Ecology and Farming

Ecology & Farming
Ecology and Farming
The magazine of the International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements
No. 41 • September - December 2006 5€
Special Feature
Animals in Organic Production
Feature interview
Organic farmer and US Senator Jon
Tester shares his views with the
Organic Movement
plus IFOAM pages, Global Monitor,
Books and Events

Note the date
Nuremberg, Germany
BioFach 2008
World Organic Trade Fair
Where organic people meet
21 – 24.2.2008
Organizer
NürnbergMesse
Tel +49(0)9 11. 86 06-0
Fax+49(0)9 11. 86 06-82 28
info@nuernbergmesse.de
www.biofach.com
Patron of BioFach
International Federation
of Organic Agriculture
Movements

RAPUNZEL has more than 30 years
of experience in importing,
processing and distributing the
finest organic certified food
worldwide.
RAPUNZEL promotes organic
agriculture and manages its own
projects in Turkey (dried fruit and
nuts), Spain (olives and almonds)
and Sri Lanka (coconut).
Additionally, we assist organic
projects in more than 20 countries
throughout the world, for example
in Brazil (cane sugar), Bolivia
(cocoa, Brazil nuts, quinoa), Costa
Rica (cane sugar, dried bananas),
the Dominican Republic (cocoa and
coffee) and Tanzania (coffee).
For complete information contact: RAPUNZEL NATURKOST AG • Rapunzelstr. 1 • D-87764 Legau, Germany • Phone: + 49-8330-529-1133 • Fax: + 49-8330-529-1139 • www.rapunzel.de
��������
Consultancy • Intelligence • Marketing
Project design • Certifi cation development
Standards development • Advanced training
’There is not one developed and
one underdeveloped world.
There is only one world
that is badly developed’
Always ahead in development
We pioneer new areas and concepts in the organic sector. We develop
in-house quality assurance systems, and are innovators in new product
areas such as organic wild production and fi sheries. We conduct
training programmes for sector leaders and policy makers. We also
have considerable long-term experience with the organic market.
We enjoy to find new ways (or discover old ways) to guarantee the
organic integrity.
�������
www.grolink.se
Serving the organic world
info@grolink.se • www.grolink.se • Address: Torfolk, SE-684 95 Höje, Sweden • Phone: +46 563 723 45 • Fax: +46 563 720 66
The Organic Standard is a monthly journal published by Grolink. Distributed by email as a pdf fi le
the journal deals with issues concerning international organic standards, regulations and certifi cation.
For information or subscription: offi ce@organicstandard.com • www.organicstandard.com • Phone: +46 563 723 45

Ecology and Farming is the English
language magazine of the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements (IFOAM).
ISSN No. 1016-5061
Imprint
IFOAM Head Office:
Charles-de-Gaulle-Str. 5
53115 Bonn
Germany.
Tel: +49 - 228 - 926 - 5010
Fax: +49 - 228 - 926 - 5099
Email: headoffice@ifoam.org
www.ifoam.org
Commissioning Editor:
Neil Sorensen
Letters to the Editor:
All articles and correspondence solely
concerned with Ecology and Farming should
be sent to letters@ifoam.org
Subscriptions and advertisements: All
subscription and advertising queries should
be directed to the IFOAM Head Office.
Subscription Rate (6 issues/two years): 25
Euros; One may subscribe via the IFOAM
webshop or by contacting the IFOAM Head
Office.
Reprints: Permission is granted to reproduce
original articles providing the credit is given
as follows:
‘Reprinted with permission from Ecology
and Farming, IFOAM, Charles-de-Gaulle-Str. 5,
53113, Bonn, Germany.’
Contributions: Articles sent for inclusion in
Ecology and Farming should be no longer
than 1500 words. They should be sent by
email to n.sorensen@ifoam.org. If this is not
possible, a copy can be faxed or sent by post.
Authors are responsible for the content of
their own articles. Their opinions do not
necessarily express the views of IFOAM.
Cover Photograph: © Rui Vale Sousa
Table of Contents
Editorial 5
IFOAM Pages
East African Organic Product Standard Approved by the East African
Community 6
1st IFOAM International Conference on Marketing of Organic and
Regional Values 7
FAO Organizes Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security 8
Information and Important Dates for the 2008 IFOAM General Assembly 8
Call for Nomination of Candidates to the IFOAM World Board 9
Call for Papers for the 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress 10
Organic Day(s) in the Mediterranean area 11
IFOAM Opens a Regional Office in Latin America 12
IFOAM Thanks Donors for Their Generous Support 12
Feature Interview
Organic Farmer and US Senator Jon Tester Shares His Views with the
Organic Movement 14
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
Fostering Organic Livestock Research - Priorities and Preferences
Animals in an Organic System: Exploring the Ecological, Social and
20
Economic Functions of Animals in Organic Agriculture 26
Animals in Translation 33
Contribution of Farmer Participation to Research in Organic
Livestock Production 35
Effect of Conventional and Organic Production Practices on the
Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Campylobacter in Poultry 39
Global Monitor
“Organic” Salmon - a Leap Too Far? 46
EU Regulation: New Organic Regulation Approved in Principle 48
Ongoing Trends, New Institutions and Issues in the US Organic Movement 51
IFOAM Publications 54
Other Publications 56
Calendar of Events 57
Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Editorial
Truly Sustainable
After a few months’ hiatus, Ecology and Farming is back in action, with
new features and superb content.
Ecology and Farming will now be published in a fully featured electronic
format to better serve your needs in our changing world. With interactive
links throughout the magazine, you can instantly connect with
advertisers or authors, or contribute editorial messages by clicking on the
conveniently provided links.
In addition, IFOAM continues to strive towards reducing its carbon
footprint on the planet and adhere to the Principles of Organic Agriculture
to the maximum extent possible, and going electronic with Ecology and
Farming is a great way to bring us more towards ecological sustainability.
This issue includes diverse news about IFOAM’s activities, such as the
launch of the East African Organic Product Standard and related mark,
IFOAM’s upcoming conferences the 1st IFOAM International Conference
on the Marketing of Organic and Regional Values and the 16th IFOAM
Organic World Congress “Cultivate the Future” in Modena in 2008, and
the establishment of an IFOAM office in Latin America.
This Ecology and Farming also has an exclusive interview with organic
farmer and US Senator Jon Tester, who gave us the opportunity to hear
firsthand about his experiences and perspectives on organic farming.
Moreover, as a result of IFOAM’s first conference on animals in organic
production that was held last autumn, we are featuring animals in organic
production, with articles by Dr. Fred Kirschenmann, Distinguished Fellow
for the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University
and Temple Grandin, renowned author of Animals In Translation, among
many other excellent contributions.
Thank you for your continued support of IFOAM’s magazine. Don’t
forget that you’re always invited to submit articles, editorials and other
contributions for the magazine.
angela B. caudle
IFOAM Executive Director
email: a.caudle@ifoam.org
Editorial

IFOAM News
New Standard for East African
Organic Products Launched
A uniform set of procedures for growing and marketing
organic produce has been established for East Africa The
East African Organic Products Standard (EAOS) is the
second regional organic standard in the world, following
that developed by the European Union. The EAOS and
associated East African Organic Mark will ensure to
consumers that produce so labeled has been grown in
accordance with a standardized method based on traditional
methods supplemented by scientific knowledge, and based
on ecosystem management rather than the use of artificial
fertilizers and pesticides. As organic produce generally sells
at premium prices in rapidly growing overseas markets, it is
hoped that the standard will increase sales and profits for
small farmers in the region.
The standard was developed by a public-private sector
partnership in East Africa, supported by the UNEP-UNCTAD
Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and
Development (CBTF), a joint initiative of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and
IFOAM.
Tanzanian Prime Minister Edward N. Lowassa presented the
standard and organic mark on May 29th during a week-long
series of meetings and workshops titled “East African Organic
Conference: Unleashing the Potential of Organic Agriculture.”
Also on May 29th, Secretaries of Agriculture and other high-
level government officials from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda,
Rwanda, and Burundi took part in a roundtable discussion
on “Unleashing the Potential of Organic Agriculture in East
Africa.”
The conference was jointly organized by the CBTF, IFOAM,
the Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement (TOAM) and
Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA),
in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Cooperatives of United Republic of Tanzania, the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and
the International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/World Trade
Organization (WTO)).
Work on the East African Organic Product Standard
has been made possible by financial support from the
European Commission, the Swedish International Agency
for Development Cooperation (Sida), and the Government
of Norway. EAOPS-related documents are available at the
following websites:
IFOAM Africa Office Coordinator Hervé Bouagnimbeck discusses IFOAM‘s activities in Africa with Tanzanian Prime Minister Edward N.
Lowassa.
www.ifoam.org/partners/projects/osea.html
www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/projecteastafrica.asp
The East African Organic Mark will be help to
make organic products widely identifiable
throughout East Africa.
IFOAM – News Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr -DEcEmbEr 2006

1 ST IFOAM INTErNATIONAL
CONFErENCE ON MArkETING OF
OrGANIC ANd rEGIONAL VALuES
Organized by
Organic Services and Ecoland
in cooperation with IFOAM.
AuGuST 26 – 28, 2007
SChwäbISCh hALL, GErMANy
register at www.ifoam.org
This conference will focus on a discussion of specific
marketing strategies that aim to give value to products by
taking into consideration their uniqueness. It will deal with
the question of how to create and identify regional and
other specific values, and ultimately how to translate these
values into successful marketing strategies for organic
products. Communicating these values to the consumer is
part of that strategy. The conference will consider various
concepts and marketing strategies, including regulatory
approaches, to protect regional values and traditional
knowledge.
The conference goal is to initiate and foster the discussion
and knowledge about marketing of organic and regional
values, respective tools and frameworks.
The main objectives of the conference are to:
• Create awareness among organic stakeholders
involved in organic marketing for additional values
and ways of marketing these values
• Initiate thinking about new approaches, especially
among farmers and their representatives
• Discuss and review successful examples
• Identify challenges and opportunities for the
sector
• Information exchange and networking
Cooperating Partner
Main Sponsor
Silver Sponsors
bronze Sponsors
basic Sponsors
Media Partner
Organizer
Organic Services GmbH
Landsberger Str. 527
81241 München, Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 89 820 759-07
Fax: +49 (0) 89 820 759-19
Email: ifoam.conference0708@organic-services.com
www.organic-services.com
IFOAM – News

FAO Conference on Organic
Agriculture and Food Security
From May 3rd to 5th 2007, the FAO organized a conference
on Organic Agriculture and Food Security.
The overall objective of the Conference was to shed light on
the contribution of Organic Agriculture to food security,
through the analysis of existing information of the agro-
ecological areas of the world. The Conference identified
Organic Agriculture’s potential and limits in addressing the
food security challenge, including conditions required for its
success.
The outcome of the conference provided a thorough
assessment of the state of knowledge on Organic Agriculture
and food security, including recommendations on areas for
further research and policy development. The Report of the
Conference subsequently was submitted to the 33rd Session
of the Committee on Food Security, for information and
further action.
IFOAM was a partner in organizing the conference, and had
both an official role in the steering committee and sponsored
members to contribute to the conference.
Conference report: http://www.fao.org/organicag/ofs/
index_en.htm
Conference Press Releases: http://www.fao.org/organicag/
ofs/press_en.htm
Information and Import and
Dates for the 200 IFOAM
General Assembly
The IFOAM General Assembly convenes once every three
years in conjunction with the IFOAM Organic World
Congress. It is the democratic decision making forum for the
international organic movement.
The IFOAM General Assembly is a very dynamic and lively
gathering, inspiring IFOAM members, board and staff to
work towards IFOAM’s mission.
At the upcoming General Assembly in Modena, Italy from
June 22-24 2008, the organic movement ‘in its full diversity’
from all over the world will deliberate upon the challenges
and opportunities for the future.
The work and achievements during the current term of
the World Board will be presented in a special World Board
report at the General Assembly. The Executive Director
will explain how the Head Office staff, committees and task
forces contributed to the work that has been accomplished.
Additionally, reports about IFOAM’s cooperation with
governments, international NGOs will be given, and
conclusions and reports from IFOAM conferences and events
that took place in the intervening years since the last General
Assembly will be discussed.
Important Dates
Deadline for Motions from IFOAM Members:
February 23, 2008
Your deadline for World Board Candidacy:
March 22, 2008
Deadline for Bids to organize the IFOAM Organic World
Congress 2011
March 22, 2008
Deadline for Agenda and Motions to be Mailed Out to
Members:
April 23, 2008
IFOAM – News Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr -DEcEmbEr 2006

Call for nomination of
candidates for the
IFOAM World Board
At the General Assembly in Modena, Italy, from June 22-24,
2008, a new IFOAM World Board will be elected.
Ten positions are open to be filled. The IFOAM World Board
decides all issues not yet determined by the General Assembly
and is responsible to the General Assembly. Election to the
World Board means a challenging opportunity to work for the
further development of the worldwide organic movement.
It can open new horizons and enrich the lives of those who
serve.
Any person may present a candidacy for the IFOAM World
Board if the requirements for candidates are fulfilled.
Requirements for World Board candidates:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The candidate is able to prepare for and attend World
Board meetings and to participate in the work of the
World Board (about 20 working days per year).
Candidates shall indicate whether they are also available
to serve on the Executive Board; those candidates
prepared to serve on the Executive Board must be
able to dedicate approximately three months per year
commitment to the interests of IFOAM.
The candidate has good communication skills.
The candidate is willing to look and step beyond one’s
personal interests.
The candidacy is endorsed by 5 IFOAM members in
writing.
The candidate is able to speak and read English.
The candidate writes a candidacy statement no longer
than one page (or 500 words) containing:
*
a short curriculum vitae focused on her/his activities
*
in the organic movement
a short description of the area in which (s)he would
particularly like to contribute to the work of the
WorldBoard and optionally may give her/his opinion
on major IFOAM positions and the IFOAM program
for the coming term.
The candidate submits a photograph, suitable for publication
(300dpi ,in color, .tiff).
Generally, all activities for the IFOAM World Board are
voluntary, with no time reimbursement foreseen, unless
specified otherwise by World Board decisions. When
necessary, travel and accommodation costs will be borne by
IFOAM.
Please send your application to the IFOAM Head Office to the
attention of Thomas Cierpka, t.cierpka@ifoam.org. Women,
farmer representatives and people from so-called Third World
countries are especially encouraged to consider presenting
their candidacies.
Please note that although geographic, gender, and expertise
balance is desired in the World Board, its members are not
elected to represent specific regions, countries, or
organizations, but rather the global interests of the organic
movement.
Candidates will be presented in IFOAM -In Action and to the
General Assembly.
The deadline for applications is March 22, 2008.
IFOAM – News

cAll for contributionS
tHemeS of tHe orGAnic
WorlD conGreSS
The Organic World Congress has two main tracks: the Systems
Values Track for presentation and exchange of practical
experiences from farmers, consumers, campaigns and
cooperation; and a Scientific Research Track, where current
academic research and others will be presented and discussed.
The following subjects are brought to your attention in order
to receive contributions for both tracks. However, the Congress
won’t be limited only to them and contributions are sought
for all themes that are based on the Principles of Organic
Agriculture:
• Education and Organic Agriculture
• Organic food quality
• Renewable energy, including biofuel production in
Organic Agriculture, energy and rural communities,
mitigation and adaptation to climate change and
carbon sink potentials of Organic Agriculture
• Best practices in organic production and animal
husbandry
• Organic food production chain, including processing,
conditioning and packaging
• Organic seeds and breeds
• Organic markets, including: mainstream distribution,
direct markets, public catering, creating new local and
regional markets, international/national regulations
and trade barriers
• Organic Agriculture and rural tourism
• Organic food security
• Women in Organic Agriculture
• Organic viticulture and wine making
• Organic horticulture and fruit growing
• Organic textiles and fibers, including production,
processing and marketing
• Natural cosmetics, body care, ecological detergents
and household care
• Organic aquaculture, including: fish welfare, feeding
strategies and environmental sustainability
In order to have a rich, diverse and effective Organic World
Congress, everybody who is actively engaged in Organic
Agriculture, who Cultivates the Future and is willing to
contribute with her/his work to the OWC program is warmly
invited to participate by sending us a paper or poster– without
excluding other forms such as videos, pictures, songs, dance
and other artistic works.
SubmiSSion of contributionS
The contribution should consist of a short paper on 4 pages
max (2500 words) including: introduction, methods, results and
recommendations, conclusions, or implications. Contributions
must be written in English.
Submit contributions using the Organic Eprints archive (www.
orgprints.org). Details on the submission process as well as the
template to be used for layout will be made available by June
30th, 2007 at www.ifoam.org.
For artistic contributions, there is no specific form and you are
free to submit any kind of work.
Contributions for the Scientific Research Track will be
evaluated through a peer review system by the International
Society of Organic Agriculture Research, ISOFAR (see specific
guidelines at: www.isofar.org/modena2008), and supported by
a specific scientific committee and by other relevant research
institutions. Parallel conference programs will be supported by
other dedicated subcommittees involving partner organizations
and stakeholders.
Deadline for submission: October 15th, 2007
Conference proceedings: A CD version of the proceedings will
be distributed to all participants of the 16th IFOAM Organic
World Congress free of charge.
Contributions that are accepted for the Scientific Research
Track will be included in 2 printed volumes (papers and poster).
Authors will receive a free copy at the conference.
All submitted and accepted papers will be made public via the
Organic Eprints Archive.
contributionS timeline
September 15th, 2007: OWC registration brochure
October 15th, 2007: contributions deadline
January 31st, 2008: notification of acceptance and
of necessary modifications
February 29th, 2008: revised papers submitted
June 16th-17th, 2008: thematic pre-conferences
June 18th-20th, 2008: Organic World Congress
More detailed and updated information about the program
and OWC registration: www.ifoam.org/modena2008
10 IFOAM – News Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr -DEcEmbEr 2006

Organic Day(s) in the
Mediterranean area
by the IFOAM AgriBioMediterraneo
Regional Board
The idea of an Organic Day in the Mediterranean area is not
entirely new, considering that the Biodomenica (Organic
Sunday) has taken place in Italy for seven years. In 2001,
members of the IFOAM AgriBioMediterraneo Regional Board
at that time decided to promote a Mediterranean Organic Day.
Thus, Organic Day is being celebrated not only in Italy, but
also in Egypt, Croatia, France, Greece and Israel, the main idea
being to promote organic food and farming among consumers,
farmers and policy makers in a public event.
At present, all kinds of activities are organized for Organic Day
by mainly producer organizations and certification bodies. In
practice, the idea of establishing a Mediterranean Organic Day
has proven very ambitious, and as experience demonstrates,
it is difficult to force one common day upon countries that
not only have organic sectors in very different stages of
development, but diverse economic and cultural situations as
well.
This year’s experience
In Italy, Biodomenica activities included social cooperatives
that use organic farming for integration activities, in this sense
representing not only a food market, but also a cultural event
involving organic producers and consumers. Promoting more
than organic farming alone, the day addressed the relationship
between Organic Agriculture and food security, environment
safeguards, economic development, and the important linkage
to the land.
In some events, organic producers with production in or near
natural parks also participated, in an effort to promote the
role of Organic Agriculture and protected areas. Additionally,
a promotional campaign was organized by AIAB, Coldiretti
and Legambiente, with support of the Italian Ministries of
Agriculture and Environment, to promote the quality of local
organic food through a direct meeting between consumers and
producers: organic markets were organized in 100 locations
throughout Italy.
In Egypt there were more activities and more visitors than in
previous years. Due to Ramadan, their Organic Day took place
in November, with the main event taking place at the SEKEM
farm. Nearly 2000 visitors participated, with a program that
included an organic farming and Egyptian folklore ceremony.
In Israel, with IBOA as the main organizer, Organic Day was
celebrated in late Spring 2006, which coincides with the
biblical harvest holiday of Shavuot, which by tradition is the
first day of wheat harvest. The day was a gathering of farmers,
producers and consumers, which included organic food stands
and educational activities.
In Greece, DIO organized excursions to producers.
Another example of an Organic Day in the Mediterranean is
the Printemps Bio 2006 (Organic Spring) in France, which
has taken place for many years. The national information
campaign for organically grown products encompassed a two-
week period of promotional events.
IFOAM – News
11

Summing up
The celebration of an Organic Day is a very useful tool for the
development of organic farming to connect with consumers
and capture the attention of the public at large. As it is difficult
to establish an exclusive organic day or period in countries
with very different social, economic and cultural backgrounds,
we suggest two different scenarios: 1) organizing an Organic
Day in each country on a national or autonomous level under
a common criteria, or 2) establishing an International Organic
Day with support of a intergovernmental organization like the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or
linking Organic Days to International Food Day. To achieve
this, it seems more appropriate to think in a wider area than
Mediterranean, with the involvement of IFOAM and the whole
Organic Movement.
iFOam agriBiOmediterraneO regiOnal BOard
www.ifoam-abm.com/
IFOAM Regional Office in Latin
America
Beginning on June 1st,
IFOAM is opening a Regional
Office in Latin America to
support the development of
Organic Agriculture in the
region. The office will be
located in Salta, Argentina,
and Patricia Flores Escudero
will serve as the IFOAM
representative to Latin
America and the Caribbean
on a part-time basis.
Patricia is a specialist in Agroecology and Institutional
Development, and has been involved in rural development
projects focused on Organic Agriculture for 15 years. She
has been engaged with several national and international
NGOs like Red de Agricultura Ecológica del Perú (RAE-Peru),
Institute of Development and Environment (IDMA) and
Movimiento Agroecológico Latinoamericano (MAELA); and
since 2002 she has been the Coordinator of Latin America
and the Caribbean Group of IFOAM (GALCI) . She will work
in close cooperation with staff from the IFOAM Head Office
in Bonn.
Patricia Flores escudero
EMAIL: patriciafloresescudero@gmail.com
IFOAM Thanks Donors for
Their Generous Support
IFOAM would like to take the opportunity to give a big “thank
you“ to following people for their generous donations:
Platinum
Triodosbank, Bo van Elzakker (Agro Eco), Gunnar Rundgren
(Grolink).
12 IFOAM – News Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr -DEcEmbEr 2006
Gold
Volkert Engelsman (EOSTA B. V. Organic Fruits & Vegetables)
Silver
Wolfgang Gutberlet (Tegut), Wiesengold Landei GmbH Co, Al-
exander Beck (Assoziation Oekologischer Lebensmittelherstell-
er), Jesus Luis Barrera Lozano A, Ulrich Walter (Lebensbaum),
Jan Schrijver (Good Food Foundation), Ong Kung Wai (Humus
Consultancy), Jacqueline Haessig-Alleje, Paolo Steccanella,
Soonthorn Sritawee (River Kwai).
Bronze
Tom Vaclavik (Green marketing), Shi Shi Kai (Heilongjiang
Harvest Farm Foods Co.,Ltd.), Sheldon Weinberg, Daniel Burke
(Pacific Soybean and Grain), Punlert Sodsee (Dole Thailand
Ltd), Patricio Parra, Asha Kachru, Katherine DiMatteo, Nazir
Nahlawi (East Milling), Georg Roesner (Georg Roesner Ver-
triebs GmbH), Hartmut Wöllner (Entwicklungsbüro für ökolo-
gischen Landbau Lindenberg), Lilo Massing, Roberto Pinton
(Pinton Organic Consulting), Nadezda Pesic Mlinko (Organic
Control System d.o.o.), Roberto Lughi (Associazione produttori
biologici e biodinamici dell Emilia Romagna), Organic Farming
- Production,Training and Consultancy, Inc , Meenakshi Pareek
(Morarka Foundation), Henry W. Short.

BE PART OF ThE SOLuTION!
Apply for IFOAM membership online at
www.ifoam.org
PROuD TO BE PART!
Nartrudee Nakornvacha
General Manager Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand
- ACT
I am proud to be member of IFOAM because IFOAM takes care of
small holder interests. The Internal Control System developed
by IFOAM has been internationally recognized and significantly
improves small holders market access opportunities.
bob Quinn
President kamut International, uSA
I appreciate the efforts of IFOAM to promote organic
production throughout the world. Their work to keep the
integrity of organic standards high worldwide and harmonize
these standards with governments has greatly added to the
success of the worldwide trade of organic goods. I can not say
enough for the many years of dedication by hard working and
capable staff and volunteers. I have enjoyed my association
with these people over the years and have appreciated the help
and encouragement they have offered to me.
kari Örjavik
Grolink Partner, Sweden
I am happy that IFOAM faces the challenges for the organic
sector, be it climate change, GMOs or cooperation with
governments and private sector. There is a lot ahead of us and
therefore IFOAM should be strengthened. I am proud to be part.
Souleyman bassum
Agrecol-Afrique, Senegal
I am proud that IFOAM membership revised the Principles
of Organic Agriculture in a unique, truly global stakeholder
process. It is of daily use for us, since we have based the
principles of our organization on the same. I am proud to be
part of IFOAM.
Vandana Shiva
Navdanya President, India
winner of the ’right Livelihood Award‘ in 1 3
I am happy to be member of an organization who positions
itself at the right spot to successfully protect Organic
Agriculture against the threat caused by Genetically Modified
Organisms.
Ong kung wai
world board member, Malaysia
We are many different people and interests living in one World.
I join IFOAM to learn, build and live together in a better future
in line with the Principles of Organic Agriculture.
Mwatima Juma
world board member, Tanzania
IFOAM stands for dialogue, harmonization and equivalence in
the organic sector. This is why I engage myself in the IFOAM
World Board.
urs Niggli
Fibl, Switzerland
I cannot imagine another organization than IFOAM to represent
Organic Agriculture globally. I am proud to be part.
Volkert Engelsman
Eosta, The Netherlands
I am happy that IFOAM defends the holistic organic concept
by defining the Principles of OA. To find the balance between
ecological, social and economic objectives is crucial for my
business. I am proud to be part.
IFOAM – News
13

Feature Interview
Organic Farmer and
uS Senator Jon Tester
Shares his Views with
the Organic Movement
Interview by Neil Sorensen
In November 2006, organic
farmer Jon Tester was elected
to the United States Senate.
Having an organic farmer
in such a position of power
represents an important
opportunity for the entire
international organic
community. Tester candidly
shares his experiences and
world view in a telephone
interview.
FiBL – Professional Competence
for Organic Agriculture Worldwide
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture
Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau
Institut de recherche de l’agriculture biologique
Istituto di ricerche dell’agricoltura biologica
Instituto de investigaciones para la agricultura orgánica
How did you and your wife Sharla get involved in organic
farming?
It was in about ‘86 or so. There were a number of things that
happened. We’re not exactly the biggest outfit out here, and
as we as we looked out the door, you’d see a lot of places that
weren’t lived in, a lot of people that were leaving agriculture.
They weren’t necessarily bad business people, but it just wasn’t
financially sustainable. As the next ones on the block, we felt
like we had to make some changes in our operation from a
financial standpoint. We never did get along with the seed
treatments or the weed sprays very well, and to be honest
we probably didn’t handle them like they should have been
Research and Development
Project and feasibility studies
Training and advice
Conversion planning
Pilot and demonstration trials
Support for import and label
certification
Set-up of inspection and certification
programmes
Market surveys, marketing concepts
and organic produce sourcing
FiBL Switzerland, Ackerstrasse, Postfach, CH-5070 Frick, Phone +41 62 865 7272, Fax +41 62 865 7273, info.suisse@fibl.org
FiBL Germany, Galvanistrasse 28, D-60486 Frankfurt, Phone +49 69 713 769 90, Fax +49 69 713 7699 9, info.deutschland@fibl.org
FiBL Austria, Theresianumgasse 11/1, A-1040 Vienna, Phone +43 1 907 6313, Fax +43 1 403 7050 191, info.oesterreich@fibl.org www.fibl.org
14 Feature Interview Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

handled. Combined with that fact, one day we met
a woman who was working at Eden Foods that
happened by. She was out at Quinn’s (Bob Quinn of
Kamut International) place, and she said that if you
convert your farm to organics, that there’s certainly
a market for your grain. Since she worked at Eden,
she said they would purchase the grain from us if it
met quality standards for protein and so forth. The
impetus for moving to organic was a combination
of those things. We were truly Neophytes in the
business, and the more we got into it, the more we
liked it, and the more we liked being able to sell our
products. The thing that really sold it for us (and we
were certified by the OCIA at that point in time),
when I went to an international organic meeting
my first year. Nobody else around wanted to go to
Philadelphia to that international meeting, so I did.
During the meeting, the woman who we had sold
the Durham (wheat) to (and it was a semi load, not
a huge amount) came up to me and said ‘that was
the best Durham we’d ever got.’ In retrospect, it may
have been baloney, but it made me feel good about
the product, because nobody had ever told me that
what I was raising was good. You know, I’d take it
to the elevator and they’d tell me what was wrong
with it and they’d deduct me for this or deduct me
for that. That was first time I actually sold grain
to somebody who came up to me and said thanks
for doing what you’re doing. That combination of
things brought us to a level where we thought it was
important to convert, and within five years we had
the whole place converted, and it’s worked out very
well for us.
As an organization, IFOAM really believes in
highlighting the role of women in Organic
Agriculture. What kind of role has Sharla played in
the development of your farm?
This is a family farm. It’s been in the family since my
grandparents homesteaded it back in 1916. Just by
definition, a family farm means exactly that. Just
as my grandmother did with my grandfather, they
farmed side by side, and so did my mother and my
father. Even though I was born 14 years after my
grandparents left the place and moved to town, I
grew up with my parents and saw the role that my
mother played in the operation of the farm. Whether
it was helping to do the books and paying the bills
or being a tractor driver, truck driver or combining
at harvest time, she was there. It’s the same with
my wife now. Particularly with this campaign, I
was required to be on the phone a fair amount of
time, and Sharla spent a fair amount of time on the
combine, which is a job that I normally do. Typically
she drives trucks at harvest time, and at seed time
she’s moving trucks around, making sure I’ve got
seed when I need it and helping to fill the drills. If
something else is happening when I’m needed at
the house, she’s out there taking care of business.
It’s a family farm. The same thing can be said about
my kids: they help to make up the interchangeable
pieces that are part of what makes it a family farm.
As with my grandparents and with my folks, it’s been
Feature Interview
1

a joint operation since we moved out here in 1978.
It’s just the way it is. There’s darn few things that I
do that my wife can’t do, and I can’t say that about
me, because there’s things she does that I flat can’t
do. It’s part of what I consider to be the definition
of a family farm, which is that partners move the
operation forward together. When we made the
conversion to organics, we sat down and talked
about it. When we sell the grain or lentils or peas or
whatever, we talk about it. Is this the right thing to
be doing, selling to this person or that person, or is
this price adequate to pay the bills? It’s a joint effort.
What is the importance of having organic farming
become more institutionalized in the Farm Bill,
and do you have any specific plans in that regard?
I think that where we’re at in Organic Agriculture
is just to make that the Farm Bill includes the
flexibility to let people farm organically. On a
personal basis, I just hope we can encourage the kind
of markets in conventional agriculture that we have
in Organic Agriculture, and I hope we can maintain
the kind of markets and improve upon them so we
have competition in the marketplace. I think that
it is critically important for the Farm Bill from the
conventional and the organic standpoint. Ultimately,
I want a farm program that helps encourage financial
sustainability that increases long-term competition
in the marketplace. All of these elements apply
to both conventional and Organic Agriculture . I
want a farm program that really focuses on energy
policy for this country that will help it achieve
energy independence. I think we have tremendous
opportunity in renewables here in the United States,
which helps agriculture across the board, organic and
conventional. Traditionally, people in production
agriculture have gotten there money from the
marketplace. I want to keep it that way in organics
and encourage it in conventional agriculture, too.
How do you feel about the dumping of US products
due to subsidies on developing countries?
Well, I think we need to have trade agreements
that work for people here in the United States and
for our trading partners abroad. Subsidies are an
interesting argument, because there are different
levels of subsidies all over the world, and they
come in all different forms . Some are actual cash
payments, others are subsidies to transportation
industries, and the savings are passed on to people in
agriculture. Here’s my focus is that we have to have
trade agreements that work. You can’t be driving
your trading partners’ people into poverty; that’s
not a good trade agreement. But by the same token,
trade agreements shouldn’t drive your own people
into poverty or out of business and into bankruptcy
either. You need to make sure you’re looking at both
sides of the equation. Quite frankly, a lot of these
trade agreements right now help out the selected
few. I don’t think they’re in production agriculture,
and they’re probably not in developing countries
either. In the end, what needs to be protected,
preserved and enhanced in this country is family
farm agriculture. I think it’s critically important from
a United States standpoint for food security and
food availability throughout the world. When our
agricultural base starts becoming more corporatized,
and it’s becoming that way more and more, I think
that’s a risky situation both economically and from
the perspective of food security. There are subsidies
all over the place. I know what it costs to raise a
bushel of grain and a lentil. I can tell you if there
weren’t subsidies right now (because there’s no
competition in the marketplace), that there would be
a mass exodus from the land. It’s a two-sided coin. I
hate subsidies with a passion. I’d love to have all our
income come from the marketplace. I think that if
there’s good competition in the marketplace it could
be that way. You know as well as I do that there’s
too much monopolization in the food industry right
now, as with a lot of other industries.
There’s been a lot of criticism throughout
the world about organic products from China
and some developing countries, entering the
marketplace, it being suggested that there are not
adequate controls. How do you feel about that?
I’ve never been to mainland China. I don’t know
the challenges that they face. I know that they are
many, but I do feel strongly in strong standards that
are verifiable and transparent. If the transparency
isn’t there, I don’t think the certification should
take place. There are games that can be played and
1 Feature Interview Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

