Potential contribution of economics to animal health and food safety on organic farms
A.W.Stott
Animal Health Economics Team, SAC, UK
Introduction
The foot and mouth crisis of 2001 reduced Scottish GDP by between £13.6m (0.02%) and £29.8m (0.05%) (Fraser of Allander Institute et al., 2003). The effect on the UK was less than 0.2% of GDP (Thompson et al., 2002). These examples are typical of the contribution that economics makes or is generally believed to make to farm animal health. However, on their own such disease cost estimates are of little value in this context (McInerney, 1996). What is really required is the minimum total cost of foot and mouth disease in future, taking into account the costs of prevention and the costs of both losses and control, should the disease break out again. To find this information, it would be necessary to establish the associated set of control activities (e.g. import restrictions, movement restrictions, vaccination policies etc. for details, see Royal Society, 2002). Decision-makers could then be sure that their actions were the best compromise between prevention, control and severity of potential losses at the time of implementation. However, such an approach is difficult in practice because it requires knowledge of the technical relationships between livestock outputs and inputs and the impact of disease and disease control strategies on these relationships, which are generally lacking (Bennett, 2003). Assessment of the relative risk of many possible future outcomes would also be required in relation to a wide range of alternative activities related to the prevention and control of the disease.
In the case of foot and mouth disease detailed epidemiological studies have been carried out, culminating in a range of sophisticated simulation models and decision support systems (see for example Keeling et al., 2003 and Morris et al., 2002) that could address the difficulties of establishing economically optimum control strategies. Mlangwa and Samui (1996) explain the theoretical basis of this approach. Rapid advances in information and communications technology in agriculture (Cox, 2002) should greatly facilitate such collaborative work and ensure rapid delivery of results to decision-makers. However, so far, few applications have been developed beyond the research stage. Best known exceptions are described and classified by Morris et al. (1997).
The incentives to develop better animal health and food safety in the ways described above are likely to greatly increase in future. Reasons for this are set out in the report of the UK Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (2002). As incomes rise, food price declines in importance for consumers and is replaced by other food product attributes such as quality, safety, convenience, novelty, animal welfare and other ethical issues. Harvey (2001) expresses this as a shift towards "healthy agricultural trade", which means: 1) being competitive with world supplies, 2) healthy and safe foodstuffs, 3) healthy environments and 4) commercially and socially "healthy" product markets. This trend is likely to give animal-disease control (and the information systems necessary for an associated product attribute) greater importance than might be justified if the objective simply were to reduce food-production costs. Meanwhile, global trade liberalisation will increase competitive pressure. This effect is likely to be especially acute in the EU, as enlargement of the Union will bring more competition from the agricultural economies of the East and hasten the reform of existing protectionist agricultural policies.
Organic farming is seen as an important way for agriculture to respond to these trends (Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (2002)). Although it may enjoy continued Government subsidy as a result, it will still need to innovate in response to increasing competition. Given the close relationship between animal health and productivity, animal welfare, food quality, food safety and environmental protection, development of economically optimal animal health strategies is likely to be a central part of such innovation. This paper, therefore, describes the basic economic framework on which such innovation might be based and outlines some recent developments of it. The focus is at farm-level and on the financial effects of disease most relevant to decision-makers at this level. This leaves out a whole series of 'economic' issues, such as externalities, price distortions, market adjustment, non-market goods, equity, international trade barriers etc., which are important in the context of animal health economics but beyond the scope of this paper. McInerney (1987) provides an overview of these wider issues, while Perry et al. (2001) provide the wider context for them.
A framework for economic analysis
McInerney et al. (1992) proposed a framework for the economic analysis of disease in farm livestock. This framework is based on the concept of a "loss-expenditure frontier". The term loss refers to the direct effects of a disease on the animal production system and includes depressed output, mortality and reduced productivity. Expenditure covers all the extra resources consumed in the treatment and/or prevention of the disease. The objective is to minimise the total cost of disease, which is the sum of the losses and expenditure.
An example loss-expenditure frontier (Yalcin et al., 1999) is shown in Figure 1. Each cross on the graph represents a particular mastitis treatment regime and its associated losses due to subclinical mastitis in herds with high bulk tank somatic cell counts (BTSCC), i.e. where mastitis was a threat to farm incomes, food quality and possibly even food safety. Treatmentregimes included any combination of post-milking teat disinfection, dry cow therapy, udder preparation and milking machine testing. Loss was measured as the revenue foregone due to reduced milk production and milk price deductions associated with high BTSCC.
The loss-expenditure frontier in Figure 1 is shown by a solid line. It joins all points with the lowest loss across the range of expenditures. Points above the frontier represent dairy farms where losses from subclinical mastitis were unnecessarily high for their mastitis-control expenditure. On the loss-expenditure frontier, one treatment minimises the total cost of disease. This treatment is identified using the iso-cost line, tangential to the frontier (McInerney, 1996). It is shown as a dotted line in Figure 1 and joins all combinations of loss and expenditure with the same total cost, closest to the origin (lowest) and yet included in the loss-expenditure frontier.
Figure 1: A loss-expenditure frontier for subclinical mastitis taken from Yalcin et al. (1999)
Yalcin et al. (1999) found that the minimum total cost of subclinical mastitis in their study was £66/cow/year, obtained by adopting all mastitis treatments except udder preparation. The average total cost was £100/cow/year, giving an avoidable cost of £34/cow/year. It is this avoidable cost rather than the average total cost that provides useful information (McInerney, 1996). It demonstrates the scope for improvement and the means to achieve it, thus providing a guide to the relative value of investing scarce resources in subclinical mastitis as opposed to another competing activity.
The study of Yalcin et al., (1999) was based on data from over 750 conventional dairy herds. However, within the sample there was a full range of mastitis treatment strategies, some avoiding dry cow therapy and, therefore, in respect of mastitis control at least, comparable with organic farming practice. Of these, the lowest total cost was £85/cow/year for farms using milking machine testing and post-milking teat disinfection to control subclinical mastitis (Yalcin, 1996). Although no substitute for a survey of organic farms, this result in comparison with the results above gives some indication of an opportunity cost associated with organic farming, thus illustrating the potential of the technique to illuminate relevant issues.
The loss-expenditure frontier represents the limits of technical efficiency at one point in time. Through the introduction of new technologies, the frontier can be moved closer to the origin, increasing the avoidable costs and hence the incentive to invest. In organic farming for instance, introduction of barrier methods, as a substitute for dry cow antibiotic therapy, may reduce the minimum total cost of mastitis (Hovi, personal communication).
Dealing with time
The example framework for economic analysis described above was based on a large sample of dairy farms at one point in time (1993/4). As such it is useful for decision support at national or sectoral level, as described by Perry et al. (2001), but fails to take account of the particular circumstances that affect decision making at individual farm level. Here, decisions are complicated by the cyclical nature of agricultural productions systems. Fixed assets, such as land and breeding livestock, are 'harvested' repeatedly so that decisions in one production cycle must be taken with due consideration for their consequences in future cycles. This is particularly important in the case of animal disease, where infection in one cycle often impairs performance in subsequent cycles for example with mastitis (Lucey and Rowlands, 1984), maedi visna (Brodie et al., 2001) and paratuberculosis (Whittington and Sergeant, 2001). Susceptibility to disease in later cycles may also be affected by exposure in earlier cycles and in any case, tends to increase with age. Productivity, on the other hand, may initially rise with age and then decline. All these factors must be taken into account when making decisions associated with the replacement of breeding livestock.
Dynamic programming (DP) (Bellman, 1957) provides a framework for the economic analysis of multi-stage decision problems. It has frequently been applied to natural resource management problems, including some in agriculture (Kennedy, 1986). For example, early studies on the optimisation of voluntary cow replacement decisions were based on maximising expected net revenue (McArthur, 1973). More recently, such models have been expanded to examine other important dairy management decisions, including insemination (Van Arendonk and Dijkhuizen, 1985; Delorenzo et al., 1992), optimal replacement of mastitic cows (Stott and Kennedy 1993; Houben et al., 1994), the relative value of different mastitis control procedures (Yalcin and Stott, 2000) and milk quota management (Kennedy and Stott 1993). The technique has also provided a useful framework for establishing the economic weight of goal traits for use in dairy cattle breeding programmes (Veerkamp et al., 1995).
Stott et al., (2002) used DP to establish the optimum replacement policy for dairy herds, taking into account subclinical mastitis caused by the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus (S.aureus). This organism is associated with food poisoning and, in human medicine at least, with multiple antibiotic resistance, so a maximum concentration is set for milk under EC regulations (EC1992/46). It, therefore, provides an example of an important challenge confronting conventional farming that is sometimes used as a justification for organic agriculture (Lampkin, 1990). However, subclinical mastitis caused by S.aureus and other bacteria remains a problem on organic farms (Busato et al., 2000) to which alternative solutions must be found.
The DP model of Stott et al., (2002) estimated the extent to which the effects of subclinical mastitis might be alleviated by adopting an optimum culling policy that took account of the impact of each cow's future milk yield and somatic cell count (SCC) on the financial performance of the herd in comparison to the cost of replacing the animal with a heifer. The analysis took account of expected trends in milk yield and SCC by lactation number, variation about these trends and the historical performance of existing cows for a herd of given performance (herd average yield approximately 7000 kg/cow/year). Results are summarised in Table 1. The effects of SCC on milk yield and milk price were substantial even in the control herd, prompting 2% more voluntary culling in order to remove older cows with higher SCC. This reduced bulk-tank SCC by 14%. The expenditure on this extra culling, the associated change in herd output and the estimated direct losses from subclinical mastitis reduced expected financial performance by 34%. Corresponding figures for a herd with SCC commensurate with S. aureus infection were 7% more voluntary culling, a 42% reduction in bulk-tank SCC and a 61% reduction in expected financial performance.
Table 1: Impact of S. aureus infection under the optimum replacement policy on otherwise identical dairy herds either including or excluding the effects of subclinical mastitis on milk yield and milk price. (Based on Stott et al.,2002)
These figures demonstrate the considerable scope for alleviating the effects of subclinical mastitis through appropriately targeted culling decisions. If culling is the only available method of control, or if other methods have already been applied correctly, then the DP approach provides the economically optimum balance between output loss and control expenditure discussed above. This is only true, however, at the given levels of SCC. In practice, the culling regime will alter SCC, which in turn will influence subsequent culling decisions. Removing infected, generally older, cows also affects the SCC averages indirectly by removing a source of infection for other cows; indeed that is one of the aims of such culling. To deal properly with these issues requires a version of the DP linked to an epidemiological model of S. aureus spread in the herd so that each culling decision can be based on its consequences for the whole herd, not just the individual cow concerned. Further research is required to establish whether such developments are feasible (Stott et al., 2002). In the meantime, it is likely that output from the current model, updated on a regular basis, is likely to provide useful decision support for UK dairy farmers when combined with existing provision.
Progress might be made without recourse to complex bio-economic simulation modelling at individual farm level. Instead Logue et al., (2000) proposed culling guides based on the work of Stott et al., (2002). An example is shown in Figure 2. It shows how trade-offs between SCC and milk yield may be balanced when short-listing cows for replacement. Of course, other criteria will also be important especially at the borderlines. However, Logue et al., (2000) report that the guidelines reflect best practice and trends observed in the field. The diagram illustrates how much more severe culling criteria may have to be when faced with a S. aureus problem. It is likely that organic farmers will wish to combine targeted culling strategies with a wide range of good management and husbandry practices advocated for use in the control of mastitis in preference to the use of antibiotics (Lampkin, 1990).
Figure 2: Culling guide for cows in lactation 5 based on DP results of Stott et al. (2002). Cows performing in the shaded area (high yield and/or low SCC) should be retained, those in the unshaded area should be considered for replacement. The darker shading refers to herds infected with S. aureus mastitis, lighter shading is for control herds (see Table 1).
Dealing with risk
The loss-expenditure frontier of Figure 1 shows that as expected, higher expenditure on mastitis control tends to be associated with lower losses from the disease. However, the marginal reduction in loss falls with increasing expenditure and may eventually exceed the marginal expenditure. This illustrates the well-known law of diminishing returns, which is at the heart of production economics (see Debertin, 1986). It dictates that an optimum level of disease/risk of outbreak exists and maximum effort to reduce or eliminate disease/risk of outbreak may not always be justified on financial grounds. Even so, calls to minimise the risk from disease by adopting the 'precautionary principle' are made (see for example Royal Society, 2002). These calls are understandable in the UK given recent experiences with foot and mouth disease and BSE. However, they should be made with some knowledge of the minimum total costs of the disease so that the extra resources needed to adopt the precautionary principle can be estimated.
Resources devoted to disease prevention must be diverted from their best alternative use; i.e. there is an opportunity cost of adopting the precautionary principle. Due to the law of diminishing returns, considerable resources can be devoted to disease at the margins for little, if any, additional gain. However, it is difficult to apply the economic analysis framework to potential risks from an infinite array of possible future outcomes. Challenges increase still further where some of these outcomes are perceived to be particularly undesirable (e.g. with BSE or foot-and-mouth disease) and/or include important non-market effects, such as the social distress and disruption caused by foot and mouth disease (Fraser of Allander et al., 2003). Under such circumstances, it can be helpful to turn to decision analysis techniques designed to cope with risk (Hardaker et al., 1997).
Business decision analysis, sometimes called management science or operational research, recognises the need to find the best possible solution to a problem within the resources and constraints that govern the choices faced (Hackett and Luffrum, 1999). What is best will depend on the individual decision-maker’s objectives. Often this will be assumed to be profit maximisation or cost minimisation as implied in the mastitis examples given above. In that case, mathematical programming techniques such as linear programming (LP) (Barnard and Nix, 1979) may be the most appropriate method. However, the increased risk in agriculture associated with globalisation (Harvey, 2001) may increase the emphasis on risk minimisation rather than profit maximisation. This is likely to be particularly important for organic farmers, where the goal of long term sustainability is fundamental (Lampkin, 1990) and probably better suited to an objective of reduced variability (risk) than short term profit maximisation.
Unfortunately, one of the disadvantages of LP is that it does not deal with risk (Barnard and Nix (1979). Problems of data availability and unfamiliarity have in any case limited its use in animal health economics (Jalvingh et al., 1997). This is a common problem. A major development in data collection frameworks (largely in the hands of the veterinary profession) is required so that economic models can be made to fly, and can lead to empirical analyses of specific disease conditions and environments (McInerney, 1996). However, it is possible to use simulation modelling to explore the inherently dynamic and risky nature of disease (Bennett, 1992). Also, LP can be adapted in various ways to allow risk minimization, rather than profit maximization, to be the objective in farm-level economic models (Hazell and Norton, 1986). Stott et al. (2003) therefore combined both LP (adapted to minimise risk) and simulation modelling to explore the role that biosecurity against BVD (bovine viral diarrhoea, see Houe,1999 for details) might play in the management of risk on Scottish upland beef/sheep farms. It was found that a substantial proportion (up to 10%) of variance in farm income (risk) could be attributed to BVD (Figure 3). Risk was greatest for low-income targets (limited funds to invest in biosecurity) and where herds were known to be free of BVD at the start of simulations (more serious consequences, if biosecurity fails).
Figure 3: Predicted effect of target income on the proportion of variance in farm income (risk) attributable to BVD in Scottish cow-calf herds. In year zero of the BVD epidemic, either all animals are ‘susceptible’ (unshaded bar) or the herd is drawn at random from a population where the prevalences of antibody-positive and antigen positive herds were 0.95 and 0.5, respectively (shaded bars). (Taken from Stott et al. 2003)
Figure 3 may seem to suggest that freedom from BVD is a bad thing because all animals are susceptible to the disease, exposing the business to additional risk from biosecurity breakdown. However, the overall risk at farm level was similar whether the farm was free of BVD or of unknown BVD status. The difference was that BVD free herds had more to gain from biosecurity and so invested more in biosecurity. This ensured superior herd performance, allowing income targets to be met with fewer sheep and cattle. These results are shown in Table 2. The reduced risk from fewer sheep and cattle and lower intensity of production compensated for the increased proportion of total risk due to BVD. Maintaining farm income from lower stocking rates implies less pressure on fixed resources and therefore potentially more sustainable production based on integrating animal health into whole-farm management. Such an approach is in-line with organic farming principles (Lampkin, 1990).
Table 2: Risk-minimising levels of key activities predicted by the LP model of Stott et al. (2003) at different farm-income targets and for two alternative herd BVD-status starting scenarios (Scottish cow-calf herds).
Conclusions
There are many estimates of the financial impact of farm animal disease (see Bennett et al., 1999 for a useful comparative assessment). However, true economic analysis to determine the optimum allocation of scarce resources to prevent and control animal disease is rare. This is due to lack of collaboration between scientists and economists, which has preserved gaps in the knowledge bases required by the economic models. However, simulation modelling can be used to fill these gaps and at least demonstrate the considerable potential of economic models to contribute to farm animal health and food safety. The examples in this paper show how such an approach increases understanding of the relationship between farm management and farm animal health. Such understanding should be seen as an information resource that can be substituted for other resources in the food production process. This makes it particularly attractive for organic farming where information resources can be used to replace the resources devoted to agrochemicals in conventional farming systems.
References
Barnard, C., and Nix, J. (1979). "Farm Planning and Control," 2nd/Ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bellman, R. (1957) Dynamic Programming. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Bennett, R. M. (1992). The use of economic quantitative modelling techniques in livestock health and disease-control decision-making - A review. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 13: 63-76.
Bennett, R.M. (2003). The 'direct' costs of livestock disease: the development of a system of models for the analysis of 30 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain. Journal of Agricultural Economics 54: 55-72.
Bennett, R. M., Christiansen, K. & Clifton-Hadley, R. S. (1999) Modelling the impact of livestock disease on production: case studies of non-notifiable diseases of farm animals in Great Britain. Animal Science 68, 681-689.
Brodie, S. J., de la Concha-Bermejillo, A., Snowder, G. D., and DeMartini, J. C. (1998). Current concepts in the epizootiology, diagnosis, and economic importance of ovine progressive pneumonia in North America: A review. Small Ruminant Research 27: 1-17.
Busato, A., Trachsel, P., Schallibaum, M., and Blum, J. W. (2000). Udder health and risk factors for subclinical mastitis in organic dairy farms in Switzerland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 44: 205-220.
Cox, S. (2002). Information technology: the global key to precision agriculture and sustainability. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 36: 93-111.
Debertin, D. (1986). "Agricultural Production Economics," Macmillan, New York.
DeLorenzo, M. A., Spreen, T. H., Bryan, G. R., Beede, D. K., and Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (1992). Optimizing model: Insemination, replacement, seasonal production and cash flow. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 885-896.
Fraser of Allander Institute, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute and Arkleton Centre for Rural Development Research University of Aberdeen (2003). "Economic Impact of the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in Scotland,". University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde.
Hackett, G. and Luffrum, P. (1999) "Business Decision Analysis. An active learning approach.," Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford.
Hardaker, J., Huirne, R., and Anderson, J. (1997). "Coping with risk in agriculture," CAB International, New York.
Harvey, D. (2001). Whither Agriculture? Farm Management 10: 751-772.
Hazell, P. and Norton, R. (1986) Mathematical programming for economic analysis in agriculture, Macmillan, New York.
Houben, E. H. P., Huirne, R. B. M., and Dijkhuizen, A. A. (1994). Optimal replacement of mastitic cows determined by a hierarchic markov process. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 2975-2993.
Houe, H. (1999). Epidemiological features and economical importance of bovine virus diarrhoea virus (BVD) infections. Veterinary Microbiology 64: 89-107.
Jalvingh, A.W., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Renkema, J.A., 1997. Linear programming to meet management targets and restrictions. In: Dijkhuizen, A.A., Morris, R.S. (Eds.), Animal Health Economics Principles and Applications. University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 69-84.
Keeling, M., Woolhouse , M., May, R., Davies, G., and Grenfell, B. (2003). Modelling vaccination strategies against foot-and-mouth disease. Nature 421: 136 - 142.
Kennedy, J. O. S. (1986). "Dynamic Programming:Applications to Agriculture and Natural Resources," Elsevier Applied Science, London.
Kennedy, J. O. S., and Stott, A. W. (1993). An adaptive decision-making aid for dairy cow replacement. Agricultural Systems 42: 25-39.
Lampkin, N. (1990). Organic Farming, Farming Press Books, Ipswich.
Logue, D.N., Stott, A.W, Jones, G.M., Gunn, G.J., Humphry, R.W., Chase-Topping, M., Offer, J., Middlemass, C. and Richardson, H. (2000). Modelling subclinical mastitis due to S.aureus.,.Report of project 98/R1/13, Milk Development Council, Cirencester.
Lucey, S., and Rowlands, G. J. (1984). The association between clinical mastitis and milk yield in dairy cows. Animal Production 39: 165-175.
McArthur, A.T.G. (1973). Application of dynamic programming to the culling decision in dairy cattle. Proceedings New Zealand Society of Animal Production 33: 141-147.
McInerney, J. P. (1987). An economist's approach to estimating disease losses. In: Disease in Farm Livestock:Economics and Policy, (K. S. Howe and J. P. McInerney, eds.), pp. 25-60. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
McInerney, J. (1996). Old Economics for new problems. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47, 295-314.
McInerney, J. P., Howe, K. S., and Schepers, J. A. (1992). A framework for the economic analysis of disease in farm livestock. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 13: 137-154.
Mlangwa, J. E. D., and Samui, K. L. (1996). The nature of animal health economics in relation to veterinary epidemiology. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L'Office International Des Epizooties 15:797-812.
Morris, R. S., Marsh, W.E., Sanson, R.L. and McKenzie, J.S. (1997). Examples of integrated information systems for decision making at farm and national level. In: Morris, R.S. and Dijkhuizen, A.A. (Eds). Animal Health Economics. Principles and Applications. Postgraduate Foundation in Veterinary Science, Sydney, Australia.
Morris, R. S., Sanson, R. L., Stern, M. W., Stevenson, M., and Wilesmith, J. W. (2002). Decision-support tools for foot and mouth disease control. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L'Office International Des Epizooties 21: 557-567.
Perry, B., McDermott, J., and Randolph, T. (2001). Can epidemiology and economics make a meaningful contribution to national animal-disease control? Preventive Veterinary Medicine 48: 231-260.
Policy Commision on the Future of Farming and Food. (2002). Report. Farming and Food a Sustainable Future. Cabinet Office, London.
Royal Society (2002). Infectious diseases in livestock. Policy document 19/02. Summary and main recommendations. The Royal Society, London.
Stott, A. W., Jones, G. M., Gunn, G. J., Chase-Topping, M., Humphry, R. W., Richardson, H., and Logue, D. N. (2002). Optimum replacement policies for the control of subclinical mastitis due to S.aureus in dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 627-644.
Stott, A. W., and Kennedy, J. O. S. (1993). The economics of culling dairy cows with clinical mastitis. The Veterinary Record 133: 495-499.
Stott, A.W., Lloyd, J., Humphry, R.W., and Gunn, G.J. (2003). A linear programming approach to estimate the economic impact of bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) at the whole-farm level in Scotland. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 59: 51-66.
Thompson, D., Muriel, P., Russell, D., Osborne, P., Bromley, A., Rowland, M., Creigh-Tyte, S. and Brown, C. (2002). Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office International Des Epizooties 21: 675-687.
Van Arendonk, J. A. M., and Dijkhuizen, A. A. (1985). Studies on the replacement policies in dairy cattle. III. Influence of variation in reproduction and production. Livestock Production Science 13: 333-349.
Veerkamp, R. F., Hill, W. G., Stott, A. W., Brotherstone, S., and Simm, G. (1995). Selection for longevity and yield in dairy cows using transmitting abilities for type and yield. Animal Science 61: 189-197.
Whittington, R. J., and Sergeant, E. S. G. (2001). Progress towards understanding the spread, detection and control of Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis in animal populations. Australian Veterinary Journal 79: 267-278.
Yalcin, C. (1996). The Economic Impact of Mastitis Control Procedures in Scottish Dairy Herds. PhD. Thesis, Aberdeen University.
Yalcin, C., and Stott, A. W. (2000). Dynamic programming to investigate financial impacts of mastitis control decisions in milk production systems. Journal of Dairy Research 67: 515-528.
Yalcin, C., Stott, A.W., Logue, D.N. and Gunn, J. (1999). The economic impact of mastitis-control procedures used in Scottish dairy herds with high bulk-tank somatic cell counts. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 41: 135-149.
Link to top
Farm level economics of organic mink and beef production in several European countries
C. Deblitz, E. Deeken and M.D. Izquierdo-Lopez
Institute of Farm Economics and Rural Studies
Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL)
Introduction
This paper presents preliminary results of two projects within the Federal programme for organic farming‘, funded by the German Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture. As the projects will be completed in December 2003, the results are preliminary.
The International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN) provides the organisational framework of the project (see below). The main foci are case studies of typical organic dairy and beef farms in Europe and Argentina. The on-farm analysis comprises a cross country comparison of organic farms and an intra-country comparison of organic vs. conventional farms. Main subjects of analysis are production systems, production costs and profitability of milk and beef production.
International Farm Comparison Network - IFCN
IFCN is a world-wide, long-term network of scientists, advisors and farmers. The main objectives of the network are to develop a sustainable information system for better understanding of agriculture, creating a comparable data and information base for farm and supply chain comparisons world-wide. With this database and the knowledge of the network participants, the following type of analysis is carried out:
- Analysis of production systems;
- Analysis of cost of production;
- Impact of policies and changing markets;
- Analysis of technological change;
- Analysis of farm strategies; and
- Analysing the farmer-consumer supply chain.
More information on IFCN can be found at www.ifcnnetwork.org.
Database
All farm data in this paper refer to the year 2002. Data sets for the farms analysed have either been mounted for the year 2002 or – if the first year of defining the data sets was in 2001 or 2000 - the underlying prices and costs of the farms have been updated to 2002 by projections.
Due to the limited availability of organic farm data, the following data sources were used:
Argentina (dairy and beef) Advisors, single farm data;
Austria (dairy and beef) Regional statistics, advisors, farmer groups;
Czech Rep. (beef) Regional statistics, advisors, single farm data;
Hungary (dairy) Advisors, single farm data;
Denmark (dairy) Surveys from Danish Advisory Centre;
Germany (dairy and beef) 1. Cluster analysis of data from certification agencies;
2. Advisors from growers associations / advisory centres
France (beef) 1. "Cas-types" from Institut de l'Evage Rennes;
2. Advisors and farmer groups.
It is important to note that the concept of using typical farms and building up a comparable data base world-wide cannot be statistically representative. However, it is an approach that
- covers a certain number of farms in the region selected;
- allows for very detailed analysis due to the detailed physical and economic data sets;
- provides a good input-output relation of scientists labour; and
- has so far no alternative when making world-wide comparisons.
In regard to organic farming, defining data sets is even harder due to there being
- less farms in total;
- more variety of farming systems;
- less specialisation compared to conventional farming;
- more variability in yields; and
- more off-farm and direct sale activities.
As a consequence, the organic farm results presented here can only be seen as a first step and part of a transition period of analysis. To make results more reliable, more farms have to be analysed on a permanent basis.
Farms selected
Table 1 gives an overview of the dairy farms selected for analysis. The numbers in the farm names reflect total cow numbers. The aim was to create similar farm sizes for conventional and organic farms and to have, in each group, a moderate farm size as well as (medium and) large farm sizes. The agricultural income of the farms mostly comes from milk production. Most farms in Austria and Bavaria generate some income from forestry and/or tourism.
Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the beef farms selected for analysis. The table shows the different farm sizes measured in number of finished cattle sold per year. It should be noted that the conventional farms in Germany are above average size that are specialised farms living exclusively from beef production. The origin of animals is either dairy (most conventional farms in Europe) or cow calf (most organic), the organic exclusively from the own cow-calf enterprise.
Results: dairy
The limited space available does not allow a presentation of all results in detail. Before going deeper into economic analysis, some major findings on production systems shall be briefly summarised in the following list:
- There is a relatively high degree of specialisation in milk, both in organic as in conventional farms.
- Milk yields are lower in organic than in conventional farms but correlation between herd size and milk yield seems to be more important.
- Replacement rates of comparably sized farms are lower in organic but seem to be clearly correlated with farm size for both conventional and organic (the bigger the herd size the higher the replacement rate).
- The production costs per kg milk are higher in organic.
- Highest costs are found on the small farms in Austria, Germany and Hungary.
- Medium cost levels are found in farms with 100 and more cows.
- Lowest costs are found in Argentina
- Profitability on organic farms appears to be no lower than on conventional farms.
Figure 1 shows the total cost and returns of milk production for the selected farms in 2002. The farms are shown on the x-axis and values are in US$ per 100 kg energy-corrected milk (ECM).
Figure 1: Total cost and returns of milk production in the year 2002
Milk prices
When comparing milk prices within Europe, Germany and Hungary show lower prices than Austria and France for both conventional and organic milk prices. With the exception of the DE-50 farm in Germany and the Argentinian farms, organic prices are higher than conventional. For the HU-535 there is no price premium because of the lack of marketing channels for organic milk.
Non-milk returns
Non-milk returns consist of meat returns from cull animals, returns from breeding heifers sold and direct payments. Premium levels in Austria appear to be particularly high. Farms in Austria can relatively easily accumulate various types of premiums like less favoured area premium, environmental programmes premium (AT-12), additional hill premium (AT-22eco), sometimes combined with a low milk yield that leads to high figures per 100 kg milk.
Cash costs and depreciation (Costs from profit and loss account)
For comparable farm sizes, cash costs and depreciation in EU family farms appear to be comparable and higher in organic than in conventional farms. With the exception of the small organic dairy farm with 5 cows, cash costs in the Hungarian farms are on comparable level with EU-farms as they have to pay almost all of the production factors (former cooperative/state farms). In Argentina, cost and price levels are at a level of three to four times lower than the European farms without significant differences between organic and conventional farms.
Profitability (difference between total returns and cash costs + depreciation)
The picture shows that in the year 2002 almost all EU farms and the Hungarian farms would have made a profit without direct payments. The main reasons are relatively high milk prices and recovered beef prices for cull animals after FMD and BSE in 2001. Taking the direct payments into account, all farms make a profit. The organic farms appear to have at least the same level of profitability as conventional farms.
Full economic cost and profitability
To get an idea about the longer-term perspective of the farms, it is useful to include the so-called opportunity costs into the analysis. This is done by putting a value to the own (family) labour (local wage rate for qualified labour), the owned land (local rent price) and the equity of the farm (an interest of 3% real) which represent the alternative use of these production factors.
The highest opportunity costs, mainly labour, occur in (small) family farms. Low opportunity cost can be seen in former state and cooperative farms (CEC-countries) and commercial farms (Argentina) where most of the production factors are paid. There are only a few farms able to cover full economic cost and make an entrepreneurs profit.
Results Beef
The limited space available does not allow a presentation of all results in detail. Before going deeper into economic analysis, some major findings on production systems shall be briefly summarised in the following list:
- The degree of specialisation in beef finishing is generally not as high as in dairy and lower in the organic than in conventional farms.
- The combination of beef finishing with cow calf production in organic farms is very common.
- The beef-products are very diverse: baby-beef, steers, bulls, heifers, cows.
- Calves/weaners and beef must often be sold on conventional markets.
- (Coupled) Direct payments help to be profitable (but also distort input prices).
- Labour productivity in organic is usually lower than in conventional in comparable size class.
- Land productivity in organic is clearly lower than in conventional systems analysed.
Chart 2 shows the total cost and returns of beef production 2002 for the selected farms. The farms are shown on the x-axis and values are in US$ per 100 kg carcass weight sold per year.
Chart 2: Total cost and returns of beef production in the year 2002
Beef prices and direct payments
Conventional beef prices between Austria, France and Germany are comparable at US$ 250-280 per 100 kg CW. Price levels in Czech Republic are around US$ 200 and in Argentina around US$ 100. Organic price premiums can be observed in Austria, Germany and France whereas in the Czech farms analysed and in Argentina as a rule no price premium was realised in 2002 (no export). Comparing the FR-17 and FR-41 farms show that differences in conventional prices can be higher than differences between conventional and organic farms. In this case, the FR-41 farm has Limousin cattle and participates in the Label Rouge meat marketing and quality scheme, resulting in higher prices than FR-17 with Charolais production without special marketing.
Direct payments for organic farms in the EU-countries and Czech Republic are higher than in conventional farms, mainly due to the organic premium. However, there is often a link between organic farming and the occurrence of other premiums like the steer premium in DE-130, FR-35 and CZ-62. In France there is no premium for maintenance of organic farming after the 5 years conversion period. Consequently, the premium level of FR-22 producing only heifers and cows is relatively low. And finally, the high premium level in AT-7 comes from the less favoured area premium and the hill premium for managing steep slopes.
Cash costs and depreciation (Costs from profit and loss account)
Conventional cost levels in the EU-countries are between US$ 260 (DE-240) and US$ 350 (AT-7) per 100 kg CW. Cost levels in Czech Republic are slightly lower and at approx. US$ 80 per 100 kg CW much lower in Argentina. Cost levels in organic farming in Germany, France and Czech Republic are higher than conventional. The highest cost of the comparison shows the two Eastern German ex-cooperative farms that have to pay all production factors. In Argentina, no differences in cost levels between conventional and organic exist. The reason is that both systems are very similar and that organic farming takes place in locations with lower land prices than conventional.
Profitability (difference between total returns and cash costs + depreciation)
With the beef price only (without direct payments) none of the EU and the Czech farms analysed would be able to make a profit. Some of the organic farms in Germany, France and Czech Republic would even run into serious cash-problems. Only the farms in Argentina (both conventional and organic) realise a profit.
Adding the direct payments to the price, the situation improves significantly for many of the EU and the organic CZ-farm. However, the two East German organic farms, the farms with no steer production and no organic premium (FR-17, FR-22org) and the Czech farms are not able to realise a profit.
Full economic cost and profitability
When taking the opportunity costs into consideration (explanation see dairy results), costs particularly increase in family operated, small and organic farms (for example in AT-7, AT-15, DE-12, DE-32, FR-farms). Furthermore, comparing full economic cost with total returns of beef finishing shows that with the exception of the Austrian organic and 3 Argentinian farms none of the farms can cover full economic cost.
Link to top
Market situation for organic livestock products in Europe
U. Hamm and F. Gronefeld
Agricultural and Food Marketing, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences,
The University of Kassel
Introduction
In analysing the European market of organic products, the main problem is that no official statistics exist about production, consumption and international trade. The following contribution is based on data collected within the research project Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development (OMIaRD) financed by the EU within the Fifth Framework Research and Technical Development Programme. Data on production, consumption, foreign trade, farmer and consumer prices were collected by national experts for all EU countries plus the four non-EU-members Czech Republic, Norway, Slovenia and Switzerland for the years 2000 and 2001. All data presented in this contribution are preliminary data, because the data evaluation has not yet been completed.
Organic land area and livestock production
Before analysing the production from organic livestock it is useful to look at the development of the organic area as a percentage of the total utilisable agricultural area (UAA). Figure 1 shows that there was a remarkable growth of the share of the organic area between 1993 and 2001 in all countries surveyed, however with very different growth rates. The EU average for the organic area of 3.4 percent of the UAA in 2001 has been far exceeded in Switzerland, Austria, Italy, and the three Scandinavian EU member states, Finland, Denmark and Sweden.
Table 1 shows that the organic animal production in the EU is at a comparatively low level with around 2 percent of the total production for beef and milk, between 1 and 2 percent for sheep and goat meat and eggs, and 0.3 percent for pork and poultry. The figures from the milk column display Austria and Denmark with an organic percentage of more than 10 percent, these two nations stand for half of the total organic milk production in the EU, even though they are comparatively small countries, but with a large organic sector. While the clear leader in organic beef production is Germany standing for 30 percent of the organic beef production in the EU, the highest share of organic beef production of the total beef production was measured again in Austria with nearly 10 percent. Organic sheep and goat meat production reached double-digit percentages of total production in Austria and Finland. However, in these countries, conventional production is at a low level and sheep are mainly used for landscape conservation in environmentally less favoured areas.
