If you really, genuinely want to go to Cornell (i.e.

it's not on your list just because you want a "few Ivy Leagues" on your list and what the heck), I will give you some tips and secrets of getting admitted. (I wish epinions has a way to write anonymous reviews, because I might get into trouble for revealing some secrets about the admission process, so I'm going to very careful not to step over the line and be restrained, yet be helpful enough to you, the reader/potential applicant. As a background, I am a recent graduate and an Alumni Ambassador ("interviewer") and I usually know from the bat when the high school student I talk to will or won't get into Cornell.) Research: Read, Read, Read! First, the most important thing is to do your research! Read all the literature that Cornell sends you. You're on the web now, so why not go down to Cornell's website (www.cornell.edu) and start reading about the schools. Yes that's a plural "schools". If you can somehow demonstrate in your essays or interviews that you know Cornell had 7 different schools/colleges, then it will immediately show that you have some interest and have done your research. Even better, you should say why that specific school to which you're applying is a perfect fit for you. Admissions doesn't expect a 16/17-year old to know what they want to do with the rest of their lives (some of us, even after graduating, have no clue!). Of course not! But at the very least, they expect that you know why you are choosing Cornell, and more importantly why you are choosing their specific school in Cornell (those 7 are: Agriculture & Life Sciences, Arts & Sciences, Human Ecology, Industrial Labor Relations, Hotel Administration, Art Architecture and Planning, Engineering.). Here's a secret: Read about that school's mission statement. Re-read it, chant it, make a song out of it, write it a hundred times on your wall, tattoo it on your arm. It is so important to the school, and so important in determining whether you are a fit for that school. Make sure your interests match the mission statement of that school. Let me give you a solid example. Say you are interested in the medical field. Cornell does not have a premed major (and almost all med schools don't care what you major in). You think you are interested in Biology. Well, did you know that 3 schools offer a Biology major? (Arts & Sciences, Agriculture & Life Sciences, Human Ecology) So which one do you choose? Read my previous paragraph: read the mission statement of each school. They are drastically different from each other. Scenario 1: Let's say you're interested in a broad liberal arts education, you have some interest in government and history and literature-- and you still want to major in Biology and go to med school. Well, easy: apply to Arts & Sciences. Say in your essay that while you are interested in Biology/medicine, you want to take advantage of the variety of liberal arts classes that are available to you in the Arts school. Scenario 2: You are going into the medical field because you care about people and want to help the elderly and people in poor communities. You have volunteered at the local hospital, couple of non-profits, and you tutor kids in your run-down urban elementary school. Make sure in your essay and application, you emphasize how you became interested (i.e. through your activities in the community) in medicine. And then it's as simple as applying to the Human Ecology school. Scenario 3: Your high school extracurricular activities involve the Science Club and competitions, you are doing an independent research on some science-related topic. You are interested in going into medicine, and medical research interests you. Or maybe you're thinking about becoming a veterinarian (Cornell Vet school is #1 in the U.S., by the way-- they have no undergrad school, but the Ag school is its pseudoundergrad school). Well, write that in your essay, and apply to the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: they offer lots of courses in animal biology, as well as "hard" science courses. Another important tip: You are not bound by your choices in your application! Did you know that A LOT of Cornellians transfer between schools? Maybe you're a Bio major in the Agriculture school, but you suddenly found an interest in theatre: transfer to the Arts school your sophomore year! It's not that hard, but the trick is to be focused in your initial application essay! What SAT score do I need? What GPA? What I say will shock you: It doesn't really matter. Well, okay I lied. It *does* matter, but the reality is, you probably have a good SAT and GPA score, otherwise you'd be wasting your time and money applying to Cornell anyways. And the statistics show: One admissions officer said this: Did you know that about 95% of applicants all have about the same GPA and SAT scores? What does that mean? Well, that means that your objective data (scores) doesn't really differentiate you from the other applicants! Read that sentence again. I can't tell you how important the subjective parts of your application (mainly, your essays and recommendations) is to your chance of admissions at Cornell! Yeah, it's not fair, ya-dee-dah, but this is the reality! There are so many applications that needs to be read, and really, if you don't stand out, what's stopping the admissions committee from throwing out your application? This doesn't mean, go out and join 100 clubs at school, volunteer half your life away, join every sports team there is, play every instrument in band... No not at all. In fact, the opposite is true: don't do too much! It's much better to have a few activities that are very focused, where you do well and

with passion, rather than do a lot of things but with little involvement or passion. Choose your activities carefully. On the application itself, Cornell asks you to pick ONE activity and describe why it's important to you. Again, ONE activity. They don't care about quantity, just quality. Another tip: Don't ever ever resort to additional pages (stapled to your application) in your application. First, no one is going to read it-- there is no time. Second, you insult the school by unknowingly saying "You were stupid and didn't give me enough space to fill in all that information in that space you gave me." If 10,000 other applicants were able to fit everything to that space with no problem, and you couldn't, then you have a problem. Believe me, if I had 5000 applications to read in 3 months, I don't want additional pages tacked on to them! Unless of course you've won a Pulitzer Prize and you're explaining to me how much that has influenced your decision to apply to Cornell... Yet another tip: Don't be arrogant in your essays. True story: 2 valedictorians from the same high school applied to Cornell, as did a student ranked #34. Guess who got into Cornell? #34. The valedictorians were rejected. Why? They were arrogant in their essays: "I am so smart, I did this and that, and won this award and that, I am so smart, so you should admit me." No way! They never said why Cornell was right for them (and no, "Cornell is a top school, and I'm a top student, so we match" won't cut it), and they never said anything about their TRUE SELF. We know you're smart, we have your scores right in front of us: Tell us something ABOUT you! Why did #34 get in? Well, #34 knew that she wasn't #1, and explained why: She spent a lot of time doing work with a local organization, and didn't have much time to do schoolwork. But her volunteer work really helped shape her life goals, made her realize what her passion was. And she wrote a damn good essay. Very well written and most importantly, SINCERE and with genuine PASSION that seeped out from the words. You can't fake passion on paper, and certainly not in an interview. That's what grabs the attention of the admissions committee. Interviews Cornell does not require an interview for admission, with one exception: the Hotel Administration school requires it. That being said, I strongly, strongly encourage you to "interview" (I put that in quotes, because it's really not an interview but more of an "information session") with an alumni of Cornell. I am part of the Cornell Alumni Admissions Ambassador Network (CAAAN), and what we do is give applicants a chance to learn more about Cornell (for those essays!), and ask about first-hand Cornell experiences. And it gives us a chance to help you in your application. Yes, help you! Because there is so much person you can squeeze into couple sheets of paper, it's a good idea to meet face to face with the applicant, and since Cornell is such a huge school, the admissions officers can't interview everyone directly. Which is why CAAAN exists. Ideally, every applicant would have spoken with or met an alumni. Usually, we call you first, as soon as you send in Part 1 of your application. Please return our calls and accept our offers to meet! It is so important, because as I said: the subjective parts of the application are crucial to your chance of admission to Cornell. It cannot hurt you, it can only help you. If I meet someone who's not that stellar, I usually don't say anything to the admissions committee-- I figure what they wrote in their application is who they are. On the other hand, if there's new information about you, or I find that you have a genuine interest in Cornell or some other striking characteristic about you that's notable, then I let the admissions committee know. It puts a face to the application and can only help you. It's not a stressful experience at all. (Shameless plug: If you are an applicant to Cornell and want me to "interview" you, drop me a line and I'll be glad to do it (over the phone if we really can't meet), especially if you're on Long Island, New York or where ever I might find myself (I move a lot)...) Summary It's actually very simple to get into Cornell. The fact is, most people don't follow the simple tips I've given you here. You'd be surprised. The unique thing about Cornell (besides its magnificent campus-- oh yeah, if you're really interested, you would have visited the campus!) is that it's made up 7 different colleges. Each are semi-autonomous and admit students separately from each other. Did you know that the only University-wide requirements for graduation are: 1. Pass the swim test, 2. Take 2 English courses (aka "Writing Seminar"), 3. Take 2 Physical Education classes (things like Yoga, Riflery, Fly Fishing, Ballroom Dancing count as P.E.!). That's it. All the other graduation requirements are set individually by the Colleges. That's to show you how distinct the Colleges are. And you must understand that to understand Cornell. It's probably the only American college that has such a weird structure. But then, Cornell is not your typical American college, or Ivy League college, for that matter. You can email me if you want more tips or if you have questions, but don't overwhelm me with questions, otherwise I might have to start charging for it! :) -- Updates/Addendum -Your chances for admission are the same whether you are a New York resident or not, even to the state ("public") schools.

In the fall of 2001, a new grid powered up to meet the needs of another traditionally underserved community. It will serve up not electricity, but information about organic agriculture. The Northeast Organic Network, or NEON, is an innovative consortium of farmers, researchers, extension educators and grassroots nonprofits working together to improve organic farmers' access to research and technical support. Funded with a $1.2 million grant from the US Department of Agriculture's Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, this multi-state, multidisciplinary team will be conducting research and extension and education programs on organic agriculture throughout the Northeast. The NEON design team includes farmers, researchers at Cornell University, the University of Maine, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, and Rutgers, and several nonprofit organizations, including the Northeast Organic Farming Associations of New York and New Jersey, the New England Small Farm Institute, the Organic Materials Review Institute and New York Certified Organic. Cornell University's Department of Horticulture at will serve as the NEON hub. NEON is currently seeking additional partners for all activities. NEON will be meeting critical needs in one of the fastest growing segments of American agriculture. Organic products are now a $7 billion market that has been growing at a rate of 20% a year. Despite explosive growth and consumer support, research in organic agriculture still represents far less than 1% of the research conducted at land-grant universities and agricultural experiment stations, according to surveys conducted in 1998 and 2001 by the Organic Farming Research Foundation. NEON is starting to fill the most critical gaps for farmers from Maryland to Maine by investigating the complex decisions made on organic farms. Early research efforts will address soil fertility, pest management and crop rotation. Research strategies will include field experiments and economic analysis, case studies of successful organic growers and development of expert systems for organic decision. Throughout NEON's work, farmers will be involved as participants, subjects, and evaluators and advisors. For More Information, email Anu Rangarajan, Cornell University. Executive Summary The Northeast Organic Network (NEON) aims to discover opportunities for enhancing production and consumption of locally-grown organic food in the Northeast. We will coordinate research, extension and outreach efforts among the Northeast organic community, Land Grant Universities (LGUs), Agricultural Experiment Stations (AES), public and private sectors, to determine when organic food production will improve small farm viability in the Northeast. These sectors have pledged to cooperate and leverage their premier expertise to explore organic agriculture for this purpose. The growth in organic markets, development of national organic standards, concentration of consumers in the Northeast, and recent federal recommendations to ensure small farm viability make this project timely and relevant. Multidisciplinary applied research will target specific knowledge gaps in established organic cropping systems - soil, fertility and pest management, marketing and economics. NEON's research will increase understanding of organic production and marketing and identify research areas requiring further study. At the center of our process are growers and their knowledge. We will synthesize both current and new information to develop decision-making tools and educational materials to help new or established farms to consider or expand organic production to enhance profitability. Through these collaborations, NEON will enhance the long-term capacity of organizations serving the Northeast's growing number of organic producers. All information gained will be shared widely, through conferences, publications and the World Wide Web. Founding members Anu Rangarajan, Cornell University Tony Shelton, Cornell University Laurie Drinkwater, Cornell University Sue Ellen Johnson, New England Small Farm Institute Sarah Johnston, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York Kim Stoner, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Mary Howell- and Klaus Martens, Organic Crop Improvement Association/New York Certified Organic Karen Anderson, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey Charles Mohler, Cornell University Tony Ditommasso, Cornell University

Marianne Sarrantonio, University of Maine Wen-Fei Uva, Cornell University Brian Caldwell, Cornell Cooperative Extension Steve Gilman, Ruckytucks Farm Emily Brown Rosen, Organic Materials Review Institute Robin Brumfield, Rutgers University Plan of work, 2001-2003 Outcome 1: NEON will strengthen collaboration among growers, non-profit organizations and Northeast academic institutions to facilitate research, extension and educational programs on organic agriculture. Products for Outcome 1: A. B. C. Web-site, list-serve and newsletter highlighting NEON activities Expanded numbers of researchers working on organic systems 12 in-depth Focal Farm Reports that integrate all research and economic data collected on model organic farms of the Northeast Outcome 2: We will develop enterprise budgets and farm business management information that focuses on established organic farms in the Northeast, to evaluate current farm success, based upon farmer goals and objectives. Products for Outcome 2: Farm business management profiles of 12 focal farms, highlighting relative "success" of various enterprises and management strategies for organic systems. B. Validated enterprise budgets for 8 organic vegetable crops, building upon the initial costs of production worksheets created by Dr. Robin Brumfield from Rutgers University. C. Evaluation of common organic crop rotations for profitability Outcome 3: Targeted applied research will address specific knowledge gaps in current soil fertility, crop and pest management practices to develop decision support tools to improve organic farming management. Knowledge Gap 1: What are the current contributions of various organic amendments to nutrient balances on organic farms, and in which cases might we be over-applying amendments? Knowledge Gap 2: Which cover crops are best adapted to conditions of the NE and how do these types affect fertility and pests on organic farms? Knowledge Gap 3: How can crop rotations, crop diversity and cover crops be used to reduce severity of insects, diseases and weeds in organic crops? Knowledge Gap 4: How effective are organically accepted 'rescue treatments' at reducing crop losses from pests? Products for Outcome 3: NEON will START producing decision support tools for organic growers: Draft nutrient budgeting worksheets to optimize soil fertility management in various organic cropping systems B. A grower-researcher designed rotation planner to enhance farm profitability and optimize use of cover crops and crop rotations to manage soil fertility and crop pests C. Annual Organic Pest Management Product Review of tested 'rescue treatments' to address pest outbreaks in organic systems Background and relevance The difficult and complex challenges in food production faced by American agriculture, and rural America in general, are most evident in the Northeast. The principal movers behind conventional models of production in the United States have been the land grant universities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and more recently large, multinational agribusiness firms (Lyson 1999). Over the past 50 years, farms have become larger in size and fewer in number. This consolidation of the agricultural industry has effected the farm structure and caused USDA to reconsider its policies. A 1998 USDA report notes that: 1. 2. there are today 300,000 fewer small farms than in 1979 despite the trend toward fewer and larger vertically integrated firms controlling the majority of food and fiber products in the US, a new vision for small farms in the 21st century would allow them to flourish in the changing global agriculture 3. studies indicate that despite belief that large farms are more efficient, small farms are at least as efficient as larger ones, and that there is evidence of diseconomies of scale as farm size increases The report concludes that small farms can become "stronger and will thrive, using farming systems that A. A.

emphasize the management, skill and ingenuity of the individual farmer. A competitive advantage for small farms should be realized through a framework of supportive, yet responsible, government and private initiatives, the application of appropriate research and extension and the stimulation of new marketing opportunities." Furthermore, the report lists eight policy goals and methods to meet these goals. Four of these goals relate to NEON: 1. 2. to emphasize sustainable agriculture as a profitable, ecologically and socially sound strategy to dedicate budget resources to strengthen the competitive position of small farms in American agriculture 3. to conduct appropriate outreach through partnerships to serve small farms 4. to create a framework of support and responsibility. Organic agriculture is entering mainstream agriculture for several reasons. Many growers are losing money in conventional agriculture and organic production appears more profitable. Organic agricultural products generally receive 20% higher price in the market. Organic farming has been shown to be more profitable for small farmers - even without premium prices that organic crops generally receive. Organic agriculture is well suited for high value crops (vegetables and herbs) where increased labor costs are more readily justified. Large scale production of organic grains (for both livestock and human consumption) continues to be a rapidly growing sector. We believe that organic production can serve a major market need in the Northeast, provide a viable production and marketing strategy to enhance the viability of small farms, and potentially reduce negative environmental impacts of our farming systems. Domestic sales of organic products have grown at the rate of around 20% per year for each of the last seven years; there are between 10,000-15,000 farms working more than 1 million acres of crop and grazing land (Lipson 1997). Food production in the US retail food sector is $756 billion, and organic production is valued presently at 1% of this total, but is growing. The Hartman report found that 90% of American consumers were either buying or considering buying organic products - and this figure is up from 60% two years ago. Organic food products' retail value was $0.5 billion in 1990, $4 billion in 1996 and is estimated to be $8 billion in 2000. Conventional food processors and distributors are linking with organic producers (Small Planet Foods and Hain Foods). Although the business climate for organic agriculture is more favorable, there is also greater pressure from outside the region (e.g. California and Mexico) to meet the increased demand. It has been estimated that >75% of the food consumed in the Northeast is imported from other regions, and the same is probably true for organic products marketed in the region. Organic farming's potential, particularly as an alternative strategy for small farms, remains largely undeveloped. More research, extension and educational efforts are needed to fulfill the promise of organic agriculture. Historically, inadequate support has hindered organic agriculture's development. During 19956, the National Organic Research Policy Analysis (NORPA) project conducted a study to identify federallyfunded organic agriculture projects. Of nearly 30,000 summaries of research projects examined through the CRIS database, only 34 were identified as focused on organic systems or methods (Lipson 1997). Since this represents only about 0.1% of USDA's research portfolio, NORPA's report states, "The national agricultural research system has failed to recognize[or] help improve the performance of organic farming systems." A recent analysis of land grant universities discovered that less than 1% of experiment station land was committed to organic agriculture (OFRF 2000). Despite insufficient federal funding, organic agriculture has been able to survive primarily through the efforts of dedicated producers, their grassroots organizations, and foundation support for the organic mission. Focused efforts, especially partnerships with private and public entities, are urgently needed to develop strategies to overcome biological and social constraints facing organic agriculture. In addition, creative crop-marketing initiatives would assist producers. Resources within the Land Grant Universities can help organic producers manage their production and marketing practices, but this must be done in a coordinated and collaborative fashion, with strong partnerships and shared leadership among the private and public sectors. We believe that NEON can spawn a regional network to help achieve that end.

Organic farming is the form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and control pests on a farm. Organic farming uses fertilizers and pesticides but excludes or strictly limits the use of manufactured(synthetic) fertilizers, pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, and genetically modified organisms.[1] Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), an international umbrella organization for organic farming organizations established in 1972.[2] IFOAM defines the overarching goal of organic farming as: "Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.." International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements[3] Since 1990, the market for organic products has grown from nothing, reaching $55 billion in 2009 according to Organic Monitor (www.organicmonitor.com). This demand has driven a similar increase in organically managed farmland. Approximately 37,000,000 hectares (91,000,000 acres) worldwide are now farmed organically, representing approximately 0.9 percent of total world farmland (2009) (see Willer/Kilcher 2011). [edit] History Main article: History of organic farming Organic farming (of many particular kinds) was the original type of agriculture, and has been practiced for thousands of years. After the industrial revolution had introduced inorganic methods, some of which were not well developed and had serious side effects, an organic movement began in the 1940s as a reaction to agriculture's growing reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Artificial fertilizers had been created during the 18th century, initially with superphosphates and then ammoniabased fertilizers mass-produced using the Haber-Bosch process developed during World War I. These early fertilizers were cheap, powerful, and easy to transport in bulk. Similar advances occurred in chemical pesticides in the 1940s, leading to the decade being referred to as the 'pesticide era'.[4] Although organic farming is prehistoric in the widest sense, Sir Albert Howard is widely considered to be the "father of organic farming" in the sense that he was a key founder of the post-industrial-revolution organic movement.[5] Further work was done by J.I. Rodale in the United States, Lady Eve Balfour in the United Kingdom, and many others across the world. The modern organic movement is a revival movement in the sense that it seeks to restore balance that was lost when technology grew rapidly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Modern organic farming has made up only a fraction of total agricultural output from its beginning until today. Increasing environmental awareness in the general population has transformed the originally supply-driven movement to a demanddriven one. Premium prices and some government subsidies attracted farmers. In the developing world, many producers farm according to traditional methods which are comparable to organic farming but are not certified. In other cases, farmers in the developing world have converted for economic reasons.[6] [edit] Methods Main article: Organic farming methods

Organic cultivation of mixed vegetables in Capay, California. Note the hedgerow in the background. "An organic farm, properly speaking, is not one that uses certain methods and substances and avoids others; it is a farm whose structure is formed in imitation of the structure of a natural system that has the integrity, the independence and the benign dependence of an organism" Wendell Berry, "The Gift of Good Land" [edit] Soil management Plants need nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, as well as micronutrients and symbiotic relationships with fungi and other organisms to flourish, but getting enough nitrogen, and particularly synchronization so that plants get enough nitrogen at the right time (when plants need it most), is likely the greatest challenge for organic farmers.[7] Crop rotation and green manure ("cover crops") help to provide nitrogen through legumes (more precisely, the Fabaceae family) which fix nitrogen from the atmosphere through symbiosis with rhizobial bacteria. Intercropping, which is sometimes used for insect and disease control, can also increase soil nutrients, but the competition between the legume and the crop can be problematic and wider spacing between crop rows is required. Crop residues can be ploughed back into the soil, and different plants leave different amounts of nitrogen, potentially aiding synchronization.[7] Organic farmers also use animal

manure, certain processed fertilizers such as seed meal and various mineral powders such as rock phosphate and greensand, a naturally occurring form of potash which provides potassium. Together these methods help to control erosion. In some cases pH may need to be amended. Natural pH amendments include lime and sulfur, but in the U.S. some compounds such as iron sulfate, aluminum sulfate, magnesium sulfate, and soluble boron products are allowed in organic farming.[8]:43 Mixed farms with both livestock and crops can operate as ley farms, whereby the land gathers fertility through growing nitrogen-fixing forage grasses such as white clover or alfalfa and grows cash crops or cereals when fertility is established. Farms without livestock ("stockless") may find it more difficult to maintain fertility, and may rely more on external inputs such as imported manure as well as grain legumes and green manures, although grain legumes may fix limited nitrogen because they are harvested. Horticultural farms growing fruits and vegetables which operate in protected conditions are often even more reliant upon external inputs.[7] Biological research on soil and soil organisms has proven beneficial to organic farming. Varieties of bacteria and fungi break down chemicals, plant matter and animal waste into productive soil nutrients. In turn, they produce benefits of healthier yields and more productive soil for future crops.[9] Fields with less or no manure display significantly lower yields, due to decreased soil microbe community, providing a healthier, more arable soil system.[10] [edit] Weed management Organic weed management promotes weed suppression, rather than weed elimination, by enhancing crop competition and phytotoxic effects on weeds.[11] Organic farmers integrate cultural, biological, mechanical, physical and chemical tactics to manage weeds without synthetic herbicides. Organic standards require rotation of annual crops,[12] meaning that a single crop cannot be grown in the same location without a different, intervening crop. Organic crop rotations frequently include weed-suppressive cover crops and crops with dissimilar life cycles to discourage weeds associated with a particular crop.[11] Organic farmers strive to increase soil organic matter content, which can support microorganisms that destroy common weed seeds.[13] Other cultural practices used to enhance crop competitiveness and reduce weed pressure include selection of competitive crop varieties, high-density planting, tight row spacing, and late planting into warm soil to encourage rapid crop germination.[11] Mechanical and physical weed control practices used on organic farms can be broadly grouped as:[14]

D. E.
F. G.

Tillage - Turning the soil between crops to incorporate crop residues and soil amendments; remove existing weed growth and prepare a seedbed for planting; Cultivation - Disturbing the soil after seeding; Mowing and cutting - Removing top growth of weeds; Flame weeding and thermal weeding - Using heat to kill weeds; and

H.

Mulching - Blocking weed emergence with organic materials, plastic films, or landscape fabric.[15] Some naturally sourced chemicals are allowed for herbicidal use. These include certain formulations of acetic acid (concentrated vinegar), corn gluten meal, and essential oils. A few selective bioherbicides based on fungal pathogens have also been developed. At this time, however, organic herbicides and bioherbicides play a minor role in the organic weed control toolbox.[14] Weeds can be controlled by grazing. For example, geese have been used successfully to weed a range of organic crops including cotton, strawberries, tobacco, and corn,[16] reviving the practice of keeping cotton patch geese, common in the southern U.S. before the 1950s. Similarly, some rice farmers introduce ducks and fish to wet paddy fields to eat both weeds and insects.[17] [edit] Controlling other organisms See also: Biological pest control Organisms aside from weeds that cause problems on organic farms include arthropods (e.g., insects, mites), nematodes, fungi and bacteria. Organic farmers use a wide range of Integrated Pest Management practices to prevent pests and diseases. These include, but are not limited to, crop rotation and nutrient management; sanitation to remove pest habitat; provision of habitat for beneficial organisms; selection of pest-resistant crops and animals; crop protection using physical barriers, such as row covers; and crop diversification through companion planting or establishment of polycultures. Organic farmers often depend on biological pest control, the use of beneficial organisms to reduce pest populations. Examples of beneficial insects include minute pirate bugs, big-eyed bugs, and to a lesser extent ladybugs (which tend to fly away), all of which eat a wide range of pests. Lacewings are also effective, but tend to fly away. Praying mantis tend to move more slowly and eat less heavily. Parasitoid wasps tend to be effective for their selected prey, but like all small insects can be less effective outdoors because the wind controls their movement. Predatory mites are effective for controlling other mites.[8]:66-90

When these practices are insufficient to prevent or control pests an organic farmer may apply a pesticide. With some exceptions, naturally occurring pesticides are allowed for use on organic farms, and synthetic substances are prohibited. Pesticides with different modes of action should be rotated to minimize development of pesticide resistance. Naturally derived insecticides allowed for use on organic farms use include Bacillus thuringiensis (a bacterial toxin), pyrethrum (a chrysanthemum extract), spinosad (a bacterial metabolite), neem (a tree extract) and rotenone (a legume root extract). These are sometimes called green pesticides because they are generally, but not necessarily, safer and more environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides.[8]:92[unreliable source?] Rotenone and pyrethrum are particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most conventional insecticides. Fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum (Lotter 2003:26). Naturally derived fungicides allowed for use on organic farms include the bacteria Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus pumilus; and the fungus Trichoderma harzianum. These are mainly effective for diseases affecting roots. Agricultural Research Service scientists have found that caprylic acid, a naturally occurring fatty acid in milk and coconuts, as well as other natural plant extracts have antimicrobial characteristics that can help.[18] Compost tea contains a mix of beneficial microbes, which may attack or out-compete certain plant pathogens,[19] but variability among formulations and preparation methods may contribute to inconsistent results or even dangerous growth of toxic microbes in compost teas. [20] Some naturally derived pesticides are not allowed for use on organic farms. These include nicotine sulfate, arsenic, and strychnine.[21] Synthetic pesticides allowed for use on organic farms include insecticidal soaps and horticultural oils for insect management; and Bordeaux mixture, copper hydroxide and sodium bicarbonate for managing fungi.[21] [edit] Genetic modification Main article: Genetically modified organism A key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and animals. On October 19, 1998, participants at IFOAM's 12th Scientific Conference issued the Mar del Plata Declaration, where more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously to exclude the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and agriculture. Although opposition to the use of any transgenic technologies in organic farming is strong, agricultural researchers Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales continue to advocate integration of transgenic technologies into organic farming as the optimal means to sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world.[22] Similarly, some organic farmers question the rationale behind the ban on the use of genetically engineered seed because they see it a biological technology consistent with organic principles.[23] Although GMOs are excluded from organic farming, there is concern that the pollen from genetically modified crops is increasingly penetrating organic and heirloom seed stocks, making it difficult, if not impossible, to keep these genomes from entering the organic food supply. International trade restrictions limit the availability GMOs to certain countries. [ citation needed] The hazards that genetic modification could pose to the environment and/or individual health are hotly contested.[24] [edit] Standards Main article: Organic certification Standards regulate production methods and in some cases final output for organic agriculture. Standards may be voluntary or legislated. As early as the 1970s private associations certified organic producers. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production guidelines. In the 1990s, a trend toward legislated standards began, most notably with the 1991 EU-Eco-regulation developed for European Union,[25] which set standards for 12 countries, and a 1993 UK program. The EU's program was followed by a Japanese program in 2001, and in 2002 the U.S. created the National Organic Program (NOP).[26] As of 2007 over 60 countries regulate organic farming (IFOAM 2007:11). In 2005 IFOAM created the Principles of Organic Agriculture, an international guideline for certification criteria.[27] Typically the agencies accredit certification groups rather than individual farms. Organic production materials used in and foods are tested independently by the Organic Materials Review Institute.[28] [edit] Composting Under USDA organic standards, manure must be subjected to proper thermophilic composting and allowed to reach a sterilizing temperature. If raw animal manure is used, 120 days must pass before the crop is harvested if the final product comes into direct contact with the soil. For products which do not come into direct contact with soil, 90 days must pass prior to harvest.[29]

[edit] Economics The economics of organic farming, a subfield of agricultural economics, encompasses the entire process and effects of organic farming in terms of human society, including social costs, opportunity costs, unintended consequences, information asymmetries, and economies of scale. Although the scope of economics is broad, agricultural economics tends to focus on maximizing yields and efficiency at the farm level. Economics takes an anthropocentric approach to the value of the natural world: biodiversity, for example, is considered beneficial only to the extent that it is valued by people and increases profits. Some entities such as the European Union subsidize organic farming, in large part because these countries want to account for the externalities of reduced water use, reduced water contamination, reduced soil erosion, reduced carbon emissions, increased biodiversity, and assorted other benefits that result from organic farming.[citation needed] Traditional organic farming is labor and knowledge-intensive whereas conventional farming is capital-intensive, requiring more energy and manufactured inputs.[30] Organic farmers in California have cited marketing as their greatest obstacle.[31] [edit] Geographic producer distribution The markets for organic products are strongest in North America and Europe, which as of 2001 are estimated to have $6 and $8 billion respectively of the $20 billion global market (Lotter 2003:6). As of 2007 Australasia has 39% of the total organic farmland, including Australia's 1,180,000 hectares (2,900,000 acres) but 97 percent of this land is sprawling rangeland (2007:35). US sales are 20x as much. (2003:7). Europe farms 23 percent of global organic farmland (6.9 million hectares), followed by Latin America with 19 percent (5.8 million hectares). Asia has 9.5 percent while North America has 7.2 percent. Africa has 3 percent.[32] Besides Australia, the countries with the most organic farmland are Argentina (3.1 million hectares), China (2.3 million hectares), and the United States (1.6 million hectares). Much of Argentina's organic farmland is pasture, like that of Australia (2007:42). Italy, Spain, Germany, Brazil (the world's largest agricultural exporter), Uruguay, and the UK follow the United States in the amount of organic land (2007:26). [edit] Growth

Organic farmland by world region (2000-2008) As of 2001, the estimated market value of certified organic products was estimated to be $20 billion. By 2002 this was $23 billion and by 2007 more than $46 billion.[33] In recent years both Europe (2007: 7.8 million hectares, European Union: 7.2 million hectares) and North America (2007: 2.2 million hectares) have experienced strong growth in organic farmland. In the EU it grew by 21% in the period 2005 to 2008.[34] However, this growth has occurred under different conditions. While the European Union has shifted agricultural subsidies to organic farmers due to perceived environmental benefits, the United States has not,[35] continuing to subsidize some but not all traditional commercial crops, such as corn and sugar. As a result of this policy difference, as of 2008 4.1% percent of European Union farmland was organically managed compared to the 0.6 percent in the U.S.[33] IFOAM's most recent edition of The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009 lists the countries which had the most hectares in 2007. The country with the most organic land is Australia with more than 12 million hectares, followed by Argentina, Brazil and the US. In total 32.2 million hectares were under organic management in 2007. For 1999 11 million hectares of organically managed land are reported.[33] As organic farming becomes a major commercial force in agriculture, it is likely to gain increasing impact on national agricultural policies and confront some of the scaling challenges faced by conventional agriculture.[36] [edit] Productivity and profitability Various studies find that versus conventional agriculture, organic crops yielded 91%,[37] or 95-100%,[38] along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides,[39] or 100% for corn and soybean, consuming less energy and zero pesticides.[clarification needed] The results were attributed to lower yields in average and good years but higher yields during drought years.[40] A 2007 study[41] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that ...organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. (from the abstract)

Converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts in developed countries (92%) but higher than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). This is due to relatively lower adoption of fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive farming of the developed world.[42] Organic farms withstand severe weather conditions better than conventional farms, sometimes yielding 70-90% more than conventional farms during droughts.[43] Organic farms are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[44] Organic farms survive hurricane damage much better, retaining 20 to 40% more topsoil and smaller economic losses at highly significant levels than their neighbors.[45] Contrary to widespread belief, organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming.[46] An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrientdepleted soil, concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility and yield in a cold-temperate climate, arguing that much of the benefits from organic farming are derived from imported materials which could not be regarded as "self-sustaining".[47] [edit] Profitability The decreased cost of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide inputs, along with the higher prices that consumers pay for organic produce, contribute to increased profits. Organic farms have been consistently found to be as or more profitable than conventional farms. Without the price premium, profitability is mixed.[48] Organic production was more profitable in Wisconsin, given price premiums.[49] [edit] Sustainability (African case) In 2008 the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stated that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long-term"[50] and that "yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used" and that soil fertility and drought resistance improved.[51] [edit] Employment impact Organic methods often require more labor than traditional farming, therefore it provides rural jobs.[52] [edit] Externalities Main article: Motivations for organic agriculture Agriculture imposes negative externalities (uncompensated costs) upon society through land and other resource use, biodiversity loss, erosion, pesticides, nutrient runoff, water usage, subsidy payments and assorted other problems. Positive externalities include self-reliance, entrepreneurship, respect for nature, and air quality. Organic methods reduce some of these costs.[53] In 2000 uncompensated costs for 1996 reached 2,343 million British pounds or 208 pounds per hectare.[54] In 2005 in the USA concluded that cropland costs the economy approximately 5 to 16 billion dollars ($30 to $96 per hectare), while livestock production costs 714 million dollars.[55] Both studies recommended reducing externalities. The 2000 review included reported pesticide poisonings but did not include speculative chronic health effects of pesticides, and the 2004 review relied on a 1992 estimate of the total impact of pesticides. It has been proposed that organic agriculture can reduce the level of some negative externalities from (conventional) agriculture. Whether the benefits are private or public depends upon the division of property rights.[56] [edit] Pesticides

A sign outside of an organic apple orchard in Pateros, Washington reminding orchardists not to spray pesticides on these trees. Most organic farms largely avoid pesticides as opposed to conventional farms.[57] Some pesticides damage the environment or with direct exposure, human health. Children exposed to pesticides are of special concern. According to the National Academy of Sciences: "A fundamental maxim of pediatric medicine is that children are not little adults. Profound differences exist between children and adults. Infants and children are growing and developing. Their metabolic rates are more rapid than those of adults. There are differences in their ability to activate, detoxify, and excrete xenobiotic compounds. All these differences can affect the toxicity of pesticides in infants and children, and for these reasons the toxicity of pesticides is frequently different in children and adults.[58] The five main pesticides used in organic farming are Bt (a bacterial toxin), pyrethrum, rotenone,[59] copper and sulphur.

[60] Fewer than 10% of organic vegetable farmers acknowledge using these pesticides regularly[citation needed]; 5.3% of vegetable growers will admit rotenone use; while 1.7% admit pyrethrum use (Lotter 2003:26). Reduction and elimination of chemical pesticide use is technically challenging.[61] Organic pesticides often complement other pest control strategies. Ecological concerns primarily focus around pesticide use, as 16% of the world's pesticides are used in the production of cotton.[62] Runoff is one of the most damaging effects of pesticide use. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service tracks the environmental effects of water contamination and concluded, "the Nation's pesticide policies during the last twenty six years have succeeded in reducing overall environmental risk, in spite of slight increases in area planted and weight of pesticides applied. Nevertheless, there are still areas of the country where there is no evidence of progress, and areas where risk levels for protection of drinking water, fish, algae and crustaceans remain high".[63][64] [edit] Food quality and safety Main article: Organic food Many studies have examined the relative quality and safety benefits of organic and conventional agricultural techniques. The results are diverse. Some find no significant differences. Others disagree. An example of the "no differences" school stated: No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrients assessed in this review suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content... There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health. [65] However, they also found that statistically significant differences between the composition of organic and conventional food were present for a few substances.[citation needed] "Organic products stand out as having higher levels of secondary plant compounds and vitamin C".[66] Organic kiwifruit had more antioxidants.[67] A review of potential health effects analysed eleven articles, concluding, "because of the limited and highly variable data available, and concerns over the reliability of some reported findings, there is currently no evidence of a health benefit from consuming organic compared to conventionally produced foodstuffs. It should be noted that this conclusion relates to the evidence base currently available on the nutrient content of foodstuffs, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies."[68] Individual studies have considered a variety of possible impacts, including pesticide residues.[69] Pesticide residues present a second channel for health effects.[70][71] Comments include, "Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet, "the significance of this difference is questionable"[69] and "It is intuitive to assume that children whose diets consist of organic food items would have a lower probability of neurologic health risks", and pesticide exposure brought an increased risk for ADHD in one study. Nitrate concentrations may be less, but the health impact of nitrates is debated.[citation needed] Lack of data has limited research on the health effects of natural plant pesticides and bacterial pathogens.[69] Consumption of organic milk was associated with a decrease in risk for eczema, although no comparable benefit was found for organic fruits, vegetables, or meat.[72] The higher cost of organic food (ranging from 45 to 200%) could inhibit consumption of the recommended 5 servings per day of vegetables and fruits, which improve health and reduce cancer regardless of their source.[69] [edit] Clothing quality and safety Main article: Organic clothing Recently, organic clothing has become widely available. Although many consumers of organic clothing merely dislike synthetic chemicals, a significant portion of the organic clothing market comes from those suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a chronic medical condition characterized by symptoms that the affected person says are adverse effects from exposure to low levels of chemicals.[citation needed] [edit] Soil conservation Main article: Soil conservation In Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, geomorphologist David Montgomery outlines a coming crisis from soil erosion. Agriculture relies on roughly one meter of topsoil, and that is being depleted ten times faster than it is being replaced.[73]

No-till farming, which some claim depends upon pesticides, is one way to minimize erosion. However, a recent study by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service has found that manure applications in tilled organic farming are better at building up the soil than no-till.[74][75][76] [edit] Climate change Organic agriculture emphasizes closed nutrient cycles, biodiversity, and effective soil management providing the capacity to mitigate and even reverse the effects of climate change.[77] Organic agriculture can decrease fossil fuel emissions and, like any well managed agricultural system, sequesters carbon in the soil. The elimination of synthetic nitrogen in organic systems decreases fossil fuel consumption by 33 percent and carbon sequestration takes CO2 out of the atmosphere by putting it in the soil in the form of organic matter which is often lost in conventionally managed soils. Carbon sequestration occurs at especially high levels in organic no-till managed soil.[75] Agriculture has been undervalued and underestimated as a means to combat global climate change. Soil carbon data show that regenerative organic agricultural practices are among the most effective strategies for mitigating CO2emissions. [75] [edit] Nutrient leaching Excess nutrients in lakes, rivers, and groundwater can cause algal blooms, eutrophication, and subsequent dead zones. In addition, nitrates are harmful to aquatic organisms by themselves. The main contributor to this pollution is nitrate fertilizers whose use is expected to "double or almost triple by 2050".[78] Organically fertilizing fields "significantly [reduces] harmful nitrate leaching" over conventionally fertilized fields: "annual nitrate leaching was 4.4-5.6 times higher in conventional plots than organic plots".[79] The large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is caused in large part by agricultural runoff: a combination of fertilizer and livestock manure. Over half of the nitrogen released into the Gulf comes from agriculture. This increases costs for fishermen, as they must travel far from the coast to find fish.[80] Nitrogen leaching into the Danube River was substantially lower among organic farms. The resulting externalities could be neutralized by charging 1 euro per kg of released nitrogen.[81] Agricultural runoff and algae blooms are strongly linked in California.[82] [edit] Biodiversity Main article: Organic farming and biodiversity A wide range of organisms benefit from organic farming, but it is unclear whether organic methods confer greater benefits than conventional integrated agri-environmental programs.[83] Nearly all non-crop, naturally occurring species observed in comparative farm land practice studies show a preference for organic farming both by abundance and diversity.[83][84] An average of 30% more species inhabit organic farms.[85] Birds, butterflies, soil microbes, beetles, earthworms,[86] spiders, vegetation, and mammals are particularly affected. Lack of herbicides and pesticides improve biodiversity fitness and population density.[84] Many weed species attract beneficial insects that improve soil qualities and forage on weed pests.[87] Soil-bound organisms often benefit because of increased bacteria populations due to natural fertilizer such as manure, while experiencing reduced intake of herbicides and pesticides.[83] Increased biodiversity, especially from beneficial soil microbes and mycorrhizae have been proposed as an explanation for the high yields experienced by some organic plots, especially in light of the differences seen in a 21-year comparison of organic and control fields.[10] Biodiversity from organic farming provides capital to humans. Species found in organic farms enhance sustainability by reducing human input (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides).[88] Farmers that produce with organic methods reduce risk of poor yields by promoting biodiversity.[citation needed] Common game birds such as the ring-necked pheasant and the northern bobwhite often reside in agriculture landscapes, and benefit recreational hunters.[citation needed] [edit] Sales and marketing Most sales are concentrated in developed nations. These products are what economists call credence goods in that they rely on uncertain certification. Interest in organic products dropped between 2006 and 2008, and 42% of Americans polled don't trust organic produce.[89] 69% of Americans claim to occasionally buy organic products, down from 73% in 2005. One theory was that consumers were substituting "local" produce for "organic" produce.[90] [edit] Distributors In the United States, 75% of organic farms are smaller than 2.5 hectares. In California 2% of the farms account for over half of sales.(Lotter 2003:4) Small farms join together in cooperatives such as Organic Valley, Inc. to market their goods more effectively.

Most small cooperative distributors have merged or were acquired by large multinationals such as General Mills, Heinz, ConAgra, Kellogg, and others. In 1982 there were 28 consumer cooperative distributors, but as of 2007 only 3 remained. [91] This consolidation has raised concerns among consumers and journalists of potential fraud and degradation in standards. Most sell their organic products through subsidiaries, under other labels.[92] Organic foods also can be a niche in developing nations. It would provide more money and a better opportunity to compete internationally with the huge distributors. Organic prices are much more stable than conventional foods, and the small farms can still compete and have similar prices with the much larger farms that usually take all of the profits.[93] [edit] Farmers' markets Price premiums are important for the profitability of small organic farmers. Farmers selling directly to consumers at farmers' markets have continued to achieve these higher returns. In the United States the number of farmers' markets tripled from 1,755 in 1994 to 5,274 in 2009.[94] [edit] Capacity building Organic agriculture can contribute to ecologically sustainable, socio-economic development, especially in poorer countries.[95] The application of organic principles enables employment of local resources (e.g., local seed varieties, manure, etc.) and therefore cost-effectiveness. Local and international markets for organic products show tremendous growth prospects and offer creative producers and exporters excellent opportunities to improve their income and living conditions.[citation needed] Organic agriculture is knowledge intensive. Globally, capacity building efforts are underway, including localized training material, to limited effect. As of 2007, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements hosted more than 170 free manuals and 75 training opportunities online.[citation needed] [edit] Controversy Norman Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution", Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Prof A. Trewavas and other critics contested the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than conventional farming systems. Borlaug asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process.[96][97][98] The Danish Environmental Protection Agency estimated that phasing out all pesticides would result in an overall yield reduction of about 25%. Environmental and health effects were assumed but hard to assess.[99] In contrast, the UN Environmental Programme concluded that organic methods greatly increase yields in Africa.[50] A review of over two hundred crop comparisons argued that organic farming could produce enough food to sustain the current human population and that the difference in yields between organic and non-organic methods were small, with non-organic methods yielding slightly more in developed areas and organic methods yielding slightly more in developing areas.[42] That analysis has been criticised by Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute, who contends that the review claimed many nonorganic studies to be organic, misreported organic yields, made false comparisons between yields of organic and nonorganic studies which were not comparable, counted high organic yields several times by citing different papers which referenced the same data, and gave equal weight to studies from sources which were not impartial.[100] The Center for Disease Control repudiated a claim by Avery's father, Dennis Avery (also at Hudson) that the risk of E. coli infection was eight times higher when eating organic food. (Avery had cited CDC as a source.) Avery had included problems stemming from non-organic unpasteurized juice in his calculations.[101][102][103] However, the 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak, which has caused over 3,900 cases and 52 deaths was traced by epidemiologists to an organic farm in Bienenbttel, Germany.[104][105] Urs Niggli, director of the FiBL Institute contends that there is[106] a global campaign against organic farming that mostly derives from Avery's book The truth about organic farming.[101]