended practices. His books One Straw Revolution (1978) and The Natural Way of Farming (1985) are classic texts in the organic movement.
In the United States, J. I. Rodale became convinced of the truth and importance of the work done by Sir Albert and Lady Balfour and began publishing Organic Farming and Gardening magazine. In 1947, the Soil and Health Foundation was established and became the forerunner to the Rodale Institute. Among other things, Rodale emphasized building natural soil fertility after nitrogen fertilizers became unavailable during World War II, when ammonium supplies were diverted from agriculture to munitions.
J. I. Rodale was known for his missionary-like zeal in promoting organic agriculture. In 1954, Rodale wrote, “Organics is not a fad. It has been a long-established practice — much more firmly grounded than the current chemical flair. Present agricultural practices are leading us downhill.”
Perhaps the key turning point in the organic movement came in 1962 with the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. Educated in marine biology and zoology at Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory and Johns Hopkins University, Carson served as a scientist and writer for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Following World War II, she became concerned about the overuse and misuse of pesticides and spoke out against pesticide practices that she believed were threatening all life by destroying the ecosystems to which we belong.
Carson did what all of the organic advocates could not do by reaching out to everyone, everywhere. People who had never heard of organic agriculture and who had never been on a farm suddenly became vitally concerned with food safety and agricultural practices that protected the environment. Rather just than a small number of farmers and gardeners, people around the world became environmental advocates. Here was born the widespread demand for commercially available organic produce, meats, and dairy products. Without that demand for organic farm products by consumers, organic production and research, as we know them today, would not exist.
J. I. Rodale’s son, Bob, and Bob’s wife, Ardath, carried on his work and founded the Rodale Institute. Bob Rodale’s impassioned testimony before the U.S. Congress helped convince lawmakers to include funds for regenerative agriculture in the 1985 Farm Bill. Unwilling to adopt the term “organic,” however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture coined the name “low-input sustainable agriculture” which was known by the acronym LISA.
One of the few things that mainstream scientists and organic farmers at the time agreed on was that we hated the name, which was flawed and misleading. At that time, however, many mainstream farmers and agricultural scientists still considered organic farming to be pseudoscience and were put off by some organic advocates’ inclusion of mysticism, astrology, and spiritualism as key components of organic production. In a few years, “low-input sustainable agriculture” became simply “sustainable agriculture.”
Farmers and researchers made many advances as they developed more sustainable practices. Initially, we looked for ways to reduce pesticide use and develop “softer” pesticides. The more we learned, however, the more we discovered that our tried and true method of reducing research to a single question and a few variables did not explain much of what was taking place on a farm. During the past 25 years, we have learned to recognize the intricate relationships between plants and their environments. In the 1980s, most fruit researchers worked alone or with a small number of like-minded colleagues on narrowly focused projects. Today we work in teams that include horticulturists, breeders, entomologists, weed specialists, soil scientists, and, very importantly, private fruit growers.
In particular, we are discovering what organic advocates have taught for a century. Plant health is absolutely dependent upon healthy, chemically balanced, and biologically active soil. In turn, healthy soils require healthy, diverse populations of plants, insects, and other invertebrates, and microorganisms.
Although we were making progress in developing more sustainable production systems, the organic movement was hindered by confusion over just what the term “organic” meant. Without uniform food production and handling standards, consumers were unsure whether the “organic” food that they were buying at premium prices was any safer than conventionally produced food. Organic growers were also hindered by not knowing what practices and materials were or were not acceptable. Grassroots efforts produced many regional definitions and standards related to organic farming, which only added to the confusion and frustration. They did, however, spur national demand for uniform standards.