Figure 1: Development of organic area as a percentage of total UAA
between 1993 and 2001
Table 1: Organic share of total production in 2001
Organic pork and poultry production is at a very low level in all surveyed countries apart from organic poultry production in Luxemburg where one huge farm is responsible for the high organic share of poultry production. The main reasons for the low percentages of organic pork and poultry production of the total production are relatively high costs of production due to strict regulations for organic husbandry and high costs for organic cereals and oilcakes, so that high consumer price premiums for organic pork and poultry clearly limit the demand. Even though these arguments are the same for eggs, the organic share of the total production is much higher for eggs in all surveyed countries, except Luxemburg. The main reason for the higher organic percentage of eggs lies on the demand side. Demand for organic eggs and the willingness of consumers to pay high price premiums for organic eggs is much higher than for meat. Apart from this, high percentages of organic egg production is taking place in small holdings where the additional costs of the organic production are not as high and from where most of the eggs are sold directly to consumers.
Share of organic products sold as organic
A very important indicator for the success of the organic sector of a nation is the share of organic products that is sold as organic, normally with price premiums for the organic origin. If a greater amount of the organic production must be sold as conventional, normally for conventional prices, this lowers the profitability of organic farms. Table 2 shows that there are sales problems for organic sheep and goat meat, milk and beef in most of the European countries, while clearly more than 90 percent of the EU production of organic pork, poultry and eggs were sold as organic in 2001. The commonness of all organic animal products with sales problems is that their production is based on grassland.
Table 2: Share of sales sold as organic in 2001
Organic land use, subsidy structure and imbalances in livestock production
Looking at the organic land use in the EU (see Figure 2), it is obvious that EU-wide a much higher percentage of grassland was converted to organic than arable land. While the total UAA in the EU consists of only 33 percent of grassland and 56 percent of arable land the relation between grassland and arable land for the organic area is nearly opposite: 57 percent grassland and 30 percent arable land. Obviously, it was more attractive for farmers in grassland regions to convert their farms to organic agriculture than for farmers with a high percentage of arable land. This leads to the question of the EU support scheme for organic agriculture by paying area-based premiums for the conversion to and the maintenance of organic agriculture.
Figure 2: Organic land use in 2001
In several EU countries (Finland, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg and Portugal) the premiums for conversion are equal for arable land and grassland, although it is known that the costs of conversion are much higher for arable land than for grassland. There are even two EU countries, Denmark and Spain, which have higher payment rates for a conversion of grassland than for arable land. Only in France and Sweden are the area-based premiums for a conversion of arable land more than double as high as for grassland, whereas in all countries not mentioned above the premium for arable land is much lower than 50 percent compared with grassland.
The sales problems for grassland-based organic products have even led to significant re-conversions of farms from organic to conventional in the last few years, especially in Austria, but also in some parts of Germany. It is to be expected that farmers in other European countries with greater sales problems for organic milk and beef will follow, so in Denmark, Sweden and the UK. On the other hand, there are several EU countries reporting that the demand for organic pork, poultry or eggs was higher in 2001 and 2002 than supply (including imports), so for pork in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Finland, Greece, Luxemburg, Portugal and Sweden, for poultry in Germany, Greece, Luxemburg, Portugal and Sweden and for eggs in Spain, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It should also be mentioned that there were some EU countries with a supply deficit for milk (Spain, Finland, France, Greece), for beef (Spain, Finland, Greece, Luxemburg) and sheep and goat meat (Spain, Greece, Portugal). Obviously, trade between EU countries was not able to remedy these supply deficits, although there are some countries with a supply surplus and sales problems at the same time. The reasons could be due to a lack of market transparency or to high transport costs for small amounts of organic products. It is also remarkable that there are a lot of countries expecting supply deficits for animal products in future, above all for pork. Supply deficits were also foreseen for animal feed, especially for leguminous fodder crops and feed mixture.
International trade for organic animal products in total is on a very low level compared with organic plant products. The only animal product group of significance is milk and milk products where Austria, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands are the main exporting countries while France and Italy are the main importing countries. Main beef exporters are Germany and Austria, main beef importers are the UK, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Belgium. Of the non-EU-member countries, the Czech Republic and Argentina supply some EU countries with beef. Foreign trade for sheep and goat meat as well as for pork, poultry and eggs is on a very low level with amounts of much less than 10,000 tons for all surveyed countries together.
Share of food consumption and sales
Table 3 reports the figures for the organic share of total food consumption for animal products. Due to sales problems of organic products and a different (compared with the conventional trade) share of foreign trade these data are quite different from the production share in many countries. The organic share of total food consumption is highest for beef with 1.7 percent. Organic beef was one of the winners from the BSE-crisis in 2000 and 2001 which has strongly pushed demand for organic products in many countries, while the demand for conventional beef sharply declined at the same time. Combining both developments, the share of organic beef on total beef consumption has increased by 50 percent and more in many countries. A comparably high share for organic beef 2001 was registered in Austria and Germany.
Table 3: Organic share of total consumption in 2001
The share of organic consumption of total food consumption for eggs and milk, which was between 1 and 1.5 percent in the EU in 2001, reached comparably high percentages in Denmark with 10 percent for milk and nearly 9 percent for eggs. The organic consumption share of sheep and goat meat differs strongly between the EU countries. In countries where the total consumption of sheep meat is very low, as in Austria, Finland and Sweden, the organic share is relatively high, whereas in EU countries with a high consumption of sheep meat, e.g. the UK, Spain or France, the organic share is relatively low. The organic share of total food consumption for pork is very low in all EU countries; in no country was a share of at least 1 percent registered. With regard to poultry a consumption share of 1 percent or more was only reached in Denmark and Luxemburg. Supply deficits and high consumer prices have limited the demand for pork and poultry in many countries.
Figure 3 shows the organic share of total food sales in 2001. The data about total food sales contain all organic products, not only the above mentioned product groups, but also plant products, beverages, sweets etc. In Europe there have been two clear leaders in organic food sales in 2001, Switzerland and Denmark reporting 3.7 and 3.5 respectively of the total national food sales. Austria, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands have also organic shares above the EU average of 1.1 percent, while the Mediterranean countries Spain, Greece and Portugal have organic market shares much below 0.5 percent. In these countries, the domestic organic markets are in their infancy and a lot of organic products are exported to Northern and Central European countries.
Figure 3: Organic share of total food sales in 2001
Conclusions
As mentioned before the data evaluation and analysis has not yet been completed. It has to be analysed whether the main influence factors on the amount of organic demand are still the same in 2001 as in our analysis for the year 2000 (Hamm et al., 2002). In our previous study the demand for organic products was positively influenced by a high share of total organic food sales through general food shops (conventional supermarkets), by a high share of consumers knowing a common or national label for organic food products, and by low consumer price premiums for organic products over conventional products.
However, some conclusions for the further development of the organic market for animal products can be drawn from the first results of our analysis. There are a number of marketing problems limiting the further market development:
· unbalanced developments of supply and demand in many countries, especially for the grassland-based animal products milk and beef,
· a very low market transparency so that important market signals are not reaching market actors in time
· quick changes in market situations because of the small volatile markets and because of food scandals in the conventional and in the organic sector with huge influences on the short-term development of demand.
Required actions to overcome the marketing problems and to support the further development of the organic animal sector are:
(1) constitution of a European market information system for organic products with up-to-date market data (esp. producer and consumer prices) and data allowing short and medium-term forecasts about the development of production (esp. data about the production of newly converted farms)
(2) adaptation of support policy for conversion of farms to the market situation by the amount of area-based subsidies (for grassland, arable land, horticultural land) and by a new support policy for the cereal-based animal production (e.g. credits for rebuilding of housing units)
(3) more research in all areas of organic animal production and marketing of their products
References
Hamm, U., Gronefeld, F. and Halpin, D. (2002): Analysis of the European market for organic food. Organic marketing initiatives and rural development vol. 1, School of Management and Business, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK.
Political economy of organic foods
P.R. Kledal
Danish Research Institute of Food Economics
The core of political economy
In neoclassical economic theory the heart of analyses is the market. Supply and demand, prices and costs, producers and consumers are key components with measurable entities. But in a modern society of interdependent people with anonymous exchange, and no obligation other than a contractual one, there is a complex but invisible web of interdependence ‘behind’ the market.
When Adam Smith, one of the fathers of political economy, used the words ‘invisible hand’ in The Wealth of Nations, he was actually trying to illustrate this hidden complex interdependence of a commercial society behind the seeming array of interdependent anonymous exchanges. The pursuit of self-interest by the butcher, the baker etc., led to the happy outcome of satisfaction of their customers’ wants. But of course, behind the baker was a chain of operations – the farmer who grew corn, the miller who ground it, and the transport that delivered the grain to the miller and the flour to the baker via wholesaler. Today, there would be a bakery, which would in turn deliver to the supermarket (Desai, 2002).
The key analytic focus point in Political Economy is therefore not the market, but the site of production.
Political economy in the Marxian tradition follows this trait from Adam Smith trying to explain the workings of the invisible hand in production. But Marxian approache contains more than that. It is also the study of the dynamics of industrial capitalism with its strengths, contradictions, its limits and uneven development. It is a theory of conflict, trying to uncover and explain the formation of the social relations in production hidden by the seemingly free and independent actors on the market.
Karl Marx himself is generally thought to be a theorist of industrial capitalism rather than a theorist of agrarian studies. Yet, even disregarding his writing on pre-capitalist societies, Marx wrote hundreds of pages on agriculture under modern capitalism; in Capital alone there are over 400 pages where agricultural production is discussed (Mann, 1990).
Labour time and nature's time
Political economy in the Marxian tradition operates with two important assumptions:
i) Capital needs to accumulate; and
ii) Only labour creates value.
Both assumptions are key components in political economy explaining social, political and environmental problems, as well as the type of constraints agriculture encounters regarding time and space.
In 1978, James Dickinson and Susan Archer Mann published an article: “Obstacles to the development of Capitalist Agriculture” in the Journal of Peasant Studies (Dickinson and Mann, 1978). One of the central tenets of the Mann-Dickinson thesis was that capitalist development progresses most rapidly in those spheres where:
1. Production time can be successfully reduced; and
2. Where the gap between production time and labour time can be minimized.
According to Marx production time consists of two parts: one period when labour is engaged in production, and a second period when the unfinished commodity is being produced by nature itself. Two examples of this could be the maturation of cereals in the field or the gestation period of livestock. Since the intervals when labour is not being used create neither value nor surplus value, there is no accumulation of capital during production time, when it exceeds labour time. Therefore it follows the more production time and labour time coincide, the greater the productivity and self-expansion of capital in a given time period (Mann, 1990).
In Figure 1, production time consisting of both labour time and nature’s time is illustrated. Production time can be prolonged due to drought, pests or other more uncontrollable reasons inherent in nature. Therefore, unsteady nature time has been added to production time. The arrows shows the attempts by humans to reduce production time either by shortening labour time or the time it takes for nature to produce a certain agro-commodity. Human attempts will more specifically be innovations from farmers, agro-corporations and researchers as well as govermental economical schemes, all trying to help agro-capital getting a better and less risky turnover. These attempts could also be an indirect pressure from retailers and food processors pressing farmers on price premiums and specific requirements on production size and time deliverables.
Figure 1: Labour Time + Nature's Time = Production Time.
Attempts to make labour time coincide better with production time would typically be specialization, division and enlargement of the agro-production, so the farmer or farm workers only have one or few assembly line work processes. For example, one farm takes care of farrowing, another only producing hogs etc. Shortening nature’s time could be the development of GMO crops. Reduction of unsteady nature time could be the implementation of technologies like pesticides, precision farming (GSP: Global Positioning System) etc.
In contrast to an industrial production, made from non-living raw materials, commodities in agriculture are living species that automatically slows down the reproduction (turnover) of capital, due to the long interval it takes to reproduce the productive cycle again. Since capitalist firms extract profits during each turnover of capital, they can only use these profits to replenish and expand their production when the production cycle is over and the product sold.
In Marxian theory, this is related to the circuit of capital, where money (M) is invested in commodities (C) (inputs like labour and means of production). The commodities are then used to produce an output sold at the market for an exchange value (price) (M1) usually larger than M.
However the circuit of capital in agriculture and the relation to turnover time is not only different to the industry of non-living materials. The different agro-commodities also differ considerably from each other both in regard to production and labour time.
In figure 2, the production time of hogs and wheat is demonstrated. The turnover time for hogs can be almost four times a year whereas for wheat it is only one time (in the Northern hemisphere at least).
Figure 2: The amount of production cycles for wheat and hogs during a one year season.
Hog producers can therefore not only extract surplus value more times during the year, they can also replenish and even expand production from the surplus value appropriated. In contrast, wheat farmers must await the annual sale of their commodities, and is not in a position to expand production as often (Mann, 1990).
Labour time, nature's time and organic farming
What relevance does labour time in relation to production time of a certain agro-commodity have for organic farming? First of all, the consequences of agro-capital trying to shorten labour time and/or nature’s time will at a certain point lead to different types of constraints on capital accumulation. The constraints could be conceived as environmental, food safety and animal welfare problems. If one then regards organic farming as a social counter reaction to these constraints, you start having an economic foundation for explaining social changes in agriculture. The consequences of agro-capital trying to reduce the circuit of turnover time can in this respect be seen as the reason for different social counter reactions setting up rules and regulations against the agro-capital pressure. The rules and regulations set up by the organic farmers and consumers themselves are in many respect counter reactions that actually extend nature’s time and thereby total production time. This goes for rules about animal welfare with regard to space and access to the open air, for ban on pesticide use and for limits to the use of fertilizer input.
Secondly, the rules and regulations in organic farming aimed at "guiding" agro-capital's road to profit maximization, seem also related to what type of agro-commodity is involved. Two hypotheses can be made in relation to the latter:
1. The more production cycles (shorter circuit of capital turnover), the more industrialized a certain agro-commodity will be, the higher probability for a difference between organic and conventional production methods; and
2. The less labour time and production time coincide in a certain agro-commodity, the greater mutuality will be found between organic and conventional production.
Examples of 1) would be within heavily industrialized productions like hog, chicken, egg, and beef. They are also areas of organic agricultural production where the market is of limited size. If, on the other hand, the difference between organic and conventional production methods is small, it will be easy for agro-capital to choose the lucrative organic production and harvest the price premiums. The conflict and discussions within the organic farm movement about setting up rules and regulations are therefore very closely linked to where and how the constraints on capital should be made.
Examples of 2) could be milk, cereals, fruit and vegetables, but with modifications. Lettuce, for example, with a short production cycle could very easily be found in 1).
Food regimes.
Let us now turn to the other important assumption in political economy: capital needs to accumulate. In a competitive market economy with new innovations, new technologies and a decline of costs, accumulation of capital will ceteris paribus take place through expanding production. But when production, in its need for growth, expands, it will encounter two types of constraints: Constraints in space, and as explained above, constraints on time. The compression of space and the speed-up of time are key components in the quest of capital accumulation in the modern era (Hendrickson & Heffernan, 2002) (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Constraints on space and time.
To come closer to what accumulation of capital in the modern era means for agricultural production and food consumption in relation to organic farming, the theories in political economy on "regimes of accumulation" and "food regimes" could be very fruitful. The theories are associated with the Regulation School descending from French structural Marxism of the 1970s (Jessop, 1990). Its principal figures, Aglietta, Liepietz, Boyer and others have employed a distinctive set of theoretically generated concepts – regime of accumulation, mode of regulation, Fordism – to explore relationships between capital, labour and the state. The main starting point for these writers is the argument that nation-states play a crucial role in regulating capital accumulation, and they see differing ways in which capitalism is regulated as historically specific "regimes of accumulation" (Savage & Warde, 1993).
The different regimes are based essentially on the prevailing labour process: manufacture, dominant in the capitalist countries between 1870 and 1940; scientific management (called "Taylorism" after its main practitioner) and Fordism beginning at the turn of 20th century and dominant from 1940 to the late 1970s; and flexible accumulation, or post-Fordism, beginning with the economic crisis of the 1970s and expanding rapidly in the late 20th century. The Regulation School theorized society in terms of development models, their parts, and their transformations: regimes of accumulation described the main production-consumption relationships, modes of regulation described cultural habits and institutional rules (Peet, 1999).
Basically what the theories claim is that capital accumulation is related to specific historic times, with specific production-consumption relations and specific cultural habits and societal rules and regulations. By analyzing these entities, you can say something about class relations as well as property- and power relations in society, and thereby the ongoing conflict of how surplus value from production is divided. By examining the different interest conflict in relation to agricultural food production in a certain historical setting, you could also say something about possible societal directions.
The concept of a "food regime" developed in the 1980's. It draws on the regulation theory, recognizing three similar historical periods in international agricultural development, starting with the first regime as a pre-World War I; the second from the 1940s to the 1970s; and the third from the 1980s to the present. Each regime is characterized by particular farm products and food trade structures that link production with consumption and regulations governing capitalist accumulation (Atkins & Bowler, 2001).
The first food regime was based on an extensive form of capitalist production relations, under which agricultural exports from white "settler" countries in Africa, South America and Australasia supplied unprocessed and semi-processed foods and materials to metropolitan states in North America and Western Europe. The introduction of refrigerated ships in the 1880s increased both the range of produce that could be supplied by distant colonies and the distance over which perishables such as butter, meat and tropical products could be transported to the metropolitan economies. European imports of wheat and meat ("wage-foods") were exchanged for exported European manufactured goods, labour and capital (Friedmann and McMichael, 1989) (Figure 4).
The first food regime was undermined by the global economic recession of the late 1920s and early 1930s, but aspects of the regime survive. For instance, food trade in dairy produce, meat and cereals originating in the extensively farmed rangelands of the Americas and Australasia remains largely unchanged. Another remnant comprises the production of sugar, tropical tree crops (cocoa, coconut, rubber, palm oil, bananas) and beverages (tea, coffee) trough quasi plantation systems of production (Atkins and Bowler, 2001).
The second food regime developed under US hegemony and with the establishment of two new international agreements: the 1945 Bretton Woods Agreement governing the stability of exchange rates between national currencies (based on the dollar/gold standard); and the 1947 GATT rules on international trade. The former underpinned the international diffusion of the national model of economic growth; the latter excluded agriculture from more liberal trading practices and facilitated the further development of national state protection for agriculture: "the agricultural welfare state".
The second food regime is also characterized by a heavy industrialization of agriculture, resulting in a rapid increase in the average farm size and rural depopulation. Farmers leave for jobs in the growing industrial sector, and are in the same time being replaced by agro-industrial inputs like chemicals, farm machinery and fertilizers. Production intensified on pig, poultry and beef lot farms as well as wheat, and all supported by different national farm price schemes and export subsidies for disposal of surpluses.
The crisis of capitalist accumulation that ended the second food regime can be traced to the oil and food crisis of the early 1970s, comprising global recession, the collapse of Bretton Woods, soaring grain prices, the excessive costs of national farm support programmes, and the antagonism between the national regulation of agriculture and the growing commercial power of globally organized corporations (trans national agro-corporations) (Atkins and Bowler, 2001).
The final form or outcome of the third food regime is still uncertain, but several and often contradictory structures and processes have been identified:
· Increased global trading of food;
· Consolidation of capital in food manufacturing;
· New biotechnology;
· Consumer fragmentation and dietary change; and
· Declining farm subsidies (deregulation) or de-directed from farm price support to more environmental or regional support schemes.
The activities of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Orgnisation (WTO), the successor of GATT, are central to the emergence of a new global regulatory structure. With more liberal trading policies increasing global competition are being brought on those farming regions, food processors and food retailers in developed countries, which, for many decades have been protected by national regulatory measures. At the same time, Third World countries are drawn into new trade and production- consumption patterns, where they are becoming the "Garden of food producers to a First world Restaurant".
Furthermore, the processing, marketing and retailing agribusinesses that were formed during the second food regime have become major players in this new competitive environment trading with food. By limiting state farm support programmes, the WTO is extending the corporate power of global agribusinesses relative to national (public) power, but at the same time supervising new forms of regulation arising out of the contest between nation states, the TNCs [what is this?] and popular movements (e.g. consumers, environmentalist, organic farmers), with the latter not formally represented at the negotiations (Atkins and Bowler, 2001).
Simultanously, there are counter movements by individual states joining supra-national trade regimes claiming their own ‘regional rights’ within the trading blocs (e.g. EU, NAFTA and APEC). While the final dimensions of the third food regime are still uncertain, the outcome seems likely to be influenced by the contest between private global regulation shaped by the TNCs and their requests for universal market rules, and a more democratic global regulation with the right to differentiated rules on production and environment formally controlled by each supra-national trading regime.
Organic farming in the third food regime
The hypothesis in this paper is that organic farming is born out of the accumulation crisis between the second and the third food regime. The attempts from agro-capital in the second food regime to raise productivity by using more fertilizer, concentrating more animals on fewer farms, spraying more pesticides etc. only increased environmental problems and gave raise to new agro-industrial food diseases.
In relation to these problems, organic farming can be seen as the result of a successful social counter-reaction, creating alliances between farmers and environmentally conscientious consumers. The success of the organic movement lies also in its ability to create alliances within the political institutions and thereby securing societal rules and regulations promoting organic farming on different levels. This could be direct economic support to farmers, economic schemes to organic food manufacturers promoting new products and expanding market opportunities, or building up research institutions or grants helping organic production.
From this point of view, the paradigm and the ideological foundation for organic farming is based on counter moves in relation to production-consumption structures and relations within the second food regime and its crisis in the 1970's and 1980's. But the world is now in a process towards a new food regime with radical changes on regulation on food production and food trade. Power relations within the food chain itself are moving away from farmers and food manufacturers to supermarkets and clusters combined by pharmaceutical, medical and biotechnical corporations. At the national level, government regulators are loosing power to new supra national institutions or non-elected administrators in powerful agencies like the WTO.
The 10.000-dollar question is: where is organic farming moving in relation to these forces and the fighting over the shape of the third food regime?
Figure 4: Food regimes.
The organic consumer and the new modes of consumption
Following a Marxian reading, analysis of the agro-food commodity chain has been principally directed towards "uncovering" the social relationships behind the production of a particular agro commodity. The agro-food studies have in general been production-centered. This line has especially been influenced by the pioneering work of William Friedland"s (1984) commodity systems analysis. Production is the locus of power and the privileged terrain of political action, and the commodity form acts as a "veil" that conceals exploitative social relations. Consumers, from this perspective, are passive both because they interact only in the non-political sphere of circulation (the market) and because they are unaware of the unequal power relationships obscured by the veil of the commodity fetish.
According to David Goodman and E. Melaine DuPuis (Rural Sociology 42/1-2002, pp.11-12) "The last two decades have seen an increasingly well-theorized challenge to the production-centered approach to economic relationships". While the debate over whether and how to integrate consumption into commodity systems analysis continues, consumption as a focus of study has gained a high profile in the social science disciplines..." ..."Here it is particularly fruitful to look to those scholars who have remained in conversation with Marx while attempting to reconcile political economy with cultural studies. Many of these scholars come out of the "cultural Marxism" tradition pioneered by Raymond Williams and E.P. Thomson". The contributions from these scholars (Hall, 1989; Mulgan, 1989), emphasized by Goodman and DuPuis, are, that consumer activism does wield power to shape the food system. They bring forward a particular interpretation of consumption and power grounded in meaning, identity, representation and ideology. For example, the consumers can aspire for power, if power is defined as the ability to set parameters, such as rights, obligations and rules governing processes. Hereby the political economy has a platform to explain the rise and attributions of "the political consumer" or the "organic consumer", and why food emerges as an arena of struggle.
To contribute to the discussions in the social sciences regarding the shift from production to more emphasis on consumption, this paper presents a new model for commodity chain analysis that contains new modes of consumption.
Figure 5: Agro-industrial commodity chain.
In traditional commodity chain analysis, the food supply chain is often described as a simple input-output model with the five horizontal nodes starting with the input industry and ending with the consumer at the household. Sociological studies, however, have shown that new changes are emerging (Warde, 1997). What is occurring among the consumers is a substitution of practices between different modes of provisioning, from
Home to Market.
The substitution of practices between modes has great significance for understanding the social consequences of consumption of food. In contemporary society, there are four common modes of provision, each characterized by distinctive ways of producing goods and gaining access to the fruits of labor. These are:
1. Market (restaurants, hyper markets, fast food outlets etc.);
2. Institutional catering (hospitals, kindergarten, workplaces etc.);
3. Communal (friends, family); and
4. Home (household/individuals).
This paper modifies these four modes and incorporates them in figure xx as shown. Firstly, a whole new industry – the catering industry – has been included and fast food outlets, restaurants and institutional catering have been made subdivisions of the catering industry itself. Go into the kitchen of almost any restaurant today and you will discover shelves and closets filled with prepared and semi-prepared food items from the catering industry ready to be heated in a microwave or a traditional stove. The difference between many restaurants and fast food outlets are narrowing. More and more food products from the catering industry are also finding their way to the shelves and freezers of the supermarkets.
Institutions are besides hospitals, kindergartens etc. also covering the many kitchens at bigger workplaces. More and more people are having a meal or two a day outside the home, and the foodservice industry (catering industry) is one of the fastest growing food industries in terms of money. The new commodity chain model designed here should therefore ‘catch’ the sociological changes that are taken place when it comes to the increasing food consumption outside the home.
Secondly, an alternative link has been drawn from farm and process industry to the consumer. The alternative link should show the many new networks emerging between farmers, small dairies, cheese producers, quality meat producers etc. selling directly to the consumers, either face to face or through different types of subscription arrangements. The alternative production-consumption links exemplify the social countermoves against the consequences of the agro-capital push for making labor time and production time coincide more and more.
Another distinction the model has is between production markets and consumer markets. Above the consumer, markets have been described more thoroughly with the changing modes of consumption. When it comes to the production markets along the chain, they are very different from node to node. For example, the question on food safety, institutional control and regulations has to be handled very differently whether it is an exchange between the input industry and the farm, from farm to process industry, from process industry to retailers and from retailers to the consumers. Neither are the nodes along the chain similar when it comes to economic size and market power. The chain could be described as an hourglass lying down exemplifying the few companies in the input industry controlling most of that market. The input industry again is selling their products to a lot of farmers, who again are selling to a process industry with a few buyers, who are selling to a small number of retailers, who again sells to millions of non-unified consumers.
Going into the depths of the production markets, therefore, requires an insight into the power relations along the agro-commodity chain. Here clusters between a global oriented medicine industry, biotechnology industry and chemical companies are emerging, and gaining more and more market power upon the inputs to the farms. At the other end of the chain, global market oriented retailers are merging at a high speed favoring farmers and process industries who subordinate their productions to economies of scale (Bonanno, 1995; Heffernan, Hendrickson and Gronski, 1999; Hendrickson and Heffernan, 2002;).
Around the agro-commodity chain, the same rings as in Figure 3 are drawn, containing the socio-economic forces as well as the biophysical constraints that will interact and operate in a dialectic process with the actors along the commodity chain.
What does the future look like when it comes to organic farming and the changing economic power relations along the food chain? Several reports predict that the farm economy will split into two segments – one consisting of a small number of large scale farmers engaged in commodity production who depend on technologies and economies of scale to survive on razor-thin margins. The other segment will focus on the product-oriented, quality conscious consumers when it comes to agricultural production and processing methods (Hendrickson and Heffernan, 2002; Oxford Research, 2001; CALT, 2002). This does not automatically mean that organic farmers can capture the spaces within the two segments without struggles. But if one acknowledge that organic farming is a social countermovement that successfully has created new relationships in food and agriculture based on trust, traceability, equality and global responsibility, it should not be out of work for many years to come.
“It is the development of authentic relationships that have social and ecological components rather than being exclusively exchange oriented that makes firms operating in the global system most vulnerable. While advertising (promoting brands) can create the illusion of connection, it is only within the context of integrated relationships that authencity can be developed. However, the development of these authentic relationships in the structure of our everyday lives is indeed difficult and time-consuming” (Hendrickson and Heffernan, 2002).
Conclusion
Political economy has a theoretical foundation analyzing the economic forces of a market economy that provides explanations as to why organic farming can be regarded as a social countermovement in agriculture. Political economy can also explain why the rules and regulations in organic farming are designed as they are in different agro-commodities. In relation to agro-capital’s constant pressure to speed up time and shorten the circuit of capital turnover, political economy delivers explanations as to why organic farming differs from conventional production methods in some agro-commodities more than others.
Political economy offers also an explanation as to why organic farming is born at a certain time in history. The paradigm and the ideological foundation for organic farming is based on counter moves in relation to production-consumption structures and relations within the second food regime and its crisis in the 1970’ and 1980’s. But the world is now in a process towards a new food regime, with radical changes on regulation on food production and food trade. Power relations within the food chain itself are moving away from farmers and food manufacturers to supermarkets and clusters combined by pharmaceutical, medical and biotechnical corporations. At the national level, government regulators are loosing power to new supra-national institutions or non-elected administrators in powerful agencies like the WTO.
Organic farming is in this paper regarded as a social counter-movement that successfully has created new relationships in food and agriculture based on trust, traceability, equality and global responsibility, in a attempt to combat many of the environmental and distrust problems in relation to the accumulation of economy and production along the nodes of the agro-commodity food chain.
The development of authentic relationships that have social and ecological components rather than being exclusively exchange oriented is the future for organic farming. While advertising (promoting brands) can create the illusion of connection, it is only within the context of integrated relationships that authenticity can be developed. Here organic farming also has to take up the challenge with the new modes of consumption where more and more people are consuming food outside the home.
References
Atkins, Peter & Ian Bowler (2001): Food in Society - economy, culture, geography. Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group, London.
Bonanno, A. et al. Eds (1995): From Columbus to ConAgra. The globalization of agriculture and food (Lawrence: University Press Kansas).
CALT (Center for Anvendt Logistik og Transportforskning) (2002): Forsyningskæder i forandring konsekvenser for logistik og transport. Institut for Transportstudier, Syddansk Universitet. Sammenfattende rapport af W. Lemoine, Lars Chr. Ragus, Jette Christensen, Axel Schultz-Nielsen, Niels Jørgensen, Lars Dragnæs.
Desai, Meghnad (2002): Marx’s Revenge. The resurgence of capitalism and the death of statist Socialism. Verso London/New York, www.versobooks.com
Dickinson, James M. & Susan A. Mann (1978): Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist Agriculture. Journal of Peasant studies 5 (4): 466-81.
Friedland, W. H. (1984): Commodity systems analysis: an approach to the sociology of agriculture. Research in Rural Sociology and Agriculture I pp. 221-236.
Friedmann, Harriet & Philip McMichael (1989): Agriculture and the state system: the rise and decline of national agriculture, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29: pp. 93-117.
Goodmann, David & E. Melaine Dupuis (2002): Knowing food and Growing food. Beyond the Production-Consumption Debate in the Sociology of Agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 42/1 – 2002.
Hall, S. (1989): Introduction. Pp. 11-23 in S Hall and M. Jacques eds. New Times: The changing Face of Politcs in the 1990 (New York: Verso).
Heffernan, W., M. Hendrickson and R. Gronski (1999): Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System. Research Report (Washington DC: National Farmers Union).
Hendrickson, M. and W. D. Heffernan (2002): Opening Spaces through Relocation: Locating Potential Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System. Sociologia Ruralis 42/4 – 2002.
Jessop, Bob (1990): Regulation Theories in Retrospect and Prospect. Economy and Society, 19: 2 pp. 153-216.
Kledal, Paul Rye (2003): Økologiske fødevarekæder. Nye forskningsmodeller og et anderledes helhedssyn. Forskningsnytt no. 1/2003.
Mann, Susan Archer (1990): Agrarian capitalism in Theory and Practice. University of North Carolina Press.
Mulgan, G. (1989): The power of the weak. In S. Hall and M. Jacques eds. New Times: The changing Face of Politics in the 1990s (New York: Verso)
Oxford Research (2001): Handelserhvervet. Nye roller og udfordringer. En rapport for Erhvervsministeriet.
Peet, Richard (1999): Theories of Development, The Guilford Press, New York/ London.
Savage, Mike and Alan Warde (1993): Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity, MacMillan, London.
Warde, Alan (1997): Consumption, Food and Taste. SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
Is it easy for producers to market organic beef?
The case of BioBourgogne Viande in France
P. Sans*, G. de Fontguyon, B. Sylvander, A. Le Floc’h1, M. Auersalmi 2 and
O. Schmid 3
1 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique – Urequa, Le Mans (France).
2 University of Helsinki - Mikkeli Institute for Rural Research and Training Mikkeli (Finland).
3 Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FIBL) Frick (Switzerland).
Introduction
This paper aims at presenting the results of a French case-study of BioBourgogne Viande, carried out by members of three research teams within the framework of a European research project OMIaRD (Organic Marketing Initiatives and Rural Development) . The overall project examines all aspects of organic product marketing in Europe in order to develop strategies that both satisfy environmentally and ethically conscious consumers, support the development of new jobs and improve incomes in rural communities. The project focuses on the impact of Organic Marketing Initiatives (OMI) on rural development, especially in Less Favoured Areas (L.F.A). An OMI is defined as an organisation of actors (privately or co-operatively owned), involving participation of organic producers and aiming to improve the strategic marketing position of the products by adding value to the raw material through processing or marketing. In order to improve knowledge of success factors (in social and economic terms) of OMIs, 67 narrative case-study analysis were initially carried out in 40 European regions, with a special attention to the selection process (examination of highly diverse OMIs, in different geographical, cultural, agro-ecological and political contexts). In the second phase, researchers implemented a comparative, in-depth case study analysis, involving four selected OMIs located in Austria, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The in-depth case studies included interviews of internal, external and interface stakeholders.
After a brief description of the region where the OMI is located, we present the main features of the development of BioBourgogne Viande, from its origins to the present day. In a second part, the motivations, cohesion and competencies of stakeholders are analysed in a SWOT-analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats), identifying organisational learning processes through the past ten years.
Presentation of the OMI Biobourgogne Viande
Burgundy background
Burgundy (Bourgogne) is an administrative region with just under 6 per cent of national land area and with 2.75 per cent of French population. It is bordered by Lyon to the south, the Paris Basin to the north and the Nevers area in the east towards Bourges (Figure 1). In the face of the decline of a number of small industrial centres, farming has remained the expression of regional diversity. Agriculture employs almost 9 per cent of the active population, and shows signs of vitality despite continued decline in the number of holdings and an ageing rural population.
Figure 1: Location of the Burgundy (Bourgogne) region in France.
Burgundy features several distinct agricultural areas (Figure 2): the richest, in the north and on the Saône hillsides, is recognised for its vineyards. Bresse is a very wet area, late in being cleared for agriculture, dominated by poultry production. The case study of this paper is located in the south-west of the region, on the Morvan uplands, where pastures have been developed for a distinctive white breed, the Charolais suckler cattle. The decline in livestock farming and the BSE scare hit the region hard. However, meat production activities (sheep-cattle) of quality breeds (such as Charolais), which are well known to consumers, have been maintained under the Label Rouge scheme, the official quality system in France and under organic farming.
Figure 2: Dominant productions in the region Bourgogne per canton (2000).
Current state of the organic agriculture in Burgundy
Burgundy is one of the few regions in France where, in opposition to the main trend, conversion to organic farming is increasing. Suckled calf production represents a significant new conversion opportunity for organic agriculture: there are 8,000 producers with significant pasture resources. Existing production systems are already low in intensity. Moreover, economic viability could be enhanced by a relatively homogeneous commercial product based on the predominance of the Charolais breed.
Historical development of BioBourgogne Viande
The BioBourgogne Viande initiative (BBV) is part of a significant and established framework for organic production in the region called BioBourgogne. This brand was registered in 1983 by four organic producers’ associations combined in a regional Confederation of Organic Producers. The first stimulus came from organic lamb producers seeking easier access to sales outlets, and was followed by a group of producers wishing to develop organic activity for beef cattle. However, these early efforts were unpromising, with poor marketing leading to little or no premium and even trading through conventional channels, and a rapid saturation of the direct sales market. In July 1994, the original group of 30 organic beef producers established BioBourgogne Viande (BBV) on the initiative of one of the organic breeders, Philippe Cabarat, with support from the Regional Council and also from SEDARB (Service d'Eco Développement Agricole et Rural de Bourgogne) managed by André Lefèvre, who was the first organic farming advisor employed in France by a Chamber of Agriculture (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Development of BioBourgogne Viande and evolution of its environment.
At the beginning, the BBV's central activity was production and first stage marketing of finished animals, an initial step towards co-operative management of production, even though the number of producers was relatively small compared to the significant potential of the region. The original aim was to set up an organisation to collect and co-ordinate widely dispersed members' animals for slaughter, also ensuring that producers would retain control over the marketing of their livestock. From January 1995, BBV had bought three butchers' shops (at Chalon, Dijon, Nevers) and from September 1996, it developed mail order sales. During this first stage (birth of the OMI), it can be considered that BBV's primary economic objective was to build up and organise a regional "filière", or supply chain, to provide sufficient volume for its downstream customers while protecting members' interests.
At the end of 1995, BBV reached a significant agreement involving the multiple retailer Auchan, the wholesaler SELVI (slaughterer) and the Fédération Nationale de l'Agriculture Biologique (national organic producers' union). Auchan provided organic beef with "loss leader product" status, while SELVI provided an interface and quality assurance (in particular, traceability), although this precluded direct contact between Auchan and the breeders. A fixed price grid ensured good returns to producers and healthy margins for the initiative. These conditions allowed BBV to develop and handle 70 per cent of its tonnage through this channel and this three-parts agreement was held up as an example at the time.
The first BSE crisis (March 1996) disrupted the development of the initiative, with an initial drop in demand followed by an abrupt surge, which BBV could not easily accommodate. The initial agreement with SELVI was replaced by an agreement with SOVIBA, one of the biggest French meat processor groups with an established presence in the organic beef sector through a trade agreement to supply Auchan. The objectives of SOVIBA differ from those of BBV, as the former aims to demarcate quality in organic products. However, the economic rationale for the switch was overwhelming, even though the price grid was less favourable, being indexed to prices of the conventional animals (Figure 3).
More recently, the negotiated price altered to one on the basis of net of delivery to the slaughterhouse, making it possible for SOVIBA to diversify its purchases to include other producers’ groups that have started to sell organic cattle. The current situation encourages BBV to adopt a diversified marketing policy, selling to supermarkets (especially the major supermarket chain Auchan, which is critical to its future development since this channel accounts for 70 per cent of beef cattle sales), six organic butchers, one consumer co-operative (BioCoop), mail-order sales, and one wholesaler, Convivial, which specialises in frozen meat (Figure 4). Moreover, in 2002, BBV invested in processing facilities, which together with distribution facilities will allow it to consolidate its short distribution channels, as well as increasing added value from ability to sell directly to supermarkets. In the second part of its short history, BBV has to face a “growth crisis” in a difficult context: it involves currently more than 100 producers and has a 2.5 million Euro turnover.
Figure 4: The BioBourgogne Viande supply chain.
Motivations, competencies, cohesion: the learning curve of BBV
The first stage of the development of BBV was, as we saw above, a matter of creating an original model of production against a standard background (intensive farming and industrialisation). In this context, the founders created new businesses, new products and new markets through the strength of their convictions, their vision and their ability to procure the right competencies. However, BBV is now at a crossroads. To use an air-travel metaphor, after the take-off, the climb and the cruising flight, the managers need to do critical decisions and put effort to develop the concept so that a new growth period can be achieved (Figure 5).
Figure 5: The OMI strategic turning point and the air-travel metaphor
This crucial moment leads the organisation to think again its objectives and to reformulate its strategies. By using SWOT analysis, this section sets out to highlight the main changes in:
· the motivations of the OMI instigators and farmers or growers (which enables the vision and the project to overcome political, institutional and market conditions, because innovation necessarily challenges established structures);
· the competencies engaged and acquired by the OMI in carrying out the project (which are the basis for the day to day management of the OMI); and
· the strategies and cohesion necessary to implement the strategy (which both provide long-term direction and explain how and why people are motivated to follow the strategy).
Motivations
The original producers of BBV were all profoundly committed to the basic principles of organic farming. Ethical issues, such as environmental policy and regional development, were also important, with the need to obtain a decent income from farming. Initially, the anticipation was that the initiative’s main business would be in selling organic animals, and an important aspect of taking over this function was to stay in as close contact as possible with consumers. The marked team spirit and inclusive communication between the farmers, at this time, was a major contributor to success.
Nevertheless, during the period when BBV had marketing problems, particularly in achieving a good price for every animal, some members had explored other outlets through which to sell their animals, and were willing to switch to other companies if they offered a better price and contracts with a better guarantee of numbers of sales. Also, conforming to general experience, there was some criticism of decision-making in areas such as recruitment of staff or contracts made with different market partners.
Farmers interviewed raised a current dilemma, which is the need to respond to a range of different member objectives whilst retaining the high level of loyalty and commitment to the initiative, a particularly important factor of success in the original phase. There is a need to change business policy to recruit more farmer members, and in this way to increase the volume whilst remaining profitable. One possibility would be to co-operate with conventional marketing groups for selling organic beef or to incorporate new organic farmers (coming from conventional producers groups). But pioneer producers who are more ethical in orientation and value independence and a specific identity, might not accept this balance between pragmatism and principle. In other words, adhering strongly to their initial idealism might reduce membership to the loyal core and slow down the economic development.
Competencies
The ambition of the founders of the initiative was to create a business which would develop along the entire food chain, which would have greater chances of success than the development of a minority organic line within conventional marketing systems. This indicates a certain level of professional pride in being farmers and working entirely within an organic system, as this gives them potential to concentrate in developing organic farming and breeding methods.
Three types of competencies have been developed:
- Technical competencies: the initial steps were to organise the collection of organic cattle in the region. BBV developed a good know-how, well recognised by stakeholders (producers, retailers). Nevertheless, in the current state of organic meat supply, some weaknesses become problematic. For example, the supply base is scattered, and currently slaughtering and processing is spread between five locations, so unit costs of production are high. Due to the net of delivery price conditions imposed by SOVIBA, BBV has to work harder to retain members’ loyalty. Moreover, BBV does not use a quality-based carcass valuation system (unlike the conventional meat sector) and, thus, loses the opportunity to use incentives for members to improve quality.
- Marketing competencies: with regard to the longer supply chain, since they were the first initiative that produced organic meat, long established experience provides them with competence for selling organic meat. During the climbing period, the volume of organic sales through supermarkets increased, so to heighten the profile of the group with customers, opening retail outlets were seen as a solution to the difficulty of expanding direct sales off farm premises. The BSE crisis provided BBV with the opportunity to retain and extend contacts with customers, by reacting more flexibly to special requirements, such as those of the catering sector, and specialist butchery of lighter carcasses. In the short supply chain, farmers have direct contact with distributors and consumers, and can make use of an established collective brand to differentiate their products. The business has adapted to the specific requirements of organic retail sales by investing in their own outlets. The state of art technical facilities in the Avallon unit allows for specialist to maximise the value obtained from light carcasses. More importantly, it is the base for development of direct marketing by cutting and packing meat, which is returned to the farm for sale; it also supports mail order sales and development of the catering market, especially to regional speciality restaurants, in partnership with the “Producteurs Bio de Bourgogne” organisation.
- Managerial competencies: during the first stage of its development, BBV used a "group approach" to improve technical knowledge of cattle breeding as well as sharing information on market developments. The difficult and expensive learning period involved in establishing retail butcheries was handled collectively. Little by little, members have all learned what the meat business is. Because they have shared this learning period, all involved have experience of and respect for each other's roles. Initial management by members of the initiative was based on a personal network and strong solidarity. A drawback was the drain of time and energy caused by the need for the same person to fulfil different functions, Currently, BBV is trying to learn how to manage the processing unit in Avallon. This type of management is no longer efficient; each employee needs a clear professional role if coherence in its functioning is to be achieved. Despite production expertise and knowledge of the market, management faces challenges in two respects: firstly, the administrative board, comprising representatives of the members, has problems of consistency and flexibility in decision-making ; secondly, work organisation is far from optimal, with unclear roles and responsibilities (no professional manager), differences in approach between the controlling core of members and employees, and a predominance of part-time staff (no specialised staff work).
The gradual acquisition of expertise from learning by doing, skilful use of support mechanisms (both financial and informational) and strong personal commitment from the several farmers involved have led BBV to the present stage. Whilst making best use of all available resources, they have not had enough money to pay professional salaries for their management and skilled butchery workers. The present situation is satisfactory but may not be sufficient to remain competitive while still adhering to their ethical objectives. Major outstanding questions concern whether the inclusive learning process can continue, the necessity to make their work more professional, especially the main farmers involved in the business activities; the potential for development of strategic alliances with other farmer groups which is complementary and of mutual benefit; and the extent of future diversification of market activities in attractive areas, like gastronomy or the delivery service in a cost-effective manner.
Cohesion
BBV is a good example of "learning by doing". Indeed, since the vision and the project take precedence over a classical strategic analysis, the founders/instigators first have to make the most of the skills already present at the outset and then acquire, in one way or another (learning, recruitment, subcontracting, alliance), those skills that are lacking. An important component in getting past this strategic turning point is the analysis of the internal and external cohesion which will make the decisions to be taken possible or impossible. We make a distinction between internal cohesion (which holds together the internal stakeholders of the OMI, i.e. the producers and employees) and external cohesion, which is evidence of support from external stakeholders.
a) Internal cohesion
In the early period of the initiative, one of the main contributory factors to success was the farmers' voluntary ability to co-operate, pooling their energy and knowledge for a common goal. As mentioned several times, the basis of the BBV was developed around a few key individuals. As a result of the experience gained, these core actors in the initiative have become multi-talented businessmen, working simultaneously as farmers or advisors. At the beginning, farmer members were more united and shared common objectives. Commitment to the company depended on personal relationships between farmers, with frequent discussions, daily contacts and joint decision-making. This gave a strong base to run the business together. This foundation, has enabled it to weather crises (such as the BSE crisis in 2000). Some interviewees believed that members’ objectives still coincided with those expressed through the initiative, although others perceived a growing gap between personal objectives and the collective orientation. Inevitably, through time, relations will change between people, especially in a dynamic state of development such as experienced by the BBV, and decisions need to be made between choices for future development :
- on one hand, because outside the initiative potential members are waiting to see which way they are going. Within other market organisations, there are farmers either converting to organic farming, or considering whether to convert. They may join the BBV if it is attractive enough for them, particularly in relation to the prospect that the conventional marketing organisations that they currently belong to may start their own organic product line.
- on the other hand, within the initiative there is tension between the core group worried about the diminishing of the ethical objectives of the organic movement, and those members whose interest is in having a profitable business and who emphasise more concentration on direct selling, supplying caterers and increasing the number of their own retail butchers and special shops. In this situation of future uncertainty, personal ties between farmers became more important, with each group trying to convince the other of the preferred direction for development.
The critical question now is whether the BBV can deal with this changing situation in such a way that they maintain current cohesion between members whilst at the same time expand by taking in new members.
b) External cohesion
i. Interface bodies
Interactions between the BBV and the different state authorities have always been good, due to the result of excellent personal relationships. SEDARB (Service d’Eco Développement Agricole et Rural de Bourgogne) has played a key role in the development of organic agriculture in Bourgogne by expanding and organising organic production both downstream and upstream (especially the organic cereals and meat sectors). Supported by public funds, it played the central role in co-ordinating organic cattle supplies for SELVI to meet the original requirements of the major supermarket chain Auchan. Further development of the BBV arose from the recruitment of new members conforming to the criteria of SEDARB and the development of market capacity. Although SEDARB continues to delegate activities to producer initiatives, it continues to support some of the BBV employment costs, with the participation of the state programme supporting work for young people. The DRAF (Regional Directorate for Agriculture and Forests) is the main source of public support for development of organic farming, with a strategy to integrate organic agriculture in schemes for agricultural development. DRAF supports promotion of organic cattle breeding by part-financing technical support to specialised organic meat producers. It has subsidised the investment costs of the processing unit in Avallon and uses national and European sources to contribute half of its employment costs.
The current (and future) situation is quite different: first of all, due to the development of organic production, there is competition between SEDARB and the traditional structures for public financial support for agriculture, especially where conventional co-operatives are very influential. SEDARB is concerned about being absorbed into the administrative structures of the Agricultural Chambers. Moreover, BBV supporters and other institutional actors are also waiting for the next phase of development («our baby was born and now it should be grown-up and fend for itself..") implying that all possible public support had been given and it is up to the BBV to take it forward and produce results. Now, new stakeholders can legitimately claim to receive subsidies.
ii. Horizontal cohesion
If the current turning point for the initiative requires growth, one way of achieving it is by acquiring new partners, in particular among the conventional groups of the region. Currently, many more of their members are converting to organic farming, allowing them to fulfil increasing demand from downstream customers. As mentioned above, linkages with conventional producer groups in the area are relatively weak, mainly because of a long-standing cultural difference: both conventional marketing groups and the BBV aim to make the best returns from selling organic beef on behalf of their members, although the former deal with the organic meat as a niche product, whereas the latter place more emphasis on the ethical values of products and on an alternative model for the agriculture. In development of a specifically organic food chain, there is a need to maintain the resolute cohesion between the supplying members with respect to production standards, but at the same time extending the sphere of operation through Cupertino and alliances. This may explain the cautious approach with regard to a contract with a conventional group: this type of alliance might bring, along with growth from new sales, lower unit costs for the initiative and greater attractiveness for new members. Conversely, if the BBV remains isolated, other regional structures (recently approved for sales of certified organic animals and with lower costs than the BBV) will develop their organic beef sector and may become vigorous competitors. Potential for marketing almost all of the organic beef of the region will be lost, falling back to nearer 50 per cent.
iii. Vertical cohesion
During the first stage of the development of the BBV, relations with the industrial group SOVIBA and the multiple retailers Auchan were once very favourable for the producers of the initiative: the BBV exclusively supplied Auchan with organic beef from Bourgogne, and the purchasing prices were based on an annual fixed price grid. More recently, this favourable situation has deteriorated: the organic beef market has grown out of niche status, and competition for sales is becoming vigorous. The BBV now has to operate within the norms of the general marketing framework. Retained earnings from the buoyant period of growth in sales have been invested in the infrastructure of retail butchers and the processing unit in Avallon. These investments were made largely as a result of deteriorating relations with SOVIBA. Also, Auchan wish to be less involved in a structure where economic control remains strongly linked to collective action, and consequently it has provided SOVIBA exclusive rights regarding supply of organic meat. This decision illustrates the critical perspective of Auchan on the strategy of the BBV “wanting to control everything” and to take on new functions of downstream involvement, such as processing. SOVIBA currently has a quasi-monopoly on the market for organic beef from suckler herds, preventing commercial involvement of enterprises like the Avallon facility in central national buying structures for multiple retailers, and also with catering chains. This near-absolute dependence on SOVIBA as its main long supply chain outlet and loss of its more profitable relationship with SELVI are clear threats for BBV.
After the crossroads, which strategies?
Our opinion is that development of longer supply chains could be aided by collaboration with local conventional organisations, particularly in order to reduce operating costs the BBV may be a collaboration with a regional producer and industrial groups rather than national industrial conglomerates. A majority of the organic producers of Burgundy, whose objectives tend towards expansion, might support such a contract with a conventional group, and opponents (pioneer producers) might change their views if the financial outcome were to be positive. An alternative way would be to collaborate with organic producer groups located in other regions, within the framework of the national organic producers’ organisation, Eleveurs Bio de France. This would provide a stronger position from which to negotiate with SOVIBA, although the appropriate position for negotiation with supermarkets would then be at national rather than regional level.
Although clearly long supply chains depend on large multiple retailers, dependence on a single major purchaser is limiting, and the BBV could find alternatives, particularly in retailers with less centralised procurement, such as the independent group Leclerc. Moreover, sales through other channel might be developed (Convivial/forequarter sales) or initiated (export sales of organic grass-fed calves to Italy) in order to diversify the set of customers.
Further development of shorter supply channels and maintaining value-added through local processing could come from extension of the customer base to the major adjacent conurbations of Paris and Lyon. This might be done through developing new agreements with specialist organic shops (BioCoop), or further development of the initiative’s own retail outlets. There is a target to increase sales to the catering sector to 20 per cent of turnover, and there are attractive opportunities in terms of developing the market in regional speciality restaurants, itself a device in the longer term to improve customer loyalty. The means of achieving this could be through Producteurs Bio Bourgogne, as a broader range of products could be sold in collaboration. This could provide the lever for significant improvement in merchandising.
Conclusions
The BBV, the main French OMI involved in meat marketing, provide a good example of what could be called «the organisation cycle theory”. By using a qualitative approach (in depth case-study), we highlight the importance of a historical perspective in order to identify the success (and failure) factors [Table 1].
Table 1: SWOT (Strengths – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats) analysis of BioBourgogne Viande.
The initial aim of BBV was to organise the collection of organic cattle in the Burgundy region, and then to improve marketing in favour of well-organised shorter supply channels (at first within the region itself), keeping close direct contact between producers and consumers (or at least, final retailers). Subsequent developments have had the aim of serving producers’ interests, by being specialised, to better defend the values related to organic farming, and by remaining independent from conventional organisations (many organic farmers have now taken advantage of the opportunity to market outside conventional structures). The impact of the BBV on the development of this LFA region can be judged as positive. Improvement of commercial organic beef production has encouraged and facilitated the conversion of Charolais beef breeders, and farms in financial difficulties have been enabled to survive. In addition, the organic distribution centre in Avallon, from which a special delivery service is organised, facilitates direct marketing of products, also supporting breeders to maintain their farms in business. The BBV has created employment in economically unfavourable and fragile zones, such as the slaughterhouse in Autun and the retail butchers it has established in four districts. More generally, its contribution to maintaining other local commercial activities is not insignificant.
Nevertheless, the enterprise itself is vulnerable to foreclosure of accounts, particularly if the overall economic environment weakens or becomes harder (high competition). When demand of organic meat was higher than supply, producers have taken advantage of that situation. Currently, the position is the reverse and, as a result, the BBV needs to focus more on partnership rather than attempting to exploit competitive struggles between downstream operators. This requires a reduction in the initiative’s operating costs (only partly due to the scattered nature of supply) in order to continue to remunerate its producers beyond that offered by other producer groups. If initial competencies in organising the production and sale of organic cattle have been maintained, in new areas the farmers involved in BBV have to extend these skills either through continuing education, or by employing competent staff top work with them. The major deficiencies in this respect relate to retail and commercial management (particularly problems of bad results of shop customers) and the difficulties of irregular sales through the mail order service and the development of the regional gastronomy sales to restaurants. Expertise is also needed for the financial management and capitalisation of the recent investment in Avallon, and in employment and management of the staff for the functioning of this unit.
In a changing environment, the BBV is clearly involved in a process of dynamic development (as the investment in processing facilities proves it). At this crucial moment of its life, members needs to think again about their objectives and to reformulate their strategies to pass the crossroads and continue their work successfully. We hope that the analysis carried out within the framework of the OMIaRD project will be useful for the BBV managers.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge Carolyn Foster and Peter Midmore (from University of Wales - Aberystwyth ) for their valuable contribution in the framework of the program OMIaRD and for their assistance in the revision of the paper.
Current practice and prospects of oraganic livestock production in Greece
G. Arsenos, P. Fortomaris, G. Banos and D. Zygoyiannis
Department of Animal Husbandry, School of Veterinary Medicine
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Introduction
The science and practice of livestock production is changing towards sustainable systems with emphasis on animal health and welfare as well as food safety and quality. Organic systems of livestock production have developed to meet the concerns of society for good health and welfare required by farm animals that yield milk and meat as well as the need for safer and healthier products (Surdrum, 2001; Lund and Rocklinsberg, 2001). Since the commencement of organic practices in livestock production, a large volume of information has been published on husbandry practices, health and welfare of animals and the economic viability of such systems of production. The numbers of articles that appear in scientific journals and are related to organic livestock production increase rapidly every year (Wilson, 2002, Lund and Algers, 2003). Moreover, the scientific community is devoting an increasing proportion of activities associated with themes regarding organic production. However, organic production involves many disciplines that must be integrated and there are major differences, particularly in the way that the organic livestock sector is run between different countries (Meeker, 1999, Hermansen, 2003).
Although the idea of organic production has existed from the begging of the last century and has been applied with great success in other European countries, for at least two decades, in Greece it has only recently become the focus of significant attention from governmental and private organisations, consumers and farmers. Regardless of the absence of a long-established consumer market for organic products in Greece, the idea of conversion of existing production systems to organic ones has proven useful and financially rewarding. In 2000, there were a relatively small number of organic farms in Greece. The country has 24,800 hectares of organic farmland representing 0.71 percent of total farmland, one of the lowest percentages in Europe. In contrast, its southern European neighbours, Spain and Italy, have combined 1.38 million hectares of organic farmland, accounting for 38 percent of all organic farmland in Europe. (Duchateau, 2003).
Livestock production in Greece has always been an important sector of agriculture and its development has always been a priority of agricultural policies. It accounts for about 30% of the total value of the agricultural sector. Operating within a continuously changing socio-economic environment, the agricultural sector is gradually losing its relative importance. However, it is still a key factor of the Greek economy employing 17% of the working force and accounting for 6.5% of GDP. According to a recent classification of the Greek agricultural holdings, 75.1% of them are related to crop production, 1.3% are livestock enterprises and the remaining 23.6% are mixed type crop-livestock enterprises (Kaldis and Galanopoulos, 2002).
The aim of this paper is to discuss the current practice and the future of organic livestock production in Greece. In our view, organic livestock production, although currently in an embryonic stage in Greece, will show a rapid growth in the next decade. For this reason, our intention is to identify and integrate basic and useful information and to provide a starting point for those interested in organic livestock production in Greece. A brief description of organic legislation as well as organic certification organisations forms the first part of the paper. In the remainder of the paper, we consider existing evidence on the application of organic theory to livestock enterprises in Greece. We recognise that the available information is somewhat general. However, we will use it as a reference point from which to make objective suggestions for possible changes to some of the problems that exist and are likely to constrain the potential for future development of organic livestock enterprises in Greece.
Organic legislation and certification organisations in Greece
Organic legislation (e.g. EC 2092/91, EC1804/99) is a process-oriented discipline. Being process oriented, it provides a conceptual framework within which animals should be raised and a formal set of rules that direct the certification of livestock enterprises. In Greece, the Department of organic production in the Ministry of Agriculture is the governing authority (see Figure 1 for detail) for all aspects of organic production in Greece. It was established in 1993 according to the EC 2092/91 directive, and deals with the implementation of the EU regulations into Greek laws, allocation of subsidies, supervision of certification organisations and other issues of organic production. In addition, a financially and administratively independent organisation was established in 1998 by the Ministry of Agriculture to deal with the certification of a series of quality labels and to take over some tasks of the Department of Organic Production. It was named as “Organisation for Certification and Supervision of Agricultural Products", which was abbreviated to AGROCERT. A third public entity governed by private law is the National Accreditation Council that assesses whether the services provided by the organic inspection and certification organisations are in line with EU regulations and standards. There are also three private organic certification and inspection organisations that have only recently (March, 2002) been officially accredited by the Greek Government to certify organic meat and dairy products (Greek Ministry of Agriculture, 2003). They are: DIO, BIOHELLAS (previously known as SOGE) and PHYSIOLOGIKI. All three organisations can operate at national level and each one has a particular label (Figure 1).
The above private organic certification organisations have played a very important role in the development of the organic sector in Greece since the commencement of their activities in 1993 (DIO and SOGE) and 1994 (for PHYSIOLOGIKI). They have been very effective in defining standards for production, processing and direct marketing. In addition, they have helped to raise consumers' awareness and confidence in organic foods and in so doing contributed to the overall development of the organic sector. They showed a multidisciplinary activity by publishing magazines and books on organic farming, organising seminars for informing and educating organic producers and those interested in converting to organic production, about recent developments in that sector of agriculture (Van der Smissen, 2000). In our view it is essential to ensure that the services of certification organisations can cope with present and future demand and to ensure that high standards of advice provision are maintained. Therefore, it is essential in terms of staffing, to have skilled and qualified personnel.
Figure 1. Organic accreditation and inspection organisations in Greece
State support and subsidies for organic enterprises
In 2001, the Greek government issued a program covering the period between 2001-2006, which aimed at the development of organic production with particular emphasis in livestock production (Greek Ministry of Agriculture, 2001). The program entitled “Rural Development Program” combines legislation with subsidy payments. The aim is to strengthen the competitiveness of agriculture (both organic and conventional) and to promote the sustainable development of rural areas. The budget of the program is estimated at 2,686 million euros allocated at four priority areas:
1. Encouraging young people to take over holding from those taking early retirement (1,150 million euros);
2. Providing support for farmers in mountain or less favoured areas (996 million euros);
3. Agro-environment measures, i.e., countryside and bio-diversity and conservation of endangered animal species (400 million euros); and
4. Restoration of agricultural land, expansion of holding and organic farming (164 million euros).
Within the above program a sub-program entitled “Organic farming” has also been implemented. The program is focusing particularly in the following areas (Greek Ministry of Agriculture, 2001):
· organic farming;
· reduction of nitrate pollution;
· land set-aside;
· preservation of local cattle breeds;
· extensification of agricultural activities;
· implementation of an environmental management system;
· extensification of livestock production;
· combating erosion of slopes; and
· managing six different Natura 2000 regions.
The average financial subsidies to conventional livestock farmers that convert to organic production, for the first time, are shown in Table 1:
Table 1. Planned average payments for conventional livestock farmers in Greece that convert to organic production, for the first time
As shown in Table 1, priority is given to organic sheep, goat, beef and pig production. Further, those investing in the organic farming sector in Greece are also eligible for subsidies from the Development Law 2601/98 that was introduced in April 1998 and covers organic farming businesses as well as processing, packaging or preserving agricultural products, construction of building facilities, purchase of automation systems, etc. The minimum amount of investment to establish or expand businesses is set at 88,000 euros and for modernising an existing plant at 29,350 euros, under the condition that the financial participation of the investor will not be lower than 40% of the total investment (ELKE, 2000).
According to existing evidence (Van der Smissen, 2000), organic agriculture has rapidly expanded since its official establishment, with annual growth rates of between 50 percent and 120 percent, slowing down to 20-30% in 1999-2000. Table 2 shows the projected allocation of organic farms within the “Organic farming” program (Greek Ministry of Agriculture, 2001):
Table 2. Area allocation of organic farms fro the period from 2001 to 2006
We believe that the introduction of such programs will certainly increase the number of organic livestock enterprises. However, the question is whether this increase will provide a firm basis for a longer-term development or will evaporate after the end of the program subsidies.
Current structure of livestock production in Greece
Greece is a country with varied geoclimatic conditions in a relatively small territory. The fact that the majority of the country is characterized of mountain regions influenced the differentiated structures of livestock enterprises. In the course of the historical development sheep and goat production has been the core of livestock production from an economic and social point of view. However, a certain development policy has never defined and put into practice (Vallerand et al. 2001). The use of cattle for meat and milk production was much less important. A significant increase in pig and poultry enterprises together with a significant increase in the consumption of pork and chicken meat has been manifested only in the past 30 years. The significant increase in the consumption of such meat has been largely the result of intense advertising campaigns that were launched in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
Over the last few years, efforts have been aimed at the development of organic livestock production in Greece (Dimitriou, 2002, Papatheodorou, 2002, Wright et al. 2002). However, existing data of the Greek Ministry of Agriculture do not contain specific organic figures and it is impossible to compare the structure of organic holdings with conventional ones. Most of the existing data are based on information available by organic certification organisations. The Greek organic certification organisations, DIO, BIOHELLAS, and PHYSIOLOGIKI suggest that there are now about 1200 organic livestock enterprises in Greece. Table 3 shows the number of animals that, according to available data from the above organic certification organisations are reared organically.
Table 3. Numbers of organically reared livestock* in Greece in 2002.
As shown in Table 3 Greece has been far behind other European countries in this sector. So how could a breakthrough happen and such systems become wide spread rather than the isolated exception? In the following sections of this paper we will attempt to look into practical problems and the weaknesses of organic production systems under Greek conditions.
Socio-economic aspects of livestock systems in Greece
Greece has about 10.62 million inhabitants of which 40% comprise the rural population. According to that latest statistics, a significant part, around 17% of the country’s work force is employed in the agricultural sector (the allocation of the rest is 22.5% in industry manufacturing and 60.5% in services), whereas the European average (EU-15) was only 4.3%. In Greece there are currently 800.000 holdings on 3.5 million hectares that are being cultivated. It is also important to note that Greece is far from achieving self-sufficiency in products of animal origin (National Statistical Services of Greece, 2002). For example, demands for beef and pig meat are covered only to a very limited extent (Table 4).
Table 4. Self-sufficiency rates of products of animal origin in Greece (2002).
It is not easy to quantify the precise level of the economic contribution of the organic sector in Greek agricultural income due to the overlap with conventional activities (Hadjigeorgiou et al, 1998). A recent study focused on the socio-economic aspects of sheep and goat conventional farming in Greece (Zioganas et al. 2001). The results showed that the majority of small ruminant enterprises are small in size with a long-established traditional way of life. There are 151,000 families involved exclusively in sheep production and 174,000 families involved in goat production. It is difficult to estimate the precise numbers of those involved exclusively in organic livestock production in Greece because all the available information is not based on official data.
Organic livestock production systems: From theory to practice
Animal health and welfare
Health and welfare of animals reared under organic systems of production are subject to official and obligatory standards. It is evident from the way the organic standards are expressed that the overall aim is to maintain high animal health and welfare status of organic livestock by measures such as appropriate selection of breeds and strains, a balanced high quality diet and a favourable environment. Also suffering of the animals during the production, transport, handling and slaughtering stages should be reduced to a minimum. The application of current organic standards to livestock production systems has been the focus of interest by several research groups throughout Europe. During the last few years, various projects in organic systems have been carried out and there are already proposals on how specific issues should be addressed to improve animal health and welfare in such systems (see reviews by Athanasiadou et al. 2002, Hovi et al. 2003).
It is not our intention to repeat the findings of these studies. However, it is interesting that most researchers acknowledging the complexity of both identifying and assessing welfare problems in such systems. Hence, they use as guidance the experience from conventional ones (Roderick and Hovi, 1999; Bartussek, 2000; Gray and Hovi, 2001, Alroe et al. 2001; Athanasiadou et al. 2002). The approach that we have adopted to address animal health and welfare issues in organic livestock production systems, in Greece, is a systematic one and is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Flow diagram showing the basic determinants of animal health and welfare in organic livestock production systems.
As shown in Figure 2, animal health and welfare comprise the starting point as well as the overall outcome of various interacting parameters. We see both as being directly associated with the husbandry practices followed in the organic enterprise and its characteristics whereas at the same time form a basic condition for organic justification.
Organic livestock in Greece includes beef and dairy cattle, dairy sheep and goats, pigs and poultry. With regard to animal welfare the development of organic livestock enterprises requires some basic changes in husbandry practices of organic livestock whilst transport and the structure of slaughterhouses. Issues such as time spent at transport, animal handling facilities and methods (including loading and unloading), design and construction of slaughterhouses, and slaughtering procedures should be addressed in detail. There are serious warnings by the European commission regarding the welfare of farm animals in Greece (EC DG (SANCO)/1060/2000). For example, the majority of existing slaughterhouses do not have the appropriate infrastructure and only a small number conform to quality standards imposed by EU legislation (EC DG-SANGO-8644/2002).
Organic livestock production systems
Among the animals used in organic systems, ruminants have a special role in organic farming because they can operate without significant input from external sources; they can be based on grazing and also provide farm manure, which is particularly desirable in organic practice (Sundrum, 2001; Hermansen, 2003). In this respect, organic ruminant production systems seem the most promising enterprises. The notion is that the introduction of organic practice will bring greater efficiency in small livestock enterprises in the Mediterranean (Wright et al. 2002, Kanteres and Papadopoulos, 2002, Ronchi and Nardone, 2003). However, dissatisfaction about the rate of development of organic agriculture in Greece has become evident between farmers (Dimitriou, 2002).
Among the animals used in organic farms in Greece, there are obvious differences in appearance, size and production levels, according to evidence mainly from conventional systems, between and within different breeds (Zygoyiannis et al. 1997, Zygoyiannis et al. 1999, Ligda et al. 2002, Kanteres and Papadopoulos, 2002). Indeed, the question that arises is how indigenous breeds or their crosses differ in efficiency of production under organic systems. We suggest that knowledge of this is essential for the effective design and implementation of management strategies in organic systems. Where relevant information is available, resistance to disease should be also taken into consideration over productivity when breeding decisions are made. We will elaborate on possible answers with regard to organic sheep and goat production systems in Greece.
Sheep and goats
As mentioned in the Introduction section the small ruminant enterprises comprise the majority of organic livestock enterprises in Greece, but in general, the numbers of organically reared livestock have been much lower than the average levels in the EE of 15 (Häring, 2003). The situation in Greece is different, with the organic sector of animal production being the least pronounced. Therefore, there is plenty of room for growth available for the development of organic livestock enterprises. The latter is particularly important for dairy sheep and goat enterprises where Greece has a strong tradition. Both sheep and goats in Greece are reared mainly as dairy animals with meat production being considered as a by-product of lactation (Zygoyiannis, 1994, Zygoyiannis et al. 1997, 1999).
However, before assessing the possibilities for conversion to organic it is necessary to understand the current structure of small ruminant enterprises in Greece. For example, some of the indigenous Greek dairy breeds of sheep are considerably small in size and have very low milk yields whereas there are also breeds larger in size and with much higher milk yield. There are about 9.3 million dairy sheep in Greece (FAOSTAT, 2001) reared mainly under the semi-extensive system. The wide range in flock size and associated differences in management strategies has a significant influence on the options for change. The majority of sheep (98%) belong to indigenous Greek dairy breeds and only about 2% are crosses with foreign breeds. Crossbreeding is widely practiced either within the available indigenous breeds and, to increase milk yield potential, to the indigenous Chios breed or to the imported East Friesland breed or the Lacaunne breed. Sheep and goat systems are characterised by overriding priority for milk production and by the traditional preferences for lamb meat from early-weaned lambs. Sheep production covers the domestic needs for milk and 84% of the needs for sheep meat (Zygoyiannis 1994, Zygoyiannis et al. 1997). The gross income from sheep production is 49% of the total livestock production and 15% of the agricultural production. There are also 5.3 million dairy goats reared in Greece of which more than 70% belong to the indigenous Greek dairy breed Capra prisca (Hadjigeorgiou et al. 1998). Current systems of sheep and goat production are classified as (i) home fed, (ii) intensive and (iii) Extensive with or without transhumance.
The potential of indigenous Greek dairy breeds of sheep and goats to produce high quality meat with environmentally friendly methods of production has been confirmed in a series of studies (Zygoyiannis et al. 1995, Zygoyiannis et al. 1999, Arsenos et al. 2000, Stamataris et al. 2001, Arsenos et al. 2002). Taking account of these results, further experiments begun to consider sensitive approaches to nematode parasite control in sustainable systems for sheep and goat production. A recent study (Papadopoulos et al. 2002) assessed the extent of gastrointestinal parasitism in indigenous Greek dairy breeds of sheep and goats reared under traditional production systems, which are characterised by a relative long dry season. The results showed that sheep were more susceptible to nematode infection than goats, which did not have high faecal egg counts (FEC) and seemed not to urgently need any anthelmintic treatment at all. The later is in accordance with previous statements (Papadopoulos et al. 2001) that drought and isolation are likely to be the major factors accounting for the development of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes in sheep and goat flocks in Greece.
Currently it seems that sheep and goat production in Greece is going through a period of rival with many young people setting up new farms with elite livestock. Considering the current practices of sheep and goat production and the status of those involved in such enterprises it seems that conversion to organic provides a unique opportunity to establish them on quite different social and economic status from the very beginning. The continuously increasing numbers of those following organic practices represent a dynamic that has to be supported to flourish further. It has been stated that sheep and goat husbandry practices in Greece are very close to organic production, a fact that allows for quick conversion (Dimitriou, 2002). We see the small ruminant sector as the most suitable for organic conversion that offers an excellent opportunity to the farmers to increase their income not only in terms of product value, but also in relation to current CAP subsidy regulations that has allocated in Greece 11,023,000 rights (14.5% of the total) for small ruminants. It is important that such potential is understood in association with its likely positive impact on rural communities. The notion is that keeping sheep and goats in mountain and sub-mountain regions is a suitable practice of maintenance of extensively reared livestock and hence utilising agricultural land which otherwise would lie fallow subject to erosion (Ronchi and Nardone, 2003).
Cattle production
The indigenous Greek breeds of cattle are under extinction and the most commonly used animals are their crosses with imported breeds (Ligda et al. 2002). The crossing of the indigenous breeds with foreign breeds was aimed to improve their production traits. The breeds that exerted the greatest influence in this respect were the Brown Switz, the Simmental and the Limousin. The gene pool of the indigenous breeds began to be utilised by that of the foreign breeds and their crosses forced out the indigenous local breeds. The increase of crossbred generation was a consequence of the absence of any controlled program in reproduction. At present Greece holds some 141,606 rights, from CAP subsidies, for extensively reared beef cattle. It is the existence of subsidies that offered space for maintaining such livestock enterprises, which in our view do not deviate from the organic standards. Therefore, conversion into organic of existing herds that are characterised by extensive husbandry conditions with low cost and compliance with ecological requirements, is a simple step process. There are also suggestions regarding the preservation of landscape values and maintenance of rural communities by using organic cattle production systems as prototypes of sustainable production systems (Phillips and Sorensen, 1993, Häring, 2003, Ronchi and Nardone, 2003). In our view, the problems that should be resolved regarding such systems are associated with the handling of animals, permanent identification, and transport to slaughterhouses. Also, issues of preservation of the remaining population of indigenous cattle should be seriously considered in the future policies regarding organic cattle systems in Greece.
Pig production
The organic pig enterprises are similar to those of extensively reared beef cattle, with small family based holdings. It is remarkable that herds of pigs reared under extensive husbandry conditions existed in Greece from the early years of Greek history as described in Homer’s Odyssey. At present the most common practice is outdoor housing with wild pigs and their crosses reared in forest of chestnut and oak trees or in farms located in mountainous areas. There are about 15 Certified organic farms. The produced meat is sold either directly by the farmers of through local butchers. Although the demand for such meat is relatively high we are concerned whether organic pig production in Greece is a promising activity. However, our projection is that the number of new organic farms will increase substantially in the near future mainly due to the introduction of specific subsidies.
Poultry production
Poultry production is one of the most developed sectors of animal production in Greece with medium and large-scale enterprises. In addition, poultry rearing in Greece is not concentrated only in medium and large scale enterprises but there are households that keep small numbers of laying hens and their number form a substantial proportion in the production. The latter has been described as “the Greek smallholder poultry model” which is a rather complex operation and focuses on the production of table eggs and broiler chicken meat (Yannakopoulos et al. 2003). Considering the current status of organically reared poultry (numbers shown in Table 3), and the dynamic of existing conventional enterprises in Greek agriculture we project that the organic ones will develop in a similar pattern to the organic pig enterprises.
Problems and practicalities
In our view an assessment of disease and production levels of organic livestock in Greece is essential. For example, the bulk tank somatic cell counts (SCC) would be an excellent indicator of milk quality (economic outcome) and incidence of sub clinical mastitis (biological outcome). Also periodic assessment of body condition score is a very good measure of nutritional status of animals. However, to our knowledge there are neither accurate estimates of disease incidence on organic farms nor a comprehensive recording system applied across even a small number of organic farms. These problems will be discussed in detail below.
Pilot study
Before making assumptions about the current status and the future prospects of organic livestock production, in the absence of firm evidence, it is necessary to have some background information about existing practices in Greek livestock enterprises. For this reason we held a series of informative discussions with farmers and key representatives of organic certification organisations and of course those associated with organic and conventional livestock production in Greece, including dairies, abattoirs, food processing units, wholesalers, importers, traditional butchers and supermarkets.
A questionnaire was sent to organic livestock producers in January 2003. The farmers had been selected according to information provided by the existing organic certification organizations. The aim of this pilot study was to gain a general idea of current status of organic livestock enterprises in Greece, particularly ruminant production systems. The questionnaire was structured in five sections with simple questions regarding (i) general information about the farmer, (ii) type of animals and husbandry practices, (iii) type of buildings, (i) feeding practices and preventive measures and health management. A total number of 100 questionnaires were sent and 38 were returned. Further to the questionnaire we also visited some organic sheep and goat farms located in Nothern Greece and discussed with farmers about the problems they encounter in every day practice.
Although this pilot study suffers from the small number of responders it is interesting that the majority of those who responded expressed their concern about the lack of continuous advice and technical support and the shortage of veterinary consultation, which is mainly due to the very small number of vets involved in the Greek organic certification organisations (Arsenos and Zygoyiannis 2002). Farmers that were willing to convert to organic production methods expressed their concerns about possible economic losses. The reported health problems and treatment practices were not different to those encountered in other countries (Roderick and Hovi 1999, Thamsborg et al. 1999). The dominant figures in most of the farms were mastitis of dairy sheep and high levels of mortality of newborn lambs and kids (in some cases >30%) whereas parasitism did not seem to be an important problem. In many cases farmers were not aware of what is permitted and what not, as either information was not available or they did not know how to access it. The other important finding was the remarkable low prices of milk and meat produced, which were similar to those of conventionally produced meat and milk. The average price for milk was 0.85 euro/lit for ewe’s milk and 0,53 euro/lit for goat milk. The average price for meat was 4.4 euro for lamb meat and 3.81 euro for meat of kids. The reply to queries about the low prices was that those producers have specific contracts with small dairies that collect the milk and in return provide the farms with feedstuffs in reduced prices, veterinary services and advice. These enterprises were also subscribed to the same organic certification authority.
The Greek market for organic products
Supply and demand of organic livestock products
Livestock enterprises operate in a world governed by economics. Supply in economic terms, refers to the quantity of a product that the farmers are willing to produce at a certain price. On the other hand, demand refers to the quantity of a product that consumers are willing to purchase at a certain price. The notion is that the more something costs, the less of it a consumer will buy (Slenning, 2001).
Organic farming is widely perceived to be a "good thing" and the increasing numbers of those choosing to purchase organic foods represents a way of registering their positive support to organic systems of animal production. It should also be noted here that food safety and quality are of great importance to consumer’s interest (Kouba, 2003).
To maintain the credibility of organic products it is self-evident that the adoption of hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP) should start from down to farm level (Kouba, 2003).
During the last decade the demand for organic products has risen sharply across Europe revealing public concern about food safety and quality, environmental effects of intensive agriculture and animal welfare (Sundrum, 2001; Hermansen, 2003). However, organic animal products are something new for the Greek market and hence demand is low. They are usually sold through specialised organic food shops that exist even in small cities as well as in weekly outdoor markets in big cities. Organised distribution networks not only import organic products but also export Greek organic products mostly to the UK and Germany. Products exported, are mainly dairy products (cheese and yoghurts).
Processing and trading of organic products
The food processing industry in Greece constitutes the most important sub-sector of the domestic industry. It accounts for about 2.6% of the national GDP employing almost sixty thousand people. The typical characteristic of the industry is small firms (less than 10 employees) with very few large companies. Unfortunately, there are no detailed data available regarding the number of such enterprises engaged particularly in processing organic food. The number is estimated at around 300 and has a continually rising trend. The majority are small size firms targeting at local markets (Kaldis and Galanopoulos, 2002; Duchateau, 2003). Kaldis and Galanopoulos (2002) stated that the marketing of Greek agricultural products is not always up to the standard expected by present day consumers Deficiencies are encountered in packaging, standardisation and conformity with quality criteria. Moreover, the involvement of various intermediates adds to costs without offering the corresponding services and unreasonable discrepancies between producer and consumer prices. There are already concerns raised about such problems in the Greek market for organic products (Krystallis and Fotopoulos, 2002). However, we trust that such problems will be only minor exceptions.
Marketing of organic products is gradually and systematically growing and developing. Marketing organisations have appeared recently and are growing in size. Amongst the organic products produced in Greece, various types of cheese, particularly feta, is the best organised in terms of marketing. Feta cheese was the first organic product produced in Greece and exported mainly in Germany and the UK. The last two years some of the large supermarket chains have started advertising organic products and have also established separate organic sections. Given that organic production in Greece is still limited, supermarket chains sell mostly imported products.
The determining factor regarding the trade of organic products include the geographical proximity to urban areas and market practices, i.e. direct selling of organic products on farms, local markets or contracts with supermarkets (Padel 1999). Greece is high dependent on its trade with E.E., and currently a large amount of meat and dairy products are imported (e.g. organic beef is imported from Germany, organic cheese is imported from France). Given the rising demand for organic products in Greece it seems that the marginal market share of locally produced meat and dairy products represents a challenge for those exporting such products from other European countries. The fact that the volume of organic production in northern European countries is close to covering consumer demand (Sylvander and Le Floc’h-Wadel 2000) implies that a wider and more vigorous competition is emerging. Such developments could hold unfavourable prospects for the future of Greek organic livestock production if it will not be based on a loge-term strategy. For example prise competition from imported organic products, which does not really exist now in Greece, could cancel even the most optimistic prospects.
The future of organic livestock enterprises in Greece
There are several factors that constrain the development of organic livestock production in Greece and could possibly threaten its future. Organic production in Greece has been given a low profile in consumer’s appreciation, retailers and supermarket chains. The state services, supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture, showed a considerable delay in undertaking in depth discussions with research institutes, universities and organic certification organizations on the prospects and consequences of a common approach to the development of organic livestock under the particularities of the Greek agricultural sector (i.e. the existing disassociation between livestock production and the production of feedstuffs).
The failure, so far, of the organic sector in Greece to move quickly and parallel to the growth observed in the other EU countries is partly due to the absence of appropriate information at farm level. The development of the organic sector to this date has been a result of hard work carried out by a couple of private certification authorities that were the pioneers in the field. To date, advertising and marketing of organic products has been left to organic certification organisations, individual farmers, local organic associations and small food processing units. The promotion of organic products by supermarkets chains has been largely ignored. Further investigation is needed to assess the input of organic livestock enterprises in Greek Agricultural production and to measure their cost-effectiveness. Data of animal health and production records need to be collected through the adoption of practical systems of inspection that can be incorporated into monitoring and problem-solving models. There is a need to develop a national network using modern communication technologies as well as regular meeting between all those involved in organic livestock production. The latter can be best achieved by cooperative efforts among state and private organisations, organic farmers, veterinary and agricultural practitioners and research institutes and Universities.
Organic livestock production has shown a remarkable concentration on dairy products especially from sheep and goat milk. The challenge for these enterprises will be to move towards the production of high value-added products with standard quality. Such steps will require technology and labour skills. We believe that unprofessional employees and hence low cost labour are not a guarantee for economic efficiency or the effective marketing of organic products. Current production levels do not cover the demand for organic products and hence the number of organic livestock enterprises will gradually increase. However, the plans for development of organic livestock production should be the result of market needs at local, national and international level and prices of organic products should be in line with the country’s economy. The latter is important considering that the competitiveness of Greek products and their shares in international markets have room for improvement (Kaldis and Galanopoulos, 2002).
There is a need for organic certification authorities to document the cost-effectiveness of their services for organic livestock management and production. The challenge for the future is to determine what services organic producers need and how the certification authorities can deliver those services economically. In the face of the growing interest in organic livestock production, it is important to identify which systems have the potential for long-term growth in a competitive market for organic products. Long-term growth of the organic livestock enterprises in Greece can most likely result by the ability to help the producer to make the right decision. Those providing consultative advices to organic farmers should restrict their services to specific activities or should be staffed by professionals with expertise on organic production systems. Further to the services to their clients, it would be very rewarding if they were also involved in a common monitoring system. Such involvement would improve the efficiency of organic livestock production systems and the quality and credibility of their products.
Conclusions
One of the problems we faced while writing this paper was the lack of scientific information with regard to research on organic livestock production systems in Greece. Therefore, scientific experimentation that could help quantify the results of organic practice appears to be necessary. Once the information is available, it needs to become available to people interested in it. Such data will form the basis for objective criteria that can be adopted as a general code of practice without requiring unrealistic changes in existing livestock production systems. Current practices have shown that organic livestock production is gradually developing in Greece and may have a promising future if economic efficiency is achieved. However, there are still various problems to be overcome such as the endogenous structural deficiencies, daedal bureaucracy, and insufficient infrastructure. With good cooperation between state and private organisations, effective management programs at farm level, continuous education of the farmer and dissemination of research results, organic livestock production systems in Greece can be both functional and profitable. Bearing in mind that organic livestock production is more advanced in other European countries of the Mediterranean basin, which have similar climatic and soil conditions, it is reasonable to expect that organic products from Greek livestock enterprises will face strong competition within the European market. In our view, the choice of the level at which different organic enterprises will develop rests to the farmers and their advisors, but it will be greatly dictated by market needs, at local, national and international level, and also by the price of organic products, which should be in line with the country’s economy.
References
Alroe, H.F., Vaarst, M., Kristensen, E.S. (2001). Does organic farming face distinctive livestock welfare issues? A conceptual analysis. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental ethics 14:275-299.
Arsenos, G., Banos, G., Fortomaris, P., Katsaounis, N., Stamataris, C., Tsaras L., Zygoyiannis, D. (2002). Eating quality of lamb meat: Effects of breed, sex, degree of maturity and nutritional management. Meat Science, 60: 379-387.
Arsenos, G., Zygoyiannis, D. (2002). The role of vets in organic systems of animal production. In: Proceedings of the 9th Hellenic Veterinary Congress, 21-24 November, Thessaloniki, Greece. pp. 167-168.
Arsenos, G., Zygoyiannis, D., Kufidis, D., Katsaounis, N., Stamataris, C. (2000). The effect of breed slaughter weight and nutritional management on cholesterol content of lamb carcasses. Small Ruminant Research, 36:275-283.
Athanasiadou, S., Arsenos, G., Kyriazakis, I. (2002). Animal health and welfare issues arising in organic ruminant production systems. In: Organic Meat and Milk Production from Ruminants, Kyriazakis I. & G. Zervas (Editors), Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 39-56.
Dimitriou, P. (2002). Application of Regulation 1804/99 – problems faced by small ruminant producers in Greece. In: Organic Meat and Milk Production from Ruminants, Kyriazakis I. & G. Zervas (Editors), Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 217-220.
Duchateau, K. (2003). Organic farming in Europe, A sustained growth over the period 1998-2000. Eurostat, statistics in focus, theme 8-2/2003.
ELKE, Hellenic Centre for Investment (2000). Invest in Greece, Organic farming. From www.elke.gr
European Commission, (1991). Council Regulation, No 2092 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and feedstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities L198, 22.07.91, 1-15
European Commission, (1999). Council Regulation, No 1804/99 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 29092/91. Official Journal of the European Communities. L222, 24.08.1999, 1-28.
European Commission, (2000). DG(SANCO)/1060/2000. Final report of a mission carried out in Greece from 20 to 24 November 2000 concerning animal welfare during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/greece/index_en.html).
European Commission, (2002). DG(SANCO)8644/2002. Final report of a mission carried out in Greece from 15 to 19 July 2002 in order to re-evaluate operational standards and official controls over Athens central meat market and to assess a complaint in relation to a slaughterhouse in the Preveza region. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/greece/index_en.html).
FAOSTAT, (2001). FAO Agriculture statistical database.
Gray, D., Hovi, M. (2001). Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production. In: Organic Livestock Farming, principles, practicalities and profits (Younie, D., Wilkinson, J.M., Eds.). Chalcombe Publications, Lincoln, U.K., pp. 45-74.
Greek Ministry of Agriculture, 2001. Paper 101664/2784 regarding the Enforcement of the program ‘Organic livestock Production’ for the period 2001-2006. From http://www.minagric.gr
Hadjigeorgiou I., Vallerand F., Tsimpoukas K., Zervas G. (1998). The socio-economics of sheep and goat farming in Greece, and implication for future development. Proceedings of the 2nd International conference of the European Network for Livestock Systems and Integrated Rural Development.
Häring, A.M. (2003). Organic dairy farms in the EU: Production systems, economics and future development. Livestock Production Science, 80: 89–97.
Hermansen, J.E. (2003). Organic livestock production systems and appropriate development in relation to public expectations. Livestock Production Science, 80: 3–15.
Hovi, M., Sundrum, A., Thamsborg, S.M. (2003). Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Production Science, 80: 41–53.
Kaldis, P.E., Galanopoulos, K. (2002). Development and agro-food policies in the Mediterranean region. Country report 2002, Greece. International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, CIHEAM, (http://www.medobs.org).
Kanteres, N., Papadopoulos, D.A. (2002). The development of sustainable farming systems and the challenges livestock producers face in the EU: a Greek case study on sheep and goat breeders. In: Organic Meat and Milk Production from Ruminants, Kyriazakis I. & G. Zervas (Editors), Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 205-206.
Kouba, M. (2003). Quality of organic animal products. Livestock Production Science, 80: 33–40.
Krystallis A., Fotopoulos Ch. (2002). Exploring the Greek organic market: not-purchasing reasons and future buyer’s identification. In: Organic Meat and Milk Production from Ruminants, Kyriazakis I. & G. Zervas (Editors), Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 169-174.
Ligda, Ch., Papadopoulos, Th., Georgoudis, A. (2002). Use of autochthonous breeds for rural development and production of quality products. In: Organic Meat and Milk Production from Ruminants, Kyriazakis I. & G. Zervas (Editors), Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 207-209.
Lund V., Algers B. (2003). Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming-a literature review. Livestock Production Science, 80:55–68.
Lund V., Rocklinsberg, H. (2001). Outlining a conception of animal welfare for organic farming systems. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental ethics, 14:391-424.
Meeker D.L. 1999. What are the livestock industries doing, and what do they need from us? Journal of Animal Science, 77:361-366.
Padel, S. (1997) Organic grazing livestock production: possibilities and prospects. In: Improving market integration and value-adding in domestic livestock enterprises in disadvantaged regions - implications for future research. LSIRD network, Witzenhausen Workshop Proceedings, University of Kassel, , 27th - 29th September 1997.
Papadopoulos, E., Arsenos, G., Deligiannis, C., Lainas, T., Sotiraki, S., Zygoyiannis, D. (2003). The epizootiology of gastrointestinal nematode parasites in Greek dairy breeds of sheep and goats. Small Ruminant Research, 47: 193-202.
Papadopoulos, E., Himonas, C., Coles, G.C. (2001). Drought and flock isolation may enhance the development of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes. Veterinary Parasitology, 97: 253-259
Papatheodorou, A. (2002). Organic animal production in Greece. In: Organic Meat and Milk Production from Ruminants, Kyriazakis I. & G. Zervas (Editors), Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 215-216.
Phillips, C.J.C., Sorensen, J.T. (1993). Sustainability in Cattle production systems. Journal of Agricultural & environmental ethics, 6:61-73.
Roderick S., Hovi M. (1999). Animal Health and welfare in organic livestock systems: Identification of constraints and priorities. Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and food (MAFF), England.
Ronchi , B., Nardone, A. (2003). Contribution of organic farming to increase sustainability of Mediterranean small ruminants livestock systems. Livestock Production Science, 80:17–31.
Slenning, B.D. (2001). Quantitative tools for production-oriented veterinarians. In ‘Herd Health, Food animal production medicine’ 3rd edition (Ed. O.M Radostis), W.B. Sauders Company, USA.
Stamataris, C., Arsenos, G., Zygoyiannis, D., Katsaounis N. and Abrosiadis, J. (2001). Environmentally and economically sustainable systems of sheep and goat meat production. Proceedings of the 117th Annual Meeting of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 102.
Surdrum A. (2001). Organic livestock farming-A critical review. Livestock Production Science, 67:207-215.
Sylvander B. and Le Floc’h-Wadel, A. (2000). Consumer demand and production of organics in the EU. AgbioForum, 3:97-106.
Thamsborg S.M., Roepstorff, A. and Larsen M. (1999). Integrated and biological control of parasites in organic and conventional production systems. Veterinary Parasitology, 84:169-186.
Vallerand, F., Tsiboukas, K., Kazakopoulos, L. (2001). A Greek paradox: Omnipresent sheep and goat farming but neglected because of development structures; how to improve it? In: Production systems and product quality in sheep and goats (Eds Rubino, R., Morand-Fehr, P.), CIHEAM/FAO, Series A: Options Mediterraneennes, 46: 189-194.
Van der Smissen, N. (2000). Organic Farming in Greece. From http://www.organic-europe.net.
Wilson D. (2002). Farmers and organic research, from http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/library/Farmers%20and%20organic%20research.pdf
Wright I.A, Zervas, G., Louloudis, L. (2002). The development of sustainable farming systems and the challenges that face producers in the EU. In: Organic Meat and Milk Production from Ruminants, Kyriazakis I. & G. Zervas (Editors), Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 27-38.
Yannakopoulos, A., Tserveni-Gousi, A., Dimovelis, P., Fortomaris, P., Sossidou E. (2003). Poultry production in mountain regions in Greece. International Symposium” Animal Production and Natural Resources Utilisation in the Mediterranean Mountain areas. June 5-7, Ioannina, Greece.
Zioganas, Ch., Kitsopanidis, G., Papanagiotou, E., Kanteres, N. (2001). Comparative technoeconomical assessment of sheep and goat production in different geographical areas of Greece. Ziti Publications, Thessaloniki, Greece (www.ziti.gr).
Zygoyiannis, D. (1994). A note on the effect of number and genotype of kids on milk-yield and composition of indigenous Greek goats (Capra prisca). Animal Production, 58:423-426
Zygoyiannis, D., Doney, J.M., Stamataris, C., Katsaounis, N., Sossidou, E., Arsenos, G. (1995). A new approach to lamb production and marketing in Greece. 45th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Prague, Czech Republic, paper S5.2.
Zygoyiannis, D., Katsaounis, N., Stamataris, C., Arsenos, G., Tsaras L. Doney, J. (1999). The use of nutritional management after weaning for the production of heavier lamb carcasses from Greek dairy breeds. Livestock Production Science, 57:279-289.
Zygoyiannis, D., Kyriazakis, I., Stamataris, C., Friggens, N.C., Katsaounis, N. (1997). The growth and development of nine European sheep breeds. 2. Greek breeds: Boutsko, Serres and Karagouniko. Animal Science, 65: 427-440
Working group report:
Implications of economic constraints and consumer and producer attitudes to standard development, in relation to animal health, welfare and food safety
Compiled by A. Sundrum and V. Lund
Following a short introduction to the topic given by Albert Sundrum, the working group had a lively session with many and diverging views on the topic.
The group was in agreement that there are many agricultural systems in organic farming within the European Union. The differences between the systems often are the cause for differences in disease and welfare problems. However, there is only one set of organic standards across Europe. The group also agreed that it was reasonable to assume that a lack adaptation of these standards to the local and system related conditions is a relevant cause of various animal health and food safety problems observed in organic livestock production.
It was concluded that research is needed to identify problems and bottlenecks in the various systems in relation to the animal health and food safety issues. In addition, research results must be conveyed to advisory bodies and farmers. Consequently, not only production, but organic advisory services and education need to get support from the governments. It was suggested that there are good examples of how advisory services can convey research findings to organic farmers in the UK, in Denmark and in Sweden.
The group concluded that money is often the first limiting factor in farming and that production costs are often markedly higher in organic farming than in conventional production. There were diverging opinions in the group on whether measures aiming to improve health and welfare necessarily imply additional production costs. A majority felt that health and welfare measures may also result in lower costs and better production results. In this case, farmers need to be made aware of that higher health and welfare standards are not always equivalent of higher costs. When this is understood, the farmers may also be prepared to pay for consultancy in animal welfare matters. Costs can also be reduced through the introduction of new production systems. It was agreed that it is crucial for organic farmers to think ‘out of the box’, and not just see organic production as another version of conventional production. However, it was noted that such new systems may cause new animal health and welfare problems that require further new solutions.
On the other hand, the question of higher premium prices as a result of consumer recognition of high animal welfare and health standards was raised. This is obviously necessary if higher production costs are not covered by the current premium prices. However, it was noted that to use this instrument for an increase in income, control criteria and control concepts have to be developed and put into practice in order to ensure that consumer confidence in such high health and welfare standards is maintained.
The members of the group agreed on the following in regard to the current EU standards on organic livestock production:
- The standards per se are not sufficient to guarantee high health and welfare in organic systems;
- They must be developed continuously;
- They must be adapted to local, regional and national conditions; and
- The standards must ensure that the differences between organic and conventional agriculture are big enough to motivate consumers to pay a premium for organic products.
The following points about the consumers were agreed:
- It is paramount that consumers perceive organic as better than conventional;
- Consumers want simple messages; and
- At the same time they want (and need to get) qualified information and education.
It was suggested that farmers:
- need strong organizations to keep prices up and to defend the premia against the big actors (e.g. supermarket chains) on the market; and
- need advice on how to produce high quality products and ensure high animal health status.
It was also suggested that, in order to maintain price premia and to put more emphasis on animal welfare, diversification within organic farming could be used, for example to allow different labelling showing animal welfare advantages. However, it was also noted that many labels may confuse consumers.
Link to top
Working group report:
Sheep and beef production: farm level constraints and recommendations for enhancing health, welfare and food safety
Compiled by D. Younie
Farm level constraints and recommendations
The group identified the following as the major constraints to enhancing animal health and food safety at farm level: management skills of the farmer, labour (availability and quality), land, capital, and genotype of stock. Detailed discussion focussed on these issues.
Management skills of farmer
The following recommendations were made by the group:
- Improved advisory support
- Improved training in farm planning, technical issues and marketing
- Improved supply of information; i.e. more research required in technical issues such as parasite epidemiology and non-chemical control measures.
Labour supply
This does not only relate to availability and quality of hired labour. Family labour, including the farmer’s own time, must be taken into account, since most farmers work long hours and this almost certainly has an adverse impact on animal health and welfare. The following recommendations were made by the group:
- In research programmes, not only time but also labour quality should be considered as a resource unit.
- Research and advisory programmes should identify potential changes in livestock systems and husbandry practices which will reduce labour demand. One of the best examples of this is the selection of strains of sheep which are self-reliant (sometimes called ‘easy-care’), which lamb easily without human assistance, producing strong, viable lambs which have a high genetic resistance to parasites and disease.
Land
Discussion focussed on soil quality to ensure optimum animal health, and land area in relation to ensuring that stocking rate is limited rather than maximised. The recommendations of the group were that:
- There should be a statutory requirement that farmers should undertake assessment of soil and forage quality before starting conversion so that the trace element status of the herbage was known before conversion. There have been examples of farmers immediately withdrawing trace element supplementation from stock on starting conversion, with the result that the mineral status and health of animals has been compromised.
- There should be a link between the granting of direct financial support and the degree of self-sufficiency in feedstuffs on the farm, in order to minimise the temptation to use purchased feedstuffs to maintain a high stocking rate, which could compromise animal health.
Capital
A restriction in the availability of capital is usually reflected primarily in the quality and capacity of buildings for livestock accommodation, and perhaps handling facilities. The group recommended that, where this was the case, animal health and food safety would be optimised by avoiding overstocking. Perhaps the standards need to take account of not only space allocation for livestock, but also the quality of that space (e.g. ventilation, etc.).
Type of animal
In addition to the points made in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, the group reiterated the importance of the requirement in the standards that animals should be adapted to local conditions, in terms of soils, climate, feed quality and quantity. Whilst some research on breeding strategies had been carried out in organic dairy cattle, no research had been carried out on breeding strategies for beef and sheep in organic production. The group recommended that this should be undertaken.
External constraints and recommendations for enhancing health, welfare and food safety
The group identified six major external constraints to enhancing animal health and food safety in organic beef and sheep: more effective marketing, availability of certified abattoirs, veterinary advice, certification procedures, subsidy support and research requirements. These can be categorised broadly into two broad categories: a) market factors and b) institutional support.
Improving the market: supply and market information
The group felt that any expansion in the size of the market for organic beef and sheep meat would lead to an overall improvement in animal health and food safety.
However, negative factors did exist. The marketing of organic beef and sheep is inefficient in some regions because of a poor flow of information between producers and meat processors: information on projected supplies of cattle and sheep for slaughter is not easily available to processors, and reliable estimates of projected market requirements (demand) are not easily available to producers.
- The group recommended that a system to share supply and market information should be established in each country.
Location of approved abattoirs
More directly affecting animal health and food safety, the availability and location of certified abattoir facilities is poor in some regions, leading to animals being transported large distances for slaughter.
- The group recommended that governments or certification bodies facilitate the organic certification of abattoirs in remote areas, e.g. by assistance with certification costs and/or grants for capital improvements in the abattoir.
Veterinary advice
Animal health and welfare on organic beef and sheep farms would be enhanced if improved advisory support from veterinary practitioners was available. The attitude of some vets towards organic farming is negative, most vets have a poor knowledge and understanding of the organic livestock standards, and the charging system for veterinary support may not be conducive to the provision of preventative health management (as opposed to treatment of symptoms). The recommendations of the group were:
- Veterinarians should charge for giving preventative advice rather than solely for treating animals.
- Closer links should be developed between the organic certification bodies and the veterinary profession.
Improved certification and quality control procedures
- The group recommended the introduction of better certification and quality management procedures should be introduced at all levels (e.g. HACCP), combined with improved traceability procedures.
Subsidy support
Availability of financial support for capital items (accommodation, handling facilities, fencing) would enhance animal health and welfare on organic beef and sheep farms (see para 4 above). Historically, payment of EU subsidies on a headage basis has encouraged farmers to stock to their maximum potential, which sometimes has a negative impact on health and food safety. The introduction of the Single Farm Payment (SFP) will remove this link between subsidies and stock numbers, and should lead to an improvement in animal health and welfare. The recommendations of the group were:
- All national Organic Aid Schemes should contain an element of capital grant support for livestock handling, accommodation and fencing.
- The introduction of the SFP should be monitored on organic farms to ensure that this greater exposure to market forces does not have a negative effect on health and welfare.
Research requirements
- The recommendation of the group was that major programmes of research should be undertaken on a) the evaluation of herbal and homoeopathy remedies and b) further preventative health management strategies in organic beef and sheep.
Working group report:
Dairy farms: constraints and recommendations for enhancing health, welfare and food safety
Compiled by G. Smolders, M. Walkenhorst and S. Padel
The group was split in three subgroups focussing, in the first instance, on identifying the problems dairy farmers have to deal with in allocating scarce financial resources. All subgroups joined to identify solutions.
The following problems were identified:
Subsidies can be a problem because:
- State of development of organic market has impact on milk price and farm income ; and
- There is a lack of policy support for milk production compared with other enterprises .
Marketing is often a problem as:
- State of development of organic market has impact on income;
- Low milk price leaves little profit (it was noted, however, that in most cases dairy farmers are better of than beef and sheep farmers).
- Some of the produce end up in the conventional markets (milk, meat);
- We need to understand how to build up the market for organic products; and
- Social benefits of organic framing are not yet marketed.
Regulations cause problems as:
- There are differences in the implementation of livestock regulation between European countries;
- Interpretation of the standards varies, even by different inspectors of control bodies within the same country or region;
- Investments for housing that meets standard requirements can be a big problem (three different problems were pointed out: no access to pasture, robot milking in combination with cow traffic and tethered housing systems);
- 100% organic rations will increase feeding cost considerably in several countries;
- Some organic systems with high milk yields and high intensity require higher concentrate inputs than allowed.
- There are clear conflicts between the standards and the product quality; e.g. mastitis/dry cow therapy and somatic cell counts, nursing cows and Johne’s disease etc.
- Specific problems with intake of fresh grass while grazing in Sweden (local standards require that this is 50% of dry matter intake during summer).
With regard to farm resources, the following problems were identified:
- Further breeding and existing high prevalence of Holstein-Friesian and/or high yielding cows that are not adapted to "organic" rations, especially in early lactation;
- There is less income from selling animals as breeding stock if the heard is not high yielding;
- Intensive farms with high stocking rates need more land when converting to organic in order to maintain same herd size with a reduced stocking rate.
Information provision for organic dairy systems is problematic as:
- You are dealing with a complex system – holistic systems require information about the system as a whole, not only the underlying parts.
- Attitudes of veterinarians to organic dairying as a system, and especially towards alternative therapy, are sceptical; and
- With few research supporting the use of alternative therapy the use is considered to be problematic.
The following solutions were suggested:
Figure 1 presents the influences/interests of stakeholders on the different chains in organic dairy system. The different lines and arrows stands for different functions in the total dairy chain. The stakeholders are described by function or influence in CAPITAL LETTERS.
In regard to subsidies:
- They should not only be based on the number of animals or areas cultivated but should support good practise, e.g. good animal welfare and inclusion of all-day grazing could attract higher payments (it was, however, pointed out that the judgement of animal welfare could be difficult, and further research would be needed).
As far as marketing is concerned:
- Understanding the consumer is important, i.e. what does she/he want and what does she/he expect from organic products and organic farming? Why do they buy organic products and have different motives for different product groups?
- Differentiation of markets and marketing strategies could help, i.e. change communication about organics and move towards new and innovative products.
In order to solve the problems with regulations:
- Preventive management (system approach) should be promoted in favour of specific input substitution.
In terms of farm resources:
- Money was seen as an/the instrument for achieving change, e.g. giving bonuses for good (low somatic cell counts) and penalties for bad (high somatic cell counts) management;
- More research is needed do define animal welfare and product quality; and
- Breeding aims should be identified by the farmer for his specific circumstances. Breeding results should be evaluated under organic conditions to clarify the suitability of breeds for organic farms.
With regard to information:
- It is necessary to improve the information to the public (who are the taxpayer and pay the subsidies) about organic farming as a system, that improves animal health and welfare
- Consumers must get accurate information about the organic products the buy.
- Producers should be informed about organic farming before they convert (so they know what to expect): they should be told about the regulations and pointed to the available information about organic farming.
- Veterinarians should be informed (part of the teaching curriculum in vet schools) about the holistic system, the importance of preventive health management on organic farms and about alternative treatments.
- In communication to the policy makers (the government), organic farming should be presented as a different farming system and not as a conventional system with some alteration.
Working group report:
Poultry production: constraints and recommendations for enhancing health, welfare and food safety
Compiled by W. Zollitsch
Common features of organic poultry production in different EU countries
The group accepted, as a starting point to the discussion, the fact that organic poultry production shows a high variability throughout Europe. This variability is particularly important in the economic importance of poultry to the organic farmer and is reflected in the stage of specialization, the structure of production and marketing, the average flock size and the farming conditions, etc.
Despite these regional differences, it was agreed that there are some aspects that European organic poultry producers have in common:
- Traditionally, on organic farms, poultry were kept in small flocks alongside other livestock species. During the last decade, a number of organic farmers have started to specialize in poultry production and to manage larger flocks of both layers and broilers (from 500 to several thousand birds per flock). At the same time, large scale conventional producers have begun to diversify into organic farming, seeing this as a promising market opportunity.
- This development has been accompanied by changes in marketing strategies: while traditional organic poultry farmers mainly rely on marketing directly to consumers, specialized organic poultry farmers supply super markets and retail chains with organic poultry products.
- Typically, higher premiums can be gained for organic broilers than for organic eggs. There tends to be more competition between the organic egg market and other “free-range” systems.
- In some countries, organic poultry production has been organised through vertical market integration. While this cannot be considered to be a "typical organic structure", vertical integration may have advantages with regard to managing scarce resources.
- Despite regional differences in organic poultry production, the main problems reported by farmers seem to be very similar in different countries and involve both external (e.g. availability of suitable breeds and organically raised pullets) and internal resources (e.g. high-value protein feedstuffs that are produced on farm, information about optimized management systems).
Problems and solutions
Both external and internal resources may be factors that limit animal health and welfare, food safety and the economic profit of poultry producers.
- Feather pecking and cannibalism: the question of breeding goals and breeding programs for organic laying hens still remains unsolved. A sound concept for rearing of organic pullets is also needed in order to solve this problem.
- Animal welfare and product quality: While there is relatively little contradiction regarding systems for organic layers, there is a need for the further development of husbandry systems and management concepts for broilers (e.g. use of perches, litter management). Parasites and breast blisters were highlighted as main problems in this respect.
- While suitable broiler breeds are more readily available, there is an urgent need to clearly define the term "slow growing birds" within the organic standards. It is felt that, currently, there are no breeds available that are suitable for organic turkey production.
- The disposal of spent laying hens is quite different in different countries. It is proposed that markets for products from spent hens should be developed (this includes slaughter houses for spent layers as a very specific problem in some countries) rather than developing methods for "animal friendly euthanasia".
- Nutritional needs of poultry: A very critical factor is the shortage of feedstuffs rich in protein to cover the high requirement of poultry for essential amino acids. While some farmers advocate the use of synthetic amino acids, it is strongly recommended that the focus should be on identifying and utilizing internal resources (such as cakes from different oilseeds, extracts from algae and other plants, soybeans) rather than relying on external resources.
- Economic constraints: There is a major concern that the higher price for organically raised pullets will not be compensated for by premiums on organic eggs. A further critical point is the increasing demand for organic feedstuffs, which will inevitably lead to higher prices. The concept of "horizontal integration" could be a system-compatible supplement, or even an alternative, to vertical market integration. Both formal and informal linking of farms and resource and cost sharing may assist organic farmers to gain a better control over external resources and, hence, improve efficiency, while ensuring advances in the health and welfare of poultry flocks.
|
