principiples of organic farming

7/28/2019 Principiples of Organic Farming

1/34


2/34

DARCOF

The main objective of the Danish Research Centre forOrganic Farming (DARCOF) is to conduct research ofhigh-quality, international standard relating to the philoso-phy and problems of organic farming. This work is desig-ned to further the development of organic farming, therebyexpanding the options for changing from traditional toorganic production and promoting a sustainable, economic,ecological, and social development in agriculture.

DARCOF is a centre without walls, whose research pro-grammes involve the collaboration of about 100 scientistsworking at 15 research institutes. The scientists thus workin their own environment but co-operate across institute

boundaries. The centre is managed by a Board made up ofrepresentatives of the Danish Institute of AgriculturalScience, the National Environmental Research I nsti tute, theRoyal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Ris NationalLaboratory, the Danish Institute for Agricultural andFisheries Economics, and the Danish Veterinary Laboratory.

To ensure the relevance of its research activities and mainta-in its contact with different user groups, DARCOF has setup a User Committee. This body comprises representativesof the Organic Food Council, the Danish Association forOrganic Farming, The Association of Organic andBiodynamic Plant Producers and Processers in Denmark,the Danish Family Farmers Association, the ConsumerCouncil, the Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre, theDanish Association of Horticultural Producers, theEconomic Council of the Labour Movement, and theDanish Farmers Union.

Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming(DARCOF)Foulum, Post Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark.

Tel: +45 89 99 16 75. Fax: +45 89 99 12 00.E-mail: [email protected] page: www.foejo.dk


3/34

Preface

3

In the course of about 10 years, organic farming inDenmark has expanded from covering less than0.5% of the agricultural land area and about 500farms to the present situation in which it is practicedon 6.5% of this land and on 3,500 farms. A verydynamic development in organic farming has thusoccurred, although it is generally agreed that muchmore is to come. The direction and basis of thisdevelopment is, however, less clear.

To support this development, Denmark has introdu-ced a policy that includes economic support for thetransition to organic production, the provision ofrelevant advice, and the conduct of research intoorganic farming. As part of this policy the DanishResearch Centre for Organic Farming (DARCOF)was established in 1996. One of the main remits ofthis centre is to initiate and co-ordinate research pro-jects that support and help the development of orga-

nic farming.

DARCOF research must be pro-active and forward-looking, have a long-term perspective, and help topromote organic principles. These objectives canonly be fully satisfied, however, if a degree of con-sensus is reached on the ecological aims and princi-ples of organic farming.

For the planning of new research projects (seeAppendix 1), the Board and User Committee ofDARCOF have discussed various issues concerningthe principles of organic farming and its futuredevelopment. These discussions revealed a certaindegree of uncertainty, and against this backgroundthe User Committee expressed a desire to make thediscussion more fundamental, and at the same timeopen it up to many more people.

The original goal was to get Danish organisations,associations, branches, etc. to discuss organic princi-ples and the future development of organic farming.The various participants were asked to provide theircomments, recommendations, and criticisms toDARCOF both for the formal discussion and asrecommendations for the development programmepresented at the end.

It turns out, however, that in many of our neighbou-ring countries there is a similar need and interest todiscuss goals, principles and development opportuni-ties for organic farming. Against this background wehave prepared this English version of the Danishdebate, on the basis of which we hope to inspire abroader international discussion. We would greatlywelcome receipt of any comments or suggestions,also for inclusion in the Danish discussion.

Erik Steen Kr istensen

Research Centre for Organi c Farming

February 2001


4/34

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Fundamental principles and values in organic farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2 Precautionary principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.4 Animal husbandry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.5 Social aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.6 Summary of fundamental principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3 Technological questions relating to the development oforganic farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.1 Plant production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.2 Animal production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.3 Processing, marketing and re-cycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.4 Discussion of the use of new technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4 Discussion and perspectives for the development of organic farming . . . . . . . 264.1 From local sale to large-scale organic operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.2 Simplified basic control to ensure product credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix 1: Danish Research in Organic Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix 2: The Principle Aims of Organic Production and Processing . . . . . . . . . 34

4

Contents


5/34

Before research projects can be initiated tosupport and underpin developments in orga-nic farming, it is necessary to achieve adegree of consensus concerning its ecologicalobjectives and principles. With this in mind,this document aims to stimulate a discussionon the direction and fundamental basis offuture developments.

It starts with a description of some of thebasic principles and values that pertain toorganic farming. The original objectives ofthe International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements (IFOAM) and theNational Association for Organic Farming(LJ) are described, and several central issuesrelating to caution, sustainability, organicanimal production, and social aspects oforganic farming are discussed. It is noted thatin comparison with earlier times, far less

attention is currently being paid to social andcultural values.

It is concluded that three basic principles canbe identified:

s The cyclical principles The precautionary principles The nearness principle.

Following this, examples are given of currentuses of technology and inputs. The workinghypothesis is that progress in organic farmingdepends to a large extent on which newapproaches are accepted and which are rejec-ted. Ideally, this choice is determined by thebasic principles and values. The acceptance of

new technology is examined and comparedwith the above-mentioned ecological princi-ples. Rather good agreement is observedbetween practical advances in organic far-ming and the precautionary and (to someextent) the cyclical principles, respectively. Asteep learning curve is also evident, such thatmany new methods are currently being appli-

ed (e.g. in the areas of weed control and theanaerobic storage of manure and feed) thatdo not directly oppose these basic principles.At the same time, however, it is observed thatalmost all the new technologies have helpedto raise productivity, increase farm sizes andpromote specialisation in organic farming.

Finally organic farming is discussed and itsperspectives examined. It is concluded thatbecause of the greater specialisation and lar-ger size of farm units there will continue to

be considerable pressure on ecological princi-ples, particularly the cyclical and nearnessprinciples. Organic farmers should thereforeconsider the extent to which this develop-ment ought or can be regulated with a viewto preserving confidence in organic farming,and how the nearness principle can be appli-ed more exactly.

It is also observed that there is currently arisk that organic foods appear as productsthat comply with a series of more or lesstransparent regulations rather than productsof a realistic production alternative. There istherefore a big need for greater clarity andsimplification with regard to the question ofwhat organic farming really stands for.

5

Summary


6/34

Finally several approaches are recommendedfor increasing public confidence in organicproducts. These include:

s closer relationships between producer andcustomer

s more openness and transparency in mar-keting

s simplified and more fundamental regula-tion of organic farming involvingfor example:

- the prohibition of artificial fertil izers,pesticides, and GMOs,

- the demand for grazing and roughagesin animal husbandry,

- increased withdrawal times for medici-nes,

- tighter controls on the importation ofnon-organic fertilizers and feeds,

- regulations that counter specialisation,- regulations that promote the nearness

principle.

6


7/34

During the last decade, the proportion ofagricultural land devoted to organicfarming in Denmark has increased from lessthan 0.5% (about 500 farms) to about 6.5%(about 3,500 farms) at the present time.Organic agriculture is thus a very dynamicsector, in which re-organisation has brought

about big changes. Developmental aspectshave also become the focal point of ActionPlan II, which has just been given the titleEcology in Development. All are therefore agre-ed that organic farming is developing andthat it should develop. The question remains,however, as to whether there is also full agree-ment on the direction and basis of this devel-opment, and how rapidly progress shouldoccur.

In the planning of the research programmeDARCOF II certain questions, reflecting adegree of uncertainty, were raised: For exam-ple, as to whether work should be done onthe production of greenhouse vegetables insoil-less growth media, and to what extentconventionally reared animals should be usedin trials pertaining to organic farming. Theassimilation of background information (e.g.relating to pigs, the quality of Nature, theconsequences of GMOs, ground-water prote-ction, and nutrition and health issues) prior

to the commencement ofresearch activities can also be justified by theuncertainty pertaining to the most appropria-te course for organic farming.

Consequently, within DARCOFsManagement Board and User Committeethere is a great desire for more discussion anda clearer statement of intentions concer-ning the goals and principles of organic far-ming. This discussion is important for severalreasons: in the case of DARCOF the main

concern is the fact that itsresearch must be pro-active and forward-loo-king, and should predict developments over a5 - 15 year period. Before setting up researchprojects that both underpin and take dueregard to future developments it is necessaryto have a degree of consensus on these issues.

It is also evident that in recent years organicfarming has been characterised by increasingregulation and control, which many produ-cers find to be frustrating. The discussionmust therefore also focus on greater clarity onthe subject of what organic farming reallystands for. This would provide opportunitiesfor simplifying the list of regulations.

The present document presents key aspects ofthe discussion conducted by DARCOFs UserCommittee in recent months. It starts with adescription of some basic principles and valu-es that relate to organic farming (Section 2).Following this, Section 3 presents examples

of questions on the use of technology andinputs, since acceptance of new approacheshas great importance for the future course oforganic farming. Finally in Section 4 thedevelopment is discussed and put into per-spective.

7

1 Introduction


8/34

8

Sections 2.1 - 2.3 of this chapter are mainly arepeat of the description given in Action PlanII: Fundamental principles of organic far-ming (Pages 10 14). Through the contri-bution of the Organic Food Council, the textof Action Plan II was influenced by manydifferent interest groups. It therefore repres-

ents the expression of a common Danishpoint of view. The sections on caution andsustainability have, however, been elaboratedby the description of Alre (1999) to providemore depth to these central concepts.

Section 2.4 relates to organic animal produ-ction, the introduction of recent EU regulati-ons having spawned a series of new analysesand considerations concerned with the basicprinciples of this area of activity. These aresummarised in Section 2.4. Section 2.5 deals

with the more social aspects of organic far-ming.

2.1 ObjectivesOrganic farming is distinguished from con-ventional agriculture by exercising particularrespect for the environment, Nature, and ani-mal welfare, etc. For example, the Nordicecological associations have accepted the fol-lowing description of organic farming:

Organic farming describes a self-sustai ning

and persistent agro-ecosystem in good balance.

As far as possible, the system i s based on local

and renewable resources. It bui lds on a holi sti c

view that incorporates the ecological, economi -

cal and social aspects of agricultural production

in both the local and global perspecti ves. In

organic farming Nature is considered as a whole

wi th i ts own innate value, and Man has a

moral obligation to farm in such a way that

cultivated landscape constitutes a positive aspect

of Nature.

This very responsible attitude is furtherexpressed in farming advice from theNational Association for Organic Farming(LJ). This specifies the following importantissues with regard to the environment, animalwelfare and feed quality:

s Work as closely as possible in closed cyclesand use local resources

s Preserve the natural fertility of the soils Avoid all forms of pollution that arise

from farming practicess Promote tillage practices that show most

concern for the environment and Natures Produce foods of optimal nutritional

values Reduce the use of non-renewable resour-

ces in agriculture, including fossil fuelss Work to ensure that the waste products

from towns and food industries achieve aquality that allows their re-use as fertili-sers in agriculture

s Provide all animals with living conditionsthat satisfy their natural behaviour pat-terns and needs

s Do everything possible to ensure that allliving organisms that the farmer workswith are allies, (be they micro-organisms,plants or animals).

2 Fundamental principles and valuesof organic farming


9/34

In this connection it can be stated that LJis a member of IFOAM and that the above-mentioned goals are taken from ThePrinciple Aims of Organic Production andProcessing (See Appendix 2, IFOAM BasicStandards, Basel 2000).

2.2 Precautionary principleOne of the concepts that has won acceptancein the debate relating to agriculture, the envi-ronment and health, and the associated legi-

slation, is the precautionary principle. Thisprinciple is interpreted, however, in severaldifferent ways. It has its roots in the Germanword Vorsorgeprinzip that was used in alegal context for the first time in 1976.According to this principle, responsibility forfuture generations demands that the naturalbasis for life must be preserved, and that irre-versible damage must be avoided.

In practice the principle is also used (trans-lated from Boehmer-Christiansen, 1994):s for the early demonstration of risk

through comprehensive researchs to act before there is any scientific eviden-

ce of possible irreversible damages for the reduced leakage of pollutants and

the promotion of cleaner technologies.

Vorsorgeprinzip was originally translated tothe English precautionary principle andfrom there to the Danish forsigtighedsprin-cip. Because of this background it is oftensuggested that in Danish the principle shouldbe called the forebyggelsesprincip (i.e. thepreventative principle) since it focuses onhow to avoid damage to the environment,such that society is exempted from fightingthe environmental and social consequences ofinappropriate actions.The German word vorsorge can be trans-

lated to the English care, and alludes to ourresponsibility for Nature and the environ-ment. It thereby forms a bridge to the con-cept of sustainability. In the Danish versionof this article the word forsigtighed (i.e.caution) was used because of its general mea-ning in relation to environment and health,and partly to tie it to the concept of functio-nal integrity (see Section 3) which is part ofthe sustainability concept.

The use of industrially produced pesticidesand other environmentally alien compoundsis not allowed in organic farming. Likewisegenetically modified organisms are not per-mitted. By virtue of these prohibitions therisk of pesticide contamination in food, drin-king water and the environment, for exam-ple, is minimised. These bans can be conside-

9


10/34

red as a different and more extensive desirefor caution and care in our relations withNature than the assessment of risk thatunderlies the use of pesticides in conventio-nal agriculture.

The rationale behind the precautionary prin-ciple is that in organic farming the interactionbetween Nature and Man is an importantingredient of the philosophy. As indicated inthe section on objectives, organic farmingbuilds on the concept that Nature is an inte-

grated whole that people have a moral dutyto respect, both for its intrinsic value andbecause, by using its regulatory mechanisms,one can establish a more self-sustaining agro-ecosystem. Nature is a very complex, cohe-rent system, of which Man has often too litt-le understanding to appreciate the conse-quences of specific actions. Damage toNature and the environment will ultimatelydamage Man.The precautionary principle in organic far-ming can therefore be justified as recognitionof our limited understanding of Nature andthe risk that we damage something of whichwe are ourselves a part. This can be interpre-ted to mean that since Nature is an organicentity, Man must take care not to exercise toomuch influence on individual parts of theecosystem because such actions could produ-ce unexpected consequences. Nature is consi-dered to be something more original thanMan, and has its own regulatory mecha-nisms. Man (especially the farmer) should

utilize Nature rather than try to control andtransform it by the addition of (industriallymanufactured) inputs from outside. Thisinterpretation is underpinned by such expres-sions as preserve the natural fertility of thesoil and make sure that all living organismsremain allies.

At first sight, this interpretation could betaken as a very exploitative understanding ofMans interaction with Nature. However, thedifference from other forms of agriculture isthe predominant belief that Man must exerci-se precautionary attitudes and make as fewchanges as possible, the reason being that weourselves, and future generations, could behit by negative consequences that we cannotpredict. It is thus an anthropocentric under-standing of our ethical concerns relating toour interaction with Nature.

Against this, the expression Nature has itsown value can be understood to mean thatwe have an ethical duty to look after Naturefor its own sake. This point of view builds onan idea that the richness of Natures diverselife forms and ecosystems has intrinsic value,irrespective of whether Man appreciates thesefeatures. The Norwegian Arne Nss refers tothis as ecology and thinks that we haveethical claims on these values irrespective oftheir significance for Man or other consciousbeings. This distinction between anthropo-centric and eco-centric ethics easily leads onto the idea that Man either confers onNature instrumental values (for his practicalor economic use) or accepts that there areinherent values in Nature that should berespected, irrespective of his own desires.

This distinction is, however, too narrow.Even if one takes an anthropocentric viewone can still accept that there are indepen-

dent values in Nature that we as humansappreciate and therefore wish that otherswould respect. One example is the variationin wild herbs on banks and in hedges. Thereare many people who would like these habi-tats to be conserved to sustain the richness ofNature, simply because they confer value on

10


11/34

it and perhaps think that bio-diversity itselfcontributes to their quality of life.It is not clear which of these two views ofNature ethics and values are most predomi-nant in the ecology movement, and there isno need for agreement on the issue since noserious conflict exists between the twoviewpoints. By virtue of its precautionaryprinciple, however, organic farming has bet-ter options for satisfying the desire of diffe-rent groups of the population to enjoy a bet-ter environment and conserve its natural

riches.

The agricultural industry manages a largepart of our natural environment, so ap-plication of the precautionary principle infarming practice can be seen as a strategy toprevent environmental problems. In thisregard Ariansen (1992) observes that ourtechnical ability and the associated environ-mental problems lead to two fundamentallydifferent views of causes and solutions:

1. The cause of environmental problems isignorance, and the solution lies with evenmore highly developed technical controlincorporating technically reasoned limits.

2. The cause of environmental problems isour technological life form; and the soluti-on lies in changing our life-styles to a formthat is both intrinsically valuable andimplies the ecologically better managementof Nature.

Extending the above discussion of the pre-cautionary principle, the ecological move-ment will be sceptical about a technologicalfix (point 1.) because technological develop-ment not only redresses current ignorancebut also reveals new ignorance. In this regardIngemann (1999) distinguishes between

error-friendly technologiesand risky technologies.The former technologies and their externaleffects are predictable and allow a line of ret-reat. In contrast, risky technologies are chara-cterised by their unpredictability, whichmeans that the knowledge on which they arebased carries with it a considerable amount ofnon-knowledgeor ignorance. We are awarethat we do not know enough about the con-sequences of implementing risky technologi-es. Actual examples of these technologies arethe use of antibiotic growth promoters and

the use of genetically modified organisms.According to the thinking of the ecologicalmovement, therefore, environmental pro-blems are not only solved through the acqui-sition of more knowledge and technology,but also through an increased recognition ofthe ignorance associated with technology, theavoidance of risky technologies, and the con-tinued use of production systems that experi-ence has shown to function well. The reasonfor environmental problems may well lie withignorance (see point 1. above); but thisignorance may reflect our technical life-style(see point 2. above), and a solution thatinvolves more technology can cause evenmore ignorance of possible consequences forNature, the environment and Man.

2.3 SustainabilityOrganic farming is not alone in having susta-inability as a goal. Sustainability is, for exam-ple, also an objective in Danish agricultures

presentation for Integrated Production (TheExecutive Committee of the NationalCommittees 1996). But as Douglass (1984)has shown, sustainability has different con-notations for different groups in agriculture,so it is important to examine the meaning of

11


12/34

this concept more closely. In this we will fol-low Thompson (1997), who argued thatthere are two philosophically different mea-nings of sustainability:

s Resource sufficiencys Functional integrity

Sustainability in the sense ofresource suffi ci-encyemphasises the use of resources and theproduction and distribution of food, focusingfirst and foremost on the relationship be-

tween input and output in the systems underconsideration. A sustainable developmentinfers that agriculture can satisfy the require-ments for food and textiles, etc, for currentand future generations, such that the mostproductive systems are also the most sustai-nable. This concept has been the most domi-nating one in modern conventional agricultu-re.

Sustainability in the sense of functional inte-gritysees agriculture as a complex system ofvalues and relationships, and emphasises thefrailty of the system that results from our lackof understanding of the interactions betweenproduction methods and ecological and socialsurvival. The basic consideration is that thesystem is vulnerable, and that some of itsfundamental elements recur over a period oftime in a way or at a rate that depends on thecondition of the system at an earlier date.The genetic characteristics of specific farm

animals and crops, for example, are crucial tothe next generation of these animals or crops,and treatments that change the fertility of thesoil can be critical to production over thelonger term. In general, nature is seen as aninseparable aspect of societys sustainability orfunctional integrity, and this understandingunderpins strategies to oppose and avoid irre-versible changes. Caution is thus a valuable

Resource suffi ciency Functi onal integrity

MAN

NATURE

MAN

NATURE

Figure 1. Two views of the relati onship between man and nature

12


13/34

approach to avoid negative consequences inour relationships with Nature.With its focus on the vulnerability of the sy-stem and recognising the limitations of ourknowledge, sustainability (as functional inte-grity) is closely associated with the idea ofMan as an integral part of Nature. The ecolo-gical movement generally uses the concept ofsustainability in this way. The relationship be-tween sustainability and our perception of rea-lity has been examined by Alre and Kristen-sen (1998) who argue that the two meanings

of sustainability (discussed above) arise fromdifferent attitudes to Nature. The resourcesufficiency interpretation approaches Naturefrom the outside, whereas (since it views Manas an integral part of Nature) the functionalintegrityinterpretation approaches Nature, insome sense, from the inside.The two diffe-rent underlying perceptions of nature inresource sufficiency and functional integrityare illustrated in Figure 1.

As an example of an organic farming rulethat relates to sustainability as functinal inte-grety, we can mention the prohibited use ofartificial fertilizers. By avoiding these fertili-zers organic farming is forced to work withNatures own nutrient cycles and becomemore self-reliant.

2.4 Animal husbandryIn the EU regulations for organic animal pro-duction (No. 1804/1999 of 19th July 1999)

several general principles are given for themanagement and rearing of farm animals. Inconnection with an analysis of the ecologicalregulations relating to animal health and wel-fare (performed by DARCOF in February2000) much consideration was given to thequestion of whether organic farming involvesdistinctive animal welfare issues (Alre et al.,2000). The conclusion was that organic far-ming incorporates several distinctive aspects

13


14/34

of animal welfare. First and foremost itrelates to the ethical decision of how well ani-mals should be kept, and associated with this,the definition of good animal welfare.

In organic farming animal welfare is seen toinclude better options for developing naturalbehaviour, these involving access to out-doorareas and freedom of choice as a means ofsatisfying the preferences of individual ani-mals. These options imply that care, as a con-cept of Mans responsibilities to animals,

acquires greater importance. In this context itshould be mentioned that detailed regulationof the layout of housing etc. does not neces-sarily ensure better animal welfare, since careand husbandry methods also play importantroles. The naturalness of animals or lackthereof in organic farming can also be animportant question, seen from the viewpointof their integrity. In this context the breedingand reproduction of animals that are adaptedto organic production systems, as well as thechoice of breeding methods, are central con-cerns. Finally organic farming incorporatesthe perception that Man and farm animalsare parts of a wider ecological system. Thisperception can be of significance for animalwelfare in the context of harmony, this con-cept expressing the sustainability, health and

integrity of the system in the broadest sense.However, without doubt there are differentvalues and perceptions associated with theconcept of animal welfare, even within theecological movement. Further clarification ofthis situation would provide a useful tool forthe advancement of organic farming.In summary, one can imagine a forward-loo-king perspective for the development of orga-nic farming in relation to animal welfare.Instead of demanding more detailed regulati-on, this perspective will focus on the special

features of organic farming: greater opportu-nities for the development of natural animalbehaviour and harmony in the structure andfunction of the farming system.

2.5 Social aspectsSocial issues take a central position in organicfarming. The following main objectives areset out in International Federation ofOrganic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)Basic Standards (Anon., 2000):

s To draw together the social and ecologicalconsequences of organic production andprocessing.

s To ensure that all who work in organicfarming and processing have a quality oflife that meets their basic needs and provi-des adequate and satisfactory returns fortheir labours, including a good workingenvironment

s To strive to make the whole chain ofevents in production, processing and di-

stribution both socially and ecologicallyjustifiable.

14


15/34

In 1999 the Nordic ecological and biody-namic associations (Nordic IFOAM) adopted

the following principles:s To produce foods of high quality, in suffi-

cient quantities and fairly distributeds To make it possible for the farmer to get a

reasonable income, a safe working envi-ronment and meaningful work

s To strive for close contacts between foodproducers and consumers

s To ensure the greatest possible re-cyclingof nutrients through the integrationof urban societies, agro-ecosystems andnatural ecosystems

There is thus no doubt that social issues takea central position in the ecological move-ment. On the other hand it must also bestated that these aspects are not particularlyobvious in Danish organic farming at the

present time. It is not included in ActionPlan II Ecology in Development; and in

the National Association for OrganicFarmings production recommendations theabove-mentioned principles are not evenmentioned. This can be taken to reflect thefact that in recent years disagreements havearisen in Denmark over the interpretation ofthese principles. This subject is often discus-sed, for example, in the journal kologiskJordbrug(i.e. Organic Farming). At the eco-logical congress in Brdstrup (1st and 2ndNovember 2000) there were also many con-tributions that focused on the social aspectsof agriculture.

An essential reason for the dampening downof social issues in recent years is probably therapid development that has occurred in the

15

Table 1. Pri ori tised reasons for changing to organic farming (Noe, 2000)

Year of transition:

Reason for transition: -92 93-94 95-96 -97 Average

Environmental concerns 48 44 34 41 42

Disagree with conventional

agriculture 39 31 22 7 27

Future of Danish agriculture 25 31 31 24 27

Agronomic challenge 30 24 41 28 33

Better foods 24 18 10 7 16

Animal welfare 12 22 10 16 13Higher income 10 13 34 54 26

Worries about working

conditions 13 22 8 13 12

n=923


16/34

ecology movement. This has meant thatmany farmers have different reasons for goingorganic than had the original ecologists.Many of the new players both within agri-culture and associated activities have butlittle contact with the currents and move-ments that brought about the todays ecologi-cal developments. This is illustrated by thefact that in a recent study the reasons givenby organic farmers for making the transitionwas seen to have changed in recent years(Table 1). These farmers were asked to give

their main reasons for transferring to organicfarming.It can be seen that for many farmers environ-mental concerns were the main reason fortheir transfer to organic farming, both in thebeginning and towards the end of the 1990s.But whereas many transitions in the early1990s reflected a dislike of conventional far-ming methods, towards the end of the decadetransfers were more often due to the potentialfor higher income.

The apparent falling disagreement with con-ventional agriculture is explained by the factthat the majority of new converts are organi-sed within traditional farming organisations(the Danish Farmers Union and the DanishFamily Farmers Association) whereas theNational Association for Organic Farming(LJ) currently represents relatively few ofDenmarks organic farmers. The increasedmove to organic farming can thus be seen as

an affiliation to a production concept ratherthan to a movement in which social aspectsplay a central role. Despite this development,however, there are still groups in Denmarkthat are orientated towards the local and ori-ginal organic farming (Jelse et al., 2000).

It can be difficult to interpret the fundamen-tal principles that lie behind the social aspectsof organic farming. Seen in relation to theother principles, especially those relating tosolidarity with Nature and the concept offunctional integrity, one can point to theconcept of nearness as a central principle. Weare here referring to vertical nearness, as existsbetween the players in the production, pro-cessing and distribution of organic foods, andhorizontal or geographic nearness, in whichthe stream of nutrients is anchored locally in

a naturally well-defined region. Michelsen &Klster consider the nearness principle to bea very central priciple in organic farming.

2.6 Summary of fundamental princi-plesThe main thread in the description of ecolog-ical principles and goals is that in organic far-ming Man is considered as an integral part ofNature, and that Nature is such a complexentity that we do not fully comprehend theconsequences of our influence on it. Fromthese fundamental assumptions some princi-ples for action can be set out (see Figure 2).

The cycli cal pri nciple, discussed at the top ofFigure 2, is based on the fact that nutrientsare recycled and used again, and with thehelp of sunshine renewable resources are builtup. In the same way, Man must recycle nutri-ents, and avoid the use of non-renewableresources or ruthlessly exploit resources in

general. Developments must be in harmonywith Nature, and can be achieved by versati-lity and diversity in production.

The precautionary principle, discussed in themiddle of Figure 2, recommends care in the

16


17/34

use of new technology, part ly because Man ishimself part of the natural cycle, and partlybecause Nature is complex and it can be dif-ficult to foresee the consequences of Mansactivities. A natural consequence of the pre-cautionary principle is that older, known andwell-functioning technologies will automati-cally have precedence over new technologiesdeveloped on a more theoretical basis.Similarly error-friendly technologies ought tobe chosen rather than risky technologies.The nearness pri nciple, discussed at the bott-

om of Figure 2, is concerned with how tosecure special social aspects of organic far-ming, - for example, transparency, safety, asense of local belonging, and peace of mind,not to mention humanity and social justice.Direct contact between producer and consu-mer reduces the alienation that often chara-cterises modern society. Learning on the basisof local experience and research into wholesystems will be a central element for securingsocial and cultural values and the relationshipto Nature.

17

Man is an integral part

of Natures cycle.

We do not know the fullconsequences of our actionson Nature.

Known and well-functioning technologies are better

than risky technologies. It is better to preventdamage than to depend on our ability to cure thedamage. (Precauti onary pri nciple)

Transparency and co-operation in food productioncan be improved by nearness. For example, usingexperience-based knowledge and local interests con-cerning the development of cultural and social valu-

es. (Nearness principle)

Collaboration with Nature should be promoted

through the establishment and build-up of a cyclicalprinciple that ensures versatility, diversity and har-mony, and the re-cycling and use of renewable

resources. (Cycli cal principle)

Figure 2. Fundamental assumptions and pr inciples relating to the development of

organic farming.

Assumpt ions Development principles:


18/34

As shown in Figure 2, the acquisition ofinformation and knowledge about Natureand agriculture can be used to develop orga-nic farming. Central to this is the importance

of having a high degree of certainty about thepossible consequences of using new technolo-gy, and an assurance that the development isin accord with cultural and social values.

18


19/34

19

In the Danish journal kologisk Jordbrug(Organic Farming) there are often articlesand debates on the development of organicfarming. For example, there have been severalstatements about new tillage processes andthe housing and treatment of farm animals.

Similarly, on many occasions there have beencontributions and articles on relationshipsbetween producers and customers as well asthe general development of agriculture.

A working hypothesis is that the develop-ment of organic farming depends very muchon the acceptance or rejection of new techno-logies. Ideally, this choice is determined onthe basis of principles and values. Any dis-agreements in principle can be revealed byexamining accepted new technology and rela-

ting this to basic organic principles.

In Tables 2 4 an attempt has been made toassimilate the last 10 15 years debate onthe use of new and older technologies thatappeared in Organic Farming.

Furthermore, an assessment is made of theextent to which this technique can be consi-dered to be acceptable in relation to organicproduction.

3.1 Plant productionTable 2 illustrates that in the area of plantproduction there are many examples of theuse of new technology in recent years. Thereare, however, certain exceptions, in particularthe ban on Genetically Modified Organisms

(GMOs) and synthetic sprays.

There has been, and there still continues, adebate on the steaming of top-soil and green-house production in compost (i.e. tillagesystems without soil). The steaming of top-soil does occur, however, in greenhouses.

It is also evident that the debate has alsoextended to older technologies, such asspraying with sulphur and copper sulphate.

3 Technological questions relating to thedevelopment of organic farming


20/34

20

Table 2. Examples of techniques and inputs that are used and / or can be used in

organic plant producti on

Technology: New technology: Older technology:

Accept ed Under Ba nned Accept ed Under

deba t e deba te/

Banned

Manually controlled row

cultivation X

Mechanically controlled row

cultivation X

Weeding robots X

Flame treatment XSteaming of top-soil X X

Straw covering X X

Net covering X

Plastic covering X

Spraying with sulphur X

Spraying with copper sulphate X

Spraying with humus and

silicon preps. X

Spraying with plant extracts X

Spraying with chemicals X

Kemink system (deep cultivation) X X

Driving with heavy machinery X XUse of stubble / catch crops X

Use of compost X X

Use of farmyard manure / liquid

manure X

Use of slurry X X

Use of artificial fertilizers X

Greenhouse production without

soil X X

Traditional plant breeding X

Use of GMOs X X

Use of micro organisms (EM) X X

Use of conventional varieties X X

Use of conventional manure X XUse of fossil fuel X X

Use of bio-gas X X


21/34

3.2 Animal productionIn animal production (Table 3) there are onlya few examples of new techniques that havebeen accepted without question. At the sametime there are many older techniques that are

under debate or banned. The limits of tole-rance of new technology are evidently lowerwhen it concerns individual farm animalsthan theyare for plants or the herd / flock asa whole.

21

New technology: Older technology:

Technology: Accepted Under Ba nned Accepted Underdeba te deba te/

Banned

Orientated to the individual:Dehorning of cattle X X

Castration of cattle X X

Ringing the noses of bulls X

Castration of pigs X X

Ringing the snouts of pigs X X

Filing or clipping of teeth X X

Tail docking X

Beak trimming X

Curative medicines synthetics X X

Curative medicines non synthetics X

Orientated to herds / flocks:Prophylactic medicines with

synthetics X

Vaccinations X X

Mechanical milking X

Milking robots X X

Use of traditional breeds X X

Use of artificial insemination X

Use of embryo technology X X X

Use of GMO X

Large herds / flocks X X X

Covered outdoor areas X X

No-straw systems X

No feeding of roughage/

zero grazing X X

Feeding of silage X

Fully automated feeding X

Use of conventional feeds and straw X X

Sale of bull calves X X

Feeding with green pellets X X

Loose housing X

Table 3. Examples of the technology debate in organic animal production


22/34

3.3 Processing, marketing andre-cyclingWithin the areasof processing, marketing and re-cycling (Table 4), new technology is generally

accepted for marketing, whereas the questi-ons of processing and the recycling of townwaste are subject to much greater debate.

22

Table 4. Examples of questions that are discussed i n the areas of processing, distribut ion and sales,

and the re-use of town waste

New technology: Older technology:

Technology: Accepted Under Ba nned Accepted Underdeba te deba te/Banned

Homogenisation of milk X XPasteurisation of milk / cheese X XAdditives X XPackaging X XWashing of vegetables andpotatoes X XFarm gate & market sales XSupermarket sales XSales by subscriptionarrangements XSales via the internet X

Long distance transport X XRe-use of human urine andcompost XRe-use of sludge XRe-use of human faeces XWork environment X X


23/34

23

3.4 Discussion on the use of newtechnologyIn the following a discussion is given of thelevel of agreement between the examples gi-ven in Tables 2 4 and the principles presen-ted in Figure 2.

It can be seen that in all the examples there isapparently broad acceptance of machine tech-nology. Against this there is concern about ora ban on technology connected with synthet-ic (chemical or biological) inputs. The ratio-nale behind this agrees well with the precau-tionary principle, since the use of machinetechnology is more limited and predictable inrelation to Nature than are chemical and bio-logical inputs.The ban on artificial fertilizers cannot dire-

ctly reflect the precautionary principle sincethe technique is well known, and its consequ-ences predictable in relation to Nature. Itcan, however, be motivated by the cyclicalprinciple, at least under Danish conditions inwhich large excesses of nutrients are someti-mes used. The problem is, however, that in

line with increasing specialisation in organicfarming, the ban on artificial fertilizers itselfcauses increased use of resources for the trans-port and handling of organic manures, as wellas a dependence on conventional agriculture.

This can produce conflicts with other envi-ronmental issues, as well as with the nearnessprinciple.

The use of organic manures, preferably in theform of well-rotted compost, is and has beenconsidered to be most appropriate for organicfarming. To a large extent this may relate tobiodynamic farming principles in which theincorporation of oxygen and humus prepara-tions into animal manures is seen as an

important step for preserving and producingliving soil. Correspondingly, biodynamicfarmers use other preparations, such as sili-con, to promote the ripening process in corn.It must be recognised, however, that thesefarming practices are currently used to only avery limited extent in Denmark.


24/34

The use of slurry (ideally preserved undegra-ded and in the absence of oxygen) in organicfarming has been the subject of much debate.Nevertheless, slurry-based systems now cons-titute a widely used and well-understood tech-nology amongst organic farmers. The shiftfrom compost to slurry rests with the accu-mulation of information over the last 15 years,several investigations having shown that ani-mal manures, in the form of compost, have grea-ter risk of loosing nit rogen than does slurry.Furthermore the fertilizer value of compost is

much lower than that of slurry, particularlyfor the production of corn on sandy soils. Ithas not yet been shown that compost givesrise to better quality products and / or higherfertility (see, for example, DARCOF reportNo. 7, 2000).

A corresponding shift in technology is seen incattle production, where silage is now widelyused in organic farming. Silage is green mate-rial that is compacted and conserved underanaerobic conditions, in contrast to, for exam-ple, hay that is dried and stored aerobically.

The shifts in technology for the conservationand use of animal manures and feed are veryfundamental, at least in relation to the bio-dynamic farming principles that formed animportant backdrop to Danish organic far-ming. They provide a good example of thelearning process that is taking place in orga-nic farming. At the same time it is importantto emphasise that this process is locally and

nationally based on research findings andpractical experience alike, the question ofslurry use, in particular, having been widelydiscussed. From the middle of the 80s, orga-nic farming in Denmark has been greatlyinspired and influenced by organic producti-on in southern Germany, Switzerland and

Austria, where compost and hay-making wereand are common practices. Gradually, as theorganic movement in Denmark became moreestablished, it adapted its technologies toDanish conditions.

In the area of animal husbandry, a number ofolder practices relating to individual animals(e.g. de-horning, castration, ringing, and theclipping of teeth, etc.) have been debated inrecent years. These practices can rightly besaid to constitute an interferance in the natu-

re and integrity of the animal, but they can-not be justified on the basis of the precautio-nary principle since they are well known, pre-dictable and without risk to Nature. Thebackground to this debate is thus the wide-spread Danish interest in animal welfare. InDenmark the salient attitude is regard for theanimal according to a consciousness-centredethic in which all conscious beings have amoral claim on respect. This attitude is notnecessarily shared in, for example, many sou-thern European countries.

24


25/34

25

At the present time the acceptance of theseolder practices for interfering in the natureand integrity of animals is unclear. On theother hand the fact that tail-docking andbeak-trimming are forbidden is not an issue(Table 2). This can be explained by the factthat the latter practices were primarily desig-ned to counter the consequences of poor pro-duction systems, whereas other interventionsare undertaken in respect to such factors suchas the environment, product quality, and thesafety of man and animal. Thus, at the indi-

vidual level within organic farming the balan-ce between respect for animals and concernfor other matters is continuously being asses-sed. The special feature of organic farming isthat, based on the precautionary principle,known and well-functioning practices aregiven precedence, whereas interventions rela-ting to the size and efficiency of productionare not accepted. In addition, considerationof other productions systems may perhapsinstigate a new assessment.

With regard to developments at the herdlevel, several new technologies have beendebated in recent years (Table 2). Bans havebeen imposed on the use of GMOs andprophylactic medicines in accordance withthe precautionary principle and the findingsof risk assessments. Prohibitions have alsobeen placed on production systems in whichstraw is not used for bedding, as well as

systems that do not use roughages or allowaccess to out-door areas. These exclusions canbe explained on the basis of the cyclical prin-ciple, since they ensure a relationship betw-een forages and herds and thus the demandfor harmony on the farm. Loose housing is anew method that is widely accepted in orga-nic farming because it satisfies the naturalbehaviour needs of animals better than by thetie-stall system that constituted the mostcommon type of housing at the beginning ofthe 1990s.

In contrast to the situation in other countri-es, there is currently a great deal of learningassociated with the introduction of new met-hods of processing and marketing toDenmark (Table 3). This is explained by thedifferent cultural backgrounds and the factthat the relationship of these approaches toNature is much less intrusive than with plantproduction, for example. It is difficult toimagine a ban on the washing of green vege-tables and potatoes, since the technology iswell known and its consequences for Naturepredictable. In contrast to the situation inSweden, there is a ban on the homogenisati-on of organically produced milk in Denmark,where this technique has been discussed andfound to be unnecessary. In German-spea-king countries there is much scepticismabout Supermarket sales.


26/34

4.1 From local sale to large-scaleorganic operationExamination of the technical questions dis-cussed in the previous section shows thatthere is reasonably good accord between pra-ctical developments in organic farming and

the precautionary and, to some extent, thecyclical principles, respectively. It can also beseen that a great deal of learning has occur-red, and that many new techniques havebeen introduced which do not contravene itsbasic philosophy; for example, in the areas ofweed control, the anaerobic storage of manu-re and feed, and the use of loose housing inplace of the traditional tie-stall system.

At the same time it can be seen that virtuallyall the techniques accepted in Tables 2, 3 and

3 have helped to raise the productivity oforganic farming. These techniques have con-tributed to the increase of farm size and spe-cialisation. The size of organic farms inDenmark has doubled from an average of 20hectares in 1990 to 43 hectares in 2000; andthese units are three times as big as the avera-ge of those in Switzerland and Austria.

As a consequence of larger farm sizes andspecialisation, pressures on the three princi-ples outlined in Figure 2 will continue toexist, particularly with respect to the cyclicaland nearness principles. These developmentswill particularly affect physical distances andthe concepts of versatility, variety and harmo-ny in relation to Nature. In the Danish orga-nic debate of the last 10 15 years, most

emphasis has been placed on other parts,especially the material aspects of the cyclicaland precautionary principles.

There are good reasons to believe that struc-tural pressures will continue, particularly

those associated with the increase in farm sizeand specialisation. Competition betweenorganic farmers will increase this pressure,especially in a situation of over-production.Organic farmers should therefore considerthe extent to which developments can beregulated or controlled with a view to main-taining confidence in this form of agricultu-re. In this context they should consider whet-her the nearness principle should be followedmore explicitly.

26

4 Discussion and perspectives for thedevelopment of organic farming


27/34

27

Using local and experience-base interpretati-ons of the nearness principle, in earlier timesorganic farmers were more easily able tomaintain an inner consistency and relations-hip in the development of production at thelocal level. When products are disposed oflocally customers become part of the locallearning process. The problem is, however,that this basis for development does not har-monise well with the current rapid advanceand internationalisation of organic agricultu-re. Free competition and the movement of

products over long distances mean that quali-ty symbols and the associated controls andregulations are the key to continued progress.To secure customer confidence and belief inorganic products there must not be too manylabels or quality symbols, and the argumentsfor choosing these products must be clearand unambiguous. There is thus a big needto re-interpret the nearness principle, suchthat its interpretation is expanded from thelocal to the national and international levels.

The alternative is to tighten up local conditi-ons by, for example, banning sales via super-markets, the internet, and other routes thatdo not involve direct trading and communi-cation between the producer and the consu-mer. This alternative would reduce organicfarming to a niche enterprise, however, sinceby far the greatest part of organically produ-ced produce is sold without direct communi-cation between these two groups. On theother hand, in the national and international

perspective, Danish organic farming exploitsthe advantage of having only one organictrade mark that is well known and enjoysconsiderable confidence.

4.2 Simplified basic control to ensureproduct credibilityIn the earlier development of organic far-ming, when there were fewer organicfarmers and most were members of the sameorganisation, it was relatively easy to mainta-in a common organic philosophy based onthe same values and principles. The modestsize and identical affiliations of the organicgroup meant that there was not the sameneed to formulate common values and con-vert them to regulations since the physical

proximity and informal social control betw-een farmers (and between farmers and theircustomers) was sufficient to secure reliableproduction. In association with the modernchanges in organic farming, however, there isan increasing need to explicitly formulatethese values such that they become more pre-cise and better motivated. This is necessarybecause informal social control is no longersufficient for ensuring credibility. Regulationsmust therefore be introduced as the basis ofcontrol, with the subsequent option of san-ctions.

In Denmark this process has involved exten-sive collaboration between the authorities andmany interested organisations, and has resul-ted in the formulation of appropriate legisla-tion and comprehensive regulations. The lat-ter, and especially the controls, guarantee tothe customer the credibility of organic pro-duction and its compliance with the rules oforganic farming. In those situations where

inappropriate conditions have been obser-ved in organic production they have oftenbeen followed up with demands for furtherregulation and / or further control.


28/34

28

Amongst the most pressing motivations for atransition to organic farming in Denmark isthe desire for a better environment, an agro-nomic challenge and more stable earnings.Criticism of conventional agriculture plays amuch smaller role for recent converts than itdid for the pioneers of the organic movement(see Table 1). Earlier, organic farmers werealmost all members of the National Associ-ation for Organic Farming (LJ), the mem-bership of which also included many custo-mers. Today the largest organisation for orga-

nic farmers is the Danish Farmers Union thatprimarily organises conventional farmers.

Against this background there is no unequi-vocal picture of organic farming in Denmark.Amongst customers who are generally criticalof conventional agriculture the distinction

between conventional and organic farmingcan in some situations be blurred. This couldhave big implications for the credibility of or-ganic produce.

There is thus a big need for clarity and sim-plification in our understanding of whatorganic farming really stands for, such that itcomes to stand out as a real production alter-native and not simply as a production met-hod that complies with a set of more or lesstransparent regulations. The following lists a

few examples of things that would raise thecredibility of organic produce:


29/34

a.Relationships between producer andcustomer

There is a need to further develop producti-on, processing and marketing systems thatare founded on close relationships betweenthe producer and customer. These couldinclude subscription arrangements and custo-mer co-operatives in which the consumer isjoint owner (Community SupportedFarming, CSf )..

b.Openness and transparency

There is a need for marketing systems thatbuild on greater openness and transparency,in which the producer is no longer anonym-ous. For this, real information about the pro-ducer should be given on the packaging, or aparticular route of sale should give informati-on about the associated farms and invitecustomers to visit them.

c.Simpler and more principled regulationsRegulations of the type used in conventionalfarming or those that have little significancefor organic farming should be excluded.Instead a few, simple regulations should beapplied that emphasise the difference fromconventional agriculture. For example:

s the ban on artificial fertilizers, pesticidesand GMOs

s the demand for grazing and roughages inanimal production

s increased withdrawal times for mediciness tighter controls on the importation of

non-organic fertilizers and feeds rules that oppose specialisation (e.g. the

demand for fewer animal equivalents perhectare)

s rules that promote the nearness principle(e.g specification of places of origin andenergy utilisation).

The marketing systems mentioned under a.and b. above can be considered as a moderni-sation of the nearness principle in whichphysical or geographical proximity is replacedby emotional nearness. They can thereforeeffectively advertise and symbolise organicfarming. It should, however, be recognisedthat since we are talking of emotional near-ness there is no guarantee that the remainingorganic principles are respected, particularlythose discussed under the cyclical principle,such as energy utilisation, versatility and there-cycling of nutrients. Regulation is therefo-

re the key for maintaining the credibility oforganic produce, and the big challenge toresearch is to ensure that these regulations arefounded on the best possible information.

29


30/34

30

Alre, H.F., 1999. kologisk landbrug, naturog etik [Organic farming, Nature and ethics].In: Alre, H.F. and Andreasen, C.B., (Eds):Natur, milj og ressourcer i kologisk land-brug [Nature, environment and resources inorganic farming]. DARCOF Report no. 3,915.

Alre, H .F. & Kristensen, E.S., 1998.Bredygtighed og kologisk jordbrug[Sustainability and organic farming].Landbruks-konomisk Forum 15, no. 3, pp.5-14.

Alre, H .F., Vaarst, M. & Kristensen, E.S.,1999. Er husdyrvelfrd i kologisk jordbrugnoget srligt?[Is animal welfare in organicfarming something special?]. In: Kristensen,E.S. & Thamsborg, M.S. (Eds): Sundhed,

velfrd og medicinanvendelse ved omlgningtil kologisk mlkeproduktion [ Health, wel-fare and the use of medicines in the transiti-on to organic milk production]. DARCOFReport no. 6, 135145.

Anonymous, 2000. Basic Standards forOrganic Production and Processing. Decidedby the International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements (IFOAM) GeneralAssembly in Basel, Switzerland, September2000.

Ariensen, P., 1992. Miljfi losofi[Environmental philosophy].Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway.

Douglass, G.K., 1984. The meanings of agri-cultural sustainability. In: Douglass, G.K.(Ed): Agricultural sustainability in a changingworld order. Westview Press, Boulder,Colerado, USA, pp. 129.

Ingemann, J.H., 1999. Beslutningsprincipperog insti tut ionelle perspektiver [Decision prin-ciples and institutional perspectives]. Sub-Report A.4.2. of the Bichel-Committee:kologiske scenarier for Danmark [Organicscenarios for Denmark].Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

Jelse et al., 2000. Organic farming, regionalpolicy networks and modernisation of agri-cultural discourse. Proc. 13th IFOAMScientific Conference.

Michelsen, J. and Klster, P., 1998. Pesticidecommittees 100% organic scenario: Lokaleog institutionelle spekter [Local and instituti-onal aspects]. Sub-report A4: of the Bichel-Committee: kologiske scenarier forDanmark [Organic scenarios for Denmark].Danish Environmental Protection Agency.(40 pp.)

Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries,1999. Aktionsplan II kologi i udvikling[Action Plan II Ecology in development].

Danish Directorate for Development,Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.

5. References


31/34

31

Noe, E., 2000. What is happening withorganic farming in Denmark?The Danishcase analysed from an ANT perspective.Submitted for publication.

Thompson, P.B., 1997. The varieties of susta-inability i livestock farming.

Srensen, J.T., (Ed): Livestock farmingsystems More than food production. Proc.4th International Symposium on LivestockFarming Systems. EAAP Publ. No. 89.pp. 5-15.


32/34

32

Danish research in organic farming

Organic farming addresses many problems incontemporary agriculture. A regard for theenvironment and Nature, animal welfare,product quality and health is part of itsunderlying values. The promotion of organicproduction, involving the advancement ofresearch, has therefore been an aspect ofDanish agricultural and food policy for manyyears.

To enhance the development, production andmarketing of organic produce several initiati-ves were taken in the 1990s. In Aktionsplanfor fremme af den kologisk fdevareprodukt ion

i Danmark [Acti on Plan to promote organic

food production in Denmark] (Organic FoodCouncil, 1995) and the following

Aktionsplan II kologi i udvikling [ActionPlan II Ecology in development] (OrganicFood Council, 1999) initiatives are describedthat are designed to secure continuing growthin organic production. In this context, a largenumber of problems and challenges are poin-ted out that research activities must help tosolve.

In Action Plan II it is emphasised that crucialto the continued transition to organic far-ming is the solution of several key problems

that currently present a barrier to furtherdevelopments; for example the need to incre-ase the production of several plant products.At the same time it is essential that the quali-ty of organic produce is improved since anyadvancement must occur in line with custo-mer demands.

The main objective of Danish research activi-ties in the area of organic farming in the peri-od from 2000 to 2005 (DARCOF II) is ther-efore to raise the production of organic pro-duce and, at the same time, secure the relati-onship between their inner and outer qualiti-es. This must be achieved by developing pro-duction systems that build on the desire toactively raise the natural aspects of organicfarming, improve animal health and welfarein organic production systems, and improvethe quality of organic produce, etc. Thisobjective thus demands far more of researchthan simply solving problems of food quality,animal health, and environmental pressures.The intention is that organic principles canbe reflected in the associated organic produ-ce, which can then stand out as real alternati-ves to conventional products.

Within the framework of DARCOF II, 30big projects are currently being undertakenwhich in different ways help to satisfy themain objectives of this research. The totalinput corresponds to about ECU 25 million.In most cases the projects were set up in col-laboration with groups of scientists from dif-ferent research institutes.

Research projects in DARCOF II,

February 2001

Plant Cult ivation

I.1 Organic production of cucumberand tomato grown in compostedplant material from field crops

Appendix 1:


33/34

33

I.2 Development of sustainable produ-ction systems for apple andstrawberry

I.3 Interactions between nitrogendynamics, crop production and bio-diversity in organic crop rotationsanalysed by dynamic simulationmodels

I.4 Nitrogen management and croppingmethods for enhanced bread wheatproduction

I.5 Grain legumes and cereals - new

production methods for increasedprotein supply in organic farmingsystems

1.6 Cultivation in ridges and mixedcropping new approaches to orga-nic row crop production

I.7 Soil quali ty in organic farming:Effects of crop rotations, animalmanure and soil compaction

I.8 Perennial weeds species in organicfarming

I.9 Band-heating for Intra-row weedcontrol

I.10 Development of organic vegetablecultivation methods, and the use ofcatch crops to improve the producti-on and protect the environment

I.11 Organic clover and grass seedI.12. Preventing Mycotoxin ProblemsI.13 Emission of greenhouse gases and

dinitrogen fixation in grass-cloverpastures

Anim al husbandryII .1 Future organic dairy productionsystems

II .2 Resource use, environmental impactand economy in organic pig produ-ction systems

II.3 Organic Production of Steers andUse of Bioactive Forages in Livestock

II .4 Improvement of animal health andwelfare in organic dairy productionwith special focus on the calves

II.5 Use of antimicrobials and occurren-ce of resistance in organic cattleherds

II .6 Poultry production systems, healthand welfare

II .7 Pig feeding under organic farmingconditions with emphasis on nutri-

ent utilisation, product quality andhealth.

II .8 Management in relation to healthand food safety in organic pig pro-duction

Ag ricult ure and society

III.1 Consumer Demand for OrganicFoods Domestic and ForeignMarket Perspectives

II I.2 Economic analyses of the futuredevelopment of organic farming.Effects at the field, farm, sector andmacroeconomic levels

III.3 Closing the Rural-Urban NutrientCycle

II I.4 Organic food and health a multi-generation animal experiment

II I.5 Nature Quality in Organic Farming Localisation, farm practice, biolog-ical conservation, ecosystem functio-ning and landscape aesthetics

II I.6 Development of organic farming

systems for environmentally sensitiveareasIV. Experimental units for research in

organic farming systemsV. Co-ordination and synergy increa-

sing the width and depth of researchin organic farming


34/34

34

The Principle Aims of Organic Productionand Processing

Organic Production and Processing is basedon a number of principles and ideas. Theyare all important and are not necessarilylisted here in order of importance.

To produce food of high quality in sufficientquantity.To interact in a constructive and life-enhan-cing way with natural systems and cycles.To consider the wider social and ecologicalimpact of the organic production and proces-sing system.To encourage and enhance biological cycleswithin the farming system, involving micro-organisms, soil flora and fauna, plants andanimals.

To develop a valuable and sustainable aquaticecosystem.To maintain and increase long term fertilityof soils.To maintain the genetic diversity of the pro-duction system and its surroundings, includ-ing the protection of plant and wildlife habi-tats.

To promote the healthy and proper care ofwater, water resources and all life therein.To use, as far as possible, renewable resourcesin locally organised production systems.To create a harmonious balance between cropproduction and animal husbandry.To give all livestock conditions of life with

due consideration for the basic aspects oftheir innate behaviour.To minimise all forms of pollution.To process organic production using ren-ewable resources.To produce fully biodegradable organic pro-ducts.To produce textiles which are long-lastingand of good quality.To allow everyone involved in organic produ-ction and processing a quality of life whichmeets their basic needs and allows an adequa-

te return and satisfaction from their work,including a safe working environment.To progress towards an entire production,processing and distribution chain which bothsocially just and ecologically responsible.

IFOAM Basic Standards 2000, p. 10

Appendix 2

principiples of organic farming

Documents