Part C:

A framework for organic livestock production: standards, attitudes and expectations

Contributions

Working Group reports:

Why do humans keep animals? Does the answer help to define the standards for organic animal husbandry?

G. Rahmann

Institute of Organic Farming of the German Federal Agricultural Research Centre (OEL-FAL), Trenthorst 32, D-23847 Westerau

Introduction

Domestic livestock, such as farm animals and pets, are part of the cultural heritage of mankind. Animals have been used for food, services, non-food or religious purposes or just as a hobby for thousands of years. Man-made breeding has created livestock that are adapted for different purposes and functions. Today, thousand of breeds exist: adapted to the various conditions in human households.

The discussion of animal welfare and the definition of standards for livestock keeping have to consider the different functions, ethical values and perceptions of people involved (Badura, 1999). The differences of culture, as well as private and common wealth between individuals, regions and countries, can be a reason for different standards for animal keeping. This discussion can become easier with an understanding of the functions of animals from a historical and ethical perspective. This can help to answer the question of how the animals should be kept.

History of livestock keeping

Worldwide, there are about 100 different animal species kept by humans for multi-purpose use (Groenefeld and Glodek, 2000). Most of the 40 different mammalian species (e.g. cattle, yaks, banteng, mithan, buffalos, sheep, goats, horses donkeys, pigs, reindeer, camels, cats, dogs, buffalos, rabbits, guinea pigs, llamas, elephants, rats, mice), 24 different bird species (e.g., chicken, geese, ducks, turkeys, doves, guinea fowl, ostriches), 18 different fish species (e.g., carp, trout, salmon) and several insect species (e.g., earthworms, bees, silkworms) are kept on farms and have been domesticated at different stages of history (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Domestication periods and regions of important livestock species (Source: designed by Rahmann)

Livestock utilisation and keeping has always been an important aspect of human activity. There are only a few cultures that do not use the services and products of animals. In the history of mankind, there were several stages in the building of human-livestock-relations (Tab. 1):

· Hunting (pre-domestication: 15 000 years ago): Humans hunted and collected wild animals for food and non-food purposes. This was their only influence on the wild animal population. A nomadic lifestyle was required to search for prey for self sufficiency.

· Wild game keeping (domestication by chance: 15 000 – 10 000 years ago): With increasing human density (1 to 2 people/km2), game became scarce and hunting more difficult. People started to settle and improved hunting and crop production. Domestication of wild animals began. Dogs were the first animals kept by humans. Puppies of wild dogs were probably reared. They could be trained for hunting and protection. Young, wild animals, caught alive, were reared and slaughtered for meat (e.g., goats, sheep). Subsistence livestock keeping was dependent on local availability (man « animal co-evolution, Luke 1989). Planned breeding, feeding and treatment was not practiced, and reproduction was still dependent on wild animals. The needs of self sufficiency determined the numbers of animals kept by humans.

· Animal husbandry (10 000 years ago until the 18th century): With planned breeding and feeding, animal keeping became independent from wild game resources. This period can be considered as the beginning of livestock keeping. The farmers could produce their own breeding stock. Suitable species were those that supplied the needs of the animal holder, were easy to tame, were fertile under captivity and could be easily fed and controlled even during difficult seasons (e.g. winter period or harsh conditions). After many generations, domestic animals became adapted and, therefore, different from their relatives living in the wild. The increase in productivity and the selling of products – surpluses which could not be used for home consumption - began. Self sufficiency was still very important, but not necessary for everyone. Food could be sold and purchased (urbanisation). Fewer people needed to keep animals: livestock keeping was no longer just for subsistence, but became a market-oriented agricultural business.

· Animal production (the last two centuries): In the last two centuries, animal husbandry has shifted towards animal production. Improved feeding, health care, stable keeping conditions and breeding developed high yielding livestock. Distances and environmental conditions were no longer a limiting factor. Household equipment, artificial insemination, fodder production on crop land and veterinary drugs helped to increase productivity and reduce the impact of unfavourable environmental conditions for livestock. Cheap and fast transportation possibilities supported the trade and exchange of live animals and animal products all over the world. Today, every species can be kept in every country, every livestock product is available everywhere. The industrial form of animal keeping can only be practiced by a small number of farmers. Most people have lost any ties they may have had to livestock keeping. Pets, without any self sufficiency function, have become more and more important, especially in developed countries. Over-production, changed ethical values and animal cruelty, problems in animal health and negative environmental impacts are the results, and the social, economic and ecological sustainability can no longer be taken for granted.

· Animal husbandry of the future (from today until tomorrow): Developed societies are not clear in their approach to the development of livestock keeping. There are serious conflicts of different ethical values, perceptions and expectations between farmers, consumers and the society. Recently, three paths of development of livestock keeping in developed countries can be observed:

- Type I: low to medium external input – low to medium output systems: back to nature (landscape management, organic farming, hobby farming).

- Type II: medium external input – high output systems: development of the classical animal production systems (improved high yielding varieties/breeds, integrated production).

- Type III: high external input – high output systems: technological advances (e.g., GM or cloned livestock, zero-emission stables, artificial food production).

Table 1: Three philosophical phases of man – animal relations in the Western world (Source: Badura, 1999)

Results of man-made breeding

Today, most farm animals are domesticated breeds. Domestication means that the animals are adapted to the farm conditions due to a selection carried out by humans. These animals show differences in phenotype, physiology, productivity and behaviour when compared to relatives living in the wild (Fig. 2). Thousands of different breeds have been created for specific purposes and functions within the framework of environmental and socio-economic conditions (Rahmann, 1996). Only small populations are found of many breeds in specific regions (rare breeds), some are found worldwide (e.g., Holstein Friesian dairy cattle). The selection has created breeds adapted to the conditions and purposes of the farms. Worldwide, 863 sheep breeds, 783 cattle breeds, 313 goat breeds, 357 horse breeds, 263 pig breeds, 78 donkey breeds and 62 buffalo breeds are known. About 39% of these breeds are of European origin, but 26% of them are at risk of extinction (Loftus and Scherf, 1993) (Tab. 2). Endangered breeds are often no longer able to meet the demands of humans, and fewer and fewer people breed or keep them. Extinction means the loss of agricultural biodiversity. This is serious problem because it will never be known if these breeds could have been important in the future. For example, for organic farming purposes, breeds that are adapted to the local conditions are needed (Rahmann, 2002).

Table 2: Development of farm livestock in the world over the past 40 years (in millions of animals) (Source: FAO, 2003)

Figure 2: Thousand of years of breeding have changed the phenotype, behaviour and physiology of animals, for example of wild boars in comparison with domestic pigs (Fotos: Marek, Rahmann)

Many of the recent high yielding breeds (e.g., pig and fowl) are dependent on the farmers’ care. They would not survive in the wild. Due to health problems, fodder needs and the loss of self-protective ability, most escaped farm livestock die after a while in the wild. Severe survival problems occur, particularly in winter. On the other hand, feral animals can be found in many countries around the world, sometimes for centuries. They can create problems like wild goats in Scotland; sheep, goats, dogs, camels and rabbits in Australia; cats in Germany; honey bees in Latin America and feral horses in the United States. They can transmit diseases to the indigenous livestock, damage the natural vegetation or crops on farmland, destroy infrastructure and even kill or injure animals and humans.

The functions of livestock on organic farms

In the course of history, the functions of different livestock species have changed. The answer to the question “Why do humans keep these animals?”, seems easy, particularly in agriculture, but following the initial reaction, many more reasons emerge (Clauss et al., 1999; Capell, 1998; Tab. 3).

Table 3: Products and functions of farm livestock (Source: compiled by Clauss, 1999 and Capell, 1998)

In the last century, farm animals have changed from multi-purpose to single purpose animals. The majority of modern farm livestock is high yielding and specialized for only one product, even on organic farms in the Western world (Rahmann, 2003). This development has only been possible through a mutual development of the farm environment and the animal. Improved breeds were in need of better feedstuff, protection, health care and housing conditions and vice versa. The functions of livestock changed not only in a historical context, but even in terms of different socio-economic and environmental framework conditions.

The cost of the improved keeping conditions could only be paid for by higher animal productivity. This feedback system resulted in the modern animal production conditions of cost intensive and high yielding animal production. However, there seems to be a limit to this up-streaming. In the past decades, Western society – which is dominated by non-farmers and citizens - has substantially changed the framework conditions for farming. Animal welfare, environmental protection and landscape management play an important role in farm practices. The multi-functionality of stock has become more important; not in production sense but in soft functions, like on-farm impact, tourism, on-farm attractions, “edu-tainment”, landscape management, renewable energy production and/or hobby and recreation (Rahmann, 1998; Rahmann and Tawfik, 2000; Rahmann, 1997). This has also had an influence on the animal husbandry conditions. For example, organic farming has re-integrated livestock in the whole farm organism with respect to the on-farm functions. The traditional concept of farming system development focuses on the mutual relations of physical farming elements: soil, plant and animal (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Animal husbandry at the production level of an organic farming system (Source: Rahmann, 2003)

A holistic approach needed for organic farming system development

The farm-focused development concept for animal husbandry, as described in Figure 3, does not include some important aspects that influence the farming system substantially: the farmer himself and his family with their resources, goals and needs, as well as the socio-economic and the ecological framework conditions (Fig. 4). For example, dairy cattle kept in wealthy, humid Germany is different from dairy cattle kept in a poor, tropical country like Bangladesh. The inter-cultural and supra-regional definition and development of standards and regulations has to respect local socio-economic and ecological conditions. Livestock keeping standards for different framework conditions can only be at a minimum level of consensus. Locally adapted interpretation of these standards has to be made (see 2092/91/EEC and 1804/99/EC). With an interdisciplinary approach, like the Farming System Research and Development concept (FSR+D), holistic problems of improvement and development of farming with different framework conditions can be better understood and, therefore, better solved (Rahmann, 1993; Rahmann, 1998; Fischer et al., 1999).

Figure 4: The holistic approach of Farming System Research and Development (FSR+D) (Source: Rahmann, 2000)

The ethical impact of standards definition in animal husbandry

Standards for animal husbandry and welfare mainly have an anthropocentric perspective (e.g., Kant, 1925; Krebs, 1993) and background. Product and process quality, compassion and morals are concepts of Western human society. It is difficult for some cultures to understand the animal welfare movements in Europe because they have other morals (Tab. 4). Even for farmers in Europe, many “urban” values for animal welfare are difficult to accept and fulfil. The discussion of the prohibition of battery keeping in cages or the prohibition of tying up cows in organic farming in Germany in the past years has shown the different ethical values in a society. The patho-centric morality (e.g., Schopenhauer, 1977) is the most relevant factor for animal welfare standards. Our compassion for suffering animals exists only for livestock, which can express pain or react to cruelty. We do not experience compassion for mosquitos or snails, and therefore have no moral obligation or animal welfare concept for these creatures (Badura, 1999).

Table 4: The different moral philosophical concepts of man – animal relations (source: Badura, 1999)

The socio-economic framework conditions have to consider the ethical values of the societies that are not always in the historical context of the Western world (ethnocentric perspective). For example, in a Muslim society, pork is not eaten, and, in a Hindu society, beef is not consumed. Western cultures do not like to eat guinea pigs, dogs or insects, like the people in the Andean regions of Ecuador, in Korea or in Zimbabwe. In the Masai culture, the horns of cattle are more important than the milk yield for the status of the owner. In biodynamic farming, horns have an important role in the processing of biodynamic preparations. Even the land property rights influence the standards of animal husbandry. Private, communal, state or even free property rights on land use have a direct impact of animal husbandry, health care, nutrition, housing and breeding.

On the other hand, the environmental framework conditions determine the animal husbandry standards. In tropical, semi-arid, humid or arctic climates, the standards are adapted to the circumstances. There is no straw available in arctic areas, and zero-grazing in sub-tropical areas is accompanied with vector transmitted or soil-born diseases (e.g., East Coast Fever, tryponomiasis, anaplasmosis, anthrax, botulism). In Europe, the endo- and ecto-parasites or infections like foot rot limit the outdoor keeping of animals (apart from climate limitations in summer and winter seasons).

Conclusion

In organic farming, the on-farm functions of manure production, by-product utilisation and attraction for visitors are relevant for the animal husbandry structure. The multi-functionality of livestock includes the anthropocentric ethical values of the society. Consumers expect high animal welfare standards because of their compassion for creatures in human control, environmentally sound production to secure the biotic and abiotic resources (water, soil and air) and high product quality at low prices. To meet these expectations simultaneously is not possible.

The holistic view of the multi-functionality of livestock on farms does allow us to determine standards for organic animal husbandry under several circumstances. These must respect the socio-economic and ecological framework conditions as well as the physical situation of the farm and the goals, needs and resources of the farmer. This has mostly been forgotten in the past. The EU has for six years discussed the regulation 1804/99/EC because of different perspectives and attitudes on good organic animal husbandry practices”. The common standards of organic animal husbandry are a compromise. They have to be interpreted and developed under the local conditions of the regions in the EU.

References

Badura, J. (1999). Moral für Mensch und Tier. Tierschutzethik im Kontext. München, pp 86

Bartussek, H. Haiger, A. and Storhas, R. (1988). Naturgemässe Viehwirtschaft. Stuttgart, pp 112

Becker, B. (1996). Ethical Norms and Values behind the concept of Sustainability. Der Tropenlandwirt 56, Witzenhausen, 7-14

Clauss, E., Kleeberg, A. and Stier, K. (1999). Funktionen der Tierhaltung im Ökologischen Landbau – Warum halten wir Nutztiere? Different perceptions of students and teachers of the Faculty of Organic Farming at the University of Kassel and the conventional Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Göttingen. Internal report, Uni Kassel, Witzenhausen, pp 65

Capell, J. (1998). Funktionen der Tierhaltung im Ökologischen Landbau. Eine kritische Diskussion: Warum halten wir Tiere? An organic farm study. Diploma thesis, University of Kassel, Witzenhausen, pp 82

FAO (2003). FAO Statistic-Databank download from September 2, 2003; www.fao.org, Rome

Fischer, J., Claus, C., Herrera, A. and Rahmann, G. (1999). Ecological and socio-economic aspects of hair sheep keeping in the tropical rainforest of Ecuador. GTZ-TOEB F-V/9, Frankfurt/Rossdorf, pp 91

Groenefeld, E. and Glodek, P. (eds) (2000). Animal Breeding and Animal Genetic Resources. Landbauforschung Völkenrode, FAL Agricultural Research, Special Issue 228, Braunschweig, pp 94

Krebs, A. (1993). Haben wir moralische Verpflichtungen gegenüber Tieren? Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 41, 9995-1007

Loftus, R. and Scherf, B. (eds) (1993). World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity. 1st edition. FAO, Rome, pp 376

Luke, K. (1989). Die Entwicklung der Tierhaltung in Deutschland bis zum Begin der Neuzeit. Forum 19, Saarbrücken/Fort Lauderdale, pp 122

Rahmann, G. (1993). Ökonomisches Handeln von Nomaden. Mobile Tierhaltung unter Dürrebedingungen in der Butana/Sudan. Sozioökonomische Schriften zur Ruralen Entwicklung 111, Kiel, pp 288

Rahmann, G. (1996). Praktische Anleitungen zur Biotoppflege mit Nutztieren. Schriftenreihe Angewandter Naturschutz 14, Lich, pp 116

Rahmann, G. (1997). Contribution of rural tourism to the market for livestock products in LFAs in Germany. Laker, J.P. and Milne, J.A. (eds.). Livestock Systems in European Rural Development. LSIRD Network., Aberdeen, 57-61

Rahmann, G. (1998). Meat produced under agri-environmental schemes. Problems to fulfil consumer expectations. In: Waterhouse, A. and McEwan, I. (eds.). Landscapes, Livestock and Livelihood in European Less Favoured Areas. Auchincruive, Ayr, Scotland, 161-165

Rahmann, G. (2000). Biotoppflege als neue Funktion und Leistung der Tierhaltung. Agraria 28, Hamburg, pp 384

Rahmann, G. (2002). The standards, regulations and legislation required for organic ruminant keeping in the European Union. EAAP publication 106, 15-26

Rahmann, G. (2003). Ökologische Tierhaltung. Stuttgart, pp 154

Rahmann, G. and Tawfik, E. (2000). Landschaftserhaltung mit Nutztieren im sozio-ökonomischen Kontext. Dargestellt am Beispiel ausgewählter Dörfer im Biosphärenreservat Rhön. Schriftenreihe Agrarwissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse 20, Hamburg, pp 284

Schopenhauer, A. (1977). Preisschrift über die Grundlage der Moral. Zuerich

Link to top

Guidance and advice on animal health and welfare in organic production systems - do attitudes matter?

H. Hovi

Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit, The University of Reading, UK

Introduction

While both organic and conventional farmers have a long tradition of exchanging medicines and know-how (and most certainly diseases!), the veterinary profession is the main source of information and advice on animal health issues to the majority of farmers. While the veterinary profession has remained the “official” and relatively uncritical guardian of animal welfare throughout the - sometimes extreme - intensification of livestock production, it has also often been the first professional group to criticize organic farming/farmers for poor welfare. It has been suggested that this is due to the “health-centred” view of welfare that veterinarians tend to hold, i.e. an animal has good welfare as long as it is not diseased or ill, irrespective of how much its freedom or access to natural behaviour is restricted. This view is likely to clash with the organic principles that appear to put more emphasis on freedom or access to natural behaviour than on disease. Inevitably, this raises the question: how do vets and organic farmers find common ground? And if they do not, how does the veterinary attitude affect his advisory role on organic farms?

Similar questions could be asked of organic inspectors. While their official role is not to assess welfare outcomes on the farms, it can be argued that they have an implicit role in assuring that animal welfare is not jeopardized. Is it possible that their judgment could be clouded by the focus of welfare inputs described in the organic standards; i.e. if an inspector believes that a particular input produces good welfare, e.g. access to outdoors, is he/she likely to ignore a poor welfare outcome resulting from such access?

This paper will explore the questions posed above in the light of three examples: the differences in veterinary and inspector attitudes towards organic standards in regard to welfare inputs, veterinarian’s role in mastitis control on UK organic dairy farms and organic inspector approaches to welfare assessment on organic livestock farms in Scotland.

Veterinary and inspector perceptions of organic standards and their impact on animal welfare

A questionnaire survey of UK cattle veterinarians (157 returns, 12% return rate) and organic inspectors specialized in livestock enterprises (31 responses, 67% return rate) asked the respondents to indicate their opinion on the potential welfare impact of 20 organic standards (UKROFS, 2000), deemed to be relevant to cattle welfare (Hovi and Kossaibati, 2002). Similar questionnaires covered sheep, pig and poultry production.

There were significant differences in the perception of the respondents (Table 1). By and large, a larger proportion of the inspectors than vets tended to perceive the standards as having a positive impact on animal welfare. The differences were particularly significant in areas where the standards limit the use of conventional veterinary medicinal products. Similar results were obtained from the questionnaires covering other species of livestock from different groups of respondents.

Table 1: Veterinary and inspector perception of the positive welfare impact of selected organic standards on cattle production (* = significant difference – p<0.05; ** = significant difference – p<0.001).

It could be argued that the differences reported above could lead to two situations that can be detrimental to the provision of sound animal welfare advice on organic farms:

1) The less positive perception of the standards among the veterinary profession may lead to a situation where veterinarians have a negative attitude to the system and loose contact with farmers who are dedicated to farming organically; and

2) The positive perception of some of the standards by inspectors may lead to situations where assumptions of good welfare are made on the basis of the implementation of standards; e.g. good animal welfare is assumed because low level of conventional veterinary medicinal inputs is confirmed during inspection.

The following two examples of veterinary involvement in organic dairy farms and inspector practices in Scotland will explore these arguments further.

Veterinary role in mastitis control on UK dairy farms: a case study of well-established organic farms

A two-year study of well established organic dairy farms was carried out to investigate mastitis management and mastitis patterns on organic dairy farms in the UK. Sixteen well-established organic farms were included in the study. Some of the main findings of the study can be summarized as follows (Hovi and Roderick, 2000):

- Implementation of many well-recognized (i.e. reduction of infection pressure) and standard-defined (e.g. breeding for resistance) mastitis control measures relatively poor;

- Understanding and awareness of mastitis situation poor;
- Homeopathy the most common alternative therapy used;
- Both bulk milk and cow milk somatic cell counts higher than in milk recorded herd at national scale;
- Milk withdrawal often very short after alternative therapies (i.e. mastitic milk was included in the bulk milk);
- Risk for clinical mastitis lower during the lactation period but higher during the dry period than on matched conventional farms (Figure 1).

When the approaches to mastitis on the study farms were investigated, it became evident that, while veterinarians were considered as the primary source of advice on mastitis on all conventional farms and on many of the organic farms, the organic farms were more likely to have other primary advisory sources than the veterinarian (Figure2).

Figure 1: Lactation and dry period risk rates in 13 organic and seven conventional dairy herds in over a two year period (1998-1999).

When the veterinarians in the 12 practices involved with the study farms were interviewed about their relationship with the organic clients, majority of them (11/12) expressed negative or sceptical views of organic farming and organic standards, equating organic farming with alternative therapies and failing to see a role for themselves. When the farmers and the herdsmen who received their primary advice from another source than a veterinarian were asked what this advice consisted of, it was found out that all alternative sources (see Figure 2) of advice promoted homeopathy. Other herdsmen were often mentioned as a source of information on other alternative therapies than homeopathy. The certification bodies were reported to give advice on natural resistance, reduction of stress, optimization of yields and breeding. It appeared, however, that this advice was very general and did not promote specific issues, e.g. in relation to natural resistance, promotion of teat duct patency by preventing teat end damage or by preventing cows access to bedding immediately after milking were not mentioned.

Figure 2: Primary sources of advice on mastitis and mastitis control on 16 organic and seven conventional dairy farms in the UK.

It could be argued that many of the results of the study, particularly those suggesting that there is poor mastitis awareness and understanding on the farms and that well-recognized mastitis control techniques are not implemented, are a result of the poor veterinary involvement and, consequently, the poor or biased advice given by other primary sources of mastitis information. Similarly, the mastitis patterns observed on the farms could be, at least partly, attributed to the advisory situation. For instance, high bulk milk SCC levels were, at least on some farms, a direct results of too early inclusion of mastitic milk into the tank. Similarly; high levels of dry period mastitis went “unnoticed” on some farms, as the farmer, in the absence of advice and reference point, assumed that such high incidence of dry period was common; etc. – While lack of veterinary advice could be seen as the primary cause of these problems, it is useful to recognize that the observed lack of veterinary involvement in mastitis control, particularly on the organic farms, was likely to arise from the negative attitudes the veterinarians had in regard to organic farming.

Animal welfare assessment by organic inspectors

Four organic inspectors, who primarily inspected livestock farms for one single certification body, were asked to fill in a detailed questionnaire following inspections visits to four different farms over an eight-month period (covering both summer and winter seasons). The questionnaire covered issues relating to welfare assessment and its outcome on each farm (Hovi et al., 2003).

The inspectors indicated in their responses that they considered welfare assessment to be one of the main parts of the inspection process on livestock farms and used a wide range of welfare assessment parameters, including assessment of stockmanship by observation and interviews. The welfare parameters used were both input and outcome-related, but there was no formalization of the assessment. In terms of assessing health on the farm, treatment records appeared to be the main point of reference, but again very little formal assessment took place; e.g. no summary analysis of records was made or available on the farm or in the health plan.

In spite of the lack in formal assessment protocols, many welfare concerns arouse during the visits (Figure 3). Very few of the concerns were, however, reported back to the certification body, and in most cases, the inspector discusses the matter with the farmer/herdsman, giving guidance and/or advice.

When two of the inspectors were interviewed afterwards about the reasons for not reporting back their welfare concerns, they indicated that the lack of formality in the inspection process was the main problem. They appeared convinced that their judgment had been correct, but felt that they would not have adequate evidence if challenged, as much of the judgment was based on tacit knowledge rather than formalized assessment.

Figure 3: Action pathway on welfare concerns during 29 inspection visits on organic livestock farms.

Conclusions

The above examples go some way towards answering the questions posed at the beginning of this paper. Firstly, do veterinarians have attitudes/views that affect the relationship between the profession and organic livestock farmers, and does this have an impact on animal welfare? It appears that veterinarians view the organic standard restrictions, particularly on conventional medicine use, as something that causes them welfare concerns. As a result they tend to be critical and weary of organic farming and have less involvement in disease control on organic farms. In the case of mastitis control, it is probably unwise to assume that all mastitis problems on organic farms arise from the absence of veterinary advice, but there certainly appears to be areas where more regular veterinary involvement would be helpful.

Secondly, do inspectors’ attitudes influence the way they view animal welfare on organic farms or carry out welfare assessment during visits? Inspectors certainly perceived organic standards in significantly more positive light than veterinarians, particularly in connection with the standards that restrict the use veterinary medicines. However, this positive view of welfare inputs incorporated in the standards did not seem to be translated into low priority for welfare assessment during the inspections visits. Lack of formal welfare assessment protocols, on the other hand, appeared to prevent inspectors from including welfare concerns in the inspection reports.

In conclusion, the cautious view veterinarians appear to have of organic farming, seems to be reflected in, or indeed may be a reflection of, their perception of the impact of organic standards on animal welfare. It appears prudent to think that this perception prevents full co-operation and positive veterinary involvement on organic livestock farms. If this is the case, there is a need to make sure that the veterinary profession does get involved, both in the development of organic standards and in helping organic farmers maintain good welfare on their farms. Also, it appears necessary to engage the veterinary profession in a discussion of the nature of welfare: health may turn out to be a too limited a view of welfare in the future – even in conventional livestock production.

The results from a limited studies described above do not suggest that organic inspectors put limited emphasis on welfare assessment during inspections. The fact that inspectors lack confidence in their welfare assessment and, consequently, do not raise welfare concerns in a way that would allow follow-up, however, is a concern and needs to be addressed by the certification bodies, preferably by introduction of more formal welfare assessment systems.

Acknowledgements

The projects described here were funded by the UK Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. Help and support of colleagues, inspectors and vets involved in the projects is recognised.

References

Hovi, M., Bennett, R., Kossaibati, M., Robertson, J., Edwards, S., Roderick, S. and Attkinson, C. (2003) Animal welfare in organic farming. Final report of a SEERAD-funded research project. SEERAD 2003.

Hovi, M. and Kossaibati, M. (2002) The impact of organic livestock standards on animal welfare - a questionnaire survey of cattle veterinarians. Cattle Practice 10:3, 183-189.

Hovi, M. and Roderick, S. (2000) Mastitis and mastitis control strategies in organic milk production. Cattle Practice, 8:3, 259-264.

Link to top

Comsumer perceptions and production realities

C.E. Milne

SAC, Animal Health Economics Group

Introduction

The UK Food Standards Agency and the House of Commons Agriculture Committee have both raised questions about the validity of some of the claims for organic food (such as whether organic food is better for you or more animal welfare friendly) (House of Commons, 2001; Krebs, 2003). Similar concerns regarding the health and welfare of organic livestock are being expressed by people closely involved in organic farming, including veterinarians (Lund and Algers, 2003). These commentators challenge organic producers, researchers and professional advisors to review carefully the production realities of organic farming and attributes that are used to promote its produce to consumers.

Animal health and welfare concerns, when expressed generally, relate to specific diseases: diseases where management actions will not achieve acceptable levels of control, and where there is a high dependency on the use of veterinary medicines, such as external (ecto) parasites of sheep and liver fluke (Fasciola hepatica). In these cases, there is a degree of incompatibility with the general principles of organic livestock production, which concentrate on 'naturalness' of the production system, and where the aim is to prevent disease by management actions specifically:

· appropriate breeds and strains of animals
· application of [appropriate] animal husbandry practices
· the use of high quality feeds, .. regular exercise and access to pasturage, [to] encourage the natural immunological defence of the animal
· ensuring appropriate [stocking] density. (DEFRA, 2003)

To demonstrate the dilemmas that can arise, two of the external parasites that affect sheep in the UK have been selected as examples: these are sheep scab and blowfly strike.

Sheep scab mite (Psoroptes communis ovis)

Scab infestations, initiate an allergic dermatitis that causes severe irritation and distress to affected sheep. This can lead to inappetance, which along with secondary infections, can cause mortality (Bates, 1999; Henderson, 1990). As an obligate parasite, scab mites can only be transmitted directly from sheep to sheep or via recently (within the previous 16 -17 days) contaminated fixtures, fittings or materials. These include fence-posts, haulage vehicles, shearing equipment and human clothing. High standards of biosecurity (including double fencing) can prevent infestations at least theoretically. However, this can be very expensive and there is one particular Achilles heel - replacement stock. The introduction of purchased ewes may be less commonplace in organic than conventional systems but rams often need to be purchased to prevent inbreeding. On the live animal in the early stages of an infestation, when mite numbers are small, it can be impossible to diagnose scab by physical examination. The scab mite is only 1 mm in length and clinical signs (skin damage) may not develop for 10 days or even months after the initial infestation (Bates, 1999). On an animal with even 2 cm of fleece it is the proverbial searching for a needle in a haystack.

Without considering any of the other potential transmission routes, here is an immediate dilemma for the organic sheep farmer. It is not possible to eliminate scab infestations by any management action and application of a veterinary medicine is essential - indeed a legal requirement in the UK, when outbreaks occur. Therefore, on purchase of a replacement sheep, should the organic farmer routinely use veterinary medicines to eliminate any scab infestation that might be present, or should it be released un-medicated into the flock ?

Routine use of veterinary medicines is permitted where there is a known risk - but with scab the risk is unknown and historically has been low due to statutory controls. Failure to exclude scab from a flock will result in a loss of animal health and welfare. This is implicit since clinical signs are a preliminary to diagnosis and treatment. Furthermore, the veterinary medicines used to eliminate infestations can be excreted in dung and kill invertebrates in the wider environment (Strong and Wall, 1994; Taylor, 1999). Compliance with the principle of not using veterinary medicines routinely carries a risk that animal health, welfare and environmental care is compromised. Alternatively applying veterinary medicines to all replacement sheep on arrival where the probability of infestation is low compromises the principle that allopathic veterinary medicines will not be used prophylactically.

Blowfly (Lucilia sericata)

Blowflies are non-obligate parasites and only the developmental stages from egg to mature larvae (maggot) are completed on host sheep (it is also non-host specific). The term 'strike' is used to denote the presence of feeding larvae on a host. This only occurs during the summer period and can cause serious animal welfare problems, as the larvae feed on the flesh of live sheep and heavy infestations can be fatal (Tellam and Bowles, 1997). Prevalence of strike is influenced by climatic conditions, with warm damp weather favouring outbreaks. An estimated 80% of flocks in the UK suffer from strike attacks. Unlike scab it is a very common disease, it is not contagious and only a proportion of a flock will be affected - without application of preventative veterinary medicines between 3% and 40% of sheep can be affected (French et al., 1992; Morris, 1997). Two main factors influence the probability of an attack; the susceptibility of the sheep and the prevalence of blowflies in the environment (Fenton et al., 1998). The main predisposing factor is the level of moisture in the fleece (Morris, 1997). Blowfly are particularly attracted to areas of decomposing matter, e.g. areas of soiled fleece or where there are bacterial infections such as footrot, wool rot or mycotic dermatitis (Radostits et al., 1997; Urquhart et al., 1996). Farmers can implement management actions to reduce the susceptibility of their sheep to attack such as effective worm control. However, climatic conditions that result in damp fleeces are out with their control, and attacks are still likely to occur.

The dilemma again is whether to routinely use allopathic veterinary medicines as a preventative measure or to wait and eliminate infestations from affected animals (by which time, animal health and welfare will have been compromised). Many organic farmers will choose, in light of the high probability of attack to apply preventative veterinary medicines - the same action as will be taken by many conventional farmers. For this disease organic practices would then be the same as those operated on many conventional farms.

In these two disease examples it can be seen that there are decision problems for organic farmers seeking to sustain the health and welfare of their sheep and as noted by others (Hovi et al., 2003), there are conflicts that need to be resolved. The problems could from this point be discussed purely on an animal health basis, but doing so would lead away from our starting point – the divergence between production realities and consumer perceptions.

Attributes of organic foods and consumer perceptions

Intrinsic and extrinsic attributes are combined in many food products but extrinsic or 'credence qualities', are invisible to the consumer and characteristics particularly of 'quality' products (Grunert, 2002), such as organic foods. Looking at promotional information, a small number of broad extrinsic attributes are most commonly used to describe organic produce such as 'environmentally and animal welfare friendly', 'high quality' and, in recent years, 'free of genetically modified products'.

Two examples of promotional information that consumers might access demonstrate this:
"Organic farming delivers the highest quality, best-tasting food, produced without artificial chemicals or genetic modification, and with respect for animal welfare and the environment, while helping to maintain the landscape and rural communities"

HRH the Prince of Wales, Soil Association patron quoted on the Soil Association web site (Soil Association, 2003).

And

'Top reasons to buy organic

· Fewer artificial chemicals
· There are no GM ingredients
· Animals are well cared for:

All organically reared animals are free-range, which means they are able to roam outside for most of their lives. This lifestyle encourages a natural rate of growth, because the animals are not routinely fed growth-promoting drugs, such as antibiotics. In fact, many ailments of organic livestock are successfully treated by alternative medicines like homeopathic remedies. For example, the character and responses of some cows are analysed and their treatment is chosen accordingly.'

(Tesco, 2002)

In these examples it can be seen that there are some inconsistencies: are artificial chemicals not used or are they just used less often? The statement that all organic livestock are free-range might also be open to some questions by those more knowledgeable about farming systems. Describing the organic process by a small number of attributes thus can be seen to be difficult.

The perception that consumers have of organic food attributes, unsurprisingly, is similar to that found in promotional information as shown in table 1 and these same attributes are also important factor in consumer purchasing behaviour as demonstrated in Table 2.

Table 1: Perception of ‘organic food’ (Source: MORI – Soil Association, 1999)

Table 2: Reasons for purchasing organic foodstuffs (Source MORI – Soil Association, 1999)

Other consumer studies concur that health and food safety is the most important reason for purchase of organic foods, and that the welfare of farmed animals causes concern to consumers (Harper and Makatouni, 2002; Mintel, 2001). It would seem then that promotional information has successfully communicated its message to consumers – but it confirms the presence of some divergences that remain between consumer perceptions and production realities, such as that chemicals/additives/pesticides are not used in organic systems.

This divergence - or information asymmetry, is a factor that compounds uncertainty about the future price premiums for organic foods. For consumers could, in light of new information on production realities, become disillusioned with 'organic' resulting in a fall in demand. Alternatively, aspects of production (such as the eradication of scab from the UK organic sheep flock) could be changed to match consumer expectations, potentially increasing production costs and reducing the number of farmers willing to supply organic produce. These effects can be demonstrated more clearly by considering the supply and demand relationship and market evidence.

The Supply and demand relationship and organic foods

Whether you are an economist or not, the relationship between supply and demand is an economic concept that you will recognise. As the price of a good increases, supply will increase and demand will ultimately fall. This is illustrated in Figure 1, where a convergence to an equilibrium price is shown (E1). At a price of P2, suppliers are willing to supply Q2, but this will not be accepted by consumers who, for that price level, will only be willing to buy Q3. Eventually, through an iterative process, the equilibrium price (P1) and quantity (Q1) would be established. (But this can only be achieved in a perfect market.)

Figure 1: Supply and demand

Applying this, firstly in relation to the supply curve, food chains including that for organic produce have historically been supply led. This has changed for much of the conventional food sector (Kinsey, 1999) and is changing for the organic sector. The reasons for this include saturation of the market and product lifecycle effects (Ziggers and Trienekens, 1999). Downward price pressures and a need for increasing product differentiation are therefore to be expected for organic foodstuffs. For some organic goods, such as milk in the UK, there is evidence that the market has become saturated and, recently, this has resulted in the complete erosion of a price premium for organic milk for some producers (Farmers Weekly, 2003).

Secondly, in relation to the demand curve, products containing premium attributes (such as organic foodstuffs) should be able to attain a price premium since they provide additional attributes that are not present in the majority of goods. A decrease in the price of organic goods implies that either the associated attributes are no longer attractive to consumers or that consumers are unable to distinguish them from alternative goods. Looking at actual trends in UK consumer attitudes to purchasing organic food (Mintel, 2001) a decline in the attractiveness of promoted organic attributes is indicated as shown in Figure 2. For example, in 2001 fewer felt that organic food is better for you than conventionally produced foods than 1999 and there was a decline in the numbers who thought it worth paying a price premium for organic products. It could be argued that these results are not representative of the' organic purchaser' and that there is a hard core of loyal organic consumers whose attitudes are unlikely to have changed. However in the UK, only 7% of organic consumers are 'committed' organic buyers with the majority of consumers being 'dabblers' (Soil Association, 2001). Moreover, Mintel (2001) found evidence that numbers of active organic buyers had peaked.

Figure 2: Consumer attitudes to purchasing food (Source: Mintel, 2001)

On the point of whether organic foods are perceived to offer premium attributes over conventionally produced alternatives, Harper (2002) found that consumers confuse 'free-range' with 'organic'. The presence of inconsistent promotional information (as illustrated for artificial chemicals in the two quotations given) will also hamper consumers developing clearly defined associations. It must be noted that the broad attributes currently used to differentiate organic produce are increasingly present in conventional foodstuffs. (New regulation, such as European Directives on Groundwater and Nitrates, and recognition of the growing importance of product differentiation within the conventional food chain is driving these latter developments.)

There is evidence then that the downward price pressure being experienced in the organic food sector is likely to be arising from factors affecting both the supply and demand curves. The effect on supply of the current provision of subsidies to farmers converting to organic production in the UK must be noted. Many of the ‘premium’ attributes associated with organic production provide social rather than private benefits. For example, the environmental benefits are not gained exclusively by the consumer of the organic goods but by all members of society. This provides a valid case for governmental subsidisation – society pays collectively through taxes for the benefits society receives. Furthermore in the presence of market failure (where the market provides insufficient incentive for farmers to convert to organic production) governments may also seek to intervene through measures such as subsidies. However, provision of subsidy only during the organic conversion period, as happens in the UK, will encourage farmers to move into organic production even when the market is becoming saturated, particularly if insufficient market forecasting information is available to producers (or there is a failure in its communication). The likely outcome is not only a flow of farmers into organic production, but also out of organic production in due course.

Returning to demand, the issues raised about the validity and ability of promoted attributes of organic foods provide both an opportunity and a threat. The threat is clear, that disillusionment of consumers could lead to a fall in demand and price that could ultimately make organic production of affected goods financially unsustainable. The opportunity is to link both a reappraisal of how animal health is sustained in organic systems and how organic foodstuffs are promoted.

For some animal health problems, it may need to be accepted that the simultaneous attainment of all the principles of organic production currently may not be possible. For some diseases, where control is highly dependent upon allopathic veterinary medicines, there are opportunities such as the eradication of sheep scab from the national organic flock. This would be an achievable goal since scab mites are obligate parasites. All stock entering organic conversion could be treated to eliminate scab at the outset and good bio-security would thereafter enable this status to be maintained. Although this course of action would initially incur additional production costs, it may be the optimal decision when viewed in the long term. Undertaking an economic analysis of the disease for the organic sector would provide the required supporting information to make such a decision, as has been demonstrated by several existing studies on the economics of animal disease (Milne and Dalton, 1988; Stott et al., 2003; van Schaik et al., 2002). Moreover, by reducing future disease costs organic livestock systems would be better able to compete with conventional farming even if there were to be some erosion of price premia in the marketplace. It might be questioned why such an approach has not already been adopted as it is in line with the specific management actions stated in the organic regulations. The barriers to greater co-operation and co-ordination of disease control within organic livestock farming need to be explored and overcome where benefits can be obtained from such action.

Conclusions

A wide variety of literature is available that both on its own and in combination highlights that achieving animal health and welfare standards above that of conventional farming systems is difficult with some diseases in organic systems. They also demonstrate that there is a conflict between some of the organic principles when dealing with diseases which cannot be effectively controlled without allopathic veterinary medicines. This is a common theme in a number of recent articles on the health and welfare of organic livestock. Economic theory demonstrates the relationship between price and the supply and demand for organic foods. Aspects of demand have been researched and provide an insight into consumer perceptions of organic foodstuffs and their purchasing behaviour. This shows that there are some divergences between consumer perceptions and production realities and that downward price pressures on organic foods are likely to increase. There are opportunities in animal disease control, such as eradication programmes, which have not been adopted by the organic sector. These could provide benefits to animal health, welfare, marketing and farm profitability, but require concerted action.

References

Alonso, A. S., Paquin, J.-P., and Mangin, J.-P. L. (2002). Modelling perceived quality in fruit products: their extrinsic and intrinsic attributes. Jounal of Food Products Marketing, 8: 29-48.

Bates, P. (1999). A practical guide to the control of sheep scab. The Moredun Foundation.

DEFRA. (2003). Compendium of UK organic standards. DEFRA, London.

Farmers Weekly. (2003). Organic rush slows to a trickle. Farmers Weekly.

Fenton, A., Wall, R., and French, N. P. (1998). The effect of farm management strategies on the incidence of sheep strike in Britain: a simulation analysis. Veterinary Parasitology, 79: 341-357.

French, N. P., Wall, R., Cripps, P. J., and Morgan, K. L. (1992). Prevalence, regional distribution and control of blowfly strike in England and Wales. Veterinary Record, 131: 337-342.

Grunert, K. G. (2002). Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 13: 275-285.

Harper, G. C., and Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104: 287-299.

Henderson, D. C. (1990). The veterinary book for sheep farmers, Ipswich Farming Press.

House of Commons Agriculture Committee. (2001). Second Report: Organic Farming. The United Kingdom Parliament, London.

Hovi, M., Sundrum, A., and 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.

Kinsey, J. D. (1999). The big shift from a food supply to a food demand chain. Minnesota Agricultural Economist, 698: 1-7.

Krebs, J. (2003). Is organic food better for you?, Food Standards Agency.

Lund, V., and Algers, B. (2003). Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming--a literature review. Livestock Production Science, 80: 55-68.

Milne, C., and Dalton, G. E. (1988). The economics of Enzootic Abortion prevention and control. Farm Management, 6: 529-533.

Mintel. (2001). Organic foods - UK November 2001: The consumer. , Mintel International Group Limited, London.

Morris, O. S. (1997). The biology of the sheep blowflies Lucilia caesar and Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in relation to their control by trapping. PhD, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

Olson, J. C., and Jacoby, J. Cue utilization in the quality perception process. Third annual conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Iowa City, 167-179.

Radostits, O. M., Blood, D. C., and Gay, C. C. (1997). Veterinary medicine: a textbook of the diseases of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses, Saunders, London.

Soil Association. (1999). The organic food and farming report 1999. Soil Association, Bristol.

Soil Association. (2001). The organic food and farming report 2001: Consumer profiles. Soil Association, Bristol.

Soil Association. (2003). What is organic farming? Quotation. Soil Association.

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.

Strong, L., and Wall, R. (1994). Effects of ivermectin and moxidectin on the insects of cattle dung. Bulletin of Entomolgical Research, 84: 403-409.

Taylor, S. M. (1999). Sheep scab-environmental considerations of treatment with doramectin. Veterinary Parasitology, 83: 309-317.

Tellam, R. L., and Bowles, V. M. (1997). Control of blowfly strike in sheep: current strategies and future prospects. International Journal for Parasitology, 27: 261-273.

Tesco. (2002). Go organic: Top reasons to buy organic. Tesco.

Urquhart, G. M., Armour, J., Duncan, J. L., Dunn, A. M., and Junnings, F. W. (1996). Veterinary Parasitology, Blackwell Science, London.

van Schaik, G., Schukken, Y. H., Nielen, M., Dijkhuizen, A. A., Barkema, H. W., and Benedictus, G. (2002). Probability of and risk factors for introduction of infectious diseases into Dutch SPF dairy farms: a cohort study. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 54: 279-289.

Ziggers, G., Willem , and Trienekens, J. (1999). Quality assurance in food and agribusiness supply chains: Developing successful partnerships. International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61: 271-279.

Link to top

Organic standards: by whom and for whom?

W. Lockeretz1 and V. Lund2

1 Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University; 2 Dept. of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Introduction

The rapid growth of the organic market greatly complicates the already difficult task of setting appropriate organic standards because it brings into the process new interest groups with differing perspectives on organic farming. In particular, a much greater role is now played by food wholesalers and retailers, and more attention is being given to the (presumed) expectations and wishes of a broad segment of current and potential consumers of organic foods (Giovannucci, 2003). This raises a challenging question: Who should define what organic farming is? Organic farmers? The food industry? Organic consumers? Governments?

The question is especially significant for organic livestock standards, which are much less fully developed than for crop production and which, along with the many environmental and health-related considerations that go into crop standards, also involve difficult ethical issues relating to animal welfare and the human-animal relationship.

The prevailing answer seems to be ‘the consumer’. The doctrine of ‘consumer sovereignty’ and the dictum that organic standards must be based on the market’s expectations have been asserted in many quarters:

· A US organic certifier noted that ‘our primary concern is understanding and meeting consumer expectations’ (Ritchie, 2000, 3).

· Under the UK’s organic Action Plan, the government ‘will seek to ensure that the EU organic standards continue to develop in line with consumers’ expectations, reflecting the desire to have high standards in place’ (DEFRA, 2002, 4).

· A US environmental and consumer advocacy group, noting that the US Department of Agriculture regarded its organic standards as ‘a marketing standard based on consumer expectations’, said that the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board ‘must account for the market place expectation of consumers’ (Mendelson III, 2002a, 2). It suggested many changes on USDA’s draft standards on the basis of ‘consumer expectations’; those having to do with livestock dealt with outdoor access, pasture for ruminants, and feeds (Mendelson III, 2002b).

· An organic consultant in the UK, discussing possible changes in standards, expressed the opinion that ‘there is an urgent need for research here to find out what consumers expect from organic food, especially those new organic consumer who have entered the market over the last eighteen months’ (Wright, 2001, 2).

· A US Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, a strong supporter of organic farming, said that ‘consumer expectations and preferences have driven the organic market to where it is today… Strict organic standards that … promote consumer preferences will help the market grow even more’ (quoted in Swientek, 2000, 2).

We take a different view. We believe that the main voice in setting organic standards should be that of organic farmers, not consumers or the market. We base our view on the philosophy of organic farming and on our reading of its history, which goes back long before the organic sector approached mass market status, as it is beginning to do in many European countries.

Historical perspective on organic markets and standards

In the early days of organic farming – until the past quarter-century or so – the process of defining it was much simpler because the organic sector itself was much simpler. The early organic movement was producer-driven, and the concept was mainly developed by farmers and their allies. Among its major goals was the production of more wholesome and nutritious foods, which is certainly a consumer-oriented goal. But consumers were not a significant independent part of the early organic movement in a formal way. There were few organic consumers, and they constituted a narrow segment of the consuming public, a select group that shared the values and principles of the early organic farmers.

Nor was the marketing sector a significant independent force, because the organic market was not highly developed. Many early organic farmers in the US sold their products through conventional outlets because no organic channels existed (Wernick and Lockeretz, 1977); they farmed organically anyway because they preferred it as a production system, independent of marketing possibilities. For meat, the term ‘organic’ was not even allowed on the label in the US until 1999 (USDA, 1999), and in Europe too, organic livestock initially were sold through conventional channels (Schmid, 2000a).

When organic products were sold as such, it was mainly through small, specialised enterprises that shared the values of their suppliers and customers. Often the markets were highly localised, further integrating farmers, sellers and customers into what might be called the ‘organic community’. At first there were no standards, just a shared understanding of what ‘organic’ meant, at least in its basic principles if not in every detail. Nor was there certification; rather, the system was based – justifiably or not – on personal trust. When standards and certification were introduced, it was by organisations that primarily were farmer-oriented, such as Bioland in Germany, which introduced its organic label in 1981 (Bioland, n.d.).

All that has changed, of course. Organic farmers are much more numerous now, raising the possibility that new entrants, who may be motivated more by economic considerations than a commitment to fundamental organic principles, will seek to loosen the standards. Especially with the globalisation of the organic food market, the number of intermediaries between producer and consumer has increased, with processors, distributors, traders and retailers of organic foods exercising greater economic power (Giovannucci, 2003). The expanded organic market has involved a new kind of organic consumer, one who we can assume has less knowledge of and commitment to the full range of organic principles, as well as less direct knowledge and experience regarding farming in general, as is true for society as a whole. Finally, the fact that organic standards are now legally binding (both nationally and internationally) has required that they become much more detailed and elaborate.

The effect has been to give a much greater voice to the marketing sector, to consumers (perhaps more correctly, to those who purport to speak in the name of consumers), and government agencies. This may have diminished the role of organic farmers, especially of the kind who were more likely to take up organic farming in the early days, i.e., smaller farmers more involved with direct or local marketing. For example, the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (which mandated the establishment of National Organic Standards in the US), although generally welcomed by the organic sector, was strongly opposed by a vocal minority of organic farmers who said ‘Don’t let them take “organic” away from us.’

The greater attention being given to expanding the market is often taken as a welcome sign that the organic sector has matured. However, not everyone is cheered by that development. For example, Woodward and Meier-Ploeger (1999) see it as undermining the distinctive quality characteristics of organic foods; Giovannucci (2003, 197) believes that ‘reaching a broader audience may mean adapting to more industrial forms of agriculture, some of which may be inherently contradictory to organic principles’.

Organic principles and organic standards

In discussing what organic farming is, it is important to distinguish between standards and principles. The principles describe goals, while the standards describe the practical process of how to reach those goals. The basic principles do not change (at least not casually), but the standards change constantly, since they must deal more directly with a changing reality. As economic conditions, available technology, and scientific understanding change, standards must adapt while remaining true to the spirit of organic farming. The standards are a compromise between ideals and the harsh realities that organic farmers have to face: new problems with pests and diseases, such as the appearance of resistant sheep parasites, which has forced organic farmers to accept deworming methods that are unacceptable according to the spirit of organic farming; shortages of organic feeds because of the apparently increasing frequency of severe weather; increasing production costs; and changing market demands and consumer opinions. Because standards must compromise, they do not always fully reflect what organic farming would be like in an ideal world.

The basic principles stated by IFOAM today were elaborated by the early organic farming movement. However, organic farming is not just any mishmash of ideas that early organic farmers happened to like. Rather, it is underpinned by an extensive value system that can be related to ethical theories (Lund, 2002; Verhoog et al., in press). Thus, it is valid to talk about an underlying ‘organic philosophy’. This is not to say that all organic farmers personally hold these values, since there are other reasons for farming organically, for example because it is good business (Lund et al., in press). What it does imply, however, is that the organic principles should not easily be changed just because some new organic farmers do not agree with basic organic ideas or because some consumer groups have other expectations.

The variability of livestock standards

In contrast to organic principles, standards are much more variable and sensitive to the influence of different constituencies. This can be seen in the changes made by USDA in response to public comments on the first and second drafts of the US national standards (AMS, 2000a,b). It also can be seen by comparing several major sets of standards: those of the EU (European Communities, 1999), the USDA, and IFOAM (its worldwide Basic Standards [IFOAM, 2002]). However, the latter comparison, no doubt, reflects not only the influence of different groups, but also adaptation to production and marketing conditions in the region where each standard respectively applies. Also, relevant are the different roles these standards are intended to serve: the EU’s are minimum standards that must be met, but some national-level variation is allowed in their application; the USDA’s constitute a complete set of uniform standards to be applied ‘as is’; IFOAM’s are not intended to be enforced directly, but rather are minimum requirements that certifiers must meet in developing their own standards.

Among the major differences in livestock standards are the following:

· Organic feed requirement
USDA originally proposed allowing up to 20% of the ration to be non-organic, but in response to public comment eliminated this allowance except during strictly limited emergencies (AMS, 2000a, 13546). EU and IFOAM both allow up to 10% non-organic feed for herbivores, and respectively 20% and 15% for other species.

· Feed self-sufficiency
In keeping with the basic organic principle of favouring on-farm resources, IFOAM requires at least 50% of the feed to be grown on the farm or in co-operation with farms in the region; USDA says nothing about this; EU says only that feed should ‘preferably’ come from the farm.

· Antibiotics
USDA’s original proposal allowed antibiotics to be administered to sick animals (but in the case of slaughter stock only when very young), but in response to public comment it later prohibited any animal that received any antibiotic from being sold as ‘organic’. However, it also required that a sick animal be treated by whatever method was appropriate, e.g., antibiotics, even if this resulted in loss of its organic status (AMS 2000b, 80645). In contrast, EU and IFOAM permit limited therapeutic use of antibiotics on animals sold as organic.

· Withholding times after drug use
EU and IFOAM provide for extended withholding times following the use of permitted drugs. USDA originally rejected this requirement ‘because an extended withholding time does not further the goals of a system of organic farming and handling’ (AMS, 1997, 65881). However, in response to public comment USDA later imposed an extended (90 day) withholding time for milk after the use of certain drugs, such as Ivermectin. The explanation that accompanied the change is relevant here: ‘No food safety arguments are used or implied to support the use of extended withdrawal periods. Rather, we determined that extended withdrawal periods are more compatible with consumer expectations of organically raised animals… [A]n extended withdrawal period would indicate that such use was neither routine nor normal.’ (AMS, 2000a, 13549 [emphasis added]). Keatinge et al. (2000) made a similar point regarding the EU standards.

· Mutilations
All three standards require that mutilations be done in a way that minimises pain and suffering. In staying with a proposed rule that evoked a great deal of public comment on both sides, USDA imposes no other restrictions, and in fact ‘require[s] that producers perform physical alterations as needed to promote animal welfare’ (AMS 2000b, 80572). IFOAM has a limited list of allowed mutilations; EU permits more kinds, but only with the approval of the certifier, not systematically.

· Transportation
USDA says nothing about transportation, although it is an important aspect of animal welfare; EU and IFOAM both call for limiting stress and both prohibit tranquillisers and electric prods.

Besides these examples, there are many more differences, some substantial, in areas such as: minimum slaughter age; length of time an animal must be raised organically; stocking and housing densities; feed ingredients and medicines; access to outdoors and pasture; and confinement and tethering (Schmid, 2000b; 2002; Riddle and Coody, 2002; Padel et al., in press).

Why do livestock standards vary so much?

The organic principles represent visions, and as such they may be ’fuzzy’. Also, in the early stages of organic farming, most of the actors involved shared a common value framework, and there was no great need to elaborate the principles further, since there was a general and shared understanding of how to apply them to agricultural practice. As already mentioned, at first there were not even any standards. The need to put more ‘flesh on the bones’ grew as more people with more diverse interests got involved in organic farming, and the work to develop the principles further has now begun (e.g., Alrøe et al. 2000; DARCOF, 2000; Lund and Röcklinsberg, 2001; Verhoog et al., 2003). More work along these lines is needed, not the least to support the work on setting standards.

Standards, on the other hand, must be very concrete. Setting organic livestock standards is a subtle matter that must serve diverse and possibly conflicting goals, from environmental and ethological to ethical and economic (Padel et al., in press). The scientific basis for setting livestock standards is incomplete, at best. Nor is it simply a matter of science; science can provide a factual basis for decisions, but how the principles should be interpreted and applied is always value-based (Verhoog et al., in press).

For example, when a new production technique becomes available, we need to decide whether to permit it in organic farming. Such a decision must not be based on the simple question ‘Is it good or bad?’ Rather, the decision must be based on organic principles, and also depends on how these are interpreted. It is not easy to strike an appropriate balance between innovation and tradition in organic farming.

The case of artificial insemination (AI) illustrates this point. One of the most important and influential pioneers of organic farming, Albert Howard (1947, 81), strongly condemned AI as ‘a monstrous innovation … [that] is bound to end in sterility and disaster‘. Yet today it is accepted under all the standards just discussed. This illustrates the need to compromise between ideals and realities when setting standards. If AI is prohibited, this would (under a strict interpretation) prohibit organic dairy farmers from using any bulls of conventional origin. Organic animals would quickly fall behind their conventional counterparts in their genetic production potential. Also, organic farmers would have to abandon a powerful tool for breeding healthier animals with better longevity; because most of the relevant traits have low inheritance, evaluating them genetically requires a large number of offspring, which is possible only with AI.

Standards-writers also have the delicate job of deciding on the conflicts among different interests, for example between the well-being of the animals and that of their caretakers, as in the possible threat a horned cow presents to human welfare (and that of its herdmates) when it is allowed to keep its horns. And like it or not, the farm’s economy matters, not just to the farmer, but also to the animals. If an animal welfare requirement makes organic production so expensive that a farm cannot survive economically, there would be fewer animals on organic farms. Would the animals then be better off?

There also may be conflicts with powerful interests outside the organic sphere. Organic livestock production must comply with all other laws and regulations, such as on food safety. For example, the organic principle of feeding an animal a diet appropriate to the species would call for some animal protein in the diet of poultry, which are not vegetarians by nature. Yet feeding of animal protein (except milk and some fish products) is prohibited in the EU because of a precautionary attitude resulting from the BSE crisis.

Another important source of variation in standards, one that differs between IFOAM on one hand and EU and USDA on the other, is the role of government. Governments generally have no interest in interpreting organic principles as such; their concern with standards stems primarily from trade and consumer considerations, including food safety (although the organic movement influenced the writing of the EU regulations). IFOAM, in contrast, as the umbrella organisation of the organic movement, is deeply concerned with the principles of organic farming and how these are to be expressed through the standards. Furthermore, the EU standards are the result of political negotiations, where not only organic principles but also regional and political concerns of various kinds entered, some of which did not even have to do with agriculture at all.

Who can best decide?

For all these reasons, sound organic standard-setting requires judgement, knowledge, and experience. Standards are about how to embody ideals into reality, and organic farmers and those who work closely with them (e.g., farm advisors) are best equipped to carry out this challenging task. They not only have historical ‘ownership’ of the concept; they also have a special knowledge of the realities of farming. The nature of the principles, calling for co-operation and working in harmony with nature, gives them special authority, because they have a broad and profound understanding of what this entails in an agricultural context. Further underlining the importance of farmers is that the organic standards are about a process – how the animal was raised – and not about the resulting product.

In contrast, consumers as a whole – not just those who already are heavily committed to buying organic foods and are knowledgeable about them – are less likely to understand organic principles in their full complexity, or to have the knowledge of farming necessary to deal wisely with the trade-offs required in setting standards. Yet it is these consumers who represent the future growth of the organic market and are the ones whose perceptions (real, presumed, or manipulated) will have the greatest weight in market-driven revisions of the standards: ‘Further increases in sales [will] depend more on less committed consumers with different perceptions, attitudes and requirements. While early adopters of organic products may have been driven by ethical and environmental concerns, as the market has broadened the mass market may be less motivated by such factors and more driven by economic factors such as price’ (Hallam, 2003, 185).

This might be seen as implying that giving a greater role to marketing considerations would dilute organic standards for the sake of economic benefits (cheaper food). However, the effect could also go in the opposite direction. Consumers sometimes have an oversimplified, all-or-nothing understanding of organic livestock production, e.g., ‘no antibiotics’. Such a belief, if incorporated into the European standards, could impose an economic burden (as well as create additional welfare problems). Similarly, thanks in part to idyllic representations of organic farms in marketing efforts, consumers may have an unrealistically rosy image of an organic farm, with a few each of cattle (with horns) on a lush pasture, chickens scratching around in a clean, dry, safe yard, cute pigs rooting in the dirt, etc. No doubt many would be shocked on learning how big and specialised some organic farms are, or on learning how the dairy cows came to have no horns. Presumably, on learning the reality – which will happen eventually – they would want to toughen the standards so that all organic farms would have to fit the idealised image.

A special problem in this context is the entrance of governments on the scene, because standards that have become legally binding are very difficult to influence and change. Historically the organic movement, including IFOAM, ‘owns’ the standards, but making them into law to a considerable extent has eliminated that ownership. As much as possible of the ownership should be given back to the organic farmers, although this probably will not be easy since it now involves legislation.

Is self-regulation sufficient?

In saying that farmers should still drive the standard-setting processes, aren’t we inviting abuse by ceding control to a group that is directly affected economically by those standards? Isn’t self-regulation susceptible to becoming, in effect, non-regulation?

The pitfalls of what may seem like self-regulation must be dealt with on three levels. We believe that they all can be avoided by:

· Ensuring that ‘organic’ principles really are that.
A lively debate is underway to ensure this. The principles must be discussed and elaborated in an open, democratic process, allowing all concerned to speak out. This is where consumers’ opinions come in. It is important to have explicit principles down on paper. This will provide a yardstick against which to compare current or proposed standards. Of course, bringing values into the open risks causing deep splits in the movement, with people who thought they liked organic farming finding that what they liked really was something defined very differently.

· Ensuring that organic standards stick to organic principles.
We are not suggesting that the standards should be absolutely anything that organic farmers say they should be; rather, we are suggesting that they not be absolutely anything the market says they should be. Standard-setting would still be an open process, and proposed changes would still have to be justified in light of the basic principles of organic farming, not simply expediency or economic advantage. Farmers’ voices would presumptively be given the greatest weight, but should it be necessary, others can protect against flagrant distortions of the organic concept. Moreover, the history of farmer-developed standards has shown that at least in the past, organic farmers have been highly committed to organic principles and are eager to protect and uphold them. However, as discussed earlier, whether this will still be true for newly entering farmers remains a question. Another possible problem is that tougher standards than organic farmers might want can be an incentive for developing improved methods that come closer to the organic ideals; farmers need to recognise that their long-term interests are served by such standards, even if they make things more difficult at first.

A further safeguard can be offered by IFOAM, as the most broadly representative and respected worldwide voice of all those concerned with organic farming. IFOAM’s Basic Standards carry considerable authority (even if only unofficially), and IFOAM accreditation oversees how certifying organisations deal with standard-setting, a role that can increase as more certifiers see the value of becoming IFOAM-accredited.

· Ensuring that organic farmers truly farm organically.
Of the three levels, this is the one that is regulatory in the strict sense, and where the potential problems with self-regulation are real. However, we are not suggesting that it be returned to individual farmers for private self-regulation, as in the early days. An effective regulatory mechanism is needed to guarantee that a product labelled ‘organic’ in fact was produced according to the standards it claims to meet, and that these standards were adopted by a legitimate process that can reasonably be said to reflect the term ‘organic’. The task of guaranteeing the validity of the label currently falls, and should continue to fall, to accredited, third-party certifiers who protect the consumer’s legitimate interest in nonfraudulent labels, backed up by the possibility of legal action in case of violation.

For a farmer-oriented approach to make sense, it will require consumers – who in fact do have the ultimate say in whether organic farming thrives – to be knowledgeable about it and to support farmers’ good faith efforts to embody its principles in workable standards. It will do no one any good to propagate images of a mythical organic paradise or to paper over the difficulties of running an organic farm that both fulfils all the ideals and survives economically. This in turn requires the organic sector to inform consumers about both the ideals and the realities of organic farming, and to do so honestly and fairly. Only that way will consumers accept farmer-oriented standards as legitimate rather than self-serving.

References

Alrøe, H.F., Vaarst, M., Kristensen, E.S. (2001). Does organic farming face distinctive livestock welfare issues? – a conceptual analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14: 275-299.

AMS 1997. 7 CFR Part 205: National Organic Program; Proposed Rule. Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Federal Register 62(No. 241, December 16): 65850-65967.

AMS (2000a). 7 CFR Part 205: National Organic Program; Proposed Rule. Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Federal Register 65(No. 49, March 13): 13512-13658.

AMS (2000b). 7 CFR Part 205: National Organic Program; Final Rule. Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Federal Register 65(No. 246, December 21): 80548-80684.

BIOLAND (n.d.) Bioland und seine Vermarktung.

http://www.bioland.de/bioland/bioland_06.html

DARCOF (2000). Principles of organic farming. Discussion document prepared for DARCOF Users Committee. Danish Centre for Organic Farming, Tjele. http://www.darcof.dk/discuss/Princip.pdf

DEFRA (2002). Action Plan to Develop Organic Food and Farming in England. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK). http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/actionplan.actionplan.htm

European Communities (1999). Council regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Official Journal of the European Communities 24.8.1999: L222/1-28.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1999/l_222/l_22219990824en00010028.pdf

Giovannucci, D. (2003). Emerging issues in the marketing and trade of organic products. In: Organic Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, and CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 187-197.

Hallam, D. (2003). The organic market in OECD countries: past growth, current status and future potential. In: Organic Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, and CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.179-186.

Howard, A. (1947). The Soil and Health: A Study of Organic Agriculture. The Devin-Adair Company, New York.

IFOAM (2002). IFOAM Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

http://www.ifoam.org/standard/norms/ibs.pdf

Keatinge, R., Gray, D., Thamsborg, S.M., Martini, A., Plate, P. (2000). EU Regulation 1804//1999 – the implications of limiting allopathic treatment. In: M. Hovi and R.G. Trujillo (eds). Diversity of Livestock Systems and Definition of Animal Welfare. Proceedings of the Second NAHWOA Workshop, Córdoba, 8–11 January 2000. University of Reading, UK. 92-98.

Lund, V. (2002). Ethics and animal welfare in organic animal husbandry – an interdisciplinary approach. Doctoral thesis. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Veterinaria 137. Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara.

Lund, V., Röcklinsberg, H. (2001). Outlining a conception of animal welfare for organic farming systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14, 391-424.

Lund, V., Hemlin, S., White, J. (in press). Ethics and natural behavior - Swedish organic farmers’ view on animal issues. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

Mendelson III, J. (2002a). Letter to National Organic Standards Board. The Center for Food Safety, Washington, DC. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/li/OrganicCmt.pdf

Mendelson III, J. (2002b). Comments to Docket No. TMD-00-02-PR2 USDA National Organic Program; Proposed Rule. The Center for Food Safety, Washington, DC. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/NewCFSOrganicCmt.html

Padel, S., Schmid, O., Lund, V. (in press). Organic livestock standards. In: M. Vaarst, S. Roderick, V. Lund, and W. Lockeretz (eds). Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Riddle, J., Coody, L. (2002). Comparison of the EU and US organic regulations. In: G. Rundgren and W. Lockeretz (eds). IFOAM Conference on Organic Guarantee Systems Reader. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley, Germany. 19-24.

Ritchie, M. (2000). Organic and wild: a new level of standards. Cooperative Grocer Online #90 (September-October).

http://www.cooperativegrocer.cooop/cg2000/organicwild.shtml

Schmid, O. (2000a). Comparison of European Organic Livestock Standards with national and international standards – problems of common standards development and future areas of interest. In: M. Hovi and R.G. Trujillo (eds). Diversity of Livestock Systems and Definition of Animal Welfare. Proceedings of the Second NAHWOA Workshop, Córdoba, 8–11 January 2000. University of Reading, UK. 63-75.

Schmid, O. (2000b). Appendix IV: A comparison of organic livestock production standards: the new EU Regulation No. 1804/1999, IFOAM Basic Standards of November 1998 and the new draft guidelines of Codex Alimentarius ALINORM 99/22a.. In: M. Hovi and R.G. Trujillo (eds). Diversity of Livestock Systems and Definition of Animal Welfare. Proceedings of the Second NAHWOA Workshop, Córdoba, 8–11 January 2000. University of Reading, UK. 76-91.

Schmid, O. (2002). Comparison of EU Regulation 2092/21, Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Organically Produced Food 1999/20001, and IFOAM Basic Standards 2000. In: G. Rundgren and W. Lockeretz (eds). IFOAM Conference on Organic Guarantee Systems Reader. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley, Germany. 12-18.

Swientek, B. (2000). GMOs and HMOs. Prepared Foods, January. http://www.preparedfoods.com/archives/2000/2000_01/0001edit.htm

USDA (1999) Organic labeling claim allowed on meat and poultry products. Release No. 0015.99. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. http://www.organic-mlt.com/usda-mlabel-srpt-990121.htm#usda-press-release

Verhoog, H., Matze, M., Lammerts van Bueren, E., Baars, T. (2003). The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 22-49.

Verhoog, H., Lund, V., Alrøe, H.F. (in press). Animal welfare, ethics and organic farming. M. Vaarst, S. Roderick, V. Lund, and W. Lockeretz (eds). Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Wernick, S., Lockeretz, W. (1977). Motivations and practices of organic farmers. Compost Science 18(6): 20-24.

Woodward, L., Meier-Ploeger, A. (1999). ‘Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens’: Consumers’ perceptions of organic food quality? In D. Foguelman and W. Lockeretz (eds). Organic Agriculture: The Credible Solution for the XXIst Century. Proceedings of the 12th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, November 15-19, 1998, Mar del Plata, Argentina. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley, Germany. 81-88.

Wright, S. (2001). Let’s stick together. The Organic Consultancy. http://www.organic-consultancy.com/articles/OGB/0801.shtml

Link to top

Impact of socio-demographic factors on consumption patterns and buying motives with respect to organic dairy products in Switerland

J. Sanders and T. Richter

Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse, 5070 Frick, Switzerland

Introduction

In the 1990s, the Swiss organic dairy market experienced an enormous expansion with annual growth rates of 10–15%. In 2001, approximately 191,000 tonnes of organic milk were produced. This corresponds to 4.9% of the overall milk production in Switzerland (Hamm and Gronefeld, 2003). This market expansion was clearly driven by a growing demand, which in turn was closely connected to the marketing activities of the major retailers (Richter and Sanders, 2001). Today, however, the situation has changed. While in the past, the demand for organic milk was typically higher than supply, there is currently an oversupply with approximately 7 million kg of organically produced milk that cannot be sold as organic milk (Bio Suisse, 2003). A similar development is likely for the next years. Since the number of organic buyers will not increase anymore only by the fact that organic food is available in the shelves of retailers, it is necessary to develop more target group and product group specific marketing strategies in Switzerland based on an in-depth understanding of organic consumer attitudes and consumption patterns. Through this strategy, it might be possible to achieve a further growth of the currently saturated market.

The aim of this paper is to present and compare consumption data and survey results from three different sources, in order to give a comprehensive overview of the socio-demographic profiles of organic consumers and, in particular, of consumption patterns and buying motives with respect to organic dairy products. Based on these data, recommendations for improved marketing measures for organic dairy products are derived.

Data sources

· Household budget survey from the Swiss Federal Statistical Office: In 2000, the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO) conducted a nationwide survey on income and consumption, in which some 3,642 private households, selected at random from the Swiss pop