me elsewhere

here is an article I wrote for Organic Matters magazine about organic farming in Wales, and how it compares to Ireland. I've gotten a good reaction to it.

Btw check out their new site - it looks great!

The current edition of Food and Wine Magazine is also carrying an article of mine on biodynamic farming (no link I'm afraid!)

I've also started doing the foodie bits on an exciting new sustainable living blog, website and directory - greenme.ie . More details on this soon, but have a look over there when you can to get more foodie meanderings by myself. Don't worry, my organic stuff (and occasional foodie postings!) will continue here - I'll just be doing more foodie snippets, bite sized chunks (insert appropriate foodie cliche here) over there.

this week its an intro eco foodie rant (the quad rant) and a bit on potential new junk food legislation - go on have a look around this very new site and try to find them!

Ollie

O

The Organic Action Plan: what's in it?

Good news for organic dairy farmers, or those considered the option. According to the new Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food�s Organic Farming Action plan, the Department will, within three years, �facilitate the expansion of organic production by the allocation of additional milk quota�.

This stands out amongst the 64 actions in the plan as one of the mostlikely to have a positive effect. This is especially the case as recently this diary carried interviews with dairy farmers who specifically made the point that quota expansion was much needed.

The DAFF plan has four objectives � to increase production, increase the knowledge base, develop the market at home and abroad and to encourage public procurement.

The plan overlaps with the Teagasc organic production plan, though there are also some suprising differences. An obvious glaring example is horticulture. The DAFF plan asks for horticulture to be included, while ,as we pointed out last week, the Teagasc plan avoids it. The DAFF plan�s horticulture references include unusual phrases like �circulate possibilities�, �should be invited� and �explore possibilities�� hardly compelling language.

Indeed, the following phrase sits alone, below a sequence of 12 targets, as a plea to whomsoever is listening: �there is clearly a need for appropriate research into horticulture and this should be examined as a matter of urgency�. A specific, timeframed target here would have been apt.

On the whole however, it is a positive document, which gives its 64 specific actions a somewhat loose timeframe: actions are either short term of medium term, ranging from one year to three years.

A notable opportunity in this plan is the UK�s importation of 4,000 tonnes of organic beef a year. Specifically, the plan states: �on a rough estimate, to supply both the home and UK market, we need 3 times the amount of beef currently produced�. This of course presumed that the UK wants to keep importing, and will do so indefinitely. It has gone through phases of importing and then �buying British� before, which has hindered the longer term growth and sustainability of the organic beef sector in Ireland.

Interestingly, the plan suggests that Organic farming has an image problem �among the farming sector�. It is suggested that junior minister Sargent will invite stakeholders together, including some of Ireland�s top class organic farmers and growers. These latter producers will explain to the other stakeholders what organic production actually is, �to allay any misconceptions they may have�.

Some targeting of the farming press with information on the demonstration farmers and individual farming sectors is also proposed. Provided this will be done properly, it will be most welcome.

Some of the actions under the increasing the knowledge base objective are very worthy. Most were covered in this diary last week. The reactivation of the full DAFF organic cereal variety testing programme and composting research stand out. However, target 33, which states �consideration should be given to the development of a degree level course� in the medium term, should have the first five words dropped.

Less space is devoted to the market development and public procurement options. Developing the market includes a section on consumer information, laments the fact that national organic week is only for one week, suggests that ongoing PR work is needed �to explain the principles of organic farming to consumers�, and that �this information needs to be disseminated widely�. However, none of this actually makes it into the actions listed. This is hopefully an oversight, as a robust standalone proud promotion of organic farming and food without fear or favour would make the consumer sit up and take notice.

A fundamental issue is the fact that those charged with promoting organic also promote conventional so differentiation between the two is always understated. The use of independent PR, the food media, celebrity chefs and so on for this ongoing job would make eminent sense.

Public procurement gets almost no space, and yet it is perhaps the easiest to do: DAFF is a public body. Already, it is my understanding that Agricultural House is occasionally getting organic food, and events and plans are underway to move this objective on, through organic stakeholder engagement with DAFF.

Here�s to more organic stakeholder involvement.

Teagasc organic plan: baby steps in the right direction

Over the next two postings the two recent organic plans, those of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) and Teagasc, will be assessed here. These plans represent important signposts for how organic farming and growing in Ireland may develop over the next few years, so they deserve detailed scrutiny.

The Teagasc plan�s introduction gives an interesting background to the state of the organic sector, which highlights where some of the opportunities are.

It points to increased demand �for organic beef, lamb, pig and especially poultry meat� on the home market; importantly, �most organic pig and poultry meat consumed in Ireland is imported�. Likewise, the Glenisk expansion plans and the importation of 8,000 tonnes of organic feed and feed ingredient point to great opportunities.

While these areas offer undoubted options for innovative producers, there are also constraints. The conventional diary price has been high for a considerable time, and this seems to have induced something of a comfort zone for conventional dairy producers. However, there are signs that this safe stable place is an illusion, with conventional prices now starting to fall. Like many farmers, conventional dairy farmers are at the vagaries of the global commodity market for some of their products. Meanwhile, organic butter and the main organic cheddar cheeses available in the supermarkets are made with UK milk.

As Teagasc rightly point out, however, feed must surely be an opportunity: whatever about relying on export markets for Irish products, the home market for feeds needs to be, well, fed.

An annual budget of �1.1 million is earmarked for organic programmes/activities: is this enough in a multi billion Euro Irish agri-food sector? That said the fact that 11% of the available Teagasc research land is dedicated to organics is an interesting revelation.

The stabilization of the number of organic farm walks at 21 obviously does not represent growth. However, as the other plan � the DAFF plan � points out, there is a need for more comprehensive follow-on services and more detailed analysis of the demonstration farms. The DAFF plan states that an E-profit monitor will be conducted for each farm, which is a step in the right direction. In short, better walks is probably the way forward, rather than more walks.

Teagasc�s plans for technical booklets on various areas of production, the appointment of specialists who will visit 100 farms per year each, and the production of a dedicated newsletter are all worthy developments.

The training initiatives are an up-scaling on what was previously available. However, 25 hour FETAC courses and modules in Agricultural colleges simply do not compare to what is available in places like Scotland and in particular Wales. The Welsh Organic Centre, which is part of the University of Aberystwyth, and their inter-institutional and legislative support levels are commendable. Organics in Wales has risen from 0.3% to 6% since 1998, while our rates have vacillated between embarrassing variations of 0 and 1% in the same period. (For more on organics in Wales, see my article in the current edition of Organic Matters)

Whatever about the limitations, the organic diary research in the plan does seem to be very leading edge, in particular the research being carried out in the Solohead/Moorepark project. This research aims to substantially reduce organic dairy farmers� winter milk costs, which, in the context of a likely growth in the main processor�s winter milk requirements, is welcome.

However, the omission of horticulture from the plan is both worrying and disheartening. Horticulture makes something of an entry into the tillage section, through the mention of potato in a seven year rotation: that is literally the sum of the horticultural dimension to the plan. There are a number of reasons why this is a particular failing.

Organic fresh fruits and vegetables are already an import-dominated sector. This carries both import substitution opportunities and food security fears. It is all the more noteworthy in a context where the minister represents horticulturalists in his constituency and has horticulture under his remit. Likewise, we are both consuming ever more, and indeed being told to consumer ever more fresh fruits and vegetables.

Overall, horticulture�s omission is a bit of an elephant in the living room. Otherwise, baby steps in the right direction.

farming's future sustainability

Here's an interview I did with Richard Douthwaite (right) of FEASTA. It appeared in last week's Farming Examiner as the front page and centre page spread.

Oliver Moore: Can you outline the overall situation with regard to the sustainability of farming, as you see it Richard?

Richard Douthwaite: Modern industrialised farming, particularly tillage, has been described as a way of converting fossil energy into food energy. There�s a lot of energy used in the application of fertilizer, in tractors, in sprays, then in packing and getting the food to the customer. The whole process is not sustainable. In traditional forms of farming, it took 4 units of energy to produce each unit of energy in food. Most of that energy was directly from the sun, and all from renewable sources. Now there are 40 units of energy going into the production of food in the Europe, and perhaps up to 90 in the US. Most of that is from fossil fuels. That can�t continue.

OM: Within this broad picture, what is the key problem?

RD: The problem is that we�re not recycling the nutrients. Quite a lot of the nitrogenous fertilizer breaks down in the soil and becomes nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), and one of the main sources of GHGs in farming. A lot of energy is used in the production of those nitrogenous fertilizers and most of it is wasted because the nitrogen is not taken up by the plants. There's more waste when the crops leave the farm because the nutrients they contain aren�t recycled: There�s nitrogen in the proteins that go off, and there�s phospates going off too. They are consumed by whoever eats the food and go into the sewage system, and don�t get back onto the land. As a consequence of this, we need to apply more artificial fertilizers. There is a growing problem with phosphorous. There�s a finite supply: rock phosphate is getting scarcer and scarcer, and that then means that more and more energy is needed to make it available to us and to transport it from places like Morocco.

So we need to think of how fertilizer can be better retained in the soil, so that if you are putting nitrogen on, it stays there. We need to minimise the use of artificial nitrogen, and to start replacing it with organic sources, such as legumes which fix nitrogen. Then, we need to make sure that any that escapes is recycled.

OM: What are the future implications for farming?

RD: Agriculture is likely to become more labour intensive again. The trend towards the larger farms will be reversed as the cost of food and fuel rises in real terms and takes a higher proportion of non-farmers' incomes. Farmers won't just be growing food. They will be producing fuel, chemicals, fibres and building materials as well. A whole new category of multi-purpose crops will emerge.

OM: How do you envision these multi purpose crops being utilized most efficiently?

RD: It may emerge in a way similar to the co-op creamery structure of a century ago, where the co-op would take the milk and the farmer would take back the whey. I envisage a co-op bio-refinery in each community to which farmers would deliver crops like miscanthus, which would be refined to give protein powder, biogas, diesel fuel, plastics like nylon, pesticides and soil improvers. The farmers would take the improvers back to their farms to recycle the nutrients that were in the crop they delivered to the refinery. Because transport will become more expensive, the plants' bulk will be reduced in rural areas and there will be centralised refineries regionally that take the valuable bits and process them further. At the bioenergy show in Tullamore this year, miscanthus was being sold in compressed blocks for people's fires, just like the wood blocks made from compressed sawdust. But 20% of dried grass is plant protein � that�s too valuable to burn. Quite simply, we should be taking out the valuable bits before burning any biomass.

OM: So the biorefineries would produce biofuels like biodiesel?

RD: Yes, but I should emphasise that these would be second-generation biofuels, produced by breaking down the cellulose found in all plants. Feasta is very much against the production of most first-generation biofuels, such as ethanol from maize and wheat and biodiesel from oilseed rape. These make no sense from an energy or a climate point of view. Their production is entirely driven by tax-breaks and the net result has been to increase hunger around the world. The only first generation biofuel that is acceptable is ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil.

OM: If farmers go in this direction in the near future, what�s in it for them?

RD: If farmers can increase the carbon content of their soils, or the semi-permanent biomass that�s growing on them, they need to be rewarded in some way for doing this because they would be helping prevent climate change. Part of their reward would be that they made their soil much better. It is however, very difficult to measure the carbon content of soils to pay farmers a set amount per tonne for the carbon that they have taken in. Feasta is therefore setting up a working party to develop a new concept of best practice - to develop a better understanding of the types of farming that involve sequestering more and more carbon in the soil or in the plants growing on the soil. It needs to become financially beneficial to follow best practice. There could be payments through REPS, or the price of the crops could be subsidised in some sort of way. We�re going to need people in the working party with expertise in this area, and we�re getting very good co-operation from the universities and from Teagasc on this.

OM: Are there any new developments that might help with soil performance and quality?

RD: Feasta has become particularly interested in the inclusion of charcoal in the soil. It has recently been discovered that the pre Columbian Indians put charcoal into the soil because it held the nutrients there. Also, there was an increase in microbial and fungal activity which made the soil more fertile. These soils still exist in the Amazon basin where they are called terra preta, which means dark earth. What happens, it seems, is that the fungi feed on sugars sent down by the plants, and they in turn send up nutrients to the plants. So the plant sequesters carbon too. Terra Preta promises to do three things: 1 sequester more carbon in the soil; 2 hold nutrients there more efficiently; 3 give bigger crops.

OM: Where does Feasta stand on the cows vs cars debate?

RD: We don't think there should be a debate at all. Some civil servants seem to think that because cows' digestive systems give off methane, a GHG, Ireland should reduce its greenhouse emissions by cutting the number of either cars or cows. This is, we think, a total misconception. We've tried to get the IFA to make the case that cows are very different because the methane they release is not adding fossil carbon to the air but it just doesn�t seem to be bothered. It seems to hope that its political muscle will shield its members from any herd-reduction measures the government might introduce. The ICMSA has a very much better attitude.

OM: But isn�t methane a serious GHG?

RD: Methane is a very serious GHG. It�s probably 60 times worse than CO2. Official figures suggest that it is 23 times more, but that�s over a 100 year period. However, all its heating effect is concentrated in the first few years before it is broken down. But - and this is crucial - the carbon in the methane released by cows comes from natural sources. It is not adding continuously to the carbon in the air, because the plants that the cows grazed on picked up the carbon from the air. So the cows are part of the natural carbon cycle. They are not leading to a net increase in the warming effect. If you increase the size of the national herd, you get a once off increase in methane; you don�t get a continuous increase in CO2 levels, as you do if you are burning fossil fuels in a car. So there is no comparison at all between cars and cows.

OM: I presume you are talking about grass-fed animals, where the grass gets its nitrogen from legumes? And surely processing, distribution and so on need to be taken into account before you can presume diary and beef will be acceptable in sustainability terms?

RD: If meat and milk is to be produced anywhere in the world, Ireland should be one of the places producing them because the fossil fuel emissions from producing them here are lower than they would be almost anywhere else. You've also got to consider the carbon emissions if forest is cleared for beef production in places like Brazil. And, because Ireland is close to a lot of people who need meat and milk products, it should not take a lot of energy to get the food to them, although more of it will go by sea in future rather than by truck.

OM: So, in certain relatively easy to attain circumstances, we can keep our beef and dairy industries.

RD: Yes, I think so. But many more cattle will be kept indoors so that the slurry can be turned into biogas. This will be used for heating, for electricity and compressed to run vehicles. Farmers have been very slow to realise that the energy content of a bullock's dung is worth more than its meat.

OM: What's the biggest challenge facing Irish farmers?

RD: They, in common with farmers around the world, have got to find ways of turning their sector from being a source of greenhouse emissions into a sink which removes them. At present, about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and changes in land use, such as forest clearance. Those emissions not only have to stop but, because the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already above the safe limit, CO2 needs to be removed from the air quickly, before it has set off a disastrous uncontrollable global warming process. We might have thirty years to do this. There's no high-tech solution. Only the world's farmers can respond in time.

New review of the available research confirms organic plant-based foods usually more nutritious.

It is a perennial and slightly tiresome debate, but it just won�t go away. The debate about whether organic food is more nutritious than conventional food is just one of those constant points of argument between the organic and conventional food sectors.

There are a range of issues. It can be difficult to accurately compare the two farming systems. It is difficult to account for broader but important comparative factors such as the relative ripeness or age of the products studied � is the organic tomato as old or as young as the conventional tomato studied? Has it travelled a longer or shorter distance? What about varieties?

There are still more: Does the research compare food fresh from the field, in controlled growing conditions, or available in the supermarket?

And are we all being overly reductive in focusing on one nutrient at a time, and indeed nutrition in such detail? Does the debate on nutrition background other important debates � do we fail to take into account the bigger picture, of biodiversity levels or carbon footprints, when we focus so selfishly as humans on nutrition?

All of this said, it does genuinely seem that more and more research is coming out to suggest organic food is more nutritious, most notably the QLIF research findings from Newcastle University. People point to this as being the beginning of some evidence that organic is more nutritious. That said, many still repeat the mantra that there is no scientific data to suggest that organic is more nutritious.

Which is funny. Because most of the research on the issue says the exact opposite. Conveniently, an overview of all peer-reviewed research comparing organic and conventional foods has just been issued. Charles Benbrook led a team of researchers over a two year period into the topic.

The report, New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods, was issued in March.

97 peer-reviewed publications from 1980 to the present were examined. Of these, the authors found enough similarities to compare 236 �matched pairs�.

Matched pairs take into account co-measurability issues. As an example, tomatoes grown organically on one farm and grown conventionally on another close by, with climate, aspect, soil types, plant genetics, irrigation, nitrogen levels and harvest practices all relatively similar.

For 61% of these 236 matched pairs, organic food was shown to have higher nutritional levels. For 8 out of 11 of the nutrients studied organic food had on average 25% higher nutritional levels.

Where conventional food scored best was for nutrients relatively commonly available � potassium, protein and phosphorous. Even where conventional scored better, the amount it scored better by was relatively low: 2/3 of these involved a superiority of below 10%.

Interestingly, where organic scored best was for polyphenols and antioxidants. There was a 10% or more superiority in the antioxidant capacity of a whooping 80% of the organic samples over the conventional.

The authors pointed out that polyphenols and antioxidant capacity is an area of growing scientific investigation, both because of improvements in the analytical tools and because of the evidence that we need these to be healthy.

According to the authors, daily intake of antioxidants and polyphenols is half what it is supposed to be, which makes this nutritional superiority of organic all the more salient.

The number of comparative studies is increasing all the time: more than 40 new studies have been published since 2001.

What�s also interesting to note is that, back then, organic was scoring better in the studies of the research anyway. Indeed two reviews of the literature were published in 2001, and both suggested that organic had higher nutritional levels.

While one was published by the Soil Association, the other was published in a peer-reviewed journal, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Virgina Worthington reviewed 41 studies, and found higher levels in organic produce of all of the 21 nutrients analysed. This included statistically significant higher levels of some, including iron (21% more), magnesium (29% more) and vitamin C (27% more).

And yet, some time soon, you will hear the mantra; �there is no evidence that organic food is nutritionally superior to conventional�.�

To download the Benbrook report, go to previous posting.

organic vs conventional: the nutritional debate goes on... and on and on.....

A new report led by Charles Benbrook compares 97 studies into organic and conventional plant-based foods since 1980, and find organic to be, on average, 25% higher in 8 out of 11 nutrients. Importantly, its all the hard to get ones that organic scores best in!

Download the report here
Download an executive sum here
Download tables and more info on and from the report here

And see my full article on it in next Thursday's Irish Examiner farming supplement

New organic training scheme to be available nationwide

A new organisation called NOTS, the National Organic Training Skillnet was launched in Dublin by the Minister for Food and Horticulture Trevor Sargent TD on Tuesday 22^nd April last.

NOTS, which was launched in the European Commission Offices, has a 2 year training budget of �� million.

The programme is a joint venture between IOFGA, The Organic Trust and The Western Organic Network.

The National Organic Training Skillnet builds on the success of the Western Organic Network, which has rolled out training in the west and north west of Ireland to farmers either already involved in or considering converting to organic.

Following a needs analysis and reports into growth blockages in the organic sector, an innovative, affordable and business focused training programme has been developed by NOTS to cater for training needs across Ireland.

The Minister expressed his hope that this new programme would lead to more farmers producing organic food here in Ireland thus contributing to job creation, a reduction in the energy usage and enabling opportunities for both for import substitution and export.

The National Organic Training Skillnet (NOTS) based in Drumshambo, Co. Leitrim is managed by a network manger and assisted by two regional co-ordinators representing the South East and South West of Ireland - Paula Pender and

Doloras Keegan. Paula runs Sonas Organic Gardens Carlow, specialising in protected cropping and vegetables,

Dolorus has a long lineage in organics in Ireland. She was integral to the delivery of training in the Organic Centre, Rossinver, Leitrim for many years. She has also been involved in training people in herb and vegetable growing in east Galway and on Inis Mhor with the Garra� na nOile�n initiative.

According to manager Sean McGloin: �The new programme will run to the end of 2009 addressing the practical skills required by organic and aspiring organic operators and also delivering academic courses through distance learning programmes to master�s degree standard�.

�The courses provided are flexible in their geographic location, dates and course duration.�

The courses on offer are literally an A-Z of what people may want in the sector. All production areas from the smallest to the largest will be catered for. The range goes from bee keeping and cheese making to cereal growing and a selection of livestock- orientated trainings, such as veterinary management and grassland and soil management.

Along with this, a suite of business and marketing training will be offered, including accounts, IT, desk top publishing, and marketing itself.

Sean also pointed out that there was a great desire for training in the south and south west. Another change in the training delivery from the previous deliveries with the Western Organic Network will be training for the processing sector.

Larger organic and organic-related businesses, or groups of farmers, may benefit from specialised suites of tailored training to suit their needs.

Steering group chairperson John Brennan said �for the first time, training which has been provided in the West of Ireland is now available in the South, East and Midlands, lack of skills has been identified as a stumbling block to organic farming. This programme should address any training need of both the existing organic sector and those considering converting to organics�.

�I encourage framers and producers to contact the NOTS Management team for further information on training�.

For further information, please contact:

Sean McGloin � Network Manger

The Enterprise Centre, Hill Road, Drumshanbo, Co. Leitrim

Office Tel: 071 96 40688

Mobile: 086 1728442

Email: info@nots.ie

www.nots.ie