The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 required the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop uniform standards for the production and handling of food products marketed as organic. Despite an initially tumultuous period of confusion and distrust, representatives from the organic movement, commercial farmers, government specialists, lawmakers, and scientists worked together to create the National Organic Program (NOP). The NOP became law in October 2002. According to the law:
This national program will facilitate domestic and international marketing of fresh and processed food that is organically produced and assure consumers that such products meet consistent, uniform standards. This program establishes national standards for the production and handling of organically produced products, including a National List of substances approved for and prohibited from use in organic production and handling. This final rule establishes a national-level accreditation program to be administered by AMS [U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service] for state officials and private persons who want to be accredited as certifying agents. Under the program, certifying agents will certify production and handling operations in compliance with the requirements of this regulation and initiate compliance actions to enforce program requirements.
Three key provisions of the NOP are:
The NOP was a huge step forward for the organic movement. Consumers could be confident that food labeled organic was actually being produced using environmentally safe practices. Sales for legitimate organic producers benefited because unscrupulous individuals could no longer market food as organic when it had actually been produced using toxic chemicals and environmentally damaging practices. Furthermore, growers and food processors finally had specific production guidelines to follow.
More work was, and still is, needed to shape organic guidelines. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 required the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic producers. While helpful, the original list, which was amended many times, was generic. For example, under allowed substances, the list included insecticidal soaps, but it did not specify what an insecticidal soap was or which soaps could be used in organic production. Likewise, the microbial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) would be allowed as a natural product, although certain formulations might contain prohibited inert materials.
The nonprofit Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) (see Resources) began in 1997 to address some of these shortcomings. According to their website, the OMRI “provides organic certifiers, growers, manufacturers, and suppliers an independent review of products intended for use in certified organic production, handling, and processing. . . . When companies apply, OMRI reviews their products against the National Organic Standards. Acceptable products are OMRI Listed and appear on the OMRI Products List. OMRI also provides subscribers and certifiers guidance on the acceptability of various material inputs in general under the National Organic Program.” Other enterprises similar to OMRI are now carrying on similar activities.
Recently, for example, the OMRI website listed 14 approved insecticidal soaps and 20 Bacillus thuringiensis products by brand and product name. Such a list makes selecting a product much easier for food producers and certifiers.
Complete information on the National Organic Program, including a list of certifiers and the list of allowed and prohibited synthetic materials, is available on the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service website (see Resources).
A similar organic certification program exists in Canada, based on the Canadian Standard for Organic Agriculture that was first approved in 1999. The “Organic Production Systems General Principles and Management Standards for Canada” and the “Permitted Substances List” were first published in 2006 and are available online (see Resources).
In 2009, Canada implemented the Organic Products Regulation to regulate the certification of organic products. Also in 2009, the Canadian and U.S. governments agreed that their national organic programs would be equivalent, with a few exceptions. For more information on Canadian organic certification, contact your provincial Ministry of Agriculture.
In this book, we will refer to the National Organic Program or NOP. For Canadian readers, interpret this as the Canadian organic program and refer to the appropriate regulations and approved substances and practices lists. In general, the two programs are quite similar.
Before you can market fruit as organic, you must first be certified by the agency responsible for your location. Depending on where you live, certification programs are administered by state departments of agriculture, provincial offices, grower organizations, and/or private companies.
Certification is required only when you market fruit under the organic label and when your annual sales total a certain amount. Home fruit growers are free to use whatever cultural practices they wish. If you want to produce fruit organically, however, commercial organic standards provide an extremely valuable resource and can serve as a starting point for developing or improving your orchard.
Unlike currently popular terms such as “ecofriendly,” “low-spray,” and “grown naturally,” “organic” has a specific, legal definition when applied to commercially grown fruits and other produce. The national lists of allowed and permitted substances are only a first step, however. Likewise, the OMRI’s and other testing organizations’ lists of approved soil amendments, pesticides, and the like are valuable, but more is needed.
Growing fruit organically goes far beyond simply using certain fertilizers or pesticides. As conventional orchardists began transitioning to organic production in the 1990s, a standard practice was to substitute “softer” organic pesticides for conventional materials. Little else in the orchards changed, and as you might predict, the results were not often great. The substitution approach alone failed to recognize that farms were miniature, yet highly complex, ecosystems. Focusing only on controlling codling moth, for example, can kill off predatory insects and mites that normally keep mites or aphids under control. Suddenly, you have many serious pests instead of one as natural control systems in the orchard are disrupted.
Another example of creating problems is overusing sulfur as a fungicide to control fruit diseases. While sulfur can effectively control some diseases, it is toxic to insects and mites. Again, overuse or use at the wrong time can disrupt natural controls and create serious pest problems.
One of the greatest challenges in organic fruit production is weed management. With very few herbicides available to organic orchardists, extensive cultivation became the rule for many growers. In one fruit growers’ guide from the 1980s, the author recommended rototilling at least 12 times each growing season. In this case also, the results were predictable. Soil erosion and compaction increased. Soil organic matter declined, as did populations of beneficial micro- and macroorganisms. Tree health and fruit yields also declined.
To successfully grow tree fruits using organic methods, you must have an entirely different viewpoint and approach than do commercial growers who rely on industrial fertilizers and pesticides. Instead of focusing on one practice or problem at a time, you must consider the entire farm ecosystem and how everything in that system interacts.
For example, in place of tillage I might choose to plant a permanent crop of grass in the alleys between the trees and apply bark mulch around the trees in the rows. In this case, annual weeds become less troublesome, but perennial quack grass and thistles flourish under the mulch. With the grass competing for nutrients, the trees grow poorly and produce reduced yields of small, poor-quality fruit. Being weakened, the trees become more susceptible to pests. Some pests that pupate in the soil under the trees, such as oblique-banded leaf roller, become more troublesome as the pupae are protected by the mulch from predators, heat, and drought. At the same time, concentrations of organic matter in the alleys and under the trees slowly begin to increase and irrigation needs decrease as the mulch helps retain soil moisture.
Grass alley crops and organic mulches are not, in themselves, bad practices and have their roles in organic fruit production. The trick is to think holistically. You must understand that everything you do in your orchard affects every living organism in the trees, on the ground, and in the soil. The way in which those organisms interact with each other has a profound influence on the health and productivity of your trees.
Pome fruits include apple, pear, quince, medlar, loquat, and other fruits that contain multiple seeds in the core. Pome fruits can usually be stored longer than stone fruits — up to 2 years for apples in controlled atmosphere (CA) storage. Stone fruits have a single, large seed contained within a hard pit at the center of the fruit. They are often referred to as “soft fruits” and have short storage lives. Apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, and plum are stone fruits.
Even understanding and acting on this concept is not enough to be a successful organic orchardist. We must avoid practicing “organic by neglect” where we literally mine the soil and leave it depleted. Organic programs today emphasize that soil building is a critical component to sustainable organic production.
To be blunt, you will find growing most fruits organically is much more complicated than relying on conventional fertilizers and pesticides and requires far more planning and work. Comparisons across the country also show that growing fruit organically, at least commercially, costs more than it does for conventional orchards.
Furthermore, you cannot reduce organic fruit growing methods to a few recipes or recommendations. Each orchard site is unique in terms of soils, climate, pests, diseases, and beneficial organisms. As organic orchards mature, both they and the environments they are part of change. Soil fertility, pH, and soil organisms shift in response to orchard floor management practices. Beneficial and pest organism populations undergo changes. As an orchardist, you must continually evaluate what is going on and what you need to do to maintain a healthy orchard ecosystem.
There are many reasons for having an organic fruit orchard. For some, marketing organic tree fruit is highly profitable. Demand by commercial organic growers for improved production practices and materials has driven much of the research and led to many of the advances in fruit production during the past decade. According to market statistics, there are still great commercial prospects for organic orchards, from local sales to international exports.
For some, producing food organically is a matter of being a good steward and caring for the environment. Others consider that organically grown fruit tastes better or is healthier for you than conventionally grown produce.
Whatever your reason, now is a terrific time to be an organic orchardist. So let’s get started.