[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Sustainability of three apple production systems

Nature volume 410, pages 926–930 (2001)Cite this article

An Addendum to this article was published on 12 October 2006

Abstract

Escalating production costs, heavy reliance on non-renewable resources, reduced biodiversity, water contamination, chemical residues in food, soil degradation and health risks to farm workers handling pesticides all bring into question the sustainability of conventional farming systems1,2,3,4. It has been claimed5,6, however, that organic farming systems are less efficient, pose greater health risks and produce half the yields of conventional farming systems. Nevertheless, organic farming became one of the fastest growing segments of US and European agriculture during the 1990s7,8. Integrated farming, using a combination of organic and conventional techniques, has been successfully adopted on a wide scale in Europe9. Here we report the sustainability of organic, conventional and integrated apple production systems in Washington State from 1994 to 1999. All three systems gave similar apple yields. The organic and integrated systems had higher soil quality and potentially lower negative environmental impact than the conventional system. When compared with the conventional and integrated systems, the organic system produced sweeter and less tart apples, higher profitability and greater energy efficiency. Our data indicate that the organic system ranked first in environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second and the conventional system last.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Fruit yields of three apple production systems.
Figure 2: Environmental impact ratings of four apple production systems: Organic, conventional, integrated and non-PMD conventional.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. & Swift, M. J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science277, 504–509 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P. & Sarrantonio, M. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature396, 262–265 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tillman, D. Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA96, 5995–6000 (1999).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhu, Y. et al. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature406, 718–722 (2000).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Avery, D. in Fearing Food: Risk, Health and Environment (eds Morris, J. & Bate, R.) 3–18 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Trewavas, A. Much food, many problems. Nature402, 231–232 (1999).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Greene, C. U. S. Organic agriculture gaining ground. Agric. Outlook270, 9–14 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hamm, U. & Michelsen, J. in IFOAM 2000—The World Grows Organic. Proc. 13th Int. IFOAM Scientific Conf. (eds Alfoldi, T., Lockeretz, W. & Niggli, U.) 507–510 (IOS, Zurich, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sansavini, S. Integrated fruit production in Europe: Research and strategies for a sustainable industry. Sci. Hort.68, 25–36 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reganold, J. Farming's organic future. New Sci.122, 49–52 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barrett, G. W. & Odum, E. P. The twenty-first century: The world at carrying capacity. BioScience50, 363–368 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reganold, J. P., Papendick, R. I. & Parr, J. F. Sustainable agriculture. Sci. Am.262, 112–120 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodland, R. & Daly, H. Environmental sustainability: Universal and nonnegotiable. Ecol. Appl.6, 1002–1017 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Costanza, R. et al. The values of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387, 253–260 (1997).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Naveh, Z. The total human ecosystem: Integrating ecology and economics. BioScience50, 357–361 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Merwin, I. A. & Pritts, M. P. Are modern fruit production systems sustainable? HortTechnology3, 128–136 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. FAO Crop Production Statistics Web site [online], (cited 3 April 2001) 〈http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture) (2001).

  18. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Agricultural Statistics 1999 IX-17–IX-19 (US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Glover, J. D., Reganold, J. P. & Andrews, P. K. Systematic method for rating soil quality of conventional, organic, and integrated apple orchards in Washington State. Agric. Ecosystem Env.80, 29–45 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Doran, J. W. & Parkin, T. B. in Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment (eds Doran, J. W., Coleman, D. C., Bezdicek, D. F. & Stewart, B. A.) 3–21 (Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Brady, N. C. & Weil, R. R. The Nature and Properties of Soils 12th edn 468–469 (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dow, A. I. Critical Nutrient Ranges for Northwest Crops (West. Reg. Ext. Pub. 43, Oregon State University Cooperative Extension Service, Corvallis, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gavlak, R. G., Horneck, D. A. & Miller, R. O. Plant, Soil and Water Reference Methods for the Western Region (West. Reg. Ext. Pub. 125, Univ. Alaska Cooperative Extension Service, Fairbanks, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bechtel, L., Barritt, B., Dilley, M. & Hinman, H. Economic Analysis of Apple Orchard Management Systems with Three Varieties in Central Washington (Washington State Univ. Research Bulletin XB1032, Pullman, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reed, N. in 125 thAnnual Report of the Secretary of the State Horticultural Society of Michigan (ed. Hull, J. Jr) 68–78 (Mich. State Hort. Soc., East Lansing, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Title 15. Chapter 15. 17. Standards of Grades and Packs (West Publishing, St Paul, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Apple Maturity Program Handbook (Apple Maturity Program, Wenatchee, Washington, 1986).

