[Market-farming] Denver Post Op-ed

road's end farm organic101 at linkny.com
Wed Aug 1 20:09:32 EDT 2007


On Jul 31, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Sharon and Steve wrote:

> Reasons you should buy regular goods
> By Jackie Avner

OK, I'm not a dairy farmer, and this is primarily aimed at dairy; but 
I'll take a stab at it, trying to keep it short enough (unlike my first 
attempt) that it won't get bounced as overlong.

> Companies marketing organic products [. . . ] profit margins are vastly
> higher on organic foods.

Cite, please, for average difference in profit margin? I don't think 
they are "vastly" higher. Certainly not at my farmers' market; at which 
the price itself is only slightly higher, and the profit margin 
possibly lower.

> organic dairy farms are not permitted to administer antibiotics to 
> their sick or injured cows,
> [. . .]  organic farms don't use drugs to control
> parasites, worms, infections and illness in their herds.  [, , , ]
> "Proponents of organic food production have
> thrown away these medical tools, and the result is unnecessary pain and
> suffering for the animals." [. . . ]. On organic farms,
> animals with treatable illnesses such as infections and pneumonia are 
> left
> to suffer, or given ineffective homeopathic treatments, in the hope 
> that
> they will eventually get better on their own

This is nonsense.

In addition to the libel on the character of all organic dairy farmers 
in saying they're all deliberately cruel to their animals, organic 
producers in the USA (and very likely elsewhere) are legally forbidden 
from behaving in this fashion if they're to use the term "organic". 
Here's the USDA regulations in regards to animal health (note in 
particular c7):

§ 205.238 Livestock health care practice standard.
(a) The producer must establish and maintain preventive livestock 
health care practices,
including:
(1) Selection of species and types of livestock with regard to 
suitability for site-specific
conditions and resistance to prevalent diseases and parasites;
(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional 
requirements, including
vitamins, minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy 
sources, and fiber (ruminants);
(3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture conditions, and 
sanitation practices to
minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites;
(4) Provision of conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of 
movement, and
reduction of stress appropriate to the species;
(5) Performance of physical alterations as needed to promote the 
animal’s welfare and in
a manner that minimizes pain and stress; and
(6) Administration of vaccines and other veterinary biologics.

(b) When preventive practices and veterinary biologics are inadequate 
to prevent sickness,
a producer may administer synthetic medications: Provided, That, such 
medications are allowed
under § 205.603. Parasiticides allowed under § 205.603 may be used on
(1) Breeder stock, when used prior to the last third of gestation but 
not during lactation
for progeny that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organically 
produced; and
(2) Dairy stock, when used a minimum of 90 days prior to the production 
of milk or milk
products that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic.

(c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must not:
(1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible product 
derived from any
animal treated with antibiotics, any substance that contains a 
synthetic substance not allowed
under § 205.603, or any substance that contains a nonsynthetic 
substance prohibited in § 205.604.
(2) Administer any animal drug, other than vaccinations, in the absence 
of illness;
(3) Administer hormones for growth promotion;
(4) Administer synthetic parasiticides on a routine basis;
(5) Administer synthetic parasiticides to slaughter stock;
(6) Administer animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act;
(7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to 
preserve its organic
status. All appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal 
to health when methods
acceptable to organic production fail. Livestock treated with a 
prohibited substance must be
clearly identified and shall not be sold, labeled, or represented as 
organically produced.
> .
>  all milk, regular and organic, has the
> same trace amounts of rbGH [which is] naturally present in all cows [. 
> . .]

Dairy people, help me out here, I don't have cites to the studies for 
these next two comments:

is the artificial rbGH identical to the natural, or slightly different 
at the molecular level?

and am I correct that many conventional dairies have quit using 
artificial rbGH because the extra demands it places on the cow's system 
leads to a higher disease level, greater need for other medications, 
and a shortened productive life?

> Organic milk is ultrapasteurized

It's true USDA permits this as organic; but not all organic milk is 
ultrapasteurized; quite a lot of it isn't.

And some conventionally produced milk is ultrapasteurized. So this is 
not an organic versus conventional question.
>
> Do organic production practices benefit the environment? [. . . ] 
> Without the use
> of the latest technology for making milk, many more cows must be 
> milked [. . . ]
>  more cows to feed, and therefore more land must be
> cultivated with fossil-fuel-burning tractors. More cows means many 
> more tons
> of manure produced, and more methane, a greenhouse gas, released into 
> the
> atmosphere.

Dairy people, help me out again: from your actual experience or 
properly designed studies, is it normal to get significantly less milk 
from organically-managed cows? and doesn't diet affect the amount of 
methane produced?

Even aside from such: Cows which get significant portions of their feed 
from pasture require less cultivated land, not more, to produce the 
same amount of milk. Some conventionally raised cattle are pastured, of 
course; but organically raised cattle are, at least theoretically, 
required to be pastured (no, that doesn't mean shoved outside in a 
blizzard). Most of the organic community is fighting hard to make USDA 
enforce this requirement.

Properly managed manure is not a pollutant, it's a resource, as 
fertilizer and soil tilth improver. Improperly managed manure certainly 
is a pollutant. Organic farmers are required to manage it properly. 
Conventional farmers may or may not be doing so.

> [. . .] organic production methods are far less efficient than the 
> modern methods
> used by conventional farmers, so organic farmers must consume more 
> natural
> and man-made resources (such as land and fuel) to produce their crops.

Not true. Once through transition, yields are not necessarily lower per 
acre. In some cases they may be higher, especially in overly wet or dry 
years, in which the benefits of organic management show in better soil 
tilth and organic matter, which make the soil better able to absorb 
excess rain and release the moisture during dry spells.

Machinery use is also not necessarily higher. There may be more trips 
through the field to cultivate, but fewer to run the sprayer. As soil 
tilth improves, tillage may become easier and require less horsepower.

Human labor is likely to be higher. This is not however an 
environmental cost; and it doesn't apply to all crops or all 
operations.

> [ , , , ]when you eat Stonyfield Farms yogurt, you are often
> consuming dried organic milk flown all the way from New Zealand and
> reconstituted here in the U.S. The apple puree used to sweeten the 
> yogurt
> sometimes comes from Turkey, and the strawberries from China. 
> Importation of
> organic products raises troubling questions about food safety, labor
> standards, and the fossil fuels burned in the transportation of these 
> foods.

I don't know about Stonyfield one way or the other. It's true that lots 
of food accepted by USDA as "organic" has travelled halfway around the 
world. However, so has a very great deal of the conventional food 
supply. Doesn't importation of conventionally grown products also raise 
questions about food safety, labor standards, and transportation fuels? 
This isn't a conventional-versus-organic argument, this is a buy-local 
argument.
>
> Remember, there is no real difference in the food itself.

Consumers Union, among others, would differ with this. They ran an 
article in February 06 recommending buying many food items as organic.

BBC ran an article on the website July 5 07 to the effect that organic 
produce was higher in beneficial flavonoids.

To those conventional growers on this list who are growing for quality: 
the care of the grower can trump the overall growing system. I buy from 
local conventional growers who I know are paying attention, over 
purchasing items shipped long distance from certain large-scale 
"organic" producers. But if you're buying random supermarket stuff, the 
overall averages seem to favor buying organic.

> [ . . . ]Why do people apply that logic to
> agricultural products, but not to every other product we use in our 
> daily
> lives? [. . . ] other everyday products are full of chemical
> ingredients. Read the label on your artificial sweetener, 
> antiperspirant,
> sun lotion, toothpaste, household cleaning products, soda [ . . . ]

Yup. If you really start reading labels, you're likely to start 
cleaning the house with vinegar, and eating actual food instead of 
artificial sweetener and soda pop. You could save a lot of money that 
way; and very likely be healthier.

-- Rivka; Finger Lakes NY, Zone 5 mostly
Fresh-market organic produce, small scale
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 9932 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/market-farming/attachments/20070801/a0f88cb7/attachment.bin 


More information about the Market-farming mailing list