OF&G :: The Blog

Our roving Development Officer, Steven Jacobs, has sent back a couple of images from his time at Cereals 09 to share with us all.

He says that tea, biscuits and chat are the largely the order of the day on our stand:

The Organic Farmers & Growers stand at Cereals 09

Organic cereals are high on our agenda at the moment, with our National Organic Cereals 2009 event on the near horizon, so Steven took time to catch up on the trial plots that have been grown for this show.

Trial plots of organic wheat

In the picture you can see Dr Richard Stanley of Campden BRI Better Organic Bread. The crop is organic wheat populations (different varieties each complementing the other) as part of the wheat link project run by Organic Research Centre. That’s Zoë Haigh, of ORC, behind the wheat.

New research suggests that the production of organic bread results in 25 per cent lower CO2 emissions than its non-organic counterpart.

We like this kind of thing, not just because it’s good for the promotion of organic food, but because any credible scientific study that gives us hard data to back up what we believe to be true is always very much welcomed!

Scientists in Germany think they might have come up with a test to tell whether milk is organic or not.

Of course all tests that can give you an answer to a question (assuming they can be definitive) are to be welcomed. Although we can’t help but wonder if this is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Milk fraud is certainly not something we come across!

The sporty among us (when I say ‘us’, I probably mean ‘you’) now have a new organic option to keep those crucial energy levels up when doing serious exercise.

Our processor team has approved certification for a new range of energy drinks from leading manufacturer Science in Sport. These are serious people who provide energy drinks to many of the world’s elite athletes, including Tour de France winner Carlos Sastre, not to mention many of the Olympic gold medal-winning Great Britain team.

This is a first for OF&G, having never been asked to certify a product of this type before.

The new line of drinks seems to be garnering interest in the sporting media and we wish Science in Sport every success with them!

Now available are Organic Go Electrolyte Berry Burst and Organic PSP22 Fruit Punch.

You can feel it coming – the next push from the pro-GM side to win over consumers. The noise is building from the proponents who seem to be coming in behind the smokescreen of recession to talk doom and gloom about not being able to feed ourselves without GM crops. Which is patently nonsense.

There are assurances from people with the title ‘Dr’ and ‘Professor’ who keep appearing on Radio Four and the like saying that people have been misled on GM by its opponents. But what nobody seems able to do is point to good, hard, independent science that says we should not be in the least bit worried by man doing to nature what nature itself would never do.

Instead, if you look around, you come across findings which point to concerns. These only pop up from experts who have often had to battle the system to even begin to pursue their research – and it seems they often suffer personal attacks for having done so. Without getting carried away with conspiracy theories, it’s very hard to see a logic to GM crops which goes beyond profit for the few.

Which is why this piece from Steve Dube at newspaper-backed WalesOnline.co.uk is so interesting. Not the blog entry itself so much (it’s a follow-up to an older story) but the comments that follow in which Steve trades debate with some obviously passionate people. And the interviews and official comment he reproduces are both telling and fascinating.

We recommend you read the piece and all the comments. Give yourself ten minutes or bookmark it for later. It’s worth it.

The Telegraph reports that Swedish researchers have concluded that battery hens are healthier than free-range ones [something of a chicken theme developing on here today...].

Fortunately the Soil Association’s Anna Bassett was asked to respond and has put the nonsense in some perspective!

Some OF&G folk have spent the last couple of days at the Organic Research Centre Conference, held at Harper Adams University College.

We’ll try and get an update from them on what was seen and learned over the next couple of days and report back here. In the meantime, did you go? Would you like to share your thoughts on whether it was worthwhile, enlightening, depressing, or whatever? That’s what the comment section is for…

Between us there’s always someone out and about somewhere. Development Officer, Steven Jacobs is a prolific traveller and this week he paid a visit to a Suffolk site where research is ongoing into forest gardening, which I’ll let Steve explain:

Wakelyns Farm, Fressingfield, Suffolk is a joy to behold even in the freezing fog of a dull December afternoon.

60 acres of organic agroforestry. Lines of mixed trees either side strips of organic arable land. The land is fed (leaf litter) and protected (physical barrier) by the trees.

The arable yields are high. Although the norm can be five tons they have seen around ten tons per ha.

Martin Wolfe initiated the project over ten years ago and is currently assisted by Zoe Hague and Helen Pearce, with support from Bruce Pearce and the team at Elm Farm Organic Research Centre, at Newbury.

The idea that it is possible to show Forest Gardening on a field scale is fantastic. Martin told me that the trees are planted north south to make the most of the sun on their broad side. He has noticed that there are marked differences in the production of foliage on the eastern side and over seed or nuts on the west. This is to do with amongst other factors what he refers to as water stress; some of the ground was less than favourable and the area was defined as partially arid when they started the project. Summers (and winters) have been significantly wetter since then.

They have ground source heating in the office and a state of the art wood chip burner fed by their own forestry.

I left as the dark mists started to envelope the small holding. My satnav struggling to make sense of the Suffolk lanes and my head spinning with thoughts oscillating between Brigadoon the musical and Yggdrasil, the one tree of Norse mythology.

There’s no doubt that the US consumer has been held up as the leading adopter of GM products. We’re told by our own leaders in Europe that it’s widely accepted in the States and we are simply acting like Luddites if we oppose its spread ‘over here’.

Well, a study released by the Soil Association charity is suggesting otherwise – that the US consumer has simply had little choice but to accept GMOs in their food because of the success of the biochem lobby to avoid any requirements to add information to packaging.

Surveys apparently tell a different story about shoppers’ perceptions and preferences, as does the formation of organisations pledging to keep GM at bay. Organic-market.info has done a helpful round-up of the Soil Association briefing, but you can download the whole thing for yourself from the SA website.

It has never been OF&Gs’ aim to bash non-organic farmers – only to back those who opt to see things our way! But we’ve always drawn the line at GM and in this we’re in agreement with SA. Both OF&G and Soil Association Certification opted to stick with a ban on GM at the lowest detectable level (0.1%) even when the EU decided that food with up to 0.9% GM contamination could be sold as organic.

Let’s hope the tide is turning against this unnecessary technology. The report is well worth a read.

Here he goes again! Sometimes OF&Gs’ Development Officer, Steven Jacobs, gets a bee in his bonnet. You could say he gets quite exercised about issues. Generally we consider this ‘a good thing’ . It tends to result in rather interesting articles that get written as part of a process that seems to be cathartic for him. As I key these words and look across the desk, he appears calm, for now. That too is ‘a good thing’!

Over to Steven:

Does organic make sense?

I have recently read a number of articles expressing the viewpoint that any increase in organic production will spell the end of civilisation as we know it.

One supposition is that we will not be able to feed people in sufficient numbers. This does rather fly in the face of reports on the increase in obesity and the millions of tons of food put into the waste stream.

Another assumption is that everyone involved in organic food production must be related to a member of the British aristocracy. Yeah right. Excuse me a moment while I instruct my valet to clean my bike.

Seriously though I believe that organic practices are sustainable, environmentally and commercially, especially in the long term.

The word sustainable, to my mind, means that something can be done with some measurable amount of conservancy and preservation. Couple this with development and you have a process that allows a species to grow with, rather than in spite of, its environment.

So I have two questions;
1. Is sustainable development a necessary step?
2. Can a commercial farming operation develop both economically and sustainably?

First then; the sustainable development angle. Otherwise known as the “Why bother?” principle. Soil is not an infinite commodity. It is a resource that must be managed very carefully or we face a rather bleak future. The International Food Policy Research Institute believes that soil in agricultural areas of the developing world has for sometime been seriously degraded;

“Estimates of land loss due to degradation vary widely, from 5 to 12 million hectares every year.”
And they state that;
“In systems with extensive agriculture on marginal lands, policies should aim to limit the environmental damage of farming practices at a minimal cost to farmers.”
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/BRIEFS/NUMBER58.HTM

The UK Government came out with the following statement on soil protection;
“Soil is a vital resource. Damage to soil structure and loss of soil through erosion reduces farm profitability and damages the environment. Run-off and soil erosion leads to the removal of topsoil with the possible loss of productivity of the soil. It can also damage crops, block drainage channels, have an adverse impact on water quality and aquatic life and lead to localised flooding. On-farm costs of soil erosion in England and Wales have been estimated at £8 million a year.”
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/oels/handbook/chapter3-j.htm

The RSPB put the case for organic cultivation;
“Research has shown that a wide range of plants and animals, including butterflies, birds and bats, benefit from organic management.”
“The RSPB supports organic farming and wants to see more of it.”

It would appear then that soil maintenance can be a massive factor in agricultural performance over a period of time.

This neatly leads on to the next question; economic viability of organic cultivation. Back in the early nineties when legislation on the term ‘organic’ came in many of us in the food and farming industries had severe reservations.  Our reasoning was that this could be the thin end of the wedge, before long we would all be legislated into an ever-tightening corner with costs spiralling as a result.

But then we saw the explosion of organic food sales. This was fuelled both by dissatisfaction from the consumer with food that looked good but lacked flavour and several issues over food safety. The legal status of organic has provided security, to the consumer and so to the producer/supplier.

The livelihood of those who grow, manufacture, pack, distribute and retail organic products relies on soil protection, animal welfare and the ability to clearly present the history of the product. The end user (you and I, when we go shopping) must feel confident that this organic item, although more money than its non-organic counterpart, has a fully traceable story, one that is enshrined in law.

That story is not just about animal health but also recounts the cost of food now reflecting the ability of the planet to sustain our populations tomorrow.

The US online journal Market Watch (www.marketwatch.com) predicts:

“Surge in Natural and Organic Food Sales Means Billion Dollar Boom

Consumers have become a whole lot savvier about what they eat and through increased educational efforts by both manufacturers and retailers they are increasingly buying more organic and natural food and beverage products. Not even the current economic upheaval due to the rising prices of fuel and grain is enough to impede the market’s steady development, which Packaged Facts projects will experience strong single-digit growth through 2013.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/surge-natural-organic-food-sales/story.aspx?guid={5479439E-CC6D-47D9-A9CA-1AEE0692F567}&dist=hppr

Of course these arguments fall on deaf ears in a world where companies such as those promoting GM do so under the guise of being helpful when the reality is that they will further remove the ability of the local farmers to control their own operation. GM seed, we are told, will be sterile and so rather than harvesting seed from their crop for planting in successive years they must each year return to the company and negotiate the purchase of more. This is to my mind not at all sustainable economically or otherwise.

There are occasions when some actors within the environment lobby baffle us here at OF&G. For instance when those who speak on behalf of organisations who develop conflicting standards whilst promulgating a line on purity tell us to be more appealing to the majority by lowering our standards we have to consider the fact that perhaps some of the most prominent players in the organic arena are somewhat confused.

The RSPB and an increasing number of successful companies, large, medium and small, have acknowledged something that our detractors still have not. Although people will always need food, and that food means business, business can grow well whilst maintaining the environment that it depends upon.

Those businesses in farming or food processing, large or small that have committed to adhere to this legal definition of organic have not done so lightly.

I am not alone when I say that it is not a question of whether organic farming makes economic sense. Its just that with an eye on the next five to 25 years, or so, perhaps it is very important to ask yourself whether it is wholly sensible on a commercial scale to do anything else.

Now then, Hudson, fetch me my bicycle clips would you please, there’s a good chap.