How are proponents of regenerative agriculture supposed to respond to news like this?
Green pesticide and herbicide developer Marrone Organic Innovations is nearly done raising $7 million in a second round of funding, CEO Pamela Marrone said Wednesday.
Wow, somebody's investing in organic agriculture -- millions, no less. That's news. But does it have to involve pesticides?
Pesticides aren't just problematic because they're derived synthetically. They're also troubling because what's toxic to plants and insects also harms people. Plant-based substances, in concentrated form, can of course be quite toxic.
Moreover, using them usually means entering a "pesticide treadmill." Say a certain pest is eating your tomato plants. You could hit them with a dose of Sevin Dust, a popular home poison. The Sevin will kill most of your pests and save the crop. But the few that survive will reproduce -- and pass on the traits that made them resistant to Sevin.
The next season, these hearty offspring will be ready to pounce on your tomatoes, and you'll need a heavier dose of Sevin -- or an even stronger poison -- to kill (most of) them. And so it goes -- ever more-robust insects, and ever-harsher poisons to attack them. Losers in this game include farmworkers, consumers who get residues on their produce, beneficial insects that might otherwise feed on the pests, and entire ecosystems around your tomato patch. Among the winners are the big petrochemical companies that fuel the treadmill with their pesticides.
Old-school organic agriculture seeks to throw a wrench into the pesticide treadmill. Rather than fight pests actively by poisoning them, traditional organic farmers nurture pests' natural predators -- the insects that eat the insects that eat crops. Doing so usually means seeding certain flowering plants amid the usual crops. Turns out plant biodiversity leads to bug biodiversity -- and balance balance between pests and their predators (so-called "beneficial insects").
In this farming style, another goal is vibrant, healthy plants that can shake off a little insect damage -- not ones jacked up on jolts of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. (Such nitrogen-lashed plants have proven very attractive to insects. The boom in synthetic fertilizer after World War II created a massive market opportunity for petrochemical pesticide makers.) Thus old-school organic farmers put a lot of energy into building their soils, nurturing underground ecosystems in the field that teem with microorganisms, decaying organic matter, and earthworms.
Sure, things get out of whack, pest populations sometimes overwhelm, and it's important for commercial growers to have organic-approved "biopesticides" at their disposal for emergencies. According to an Organic Center lit review [PDF], these are "much less toxic per pound of active ingredient" than their synthetic peers. But many of them wipe out wide varieties of insect, and -- when relied on heavily -- can create pesticide treadmills. Thus old-line organic farmers use them minimally, if at all.
Marrone Organic Innovations and its investors seem to be promoting a different model for organic farming: input substitution. In this vision, organic farming mimics industrial-style farming -- the trick is to find a "natural" substance to replace every synthetic one.
And of course, this is precisely the kind of agriculture that characterizes the large farms that stock the organic sections of the nation's supermarkets. Marrone has no doubt hit upon a lucrative business model supplying such farms. It's no wonder that venture capitalists are lining up.
According to the above-linked article, Marrone is tantalizing them with the promise of what it calls its "big win," a "greener alternative to the wildly successful herbicide Roundup." Whoa. Now, Roundup is a lucrative model indeed. GM seed giant Monsanto clocks something like a billion bucks a year in profit from it. But this classic broad-spectrum herbicide has farmers over a huge swath of farm country on a classic pesticide treadmill -- they're hounded by superweeds that can't be killed without ever-higher Roundup doses.
Would a bio-based alternative to it be a "big win" for organic agriculture?
In one of the weedier fields at Maverick Farms, we planted rye grass and hairy vetch last fall. Now that it's several feet high, we're going to mow-kill it, leaving what amounts to a blanket of hay over the field. Then we'll plant tomato starts right into it, without tilling. The hay blanket will keep down weeds, and conserve moisture as well (important if last year's drought conditions return). It will also provide a nice habitat for earthworms.
In the end, I suspect, we'll find that organic farming works best when it mimics nature, not multinational chemical companies.
With GoodGuide scanner, PC food shopping goes point and click
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Comments
View as Flat
PermieWriter Posted 6:42 am
23 May 2008
BTW, you don't really need to buy ladybugs. Plant yarrow and they'll come.
This is just one more part of the large, pseudo-organic trend, which is making me yet more skeptical of products with the organic label. I'll stick with the farmers I know and the food I've raised myself, thank you, Big Ag.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 1:24 pm
23 May 2008
right now most of the people on this planet cannot afford to eat well much less buy organic.
we need to get real and realize that technology to increase organic crop yields is important to long term sustainable food production.
not every one has the access OR luxury to afford organic food.
Permalink
IrishGrove Posted 11:53 pm
23 May 2008
Without something to fall back on, many of us wouldn't make the transition at all.
I find it curious that so many are so quick to find fault with organic farmers. Seems to me that they are just anti-farmer, period. Sure, in a perfect world everyone would grow their own food in their kitchen garden, and support their neighborhood farmer. Reality is that most people live in urban centers with no yard and little to no contact with rural people. Organics are a great choice for them.
