The Integrated Bridge

Integrated Fruit Production made some measure of sustainability possible, while researchers fight for a more viable organic.

By Genevieve Slocum

Organic orchards face numerous challenges, particularly in the American Northeast, where multiple pest threats can leave growers reeling.

Integrated Fruit Production, or IFP, has been developed to deal with these issues as a sustainable, attractive alternative to conventional production. It can be thought of as an innovative hybrid system, packaging the best elements of organic fruit production, such as integrated pest management and recalcitrant (long-lasting) mulches, with the minimal use of the least-toxic chemicals (by EPA standards) needed to produce a marketable crop within a whole-farm approach.

In IFM, according to the International Organization for Biological Control (www.unipa.it/iobc):

Emphasis is placed on a holistic systems approach involving the entire farm as the basic unit, on the central role of agro-ecosystems, on balanced nutrient cycles, and on the welfare of all species in animal husbandry. The preservation and improvement of soil fertility and of a diversified environment are essential components.

Begun in Italy, IFP has, over the last decade, become the default method of production throughout Western Europe and New Zealand, and has been adopted in Chile, Canada, South Africa and elsewhere. It has infiltrated some U.S. markets, but hasn’t built the retail profile as an ecological brand of the USDA certified-organic label.

Integrated Fruit Management includes a holistic approach to all aspects of orchard care.

Greg Peck, a post-doctoral associate at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, points out that in Europe, IFP is effectively assimilating the entire market due to overwhelming retailer demand. That is, any growers who did not use IFP would be an anomaly and have difficulty marketing their fruit. In the U.S., however, only a few marketing firms currently sell under the IFP system. However, Peck believes that, “over the long term, governmental regulation of broad-spectrum pesticides will likely push more growers toward being de facto IFP.”

Overwhelming consumer demand for sustainably produced (yet visually flawless) fruit, combined with the gathering popular outcry and regulatory tide against persistent toxic chemicals have begun to nudge mainstream production into an IFP framework. The IFP approach provides a compromise, an intentional step toward sustainability within the bounds of fancy fruit quality, whereas moving to organic standards may look like a daunting economic hurdle due to uncertain markets for the resulting fruit quality.

Peck has done research with Ian Merwin, a professor in Cornell’s department of horticulture specializing in sustainable fruit production in the U.S. and abroad. They wrote in a report that both IFP and organic “apple production systems offer an alternative to the conventional apple production systems that have the potential to adversely affect agroecosystems and the environment at large, agricultural workers and their families, and the health of consumers.”

Although multiple international guidelines exist for IFP, there is as yet no unified standard in the U.S. Protocols and programs have thus far been established for Oregon, New York, and many provinces in Canada, among others.

Typically, production relies on the selection of disease-resistant and regionally-adapted fruit and rootstock cultivars for pest and disease control. Strict limits on fertilizer application are determined by crop nutrient status and soil fertility tests. While there’s a short list of permissible and restricted pesticides, the use of organophosphates or residual herbicides is prohibited under IFP.

Organic stipulations, by contrast, permit virtually no synthetically-derived materials, and include requirements to improve soil quality and biodiversity.

Fighting pests in organic systems depends largely on disease-resistant cultivars and employing available organic pest-control products on the market. These include spinosad formulations, codling moth granulosis virus, pheromone confusion products, and kaolin clay sprays.

Limited use of a few pesticides allows growers using Intetrated Fruit Management to produce high-quality fruit with a relatively good sustainability rating.

To evaluate the impacts and market potential of these two systems, Merwin and Peck conducted a long-term trial comparing their ecological, nutritional, horticultural, and economic merits, beginning April 2004. Their findings showed an almost equal level of productivity in the first season, but the organic inputs came to twice the cost of the IFP system, since kaolin clay was used heavily and applied often during the wet summer.

In 2005, OFP yields were 25 percent higher, but a little over this amount was unmarketable with insect and physical damage. Levels of leaf nitrogen in both systems were too low. The organic system derived its nitrogen from 80 lb/acre of chicken manure compost, while the IFP system got a 3- to 5-inch layer of bark mulch applied to the tree rows, which slowly mineralized N to the tree roots.

The study found no difference in taste and similar nutritional values for both systems.

Weed control turned out to be the biggest challenge in the organic system. Use of the Rinieri side-sweep cultivator did not prove effective since grass re-rooted, while the cultivation detracted from aggregate soil stability, strength and bulk density.

Doubling soil organic matter

“There is no commonly accepted or validated system for estimating comprehensive environmental impacts of crop production systems” observed Merwin, the study’s lead author. Peck cited an environmental analysis that actually found IFP to be on par with the organic system on a sustainability scale, largely due to criteria that were biased against the quantity of pest-control materials used, and, he noted, the thousands of pounds of kaolin clay that were needed in the organic system to control fungus.

This begs the question of how to weigh the risks and benefits of a small amount of toxic chemicals versus a large volume of supposedly benign, organically permissible materials. Dimensions to consider include human health, biodiversity, soil quality, the persistence of the applied materials and effects on the ecosystem. Apart from an organic system with its known set of materials, at what point does consumer demand for low-chemical, ecologically produced fruit converge with a quality of apples that enterprising growers are willing and able to produce?

