**Meet the editor**

Dr. Petr Konvalina is the Vice Dean for External Relations at the Faculty of Agriculture, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Czech Republic. He is an Associate Professor in Plant Production. He is oriented towards organic plant production, wheat growing, organic plant breeding and organic food processing. In these topics he has published more than 100 reviewed scientific papers.

The papers are mostly focused on the possibilities of practical use of genetic resources of wheat (emmer, einkorn, spelt) in organic farming. Dr. Konvalina has been involved in many national and international research and educational projects related to organic plant production.

### Contents

### **Preface XIII**


Florentina Sauca and Catalin Lazar

Chapter 6 **Biochar Technology for Sustainable Organic Farming 111** Suarau O. Oshunsanya and OrevaOghene Aliku


**Decade of Research in India 167** Suja Girija, Sreekumar Janardanan, Jyothi Alummoottil Narayanan and Santosh Mithra Velayudhan Santhakumari

	- **Section 3 Organic Foods 283**

Chapter 7 **Role of Organic Sources of Nutrients in Rice (Oryza sativa) Based on High Value Cropping Sequence 131** Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Subhash Babu, Gulab Singh Yadav,

Chapter 9 **Organic Tuber Production is Promising — Implications of a**

and Santosh Mithra Velayudhan Santhakumari

Chapter 10 **Abundance and Risk Factors for Dermatobiosis in Dairy Cattle of an Organic Farm in the Tropical Region 207** Mônica Mateus Florião and Wagner Tassinari

Chapter 11 **Organic Livestock Farming — Challenges, Perspectives, and**

Chapter 13 **The Use of Organic Foods, Regional, Seasonal and Fresh Food**

Jan Moudry Jr, Jan Moudry and Zuzana Jelinkova

Chapter 14 **Alternative Foods — New Consumer Trends 305** Mehdi Zahaf and Madiha Ferjani

Petr Dvořák, Jaroslav Tomášek, Karel Hamouz and Michaela

Suja Girija, Sreekumar Janardanan, Jyothi Alummoottil Narayanan

**Strategies to Increase Its Contribution to the Agrifood System's**

Juan C. Angeles Hernandez, Octavio A. Castelan Ortega, Sergio Radic Schilling, Sergio Angeles Campos, A. Hilda Ramirez Perez and

Raghavendra Singh and Manoj Kumar Yadav

Chapter 8 **Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) 147**

**Decade of Research in India 167**

**Sustainability — A Review 229**

Manuel Gonzalez Ronquillo

**in Public Caterings 285**

Chapter 12 **Organic Dairy Sheep Production Management 261**

Alfredo J. Escribano

**Section 3 Organic Foods 283**

Jedličková

**VI** Contents

**Section 2 Organic Livestock 205**

### Preface

Organic agriculture is a modern way of farming management, using limited amount of chemical treatments which have negative effects on the environment, human health or ani‐ mal health. It produces organic food, and at the same time enhances the living conditions of animals. It contributes to environmental protection and helps biodiversity to increase. Or‐ ganic farming does not mean going 'back' to traditional (old) methods of farming. Many of the farming methods used in the past are still useful today. Organic farming takes the best of these and combines them with modern scientific knowledge. Organic farmers do not leave their farms to be taken over by nature; they use all their knowledge, various techni‐ ques and materials available to them, in order to work with nature. In this way the farmer creates a healthy balance between nature and farming, where crops and animals can grow and thrive. To be a successful organic farmer, the farmer must not see every insect as a pest, every weed plant as out of place, nor find the solution to every problem in an artificial chemical spray. The aim is not to eradicate all pests and weeds, but to keep them down to an acceptable level and make the most of the benefits that they may provide.

The future development of organic food is never easy to predict. It makes it such a fascinat‐ ing subject to study. At present, the sales of organic food are going through a trough and the organic industry is consolidating as it learns how to operate in a new environment. The big boom in the key markets for organic products; North America, the European Union and Ja‐ pan, is faltering and the domestic purchasing power of many people is increasingly con‐ strained (Reed, 2012). Simultaneously, organic agriculture, under the name of agro-ecology, is increasingly being presented as an answer to producing food sustainably, and improving the livelihoods of farmers in the global south. A recent report from the United Nations Spe‐ cial Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, which recommends the global adoption of agro-ecology, is built on the sustained effort of academic researchers to demon‐ strate, through high quality research, the potential of organic agriculture (De Schutter, 2011).

The book contains 16 chapters written by acknowledged experts, providing comprehensive information on all aspects of organic farming and food production. The book is divided into three parts: Organic Farming and Plant Production, Organic Livestock, and Organic Foods. In the book there are chapters oriented towards organic farming and environmental aspects, problematic organic tuber crops production, quality and distribution of organic products, etc. Researchers, teachers and students in the agricultural field in particular will find this book to be of immense use.

**Doc. Ing. Petr Konvalina, Ph.D.**

Vice Dean for External Relations University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Faculty of Agriculture České Budějovice, Czech Republic

**Organic Farming and Plant Production**

## **The Role of Biological Diversity in Agroecosystems and Organic Farming**

Beata Feledyn-Szewczyk, Jan Kuś, Jarosław Stalenga, Adam K. Berbeć and Paweł Radzikowski

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61353

### **Abstract**

Ecosystems are the basis of life and all human activities. Conservation of biological diversity is very important for the proper functioning of the ecosystem and for delivering ecosystem services. Maintaining high biodiversity in agroecosystems makes agricultural production more sustainable and economically viable. Agricul‐ tural biodiversity ensures, for example, pollination of crops, biological crop protec‐ tion, maintenance of proper structure and fertility of soils, protection of soils against erosion, nutrient cycling, and control of water flow and distribution. The effects of the loss of biodiversity may not be immediately apparent, but they may increase the sensitivity of the ecosystems to various abiotic and biotic stresses. The combination of biodiversity conservation with profitable food production is one of the tasks of modern sustainable agriculture that faces the necessity of reconciling the productive, environmental, and social goals. As further intensification of production and increase in the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and water to increase yields are increas‐ ingly criticized, global agriculture is looking for other biological and agrotechnical methods in order to meet the requirements of global food production.

**Keywords:** Biological diversity, ecosystem, agroecosystem, ecosystem services, organ‐ ic agriculture

### **1. Introduction**

In compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, biological diversity is the variability among living organisms inhabiting all environ‐

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ments and ecological systems [1]. Biodiversity may therefore be considered at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels. According to Clergue [2], biodiversity is a very complex issue. In agroecosystems, it serves three basic functions: genetic, agricultural, and ecological functions. The first function of biodiversity involves maintaining species gene pool, in particular, the endangered ones. The second function, connected with agricultural activity, contains increas‐ ing the resistance of agroecosystems to abiotic and biotic stresses, as well as maintaining their productive role. Biodiversity has also ecological functions, for example, creating habitats with different flora and fauna species that have specific significance in agroecosystems.

The loss of biological diversity is one of the most important problems of the world and a threat to our civilization. The destruction of primary ecosystems, intensive farming, urbanization, and also infrastructure development cause depletion and weakening of the stability of ecosystems. Agroecosystems are the most at risk of losing biological diversity [3].

During the last decades, worldwide losses of biodiversity have occurred at an unprecedented scale and agricultural intensification has been a major driver of this global change [4]. The dramatic land use changes include the conversion of complex natural ecosystems to simplified ecosystems and the intensification of resource use, including application of more agrochemi‐ cals. The evaluation of ecosystems in the UK has shown a significant loss of biodiversity during the recent 50 years. Sixty-seven percent of 333 plant and animal species on agricultural lands have been endangered, mainly due to the intensification of farming [5].

The industrialization of agriculture has caused, directly and indirectly, a dramatic impover‐ ishment of the fauna and flora compared to the situation a century ago [6–9]. This has con‐ tributed not only to the current biodiversity crisis in Europe as whole, but also to the decline in ecosystem services such as crop pollination and biological pest control [8]. As a result, the protection of farmland biodiversity has become a key issue in the EU and national agricultural and environmental policies, and large amounts of research and funding are devoted to biodiversity conservation, such as agri-environment schemes [3, 10–11].

Despite the commitment made by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, global biodiversity indicators show continued decline at steady or accelerating rates, while the pressures behind the decline are steady or intensifying [12]. The main objective of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, which was adopted in 2011, is to maintain and strengthen ecosystems and their functions, and foster sustainable development of agriculture and forestry [13]. Biological diversity should also be preserved due to economic factors. Maintaining a high level of biological diversity makes agricultural production and the related activities more sustainable, which in turn, significantly affects human activities [14–15].

Biodiversity in agriculture can be perceived on two levels: the first is related to the diversity of species and cultivars, the breeds of farm animals, so the obtained "products"; and the second is related to the biodiversity connected with agricultural production, such as the diversity of plants and wild animals that accompany the crops, as well as the diversification of the agricultural landscape.

### **2. The role of traditional species, cultivars, and traditional animal breeds in maintaining biological diversity**

ments and ecological systems [1]. Biodiversity may therefore be considered at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels. According to Clergue [2], biodiversity is a very complex issue. In agroecosystems, it serves three basic functions: genetic, agricultural, and ecological functions. The first function of biodiversity involves maintaining species gene pool, in particular, the endangered ones. The second function, connected with agricultural activity, contains increas‐ ing the resistance of agroecosystems to abiotic and biotic stresses, as well as maintaining their productive role. Biodiversity has also ecological functions, for example, creating habitats with

The loss of biological diversity is one of the most important problems of the world and a threat to our civilization. The destruction of primary ecosystems, intensive farming, urbanization, and also infrastructure development cause depletion and weakening of the stability of

During the last decades, worldwide losses of biodiversity have occurred at an unprecedented scale and agricultural intensification has been a major driver of this global change [4]. The dramatic land use changes include the conversion of complex natural ecosystems to simplified ecosystems and the intensification of resource use, including application of more agrochemi‐ cals. The evaluation of ecosystems in the UK has shown a significant loss of biodiversity during the recent 50 years. Sixty-seven percent of 333 plant and animal species on agricultural lands

The industrialization of agriculture has caused, directly and indirectly, a dramatic impover‐ ishment of the fauna and flora compared to the situation a century ago [6–9]. This has con‐ tributed not only to the current biodiversity crisis in Europe as whole, but also to the decline in ecosystem services such as crop pollination and biological pest control [8]. As a result, the protection of farmland biodiversity has become a key issue in the EU and national agricultural and environmental policies, and large amounts of research and funding are devoted to

Despite the commitment made by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, global biodiversity indicators show continued decline at steady or accelerating rates, while the pressures behind the decline are steady or intensifying [12]. The main objective of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, which was adopted in 2011, is to maintain and strengthen ecosystems and their functions, and foster sustainable development of agriculture and forestry [13]. Biological diversity should also be preserved due to economic factors. Maintaining a high level of biological diversity makes agricultural production and the related activities more sustainable, which in turn, significantly

Biodiversity in agriculture can be perceived on two levels: the first is related to the diversity of species and cultivars, the breeds of farm animals, so the obtained "products"; and the second is related to the biodiversity connected with agricultural production, such as the diversity of plants and wild animals that accompany the crops, as well as the diversification of the

different flora and fauna species that have specific significance in agroecosystems.

4 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

ecosystems. Agroecosystems are the most at risk of losing biological diversity [3].

have been endangered, mainly due to the intensification of farming [5].

biodiversity conservation, such as agri-environment schemes [3, 10–11].

affects human activities [14–15].

agricultural landscape.

The progress in agriculture has led to the situation that in the recent 100 years, approximately 75% of genetic resources have been lost due to the transition of farmers from growing tradi‐ tional, local cultivars of lower productivity and replacing them with intensive cultivars. Although in the world there are at least 12 thousands of edible plant species, humans use only 150 to 200 of them, and 75% of food products around the world are produced from only 12 species of plants and animal species. The three main species of plants such as rice, maize, and wheat provide about 60% of the energy consumed by humanity. Such a low diversity is a major issue to food safety. From the point of view of the conservation of biodiversity and human health, we should promote traditional and local species and cultivars of plants, as well as old breeds of animals [16].

The most appropriate way of protecting genetic resources of plants is their conservation in situ in the regions strictly related to their origin. This type of protection allows us not only to preserve a given form in its place of origin, but also to continue its cultivation and selection in the traditional way. The protection of genetic resources of crops, in addition to the primary task of maintaining biodiversity, has also practical aims of delivering rich genetic material for further breeding [6].

Old and local cultivars of crops are distinguished by unusual qualitative characteristics (e.g., good taste, favorable chemical composition), low technological requirements, better adapta‐ tion ability to environmental conditions, resistance to pests and diseases, and reliable yields. The cultivation of old cultivars and forms is often connected with using environmentally friendly production systems, such as organic farming. Old varieties are usually cultivated on a limited area, at a local or regional level. In Poland, we cultivate the tradition of growing old and local cultivars of tomato, cucumber, onion, carrots, beans, pumpkin, vetch, and many other orchard fruits and vegetables. In recent years, the rapidly-developing low-input methods of farming promotes a wider use of old and local cultivars of plants, as well as old plant species, such as spelt wheat, emmer, einkor wheat, and their processing on the farm [6].

Traditional orchards, also called backyard orchards, are of great importance for plant genetic resources. They usually satisfy only the needs of their owners and their family, unlike the commercial orchards where the production of which is destined primarily for sale. Traditional orchards became a characteristic element of the landscape of the Polish countryside. Due to the longevity of the trees, they have survived to this day. They are supported by an agrienvironment scheme in Poland [17].

Native animal breeds are very important due to the role they played in the history of the development of the regions from which they originate. Due to their ecological, landscape, ethnographic, and socio-cultural functions, they must be regarded as evidence of tradition and culture of local communities, and preserved for future generations. The conservation of genetic variability guarantees a secure future of livestock production and helps maintain a healthy livestock [6].

### **3. The role of wild flora and fauna diversity in agroecosystem**

In intensive conventional farming, special attention is paid to the negative aspects of wild flora in agrocenoses (called weeds), as they cause yield losses. Since the 1990s, however, due to the promotion of the concept of sustainable agriculture, the importance of wild plants growing on fields has been underlined. They have started to be perceived not only as competitors to arable crops, but also as an element that increases the biodiversity in agroecosystems [18–20].

Currently, the tendency in weed control is to limit the number of weeds to such a level that do not cause significant yield decreases. Such an approach is consistent with the objectives of sustainable agriculture, and particularly promoted in the system of organic farming. The harmfulness of weeds is not the same in all agrocenoses and depends on: the species and its biology, their abundance, competitive ability, the type of agricultural culture and the purpose of cultivation, as well as the soil type, weather, and agrotechnical factors [21].

The results of the research indicate a positive influence of wild flora in preserving overall biodiversity of agroecosystems [20, 22]. Elimination of wild plants from plant canopy, and thus weakening their reproductive potential interferes with the processes occurring in soil and relations between flora, fauna, and microorganisms [23]. Studies have shown that the decrease in the number of weeds as a result of the intensification of agriculture in Finland, Germany, Denmark, and the UK caused a decline of the populations of birds, pollinators, and other insects on agricultural areas [20, 22, 24]. The results of the monitoring of common breeding birds, which have been conducted in the UK since the 1990s and in Poland since 2000 indicate that the decrease in the number of the species such as tawny pipit, goldfinch, hoopoe, and lapwing, following the intensification of agriculture and the reduction in the diversity of weed flora [25]. The seeds of weeds, especially from the *Polygonaceae, Chenopodiaceae*, and *Poaceae* families, such as *Chenopodium album, Polygonum aviculare, Echinochloa crus-galli, Rumex obtusifolius,* and *Stellaria media*, are important food components for many bird species [20, 26].

Weeds constitute the source of food, as well as the habitats for animals, including useful, pollinating insects [15]. The nectar and pollen producing plants include: *Anthemis arvensis, Cirsium arvense, Centaurea cyanus, Chenopodium album, Consolida regalis, Taraxacum officinale, Papaver rhoeas,* and *Sonchus arvensis* [20–21]. Many common weed species are significant for the maintenance of the population of valuable beneficial invertebrates (pest predators and parasites), thus supporting the natural pest control [20].

Providing pest control is one of most important functions of biodiversity. There is a significant importance of predatory arthropods in agroecosystems. Many species of invertebrates are specialized in eating aphids and other pests. Others are generalist predators such as spiders or ground beetles. One of the most important natural enemies of pests are spiders. Almost all known species of spiders are predators. Many species are common in crops. The most effective in pest control are species families *Licosidae, Linephidae, Salticidae, Tetragnatidae, Clubionidae*, and *Araneidae* [27]. An important feature of spider biology is its resistance to long periods of hunger when a prey is absent. On the other hand, when prey is in abundance, they can consume a huge amount of it, often killing more prey than they can actually eat [28]. Another very important taxa is *Coleoptera*. There are many species of *Coleoptera*, that are generalist predators feeding on aphids and other pests. In an agroecosystem, the beetle families *Carabidae, Staphy‐ linidae, Coccinellidae*, and *Cantharidae* are the most important invertebrates. The best known natural enemies of aphids are ladybirds *Coccinellidae* and ground beetles *Carabidae* [29]. Predatory beetles are more common in organic crops and in diverse landscapes [30]. They are also not dependent on pest population density, while specialist natural enemies are. They are also present on the field before pest population has developed. There are more generalist predators that can control the population of pests. These are insects such as bugs *Hemiptera*, robber flies *Asilidae*, wasps, and ants *Hemiptera*. More specialized in aphid control are parasitic wasps *Apocrita-Parasitica*, hoverflies *Syrphidae*, lacewings *Chrysopidae*, and *Hemerobiidae*. Both types of natural enemies are effective in controlling aphids, but they affect them in different ways. Generalist predators limit pest population, but doesn't eliminate all individuals so there is still a possibility to rebuild pest population. Specialists influence pest population slowly, preventing the increase in the population [31]. Diversity and activeness of natural enemies depends on the type of crop, diversity of landscape, and system of farming.

High plant species diversity increases the diversity of soil microflora and microfauna, including the organisms that are antagonistic against crop pathogens [32]. Certain wild flora species repel the crop pests or they act as trap plants for pests (e.g., *Chenopodium album* for black bean aphids). The allelopathic potential of many weed species has a stimulating or inhibiting effect on the development of crops and the presence of other weeds [21]. A large variety of flora and fauna is increasingly perceived as a valuable part of the agricultural landscape, especially in countries where intensification of agricultural production has led to a significant reduction of biodiversity of agroecosystems [19].

### **4. Biodiversity in the ecosystem services concept**

**3. The role of wild flora and fauna diversity in agroecosystem**

6 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

of cultivation, as well as the soil type, weather, and agrotechnical factors [21].

In intensive conventional farming, special attention is paid to the negative aspects of wild flora in agrocenoses (called weeds), as they cause yield losses. Since the 1990s, however, due to the promotion of the concept of sustainable agriculture, the importance of wild plants growing on fields has been underlined. They have started to be perceived not only as competitors to arable crops, but also as an element that increases the biodiversity in agroecosystems [18–20].

Currently, the tendency in weed control is to limit the number of weeds to such a level that do not cause significant yield decreases. Such an approach is consistent with the objectives of sustainable agriculture, and particularly promoted in the system of organic farming. The harmfulness of weeds is not the same in all agrocenoses and depends on: the species and its biology, their abundance, competitive ability, the type of agricultural culture and the purpose

The results of the research indicate a positive influence of wild flora in preserving overall biodiversity of agroecosystems [20, 22]. Elimination of wild plants from plant canopy, and thus weakening their reproductive potential interferes with the processes occurring in soil and relations between flora, fauna, and microorganisms [23]. Studies have shown that the decrease in the number of weeds as a result of the intensification of agriculture in Finland, Germany, Denmark, and the UK caused a decline of the populations of birds, pollinators, and other insects on agricultural areas [20, 22, 24]. The results of the monitoring of common breeding birds, which have been conducted in the UK since the 1990s and in Poland since 2000 indicate that the decrease in the number of the species such as tawny pipit, goldfinch, hoopoe, and lapwing, following the intensification of agriculture and the reduction in the diversity of weed flora [25]. The seeds of weeds, especially from the *Polygonaceae, Chenopodiaceae*, and *Poaceae* families, such as *Chenopodium album, Polygonum aviculare, Echinochloa crus-galli, Rumex obtusifolius,* and *Stellaria media*, are important food components for many bird species [20, 26].

Weeds constitute the source of food, as well as the habitats for animals, including useful, pollinating insects [15]. The nectar and pollen producing plants include: *Anthemis arvensis, Cirsium arvense, Centaurea cyanus, Chenopodium album, Consolida regalis, Taraxacum officinale, Papaver rhoeas,* and *Sonchus arvensis* [20–21]. Many common weed species are significant for the maintenance of the population of valuable beneficial invertebrates (pest predators and

Providing pest control is one of most important functions of biodiversity. There is a significant importance of predatory arthropods in agroecosystems. Many species of invertebrates are specialized in eating aphids and other pests. Others are generalist predators such as spiders or ground beetles. One of the most important natural enemies of pests are spiders. Almost all known species of spiders are predators. Many species are common in crops. The most effective in pest control are species families *Licosidae, Linephidae, Salticidae, Tetragnatidae, Clubionidae*, and *Araneidae* [27]. An important feature of spider biology is its resistance to long periods of hunger when a prey is absent. On the other hand, when prey is in abundance, they can consume a huge amount of it, often killing more prey than they can actually eat [28]. Another very

parasites), thus supporting the natural pest control [20].

Ecosystem services have become a top research issue in ecology, natural resource management, and policy [33]. Ecosystem services can be defined as the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems [34].

In the report of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [35], ecosystem services were divided into four basic types:


Biodiversity plays a major role in each group of these ecosystem services. It is crucial for the functionality, stability, and productivity of every ecosystem. In dynamic, agricultural land‐ scapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reor‐ ganize after disturbance) [8]. The species that occur in agrocenoses differ in terms of their potential value and input into the ecosystem services [15, 36]. Thus, increasing the diversity of species richness increases the probability of the total pool containing a species that will significantly affect the functioning of the ecosystem.

Biodiversity and ecosystem services are complex issues, which is reflected in many different interpretations of the significance of biodiversity to the ecosystem. The connections between biodiversity and ecosystem services are perceived differently by different authors [37]. Some authors even treat these concepts as one, which means that if the ecosystem services are managed properly, biodiversity will be preserved and vice versa ("ecosystem services perspective"). However, others claim that biodiversity is one of the ecosystem services and the conservation of the diversity of wild species, especially the endangered ones, is one of the goods that the ecosystem should deliver ("conservation perspective").

According to Fischer and Young [38], in biodiversity, everything is connected and contained in the same environment, but with no hierarchy. Mace et al. [37] suggest that the role of biodiversity in ecosystem services should be put into some order by assuming that different relationships exist at different levels of the hierarchy of ecosystem services. Following this concept, biodiversity may be the primary regulator of the ecosystem processes, as well as the final product and ecosystem service and good itself.

Biodiversity is considered one of the provision services that can supply: genetic resources for breeding new, more useful cultivars of plants or animal breeds; new active substances for medicine and pharmacology; or new ornamental plants [37]. Biodiversity in ecosystems determines most of the basic functions of the ecosystem, such as the distribution and circulation of elements in soil or the resistance of the ecosystem to pests and environmental conditions. It is generally considered that a more diverse ecosystem is a more stable ecosystem. The results of the studies indicate that an increased biodiversity at a given trophic level positively affects the productivity of this trophic level [39].

Ecosystems with high biological diversity provide many ecosystem services that concern, among others, provision of food, maintenance of pollinators, and biological control of pests [8, 15]. Pollination is one of the ecosystem services that are of special importance for humans. Recent studies estimate that 87 of major arable crops and 35% of the world crops are pollinated by animals [40]. The diversity of pollinators is essential for maintaining the provision of the services that Costanza et al. [34] evaluated at \$14/ha/year. According to other authors, it amounts to \$100 billion a year around the world [41]. The loss of biodiversity of agroecosys‐ tems, caused by the intensification of agricultural production and the loss of habitats, nega‐ tively affects the service of pollinators, which causes yield decrease [42].

The studies on the influence of biodiversity on ecosystem functions are difficult due to the complexity of the relationships within the ecosystem, the impact of agricultural production systems, and landscape. It is also difficult to generalize the results obtained in the given ecosystem over other ecosystems [43].

Meta-analysis carried out by Balvanera et al. [39] indicates that most of the published works show a positive influence of biodiversity on the functioning of ecosystem, the strongest at the level of communities. Costanza et al. [44] found a positive impact of biodiversity on the productivity of ecosystems in North America. According to these authors, 1% of the changes in biodiversity affects 0.5% of the changes in the value of ecosystem services. The research carried out in Europe provided evidence for the positive impact of biodiversity on the productivity of grasslands [45]. Lavelle et al. [46] pointed to the positive impact of diversity of soil organisms on plant productivity in agricultural ecosystems. Hillebrandt and Matthiessen [47] believe that the functioning of the ecosystem is dependent not only on biodiversity, measured by the number of species, but most of all, on species composition, and the abundance of individual species and functional groups. A recent review of the scientific literature concluded that most reported relationships between biodiversity attributes (such as species richness, diversity, and abundance) and ecosystem services were positive [48]. Despite rich evidence on the existence of the connection between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, some authors still question this relationship [8, 49–50].

Biodiversity plays a major role in each group of these ecosystem services. It is crucial for the functionality, stability, and productivity of every ecosystem. In dynamic, agricultural land‐ scapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reor‐ ganize after disturbance) [8]. The species that occur in agrocenoses differ in terms of their potential value and input into the ecosystem services [15, 36]. Thus, increasing the diversity of species richness increases the probability of the total pool containing a species that will

Biodiversity and ecosystem services are complex issues, which is reflected in many different interpretations of the significance of biodiversity to the ecosystem. The connections between biodiversity and ecosystem services are perceived differently by different authors [37]. Some authors even treat these concepts as one, which means that if the ecosystem services are managed properly, biodiversity will be preserved and vice versa ("ecosystem services perspective"). However, others claim that biodiversity is one of the ecosystem services and the conservation of the diversity of wild species, especially the endangered ones, is one of the

According to Fischer and Young [38], in biodiversity, everything is connected and contained in the same environment, but with no hierarchy. Mace et al. [37] suggest that the role of biodiversity in ecosystem services should be put into some order by assuming that different relationships exist at different levels of the hierarchy of ecosystem services. Following this concept, biodiversity may be the primary regulator of the ecosystem processes, as well as the

Biodiversity is considered one of the provision services that can supply: genetic resources for breeding new, more useful cultivars of plants or animal breeds; new active substances for medicine and pharmacology; or new ornamental plants [37]. Biodiversity in ecosystems determines most of the basic functions of the ecosystem, such as the distribution and circulation of elements in soil or the resistance of the ecosystem to pests and environmental conditions. It is generally considered that a more diverse ecosystem is a more stable ecosystem. The results of the studies indicate that an increased biodiversity at a given trophic level positively affects

Ecosystems with high biological diversity provide many ecosystem services that concern, among others, provision of food, maintenance of pollinators, and biological control of pests [8, 15]. Pollination is one of the ecosystem services that are of special importance for humans. Recent studies estimate that 87 of major arable crops and 35% of the world crops are pollinated by animals [40]. The diversity of pollinators is essential for maintaining the provision of the services that Costanza et al. [34] evaluated at \$14/ha/year. According to other authors, it amounts to \$100 billion a year around the world [41]. The loss of biodiversity of agroecosys‐ tems, caused by the intensification of agricultural production and the loss of habitats, nega‐

The studies on the influence of biodiversity on ecosystem functions are difficult due to the complexity of the relationships within the ecosystem, the impact of agricultural production systems, and landscape. It is also difficult to generalize the results obtained in the given

tively affects the service of pollinators, which causes yield decrease [42].

significantly affect the functioning of the ecosystem.

8 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

final product and ecosystem service and good itself.

the productivity of this trophic level [39].

ecosystem over other ecosystems [43].

goods that the ecosystem should deliver ("conservation perspective").

The protection of certain target species is the most socially recognized role of biodiversity, while its indirect role in processes occurring in ecosystems (such as the cycle of elements) is little known by a wider audience [37]. A higher perspective needs to deliver additional arguments for the protection of biodiversity, apart from the traditional arguments, connected with the protection of rare and charismatic species.

Authors of the report from ecosystem evaluation in the UK found that at present, we are not able to fully assess the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services that it provides [5]. Changes in the extent and condition of habitats may significantly affect biodi‐ versity ecosystem services. Intensification of agriculture has caused agricultural production, along with provision services, to significantly increase, but at the same time, there was a reduction in the diversity of the landscape, the increase of soil erosion, the reduction of soil quality, and the decrease in the populations of birds and pollinators. Changes in ecosystems may have a positive or negative impact on human welfare. For example, the conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural production areas increases farmers' income, but at the same time, decreases habitats for recreation and the threat of atmospheric phenomena. According to the authors of the report [5], these types of assessments, in addition to economic values, should also take into account human health and social values.

Until now, ecosystem services were regarded as public goods, not as a market product that has a monetary value. According to some authors, the lack of valuation is the main cause of the degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity [3]. If we want to maintain our environmen‐ tal safety, we have to "measure" ecosystems and biodiversity. The article of Costanza et al. [34], "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital", published in Nature in 1997, was a breakthrough study in the subject of ecosystem services valuation. The authors as‐ sessed the value of 17 basic services produced by ecosystems all over the world. They evaluat‐ ed them at \$33 billion per year, so almost twice the amount of the gross national product of the USA (\$18 billion). The concepts of ecosystem services flow and natural capital stocks are increasingly useful ways to highlight, measure, and value the degree of interdependence between humans and the rest of nature [51]. Economic assessment of the value of the services provided by the environment is difficult, time-consuming, and flawed. The valuation of each group of ecosystem services should be performed using different methods [52–53].

### **5. The impact of different agricultural systems on biodiversity**

One of the most important factors affecting the agroecosystem biodiversity is the method of the agricultural management and land use. Agricultural systems that are used in modern agriculture may differently affect the environment, including biodiversity. Intensive agricul‐ ture is considered as the main reason of the decrease of flora and fauna species diversity and abundance in agroecosystems [14, 54]. The use of fertilizers and pesticides, removal of midfield woody vegetation and bounds leading to fragmentation and degradations of habitats are among the most important threats of agricultural ecosystems [37]. Moreover, areas with worse conditions for agricultural production are abandoned or afforested.

Decreasing populations of the birds associated with the agricultural landscape in many European countries can serve as an example of the loss of biodiversity due to the intensification of methods of agricultural production and changes in the landscape [25]. Benton et al. [55] found a relationship between the changes in the population of birds associated with agricul‐ tural areas and the number of invertebrates and agricultural practices in Scotland. Intensive agriculture was also found to have a negative effect on other groups of organisms: soil microorganisms, weed flora, earthworms, insects, spiders, and mammals [19–20, 55–59]. The analyses performed by Storkey et al. [9] for 29 European countries showed a positive correla‐ tion between the yields of wheat and the number of endangered species. The study of the list of endangered or extinct species of wild plants in Germany showed that agriculture is responsible for the decrease of populations of 513 out of 711 species [19]. The endangered taxa included 10.8% of weeds. Fifteen species were considered extinct, which constituted 25% of all the extinct species. In Poland, about 60 percent of the 165 species of archeophytes that accompany crops are endangered, mainly due to the intensification of agriculture [60].

Species' ability to tolerate human impacts: destruction, degradation and fragmentation of habitats, reductions of individual survival and fecundity through exploitation, pollution and introduction of alien species varies among taxonomic groups [61]. For instance, the proportion of species listed as threatened in the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List is much bigger in amphibians than in birds [62].

Intensification of agricultural practices causes the loss of biodiversity, and thus influence important ecosystem services. It affects plant production, plant protection, pollination, decomposition processes, nutrient cycles, and the resistance to invasive organisms [15, 63–65]. In some cases, the intensification of agricultural production can lead to an increase in the population of some, or even rare, species. A higher productivity of agricultural areas in comparison with natural ecosystems means more feed (biomass of plants and fruit) for birds, mammals, and butterflies [8]. Söderström et al. [66] found a greater abundance of bird species on the areas used for agriculture and the reduction of the diversity in the period after the abandonment of farming, while Westphal et al. [67] found an increase in the population of bumblebees together with the increase in the area of rape cultivation. Habitat value is, therefore, often determined by food resources, which result from high productivity, which in turn may have other negative environmental consequences.

provided by the environment is difficult, time-consuming, and flawed. The valuation of each

One of the most important factors affecting the agroecosystem biodiversity is the method of the agricultural management and land use. Agricultural systems that are used in modern agriculture may differently affect the environment, including biodiversity. Intensive agricul‐ ture is considered as the main reason of the decrease of flora and fauna species diversity and abundance in agroecosystems [14, 54]. The use of fertilizers and pesticides, removal of midfield woody vegetation and bounds leading to fragmentation and degradations of habitats are among the most important threats of agricultural ecosystems [37]. Moreover, areas with worse

Decreasing populations of the birds associated with the agricultural landscape in many European countries can serve as an example of the loss of biodiversity due to the intensification of methods of agricultural production and changes in the landscape [25]. Benton et al. [55] found a relationship between the changes in the population of birds associated with agricul‐ tural areas and the number of invertebrates and agricultural practices in Scotland. Intensive agriculture was also found to have a negative effect on other groups of organisms: soil microorganisms, weed flora, earthworms, insects, spiders, and mammals [19–20, 55–59]. The analyses performed by Storkey et al. [9] for 29 European countries showed a positive correla‐ tion between the yields of wheat and the number of endangered species. The study of the list of endangered or extinct species of wild plants in Germany showed that agriculture is responsible for the decrease of populations of 513 out of 711 species [19]. The endangered taxa included 10.8% of weeds. Fifteen species were considered extinct, which constituted 25% of all the extinct species. In Poland, about 60 percent of the 165 species of archeophytes that accompany crops are endangered, mainly due to the intensification of agriculture [60].

Species' ability to tolerate human impacts: destruction, degradation and fragmentation of habitats, reductions of individual survival and fecundity through exploitation, pollution and introduction of alien species varies among taxonomic groups [61]. For instance, the proportion of species listed as threatened in the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List

Intensification of agricultural practices causes the loss of biodiversity, and thus influence important ecosystem services. It affects plant production, plant protection, pollination, decomposition processes, nutrient cycles, and the resistance to invasive organisms [15, 63–65]. In some cases, the intensification of agricultural production can lead to an increase in the population of some, or even rare, species. A higher productivity of agricultural areas in comparison with natural ecosystems means more feed (biomass of plants and fruit) for birds, mammals, and butterflies [8]. Söderström et al. [66] found a greater abundance of bird species on the areas used for agriculture and the reduction of the diversity in the period after the abandonment of farming, while Westphal et al. [67] found an increase in the population of

group of ecosystem services should be performed using different methods [52–53].

10 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**5. The impact of different agricultural systems on biodiversity**

conditions for agricultural production are abandoned or afforested.

is much bigger in amphibians than in birds [62].

Negative impacts of conventional farming on the environment, the overproduction of food, and consumer dissatisfaction with the quality of the products obtained through such farming, caused the development of the concept of sustainable agriculture, which uses environmentally friendly methods of production [68–69]. Such assumptions are the basis of the development of alternative systems of agricultural production, such as integrated and organic farming.

An integrated production system uses technical and biological progress in the cultivation, fertilization, and plant protection in a harmonious way, which allows to obtain a stable efficiency and a proper level of agricultural income through the use of methods that do not pose a threat to the environment. It combines the most important elements of organic and conventional farming, and allows for simultaneous realization of economic, ecological, and social goals [69]. Integrated production ensures sustainable economic development of the farm, takes into account the needs of the environment, and it is also attractive for consumers due to the obtained quality of products. The results of the implementation of the integrated system in several European countries show that it managed to significantly reduce the use of chemical pesticides and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, which led to, among others, an increase in the diversity of flora and fauna [68, 70]. The Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides (2009/128/EC) [71] has obliged all EU member states to prepare and implement integrated crop protection programs, which to some extent can protect the biodiversity of flora and fauna [72].

One of the proposed solutions for combining productive and environmental functions of agriculture is an approach called "ecological intensification" [33]. For ecological intensification, the primary interest is in managing the processes and conditions that mediate yield levels. Ecological intensification entails the environmentally friendly replacement of anthropogenic inputs and/or enhancement of crop productivity, by including regulating and supporting ecosystem services management in agricultural practices. Research efforts and investments are particularly needed to reduce existing yield gaps by integrating context-appropriate bundles of ecosystem services into crop production systems.

### **6. The significance of biodiversity in organic farming**

The aim of organic farming is the production of high-quality food and, at the same time, the protection of the environment [73–74]. The ecological system is fundamentally different from other systems of agricultural production because it excludes the use of synthetic mineral fertilizers, growth regulators, chemical plant protection products, and synthetic feed additives. It is based on substances of natural origin, which are not technologically processed [74]. Organic farming system is based on the use of environmentally friendly production methods that include crop rotations with a large share of legumes, organic fertilizers, and non-chemical methods of plant protection. Due to the resignation from the application of synthetic mineral fertilizers and chemical plant protection products, organic farming has an even greater positive impact on the diversity of flora and fauna than the integrated system [19, 22, 56, 59, 75–77]. The results of many studies point to the positive effects of organic farming on diversity of flora and fauna on arable lands and grasslands [76–81].

Dynamic development of organic farming is observed in the EU, including Poland [82]. Some authors believe that the dissemination of ecological system on agricultural areas may help reverse the negative trend of the decline of biodiversity in the cultivated fields, which was caused by the intensification of agriculture [19, 82].

The most direct way to capture the effects of human activities on biodiversity is to analyze time-series data from ecological communities or populations, relating changes in biodiversity to changes in human activities. Such long-term research (1996–2011) on weed flora diversity in different crop production systems, organic, integrated, and conventional, were conducted in the Experimental Station of the Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State Research Institute (IUNG-PIB) in Puławy, Poland [N: 51º28', E: 22º04'] (Table 1).


**Table 1.** Major elements of the agricultural practices of winter wheat in different farming systems (1996-2011); source [59].

The study showed that long-term management in organic system increased the diversity of weed flora accompanying crops (Figure 1). Simplifying the crop rotation from the integrated system, through the conventional system to monoculture of winter wheat, associated with the increased use of herbicides, led to the depletion of the species in weed communities. In the 16 year period, the average number of weed species in integrated and conventional systems, as well as in wheat monoculture was similar (6.1–6.8), while in the organic system by about 3.5 times higher (22 species). During the 16 years of research, the changes in weed communities in winter wheat cultivated in this farming system were found, especially involving the decreasing abundance of nitrophilous species: *Chenopodium album* and *Galium aparine* and the increasing density of more sensitive to herbicides taxa, *Stellaria media, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Fallopia convolvulus*, and species of the *Vicia* genus [59].

impact on the diversity of flora and fauna than the integrated system [19, 22, 56, 59, 75–77]. The results of many studies point to the positive effects of organic farming on diversity of flora

Dynamic development of organic farming is observed in the EU, including Poland [82]. Some authors believe that the dissemination of ecological system on agricultural areas may help reverse the negative trend of the decline of biodiversity in the cultivated fields, which was

The most direct way to capture the effects of human activities on biodiversity is to analyze time-series data from ecological communities or populations, relating changes in biodiversity to changes in human activities. Such long-term research (1996–2011) on weed flora diversity in different crop production systems, organic, integrated, and conventional, were conducted in the Experimental Station of the Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State

**Organic Integrated Conventional Monoculture**

Winter rape Winter wheat Spring barley/ spring wheat from 2005

> rape straw, winter wheat straw

NPK (85+55+65) NPK (140+60+80)

Winter wheat

wheat straw (every 2 years)

herbicides 2–3 x

Potato Spring barley/spring wheat from 2005 + catch crop Faba bean or blue lupine Winter wheat + catch crop

compost (30 t·ha-1) under potato + 2 × catch crop

> weeder harrow 1x herbicides 1–2 x

Research Institute (IUNG-PIB) in Puławy, Poland [N: 51º28', E: 22º04'] (Table 1).

Seed dressing - + +

Fungicide - 2 x 2–3 x Retardants - 1–2 x 2 x

**Table 1.** Major elements of the agricultural practices of winter wheat in different farming systems (1996-2011); source

The study showed that long-term management in organic system increased the diversity of weed flora accompanying crops (Figure 1). Simplifying the crop rotation from the integrated system, through the conventional system to monoculture of winter wheat, associated with the

**Items Crop production systems**

Potato Spring barley/spring wheat from 2005 + undersown crop Clovers and grasses (1st year) Clovers and grasses (2nd year) Winter wheat + catch crop

compost (30 t·ha-1) under potato + catch crop

according to the results of soil analysis, allowed P and K fertilizers in the form of natural rock

> weeder harrow 2–3 x

and fauna on arable lands and grasslands [76–81].

12 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

caused by the intensification of agriculture [19, 82].

Crop rotation

Organic fertilization

Mineral fertilization (kg·ha-1)

Weed control

[59].

**Figure 1.** Weed plant diversity (± st. error) in winter wheat cultivated in different farming systems in years 1996–2011; source [59].

The agricultural practices applied in the compared farming systems (organic, integrated, conventional, and monoculture) of winter wheat differentiated the density of flora more than species composition. The largest number of weeds in the canopy of winter wheat at the dough stage was found in the organic system, 112 plants ⋅ m–2, and the smallest for the integrated system, 18 plants ⋅ m–2, on average (Figure 2). During the five years of the research (1997, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008), the number of weeds in this treatment does not exceed 60 plants ⋅ m–2, and only in two years (1996, 1999) was higher than 150 plants ⋅ m–2, which means that it is possible to maintain weed infestation in organic cultivation of wheat at a relatively low level. Among the systems where herbicides were applied, the highest number of variability was observed in the monoculture of winter wheat.

Variability in species composition and abundance of weed flora throughout the years was influenced by the effectiveness of the applied methods of weed regulation and the weather conditions, which determined the germination of specific species of weeds and affected the density of wheat canopy and its competitiveness against weeds. In the systems where herbicides were applied, there were the highest fluctuations in the value of Shannon's and Simpson's indicators throughout the years (Figures 3 and 4). Shannon's diversity index value was the highest for weed flora in organic system and increased from 0.75 in 1996 to 2.64 in 2007 (Figure 3).

**Figure 2.** Weed abundance (± st. error) in winter wheat cultivated in different farming systems in years 1996–2011; source [59].

**Figure 3.** Shannon's diversity index values (± st. error) for weed communities in winter wheat cultivated in different farming systems in 1996–2011; source [59].

The dominance of some weed species in the community reflected in high Simpson's dominance index could affect the wheat yield more than diversified weed flora. A large diversity of weed species with low their quantity within species is less dangerous due to the yield because in multi-species weed community interspecies competition takes place. Interactions between weeds and the crop depend on the competitiveness and abundance of occurring weed species and the competitive abilities of the crop. In addition, those relationships are affected by environmental factors including soil conditions, weather, as well as agronomic practices.

It was found that weed communities in winter wheat cultivated in the organic system were characterized with a high qualitative and quantitative similarity in years, which was confirmed by the results of the ordination analysis (Figure 5).

The Role of Biological Diversity in Agroecosystems and Organic Farming http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61353 15

**Figure 4.** Simpson's dominance index values (± st. error) for weed communities in winter wheat cultivated in different farming systems in years 1996–2011; source [59].

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

14 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

number of weeds (plants∙m-2)

farming systems in 1996–2011; source [59].

by the results of the ordination analysis (Figure 5).

Shannon's diversity index

source [59].

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

**Figure 3.** Shannon's diversity index values (± st. error) for weed communities in winter wheat cultivated in different

The dominance of some weed species in the community reflected in high Simpson's dominance index could affect the wheat yield more than diversified weed flora. A large diversity of weed species with low their quantity within species is less dangerous due to the yield because in multi-species weed community interspecies competition takes place. Interactions between weeds and the crop depend on the competitiveness and abundance of occurring weed species and the competitive abilities of the crop. In addition, those relationships are affected by environmental factors including soil conditions, weather, as well as agronomic practices.

It was found that weed communities in winter wheat cultivated in the organic system were characterized with a high qualitative and quantitative similarity in years, which was confirmed

organic integrated conventional monoculture

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

**Figure 2.** Weed abundance (± st. error) in winter wheat cultivated in different farming systems in years 1996–2011;

organic integrated conventional monoculture

Figure 5. Ordination diagram of samples (represented weed flora communities in winter wheat cultivated in different crop production systems and years) in relation to first and second axes of Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA); source [59]. **Figure 5.** Ordination diagram of samples (represented weed flora communities in winter wheat cultivated in different crop production systems and years) in relation to first and second axes of Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA); source [59].

prepare a geo-spatial database is the KIK/25 project (www. agropronatura.pl).

as a result of management decisions farmers apply to their agricultural land [81].

**7. Trends of changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union**

The comprehensive database that collates published, in-press, and other quality-assured spatial comparisons of community composition and site-level biodiversity from terrestrial sites around the world was created under the PREDICTS project (www.predicts.org.uk) [83]. Another example of a project that aimed to study the effect of different agricultural practices on diversity of flora, invertebrates, birds, and landscape in the east-south part of Poland and to

According to many research results, organic farming fulfills the promise to protect biodiversity better than conventional farming. Supporting farmers to convert their properties to organic land and to maintain organic farming within the scope of agri-environment schemes as a part of Common Agriculture Policy can have a significant impact in biodiversity

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland; but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening [11].

In the Report of the EU [84], analysis of the trends in the spatial extent of ecosystems and in the supply and use of ecosystem services at the European scale between 2000 and 2010 were presented. In the EU, urban land and forests increased while cropland, grassland, and heathland decreased (Figure 6). Many provisioning services showed increasing trends. Food and fodder crop production increased, even when agricultural areas decreased. More organic food was

The comprehensivedatabase that collatespublished,in-press, andotherquality-assuredspatial comparisonsof communitycompositionandsite-levelbiodiversityfromterrestrial sitesaround the world was created under the PREDICTS project (www.predicts.org.uk) [83]. Another example of aprojectthat aimedto study the effect ofdifferent agricultural practices ondiversity of flora, invertebrates, birds, and landscape in the east-south part of Poland and to prepare a geo-spatial database is the KIK/25 project (www. agropronatura.pl).

According to many research results, organic farming fulfills the promise to protect biodiversi‐ ty better than conventional farming. Supporting farmers to convert their properties to organ‐ ic land and to maintain organic farming within the scope of agri-environment schemes as a part of Common Agriculture Policy can have a significant impact in biodiversity as a result of management decisions farmers apply to their agricultural land [81].

### **7. Trends of changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union**

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by lowintensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland; but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsen‐ ing [11].

In the Report of the EU [84], analysis of the trends in the spatial extent of ecosystems and in the supply and use of ecosystem services at the European scale between 2000 and 2010 were presented. In the EU, urban land and forests increased while cropland, grassland, and heath‐ land decreased (Figure 6). Many provisioning services showed increasing trends. Food and fodder crop production increased, even when agricultural areas decreased. More organic food was produced. More timber was removed from forests with increasing timber stocks. Total number of grazing livestock decreased.

**Figure 6.** Change in the extent of surface area of ecosystems based on land cover data; source [84].

More area of natural environment was protected in 2010 than in 2000, but in contrast, the trends of two ecosystem services indicators that are directly related to biodiversity, pollination, and habitat quality were worsening (Figure 7). Crop production deficit was observed resulting from a loss of insect pollination. Habitat quality (regulation) slightly declined. There was a positive trend in the opportunity for citizens to have access to land with a high recreation potential. Crop produ 1 Habitat qua ‐1 Pollination ‐4

**Figure 7.** Main trends in ecosystem services in the EU between 2000 and 2010: Habitat maintenance and pollination; source [84].

Comparative studies show greater ecosystem quality for biodiversity as well as higher levels of rare species occurrence and species richness in lowland farmland in the central and eastern new member states than in Northern and Western Europe [11, 85]. In contrast to much of lowland EU, the main challenge and opportunity for farmland biodiversity conservation in the new member states is that a large number of species of conservation concern often still exist, e.g., in Polish field margins [11, 86]. These target species may have different requirements, creating conflicts when prescribing management measures. Simple but rigid measures applied over large areas can therefore be worse than existing management [11].

According to the EU Report, different trends in agriculture, ecosystems, and ecosystem services in EU countries were recorded (Figures 8 and 9) [84]. For example, in Poland relatively small changes were noted (increasing biomass built up and slightly negative trends in several services, including pollination potential) (Figure 8).

In France, where agriculture historically was more intensive than in Poland, slight decreases or status quo for many indicators were observed while the area under organic farming, timber stock, and forest area was rising (Figure 9).

Generally we see the following trends at the EU scale [84]:

For provisioning ecosystem services:

Fig. 7

The comprehensivedatabase that collatespublished,in-press, andotherquality-assuredspatial comparisonsof communitycompositionandsite-levelbiodiversityfromterrestrial sitesaround the world was created under the PREDICTS project (www.predicts.org.uk) [83]. Another example of aprojectthat aimedto study the effect ofdifferent agricultural practices ondiversity of flora, invertebrates, birds, and landscape in the east-south part of Poland and to prepare a

According to many research results, organic farming fulfills the promise to protect biodiversi‐ ty better than conventional farming. Supporting farmers to convert their properties to organ‐ ic land and to maintain organic farming within the scope of agri-environment schemes as a part of Common Agriculture Policy can have a significant impact in biodiversity as a result of

**7. Trends of changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European**

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by lowintensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland; but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsen‐

In the Report of the EU [84], analysis of the trends in the spatial extent of ecosystems and in the supply and use of ecosystem services at the European scale between 2000 and 2010 were presented. In the EU, urban land and forests increased while cropland, grassland, and heath‐ land decreased (Figure 6). Many provisioning services showed increasing trends. Food and fodder crop production increased, even when agricultural areas decreased. More organic food was produced. More timber was removed from forests with increasing timber stocks. Total

0.35%

‐3% ‐2% ‐1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4%

Rate of change (%/decade)

0.03%

0.04%

2.79%

geo-spatial database is the KIK/25 project (www. agropronatura.pl).

16 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

management decisions farmers apply to their agricultural land [81].


**Figure 6.** Change in the extent of surface area of ecosystems based on land cover data; source [84].

Urban land Cropland Grassland Heathland and shrub Woodland and forest Sparsley vegeted land Wetlands Rivers and lakes




**Union**

ing [11].

number of grazing livestock decreased.

**•** More crops for food, feed, and energy are produced in the EU on less arable land. More organic food is grown. Textile crop production and the total number of grazing livestock have decreased.

Figure 2. Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services between 2000 and 2010 in Poland; source [84]. **Figure 8.** Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services between 2000 and 2010 in Poland; source [84].


For regulating ecosystem services:


For cultural ecosystem services:

**•** More land is protected and there is a positive trend in the opportunity for citizens to have access to land with a high recreation potential.

#### The Role of Biological Diversity in Agroecosystems and Organic Farming http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61353 19

### **FRANCE**

Figure 3. Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services between 2000 and 2010 in France; source [84]. **Figure 9.** Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services between 2000 and 2010 in France; source [84].

Costanza et al. [51] estimated the loss of global ecosystem services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at \$4.3–20.2 billion/year, depending on which unit values were used. The biodiversity benefits for Europe and other countries of existing low-intensity farmland should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, target research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats are needed now [11]. Generally we see the following trends at the EU scale [84]: For provisioning ecosystem services: More crops for food, feed, and energy are produced in the EU on less arable land. More organic food is grown. Textile crop production and the total number of grazing livestock have decreased.

The EU has used water in a slightly more resource-efficient way. Reported water abstractions decreased in

 Several regulating services, in particular those that are related to the presence of trees, woodland, or forests, increased slightly. This is the case for water retention, forest carbon potential, erosion control, and

More land is protected and there is a positive trend in the opportunity for citizens to have access to land

#### **8. Summary** both absolute and relative terms (relative to the naturally available water).

air quality regulation.

with a high recreation potential.

For cultural ecosystem services:

**•** The EU has used water in a slightly more resource-efficient way. Reported water abstrac‐ tions decreased in both absolute and relative terms (relative to the naturally available water).

Figure 2. Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services between 2000 and 2010 in Poland; source [84].

**Figure 8.** Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services between 2000 and 2010 in Poland; source [84].

61,4

**•** Several regulating services, in particular those that are related to the presence of trees, woodland, or forests, increased slightly. This is the case for water retention, forest carbon

**•** More land is protected and there is a positive trend in the opportunity for citizens to have

**•** Timber removals have increased and so, did the total timber stock.

**•** There is a substantial increase in net ecosystem productivity.

**•** Pollination potential and habitat quality show a negative trend.

potential, erosion control, and air quality regulation.

access to land with a high recreation potential.

For regulating ecosystem services:

13,7

18 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

21,6 14,2

41,9

‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100

% Change per decade

35,3

32,7

65,6

\*2125

In France, where agriculture historically was more intensive than in Poland, slight decreases or status quo for many indicators were observed while the area under organic farming, timber stock, and forest area was rising (Figure 9).

Harvested production Food crops Fodder crops Energy crops Textile crops

Pollination dependent crops Agricultural area Total organic area Total timber removal Grazing livestock Timber growing stock Water for industrial use Water for agricultural use Water for public use Protective forest area Pollination potential Water retention index Erosion control Soil retention NO2 removal Forest carbon potential Net ecosystem production Pollination crop production deficit

Gross nutrient balance Habitat quality Recreation opportunity

‐10,5

‐3,1

**POLAND**

‐0,5

‐0,3

‐3

‐0,2

‐0,1

‐0,5

0

0,1

0,2

1,7

1,6 3,9 12,4

8,1

4,5

For cultural ecosystem services:

The protection of ecosystems and biodiversity is an important task and a key challenge to the world. The benefits of biodiversity conservation are difficult to notice in a short period of time or to economical evaluation. The benefits of the conservation of the species from extinction are important for future generations, because there may serve substances for medicine, genes useful in breeding, and others. At present, we do not know which plants may prove to be Timber removals have increased and so, did the total timber stock. For regulating ecosystem services: There is a substantial increase in net ecosystem productivity.

Pollination potential and habitat quality show a negative trend.

valuable in the future, which is why it is important to preserve as much gene pool as possible. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high-biodiversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control. Interdepen‐ dencies between different groups of organisms, as well as the interaction between human activities and biodiversity require, however, further research. These studies should be conducted by experts from different disciplines in order to properly assess the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and create a strategy for the development of environ‐ mentally friendly agriculture and sustainable development of rural areas.

### **Acknowledgements**

Publication was elaborated under the project "Protection of species diversity of valuable natural habitats on agricultural lands on Natura 2000 areas in the Lublin Voivodeship" (KIK/ 25) co-financed from the Swiss-Polish Cooperation Funds and multi-annual program of Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation–State Research Institute, task 3.2. Assessment of the directions and agricultural production systems and the possibilities of their implementa‐ tion in the regions and farms.

### **Author details**

Beata Feledyn-Szewczyk\* , Jan Kuś, Jarosław Stalenga, Adam K. Berbeć and Paweł Radzikowski

\*Address all correspondence to: bszewczyk@iung.pulawy.pl

Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State Research Institute, Department of Systems and Economics of Crop Production, Puławy, Poland

### **References**


[4] Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power, Swift MJ. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 1997;277:504-509. DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5325.504.

valuable in the future, which is why it is important to preserve as much gene pool as possible. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high-biodiversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control. Interdepen‐ dencies between different groups of organisms, as well as the interaction between human activities and biodiversity require, however, further research. These studies should be conducted by experts from different disciplines in order to properly assess the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and create a strategy for the development of environ‐

Publication was elaborated under the project "Protection of species diversity of valuable natural habitats on agricultural lands on Natura 2000 areas in the Lublin Voivodeship" (KIK/ 25) co-financed from the Swiss-Polish Cooperation Funds and multi-annual program of Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation–State Research Institute, task 3.2. Assessment of the directions and agricultural production systems and the possibilities of their implementa‐

, Jan Kuś, Jarosław Stalenga, Adam K. Berbeć and

Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation – State Research Institute, Department of

[1] United Nation 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nation Treaty Ser‐

[2] Clergue B, Amiaud B, Pervanchon F, Lasserre-Joulin F, Plantureux S. Biodiversity: Function and assessment in agricultural areas. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.

[3] The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. 2008. European Communities, Luk‐ semburg, 64 p. ISBN-13 978-92-79-08960-2. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/

biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb\_report.pdf (Accessed 29 June 2015).

mentally friendly agriculture and sustainable development of rural areas.

\*Address all correspondence to: bszewczyk@iung.pulawy.pl

Systems and Economics of Crop Production, Puławy, Poland

ies. Rio de Janeiro. 5 June 1992; 1760, I-30619: 143-382.

2005;25(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1051/agro:2004049.

**Acknowledgements**

20 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

tion in the regions and farms.

**Author details**

Paweł Radzikowski

**References**

Beata Feledyn-Szewczyk\*


[31] Snyder WE, Ives AR. Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: Parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology 2003;84(1):91-107.

[18] Thill D C, Lish J M, Callihan R H, Bechinski E J. Integrated weed management—a component of integrated pest management: a critical review. Weed Technol.

[19] Van Elsen T. Species diversity as a task for organic agriculture in Europe. Agric. Eco‐

[20] Marshall EJP, Brown VK, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW, Squire GR, Ward LK. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res. 2003; 43(2):

[21] Hochół T. Weeds or plants accompanying crops. Pamiętnik Puławski 2003;134:90-96.

[22] Hole D G, Perkins A J, Wilson J D, Alexander I H, Grice P V, Evans A D. Does organ‐ ic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 2005;122:113-130. DOI:10.1016/

[23] Gerowitt B, Bertke E, Hespelt SK, Tute C. Towards multifunctional agriculture– weeds as ecological goods? Weed Res. 2003;43:227-235. DOI: 10.1046/j.

[24] Wilson PJ, Aebischer NJ. The distribution of dicotyledonous weeds in relation to dis‐ tance from the field edge. J. Appl. Ecol. 1995;32:295-310. DOI: 10.2307/2405097.

[25] Chamberlain DE, Fuller RJ, Bunce RGH, Duckworth JC, Shrubb M. Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000;37:771-188. DOI: 10.1046/j.

[26] Wilson JD, Morris AJ, Arroyo BE, Clark SC, Bradbury RB. A review of the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern Eu‐

[27] Maloney D, Drummond FA, Alford R. Spider predation in agroecosystems: Can spi‐ ders effectively control pest population? Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiments

[28] Sunderland K. Mechanisms underlying the effects of spiders on pest populations.

[29] Twardowski JP, Pastuszko K. Coastal habitats in agrocenosis of winter wheat as res‐ ervoirs of beneficial beetles (Col. Carabidae). J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2008;53(4):

[30] Purtauf T, Roschewitz I, Dauber J, Thies C, Tscharntke T, Wolters V. Landscape con‐ text of organic and conventional farms: Influences on carabid beetle diversity. Agri‐ culture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2005;108(2):165-174. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.

rope in relation to agricultural change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999;75:13-30.

1991;5:648-656.

j.biocon.2004.07.018.

1365-3180.2003.00340.x.

1365-2664.2000.00548.x.

123-127.

2005.01.005.

Station Technical Bulletin. 2003;340:190.

Journal of Arachnology. 1999:308-316.

syst. Environ. 2000;77:101-109.

22 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

77-89. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3180.2003.00326.x.


functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 2001;294:804-808. DOI:10.1126/science.1064088.


[56] Hyvönen T, Ketoja E, Salonen J, Jalli H, Tiainen J. Weed species diversity and com‐ munity composition in organic and conventional cropping of spring cereals. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003;97:131-149.

functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 2001;294:804-808.

[44] Costanza R, Fisher B, Mulder K, Liu S, Christopher T. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness

[45] Bullock JM, Pywell RF, Burke MJW, Walker KJ. Restoration of biodiversity enhances

[46] Lavelle P T, Decaens M, Aubert M, Barot S, Blouin M, Bureau F, Margerie P, Mora P, Rossi J-P. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Biolo‐

[47] Hillebrandt H, Matthiessen B. Biodiversity in a complex world: Consolidation and progress in functional biodiversity research. Ecol. Lett. 2009;12:1405-1419. DOI:

[48] Harrison PA, et al. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services. 2014;9:191. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.

[49] Grime JP. Biodiversity and ecosystem function: The debate deepens. Science.

[50] Rodriguez MA, Hawkins BA. Diversity, function and stability in parasitoid commun‐

[51] Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson S J, Kubiszewski I, Farber S, Turner R K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Envi‐

[52] Solon J. "Ecosystem Services" concept and its application in landscape-ecological studies. In: Chmielewski TJ (ed.) The structure and functioning of the landscape: A meta-analysis, models, theories, and their applications. Problemy Ekologii Krajobra‐

[53] de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. A typology for the classification, descrip‐ tion and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics.

[54] Andreasen C, Stryhn H, Streibig JC. Decline of the flora in Danish arable fields. J.

[55] Benton TG, Bryant DM, Cole L, Crick HQP. Linking agricultural practice to insect and bird populations: A historical study over three decades. J. Appl. Ecol.

ronmental Change. 2014;26:152-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.

and net primary production. Ecological Economics. 2007;61:478-491.

agricultural production. Ecol. Lett. 2001;4:185-189.

DOI:10.1126/science.1064088.

24 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

gy. 2006; 42(Supplement 1): S3-S15.

10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01388.x.

ities. Ecol. Lett. 2000;3:35-40.

zu. 2008;21:25-44.

2002;41:393-408.

2002;39:273-287.

Appl. Ecol. 1996;33:619-626.

1997;277: 1260-1261. DOI: 10.2307/2892490.

2014.05.006.


Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015;131. DOI: 10.2788/341839.

[85] Batáry P, Báldi A, Sárospataki M, Kohler F, Verhulst J, Knop E, Herzog F, Kleijn D. Effect of conservation management on bees and insect-pollinated grassland plant communites in three European countries. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment. 2010;136:35-39.

[71] Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:

[72] Pruszyński S. Plant protection in different production systems and biodiversity.

[73] Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and la‐ belling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF

[75] Hald AB. Weed vegetation (wild flora) of long established organic versus conven‐

[76] Pfiffner L, Luka H. Effects of low-input farming systems on carabids and epigeial

[77] Bengtsson J, Ahnström J, Weibull AC. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiver‐

[78] Moreby SJ, Aebischer NJ, Souhway SE, Sotherton NW. A comparison of the flora and arthropod fauna of organically and conventionally grown winter wheat in southern

[79] Stolze M, Piorr A, Häring A, Dabbert S. The Environmental Impacts of Organic Farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Stuttgart,

[80] Fuller RJ, Norton LR, Feber RE, Johnson PJ, Chamberlain DE, Joys AC, Mathews F, Stuart RC, Townsend MC, Manley WJ, Wolfe MS, Macdonald DW, Firbank LG. Ben‐ efits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa. Biol. Lett. 2005;1:431-434.

[81] Bavec M, Bavec F. Impact of Organic Farming on Biodiversity. In: Biodiversity in Ecosystems—Linking Structure and Function, Yueh-Hsin Lo, Juan A. Blanco and

[82] Hyvönen T. Can conversion to organic farming restore the species composition of

[83] Hudson LN, Newbold T, Contu S. et. al. The PREDICTS database: A global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts. Ecology and Evolu‐

[84] Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and 2010. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability,

Shovonlal Roy (eds.), 2015;8:185-202. DOI: 10.5772/58974.

arable weed communities? Biol. Conserv. 2007;137:382-390.

32009L0128&from=EN (Acessed 29 June 2015).

[74] Kuś J. Farming systems. Organic farming. IUNG, 1995;45/95:62.

tional cereal fields in Denmark. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1999;14:307-314.

spiders—a paired farm approach. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2003;4:117-127.

sity and abundance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005;42:261-269.

Prog. Plant Protect. 2009;49(3):1091-1101.

England. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1994;125:13-27.

University of Hohenheim, 2000;6:23-90.

tion. 2014;1-35. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1303.

(Accessed 29 June 2015).

26 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

[86] Wuczyński A, Dajdok Z, Wierzcholska S, Kujawa K. Applying red list to the evalua‐ tion of agricultural habitat: Regular occurrence of threatened birds, vascular plants, and bryophytes in field margins of Poland. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2014;23:999-1017.

## **Organic Farming as an Essential Tool of the Multifunctional Agriculture**

Elpiniki Skoufogianni, Alexandra Solomou, Aikaterini Molla and Konstantinos Martinos

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61630

### **Abstract**

This chapter aims at shedding light on the annals of organic farming and at defining its past and present meaning. Low-profile attempts were made in the first half of the last cen‐ tury when it comes to organic farming as it developed almost independently in the Ger‐ man and English speaking world. Organic farming has been established as a promising and innovative method of meeting agricultural needs and food production with respect to sustainability (climate change, food security and safety, biodiversity, rural development). Its value in terms of environmental benefits is also acknowledged. The differences be‐ tween organic and conventional food stem directly from the farming methods that were used during the food items' production. Many people are unaware of some of the differen‐ ces between the two practices. Agriculture has a direct effect on our environment, so un‐ derstanding what goes into it is important. There are serious differences between organic and conventional farming; one of the biggest differences that is observed very frequently across all research between the two farming practices is the effect on the land. Conclusive‐ ly, organic farming is a form of agriculture that relies on ecosystem management and at‐ tempts to reduce or eliminate external agricultural inputs, especially synthetic ones. It is a holistic production management system that promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity.

**Keywords:** Sustainability, environment, health, fertility

### **1. Introduction: History of organic farming**

### **1.1. Growth and spread of the organic ideals**

Many agricultural dogmas claim to strive towards sustainability [1]. Organic farming is the pinnacle of these models, and probably the one that is most acknowledged worldwide in the

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

scientific and political arenas [2, 3], as well as by consumers as a whole. Today, organic farming is a legitimate system due to its history and evolution of practices, and rules and regulations [4, 5, 6, 7].

Organic farming is "a form of agriculture that uses fertilizers and pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) if they are considered natural (such as bone meal from animals), but it excludes or strictly limits the use of various methods, including synthetic petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides; plant growth regulators such as hormones; antibiotic use in livestock; genetically modified organisms etc." [8]. As a result, it relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost, and biological pest control.

Organic farming has dramatically grown in importance and influence worldwide throughout the years. A few statistics tell a fragment of the story: from almost negligible levels during the 1980s, the area of organic farms worldwide spanned to an estimated 43.1 million hectares in 2013 [9]; the worldwide organic market size was worth 54 billion euros in the same year [10]. However, these numbers depict only a part of what organic farming has become; scientists, educators, and agricultural policy makers have been making a change that formally began during the late 1970s. The growth of research on organic farming has been particularly striking, and the number and variety of organic curricula and degrees offered at universities in many countries are vast. At the first International Scientific Conference of the International Federa‐ tion of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), held in Switzerland in 1977, a total of 25 presentations were offered. When the IFOAM conference returned to Switzerland in 2000, that number had multiplied more than 20 times, to well over 500 [11]. Before the 1970s, funds for organic research were extremely limited; today, significant public money is available in many countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are all reported to spend millions per year on organic research [12]. An important component of the advancement of organic farming has been its global spread. Five countries were represented when IFOAM was organized in 1972, and by the late 1990s, it had members from over 100 countries. IFOAM's scientific conferences, which until the mid-1980s had only been held in Western Europe and North America, have since been held in countries as diverse and dis‐ persed as Burkina Faso, Australia, Hungary, and Brazil, among others. Further evidence that organic farming has gone global is that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization has been involved in it since 1999, with activities that include market analysis, environmental impact assessments, improving technical knowledge, and development of standards through the Codex Alimentarius Commission [13]. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Devel‐ opment has been involved in global trade of organic foods since 2001, particularly in assisting developing countries in increasing their production [14].

### **1.2. History**

The concept we know today as 'organic farming' is a mixture of different views coming mainly from German and English-speaking societies. These ideas arose at the end of the 19th century, and between the two World Wars, as intensive and mechanized farming faced a crisis in the form of soil degradation, poor food quality and the decay of rural social life and traditions. Inappropriate use of mineral fertilizers was disturbing plant metabolism, making them susceptible to pathogens and insect pests. At the same time, effective pesticides had not yet been developed. Physiologically acidic mineral fertilizers acidified the soil and brought about diminished root growth and degradation of the soil structure. Soil compaction caused by the use of machinery and reduced organic manuring caused droughts, and soils experienced a decline in fertility – referred to as "soil fatigue" (Bodenmüdigkeit) [15]. Despite the increased use of mineral fertilizers, agriculture suffered a dramatic drop in yields (up to 40% in countries like Germany) after World War I; only at the end of the 1930s – after more than 15 years – did yields reach pre-war levels [16].

scientific and political arenas [2, 3], as well as by consumers as a whole. Today, organic farming is a legitimate system due to its history and evolution of practices, and rules and regulations

Organic farming is "a form of agriculture that uses fertilizers and pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) if they are considered natural (such as bone meal from animals), but it excludes or strictly limits the use of various methods, including synthetic petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides; plant growth regulators such as hormones; antibiotic use in livestock; genetically modified organisms etc." [8]. As a result, it relies on techniques

Organic farming has dramatically grown in importance and influence worldwide throughout the years. A few statistics tell a fragment of the story: from almost negligible levels during the 1980s, the area of organic farms worldwide spanned to an estimated 43.1 million hectares in 2013 [9]; the worldwide organic market size was worth 54 billion euros in the same year [10]. However, these numbers depict only a part of what organic farming has become; scientists, educators, and agricultural policy makers have been making a change that formally began during the late 1970s. The growth of research on organic farming has been particularly striking, and the number and variety of organic curricula and degrees offered at universities in many countries are vast. At the first International Scientific Conference of the International Federa‐ tion of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), held in Switzerland in 1977, a total of 25 presentations were offered. When the IFOAM conference returned to Switzerland in 2000, that number had multiplied more than 20 times, to well over 500 [11]. Before the 1970s, funds for organic research were extremely limited; today, significant public money is available in many countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are all reported to spend millions per year on organic research [12]. An important component of the advancement of organic farming has been its global spread. Five countries were represented when IFOAM was organized in 1972, and by the late 1990s, it had members from over 100 countries. IFOAM's scientific conferences, which until the mid-1980s had only been held in Western Europe and North America, have since been held in countries as diverse and dis‐ persed as Burkina Faso, Australia, Hungary, and Brazil, among others. Further evidence that organic farming has gone global is that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization has been involved in it since 1999, with activities that include market analysis, environmental impact assessments, improving technical knowledge, and development of standards through the Codex Alimentarius Commission [13]. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Devel‐ opment has been involved in global trade of organic foods since 2001, particularly in assisting

The concept we know today as 'organic farming' is a mixture of different views coming mainly from German and English-speaking societies. These ideas arose at the end of the 19th century, and between the two World Wars, as intensive and mechanized farming faced a crisis in the form of soil degradation, poor food quality and the decay of rural social life and traditions.

such as crop rotation, green manure, compost, and biological pest control.

developing countries in increasing their production [14].

[4, 5, 6, 7].

30 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**1.2. History**

Some consumers were worried about declining food quality: food that did not stay fresh, tasteless vegetables and fruits, and pesticide residue based on toxic heavy metals. Increased use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides was discussed by the public as a major cause of this decline. For example, an assumption that an elevated level of potassium in cancer cells was caused by the increased amount of potassium in fertilizers was not something unthought-of. Scientists such as Robert McCarrison in the UK or Werner Schuphan and Johannes Görbing in Germany confirmed some of these suspicions, such as lower vitamin levels in fruits and vegetables caused by increased nitrogen fertilization [17, 18]. Finally, the social and economic situation in the countryside changed dramatically with the mechanization of agriculture, industrialization of the food sector, and import of agricultural products. An imbalance arose between the urban centers; severe economic problems caused by low prices (due to imports) and indebtedness (due to purchase of machines, fertilizers, and pesticides) forced many small and medium-sized farms to give up. As a result, there was a general decline in rural tradition and lifestyle.

As a solution to this crisis, organic farming pioneers offered a convincing, science-based theory during the 1920s and 1930s that evolved into a successful farming system during the 1930s and 1940s. But it was not until the 1970s, with growing awareness of an environmental crisis, that organic farming attracted interest in the wider worlds of agriculture, society, and politics. The leading strategies that proposed to achieve sustainable land use included a biological concept of soil fertility, intensification of farming by biological and ecological innovations, renunciation of artificial fertilizers and synthetic pesticides to improve food quality and the environment and, finally, concepts of appropriate animal husbandry.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1974, a panel of scientists targeted the "organic food myth", calling it "scientific nonsense" and the domain of "food faddists and eccentrics". They also blamed such "pseudoscientists" for causing panic among the public with regard to paying more for food [19] and also mentioned that the "organic myth" was counterproductive to human welfare, because it leads to a rejection of procedures that are needed for the production of nutri‐ tious food at "maximum efficiency" and was "eroding gains of decades of farming advancements". However, 7 years later, the journal of this same AAAS published a major research paper that found organic farms to be highly efficient and economically competi‐ tive when compared to conventional farming [7].

### **2. Comparison of organic and conventional farming system**

In the recent years, agriculture has been oriented towards industrial and notably intensive farming practices aimed at ensuring enough food for humanity. However, these types of farming practices also caused several negative environmental impacts such as decreasing biodiversity. Many agroecosystems intensified their activities and became highly mechanized, while those unable to do so became increasingly marginalized and were sometimes forced to abandon their land, causing evenly destructive effects for biodiversity [20].

Currently, it is globally imperative that the increasing demand for food be met in a manner that is socially fair and ecologically sustainable over the long run. It is possible to design farming systems that are similarly productive and that enhance the provisioning of ecosystem services such as biodiversity, soil quality and nutrient, control of weeds, diseases and pests, energy efficiency, and the reduction of global warming potential, as well as resistance and resilience to climate change and crop productivity [21].

Organic farming is a system that favors soil fertility by maximizing the efficient use of local resources, while foregoing the use of agrochemicals and genetically modified organisms. The high quality of organic food and its added value based on a number of farming practices relies on ecological cycles, and it focuses on declining the environmental effect of the food industry, maintaining long-term sustainability of soil and reducing to a minimum the use of nonrenew‐ able resources [22].

Organic farming practices have been launched to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture. The results of studies that compare the environmental impacts of organic and conventional farming in Europe show that organic farming has a positive impact on the environment. Important differences between the two farming systems include soil organic matter (SOM) content, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, energy use, and land use. Most of the studies that compared biodiversity in organic and conventional farming showed lower environmental impacts from organic farming [23].

Furthermore, organic farming appears to perform better than conventional farming and also provides other important environmental advantages such as curbing the use of harmful chemicals and their spread in the environment and along the trophic chain, and reducing water use [22].

**•** *Health*

Organic practices contribute to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality in food products. In order to understand the importance of consumption of organic food from the viewpoint of toxic pesticide contamination, we should look at the whole picture: from the farmers who do the valuable work of growing food, to the waterways from which we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Organic food can nourish us and keep us healthy without causing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture [24, 25].

The population groups most affected by pesticide use are farmers. These people live in communities near the application of toxic pesticides, where pesticide drift and water contam‐ ination are common. Farmers, both pesticide applicators and fieldworkers who tend to and harvest the crops, come into frequent contact with such pesticides. Organic farming does not utilize these toxic chemicals, and thus eliminates this enormous health hazard to workers, their families, and their communities [25, 26].

Acute pesticide poisoning among farmers is only one aspect of the health consequences of pesticide exposure. Many farmers spend time in the fields, resulting in prolonged exposure, and some studies have reported increased risks of certain types of cancers among farmers as a consequence. The emerging science on endocrine disrupting pesticides reveals another chronic health effect of pesticide exposure [25, 27].

**•** *Environment*

**2. Comparison of organic and conventional farming system**

abandon their land, causing evenly destructive effects for biodiversity [20].

resilience to climate change and crop productivity [21].

32 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

lower environmental impacts from organic farming [23].

able resources [22].

use [22]. **•** *Health*

In the recent years, agriculture has been oriented towards industrial and notably intensive farming practices aimed at ensuring enough food for humanity. However, these types of farming practices also caused several negative environmental impacts such as decreasing biodiversity. Many agroecosystems intensified their activities and became highly mechanized, while those unable to do so became increasingly marginalized and were sometimes forced to

Currently, it is globally imperative that the increasing demand for food be met in a manner that is socially fair and ecologically sustainable over the long run. It is possible to design farming systems that are similarly productive and that enhance the provisioning of ecosystem services such as biodiversity, soil quality and nutrient, control of weeds, diseases and pests, energy efficiency, and the reduction of global warming potential, as well as resistance and

Organic farming is a system that favors soil fertility by maximizing the efficient use of local resources, while foregoing the use of agrochemicals and genetically modified organisms. The high quality of organic food and its added value based on a number of farming practices relies on ecological cycles, and it focuses on declining the environmental effect of the food industry, maintaining long-term sustainability of soil and reducing to a minimum the use of nonrenew‐

Organic farming practices have been launched to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture. The results of studies that compare the environmental impacts of organic and conventional farming in Europe show that organic farming has a positive impact on the environment. Important differences between the two farming systems include soil organic matter (SOM) content, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, energy use, and land use. Most of the studies that compared biodiversity in organic and conventional farming showed

Furthermore, organic farming appears to perform better than conventional farming and also provides other important environmental advantages such as curbing the use of harmful chemicals and their spread in the environment and along the trophic chain, and reducing water

Organic practices contribute to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality in food products. In order to understand the importance of consumption of organic food from the viewpoint of toxic pesticide contamination, we should look at the whole picture: from the farmers who do the valuable work of growing food, to the waterways from which we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we eat. Organic food can nourish us and keep us healthy without causing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture [24, 25]. The population groups most affected by pesticide use are farmers. These people live in communities near the application of toxic pesticides, where pesticide drift and water contam‐

Organic farming is often perceived to have generally beneficial effects on the environment compared to conventional farming [28, 29]. More specifically, organic food production eliminates soil and water contamination. Since organic food production strictly avoids the use of all-synthetic chemicals, it does not pose any risk of soil and underground water contami‐ nation like conventional farming, which uses tons of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Also, organic food production helps preserve local wildlife; by avoiding toxic chemicals, using mixed planting as a natural pest control measure, and maintaining field margins and hedges, organic farming provides a retreat to local wildlife rather than taking away their natural habitat like conventional agriculture [30].

Agrobiodiversity is an important aspect of biodiversity that is directly influenced by different production methods, especially at the field level. It can also supply several ecosystem services to agriculture, thus reducing environmental externalities and the need for off-farm inputs. Moreover, organic farming helps conserve biodiversity. Avoidance of chemicals and use of alternative, all natural farming methods have been shown to help conserve biodiversity as it encourages a natural balance within the ecosystem and helps prevent the domination of a particular species over the others [31].

Various different approaches have been used in order to compare environmental impacts of farming systems, such as organic and conventional. Several studies have focused on biodi‐ versity [31, 32], land use [33], soil properties [34, 35], or nutrient emissions [36, 37]. Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have used a product approach to assess the environmental impacts of a product from input production up to the farm gate [38, 39]. According to the literature, Mondelaers et al. (2009) [40] used the meta-analysis method to compare the environmental impacts of organic and conventional farming, examining land-use efficiency, organic matter content in the soil, nitro-phosphate leaching into the water system, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the effect on biodiversity [23].

In a review of literature, Hole et al. (2005) [31] compared biodiversity in organic and conven‐ tional agroecosystems. They found that organic farming generally had positive impacts on biodiversity. However, they concluded that it is still unclear whether conventional farming with specific practices for biodiversity conservation (i.e., agri-environmental schemes) can provide higher benefits than organic farming. More studies published after 2003 supported the findings of Hole et al. (2005) [31] and Bengtsson et al. (2005) [41], but none found organic

farming to have negative impacts on biodiversity. More specifically, herbaceous plant richness has been widely found to be higher in organic farms compared with conventional farms [42, 43], and several studies showed that landscape had more important impact on biodiversity than farming practices [44, 45]. It has also been found that organic farming, without additional practices, is not adequate for conserving some animal species [23, 44, 46, 48].

The main reason for the reduction of agricultural biodiversity during the last decades has been the change in agricultural landscapes [48, 49]. In Europe, formerly heterogeneous landscapes with a mix of small arable agroecosystems, semi-natural grasslands, wetlands, and hedgerows have been replaced in many areas by largely homogeneous areas of intensively cultivated farms [50]. This has resulted in declines in biodiversity and has caused an important loss of species [23, 51].

Regarding the soil ecosystem, Tuomisto et al. (2012) [23] had found that organic matter across all the cases was 7% higher in organic farms compared to conventional farms. The main explanation for higher organic matter contents in organic systems was that they had higher organic inputs such as manner or compost. Other explanations for higher SOM levels in organic systems were less intensive tillage and inclusion of leys in the rotation [52, 53]. Gosling and Shepherd (2005) [54] observed lower organic matter contents in organic farms by higher yields, and thus, higher crop residue leftovers in conventional systems, which can compensate the lower external organic matter inputs. Furthermore, they argued that leys do not necessarily contribute to the increase of organic matter because they have a low carbon–nitrogen ratio and, therefore, organic matter decomposes quickly.

According to some studies [55, 56], the main explanation for lower nitrogen leaching levels from organic farming per unit of area was the lower levels of nitrogen inputs applied. Raised nitrogen leaching levels were explained by bad synchrony between the nutrient availability and crops' nutrient intake [57]. Notably, after incorporation of leys, the nitrogen losses tend to be high [58].

In conclusion, organic farming is a method of crop and livestock production that considered an environmentally friendly agriculture practice and a holistic approach involving several requirements and prohibitions from a regulatory point of view, and receives primarily from European countries additional agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services such as biodiversity. In several countries, payments are available as single biodiversity measures such as insectary strips, hedgerows, crop rotation, or the retention of semi-natural areas in agrienvironmental programs that also focus on conventional farming.

### **3. Organic farming, conservation agriculture, and sustainability**

This chapter shows the connection between organic farming and sustainability-conservation models, how this interplay has evolved during the past years, and, more importantly, its future directions. Various agricultural models claim to achieve sustainability. Organic farming is one of those candidate models, and probably the most widely known and accepted on an interna‐ tional level. It is recognized in the scientific and political areas as well as by society as a whole. Organic farming has been established as a promising and innovative method of meeting agricultural needs and food production with respect to sustainability (climate change, food security and safety, biodiversity, rural development). Its value in terms of environmental benefits is also acknowledged.

Organic agriculture is developing rapidly, and statistical information is now available from 138 countries in the world. Its share of agricultural land and farms continues to grow in many countries. According to the latest survey on organic farming worldwide, almost 30.4 million hectares are managed organically by more than 700,000 farmers. Most of this land is in Latin America, followed by Asia, Africa, and Europe [9].

Organic farming works in harmony with nature rather than against it, and it involves using techniques to achieve good crop yields, without harming the natural environment, or the people who live and work in it. The methods and materials that organic farmers use are summarized as follows:

### **To keep and build good soil structure and fertility:**


farming to have negative impacts on biodiversity. More specifically, herbaceous plant richness has been widely found to be higher in organic farms compared with conventional farms [42, 43], and several studies showed that landscape had more important impact on biodiversity than farming practices [44, 45]. It has also been found that organic farming, without additional

The main reason for the reduction of agricultural biodiversity during the last decades has been the change in agricultural landscapes [48, 49]. In Europe, formerly heterogeneous landscapes with a mix of small arable agroecosystems, semi-natural grasslands, wetlands, and hedgerows have been replaced in many areas by largely homogeneous areas of intensively cultivated farms [50]. This has resulted in declines in biodiversity and has caused an important loss of

Regarding the soil ecosystem, Tuomisto et al. (2012) [23] had found that organic matter across all the cases was 7% higher in organic farms compared to conventional farms. The main explanation for higher organic matter contents in organic systems was that they had higher organic inputs such as manner or compost. Other explanations for higher SOM levels in organic systems were less intensive tillage and inclusion of leys in the rotation [52, 53]. Gosling and Shepherd (2005) [54] observed lower organic matter contents in organic farms by higher yields, and thus, higher crop residue leftovers in conventional systems, which can compensate the lower external organic matter inputs. Furthermore, they argued that leys do not necessarily contribute to the increase of organic matter because they have a low carbon–nitrogen ratio and,

According to some studies [55, 56], the main explanation for lower nitrogen leaching levels from organic farming per unit of area was the lower levels of nitrogen inputs applied. Raised nitrogen leaching levels were explained by bad synchrony between the nutrient availability and crops' nutrient intake [57]. Notably, after incorporation of leys, the nitrogen losses tend

In conclusion, organic farming is a method of crop and livestock production that considered an environmentally friendly agriculture practice and a holistic approach involving several requirements and prohibitions from a regulatory point of view, and receives primarily from European countries additional agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services such as biodiversity. In several countries, payments are available as single biodiversity measures such as insectary strips, hedgerows, crop rotation, or the retention of semi-natural areas in agri-

This chapter shows the connection between organic farming and sustainability-conservation models, how this interplay has evolved during the past years, and, more importantly, its future directions. Various agricultural models claim to achieve sustainability. Organic farming is one of those candidate models, and probably the most widely known and accepted on an interna‐

environmental programs that also focus on conventional farming.

**3. Organic farming, conservation agriculture, and sustainability**

practices, is not adequate for conserving some animal species [23, 44, 46, 48].

species [23, 51].

to be high [58].

therefore, organic matter decomposes quickly.

34 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production


### **To control pests, diseases, and weeds:**


### **Organic farming also involves:**


Future global food security relies not only on high production and access to food but also on the need to address the destructive effects of current agricultural production systems on ecosystem services [65] and to increase the resilience of the production systems to the effects of climate change. Conservation agriculture (CA) enables the sustainable intensification of agriculture by conserving and enhancing the quality of the soil, leading to higher yields and the protection of the local environment and ecosystem services [67].

CA is a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that strives to achieve acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels, while concurrently conserving the environment. CA is based on enhancing natural biological processes above and below the ground. Interventions such as mechanical soil tillage are reduced to an absolute minimum, and the use of external inputs such as agrochemicals and nutrients of mineral or organic origin are applied at an optimum level and in a way and quantity that does not interfere with, or disrupt, the biological processes.

CA is characterized by three principles which are linked to each other, namely:


It has generally been demonstrated that CA allows yields to increase while improving soil and water conservation, and reducing production costs [60, 64]. In addition, CA has been shown to work successfully in a variety of agroecological zones and farm sizes. Indeed, another advantage associated with CA is that it can be applied to different farming systems, with different combinations of crops, sources of power and production inputs.

There is no real dispute that sustainable agriculture and organic farming are closely related terms. There is, however, some disagreement on the exact nature of this relationship; for some, the two are synonymous, while for others, equating them is misleading. Lampkin's definition of organic farming, quoted earlier, talks of sustainable production systems. Having provided his definition, he goes on to state: "...sustainability lies at the heart of organic farming and is one of the major factors determining the acceptability or otherwise of specific production practices." Similarly, Henning et al. precede their definition of organic farming, quoted above, by claiming that "it could serve equally well as a definition of 'sustainable agriculture'" [59]. Rodale even suggested that "sustainable was just a polite word for organic farming" [63]. Some of the research that has been carried out regarding the historical relationship between agri‐ cultural systems and the sustainability of the societies they support illustrates the point that a farming system need not be modern, mechanized, and using synthetic chemicals to be profoundly unsustainable [61].

Part of the difficulty in assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems, is the fact that both the units of measurement and the appropriate scales for measurement differ both within and across the commonly identified economic, biophysical and social dimensions of sustainability. For example, consideration of the effects of organic production on farm margins, soil fertility, and rural employment are difficult to combine in an overall measure. They are not so prob‐ lematic if the effects are all in the same direction, but when one starts to consider trade-offs, as one indicator increases and another falls across different dimensions, then this factor becomes more significant. This is an issue which will not be solved simply by greater knowl‐ edge of the impacts of different production systems; even with complete information regarding impacts, one will still have to consider trade-offs with movement towards targets in some respects accompanied by reverses in others [61].

### **4. Organic practices**

of climate change. Conservation agriculture (CA) enables the sustainable intensification of agriculture by conserving and enhancing the quality of the soil, leading to higher yields and

CA is a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that strives to achieve acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels, while concurrently conserving the environment. CA is based on enhancing natural biological processes above and below the ground. Interventions such as mechanical soil tillage are reduced to an absolute minimum, and the use of external inputs such as agrochemicals and nutrients of mineral or organic origin are applied at an optimum level and in a way and quantity that does not interfere

**1.** Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance (i.e., no tilling and direct planting of

It has generally been demonstrated that CA allows yields to increase while improving soil and water conservation, and reducing production costs [60, 64]. In addition, CA has been shown to work successfully in a variety of agroecological zones and farm sizes. Indeed, another advantage associated with CA is that it can be applied to different farming systems, with

There is no real dispute that sustainable agriculture and organic farming are closely related terms. There is, however, some disagreement on the exact nature of this relationship; for some, the two are synonymous, while for others, equating them is misleading. Lampkin's definition of organic farming, quoted earlier, talks of sustainable production systems. Having provided his definition, he goes on to state: "...sustainability lies at the heart of organic farming and is one of the major factors determining the acceptability or otherwise of specific production practices." Similarly, Henning et al. precede their definition of organic farming, quoted above, by claiming that "it could serve equally well as a definition of 'sustainable agriculture'" [59]. Rodale even suggested that "sustainable was just a polite word for organic farming" [63]. Some of the research that has been carried out regarding the historical relationship between agri‐ cultural systems and the sustainability of the societies they support illustrates the point that a farming system need not be modern, mechanized, and using synthetic chemicals to be

Part of the difficulty in assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems, is the fact that both the units of measurement and the appropriate scales for measurement differ both within and across the commonly identified economic, biophysical and social dimensions of sustainability. For example, consideration of the effects of organic production on farm margins, soil fertility, and rural employment are difficult to combine in an overall measure. They are not so prob‐ lematic if the effects are all in the same direction, but when one starts to consider trade-offs, as one indicator increases and another falls across different dimensions, then this factor

the protection of the local environment and ecosystem services [67].

CA is characterized by three principles which are linked to each other, namely:

**3.** Diversification of crop species grown in sequence and associations [62].

different combinations of crops, sources of power and production inputs.

with, or disrupt, the biological processes.

36 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**2.** Permanent organic soil cover.

profoundly unsustainable [61].

crop seeds).

Throughout the years, organic farming has evolved in a diverse manner. Many sub-schools and sub-dogmas have appeared. Two of the most important, biointesive farming and perma‐ culture, are discussed below:

### **4.1. Biointesive farming**

Biointensive agriculture aims to result in maximum yields from the minimum area of land, while simultaneously improving and maintaining the fertility of the soil, as well as abiding by the rules of organic farming all the time. It is particularly designed for the small-scale grower. Biointensive cropping strategies (i.e., polycultures) are usually labor intensive [68].

### *4.1.1. Permaculture*

Permaculture emphasizes eco-design [69]. Sepp [70] defines permaculture as a system in which every element fulfills multiple functions, and every function is performed by multiple elements. Energy is used practically and efficiently with a great focus on renewable forms, and diversity is favored instead of monoculture.

### **4.2. Crop rotation**

Crop rotation is a very important piece of all organic cropping systems because it provides the basic function of keeping soils healthy, an efficient way to control pests, and other benefits. Crop rotation is defined as changing the type of crop grown on a particular piece of land from year to year [71]. There are both cyclical rotations, in which the same sequence of crops is repeated on the same field, and noncyclical rotations, in which the sequence of crops is diversified to meet the changing needs of the farmer.

Good crop rotation requires long-term strategic planning. However, planning that is too long term may prove futile as choices can be affected by changes in weather, in the market, labor expenses, and other factors. Conversely, lack of planning can lead to serious problems – for example, the buildup of soil-borne diseases of a critical crop, or imbalances in nutrients [71]. Problems like the ones mentioned above often take several years to become noticed and can catch even experienced farmers by surprise. In fact, rotation problems usually do not develop until well after the transition to organic cropping. Fallowing is also a noted part of crop rotation.

The design of a diverse crop rotation is the key to soil nutrients, weed, pest, and disease management. To achieve even some of these benefits of crop rotation, great focus on manage‐ ment is required, since diversity simply as a goal may lead to losses in production and productivity [72]. Therefore, there is a need for functional diversity [73]. In mixed intercropping, crop cycles tend to be similar to allow simultaneous management of the components (e.g., grass/clover leys or cereal with grain legumes), or completely different to allow separate management (e.g., cereals intercropped with forage legumes). Extremes of mixed intercrop‐ ping systems can be seen in agroforestry [74] or perennial polyculture [75, 76].

Principles guiding the spatial arrangement of crops in polyculture are also well developed, dominantly originating from horticulture; they have been tested through research and developed by trial and error [77, 78, 79] of studies of traditional cropping systems [80, 81, 82].

### **4.3. No till and conservation till farming**

In zero tillage, the soil is left undisturbed from harvest to planting, except for nutrient supply. Planting or drilling is accomplished in a narrow seedbed or slot created by coulters, row cleaners, disk openers, as well as in-row chisels [83]. Weed control is accomplished primarily with herbicides.

Conservation tillage is defined as tillage and planting system that maintains at least 30% of the soil surface covered by residue after planting (CTIC and Conservation Technology Information 1998). There are various benefits to this practice, with the most important being economic (conservation tillage operations reduce costs) and environmental (reduced cultiva‐ tion implies reduced energy inputs [84], thereby ensuring less pollution and less disturbed soil, while organic matter accumulation is increased and CO2 releases to the atmosphere are much reduced [85]).

### **4.4. Mulching**

Mulching is the method of covering the surface of the soil with any decomposable material (grass, hay, leaves, waste etc.) Benefits include the soil is not dried by wind and sun exposure, moisture is reserved and soil erosion is prevented, rich humus is provided to the soil, and soil drainage is improved. It also leads to an increase in soil micro organisms and reduction in weed growth.

### **4.5. Composting**

Composting is a process where microorganisms decompose organic matter to produce a humus-like substance called compost. The process is natural, provided the right organisms, water, oxygen, organic material, and nutrients are in place. By controlling these factors, the composting process can occur at a much faster rate [86]. The bacteria and fungi occurring in the soil convert dead organic matter present on its surface into a nutrient-rich medium. This is called composting, and the nutrient-rich medium is called compost. Following are the benefits of compost, compared to the usage of raw manure:


### **Author details**

ment is required, since diversity simply as a goal may lead to losses in production and productivity [72]. Therefore, there is a need for functional diversity [73]. In mixed intercropping, crop cycles tend to be similar to allow simultaneous management of the components (e.g., grass/clover leys or cereal with grain legumes), or completely different to allow separate management (e.g., cereals intercropped with forage legumes). Extremes of mixed intercrop‐

Principles guiding the spatial arrangement of crops in polyculture are also well developed, dominantly originating from horticulture; they have been tested through research and developed by trial and error [77, 78, 79] of studies of traditional cropping systems [80, 81, 82].

In zero tillage, the soil is left undisturbed from harvest to planting, except for nutrient supply. Planting or drilling is accomplished in a narrow seedbed or slot created by coulters, row cleaners, disk openers, as well as in-row chisels [83]. Weed control is accomplished primarily

Conservation tillage is defined as tillage and planting system that maintains at least 30% of the soil surface covered by residue after planting (CTIC and Conservation Technology Information 1998). There are various benefits to this practice, with the most important being economic (conservation tillage operations reduce costs) and environmental (reduced cultiva‐ tion implies reduced energy inputs [84], thereby ensuring less pollution and less disturbed soil, while organic matter accumulation is increased and CO2 releases to the atmosphere are

Mulching is the method of covering the surface of the soil with any decomposable material (grass, hay, leaves, waste etc.) Benefits include the soil is not dried by wind and sun exposure, moisture is reserved and soil erosion is prevented, rich humus is provided to the soil, and soil drainage is improved. It also leads to an increase in soil micro organisms and reduction in

Composting is a process where microorganisms decompose organic matter to produce a humus-like substance called compost. The process is natural, provided the right organisms, water, oxygen, organic material, and nutrients are in place. By controlling these factors, the composting process can occur at a much faster rate [86]. The bacteria and fungi occurring in the soil convert dead organic matter present on its surface into a nutrient-rich medium. This is called composting, and the nutrient-rich medium is called compost. Following are the

**2.** Compost is environmentally friendly and promotes industry sustainability.

benefits of compost, compared to the usage of raw manure: **1.** Making compost turns waste into a profitable resource.

ping systems can be seen in agroforestry [74] or perennial polyculture [75, 76].

**4.3. No till and conservation till farming**

38 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

with herbicides.

much reduced [85]).

**4.4. Mulching**

weed growth.

**4.5. Composting**

Elpiniki Skoufogianni1 , Alexandra Solomou2\*, Aikaterini Molla3 and Konstantinos Martinos1

\*Address all correspondence to: alexansolomou@gmail.com

1 Laboratory of Agronomy and Applied Crop Physiology, Dept. of Agriculture, Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

2 National Agricultural Research Foundation, Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems Terma Alkmanos, Ilisia, Athens, Greece

3 National Agricultural Research Foundation, Larisa, Greece

### **References**


[7] Lockeretz, W. 'What explains the rise of organic farming', in W. Lockeretz (ed.), Or‐

[9] Lernoud W, Lernoud H, Lernoud J (eds), The World of Organic Agriculture. Statis‐

[10] Organics international, consolidated annual report of IFOAM - Organics Internation‐

[11] Alföldi T, Lockeretz W and Niggli U (eds), IFOAM 2000 – The World Grows Organic. Proceedings of the 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, Basel, 28– 31 Au‐

[12] Slabe A. Consolidated Report: Second Seminar on Organic Food and Farming Re‐ search in Europe: How to Improve Trans-national Co- operation, 2004. Available from: http://www. agronavigator.cz/attachments/CORE\_ seminar\_listopad\_2004.pdf

[13] FAO. Organic agriculture at FAO. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiza‐

[14] Twarog S. UNCTAD's work on organic agriculture. In: Rundgren, G. and Lockeretz, W. (eds) Reader, IFOAM Conference on Organic Guarantee Systems: International Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture, 17–19 February 2002, Nur‐

[15] Vogt G. Entstehung und Entwicklung des ökologischen Landbaus im deutschspra‐

[16] Bittermann E. Die landwirtschaftli- che Produktion in Deutschland 1800–1950. Kühn-

[17] McCarrison R and Viswanath, B. The effect of manural conditions on the nutritive and vitamin values of millet and wheat. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 1926; 14:

[18] Schuphan W. Untersuchungen über wichtige Qualitätsfehler des Knollenselleries bei gleichzeitiger Berücksichtigung der Veränderung wertgebender Stoffgruppen durch

[20] Lockeretz W, Shearer G and Kohl D. Organic Farming in the Corn Belt. Science. 1981;

[21] European Commission. The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 [internet]. 2011. Availa‐ ble from: http://ec.euro.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/

die Düngung. Bodenkunde und Pflanzenernährung. 1937; 2: 255–304.

[19] Washington Post. Organic farming "scientific nonsense". 1974.

2020%20Biod%20brochure%20final%20lowres.pdf.

ganic Farming: An International History. Wallingford, CABI, 2007.

tics and Emerging Trends 2015. FiBL-IFOAM Report. Bonn, 2015.

tion. 2005. Available from: www.fao.org/organicag.

chigen Raum. Bad Dürkheim: SÖL, 2000.

Archiv. 1956; 70: 1–145.

351–378.

211: 540–547.

emberg, Germany. IFOAM, Tholey-Theley, Germany, 2002.

[8] European Commission official website, 2014.

40 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

al. Bonn, 2014.

gust, 2000.


dy soil in western Finland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2006; 113: 342-348.


[51] Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2003; 18: 182-188.

dy soil in western Finland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2006; 113:

[38] Trydeman Knudsen M, Sillebak Kristensen IB, Berntsen J, Molt Petersen B, Steen Kristensen E. Estimated N leaching losses for organic and conventional farming in

[39] Cederberg C, Mattsson B. Life cycle assessment of milk production- a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2000; 8: 49-60. [40] Thomassen MA, van Calker KJ, Smits MCJ, Iepema GL. de Boer, I.J.M., Life cycle as‐ sessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricul‐

[41] Mondelaers K, Aertsens J, Van Huylenbroeck G. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. British Food

[42] Bengtsson J, Ahnstrom J, Weibull AC. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiver‐ sity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2005; 42: 261-269.

[43] Gabriel D, Roschewitz I, Tscharntke T. Thies, C., Beta diversity at different spatial scales: plant communities in organic and conventional agriculture. Ecological Appli‐

[44] Romero A, Chamorro L, Sans FX. Weed diversity in crop edges and inner fields of organic and conventional dryland winter cereal crops in NE Spain. Agriculture, Eco‐

[45] Piha M, Tiainen J, Holopainen J, Vepsalainen V. Effects of land-use and landscape characteristics on avian diversity and abundance in a boreal agricultural landscape with organic and conventional farms. Biological Conservation. 2007; 140: 50-61. [46] Rundlof M, Nilsson H, Smith HG. Interacting effects of farming practice and land‐ scape context on bumblebees. Biological Conservation. 2008; 141: 417-426.

[47] Kragten S, Snoo GRD. Nest success of Lapwings Vanellus vanellus on organic and

[48] Ekroos J, Piha M, Tiainen J. Role of organic and conventional field boundaries on boreal bumblebees and butterflies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2008;

[49] Luoto M, Pykala J, Kuussaari M. Decline of landscape-scale habitat and species di‐ versity after the end of cattle grazing. Journal for Nature Conservation (Jena) 2003;

[50] Gabriel D, Thies C, Tscharntke T. Local diversity of arable weeds increases with landscape complexity. Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics 2005;

conventional arable farms in the Netherlands. Ibis 2007; 149: 742-749.

Denmark. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2006; 144: 135-149.

342-348.

42 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

tural Systems. 2008; 96: 95-107.

Journal. 2009; 111: 1098-1119.

cations. 2006; 16: 2011-2021.

124: 155-159.

11: 171-178.

7: 85-93.

systems & Environment. 2008; 124: 97-104.


nous and Naturalized Systems in Agriculture." M. K. Harris, and C. E. Rogers (eds), 1988; 39–71.

[80] Theunissen J. Intercropping in field vegetables as an approach to sustainable horti‐ culture. Outlook on Agriculture 1997; 26: 95–99.

[64] York E.T. Jr.Agricultural sustainability and its implications to the horticulture profes‐ sion and the ability to meet global food needs. HortScience. 1991; 26(10): 1252–1256.

[66] Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sus‐ tainability. Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London, 2011.

[67] Friedrich T., Kassam A., Shaxson F. Conservation Agriculture (CA). Agricultural Technologies for Developing Countries, Annex 2. European Technology Assessment

[68] Willer H, Yussefi M, Sorensen N. The world of organic agriculture: statistics and

[69] Guthman, J. Agrarian Dreams. The paradox of organic farming in California. Berke‐

[70] Mollison B, Holmgren D. Permaculture one: a perennial agriculture for human settle‐

[71] Holzer S. Sepp Holzer's permaculture: A practical guide to small-scale, integrative farming and gardening, Chelsea Green Publishing White River Junction, Vermont,

[72] Charles LM and Johnson SE (eds), Crop Rotation on Organic Farms: A Planning

[73] Altieri M A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture Eco‐

[74] Stockdale EA, Lampkin NH, Hovi M, Keatinge R, Lennartsson EKM, Macdonald DW, Padel S, Tattersall FH, Wolfe MS, Watson CA. Agronomic and environmental implications of organic farming systems. Advances in Agronomy. 2001; 70: 261-327.

[75] Nair PK. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. Neuerburg, W., and Padel, S. (1992). In "Organisch-Biologischer Landbau in der

[76] Jackson W. In "New Roots for Agriculture." Friends of the Earth, San Francisco. Jan‐ sen, K. (1999). Labour, livelihoods and the quality of life in organic agriculture. Bio‐

[77] Soule JD and Piper JK. In "Farming in Nature's Image: an Ecological Approach to

[78] Lockhart, JAR and Wiseman AJL. In "Introduction to Crop Husbandry Including

[79] Finch S. Entomology of crucifers and agriculture—diversification of the agroecosys‐ tem in re- lation to pest damage in cruciferous crops. In "The Entomology of Indige‐

[65] FAO, 2001b. The economics of conservation agriculture. FAO. Rome, Italy.

Group, FAO, Rome. 2008.

44 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

emerging trends 2008, 2010.

Manual, NRAES 177, 2009.

2001.

ley, University of California Press. 2004.

systems & Environment. 1991; 74: 19–31.

Praxis." BLVVerlag, München, 1993.

logical Agriculture and Horticulture 1980; 17: 247–278.

Agriculture." Island Press, Washington D.C., 1992.

Grass- land." Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1988.

ments. Transworld (Corgi, Bantam), Melbourne. 1978.


## **Pollution Prevention, Best Management Practices, and Conservation**

Maliha Sarfraz, Mushtaq Ahmad, Wan Syaidatul Aqma Wan Mohd Noor and Muhammad Aqeel Ashraf

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61246

### **Abstract**

Farming imposes unenthusiastic externalities upon society. It effects by differ‐ ent sources such as loss of biodiversity, land erosion, nutrient overflow, more water usage and pesticides. Optimistic externalities include respect of nature, independence, free enterprise, and the quality of air. Natural methods decrease some of these costs. It has been proposed that organic farming can reduce the level of some negative externalities from (conventional) farming. Organic farming seems to be more appropriate as it considers important aspects such as sustainable natural resources and the environment. For sustainable agricul‐ ture, the most important key is the conservation of natural resources. As natu‐ ral resources become increasingly short in supply, in the coming years the transition to a more resource-efficient economy must be a top priority. Agricul‐ ture is the most important sector for ensuring food security for next genera‐ tions while decreasing the resource use and increasing resource recycling. Various studies have been conducted to compare organic and conventional farming systems and the result shows that organic techniques are less damag‐ ing than conventional ones because of the decreased level of biodiversity, less use of energy, and lesser amount of waste production. The researchers of vari‐ ous studies concluded that comparing conventional and organic farming dem‐ onstrated that organic agriculture poses lower environmental impacts. However, researchers believe that the perfect result would be the expansion of ways to produce the uppermost yields possible by the combination of these two farming systems and to develop the new system for environment, land, and sustainable forests. Biodiversity from organic farming provides assets to humans. Species found in organic farms increase sustainability by decreasing human inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers.

**Keywords:** Organic foods, externalizes, environment, impact assessment, conservation

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **1. Introduction**

At present, across the world, industrialized and industrializing countries are consuming the earth's resources at an alarming rate. The world population is continually on the climb. More people on earth and changing their consumption pattern increase their essential requirements for more basic human needs like food, water, shelter and energy. This leads to suggest that an essential rethink of the way we manage our natural resources.

Rising means of agriculture farming is the reason that human lives in the world today. For survival these are the necessary means without which there would be famines all over the world. From many thousands of years agricultural farming was a natural process that did not harm the land it was done on. Farmers used such methods for agriculture that after passing of many generations soil would still be fertile as ever, while modern agricultural practices have started the process of agricultural pollution and this causes the degradation of land, environ‐ ment and ecosystem due to by-products of agriculture. No particular cause can be credited to the extensive agricultural pollution we face today. Agriculture is a multifaceted activity in which the growth of crops and livestock has to be balanced completely. Agricultural pollution progression stems from the many stages their growth goes through.

To be well thought-out a best management practice, an action is required which increase the crop production while reducing the impact on environment. This means that for healthy crop using the best management like reducing the pesticide treatment. Soil plays a very important role for healthy crops and its management is very necessary, it may be challenged by intensive production of horticultural crops. Farming technologies degrade the natural resource base because they require high toxic chemicals. Organic farming rely on the management of soil organic matter to increase the physical, biological and chemical properties of soil for optimi‐ zation of crop production. Soil management controls the supply of nutrients to the crops. Soil processes furthermore play a key role in suppressing the pests, weeds and diseases. Agricul‐ tural research based on technology should be developed by specialist and then transferred to the farmers through demonstration. Environmentally friendly farming system relies on minimal chemical use like pesticide and herbicide because they play an important role in erosion control. Several authors have already described the potential effects of conventional farming versus organic farming on soil erosion control (Lotter etal, 2003; Erhart and Hartl, 2010, Goh, 2011).

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements standards suggested that by using the minimal tillage, crop selection criteria, maintenance of soil plant cover and other methods which reduce the soil erosion, organic farmers should reduce the loss of top soil cover for better production of crops. Conservation tillage should be adopted by organic farmers especially if they are located in areas susceptible to erosion (IFOAM, 2000). The nutrient contribution is very important in organic farming. By organic manure and rotation nitrogen fixed in the legumes and supplied to the crop. Tillage is also very important because it contributes in incorporation and distribution of nitrogen in the topsoil (Koepke, 2003). This chapter explores how organic farmers can utilize a range of management practices to develop and maintain the soil fertility in order to achieve these wider goals.

### **1.1. Organic farming**

**1. Introduction**

48 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

2010, Goh, 2011).

At present, across the world, industrialized and industrializing countries are consuming the earth's resources at an alarming rate. The world population is continually on the climb. More people on earth and changing their consumption pattern increase their essential requirements for more basic human needs like food, water, shelter and energy. This leads to suggest that an

Rising means of agriculture farming is the reason that human lives in the world today. For survival these are the necessary means without which there would be famines all over the world. From many thousands of years agricultural farming was a natural process that did not harm the land it was done on. Farmers used such methods for agriculture that after passing of many generations soil would still be fertile as ever, while modern agricultural practices have started the process of agricultural pollution and this causes the degradation of land, environ‐ ment and ecosystem due to by-products of agriculture. No particular cause can be credited to the extensive agricultural pollution we face today. Agriculture is a multifaceted activity in which the growth of crops and livestock has to be balanced completely. Agricultural pollution

To be well thought-out a best management practice, an action is required which increase the crop production while reducing the impact on environment. This means that for healthy crop using the best management like reducing the pesticide treatment. Soil plays a very important role for healthy crops and its management is very necessary, it may be challenged by intensive production of horticultural crops. Farming technologies degrade the natural resource base because they require high toxic chemicals. Organic farming rely on the management of soil organic matter to increase the physical, biological and chemical properties of soil for optimi‐ zation of crop production. Soil management controls the supply of nutrients to the crops. Soil processes furthermore play a key role in suppressing the pests, weeds and diseases. Agricul‐ tural research based on technology should be developed by specialist and then transferred to the farmers through demonstration. Environmentally friendly farming system relies on minimal chemical use like pesticide and herbicide because they play an important role in erosion control. Several authors have already described the potential effects of conventional farming versus organic farming on soil erosion control (Lotter etal, 2003; Erhart and Hartl,

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements standards suggested that by using the minimal tillage, crop selection criteria, maintenance of soil plant cover and other methods which reduce the soil erosion, organic farmers should reduce the loss of top soil cover for better production of crops. Conservation tillage should be adopted by organic farmers especially if they are located in areas susceptible to erosion (IFOAM, 2000). The nutrient contribution is very important in organic farming. By organic manure and rotation nitrogen fixed in the legumes and supplied to the crop. Tillage is also very important because it contributes in incorporation and distribution of nitrogen in the topsoil (Koepke, 2003). This chapter explores how organic farmers can utilize a range of management practices to develop

essential rethink of the way we manage our natural resources.

progression stems from the many stages their growth goes through.

and maintain the soil fertility in order to achieve these wider goals.

In organic farming, food is grown and processed using no synthetic fertilizers, but pesticides derived from natural sources may be used in producing organically grown food (NOSB 1995). Organic farms reduce some of the negative impacts of conventional farming such as soil erosion and leaching of carbon and nitrogen [1-3]. Organic production has been practiced in the United States since the late 1940s. From that time, the industry has grown from experi‐ mental garden plots to large farms where products are formed and sold with specific organic labels. More than forty different state agencies currently certify organic food but their stand‐ ards are different. According to the organic food production act of 1990, there would be a national list in which the synthetic and non-synthetic substances mentioned cannot be used in organic farming. Organic farming can contribute to protect the environment and nature conservation [4-5].

### **1.2. Principles of organic agricultural**


### **1.3. Regulations for organic farming**

The National Organic Program proposed some regulations that will ensure that organically labeled products meet consistent national standards.


### **1.4. Environmental benefits of organic farming**

Organic farming considers the intermediate and enduring end product of farming interven‐ tions on the agro-ecosystem. Organic farming aims to manufacture food, whereas establishing an ecological equilibrium for prevention of soil fertility and other related problems. This method takes a positive move forward, as opposite to treating the problems when they come into view.

### *1.4.1. Soil*

Soil structure practices such as crop rotations, symbiotic associations, and organic fertilizers are middle to organic practices. These promote soil fauna and flora by improving soil formation and structure. In turn, nutrient and energy cycling is increased and the retentive abilities of the soil for nutrients and water are enhanced, compensating for the non-use of mineral fertilizers. In soil erosion control such management techniques also play an important role. Crop export of nutrients is usually compensated by farm-derived renewable resources, but it is sometimes necessary to supplement organic soils with potassium, phosphate, calcium, magnesium, and trace elements from external sources [6-8].

### *1.4.2. Air*

Organic farming reduces non-renewable energy use by decreasing agrochemical needs. It contributes to mitigating the greenhouse effect and global warming through its ability to appropriate carbon in the soil. Many running practices include recurring yield residues to the soil, use of crop rotations, returning of carbon to the soil for increasing the productivity, and increasing addition of nitrogen-fixing legumes. In many different studies, it was reported that the soils under organic farming have more carbon content as compared to other soils. The more organic carbon is retained in the soil, the more the mitigation potential of agriculture against climate change is higher [9-11].

### *1.4.3. Water*

Pollution of ground water with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a major problem in many cultivation areas. Synthetic fertilizers are prohibited in organic farming, they are replaced by compost, animal manure, green manure (organic fertilizers), and through the use of greater biodiversity they contribute to enhance the structure of soil and water infiltration capacity. Risk of ground water pollution may be greatly reduced by properly managed organic systems. Organic agriculture is greatly expectant as an uplifting measure in those areas where pollution is a genuine dilemma [12].

### *1.4.4. Genetically modified organisms*

**•** In the livestock standards, slaughtering of animals must be raised under organic manage‐ ment, organically raised animals may not be given hormones to promote growth, and all organically raised animals must have access to the outdoors, including access to pasture for

**•** The handling standards say that all non-agricultural ingredients must be included on the

Organic farming considers the intermediate and enduring end product of farming interven‐ tions on the agro-ecosystem. Organic farming aims to manufacture food, whereas establishing an ecological equilibrium for prevention of soil fertility and other related problems. This method takes a positive move forward, as opposite to treating the problems when they come

Soil structure practices such as crop rotations, symbiotic associations, and organic fertilizers are middle to organic practices. These promote soil fauna and flora by improving soil formation and structure. In turn, nutrient and energy cycling is increased and the retentive abilities of the soil for nutrients and water are enhanced, compensating for the non-use of mineral fertilizers. In soil erosion control such management techniques also play an important role. Crop export of nutrients is usually compensated by farm-derived renewable resources, but it is sometimes necessary to supplement organic soils with potassium, phosphate, calcium,

Organic farming reduces non-renewable energy use by decreasing agrochemical needs. It contributes to mitigating the greenhouse effect and global warming through its ability to appropriate carbon in the soil. Many running practices include recurring yield residues to the soil, use of crop rotations, returning of carbon to the soil for increasing the productivity, and increasing addition of nitrogen-fixing legumes. In many different studies, it was reported that the soils under organic farming have more carbon content as compared to other soils. The more organic carbon is retained in the soil, the more the mitigation potential of agriculture against

Pollution of ground water with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a major problem in many cultivation areas. Synthetic fertilizers are prohibited in organic farming, they are replaced by compost, animal manure, green manure (organic fertilizers), and through the use of greater biodiversity they contribute to enhance the structure of soil and water infiltration capacity. Risk of ground water pollution may be greatly reduced by properly managed organic systems.

National List of Allowed Synthetic and Prohibited Non-synthetic Substances.

**1.4. Environmental benefits of organic farming**

50 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

magnesium, and trace elements from external sources [6-8].

ruminants.

into view.

*1.4.1. Soil*

*1.4.2. Air*

*1.4.3. Water*

climate change is higher [9-11].

The use of these within organic systems is not permitted during any stage of organic food production because their potential impact on health and environment is not entirely under‐ stood. Organic farming encourages natural biodiversity. The organic label provides an assurance that these organisms have not been used intentionally in the production and processing of organic products. In conventional farming, increasing the use of genetically modified organism and due to the method of transmission of these organism in the environ‐ ment (through pollen), organic farming will not be able to ensure that organic products are completely free from genetically modified organism in the future [13-15].

### *1.4.5. Biological services*

The collision of natural farming on usual resources favors connections that are vital for both organic production and nature protection within the agro-ecology. Biological services results include stabilization forming and conditioning of soil, nutrient and waste recycling, predation and habitats. Development of pollution-free agriculture systems depends upon the consumer's purchasing power to buy organic products [6-7].

### **2. Pollution prevention in organic farming**

Getting higher resources of farming and cultivation is why humans live in this world. Farming is an essential resource of continued existence; the lack of these resources leads to famines all over the world. Organic farming was a natural process for the last several years that did not harm the land; many generations of crops have been produced without affecting the fertility of soil. However, modern farming practices have started farming pollution that affects the ecosystem, land, and environment. Farming is a multifaceted activity in which the growth of crops and livestock has to be balanced perfectly [16].

### **2.1. Causes of farming pollution**

### *2.1.1. Fertilizers*

In earlier days, fertilizers have been considered the source of pollution, but in modern days, they treat local pests with new persistent species that have existed for many years and they are loaded with chemicals that are not natural. When pesticides have been sprayed, it mixes with the water and seeps into the ground. Plants absorb the leftover pesticide, and as a result, local streams become contaminated. When these crops are eaten by animals, they are also affected [17].

### *2.1.2. Livestock*

In the past, livestock (cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens) were fed with natural diets, which was supplemented by the waste left over from the crops, and farmers would like to keep them on land. Thus, the animals helped to maintain the farm health as well. But these days, livestock is raised in overcrowded areas, fed with unnatural diets, and sent to slaughterhouses regularly. They cause farming pollution by means of emissions [18].

### *2.1.3. Weeds and pest*

Reducing the natural species and growing unusual crops has become the standard in farming in different areas. The entry of new crops in the local market has resulted in new pest diseases and weeds that the population is not capable of fighting. As a result, local vegetation and wildlife are destroyed permanently. This simply adds to the process of farming pollution [19].

### *2.1.4. Contaminated water*

One source of pollution is the use of contaminated water for irrigation. The water we use comes from ground water reservoirs that are clean and pure water. Other sources are polluted with organic compounds and heavy metals due to the disposal of industrial and agricultural wastes in local bodies of water. As a result, crops are exposed to that water and the process of agricultural pollution becomes harder to fight when such water poisons the livestock and causes crop failure.

### *2.1.5. Sedimentation*

Soil has many layers but only the top layer supports farming. One common reason for the declining soil fertility is inefficient farming practices. Due to these practices, soil left open is eroded by water and wind. This soil is then deposited somewhere and causes sedimentation. This sedimentation causes soil rise in areas such as rivers, streams, ditches, and surrounding fields, and the process of agricultural pollution prevents the natural movement of water, aquatic animals, and nutrients to other fertile areas.