Getting a little tired of being the bad guy (or gal, in this case), no matter what choice I make on my 'transitioning' farm.....
Jackie
Irish Grove
Permalink
mmphosis Posted 4:07 am
24 May 2008
I agree with you. We cannot feed the world as it is, and I don't know why any one would want to try because the distribution costs alone are prohibitive. We could, however, teach each other how to grow our own food, organically of course.
> right now most of the people on this planet cannot afford to eat well much less buy organic.
I think you are right about not being able to pay to eat. Organic produce that I buy is often less expensive than or the same price as the petrochemical laced alternatives. As petrochemicals become more and more expensive, I think we will see a rise in the price of the petrochemical laced alternatives. I've done actual value for dollar rather than price based comparisons, and organic produce is less expensive in many ways.
> we need to get real and realize that technology to increase organic crop yields is important to long term sustainable food production.
You are right. We need to move beyond the legacy of petrochemical technology and go with more modern low impact and often low-tech technological approaches. I think that newer technology water systems save both in labor and water used.
> not every one has the access OR luxury to afford organic food.
Limited access may only be because of the misguided idea that luxury of property rights often trump preservation of habitat, and human rights of access to water, food and shelter.
Permalink
bobdurivage Posted 11:22 am
24 May 2008
We don't have to wait to get more bang for our buck. For your nutritional dollar, although organic is up to double the cost of conventional, organic produce is up to four times as nutritious as conventional.
"...but even i don't; believe we can feed the world organically."
If we cannot feed the world's population organically, then ther are too many people on this planet. Snip snip.
Permalink
mickj Posted 4:30 pm
24 May 2008
If she succeeds with developing an organic roundup this will result in fewer acres using synthetic pesticides, and even IPM/traditional farmers having another, less dangerous option to add to their bag of tricks.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:51 pm
24 May 2008
Is this true? If so, is it a sorry truth? And if so, is there something to be done about it?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:16 pm
24 May 2008
Weeds are the big efficiency drain on organic crops. Mulching can save human labor, but it takes a lot of labor and care.
Cultivation itself derives from a selection of the crop plants and a rejection of all other plants. Simple robotics can do that job. And inject exactly the right amount of organic fertilizer and water for each plant right into the soil.
Robots can run on renewable electric power. Chemicals replaced, productivity not only preserved, but actually enhanced. GHG stored in the living soil.
Nitrous oxide from chemical fertilizer, that amounts to 2/3 of the GHG effect of the CO2 sequestered by the plants, canceled. Methane from manure and fertilizer run off prevented.
Organic ag coupled with biodigestion can cure climate disaster.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:50 am
26 May 2008
Active ingredients can me varied depending on where you live. For example, rhubarb leaves contain oxalic acid (I think, been a while) and is quite effective. Another very effective one used in small doses is tobacco, which contains nicotanic acid. Be careful, since some plants are very toxic, perhaps too toxic for your tomatoes.
The final ingredient - I love this one - is bugs. I collect a bunch by hand or however I can. It turns out that many bugs have chemicals that run off other bugs, make them taste nasty, or things I don't fully understand.
Anyway, combine ingredients for a day or so, strain real good, and shoot your plants with a pump sprayer. I like watching the nasty bugs die so fast without having to use synthetic chemicals. Don't shoot plants with lots of beneficial bugs!
-sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
missgreenclean Posted 1:20 am
27 May 2008
I grew up in a very rural area in Ohio and would have greatly appreciated the aroma of Rosemary Oil being sprayed on crops instead of toxic chemicals.We should all be thanking Marrone Organic Innovations for their diligence and concern for the environment. And yes, you are going to see more and more products that can compete with roundup and maybe even tout a certified organic label.
Rachel A. Markel
Permalink
cavecanem Posted 4:58 am
27 May 2008
[new] i 'm an organic farmer but even i don't; believe we can feed the world organically.
right now most of the people on this planet cannot afford to eat well much less buy organic. we need to get real and realize that technology to increase organic crop yields is important to long term sustainable food production. not every one has the access OR luxury to afford organic food.
I would like to disagree. Organic farming has healthier yields than non-organic; and if every neighborhood or many houses in a neighborhood started a community or back yard garden, these additional food sources could easily make up for the possible lower yields organic farming creates. For areas without access to water, rain barrels work wonderfully.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 8:18 am
27 May 2008
The idea about essential oils such as rosemary was also a good one. I don't "make" essential oils, I just throw some stuff together as an infusion, as sometimes those oils are way too strong.
I do have a word to say about some "bugs" such as caterpillars. I am a butterfly freak as well as an amateur gardener and whenever I plant certain crops certain caterpillars come to feed on them. So I'll pick the nasty ones like the Tomato Cutworm but plant a little heavy for a little "sacrificial food" for a few butterflies. Happy gardening!
Onward through the fog
Permalink
graceg Posted 12:55 am
03 Jun 2008
The use of any pest or weed control substance is intended to be a fall-back measure, as enshrined in the NOP rules by having to be justified in the farm plan when prevention, mechanical and biological measures don't work.
Rather than pounding organic farmers for failing to live up to the mythology, how about applauding the effort to play by the rules and show the world that organic is a viable alternative for any farmer?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:52 pm
04 Jun 2008
A green pesticide or herbicide is still a pesticide or herbicide. And a green developer is still a developer.
I have a couple questions for Marrone Orgnaic Innovations...
(1) Will MOI be patenting the pesticides and herbicides they develop? More specifically, if they get the chemicals from a natural source will others still be able to extract their own chemicals from those sources or will everyone using natural remedies have to pay royalties to Marrone?
(2) When MOI finds natural sources of pesticides and herbicides, will they make sure that indigenous people are compensated for the use of their natural heritage?
(3) If I'm currently using a natural pesticide or herbicide but have not patented it, will I be able to continue using it or will MOI tell me to stop?
(4) Will MOI publish an environmental and social impact statement for each natural pesticide and herbicide, including the number of acres of temperate or tropical rainforest converted to chrysanthemum, neem tree, or other plantations, how much land has been converted to growing food for local populations to growing pesticides for Europe and North America, and whether they are paying the locals a fair wage?
Just curious.
"Green" or "natural" pesticides and herbicides are not benign pesticides and herbicides. Some are even more dangerous than their synthetic counterparts. The goal of environmentalist should be to eliminate ALL chemicals from agriculture.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:13 pm
04 Jun 2008
I spent six hours pulling grass, trying to get every last root, from several rows -- about 80 square feet -- of strawberry plants. Fortunately, I'm talkng about a home garden, so it is a labor of love and protects us from contaminated fruit. It is worth the effort.
But if someone paid me a reasonable wage of $20 per hour or $42,000 a year to do this sort of thing, it would cost $1.50 (+ health insurance + retirement benefits + social security) to clear the weeds from just one square foot. Is this cost effective? Is the yield high enough on an organic farm?
I cannot imagine how you folks compete with industrial ag.
(Sorry for the duplicate post... seems to fall under each topic and I couldn't decide where to post it. Peace.)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:03 am
15 Aug 2008
Just when I was finally convinced that I should try using Neem oil -- I don't use any chemicals now, but wonder whether I will have to start -- I found this article.
From the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development...
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28 (2008) 187-194
Effect of pest-controlling neem and mata-raton on bean growth, soil N and soil CO2 emissions
Abstract - Extracts of plants such as neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) and mata-raton (Gliricidia sepium (Jacquin)) are used to control pests. However, certain components of neem, such as azadirachtin, can exert a negative effect on fungi and nitrifying bacteria, and, in turn, can impact the C and N cycles in soil. Nutrient cycling might thus be inhibited and affect the sustainability of an agricultural system in which plant extracts are used to control pests. Here, we investigated the effect of neem extract on microbial activity and N mineralization in soil. We studied the effect of neem and mata-raton leaf extracts on bean growth (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), nodule formation by Rhizobium, soil CO2 emissions and soil N dynamics. Four treatments were applied: (1) "neem treatment": extracts of neem leaves, (2) "mata-raton treatment": extracts of mata-raton, (3) "chemical treatment": a chemical insecticide, lambda cyalothrin, and (4) "control": untreated plants. Our results show that in non-amended soil the number of nodules in the neem treatment was 18 for beans cultivated. This nodule number was 2.1 times lower compared with the soil treated with lambda cyalothrin (chemical treatment). In manure-amended soil, the number of nodules was 28 in the neem treatment. This nodule number was 1.6 times lower than in the mata-raton treatment. This indicated that neem extracts inhibited Rhizobium in soil and nodule formation in bean. In the manure-amended soil, the emission of CO2 was 1.9 times lower in the neem-treated soil than in the other treatments. The increase in the concentration of NO3- was 1.03 mg N kg-1 soil day-1 in the neem treatment and 4.1 times lower compared with the other treatments. As such, microbial activity was inhibited by the neem extracts when added to the manure-amended soil. It was found that application of neem leaf extract inhibited microbial activity and reduced nodule formation in bean, but lambda cyalothrin or leaf extracts of Gliricidia sepium did not.
http://www.agronomy-journal.org/index.php?option=article& ...
Now, I still consider "natural" pesticides much better than synthetic pesticides. If nothing else, nature knows how to eventually get rid of them. But, one has to wonder what unknown effects the large scale use of products like Neem oil will have on soil microorganisms. Do we really know "natural" pesticides are better for soil health? And, perhaps a GMO that repels, resists, or kills only bugs that eat it -- not necessarily by producing a toxic compound -- really would be better than drenching the soil with chemicals, "natural" or synthetic.
Permalink