A 2001 study published by Nature, comparing organic, conventional, and IFP apples, focused on the potentially harmful effects of individual pesticides with little weight to product quantities, and not surprisingly, came up with contrasting data showing organic to have the most favorable environmental impact. The authors noted:

We determined environmental impact ratings for each farming system using an index developed by Stemilt Growers, Inc., of Wenatchee, Washington, as part of their 'Responsible Choice' program. Similar to Cornell University's Environmental Impact Quotient but updated to include fruit thinners and certified organic products, the index takes into account chemical efficacy, potential worker and consumer exposure, leaching potential, soil sorption index, chemical half-life and the effects of chemicals on beneficial organisms, all based on toxicological studies and chemical characteristics of each product. The active ingredient of each pesticide and the dose and frequency of application were used to calculate the environmental impact ratings.

Peck has seen wide usefulness in IPM in limiting toxic applications, but his opinion is that “unfortunately, biocontrol alone is not enough to produce even reasonable yields of marketable apples.”

Amidst the threat of a warming climate, perennial crops and particularly tree crops potentially have a major role to play in sequestering large amounts of carbon long-term in the form of biomass. Organic growers add carbon to the soil via the use of cover crops, yet confront weed problems through a combination of mulching, mowing, or cultivating, which volatizes a measure of carbon.

“In IFP,” Merwin notes, it is possible to combine recalcitrant forms of biomass mulches (e.g. composted hardwood bark mulch) with zero-tillage (and an occasional post-emergence herbicide applications). In one of our long-term orchard studies we have doubled soil carbon content (from 4.5 to 9 percent) after sixteen years of this IFP treatment.”

Not to say it can’t be done in organic systems, but IFP techniques make it easy to see these startling differences over the course of just a few years.

So what do organic farmers have to offer northeastern customers?

IFP is now the least-toxic approach to sustainable fruit production with a shot at mainstream, nationwide commercial viability.

Applying kaolin clay film for early season pest management in the organic orchard at the Rodale Institute.

Don Jantzi, veteran organic orchard manager at the Rodale Institute, says IFP highlights some excellent practices and provides new marketing possibilities. “I hope it will encourage more understanding of the possibilities of organic in wider areas than is usually found.”

Viewing IFP as a vehicle for spreading the gospel of sustainability might be a useful first step. What can organic producers learn from IFP systems about sequestering more carbon?

Said Peck, “Both organic and IFP are a set of standards, and no two growers will use the same products and practices; plus most growers make adjustments each year.” Marked differences exist across geographical regions, as well.

Peck said that IFM has learned a great deal from organic apple approaches. “While IFP can be ‘replacement’ oriented—meaning that growers can find a material that they can substitute for what might be used conventionally—this system is based upon a more holistic approach to farming. Our IFP treatments included biocontrol agents and cultural practices, e.g, traps and sanitation, to reduce pesticide inputs. We also relied upon intensive scouting and phenological models to make spray decisions. So, the IFP system was not just a different spray program.”

In these respects, IFP appears more closely aligned with organic systems than conventional, in that it pursues a comprehensive ecological approach to farming and solving problems with a synergy of combined practices.

Studies by Penn State, the University of Vermont and others show some commercial viability for organic apples in the Northeast.

Jim Travis, a professor or plant pathology at Penn State and leader of the university’s organic apple project, has noticed signs of the organic paradigm engulfing, or at least overlapping, many traditional modes of production. “A good example is pheromone mating disruption, which requires no use of synthetic pesticides and results in male insects not being able to find females, thus preventing the reproduction of pests. In many ways, modern conventional apple production and organic apple production are growing very similar.”

New developments in organic fruit production include experimentation with new cultivars and wider row spacing to allow trees to “breathe” away fungal problems.

New trees for a new generation of experimentation in organics at Rodale Institute.

Obstacles still confronting organic growers include: reaping a consistent, marketable harvest; meeting nutrient needs of trees; dealing with unsightly infections like apple scab; and incorporating labor costs for fruit thinning (and finding organically-approved substances to accomplish this efficiently). These growers have the production system many shoppers want to support, but haven’t yet found a way to produce the quality they would like as high percentage of the harvest.

Meanwhile, many mainstream producers have adopted important facets of the organic paradigm as they improve their ecological profile. What remains for them is to garner consumer appreciation (and payment) for their improved environmental performance.

Researchers, growers, retailers and consumers who support greater sustainability have all contributed to progress in the Northeast’s evolving apple production under some difficult conditions. Their continued initiatives and investment will determine how the quest continues.

Genevieve Slocum, a former communications intern at the Rodale Institute, is pursuing a master’s degree in environmental policy at Columbia University.

Resources:

IPM Centers Presentation. http:///www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposiumv/sessions/48-4.pdf

Merwin et al. “Multi-level Comparisons of Organic and Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) Systems for ‘Liberty’ Apple in a New York Orchard.”

Molheim, Jeff. “Penn State Researchers Growing Organic Apples.”

Reganold, John P. et al. “Sustainability of three apple production systems” Nature 410, 926-930 (19 April 2001).