Readers' Rating:

Rate this article

In developed countries today’s consumers expect enough food of the highest possible quality and of a wide variety, whatever the season. They expect not only healthy but also wholesome food that has been produced without serious ecological impact. On one hand they generally assume that food produced by ‘organic farming’ fulfills all these expectations. On the other hand they do not realize the limitations on productivity that result in higher prices.

Until the beginning of the 19^th century food production was entirely based on traditional farming systems (Figure 1). Animal production was fully integrated with plant production and well-established rotation systems allowed the consistent production of various food and feed ingredients. With the invention of fertilization with minerals by Justus von Liebig (1803–1973), increases in production were realized. But even in the middle of the 19th century, imbalances in soil nutrients were associated with reduced crop production and plant diseases.





Figure 1. Development of organic farming in Europe with special reference to Switzerland.



Therefore, the same scientist, Justus von Liebig, began to stress the importance of ‘healthy’ soil for production of wholesome plant products. He is therefore considered to be the scientific founder of organic farming. His ideas on soil fertility in relation to a well-established nutrient balance were later adopted by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) in his anthroposophy-based biological dynamic agriculture, which was progressively developed in Germany and Switzerland. The products were marketed under the label of ‘Demeter’.

In the United Kingdom, Albert Howard (1901–1983) was a primary promoter of organic farming. He collected a lot of information and experience from his studies in India and Europe. Lemaire and Boucher introduced organic farming in the middle of the 20th century in France. In addition to the biological dynamic farming from Rudolf Steiner, another type of farming was developed in Switzerland and Germany by Hans Müller and his wife Maria in the first half of the last century (organic biological farming). At that time organic production systems covered about 1% of the agricultural area in Switzerland.

With the increased concern about intensive agriculture, organic farming has become steadily more significant. From universities and official agricultural research organizations, new strategies for environmentally friendly agriculture were developed under the name of ‘Integrated Production’ (IP). This system emphasized good rotation systems; and chemicals such as mineral fertilizers and pesticides were restricted as much as possible.

In the 1970s, more and more consumers became concerned about farm animal welfare and the production strategies of agriculture in general.

Animal-friendly production systems were increasingly associated with organic farming. With the introduction of a new animal welfare law in Switzerland (1978) and later in the European Union (EU) and restrictions on environmental loading, governmental subsidies became increasingly tied to extensive and integrated food production or organic farming, which stimulated interest.

In 1993 the Swiss government decided to disburse payments based on organic farming. The main food distributors, which have a market share of about 60%, began intensive marketing programs focused on ‘better and more natural’ food. These two measures led to a significant increase in organic farming in Switzerland and in many other European countries.


Basic regulations for organic farming (example Switzerland)

S ince 1982, organizations involved in organic farming have created a uniform label called ‘Knospe’ (e.g., Burgon) and developed detailed rules regarding production of plants and farm animals as well as for marketing of the products. In this paper only the basics will be discussed.

When a farmer decides to change from traditional farming to organic farming, all parts of the production system must be changed at the same time, i.e. the farm cannot simultaneously produce organic milk and conventionally-produced cereals.

Furthermore, production must be regularly monitored and recorded and notes must be made about all procedures used in each sector of the farm operation. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are generally not permitted on any level of production. This includes the production of any auxiliary substances for animal production or plant protection. A carefully regulated rotation system is necessary for the best possible soil conservation.

In plant production, seeds and auxiliary substances must be well-adapted to organic farming and the specific environment. Chemical and recombinant insecticides or fungicides as well as all herbicides are generally banned. No chemical or mineral nitrogen or phosphorus fertilizers are permitted. To ensure adequate nutrient cycles, a maximum of only 2.5 cattle manure units per hectare are allowed.

In animal production 90% or more of feed for ruminants must originate from organic production.

In non-ruminants up to 20% of the feed can be nonorganic, but GMOs or products of animal origin such as meat and bone meal are banned. Diseased farm animals must be treated, but if possible with ‘natural drugs’ (whatever that means). If therapeutic drugs are used, then twice the normal withdrawal period must be observed.

In Table 1 a summary of the official list of permitted and banned feed additives is presented. In general, performance promoters like antimicrobial agents, hormones or ß-agonists are banned. Among antioxidants, only natural sources with increased vitamin C or E content are permitted. The same holds true for flavouring substances as well as emulsifiers and stabilizers. Colouring substances or pigments are generally forbidden.

An important group of feed additives for poultry are the organic acids. In other farm animals like pigs or ruminants, organic acids are banned. Vitamins, provitamins and similar substances that are chemically described are generally banned. Exceptions can be made for vitamins, however upper limits must be strictly observed. An important limitation is the ban of synthetic or microbially-derived purified amino acids.

The supplementation of diets with mixtures of trace elements is also not allowed. Probiotics are permitted if they are non-GMO, but enzymes and drugs against coccidiosis and histomoniasis are completely banned. We can conclude that these regulations in some aspects drastically limit optimal animal production and health.


Table 1. Swiss regulations for organic farming: List of feed additives.


(Bio Suisse, 2003)



Organic farming: where do we stand in Europe?

In Figure 2 the annual per capita investment in organic food products by European consumers in 2000 is given. In the EU only about farm €23 are spent per person for organic food annually. This is very minor in comparison to the amount spent on conventionally-produced foods. In the two leading countries for organic production, Denmark and Switzerland, about €70 are spent per capita annually.

In many other countries, e.g. the UK, the Netherlands or France, organic food products have only minor importance.

In the different European countries, the distribution of organic products among various food product types varies widely. In Figures 3.1. and 3.2, the percentage of total products in organic production and the corresponding market share are given for plant as well as animal products. It includes figures for the EU in total and for the three countries Denmark, Germany and Austria in relation to the non-EU country, Switzerland. These four countries can be considered as pioneers in organic farming in Europe.

For most food types, the proportion of organic origin is less than 5% of total production. An exception is foods of plant origin in Denmark. The market share for organically-produced plant products in Denmark and Austria is far higher than in the rest of the EU. The main organic plant products are cereals, potatoes and vegetables.

In organic animal production, Austria has pioneered organic milk and lamb production and is followed by Denmark and Switzerland. In Austria and Switzerland, organic animal production is closely related to agricultural production in mountain areas where the gap between traditional farming methods and organic farming is very small and the corresponding governmental subsidies are significant. It can furthermore be observed that organic poultry and pork production in most countries is almost insignificant.





Figure 2. Annual per capita expenditure on organic food products by European consumers.




To enlarge the image, click here

Figure 3.1. Organic plant production as a percentage of total plant production and market share of organic foods by volume as % of total food consumption in 2000.




To enlarge the image, click here

Figure 3.2. Organic animal production as a percentage of total animal production and market share of organic foods by volume as % of total food consumption in 2000.



Recent developments in organic farming and expectations for the future: example EU and Switzerland

In a survey by Hamm et al. (2002), an analysis of the European market for organic food was undertaken. The authors compared the amount of arable land in production for organic farming in relation to total area between 1993 and 2000. A summary of this comparison is presented in Figure 4.

In 1993 less than 0.5% of utilizable agricultural land was used for organic farming although wide areas in alpine regions and other extensively-farmed areas utilize production systems which are very close to organic farming (Bio Suisse, 2002). Austria was the leader with 2.5% of land area used. Since then, several countries including Finland and Italy have expanded to 7% or more, mainly due to governmental subsidies. The leaders in Europe today are the two alpine countries, Austria and Switzerland.




Figure 4. Development of the organic farming land area (as % of the total useable agricultural area) for all countries of the EU in 1993 and 2000 (Söl, 2001; Lampkin, 2001).



In the early 1990s, the Swiss government began to increase the subsidies for extensive farming, especially for animal-friendly production systems and organic farming. As a consequence, the two main food distributors began a marketing strategy focusing on natural food production. This resulted in the higher production of products with the organic farming label, which were sold in the big supermarkets in increasing amounts (Figure 5).

In 1995, the total volume of organic products amounted to less than 300 million Swiss Francs.

Most products were sold in specialty health food shops. A significant amount was also sold in farm shops. With the change in marketing strategies of the two food distributors Coop and Migros, organic products were sold to a greater extent by these two organizations and the total amount is today almost 1 billion CHF (€700 million or $750 million).

An almost linear increase has been noted each year since 1995. It must be assumed that there will be a further increase in the next few years. From Figure 5 it can also be seen that health shops or farm shops did not profit from that development.




Figure 5. Sales volume of organic products in Switzerland 1993-2001.



In animal production, special labelling programmes were initiated in the late 1980s. In these label programmes animal welfare and environmental concerns were the main focus. Furthermore, growth rate restrictions to promote improved meat quality were applied, as were special environmental considerations. Today these label programmes are a main marketing strategy for all meat products. In Table 2, the impact of the different label programmes and estimations for future development are given.

Today 75% or more of all meat (beef, pork and lamb) are produced under the main organic label programmes in Switzerland. In comparison, traditional production amounts to about 10-20%.

Strict organic farming amounts only to a few percent and can almost be neglected. This observation holds true for the two main meat distributors as well as other meat distribution organizations. The two distributors have a share of about 65% of the Swiss domestic meat market. Schneider (personal communication), from the biggest agricultural animal production organization, predicts a significant increase of the share of label programmes as well as products from organic farming in the near future. He expects that the demand from organic farming will reach 5-10% five years from now.


Table 2. Relevance of meat programmes today and in the future (Example Switzerland).

References

Bio Suisse. 2002. Geschichte der Bio Suisse: Kleine Chronologie der Ereignisse, Basel.

Bio Suisse Vereinigung Schweizer Biolandbau- Organisationen. 2003. Richtlinien für die Erzeugung, Verarbeitung und den Handel von Bio- Produkten, Basel.

Hamm, U., F. Gronefeld and D. Halpin. 2002. OMIaRD. Volume 1. Organic marketing initiatives and rural development. Analysis of the European market for organic food. School of Management and Business, Aberystwyth, Wales.

Lampkin, N. 2001. Organic area. Welsh Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK, http://www.organic. aber.ac.uk, updated 10 July 2001.

SÖL. 2001. Organic farming in Europe – provisional statistics 2001, http://www.organic-europe.net/ europe_eu/statistics.asp, updated 29. August 2001.

Readers' Rating:

Rate this article