  28. Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J. & Tette, J. A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides (New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin No. 139, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Leach, G. Energy and Food Production 71–77 (IPC Science and Technology Press, Guildford, UK, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Funt, R. C. in Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture (ed. Pimentel, D.) 235–246 (CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. and E. Dolph for the use of their farm. We acknowledge funding from the USDA Agricultural Systems Program. We thank D. Fahy, D. Granatstein, L. Klein, S. Leach, C. Litzinger, A. O'Rourke, A. Palmer, R. Papendick, P. Salant, S. Sansavini and T. Schotzko for comments on drafts of this manuscript, and R. Alldredge, S. Drake, M. Fauci, J. Fellman, S. Mattinson, J. Powers, N. Reed, R. Rupp and K. Weller for technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, 99164, Washington, USA

    John P. Reganold & Jerry D. Glover

  2. Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Washington State University, Pullman, 99164, Washington, USA

    Preston K. Andrews

  3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, 99164, Washington, USA

    Herbert R. Hinman

Authors
  1. John P. Reganold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerry D. Glover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Preston K. Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Herbert R. Hinman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John P. Reganold.

Supplementary information

Figure 1.

Fruit size of apples from three production systems. Differences between values in a year followed by different letters are significant at the 0.05 level (LSD). (GIF 8.23 KB)

Figure 2.

Size distribution of apples in 1998 and 1999 from three production systems. The difference between the organic and conventional fruit size distributions resulted in an average 20% reduction in organic fruit value. (GIF 7 KB)

Figure 3.

Trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) of apple trees grown in three production systems. No differences in growth were detected in any year between treatments at the 0.05 level (LSD). (GIF 6.28 KB)

Figure 4.

The study area of four replicate plots for each of the three apple production systems. Each plot contains four rows of approximately 80 trees per row trained on a two-wire trellis system. Trees were planted at a spacing of 1.4 m within rows and 3.2 m between rows for a density of 2240 trees per hectare. The soil on all 12 plots is a coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Xerifluventic Haplocambid (FAO: Haplic Cambisol). We kept the size of the study area to 1.7 hectares to maintain uniformity of this one soil type. Extending the study area to the west or north would have included different soil types. Permanent pasture areas to the east and south belonged to a neighbor. Prior to installation of the experimental orchard the site had been in grass pasture which was tilled to a depth of 30 cm in January 1994. Soil samples were taken from each of the designated plots following the planting of trees but prior to implementation of management treatments. Analyses of pertinent soil morphological, physical, chemical, and biological properties revealed no significant differences between treatments at that time. Grass corridors (5 m wide) surround the study area and another one cuts through the middle of the study area. These grass corridors act as buffers from the conventional commercial orchards to the north and west and as passageways to beneficials from pastures to the south and east (Thies, C., Tscharntke, T., Landscape structure and biological control in agroecosystems, Science, 285, 893-895, 1999). As an additional buffer, the two treatments (conventional-1 and integrated-4) furthest to the west had an additional fifth row of trees. In these two plots, soil and plant samples were taken in the third and fourth rows from the western edge. With grass corridors, tree-row buffers, and sampling in middle rows only, the efficacy of pest control and fertilization for each treatment was not compromised by plot size. The 20 cm of average annual precipitation at the site is supplemented with an under-tree sprinkler irrigation system. (GIF 5.89 KB)

Table 4 Table A1. Market grade of apples from three production systems. Prior to 1998 all fruit was sold for processing. Differences between values in a year followed by different letters are significant at the 0.05 level (LSD).
Full size table
Table 5 Table A2. Leaf tissue nutrient analyses of three apple production systems. Differences between values in a year followed by different letters are significant at the 0.05 level (LSD).
Full size table
Table 6 Table A3. Fruit tissue nutrient analyses of three apple production systems. Fruit was not analyzed for tissue content in 1996. Differences between values in a year followed by different letters are significant at the 0.05 level (LSD).
Full size table
Table 7 Table A4. Fruit maturity analyses of apples from three production systems (a) at harvest, (b) following 3 months controlled atmosphere storage, and (c) following 6 months controlled atmosphere storage. Analyses were not carried out prior to 1998. Differences between values in a year followed by different letters are significant at the 0.05 level (LSD).
Full size table
Table 8 Table A5. Consumer taste preferences of apples from three production systems (a) at harvest and (b) following 6 months controlled atmosphere storage. Preference tests were conducted only in 1999. Differences between values in a test category followed by different letters are significant at the 0.05 level (LSD).
Full size table
Table 9 Table A6. Cumulative environmental impact ratings of four apple production systems from 1994 to 1999. Total points = A X B X C. In some cases, the total points may appear not to equal the product of A X B X C due to rounding errors.
Full size table
Table 10 Table A7. Management practices for three apple production systems. For a complete list of products used for weed, pest, and disease control, fruit thinning, and growth regulation, see Table A6.
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reganold, J., Glover, J., Andrews, P. et al. Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410, 926–930 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35073574

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35073574

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing