Spring 1994 (v6n2)
	Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. J.P. Reganold, A.S. Palmer, J.C. Lockhart and A.N. Macgregor Science 260:344-349. 1993 This research compared the soil properties and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farming systems over a four-year period (1987 to 1991) on the North Island of New Zealand. The comparisons were made among five pairs and two sets of farms of varying size (16 farms total). A farm pair consisted of two side-by-side farms, one biodynamic and one conventional; a farm set consisted of three adjacent farms, one biodynamic and two conventional. Representative farming enterprises in New Zealand were used: market garden (vegetables), pip fruit (apples and pears), citrus, grain, livestock (sheep and beef) and dairy. The combined data showed that biodynamic farms had better soil quality than the neighboring conventional farms (Table 1). Reliable economic data from annual accounts were available for 11 of the 16 farms. Comparisons were made of the financial performance of the biodynamic farms both with that of their conventional neighbors and with that of the average representative conventional farm in each region. In comparing the gross margins of these farms (total farm income per hectare minus operating expenses per hectare), one biodynamic farm was greater, two were lower and two were similar to their conventional neighbors. The biodynamic farms usually had less year-to-year variability in gross margin than did the conventional farms. The biodynamic farms had lower total gross margins (gross margin times the effective enterprise area of each farm) than both their conventional neighbors and most of the conventional farms in the region. This difference was largely due to the smaller size and greater enterprise diversity of the biodynamic farms. Gross margin provides a comparison of financial performance of two farms under different management approaches, while total gross margins show the financial return to each whole farm or to the major farm enterprise. For more information write to: J. Reganold, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164. (CI-SUST.097) Contributed by Chuck Ingels Table 1. Mean Values of aggregated soils data. Soil Property All bio. Farms All Conv. Farms Bulk density (Mg/m3) 1.07 1.15* Penetration resistance (0-20 cm)( MPa) 2.84 3.18* Carbon (%) 4.84* 4.27 Respiration (1 02/hr/g) 73.7* 55.4 Mineralizable N (mg/kg) 140.0* 105.9 Ratio of mineralizable N to C (mg/g) 2.99* 2.59 Topsoil thickness (cm) 22.8* 20.6 CEC (cmol/kg) 21.5* 19.6 Total N (mg/kg) 4840* 4260 Total P (mg/kg) 1560 1640 Extractable P (mg/kg) 45.7 66.2* Extractable S (mg/kg) 10.5 21.5* pH 6.10 6.29* *p<0.01   [ Back | Search | Feedback ]