### **2.2. Effects of farming pollution**

### *2.2.1. Effects on aquatic animals*

Organic matter such as ammonia or fertilizers turned into nitrate decreases the level of oxygen in the water and causes the death of many aquatic animals. From animal wastes, bacteria and parasites can get into drinking water, which can cause serious health problems for a variety of aquatic life and animals. It is a hard issue to keep farming pollution in check as it seems. It is difficult to keep track of water levels, soil cleanliness, and industrial pollution. For the last few years, governments have become stricter about enforcing rules. Farmers are becoming aware about the damages and are looking for solutions; most of them are moving toward conventional farming. But for the process of farming pollution to be fully reigned in, there has to be a complete shift in the way cultivation is practiced.

### *2.2.2. Effects on health*

*2.1.2. Livestock*

*2.1.3. Weeds and pest*

*2.1.4. Contaminated water*

causes crop failure.

*2.1.5. Sedimentation*

In the past, livestock (cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens) were fed with natural diets, which was supplemented by the waste left over from the crops, and farmers would like to keep them on land. Thus, the animals helped to maintain the farm health as well. But these days, livestock is raised in overcrowded areas, fed with unnatural diets, and sent to slaughterhouses regularly.

Reducing the natural species and growing unusual crops has become the standard in farming in different areas. The entry of new crops in the local market has resulted in new pest diseases and weeds that the population is not capable of fighting. As a result, local vegetation and wildlife are destroyed permanently. This simply adds to the process of farming pollution [19].

One source of pollution is the use of contaminated water for irrigation. The water we use comes from ground water reservoirs that are clean and pure water. Other sources are polluted with organic compounds and heavy metals due to the disposal of industrial and agricultural wastes in local bodies of water. As a result, crops are exposed to that water and the process of agricultural pollution becomes harder to fight when such water poisons the livestock and

Soil has many layers but only the top layer supports farming. One common reason for the declining soil fertility is inefficient farming practices. Due to these practices, soil left open is eroded by water and wind. This soil is then deposited somewhere and causes sedimentation. This sedimentation causes soil rise in areas such as rivers, streams, ditches, and surrounding fields, and the process of agricultural pollution prevents the natural movement of water,

Organic matter such as ammonia or fertilizers turned into nitrate decreases the level of oxygen in the water and causes the death of many aquatic animals. From animal wastes, bacteria and parasites can get into drinking water, which can cause serious health problems for a variety of aquatic life and animals. It is a hard issue to keep farming pollution in check as it seems. It is difficult to keep track of water levels, soil cleanliness, and industrial pollution. For the last few years, governments have become stricter about enforcing rules. Farmers are becoming aware about the damages and are looking for solutions; most of them are moving toward conventional farming. But for the process of farming pollution to be fully reigned in, there has

They cause farming pollution by means of emissions [18].

52 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

aquatic animals, and nutrients to other fertile areas.

to be a complete shift in the way cultivation is practiced.

**2.2. Effects of farming pollution**

*2.2.1. Effects on aquatic animals*

The main source of pollution in water and lakes is farming pollution. Fertilizers and pesticide chemicals are absorbed by ground water and end up in drinking water and cause severe health problems. Oils, degreasing agents, metals, and toxins from farm equipment cause health problems when they get into drinking water.

### **2.3. Pollution prevention practices**

Pollution prevention means reducing the originating of wastes. This will include practices that conserve natural resources by eliminating pollutants through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water, and land. Pollution prevention minimizes pollution at the source, so pollution is not created in the first place and never enters into the environment. Environmental prevention has involved controlling and treating the pollution, which in many cases we continue to create. It is helpful in reducing the risks on health and the environment in many ways, such as eliminating the risks associated with the release of pollutants to the environment, avoiding the shift of pollutants from one medium to another medium, and protecting the natural resources for future generations. Pollution prevention can be promoted through several ways such as using voluntary pollution reduction programs, engaging in partnerships, providing technical assistance, funding demonstration projects, and incorporat‐ ing cost-effective pollution prevention alternatives into regulations. It also involves using systematic management methods such as grass and tree planting technology, improvement of medium and low farmland, and overall use of rural energy resources in order to deal with and improve the ecological environment [20].

### **3. Management practices in organic farming**

In production methods, soil texture plays a bigger role. It influences when a producer can till, the types of tillage methods used, and the frequency of green manure crops. The production methods developed are suited to the climate and soil texture of their farms.

### **3.1. Healthy soil**

In an organic farming system, soil health is the key to success. Soil health can be assessed qualitatively. Many producers look for a dark, rich-colored soil with earthy smell and good organic matter. Earthy smell indicates that the soil is rich of microorganisms, which are vital to soil health. Some take a note of wildlife attraction to the field; birds can be a good indication of earthworms and other organisms. Some producers note the color of leaves and the devel‐ opment of root systems as crops grow; yellow leaves indicate low nitrogen levels, red color and dead spots indicate a plant is under stress, and dark green color with slow growth indicates low nutrient levels. Weeds growing in the field indicate which nutrients are available in the soil; they require the same nutrients but in different amounts. Fertile soil is called healthy soil; it contains sufficient chemical nutrients (macronutrients and micronutrients) for plant growth. Those needed in larger amounts are called macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, sulfur, and potassium. Among them, nitrogen is commonly limited to plants and it is abundant in air; few free-living microbes and rhizobium associated with legumes can fix the nitrogen from air. While other minerals can move into the soil from the underlying rocks. When products are removed from the farm ecosystem, nutrients are removed from the soil. Among them, nitrogen is removed in the largest quantities, but fortunately it can be replaced from the air. Fertile soils can be easily tilled and have good structure, it allows good penetration and absorption of nutrients. Biological fertility such as microbes cycle chemical nutrients available via the breakdown of plant residue and animal wastes. They form a symbiotic relationship with the plants that increase the amount of soil that plants are able to search the nutrients.

### *3.1.1. Soil test*

To check the level of soil fertility and nutrients, soil test may be needed. Soil test provide information about soil nutrients, pH, and organic matter. Some soil test results include macronutrients. These soil tests typically provide recommendations about fertilizers in farming. Soil testing can be beneficial for organic producers. Long-term changes in soil fertility help the producers to adjust soil management strategies such as crop selection, rotation, and green manure. Experienced producers do not feel the need to test the soil; they evaluate the health of the soil using production yield. For the soil test, it is very important that soil samples be collected and stored properly according to the instructions of the laboratory, especially in the case of soil biology, as soil organisms can die or multiply rapidly and this may invalidate the results. A few soil tests that are used by organic producers are as follows:


### *3.1.2. Soil biology*

Soil biology can be encouraged by several methods. Many experienced producers suggest that green manure is one of the best methods to maintain the life of soil; other methods are animal manure and straw residue, selecting good rotation, and reducing tillage. Many farmers recommended that all straw be worked back into the soil to return the nutrients. They provide microorganism to increase the organic matter of the soil. Legume incorporation causes a change in microbial population toward greater metabolic activity and increases organic matter. Soil microorganisms are also affected by tillage; mostly producers try to keep less tillage operation and maintain some cover on all fields throughout the growing season. For this purpose, green manure is the best strategy as it covers the land and protects it from drying out. Organic producers must care and try to avoid methods that increase the soil erosion and kill soil microbes [21].

### *3.1.3. Soil organic matter*

Those needed in larger amounts are called macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, sulfur, and potassium. Among them, nitrogen is commonly limited to plants and it is abundant in air; few free-living microbes and rhizobium associated with legumes can fix the nitrogen from air. While other minerals can move into the soil from the underlying rocks. When products are removed from the farm ecosystem, nutrients are removed from the soil. Among them, nitrogen is removed in the largest quantities, but fortunately it can be replaced from the air. Fertile soils can be easily tilled and have good structure, it allows good penetration and absorption of nutrients. Biological fertility such as microbes cycle chemical nutrients available via the breakdown of plant residue and animal wastes. They form a symbiotic relationship with the plants that increase the amount of soil that plants are able to search the nutrients.

To check the level of soil fertility and nutrients, soil test may be needed. Soil test provide information about soil nutrients, pH, and organic matter. Some soil test results include macronutrients. These soil tests typically provide recommendations about fertilizers in farming. Soil testing can be beneficial for organic producers. Long-term changes in soil fertility help the producers to adjust soil management strategies such as crop selection, rotation, and green manure. Experienced producers do not feel the need to test the soil; they evaluate the health of the soil using production yield. For the soil test, it is very important that soil samples be collected and stored properly according to the instructions of the laboratory, especially in the case of soil biology, as soil organisms can die or multiply rapidly and this may invalidate

**1.** Soil food web Canada, Inc., measures the biodiversity (quantity of bacteria, fungi, and nematodes) in the soil, suggests optimal levels for different crops, and provides sugges‐

**2.** Western Ag Innovations Inc. evaluates soil fertility by using a Plant Root Simulator probe. For this purpose, probes are placed in the soil for different time periods and measure the level of nutrient across the membrane. It will give a good estimate of nutrients available

**3.** Kinsey's Agricultural Services analyze the soil sample by using the Albrecht system. Their recommendations are based on fertilizer preference, crop history, and type of operations.

**4.** ALS Laboratory group assesses the level of macronutrients and micronutrients in the soil. This test measures the level of nutrients that can be extracted, including organic matter,

Soil biology can be encouraged by several methods. Many experienced producers suggest that green manure is one of the best methods to maintain the life of soil; other methods are animal manure and straw residue, selecting good rotation, and reducing tillage. Many farmers recommended that all straw be worked back into the soil to return the nutrients. They provide

the results. A few soil tests that are used by organic producers are as follows:

tions to increase the activity of soil.

54 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

pH, and cation exchange capacity.

to the plants.

*3.1.2. Soil biology*

*3.1.1. Soil test*

Organic matter is the key for maintaining water holding capability and soil health. Animal and plant residue, along with the soil organisms such as bacteria, fungi and nematodes, are the component of organic matter remains in the soil worked from year to year. As a result of climate and vegetation that existed before the land was broken, organic matter is formed. The four different divisions of soil organic matter are fresh organic matter, decomposing organic matter, stable organic matter, and living organism. When fresh organic plant material is added to the soil, microbes break it down and this moderately decomposed organic matter holds nutrients for growing plants. In the decomposition process, stabilized organic matter is the final product; it provides structure to the soil resulting in good aeration and water holding ability [22].

### *3.1.4. Soil applied*

Some experienced producers use calcium, sulfur, gypsum, and rock phosphate after soil tests indicate low levels of nutrients. To improve the soil biology, microbial organisms are also used.

### *3.1.5. Foliar applied inputs*

Some producers use foliar sprays as inputs on the plant when it is growing. These can be used to control the disease or to reduce the risk of disease. Most often, the intention is to feed the helpful organisms that reduce the risk of pathogens.

### *3.1.6. Manure and compost*

Manure is an excellent organic fertilizer; its use is highly regulated by organic standards. To build the soil fertility many livestock producers use it. It can be used in different forms such as organic composted manure, deposition on crop land, and application of manure without being composted. For proper decomposition, it should be applied at a suitable time of the year and at a proper peak in the rotation. For more effectiveness, fresh manure should be incorpo‐ rated soon to decrease the nitrogen loss and it should be applied in cool conditions; however, many producers will age manure for several years before putting it in the field, which is not so good [23].

Composting is one step forward to manure; it is a process that can be described as the aerobic decomposition of organic matter to produce a humus-like product called compost. In this process, microorganisms (fungi) are involved that convert the manure to humus, which is darker in color and has an earthy smell. Composting requires some machinery and effort to maximize the humus-producing potential of manure. To meet compost standards, producers must mange proper air, moisture, and temperature in the mass. Proper composting balance between carbon and nitrogen proportion is necessary. Careful planning is required when making an allowance for compositing animal wastes on farms. The location of the compost site matters a lot to avoid risks to ground water and nearby water sources. Enclosing livestock and collecting, transporting, and spreading compost and manure are costly and inefficient. The simple method adopted by some producers is that they allow livestock to graze crop land and put the fertilizers straight onto the field [24].

### *3.1.7. Nutrient amendments*

A few producers use amendments such as seed inoculants and foliar spray on the green parts or soil. Organic amendments have very little reliable use. These products should be used carefully. Before using any amendment, it must be ensured that it is approved for organic production.

### *3.1.8. Seed inputs*

Nitrogen fixation is very important for plant growth. For nitrogen fixation, rhizobial inoculants with legumes are used as they create an environment that favors the bacteria responsible for nitrogen fixation. They do not need seed inoculants, but some experienced producers suggest that if the inoculant is applied on or below the seed they give better results. Some additional products such as humates, mycorrrhizal fungi, and other microbes respond to crops differ‐ ently, their response depending upon crop, crop cultivar, and management history.

### *3.1.9. Green manures*

A green manure is a crop worked into the soil to provide nutrients to the organisms and ultimately to the crops. To sustain a healthy soil, the use of green manure in crop rotation plays an important role. Green manure is a legume that fixes nitrogen into the soil; availability of nitrogen depends on the growing condition, moisture, and inoculation. Producers recom‐ mended sweet clover, alfalfa, red clover, field pea, and faba bean for nitrogen fixation and oilseed and buckwheat to improve phosphorus availability.

### *3.1.10. Rotation of crops*

Rotation is a planned sequence of crops, and organic producers consider it as the most important key in organic farming. A lot of scientific literature suggests that crop rotation is more beneficial than monocultures. The more variable the rotation, the more stable the yield. Resources can be used more effectively by rotating the crops with different characteristics. As we know, crops differ in their requirements of water, nutrients, and susceptibility to pests and diseases. The sequence of crops must be cautiously selected, which is well adapted to the fertility level, to avoid the disease potential that builds in crops. Rotation is planned according to the health of the soil such that crops that require tillage should be balanced with crops that build organic matter, and crops that utilize more nitrogen should be balanced with crops that supply nitrogen. Crop rotation is also very important in weed management. For different crops, different weed management practices are used. Each type of management practice is a disturbance that favors one weed species over the other. If annual crops are rotated with winter crops, then the disturbance pattern is varied and different species are disadvantaged at different times. This results in a more diverse weed community. This diversity can be beneficial as it increases the variety of food and shelter available to the beneficial organisms. Rotations are also crucial to insects and disease management. Insects and diseases are specific to a single crop; if they remain away for a long time from that crop, they are not able to increase to a dramatic level. Most producers consider rotation to be a work in progress that will change as the soil changes. A flexible rotation is recommended by most experienced producers to respond to changes in disease pressure, market, and contaminations by microbes. Organic producers take soil samples every couple of years and spend time in learning how they can improve the farming techniques.

### **3.2. Seeding**

darker in color and has an earthy smell. Composting requires some machinery and effort to maximize the humus-producing potential of manure. To meet compost standards, producers must mange proper air, moisture, and temperature in the mass. Proper composting balance between carbon and nitrogen proportion is necessary. Careful planning is required when making an allowance for compositing animal wastes on farms. The location of the compost site matters a lot to avoid risks to ground water and nearby water sources. Enclosing livestock and collecting, transporting, and spreading compost and manure are costly and inefficient. The simple method adopted by some producers is that they allow livestock to graze crop land

A few producers use amendments such as seed inoculants and foliar spray on the green parts or soil. Organic amendments have very little reliable use. These products should be used carefully. Before using any amendment, it must be ensured that it is approved for organic

Nitrogen fixation is very important for plant growth. For nitrogen fixation, rhizobial inoculants with legumes are used as they create an environment that favors the bacteria responsible for nitrogen fixation. They do not need seed inoculants, but some experienced producers suggest that if the inoculant is applied on or below the seed they give better results. Some additional products such as humates, mycorrrhizal fungi, and other microbes respond to crops differ‐

A green manure is a crop worked into the soil to provide nutrients to the organisms and ultimately to the crops. To sustain a healthy soil, the use of green manure in crop rotation plays an important role. Green manure is a legume that fixes nitrogen into the soil; availability of nitrogen depends on the growing condition, moisture, and inoculation. Producers recom‐ mended sweet clover, alfalfa, red clover, field pea, and faba bean for nitrogen fixation and

Rotation is a planned sequence of crops, and organic producers consider it as the most important key in organic farming. A lot of scientific literature suggests that crop rotation is more beneficial than monocultures. The more variable the rotation, the more stable the yield. Resources can be used more effectively by rotating the crops with different characteristics. As we know, crops differ in their requirements of water, nutrients, and susceptibility to pests and diseases. The sequence of crops must be cautiously selected, which is well adapted to the fertility level, to avoid the disease potential that builds in crops. Rotation is planned according to the health of the soil such that crops that require tillage should be balanced with crops that

ently, their response depending upon crop, crop cultivar, and management history.

oilseed and buckwheat to improve phosphorus availability.

and put the fertilizers straight onto the field [24].

56 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

*3.1.7. Nutrient amendments*

production.

*3.1.8. Seed inputs*

*3.1.9. Green manures*

*3.1.10. Rotation of crops*

Seeding is the time when planning and reality come together. Most often, the weather determines when to seed, what to seed, and which equipment to use. The ideal time for seeding is when it grows in a weed-free environment. Weeds are much more competitive when the crop emerges, as compared to the established crop. Mostly producers are not able to buy new equipment for seeding; it is time to consider what can be done to give the best advantage to the crop. The time of seeding is very important; in wet years you can seed anytime, but in dry years, you must seed as early as possible. Try to avoid seeding in very hot temperatures; if you want to seed early, then notice the condition of soil; if you seed late, then control the weeds.

A number of factors are considered by producers for crop selection such as soil fertility, weed control, crop type, and previous crop in rotation, but experienced producers follow some criteria and then choose the variety of crop to plant. In this criteria, the varieties to select from are based on which ones grow well and have disease resistance, heritage varieties, high-quality crops such as wheat with high protein, varieties that are in demand in organic markets, and varieties that can give viable seeds for the next year. Producers identify the characteristics that are best suited to the organic production and then they seed. Organic producers think that heritage varieties are best because they are developed without chemical and fertilizer inputs. Under organic management, producers can perform and yield well.

Seed quality and seeding rate are very important in organic farming. Experienced producers do not consider it necessary to use certified seeds; some suggest it is important only when it was time to renew the seed. Some scientific studies confirm the advantage of high seeding rate. Higher seeding rate can increase the crops' ability to cover land. Increasing seeding rate may be more important under conditions of higher fertility, when weeds may be more competitive. Crop emergence can be affected by seeding equipment. Organic farmers favor different types of seeding equipment. The most preferred seeding equipment that are used by organic producers are air seeder, disk seeder, double disk press drill, and valmar spreader. These are used for different seeds according to the climatic conditions.

### **3.3. Weeds**

For new organic farmers, weed management is very threatening. Organic fields share the same weeds as other farms. For determining the weed community, some factors are important such as soil texture, environmental variables, and crop rotation. The most common weeds, such as wild oats, bluebur, stinkweed and wild buckwheat, are found on organic farms. Many producers suggest that tillage can be a powerful weed management tool especially before and during seeding. Weeds that emerge before the crop gain more of the resources and thus have much more effect on the crop than weeds that emerge later. A second option for weed control exists after seeding but before the crop emerges. Some successful weed control practices used by organic producers are the use of solid crop rotation, delayed seeding, seeding with high rate, spiking in the fall to control quack grass, and growing alfalfa and sweet clover to suppress weeds. It is also very important in weed management practices to know the ecology of weed management.

### *3.3.1. Ecological weed management*

For weed management, most of the organic farmers rely on multiple plans. Ecological weed management promotes weed suppression, instead of weed elimination, by increasing crop competition and phytotoxic effects on weeds. A specific method such as crop rotation is one of the best methods used by organic farmers to control weed management. Organic producers suggest that small grains or legumes must be planted for at least one year out of every five years to maintain soil health. If the legume is plowed under as a cover crop in the fifth year, four years of row crops may be grown prior to the green manure crop year. The same crop cannot be grown in sequential years; due to this, soybean cannot be grown in the same field year after year. The ideal crop preceding soybeans is winter rye. Soybean fields are rotated to a small grain (oats, barley, wheat, or rye) or corn.

### *3.3.2. Production practices*

Organic farmers suggest some production practices for weed management such as variety selection where farmers select crop varieties (e.g., quick canopy-forming) that compete well with weeds within and between rows. As regards crop density, planting at the utmost modified population will provide the crop an enhanced competitive border over weeds. Closer row spacing generally has greater crop competition with weeds in row middles. For the rapid canopy, high germination rate seeds are more preferable. Date of sowing matters a lot; warm season crops are planted when the soil is warmed properly to facilitate the germination.

### *3.3.3. Physical tactics for weed management*

These are the key factors to control weed management on all organic farms; it includes mulching, cultivation, and propane flame burning. Mulching is used in combination with manual labor in many horticulture operations for proper weed control. It is of two types, natural and synthetic mulches. These are used in organic operations along with polyethylene film and polypropylene landscape fabric. Mulch can be made from small grain and soybean straw. During decomposition, organic mulches add organic matter to increase soil porosity, water holding capacity, microbial populations, and cation exchange capacity. Straw mulch is used in organic horticultural operations, for example garlic, strawberry, and herb farms, to control weeds and protection from harsh environments.

Timely cultivation is critical in organic weed management. Depending on the crop, cultivation offers the least labor-intensive weed control method. Midwestern organic farmers used two to three row cultivations. First cultivation occurs at a slow speed, second cultivation usually is completed at mid-season at a faster speed, while third cultivation is again performed at a slow speed. Propane flame-burners have been added as an additional tool in their weed management toolbox by many organic farmers. When tillage with large machinery is not feasible, flaming is used during high field moisture, while in drier weather it is used in conjugation with cultivation.

### **3.4. Insects**

**3.3. Weeds**

management.

*3.3.1. Ecological weed management*

58 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

*3.3.2. Production practices*

a small grain (oats, barley, wheat, or rye) or corn.

*3.3.3. Physical tactics for weed management*

For new organic farmers, weed management is very threatening. Organic fields share the same weeds as other farms. For determining the weed community, some factors are important such as soil texture, environmental variables, and crop rotation. The most common weeds, such as wild oats, bluebur, stinkweed and wild buckwheat, are found on organic farms. Many producers suggest that tillage can be a powerful weed management tool especially before and during seeding. Weeds that emerge before the crop gain more of the resources and thus have much more effect on the crop than weeds that emerge later. A second option for weed control exists after seeding but before the crop emerges. Some successful weed control practices used by organic producers are the use of solid crop rotation, delayed seeding, seeding with high rate, spiking in the fall to control quack grass, and growing alfalfa and sweet clover to suppress weeds. It is also very important in weed management practices to know the ecology of weed

For weed management, most of the organic farmers rely on multiple plans. Ecological weed management promotes weed suppression, instead of weed elimination, by increasing crop competition and phytotoxic effects on weeds. A specific method such as crop rotation is one of the best methods used by organic farmers to control weed management. Organic producers suggest that small grains or legumes must be planted for at least one year out of every five years to maintain soil health. If the legume is plowed under as a cover crop in the fifth year, four years of row crops may be grown prior to the green manure crop year. The same crop cannot be grown in sequential years; due to this, soybean cannot be grown in the same field year after year. The ideal crop preceding soybeans is winter rye. Soybean fields are rotated to

Organic farmers suggest some production practices for weed management such as variety selection where farmers select crop varieties (e.g., quick canopy-forming) that compete well with weeds within and between rows. As regards crop density, planting at the utmost modified population will provide the crop an enhanced competitive border over weeds. Closer row spacing generally has greater crop competition with weeds in row middles. For the rapid canopy, high germination rate seeds are more preferable. Date of sowing matters a lot; warm season crops are planted when the soil is warmed properly to facilitate the germination.

These are the key factors to control weed management on all organic farms; it includes mulching, cultivation, and propane flame burning. Mulching is used in combination with manual labor in many horticulture operations for proper weed control. It is of two types, natural and synthetic mulches. These are used in organic operations along with polyethylene film and polypropylene landscape fabric. Mulch can be made from small grain and soybean The most experienced organic producers are serious about insect problems. During dry season the most common and problematic insect is the grasshopper. If the crop and soil were healthy, then there would be less insect problems. There are some specific recommendations for insects: for grasshoppers, use tillage to avoid egg laying, use foliar sprays, seed early and use alfalfa border; for lygus bugs, delay seeding; for wheat midge, select resistance varieties and delay seeding; and for aphids, keep an environment where predators flourish. Most producers do the best they can to control insects.

### **3.5. Tillage**

In organic and conventional farming, soil erosion resulting from tillage is a major concern. Organic producers use more tillage; they use it for seed bed preparation, weed suppression, and for the incorporation of green manure. To prepare seed bed and to control weeds tillage, a harrow and cultivator is used; those who used disc seeders reported less cultivation because this method killed weeds. Some farmers used light tillage with harrow to control weeds before and after crop emergence. In a survey, organic producers were asked about the increase or decrease in their tillage operations, they replied that type of tillage had changed. At the beginning, organic producers used more tillage operations to control the weeds, but after that producers moved toward less tillage.

Tillage can be reduced, although it is the only method of terminating the green manure. Recently, producers have challenged the belief that tillage is needed for green manure termination through the method of rolling, mowing, and blading. One producer indicated that the wide-blade cultivator causes minimal disturbance to the soil and leaves much residue, so this was an effective way to terminate green manures while reducing the risk of soil erosion. Generally, tillage operations are used more in black soil where there is high weed pressure. Producers who used more tillage operations try to minimize erosion potential by understand‐ ing the condition of the soil.

### **3.6. Transition**

A transition from conventional to organic farming is not an easy step; it takes time and requires a change in mind set. Some producers suggest that transition in the mind takes longer compared to the transition on the land. Producers learn more because new methods have come into practice such as green manure, rotation of crops, mechanical weed control, organic fertility management, and erosion reduction. Transition time is very important, because it provides time for the soil to become free from chemicals that remain in the soil due to conventional farming. Weed control and soil fertility is the top priority. It is an economically vulnerable time. Although the transition is difficult, organic farming made them feel empowered. New organic farmers recommend the following about tillage during the transition years: under‐ stand the soil; till in different directions in different years; for weed control, keep tillage to the minimum need; replace black fallow with weed fallow; try to avoid tilling light soils in dry years; and harrow the cereals when they are about four inches in height.

### **4. Conservation in organic farming**

The most important key for sustainable cultivation is the conservation of natural resources, especially considering the decreasing conditional subsidies of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union for the coming years. If lower economic support compels farms to increase efficiency to reduce production costs, at the same time providings an interaction of agricultural activities with environment quality, suitable natural resources management will be a vital feature for farms.

### **4.1. Soil conservation**

Soil is the production base of all agricultural systems and its conservation is the pillar of sustainability. Soil quality is affected by wind and water erosion and farming practices. Soil erosion is one of the factors of organic farming, so it is necessary to develop soil conservation practices. Conservation practices are usually those that decrease wind speed, reduce rate and amount of water movement, and raise soil organic matter levels. All these conservation managements are not employed to all situations; the management will depend upon the soil type, climate, topography, and type of farming in that area. Producers can use a number of conservation practices that are best for their farms. However, organic crop producers have to face great challenges because conservation practices that use herbicides are not an option. Some common organic crop production practices, such as post-emergent harrowing for weed control, are destructive to the soil. So producers may need to employ some additional conser‐ vation measures if practices such as post-emergent harrowing are used. To conserve the soil, some strategies are presented as follows.

Crop residues (roots, chaff, stems, and leaves) are the key source of organic matter replacement. These residues also contain nutrients such as phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, nitrogen, and micronutrients. They improve soil properties such as water infiltration, water storage, and particle aggregation. Among crops, the amount of residue produced and the rate of decay are

managements are not employed to all situations; the management will depend upon the soil type, climate, topography, and type of farming in that area. Producers can use a number of conservation practices that are best for their farms. However, organic crop producers have to face great challenges because conservation practices that use herbicides are not an option. Some common organic crop production practices, such as post-emergent harrowing for weed control, are destructive to the soil. So producers may need to employ some additional conservation

different. The combination of these two factors determines the quality of residue in relation to its value for soil conservation [25]. Crop residues (roots, chaff, stems, and leaves) are the key source of organic matter replacement. These residues also contain nutrients such as phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, nitrogen, and

micronutrients. They improve soil properties such as water infiltration, water storage, and

#### *4.1.1. Forage crops* particle aggregation. Among crops, the amount of residue produced and the rate of decay are

strategies are presented as follows.

**3.6. Transition**

A transition from conventional to organic farming is not an easy step; it takes time and requires a change in mind set. Some producers suggest that transition in the mind takes longer compared to the transition on the land. Producers learn more because new methods have come into practice such as green manure, rotation of crops, mechanical weed control, organic fertility management, and erosion reduction. Transition time is very important, because it provides time for the soil to become free from chemicals that remain in the soil due to conventional farming. Weed control and soil fertility is the top priority. It is an economically vulnerable time. Although the transition is difficult, organic farming made them feel empowered. New organic farmers recommend the following about tillage during the transition years: under‐ stand the soil; till in different directions in different years; for weed control, keep tillage to the minimum need; replace black fallow with weed fallow; try to avoid tilling light soils in dry

The most important key for sustainable cultivation is the conservation of natural resources, especially considering the decreasing conditional subsidies of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union for the coming years. If lower economic support compels farms to increase efficiency to reduce production costs, at the same time providings an interaction of agricultural activities with environment quality, suitable natural resources management will

Soil is the production base of all agricultural systems and its conservation is the pillar of sustainability. Soil quality is affected by wind and water erosion and farming practices. Soil erosion is one of the factors of organic farming, so it is necessary to develop soil conservation practices. Conservation practices are usually those that decrease wind speed, reduce rate and amount of water movement, and raise soil organic matter levels. All these conservation managements are not employed to all situations; the management will depend upon the soil type, climate, topography, and type of farming in that area. Producers can use a number of conservation practices that are best for their farms. However, organic crop producers have to face great challenges because conservation practices that use herbicides are not an option. Some common organic crop production practices, such as post-emergent harrowing for weed control, are destructive to the soil. So producers may need to employ some additional conser‐ vation measures if practices such as post-emergent harrowing are used. To conserve the soil,

Crop residues (roots, chaff, stems, and leaves) are the key source of organic matter replacement. These residues also contain nutrients such as phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, nitrogen, and micronutrients. They improve soil properties such as water infiltration, water storage, and particle aggregation. Among crops, the amount of residue produced and the rate of decay are

years; and harrow the cereals when they are about four inches in height.

**4. Conservation in organic farming**

60 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

some strategies are presented as follows.

be a vital feature for farms.

**4.1. Soil conservation**

Forage crops contribute significant amounts of organic material to the soil and offer an alternative product in the form of hay, silage, or seed. Forage production for two to four years should also be considered as part of a normal crop rotation. Selection of forage species and management practices can be customized to specific problems such as drought, salinity, poor soil structure, low pH, and excessive soil moisture. different. The combination of these two factors determines the quality of residue in relation to its value for soil conservation [25]. **4.1.2 Forage crops.** Forage crops contribute significant amounts of organic material to the soil and offer an alternative product in the form of hay, silage, or seed. Forage production for two to

#### *4.1.2. Stubble cutting* four years should also be considered as part of a normal crop rotation. Selection of forage species

Moisture conservation is also important because the additional moisture will improve crop growth. It may also allow extending the rotation, which is another conservation practice. It can be enhanced by trapping more overwinter snow with "tall" or "sculptured" stubble. Tall stubble refers to stubble that is cut 12 inches high, while sculptured stubble refers to alternate swaths that are cut at normal height and taller. and management practices can be customized to specific problems such as drought, salinity, poor soil structure, low pH, and excessive soil moisture. **4.1.3 Stubble cutting.** Moisture conservation is also important because the additional moisture will improve crop growth. It may also allow extending the rotation, which is another

#### *4.1.3. Direct seeding* conservation practice. It can be enhanced by trapping more overwinter snow with "tall" or

In organic farming, herbicides cannot be used. Organic crop production is not usually associated with direct seeding but some producers do put into practice direct seeding. However, organic producers possibly will think about this protection practice when low weed pressure and previous crop straw and chaff have sufficiently spread [26].

### *4.1.4. Balancing of rotational crops*

An ideal rotation should be as diverse as possible; a diverse crop rotation can help soil nutrient availability because different crops remove different nutrients. Most commonly, sixteen essential nutrients are present in soil. In the rotation, growing legumes provides both nitrogen and non-nitrogen benefits to following crops. If legumes are inoculated properly, they fix 90% of their nitrogen necessity from the air and rest is obtained from the soil. However, during the growing season, nitrogen is exuded from legume roots and the legume residue decomposes and recycles the nutrients quicker than non-legume residues, thus more nitrogen is regularly accessible to the following crop than if a non-legume had been grown. When planning complementary rotational cropping, growth patterns of a variety of crops should also be taken into account. Crops with broad leaves such as polish canola, lentil, flax, and pea take out nutrients and moisture from more shallow rock bottom than cereals that belong to springseeded. Thus, winter wheat rooted deep uses moisture in the early growing season while the recurrent forages use nutrients and moisture from subsoil because they are deep rooted. Shallow-rooted crops are best adapted as compared to deep roots because they will not expand energy in search of moisture as compared to other crops. Medium root crops come into view as enhanced and modified to pursue shallow-rooted crops as they benefit from any moisture left at the depth, which is not used by the preceding shallow-rooted crop [27].

### *4.1.5. Total crop rotations*

Summer fallowing is destructive to the soil because no new organic matter is returned to the soil during this year. Breakdown of soil organic matter increases due to tillage. Extending crop rotations is a conservation practice because it reduces the incidence of summer fallow. This practice can improve fertility, collective constancy, tilth, damp storage space, and conflict to soil erosion and deprivation, in addition to decreasing insects and disease problems. All these reported factors enhance yield productivity and have positive effects on soil sustainability. Decisions for cropping strategies would not be for a short duration but the long-term effects on the soil and environment should also be considered. A varied crop rotation should comprise pulses, seed oil, fall-seeded crops, and forages. Crop diversity level determines the implication of the rotational payback. During rotation, some selection and management of legume species is a vital aspect of achieving diversity and supplying nitrogen through symbiotic nitrogen fixation.

### *4.1.6. Tillage*

During tillage crop residue, conservation is affected by the equipment type, speed, depth, and frequency of tillage, as well as soil and climatic factors. Limiting all these factors conserves crop residue and soil moisture. It has been difficult to convince researchers and extension services that rigorous tillage does not allow for soil and water conservation and decreases soil natural content. Tillage may be defined according to conservation farming as the integration of agronomic practices with the aim of conserving, improving, and efficiently using natural possessions [28]. On yield consistency, the farmers' point is correct but the reason of low yield in conservation tillage systems is only associated with the first few years of the changeover period between conservation practices and intensive tillage. Energy can be saved by adopting the method of reduced tillage and greater savings can be achieved by no-tillage [29]. Greater benefits can also be noticed in relation to environmental aspects; large amounts of crop residues on the soil surface reduce water runoff and nutrients loss [30].

In tillage operations during shallow tillage, crop residue accumulates near the soil surface and it will be most effective in reducing wind and water erosion by improving infiltration and reducing evaporation. Reducing tillage speed generally reduces crop residue burial. Residue conservation is significantly influenced by tillage equipment type; for instance, a wide-blade cultivator preserves considerably more remainder than a cultivator that is considered better than a discer. The addition of harrows to a field increases the amount of remnants buried, while adding a rod weeder to a cultivator does not considerably affect deposit lessening. The need of each tillage operation should be carefully considered according to the type of soil, but tillage should be avoid under wet soil conditions as this can degrade soil structure and significantly decrease surface residue levels [31].

### *4.1.7. Wind barriers*

accessible to the following crop than if a non-legume had been grown. When planning complementary rotational cropping, growth patterns of a variety of crops should also be taken into account. Crops with broad leaves such as polish canola, lentil, flax, and pea take out nutrients and moisture from more shallow rock bottom than cereals that belong to springseeded. Thus, winter wheat rooted deep uses moisture in the early growing season while the recurrent forages use nutrients and moisture from subsoil because they are deep rooted. Shallow-rooted crops are best adapted as compared to deep roots because they will not expand energy in search of moisture as compared to other crops. Medium root crops come into view as enhanced and modified to pursue shallow-rooted crops as they benefit from any moisture

Summer fallowing is destructive to the soil because no new organic matter is returned to the soil during this year. Breakdown of soil organic matter increases due to tillage. Extending crop rotations is a conservation practice because it reduces the incidence of summer fallow. This practice can improve fertility, collective constancy, tilth, damp storage space, and conflict to soil erosion and deprivation, in addition to decreasing insects and disease problems. All these reported factors enhance yield productivity and have positive effects on soil sustainability. Decisions for cropping strategies would not be for a short duration but the long-term effects on the soil and environment should also be considered. A varied crop rotation should comprise pulses, seed oil, fall-seeded crops, and forages. Crop diversity level determines the implication of the rotational payback. During rotation, some selection and management of legume species is a vital aspect of achieving diversity and supplying nitrogen through symbiotic nitrogen

During tillage crop residue, conservation is affected by the equipment type, speed, depth, and frequency of tillage, as well as soil and climatic factors. Limiting all these factors conserves crop residue and soil moisture. It has been difficult to convince researchers and extension services that rigorous tillage does not allow for soil and water conservation and decreases soil natural content. Tillage may be defined according to conservation farming as the integration of agronomic practices with the aim of conserving, improving, and efficiently using natural possessions [28]. On yield consistency, the farmers' point is correct but the reason of low yield in conservation tillage systems is only associated with the first few years of the changeover period between conservation practices and intensive tillage. Energy can be saved by adopting the method of reduced tillage and greater savings can be achieved by no-tillage [29]. Greater benefits can also be noticed in relation to environmental aspects; large amounts of crop residues

In tillage operations during shallow tillage, crop residue accumulates near the soil surface and it will be most effective in reducing wind and water erosion by improving infiltration and reducing evaporation. Reducing tillage speed generally reduces crop residue burial. Residue

on the soil surface reduce water runoff and nutrients loss [30].

left at the depth, which is not used by the preceding shallow-rooted crop [27].

*4.1.5. Total crop rotations*

62 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

fixation.

*4.1.6. Tillage*

### *4.1.7.1. Annual crop barriers in crops*

Taller annual crops have been used as barriers to a restricted degree in low residue-producing crops. A divider is placed in the seedbox so that two rows of wheat are seeded every seeder width. At harvest, the lentil is combined and the barrier strip left standing to trap snow and prevent wind erosion during the upcoming winter.

### *4.1.7.2. Strip cropping*

In strip cropping, alternating strips of crop and summerfallow consists at an angle perpen‐ dicular to the prevailing winds. According to the soil, texture strip width varies. Wind erosion is more common in sandy soils as compared with clay and loam soils. Strip cropping works well for loam and clay soils where increase stripping will considerably decrease the potential for wind erosion. In sandy soil types, too many strips are essential to be convenient. When establishing strip widths, the size of field equipment should be kept in mind. This practice is more common in drier areas; however, it can be used in wetter areas where the pattern of strip formation is changed to avoid water erosion.

### *4.1.7.3. Cover crops*

Rotations should also comprise the use of cover crops to protect the soil from water and wind erosion throughout susceptible periods, for instance, summer fallow when normally position stubble does not exist. Cereal yield should be seeded between August and September; fall frosts will be able to kill plant material and remain on the soil surface until spring planting, providing valuable soil protection. Winter wheat, fall seeded cereal may be used in a parallel fashion. In the following spring, these crops may be removed by tillage or used for short-term livestock grazing, or grown to maturity in the case of winter wheat or fall rye [32].

### *4.1.7.4. Shelterbelts*

It can effectively decrease wind velocity for a distance of 20 or more times than their height. They effectively control wind erosion when planted at the right angles to current winds. The effectiveness of shelterbelts depends upon maintenance, in addition to height. They may also be helpful for increasing crop yields.

### *4.1.7.5. Perennial grass barriers*

These are two rows of grass planted at right angles to current winds to decrease wind erosion, entrap snow, and reduce evaporative losses. Placement of barriers depends on soil type; these are closest on sands, moderately spaced on clays, and utmost apart on loams. Barriers may be placed further apart if other soil conservation practices are also being used. Tall wheatgrass is a weak participant with most field crops and will not spread beyond the seeded rows. It also grows high enough without accommodation to trap snow, helping in soil moisture renewal.

### *4.1.8. Green manure*

The assimilation of any green vegetative material into the soil is called green manure. In crops, it adds organic matter to the soil and improves soil health. The extent of soil improvement depends on the type and quantity of plant material returned to the soil. Biennial or perennial legumes as green manure give great benefits to soil with poor level of organic matter but the time of implanting these legumes matters a lot. Grain legumes, such as pulses, can be used as green manure effectively because their annual growth habit will not contribute in nitrogen fixation as biennial or perennial legumes. However, they are more flexible to an accessible crop rotation. Non-legume crops can also be used as a green manure crop [33].

### *4.1.9. Animal manure*

Animal manure, such as livestock and poultry, provides not only nutrients to plants but also affects soil tilth and particle aggregation. Organic matter contained in manure act as binding agents in stabilizing soil structure. The addition of manure changes the soil structure and this surely affects water infiltration, water holding capacity, and aeration, as well as resistance to wind and water erosion. Manure nutrient value depends upon some factors such as animal type and age, type of feed, amount of straw, and method and time of storage. In the manure, some micronutrients are helpful to prevent the plant deficiency symptoms from happening. The rate of manure application recommended by different soil testing laboratories that test the animal manure for nutrient content depends upon the availability of soil type, slope, location, and different construction practices. For the prevention of environmental contamination, rates of manure application should not exceed what a crop can use in one growing season. Following manure application to prevent nitrogen loss, it should be incorporated as quickly as possible into the soil for proper plant growth [34].

### **Acknowledgements**

This research is supported by UMRG (RG257-13AFR) IPPP (PG038-2013B) and FRGS (FP038-2013B).

### **Author details**

*4.1.7.5. Perennial grass barriers*

64 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

*4.1.8. Green manure*

*4.1.9. Animal manure*

into the soil for proper plant growth [34].

**Acknowledgements**

(FP038-2013B).

These are two rows of grass planted at right angles to current winds to decrease wind erosion, entrap snow, and reduce evaporative losses. Placement of barriers depends on soil type; these are closest on sands, moderately spaced on clays, and utmost apart on loams. Barriers may be placed further apart if other soil conservation practices are also being used. Tall wheatgrass is a weak participant with most field crops and will not spread beyond the seeded rows. It also grows high enough without accommodation to trap snow, helping in soil moisture renewal.

The assimilation of any green vegetative material into the soil is called green manure. In crops, it adds organic matter to the soil and improves soil health. The extent of soil improvement depends on the type and quantity of plant material returned to the soil. Biennial or perennial legumes as green manure give great benefits to soil with poor level of organic matter but the time of implanting these legumes matters a lot. Grain legumes, such as pulses, can be used as green manure effectively because their annual growth habit will not contribute in nitrogen fixation as biennial or perennial legumes. However, they are more flexible to an accessible crop

Animal manure, such as livestock and poultry, provides not only nutrients to plants but also affects soil tilth and particle aggregation. Organic matter contained in manure act as binding agents in stabilizing soil structure. The addition of manure changes the soil structure and this surely affects water infiltration, water holding capacity, and aeration, as well as resistance to wind and water erosion. Manure nutrient value depends upon some factors such as animal type and age, type of feed, amount of straw, and method and time of storage. In the manure, some micronutrients are helpful to prevent the plant deficiency symptoms from happening. The rate of manure application recommended by different soil testing laboratories that test the animal manure for nutrient content depends upon the availability of soil type, slope, location, and different construction practices. For the prevention of environmental contamination, rates of manure application should not exceed what a crop can use in one growing season. Following manure application to prevent nitrogen loss, it should be incorporated as quickly as possible

This research is supported by UMRG (RG257-13AFR) IPPP (PG038-2013B) and FRGS

rotation. Non-legume crops can also be used as a green manure crop [33].

Maliha Sarfraz1 , Mushtaq Ahmad2 , Wan Syaidatul Aqma Wan Mohd Noor3 and Muhammad Aqeel Ashraf4,5\*

\*Address all correspondence to: chemaqeel@gmail.com

1 Institute of Pharmacy, Physiology & Pharmacology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

2 Department of Plant Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan

3 School of Biosciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

4 Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, P. R. China

5 Water Research Unit, Faculty of Science and Natural Resources, University Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the paper.

### **References**


[18] Ashraf, M. A., Maah, M. J. & Yusoff, I. 2012e. Chemical speciation of heavy metals in surface waters of former tin mining catchment, Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability, 24 (1), 1-12.

[6] Reicosky, D. C. 2001. Conservation Agriculture: Global Environmental benefits of soil carbon management. In: Conservation Agriculture, a Worldwide Challenge (Garcia Torres L; Benites J; Martinez A, eds), pp 1–12. Kluwer Academic Publisher,

[7] Ahmed, Q., Yousuf, F., Sarfraz, M., Mohammad Q.A., Balkhour, M., Safi, S.Z. & Ashraf, M.A. (2015). Euthynnus affinis (little tuna): Fishery, bionomics, seasonal elemental variations, health risk assessment and conservational management.

[8] Borin, M., Menini, C. & Sartori, L. 1997. Effects of tillage systems on energy and carbon balance in North-Eastern Italy. Soil and Tillage Research, 40, 209-226 [9] Butt, M. A., Ahmad, M., Fatima, A., Sultana, S., Zafar, M., Yaseen, G., Ashraf, M.A., Shinwari, Z. K. & Kayani, S. 2015. Ethnomedicinal uses of plants for the treatment of snake and scorpion bite in Northern Pakistan. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 1,

[10] Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P. & Sarrantonio, M. 1998. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature, 396, 4-16. DOI:

[11] Gharibreza, M., Raj, J. K., Yusoff, I., Othman, Z., Zakaria, W., Tahir, W. M. & Ashraf, M. A. 2013. Historical variations of Bera Lake (Malaysia) sediments geochemistry using radioisotopes and sediment quality indices, Journal of Radioanalytical and

[12] Ahmed, Q., Yousuf, F., Sarfraz, M., Bakar, N. K. A., Balkhour, M. A. & Ashraf, M. A., (2014). Seasonal elemental variations of Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn and conservational management of Rastrelliger kanagurta fish from Karachi fish harbour, Pakistan.

[13] Ashraf, M. A., Ahmad, M., Aqib, S., Balkhair, K. S. & Bakar, N. K. A. 2014. Chemical species of metallic elements in the aquatic environment of an ex-mining catchment,

[14] Ashraf, M. A., Yusoff, I., Yusof, I. & Alias, Y. 2013a. Study of contaminant transport at an open tipping waste disposal site. Environmental Science and Pollution

[15] Ashraf, M. A., Ullah, S., Ahmad, I., Qureshi, A. K., Balkhair, K. S. & Rehman, M. A. 2013b. Green Biocides, A Promising Technology: Current and Future Applications, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94 (3): 388-403. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.6371.

[16] SSSA 1997. Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Soil Science Society of America, Madison,

mobility of heavy metals in soil of former tin mining catchment, The Scientific World

[17] Ashraf, M. A., Maah, M. J. & Yusoff, I. 2012d. Chemical speciation and potential

Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 12 (3&4), 405-414.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

66 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

Frontiers in Life Science, 8 (1), 71-96.

1-14. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2015.03.045.

Nuclear Chemistry, 295(3), 1715-1730.

Water Environment Research, 86 (8), 77-728.

Research, 20 (7), 4689-4710.

WI p 134.

Journal, 125608, 1-11

10.1038/24376.


**Organic Weed Control and Cover Crop Residue Integration Impacts on Weed Control, Quality, Yield and Economics in Conservation Tillage Tomato-A Case Study**

Andrew J. Price, Leah M. Duzy, Kip S. Balkcom, Jessica A. Kelton, Ted S. Kornecki and Lina Sarunaite

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61315

### **Abstract**

[30] Bakar, A. F. A., Yusoff, I., Fatt, N. T. & Ashraf, M. A. 2014. Cumulative impacts of dissolved ionic metals on the chemical characteristics of river water affected by alkaline mine drainage from the Kuala Lipis gold mine, Pahang, Malaysia. Chemistry

[31] Siegrist, S., Schuab, D. & Pfiffner, L. 1998. Does organic agriculture reduce soil erodibility? The results of a long-term field study on loess in Switzerland.

[32] Surhio, M. A., Talpur, F. N., Nizamani, S. M., Amin, F., Bong, C. W., Lee, C. W.,

[33] Yusoff, I., Alias, Y., Yusof, M. & Ashraf, M. A. 2013. Assessment of pollutants

Sciences, 73 (4), 1443-1458. DOI 10.1007/s12665-014-3504-2.

Ashraf, M. A. & Shahid, M. R. 2014. Complete degradation of dimethyl phthalate by biochemical cooperation of the Bacillus thuringiensis strain isolated from cotton field

migration at Ampar Tenang landfill site, Selangor, Malaysia. ScienceAsia, 39, 392–

[34] Zulkifley, M. T. M., Ng, N. T., Abdullah, W. H., Raj, J. K., Ghani, A. A., Shuib, M. K. & Ashraf, M. A. 2014a. Geochemical characteristics of a tropical lowland peat dome in the Kota Samarahan-Asajaya area, West Sarawak, Malaysia, Environmental Earth

Environment and Resources Economics, 1998. 69:64. DOI: 10.1016/

and Ecology, 13 (1), 22-33.

68 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

S0167-8809(98)00113-3.

409.

soil. RSC Advances, 4, 55960-55966.

The increased adoption of conservation tillage and organic weed control practices in vegetable production requires more information on the role of various cover crops in integrated weed control, tomato quality, and yield. Two conservation-till‐ age systems utilizing crimson clover and cereal rye as winter cover crops were com‐ pared to a conventional black polythene mulch system, with or without organic weed management options, for weed control, tomato yield, and profitability. All cover crops were terminated with a mechanical roller/crimper prior to planting. Or‐ ganic weed control treatments included: 1) flaming utilizing a one burner hand torch, 2) PRE application of corn gluten, 3) PRE application of corn gluten followed by flaming, or 4) intermittent hand weeding as needed. A non-treated control and a standard herbicide program were included for comparison. The herbicide program consisting of a PRE application of S-metolachlor (1.87 kg a.i./ha) followed by an ear‐ ly POST metribuzin (0.56 kg a.i. /ha) application followed by a late POST applica‐ tion of clethodim (0.28 kg a.i./ha). In general, high-residue clover and cereal rye cover crops provided substantial suppression of Palmer amaranth, large crabgrass, and yellow nutsedge. Across systems, minimum input in high-residue systems pro‐ vided the highest net returns above variable costs compared to organic herbicide treatments that are costly and provide marginal benefit.

**Keywords:** Conservation agriculture, cover crop, fruit

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **1. Introduction**

In recent years, growing concerns over the environmental impact of conventional agricultural practices, coupled with a surge in consumer demand for sustainably-produced products, have led to increased grower adoption of organic agriculture. In 2011, cropland in the United States (U.S.) dedicated to organic vegetable production totaled over 47 thousand ha [1]. Organically produced vegetable sales, were estimated at 1.07 billion USD in 2011 [1]. Given the steady rise in organic product interest and efforts to ensure agricultural sustainability, a substantial amount of research has been dedicated to organic fruit and vegetable production in order to guarantee successful adoption of these practices as an alternative to conventional agriculture.

Unlike conventional agricultural practices, an organic approach to agriculture eliminates the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and, instead, relies on biological and cultural pesticide control and organic soil amendments such as manure and crop residue to maintain soil fertility [2]. The goal of organic agriculture includes producing food and fiber products in a manner that increases biodiversity, promoting soil health, and reducing environmental degradation due to agricultural practices. A number of ecological differences have been noted in previous research when comparing conventional and organic agriculture [3,4]. Comparisons of soil properties and pest population dynamics for organic and traditional farming practices note differences between these systems that affect the agroecosystem [3,4].

### **2. Case study**

In the U.S. approximately 1.36 million tons of in the open, fresh market tomatoes, worth over 1.134 billion USD, were produced on nearly 41.2 thousand ha in 2014 [5]. Tomato production systems typically utilize conventional tillage, a bedded plastic mulch culture, and multiple herbicide applications to control weeds. These conventional tillage systems enhance soil erosion and nutrient loss by reducing rainfall infiltration [6]. Additionally, tillage increases aeration which increases the rate of organic matter mineralization in the surface soil, thus reducing soil organic matter content, soil cation exchange capacity and potential productivity [7, 8].

Plastic mulch can increase soil temperature which can expedite tomato harvest [9]. Tomato harvest was not early following a hairy vetch mulch system [10, 11]. The use of plastic mulches in sustainable or organic production systems is in question by some producers and consumers since the mulch itself is non-biodegradable and made of non-renewable resources. Another environmental disadvantage with using plastic mulch vs. organic mulches is increased chemical runoff from plastic mulch systems and subsequent offsite chemical loading [12]. Thus, the intensive use of pesticides in vegetable production has resulted in ecological concerns. Therefore, alternative production practices that reduce tomato production inputs while maintaining yield and quality are desired.

One alternative for alleviating the aforementioned concerns is the use of high residue cover crops combined with reduced tillage. Cover crops in conservation-tillage systems can be terminated during early reproductive growth by mechanically rolling and treating with burndown herbicides to leave a dense mat of residue (> 4,500 kg/ha) on the soil surface into which cash crops are planted [13, 14]. Adoption of high residue cover crops is increasing in southeastern U.S. corn (*Zea mays* L.) and cotton (*Gossypium hirsutum* L.) row crop systems [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. Because the southeastern U.S. typically receives adequate rainfall in the winter months, timely planted winter cover crops can attain relatively high maturity and biomass before termination. Cover crops can enhance the overall productivity and soil quality by increasing organic matter and nitrogen content [21], as well as aid in water conservation by increasing soil water infiltration rates [22]. Additionally, previous re‐ search has also focused on weed control provided by high residue cover crops in both field and vegetable crops [23, 24, 25].

**1. Introduction**

70 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**2. Case study**

potential productivity [7, 8].

while maintaining yield and quality are desired.

In recent years, growing concerns over the environmental impact of conventional agricultural practices, coupled with a surge in consumer demand for sustainably-produced products, have led to increased grower adoption of organic agriculture. In 2011, cropland in the United States (U.S.) dedicated to organic vegetable production totaled over 47 thousand ha [1]. Organically produced vegetable sales, were estimated at 1.07 billion USD in 2011 [1]. Given the steady rise in organic product interest and efforts to ensure agricultural sustainability, a substantial amount of research has been dedicated to organic fruit and vegetable production in order to guarantee successful adoption of these practices as an alternative to conventional agriculture. Unlike conventional agricultural practices, an organic approach to agriculture eliminates the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and, instead, relies on biological and cultural pesticide control and organic soil amendments such as manure and crop residue to maintain soil fertility [2]. The goal of organic agriculture includes producing food and fiber products in a manner that increases biodiversity, promoting soil health, and reducing environmental degradation due to agricultural practices. A number of ecological differences have been noted in previous research when comparing conventional and organic agriculture [3,4]. Comparisons of soil properties and pest population dynamics for organic and traditional farming practices note

In the U.S. approximately 1.36 million tons of in the open, fresh market tomatoes, worth over 1.134 billion USD, were produced on nearly 41.2 thousand ha in 2014 [5]. Tomato production systems typically utilize conventional tillage, a bedded plastic mulch culture, and multiple herbicide applications to control weeds. These conventional tillage systems enhance soil erosion and nutrient loss by reducing rainfall infiltration [6]. Additionally, tillage increases aeration which increases the rate of organic matter mineralization in the surface soil, thus reducing soil organic matter content, soil cation exchange capacity and

Plastic mulch can increase soil temperature which can expedite tomato harvest [9]. Tomato harvest was not early following a hairy vetch mulch system [10, 11]. The use of plastic mulches in sustainable or organic production systems is in question by some producers and consumers since the mulch itself is non-biodegradable and made of non-renewable resources. Another environmental disadvantage with using plastic mulch vs. organic mulches is increased chemical runoff from plastic mulch systems and subsequent offsite chemical loading [12]. Thus, the intensive use of pesticides in vegetable production has resulted in ecological concerns. Therefore, alternative production practices that reduce tomato production inputs

One alternative for alleviating the aforementioned concerns is the use of high residue cover crops combined with reduced tillage. Cover crops in conservation-tillage systems can be

differences between these systems that affect the agroecosystem [3,4].

Winter cover crop biomass can affect subsequent early season weed control [26, 27]. Cover crop residue facilitates weed control by providing an unfavorable environment for weed germination and establishment under the residue as well as allelopathy [28, 29]. Teasdale and Daughtry [30] reported 52–70% reduction in weed biomass with live hairy vetch cover crop compared to a fallow treatment owing to changes in light and soil temperature regimen under the vetch canopy. Teasdale and Mohler [27] reported that legume mulches such as crimson clover and hairy vetch (*Vicia villosa* Roth) suppressed redroot pigweed (*Amaranthus retro‐ floxus* L.) at an exponential rate as a function of residue biomass.

However, adoption of cover crops in tomato production has been limited because (1) currently available transplanters have problems penetrating heavy residue and (2) heavy cover crop residue can intercept delivery of soil-active herbicides. Research in the last two decades has extensively debated the advantages and disadvantages of cover crops vs. conventional plastic mulch systems for tomato production. Better or comparable tomato yields with hairy vetch cover crop system have been reported compared to the conventional polyethylene mulch system [31, 32]. Akemo et al. [33] also reported higher tomato yield with spring sown cover crops than the conventionally cultivated check. However, weed control with cover crops varies with cover crop species, amount of residue produced, and environmental conditions. Teasdale [28] reported that biomass levels achieved by cover crops before termination was sufficient only for early season weed control. Supplemental weed control measures are usually required to achieve season long weed control and to avoid yield losses [34, 23].

Cereal rye and crimson clover are two common winter cover crops widely used in the southeastern U.S. Both cover crops contain allelopathic compounds and produce residues that inhibit weed growth [15, 29, 35]. Brassica cover crops are relatively new in the southeastern U.S. but are becoming increasingly popular due to their potential allelopathic effects. There‐ fore, the objectives of this research were to evaluate: 1) weed control in two different high residue cover crop conservation tillage systems utilizing the Brazilian [13] high residue cover crop management system including cover crop rolling and 2) tomato stand establishment, yield, and net returns of conservation-transplanted tomatoes compared to the polythene mulch system following three different organic herbicide management systems.

### **3. Materials and methods**

**Field Experiment.** The experiment was established in autumn 2006 at the North Alabama Horticulture Experiment Station, Cullman, AL on a Hartsells fine sandy loam soil (Fine-loamy, siliceous, sub-active, thermic Typic Hapludults). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. Plot size at both locations was 1.8 by 6 m containing a single row of tomatoes with a 0.5 m spacing between plants.

The two winter cover crops (cereal rye cv Elbon and crimson clover cv AU Robin) were compared to black polythene mulch for their weed suppressive potential and effect on yield and grade of fresh market tomatoes. Winter cover crops were planted with a no till drill in the fall. Rye was seeded at a rate of 100 kg/ha, whereas clover was seeded at 28 kg/ha. Since the overall objective was to evaluate weed control practices, general production practices included staking, traditional plant pest and plant pathogen methods, and fertilization was utilized to exclude any other pest and fertilization interactions and is a limitation of this case study. Nitrogen was applied at a rate of 67 kg/ha on rye plots in early spring of each year. Cover crops were terminated at flowering stage in late spring. To determine winter cover crop biomass production, plants were clipped at ground level from one randomly selected 0.25 m2 area per replicate immediately before termination. Plant samples were dried at 65 C for 72 hours and weighed. Cover crops were terminated with a mechanical roller crimper prior to an application of glyphosate at 1.12 kg a.e. /ha-1. The rolling process produced a uniform residue cover over the plots.

All three systems (two winter cover crops plus plastic mulch) were evaluated with and without herbicide for weed control. Organic weed control treatments included: 1) flaming utilizing a one burner hand torch, 2) PRE application of corn gluten, 3) PRE application of corn gluten followed by flaming, or 4) intermittent hand weeding as needed. A non-treated control and a standard herbicide program were included for comparison. The herbicide program consisting of a PRE application of S-metolachlor (1.87 kg a.i. ha-1) followed by an early POST (EPOST) metribuzin (0.56 kg a.i. ha-1) application followed by a late POST (LPOST) application of clethodim (0.28 kg a.i.ha-1). The PRE corn gluten application occurred immediately after tomato transplanting while the PRE herbicide application occurred prior to placing the plastic on top of the beds, the EPOST application was applied two weeks after transplanting, and the LPOST application was delayed until tomatoes were near mid-bloom. Flaming and hand hoeing was accomplished one week after transplanting and subsequently every two weeks following until harvest. Tomato cv. 'Florida 47' seedlings were transplanted on April 12, 2007.

Tomato seedlings were planted with a modified RJ no-till transplanter (RJ Equipment, Blenhiem, Ontario, Canada), which included a subsoiler shank installed to penetrate the heavy residue and disrupt a naturally occurring compacted soil layer found at both experimental sites at a depth of 30-40 cm. Additionally, two driving wheels were utilized (one wheel on each side of the tomato row) instead of the original single wheel at the center of the row, to improve stability and eliminate drive wheel re-compaction of the soil opening created by the shank. The plastic-mulch plots were conventionally tilled utilizing a tractor mounted rototiller prior to bedding and plastic installation; tomatoes were hand transplanted in the plastic mulch each year. Water was applied to all the plots immediately after transplanting. Thereafter, plots were irrigated every other day using a surface drip tape. Fertilizer 13-13-13 was applied prior to planting achieving 448 kg of N/ha-1 and then 7.8 kg of calcium nitrate ha-1 was applied once every week with the irrigation system.

**3. Materials and methods**

72 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

the plots.

single row of tomatoes with a 0.5 m spacing between plants.

**Field Experiment.** The experiment was established in autumn 2006 at the North Alabama Horticulture Experiment Station, Cullman, AL on a Hartsells fine sandy loam soil (Fine-loamy, siliceous, sub-active, thermic Typic Hapludults). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. Plot size at both locations was 1.8 by 6 m containing a

The two winter cover crops (cereal rye cv Elbon and crimson clover cv AU Robin) were compared to black polythene mulch for their weed suppressive potential and effect on yield and grade of fresh market tomatoes. Winter cover crops were planted with a no till drill in the fall. Rye was seeded at a rate of 100 kg/ha, whereas clover was seeded at 28 kg/ha. Since the overall objective was to evaluate weed control practices, general production practices included staking, traditional plant pest and plant pathogen methods, and fertilization was utilized to exclude any other pest and fertilization interactions and is a limitation of this case study. Nitrogen was applied at a rate of 67 kg/ha on rye plots in early spring of each year. Cover crops were terminated at flowering stage in late spring. To determine winter cover crop biomass

production, plants were clipped at ground level from one randomly selected 0.25 m2

harvest. Tomato cv. 'Florida 47' seedlings were transplanted on April 12, 2007.

Tomato seedlings were planted with a modified RJ no-till transplanter (RJ Equipment, Blenhiem, Ontario, Canada), which included a subsoiler shank installed to penetrate the heavy residue and disrupt a naturally occurring compacted soil layer found at both experimental sites at a depth of 30-40 cm. Additionally, two driving wheels were utilized (one wheel on each side of the tomato row) instead of the original single wheel at the center of the row, to improve stability and eliminate drive wheel re-compaction of the soil opening created by the shank. The plastic-mulch plots were conventionally tilled utilizing a tractor mounted rototiller prior to bedding and plastic installation; tomatoes were hand transplanted in the plastic mulch each

replicate immediately before termination. Plant samples were dried at 65 C for 72 hours and weighed. Cover crops were terminated with a mechanical roller crimper prior to an application of glyphosate at 1.12 kg a.e. /ha-1. The rolling process produced a uniform residue cover over

All three systems (two winter cover crops plus plastic mulch) were evaluated with and without herbicide for weed control. Organic weed control treatments included: 1) flaming utilizing a one burner hand torch, 2) PRE application of corn gluten, 3) PRE application of corn gluten followed by flaming, or 4) intermittent hand weeding as needed. A non-treated control and a standard herbicide program were included for comparison. The herbicide program consisting of a PRE application of S-metolachlor (1.87 kg a.i. ha-1) followed by an early POST (EPOST) metribuzin (0.56 kg a.i. ha-1) application followed by a late POST (LPOST) application of clethodim (0.28 kg a.i.ha-1). The PRE corn gluten application occurred immediately after tomato transplanting while the PRE herbicide application occurred prior to placing the plastic on top of the beds, the EPOST application was applied two weeks after transplanting, and the LPOST application was delayed until tomatoes were near mid-bloom. Flaming and hand hoeing was accomplished one week after transplanting and subsequently every two weeks following until

area per

Weed control was evaluated by visual ratings (0% = no control, 100% = complete control) 28 days after treatment (DAT) of the EPOST herbicide application. All weed species present were evaluated for control (as a reduction in total above ground biomass resulting from both reduced emergence and growth). Stand establishment was determined by counting the number of living tomato plants in each plot two weeks after LPOST application. Ripe tomatoes were hand harvested from the entire plot area in weekly intervals and sorted according to size (small, medium, large, and extra large categories).

*Statistical Analysis.* Non-normality and heterogeneous variances were encountered with percent control data. Various approaches were tried to alleviate these statistical problems and the arcsine transformation was deemed the best compromise between achieving normality of residuals and among treatment homogeneity of variances. The transformed data were subjected to mixed models analysis of variance as implemented in JMP statistical software. Years, organic herbicide treatments and ground cover treatments were considered fixed effects while their interaction with treatment replication was considered random effects. Differences between treatments means were determined by Fisher's protected LSD (α = 0.05).

*Economic analysis.* Net returns above variable treatment costs (NRAVTC) were estimated as the difference between revenues and variable treatment costs (US\$ ha-1). The average weekly dollar per box (assuming an 11.34 kg box-1) price for the four harvest weeks was used to calculate revenue by grade (i.e., small, medium, large, and extra-large). The weekly prices were from domestic suppliers at the terminal market in Atlanta, Georgia [36]. Low- and high-end prices from 2007 were reported for each grade category from suppliers (domestic suppliers aggregated by State), excluding international suppliers. The low-end and high-end tomato prices by size were the average of prices in 2007 across suppliers, and are presented in Table 1. All prices were reported in 2007 US\$.


**Table 1.** Tomato prices by size by low-end and high-end price.

The average marketing year price, regardless of organic certification, received by producers in Alabama in 2007 for fresh market tomatoes across all sizes (7.21 US\$ box-1). For organically produced tomatoes, the average price received by Alabama producers for organic tomatoes in 2008 of 9.32 US\$ box-1 across all sizes [37]. Data for organic tomatoes was not available in 2007. Therefore, the low-end prices by size were used in the analysis.

Productions costs for the three covers and five weed control treatments were adapted from 2008 tomato enterprise budgets [38] and experiment specific treatment costs. A partial budgeting approach was used to calculated variable treatments costs; therefore, the only costs considered were costs that differed by treatment and costs that varied by yield (Table 2). Costs that vary by yield include harvest costs, as well as grading and packing labor costs. Fixed costs, such as management costs, rent, and depreciation on machinery and buildings, differ by operation; therefore, they were not included in the analysis.


**Table 2.** Variable treatment costs (excluding costs that vary by yield).

### **4. Results and discussion**

**Cover Crop Biomass**. The quantity of cover crop biomass produced at both locations differed among cover crops, with rye producing 9363 kg/ha, and crimson clover producing 5481 kg/ha of dry matter.

**Weed Control**. The major weeds in the cover crop and plastic mulch plots included Palmer amaranth (*Amaranthus Palmeri* L.), large crabgrass (*Digitaria sanguinalis* L.), and yellow nutsedge (*Cyperus esculentus* L.).

*Palmer amaranth*. Early *Palmer amaranth* control averaged over weed management systems, clover and rye cover treatments provided excellent *Palmer amaranth* control (90 and 96% respectively) compared to the conventional plastic system (5% control) (Table 3). The plastic system provides some inherent weed control regardless of additional inputs, however, it provided no weed control in the punched holes and the area adjacent the bed. *Palmer amar‐ anth* control in clover utilizing corn gluten and flaming was equivalent to the clover plus herbicide standard. *Palmer amaranth* in rye utilizing all organic methods excluding hand weeding provided weed control equivalent to the rye plus herbicide standard. Late *Palmer amaranth* control ratings generally remained stable except increases for plastic due to the inherent control discussed above.

The average marketing year price, regardless of organic certification, received by producers in Alabama in 2007 for fresh market tomatoes across all sizes (7.21 US\$ box-1). For organically produced tomatoes, the average price received by Alabama producers for organic tomatoes in 2008 of 9.32 US\$ box-1 across all sizes [37]. Data for organic tomatoes was not available in 2007.

Productions costs for the three covers and five weed control treatments were adapted from 2008 tomato enterprise budgets [38] and experiment specific treatment costs. A partial budgeting approach was used to calculated variable treatments costs; therefore, the only costs considered were costs that differed by treatment and costs that varied by yield (Table 2). Costs that vary by yield include harvest costs, as well as grading and packing labor costs. Fixed costs, such as management costs, rent, and depreciation on machinery and buildings, differ by

No Treatment 2226 505 376 Handweed 3658 1937 1808 Flame Corn Gluten 12935 11214 11085 Flame 2859 1138 1009 Herbicide 2392 671 542

**Cover Crop Biomass**. The quantity of cover crop biomass produced at both locations differed among cover crops, with rye producing 9363 kg/ha, and crimson clover producing 5481 kg/ha

**Weed Control**. The major weeds in the cover crop and plastic mulch plots included Palmer amaranth (*Amaranthus Palmeri* L.), large crabgrass (*Digitaria sanguinalis* L.), and yellow

*Palmer amaranth*. Early *Palmer amaranth* control averaged over weed management systems, clover and rye cover treatments provided excellent *Palmer amaranth* control (90 and 96% respectively) compared to the conventional plastic system (5% control) (Table 3). The plastic system provides some inherent weed control regardless of additional inputs, however, it provided no weed control in the punched holes and the area adjacent the bed. *Palmer amar‐ anth* control in clover utilizing corn gluten and flaming was equivalent to the clover plus

**Cover Type Plastic Rye Clover US\$ ha-1**

Therefore, the low-end prices by size were used in the analysis.

74 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

operation; therefore, they were not included in the analysis.

**Table 2.** Variable treatment costs (excluding costs that vary by yield).

**Weed Control**

**4. Results and discussion**

nutsedge (*Cyperus esculentus* L.).

of dry matter.

*Large Crabgrass.* Early crabgrass control averaged over weed management system reflected control similar to Palmer amaranth, clover and rye cover treatments provided excellent crabgrass control (92 and 98% respectively) compared to the conventional plastic system (5% control) (Table 4). All rye systems provided excellent control. Late season crabgrass control was generally higher than that of *Palmer amaranth*.

*Yellow nutsedge.* Early yellow nutsedge control averaged over weed management systems reflected control similar to Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass with clover systems providing an average 93% control and rye systems providing an average 95% control. Control in both clover and rye systems was excellent regardless of treatment revealing that winter cover crops suppress nutsedge in high-residue systems.



1 Weed control methods are as follows: (1) non-treated; (2) hand-weeded; (3) corn gluten + flame; (4) flame; and (5) herbicide.

**Table 3.** Weed Response to Cover Crops and Weed Control Methods – North Alabama Horticultural Research Center 2007.

### **Yield**

Aside from the herbicide treatment, greater than 20% of the total tomato yield were cull tomatoes under plastic cover.



1 Weed control methods are as follows: (1) non-treated; (2) hand-weeded; (3) corn gluten + flame; (4) flame; and (5) herbicide.

2 Market is the marketable yield calculated by subtracting the culls from the total.

**Table 4.** Tomato Yield Response to Cover Crops and Weed Control Methods - North Alabama Horticultural Research Center 2007.

### **Economics**

**% Weed Control Early Control Late Control**

**Cover Pigweed Crabgrass Nutsedge Pigweed Crabgrass Nutsedge** Plastic 2 0b 0b 0b 49ba 50bac 50ba Plastic 3 0b 0b 0b 50ba 50bac 50ba Plastic 4 0b 0b 0b 0b 0c 0b Plastic 5 23b 23b 25b 61a 65ba 90a Rye 1 97a 97a 98a 86a 97a 99a Rye 2 92a 97a 98a 79a 96a 99a Rye 3 97a 99a 81a 90a 94a 96a Rye 4 98a 99a 99a 90a 98a 99a Rye 5 96a 98a 99a 98a 99a 99a *LSD (α = 0.10)* 17 17 21 27 31 29

Weed control methods are as follows: (1) non-treated; (2) hand-weeded; (3) corn gluten + flame; (4) flame; and (5)

**Table 3.** Weed Response to Cover Crops and Weed Control Methods – North Alabama Horticultural Research Center

Aside from the herbicide treatment, greater than 20% of the total tomato yield were cull

**Cover Cull S M L XL Total Market2** Clover 5577a 4838a 9906a 12298a 263a 32883a 27305a Rye 5479a 4778a 9649a 11031a 272a 31210a 25731a Plastic 4226b 2599b 4566b 7526b 158a 19074b 14848b *LSD (α = 0.10)* 612 576 1078 1931 197 3254 2931

 4159c 4006a 6669b 7149c 283ba 22266c 18107c 5112bac 4634a 8220b 8466cb 54b 26486cb 21374cb 5554ba 4003a 8355b 11248b 241ba 29402b 23848b 4547bc 3871a 6471b 6565c 58b 21512c 16966c 6098a 3845a 10486a 17996a 518a 38944a 32846a

**Tomato Yield (kg/ha)**

1

herbicide.

2007.

**Yield**

**Weed Control1**

tomatoes under plastic cover.

76 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

All treatments produced numerically higher NRVTC than the control, with the exception of plastic cover with flame treatment (Table 5). The clover cover and herbicide treatment produced the highest NRAVTC in 2007, followed by rye cover and herbicide treatment (Table 6). Both the non-treated control combined with clover and rye, as well as flame and handweeded treatments with clover cover, yielded higher NRAVTC than plastic with herbicide treatment. Across all cover treatments, corn gluten + flame had the lowest NRAVTC. The performance of corn gluten + flame was directly related to the cost of the corn gluten. As discussed above the corn gluten + flame weed control with clover cover had the third highest market tomato yields.

While total market yield is an important indicator of net returns, the distribution of tomatoes by size determines the level of revenue depending on the price by size. The price for each size is driven by the supply of each type of size and when the tomatoes are harvested during the season. This analysis did not consider harvest period in the revenue determination.


1 Weed control methods are as follows: (1) non-treated; (2) hand-weeded; (3) corn gluten + flame; (4) flame; and (5) herbicide.

2 Net returns above variable treatment cost (NRAVTC); standard deviations are shown in parentheses.

3 The control is plastic cover with no weed control.

**Table 5.** Net returns above variable treatment costs by treatment and the difference between treatments and the control.

This research demonstrates that high residue cover crops like cereal rye and clover can provide improved weed control compared to black polyethylene mulch. Previous research has also reported improved weed control with increased biomass production by cover crops [39]. Increased weed control has also been observed by Nagabhushna et al. [40] with an increase in the seeding rate of rye. Another important factor which could have facilitated increased weed control by rye and clover residue is rolling with mechanical roller crimper. The rolling process resulted in a uniform mat of residue on the soil surface that was a substantial physical barrier for weed seedlings to emerge through compared to tomato plant openings in the plastic mulch system that provides no barrier. Yenish et al. [41] also reported inconsistent control with cover crop residue and concluded herbicides were always required to achieve optimum weed control in corn. However, Yenish et al. cautioned weed control should not be the only criterion in selection of cover crops. Factors like cost and ease of establishment, impact on yield should be taken into consideration before selecting a cover crop. Results in this paper are short term effects of converting from a conventional plastic mulch system to two high-residue conserva‐ tion tillage systems. These results indicate the economic possibility of growing fresh market tomatoes utilizing a conservation tillage system while maintaining yields and economic returns. However, the long term impact of these systems on yield and profitability require further investigation.

### **Author details**

While total market yield is an important indicator of net returns, the distribution of tomatoes by size determines the level of revenue depending on the price by size. The price for each size is driven by the supply of each type of size and when the tomatoes are harvested during the

**NRAVTC2**

**Mean SD**

 4680 1568 2254 3718 1524 1293 -5465 702 -7890 2951 1526 525 6910 1167 4485

 -769 421 -3194 -245 2079 -2671 -9088 1809 -11513 -1439 480 -3865 2426 549 0

 4130 625 1704 2262 651 -164 -6261 1024 -8686 3954 1663 1528 6563 261 4137

Weed control methods are as follows: (1) non-treated; (2) hand-weeded; (3) corn gluten + flame; (4) flame; and (5)

Net returns above variable treatment cost (NRAVTC); standard deviations are shown in parentheses.

**Table 5.** Net returns above variable treatment costs by treatment and the difference between treatments and the

This research demonstrates that high residue cover crops like cereal rye and clover can provide improved weed control compared to black polyethylene mulch. Previous research has also reported improved weed control with increased biomass production by cover crops [39]. Increased weed control has also been observed by Nagabhushna et al. [40] with an increase in the seeding rate of rye. Another important factor which could have facilitated increased weed control by rye and clover residue is rolling with mechanical roller crimper. The rolling process

**(US\$ ha-1)**

**Difference from Control3**

season. This analysis did not consider harvest period in the revenue determination.

**Cover Type Weed Control1**

78 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

Clover

Plastic

Rye

1

2

3

herbicide.

control.

The control is plastic cover with no weed control.

Andrew J. Price1\*, Leah M. Duzy1 , Kip S. Balkcom1 , Jessica A. Kelton2 , Ted S. Kornecki1 and Lina Sarunaite3

\*Address all correspondence to: andrew.price@ars.usda.gov

1 United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, Alabama, USA

2 Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA

3 Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Lithuania

### **References**


[16] Aulakh, J.S. M., Saini, A.J. Price, W.H. Faircloth, E. van Santen, G.R. Wehtje, and J.A. Kelton. 2015. Herbicide and Rye Cover Crop Residue Integration Affect Weed Con‐ trol and Yield in Strip-Tillage Peanut. Peanut Sci. 42:30-38.

[4] Drinkwater, L. W., D. K. Letourneau, F. Workneh, A. H. C. van Bruggen, and C. Shennan. 1995. Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato

[5] United States Department of Agriculture. 2015. Quick States 2.0. http://quick‐

[6] Blough, R. F., A. R. Jarrett, J. M. Hamlett and M. D. Shaw. 1990. Runoff and erosion rater from silt, conventional, and chisel tillage under simulated rainfall. Transactions

[7] Franzluebbers, A.J., G.W. Langdale, and H.H.Schomberg. 1999. Soil carbon, nitrogen, and aggregation in response to type and frequency of tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.

[8] Mahboubi, A.A., R. Lal, and N.R. Faussey. 1993. Twenty-eight years of tillage effects

[9] Teasdale, J.R.and A.A. Abdul-Baki. 1995. Soil temperature and tomato growth associ‐ ated with black polythene and hairy vetch mulches. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.

[10] Abdul-Baki. A.A., J.R. Teasdale, R. Korcak, D.J. Chitwood, and R.N. Huettel. 1996. Fresh-market tomato production in a low-input alternative system using cover crop

[11] Teasdale, J.R.and A.A. AbdulBaki. 1997. Growth analysis of tomatoes in black plastic

[12] Arnold, G. L., M. W. Luckenbach, and M. A. Unger. 2004. Runoff from tomato culti‐ vation in the estuarine environment: biological effects of farm management practices.

[13] Derpsch, R., C. H. Roth, N. Sidiras, and U. Köpke. 1991. Controle da erosão no Para‐ ná, Brazil: Sistemas de cobertura do solo, plantio directo e prepare conservacionista do solo. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Es‐

[14] Reeves, D.W. 2003. A Brazilian model for no-tillage cotton production adapted to the southeastern USA. Proc. II World Congress on Conservation Agriculture- Producing in Harmony with Nature. Iguassu Falls, Paraná, Brazil. Aug 11-15, 2003:372-374. [15] Price, A.J., C. D. Monks, A. S. Culpepper, L. M. Duzy, J. A. Kelton, M. W. Marshall, L. E. Steckel, L.M. Sosnoskie and R. L. Nichols. High Residue Cover Crops Alone or with Strategic Tillage to Manage Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaran‐ thus palmeri) in Southeastern Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Journal of Soil and Wa‐

and hairy vetch production systems. Hortscience. 32:659-663.

agroecosystems in California. Ecological Applications. 5:1098-1112.

stats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed: July 28, 2015.

on two soils in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:506–512.

of ASAE. 33:1557–1562.

80 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

63:349–355.

120:848-853.

mulch. HortScience. 31:65-69.

chborn, SP 245, Germany.

ter Quality. (in press).

J Exp Marine Biol and Ecol. 2:323-346.


**Preliminary Results Regarding the Use of Interspecific Hybridization of Sunflower with** *Helianthus argophyllus* **for Obtaining New Hybrids with Drought Tolerance, Adapted to Organic Farming**

Florentina Sauca and Catalin Lazar

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61486

### **Abstract**

[30] Teasdale JR & Daughtry CST (1993) Weed control by live and desiccated hairy vetch

[31] Abdul-Baki A.A., and J.R. Teasdale. 1993. A no-tillage tomato Production system us‐ ing hairy vetch and subterranean clover mulches. HortScience. 28:106-108.

[32] Abdul-Baki, A.A., J.R. Teasdale, R.W. Goth, and K.G. Haynes. 2002. Marketable yields of fresh-market tomatoes grown in plastic and hairy vetch mulches. HortS‐

[33] Akemo, M.C., M.A. Bennett, and E.E. Regnier. 2000. Tomato growth in spring-sown

[34] Masiunas, J.B., L.A. Weston, and S.C. Weller. 1995. The impact of rye cover crops on

[35] Barnes, J.P. and A.R. Putnam. 1983. Rye residues contribute weed control in no-till‐

[36] USDA. 2015. Fruit and Vegetable Market News. Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Available at Web site https://

[37] USDA. 2015. Quick Stats. National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States De‐ partment of Agriculture (USDA). Available at Web site http://quick‐

[38] MSU. 2007. Traditional and organic vegetables 2008 planning budgets. Budget Re‐ port 2007–08. Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University (MSU). Available at website http://www.agecon.msstate.edu/whatwedo/budgets/

[39] Mohler, C. L. and J. R. Teasdale. 1993. Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia

[40] Nagabhushana, G.G., A.D. Worsham, and J.P. Yenish. 2001. Allelopathic cover crops to reduce herbicide use in sustainable agricultural systems. Allelopathy J. 8:133-146.

[41] Yenish, J.P., A.D. Worsham, and A.C. York. 1996. Cover crops for herbicide replace‐

villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue. Weed Res. 33:487–499.

ment in no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:815-821.

weed populations in a tomato cropping system. Weed Sci. 43:318-323.

www.marketnews.usda.gov/mnp/fv-home (verified August 3, 2015).

age cropping systems. J. of Chem. Ecol. 9:1045-1057.

stats.nass.usda.gov/ (verified August 3, 2015).

archive.asp (verified August 3, 2015)

(Vicia villosa). Weed Science 41, 207 212

cover crops. HortScience. 35:843-848.

cience. 37:878-881.

82 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

Taking into account the climatic changes expected in the future, significant shrinking of the current favourable ecological zones for sunflower is anticipat‐ ed, and the transition period to that situation may be very short. The classical breeding process has a relatively long duration (7-9 years), so breeders are in‐ terested in taking advantage of some biotechnological methods (*embryo rescue*) for obtaining new sunflower lines with increasing tolerance to a certain stress factor.

Improving drought tolerance of sunflower cultivars is a priority for a breeding program of the National Agricultural Research and Development Fundulea (NARDI-Fundulea) because it provides stable productions under a changing climate condition already seen in the past twenty years.

In the period between 2008 and 2014 at NARDI-Fundulea, a research project was started to obtain new genotypes of sunflower with improved resistance to drought and heat through interspecific hybridization between *H. annuus* and H. *argophyllus* and that are suitable for application in organic culture. This re‐ search project received funding from the World Bank through a MAKIS project.

**Keywords:** Embryo rescue, interspecific hybridization, *H. argophyllus*, *H. annuus*, NARDI Fundulea, organic farming, drought

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **1. Introduction**

In Romania, Vrânceanu (2000) [1] was able to obtain interspecific progenies *(H. annuus x H. argophyllus)* with drought resistance.

Interspecific hybridization is an additional technique to create new sources of genetic varia‐ bility for the improvement of sunflower (Christov, 2013) [2]. With all the difficulties that may arise due to differences in the number of chromosomes (2x, 4x, 6x) and crossing incompati‐ bility, interspecific hybridization is considered as an accessible way to incorporate wild germplasm into cultivated sunflower, especially to increase the resistance to abiotic stress factors (Iouraş and Voinescu, 1984) [3].

At the beginning of the project, 27 *H. annuus* parental lines were crossed with *H. argophyllus*, and two generations of interspecific hybrids/year were obtained in the greenhouse and house vegetation of NARDI-Fundulea in the first 2 years after the start of the project.

From each line hybrid obtained in 2008-2009 (Saucă et al., 2010) [4], six plants were selected, and their seeds underwent parallel backcross, self-pollination, and selection procedure.

As a result of this process, seven lines with significantly improved resistance to drought and heat (tested in field and laboratory) and that are suitable for organic farming system were selected in backcross 7. In 2015, these seven uniform lines with high production potential, oil content of over 43%, and resistance to broomrape and *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum* will be used to create commercial hybrids for ecological culture.

### **2. Background of organic farming**

### **2.1. Definitions**

The Ministry of Agriculture of Romania considered organic farming (similar to organic farming or biological agriculture), which differs fundamentally from conventional agriculture, as a "modern" process to cultivate plants, to fatten animals, and to produce food (www.ma‐ pam.ro) [5].

The Commission for Codex Alimentarius defines organic agriculture as "a production management system that promotes and maintains healthy development of agro-ecosystems, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity."

As science, organic farming deals with the systematic study of materials (living organisms and their environment) and functions (intra- and inter-relations material structures) of the agricultural systems, with design and management agro-ecosystems capable of providing for lengthy human needs for food, clothing, and housing, without reducing the potential envi‐ ronmental, economic, and social impact.

As occupation, organic farming is the activity that integrates theoretical knowledge about nature and agriculture in sustainable technological systems, based on the material, energy, and information resources of the agricultural systems (Toncea, 2000) [6].

To achieve this, organic farming relies on a number of objectives and principles, as well as on best practices designed to minimize human impact on the environment, while ensuring that the agricultural system operates as naturally as possible.

### **2.2. Principles underlying organic farming**

**1. Introduction**

*argophyllus)* with drought resistance.

84 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

factors (Iouraş and Voinescu, 1984) [3].

create commercial hybrids for ecological culture.

**2. Background of organic farming**

ronmental, economic, and social impact.

**2.1. Definitions**

pam.ro) [5].

In Romania, Vrânceanu (2000) [1] was able to obtain interspecific progenies *(H. annuus x H.*

Interspecific hybridization is an additional technique to create new sources of genetic varia‐ bility for the improvement of sunflower (Christov, 2013) [2]. With all the difficulties that may arise due to differences in the number of chromosomes (2x, 4x, 6x) and crossing incompati‐ bility, interspecific hybridization is considered as an accessible way to incorporate wild germplasm into cultivated sunflower, especially to increase the resistance to abiotic stress

At the beginning of the project, 27 *H. annuus* parental lines were crossed with *H. argophyllus*, and two generations of interspecific hybrids/year were obtained in the greenhouse and house

From each line hybrid obtained in 2008-2009 (Saucă et al., 2010) [4], six plants were selected, and their seeds underwent parallel backcross, self-pollination, and selection procedure.

As a result of this process, seven lines with significantly improved resistance to drought and heat (tested in field and laboratory) and that are suitable for organic farming system were selected in backcross 7. In 2015, these seven uniform lines with high production potential, oil content of over 43%, and resistance to broomrape and *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum* will be used to

The Ministry of Agriculture of Romania considered organic farming (similar to organic farming or biological agriculture), which differs fundamentally from conventional agriculture, as a "modern" process to cultivate plants, to fatten animals, and to produce food (www.ma‐

The Commission for Codex Alimentarius defines organic agriculture as "a production management system that promotes and maintains healthy development of agro-ecosystems,

As science, organic farming deals with the systematic study of materials (living organisms and their environment) and functions (intra- and inter-relations material structures) of the agricultural systems, with design and management agro-ecosystems capable of providing for lengthy human needs for food, clothing, and housing, without reducing the potential envi‐

including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity."

vegetation of NARDI-Fundulea in the first 2 years after the start of the project.

Under the agreement in the integration of our country into the European Union, one of the measures imposed, inter alia, is the implementation of organic farming system. Apparently, this was something new, but some restrictions were easier to accept, for example, the inter‐ diction for the use of chemical inputs that were not applied anyway on large surfaces in many agricultural areas due to economic considerations. However, a cause of concern is the lack of market demand for certified organic products and the low purchasing power of consumers. The price of an organic product is higher than its counterpart produced in the conventional system.

The normative acts operating in food production are particularly following the change in state of the art that occurred in agronomy. They do not refer solely on primary agricultural pro‐ duction sector, but also take into account the whole food chain, from primary production to final consumer. The agrifood complex is characterized by:


Farms and organic agro companies are generally small- or medium-sized. Worldwide, most organic farms occupy small areas (0.5-30 ha), cultivate, and/or grow a small number of one, two, or three species of plants and animals and process one, two, or three different agricultural products.

Organic farming methods used in obtaining the unprocessed primary plant products, animals, and unprocessed animal products; animal and vegetable products processed for human consumption prepared from one or more ingredients of plant and/or animal origin; and compound feed and raw materials must meet the following conditions:


Developing of crop cultivation technologies targeted for alternative agriculture, especially for organic farming agriculture may improve the performance socio-economic indicators for these activities. This requires proper management of all the factors that contribute to high and stable yields per unit area, compliance with specific regulations and finally the recognition of finished products, in this case, an organic production certification.

### **2.3. Specific organic farming practices include**


### **2.4. The objectives of organic farming**


### **2.5. National and international legislations**

The provisions on labeling of products from organic farming stipulated in Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007 on organic production and on labeling of organic products stated in Regulation (EC) no. 889/2008 that provide detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007 are very precise and aim to offer consumers full confidence that products carrying the organic product label or the Community logo are obtained in accordance with the rules and principles contained in these regulations or, in the case of imports, are under the equivalent system with less demanding requirements.

To obtain and market labeled organic products and carrying specific organic production Community logo, producers must complete and strictly follow a rigorous process.

Thus, before you can obtain agricultural products that can be marketed as products of organic farming, the products must first undergo a conversion period of at least two years.

During the entire chain of production of an organic product, operators must constantly observe the rules established by Regulation (EEC) no. 834/2007.

In Romania, control and certification of organic products are currently provided by private inspection and certification bodies. They are approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), based on the criteria of independence, impartiality, and com‐ petence as established in Order no. 688/2007 regarding the "Rules for organization of the inspection and certification system and approval of the certification and inspection bodies".

MARD's approval of control bodies requires a previous mandatory accreditation in accordance with European standard EN ISO 45011: 1998, which was issued by an agency authorized for this purpose. Following the inspections performed by regulatory bodies, certain products of operators complying with the rules of organic production may receive organic product certificate, and these products are permitted to be marked as "eco-labeled products".

Before the application of the label to an organic product, the following requirements must be fulfilled: the reference to organic production logo, name and code of the inspection and certification body that carried out the inspection and issued the organic product certification. The "ae" logo specific for national organic products, together with the Community logo, can be used for better views of consumer products from organic production.

The right to use the "ae" logo on product labels and packaging of organic products is given to producers, processors, and importers registered with MARD and holding a contract with a control body approved by MARD.

As part of the campaign to promote organic agriculture in the European Union (EU) at the initiative of the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission, a website dedicated to this purpose was created: www.ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ organic/home.ro.

The main objective of this site is to inform the general public about organic farming system as a starting point in the realization of promotional campaigns in different Member States.

Additionally, in order to promote the organic products, the European Commission provides support of up to 50% of information and promotion programs submitted by professional and inter-professional organisations, involving at least 20% of the actual cost of measures, and budget co-financing being provided by the State in accordance with Regulation (EC) no. 3/2008 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market and in developing countries and Regulation (EC) no. 501/2008 that lays down detailed rules on implementing Regulation (EC) no. 3/2008 (information taken from the MARD website).

### **2.6. The national and international situations**

**2.3. Specific organic farming practices include**

86 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**•** Not using of genetically modified organisms;

feed produced from the farm;

**2.4. The objectives of organic farming**

**•** Allow farmers to have a decent life;

**2.5. National and international legislations**

the rules established by Regulation (EEC) no. 834/2007.

health of food consumers.

less demanding requirements.

products;

conditions;

**•** Crop rotation as a prerequisite for the efficient use of farm resources;

**•** Very strict limits on chemical synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, antibiotics for animals, food additives, and other substances used for additional processing of agricultural

**•** Utilization of existing resources on site, such as using manure as fertilizer from animals and

**•** Choice of species of plants and animals resistant to diseases and pests, adapted to local

**•** Maintain the natural fertility of soils, thereby ensuring food security in a sustainable planet;

**•** To produce in sufficient quantities and at an appropriate quality level, thus ensuring the

The provisions on labeling of products from organic farming stipulated in Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007 on organic production and on labeling of organic products stated in Regulation (EC) no. 889/2008 that provide detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) no. 834/2007 are very precise and aim to offer consumers full confidence that products carrying the organic product label or the Community logo are obtained in accordance with the rules and principles contained in these regulations or, in the case of imports, are under the equivalent system with

To obtain and market labeled organic products and carrying specific organic production

Thus, before you can obtain agricultural products that can be marketed as products of organic

During the entire chain of production of an organic product, operators must constantly observe

In Romania, control and certification of organic products are currently provided by private inspection and certification bodies. They are approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and

Community logo, producers must complete and strictly follow a rigorous process.

farming, the products must first undergo a conversion period of at least two years.

**•** Livestock in freedom and open shelters and feeding them with organic feed;

**•** Using animal husbandry practices tailored to each race individually.

**•** Avoid all forms of pollution, both in products and in the environment;

If during the period 1950-1990 in Romania the objectives were to increase agricultural pro‐ duction to meet food requirements in view of the growing population, today the objectives are focused on finding new solutions that aim to respect the environment, create a system production that is economically viable, and maintenance and use of natural resources.

This new type of farming is called sustainable agriculture, and it involves a set of techniques and practices that should ensure a satisfactory production, ensuring food requirements are met and taking into account environmental protection.

After 1990, the gap recorded between quantitative indicators expressing the production potential and quality, caused by low endowment and equipment necessary to conduct the production process as well as related inputs, led to the development of technologies' extensive culture.

Another cause is the high fragmentation and dispersion of farms due to the implementation of the Land Law no. 18/1991. Currently, the farming land (14.8 million. Ha) is dispersed in about 40 million parcels. In 1972, the I.F.O.A.M. (International Federation of Organic Agricul‐ ture Movement) based in Germany was established. This federation groups more than 670 organizations and institutions from more than 100 countries worldwide.

The European Economic Community (EEC) recognized a majority vote of the European Parliament on 19 February 1986 on the existence of alternative agriculture based on resolutions adopted through Regulation 2092/91. A series of regulations were formulated, of which particularly important is Regulation EEC 1936/1995, which specified that from 1 January 2000, organic farming materials are the only ones to be used in sowing/planting.

According to I.F.O.A.M. statistics (February 2001), the world agricultural area intended for organic production was estimated to be 15.8 million hectares, with the largest area in Australia (7.6 million hectares), Argentina (3 million hectares), and Italy (1 million hectares).

In all EU countries, there is a real desire for developing OA, which will hold over 10% of the cultivated area. Agricultural area in the "bio" or "organic" agricultural systems in some countries is as follows: Italy - over 1.1 million ha, United Kingdom - 600,000 ha, France - 400,000 ha, Spain - 380,000 ha, and Austria - 250.000 ha. In the USA and Japan, about 20% of food is through organic production system.

In Romania, organically cultivated agricultural areas have seen a spectacular growth in the period 2010-2013, so at the end of 2013, about 301,148 ha were recorded by MARD.

Regarding the European organic food market, Germany has the biggest market, with sales of approximately 2.5 billion euro, and in terms of average consumption per capita of ecological products, Denmark and Switzerland are leading.

The markets for organic products are both the countries that depend on exports of organic products (Italy) and the countries that depend on imports of organic products (UK). Extremes of demand and supply in each country adjust by themselves. According to the study, the current situation appears to be changing because, in the UK, it is estimated that domestic production will meet the demand, while in Italy, the demand will increase. Today, increasingly more organic products are imported from Eastern Europe.

European Commission experts estimate that the market for organic products last year reached a value of 23 billion euro in the European Union. The organic market in the European Union is virtually all primary and processed agricultural produce (bread, wine, meat, milk, oil, fish, etc.). According to the study, organic products are generally 25-30% more expensive than conventional products, but depending on the supply and demand, the price could reach 400% of the price of the conventional ones.

Many local experts consider that countries in the Eastern Europe would need 10-15 years to be able to develop and structure the internal market at the level of the Western EU states. An argument invoked to support this assertion is the example of Spain, where it required about 17 years after integration to structure the internal market at the level of the other member states. Meanwhile, Spain exports almost all northern European market organic products. Eastern European countries will need to focus on organic production of the scanty products in the EU, including vegetable protein and red fruit, because Western countries have begun to signifi‐ cantly reduce production in sectors requiring a large labor force.

production process as well as related inputs, led to the development of technologies' extensive

Another cause is the high fragmentation and dispersion of farms due to the implementation of the Land Law no. 18/1991. Currently, the farming land (14.8 million. Ha) is dispersed in about 40 million parcels. In 1972, the I.F.O.A.M. (International Federation of Organic Agricul‐ ture Movement) based in Germany was established. This federation groups more than 670

The European Economic Community (EEC) recognized a majority vote of the European Parliament on 19 February 1986 on the existence of alternative agriculture based on resolutions adopted through Regulation 2092/91. A series of regulations were formulated, of which particularly important is Regulation EEC 1936/1995, which specified that from 1 January 2000,

According to I.F.O.A.M. statistics (February 2001), the world agricultural area intended for organic production was estimated to be 15.8 million hectares, with the largest area in Australia

In all EU countries, there is a real desire for developing OA, which will hold over 10% of the cultivated area. Agricultural area in the "bio" or "organic" agricultural systems in some countries is as follows: Italy - over 1.1 million ha, United Kingdom - 600,000 ha, France - 400,000 ha, Spain - 380,000 ha, and Austria - 250.000 ha. In the USA and Japan, about 20% of food is

In Romania, organically cultivated agricultural areas have seen a spectacular growth in the

Regarding the European organic food market, Germany has the biggest market, with sales of approximately 2.5 billion euro, and in terms of average consumption per capita of ecological

The markets for organic products are both the countries that depend on exports of organic products (Italy) and the countries that depend on imports of organic products (UK). Extremes of demand and supply in each country adjust by themselves. According to the study, the current situation appears to be changing because, in the UK, it is estimated that domestic production will meet the demand, while in Italy, the demand will increase. Today, increasingly

European Commission experts estimate that the market for organic products last year reached a value of 23 billion euro in the European Union. The organic market in the European Union is virtually all primary and processed agricultural produce (bread, wine, meat, milk, oil, fish, etc.). According to the study, organic products are generally 25-30% more expensive than conventional products, but depending on the supply and demand, the price could reach 400%

Many local experts consider that countries in the Eastern Europe would need 10-15 years to be able to develop and structure the internal market at the level of the Western EU states. An

organizations and institutions from more than 100 countries worldwide.

organic farming materials are the only ones to be used in sowing/planting.

through organic production system.

88 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

of the price of the conventional ones.

products, Denmark and Switzerland are leading.

more organic products are imported from Eastern Europe.

(7.6 million hectares), Argentina (3 million hectares), and Italy (1 million hectares).

period 2010-2013, so at the end of 2013, about 301,148 ha were recorded by MARD.

culture.

In Romania, the ecological production sectors benefit from European funding of about 200 million euro, which is available through a dedicated position in the new National Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014-2020.

In addition, payments for OA, which are made by APIA, will continue. The registered farmers in organic agriculture will receive grants of 500 euro/hectare/year for growing vegetables, 620 euro/hectare/year for horticulture, 530 euro/hectare/year for vineyards, and 365 euro/hectare/ year under organic cultivation of medicinal plants.

The experts appreciate that prices of organic products could be 10-20% higher than those of conventional ones if there are many farms and slaughterhouses certified. Romania currently has only 2-3 farms of laying hen organic certificates and some organic dairy farms, but instead the Romanian exports of organic wheat are significantly high, meanwhile part of this com‐ modity is imported back as processed ecological products at prices 2-3 times higher than the conventional ones.

According to the MARD, the value of the domestic market of organic products in 2008 was about 20 million euro, while exports were at 100 million euro, which was twice the amount in 2006. Under an adjustment of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2009, Romania proposed that organic farming be financially supported by this package. Since this adjustment, CAP has created a financial reserve that allows the Member States to develop certain programs to fully support a particular context, technically called Article 68.

The financial envelope allocated to Romania for 2010 only amounted to EUR 5 million. The increase in the organic market in Romania continues; with only 86 registered organic food processors in 2008; in 2010, the number became 3,155; and in 2012, it was 15,194.

Exports of organic products in 2008 amounted to 100 million euros, which was equivalent to about 130,000 tons of products, of which only 1% were processed products and 0.94% were honey products. The primary export destinations were the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Italy, and the UK. Imports of organic products were worth 10.8 million euro, which was almost double the amount for 2007, with fruit and legume preserves, coffee, and sweets being the most significant products.

The turnover in organic agriculture worldwide was 46 billion dollars in 2007, up by 10% compared to 2006, while in Europe the figure reached a level of 15.4 billion euro, 15% more than in 2006.

The productive potential of agriculture ecological system of the country can reach up to 15-20% of the total agricultural areas largely concentrated in hilly mountain where technology maintenance and use of pastures were based on traditional methods - organic (manure application, utilization of grazing and/or mowing, use of fodder and clover ameliorating soil fertility, use of vegetable-livestock mixed system), but are not neglected arable land in the North-East.

At global level, two opposite trends are rising as an increasing concern:


These imperatives can be resolved only by organic farming, an agricultural practice in some countries that is called organic or biological farming, which sprang from the secular experience of agriculture.

Organic farming is not a miracle or a wonder, but a creation of nature-loving farmers, who aim for harmony and dynamic interactions among soil, plants, animals, and humans, or, in other words between supply natural ecosystems and human needs of food, clothing, and housing.

### **2.7. Practical aspects of OA**


as a part of their work meets the environmental standards and provided that the two systems (conventional and organic) are clearly separated both in documentation and in production.

application, utilization of grazing and/or mowing, use of fodder and clover ameliorating soil fertility, use of vegetable-livestock mixed system), but are not neglected arable land in the

**a. Overproduction** and negative side effects of industrial type of farming that include decreasing of soil fertility due to erosion, acidification, salinization, and exhaustion of the reserve of organic matter; reducing of biological and genetic diversity; increased risk of air pollution exhaust and ammonia, shallow and deep waters and soils with nitrates, and

**b. Production for subsistence** and its negative consequences - hunger and social inequity. These imperatives can be resolved only by organic farming, an agricultural practice in some countries that is called organic or biological farming, which sprang from the secular experience

Organic farming is not a miracle or a wonder, but a creation of nature-loving farmers, who aim for harmony and dynamic interactions among soil, plants, animals, and humans, or, in other words between supply natural ecosystems and human needs of food, clothing, and

**•** The agro-ecological systems have long life due to components, structural and functional

**•** Organic production is done on farms, individual households, family associations, agribus‐ iness companies, and rarely in large agricultural associations and companies or holding. Organic products are obtained also in the aquatic environment, forest, and other natural

**•** Generally, many agricultural and agro-ecological farms are in small- or medium-sized category. At world level, the average surfaces for organic farms are within 0.5 and 3.0 ha

**•** All organic farms and agro-industrial societies undergo a longer or shorter conversion period, which is equal to the time between the start of ecological management and getting

**•** Certification is provided by a national or international organization that is recognized by the International Accreditation Service International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and empowered to assess and guarantee in writing that its production

**•** The transition from conventional to organic farming is done step by step, in order to protect the economy from the shocks of decreases in productivity, and to allow producers to gain confidence in the ecological systems. Certification of these business units is made as soon

or processing system is in compliance with the standards of organic agriculture.

stability, and ability to cope with any disruptive or disturbing factor.

range, and most of them cultivate only 1-3 different agricultural species.

the certificate by the ecological farm or company.

At global level, two opposite trends are rising as an increasing concern:

heavy metal contamination of food with toxic substances, etc.;

North-East.

90 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

of agriculture.

housing.

systems.

**2.7. Practical aspects of OA**

**•** With very few exceptions, organic farms are mixed, plant-animal type, on the one hand, to capitalize on higher crop and, on the other hand, to reuse as much of the nutrients extracted from the soil by plants grown. In this case, the structures of animal species and categories are determined by the potential of the farm and vegetable farming area, as well as the economic and financial resources (buildings and plant breeding, money) and the manpower (number of people, age, training) available in the farm.

Exceptions to this rule are organic vegetable farms and processing and marketing firms for semi-organic products. In such cases, the bulk of production is for direct human consumption (vegetables, fruits, canned vegetables and meats, cheeses, vegetables, and animal extracts); processing of the products is done with minimum consumption of energy, and this energy is, as far as possible renewable, sourced from animal manure (biogas), wind, and local fluid (residues and organic waste).


Regarding the problems of agro-ecological systems, Köpke (2005) argued that compared with intensive farming system, ecological system is characterized by:


### **2.8. Reference of knowledge on the topic addressed**

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together experts from around the world, published on 6 April 2007 in Brussels a new report on the impact of global warming on people and the earth. This report is a readjustment of the report in 2001 and is recognized by 192 UN member states. The crucial passage of the new report indicates that "a drastic change in climate is expected if carbon concentrations in the atmosphere will reach 550 ppm (parts per million), which would cause a rise in temperature of about 3 degree Celsius. The main consequences of global warming are increasing ocean levels and extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts, floods, strong winds) that will bring major impacts like disap‐ pearance of animal and plant species, increasing human health risk, and inevitable demo‐ graphic changes. Crop yields fluctuate from year to year, and this is being significantly influenced by climate variability and extreme weather events. Climate variability impacts all sectors of the economy, but agriculture remains the most vulnerable.

**In Romania**, from about 14.7 million ha of agricultural land, of which 9.4 million ha is arable land (64% of arable land), 7 million ha of agricultural surface (48%) soils are affected in different degrees by frequent droughts in most of the years and more than 6 million ha of agricultural land are affected by excess moisture in wet years. The extent and intensity of extreme weather events decrease annual agricultural production by at least 30-50%, and sustainable conserva‐ tion of natural resources in agriculture is necessary to ensure scientific validity of all actions and measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences. Drought is a natural phenomenon caused by insufficient rainfall for meeting the crop requirements. The impact of drought is influenced by the severity of drought, physiological status of crop (including the development stage and cultivar adaptation) and soil properties.

The most severe effects are manifested especially on the rural population dependent on farming. Global climate changes as manifested by the increasing average temperature and change in rainfall regime have led, in recent decades, to an increase in drought-affected areas worldwide. In Romania, the areas most vulnerable to extreme drought are the south-eastern and Dobrogea, Baragan and southern areas of Oltenia, Muntenia, and Moldavia.

The term "desertification" refers to reduction or destruction of the biological potential of land that can lead to problems similar conditions in desert areas. Desertification includes the interaction of large-scale global climate dynamics, reflecting the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean and climate physics of the earth's surface. It can be a result of the interaction of natural recurrence of droughty years with practice of irrational exploitation of the land, deforestation, and intensive grazing. Climatic data from the past century show a gradual warming of the atmosphere and a significant reduction in rainfall as limiting factors for crop growth and productivity and utilization of water resources. These changes can have significant impacts on growth and development of crops during the growing season, depend‐ ing on the intensity of the disruptive factor, the manner and duration of action, and plant species vulnerability to extreme weather events during production.

Globally, according to studies, a significant warming in the coming decades is expected as a result of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and significant changes in precipita‐ tion. The IPCC report (2001) estimated an increase in global average temperature from 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, depending on the emission scenario, which is 2-10 times more pronounced compared to the current condition. The amount of rainfall will record a rise/fall trend of between 5% and 20% globally, with significant differences occurring especially at the regional level. It will also intensify the occurrence of extreme weather conditions (winter and summer extreme temperatures, droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) with major consequences on the entire planetary ecosystem.

**2.8. Reference of knowledge on the topic addressed**

92 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

stage and cultivar adaptation) and soil properties.

sectors of the economy, but agriculture remains the most vulnerable.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together experts from around the world, published on 6 April 2007 in Brussels a new report on the impact of global warming on people and the earth. This report is a readjustment of the report in 2001 and is recognized by 192 UN member states. The crucial passage of the new report indicates that "a drastic change in climate is expected if carbon concentrations in the atmosphere will reach 550 ppm (parts per million), which would cause a rise in temperature of about 3 degree Celsius. The main consequences of global warming are increasing ocean levels and extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts, floods, strong winds) that will bring major impacts like disap‐ pearance of animal and plant species, increasing human health risk, and inevitable demo‐ graphic changes. Crop yields fluctuate from year to year, and this is being significantly influenced by climate variability and extreme weather events. Climate variability impacts all

**In Romania**, from about 14.7 million ha of agricultural land, of which 9.4 million ha is arable land (64% of arable land), 7 million ha of agricultural surface (48%) soils are affected in different degrees by frequent droughts in most of the years and more than 6 million ha of agricultural land are affected by excess moisture in wet years. The extent and intensity of extreme weather events decrease annual agricultural production by at least 30-50%, and sustainable conserva‐ tion of natural resources in agriculture is necessary to ensure scientific validity of all actions and measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences. Drought is a natural phenomenon caused by insufficient rainfall for meeting the crop requirements. The impact of drought is influenced by the severity of drought, physiological status of crop (including the development

The most severe effects are manifested especially on the rural population dependent on farming. Global climate changes as manifested by the increasing average temperature and change in rainfall regime have led, in recent decades, to an increase in drought-affected areas worldwide. In Romania, the areas most vulnerable to extreme drought are the south-eastern

The term "desertification" refers to reduction or destruction of the biological potential of land that can lead to problems similar conditions in desert areas. Desertification includes the interaction of large-scale global climate dynamics, reflecting the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean and climate physics of the earth's surface. It can be a result of the interaction of natural recurrence of droughty years with practice of irrational exploitation of the land, deforestation, and intensive grazing. Climatic data from the past century show a gradual warming of the atmosphere and a significant reduction in rainfall as limiting factors for crop growth and productivity and utilization of water resources. These changes can have significant impacts on growth and development of crops during the growing season, depend‐ ing on the intensity of the disruptive factor, the manner and duration of action, and plant

Globally, according to studies, a significant warming in the coming decades is expected as a result of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and significant changes in precipita‐

and Dobrogea, Baragan and southern areas of Oltenia, Muntenia, and Moldavia.

species vulnerability to extreme weather events during production.

**In Romania**, projections of global scenarios for the period 1991-2099 as compared to the period 1961-1990 revealed an increase in the average air temperature of about 2°C during winter and 3.5°C to 4.3°C during summer (3.5°C and 4.3°C in the north and south, respectively). With regard to precipitation the expected changes are insignificant during summer and winter will be recorded water deficits. The northwest country regions are expected to become slightly wetter meanwhile the southwest and central regions will become drier.

In the twentieth century, global warming shows an annual average temperature rise of 0.3°C in almost the entire country, with the increase in temperature being more pronounced in the southern and eastern areas. Significant warming was experienced during winter and summer seasons (with Bucharest-Filaret being the most pronounced, 1.9°C), and significant cooling was found during fall in the western regions of the country.

Regarding the distribution of precipitation within year, there was a downward trend in the annual quantities especially in the central regions, and during the winter season, a decreased precipitation was observed in most regions, being more pronounced in the south and west.

Effects of global warming further include the following changes in the occurrence of mete‐ orological phenomena in hot or cold season of the year: increased frequency of tropical days, decrease in the frequency of winter days, increasing average maximum temperature during winter and summer (up to 2.0°C in the south and southeast), significantly decreased thickness of snow in the Northeast and West, and increased annual production of winter atmospheric phenomena (frost, ice, frost).

Today, global climate change is associated with increased pollution, deforestation or changes in the landscape that caused an amplification on the process of aridization. As a result, some high-risk areas for drought tend to be affected by aridity and even by desertification (disap‐ pearance of vegetation cover and soil degradation). In our country, the high-risk territories for drought, with a tendency to be affected by aridity and desertification, include large areas of Dobrogea and southern Romanian Plain. These areas may be classified as areas most vulner‐ able to excessive and prolonged drought.

In the next decades, the implications of global warming in the industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, and biodiversity will be very obvious. Globally, therefore, it has the effect of warming and increased frequency and intensity of extreme events, especially droughts and floods. The causes that lead to these phenomena are evident about both climate and human interventions or wasteful use of land and water resources, inappropriate agricultural practices, deforestation, overgrazing, and air and soil pollution.

During extreme droughts, the current agricultural practices recommended are: fixing assort‐ ment of varieties and hybrids at the beginning of each crop year and the use of appropriate technology depending on soil water reserves from sowing; cultivating a greater number of varieties/genotypes with different growing season for better use of the climate conditions, especially moisture regime. Significant yield losses can be prevented through observance of recommended sowing period, irrigation or application of a minimum tillage system, utiliza‐ tion of varieties adapted phenologically to the new climatic conditions (in order to avoid the occurrence of critical phases as pollination and grain filling during the maximal stress periods) and better adapted physiologically to stress.

In the long term, the necessary measures for the prevention and mitigation of climate change include reforestation programs, reducing pollution, restoring and upgrading anti-erosion work, and expansion of the development and improvement of sandy soils, etc. At the same time, educating people and raising awareness on environmental protection are major require‐ ments in developing adaptation strategies to climate change.

Solutions and recommendations for the development of actions and procedures to prevent and minimize the effects of climate variability in agriculture must include the already wellknown whole complex of measures (agro-technical, cultural, irrigation, etc.) and carrying out swift action and intervention to limit the consequences and spatial extension of the affected area.

However, addressing issues related to climate change impacts requires specialized scientific data and analysis, risk management in agriculture mainly involving actions concerning the management and conservation of environmental resources, and making the right decisions in the right perspective.

In 1996, the National Commission on Climate Change/CNSC (HG 1275-1296) was established, and in July 2005, Romania's National Strategy on Climate Change (GD 645/2005) was ap‐ proved. Also, with Law no. 111/1998, Romania joined the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD); the Convention adopted in Paris on 17 June 1994 the declaration that 17 June be recognized as the Desertification and Drought Day worldwide. (SMART financial - www. SMARTfinancial.ro.[7])

### **3. Improving sunflower to biotic and abiotic stress factors**

NARDI-Fundulea has obtained an invaluable genetic basis with over 50 years of research experience. NARDI-Fundulea is the basic institution in Romania that provides the necessary seeds and parental lines of traditional culture system.

The requirements for sourcing germplasm to improve sunflower hybrids are becoming bigger and more important. The greater diversity is conserved, the more chances to meet the present and the future. Loss of genetic diversity or genetic erosion may occur as a result of many interrelated causes, such as socio-economic and agricultural, natural disasters such as epi‐ demics, long periods of drought and floods, and even human contribution.

The collection, evaluation, and preservation of wild species of sunflower were done carefully and were the basic objectives of the scientific cooperation of the FAO Network Research Sunflower Sun. From its foundation in 1975 until today and in Vrânceanu's (2000) study [1], the main objective of improving the sunflower hybrid is said to be further improving produc‐ tivity by increasing seed production and seed oil content. After seed production and oil content, the major objective of improvement is: genetic resistance to disease *(Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Phomopsis helianthi),* parasite *Orobanche sp*, drought, and heat; with less attractively for birds were obtained.

### **3.1. Material and methods**

During extreme droughts, the current agricultural practices recommended are: fixing assort‐ ment of varieties and hybrids at the beginning of each crop year and the use of appropriate technology depending on soil water reserves from sowing; cultivating a greater number of varieties/genotypes with different growing season for better use of the climate conditions, especially moisture regime. Significant yield losses can be prevented through observance of recommended sowing period, irrigation or application of a minimum tillage system, utiliza‐ tion of varieties adapted phenologically to the new climatic conditions (in order to avoid the occurrence of critical phases as pollination and grain filling during the maximal stress periods)

In the long term, the necessary measures for the prevention and mitigation of climate change include reforestation programs, reducing pollution, restoring and upgrading anti-erosion work, and expansion of the development and improvement of sandy soils, etc. At the same time, educating people and raising awareness on environmental protection are major require‐

Solutions and recommendations for the development of actions and procedures to prevent and minimize the effects of climate variability in agriculture must include the already wellknown whole complex of measures (agro-technical, cultural, irrigation, etc.) and carrying out swift action and intervention to limit the consequences and spatial extension of the affected

However, addressing issues related to climate change impacts requires specialized scientific data and analysis, risk management in agriculture mainly involving actions concerning the management and conservation of environmental resources, and making the right decisions in

In 1996, the National Commission on Climate Change/CNSC (HG 1275-1296) was established, and in July 2005, Romania's National Strategy on Climate Change (GD 645/2005) was ap‐ proved. Also, with Law no. 111/1998, Romania joined the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD); the Convention adopted in Paris on 17 June 1994 the declaration that 17 June be recognized as the Desertification and Drought Day worldwide. (SMART

NARDI-Fundulea has obtained an invaluable genetic basis with over 50 years of research experience. NARDI-Fundulea is the basic institution in Romania that provides the necessary

The requirements for sourcing germplasm to improve sunflower hybrids are becoming bigger and more important. The greater diversity is conserved, the more chances to meet the present and the future. Loss of genetic diversity or genetic erosion may occur as a result of many interrelated causes, such as socio-economic and agricultural, natural disasters such as epi‐

**3. Improving sunflower to biotic and abiotic stress factors**

demics, long periods of drought and floods, and even human contribution.

and better adapted physiologically to stress.

94 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

area.

the right perspective.

financial - www. SMARTfinancial.ro.[7])

seeds and parental lines of traditional culture system.

ments in developing adaptation strategies to climate change.

The genetic materials used were seven inbred lines of sunflower obtained at the NARDI-Fundulea and wild *H. argophyllus* known as resistant to drought.

Two locations were chosen for organic testing: Stupina (Constanta), known as pole drought in Romania, and Fundulea (Calarasi county).

The breeding methods used were: interspecific hybridization (first year of experimentation), embryoculture to save interspecific *embryo rescue* backcross, self-pollination, and selection. Two generations/year worked in the field and in the greenhouse, as illustrated below.

As we have a lot of data from all the years of experimentation, we will present only the results obtained in 2014, which was an extremely dry year in terms of ecological culture of the Stupina. Some of the results were published in international journals, while others are in print.

Regarding drought tolerance, we deduced the parameters of productivity (weight/head, TKW, and oil content), which will be presented for each new genotype obtained.

Each "slash" code (for example 1/1/1...n) inside graphs represents a descendent from an initial interspecific hybrid that further was subject of the general breeding scheme (individual selection, self-pollination, back cross and new selection scheme). The labels Stupina1-Stupina3 and Fundulea1-Fundulea3 represent the number of repetitions per location.

### **3.2. Results**

From Figure 1, we can see great differences among some genotypes, even if they have the same lineage. In the same cross-breeding, it has been observed that every head is a distinct genetic entity. Therefore, the seed obtained from each phenotypically different head was seeded (three times/head) into one isolate plant/row.

Both lines (1/1/1 and 1/1/2) showed instability of seeds and head weights, both at Fundulea and at Stupina. For TKV, 1/1/1 in terms of Fundulea, showed some stability; the differences between the three plants are insignificant. For Stupina, although TKW values are reduced by approximately 50%, stable new lines show the three plants. In Figure 1, the same applies. Great unevenness and instability on seed production/head were observed. The fact that while seed production was low, except for plant Fundulea 1 (1/2/1), TKW recorded values were between 29 grams and 49 grams.

Sunflower breeding scheme

 **Figure 1.** Sunflower breeding scheme

From Figure 4, one can see that the plant "Fundulea 3 (1/3/1)" progenies with a head weight of 70 grams at Fundulea and 38 grams at Stupina. The TKW for this genotype was the highest in both locations (49 grams).

Due to the very low values for both characters, in both locations, the genotypes 1/4/1 and 1/4/2 were not considered for the process of breeding for commercial hybrids (Figure 5).

In the extremely droughty conditions from Stupina, even the TKW and head weights were lower than in Fundulea they displayed a better uniformity.

Preliminary Results Regarding the Use of Interspecific Hybridization of Sunflower with *Helianthus argophyllus*... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61486 

 

Sunflower breeding scheme

Years

Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**Figure 1.** Sunflower breeding scheme

in both locations (49 grams).

*H. ANNUUS* **x** *H. ARGOPHYLLUS*

**BC1F1 x LC** 

**BC2F1 x LC** 

**BC3F1 x LC** 

**BC4F1 x LC** 

**BC4F2**

**BC5F1 x LC** 

**BC5F2**

**BC6F1 x LC** 

**A B Mother**

From Figure 4, one can see that the plant "Fundulea 3 (1/3/1)" progenies with a head weight of 70 grams at Fundulea and 38 grams at Stupina. The TKW for this genotype was the highest

Due to the very low values for both characters, in both locations, the genotypes 1/4/1 and 1/4/2

In the extremely droughty conditions from Stupina, even the TKW and head weights were

were not considered for the process of breeding for commercial hybrids (Figure 5).

**BC7F1 x LC** 

lower than in Fundulea they displayed a better uniformity.

2n = 34 2n = 34

**F1** (2n = 34) **x LC** (2n = 34)

*Embryo resque* 

**Figure 2.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 1/1/1 and 1/1/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation Polet-11273B x *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 3.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 1/2/1 and 1/2/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation Polet-11273B x *Helianthus argophyllus*

Due to the fact that the oil percentage is higher under heat and drought stress conditions, it is not surprising that all the genotypes obtained from hybridization of Polet-11273B x *Helianthus argophyllus* (Figure 6) have an oil content (estimated by NMR) greater than 40% at Stupina, significantly exceeding the oil content (determined with the same method) of the seeds obtained at Fundulea (29-33%)

From the hybridisation of line O-7493B with *Argophyllus*, 3 descendants with yield and oil content stability were selected: 3/1/1 (Figure 6); 3/2/1/ (Figure 7); and 3/4/2 (Figure 8). The seed

**Figure 4.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 1/3/1 and 1/3/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation Polet-11273B x *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 5.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 1/3/1 and 1/3/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation Polet-11273B x *Helianthus argophyllus*

weight of heads of these descendants varied between 73 and 120 grams/head at Fundulea and between 25 grams and 60 grams at Stupina. The oil content varied between 32% and 40% at Fundulea and between 39% and 44% at Stupina (Figure 9).

After hybridizations, self-pollination, backcrossing, and selection of descendants of the hybrid Tard/85-19982B X *Helianthus argophyllus*, we obtained 11 new lines with a very large variability for the studied characters.

Preliminary Results Regarding the Use of Interspecific Hybridization of Sunflower with *Helianthus argophyllus*... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61486 99

**Figure 6.** Oil content of the backcross 7th generation of sunflower lines obtained from interspecific hybridisation be‐ tween Polet-11273B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 7.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 3/1/1 and 3/1/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between O-7493B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

weight of heads of these descendants varied between 73 and 120 grams/head at Fundulea and between 25 grams and 60 grams at Stupina. The oil content varied between 32% and 40% at

**Figure 5.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the

1/3/1 and 1/3/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation Polet-11273B x *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 4.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the

1/3/1 and 1/3/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation Polet-11273B x *Helianthus argophyllus*

98 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

After hybridizations, self-pollination, backcrossing, and selection of descendants of the hybrid Tard/85-19982B X *Helianthus argophyllus*, we obtained 11 new lines with a very large variability

Fundulea and between 39% and 44% at Stupina (Figure 9).

for the studied characters.

Figure 11 shows that the weight of seeds/head in the case of line 11/1/1 was higher in the drought condition of Stupina. Therefore, the genotype "plant Stupina 2" achieved 72 g/head compared with "Fundulea 2" that produced only 40 g/head. Additionally, for the TKW character, this line proved to possess good adaptability to drought, reaching or exceeding the

**Figure 8.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcrossth generation of the 3/2/1 line resulted from interspecific hybridisation between O-7493B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 9.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 3/4/1 and 3/4/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between O-7493B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

values obtained at Fundulea, where the weather conditions were closer to normal. Another descendent of this interspecific hybridization is the line 11/2/1 (Figure 12) that achieved through the genotype "plant Stupina 2" a seed yield per head of 90 g and a TKW of 59 g being the only line out of all the combinations that have proven under drought conditions such a performance. It is necessary to mention that the line Tard/85-19982B is known to be like an intensive line with high yield under good irrigation and fertilization. In this case, it is obvious that the resistance and adaptability to drought were transmitted from the wild species, due to the fact that agro-ecological selection field from Stupina was not irrigated, and no fertilizer was applied.

Preliminary Results Regarding the Use of Interspecific Hybridization of Sunflower with *Helianthus argophyllus*... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61486 101

**Figure 10.** Oil content of the backcross 7th generation of sunflower lines obtained from interspecific hybridisation be‐ tween O-7493B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

These two lines originating from this combination will be used to obtain commercial sunflower hybrids. For all other lines resulting from this combination, the breeding process will be continued through self-pollination and backcrossing, due to the fact that they represent a valuable biological material that can be further improved.

values obtained at Fundulea, where the weather conditions were closer to normal. Another descendent of this interspecific hybridization is the line 11/2/1 (Figure 12) that achieved through the genotype "plant Stupina 2" a seed yield per head of 90 g and a TKW of 59 g being the only line out of all the combinations that have proven under drought conditions such a performance. It is necessary to mention that the line Tard/85-19982B is known to be like an intensive line with high yield under good irrigation and fertilization. In this case, it is obvious that the resistance and adaptability to drought were transmitted from the wild species, due to the fact that agro-ecological selection field from Stupina was not irrigated, and no fertilizer

**Figure 9.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the

3/4/1 and 3/4/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between O-7493B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 8.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcrossth generation of the 3/2/1

line resulted from interspecific hybridisation between O-7493B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

100 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

was applied.

**Figure 11.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/1/1 and 11/1/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./ 85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 12.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/2/1 and 11/2/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 13.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/3/1 and 11/3/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 14.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/4/1 and 11/4/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 12.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/2/1 and 11/2/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

102 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**Figure 13.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/3/1 and 11/3/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 15.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/5/1 and 11/5/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 16.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/6/1 and 11/6/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 17.** Oil content of the backcross 7th generation of sunflower lines obtained from interspecific hybridisation be‐ tween Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

Preliminary Results Regarding the Use of Interspecific Hybridization of Sunflower with *Helianthus argophyllus*... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61486 105

**Figure 18.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 13/5/1 and 13/5/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between LC-1093 B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 16.** Average weight of head and TKW for the progenies of the progenies from backcross 7th generation of the 11/6/1 and 11/6/2 lines resulted from interspecific hybridisation between Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

**Figure 17.** Oil content of the backcross 7th generation of sunflower lines obtained from interspecific hybridisation be‐

tween Tard./85-19982B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

104 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**Figure 19.** Oil content of the backcross 7th generation of sunflower lines obtained from interspecific hybridisation be‐ tween LC-1093 B and *Helianthus argophyllus*

The inbred line 1093 B was considered by breeders as having a large ecological plasticity, and it is used in obtaining very valuable hybrids with resistance to plant diseases and *Orobanche*. In combination with *Argophyllus,* the results were spectacular. Even if the yield was very low under limited water conditions (Figure 17), the lines 13/5/1 and 13/5/2 proved a very good resistance to *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum* (at Fundulea) and bird atttack (at Stupina). It is necessary that at Stupina and under the agro-ecological management, there are enough tree windscreens were a lot of rooks and house sparrows are nesting and increasing very much their numbers. For the local farmers, these birds are source of damages not only for sunflowers but also for wheat and barley. This new line has the advantage that it is avoided by birds so even if the yield is low it is safe.

### **4. Conclusions**

**a.** It is very important that together with the fulfillment of the main objective of the study (yield stability in water stress conditions in organic farming system), the results selection included achievements for biotic factors (resistance to *Sclerotinia* and *Orobanche*). Three genotypes with resistance to *Orobanche* in conditions of soil were identified, with a very high infestation with broomrape due to monoculture of sunflower for three years.

Under our experimental conditions, the genotypes with a longer vegetation period presented a better resistance to broomrape (Figures 20-21).


**Figure 20. O-7493B X***Helianthus argophyllus* - genotype with sensitivity to *Orobanche cumana* and vegetation period of 115 days (Stupina location)

Preliminary Results Regarding the Use of Interspecific Hybridization of Sunflower with *Helianthus argophyllus*... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61486 107

that at Stupina and under the agro-ecological management, there are enough tree windscreens were a lot of rooks and house sparrows are nesting and increasing very much their numbers. For the local farmers, these birds are source of damages not only for sunflowers but also for wheat and barley. This new line has the advantage that it is avoided by birds so even if the

**a.** It is very important that together with the fulfillment of the main objective of the study (yield stability in water stress conditions in organic farming system), the results selection included achievements for biotic factors (resistance to *Sclerotinia* and *Orobanche*). Three genotypes with resistance to *Orobanche* in conditions of soil were identified, with a very high infestation with broomrape due to monoculture of sunflower for three years. Under our experimental conditions, the genotypes with a longer vegetation period presented

**b.** Some of the genotypes resulting from the interspecific hybridizations with *H. argophyl‐ lus* were not affect by the massive bird attacks from Stupina in 2014, when many farmers reported severe losses due to birds. This represents an important step in releasing

**c.** In the conditions from Fundulea, in favorable year, a strong attack of *Sclerotinia sclerotio‐ rum* was recorded, and this was a good opportunity to find among the tested combinations the reactions ranging from being tolerant to being sensible to this pathogen (Figures 24-25).

**Figure 20. O-7493B X***Helianthus argophyllus* - genotype with sensitivity to *Orobanche cumana* and vegetation period of

sunflower hybrids with resistance or tolerance to this character (Figures 22-23).

yield is low it is safe.

106 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**4. Conclusions**

115 days (Stupina location)

a better resistance to broomrape (Figures 20-21).

**Figure 21. LC-1093 B X***Helianthuus argophyllus* - genotype resistant to *Orobanche Cumana* and vegetation period of 130 days (Stupina)

**Figure 22. Tard/85 -19982B** - genotype with seeds highly preferred by birds (Stupina)

**Figure 23. Line 13/5/1** - genotype avoided by birds (Stupina)

**Figure 24. Polet-11273B** - obtained through hybridization backcross x androsterile line. Attack of *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum* on stem, Fundulea (2014).

Preliminary Results Regarding the Use of Interspecific Hybridization of Sunflower with *Helianthus argophyllus*... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61486 109

**Figure 25. LC 1093X** - obtained through hybridization, with total resistance to *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum*, Fundulea (2014)

### **Author details**

**Figure 23. Line 13/5/1** - genotype avoided by birds (Stupina)

108 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

on stem, Fundulea (2014).

**Figure 24. Polet-11273B** - obtained through hybridization backcross x androsterile line. Attack of *Sclerotinia sclerotiorum*

Florentina Sauca\* and Catalin Lazar

\*Address all correspondence to: tina@ricic.ro

National Agricultural Research and Development Institute (NARDI) – Fundulea, Calaraşi, Romania

### **References**


### **Biochar Technology for Sustainable Organic Farming**

Suarau O. Oshunsanya and OrevaOghene Aliku

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61440

### **Abstract**

[6] Toncea, I., 2000. Ghid practic de agricultură ecologică; Editura Academicpres. ISBN

[7] SMART financial - www.SMARTfinancial.ro. Strategia de dezvoltare a agriculturii, industriei alimentare şi silviculturii pe termen lung şi mediu*,* 2001-2005 şi 2005 -

[8] Report of Organic Agricultural Research Institute, FIBL from Swiss, 2006. www.

[9] The Land Stewardship Centre of Canada and LandWise Inc. www.landsteward‐

973-8266-16-5.

fibl.org.

2010 ; MAAP, 2002)*.*

110 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

ship.org/lsn-publications.asp.

The challenge of agricultural land depletion as a result of the pressure driven by the ever-growing population has brought about a renewed focus on the need for sustainable practices in agricultural production. Biochar is the solid carbonaceous product obtained when plant and/or animal biomass is subjected to pyrolysis. This chapter reviews the properties of biochar and its impacts when incorporated into the soil. Relative to its original organic form, this chapter iterates the benefits of biochar as a more sustainable organic approach towards improving agricultural soil qualities and hence crop yield due to its stability and duration in soils for hundreds of years. The impacts of biochar on soil physical, chemical and biological properties through the enhancement of soil nutrient and water-holding capacity, pH, bulk density and stimulation of soil microbial activities are by improving aggregation, porosity, surface area and habitat for soil microbes in biochar-amended soils. It is therefore recom‐ mended that biochar be used as soil amendment, especially to a degraded soil for a large and long-term carbon sink restoration.

**Keywords:** Biochar, Soil chemical properties, Soil water characteristics, Crop yield

### **1. Introduction**

Throughout the world, intensive agriculture has often led to decline in soil physical, chemical and biological properties, leading to soil degradation. This decline in soil quality may be due to erosion and mining of nutrients and organic matter, hence preventing the soil from performing its functions such as regulating water flow, storing and cycling of nutrients, filtering, and transformation of organic and inorganic materials and sustaining biological productivity. However, considerably large amount of wastes such as crop residues, animal

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

manure, etc. are being produced from many agricultural production systems. This organic waste may represent a considerable problem as well as new challenges and opportunities depending on how they are handled, which may determine whether there will be increase or decrease in biomass production, organic matter supply and decomposition rate.

In addressing the issue of decline in soil fertility, [1] reported that intentional and unintentional deposition of nutrient-rich materials on farmlands have in many cases led to an increase in soil fertility status. However, fresh residue materials have been reported to decompose until almost all carbon is lost [2]. This practice may not be sustainable when compared to the ever-growing human population per time. Thus, conversion of biomass to biochar could alter the transfor‐ mation dynamics with respect to carbon sequestration. Soil carbon sequestration offers a large and long-term carbon sink to agricultural soils. Biochar is one of the sources of soil carbon sink, which could be obtained by subjecting biomass to pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is a process of com‐ busting organic materials (biomass) under limited oxygen level [3].

Biochar as a soil amendment has become an important topic in soil science in the past few years, and the effects of biochar on agro-ecosystems are being studied by many researchers [4]. The conversion of biomass to bio-char as a carbon sink has been proposed before [5], but was not explicitly linked to an application to soil. As a soil amendment, biochar can greatly influence various soil properties and processes [6]. In fact, biochar may occur as a component of soil organic matter where slash-and-burn agriculture is widely practiced [7]. Many of the organic residues from agriculture, forestry and other production systems can be used to produce biochar and applied to agricultural soil both to sequester carbon and to improve the production potential of crops. This renewed focus in agriculture can be said to have started as a result of the discovery of the *Terra Preta de Indo* soils (Figure 1) located in the Amazon River Basin. From the assumptions surrounding the formation of the *Terra Preta* soils, agricultural scientists have come to believe that soil properties could be amended by applying biochar as an amendment [3]. Hence, biochar, the carbon-enriched, fine-grained product of biomass combusted under conditions of limited oxygen, is currently being widely studied for its effects as a soil amendment.

### **2. What is Biochar?**

[8] defined biochar as a carbon-enriched, fine-grained and porous by-product of slow pyrolysis when organic material (feedstock) is thermally decomposed at low–moderate temperatures during long heating times under limited supply of oxygen. Feedstock may include wood materials, tree bark, crop residues, chicken litter, dairy manure or sewage sludge. Biochar is chemically and biologically more stable than the original fresh form from which it is produced due to its molecular configuration [9], making it more difficult to breakdown. This means that, in some cases, it can remain stable in soils for hundreds to thousands of years [10].

 Figure\_1 Pictorial view of Latosol (left) and *Terra Preta* (right) soil horizon. Source: [60]

manure, etc. are being produced from many agricultural production systems. This organic waste may represent a considerable problem as well as new challenges and opportunities depending on how they are handled, which may determine whether there will be increase or

In addressing the issue of decline in soil fertility, [1] reported that intentional and unintentional deposition of nutrient-rich materials on farmlands have in many cases led to an increase in soil fertility status. However, fresh residue materials have been reported to decompose until almost all carbon is lost [2]. This practice may not be sustainable when compared to the ever-growing human population per time. Thus, conversion of biomass to biochar could alter the transfor‐ mation dynamics with respect to carbon sequestration. Soil carbon sequestration offers a large and long-term carbon sink to agricultural soils. Biochar is one of the sources of soil carbon sink, which could be obtained by subjecting biomass to pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is a process of com‐

Biochar as a soil amendment has become an important topic in soil science in the past few years, and the effects of biochar on agro-ecosystems are being studied by many researchers [4]. The conversion of biomass to bio-char as a carbon sink has been proposed before [5], but was not explicitly linked to an application to soil. As a soil amendment, biochar can greatly influence various soil properties and processes [6]. In fact, biochar may occur as a component of soil organic matter where slash-and-burn agriculture is widely practiced [7]. Many of the organic residues from agriculture, forestry and other production systems can be used to produce biochar and applied to agricultural soil both to sequester carbon and to improve the production potential of crops. This renewed focus in agriculture can be said to have started as a result of the discovery of the *Terra Preta de Indo* soils (Figure 1) located in the Amazon River Basin. From the assumptions surrounding the formation of the *Terra Preta* soils, agricultural scientists have come to believe that soil properties could be amended by applying biochar as an amendment [3]. Hence, biochar, the carbon-enriched, fine-grained product of biomass combusted under conditions of limited oxygen, is currently being widely studied for its effects

[8] defined biochar as a carbon-enriched, fine-grained and porous by-product of slow pyrolysis when organic material (feedstock) is thermally decomposed at low–moderate temperatures during long heating times under limited supply of oxygen. Feedstock may include wood materials, tree bark, crop residues, chicken litter, dairy manure or sewage sludge. Biochar is chemically and biologically more stable than the original fresh form from which it is produced due to its molecular configuration [9], making it more difficult to breakdown. This means that,

in some cases, it can remain stable in soils for hundreds to thousands of years [10].

decrease in biomass production, organic matter supply and decomposition rate.

busting organic materials (biomass) under limited oxygen level [3].

112 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

as a soil amendment.

**2. What is Biochar?**

 Source: [60] **Figure 1.** Pictorial view of Latosol (left) and *Terra Preta* (right) soil horizon.

### **2.1. Properties of biochar**

Biochars are characterized by certain morphological and chemical properties which are borne from the physico-chemical alteration of the original feedstock as a result of pyrolytic process. Characteristically, these properties of biochar differ since they are controlled by factors such as type of organic material from which they are made, pyrolysis conditions (i.e. final pyrolysis temperature or peak temperature, rate of heat application – slow or fast pyrolysis), rate and duration of charring [11,12,13]. The impact of biochar as an amendment depends on its properties. Key properties of biochar are the adsorptive properties that potentially alter soil's surface area, pore size distribution, bulk density, water-holding capacity and penetration resistance. Some physical properties of biochar determined by variations in feedstock type and pyrolysis condition are discussed below.

1

### *2.1.1. Large surface area and presence of micropores*

Large surface area amendment property of biochar contributes to the adsorptive properties of soil and potentially improves pore size distribution, bulk density and consequently leading to an increase in the soil available water needed for crop growth and development. In addition, a strong direct relationship exists between a biochar's surface area and the pore volume as measured using N2 adsorption and Braunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) modelling [14,15]. [15] reported that the surface area could also be measured by using other compounds such as CO2 on carbonaceous materials at the micrometer scale. [16] stated that understanding and determination of the relative abundance and stability of pores of different sizes are keys to soil ecosystem functioning. Important among these functions are aeration, hydrology and provi‐ sion of habitat for microbes while the finer pores could be involved with molecular adsorption and transport [17].

Differences in production conditions, especially final combustion temperature, would result to variation in surface area of biochars even when they are produced from the same parent biomass. [16] stated that the relationship between the peak combustion temperature and surface morphological parameters (i.e. surface area, pore diameter and volume) of the resulting biochar is highly complex. [18] stated that there may be either no simple relationship between surface area and peak temperature, or surface area may increase with increase in peak temperature up to a certain threshold and then decrease. Due to variations in reports on surface area and peak temperature, [16] reported that the mechanisms responsible for increases in surface area with an increase in peak temperature or heating rate are not well understood. However, [11] reported that surface area increases with an increase in peak temperature of biochar production.

### *2.1.2. Adsorptive property*

The adsorptive nature of biochar is related to its surface area. The adsorptive capability of biochar is determined by its surface chemical properties and porous nature. It is an important physical property due to its influence in the uptake and binding effect of materials from their surroundings [16]. [19] reported that biochar may adsorb poly aromatic compounds, poly aromatic and poly aliphatic hydrocarbons, other toxic chemicals, metals and elements or pollutants in soils, sediments, aerosols and water bodies.

### *2.1.3. Stability*

This important physical property makes biochar a more sustainable soil amendment relative to its original fresh biomass for agricultural purpose. The evidence of high amounts of black carbon in the *Terra Preta* soils over a time suggests a high recalcitrant nature of biochar. However, degradation of at least some components (volatile matter or labile organic matter) of the biochar may occur [20]. On the other hand, [16] noted that the difference in sub-soil characteristics due to variations in microbial activity and oxygen content may affect biochar oxidation and aging. Biochar can move into sub-soil over time [21] to enrich the zone. Hence, other factors associated with its physical stability in soil include its mobility into deeper soil profile [16]. The aggregate stability of biochar-amended soil may also determine the suscept‐ ibility of biochars to microbial processes in subsoil. Mukherjee and Lal [16] explained that these factors not only enhance the stability of soil organic matter in the deeper profile but also improve availability of water and nutrients to crops and decrease erosion risks.

### **3. Restoring/improving soil properties**

Biochar has the potential capacity to restore a degraded soil when added to the soil. Biochar mineralizes gradually over a long period of time when applied to the soil. Nutrients from biochar are released gradually to improve the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the soil. [12] reported that the impact of biochar as an amendment is a function of its properties such as large surface area and presence of micropores. These are key properties because they contribute to the adsorptive properties of soils and potentially alter soil physical and hydro‐ logical properties.

### **3.1. Biochar and soil properties**

*2.1.1. Large surface area and presence of micropores*

114 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

and transport [17].

biochar production.

*2.1.3. Stability*

*2.1.2. Adsorptive property*

pollutants in soils, sediments, aerosols and water bodies.

Large surface area amendment property of biochar contributes to the adsorptive properties of soil and potentially improves pore size distribution, bulk density and consequently leading to an increase in the soil available water needed for crop growth and development. In addition, a strong direct relationship exists between a biochar's surface area and the pore volume as measured using N2 adsorption and Braunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) modelling [14,15]. [15] reported that the surface area could also be measured by using other compounds such as CO2 on carbonaceous materials at the micrometer scale. [16] stated that understanding and determination of the relative abundance and stability of pores of different sizes are keys to soil ecosystem functioning. Important among these functions are aeration, hydrology and provi‐ sion of habitat for microbes while the finer pores could be involved with molecular adsorption

Differences in production conditions, especially final combustion temperature, would result to variation in surface area of biochars even when they are produced from the same parent biomass. [16] stated that the relationship between the peak combustion temperature and surface morphological parameters (i.e. surface area, pore diameter and volume) of the resulting biochar is highly complex. [18] stated that there may be either no simple relationship between surface area and peak temperature, or surface area may increase with increase in peak temperature up to a certain threshold and then decrease. Due to variations in reports on surface area and peak temperature, [16] reported that the mechanisms responsible for increases in surface area with an increase in peak temperature or heating rate are not well understood. However, [11] reported that surface area increases with an increase in peak temperature of

The adsorptive nature of biochar is related to its surface area. The adsorptive capability of biochar is determined by its surface chemical properties and porous nature. It is an important physical property due to its influence in the uptake and binding effect of materials from their surroundings [16]. [19] reported that biochar may adsorb poly aromatic compounds, poly aromatic and poly aliphatic hydrocarbons, other toxic chemicals, metals and elements or

This important physical property makes biochar a more sustainable soil amendment relative to its original fresh biomass for agricultural purpose. The evidence of high amounts of black carbon in the *Terra Preta* soils over a time suggests a high recalcitrant nature of biochar. However, degradation of at least some components (volatile matter or labile organic matter) of the biochar may occur [20]. On the other hand, [16] noted that the difference in sub-soil characteristics due to variations in microbial activity and oxygen content may affect biochar oxidation and aging. Biochar can move into sub-soil over time [21] to enrich the zone. Hence, other factors associated with its physical stability in soil include its mobility into deeper soil

Figure 2 illustrates the interaction between biochar and soil. The application of biochar to the soil will alter the physical and chemical properties of the soil. [22] stated that the net effect of biochar on the soil physical properties will depend on its interaction the physico-chemical characteristics of the soil, the weather conditions prevalent at the particular site and the management of its application. Biochar application can reduce the bulk density of the different soils [23]. This could bring about improvement in soil structure or aggregation, and aeration enhancement, thus improving soil porosity. [17] reported that the higher the total porosity (micro- and macropores) the higher is soil physical quality. This is because micropores are involved in molecular adsorption and transport of water and nutrients while macropores affect aeration and drainage. Several studies have reported that as low as 0.5% (g g−1) biochar application rate was sufficient to improve water-holding capacity and water retention [24,25]. Hence, this can be said to be good water-holding capacity amendment for sandy soils which are highly porous due to the preponderance of macropores.

### **3.2. Effect of biochar application on some soil physical properties**

A key determinant of soil functions and processes is its physical properties, precisely and most importantly, its texture. Hence, the addition of biochar in soils with different textures should affect the soil hydraulic properties differently due to the fact that there is a correlation between soil texture and soil hydraulic properties. The impacts of biochar as a soil amendment on some soil physical and hydrological properties are briefly discussed below.

### *3.2.1. Soil surface area*

Table 1 depicts a summary of results of biochar application on surface area. Soil surface area is an intrinsic property of soil determined by the sizes of its particles. The surface area of soils

**Figure 2.** Schematic representation of interactions between biochar and soil [16].

is an important physical characteristic which plays a vital role in water- and nutrient-holding capacities, aeration and microbial activities [26]; hence, it can be said to be partly controlling the essential functions of soil fertility. However, the effectiveness of the surface area of a soil depends on its size – the larger the surface area, the greater the soil's water- and nutrientholding capacities. This is particularly true for fine-textured soils. Thus, [16] reported that agronomic productivity improvement of biochar-amended soils may be linked to the higher surface area of the biochar–soil mixtures. [17,27,28] explained that the high surface area of biochar provides the space for formation of bonds and complexes with cations and anions with metals and elements of soil on its surface, which improves the nutrient retention capacity of soil. [28] reported that biochar incorporation can enhance specific surface area up to 4.8 times that of adjacent soils. [29] also reported increases in specific surface area of an amended clayey soil from 130 to 150 m2 g–1 when biochar derived from mixed hardwoods was applied at rates of 0 to 20 g kg–1 in a long-term soil column incubation study.

### *3.2.2. Porosity*

Table 1 shows a summary of results of biochar application on soil porosity. This is the ratio of the pore volume to the total volume of a representative sample of a porous medium. This factor is said to be associated with surface area. The total porosity or pore size distribution of biochar is a factor that can play an important role in the alteration of the properties of biochar-amended soils. Biochars are usually characterized by the preponderance of micropores, which may alter the pore size distribution of coarse texture soil when added. [24] reported that significant increases in mesoporosity occurred at the expense of macropores in waste-derived biocharamended soil compared to the control. [24] further intensified that the higher the rate of biochar application the greater its effect on porosity. Hence, biochar could be a good replacement for tillage practices which causes short-term increase in porosity, but long-term decrease in aggregation and ultimately lowering soil porosity.


**Table 1.** Impact of biochar on Surface area (SA) and porosity of amended soils

### *3.2.3. Bulk density*

is an important physical characteristic which plays a vital role in water- and nutrient-holding capacities, aeration and microbial activities [26]; hence, it can be said to be partly controlling the essential functions of soil fertility. However, the effectiveness of the surface area of a soil depends on its size – the larger the surface area, the greater the soil's water- and nutrientholding capacities. This is particularly true for fine-textured soils. Thus, [16] reported that agronomic productivity improvement of biochar-amended soils may be linked to the higher surface area of the biochar–soil mixtures. [17,27,28] explained that the high surface area of biochar provides the space for formation of bonds and complexes with cations and anions with metals and elements of soil on its surface, which improves the nutrient retention capacity of soil. [28] reported that biochar incorporation can enhance specific surface area up to 4.8 times that of adjacent soils. [29] also reported increases in specific surface area of an amended clayey

Table 1 shows a summary of results of biochar application on soil porosity. This is the ratio of the pore volume to the total volume of a representative sample of a porous medium. This factor is said to be associated with surface area. The total porosity or pore size distribution of biochar is a factor that can play an important role in the alteration of the properties of biochar-amended soils. Biochars are usually characterized by the preponderance of micropores, which may alter the pore size distribution of coarse texture soil when added. [24] reported that significant increases in mesoporosity occurred at the expense of macropores in waste-derived biochar-

g–1 when biochar derived from mixed hardwoods was applied at rates

soil from 130 to 150 m2

*3.2.2. Porosity*

of 0 to 20 g kg–1 in a long-term soil column incubation study.

**Figure 2.** Schematic representation of interactions between biochar and soil [16].

116 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

Table 2 shows the results of biochar application on soil bulk density. Bulk density, which is defined as the mass of soil per its unit volume, has been known to have a negative correlation with surface area. [30] stated that well-structured soils (fine texture) are characterized by low bulk density values between 1.0 and 1.3 g cm–3 while poorly structured (coarse texture) soils are known to have high bulk density values between 1.6 and 1.8 g cm–3. Hence, reports from both field and laboratory studies have shown bulk densities to have contrasting results to surface areas of biochar-amended soils. [29], [24] and [23] reported that application of biochar can decrease the bulk density of soils. [29] showed in a soil column incubation study that biochar-amended soil columns had significantly lower bulk density than no-biochar controls. [16] reported that biochar-amended column had a lower rate of compaction compared to the control or manure-amended soil columns when all the columns were subjected to compaction by gravity and periodical leaching events. They further stated that the decrease in bulk density of biochar-amended soil could be one of the indicators of the improvement of soil structure or aggregation and aeration, and could be soil-specific.


Source: [16]*.* <sup>1</sup> measured after 44 days; 2 measured after 94 days; 3 measured after 1 year; 4 measured after 15 months.

**Table 2.** Soil bulk density as affected by biochar application

### *3.2.4. Aggregate stability*

Results of studies showing biochar effect on soil aggregation are illustrated in Table 3. Studies have shown biochar to respond positively to aggregation. Though [16] reported that data on aggregate stability and penetration resistance of biochar-amended soils are scarce, a few studies generally showed that low-temperature (220<sup>ο</sup> C) hydrochar made from spent brewer's grains (a residue from beer brewing) responded positively to aggregation of Albic Luvisol by significantly increasing water-stable aggregates as compared to the control treatment. [31] have reported that the formation of complexes of biochar with minerals, as the result of interactions between oxidized carboxylic acid groups at the surface of biochar particles, should be responsible for the improved soil aggregate stability (Figure 2). As a result, soil aggregates and pore size distribution can be improved by adding organic matter from biodegradation and thus improving soil hydraulic properties. However, other authors have reported con‐ trasting results. For instance, [32] reported that with or without mixing Bt and E horizons with pecan shell (*Carya illinoinensis*), biochar-amended soil decreased aggregation compared to the control, while [33] reported mixing of biochar from pecan with switchgrass increased aggre‐ gation, but the effect was however significantly lower when the soil was treated only with biochar without mixing with switchgrass. From this trend of results, [16] concluded that a positive effect on soil aggregate stability would require the presence of a substrate (i.e switchgrass) along with biochar as an amendment.

### *3.2.5. Penetration resistance*

**Soil types Biochar type Study type (scale)**

118 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

Pecan (*Carya illinoinensis*) shells, 700<sup>ο</sup> C

Wheat (*Triticum* spp*.*) straw, 350–550<sup>ο</sup>

waste , 450<sup>ο</sup>

500<sup>ο</sup>

measured after 94 days; 3

Results of studies showing biochar effect on soil aggregation are illustrated in Table 3. Studies have shown biochar to respond positively to aggregation. Though [16] reported that data on aggregate stability and penetration resistance of biochar-amended soils are scarce, a few

grains (a residue from beer brewing) responded positively to aggregation of Albic Luvisol by significantly increasing water-stable aggregates as compared to the control treatment. [31] have reported that the formation of complexes of biochar with minerals, as the result of interactions between oxidized carboxylic acid groups at the surface of biochar particles, should be responsible for the improved soil aggregate stability (Figure 2). As a result, soil aggregates

measured after 44 days; 2

**Table 2.** Soil bulk density as affected by biochar application

studies generally showed that low-temperature (220<sup>ο</sup>

Residue sand Municipal green

Clarion fine loamy Mixed hardwoods,

C

Norfolk loamy sand: E

Norfolk loamy sand: E and Bt

Hydroagric stagnic anthrosol

Source: [16]*.* <sup>1</sup>

*3.2.4. Aggregate stability*

**Rate of biochar**

**application Bulk density Reference**

, 1.522

, 1.342

% (g g–1) g cm–3

2.1 1.451

2.1 1.361

Field 0 0.99, 0.943 [63]

<sup>C</sup> Laboratory <sup>0</sup> 1.65 [24]

<sup>C</sup> Laboratory <sup>0</sup> 1.21, 1.344 [29]

measured after 1 year; 4

0 1.34

1.1 0.96, 0.913 2.2 0.91, 0.863 4.4 0.89, 0.883

2.6 1.55 5.2 1.44

0.5 1.10, 1.244 1.0 1.08, 1.244 2.0 1.08, 1.244

measured after 15 months.

C) hydrochar made from spent brewer's

Laboratory 0 1.52 [32]

Studies on the effect of biochar amendment on soil penetration resistance are illustrated in Table 3. Penetration resistance measures the capacity of a soil in its confined state to resist penetration by a rigid object [34]. It is affected by moisture content. Thus, it affects the potential for root growth and development. Ehlers et al. [35] found root growth to be inversely related to penetration resistance. Results from literatures have shown that the effect of biochar application on soil penetration resistance is dependent on time of application. Busscher et al. [32] reported that mixing Norfolk loamy sand E and E and Bt layers with pecan shell biochar produced at a temperature of 700<sup>ο</sup> C increased penetration resistance measured after 44 days of application. Penetration resistance was, however, reduced when measured after 96 days of application. Thus, soil compaction may not be alleviated by biochar addition over short period of time, but may be altered in the long run due to changes in properties as a result of aging of biochar.



**Table 3.** Soil aggregation and penetration resistance as affected by biochar application

### **3.3. Hydrological properties**

Several authors have reported positive response of soil hydrological properties to biochar amendment. This may be due to the fact that soil hydrological properties such as infiltration rate, moisture content, hydraulic conductivity, water-holding capacity and water retention are invariably related to soil surface area, bulk density, porosity and aggregate stability [16]. In other words, an alteration in these soil physical properties as caused by biochar application would lead to a change in soil hydrological properties.

### *3.3.1. Water-holding capacity, water retention and moisture content*

Table 4 shows the results of biochar application effect on water-holding capacity. The amount of water in a soil is a function of its ability to hold and retain water for plant use against the influence of gravity. Fine-textured soils would have higher moisture content at the same tension as soils with coarse particles. This is because the ability of a soil to retain water is a function of the micropores in the soil, which is usually lower in coarse-textured soils. Hence, moisture required by plants to upset the evapotranspirational demand of the atmosphere may be limiting, especially in coarse-textured soils. Thus, application of biochar can increase waterstorage ability of coarse-textured soils. Several studies have reported alterations in waterholding capacity and water retention in soils amended with biochar. [33] and [36] reported that 0.5% (g g–1) biochar application rate was sufficient to improve water-holding capacity. Application of biochar produced from black locust (*Robinia pseudoacacia*) was reported to increase the available water capacity by 97%, saturation water content by 56%, but reduced hydraulic conductivity [25]. This can also influence soil aeration and temperature to a very large extent. [29] reported that results from a long-term column study indicated that biocharamended Clarion soil retained up to 15% more water, with 13% and 10% more water retention at –100 KPa and –500 KPa soil matric potential, respectively, compared to control (unamended soils). [37] showed that coal-derived humic acid substances can increase water retention, available water capacity and aggregate stability of inherently degraded soils. [38] reported that biochar application increased the available water capacity in sandy soil, with no effect on a loamy soil, and decreased moisture content in a clayey soil. [16] suggested that such response may be due to the hydrophobic nature of the charcoal that caused alterations in soil pore size distribution. [38], therefore, advised that because the soil moisture retention may only be improved in coarse-textured soils, a careful choice of biochar/soil combination needs to be taken into consideration.


**Table 4.** Soil water holding capacity as affected by biochar application

### **3.4. Biochar and soil chemical properties**

**Soil types Biochar type Study type**

120 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

Hydrochar, 220<sup>ο</sup>

**3.3. Hydrological properties**

Albic Luvisol **(Scale)**

**Table 3.** Soil aggregation and penetration resistance as affected by biochar application

would lead to a change in soil hydrological properties.

*3.3.1. Water-holding capacity, water retention and moisture content*

**Rate of biochar**

**application Aggregation**

<sup>C</sup> Laboratory <sup>0</sup> 49.8 - [64]

Greenhouse 0 10.3 -

Several authors have reported positive response of soil hydrological properties to biochar amendment. This may be due to the fact that soil hydrological properties such as infiltration rate, moisture content, hydraulic conductivity, water-holding capacity and water retention are invariably related to soil surface area, bulk density, porosity and aggregate stability [16]. In other words, an alteration in these soil physical properties as caused by biochar application

Table 4 shows the results of biochar application effect on water-holding capacity. The amount of water in a soil is a function of its ability to hold and retain water for plant use against the influence of gravity. Fine-textured soils would have higher moisture content at the same tension as soils with coarse particles. This is because the ability of a soil to retain water is a function of the micropores in the soil, which is usually lower in coarse-textured soils. Hence, moisture required by plants to upset the evapotranspirational demand of the atmosphere may be limiting, especially in coarse-textured soils. Thus, application of biochar can increase waterstorage ability of coarse-textured soils. Several studies have reported alterations in waterholding capacity and water retention in soils amended with biochar. [33] and [36] reported that 0.5% (g g–1) biochar application rate was sufficient to improve water-holding capacity. Application of biochar produced from black locust (*Robinia pseudoacacia*) was reported to increase the available water capacity by 97%, saturation water content by 56%, but reduced hydraulic conductivity [25]. This can also influence soil aeration and temperature to a very large extent. [29] reported that results from a long-term column study indicated that biocharamended Clarion soil retained up to 15% more water, with 13% and 10% more water retention at –100 KPa and –500 KPa soil matric potential, respectively, compared to control (unamended soils). [37] showed that coal-derived humic acid substances can increase water retention, available water capacity and aggregate stability of inherently degraded soils. [38] reported that biochar application increased the available water capacity in sandy soil, with no effect on a

2.0 9.23, 11.8\* 0.821

5 69.0 - 10 65.1 -

5 20.8 - 10 33.8 -

**Penetration resistance**

, 0.872

**Reference**

Most studies of biochar as a soil amendment have focused majorly on soil nutrient status, taking into consideration cation exchange capacity, nutrient content, pH, the carbon seques‐ tration potential of the amended soil, and vegetative growth and yield of crops. Biochar has the potential to improve soil CEC due to the fact that it is often characterized by high CEC values, due to its negative surface charges and its high specific surface area as was reported for biochar produced from crop residues [39].

Furthermore, the immediate beneficial effect of biochar application on crop productivity in tropical soils may result from increase in availability of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, copper and zinc as reported for soils amended with secondary forest biochar [40]. Also, poultry litter biochar may result in strong increase in soil extractable phosphorus [41] when incorporated into the soil. In evaluating the effect of different biochars on soil chemical properties, [42] reported that biochar produced from poultry manure had higher electrical conductivity, nitrogen, phosphorus and pH values than that of garden waste. However, this may be due to their effects in reducing leaching and fixation of nutrients as moderate biochar additions are not a direct supplier of plant nutrients in the long-term.

### **3.5. Effects of biochar application on Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)**

Biochar application can directly or indirectly affect SOC dynamics. Indirectly, biochar could affect net primary production and, thus, the amount of biomass that may remain in agroecosystems. This would result to alteration in soil carbon inputs. [8] stated that higher belowground net primary production and increased root-derived carbon inputs after biochar application may particularly result in an increase in SOC.

Directly, biochar can inhibit degradation process, and as a result increase the mean residence time (MRT) of SOC (i.e. the mean time that a SOC-carbon atom spends in soil). As a direct consequence, biochar application would enhance SOC stabilization processes and contribute to SOC sequestration. The MRT of biochar-carbon is thought by some to be in the range of millennia [43]. However, information on biochar longevity in soil is meagre and varies between biochars and sites. For example, the MRTs of biochar in field experiments ranged from about 8 years for biochar produced by burning of forest trees during slash-and-burn agricultural practices [44] to 3,600 years for biochar produced from prunings of old mango (*Mangifera indica* L.) trees [45]. Also, biochar longevity in soil may be affected by differences in climatic conditions. For example, chemical and/or biological mineralization of natural chars produced from wood during bushfires was slower under Mediterranean climate when compared to temperate climates in Australia [46].

### **3.6. Liming effect**

Biochar can be said to be acidic or alkaline in nature depending on the temperature of the materials used during pyrolysis. [47] explained that the acid functional group concentration in biochars produced from the biomass of rice, valley oak (*Quercus lobata Ne´ e*), etc decreased with increasing peak pyrolysis temperature as more fused aromatic ring structures were produced and more volatile matter was lost. The effectiveness of both types will depend on the pH of the soil to be amended. [48] stated that the alkaline biochars produced at higher pyrolysis temperature are more effective in supporting increases in biomass by improved growth conditions than acidic biochars presumably through increases in soil alkalinity. [49] stated that the moderation in aluminium toxicity may be the reason why biochar application has positive effects on productivity in tropical and irrigated systems on highly weathered and acid soils with low-activity clays. This is because the reduction of aluminium and iron concentrations in the soil solution will enhance the availability of previously bound phospho‐ rus to plants, and plant roots would be able to explore even acid soils to absorb nutrients and water more effectively.

### **3.7. Effect of biochar on soil microorganisms**

calcium, copper and zinc as reported for soils amended with secondary forest biochar [40]. Also, poultry litter biochar may result in strong increase in soil extractable phosphorus [41] when incorporated into the soil. In evaluating the effect of different biochars on soil chemical properties, [42] reported that biochar produced from poultry manure had higher electrical conductivity, nitrogen, phosphorus and pH values than that of garden waste. However, this may be due to their effects in reducing leaching and fixation of nutrients as moderate biochar

Biochar application can directly or indirectly affect SOC dynamics. Indirectly, biochar could affect net primary production and, thus, the amount of biomass that may remain in agroecosystems. This would result to alteration in soil carbon inputs. [8] stated that higher belowground net primary production and increased root-derived carbon inputs after biochar

Directly, biochar can inhibit degradation process, and as a result increase the mean residence time (MRT) of SOC (i.e. the mean time that a SOC-carbon atom spends in soil). As a direct consequence, biochar application would enhance SOC stabilization processes and contribute to SOC sequestration. The MRT of biochar-carbon is thought by some to be in the range of millennia [43]. However, information on biochar longevity in soil is meagre and varies between biochars and sites. For example, the MRTs of biochar in field experiments ranged from about 8 years for biochar produced by burning of forest trees during slash-and-burn agricultural practices [44] to 3,600 years for biochar produced from prunings of old mango (*Mangifera indica* L.) trees [45]. Also, biochar longevity in soil may be affected by differences in climatic conditions. For example, chemical and/or biological mineralization of natural chars produced from wood during bushfires was slower under Mediterranean climate when compared to

Biochar can be said to be acidic or alkaline in nature depending on the temperature of the materials used during pyrolysis. [47] explained that the acid functional group concentration in biochars produced from the biomass of rice, valley oak (*Quercus lobata Ne´ e*), etc decreased with increasing peak pyrolysis temperature as more fused aromatic ring structures were produced and more volatile matter was lost. The effectiveness of both types will depend on the pH of the soil to be amended. [48] stated that the alkaline biochars produced at higher pyrolysis temperature are more effective in supporting increases in biomass by improved growth conditions than acidic biochars presumably through increases in soil alkalinity. [49] stated that the moderation in aluminium toxicity may be the reason why biochar application has positive effects on productivity in tropical and irrigated systems on highly weathered and acid soils with low-activity clays. This is because the reduction of aluminium and iron concentrations in the soil solution will enhance the availability of previously bound phospho‐ rus to plants, and plant roots would be able to explore even acid soils to absorb nutrients and

additions are not a direct supplier of plant nutrients in the long-term.

**3.5. Effects of biochar application on Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)**

application may particularly result in an increase in SOC.

temperate climates in Australia [46].

122 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**3.6. Liming effect**

water more effectively.

Studies have shown higher microbial biomass but yet lower microbial activity in biocharamended soil than the neighbouring soils [50]. However, most studies have focused on biochar interaction with mycorrhizal fungi [50]. Specifically, biochar has been reported to have symbiotic relationship with the mycorrhizal system. According to [51], the four mechanisms by which biochar could improve mycorrhizal abundance (40%) and functioning are listed as follows:


[52] noted 50% to 72% increase in soil biological nitrogen fixation through biochar application. [53] have hypothesized both bacteria and fungi to be better protected from grazers or com‐ petitors by exploring pore habitats in biochars. This is because biochar provides microbial habitat and refugia for microbes where they are also protected from unfavourable conditions.

### **3.8. Effect of biochar on crop yield**

The summary of experiments assessing the impact of biochar addition on crop yield is showed in Table 5. From the agricultural perspective, the summary of the effect of biochar in regulating soil hydrological, physical and chemical properties results to improved soil productivity and consequently increased crop yield. However, the effect of biochar on soil health as well as crop productivity can be influenced by the forms (dust, fine particles, coarse grain) and the methods of application (surface application, top dressing, drilling) of biochar to soil. [54] clearly explained that even small quantities of biochar added to seed coatings may in some cases be sufficient for a beneficial effect.

[40] reported increasing crop yields with increasing biochar applications of up to 140 t carbon ha–1 on highly weathered soils in the humid tropics. Also, [55] found that the biomass growth of beans rose with biochar applications up to 60 t carbon ha–1. Furthermore, scientists have reported that application of biochar on soil has significant effect on net primary crop produc‐ tion, grain yield and dry matter production [56,57,58,59].



**Table 5.** Summary of experiments assessing the impact of biochar addition on crop yield

### **4. Conclusion**

Biochar, as an amendment on soil physical, chemical and biological properties, depends on environmental conditions, dynamic properties of soils, biochar properties which are a function of the organic materials and conditions used for biochar production and the rate and method of application.

Notable soil physical properties found to be enhanced by biochar include soil surface area, bulk density, porosity, aggregate stability, penetration resistance and moisture content. Also, soil pH, organic carbon and cation exchange capacity were enhanced in biochar-amended soils. Biologically, mycorrhizal abundance, biological nitrogen fixation, microbial biomass and microbial habitats were improved in biochar-amended soils compared to unamended soils.

Modification of soil physical, chemical and biological properties by biochar application resulted to improved plant nutrient retention, acquisition and availability, leading to im‐ proved biomass growth, dry matter production and crop yields.

### **Author details**

Suarau O. Oshunsanya and OrevaOghene Aliku

\*Address all correspondence to: soshunsanya@yahoo.com

Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

### **References**

**Author Study outline Results summary**

crops in lysimeters, Brazil

adjacent fields, Ghana

of low soil fertility

**Table 5.** Summary of experiments assessing the impact of biochar addition on crop yield

proved biomass growth, dry matter production and crop yields.

Suarau O. Oshunsanya and OrevaOghene Aliku

\*Address all correspondence to: soshunsanya@yahoo.com

Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Cowpea was planted in pots and rice

disused charcoal production sites and

using commercial green waste biochar (three rates) with and without nitrogen

Biochar, as an amendment on soil physical, chemical and biological properties, depends on environmental conditions, dynamic properties of soils, biochar properties which are a function of the organic materials and conditions used for biochar production and the rate and method

Notable soil physical properties found to be enhanced by biochar include soil surface area, bulk density, porosity, aggregate stability, penetration resistance and moisture content. Also, soil pH, organic carbon and cation exchange capacity were enhanced in biochar-amended soils. Biologically, mycorrhizal abundance, biological nitrogen fixation, microbial biomass and microbial habitats were improved in biochar-amended soils compared to unamended soils. Modification of soil physical, chemical and biological properties by biochar application resulted to improved plant nutrient retention, acquisition and availability, leading to im‐

Biochar additions significantly

45% (no yield reported)

not cowpea)

increased biomass production by 38% to

Grain and biomass yield was 91% and 44% higher on charcoal site than control

*Acacia* bark charcoal plus fertilizer increased maize and peanut yields (but

Biochar at 100 t/ha increased yield ×3; linear increase 10 to 50 t/ha, but no effect without added nitrogen

[40] Soil fertility and nutrient retention.

124 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

[66] Comparison of maize yields between

[67] Maize, cowpea and peanut trial in area

[42] Pot trial on radish yield in heavy soil

Source: [16]*.*

**4. Conclusion**

of application.

**Author details**


[15] Jagiello J, Thommes M. Comparison of DFT characterization methods based on N2, Ar, CO2, and H2 adsorption applied to carbons with various pore size distributions.

[16] Mukherjee A, Lal R. Biochar impacts on soil physical properties and greenhouse gas

[17] Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA. Potential mechanisms for achieving agricul‐ tural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil

[18] Fernandes MB, Skjemstad JO, Johnson BB, Wells JD, Brooks P. Characterization of carbonaceous combustion residues. In: Morphological, elemental and spectroscopic

[19] Schmidt MWI, Noack AG. Black carbon in soils and sediments: analysis, distribution, implications, and current challenges. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2000;14:777–93. [20] Hammes K, Torn MS, Lapenas AG, Schmidt MWI. Centennial black carbon turnover

[21] Skjemstad JO, Taylor JA, Janik LJ, Marvanek SP. Soil organic carbon dynamics under

[22] Verheijen F, Jeffery S, Bastos AC, Van der Velde M, Diafas I. Biochar Application to Soils: A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Func‐

[23] Chen H-X, Du Z-L, Guo W, Zhang Q-Z. Effects of biochar amendment on cropland soil bulk density, cation exchange capacity, and particulate organic matter content in

[24] Jones BEH, Haynes RJ, Phillips IR. Effect of amendment of bauxite processing sand with organic materials on its chemical, physical and microbial properties. J Environ

[25] Uzoma KC, Inoue M, Andry H, Zahoor A, Nishihara E. Influence of biochar applica‐ tion on sandy soil hydraulic properties and nutrient retention. J Food Agric Environ

[26] Van Zwieten L, Singh B, Joseph S, Kimber S, Cowie A, Yin Chan K. Biochar and emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases from soil. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S. (eds.) Bio‐ char for Environmental Management. VA, USA: Earthscan: London Sterling; 2009.

[27] Hammes K, Schmidt, M. Changes in biochar in soil. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S. (eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology. London, UK:

[28] Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, Kinyangi J, Grossman J, O'Neill B*, et al*. Black car‐ bon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2006;70:1719–30.

observed in a Russian steppe soil. Biogeosciences 2008;5:1339–50.

long-term sugarcane monoculture. Aust J Soil Res 1999;37:151–64.

the North China plain. Yingyong Shengtai Xuebao. 2011;22:2930–4.

Carbon 2004;42:1227–32.

126 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

2010;337:1–18.

emissions. Agronomy 2013;3:313–39.

features. Chemosphere 2003;51:785–95.

tions. JRC Scient. Technical reports. 2010; 1-166.

Manag 2010;91:2281–8.

Earthscan: 2009. pp. 169–182.

2011;9:1137–43.


[57] Chan KY, Xu Z. Biochar: nutrient properties and their enhancement. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S. (eds.) Biochar for environmental management. Science and Technology, London: Earthscan; 2009. pp. 67–84.

[43] Glaser B, Birk JJ. State of the scientific knowledge on properties and genesis of Anthro‐ pogenicDarkEarths inCentralAmazonia (*terra preta deI´ndio*).GeochimCosmochimAc

[44] NguyenBT,LehmannJ,KinyangiJ, SmernikR,Riha SJ,EngelhardMH.Long-termblack

[45] MajorJ,RondonM,MolinaD,Riha SJ,LehmannJ.Maizeyieldandnutritionafter 4years of doing biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 2010;333:117–28.

[46] McBeath AV, Smernik RJ, Krull ES. A demonstration of the high variability of chars

[47] Li X, Shen Q, Zhang D, Mei X, Ran W, Xu Y, et al. Functional groups determine biochar properties (pHandEC)as studiedbytwo-dimensional13CNMRcorrelationspectrosco‐

[48] Biederman LA, Harpole WS. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient

[49] Blackwell P, Riethmuller G, Collins M. Biochar application to soil (Chapter 12). In: Lehmann J, Joseph S. (eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and

[50] Thies JE,RilligM.Characteristicsofbiochar:biologicalproperties.In:LehmannJ,Joseph S. (eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology. London:

[51] Warnock DD, Lehmann J, Kuyper TW, Rillig MC. Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in

[52] Lehmann J, Rondon M. Biochar soil management on highly weathered soils in the humid tropics. In: Uphoff N, et al. (eds.) Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil

[53] Saito M, Marumoto, T. Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: the status quo

[54] Hill RA, Harris A, Stewart A, Bolstridge N, McLean KL, Blakeley R. Charcoal and se‐ lected beneficial microorganisms: plant trials and SEM observations. In: International

[55] Rondon M, Lehmann J, Ramirez J, Hurtado M. Biological nitrogen fixation by com‐ mon beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with biochar additions. Biol Fertil Soils

[56] Chan Y, Van Zwieten L, Meszaros I, Downie A, Joseph S. Using poultry litter bio‐

carbon dynamics in cultivated soil. Biogeochemistry 2008;89:295–308.

produced from wood in bushfires. Org Geochem 2013;55:38–44.

py. PLoS ONE 2013;8DOI: DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065949

cycling: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenerg 2013;5:202–14.

soil—concepts and mechanisms. Plant Soil 2007;300:9–20.

Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006. pp. 517–30.

in Japan and the future prospects. Plant Soil 2002;244:273–9.

Agrichar Conference; 2007; Terrigal May. NSW Australia: 2007.

chars as soil amendments. Austr J Soil Res 2008;46:437–44.

Technology. London, UK: Earthscan; 2009. p. 207.

Earthscan; 2009. pp. 85–105.

2007;43:688–708.

2013;82:39–51.

128 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production


## **Role of Organic Sources of Nutrients in Rice (***Oryza sativa***) Based on High Value Cropping Sequence**

Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Subhash Babu, Gulab Singh Yadav, Raghavendra Singh and Manoj Kumar Yadav

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61841

### **Abstract**

The organic nitrogen (N) nutrition of organic manuring with biofertilizers had the high‐ est rice equivalent grain yield, production efficiency, net energy return, as well as net monetary return and profitability in rice-based cropping sequence. The different ricebased cropping sequences did not differ with respect to yield and quality parameters. However, the organic N nutrition with organic manures along with biofertilizers proved significantly superior with respect to yield and quality parameters of rice, potato, and on‐ ion, respectively. The different rice-based cropping sequences differ with respect to nu‐ trient uptake, e.g., rice-maize-onion had the highest removal of major (N, P, K), secondary (S), and micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) than the rest of cropping sequence, which was significantly superior to the rest of the sequences. The organic N nutrition with organic manures along with biofertilizers proved superior due to its visible favora‐ ble effect on soil health with respect to nutrient status and microbial count and this indi‐ cates the utilization of this low-cost but long-term beneficial practice under high-intensity cropping for sustainable crop production.

**Keywords:** Biofertilizers, organic farming, high value crops, cropping sequence

### **1. Introduction**

Organic farming is a production system that avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock feed additives. The objectives of environmental, social, and economic sustainability are the basics of organic farming.

The maintenance of good soil fertility is essential for sustainable crop production, which requires the regular use of organic sources of nutrient-like organic manure and biofertilizers

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

to keep the farm income higher of the farming community. Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system, which promotes sustainable agriculture and enhances agro ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycle, and soil biological activity. The organic farming practices on scientific principles are as productive as the conventional system. Organic systems showed greater soil health benefits reduced cost on production, are found better than inorganic practices, and enhanced profit margin with quality food. Interestingly, while exports of organic commodity are growing, domestic market demand is galloping for high-value crop produce, supports from government are increasing and innovation system support has started to grow. In such situation, it is necessary to develop suitable technology for meeting the challenges of the coming generation by providing good quality produce without deteriorating the socio-economic conditions of the farmer and with minimum environmental pollution. The farmers of ancient India adhered to the natural laws and this helped in maintaining the soil fertility over a relatively longer period of time [1]. These organic sources, besides supplying N, P, K, also make unavailable sources of elemental nitrogen, bound phosphates, micronutrients, and decomposed plant residues into available form in order to facilitate the plants to absorb the nutrients. Organic cultivation practices are very effective to improve the population of beneficial microorganisms in the soil having direct effect on enhancing the availability of macronutrients and micronutrients through correcting the deficiency induced by the conventional practices with the application of synthetic fertilizers, and consequently capable of sustaining high crop productivity and soil biological properties by modification of the soil environment [2].

The farmers can in turn, get good remuneration from the organically produced crops and vegetables if included in high-value crop sequences, e.g., aromatic rice–table pea and onion [3] due to their heavy demands in domestic, national, as well as international markets that may help the country in earning some foreign exchange. Therefore, a book chapter entitled "Role of organic sources of nutrient in rice (*Oryza sativa*) based on high value cropping sequence" was planned and executed with the following objectives:


### **2. Experimental details**

### **2.1. Treatment details**


### *2.1.2. Sub plot: Manurial treatments (3)*

to keep the farm income higher of the farming community. Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system, which promotes sustainable agriculture and enhances agro ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycle, and soil biological activity. The organic farming practices on scientific principles are as productive as the conventional system. Organic systems showed greater soil health benefits reduced cost on production, are found better than inorganic practices, and enhanced profit margin with quality food. Interestingly, while exports of organic commodity are growing, domestic market demand is galloping for high-value crop produce, supports from government are increasing and innovation system support has started to grow. In such situation, it is necessary to develop suitable technology for meeting the challenges of the coming generation by providing good quality produce without deteriorating the socio-economic conditions of the farmer and with minimum environmental pollution. The farmers of ancient India adhered to the natural laws and this helped in maintaining the soil fertility over a relatively longer period of time [1]. These organic sources, besides supplying N, P, K, also make unavailable sources of elemental nitrogen, bound phosphates, micronutrients, and decomposed plant residues into available form in order to facilitate the plants to absorb the nutrients. Organic cultivation practices are very effective to improve the population of beneficial microorganisms in the soil having direct effect on enhancing the availability of macronutrients and micronutrients through correcting the deficiency induced by the conventional practices with the application of synthetic fertilizers, and consequently capable of sustaining high crop productivity and soil biological properties

The farmers can in turn, get good remuneration from the organically produced crops and vegetables if included in high-value crop sequences, e.g., aromatic rice–table pea and onion [3] due to their heavy demands in domestic, national, as well as international markets that may help the country in earning some foreign exchange. Therefore, a book chapter entitled "Role of organic sources of nutrient in rice (*Oryza sativa*) based on high value cropping sequence"

**1.** To identify potential high-value cropping sequence suitable for irrigated ecosystem; **2.** To study the effect of organic nitrogen sources on yield and quality of crop produce; **3.** To study the effect of organic nitrogen sources on nutrient acquisition by the sequence.

by modification of the soil environment [2].

132 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**2. Experimental details**

*2.1.1. Main plot: Cropping sequences (7)*

**•** Sequence-2: Rice-Green Pea-Onion

**•** Sequence-3: Rice-Potato-Cowpea (Green Pod)

**•** Sequence-4: Rice- Green Pea -Cowpea (Green Pod)

**•** Sequence-1: Rice-Potato-Onion

**2.1. Treatment details**

was planned and executed with the following objectives:



**Table 1.** Details of the variety of hybrid seed rate and spacing of different crops.

### **3. Rainy season (rice)**

### **3.1. Field preparations**

Proper field preparation and timely planting are essential for good crop yield. These factors influence the soil's physical property, particularly soil moisture, aeration, and plant nutrient availability. With a view to have good experimental unit for planting, initial ploughing was done by a soil turning plough followed by disking. The seed beds were properly prepared as per crop requirements before planting various crops.

### **3.2. Raising rice nursery**

A well-drained fertile land having good irrigation facility was selected for raising rice seedlings. The nursery plot was ploughed twice and puddled in standing water to convert the upper layer of soil into fine soft mud. The field was leveled properly and 10 x 1.5 m2 beds were prepared. A requisite amount of 36 kg organic manure was applied to each nursery of 15 m2 . Healthy, genuine, certified, and sprouted seeds at 40 kg per ha were properly spread, keeping a thin water film for a week. The seedbed was irrigated to maintain shallow, submerged rice.

### **3.3. Field preparation for transplanting**

Proper field preparation is essential for a healthy rice crop. The experimental area was ploughed with a tractor during the summer and ploughed twice again before rice transplant‐ ing. Thereafter, the field was puddled with the cultivator. Finally, the field was laid out to meet the requirements of the experimental design. The field was puddled thoroughly, and fourweek-old seedlings were transplanted at 3 seedlings per hill in rows 20 cm apart with hill to hill distance of 10 cm. As per treatment, full recommended doses of all the manures were applied just before transplanting. Irrigations were given to the crop at 16, 30, 18, and 32 DAT during the two years of experimentation. Two hand weedings were done at 26 and 65 DAT during both the years of experimentation. Except minor appearances of gundhi bugs, no major pests or diseases appeared. Hence, even bio-insecticides were not used due to the negligible impact of the gundhi bugs. Rice plants were harvested at physiological maturity of the crop after 108 DAT during the first and 109 DAT in the second year of experimentation. First of all, the border rows were harvested, bundled, and removed from the plots. Thereafter, the experimental rows from the net plot area were harvested. Plot wise harvested materials were carefully bundled, tagged, and taken to the threshing floor. Each bundle was weighed after complete sun drying and threshing. The grain yield was recorded separately after winnowing and cleaning. The straw yields was calculated by subtracting grain yield from the bundle weight and were converted to kg per ha based on net plot size harvest.

### **3.4. Biometric observations of rice**

For recording biometric observations at different stages of crop growth, four hills in the net plot area were randomly selected and tagged. However, for the dry matter production, four hills were randomly selected from the sample rows (border rows) at different growth stages. The plants were then tagged and brought to the laboratory for the study. Four biometric observations were recorded at 30 DAT (tillering stage), 60 DAT (late jointing stage) and at harvest during both years. The plant samples collected randomly from the border row of the field were kept in an oven at 60°C till the constant weight arrived for determining the dry matter production per unit area. The panicle-bearing tillers were counted from the one square meter marked area after full anthesis. Ten panicles were randomly selected from tagged plants and the length was measured from the neck node to the tip of the upper most spikelet and average length was recorded. Ten randomly selected panicles were weighed and averaged to record per panicle weight. The filled grain of each of the ten panicles from each plot were counted and averaged. Grain samples were taken from the threshed and cleaned produce of each net plot and 1,000 grains were counted and weighed. Grain yield was recorded (kg plot-1) after threshing, winnowing, cleaning, and drying. Thereafter, it was computed to kg per ha. The difference of the bundle weight and grain yield gave the straw yield (kg plot-1). Thereafter, it was computed to kg per ha.

### **4. Winter season**

upper layer of soil into fine soft mud. The field was leveled properly and 10 x 1.5 m2

weight and were converted to kg per ha based on net plot size harvest.

**3.3. Field preparation for transplanting**

134 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**3.4. Biometric observations of rice**

prepared. A requisite amount of 36 kg organic manure was applied to each nursery of 15 m2

Healthy, genuine, certified, and sprouted seeds at 40 kg per ha were properly spread, keeping a thin water film for a week. The seedbed was irrigated to maintain shallow, submerged rice.

Proper field preparation is essential for a healthy rice crop. The experimental area was ploughed with a tractor during the summer and ploughed twice again before rice transplant‐ ing. Thereafter, the field was puddled with the cultivator. Finally, the field was laid out to meet the requirements of the experimental design. The field was puddled thoroughly, and fourweek-old seedlings were transplanted at 3 seedlings per hill in rows 20 cm apart with hill to hill distance of 10 cm. As per treatment, full recommended doses of all the manures were applied just before transplanting. Irrigations were given to the crop at 16, 30, 18, and 32 DAT during the two years of experimentation. Two hand weedings were done at 26 and 65 DAT during both the years of experimentation. Except minor appearances of gundhi bugs, no major pests or diseases appeared. Hence, even bio-insecticides were not used due to the negligible impact of the gundhi bugs. Rice plants were harvested at physiological maturity of the crop after 108 DAT during the first and 109 DAT in the second year of experimentation. First of all, the border rows were harvested, bundled, and removed from the plots. Thereafter, the experimental rows from the net plot area were harvested. Plot wise harvested materials were carefully bundled, tagged, and taken to the threshing floor. Each bundle was weighed after complete sun drying and threshing. The grain yield was recorded separately after winnowing and cleaning. The straw yields was calculated by subtracting grain yield from the bundle

For recording biometric observations at different stages of crop growth, four hills in the net plot area were randomly selected and tagged. However, for the dry matter production, four hills were randomly selected from the sample rows (border rows) at different growth stages. The plants were then tagged and brought to the laboratory for the study. Four biometric observations were recorded at 30 DAT (tillering stage), 60 DAT (late jointing stage) and at harvest during both years. The plant samples collected randomly from the border row of the field were kept in an oven at 60°C till the constant weight arrived for determining the dry matter production per unit area. The panicle-bearing tillers were counted from the one square meter marked area after full anthesis. Ten panicles were randomly selected from tagged plants and the length was measured from the neck node to the tip of the upper most spikelet and average length was recorded. Ten randomly selected panicles were weighed and averaged to record per panicle weight. The filled grain of each of the ten panicles from each plot were counted and averaged. Grain samples were taken from the threshed and cleaned produce of each net plot and 1,000 grains were counted and weighed. Grain yield was recorded (kg plot-1) after threshing, winnowing, cleaning, and drying. Thereafter, it was computed to kg per ha.

beds were

.

### **4.1. Field preparation**

During the winter season, potato, green pea, rajmash, and maize are grown. The following packages of practices were adopted for these crops. Field preparation operations were common for all the *rabi* season crops. As a general rule, these crops require a well pulverized but compact seedbed for good and uniform germination. To avoid the mixing of soil under treatments, the individual plot was ploughed thrice by power tiller at proper tilth and finally the planking was done.

### **4.2. Weed management**

During both years of experimentation, the weeding was done using a hand rotary weeder during the beginning of the first appearance of a thick flush of weed, e.g., 25 days after sowing followed by a second weeding at 45–50 days after sowing. The first weeding was done after recording observations for weed flora. However, to the wheat crop, only one weeding was given.

### **4.3. Irrigation**

In both years of the experiment, irrigation was given according to the requirements of the different crops as per the schedule. In all, one irrigation was given to lentil, pea, and chickpea, two irrigations to mustard, three irrigations to potato and wheat, and as much as four irrigations was given to maize. Only minor appearances of pests or diseases occurred. Hence, even bio-insecticides were not used due to the negligible impact of the insect pests and diseases.

### **4.4. Harvesting**

In general, all the crops were harvested by serrated edge sickle manually at the maturity of the respective crops. However, in case of potatoes, tubers were dug out at maturity. In green peas, two to three pickings of green pods were done; whereas, the green cobs of maize were harvested at the milky stage of the grains. Haulms of pea and maize stover were used as cattle fodder. In all the crops, the border rows and 0.5 m either side of plot rows were harvested and removed around the individual plots leaving only the net plot area. The harvesting of each net plot area was done separately and the harvested material from each plot was carefully bundled, tagged, and taken to the threshing floor and kept individually for sun drying.

### **4.5. Threshing**

Each bundle was weighed after proper sun drying and then threshed individually. The grain/ seed/pod/tuber yield of different crops were weighed and recorded separately after winnow‐ ing and cleaning. The straw stover yield were calculated/recorded separately and converted to q ha-1 based on the net plot size harvest.

### **5. Summer season**

### **5.1. Field preparation**

Onions and cowpeas were taken during summer season in different cropping sequences. Field preparatory operations were common for all summer season crops. After the harvesting of winter season crops in different sequences, pre-sown irrigation was given and individual plots were tilled thrice with a power tiller at proper tilth and finally planking was done.

### **5.2. Raising of onion seedling**

Seeds of Agrifound light red variety were used. The seeds used for the nursery had more than 80% germination. The nursery beds (4 m x 2.6 m) were prepared carefully by incorporating sufficient quantity of well-rotten farm yard manure (20 kg bed-1). Seeds were sown on the bed at 52 g per bed. After sowing, beds were given light and frequent water application through a water cane at the beginning to maintain moisture for seedling growth. Two light irrigations were also given at sowing and 10 DAS to maintain the growth of a thin layer of FYM was given to cover the seeds. The beds were covered with a thin layer of paddy straw on the same day to maintain congenial moisture and temperature condition. The paddy straw was removed after seed germination (10 DAS). Seedlings were transplanted at 60 DAS on 26.02.04 during the first year and 20.02.05 during the second year. However, cowpea seeds were treated with *Rhizobium* culture to improve the nitrogen fixation capacity before sowing the crop. Details of crop varieties used, seed rate, and spacing are given in Table 1.

### **5.3. Weed management**

During both years of the experimentation, one weeding was done in the inter-row spaces by hand rotary weeder at 20 days after sowing and the weeds on the crop rows were removed manually.

### **6. Qualitative character of rice-based cropping sequence**

### **6.1. Hulling of rice (%)**

Two hundred grams of rice grains after threshing, winnowing, cleaning, and drying were taken for dehusking, and the brown rice thus obtained was weighed and then hulling (%) was calculated by the following formula:

= ´ Brown rice obtained after threshing (g) Hulling(%) <sup>100</sup> Total rice grain taken for dehusking (g)

### **6.2. Milling of rice (%)**

ing and cleaning. The straw stover yield were calculated/recorded separately and converted

Onions and cowpeas were taken during summer season in different cropping sequences. Field preparatory operations were common for all summer season crops. After the harvesting of winter season crops in different sequences, pre-sown irrigation was given and individual plots

Seeds of Agrifound light red variety were used. The seeds used for the nursery had more than 80% germination. The nursery beds (4 m x 2.6 m) were prepared carefully by incorporating sufficient quantity of well-rotten farm yard manure (20 kg bed-1). Seeds were sown on the bed at 52 g per bed. After sowing, beds were given light and frequent water application through a water cane at the beginning to maintain moisture for seedling growth. Two light irrigations were also given at sowing and 10 DAS to maintain the growth of a thin layer of FYM was given to cover the seeds. The beds were covered with a thin layer of paddy straw on the same day to maintain congenial moisture and temperature condition. The paddy straw was removed after seed germination (10 DAS). Seedlings were transplanted at 60 DAS on 26.02.04 during the first year and 20.02.05 during the second year. However, cowpea seeds were treated with *Rhizobium* culture to improve the nitrogen fixation capacity before sowing the crop. Details of

During both years of the experimentation, one weeding was done in the inter-row spaces by hand rotary weeder at 20 days after sowing and the weeds on the crop rows were removed

Two hundred grams of rice grains after threshing, winnowing, cleaning, and drying were taken for dehusking, and the brown rice thus obtained was weighed and then hulling (%) was

were tilled thrice with a power tiller at proper tilth and finally planking was done.

crop varieties used, seed rate, and spacing are given in Table 1.

**6. Qualitative character of rice-based cropping sequence**

to q ha-1 based on the net plot size harvest.

136 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

**5. Summer season**

**5.1. Field preparation**

**5.2. Raising of onion seedling**

**5.3. Weed management**

**6.1. Hulling of rice (%)**

calculated by the following formula:

manually.

One hundred grams of brown rice obtained after hulling was taken and kept for polishing by removing rice bran, embryo, and alurone layer and polished white kernels were thus obtained using the following formula:

$$\text{Milling} \text{(\%)} \text{=} \frac{\text{White poloidal kernels obtained (g)}}{\text{Brown rise taken for poloidal (g)}} \times 100$$

### **6.3. Head rice recovery (%)**

Total white polished rice obtained after milling was taken and whole white kernels were separated, weighed and the percentage was calculated using the formula:

$$\text{HeadRiceRecovery} \text{(\%)} = \frac{\text{Whole white kernels obtained (g)}}{\text{White polarized kernels obtained after milling (g)}} \times 100$$

### **6.4. Shelling of maize (%)**

Five randomly selected cobs were weighed and grains were separated and weighed. The shelling percentage was calculated by using the following formula:

$$\text{Shelling}(\%) = \frac{\text{Weight of kernels per cob (g)}}{\text{Weight of cob (g)}} \times 100$$

### **6.5. Protein content of each crop (%)**

The protein content (%) in the grains was worked by multiplying the nitrogen content in grain by the factor 6.25 (A. O. A. C., 1960).

### **6.6. Protein yield**

The protein yield (kg ha-1) was obtained by the following formula:

$$\text{Protein Yield} \text{(kg/ha)} = \frac{\text{Protein content per cent} \times \text{Yield (kg/ha)}}{100}$$

### **6.7. Starch content of potato (%)**

It was extracted and determined according to Carillo et al (2005).

**Pungency estimation of allyl-propyl-disulphide onion:** Allyl-propyl-disulphide content in the onion bulb was determined as Pyruvic acid (Hort and Fisher, 1970) using the following relationships:


**Carbohydrate content (%):** It was determined by the method described by Loomis and Shull (1937).

**Nutrient content:** The seed and plant samples at harvest were used for chemical analysis of N, P, and K contents. The plants and seeds were dried in an oven and grained thoroughly in a wily mill to pass through a 30-mesh sieve. These were presented in labeled polythene bag for chemical analysis.

**Total nitrogen:** The total nitrogen was analyzed at harvest. The N content in seeds was also analyzed separately. Alkaline permanganate method [4] was employed for their estimation.

**Total phosphorous:** Total phosphorus was estimated during the harvest of the crop 0.05 M NaHCO3 using Barten's reagent was employed for this purpose.

**Total potassium:** Total potassium was determined with the help of a flame photometer [5] during the harvest of both seed and straw.

**Micronutrient:** Micronutrient was determined with the help of an atomic absorption sectorphotometer at the time of harvesting of both seed and straw.

**Nutrient uptake:** Nutrient uptake in grain (seed/bulb) and straw/haulm of the crops were calculated in kg/ha in relation to yield by using the following formula:

´ <sup>=</sup> Nutrient content(%) Yield (kg/ha) Nutrient Uptake(kg/ha) <sup>100</sup>

### **7. System study**

**Equivalent yield:** Rice equivalent as well as system productivity were worked out by con‐ verting the yields of crops into rice equivalent, taking the help of price values used for the calculation of the economics. The productivity of cropping sequence was converted into rice equivalent yield using the formula:

´ <sup>=</sup> Productivity of component (kg/ha) Price of component(Rs/kg) Rice Eq.Yield (kg/ha) Cost of Rice (Rs/kg)

Equivalent yields of potato and onion were also calculated as same manner as fallow in calculating rice equivalent yield.

**Production efficiency of the system (PES):** Production efficiency of the system was calculated by dividing the equivalent yield of rice in a sequence through 365.

$$\text{PES (kg/ha/day)} = \frac{\text{Rice equivalent yield of the system (kg/ha) in a year}}{365}$$

**Nutrient uptake in the system:** Nutrient uptake in the system was worked out by making a sum of nutrient uptake of a sequence.

### **Economic analysis**

**6.7. Starch content of potato (%)**

138 Organic Farming - A Promising Way of Food Production

relationships:

(1937).

for chemical analysis.

**7. System study**

It was extracted and determined according to Carillo et al (2005).

NaHCO3 using Barten's reagent was employed for this purpose.

photometer at the time of harvesting of both seed and straw.

calculated in kg/ha in relation to yield by using the following formula:

during the harvest of both seed and straw.

**Pungency estimation of allyl-propyl-disulphide onion:** Allyl-propyl-disulphide content in the onion bulb was determined as Pyruvic acid (Hort and Fisher, 1970) using the following

standard curve mol of sample made ml Pyruvate content= <sup>×</sup> Alliquat of test control solution Wt of sample

**Carbohydrate content (%):** It was determined by the method described by Loomis and Shull

**Nutrient content:** The seed and plant samples at harvest were used for chemical analysis of N, P, and K contents. The plants and seeds were dried in an oven and grained thoroughly in a wily mill to pass through a 30-mesh sieve. These were presented in labeled polythene bag

**Total nitrogen:** The total nitrogen was analyzed at harvest. The N content in seeds was also analyzed separately. Alkaline permanganate method [4] was employed for their estimation.

**Total phosphorous:** Total phosphorus was estimated during the harvest of the crop 0.05 M

**Total potassium:** Total potassium was determined with the help of a flame photometer [5]

**Micronutrient:** Micronutrient was determined with the help of an atomic absorption sector-

**Nutrient uptake:** Nutrient uptake in grain (seed/bulb) and straw/haulm of the crops were

´ <sup>=</sup> Nutrient content(%) Yield (kg/ha) Nutrient Uptake(kg/ha) <sup>100</sup>

**Equivalent yield:** Rice equivalent as well as system productivity were worked out by con‐ verting the yields of crops into rice equivalent, taking the help of price values used for the

( )

taken color development ml taken for ass

(μ )

Pyruvate content from Total volume of soln.

( )

( )

ay g


Cost of cultivation, gross return, and net return under different treatments were worked out on the basis of prevailing cost of different inputs. Power and labor for different operations were calculated on a per hectare basis as per normal rates prevalent in the country. The costs of other inputs were considered as per market price. The total gross return was taken as the total income received from the produce of economic and stover yield. Net return was calculated with the help of following formula:

Net Return = Gross Return - Cost of Cultivation

**Energy equivalent:** The total energy return of the system was obtained by the conversion of economic yield of the sequence into energy equivalent; whereas, the net energy return was worked out by deducting total input involved in the sequence in energy term from the total energy return. The energy output: input ratio and energy productivity were obtained as follows:
