For hard-copy subscriptions: 1-800-355-5313
T R A N S I T I ON S
July 1999
By Steven Sprinkel
Lincoln, Nebraska
Running from Central Indiana over into Nebraska, up into Wisconsin and
Minnesota, I have seen a lot of fine organic farms this season and met some
ace practitioners of the organic arts. These farms come in all sizes and the
farmers are growing a multitude of products. There are many traditional
chemical farmers in transition to Organic. Livestock production is the newest
form of diversification on many farms, and many feel that raising organic
beef, chicken and swine for slaughter may be one crucial answer to a
long-term challenge on the farm that most consumers would be surprised to
learn about: surplus organic grains.
Farmers like Dave Randle in Lebanon, Indiana and Dwaine and Lynn Rogge near
Lincoln, Nebraska can attest to the difficulty of delivering organic grain at
a fair price-and the problem of finding any market at all for wheat, oats and
some of the corn. Farmers near Viroqua, Wisconsin, home to the Coulee Region
Organic Production Pool’s dairy and fledgling meat cooperative, are under
less pressure, particularly with all the new milk-cattle farms coming online
this year under the Organic Valley label. A steady organic hay market would
also be beneficial, everywhere.
One modest exception in the upper Midwest is a bit more interest in organic
corn for livestock-but this by no means should be taken as a signal to load
up on corn in 2000. To do so might replicate the same error which many now
recognize is endemic to the certified organic food-grade soybean deal. That
deal still guides planting intentions from Pennsylvania to Kansas, but
clearly the bottom has fallen out of a market which in 1997 seemed to be
steady at the $20/bushel level, but now is generally in the hands of the
buyers, with the price frequently wandering into single digits once
again-when and if you can sell the beans. We can promote diversification all
day long, but until there is diversified marketing, the picture will remain
out focus.
Clearly what is needed is a steady livestock-based production and marketing
system, built on the CROPP model, but regionalized so that each state has at
least three or four transportation zones within it to take advantage of the
organic grains still in storage. Some grain has even been held over from
1997. As the organic wheat and oat harvest begins in the Midwest, perhaps the
most crucial issue is finding enough storage on-farm to handle the new
product. When the bins are emptied, far too much product is going to the
conventional elevator. This brings up another related concern: limited local
organic elevator storage. Many certified organic handlers of organic grain
have appropriate cleaning facilities to screen the product, but these
facilities are chiefly dedicated to food grade soybean handling, and rarely
deal with small grains and corn, unless there is a system in place designed
to provide a home for the product. That home may be the meat market, and it
may come along faster than more elaborate grain processing, and marketing
for human consumption as cereals, breads or pasta. There is certainly reason
to believe that more could be done for pasta in particular. However, you may
have seen the national television advertising for "Sunrise", General Mills’
new organic breakfast cereal: by all means go out and buy a box and help some
farmer unload that grain bin.
One often-heard response to these issues is that the consumer won’t pay the
price for organic flours for home-baking or for processed foods like pasta
and cereal. Since this same thing was said about the fresh organic vegetable
trade ten years ago, and that production sector now is much less hampered by
price differentials, one would have to assume that the same can be done for
the small grain market. Why do organic vegetables bring prices at wholesale
that are more in-line with conventional than they were before?
Professionalism at the production end, and enhanced post-harvest handling
facilities and distribution. Are these same production attributes missing
from the organic grain sector? Other than storage and transportation, I think
not.
What is missing is a commitment from processors, manufacturers and the retail
sector to move more grain and make the cost at retail less because greater
supply, in theory, should lower the price when demand is the same or improves
as well. Consumers too should reverse the old adage and remember that we do
not live by eating broccoli alone. Education is needed to teach consumers why
conventional grains are not equal to organic grains, either on one’s plate or
in the field, and I am not referring to GMO versus organic crops. I
understand that quite a bit of herbicide is used to kill-down the durum wheat
crop in many regions, just before harvest. And there is only one way to keep
nitrate levels from reaching critical levels: the use of synthetic soluble
fertilizers must be drastically curtailed. Organic production wins-out not
just in pesticide use, but in fertility inputs as well.
I was talking with one organic farmer in Wisconsin recently about nitrate
levels in his well water. When I pointed that his water was already at 8.63
PPM ( safe limit is 10 PPM), we started to go back over his yearly water
tests. Much to our surprise, his nitrate levels have been going up one full
PPM per year for the past 4 years. We performed a quick environmental audit:
his well head could not have been better located, his manure management
program was exemplary, and of course he was using no soluble fertilizers-and
his 240 acre organic neighbor was not using them either. Add to that, his
farm rests at the divide of two major river watersheds, so water courses from
the surface or below ground should not have impacted his well.
After awhile he said: " Well, the only thing I can think of is that the
entire farming system around here has changed in the past ten years or so.
There used to be 20 small dairies on my road, and now only two are left, But
the whole township has gone to cash corn year after year, and that may be why
the nitrates are going up so much."
One mistake that we don’t need to repeat in Organic is to become overly
specialized, just as the now beleaguered conventional farm community is these
days. The best example of organic grain and livestock production in situ that
I have seen yet was on Jim Bender’s place in Weeping Water, Nebraska. Growing
on nearly 600 acres, Mr. Bender also manages four small beef cattle herds,
one on each of his four parcels. In his crop rotations one encounters wheat,
oats and corn, fed on-farm, wholesaled soybeans ( with the splits coming back
from the seed cleaner for the animals), and robust fields of 4-5 year
alfalfa, permanent improved pastures, as well as large fields of sorghum
Sudan grass, which is grown to about four feet before turning the cattle in
to clear it off. The corn in particular was spectacular. Many know how wet it
has been in Iowa and Nebraska this season, and a lot of the conventional corn
has lost its nitrogen to run-off and leaching. Mr. Bender’s corn, on the
other hand, was tall, green uniform- and had not been fertilized or manured
prior to planting. What Mr. Bender has created is native fertility based on
legume-based crop rotations. I think USDA Secretary Dan Glickman should walk
Bender’s fields some day and tell me how this system is not far superior to
anything else coming out of a fertilizer factory. Forget the environmental
benefits. The cost of production at an organic farm such as this is more than
enough reason to seed down a quarter of the acreage to alfalfa and give the
combine a rest, as well as your therapist. I hear there is a seller’s market
these days in stress reduction and counseling, in the midst of a farm crisis
that is turning out to be as dire as any we have seen in the past three
decades.
Finally, to underscore the benefits of consistent crop rotations in the
organic Farm Plan, we need to assure that this most fundamental concept is
guaranteed when the US federal law is finally implemented.
As the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 states:
ORGANIC PLAN. The term "organic plan" means a plan of management of an
organic farming or handling operation that has been agreed to by the producer
or handler and the certifying agent and that includes written plans
concerning all aspects of agricultural production or handling described in
this title including crop rotation and other practices as required under this
title.
SOIL FERTILITY. An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster
soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of
the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.
I am not a big fan of prescriptive organic production standards but in the
language noted above you have every right to expect that organic farming
should be based on principles linked to the proven philosophies of Albrecht,
the Rodales, Howard, Cocannauer, Leopold, Wallace, Jackson, Kirschenmann,
Ford, Walters and any other of the bright lights of our organic farming
heritage. The single, named and required attribute of the farm plan is crop
rotation. Shall does not mean maybe.
Canadian Organic Standards
Canada’s 1500 certified organic farmers have a national standard for organic
production, and there are few complaints about what the standards are, from
consumers or farmers. Canadian-grown and produced products will carry a seal
which reads "Canada Organic-Biologique Canada", which will provide regulatory
legitimacy for exports, once certification programs are finalized. Allan
Graff, president of the Canadian Organic Advisory Board Inc. (COAB) was
quoted in the Manitoba Co-operator, saying that the new standard, called the
Canadian Standard for Organic Agriculture, will be a major boost to the
rapidly growing organic food industry, adding, "It'll promote consumer
confidence in organic produce."
The Manitoba story cites COAB as estimating that the Canadian organic
industry is worth nearly $1 billion annually and is expanding by 20 per cent
a year.
Graff hopes that organic products can be certified under the national seal
later this year. One important feature of the Canadian standard is
ISO-compatibility, which means it will be recognized internationally as well
as domestically. Janine Gibson, an organic inspector, industry consultant and
executive secretary for the Independent Organic Inspectors Association, said
that " a huge demand awaits Canadian organic products certified for export.
Although only one per cent of Canadians buy organic food regularly, 15 per
cent of European and Japanese consumers are willing to pay a premium for
organically raised products."
Gibson, who also operates an organic farm near Steinbach, said the 26-page
standard follows six general principles for organic production:
Protect the environment
Replenish and maintain soil fertility
Promote biological diversity
Recycle materials
Promote health and needs of livestock
Maintain integrity of food handling.
That sounds like the basis for an admirable standard of production,
especially if it is merely 26 pages long. Hooray for simplicity. One hopes
that the next USDA National Organic Program Proposed Rule will be met with
the same support, and have little in need of changing.
USDA/NOP: Its That Time Again
But it may be time to merely remember how often the last Rule was promised,
only to wait for an extra three years for an abomination to roll out of
Washington. Publication of the Rule is due in October. We have it on good
report that the Proposed Rule is definitely a much better document than the
first try, delivered at the end of 1997. National Organic Program Director
Keith Jones has been sending drafts of portions of the Rule over to the USDA
Office of General Counsel and to the Office of Management and Budget, so that
other officials can sign off on portions piecemeal. We also observe,
ironically, that the upcoming national organic standards are now seen as a
top priority by the Clinton White House because of the GMO crisis. In this
case its what the Proposed Rule will not allow, rather than what it will.
Bill Lambrecht of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau recently
wrote that "Wherever the (GMO) debate sizzles, people talk about their right
to eat foods with unaltered genetic codes. Rightly or wrongly, the United
States is perceived as trying to deny the world that choice. That's where the
government's new rules for labeling food as "organic" enter the picture.
Officials hope the rules -- now being rewritten --will ensure a line of
unmodified food for people here or abroad who want to know their food hasn't
been genetically changed. Skeptics might view this approach as a fig leaf.
And it poses some questions: For instance, will government-certified organic
foods still be organic if they get pollen from modified crops growing next
door? For now, the rules would enable the United States to skirt the question
of mandatory labeling of GM foods, something that neither the government nor
the biotechnology industry wants.
"There's more than a touch of irony in the government's touting of its
organic rules. For nine years, the Agriculture Department has found ways to
delay the rules, which were ordered by Congress to govern the production and
sale of organic foods.( And to be implemented by 1994!!)
"But the delays have had something to do with an institutional disdain in the
Agriculture Department for organic renegades who spurn the marvels of modern
farming. Last year, the rules became hung up when the department left open
the potential of bestowing the organic label on GM foods.
"In a quarter-million responses, Americans said 'no' to that prospect. Now,
the government is hoping that the organic rules will help rescue genetic
engineering. With the U.S. becoming increasingly isolated in the global
biotechnology debate, officials are looking for solutions. " Lambrecht
concluded.
Touch of irony? Act of desperation is more like it. Around three years ago,
many in the organic community reminded the Label-the-GMOs contingent that
GMOs were already de-facto labeled since genetically engineered organisms (
at least as of September 1996) were prohibited in organic production.
However, the labeling issue is just as much a political battering ram as a
consumer right-to-know concept. Although some felt that labeling was
equivalent to giving Dr. Mengele the white-glove treatment: " What do you
mean "label them"? We don’t want them grown!" Labeling was perceived as a
Marquis-of-Queensbury way of creating dialogue in high places, when in
reality what was called for was crowbars against the machine. The folks in
Sussex have had it right all along: tear up the fields. Their tactics seem to
have gotten from point A to point B faster than having interminable Codex
chats about it: now farmers in England would rather avoid the incredible
bother, embarrassment and potential litigation should industry assurances
turn out to be premature. And they have.
An underwriting manager for insurance giant Cigna International suggested
business insurers go slow on policies which cover GMO-selling companies. "Our
experience with asbestos, PCBs and other "miracle" products in the past
should have warned us of the potential dangers of diving into issues before
we have an adequate awareness of the exposures," wrote Cigna official Maurice
Pullen. "Prudence is, after all, meant to be the underscoring principle of
insurance underwriting."
American Organic Standards
The Organic Trade Association authorized three of the most expert organic
standards specialists in the US, Jim Riddle , Lynn Coody and Emily
Brown-Rosen, to create a comprehensive standard for certified organic
production. Earlier this summer, the American Organic Standards ( AOS) were
released and can be viewed at <http://www.ota.com>.
The AOS is an apt reference guide to the current status of organic production
standards, with comparisons and alternative language offered throughout which
captures variances as well as equivalencies on an international scale. Codex
Alimentarius ( UN/FAO organic standards were adopted in Rome at the end of
June), IFOAM, state organic standards ( Texas, Washington and others) as well
as private certification standards were used to broadly summarize where we
stand on materials, production and manufacturing practices, and inspection
and accreditation criteria.
The AOS was a monumental undertaking with arguably a much broader scope than
the USDA is dealing with. International implications will be dealt with by
the USDA’s National Organic Program, but the AOS measures in great detail the
complexities involved in export and product acceptance vis a vis
certification and accreditation. As a sovereign state, the US is granted much
power which does not need to be restated because other agencies and laws
already obligate compliance which in the private sector needs to be more
fully drawn. My own summary: at this point I would like to see not where we
have uniformity, but where we don’t, for example in the use of synthetic
processing aids, or in allowing sodium ( Chilean) nitrate. One timely aspect
of the AOS is a lengthy description of accreditation procedures, which are
based on the ISO model. This season, the USDA is providing interim organic
accreditation for US-based organic certification agencies in order to conform
with a European Community deadline. The International Standards Organization
model will be utilized, whether it is by IFOAM, the USDA, or any other
sovereign authority.
National Organic Standards Board: In Transition
Although many substantive issues were discussed at the most recent NOSB
meeting in Washington, DC, not much was resolved, and according to a few who
attended, the decision-making process was hampered in part by some
time-consuming, unusual lobbying activities from the livestock sector, some
of whom stress the need for synthetic internal pesticides ( euphemistically
known as parasiticides) in organic beef production. The State of Alaska also
sent a contingent to argue for an organic label for wild-caught marine life.
To be kind, its natural to be deferential to officials and big players in the
trade, but the Board needs to keep to its agenda and conform to its own
policies, or they will fall prey to the pleadings of the last person they
talk to.
In the same week, retiring NOSB board member Fred Kirschenmann and food
quality expert Kate Clancy published an essay on materials and substances
used in organic food processing. 'Keeping it "Organic": Making Sense out of
the Processing of Organic Food.", was summarized by organic policy eagle Eric
Kindberg as " an organic community dialogue on the Charter NOSB Final
Recommendations regarding substances and processes used in handling organic
farm products."
What concerns Kirschenmann, Clancy and Kindberg is that, in Kindberg’s words,
"…there are processing, certification and labeling provisions in the Charter
NOSB Final Recommendations that are in conflict with the Organic Foods
Production Act." As the authors wrote: "The NOSB failed to use this occasion
as an opportunity to include certain processing practices among the ways that
food produced on an organic farm could lose its "organic" integrity."
In rebuttal, current NOSB member Steven Harper, and former NOSB members Gene
Kahn and Craig Weakley, who all work for Small Planet Foods ( a conglomerate
of Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm and Fantastic Foods) wrote back, objecting to "
the authors' position that acceptable organic food processing methods should
be based on some measure of the retention of the original integrity of the
food produced on the farm…As an industry committed to changing the face of
agriculture, we must not be influenced by the kind of thinking that would
only marginalize our capabilities."
The bottom line in all this is that the processing community does not want to
depend on the " Made with Organic Ingredients" label capability when the "
Certified Organically Produced" label prohibits the use of synthetic
processing aids. In my opinion, if you keep the standard high enough, the
producers, the ingredient-processing aid manufacturers, the processors and
the certifiers will all rise to the challenge, a challenge that consumers
demand of their organic food industry: No Synthetics. Go there.
One Good Use for Organic Corn
Many organic livestock producers are unknowingly using mineral, vitamin and
feed supplements with some pretty strange things in them. Many farmers are
not aware of the entire ingredient list in these materials, but the fine
print on some of the bags can provide quite a shock: fish meal preserved with
ethoxyquin, artificial flavorings, mineral oil, animal fat used as a
flavoring in dairy cattle supplements and, of course, the unknown grain
sources of many of the vitamins and supplements themselves.
Before the GMO-era, organic livestock producers were given a broad exemption
on using "natural" vitamins and supplements that were derived from
conventional grain sources. Since Archer Daniels Midland, Cenex, Land O Lakes
and Cargill seem to control much of the processing and distribution of the
products and processes which provide vitamins and supplements, the organic
livestock community is compromised by the fact that there are very few
alternatives to the mainstream supplement manufacturers' products . After the
recent dioxin scare in Belgium, it is incumbent on organic farmers to strive
for adequate supplies of minerals, supplements and vitamins that are not the
product of the conventional food monopoly. Clearly what is needed is internal
supply of vitamins and supplements like, B12, methianone and lysine produced
from organic sources.
At the same time, we need to reassess the reasons why supplements are
necessary. In many cases they prevent disease and enhance consistent
production, for example in egg-laying operations. Generally my personal
impression is that these feed additives replace the sun. It is the sun that
provides Vitamin A and creates high levels of other beneficial substances
carried in fodder plants which provide good livestock health. However, for
many organic livestock producers the sun’s benefits are only available during
the summer months. Storing the sun is difficult. Fresh green chop, organic
vegetable debris, and grazing are some production methods which provide
animals with high levels of immunity-boosting and production-promoting foods.
Vegetable debris? When my farm was producing eggs, the 160-hen flock used to
receive hundreds of pounds a week of post-harvest product that I wouldn’t
sell: cucumbers posing as watermelons, split tomatoes, cracked
cabbages-everything but garlic, potatoes and onions went into the chicken
yard.
Just as in the challenge of organic processed foods not manufactured with
synthetics, the organic livestock producers-and their input suppliers-need to
observe this situation as a mandate for creative cooperation and rapid
compliance with organic standards.
-30-
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail