Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Denver Post Op-ed

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: road's end farm <organic101 AT linkny.com>
  • To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Denver Post Op-ed
  • Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:09:32 -0400


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page