games that have been played with certification over
the years, and that’s one of the challenges that we
have in the organic industry, where peer-review is so
important. If there’s not peer-review to help with the
transparency, then it puts our whole industry at risk.
I can’t tell you if it has a high probability of being
bogus, because I haven’t been there and I don’t know,
I do know that if the inspection and certification
process is not open, transparent and meets the
standards, then it has to change.
How do you feel credibility can best be maintained
through organic certification?
I think you have to maintain the standards. You can’t
have any erosion of standards that are significant.
There’s always going to be some changes to
standards, but ultimately we have to adhere to that
grassroots vision for organics that was there 30 years
ago. If you improve the inspection, you improve the
product through the number of eyes that watch the
process, and I’ll give you an example. When we first
started organics and made the conversion, we found
that there needs to be more eyes on the conversion
process, especially because of parallel production.
Quite frankly, I’ve got some ideas about parallel
production that a lot of people in the industry
wouldn’t like. I don’t think it’s the right thing to
be doing in organics, because it opens the door for
problems. When we started the conversion, we had
tours of the farm, and everybody we sold grain to
came out and took a look around. Of course we had
the inspection process, which I think helps ensure
the quality of the product, but I also think that
people who buy products from farms need to make a
concerted effort to get out to those farms and take a
look around. As a farmer in production agriculture,
I’m always honored when somebody who’s buying
my product comes to see what we have going on. I
think that helps along with traditional inspections
and audit trails. It’s been a little more difficult since
I’ve been in the Montana Senate for eight years, but
we always used to get together with neighbors once
a month and visit about our successes and defeats,
and talk about organic production. I think all that
helps, getting together and talking about challenges
we face and how we can meet those challenges. All
those things go together. I think to have a good
organic system, farmers need to feel like they’re in
partnership with the processor, and they both need
to feel like they’re in partnership with the consumer.
How do you feel about the entrance of organic
discounters and big corporations onto the scene?
It’s a two-edged sword. Anytime you open up the
market to have organics be more accessible to more
people, that’s a positive. I think that if they’re getting
into it for cheap food, to cheapen up the process, to
cheapen the standards and to cheapen the products -
if it’s all about cheap - I think it’s the wrong business.
What enticed me into organics is food quality, soil
health and improving the environment that our
next generation has to do business in. Those are the
important things, and there’s a cost to doing that.
You can’t do that kind of stuff on the cheap.
The cost of course to doing that is that you give up
some things when those become the most important
thing. If massive production becomes your most
important driver, then you can do a lot of things on
the cheap. The retailers that are out there putting
more organic food out for the consumers, I think
Feature Interview
1

that’s a positive thing. I think anytime you can bring
more organic consumers into the marketplace, that’s
positive. In the end, if the goal is to cheapen the
process, I think that’s something to be leery of.
I know that you really care about the integrity of
the soil and that you are into using green manures.
How do you feel about soil as a living organism,
just to get your understanding of ecology?
I’m going to make a correlation here – it’s the basis
by which I make a living. If I don’t have good soil
health, if I’m not continually working to improve
the health of my soil, it diminishes my ability to be
successful in organics tremendously. I’ll tell you we
went through some serious droughts here, over the
last six or seven years. This last year wasn’t bad at all,
but before that in 2001 and 2002, it was miserably
dry here. My soil health tanked. There were things
that happened from an ecological standpoint that
drove me crazy. I just couldn’t get anything to grow
because we didn’t have any moisture. If I don’t have
good soil health or if I see my soil health going in
a negative fashion, it just absolutely takes away
my ability to raise a product that’s a good quality,
healthy product. What we do as farmers is manage
soil. If we do a good job of managing soil and
Mother Nature rains on us, we’ll cut a hell of a crop,
and it’ll be a good crop, a high quality crop. If we do
a poor job of managing the soil, no matter how much
it rains, we’re not going to raise a good crop. Soil
management is critical, and that’s why I feel very,
very strongly about a soil-building program being a
critical part of a rotation. If you’re not continually
trying to build your soil, you’re not going to succeed
in Organic Agriculture over the long run. You will
over the short haul, possibly, but not over the long
1 Feature Interview Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006
haul.
How do you feel about the USDA deregulation
of the genetically engineered (GE) rice known
as Liberty Link (LL) 601 by the USDA that has
contaminated rice supplies throughout the US and
the lawsuit by rice farmers?
I’ve always gone by the theory that the customer is
always right. If the customer doesn’t want GMO rice,
we ought not to be forcing it on them. Anytime you
have decisions by the government where they don’t
take into consideration what the customer wants,
they’re forcing people in production agriculture into
a financial situation they don’t deserve and you need
to take a look at the policy makers and change them.
Do you have anything else you’d like to share with
global organic sector?
All I want to say is that I’m in an interesting
situation. I’ve been in the organic trade for almost
20 years. Before that we were conventional, and my
farmer and grandfather were good farmers. They
were conventional farmers. The only reason I bring
that up is because there’s a lot of good farmers out
there. There’s a lot of good people that share the
same vision for agriculture as some of the people in
organics. Just because you’re into organic doesn’t
mean you’re better than anyone else. There are
some people in organics that might not have the

same vision for healthy soils and all that stuff that other people
have. I don’t mean to get myself in a bind when I say this, and
I don’t want to point any fingers, because when you point one
there’s always three pointing back at you. The truth is that I’m in
a situation now where organics has done a lot of good things for
production agriculture and consumers as well, and connecting
consumers with people on the land is always important. If I
were going to say one thing from a more global view, I hope we
can keep the kind of competition in the marketplace that we’ve
had, because it’s what sets us aside. I hope we don’t see the kind
of consolidation that’s happened in conventional agriculture in
Organic Agriculture. Then on the other side of the coin, I’d like
to see more competition in the conventional marketplace. From
a marketplace standpoint, if we look at where organics was and
where they are, we need to ensure that competition levels stay
there. That’s something that very much worries me, because at
the point and time the markets become consolidated in Organic
Agriculture and we don’t have competition, I think it puts us in a
real bind. That’s about all. That’s just kind of a personal concern
that I have.
interview By neil SOrenSen
international Federation oF organic agriculture movements (iFoam)
charlES-DE-gaullE-Str. 5, 53113 bonn, gErmany
email: n.sorensen@iFoam.org
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
Feature Interview
1

Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
Fostering Organic
Livestock Research–
Priorities and
Preferences
by Jim Riddle
In the United States, it has
only been legal to label meat
as “organic” since February
1999. Because of this, the
organic livestock industry is still
very much in its infancy, but
production is growing rapidly.
Now the Organic Outreach
Coordinator at the University of
Minnesota, Jim Riddle evaluates
strategies for fostering organic
livestock research.
Jim Riddle giving his keynote speech at the 1st IFOAM International Conference on Animals in
Organic Production.
The Growing Organic Livestock Industry
Certified organic pasture and rangeland more than doubled
between 1997 and 2001, and was up 28 percent from 2000 to
2001, mirroring the rapid expansion in organic livestock and
poultry. The number of certified organic beef cattle, milk cows,
hogs, pigs, sheep, and lambs was up nearly four-fold since 1997,
and up 27 percent from 2000 to 2001. Poultry animals raised
under certified organic management – including laying hens,
broilers, and turkeys – showed even higher rates of growth
during this period. With the Organic Foods Production Act
now in force, and with consumer demand for organic products
growing at over 20 percent per year, expanded research is
needed to support livestock producers who choose to enter this
growing sector.
20 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Survey of Organic Livestock Research Needs
During May and June 2003, the author constructed
a list of potential topics to include in a survey of
organic livestock research needs. The topics were
selected based on the author’s experience as an
organic producer and inspector. In addition, topics
were selected from the Organic Farming Research
Foundation’s (OFRF) annual survey of organic
farmers and ranchers; the final report of the
Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic
Agriculture, a European Union funded Concerted
Action Network; a list of research topics submitted
by Ron Rosmann, Rosmann Family Farms,
Harlan, IA; a list of Critical Needs for Extension
Identified at Organic Inservice compiled by Penn
State University; and a report entitled “Health
and Welfare in Organic Livestock Systems” by Dr.
Michael Meredith, Sunflower-Health, UK.
The author compiled a draft list of research topics.
The list was circulated via email discussion groups
frequented by organic inspectors, certifiers,
researchers, and producers. Comments were
solicited. In July 2003, comments were incorporated
to construct the final survey questionnaire.
Organizers posted the survey of organic livestock
research needs on the website of the University
of Minnesota based Minnesota Institute for
Sustainable Agriculture (www.misa.umn.edu)
in August and September 2003. The survey was
conducted to help the University of Minnesota and
other research institutions meet the needs of the
organic livestock industry.
Respondents prioritized organic livestock research
topics in ten categories. Respondents were also
invited to submit research ideas of their own. Notice
of the survey was circulated throughout the U of
MN system, and to organic certification agencies,
organic producer groups, organic inspectors, and
sustainable agriculture e-mail discussion groups.
In addition, one organic dairy company printed the
survey and mailed it to its producers.
Respondents were asked to provide information
on their places of residence and occupations.
Respondents were asked to indicate if they were
crop farmers, organic crop farmers, livestock
producers, organic livestock producers, researchers,
certifiers, inspectors, or other. Respondents were
not limited to choosing one occupation.
Participants
A total of 203 people completed the survey.
Minnesota had the highest number of respondents
at 32. New York was second with 24. There
were 22 from Wisconsin; 15 from Iowa; 11 from
Pennsylvania; 9 each from Illinois and Washington;
8 from Canada; 7 from Wyoming; and 5 each from
California and Vermont. Seventy-four respondents
indicated that they were organic livestock producers.
There were 39 organic crop farmers, 35 livestock
producers, 32 researchers, 13 inspectors, 12
certifiers, 5 crop farmers, and 57 who selected other.
Method of Analysis
Respondents were asked to review the list of
research topics and indicate the level of priority that
should be assigned to each topic, on a scale of 1 to
5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest.
Mean scores for each topic were calculated by adding
all scores and dividing by the number of responses
for that topic. Median (the middle score of an
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
21

ordered list of scores) and mode scores (the most
frequent score) were also calculated for each topic,
using the PROC UNIVARIATE procedure of SAS.
An index was calculated for each topic to take into
account the mean, median, and mode scores as
well as the number of responses for the topic; as
follows: Index = (mean + median + mode) * (number
of responses / 203). 203 is the total number of
submitted surveys. Thus, the index accounts for
Top Twenty Topics
both the willingness of survey respondents to spend
time scoring a given survey topic, as well as the
relative approval of it as a research topic by those
who chose to answer.
The topics were ranked using the index score,
both within the ten broad categories and across all
categories. The ranking across all categories was
then used to find the “Top Twenty” research topics.
Because the number of responses to a topic was part
The following topics were ranked, according to index scores, as the highest priorities for organic livestock research
by survey respondents:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Catalog animal health problems for various species, listing approved health care options and allowed
medications.
Analyze the nutritional and health value of organically produced livestock products, especially pasture raised
or grass fed livestock.
Explore impacts of “systems” approach (rotational grazing, multi-species grazing, etc.) on internal and external
parasite loads for various species.
Organic methods of building soil fertility to optimize livestock health and thereby reduce or eliminate the need
for medications, vaccines, parasiticides, and supplemental vitamins and minerals.
Organic Best Management Practices (OBMPs) for least-toxic parasite management for various species.
OBMPs for prevention and treatment of mastitis.
Examine naturally occurring sources of vitamins and minerals within organic feed compared to use of
supplementation materials.
Analysis of distribution channels used for organic livestock products and recommendations for improved
processing, handling, and distribution systems.
Manure management systems which do not contaminate crops, soil, or water with plant nutrients, heavy
metals, or pathogenic organisms and which optimize recycling of nutrients.
Livestock record keeping systems for sound management, profitability, and organic certification compliance.
Comparison of investments needed, rate of return, and profitability of organic and non-organic livestock
systems.
Study impacts of organic livestock operations on local and regional economic development
Analyze how livestock production impacts the entire diversified organic farm, including impacts on fertility
management; weed, pest, and disease pressure; utilization of resources; water quality; farm labor; and
profitability.
Market survey of supply and demand for organic meat products in the Upper Midwest.
Breeds of various species best suited to organic production – feed utilization, grazing response, disease and
parasite resistance, ease of reproduction, and minimization of stress.
Nutritional value of weeds, how they can best be utilized in livestock diets, and threshold levels for inclusion
in livestock rations.
Comparison of grain-based organic livestock systems with grass-based organic systems. OBMPs for least-toxic
fly control.
Examine holistic strategies, including: 1) augmentation or introduction of predators or parasites; 2) development
of habitat for natural enemies; 3) non-synthetic controls such as lures, traps, and repellents; 4) manure
management systems; 5) pasture rotation; 6) use of clean, dry bedding; and 7) impact of moisture control.
OBMPs for the prevention of various diseases in various livestock species and breeds.
22 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

of the index score, it tended to weigh against topics
from “minor” species such as goats/sheep and bees
appearing in the Top Twenty. Those with an interest
in these categories can check the ranking of topics
within the categories.
Research Needs Identified
Sorting the responses by index scores showed that
respondents are most interested in the following
general research topics:
•
•
•
•
Economics and profitability of organic livestock
production;
Approved organic methods of parasite
management;
The relationship between organic soil building
methods and livestock health and nutrition;
Analysis of the nutritional and health value of
organic livestock products; and
Approved health care options for livestock.
The need to catalog animal health problems for
various species and list approved health care options
and allowed medications scored the highest of any
single topic.
Responses to the listed items, combined with
respondent comments, revealed two strong trends:
1.
2.
The need for a holistic “systems” approach for
organic livestock research;
A widespread need for improved processing,
handling, and distribution systems for
approved inputs (feed, feed supplements, and
medications) and for organic livestock products.
Respondent Comments
The comments submitted by respondents provide
a wealth of innovative ideas for organic livestock
research projects. Many comments contained
ideas not included in the list of survey topics.
Others provided further details or reinforced the
importance of topics already included in the survey.
While the discussion below presents a sampling
of comments submitted, the full list of comments
in the body of this report contains numerous
suggestions which merit consideration.
In the “General” category, three respondents
suggested a need for in-depth research into a whole
farm systems approach for livestock production. As
one commentor stated, “It is not enough to have a
farm where organic hay is grown.” Two commentors
advised a study of management practices on the
most successful existing organic farms. Two others
recommended a study of the impacts of converting
to organic livestock production in terms of costs,
time frame of conversion, equipment needs, labor
intensity, and profitability.
On the subject of livestock health care, three
respondents mentioned the need to explore use and
efficacy of alternative health care products, e.g. flax
meal, kelp, probiotics, homeopathy, herbs, hydrogen
peroxide, etc. Others mentioned the need to study
preventative health care practices and the impacts of
confinement systems on animal health.
Concerning housing and living conditions, two
commentors suggested that researchers evaluate
interspecies stocking in same pastures and
rotational grazing systems in terms of impacts
on parasite control and noxious weeds. Other
respondents mentioned temporary and portable
housing designs; alternative energy sources for
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
23

heating or cooling; and natural, cost effective
ventilation systems. An innovative suggestion for
research is an analysis of the agro-ecological impacts
of clean in place (CIP) soaps, acids, and sanitizers
used in milk houses that are added to manure, then
applied to fields.
Three respondents cited a need to analyze the
nutritional and health benefits of pastured poultry.
Three others suggested a study of alternative
processing and cooling for poultry, including on-
farm, outdoor, and mobile units. Others stated the
need for a nationwide inventory of organic poultry
processing facilities.
For organic dairy research, three respondents
suggested studies to re-design milk houses to fit
grazing systems and micro-dairy enterprises. Others
suggested evaluation of nurse-cow rearing as an
alternative enterprise; research into pasture species
mixtures that improve animal productivity and
extend the grazing season; alternative feed sources
(high energy feeds, molasses, distillers grains,
sunflower seeds, and/or hulls); and herbs and other
plants to grow to optimize cattle health in pastures
and hedge rows. Others encouraged an analysis of
various breeds that best fit organic dairy production
and a study for conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and
omega-3 fatty acids in organic dairy products.
Concerning beef production, four respondents
suggested a need to study breed and line selection
for organic beef operations, i.e. which breeds
perform best in organic systems? Others mentioned
the need to research E. coli H7-0157 prevention in
organic grass-fed animals and organic animals fed
a combination of grass and grain. One commentor
suggested a study on how organic meat processing
can best simultaneously satisfy USDA meat
inspectors and be compliant with NOP standards.
An innovative commentor encouraged research on
feeding kelp for pinkeye control. Others suggested
the need for research on conventional vs. organic
carcasses to analyze chemical and antibiotic residues
and to analyze for CLA and omega-3 fatty acids in
pastured organic beef.
Four commentors mentioned the need for research
on organic best management practices and feed
conversion ratios for pastured hog operations. Four
suggested studies of breed selection for organic
hog operations, i.e. which breeds perform the best
in organic systems in terms of foraging, health,
reproduction, profitability, and meat quality.
In the category“Sheep and Goats,” four respondents
suggested research on management strategies
and approved parasiticides for sheep and goats.
Three encouraged analysis of multi-species
grazing systems, combining sheep/goats with
24 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

cattle. Concerning bees and beekeeping, five
commentors saw a need to research organic best
management practices and approved inputs for
varroa mite and fungus control. Two suggested
research on the effects of GMO’s on bees. Several
suggested research on foraging distance of bees
in various environments; forage behaviors as they
affect organic compliance; and research on the
best flowering plant types to plant in/along fields
for prolonged nectar and pollen production. There
were two suggestions for analysis comparing hive
production, bee health, and chemical residues in
organic vs. non-organic locations.
In the area of economics, seven respondents
mentioned the need to investigate methods and
develop courses for farmers and businesses on how
to implement a network of small scale slaughter/
processing facilities and associations. Three cited a
study of cooperatives as a cost sharing vehicle for
meat and dairy product production and marketing.
Three more suggested research to help establish,
maintain, and/or work with existing alternative
marketing models, (i.e. Community Supported
Agriculture, local food initiatives) to market organic
livestock products. Three mentioned the need for an
economic analysis of value-added meat enterprises,
while two others suggested economic analysis
slaughter and processing facilities, including the
legal feasibility of different options. The prevalence
of related comments indicates a strong need to
investigate the availability of organic livestock
processing facilities and the need for information on
how to locate or create them.
The survey was conducted as part of Jim Riddle’s
tenure as Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems
at the University of Minnesota. Jim would like to
acknowledge the assistance of Jane Jewett, Kate
Seager and Nikki Harper in conducting the survey,
tabulating and analyzing the results; Joyce Ford in
the development of the survey; and Beth Nelson and
Daniel Ungier for design and layout.
About the Author
Over the past 24 years, Jim Riddle has been an
organic farmer, inspector, educator, policy analyst,
author, and consumer. He was founding chair of
the Independent Organic Inspectors Association,
(IOIA), and co-author of the IFOAM/IOIA
International Organic Inspection Manual. He has
trained hundreds of organic inspectors worldwide.
Jim serves on the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture’s Organic Advisory Task Force, and was
instrumental in passage of Minnesota’s landmark
organic certification cost-share program. Jim
recently served on the National Organic Standards
Board, which advises the USDA on Organic
Agriculture policies and regulations, and now holds
the position of Organic Outreach Coordinator at the
University of Minnesota.
Jim riddle
univerSity OF minneSOta
organic outrEach coorDinator
email: riddl003@umn.edu
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
2

Animals in an Organic System:
Exploring the Ecological, Social
and Economic Functions of
Animals in Organic Agriculture
by Dr. Fred Kirschenmann
With looming crises in both the environment and
agricultural systems, Dr. Fred Kirschenmann considers
the implications and scenarios for organic animal
production systems as a solution for systems of the
future.
. . . we are in need of knowledge that can really enter into the
inner workings of nature.
RUDOLPH STEINER
Introduction
The debate on the role of animals in Organic
Agriculture generally has revolved around four
questions.
1. Are animals essential to a truly sustainable
organic production system?
2. What animal husbandry practices are
appropriate or necessary for organic
certification?
3. Do animal products or byproducts belong in a
truly organic diet?
4. How can one claim to be “organic” if one
participates in the killing of sentient species?
Anyone familiar with organic food systems will, of
course, readily recognize the issues at stake in these
questions. The first question deals with the problem
of appropriate nutrient cycling. Can any production
system which does not rely on synthetic fertilizers
sustain productivity indefinitely without the
benefit of livestock manure? The second question
deals with the conduct of animal management
that is consistent with organic standards. Must all
Dr. Fred Kirschenmann giving a keynote speech at the 1st IFOAM
International Conference on Animals in Organic Production.
2 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

uminant animals be raised in grazing systems or
are confinement feeding operations acceptable? The
third question deals with the appropriateness of
meat in our diet. Organic vegans argue that a truly
organic diet is plant-based and excludes meat and
dairy products. And the final question considers
appropriate animal welfare standards in organic
systems. Some of our colleagues have argued that
“sentient beings” must be treated “humanely” in
a truly organic system. They believe that killing
animals for food is inherently inhumane, so raising
animals for food cannot be condoned in organic food
systems.
Animals in Organic Agriculture’s Past
Of course, many of the original proponents of the
organic and biodynamic movements argued from
the outset that animals are essential components
of organic production systems. In his Agriculture
lectures of 1924, Rudolph Steiner, for example,
defined a “healthy farm” as a farm that had animals
embedded in the system. Within our farms, he
argued, “we should attempt to have everything
we need for agricultural production, including, of
course, the appropriate amount of livestock . . .
A healthy farm would be one that could produce
everything it needs from within itself.” The
implication, of course, is that a farm could not
produce everything it needs without the appropriate
amount of animals.
Our modern industrial agriculture system has
taken us in a very different direction. We have now
adopted an agriculture paradigm which assumes
that the only way we can maximize production
and achieve product uniformity is through
specialization, and by obtaining all of the energy
to sustain that productivity from outside the farm.
So our current production systems are virtually the
inverse of what Steiner envisioned. Most modern
farms now grow only one or two crops in simplistic
rotations or specialize in producing a single species
of animals in confinement feeding operations to
enhance labor efficiency and product uniformity.
And, as some of our organic production systems
succumb to the pressures of industrialization, they
begin to look quite similar - even though they use
“natural” instead of “synthetic” energy inputs.
From the perspective of producing food “stuff,”
this modern, industrial system has been successful.
It has dramatically increased the volumes of raw
material food and feed stuff, and many would
argue that this has helped prevent the starvation
of millions of people. However, the success of this
industrial system was based on the availability
of two critical components: the natural resources
stored up on the planet over 3.5 billion years of life,
and the sinks in nature capable of absorbing the
wastes produced by this system. As we enter the
next era of agriculture, both of these resources will
be in short supply.
Owing to its extractive nature, industrial agriculture
has been enormously exploitive. In the space of half
a century it has been partly responsible for depleting
our fossil fuel resources, our fresh water reserves,
and the incredible bank of soil fertility which, as Sir
Albert Howard reminded us, “is the first condition
of any permanent system of agriculture.” During
that same half century, it has filled the natural sinks
to the point that wastes from the system can no
longer be absorbed. There are now an estimated
150 hypoxia zones on the planet, all of them
downstream from highly industrialized agricultural
production regions. The amount of CO2 released
into the environment is now beginning to cause the
kind of climate instability that will place increasing
stress on highly specialized agricultural production
systems.
The depletion of these critical resources ultimately
will force agriculture to change. It will provide
Organic Agriculture with a unique opportunity to
help design the next era of agriculture on the planet.
And it is in that context, I think, that we must now
explore the role of animals in Organic Agriculture.
Let us be clear at the outset that animals are not
essential to achieve sustainable productivity of
specific farming operations. In an enlightening
article published in the May/June issue of World-
Watch magazine, Brian Halweil reports that in many
parts of the world productivity can be increased and
maintained without compost or animal manure.
He cites the work of a University of Michigan
team of scientists who summarized the results
of 77 studies from both temperate and tropical
areas. The findings demonstrated that “the greater
use of nitrogen-fixing crops in the world’s major
agricultural regions could result in 58 million metric
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
2

tons more nitrogen than the amount of synthetic
nitrogen currently used every year.”
The Michigan University researchers found that in
Pennsylvania, red clover used as a winter crop in
an oat/wheat-corn-soy rotation, with no additional
fertilizer inputs, achieved yields comparable to those
in conventional fertilizer inputs. Even in arid and
semi-arid tropical regions like East Africa, where
water availability is limited between periods of
crop production, drought-resistant green manures
such as pigeon peas or groundnuts could be used
to fix nitrogen. In Washington state, organic wheat
growers have matched their non-organic neighbor’s
wheat yields using the same field pea rotation for
nitrogen. In Kenya, farmers using leguminous tree
crops have doubled or tripled corn yields as well as
suppressing certain stubborn weeds and generating
additional animal fodder.
The Future Role of Animals in Organic
Agriculture
All of that said, however, it is becoming
increasingly clear to many agriculturalists that
given the cacophony of challenges facing us in the
post-industrial area, animals are likely to play an
increasingly important role in our future agriculture
systems. So the real question concerning animals in
organic (or any) agriculture is not about the past,
but the future. The question agriculturalists must
address is: What kind of agriculture can meet the
requirements of an expanding human population
in the face of entrenched poverty in a post-fossil
fuel era that must restore the ecological health of
the natural resources on which agriculture depends,
while the climate is changing, global society insists
that food is a human right, and increased infectious
diseases require that we attend to the ecological
ramifications of human activities?
As our fossil fuel resources become depleted and
there is no alternative energy resource that will
provide us with anything approaching the energy
efficiency ratios we achieved from oil and natural
gas, we will be forced to adopt a different production
paradigm that is much less dependent on exogenous
energy inputs. As our fresh water sources become
depleted we will have to adopt production systems
that can maintain productivity on half the irrigation
water we have been using. As climate change
generates more weather instability, we will have
to adopt production systems that can maintain
productivity under more severe, erratic climate
conditions---more frequent droughts, flooding,
hurricanes, tornadoes, hail storms, and other
unstable climate conditions. And as we experience
2 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

the effects of environmental degradation, including
biodiversity loss, culminating in less resilient
ecosystem functioning, we will have to adopt
production systems that restore ecological health
while producing more food and feed.
It would seem that the only viable alternative to
the energy and water intensive industrial system in
place today is a system based on biological synergies.
And, as in nature, such biological synergies
ultimately include animals.
In this regard, Japanese agro-ecologists Masae
Shiyomi and Hiroshi Koizumi raise perhaps the
most intriguing agricultural question of our
time. They ask: “Is it possible to replace current
technologies based on fossil energy with proper
interactions operating between crop/livestock
and other organisms to enhance agricultural
production?”
They then go on to suggest that: “If the answer is
yes, then modern agriculture, which uses only the
simplest biotic responses, can be transformed into
an alternative system of agriculture, in which the
use of complex biotic interactions becomes the key
technology”.
The Future Has Already Arrived
Farmers in various parts of the world, most of
them organic, have been answering Shiyomi and
Koizumi’s question in the affirmative. These farmers
have designed systems that incorporate animals
to help them to achieve the necessary biological
synergies - synergies which enable them to increase
their productivity while weaning themselves from
energy-intensive inputs.
Here are just three examples:
In southern Japan, Takao Furuno - who until 1987
was a typical industrial rice farmer - grew rice in
monoculture rice paddies using fertilizers and
pesticides to maximize his rice yields. One day
he realized that the yearly cash receipts from his
farming operation were eaten up by the costs of
producing rice in such a system. So, he decided to
find a new approach. Furuno borrowed the best
wisdom from the past and married it with the best
science available to come up with a new system.
From the past Furuno learned that farmers
used to raise ducks or fish in their rice paddies
and often grew fruit trees on the periphery of
the paddies. When modern industrial methods
designed to increase rice yields were introduced,
the pesticides used to control pests also made the
new environment unsuitable for fish or fruit trees
so farmers simply concentrated on producing as
much rice as possible. Furuno began to wonder if
new scientific information might make it possible
to rethink the old approach of multi-species
production.
After a bit of experimentation Furuno discovered
that a breed of ducks, produced by crossing wild
drakes with domesticated females, proved to be
excellent insect grazers. By putting 200 ducks per
hectare in his rice paddies, the ducks kept insect
populations in check so he no longer needed to
use an insecticide. Having eliminated the need
for insecticide, he now could raise fish in his rice
paddies and once again grow fruit trees on the
periphery of the paddies. He also realized that the
combination of the ducks and fish, both of whom
fed on a weed (azolla), kept the weed sufficiently in
check so he no longer needed to use an herbicide.
But then he discovered that the when the azolla
(which rice farmers call a “paddy weed”) was kept
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
2

under control, it actually proved beneficial in
that it has the capacity to produce nitrogen in the
water. The nitrogen supplied by the azolla, plus the
droppings from the ducks and the fish, provide all
the fertility he needs for his crops so he no longer
needs to buy fertilizer.
Once his new duck/rice/fish/azolla system had been
in place a few years, his rice yields increased. Upon
investigation, he saw that the root crowns of his
rice plants had almost doubled compared with the
plants in the old industrial system, producing more
tillering and consequently more rice. His rice yields
now have increased by 20 to 50 percent compared to
the old industrial system.
This new system is not simply a matter of including
animals in a system to make manure available,
it is an entirely new system based on biological
synergies. As Furuno puts it:
“The concept is to produce a variety of products
within a limited pace to achieve maximum overall
productivity. But this does not consist of merely
assembling all of the components; it consists of
allowing all components to influence each other
positively in a relationship of symbiotic production”.
In his new system, Furuno uses very little imported
energy. Human labor provided by his family is used
to harvest the ducks, fish and fruit. He uses a small
gas-powered transplanter to transplant the rice
seedlings into the paddies and, of course, harvests
the rice by machine.
But instead of producing only one crop, he is now
producing five crops - duck meat, fish meat, duck
eggs, figs and rice - from the same acreage. He uses
no imported crop inputs to achieve this dramatically
increased productivity - including the increased rice
yields.
A second example comes from Iowa in the central
United States. Jeff Kuntz and his brother Greg,
assisted by their father, William, have designed a
new integrated grape, sweet corn, poultry system
that appears to be producing similar results to that
of Furuno in Japan.
The design is quite simple. The Kuntz family does
plot farming, creating a series of plots 50 by 150
feet. They then construct a netted system around
the plot consisting of a series of poles on which
they attach chicken wire for walls and a netting
material for a roof over the plot to enclose the area.
The Kuntz’s then plant three rows of grape vines
in the plot, approximately 10 feet apart and plant
sweet corn between the rows of grapes. In three
years, the vines begin to produce grapes. Each year,
once the corn is 10 to 12 inches tall, the Kuntz’s
introduce chickens or pheasants into the plots. The
poultry keep insects in check, eat the emerging weed
seedlings so no further weed control is needed, and
help to prune the grape vines. Chicken droppings
also provide all the fertility the system needs.
This production system also requires very little
imported energy. The Kuntz’s only use garden
equipment for tilling their plots. All the harvesting
is accomplished with human labor by their families.
Pheasants are sold to a nearby game preserve where
hunters pay $5.00 per bird for the hunting privilege.
Chickens are processed in a local processing plant.
And the Kuntz’s are now realizing more than
$10,000 per acre profit from this new farming
system.
Jeff Kuntz now hopes to interest a group of young
beginning farmers in adopting plot farming, each
constructing 20 similar netted plots. By pooling all
of the grape production, Jeff believes they could
build their own winery to add additional value to
their grape production.
A third example, also from Iowa, is becoming
more commonplace - a rotational grazing, organic
micro-dairy operation.
Francis Thicke has converted his entire farm
to grass. His Jersey dairy cows are moved from
paddock to paddock throughout the season,
intensively grazing each area for a day or two, and
then moving on to the next paddock allowing the
grassy area to re-grow. Perennial grasses are deep
rooted and therefore much more resilient than
annual species in the face of drought or flooding and
are much less susceptable to soil erosion. Thicke’s
farming operation becomes much less vulnerable to
unstable climates than the mono-culture corn and
soybean fields that abound in his area.
30 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

The milk from Thicke’s cows is bottled on the
farm and sold by local businesses under the farm’s
own label - Radiance Dairy. Milk customers in
surrounding communities buy all the milk he can
produce. There are now seven such grass-based
micro-dairies in Iowa and customers who purchase
the products from these dairies reportedly wait for
their milk, because “it tastes so good.”
Thicke also keeps free range chickens on this farm
because they eat the fly larvae in the cow manure,
reducing fly populations sufficiently so that he does
not require any fly control measures in his dairy
barn. And, of course, the chickens are an additional
source of income.
The New Systems of the Future
These examples begin to model what our post-
industrial agriculture may look like and Organic
Agriculture is in a good position to take the lead in
developing this new agriculture. The new agriculture
likely will feature at least eight principles which are
almost diametrically opposed to the principles by
which industrial agriculture has operated for the
past half century. The new systems will be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Energy conserving,
Driven by biological synergies,
Self-regulating and self-renewing,
Interdependent,
Shift from an extraction and preservation
6.
7.
8.
duality model to an ecological restoration
model,
Increase biological and genetic diversity,
Use adaptive management rather than control
management, and
Produce adequate food through multi-product,
synergistic production systems, featuring
nutrient density, rather than monocultures that
solely focus on yield maximization.
Sixty years ago the noted ecologist Aldo Leopold
foresaw the limitations of the industrial food
and farming system and predicted its demise: “It
was inevitable and no doubt desirable that the
tremendous momentum of industrialization should
have spread to farm life. It is clear to me, however,
that it has overshot the mark . . . It is generating
new insecurities, economic and ecological, in place
of those it was meant to abolish. In its extreme
form, it is humanly desolate and economically
unstable. These extremes will some day die of their
own too-much, not because they are bad for wildlife,
but because they are bad for the farmer”.
That “some day” is now rapidly approaching and
while the new farming systems based on biological
synergies may not all have animals in them, like
nature, most of them probably will.
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
31

Of course, this new way of farming will likely require a new way of
being in the world. Humans can no longer regard themselves as
somehow separate from the ecosphere of which they are an integral
part, and so the way we see animals and plants will likely change
as well. Perhaps the Canadian ecologist Stan Rowe best articulated
what is missing in our current perception and attitude, a perception
and attitudinal shift that also may change the way we view animals
in Organic Agriculture.
“The missing concept is the ecological one of landscapes-as-
ecosystems, literally “home systems,” . . . We have been taught that
we are separate living things, but not so . . . The health of each and
all is our health”.
“The missing attitude is sympathy with and care for the land and
water ecosystems that support life. It will come when we make
the concept of a planetary home part of our daily thought, part
of our hearts and imaginations . . . Human beings, incorrigibly
species-minded, have difficulty conceiving that things other than
themselves (with the exception of some look-alike animals) merit
compassionate attention”.
In this new world, it will be more difficult to draw lines between
“sentient” and “non-sentient” organisms. Everything in nature
is part of the same food chain, and so it is hard to make ethical
distinctions between the life of a pig and the life of an asparagus
plant or the life of an earthworm. It is all part of the ecosphere and
the cycle of life, death, eating, offal, decay, and new life goes on
- and we humans are simply part of the drama. The Native American
tribes who offered prayers of apology every time they harvested a
plant or root or animal to feed themselves probably had it right. We
all kill living things to eat, and in turn we offer our bodies to decay
and become food for other living things. The ecology of life goes on
- animals are an integral part of that food chain and so are we.
References
1. Rudolf Steiner, 1993. English edition, Agriculture.
Kimberton, PA: Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening
Association, Inc. 27.
2. Herman E. Daly, 1999. Ecological Economics and the Ecology
of Economics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Press. Daly
argues that all of our industrial economies must face the fact
that these two resources, vital to the success of all industrial
economies, now are in a state of depletion and we therefore
must shift to a new economy that is based on recycling and
self-renewal.
3. Sir Albert Howard, 1943. An Agricultural Testament, New
York: Oxford University Press. 1.
4. Brian Halweil, 2006. “Can Organic Farming Feed us All?
World-Watch. May/June. 20.
5. Masae Shiyomi and Hiroshi Koizumi, 2001. Structure and
Function in Agroecosystem Design and Management. New York:
CRC Press. 6.
6. Takao Furuno, 2001. The Power of Duck. Sisters Creek,
Tasmania, Australia: Tagari Publications. 73.
7. Aldo Leopold, 1945. “The Outlook for Farm Wildlife,” in J.
Baird Callicott and Eric T. Freyfogle (eds), 1999. For the Health
of the Land. Washington, DC: Island Press. 218.
8. Stan Rowe, 2002. Home Place: Essays on Ecology. Edmonton,
Alberta: NeWest Press. 23-24.
dr. Fred KirSchenmann
iOwa State univerSity
DiStinguiShED FEllow For thE lEopolD cEntEr For SuStainablE agriculturE
email: leopold1@iastate.edu
Under the Patronage of
DISCOVER
International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements
Thousands of
Certified Organic
Products
Baltimore Convention Center
Baltimore, MD USA
EDUCAtion AnD EvEntS:
Wed-Sat, September 26-29, 2007
trADE ShoW:
thurs-Sat, September 27-29, 2007
Co-located with
In Partnership with
Register Today!
Registration is FREE for
qualified retail buyers,
brokers and distributors
until August 24, 2007.
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
expoeast.com/opeba
1.866.458.4935
1.303.390.1776
tradeshows@newhope.com
EE07031 Produced by New Hope Natural Media, a division of Penton Media, Inc.
AT EcoFarm_qrt vert_bw.indd 1 1/16/07 11:29:11 AM
32 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Animals in Translation
by Dr. Temple Grandin
To understand how an animal
perceives the world you have to
get away from language. That
is easy for me to do because I
think in pictures and language
narrates the picture I see in my
mind.
It is like having Google for images inside my head.
Animal thinking is sensory based, it can be visual,
auditory, smell, touch, or taste. To form a simple
concept, pictures or other sensory data is placed into
categories. Neuroscience research is now showing
that the brain creates “file folders” to categorize
information. A common unfortunate categorization
that many dogs make is ladies are nice and men
are mean. For cattle, a man on foot and a man
on horseback are categorized as different things.
Since the memories are stored as pictures it makes
sense that a man on foot and a man on a horse are
two different pictures. It is important for cattle to
experience both visions so they do not panic when
they are moved to a new place.
Animals often associate a certain place with bad
experiences. For this reason it is very important
that your animal’s first experience in a new
corral or barn is good. Animals should be walked
quietly in the new corral and fed. Walking them
through the chutes and feeding them when they
exit is recommended. When you may have to do
something painful in the future, the animal will
associate it with something else such as extra people
instead of associating it with the corrals. It had
previously learned that the corral was safe. The
corrals are now in a “safe” file folder and the extra
people in the corral is in an “unsafe” or “bad” file.
Avoid Fear Memories
Research by a scientist named Joseph LeDoux has
shown that severe fear memories can never be
erased. The brain can suppress the fear memory
but it is still in the animal’s brain. To use computer
terminology the file can be closed by learning but it
can never be deleted. Teaching an animal with high
strung nervous genetics to get over its fear can be
difficult.
Reducing fear will improve the productivity of farm
animals. Australian researcher Paul Hamsworth
found that sows that back away and were afraid
of people had 6% fewer piglets than sows that
were not afraid of people. Further research by Dr.
Hamsworth indicated that dairy cattle that had been
treated roughly gave less milk. Good stockmanship
pays and it improves animal welfare.
New experiences are both scary and attractive to
animals. New things are attractive when an animal
can voluntarily approach them, but scary when they
are suddenly shoved in an animal’s face. The best
way to introduce a new piece of equipment such as
a tractor is to let animals approach it and feed them
near it. If it was used to chase animals the first time
they saw it, it may be difficult to get them to stop
fearing it.
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
33

Animal Handling
Calm animals of all species are easier to handle than
frightened animals. If an animal becomes fearful it
takes 20 to 30 minutes for its heart rate to return
to normal. The secret is to keep animals calm. The
two most frightening things are yelling and rapid
movement.
If a new heifer refuses to enter a milking parlor she
may be afraid of a flapping yellow raincoat. The
old cows are accustomed to it but a new heifer is
afraid. Allow the heifer several minutes to look
at the coat. After she has looked she will walk by
it. In beef facilities distractions that cause balking
must be removed. Such distractions include floor
drains, dangling chains, seeing people up ahead, and
reflections on a wet floor. Adding solid sides on a
race or shields will often improve animal movement
by blocking the animal’s view of people outside the
chute.
About the Author
Completely tame animals can be led between
different pastures. Leading is an excellent low stress
handling method. The important thing is to move
cattle at a walk or a trot. For more information on
animal handling go to www.grandin.com
Dr. Temple Grandin is a designer of livestock handling facilities and an Associate Professor of Animal Science at
Colorado State University. Facilities she has designed are located in the United States, Canada, Europe, Mexico,
Australia, New Zealand, and other countries. In North America, almost half of the cattle are handled in a center
track restrainer system that she designed for meat plants. Curved chute and race systems she has designed for cattle
are used worldwide and her writings on the flight zone and other principles of grazing animal behavior have helped
many people to reduce stress on their animals during handling.
She has also developed an objective scoring system for assessing handling of cattle and pigs at meat plants. This
scoring system is being used by many large corporations to improve animal welfare. Other areas of research are:
cattle temperament, environmental enrichment for pigs, reducing dark cutters and bruises, bull fertility, training
procedures, and effective stunning methods for cattle and pigs at meat plants.
She obtained her B.A. at Frankin Pierce College and her M.S. in Animal Science at Arizona State University. Dr.
Grandin received her Ph.D. in Animal Science from the University of Illinois in 1989. Today she teaches courses
on livestock behavior and facility design at Colorado State Univeristy and consults with the livestock industry
on facility design, livestock handling, and animal welfare. She has appeared on television shows such as 20/20,
48 Hours, CNN Larry King Live, PrimeTime Live, the Today Show, and many shows in other countries. She has
been featured in People Magazine, the New York Times, Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, Time Magazine,
the New York Times book review, and Discover magazine. Interviews with Dr. Grandin have been broadcast on
National Public Radio. She has also authored over 300 articles in both scientific journals and livestock periodicals on
animal handling, welfare, and facility design. She is the author of “Thinking in Pictures,” “Livestock Handling and
Transport” and “Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals.” Her book “Animals in Translation“ was a New
York Times best seller.
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
34 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Contribution of Farmer Participation to
Research in Organic Livestock Production
by Mette Vaarst, Stephen Roderick, Willie Lockeretz and Vonne Lund
This paper discusses how farmer groups in various
forms can contribute as a learning and advisory forum
for the development and improvement of organic
livestock herds. Drawing on practical experiences from
Denmark, UK, Norway and the US, this paper illustrates
the strength of farmer groups participating together in
achieving farm-level developments.
Introduction
Participatory approaches used in agricultural
research for development of farming systems
throughout the world seem particularly relevant
for organic farming. The need for a whole farm
approach, with all its inherent complexities, plus
the emphasis on innovation in organic farming,
perhaps provide a good platform for practitioners,
researchers and advisors to work together. Despite
the relevance and importance of participatory
approaches, there are several practical difficulties
and challenges associated with implementation.
Further, there also appears to be a lack of a
clear understanding and acknowledgement of
participatory approaches in many research
environments.
Farmers can be involved in several different
ways in research projects, and the definition
of ‘participatory’ does not always reflect this.
For example, there are situations whereby
farmer participation may be minimal e.g. as
survey respondents or providers of land for
trials. In other cases farmers are the innovators,
implementers and interpreters of research and the
academics and advisors role if that of facilitator.
Action research refers to situations that involve
a common experiential learning of farmers
together with researchers, and where research and
development are combined to solve problems and
to simultaneously build general knowledge using
scientific and other methods. When using the latter
approach, the researcher is taking a dual role as
participant and observer of the system through
the phases of the research cycle, e.g. problem
identification, planning of intervention strategies,
implementation/action and finally observation as
a basis for another round starting with a revised
problem description.
In the following, we will use examples from the
research environments of the authors. Based
on these, we will discuss the role, potential and
possible models for participatory approaches for the
development of organic livestock farming, with a
focus on animal health initiatives.
Denmark experience: action research in a ‘Stable
School’ approach
In Denmark, a group of organic dairy farmers
initiated a project in March 2004 with the aim of
phasing out the use of antimicrobial drugs from
organic dairy herds. As an important part of the
project, and in order to support this process, four
so-called ‘Stable Schools’ were initiated among the
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
3

project participants. The approach draws heavily on
the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) concept adopted in
many countries in Africa and Asia, and in particular
draws on experiences from an on-going project in
Uganda.
During the project period, and as a result of the
common advisory and learning process, several
improvements in management and conditions on
the participating farms were recorded. The number
of antimicrobial treatments was reduced to half
without affecting the general health and disease
status in the herds (measured through SCC, clinical
examinations, etc). The Stable School approach
was shown to be a valuable and very efficient tool
to promote animal health and welfare in complex
farming situations. In practice, groups of farmers
from 5-6 farms were formed, meeting monthly on
each others’ farms. At each meeting, an identified
success-story and two problem areas (as perceived
by the farmer), were discussed. Key herd data
extracted from the Danish central cattle data base
was sent to participants in advance of meetings as
preparatory material. The group meeting consisted
of a farm walk and open discussion, followed by
a more specific problem-oriented round-table
discussion session of 1½-2 hours. Crucial to the
process was that the facilitator did not intervene by
giving advice. Apart from facilitating the discussion
and the process in the group, the facilitator also
recorded brief minutes summarizing the offered
advice and the main conclusions.
In Denmark, all farmers are well educated and
all farms have followed the general development
national trend of increasing farm and herd
size. However, it may be the case that there are
certain characteristics of organic farmers that
lend themselves more readily to share learning
experiences with their peers. Unlike other farmers,
organic farmers have been through a ‘mental
conversion process’ before or after the so-called
‘technical conversion process’. This ‘mental
conversion’ may have involved a gradually gained
insight and consciousness about environmental
issues and the sustainability of farming. So, it
may be the case that organic farmers have gone
through several learning processes which have
involved tackling their perceptions and awareness
of issues such as environmental care and animal
welfare as well as their technical skills. Additionally,
organic farmers may also have needed to be more
innovative as a consequence of the general absence
of appropriate support, such as veterinary advice.
They may also have needed to defend their organic
approach against criticism from their peers.
Although based loosely on the FFS concept,
the approach was very much adapted to Danish
conditions. Whereas the FFS approach is often used
as a means of empowering farmers from a very poor
background, the Danish experience suggests that
these Stable Schools seem to work with farmers
who come from a very different social, educational
and economic background. However, discussions
and interviews with participants revealed that the
process did have a significant empowerment effect.
There was a sense of ownership by the farmers of
a method that contributed to the improvements in
their own herds. Being part of a group (which served
as a small community), where the participants
learned together and gained common experience,
was also an important part of this empowerment
process.
Experiences from other European countries and
from the US have shown a similar “knowledge
experience” when organic farmers work together in
groups. Here we provide some examples.
UK experience: Farmer participation, research
and knowledge sharing
In Cornwall, UK a number of applied research
projects have been initiated using a model of
problem identification, farmer participation
and contribution, dissemination and feedback,
often in an iterative process. An initial survey
identified a wide range of technical and other
constraints. Importantly, the survey also identified
key individuals and a network of potential
collaborators. Some respondents highlighted
the absence of a social network of farmers as a
constraint and requirement. In response, a dairy
discussion group was started with the additional
aim of providing occasional and specific technical
information. Members have freely participated
in on-farm research and development activities
that have focused on technical questions posed by
the farmers themselves. Whilst there has been no
formal evaluation of this group, it may be the case
3 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

that the intangible benefits accrued through such
social networks equate to the knowledge farmers
gain from more formal dissemination of research
results. A second project monitored sheep faecal egg
counts to attempt to answer farm-specific research
questions regarding internal parasite control.
The research questions were set, and the results
evaluated, by participating farmers. Although
the study failed to answer specific questions,
all participants felt that the general knowledge
gained was of value and they expressed a wish to
continue with the study. A third project was aimed
at establishing the benefits of animal welfare
assessments on organic dairy farms. The results
from each farm were benchmarked (compared)
against those from other participating farms. In
an evaluation of farmers’ perception of the results,
the knowledge gained from others, through the
benchmarking process, was deemed as being of great
importance and a motivating factor.
Norway experience: farmers learning in an animal
welfare evaluation research and development
project
In Norway, a project was performed on organic
dairy farms with the aim of developing an animal
welfare evaluation scheme in organic dairy herds.
One of several goal was disseminating knowledge
about organic livestock husbandry amongst experts
working directly with livestock farmers, including
the development of information material and
templates for group counseling and training farm
advisers. Evaluating the project, the farmers were
enthusiastic about how much they had learnt and
almost all claimed that as a result welfare in their
herds had been improved. They especially pointed
out the group meetings with the other farmers as
important in relation to the learning process and
as inspiration. Three such meetings were arranged
during a period of 2.5 years. It was concluded that
the focus on advice, not only control, is important
in order to create a positive dialogue among the
farmers, advisors and veterinarians. The successful
results have resulted in the scheme being included
in the National Cattle Health Service as part of its
regular advisory service offered to all Norwegian
dairy farmers.
US experience: Farmers as researchers
An interesting model for participatory research
is that of the Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI),
located in the North Central region of the USA.
This organization was founded about 20 years
ago, primarily to do site-specific research on their
members’ own farms about organic and other
environmentally friendly alternatives that they
felt were not getting adequate attention from
the conventionally oriented agricultural research
system. Within a few years their work was receiving
favorable notice at Iowa State University (ISU),
the major agricultural research institution in the
state. Since then ISU and PFI have had a formal
collaborative relationship that has proven beneficial
to both. Initially concerned primarily with crop
production, more recently their work has expanded
to include studies of more sustainable animal
production systems, especially for swine (for which
Iowa is the leading producer in the USA). Recent
collaborative livestock projects have included
a study of premium-quality pork production
alternatives (which, among several components,
involves veterinarians who monitor the health
status of antibiotic-free herds), and a comparison
of options for managing the manure from swine
hoop houses (a low-cost, medium-scale system that
is growing in popularity in Iowa as an alternative
to large, total confinement units). A key feature of
the PFI/ISU approach is that besides collaborating
in planning, carrying out, and interpreting the
research, PFI members devote a substantial effort
to farmer-to-farmer exchange of information and
experience through field days, winter meetings, and
a newsletter.
Farmer participation in research in organic
livestock development
Action research is often an activity that aims
at helping local people to solve an immediate
problematic situation and - at the same time - to
build general knowledge through science. Although
many approaches to action research at the operative
level exist with different focus areas, it often
goes through certain steps, where all participants
(researchers, farmers, other stakeholders) can
participate to various degrees, e.g. a diagnostic
phase involving the relevant stakeholders with
the aim of analyzing the situation, its background,
context and relevant ideas for interventions.
Classically, a plan of action is made, including
ideas of intervention by the main stakeholder
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
3

(the farmers). The researcher’s role is one of
systematically monitoring the impact. This process
ends with analysis and reflections and entering a
new ‘circle’ based on a new situation. This process is
set to meet both local context dependent challenges
whilst also incorporating more general scientific
knowledge.
Common learning is an important output for all
involved in the process, particularly when the
participants have different roles and focus areas,
such as when farmers, advisors and researchers
all participate in the same learning process. It is
important to be aware and explicit within the group
about the distribution of roles and the motivations
of each participant taking part in the process of
common learning and development.
•
•
•
The common learning arises as part of a process
whereby farmers viewing their farms from
inside, meet other farmers and researchers who
view their farms from outside. The common
identification of relevant problem areas,
possible solutions and agreeing on a view on the
farm framework, management etc. is a common
learning experience for everybody involved;
each contributing their own perspective and
learning new knowledge throughout the
process.
Interdisciplinary approaches are relevant and
have great potential in multi-targeted projects
involving farmer participation and complex
problem solving in local areas.
Network building is necessary and has to be
guided towards accumulation of knowledge
obtained from different contexts. Pattern
recognition and the ability of combining
local knowledge (e.g. about a particular farm
in focus) with global knowledge (general
knowledge about a given problem area) are
important to the researchers, rather than a
repetition of the same study design, showing
that results are reproducible. This makes
communication across researcher groups and
project teams relevant and even necessary
in order to use the results in an optimal way
beyond the local problem solving.
A major challenge exists for studies involving
farmer participation to integrate them sufficiently
into scientific research environments, where the
researcher should not only be oriented towards a
discipline but also build up professional knowledge
on process development, experiential learning and
network building.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to warmly thank all the farmers
and project participants in the various projects in
which they have worked and gained experience
from. References to the projects as well as
publications from these activities can be obtained on
request from the author group.
mette vaarSt
daniSh inStitute OF agricultural ScienceS
rESEarch cEntrE Foulum
email: Mette.Vaarst@agrsci.dk
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
3 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Effect of Conventional and Organic
Production Practices on the Prevalence
and Antimicrobial Resistance of
Campylobacter Species in Poultry
by Taradon Luangtongkum, Teresa Y. Morishita, Aaron J.
Ison, Shouxiong Huang, Patrick F. McDermott, and Qijing
Zhang
(Adapted from Luangtongkum, T., T. Y. Morishita, A. J. Ison, S. Huang, P. F. McDermott, and Q. Zhang. 2006.
Effect of conventional and organic production practices on the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of
Campylobacter Species in poultry. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72:3600-3607)
Introduction
Foodborne campylobacteriosis, a major public health concern
in the United States and many countries worldwide, is caused
mainly by Campylobacter jejuni (12). It is estimated that over
2 million cases of foodborne bacterial diarrhea that occur each
year in the United States are caused by Campylobacter (2). In
other industrialized countries, the numbers of Campylobacter
infections exceeded those of Salmonella, Shigella, and E. coli
O157:H7 infections combined (1). Campylobacter jejuni is
not only an important cause of bacterial gastroenteritis in
humans, but it has also been associated with Guillane-Barré
Syndrome (GBS), an acute immune-mediated demyelinating
disorder of the peripheral nervous system (4, 13). Although
most Campylobacter infections in humans are associated with
ingestion of contaminated or improperly handled/cooked foods
as well as milk or dairy products, consumption of undercooked
poultry and/or other foods that are cross-contaminated with
raw poultry meat during food preparation is considered a
major risk factor for foodborne campylobacteriosis (3, 4).
Since thermophilic Campylobacter spp. including C. jejuni and
C. coli are highly prevalent in chickens and turkeys (17, 18),
contamination of poultry carcasses by Campylobacter during
processing in slaughter houses frequently occurs, resulting in
the potential transmission of Campylobacter from contaminated
poultry meats to consumers.
Over the last decade, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance
in Campylobacter strains isolated from humans and animals in
many countries around the world has increased dramatically (8,
9, 10, 14, 19, 21). This emergence of antimicrobial resistance,
particularly among foodborne pathogens, is in part because
of the widespread use of antimicrobial agents in both humans
and animals (10, 11, 19, 20, 21). In conventional production
practice, antimicrobial agents can be used for treatment, control,
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
3

and prevention of the disease as well as for improving growth
and feed efficiency of the animals (10, 11, 19, 20). Organic
production practice, on the other hand, has restricted the
use of antimicrobial substances on farms (7). In addition to
the strict rules regarding the use of antimicrobial substances,
the organic birds must be fed only on organically-produced
feed and supplements. Moreover, these organic birds must be
provided with uncrowded living areas and they also need to
have access to fresh air, sunlight, and outside environment (7).
Since no antimicrobials have been used in the organic poultry
operations and the demand for organic animal produce has
been increasing considerably over the last several years (6),
the difference in antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter
isolates from conventional and organic poultry operations
is of interest. In addition, despite the recent advances in
understanding the epidemiology of antimicrobial-resistant
Campylobacter, relatively little is known about the impact
of conventional and organic animal production practices on
the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Campylobacter.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the
prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter
isolates from both conventionally-raised and organically-raised
broilers and turkeys.
Materials and Methods
Sample collection. A total of 345 broiler and 360 turkey
intestinal tracts originated from 10 conventional broiler
farms and 10 conventional turkey farms were collected from
processing plants, which process approximately 200,000
– 300,000 broilers and 17,000 – 21,000 turkeys per week. Since
there are only a limited number of large-scale certified organic
broiler and turkey farms in Ohio, only 5 organic broiler farms
and 5 organic turkey farms were included in this study. A total
of 355 intestinal tracts of organic broilers and 230 intestinal
tracts of organic turkeys were collected from a state-inspected
organic processing plant.
Bacterial isolation and identification. The intestinal tracts
were placed on ice and brought back to the laboratory within
3 hours of collection and cultured for Campylobacter species.
Each cecum was aseptically opened and cecal contents were
streaked onto Campy CVA agar containing cefoperazone,
vancomycin, and amphotericin B as selective supplements by a
sterile cotton swab. The inoculated plates were then incubated
at 42 o C for 48 hours under a microaerophilic environment
(approximately 5% O2, 10% CO2, and 85% N2) in an anaerobic
system jar with gas generating system envelopes. Suspect
Campylobacter colonies were identified by colony morphology
characteristics, Gram-stain, oxidase test, catalase test, and
Campylobacter culture-plate latex agglutination confirmation
test (INDX-Campy [jcl]; PanBio INDX, Inc., Baltimore, MD).
The hippurate hydrolysis test was performed to differentiate
C. jejuni from C. coli and other Campylobacter species. From
each Campylobacter-positive sample, a single colony was used
for antimicrobial susceptibility test. All Campylobacter isolates
were stored in sterile cryovial tubes containing skim milk and
30% glycerol at –85 o C prior to antimicrobial susceptibility test.
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. A total of 694
Campylobacter isolates from conventional and organic
poultry farms were tested for antimicrobial resistance to
nine antimicrobial agents including ampicillin, tetracycline,
gentamicin, kanamycin, clindamycin, erythromycin,
ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, and nalidixic acid by the agar
dilution method (15). All antimicrobial agents were obtained
from Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO except ciprofloxacin
(Serologicals Proteins, Inc., Kankakee, IL). The concentrations
of most antimicrobial agents tested in this study ranged from
0.06 to 128 µg/ml except for ciprofloxacin (0.008 to128 µg/ml)
and for kanamycin and nalidixic acid (0.25 to 128 µg/ml).
Briefly, Campylobacter isolates grown on blood agar plates
for 48 hours were inoculated onto Mueller-Hinton broth
and then adjusted to a turbidity equivalent to 0.5 McFarland
standard by a colorimeter. A multipoint inoculator (a cathra
replicator system) with 1 mm pins was used to inoculate
approximately 104 CFU of samples onto Mueller-Hinton agar
containing a two-fold concentration series of antimicrobials
and supplemented with 5% defibrinated sheep blood.
Campylobacter jejuni ATCC 33560 was used as the quality
control organism (15). While quality control ranges are not
Microscopic image of Campylobacter Jejuni
40 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

table 1: Prevalence of c. jejuni and c. coli/other camPylobacter sPecies in conventional and
organic Poultry oPerations
OperatiOn type
currently available for ampicillin, kanamycin,
clindamycin, and norfloxacin, the MIC results
for these drugs with C. jejuni ATCC 33560 were
consistent, falling within a three-dilution range
throughout the study. The inoculated plates were
incubated in a CO2 incubator at 42 oC for 24 hours
under a microaerophilic atmosphere of 5% O2,
10% CO2, and 85% N2. The MIC was defined as
the lowest concentration of antimicrobial agent
that completely inhibited the visible growth on
the plates. The resistance breakpoints for each
antimicrobial agent were as follows: ≥4 µg/ml
for ciprofloxacin and clindamycin; ≥ 8 µg/ml
for erythromycin; ≥16 µg/ml for tetracycline,
gentamicin, and norfloxacin; ≥ 32 µg/ml for
ampicillin and nalidixic acid; and ≥64 µg/ml for
kanamycin (5, 16). If an isolate was resistant to
three or more classes of antimicrobials, it was
defined as multidrug resistant.
Statistical analysis. A Chi-square (χ2) test at a
significance level of P < 0.05 (two-tailed) with Yates
correction for continuity was used for comparing
the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance rates
of Campylobacter isolates between conventional
and organic operations and between broilers and
turkeys.
Results
Prevalence of Campylobacter. The prevalence of
C. jejuni and C. coli/other Campylobacter species
in conventionally-raised broilers was 66%, while
the prevalence of this organism in conventionally-
raised turkeys was 83%. In terms of the organic
nO. (%) OF pOSitive SampleS/
tOtal nO. OF SampleS
nO. (%) OF pOSitive SampleS
c. JeJuni c. cOliB
Conventional Broiler 227 (65.80)/345 220 (96.92) 7 (3.08)
Conventional Turkey 299 (83.06)/360 137 (45.82) 162 (54.18)
Organic Broiler 317 (89.30)/355 229 (72.24) 88 (27.76)
Organic Turkey 201 (87.39)/230 133 (66.17) 68 (33.83)
a) Number (%) of intestines positive for Campylobacter species/number of intestines isolated for Campylobacter
b) Number (%) of intestines positive for C. coli/other Campylobacter species
poultry production systems, the prevalence of
Campylobacter spp. in organically-raised broilers
and organically-raised turkeys was 89% and 87%,
respectively (Table 1). On the basis of the hippurate
hydrolysis test, C. jejuni was the predominant
Campylobacter species in conventionally-raised
broilers, organically-raised broilers, and organically-
raised turkeys, whereas C. coli/other Campylobacter
species were the predominant species in
conventionally-raised turkeys (Table 1).
Antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter. One
of the most striking findings in this study was
the difference in quinolone and fluoroquinolone
resistance between Campylobacter strains
isolated from conventional poultry farms and
organic poultry farms. Approximately 46% of
Campylobacter strains isolated from conventionally-
raised broilers and 67% of Campylobacter strains
isolated from conventionally-raised turkeys were
resistant to ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, and nalidixic
acid. In contrast, none of Campylobacter strains
isolated from organically-raised broilers and less
than 2% of Campylobacter strains isolated from
organically-raised turkeys were resistant to these
antimicrobials (Table 2). When compared to
Campylobacter strains isolated from conventionally-
raised broilers and organically-raised broilers and
turkeys, the isolates from conventional turkey
operation were significantly more resistant to
erythromycin, clindamycin, kanamycin, tetracycline,
and ampicillin (P < 0.05) (Table 2). Regardless of
the sources of isolation, none of the Campylobacter
strains tested in this study were resistant to
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
41

table 2. antimicrobial resistance of camPylobacter strains isolated from different Poultry
Production systems
antimicrOBial
agentS
numBer (%) OF reSiStant campylOBacter StrainS iSOlated FrOm:
cOnventiOnal
BrOiler FarmS
(n=167)
Organic BrOiler
FarmS (n=165)
cOnventiOnal
turKey FarmS
(n=201)
Organic turKey
FarmS (n=161)
Ampicillin 0a* 5 (3.03)a 63 (31.34)b 10 (6.21)a
Tetracycline 141 (84.43)a 99 (60)b 186 (92.54)c 81 (50.31)b
Gentamicin 0 0 0 0
Kanamycin 19 (11.38)a 28 (16.97)a 153 (76.12)b 50 (31.06)c
Clindamycin 2 (1.20)a 9 (5.45)a 129 (64.18)b 5 (3.11)a
Erythromycin 0a 15 (9.09)b 160 (79.60)c 5 (3.11)d
Ciprofloxacin 76 (45.51)a 0b 136 (67.66)c 3 (1.86)b
Norfloxacin 77 (46.11)a 0b 134 (66.67)c 3 (1.86)b
Nalidixic acid 77 (46.11)a 0b 135 (67.16)c 3 (1.86)b
* Antimicrobial resistance rates of Campylobacter isolates from different poultry production systems are compared by a
chi-square test with Yates correction for continuity. Numbers in the same row with different superscripts are significantly
different (P

gentamicin, while more that 80% of Campylobacter
strains isolated from conventionally-raised broilers
and turkeys and 50% to 60% of Campylobacter
strains isolated from organically-raised broilers
and turkeys were resistant to tetracycline (Table 2).
In terms of multidrug resistance, the occurrence
of multidrug-resistant Campylobacter strains
was mainly observed among the isolates from
conventionally-raised turkeys, with 81% of these
isolates showing resistance to three or more classes
of antimicrobials (Table 3). Moreover, about 58% of
Campylobacter isolates from conventionally-raised
turkeys were resistant to both erythromycin and
ciprofloxacin, whereas none of Campylobacter
strains isolated from conventionally-raised broilers
and organically-raised broilers and turkeys was
concomitantly resistant to these antimicrobial
agents.
Conclusion
In this study, it is clearly shown that thermophilic
Campylobacter is highly prevalent in both organic
and conventional poultry production systems.
However, the antimicrobial resistance rates vary
significantly in different production types. In
general, conventionally-raised broilers and turkeys
harbor more antimicrobial-resistant Campylobacter
strains than organically-raised broilers and
turkeys and the differences are obvious with
fluoroquinolones. The highest resistance rates
and multidrug resistance to three or more classes
of antimicrobials are mainly observed among the
isolates from conventional turkey operation. These
results suggest that the practice of antimicrobial
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Ms. Sonya M. Bodeis at the Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug
Administration for her technical assistance in this study. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Amna B. El-
Tayeb, Ms. Elisabeth J. Angrick, and fellow colleagues at the Avian Disease Investigation Laboratory at The Ohio
State University, for their help, advice, and technical support.
This work was supported by National Research Initiative Competitive Grants 00 -51110 - 9741 and 2003 - 35212
- 13316 from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and grant 2003 - 38640
- 13225 from the North Central Region program for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (NCR-
SARE).
usage in conventional poultry production systems
influences the prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant
Campylobacter in conventionally-raised broilers
and turkeys. However, antimicrobial usage alone
may not solely be responsible for the increased
antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter because
even in the absence of antimicrobial exposure, a
high level of tetracycline resistance was observed in
organically-raised broilers and turkeys. Together,
these findings reveal the complex nature in the
occurrence and spread of antimicrobial resistance
as well as underscore the difficulty in eliminating
antimicrobial-resistant Campylobacter isolates
from conventional poultry productions. In addition,
this study also further highlights the need for
prudent measures to prevent the occurrence
and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant
Campylobacter in the poultry reservoir.
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
43

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Allos, B. M. 2001. Campylobacter jejuni infections: update on emerging issues and trends. Clin. Infect.
Dis. 32:1201-1206.
Altekruse, S. F., N. J. Stern, P. I. Fields, and D. L. Swerdlow. 1999. Campylobacter jejuni-an
emerging foodborne pathogen. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:28-35.
Altekruse, S. F., and L. K. Tollefson. 2003. Human campylobacteriosis: a challenge for the veterinary
profession. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 223:445-452.
Blaser, M. J. 1997. Epidemiologic and clinical features of Campylobacter jejuni infections. J. Infect. Dis.
176 Suppl 2:S103-S105.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003. National antimicrobial resistance monitoring
system: enteric bacteria 2001 annual report. National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System
(NARMS), Atlanta, Ga.
Cui, S., B. Ge, J. Zheng, and J. Meng. 2005. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter
spp. and Salmonella serovars in organic chickens from Maryland retail stores. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
71:4108-4111.
El-Shibiny, A., P. L. Connerton, and I. F. Connerton. 2005. Enumeration and diversity of
campylobacters and bacteriophages isolated during the rearing cycles of free-range and organic chickens.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:1259-1266.
Engberg, J., F. M. Aarestrup, D. E. Taylor, P. Gerner-Smidt, and I. Nachamkin. 2001. Quinolone
and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli: resistance mechanisms and trends in human
isolates. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7:24-34.
Gupta, A., J. M. Nelson, T. J. Barrett, R. V. Tauxe, S. P. Rossiter, C. R. Friedman, K. W. Joyce,
K. E. Smith, T. F. Jones, M. A. Hawkins, B. Shiferaw, J. L. Beebe, D. J. Vugia, T. Rabatsky-Ehr, J.
A. Benson, T. P. Root, and F. J. Angulo. 2004. Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter strains,
United States, 1997-2001. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10:1102-1109.
Khachatourians, G. G. 1998. Agricultural use of antimicrobials and the evolution and transfer of
antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 159:1129-1136.
McEwen, S. A., and P. J. Fedorka-Cray. 2002. Antimicrobial use and resistance in animals. Clin. Infect.
Dis. 34:S93-S106.
Mead, P. S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L. F. McCaig, J. S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P. M. Griffin, and R. V.
Tauxe. 1999. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 5:607-625.
Nachamkin, I., B. M. Allos, and T. Ho. 1998. Campylobacter species and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Clin.
Microbiol. Rev. 11:555-567.
Nachamkin, I., J. Engberg, and F. M. Aarestrup. 2000. Diagnosis and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of
Campylobacter species, p. 45-66. In I. Nachamkin and M. J. Blaser (eds.), Campylobacter. American Society
for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2002. Performance standards for
antimicrobial disk and dilutioin susceptibility tests for bacterial isolated from animals, approved standard
M31-A2. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS), Wayne, Pa.
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2002. Performance standards for
antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 12th informational supplement M100-S12. National Committee for
Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS), Wayne, Pa.
Newell, D. G., and C. Fearnley. 2003. Sources of Campylobacter colonization in broiler chickens. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 69:4343-4351.
Sahin, O., T. Y. Morishita, and Q. Zhang. 2002. Campylobacter colonization in poultry: sources of
infection and modes of transmission. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 3:95-105.
19.
Threlfall, E. J., L. R. Ward, J. A. Frost, and G. A. Willshaw. 2000. The emergence and spread of
44 Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

20.
21.
antimicrobial resistance in foodborne bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 62:1-5.
Van den Bogaard, A. E., and E. E. Stobberingh. 1999. Antimicrobial usage in animals impact on bacterial resistance and
public health. Drugs 58:589-607.
White, D. G., S. Zhao, S. Simjee, D. D. Wagner, and P. F. McDermott. 2002. Antimicrobial resistance of foodborne
pathogens. Microbes Infect. 4:405-412.
About the Author
Taradon Luangtongkum, D.V.M., Ph.D., received his D.V.M. degree with honors from Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand in
1999. After graduating from veterinary school, he was granted a scholarship from the Anandamahidol Foundation (King’s scholarship)
to further his graduate studies in the United States. He received his Ph.D. degree in Veterinary Preventive Medicine from The Ohio State
University in 2005. Currently, he is a faculty member in the Department of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Science,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
ota_bioorg_A4_ad_FLO.qxd 6/6/06 12:22 PM Page 1
LOOKING FOR
U.S. ORGANIC PRODUCTS?
SEARCH THE
ORGANIC EXPORT DIRECTORY.
WELCOME! BIENVENUE! WILLKOMMEN! BIENVENIDO!
WWW.USORGANICPRODUCTS.COM
Quality. Consistency. Variety.
ORGANIC TRADE ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 547, GREENFIELD, MA 01302 USA
TEL: 1.413.774.7511 FAX: 1.413.774.6432
WWW.OTA.COM INFO@OTA.COM
TM
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
Special Feature: Animals in Organic Production
4

“Organic” salmon - A leap too far?
by Lawrence Woodward
Conventional farmed salmon is an abomination for animal
welfare and the environment; and it is hugely unsatisfactory
in terms of food quality and health. As the wild salmon
symbolizes all that is beautiful, spectacular and miraculous
in nature; sea caged salmon farming represents that which is
tacky, mean spirited and degrading about man’s relationship to
nature. It also speaks volumes about our lack of understanding
of wellbeing, the quality of food and life and the essential
dishonesty of our commercial use of nature’s bounty.
So any endeavour to improve salmon farming should
be applauded and to this end we welcome the UK Soil
Association’s work towards improving sea cage salmon
systems.
But it is not organic, probably never will be and should not be
labelled organic, whatever certification bodies and regulatory
authorities say. How can we say that? If the EU says it is, if
Defra says it is, if the Soil Association Council says it is, if
famous chefs and food writers say it is, how can we say any
different?
Leaving aside our perception of what has driven this issue - the
hidden agendas, the blind but wilful pursuit of markets, the
lack of knowledge, the ignorance, the confused motives and
taste buds – we say that because that is what organic principles
say; clearly, without ambiguity and repeatedly; sea cage salmon
production is not organic.
Let us examine this by considering sea cage salmon farming
against the universally recognized “Principles of Organic
Agriculture” published by the International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) which have been
accepted by all of the world’s leading organic organizations,
including the Soil Association.
The organic Principle of Ecology “roots Organic Agriculture within
living ecological systems ... production is to be based on ecological
processes, and recycling. Nourishment and well-being are achieved
through the ecology of the specific production environment. For
example, in the case of crops this is the living soil; for animals it
is the farm ecosystem; for fish and marine organisms, the aquatic
environment.”
Global Monitor
Sea cage salmon (and cod) have no relationship to the aquatic
environment other than the cage is suspended in water. A
cage hanging about in water is not a “living ecological system”;
it does nothing for fish nourishment – rations are poured in
through the cage; and it does nothing for their well-being.
The text continues; “Inputs should be reduced by reuse, recycling
and efficient management of materials and energy in order
to maintain and improve environmental quality and conserve
resources.” Claims made for the feed conversion efficiency of
salmon do nothing to offset the manifest failure to comply
with this as the cage contributes absolutely nothing to the
fish’s production cycle. Even worse, all the food which the
fish fail to eat on its way through the cage, litters and pollutes
the seabed and is joined by all the faeces which either festers
below or is spread by currents to pollute further afield. There
is no recycling – developments are talked of where other
marine organisms could feed on this waste and then be
harvested, these may exist on paper but are a long way from
existing in the water – no (let alone efficient) management of
materials and energy, and a built in characteristic of degrading
environmental quality and resources.
4 Global Monitor Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Finally the Principle of Ecology states “Organic agriculture
should attain ecological balance through the design of farming
systems, establishment of habitats and maintenance of genetic
and agricultural diversity. Those who produce, process, trade, or
consume organic products should protect and benefit the common
environment including landscapes, habitats, biodiversity, air and
water.”
Not only does sea cage salmon farming systematically degrade
the environment around it through its wastes, also through
escapees, which is an inevitable and accepted part of salmon
farming, it participates in the destruction of genetic diversity
in wild fish stocks. The fact that it might be somewhat better
than conventional salmon farming does not change the fact
that on this point too it does not meet the principles.
Turning to the fish itself, The Principle of Fairness “insists that
animals should be provided with the conditions and opportunities
of life that accord with their physiology, natural behavior and
well-being.”
Salmon are territorial creatures; they essentially operate as
individuals marking out their own boundaries within which
they live their lives. They do not shoal except when they feel
threatened or feel they are in a dangerous environment which
occurs at specific times when they migrate. Moreover their
lives are led around different habitats using rocks, variety in
sea or river beds and critically waterflow and currents. None
of this happens in sea cages; indeed cages create all of the
conditions that maximise stress and minimise well-being.
They cannot create their own territory; they are forced to
shoal and ironically the method adapted to mitigate pollution
– consistently strong currents – cuts across the basic need to
experience diversity in waterflow.
And they migrate: this is one of the things that defines
salmon and makes them the naturally wonderful creatures
they are; their entire physiological system changes to allow
them to adapt from fresh water to salt water and back again.
Obviously they can’t migrate if they are in cages and the
whole production system is geared to hold back the natural
physiological development of the fish so they can be grown to
saleable weight and sold before their body begins to change to
its migratory state.
One of the most disingenuous arguments used in favour of
farmed salmon is that the species is actually changing. Farmed
salmon, it is argued, are losing the will to migrate because they
are fed so well they do not feel the urge to seek food; therefore
their whole physiology is changing. If that is true then they are
no longer salmon; call them something else and market them
as something else.
This however serves to underline another critical point; all
certified, so-called “organic” salmon are conventionally bred
and reared. In every other livestock system we are making
strides towards and insisting on organic breeding and rearing.
Feed composition is another issue; physiologically salmon are
geared towards feeding solely on marine organisms, they are
being forced to eat material they are not designed to consume.
One of the most muddle-headed aspects of this issue is the
recent call for organic farmers to grow oil seed rape to feed to
salmon. Salmon are not designed to eat plant oil; they eat fish
oil; that is one of the things that makes them a healthy food for
humans. As with chicken when they are fed inappropriately the
fat content and ratios change adversely.
So on none of these grounds does sea cage salmon comply with
the organic Principle of Fairness. Nor does it with the Principle
of Care which states: “Practitioners of Organic Agriculture can
enhance efficiency and increase productivity, but this should not be
at the risk of jeopardizing health and well-being. Consequently, new
technologies need to be assessed and existing methods reviewed.
Given the incomplete understanding of ecosystems and agriculture,
care must be taken”.
The Soil Association says it has been working for a number
of years to develop this system but the fact is that like one
or two other certifiers it prejudged the issue and ignored the
precautionary principle. Some retailers demanded an organic
line in salmon and the approach was taken to give them one
by trying to modify existing conventional practice rather than
carefully considering ecosystems and the salmon’s fundamental
physiology and well-being. Effort would have been better spent
working on an aquaculture – like carp – that can comply with
organic principles.
The final point relates to the organic Principle of Health which
sets out; “The role of Organic Agriculture, whether in farming,
processing, distribution, or consumption, is to sustain and enhance
the health of ecosystems and organisms from the smallest in the soil
to human beings. In particular, Organic Agriculture is intended to
produce high quality food that is nutritious and has a function in
preventive health care and well-being.”
There is not a single way in which sea cage farmed salmon
delivers and complies with this.
lawrence wOOdward
elm Farm Organic reSearch centre
nEwbury, uK
email: lawrEncE.w@EFrc.com
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
Global Monitor
4

Eu regulation: new organic
regulation approved in principle
by Francis Blake
Last December, the European Council of Ministers reached a
‘general arrangement’ on the new organic regulation. Francis
Blake, president of the IFOAM EU Group, explains what this
means and what the implications are.
EU terminology makes for a strange language at times. The
European Commission is in the habit of producing ‘non-
papers’, which are internal discussion papers that should not
see the light of (external) day. As they don’t exist (externally),
nobody is responsible for the views they express and no one
can officially comment on them. Thankfully, things are chang-
ing. As the institutions are opening up more, ‘non-papers’ are
getting more exposure and we in the IFOAM EU Group are
increasingly being asked to comment on them. This means we
are able to give our input earlier in the drafting and decision
making process.
‘General arrangement’ is another odd term. It means that the
Council (made up of the relevant minister from each member
state) has reached an agreement in principle, but cannot
decide definitively until they have received the ‘opinion’ of the
European Parliament. In agricultural matters, the Parliament
only has a right of opinion, not co-decision.
In the case of the new organic regulation, the Parliament is still
considering its opinion and so the Council cannot reach final
agreement. In the nature of political games, the Parliament
may continue to consider its opinion for some time yet, if
it does not feel its opinion is being taken sufficiently into
account.
And what of the third European institution, the Commission?
These are the EU’s civil servants, though each department
is headed up by a ‘political’ Commissioner, in our case the
Danish (and very pro-globalization) Mariann Fischer-Boel. The
Commission writes the first draft of the regulation, which they
did through to the end of 2005, and then hands it over to the
Council for discussion and decision. Thereafter, it is officially
out of their hands, but of course their behind-the-scenes influ-
ence is considerable and they will hold their ground strongly,
particularly in the face of mixed views from the member states.
Progress so far
The general arrangement recognized that a number of smaller
technical issues are still to be resolved, including more work on
the GMO definitions, besides whatever the German presidency
chooses to incorporate from the Parliament’s opinion. Even
when all this is decided and the regulation is approved, it is still
only half way through the process.
What used to be the annexes in the old (existing) regulation,
will become the ‘implementing rules’ of the new regulation.
However, these will be the subject of separate legislation under
the responsibility of the Commission, rather than the Council.
The Commission will start work on these when the Council has
completed its work. So all of the details, production and pro-
cessing rules, inspection requirements and lists of permitted
inputs are still to be decided. Having said that, the Commission
has clarified that it intends to transfer the old annexes into the
new implementing rules as far as possible without alteration.
They expect this will take the next two years, so that the whole
package will be ready for implementation in 2009.
General arrangement
So much for process; what about the content of the general
arrangement? The IFOAM EU group identified a number of
key concerns with the draft regulation and these formed the
basis of our lobbying work over last year. How did we fare with
them?
4 Global Monitor Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Stakeholder involvement
In keeping with both the principles of open government and
also the grassroots origins of organic farming, we wanted there
to be formal and proper stakeholder involvement in decision
making processes. Much of the problem we have experienced
with this regulation process has been lack of communication
with the authorities as to the intentions of what they have
written. Proper dialogue and consultation would have resolved
this and arguably, would have produced a much better regula-
tion much sooner.
Well, we did not succeed, partly because the institutional struc-
tures of the EU do not allow for it – stakeholder involvement is
supposed to happen within the member states, not at EU level.
However, the Commission does seem to be recognizing the
need for this and have pledged much better consultation over
the implementing rules.
Scope
The products of organic farming now go well beyond food and
include also textiles and cosmetics. We did not necessarily want
detailed standards for these categories, but we did want the
scope for this and certainly for protection of the term organic
within them. This is partly covered by normal consumer
protection legislation. However, the Commission was unable
to go further because these sectors are outside the competence
of the Directorate-General forAgriculture. At least, the proposal
specifically includes provision for wine and aquaculture, but it
still excludes the possibility of certifying wild animals, however
they are farmed or managed.
Objectives and principles
For the first time, this proposal sets out clearly the objectives
and principles for organic farming. The first drafts were a very
strange mixture and a long way from IFOAM’s overarching
principles. The final result is much better and provides a
reasonable basis for guiding EU organic farming in the right
direction.
GMOs
Here we still have problems. There have been some improve-
ments in the definition of GMOs and their derivatives but
there are major problems of how to deal with contamination.
The proposal specifically states that anything over 0.9%
contamination cannot be called organic. We feel it is wrong
to specify such a level, as this will effectively legalize con-
tamination up to 0.9%. Organic food should be free of GMOs.
However, it has to be in the coexistence legislation that this
freedom is guaranteed, by appropriate separation distances
and tough liability provisions. Otherwise, it will be the organic
farmers and traders who are penalized for the contamination
from elsewhere, rather than the perpetrators.
Flexibility
The current regulation is full of derogations with uneasy
deadlines that keep slipping. They have brought all these, and
the need for regional variation, into one coherent and properly
(centrally) controlled system. It is unclear how this will work,
as the criteria will be in the implementing rules.
Labeling
Three aspects of labelling have changed. First, there has been
a rearrangement of labelling categories. The 95% percent
category stays and the 70% is withdrawn. In its place, two are
added: labelling of products below 95% - only in the ingredients
panel; labelling of products containing mainly wild fish or game
where all the other ingredients are organic – in the ingredients
panel and along with the sales description. These changes are
a step in the right direction but do not go as far as the IFOAM
standards as they exclude additives from the organic calcula-
tions (whereas IFOAM includes them).
The second aspect is a mandatory EU logo. This is not
something the IFOAM EU group wanted and it only came at
the last minute. However, there is an assurance that it will
be redesigned and it may also be used on imported products,
provided the origin is specified (see below).
Third is the new requirement for origin labelling. This may
be by specifying ‘EU Agriculture’ or the country of origin or,
for those of mixed origin, the not very informative phrase
‘EU/non-EU Agriculture’. It must be a good principle to specify
the origin, but ‘EU/non-EU Agriculture’ is hardly clear labelling.
Claims
A major achievement was the deletion of article 20, which
put unnecessary restrictions on how organic and different
standards of production can be described.
Certification
Another important victory towards the end was the removal of
article 24, which imposed possibly illegal conditions on private
certifiers defending the integrity of their own logos.
There is still uncertainty as to how the new regulation
882/2004 will effect organic certification. This was brought
in to ensure consistent EU-wide control of food and feed
safety issues (following BSE, etc). It places more emphasis on
the control by member state authorities, and on Commission
Global Monitor
4

oversight of them. Organic certification has been included – an
uneasy fit as organic is not a food safety issue and it replaces
the ethos of public-private partnership that has been central to
most organic certification. However, the terminology has been
changed in later drafts of the regulation to reflect more closely
organic certification, rather than food safety control.
Imports
Just before Christmas, the Council agreed on the new rules for
imports, as the old provisions were running out at the end of
the year. The new regulation reflects these.
Conclusions
All in all, the general arrangement we have is a very great
improvement on the original draft, of which we were severely
critical. It could be improved further and we hope t hat the
German Presidency with listen to the European Parliament and
incorporate further improvements. Much will depend on the
implementing rules, so our work is far from over.
FranciS BlaKe,StandardS and technical directOr
SOil aSSOciatiOn
nEwbury, uK
email: FblaKE@SoilaSSociation.org
Organic fruits & vegetables
P.O. Box 348
2740 AH Waddinxveen
The Netherlands
ph. +31 (0)180-635500
www.eosta.com
where economy....
organic
healthy
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
fair
TRACEABLE
TRANSPARENT
SUSTAINABLE
...meets ecology
0 Global Monitor Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006

Ongoing Trends, New Institutions
and Issues in the uS Organic Movement
by David Kupfer
In 2006, Walmart announced that they were moving in a big
way into the organic food business. The chain also vowed to
price these products only slightly higher than conventional
foods. Those who believe that organic food and farming is a
good thing and that the more people who bought it the better,
greeted Walmart’s announcement with optimism, however
that’s not how some organic food people reacted- they reacted
with hostility. What they said was, ‘’Walmart isn’t truly selling
‘real organic’, because the organic food they’re retailing is
going to be manufactured though industrial organic farming
techniques.’
So presently in the US, there is a conflict between the organic
movement and the local movement. The local people are
saying, The true spirit of organic food is found in the local
movement. It’s not just only the inputs that matter, it’s where
it’s made that matters.
Some organic farmers fear that Walmart will use its market
strength to drive down prices and hurt U.S farmers. Many
farmers who have benefited from the strong demand and
healthy margins for organic goods are fretting that the
market’s newfound success also brings with it newfound
risks. Large companies have entered the market, from Kraft
and Dean Foods to Wal-Mart, and some farmers worry that
the corporatization of organic foods could have negative
consequences.
The farmers’ concerns go beyond simply pushing down prices.
Many fear that companies like Wal-Mart could try to lower the
standards for what is classified as organic food and begin to
import more supplies from China and other overseas markets.
“Wal-Mart already sources a majority of its products from
China, because it’s so cheap to produce anything there. Why
not foods?” asks Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic
Consumers Association. The worries that the corporatization
of organics could lead to more imports aren’t unfounded.
Cummins estimates that already 10% of organic foods like
meat and citrus are imported into the US. Silk soy milk is made
from organic soybeans that are bought in China and Brazil,
where prices tend to be substantially lower than in the United
States. Cascadian Farms buys its organic fruits and vegetables
from China and Mexico, among other countries.
And large companies have tried to use their muscle in
Washington DC to their advantage. Recently, Organic Trade
Assn., which represents corporations like Kraft, Dole, and
Dean Foods, lobbied to attach a rider to the 2006 Agricultural
Appropriations Bill that would weaken the nation’s organic
food standards by allowing certain synthetic food substances
in the preparation, processing, and packaging of organic foods.
That sparked outrage from organic activists. Nevertheless, the
bill passed into law, and the new standards went into effect in
2006. Organic farmers are straining to meet rising demand,
one of the reasons that legislators have been willing to drop
certain requirements for organic foods. In the past year, the
demand for organic milk outstripped the supply by 10% and
created acute shortages.
While some farmers are concerned that Wal-Mart may try to
squeeze them financially, there is a more benign impact. Farmers
who now use pesticides and other chemicals could turn to
organic farming, as they see increased demand. Consider what’s
happening in California. In 2005, the state showed an increase
of 40,000 acres, or 27%, in organic livestock production. The
number of acres dedicated to organic vegetable production
increased by 5,000 acres, or 12%, according to the California
Certified Organic Farmers.
As Bill McKibben wrote recently in Mother Jones magazine,
“It makes scant difference whether Wal-Mart starts stocking
organic food or not, because the real problem is the imperative
to ship products all over the world, sell them in vast,
downtown-destroying complexes, and push prices so low that
neither workers nor responsible suppliers can prosper. In fact,
Global Monitor
1

Wal-Mart’s decision to sell organic food will almost certainly mean
the final consolidation of the industry into the hands of a few
huge growers that ship their produce across thousands of miles
-- not to mention that the people ringing up the organic groceries
will still make below-poverty wages and taxpayers will still be
footing the bill for their health care.”
After the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in spinach in August
2006, sales of the vegetable plummeted 60 percent. With several
outbreaks in 2006, including one involving E. coli in the Mexican
food chain Taco Bell, the idea that eating local may be safer is
taking hold. When the fruits or vegetables from dozens of farms
are combined before shipping, the opportunities for contamina-
tion are greatly increased.
The discovery of contaminated produce is happening at a time
when advice about eating more fruits and vegetables seems to be
having an impact. So concerns about safety may be contributing to
the success of local farmers’ markets.
Better Trends
One critic of American agribusiness, Marion Nestle, professor
in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health
at New York University, and the author of “What to Eat,” positive
trends.” (In 2006) people discovered that food is about politics and
people can do something about it. In a world in which people feel
more and more distant from global forces that control their lives,
they can do something by, as the British put it, ‘voting with your
trolley,’ their word for shopping cart.”
Organic Industry Concentration Chart
While doing his PhD work at University of California Santa Cruz’s
Center for Agroecology and Farming Systems, Dr. Phil Howard
created a visual chart that tracks the buyouts in the organic
industry. Howard’s “Organic Industry Structure” flow chart, which
he’s updated and distributed throughout the US organic farming
movement, conveys graphically how small organic processing and
manufacturing firms have been purchased by mega-industry food
conglomerates. Now teaching at Minnesota State University, Dr.
Howard is studying national consumer interest in ‘ecolabels’ as
a potential strategy for improving the livelihoods of small- and
medium-scale farms, and consolidation in the food system,
particularly in the rapidly growing organic sector. [www.msu.
edu/~howardp/infographics.html]
The Local Food Movement in the US has expanded horizontally
with the incredible growth of the Slow Food Movement, the Edible
Community Movement, the Farmers Market Movement, the Com-
munity Supported Agriculture Movement, and the “Localvore,”
(seasonal and local eating concept) Movement. For example, there
are now more than 4400 Farmers markets in the US, due in part to
the growing consumer interest in obtaining fresh products directly
from farmers. [www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets]
Today one can read more than 20 individual Edible Community
publications, from Ojai to San Francisco, Boston to Sante Fe, each
locally produced. Edible Communities works to transform the
way communities shop for, cook, eat, and relate to the food that
is grown and produced in their individual area. Through their
printed publications, websites, and events, they are connecting
consumers with local growers, retailers, chefs, and food artisans,
encouraging relationships to grow . [www.ediblecommunities.com]
According to the Robyn Van En Center at Wilson College in
Pennsylvania, as of January 2006 there were more than 1,140
farmers offering Community Supported Agriculture programs, or
subscription farming, in the States. The leading States are New
York with 107, California, 81, followed by Pennsylvania, Washing-
ton and Wisconsin. [www.localharvest.org/csa/]
A Vermont-based organization called Vital Communities produces
a publication that tells how, where and when to buy locally grown
farm products in the Upper Connecticut River Valley. 20,000
copies are produced annually and distributed to 250+ locations.
[www.vitalcommunities.org/Agriculture/localguide.htm]
There are now more than 140 local Slow Food chapters in the US,
all furthering the Slow Food mission on a local level, advocating
sustainability and bio-diversity through educational events about
seasonal and local foods and supporting of those who produce
them. [www.slowfoodusa.org]
Finally, the Federal Government, through ATTRA , The National
Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, has produced a free
list of Local Food Directories. A number of organizations and
agencies throughout the U.S. are helping agricultural producers
connect with customers by compiling directories of local food
sources that help buyers find goods and growers find markets.
This resource offers more than 170 listings for local food directo-
ries and promotional programs in all 50 States. [http://attra.ncat.
org/attra-pub/localfood_dir.php]
Food, Farming and the Wild
The California-based Wild Farm Alliance (WFA) works to further
an agriculture that protects and restores wild nature. This
non-profit organization asks the question, can a farm or ranching

operation support wildness and still remain economically
viable? And how much agriculture can take place in an area
and still support optimal levels of biodiversity? WFA recently
published a guide to fill the void in language, identifying
specific farming practices consistent with the organic rule on
biodiversity. With funds contributed by the Organically Grown
Company, PCC and many others, the guide has been distributed
to 8,600 farmers. [www.wildfarmalliance.org]
US Organic Cotton
US Organic Cotton acreage planted to organic cotton in 2005
increased 14% from that planted the previous year, according
to a 2006 survey conducted by the Organic Trade Association
(OTA) and funded by a grant from Cotton Incorporated. OTA’s
organic cotton survey found 13 farmers grew and harvested
organic cotton in the United States during 2005. Farmers in
2005 planted 6,325 acres of organic cotton, an increase of
nearly 14% over the 5,550 acres planted in 2004. Most was
upland organic cotton, and most organic cotton was grown in
Texas, with limited acreage in California and New Mexico.
Based on survey results and additional information from the
Texas Organic Cotton Marketing Cooperative, approximately
8,655 bales of organic upland cotton and 975 bales of organic
pima cotton were harvested in 2005, compared with 6,814
bales harvested in 2004. The number of bales of organic cotton
harvested increased 41 percent from 2004 to 2005. In addition,
acreage planted in 2006 totaled 6,254 acres. Harvesting figures
for 2006 are not yet available.
Seattle Food Co-op Directly Seeds Organic Farms!
An independent community supported non profit land trust,
the PCC (Puget Consumers’ Co-op) Farmland Fund is actively
working to save threatened farmland in Washington State and
move it into organic production. It is believed to be the only
501(c)(3) land trust in the United States dedicated to organic
farmland preservation. The land trust was founded in 1999 by
PCC Natural Markets as a separate, non-profit organization.
To date, the community-supported land trust has purchased
three farms, which are now legally dedicated for exclusive use
as organic production, and the Trust extends its protection
to include biodiversity and wildlife, farmers and farming
communities. By preserving the land for organic farming, the
Trust is not only setting aside land for organic farming and
wildlife habitat, but is supporting the continued livelihood of
local farmers and the farming community, and is increasing the
availability of local, fresh organic foods.
The Trust saves farmland by purchasing the land, lowering
the sales value of the land through placement of an organic
easement, which restricts the land use exclusively to organic
farming in perpetuity. The saving realized by reducing the sales
value of the land is passed on to the farmers, who purchase or
lease the land at more affordable rates. [http://www.pccnatu-
ralmarkets.com/farmtrust/]
david KupFer
email: DaviD.KupFEr@gmail.com
Go back to the
Table of Contents >
Global Monitor
3

IFOAM Publications
The World of Organic Agriculture 2007
250 pages
Print version: 20 Euros
CD: 17 Euros
Download: 15 Euros
ISBN: 3-934055-82-6
The study shows that nearly 31 million
hectares are currently certified according
to organic standards. The global market
for organic products reached a value of
25.5 billion Euros in 2005, with the vast
majority of products being consumed in
North America and Europe, according to
the market research experts of Organic
Monitor. For 2006, the value of global
markets is estimated to be at more than
30 billion Euros.
In addition to chapters reviewing
organic agriculture worldwide,
numerous illustrations and graphs,
and completely revised reports about
the emerging trends and regional
development highlights on each
individual continent, the eighth
consecutive edition of The World of
Organic Agriculture: Statistics and
Emerging Trends includes expanded
coverage of commodity specific data.
Socio-Economic Effects of Organic
Agriculture in Africa
36 pages
Print version: 7 Euros
CD: 7 Euros
Download: 9 Euros
ISBN-13: 978-3-934055-85-8
Contemporary agriculture and food
systems are associated with a range of
To order these or any IFOAM publications, visit the IFOAM
bookstore at www.ifoam.org or contact the IFOAM Head Office
social and environmental problems, such
as food insecurity, land degradation,
water pollution and health hazards.
These problems are particularly acute in
African nations, where food insecurity
and malnutrition is widespread, and
where many farmers have experienced
declining crop yields due to drought,
desertification and salinity.
The expansion of Organic Agriculture
represents one strategy to address these
challenges.
This report documents the recent rapid
expansion of Organic Agriculture in
Africa. By providing in-depth insights
from four selected countries – Egypt,
Ghana, Kenya and Uganda – this report
showcases the specific experiences
of farm families and surrounding
communities engaged in organic
farming. Drawing from interviews
with women and men organic farmers
and NGO,, government and industry
representatives, the results presented
in this report demonstrate a range of
positive social and economic impacts.
Building Trust in Organics (revised
4 books Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006
2007)
291 Pages
CD: 28 Euros
Download: 25 Euros
ISBN-13: 978-3-934055-87-2
Independent certification has been
a corner stone in the development
of organic markets. This new guide
will assist those establishing new
certification agencies and help to
improve those already in operation.
More than thirty years ago the first
organic certification schemes were
established. Since then, the number of
organic certification bodies have reached
four hundred. Yet many countries of the
world have not yet established domestic
certification organizations. In order to
help aid this process, this completely
revised and expanded second edition of
Building Trust in Organic, a guide for
the development of organic certification
bodies has been published. The guide
builds on the experiences from many
countries and features case studies
from Thailand, South Africa, Egypt,
Argentina, Bulgaria, Sweden, China,
Tanzania and the United States.
The guide addresses all the pertinent
issues and the challenges faced by such
bodies. It shows that it is possible,
but surely not easy, to set up a reliable
operation, that can give the kind of

IFOAM Publications
assurance that both markets and
authorities demand. It gives both
theoretical background and practical
guidance for how to design the system,
how to cope with the very demanding
procedural requirements, managing
staff, finances and many other issues. It
contains sample documents for quality
manuals and certification procedures,
as well as explanations of many of the
other policies and procedures that
are essential for the operation of a
certification agency.
The guide was written by Gunnar
Rundgren, with conributions by many
experts in inspection, certification and
accreditation. Gunnar, currently the
CEO of Grolink AB, has twenty years
of experience in the field ranging from
inspection, certification, management
and accreditation. The last ten years he
has been involved in assisting a dozen
certification bodies in Europe, Asia
and Africa in initial their formation or
further development.
IFOAM Norms available in French
and Spanish
The IFOAM Norms for Organic
Production and Processing, which
include the IFOAM Basic Standards
and the IFOAM Accreditation Criteria,
have been translated into French and
Spanish. The translated versions will
not be printed, but are now available
free of charge to IFOAM members on
the IFOAM Intranet:
http://www.ifoam.org/intranet/about_
ifoam/standards/norms.php
Non-members may also purchase the
translated Norms as a download or CD
in the IFOAM Bookstore, under the
section IFOAM publications.
Participatory Guarantee Systems
56 pages
Print version: 9 Euros
CD: 7 Euros
Download: 5 Euros
ISBN: 3-934055-63-X
There are dozens of Participatory
Guarantee Systems serving farmers and
consumers around the world. Although
details of methodology and process vary,
the consistency of core principles across
countries and continents is remarkable.
The elements and characteristics
outlined here demonstrate our shared
vision but are not meant to concretely
direct existing or future PGS programs
towards conformity or “normalization.”
The very life-blood of these programs
lies in the fact that they are created by
the very farmers and consumers that
they serve. As such, they are adopted and
specific to the individual communities,
geographies, politics and markets of
their origin. This document of Key
Elements and Key Characteristics is then
respectfully presented only to highlight
those elements that do remain consistent
across PGS systems –the Shared Vision
and Shared Ideals that have brought
them together.
Organic Agriculture and the Millennium
Development Goals
32 pages
Download: 6 Euros
ISBN: 3-934055-72-1
This dossier is the first attempt by IFOAM
to document how organic agriculture can
contribute to achieving the MDGs. While
some studies and projects are beginning
to shed light on the topic, there is a lack of
long-term data collected and compiled on
the subject. It should thus be noted that,
although organic agriculture certainly
contributes to achieving the MDGs,
more research is needed to authenticate
and substantiate the contribution.
This dossier and the topic of organic
agriculture’s contribution to the MDGs
will be revisited in five years.
books

Other Publications
Genetic Roulette
The Documented Health Risks of
Genetically Engineered Foods
Hardcover; 336 pages
Author: Jeffrey M. Smith
Publisher: Yes! Books
Price: $27.95
ISBN-13: 978-0972966528
www.geneticroulette.com
The biotech industry’s claim that
genetically modified (GM) foods are
safe is shattered in this groundbreaking
book. Nearly 65 health risks of the
foods that Americans eat every day are
presented in easy-to-read two-page
spreads. The left page is designed for
the quick scanning reader; it includes
bullets, illustrations, and quotes. The
right side offers fully referenced text,
describing both research studies and
theoretical risks. The second half of
Genetic Roulette shows how safety
assessments on GM crops are not
competent to identify the health
problems presented in the first half.
This book, prepared in collaboration
with a team of international scientists,
is for anyone wanting to understand
GM technology, to learn how to
protect themselves, or to share their
concerns with others. It is presented
in the clear, accessible style that made
Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception the
world’s best-selling book on genetically
engineered food.
Keepers of Genes
Keepers
of Genes
The interdependence between
pastoralists, breeds,
access to the commons,
and livelihoods
Ilse Köhler-Rollefson
and the LIFE Network
LIFE Network
Keepers of Genes - The interdependence
between pastoralists, breeds, access to
the commons, and livelihoods
E-Book; 80 pages
Author: Ilse Köhler-Rollefson and the
LIFE Network
Publisher: New Block Tone, Jodhpur
Price: Free Download -
http://www.pastoralpeoples.org/docs/
keepersofgenes_web.pdf
ISBN: 81-901624-2x
This book by Ilse Köhler-Rollefson and
the LIFE Network focuses on a key threat
to the survival of pastoralists and their
livestock breeds: the loss of access to
grazing and water. Pastoralists are losing
their traditional pasturelands for many
reasons - new restrictions on grazing
in nature reserves, the expansion of
irrigated agriculture, expropriation by
settled villagers, and the elimination
of fallow land because of intensified
cropping.
Less grazing land means that
pastoralists cannot maintain a herd
large enough to be economic. Many are
forced to give up livestock production
altogether. That does not just mean the
loss of livelihoods for the pastoralists
themselves. It also means settled
villagers can no longer rely on the hardy
stock from pastoralists to pull their
ploughs and provide them with meat
and milk. And it spells doom for many
valuable livestock breeds and the gene
pool they represent.
Proceedings of the 3rd QLIF Congress
E-Book: 464 pages
Editors: Urs Niggli, Carlo Leifert,
Thomas Alfoeldi, Lorna Lueck and Helga
books Ecology & Farming | SEptEmbEr - DEcEmbEr 2006
Willer
Publisher: Research Institute of Organic
Agriculture (FiBL)
Price: Free Download, 15 Euros for
Hardcopy
https://www.fibl.org/english/shop/
show.php?sprache=EN&art=1455
ISBN-13: 978-3-03736-003-3
The proceedings document the results of
the congress ‘Improving Sustainability in
Organic and Low Input Food Production
Systems’ held March 20 - 23, 2007,
organized by the Research Institute of
Organic Agriculture FiBL in cooperation
with the University of Hohenheim.
The proceedings are available for free
download at the FiBL shop; order
number 1455. Printed copies can be
ordered there at a price of 15 Euros.

Calendar of Events
1st IFOAM Conference on Marketing of
Organic and Regional Values
August 26 - 28, 2007
Schwäbisch Hall, Germany
ifoam.conference0708@organic-services.com
www.ifoam.org
Organic Expo 2007
September 07 - 09, 2007
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.organicexpo.com.au
BioFach America
September 27 - 29, 2007
Baltimore, MD USA
http://www.biofach-america.com
Lohas Organic Lifestyle and Fashion Exhibtion
September 28-30, 2007
Tapei, Taiwan
http://www.lohas-city.com/
BioFach Japan
October 10 - 12, 2007
Tokyo, Japan
www.biofach-japan.com
BioFach America Latina
October 16 - 18, 2007
Sao Paolo, Brazil
http://www.biofach-americalatina.com
Natural Ingredients
October 30 - 01 November, 2007
Maarssen, The Netherlands
Cbalder@cmpi.biz
www.fi-events.com
BioFach
February 21 - 24, 2008
Nuremberg, Germany
http://www.biofach.de
The 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress:
Cultivate the Future
June 16 - 20, 2008
Modena, Italy
www.ifoam.org/modena2008
The IFOAM General Assembly
June 22 - 24, 2008
Modena, Italy
http://www.ifoam.org/events/ifoam_conferences/
IFOAM_General_Assembly.html
Biol - The International Organic Olive Oil
Competition
April 30 - May 7, 2008
Bari, Italy
www.premiobiol.it
Calendar of Events